http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050827/NEWS/508270307/1037
Little benefit to wind power
I do not
understand the current push for industrial wind development in
Wind turbines, if built in
At best wind power replaces some fossil fuel use when the wind is blowing — but
in
So why build wind turbines here? We tear up lots of land, place roads and power
lines on our ridgelines, limit the access to wilderness areas because the power
facility must be fenced and endanger wild life.
This makes no sense to me — we pay an enormous cost for virtually no benefit.
We need to reduce fossil fuel use by developing fuel-efficient cars. Cars burn oil. We don't burn oil to make electricity in
LINDA BLY
--------------
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050827/OPINION/508270323/1006&theme=
Published:
|
|
Wind a fraud
There is not a thing that can be characterized as
"know-nothing" about the Free Press' attitude on wind generators and
the seriously and technically flawed concept of industrial wind energy. The
Free Press has done a superb service to the entire state with its studied,
thoughtful and continuing examination of the clear and present problems
associated with industrial wind energy. The writer who complained about the
paper's policy (Free Press, Aug. 14) made several accurate statements about
what wind isn't (polluting) and doesn't do (use of certain materials) but he
neglected to comment on what it really doesn't do, which is work, which is
perform, which is provide a meaningful energy service.
Wind energy is a fraud. A saccharine sickly siren song that
claims to be free as a summer breeze, entirely ecologically loveable and -- my
goodness -- "the" solution to global warming.
Wind is erosion, deforestation, destruction of bird and animal habitats, night
sky and noise pollution, ruined towns and businesses, lost tourism revenues and
seriously negatively affected home price values. And all this in exchange for a
token; a quite meaningless token that does not function but enriches a few
developers and allows the questionable practice of selling "green
credits" that permit out-of-state polluters to continue their pollution. A
leaky garden hose will have a greater effect on a 10,000-acre forest fire than
wind energy will on global warming. Neither
The Free Press deserves accolades, awards and eternal thanks for their role in
explaining the problems associated with wind energy.
D.M. HOOPES
No replacement
In defense of wind power, a recent writer, a member of the
American Wind Energy Association, (Free Press, Aug. 14) points out that wind
energy emits no air, water or global warming pollution. He neglects to
mention that it also produces no electricity unless the wind is blowing.
Homes and businesses require a reliable source of energy,
hence wind power can never replace more conventional and reliable sources of
energy. It is for this reason that
Wind energy is expensive, inefficient and unreliable. We would do better to
spend the money on conservation, particularly of gas and oil, which is
responsible for more pollution than electricity, and on devising ways to reduce
emissions of coal and gas-fired electrical plants.
HOLLIS RINEHART