"Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing cost. In turn, the industry produces a product that isn't as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development."
"Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing cost. In turn, the industry produces a product that isn't as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development."
Regarding John Anderson's letter (9/7/2013) about wind power being "safe, clean energy," disregards the fact that any given energy has it's positive/negative affects, whether it's coal, oil, or yes, even wind. What matters is whether the positives outweigh the negatives.
I find it rather amusing that he muddies the water with the more outrageous health claims, but ignores the fact that our military is developing low frequency weapons, Mr. Anderson certainly did not deny the fact.
The guidelines from the Bird Conservation Alliance state that "research shows that even low sound levels (from wind farms) can cause some bird species to abandon an area entirely or harm their ability to communicate, reproduce, or find food." There …
... more [truncated due to possible copyright]Regarding John Anderson's letter (9/7/2013) about wind power being "safe, clean energy," disregards the fact that any given energy has it's positive/negative affects, whether it's coal, oil, or yes, even wind. What matters is whether the positives outweigh the negatives.
I find it rather amusing that he muddies the water with the more outrageous health claims, but ignores the fact that our military is developing low frequency weapons, Mr. Anderson certainly did not deny the fact.
The guidelines from the Bird Conservation Alliance state that "research shows that even low sound levels (from wind farms) can cause some bird species to abandon an area entirely or harm their ability to communicate, reproduce, or find food." There are reports of thousands of bird and bat deaths from windmill farms.
Other negatives are the huge amounts of concrete, steel and unrecycable fiberglass among other materials and yet only have a projected life span of about 20 years. As reported by Peter C. Glover, "The fact is that, as shown in a separate study, The Performance of Wind Farms in the UK and Denmark, published by the UK Renewable Energy Foundation, the wind industry should by now be "mature." Instead, after decades in operation, it is still completely dependent on the lifeline of public subsidy, remaining commercially unviable and unattractive to private investors without major government guarantees."
Reported by Ereika Johnsen, "Government subsidies to new wind farms have only made the industry less focused on reducing cost. In turn, the industry produces a product that isn't as efficient or cheap as it might be if we focused less on working the political system and more on research and development."
Does Mr. Anderson remember the 1960s and how polluted our air was? I remember summer days in Iowa, where we would see a hazy fog in the distance that meteorologists stated was smog from Chicago. Our air in the USA is cleaner now than in the 1960s, with a larger population using coal and oil.
Can these negatives be ignored for an ideology that claims wind power is "safe, clean and affordable" according to Mr. Anderson? There may come a time and place for wind energy, but until the research and development has progress to where it's viable, I believe there are too many negatives that out weigh the positives.
If you want a look at what our future could be, when a country shuts down its coal and nuclear plants, to rely on wind energy and solar, I suggest reading the article "How Electricity Became a Luxury Good," by Spiegel staff from Der Spiegel, 9/4/2013, at www.spiegel.de/international/germany.