I guess Keith Ashley thought he was being nicely balanced with his April 20 article “There are plenty of pros and cons to wind energy.”
Well, in the United States, to take just one example, more than 25,000 operating wind turbines have allowed no coal plants to close, and no greenhouse gasses have been off set. It’s the same worldwide.
Wind must be backed up with adequate steady-state power-sources, and when more turbines are added, that can mean more steady-state plants must be built . . . and that won’t be wind or solar.
Green jobs? In Denmark, the shining example, each wind-related job costs between $90,000 and $140,000 per job per year in public subsidies.
Cheap power for our economy? Wind subsidies will guarantee massive utility increases. Just look at today’s guarantees for wind contracts in Ontario.
Great for the natural environment? The American Bird Conservancy estimates that turbines now kill as many as 275,000 birds a year in the U.S. Add to that untold numbers of bats and pollinating insects.
Proper environmental oversight? The “Green” Energy Act cannot be usefully questioned or countermanded, even by a democratically-elected municipality.
It’s remarkable…totally mind-blowing…that the technical arguments about this wind boondoggle are almost never countered and are so repeatedly forgotten.
The vast majority must think that anything so big as the proliferation of turbine installations must be based on solid research, and can’t be a conspiracy of self-dealing.
Wind energy: pros and cons? I’m afraid the pros are based on a con. Wind is not alternate energy.
Ross Bateman RR3, Langton