Re: Energy platform: Hudak’s misinformation, Star editorial, June 1.
Firstly, what scientific data do you possess which shows that wind and solar are effective, efficient and clean? After four years of reviewing renewables energy, I have found it to be quite the opposite.
The hurdle I encounter in trying to understand the rationale behind this idea that “renewables” are effective alternatives and therefore an important part of our energy mix, is that such a position is based on some key assumptions.
For example, that all of our renewable choices are approximately equal regarding their cost-benefits; that renewables are comparable to our conventional sources; that using more renewables will make a consequential difference in our CO2 emissions; and that any CO2 reductions we get from renewables will make good economic sense.
I am just a simple farm girl but from the research I have done, I see zero real scientific evidence to support these assumptions. The collection of renewable options we have is a very heterogeneous group, not homogeneous, for example, industrial geothermal is radically different from industrial wind energy, in regards to technical compatibility, reliability, dispatchability, cost, environmental consequences, etc. And comparing nuclear to wind is like comparing an eighteenwheeler truck to a golf cart.
So my question to you is this. If I can figure this all out by myself, why can’t you? Exactly what is The Windsor Star advocating here and why?
Especially considering that it’s clear that citizens like myself, yes, I do live with industrial wind turbines in my backyard, must suffer significant negative consequences which include health effects, decreased property values, social implications, safety hazards with turbine collapses and ice throw, etc. from your ideological support of such non-solutions as industrial wind and solar energy?
COLETTE McLEAN, Harrow
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding