Re “Shift from fossil fuels is under way” (Monitor editorial, Sept. 27):
Are you aware that the Los Angeles Times and New York Times have both written articles that refute your headline and basic premise?
Please read “Rise in renewable energy will require more use of fossil fuels” (Los Angeles Times, Dec. 9, 2012). If you’re still not convinced that the information you received from the group of industrial wind developers you sourced is not quite as accurate as your editorial gives it credit for being, then please read “Germany’s efforts at clean energy prove complex – emissions still rising, along with the costs” (New York Times, Sept. 19).
These articles clearly point out that wind is more redundant than renewable. Wind is not a base-load power provider; base-load power providers (fossil fuel or nuclear) do not, as these articles point out, shut down during the intermittent, sporadic and unpredictable times wind actually makes it onto the grid ithout being curtailed as it often has been here in New England.
There are significant cost and emission consequences as both articles clearly point out. California and Germany are real-world examples of what happens with industrial wind.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding