I feel sorry for residents of the beautiful upper North Platte River Valley and southern/Carbon County faced with a boom of great magnitude (“Plate Valley residents brace for energy boom,” Jan. 19). Like so many Wyoming towns faced with the same problem, they will survive.
The difference is when most of the construction is completed they will be faced with an almost impossible situation that will take a lifetime to endure. Dealing with 3,000 (three blades to a tower) blades turning night and day 365 days a year will devastate many square miles of country. This electric utility, I believe will be called The Power Company of Wyoming.
Why was Wyoming picked to provide electricity to California? In today’s paper (“Wyoming wind power could save California ratepayers $750M, energy lab says,” Jan. 25), the answer is Wyoming wind is cost-effective to provide renewable energy at a bargain rate to developers. We are also told that our states wind power will save the California tax payer 100 million dollars annually. This is being done with little consideration for the impact on Wyoming’s human population or its wild life resources. No mention is made of the numbers of U.S. tax dollars that are required to support these projects.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal notes that the U.S. government should pay attention to the European Commission. They no longer expect countries to meet their target dates for green house emissions. This is primarily because wind energy has not provided the electricity to meet each countries economic demands. It is also noted that these European countries that depend on renewable energy (wind-generated electric), their retail power prices are driven up by about 17 percent. No question about it, depending on wind energy will cost us higher utility bills.
In spite of the headline that Wyoming winds are a bargain, is the sacrifice our state will make to save taxpayers’ money in California or in any state worth it?
FRED EISERMAN, Casper
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding