| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Question 6 opposed by informed conservationists
Credit: Letters to the Editor, Nov. 1 | Boulder City Review | bouldercityreview.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Nevada’s goal of achieving 50 percent of electricity from renewables, according to recent Harvard engineering estimates, requires 16.65 percent of the state’s landmass (18,409 square miles) to be covered by solar/wind turbine facilities, which equals every square foot of Clark, Washoe, Douglas, Storey and Lyon counties, plus Carson City region and all major towns in other counties combined. Pro Question 6 propaganda states, “Thirteen states, including Colorado and Oregon, have renewable energy standards stronger than Nevada’s …” Notice the omission of California, which is the horrific standard for what happens with renewable mandates.
The ballot booklet claims it would create 10,000 new jobs, but ABC news headlines read, “New wind farms in the U.S. do not bring jobs.” Another misleading argument says, “… we spend $700 million a year to import dirty fossil fuels from other states.” If forced to use wind/solar energy, billions of taxpayer dollars will go to foreign companies instead, and Nevada will experience California utility rate hikes that rose five times faster than the national average.
Proponents erroneously claim, “… after all, the wind and sun are free.” On a clothesline, perhaps, but 900 tons of steel per wind turbine plus copper, concrete, rare earth minerals, etc., are anything but free, clean or renewable. 600-foot tall 4.4MW wind turbines don’t spring up naturally like mushrooms. Materials are mined, smelted in coal-fired furnaces, transported and assembled by combustion engines requiring more than 1,000 tons of coal.
The real face of renewable energy can be seen by internet searching for “Baotou,” where rare earth minerals are mined for wind turbine supermagnets. The excavation and refining process annually produces more radioactive waste than the entire U.S. nuclear energy industry.
Informed conservationists will vote no on Question 6 because a yes vote means saying goodbye to reality and to our formerly stable golden eagle population.
Donald Allen Deever
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Contributions |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=90566 ]
