Don't subsidize a ruined landscape

Richard A.Zona, Berkshire Eagle, June 30, 2006

[Reprinted with permission from the author.]

______________________________________________________

To the Editor:

In his June 22 letter to the editor, "Energy efficiency can't do it alone," Charles Komanoff makes it quite clear that the strategy of the wind power pushers is to belittle anyone who attempts to criticize, or offer alternatives, to their dream of destroying the Berkshire landscape by erecting 400-foot lighted industrial structures on scenic mountains for profit.

According to his bio, Komanoff is an economist, not an engineer. He displays this by his insinuation that if someone mails me a light bulb, screwing it into the fixture is so complex, that I require "a professional support structure with administrators, outreach staff, technicians and such" just to install it.

In his "Wind power works" op-ed of Jan. 8, 2005, Komanoff states that "each kilowatt-hour of electricity from a windmill takes the place of a kilowatt-hour that would have been generated at a power plant burning coal, fuel oil or natural gas." He thinks huge lighted man-made structures on Berkshire mountains will be beautiful from afar (Manhattan). My understanding is that when wind generated power is fed into the grid, in order to stabilize it, the first sources to be shut off are the less polluting hydro and natural gas. Coal burning, nuclear, and fuel oil plants can not be easily shutdown and restarted. Output is reduced, but fuel consumption and pollution continues. This all sounds like pollution of the facts. The Big Wind industry will stop at nothing to fulfill their fantasy that only the destruction of the Berkshire mountains can save the planet.

Where is the evidence from countries that have already installed substantial numbers of turbines that their fossil fuel use, their pollution and poisoning, has decreased? Why does an energy expert argue how many wind experts does it take to screw in a light bulb? To confuse the public, and annoy the opposition.

What should be discussed is why are we subsidizing the for-profit ruin of our landscape when other more appropriate alternatives exist? I agree that "energy efficiency can't do it alone." The Big Wind lobby does not want to discuss less intrusive non-carbon alternatives with greater potential such as solar, small scale hydro, and waste to energy, for fear of losing their subsidies. Only the visible conquest of man and machine over mountains can satisfy the flashing light fetish. Score one for the flat earth society.

RICHARD A. ZONA

North Adams, June 26, 2006