When I first heard that wind turbines were heading for Genesee County, I was thrilled. Understand, I am a card-carrying member of Greenpeace, the WWF; and I "own" a small patch of rainforest and a whale through environmental groups. I drive a gas-electric hybrid because it is environmentally responsible. Clean, safe, renewable energy and the preservation of our planet is a goal I've had long before I'd ever heard of UPC, Invenergy or Horizon.
It puzzled me that people were negative about it. Actually, my husband and I laughed at them over dinner, calling the whole thing silly. We decided to do some research to prove them wrong. So we researched. And researched. And each piece of hard evidence we obtained turned our minds just a bit to where we now stand 180 degrees from where we started. It is hard evidence that changed our minds, not some nebulous worry about the view.
It therefore irks us to see folks who haven't done their research blindly supporting wind turbines. If, after you've done your research, you still support them, I'd like to listen to your point of view. But letters like the one from Phillip Privitera (10/25) are a waste of time.
Mr. Privitera states that he hasn't the time to look up the figures on Germany's wind "success." I have. In fact, a report commissioned by the German government was released in January of this year. Germany has over 16,000 wind turbines, constructed over the past decade or so. Even at minimal wind, they should be able to provide more than 21% of the country's power needs. In Germany, there are heavy tariffs on fossil fuels but not renewables, which should make wind energy cheaper than traditional sources.
According to the government's own report, the amount of electricity they are actually gaining from their turbines is -- drum roll, please -- 4%. And the cost of electricity, adjusted for inflation, has gone -- you guessed it -- up. The Germans have had 79 reported car accidents, 33 reported injuries, 17 deaths, over 1,500 instances of property damage and suffered through countless town-wide public evacuations for an energy program that is seriously underperforming. The German and Danish governments have placed a moratorium against over-land wind turbines. That's your "success" story.
Mr. Privitera then recites the amount of emissions produced by a coal-burning plant and the estimates of NYSERDA and the US Dept of Energy as to how much of this could be replaced by wind turbines. I agree with those estimates -- but it is VITAL that we recognize them as just that -- estimates. Until intensive studies are done, we cannot know how efficient the turbines will actually be nor how much coal they will replace.
Unfortunately, the process in the US does not typically include a test turbine -- only a test tower. We have NO way of knowing just how good they will be until they're built. Some folks think that's jumping the gun and I agree. It would be much better if towns could mandate the installation of one turbine and conditionally approve others based on its performance. But since that's not the way it works, we'll have to rely on numbers from an existing facility. It makes sense to follow the most comprehensive study done to date -- the German one. Is it really worth the taxpayer investment for a measly 4% return?
Mr. Privitera states that public utilities do not go around developing alternative energy sources. Yet, the very first commercial wind turbine erected in New York was Niagara Mohawk's project at Tug Hill. NiMo developed Wethersfield, fully erecting the turbines, and had intended to operate it themselves until a private corporation expressed interest in it. They had quite a turn (over a decade) with exploring wind energy long before UPC, Invenergy or Horizon even existed, and they stopped all projects because they were not performing adequately. They will likely purchase wind turbine power only because Gov. Pataki has mandated it.
Mr. Privitera states that NYSERDA money is already allocated and will be spent on natural energy projects, so why not have the money spent here? True. Those of us who have done our homework do not want the money spent on wind turbines anywhere. That does not mean we don't support renewable energy spending. Hydro, application-based photovoltaic, geothermal, bio-mass and hydrogen cells all have the capacity to out-perform wind turbines right now. It is in those technologies that the "anti-turbine" folks want our money spent -- on technologies that work. It should be noted that geothermal, bio-mass and hydrogen all have tremendous capacity to put money in farmers' pockets -- much more money than turbines.
The only reason anyone is talking about wind turbines is because they are cheap to build and a great corporate tax shelter. That is why these projects are led by UPC, Invenergy and Horizon (divisions of larger corporations that need tax shelters), not National Grid. If bio-mass had a smaller capital investment, you'd see a lot of that. I doubt you'd see as much opposition then, simply because it is better-performing and has fewer downsides.
I support clean, safe energy and I put my money where my mouth is. After doing my homework, I do not support wind turbines. Wind turbines are not common sense solutions and I am tired of meaningless generalizations and unresearched grandstanding.
Loy Gross
East Bethany