Writer doesn’t mention many drawbacks from ‘inappropriately’ sited wind turbines

Editor:

Hans Hyde undoubtedly makes some important points in his clever, selective, obfuscation of matters related to renewable energy.

For example, he is likely correct that there will come a time when we will require greater amounts of electrical energy. Renewable sources such as wind, water, and solar—especially the latter—are arguably better for the planet than energy generated by coal, oil, gas, and nuclear.

As he denigrates opponents of 600’ wind turbines in Somerset, Yates and Barre, he conveniently avoids the “on-the-ground” and “in-the-air” realities associated with the actual erection of properly sited and set back monstrosities far better suited, for example, to abandoned oilfields in Oklahoma and Texas. Has Hans calculated the amount of land that must be clear-cut for each turbine and otherwise set aside for crusher-run access roads?

Although I suspect we are sometimes presumed to be ignorant and desperate “hicks from the sticks,” in fact, we were not “born yesterday” and many of us are not interested in selling our souls for the presumed “advantages” of inappropriately located industrial wind turbines unsuited to our lush rural landscape.  As noted before, at this juncture, Orleans County’s farmlands, wetlands, and woodlands are valuable assets to be protected from those who have no “skin in the game.” The game being played by proponents of turbines here is pure and simple exploitation.

Has Hans Hyde ever heard of a cost-benefit analysis? My guess—and that is all it is—is that roof-mounted solar panels make far more sense for Orleans County than even properly set-back, 600 foot-high wind turbines marketed as “harmless,” even though locating them appropriately would do a lot to wreck much of what our county has to commend it.

Sincerely yours,

Gary Kent

Albion