Hanger wrong on wind
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, May 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Hanger wrong on wind
In response to the letter “Wind power beneficial” (May 1 and TribLIVE.com) by John Hanger, Democrat gubernatorial candidate: Is he smoking the medical marijuana of which he is a proponent?
Electricity costs have risen steadily over the last several years, largely thanks to the Obama administration's war on coal. The only reason electricity costs have remained somewhat stable is the influx of shale gas keeping the cost of the natural gas plants down.
Natural gas accounts for 25 percent of the electrical energy produced; coal, 42 percent; wind, a whopping 2 percent to 3 percent, depending on what site you visit. Fossil-fuel and nuclear plants also don't shut down in winds over 17 mph.
If you think this man deserves to be governor, we will be California East! He also wants to tax the Marcellus shale industry out of Pennsylvania — then, watch your power costs climb.
For all you bird lovers who think Rachel Carson was a hero for ending use of DDT, these lovely wind turbines are bird blenders! Nature.com estimates that 6 million to 18 million birds are killed in Spain each year due to wind turbines. I wonder when I will see someone chain him- or herself to a turbine.
Benjamin L. Jezovnik
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obstacles to hiring
- Obama & Reaganomics I
- Putin’s actions I
- Our nation’s testing obsession
- Math in common?
- Obama & Reaganomics II
- Putin’s actions II
- Fix icy hazard on Rt. 66
- Margolies overrated
- Lebo’s coyotes
- We pay to keep poor warm