Dexter Perkins, in an April 24 Viewpoint in the Herald, thoroughly bashed the usage of coal for generating electricity. However, he claims that solar and wind generating sources are non-polluting. Spent wind turbine blades, after only 15 years, are being quietly landfilled by the thousands out on the lone prairie.
We are never allowed to see the real costs of turbines, land leases, transmission conductors, horribly expensive maintenance costs, turbine lives of 25 years, demolition and turbine pod disposal and etc. on a per kilowatt basis.
Solar panels may be great in summer but of little value in the northland in winter, when you need electricity, plus the toxic waste disposal problem. I like the concept of wind and solar energy sources, but they need a dependable backup source, and if not coal, then apparently natural gas-fired generating plants will be needed. Natural gas is fossil fuel and combustion yields CO2 and water.
How much are you gaining? Warren Buffet was quoted as saying that wind and solar energy, if not for the large taxpayer subsidies, would not be worth his investment.
I’d like to have a physical chemist evaluate the thermodynamics of the ethanol as well as the biodiesel production cycles. Years ago, they were not practical and were possible because of massive lobbying in Washington, D.C. I’m in favor of them if they could be produced from plant waste products, but it makes no sense to produce grains for that purpose.
Nuclear power plants would produce basically zero carbon dioxide, yet they are never seriously considered, which makes me question the sincerity of the climate change crowd.
Bernie Uran, Northome, Minn.