Not supposed to use oil and coal?
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
This is in response to the “dirty energy” letter written by Vickie Hitchcock.
You mean to tell me there’s oil and coal all over this earth, and we’re not supposed to use it?
We are fortunate in this Valley to have the Kerr Dam for power. If we didn’t, we’d have to use coal or pay higher rates to get power from some dam further away. The alternative would be solar or wind power. That would be higher rates yet, not to mention the eyesore of wind turbine in the foothills of the Missions or some other part of the Valley, obstructing views. Solar power? This would require vast areas of land to create the power and make the land unusable for anything else, not to mention the banks of batteries to store the power for night and cloud obstructed use.
One small turbine, 100 feet to 300 feet in the air, costs a lot of money to construct and maintain. (You have to have a super boom to replace a turbine blade.) That costs money, and you the ratepayer will bear the burden of it. Not to mention the manufacture of components for solar and wind power, is done with power from hydroelectric, petroleum and coal-fired power plants. I’m sure you’re dreaming of the day when manufacturing is done with power from solar and wind produced electricity, but it is just not cost-effective right now.
Research and development work in these areas (solar and wind) should be concentrated on, but to force everyone to switch to solar and wind power because of some hair-brained scheme by a Hollywood/political elite is ludicrous.
Do you think we’ll see a solar or wind-powered 18-wheeler anytime soon? How about a solar powered train?
The cost is just too high for anything but limited solar and wind power use. Petroleum and coal have their price fluctuations and limitations, but they are vastly superior in the production of power to anything but nuclear or hydroelectric power plants.
Ried S. Hurtig
Pablo
