James,
thankyou for your cordial response.
I disagree. The article poorly attempts to link all wind investment to the enron disaster.
Quote:
|
Point is simple, folks; the way in which industrial wind projects are being forced on communities that don't have sufficient wind patterns, only benefit foreign companies, gov't bureaucrats and political officials.
|
What would be "sufficient" for you? I can tell you that wind projects are pursued for the exact same reason other investments are pursued: they are expected to generate a decent return.
Granted there are subsidies that may lower that "sufficient" threshold, however there are reasons for these subsidies:
- Wind power is classified as a renewable source, which given the political and scientific climate at this time, is a desirable energy generator
- Wind power costs more to produce than traditional thermal generation
You may argue that the source of these subsidies are dark corridor negotiations, although any logical individual will find that hard to swallow given the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry (esp in USA).
I'd say you just plain
don't like wind power, which is where you get the motivation to post the above diatribe.