Employees work on vortex generators at Vestas Blades in Windsor. (AAron Ontiveroz, The Denver Post)
Re: “Wind power jobs a boon,” Aug. 7 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Cleo Dioletis says “Hurrah to Vestas for hiring 350 workers to increase production of a wind-power plant,” and “this is the direction we need to be going.”
While I am in favor of increased employment, increased economic output, and renewable energy, there is always a cost-benefit trade-off to be considered. Wind energy has been heavily subsidized through taxpayer dollars for 35 years, yet it still costs more than what other energy sources cost.
Would wind-energy proponents like to see their utility bills triple? Would they like to depend exclusively on wind energy? What will they do if the wind isn’t blowing? Batteries are the answer, of course, but production of batteries produces substantial toxic waste.
Just because something is possible does not mean we should pour millions of taxpayer dollars into it for decades. It would make far more sense to invest those dollars in energy conservation instead of wind energy. Reducing the need for energy would reduce fossil fuel consumption without the heavy economic cost (higher taxes) that requires production of toxins (not good for the environment) and is not reliable (thus requiring the continued capacity for producing energy from fossil fuel).
Jim Mason, Centennial
This letter was published in the Aug. 13 edition.
