2021_04_18 18 Point Rebuttal To Singer’s Anti-wind Turbine Letter

Singer seems to be a shill for the fossil fuel industry. She uses the term, Industrial Wind Turbine or IWT to attempt to associate wind turbines with industry, even though the wind turbines have nothing to do with industry – they’re located in the country or offshore.

She goes on to say “… Then legislators can decide to spend billions on wind turbines.” This is ridiculous. Legislators don’t; the utilities or their contractors purchase wind turbines. Legislators make informed decisions on regulating the wind turbine industry.

She goes on to state outdated and false information. Wind turbines and any other “unreliable” i.e. intermittent power source does *not* need to have fossil fuel or gas powered generators to “back them up”. In California the gas turbines are being replaced by BESS – battery energy storage systems. Search for BESS Moss landing and read about it – there are many others.

She goes on to state a whole bunch of detractors, including that a wind turbine blade accident knocked a power pole through a house. There are disadvantages to everything mankind does on Earth. The unfairness of this article is that it fails to take into account that if the wind turbines and other renewables do *not* replace fossil fuels – as soon as possible – there will be hell to pay all over the Earth.

I might add that her complaints are not only useless, they are far too late. There have already been billions spent on wind turbines and solar, all in the hope of saving the Earth from fossil fuels.

Here is a rebuttal to Singer’s diatribe against wind turbines.


Singer’s diatribe including references.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© RustyBolt.Info/wordpress