ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Renewables? No thanks |
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Renewables? No thanks

In response to the letter “Commit to renewable energy in Pittsburgh” (Sept. 11, TribLIVE):

• Because of Germany’s commitment to “renewables” and the phasing out of perfectly safe and non-CO2-generating nuclear plants, it is now forced to burn lignite to prevent brownouts. Lignite is an ecologic nightmare.

• England is burning wood pellets imported from the U.S. and Canada and claims it as a “renewable” form of energy.

• In Australia, the subsidies on solar and wind are so high that baseload coal plants, with no subsidies, are being shut down. The result has been skyrocketing electricity costs. The Australian Energy Market Commission 2017 Electricity Price Trends Report states that the average charge of per kilowatt hour is 34.41 cents. In the U.S., the comparable number is 12 cents per kilowatt hour generating cost.

• Because of the insane push for “renewables” at any cost, California has paid Arizona to take excess power produced by solar. This is because utilities cannot control the amount of solar production, which varies from minute to minute when God (or Gaia, if you like) puts clouds in the sky. These fluctuations create havoc with the electric production-distribution grid, hence the need to off-load excess power at any cost .

So, I say no thanks. Let’s stay away from “renewable” energy in Pennsylvania. Our air is fine, our water is fine, our electricity is affordable and we don’t have insane policies that have evolved from the push for “renewables.”

John Rolin


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.