Take a harder look at wind power 

The Daily News editorial (Jan. 18) that stated, “An expansion of wind energy off the coast of Massachusetts is well worth pursuing” evokes response by Jonathan A. Lesser’s “It Is Easy to Be Green – When Someone Else Pays the Bill.”

Dr. Lesser’s peer-reviewed journal published in its Winter 2010-2011 edition a piece regarding the Cape Wind project, stating above-market cost in 2015 would be around $80 million.

Dr. Lesser, who draws from over 25 years of experience working for regulated utilities, government and as an economic consultant, states:

” … The subsidies paid by ratepayers transfer wealth from existing generators to a chosen few renewable resource owners. One may like to rail against the existing generators – as many politicians have – but the long-run implications of such subsidies will be to destroy competitive wholesale electric markets and drive out existing competitors. This course of action will cost jobs because businesses, forced to pay higher electricity prices, will either relocate, contract or disappear altogether. It will reduce the disposable income of consumers, who will forever be forced to subsidize renewable resources (just as they must now subsidize corn ethanol producers) – all in the name of “green energy.”

Citizens are entitled to reliable and affordable energy under state law. In addition to its $1 billion above-market cost, Cape Wind was initially specified as 130, 3.6 MW wind turbines made by GE that GE “discontinued.” Cape Wind now states they have an agreement to purchase Siemens 3.6 MW wind turbines reported: “corroding,” “sinking” and “shifting” off the United Kingdom.

Cape Wind developers would violently pile-drive in an essential fish habitat, squid spawning ground and fishing ground. Pile driving is anticipated to cause a taking of marine mammals by harassment by the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission. Mass Audubon staff scientists arrived at up to 6,600 avian mortalities per year by Cape Wind in their testimony to federal regulators.

The Obama and Patrick administrations fail to understand that Massachusetts marine trades’ benefits are actual, edible and sustainable. In contrast, the wind industry relies entirely on public subsidies and the politicians who cultivate them. Even with hefty subsidies, wind energy is historically unreliable and cost prohibitive, from the rate and taxpayers’ perspectives. Evidence Cape Wind. Wind developers’ needs are less important than the needs of the state’s fishing families, electric rate and taxpayers. However, the Cape Wind signed exclusive lease demonstrates wind energy interests’ dominate. And, when wind developers are not at work, the fishermen may use the Patrick Administration proposed $35 million, “New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal.” This $35 million should instead provide aid to the state’s struggling fishing families.

We can either eat clean, fresh fish caught in U.S. local waters, or pay more for less with offshore wind energy. Wind energy and fishing interests are competing and incompatible. Unfortunately, politicians are picking the winner at the expense of reliable and affordable energy, as well as the state’s fishing industry.

Barbara Durkin

Northboro