| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Letter: Good reasons to vote ‘no’ on Question 6
Credit: Elko Daily Free Press | October 30, 2018 | elkodaily.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Nevada’s goal of achieving 50% of electricity from renewables, according to recent Harvard engineering estimates, requires 16.65% of the state’s landmass (18,409 square miles) to be covered by solar/wind turbine facilities, which equals every square foot of Clark, Washoe, Douglas, Storey and Lyon Counties, plus Carson City region and all major towns in other counties combined!
Pro Question 6 propaganda states, “Thirteen states, including Colorado and Oregon, have renewable energy standards stronger than Nevada’s …” Notice the omission of California, which is the horrific standard for what happens with renewable mandates.
The ballot booklet claims it would create 10,000 new jobs, but ABC news headlines read, “New Wind Farms in the U.S. Do Not Bring Jobs.” Another misleading argument says, “… we spend $700 million a year to import dirty fossil fuels from other states.” If forced to use wind/solar energy, billions of taxpayer dollars will go to foreign companies instead, and Nevada will experience California utility rate hikes that rose 5X faster than the national average.
Proponents erroneously claim, ”… the wind and sun are free.” On a clothesline, perhaps, but 900 tons of steel per wind turbine plus copper, concrete, rare earth minerals, etc., are anything but free, clean, or renewable. 600-foot tall 4.4 megawatt wind turbines don’t spring up naturally like mushrooms. Materials are mined, smelted in coal-fired furnaces, transported, and assembled by combustion engines, requiring more than 1,000 tons of coal.
The real face of renewable energy can be seen by internet searching for “Baotou,” where rare earth minerals are mined for wind turbine supermagnets. The excavation and refining process annually produces more radioactive waste than the entire U.S. nuclear energy industry.
Yes on Question 6 may spell the end of Wee Thump Wilderness, Nevada’s “Sequoias of Joshua Trees.” When Columbus set sail in 1492, some of those trees were already 500 years old. Moreover, say goodbye to our barely stable golden eagle population.
The sample ballot book makes a great point, “If renewable energy was already at a stage of superiority capable of competing on price, it wouldn’t demand a constitutional mandate” Informed conservationists vote no on Question 6.
Dr. Donald Deever
Searchlight
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=90461 ]
