Encourage wind energy


The pollution, the actions, and the inactions of the human race are killing this planet. Not only are they killing the marine life, they are killing everything, including us. At this rate the death to all living things will be slow, suffocating, poisonous, horrible, and inevitable.

Burning fossil fuels has got to stop. Inaction is not a solution.

Every time we use alternative energy, we are striving toward a solution. The alternative energy of an offshore windmill farm or any alternative energy source might not be perfect at first, but it will get better and better, but only if we try.

We have to look at the big picture! I desperately hope that we can all get onboard with the urgent need to encourage the use of alternative energy and welcome the learning curve that leads to its perfection, success, and our survival. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Peter Pfluger

Oak Bluffs


  1. Supporters of solar and wind must consider the significant faults and problems with alternative energy sources. 1. Solar/wind need large amount of land (deforestation), 2. Energy generation is intermittent and unreliable (dependent on weather and sunshine), 3. turbines are loud and harmful to wildlife birds,bats, 4. Costly to manufacture and install, 5. Expensive, scarce minerals, 6. Energy storage (batteries) is expensive, 7. End of life disposal costs for materials is costly and bad for the environment, etc.
    NIMBY. Not in my backyard.

    • Supporters of fossil fuel energy generation must consider the significant faults and problems with fossil fuel energy sources.
      1. Oil fields need large amount of land (deforestation),I point to the 54.000 square mile Canadian tar sands project as an example. It was carved out of a pristine Boreal forest.
      2. Energy generation and pricing is intermittent and unreliable (dependent on such things as weather , refinery fires, and maintenance, the whims of dictators to cut off supplies when they don’t like neighboring countries and speculators or leaky pipelines oil platform blowouts or rail crashes to name a few. ),
      3. Oil rigs are loud and harmful to wildlife fish, turtles, anything that crawls flies or swims.
      4. Costly to manufacture and install. We agree on that.
      5. Expensive, scarce, pristine habitat — Look at the Willow and the above mentioned Athabasca project
      6. Energy storage (batteries) is expensive,–it sure is, no matter how you generate it or what you do to meet peak demand with stored power.
      7. End of life disposal costs for materials is costly and bad for the environment.
      the blades are inert and all of the spent blades from the Vineyard One project could easily be buried in Goodale’s pit for the next 100 years, if we are dumb enough to just bury them and not use them for offshore wave breakers ot skate park features etc.. But , there are 18 to 26,000 miles of oil pipelines with an average diameter of about 2 ft on the floor of the gulf of mexico alone. They don’t really know the exact number– They have plenty of oil in them that will likely be released over the next century or so as they deteriorate.There is no plan to do anything but to let them rot. In addition, there are 55,000 abandoned offshore oil wells that are not capped in a manner that will guarantee they will not leak in the future. An offshore well has been leaking oil into the gulf of Mexico since its rig was capsized by hurricane Ivan in 2004. The rig is still there– and the well is still leaking. Decommissioning liabilities were nearly 36 billion dollars in 2025 alone. That was just to superficially cap some wells and take down some obsolete rigs.
      In my opinion, It would cost trillions of dollars to adequately and environmentally clean it all up.
      What about Deepwater Horizon, Exxon Valdez, and numerous oil spill disasters from leaking pipelines and train derailments, as well as oil tankers that break apart in rough seas? My guess is that more birds, fish and crustaceans have already died as the result of oil spills than wind farms will ever come close to. Let’s not even mention the wonderful environmental effects of mountain topping in Appalachia and coal surface mines throughout the western us.
      And in case you are wondering, it IS likely that the burning of huge quantities of fossil fuels has contributed to the observable number of severe weather events in recent times.

      Yes, Roy, I agree we should consider all this stuff, and drive less, and turn the heat down and the a/c up.

    • Just looking back at your comment that solar takes a lot of land, and my reply about the 54,000 square mile Athabasca oil sands ( commonly known as the Canadian tar sands) that the oil companies have their eye on, I got curious.
      Between the year 2000 and 2014, 3,125 square miles of forest were cleared. They are still clearing. To put that into perspective, 21,250 square miles of solar panels would provide 100% of the annual total electrical demand of the United States.
      And certainly, a portion of that would be on roofs, or coverings in parking lots, etc,
      Elon Musk calculated it would only take 10,000 square miles.
      Basic math says that’s only a little more than 3 times what has been cleared in just the Canadian environmental disaster.

      Scratch the argument about solar and deforestation off your list, please.

  2. Norway has a great, big back yard, and they are going to use it even more.

    “Offshore wind is booming worldwide and Norway, western Europe’s largest oil and gas producer, is examining how it can adapt its energy industry to changing demand.”

    “Norway to identify more offshore areas for wind power parks.”

    The above is a quote and an article headline from Reuters News .online. (see links below)
    Anti-offshore, windfarm folks can pick and scatter the bad cherries, but most of those aren’t even relevant. Such as, there is no deforestation involved in offshore wind farms nor do they need batteries since they feed directly into the electrical grid, etc. When looking into the near future at the big picture of burning fossil fuel, these cherry-picked points are insignificant and only detracts from exploring actual solutions to the eventual end of burning fossil fuel.



  3. Mr. Sim’s post is remarkably provincial in nature and often at odds with verifiable facts.
    He cites deforestation as a negative impact, but industrial scale wind and solar arrays coexist in open areas and don’t require deforestation. The intermittent/unreliable issue he raises are typically mitigated by grid connectivity (as applied throughout Europe). Turbine noise and animal impact issues have become far less of an issue with larger turbines and improved siting.
    As far as his #4,#5 and #7; perhaps he’d like to cite the cost of manufacturing a nuclear power plant, mining the materials used to power it, the cost of decommissioning, cleanup after an accident and the overall threat to the environment and human health.

  4. It’s too bad the Times doesn’t publish comments that reasonably question the premise of this letter. Why are they afraid of open dialogue? Are they afraid the facts may prove them wrong?

    • Just what is it that you can’t comment on ?
      I am sure tat you can post true things about the climate–
      For instance, the warmest year on record according to the world’s top meteorological institutions was 2016. That means that the fact is that the earth has not, on average, warmed in the last 6 years– not even a little.
      We can discuss climate change– you just can’t lie about it or promote lies about it.
      However, the editor has more than once once allowed a statement here that was “simply not true” I will give her some slack on the first time, (See my letter to the editor) but the second time allowing a similar “simply not true” post about the licensing by NOAA to Vineyard Wind to kill a certain number of whales, not so much.
      So I don’t know== she may very well changed her mind, and is now allowing things that are simply not true.
      Gie it a try, rather than complain. And if you tell the truth about something that is reasonable to debate, and you have a reasonable opinion, it just might fly.
      Good Luck.

  5. Yes , I think most everyone is in agreement that the premise of renewable energy in some form is a good thing but destroying the ocean in the process isn’t.
    Watch the congressional hearing from New Jersey March 14th , it’s on YouTube.
    It’s real and it’s scary how quickly these offshore wind farms are killing whales , dolphins and many other species and it’s just the beginning.
    You don’t crap where you eat but unfortunately that’s what we’re doing!

    • Jason– “march 14 new jersey congressional hearing” yields nothing in youtube or google.
      Perhaps you could post a hot link. I will watch it… Thanks
      I did however watch Bonnie Brady’s “crash course on offshore wind” at John Osmer’s suggestion.
      She sure does have an opinion, and a few nice graphics that she found. She is also very adept at raising her voice an octave or 2 while waving her hands around like a former president mocking a disabled person while telling her audience what “they” think.
      Unfortunately, she has very little in terms of actual facts that show that windmills do any of the things Osmer claims ( “mess with the tides”, warm the surface of the ocean, ruining the fishing industry, etc. ) or actually kill any marine mammals.
      Please show us some proof that windmills have killed any whales, or dolphins. They will obviously kill some clams so I wont say that they won’t kill anything. Yes, I know about the whales in New Jersey– I have posted reports about the verifiable known causes of these deaths. Unfortunately most of the whales are too far decomposed to know for sure .. There is not a single necropsy that even list any activity from windfarms as a possible contributor.
      In fact, as of Feb 28th , the 23 beached whales had not exceeded the rate of some previous years.

  6. Where do you get your information that windfarms are so destructive? I found nothing on Youtube about “congressional hearing from New Jersey March 14th.” Why don’t people simply include in their comments verification or links to what they say is true. If offshore windfarms were destructive, do you really think Norway would be expanding their windfarms? Come on! If windfarms were so destructive to our environment and these gentle giants, don’t you think that all the major news channels and 60 Minutes would be all over this! What proof do you have that these “Killings” are taking place. None! Delivering informational crap to the public is what Trump does to support HIS agenda. He throws this crap on the wall to see what sticks, and then he laughs when all these gullible people, his people, lap it up even as it hits the floor. Let get real. Include verification to your comments.

Comments are closed.