Sunday letters: Facts and misconceptions about wind power

'Outdated data' in wind power column

The column "Americans being duped by the wind lobby" (Commentary, Oct. 13) cites exceedingly outdated data as it references an industry study that is almost 15 years old to try and convince the public that Americans are being duped into believing wind energy is a valid solution to reduce climate change.

The opinion piece by Benjamin Riggs, founding and active member of the Energy Council of Rhode Island, states as a "matter of fact" that wind energy actually produces more carbon emissions because its intermittent power generation requires grid operators to operate fossil fuel plants in a fluctuating manner. One who is a founding member of the Rhode Island Energy Council should know that since the ERCOT Bentek IV study done in 2010 there have been many changes to the alternative energy landscape. These improvements include widespread addition of solar power generation, the implementation of large scale energy storage equipment like battery banks, and electronic grid balancing of all sources.

After the "Great Texas Power Blackout of 2021" wind energy sources were also made to blame, but that was disproven and reminds me of that same tired old scare tactic repurposed to cause confusion here in Rhode Island. Another failing of this opinion piece to make a reasonable critique is in its attempt to claim that wind power generation is unable to produce a constant voltage output. This reminds me of a time when Thomas Edison, a proponent of DC power distribution, needed to come up with any kind of argument that would stick in order scare people away from the AC power alternative offered by Westinghouse.

There was actually some authenticity to the article in suggesting that the use of small-scale nuclear power production facilities could handily reduce carbon emissions, despite the bizarre claim this could be done without creating waste fuel, the main objective of the opinion piece seemed to be against the proliferation of wind power which is purported to be some kind of feel good placebo.

Robert Fine, East Providence

Nuclear energy alternative a long way off

The column by Benjamin Riggs ("Americans being duped by the wind lobby," Commentary, Oct. 13) promoted several misconceptions and misinformation about offshore wind development.

I am responding to one of those: that small modular reactors (SMRs) are currently a good alternative to offshore wind development. When small SMR technology grows to a cost effective scale and can safely supply much of the U.S. grid needs, I would welcome that addition. However, any meaningful additional SMR nuclear contribution is at least a decade or more in the future and will be critically late for limiting ocean warming and acidification.

There are only two North American initial SMR projects in any development phase. The earliest one might begin test operation near 2030. One is a GE Hitachi design in Canada though it does not yet have Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission approval. The other is a Terrapower project in Idaho that also does not have the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. In 2023, a NuScale designed SMR project that has an NRC approval was canceled after early construction in Idaho because of expense even with a U.S. Department of Energy cost share deal.

Let's hope SMR technology begins to achieve a commercial scale by at least 2035. Before then, solar, wind, and battery storage are the only commercially proven low-carbon solutions to mitigate ocean warming and acidification from CO2.

Tom Clemow, Little Compton

Jack Smith's latest filing targeting Donald Trump

The latest stunt pulled by Special Counsel Jack Smith recently tells us an awful lot about Kamala Harris, and the quality and strength of her candidacy. None of what it tells us is good. With Harris unable to pull away from Donald Trump in the polls, and Democrats unable to put away Trump once and for all, despite years of trying, Smith's latest gambit is borne out of political expediency, and may very well represent the left's last, best chance to decisively remove Mr. Trump from the presidential landscape and prevent him from regaining power.

Make no mistake about it. Smith's new filing is as much of an indictment of Harris as it is of Trump. If Democrats had more faith in the efficacy of the former, they wouldn't have to so maniacally target the latter. Yet here we are, watching our Democrat friends yet again shredding longstanding, cherished political norms and principles in their latest quest to "get" Trump because they're fearful she can't win.

Smith's circus act, facilitated by a compliant Democratic stooge, Judge Tanya Chutkan, shows that the left will stop at nothing to either amass or hold on to power. If nothing else, this latest cockamamie scheme confirms what astute political observers have long known. Namely, that Democrats are more an offender of American democracy than a defender.

Michael J. DiStefano, Jamestown

Time for a change in RI delegation

I write to express my dismay over the election ads praising Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. They portray him as a worthy representative of the citizens of Rhode Island.

I disagree. His plan to destroy the independence of the United States Supreme Court does not represent thousands of us in Rhode Island. His lead in this attack on our judicial system is alarming. It would have the effect of destroying the U.S. Supreme Court which is our last line of defense that protects our rights to speech, defense, and other freedoms we cherish. His promotion of abortion through all nine months and funding it with our tax dollars is also quite extreme and most offensive to those of us who realize that every abortion involves the termination of the life of an unborn child.

It is time for a major change in Rhode Island’s Congressional delegation. Our two senators, Jack Reed and Whitehouse, have locked it up for years at our expense for they certainly no longer represent the views of thousands of us. We really need term limits. It is time to vote for those who challenge him.

Maria Parker, Westerly

Donald Trump, 'The Great Projector'

Ever notice that Donald Trump often accuses other people of things he is guilty of himself? It’s called psychological projection − attributing to others what is one’s own shortcomings, thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

The most obvious example is lying. Trump accuses everyone else of lying while, according to the Washington Post, his lies exceed 30,000. When it’s not lies, it’s cruel insults.

Here are just a few of his projections that really apply to Trump himself, followed by his target.

“Blames everybody but herself“ (Hillary Clinton)

“Tearing the United States apart” (Nancy Pelosi)

“Was always playing golf” (Barack Obama)

“A major security risk” (Huma Abeden)

“Just another dishonest politician” (Ted Cruz)

“Makes fraudulent and dishonest statements” (Michael Cohen)

“Doing tremendous damage to our criminal justice system” (Robert Mueller)

And finally, a real kicker:

“The worst abuser of women in U.S. political history” (Bill Clinton)

Gordon Rowley, Wakefield

This article originally appeared on The Providence Journal: Sunday letters: Facts and misconceptions about wind power