Letter the Editor, Dayton Daily News...
Uniquely Poor Journalism
By Al Bliss
July 25, 2011 

The Dayton Daily News July 24, 2011 article on page E-1 with a header of ECONOMY was extremely successful in stimulating a rant to promptly and loudly address the presentation that so strongly wrote the biased position of the Federal and State Departments of Energy regarding the alternate energy values and wonderful successes. Before continuing, the author should have verified the alleged job creation and the forecast reduction of fossil fuels. These same rosy future results were heralded as viable expectations in Denmark, Spain and the Netherlands. Please spend a minute or two checking what are the actual results in just those three countries and then write your article about the probable results. The last item in the article is of significance to many taxpayers but based on its’ location, the author (Steve Bennish) of the article, apparently considers the end of the article an appropriate place that will probably be skipped by most readers. 

To evaluate specifics in the article: 

1. Save $7.4 billion on electric & natural gas bills --- Based on statements made by President Obama and Department of Energy Secretary Chu, an increase in the cost of energy is planned to be significant by 2013. The results of the effort to lead Europe in the process of developing wind and solar energy sources in Spain are a sound basis of avoiding alternate energy projects. 

2. Create 14,000 jobs --- Spain again has recorded/documented the impact of developing so-called green jobs.  The results show that for every green job, two point six (2.2) jobs are lost. 

3. 170 Ohio Companies --- The source and basis for this figure is suspect. Where and who manufactures the components used in the alternate energy devices? Yes, in the process of installing the devices, local firms are used to support the construction process but after installation, for example in Michigan, what companies remain involved with operation? 

4. $320,000,000 new income --- This means the local people who rent/lease their property for an alternate energy site will receive income as long as the unit is operational. In Demark, the wind energy sites are being dismantled because of constant maintenance problems. 

5. $170,000,000 property tax revenue --- If this amount is accurate, how many alternate energy sites are used and how much per site. If each unit cost 1.3 million dollars and if each unit was taxed at the current rate of 2% for the first 200 thousand and 1% for the balance and a life expectancy of twenty years  per unit is the basis for the forecast, the a wind farm of __???____ units would yield the property tax revenue. 

6. Union of Concerned Scientist – UCS – (peer reviewed report) --- Who participated in the “peer review report”?? The reason for the question is the findings of other “peer review reports” especially by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN’s climate control advisory group Review their mission statement to better understand questioning this organization that was formed in 1988 to do one thing, show that mankind is the reason for global warming. The first sentence by the Union of Concerned Scientist regarding Global Warming “The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause” in spite of the accurate data that Mars temperatures have been varying in the same direction and at the same time as the earth.  No human beings there but a common factor for the two planets is THE SUN. 

7. Wind – this alternate energy source is an intermittent generator and as proven in Europe is excessively expensive and assuming the customers would like to have power available full time, base load units must remain operational 24/7/365. Add to this the fact that every wind generator must be subsidized. “Between January 2010 and January 2011, Spanish Industry’s electricity costs have risen 110%”. The government’s official explanation of this increase is the huge bill for renewable’ subsidies. 

8. Biomass --- Very little information regarding biomass as an energy source other than t he Brazil use in developing and use to make diesel fuel. 

9. Cornstalks --- Very little information 

10. Switch grass --- Very little information 

11. Solar --- becoming more and more competitive but still must be subsidized. A suggestion that truly merits individual research and evaluation is the concept of an individual homeowner being responsible for a dedicated solar installation for the homeowner’s home. The base load units by the power company would still be required but the amount of power used by the homeowner furnished by the power company would be reduced. 

12. Steve Frankel Midwest UCS --- Not sure why this individual is mentioned. 

13. Keep more money in state by substituting alternate energy for coal --- not sure what this really means but considering that Ohio has significant coal reserves and that alternate energy sources are heavily subsidized (the money for the subsidy usually comes from the taxpayers) the majority of the equipment used is manufactured outside of Ohio, I cannot figure this out. 

14. Government subsidy for alternate energy --- again, the subsidy comes from allocations from the government of money furnished by the taxpayers. A subsidy can be defined as a bribe according to the unabridged dictionary next to me. 

Final thought, apparently from the Krugman editorial which said the “right wing fanatics etc. etc., the inclination to address this article with much stronger words to fulfill the emotions called for in the rant have been suppressed to avoid using the typical lame brained left wing jargon. 

Al Bliss

Greenville