Editor, Times-Union: At first blush, Gary Gerard’s “News Views” on wind power (Weekend, pg 1) made a lot of sense. I am primarily skeptical about any government initiative. As a minor contractor in a government program in the ’80s to develop low-cost solar cell arrays, I sat at one symposium where one fellow contractor projected the highest price that the market would ever pay for solar electricity would be 17 cents/kwh while another determined the lowest theoretical cost that could be expected was 81 cents/kwh. I was accused of poisoning the well when I pointed out that the program paying us all had determined its own impossibility of success by nearly 400 percent. Most were quite happy to continue drinking the government’s money knowing that their work couldn’t possibly succeed. The dearth of solar arrays today demonstrates the accuracy of those projections. They are practical only where the cost of connecting to the grid is prohibitive. But I would argue that wind power is different, like Tang and a thousand other daily articles that originated from the government (usually indirectly). Mr. Gerard quotes an article by Michael Gilbertson who, trying to project the highest cost he can, says the cost of wind power would be as high as 10.9 cents/kwh. Just for reference, I checked my recent NIPSCO bills and found I pay 11.5 cents/kwh today. I would guess NIPSCO might be happy to produce electricity with all the production and transportation costs included with 6 perent profit. Having studied the facts about the magnificent windmills we see as we tour the country, I would say the biggest unknown is whether they can live up to the projections on maintenance costs and lifetime. Right now, they don’t make much money in the first 20 years, though neither did Boulder/Hoover Dam. Of course, these windmills only produce about 30 percent of capacity, but this number is built into projections about cost and benefit. And windmills have the advantage of producing power when demand is greatest – those hot sultry days which make air conditioners run through the afternoon and evening produce significant winds, as do those blustery cold days when the wind chill is lowest. Gilbertson also declares that the government has never provided a cost-benefit analysis of the “Production Tax Credit.” Don’t confuse this with a cost-benefit analysis of windmills, which my Indiana Tech students routinely extract from Internet sources in minutes. Of course, it is more difficult to find out what incentives the government is giving in the form of tax credits and direct subsidies; but it is possible that wind power technology has already reached the point that electric companies might be interested without those incentives. The folks at Tippecanoe Valley School District had enough confidence to spend a million dollars on their windmill. Mr. Gerard points out correctly we are going to need energy and we are foolishly turning away from carbon fuels and nuclear sources for that energy. That doesn’t leave much to work with and wind is among the best of the remaining candidates. Jack Volkers Ph.D., Nuclear Physics Adjunct Faculty: Indiana Tech & Grace College Warsaw, via email
