To the Editor:

Ironically, the executive director of an organization named for the sacrificial bird used in mining operations endorses wind and solar power.

Is he aware, for example, that California’s Ivanpah solar generating plant is routinely incinerating small birds and setting the feathers of larger birds on fire, as well as blinding them? The YouTube videos are simply mesmerizing.

He cannot be unaware that wind turbines are decimating raptors and other canary kin, not to mention the well documented problems regarding sleep disorders in humans and reduced home values.

Someone enlighten me. Is the Canary Coalition pro or anti-canary? To me, it’s reminiscent of the Twilight Zone episode, “To Serve Man.”

Without a “smidgen’”of evidence, Mr. Friedman states, “Wind energy is the least expensive energy option available today.” Somebody better tell the Danes. They are the leaders in wind energy and they pay 40 cents per kilowatt hour.

Nowhere does he address reliability which cannot be provided by solar or wind. If it’s cold and dark, just wait for the sun to rise or the wind to blow. And wait.

Most astonishingly of all, he offers geothermal to allay the concerns of the anti-fracking crowd. Now, I admit drilling holes for exploration, setting off explosions to map the underground landscape with seismic waves, disposing wastewater and enduring earthquakes should concern everyone. Why is he not making us aware that each of these concerns exists in geothermal activities, not just shale fracking?

It may be true, as Mr. Friedman states, “extracting natural gas from the ground results in substantial leakage of raw, unburned methane into the atmosphere.” What he conveniently does not state is that carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen sulphide and ammonia are also released in geothermal drilling. Why does he omit those relevant details?

Claud Mandil, former head of the International Energy Agency, a promoter of alternate energy sources, states, “Every type of traditional geothermal drilling can include fracking because of the need to ensure enough water circulates and gets heated.... The risks of provoking seismic activity or water pollution are the same.”  

He further states, “Talk of geothermal and fracking is being hushed up so as not to provoke an outcry. There may be some acceptance of it for geothermal because that energy is renewable.”

Geothermal may actually be worse because different and more difficult techniques must be used to plug the wells and they must be engineered for hotter temperatures and higher water flow.

Douglas Hollett, head of the DOE’s geothermal technologies office states,“The key is learning how to do it in a reliable way, in a responsible way.” When similar statements are made by shale fracking advocates they are routinely ridiculed by opponents.

When two competing energy sources exist and the negatives that apply to both of them are identical and equivalent, but one source is vilified while the other is glorified; ask yourself who benefits.

Mr. Friedman offers up Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute as the efficiency wizard whose ideas we should embrace. Lovins is a leading advocate of geothermal energy. His tax-exempt organization receives $15 million in grants and he receives $750,000 in compensation.

I think we have our answer.

Timothy Van Eck

Whittier