Letters

Environmental alarmists make our lives worse because they want to feel good about how they view the world through their rose-colored glasses, and the classic example is Karl Grossman attacking fracking while extolling the virtues of wind farms off the shore of Long Island [“Fracking for Wind Farms?” Suffolk Closeup, Opinion, July 17].

Mr. Grossman lives in a world that the boomer generation can’t let go of: Nuclear bad, fossil fuel bad, and wind and solar are the new religion of environmental zealots.

The truth is, the path of wind and solar is too expensive and does not meet future energy needs. Facts matter and it’s time to show what the cost of the “green new deal” means to consumers.

The wind farms that are presently under construction will cost the consumer a staggering amount of money.

It’s estimated that the cost of electricity will cost the consumer $150 per megawatt hour, compared to $36 MWH, which is currently the wholesale price.

Billions of dollars of federal money will be needed to cover the premium of this investment. It’s a staggering amount of money to provide clean energy.

To ignore the benefits of fracking and the cost-effectiveness of fracking and natural gas is simply being ignorant of the facts.

Our nation’s gas supply is abundant and cheaper to extract than ever before — but state politicians and environmentalists have made it clear that they have no intention to have this energy be part of the bigger picture.

So, what do we get? We get wind projects that are too costly and don’t meet the needs long term. Our energy needs, with the advent of new AI technology, will exasperate our current energy needs, which will double in the next 10 years. Something that renewable cannot replicate nor can it cost-effectively meet our needs.

South Fork Wind Farm cost $2 billion due to increased interest rates, construction costs and supply chain issues.

Empire Wind 1 received $3 billion in project financing.

Additionally, Sunrise Wind is a $1.5 billion project with 84 turbines.

There’s nothing cost-effective about a project that costs taxpayers more than they benefit from. Paying more for energy is not how economies grow and consumers benefit.

France currently generates its energy from over 70 percent nuclear. The new nuclear SMRS are the future of energy, not only in Europe but also in the United States. To live in the past regarding how we view nuclear is not only dysfunctional, it defies scientific logic regarding how nuclear has evolved.

Ignoring the tsunami headed our way no matter how you view environmental issues will only exacerbate what needs to be accomplished to meet our future energy needs.

Thomas Jones

Sag Harbor