To the editor:
It is very interesting to see your report "Wind Turbine manufacturer to close its Ebensburg plant." The plant was 8 years old. It closed according to the founders because "the shift in the market from Pennsylvania to the southwestern United States." Further a statement was made: "The company's business model relied heavily on federal subsidies and wasn't sustainable."
In other words the owners had "milked the cow" until she was completely dry and not bred back. The ending statement blamed "market conditions" and not "reality" as far as wind power being an economical alternative in Pennsylvania. What is the difference?
How many people actually think the founders and money makers of "Gamesa" wind power energy lost money? Read the article then in your mind ask: "Why did they close if wind power is an actual viable producer of electricity in Pennsylvania?"
Like I related to the wind mills in upper New York state, is this wind power in Pennsylvania a way to make money for those who promote and initially set up the program? Is it a viable source of power in this area? Would those who are promoting it put their money into the plan with no strings attached and accept money only if and when it makes a profit, other than the money from the government?
In a closing statement, I wonder how much the founder and promoters took out as "return on investment," "salary," "return of principal" and "interest or dividends."
John E. Brockett