On June 29 your paper ran an editorial stating your aim is to report accurately. Your closing sentence invites a response when a lack of balance is detected.

Well, here is a response to the recent column (August 3) in the ongoing saga of Melancthon's industrial wind turbines written by, naturally, Wes Keller.

Mr. Keller states that the turbines were generating "as much as 85% of its nameplate capacity of 67.5 megawatts" during the record-setting heat wave last Tuesday. According to my calculator, 85% would mean an output of 57.3 MW. The wind plant never reached that level on that day. In the next sentence, Mr. Keller says that during the five-hour period from noon to 5 p.m., output varied from 46 to 52 MW (68%-75.5%). These outputs are still a fair way from 85%, so where does this number come from, I wonder. I guess it is a nice round number that sounds kind of impressive.

Mr. Keller does state that the wind plant was off-line that morning. It was in fact off-line for about 27 hours prior to its restart just before noon on Tuesday. (Mr. Carnegie does say that the plant was off-line from 8 a.m. the previous day)

Mr. Keller states that "Ontario's demand for electricity was "approaching 28,000 MW's." A record was set that day, but power consumption was 27,005 MW's, a long way from that. (What's an extra 995 extra megawatts anyway? How about 19 Melancthon wind plants, 861 turbines, on a great day!)

Canadian Hydro Developers' representatives, Mr. Keating and Mr. Carnegie, can be excused for the spin they put in their quotes that end

the article. After all, they are just doing the job they are paid to do. But should the reader expect some counterweight to these statements in a "balanced" article? I think so.

Mr. Carnegie says that the wind plant's operating "near capacity" (75.5% however brief is pretty good when your average production is about 20%) during the heat wave "assists in dispelling the myth that wind power is not available on key summertime demand days." What about July 13-14 when the temperatures were in the 30's and wind plant production over a 48-hour period had two brief spikes of 7 and 8 MW, but for most of that time could not break 5 MW (with about eight hours of zero MW)? What about May 29-30, when temps were again in the 30's and except for a 1 a.m. spike of 34 MW, most of the day the plant struggled to break 10 MW? Seems to me the "myth" is still going strong. We did not read anything of "balance" offered here by Mr. Keller.

Mr. Carnegie says "clearly wind is helping to alleviate the need for power importation..." Well ... sort of. Ontario imported 1,776 MW that day, 34 times what Melancthon produced (briefly) that day. A small help, but I am not going to get too excited about it, and I would not bet the farm that there is any significant output on the next record hot day.

Perhaps if Canadian Hydro's cheerleader were to come off the field, set down his pom-poms long enough to do a little research and some factchecking, the reader of this paper might get a more "accurate' and "balanced" report.

Dennis Sanford

Melancthon