I have just read Clair Wood’s column on wind power (BDN Sept. 17). May I put a different spin on it?

“… California produces more than 10 percent of its requirements (from) wind, solar, biomass and geothermal souurces.” The wind component is about 1 percent — the great bulk of the renewable is in the form of geothermal and biomass.

“… wind farms … generate more than 2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity …(per year).” There are 16,000 wind machines in California spread over 27,000 acres to produce this energy. To put this energy contribution in perspective, Maine Yankee routinely produces between 4 and 6 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.

Dr. Wood states many times the potential of wind energy in “megawatts.” This is a misleading notation for wind energy. Niagara Mohawk (a utility in New York State) put out a press release that said, “Two 360-kilowatt (.360megawatt) wind turbines being tested by Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. produced 46,810 kilowatt-hours of electricity in March of 1993 … The turbines operated 29 of the 31 days.”

This is the kind of hype we hear from most wind energy promoters. If one were to multiply the 360 times 24 hours per day times the 31 days in March, the result is over 500,000 kwh of electricity — the actual units generated less than 50,000 kwh. This is like saying that I have an automobile with a 100 horsepower engine, but I very seldom can get it out of the garage. When they say it operated 29 out of the 31 days, they mean that the propeller went around most of the time, but did not produce much electricity.

Wind is a very fickle resource. In spite of this, however, we should move ahead. I hope the proposed wind system for western Maine is constructed. That installation would mean that we can pull back on the throttle of the fossil fuel plants when the wind blows, and that is important. Richard C. Hill Old Town