To a new one!
To the report “Wind farm in the forest: everything at the beginning?” from January 24:
As a supporter of wind energy, I voted for the wind farm in the forest. However, with very bad feelings about the massive intervention in the forest. Now that Seehofer’s idiotic 10-hour rule – hopefully also in Bavaria – is to be overturned, there is a chance for a new start outside of the forest. There’s plenty of open space in the county where a wind farm could be built!
Wolfram Franke, Vaterstetten
You could have seen it coming
On the same topic:
Projecting and building wind turbines, solar parks, etc., and collecting fees for services, that was the core of the business model of “Green City AG”. In 2017, seven out of eight of the wind farms in which the company was involved made losses. In 2018 it was eight out of nine and in 2019 six out of eight. Sustainable management looks different. This also makes the strategy for the wind turbines in the forest clear. Realize the project by hook or by crook in order to collect services. This also explains Green City AG’s refusal to release the wind measurement data to the public for examination. Possibly the question of profitability would then have been raised more strongly. In this bankruptcy, bona fide citizens will lose a lot of money. To finance the Sindersdorf wind farm, for example, “Kraftwerkssparte III”, a sub-company of “Green City AG”, had issued fixed-interest bonds at an interest rate of four percent. To be fair, investors have been made aware of the risk of a total loss. Well, that has now happened.
This financing model should probably also come into play for the wind turbines in the forest. I am very excited to see how the wind turbine in Hamberg will continue. Equity is also in rapid descent here. It is to be hoped that every other potential investor can calculate better. Then he would notice that in our windless region, the operation of wind turbines is a bad business.
Udo Engelhardt, Baldham
Inadmissible mixing of two topics
To the interview “Jesus’ actions are not a conspiracy theory” from January 18:
This form of interviewing your editor Mr. Korbinian Eisenberger pushes me! He mixes here the reasons clearly answered by Pastor Mutonkole-Muyombi, why he forbids the demonstration, with the argument about the biblical meaning and the corresponding hermeneutics of the gospel. As the reason for the ban on demonstrations on the church grounds, Pastor Mutonkole-Muyombi gives the fact that very different groups would gather there, a “mixture of opponents of vaccination, conspiracy theorists and radical groups” and that there was “no one” who “identified himself with his name responsible, with whom one could discuss the course of the demo. In terms of content, it is also impossible to understand the motives of the demonstrators.”
Mr. Eisenberger does not deepen the difficulties I understand with the participants, who play down their protest as a “walk” and do not name organizers and those responsible, as is appropriate for a professional demonstration in the sense of freedom of expression and regulatory law. I myself have studied Catholic theology and have organized multiple political demonstrations against the NATO double-track decision and against the injustice in Latin American countries, and I live near Grafing.
Andreas Peteranderl, Moosach
Letters to the editor do not represent an editorial expression of opinion, may be shortened and published digitally, stating your name and place of residence. Letters without full name will not be published. Please always give your address and telephone number if you have any questions.