I was happy to read the insightful and truthful editorial concerning siting of wind turbines on Pennsylvania's ridges (Oct. 8). It is frustrating that scientific information exists suggesting the amount of electricity that could be generated won't have a significant effect on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Yet, this industry is supported by the Rendell administration and PennFuture.

How can this be when the American Wind Energy Association doesn't even rank our state in their top 20 for wind potential? It makes you question why these companies are being wooed by the administration and PennFuture. Could it be that our governor just wants a cosmetic "green" face on our state to make us feel like we are doing the right thing? And is it just coincidence that the current president of PennFuture was a former member of the Pennsylvania Utility Commission?

Most people I know are very much in support of utilizing alternative energy sources, including wind. The primary point of contention is the insistence that ridgetops are the only places that they can be placed to generate "viable" amounts of electricity, even though studies have shown that existing sites in the state only produce about 30 percent of their rated capacity. Is this really worth sacrificing our mountains, wildlife and scenic views for? GARY A. MILLER Altoona