Long-term sleep disturbances in children (1)
Click on link to view article.
Author: 1957chev
World-wide retreat from unreliable, unaffordable, renewables….
Cash cut for solar farms that blight countryside: Energy minister set to announce review of subsidies
- Solar power industry costs the taxpayer an estimated £600 million a year
- Large landowners can claim up to £50,000 a year for hosting a solar farm
- Conservative party will veto any new on-shore wind farms if returned in 2015
Huge solar farms which blight the countryside are to have their funding slashed by the Government, the Daily Mail has learned.
In a further sign of the Conservative shift from away from green politics, sources confirmed that Tory Energy Minister Greg Barker will announce a review of solar industry subsidies in the coming weeks.
The current system of subsidies mean large landowners can scoop up to £50,000 a year from a solar farm, a large chunk of which is paid for through household bills.
Solar industry subsidies cost the British taxpayer £600 million a year, which will increase by a further £125 million if the new projects are completed
Overall the solar industry costs Britain £600million in subsidies a year, a bill that will rise by £125million if planned projects are completed.
Mr Barker wants to take support payments away from the unpopular large solar farms, the majority of which are built on farmland in southern England.
Instead, he wants to increase financial backing for solar panels on the roofs of supermarkets, schools and businesses, where they do not create a visual blight.
Mr Barker’s intervention comes a week after the Tories announced they will make a stand against onshore wind turbines at the next election.
The Conservative Party pledged not to subsidise any new onshore wind farms if they win in 2015, to the delight of their grassroots supporters.
The new announcement will be equally welcomed by constituency parties, particularly in rural areas where solar farms have been built in increasing numbers.
The Conservative Party has vowed not to grant permission to any new on-shore wind turbines and slash subsidies for solar farms if returned in 2015
It will be of particular note in the South West – one of the sunniest part of the country and the biggest target for the solar industry – where the main competition for Conservative candidates are pro-renewable energy Liberal Democrats.
There has been huge expansion in the number of large solar projects over last two years. In 2012 there were 46 large-scale farms in Britain.
By the end of February this year the figure had leaped to 184 projects.
An additional 194 projects have planning permission and are awaiting construction.
The Energy Minister pledged earlier this month that he would not allow ‘unrestricted growth of solar farms in the British countryside’.
Launching the Government’s Solar Strategy, he said he wanted to turn Government offices, factories, supermarkets and car parks into ‘solar hubs’.
And he said he did not want to see solar panels become as unpopular as onshore wind.
‘We have put ourselves among the world leaders on solar and this ambitious strategy will place us right at the cutting edge,’ he said.
‘There is massive potential to turn our large buildings into power stations and we must seize the opportunity this offers to boost our economy as part of our long term economic plan.
‘Solar not only benefits the environment, it will see British job creation and deliver the clean and reliable energy supplies that the country needs at the lowest possible cost to consumers.’
However, the British weather is not always best suited for harnessing the power of the sun
A Whitehall source told the Daily Mail the announcement would be made in the coming weeks: ‘The Solar Strategy set the direction of travel. We are looking at how we follow that up with action.
‘We are keen to boost building-mounted solar, where there is real potential. There are real opportunities there.
‘Solar can continue to be an important part of the energy mix. We are looking at financial and non-financial barriers to this.’
Mr Barker is keen that businesses follow the example of Jaguar Land Rover, which this month installed Brain’s largest rooftop solar panel array at its plant in Staffordshire.
It installed 21,000 photovoltaic panels which will generate more than 30 per cent of factory’s energy requirements.
Britain needs to triple its renewable energy output in the next six years if it is to meet its legally-binding renewable energy targets, to produce 15 per cent of total energy by 2020.
With an increase in onshore wind ruled out by the Conservative leadership, and offshore wind and nuclear sources remaining expensive, rooftop solar arrays are one of the few politically acceptable routes for Government to take.
John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation which campaigns against subsidised green energy, said: ‘This is the classic case of an overheated market getting out of control. It’s quite clear that unless the Government reigns in spending the cap they have set will be broken.
‘This is an industry that should never have been subsidised in the first place.
‘Greg Barker is now trying to get it under control, but the Government should have done this much earlier when they came into power in 2010.
‘This is a hangover from Ed Miliband’s time in control of energy and they are only now getting to grips with it.’
A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: ‘We’re very clear that Government support for any renewable technology has to deliver the best value for money to consumers. As technologies mature and costs of generation come down, those savings have to be passed on to bill payers.
‘We will consult on any changes to current levels of support, but our ultimate goal is for renewable generation to be competitive with other forms of electricity generation.’
Paul Barwell, chief executive at the Solar Trade Association, said: ‘We are disappointed that DECC is launching another review on the solar industry.
‘Investor confidence and market stability is absolutely essential in order to deliver sustained cost reductions for consumers and a healthy solar industry for UK plc.
‘We are obviously on tenterhooks to see what changes DECC is proposing to make.
‘We are also concerned that any excessively hasty push for cheap solar will come at the cost of achieving quality in the solar farm industry, which is essential to retain public support.’
The Ugly Truth about Industrial Wind in Rural Communities!
Boone County: Wind turbines affect lifestyles of rural residents
In bringing wind turbines to Boone County, some are essentially trying to disguise heavy industry as farming. Some have even had the audacity to call their decision to financially benefit from the wind turbines as “freedom to farm.” It would appear, in fact, that they are looking for freedom to have industry.
This letter is intended to share some of the thoughts of a fourth-generation Boone County farmer in regards to the intention of the County to allow, and some neighbors to promote, wind turbines to be built, Northern Boone County.
It is important to recognize that the residents of this rural area have chosen to live in this rural area – to make their livings and to enjoy their lives – because of the residential and agricultural zoning that allows them separation from densely populated and designated industrial areas. The reason that designated industrial areas exist is to protect residential and agricultural areas from the byproducts associated with heavy industry, such as excessive sound, light, stray voltage, heavy traffic, and so on.
In bringing wind turbines to Boone County, some are essentially trying to disguise heavy industry as farming. Some have even had the audacity to call their decision to financially benefit from the wind turbines as “freedom to farm.” It would appear, in fact, that they are looking for freedom to have industry.
It seems to be not too far of a stretch to say that, if we have industrial turbines, why can’t we bring in some other industry? Maybe a big factory, like Motorola*, where they could make some electronics? If we call it an electronics farm, probably some industrious individuals could then say that qualified also as freedom to farm.
Someone else said, in the newspaper, “this could be Northern Boone County’s Chrysler.” Could it be that Northern Boone County does not need, nor does it want, a Chrysler? Aside from the logistical and financial untruths of this statement, the residents living in Northern Boone County have chosen to live in this rural environment because they enjoy the lifestyle offered here. If they wanted to live in the shadow of such a mecca of industry, they would live there.
So why, then, have some farmers agreed to the preposterous contract allowing wind turbines onto their property? One sentiment that could explain some of these behaviors is this: at a meeting last fall, someone said to the County Board “if you don’t give us these wind turbines, what are you going to do for us?” It seems to me that as a farmer, you are responsible for making a living by farming, not looking to the county to help you find a way to find subsidies, not demanding that the county allow you to benefit at the detriment of the health, financial well-being, and general lifestyles of your neighbors.
Last week, I drove to Spring Valley for some unrelated business which took me right past hundreds of windmills. It was interesting that on a nice, clear, breezy day, no wind turbines were turning, not one. I liken the wind turbines directly to Motorola, the story of the huge factory in Harvard being known only too well in this area, because of the similarity between the exciting promises made in building them, and the disappointing reality of both scenarios. I sadly wonder how much money was being made for those “farmers” from that day’s harvest,” just as I cringe at the supposed prosperity offered by the Motorola company for the communities in McHenry County.
It is my hope that members of the County Board will carefully consider the facts in making their decisions regarding the proposed zoning amendment and not be swayed by the unlikely promises or desperate pleas offered by wind turbine advocates.
Randy Williams
Source: http://rockrivertimes.com/2…
Freak Collision With A Wind Turbine Brings Down A Plane Killing 4 In South Dakota
South Dakota surely is abounding with mishaps. After a blizzard wiped out nearly 100,000 cows, a freak accident brought down a plane with 3 on–board passengers.
All 3 passengers, including a person on the ground, died instantly when the plane crashed in South Dakota. The plane is suspected to have collided with a wind turbine at a wind–farm. Debris lay near a wind turbine to the west of South Dakota Highway 47. One of the wind turbines had its blade broken off.
The plane was identified as a single-engine Piper 32, and was traveling from Hereford, Texas, to Gettysburg, South Dakota. The single-engine plane was registered to Donald J. “D.J.” Fischer of Gettysburg, according to the FAA. Though the local authorities haven’t officially released any data, among the deceased was the owner, Fischer, a 30–year, who was believed to be flying the plane himself. Local officials confirmed the identities of 2 other victims: cattlemen Logan Rau and Brent Beitelspacher, who were on the plane. The name of the fourth victim hasn’t been released, though reports indicate his name was Nick Reimann. Beitelspacher and Rau are well-known in the cattle industry, and regularly visited such sales and fairs to trade livestock, reported ABC News
The plane arrived at the Hereford Municipal Airport Saturday and left the next evening, said Hereford City Manager Rick Hanna. Though it crashed in South Dakota, the plane was returning from a big–range cattle sale in Hereford, Texas. The plane broke contact and went missing overnight. The authorities found wreckage on Monday in the South Dakota Wind Energy Center. The wind farm in Hyde County has 27 turbines and only one had its blade broken off, indicating that the plane might have crashed directly into the turbine and then crashing into the ground, reported Amarillo Global News.
While The National Transportation Safety Board is leading the investigation along with the FAA, locals confirmed that the weather was exceptionally foggy and that visibility was poor. Liberal precipitation, combined with fog, might have caused the pilot to lose altitude and misjudge the distance to the ground. Further, owing to the height of the turbine and continual rotation of the blades could have made spotting it difficult. To further complicate the matter, weather reports indicated low–altitude clouds could have extremely complicated the task of maneuvering a single–engine light aircraft. Apparently the South Dakota skies are notorious for causing such mishaps.
There is NO Global Warming Consensus!
‘Global warming’ is rubbish says top professor
He doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ and says ‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money. Neil Hudson met prof Les Woodcock
Climate change is once again back on the agenda following the publication of a number of reports from Government and the UN.
On Monday, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its first report in seven years on the now widely accepted phenomenon known as ‘climate change’.
And this week, the House of Commons Science and Technology committee also published a report, damning the media for confusing ‘fact’ with opinion and pushing the message that, in terms of freak weather, ‘the worst is yet to come’.
In spite of the seemingly overwhelming tide of scientific opinion on the matter, there are still some who steadfastly refuse to jump on the ‘global warming’ bandwagon.
Emeritus Professor Les Woodcock is one of them. When I ask the former NASA scientist about ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, he laughs.
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.
“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.
“Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, its not significant.
“Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and its completely unpredictable beyond around five days.
“We can go back to great floods and Noah’s Ark in the Middle East regions which are now desserts.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”
But surely most of the world’s leaders, scientific community and people in general can’t be wrong can they?
Prof Woodcock hits back: “This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.
“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
He adds: “It’s become almost an industry, as a consequence of this professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world, not just UK – you can’t blame ordinary people with little or no science education for wanting to be seen to be good citizens who care about their grandchildren’s future and the environment.
“In fact, the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.
“Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion. I understand why people defend it when they have spent so long believing in it, people do not like to admit they have been wrong.
“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.
“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
He adds: “Light bulbs are a good example of the contradiction with the green movement. Europe has outlawed the tungsten lightbulb. Tungsten is a harmless metal, like gold, it does not react with anything and yet now, in the name of conserving energy, we have low energy light bulbs full of toxic chemicals, including mercury vapour, which is poisonous. If you smash a low energy lightbulb, the advice from the Department for the Environment is to vacate the room for 15 minutes.”
The Environment Agency website has this to say on low energy lightbulbs: “Energy saving light bulbs and fluorescent light tubes contain small amounts of mercury… mercury is a hazardous substance, these lightbulbs should be disposed of in accordance with hazardous waste regulations.”
Claims of a new elemental ‘state’ challenges scientific opinion and could have implications for business in the future.
Prof Woodcock is also challenging other scientific dogma and now he’s come up with a radical theory about matter.
He explained: “It’s called a fourth state of matter. A colloid is a material in which one phase (solid, liquid or gas) disperses as very small particles or droplets in another (solid, liquid or gas).
“Colloid science is a huge part of condensed matter physics and, indeed everyday life, for example: blood (solid in liquid) milk (emulsion of an oil in water).
“Up to now, the two phases are different materials. Colloids are stabilised by forces at the surface of the dispersed phase which has a very large surface area. In colloid science, the dispersed phase and the continuous phase are two different materials, like air and water.
“There are nine possible different types of colloid: clouds are a colloid of liquid in gas, foam is a colloid of gas in liquid, wet sand is a colloidal dispersion of solid in liquid, dry sand is a dispersion of solid in gas, porous rock above sea level is a colloid of gas (air) in solid (dry sponge), porous rock underwater is colloid of liquid (water) in solid (wet sponge), uncorroded rock is an aggregate of solid in solid (like set concrete), the remaining one is emulsion (liquid in liquid).
“To my knowledge, there is no colloid of gas in gas.
“For a pure material, like water, at low temperatures it was believed there was just solid liquid and gas. In 1873 van der Waals was awarded the Nobel Prize for his PhD thesis on the critical point above which liquid and gas become the same. This hypothesis has been accepted for 140 years but what we find now is that there is no continuity of liquid and gas and no critical point. The liquid and gas phases are separated even up to high supercritical temperatures by [something called a] mesophase which is neither pure liquid nor pure gas nor a hybrid. It is a colloid of gas in liquid or liquid in gas.
“This is a fourth equilibrium state that is not solid liquid or gas, a colloid of the same material dispersed in itself as a different phase is new science.”.
FACTFILE
Carbon dioxide (CO2) was discovered around 1770 by Joseph Priestley, who also discovered oxygen (O2) in 1774, for which he is better known.
A scientist called Le Chatelier proposed the so-called ‘equilibrium law’, which has been used to argue if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, plants will metabolise it faster.
Before the Industrial Revolution there used to be about 27 molecules of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of air – now there are roughly 39 molecules per 100,000
molecules of air.
Donald Trump faces new wind farm hell at Turnberry
Reposted from:
A CONTROVERSIAL wind farm could be installed overlooking a luxury golf resort the flamboyant US tycoon Donald Trump is set to take over in a £35 million deal, it has been claimed.
The news comes after billionaire and arch wind power sceptic lost a high profile court battle against the Scottish Government’s approval of an offshore wind farm at his course at the Menie Estate in Aberdeenshire.
However, a government agency said an offshore turbine could be installed on land near the prestigious Turnberry course in South Ayrshire, where Trump is reported to be on the verge of making his latest acquisition.
Marine Scotland has identified a 116-square mile area for possible offshore wind development – off the Ayrshire coast just 3.5 miles from the shoreline at Turnberry as part of its policy of promoting renewable and green energy.
The Scottish government agency in a document called “Scoping study for Offshore Wind Farm Development in Scottish Waters” earmarked the land at Turnberry as possible land for future renewable energy development.
Trump, who currently owns 16 golf resorts around the globe, is understood to be close to buying the Turnberry course from owners Leisurecorp – a subsidiary of the Dubai government.
However, Trump, who is a longstanding opponent of wind farms, could pull out of the investment at Turnberry it was claimed by the head of Holyrood’s energy committee Murdo Fraser.
The billionaire has already called a halt to any future major investment at his Menie golf resort including the development of a luxury 140-bedroom hotel, due to the SNP government’s backing for the expansion of wind farms.
Nationalist ministers were accused of a “gung-ho approach” to renewables and of putting jobs and investment at risk with their plans to rely on wind farms for the bulk of Scotland’s energy needs.
Mr Fraser, a Tory MSP, warned that Trump would not pursue investment in Scotland and was almost certain to scrap any plans to buy Turnberry
He said: “Given Mr Trump’s aggressive opposition to the project off his Menie resort, it’s hard to imagine him pursuing this while the possibility of offshore wind remains.
“It’s another example of the Scottish Government’s gung-ho approach to turbines potentially costing jobs and investment.
“Even without Mr Trump’s interest, the idea of turbines looming over one of Scotland’s most famous landmarks is appalling.
“There is definitely a place for offshore wind, but it has to be in a place where it isn’t going to ruin the landscape.”
Trump previously accused Alex Salmond of being “hell bent on destroying Scotland’s coastline” with wind power in his longstanding battle with the SNP leader on the issue.
The businessman in a letter to Mr Salmond said: “Do you want to be known for centuries to come as ‘Mad Alex – the man who destroyed Scotland’?
Brilliant Liberal Election Poster….from Quixotes Last Stand!
Health Departments Refuse to Acknowledge Complaints About Wind Turbines!
HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS FINALLY REALIZING WIND TURBINES ARE NOT GOOD
Edgar County Watchdog — April 27, 2014
ILLINOIS (ECWd) –
We recently received a letter received from a Divisions Director of a Memorial Hospital takes a shot at an article written touting the grand benefits of wind turbines mitigating the effects of climate change. I have redacted the name of the hospital and the name of the writer to protect them from unnecessary harassment by people who may not agree with him:
I know you have been swamped with many items on your plate, but I wanted to revisit the email I sent you in February regarding Wind Turbines and hospital’s role in ensuring the safety and well being of their communities. The below article demonstrates the lack of education executives of hospitals have regarding the harm and health effects of some “natural/green” energy sources. Even though they are marketed as being “green,” it is obvious to families that have been harmed that they have not done their research to protect their community members. As my CEO, xxxxxxxxx, has always said to the staff here at xMH, ”We offer many services that do not financially benefit our organization, but offer them to meet our community’s needs.” In addition, xMH’s mission: To positively influence the health of those we serve, makes a loud statement in this situation. Wind Turbines do not positively influence the health of any family, child, or other living creature, and if proper education is conducted, hospitals executives in our State will become mindful of the harm already being done in their communities or prevent harm in the future.
Should you wish to meet or talk to learn more on how we can help you educate hospital executives (especially those who serve rural areas), feel free to give xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxx, a call or drop him a note. His contact information and the article that prompted this email is below.
This is the article that prompted the email exchange (CLICK HERE).
This kind of makes you wonder what the real agenda of the Vermilion County Health Department is when they refuse to take complaints on Invenergy’s California Ridge wind turbines, especially now that a local school superintendent and a hospital director have written letters referencing the same things.
Carmen Krogh will Speak at University of Waterloo….
Carmen Krogh’s upcoming event. Please plan to be there, if at all possible!
Those Aussies are all set, to kick Wind to the Curb! Wonderful!
Alan Moran: Scrap the RET and let Australian business compete again
April 29, 2014 by 1 Comment
Alan Moran: scrap the RET and save our industry.
Stop renewable subsidies to allow lower electricity prices and competitive industry
Catallaxy Files
Alan Moran
24 April 2014
The RET Review brought the usual howls of anguish from the rent seekers concerned that regulatory measures will cease and that they will need to sell their wind and solar products on the open market. That means they would need to persuade people to pay three times the price they are already paying.
Support for the rent seekers is coming strong from the usual green left anti-capitalists, including THEIR ABC.
This piece on the Drum explains the issues then goes full pelt in support of the continuation of the rort. It includes a clip by Sarah Ferguson who, along with her husband Tony Jones and the dozens of other far leftists, is a major shareholder in the tax financed propaganda agency. In the clip the ACCI’s Burchell Wilson stoutly defends the consumer’s right to avoid exploitation by the politically correct.
The RET scheme with the feed-in tariffs for roof-top solar already adds 7 per cent to the cost of electricity to households, a cost that will more than double on present policies. By 2020 the scheme, if unchanged, will add over 40 per cent to the wholesale cost of electricity and largely negate the benefits from the demise of the carbon tax (should that occur). It is little wonder that major energy intensive industries are departing Australia – our prices have risen to be among the highest in the world from among the lowest less than a decade ago.
The RET review does not have the usual clutch of green left or docile functionaries that have previously characterised such reviews. Led by a highly successful businessman, Dick Warburton, there is no likelihood of a repeat of the previous pattern of reviews that ramped up the scheme. In the past we had:
- Howard announcing a scheme in 2001 which would subsidise an innocuous “two per cent of additional energy”; that was trebled to 9,500 GWh by a hand-picked team established to interpret this.
- A proposal in 2003 by the hapless Grant Tambling for an increase to 20,000 GWh, which John Howard, having come to his senses, rejected.
- And as a “compromise”, Rudd and Turnbull agreeing to the present 20 per cent of electricity to be provided by subsidised exotics, mainly wind, defined as 45,000 GWh by 2020.
The rent seekers know the game is up and there is no prospect of an economy-busting increase in their feed. They know they cannot even expect Gillard’s Climate Change Authority placepeople’s solution of retaining the scheme as is and are falling back on one that which would reduce it to comprise the currently expected 20 per cent of electricity.
The presently expected 20 per cent by 2020 shaves off at least a quarter of the existing RET’s 45,000 GWh because regulatory and tax boosts have caused energy demand to drop.
Alternative approaches would range from cancelling the scheme’s subsidies for any new proposals to doing something akin to the Spanish Government’s approach and ceasing to pay any subsidies, even on windmills in the ground.
The review is to report later this year and is taking submissions until May 15.
Alan Moran
Alan mentions “the usual howls of anguish from rent seekers” that followed the announcement of the RET review. Well, after the meeting held by the panel last week in Sydney – where the panel spelled out the review’s real mission (determining the cost impacts of renewable energy in the electricity sector) – those “howls” have become a blood-curdling banshee scream (see our post here).
But we can’t fathom why? You see, the greentard bloggers have been telling us for years now that wind power is “free” and already competitive with conventional power generation sources – it’s a “line” they still run, but now it’s about to be tested.
If they’re right – then the wind industry won’t miss the mandatory Renewable Energy Target at all.
The wind industry simply won’t need the RET to force retailers to take wind power ahead of conventional power under the threat of being hit with a $65 fine (the “shortfall charge“) for every MW they fall short of the mandated target.
And they should have no trouble at all finding retail customers willing to pay 3-4 times the cost of conventional power, delivered at crazy, random intervals – and also willing to find some alternative for the 70% of the time they’ll be freezing (or boiling) and sitting in the dark – wood stoves and candles, say?
And they’ll have no need for a further $50 plus billion worth of Renewable Energy Certificates that – under the current target – will be issued to wind power generators and added to power consumers’ bills between now and 2031.
But, from the hysterical hectoring now coming from the Clean Energy Council, the wind industry and its other parasites about saving the RET, we think actions belie words. Or, as the Americans put it: “money talks and bullshit walks”.
Wind industry spin: you can fill your boots with it.
"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising... 