Faux-green

The Beginning of the End, for Australia’s Wind Weasels!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Senate Recommendations Spell ‘DOOM’ for the Australian Wind Industry

August 1, 2015 by

atomic-bomb-e1355417893840

****

The wind industry in Australia, already belted, battered and bruised, has just been delivered what STT considers the fatal blow.

On Friday just gone, the front page of The Australian carried the headline “Call to curb wind subsidies” in an “exclusive” penned by STT Champion, Graham Lloyd – the full report appeared on page 7 – in which Graham provides a sneak preview of the recommendations made in the final report of the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud, due out next week.

Canberra urged to strip billions from windfarm subsidies
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
31 July 2015

A Senate committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20.

The Abbott government is being urged to strip billions more from subsidies to wind farms in the final report of a Senate committee that has already pushed renewable energy investment to favour solar.

In its recommendations, the committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20.

It also wants the issue of renewable energy certificates restricted to projects in states that adopt federal regulations on infrasound and low frequency noise.

The final report of the Senate investigation into wind farms and their possible health effects will be tabled in parliament on Monday.

The report has been circulated and details have been provided to The Australian.

The call for time limits on subsidies and federal noise oversight is likely to provoke a backlash from the wind industry, already reeling from a federal government directive to the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation that it stop lending to wind projects.

The lending freeze was agreed with crossbench senators after the federal government adopted the committee’s interim report recommendations.

The deal included crossbench support to include forest waste in the revised renewable energy target legislation.

In a letter tabled in the Senate, Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the federal government would respond “actively and in good faith” to the Senate committee findings.

The final report says a five-year limit on renewable energy certificates, down from more than 20 years, recognised that wind turbine technology was well developed and a “mature” industry.

A ban on issuing RECS to wind farms in states that do not adopt federal guidelines on infrasound is designed to force the hand of governments that rejected a national approach at the last Council of Australian Governments meeting.

At present, noise guidelines are administered by the states, but renewable energy certificates are issued by the commonwealth.

Renewable energy companies are issued RECS for the amount of power they generate.

The RECS are sold to power authorities, which must secure a set portion of their supply from renewable sources under the RET.

The cost of buying RECS is added to consumer electricity bills as a subsidy for renewable energy over other sources of power.

Crossbench senators are confident the federal government will accept the recommendations and the measures can be passed through both houses. Adoption will require legislative changes to the Clean Energy Act.

Legislation would require the support of six non-government senators in the upper house.

The Senate committee has been particularly concerned by complaints from people living near wind farms who believe low-frequency noise and infrasound is having an impact on their health.

The existence of health impacts from wind turbines has been rejected as unproven by health authorities, but as the number of complaints increases the issue is being investigated worldwide.

The final Senate report recommends the scientific committee have the power to provide “guidance, advice and oversight” to bodies funding and undertaking research into infrasound.
The Australian

Nice work, Graham!

As an aside, it’s the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 that would be amended (not the Clean Energy Act) – s40 of which sets the target.

However, no doubt due to his desire to be seen as objective, Graham slips a little when he suggests that the health impacts of low-frequency noise and infrasound are somehow a matter of “belief”.

When the next-door neighbour’s rooster fires up at 5 o’clock in the morning (every morning) – and wakes up the entire household, the interruption to decent sleep is viewed pretty dimly by those deprived of it: tempers start to fray over bleary-eyed breakfasts; and forced weariness takes its toll on the functional ability of Foghorn Leghorn’s victims as the day rolls on.

foghorn

****

The same goes for those with neighbours who love cranking up AC/DC at two in the morning – or the early rising gardener, who whips his lawn mower into action well before sun-up on Sunday.

The accepted right to unbroken sleep is the reason why there are strict rules to prohibit rowdy roosters residing in cities and towns; the curbs placed on firing up mowers and leaf blowers before breakfast; and shutting down live music venues in built up areas after midnight – sleep is sacrosanct – the consequences of depriving people of routine sleep are so obvious it goes without saying:

Wind Turbine Noise Deprives Farmers and Truckers of Essential Sleep & Creates Unnecessary Danger for All

As a contrast to the merciless, around-the-clock cacophony dished out by wind power outfits on their neighbours – which all levels of government expect them to tolerate without so much as a whimper – STT noticed this story from Western Australia a while back, where an argument between neighbours over late-night festivities resulted in the (alleged) murder of the party complaining about the noise interfering with his family’s right to a decent night’s sleep: Man, 45, dies after disturbance in Perth suburb of Seville Grove

If someone is complaining about losing sleep due to night-time noise – that complaint is taken as an accepted fact – and their “belief” in the cause has got nothing to do with it: prove that the noise was being generated and the rest follows.

For every other kind of noise source, the authorities take those complaints seriously – roosters get the chop; police get the noisy-neighbour to wind down their stereos; pubs allowing rock bands to rock-on past their curfews, face licensing penalties; and eager-beaver gardeners are told by EPAs or Councils to leave the lawn mowers and leaf blowers in the shed, until the neighbourhood has had a chance of a leisurely weekend lie in – or to expect to get whacked with fines if they don’t: for a few of the rules, see the Victorian EPA’s site here.

But, for some strange reason wind power outfits are permitted (or, rather, encouraged) to operate these things around the clock, with noise ‘rules’ so lax as to be risible.

The impact of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound is well-known to the wind industry – its direct causal impact on sleep deprivation was documented in a decade’s worth of research by NASA – top-tier research that has been ignored by regulators and health authorities – like the disgraced NHMRC – and covered up by the wind industry ever since:

Three Decades of Wind Industry Deception: A Chronology of a Global Conspiracy of Silence and Subterfuge

When farmers being paid $200,000 a year to host these things complain bitterly about sleep deprivation as a regular event, then STT is pretty much satisfied that the noise and vibration generated by turbines is causing what the World Health Organisation has considered to be an adverse health effect in and of itself (for over 60 years):

SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Destroying Noise

Which brings us to the Senate’s recommendation to prevent Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs aka LGCs) being issued to wind power outfits operating in States that refuse to adopt federal regulations on infrasound and low-frequency noise – regulations that will be drawn up as another of the Senate’s recommendations.

The Federal Government has always taken the line that noise regulation is a matter for the States. A position which rudely ignores the fact that the wind industry would not exist in the absence of the massive federally mandated subsidies set up by the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET).

It’s a line that’s been spun by PM Tony Abbott who says that the “sites of these things is a matter for the state governments”.

STT has likened that pitch to the ‘defence’ run by the bloke who sells the sawn-off shotgun to an armed robber.

armed robber

****

Sure, the illegal firearm vendor didn’t actually pull the trigger and send a bank teller for an unscheduled trip to the morgue. However, in the absence of the weapon supplied, there may have been no robbery – certainly not an “armed” one – and no harm done to bank tellers, in any event.

In the criminal law, the concept of liability for those who provide the arms to known bandits is picked up in the concepts of accessorial liability – the ol’ chestnuts about aiding and abetting, accessory before the fact and all that.

In this case, though, the Coalition is not only providing the weapon, from now until 2031 it will be supplying the offenders with an endless stream of ammunition – in the form of around 500 million Renewable Energy Certificates; designed to be worth over $90 – as young Gregory Hunt calls them: “a massive $93 per tonne carbon tax” – the $46 billion cost of which will be borne by all Australian power consumers (as we detail below).

The Senators on the Inquiry have worked out that the only way to prevent wind power outfits from stealing any more Australian homes is to disarm the bandits by tying the ‘entitlement’ to wallow in millions of RECs to a meaningful noise standard.

The other “killer” recommendation is that the REC Tax/Subsidy paid to wind power outfits be limited to a period of five years.

There aren’t many people – outside of the parrots profiting from it – who actually understand the fact that the REC is designed as a perpetual subsidy to wind power outfits – recouped through retail power bills as a TAX on all Australian power consumers.

Outside of those engaged in the rort – or keen to aid and abet those involved – hardly anybody understands the quantum of the subsidy; who pays it; and its longevity. And that, until recently, included the Senators involved in the Inquiry.

STT hears that – at the very first hearing in Portland in Victoria on 30 March this year – a number of them were gobsmacked to learn that the REC subsidy is not limited to last for 2 or 3 years, say – but is designed to run for more than a generation – from 2001 to 2031.

STT has set it out before, and for the uninitiated, we’ll set out again.

A REC is issued for every MWh of wind power dispatched to the grid; and a shortfall penalty of $65 per MWh applies to a retailer for every MWh that they fall short of the LRET target – the target is meant to be met by retailers purchasing and surrendering RECs in an effort to avoid the penalty.

Under the latest 33,000 GWh ultimate annual target, assuming that RECs hit $93, as the penalty inevitably begins to apply (RECs are currently trading around $52), the total cost added to power consumers’ bills will top $46 billion (495,600,000 x $93).

The LRET ‘system’ was designed around RECs being worth $93, with the $65 per MWh shortfall charge setting the ‘floor price’ for RECs, and the tax treatment of RECs taking their value to over $90.

Power consumers pay the full cost of the RECs issued to wind power outfits – on top of the wholesale price paid by retailers – in relation to collecting the cost of the REC Subsidy from power consumers in what can only be described as a TAX on retail power bills, Origin Energy’s Grant King correctly puts it:

“[T]he subsidy is the REC, and the REC certificate is acquitted at the retail level and is included in the retail price of electricity”.

It’s power consumers that get lumped with the “retail price of electricity” and, therefore, the cost of the REC Subsidy paid to wind power outfits. To call that arrangement anything other than a TAX is pure political and PR nonsense.

To give some idea of how ludicrously generous the REC Subsidy is, consider a single 3 MW turbine. If it operated 24 hours a day, 365 days a year – its owner would receive 26,280 RECs (24 x 365 x 3). Assuming, generously, a capacity factor of 35% (the cowboys from wind power outfits often wildly claim more than that) that single turbine will receive 9,198 RECs annually. At $93 per REC, that single turbine will, in 12 months, rake in $855,414 in REC Subsidy.

turbine collapse 9

****

But wait, there’s more: that subsidy doesn’t last for a single year. Oh no.

A turbine that started operating this year will continue to receive the REC subsidy for 16 years, until 2031 – such that a single 3 MW turbine spinning today can pocket a total of $13,686,624 over the remaining life of the LRET.

Not a bad little rort – considering the machine and its installation costs less than $3 million; and that being able to spear it into some dimwit’s back paddock under a landholder agreement costs a piddling $10-15,000 per year. State-sponsored theft never looked easier or more lucrative! For a more detailed analysis on the impact of the shortfall penalty and the REC Tax/Subsidy see:

Out to Save their Wind Industry Mates, Macfarlane & Hunt Lock-in $46 billion LRET Retail Power Tax

There has never been a subsidy scam like it in the history of the Commonwealth.

When General Motors Holden found itself in financial trouble a couple of years back, the Coalition – railing about ‘corporate welfare’ – decided to stump up a mere $100 million as a ‘rescue package’ – nowhere near enough to have salvaged the troubled carmaker, its 2,000 workers and the tens of thousands more working for the components manufacturers that supported it: Tony Abbott announces $100 million package for Holden workers

Starved of Federal support, and done in by over-generous Union ‘won’ wages and conditions, the last Holden will dribble off the production line early next year – and 10-20,000 South Australians will end up scrambling for manufacturing or mining jobs that simply do not exist:

SA – Australia’s ‘Wind Power Capital’ – Pays the World’s Highest Power Prices and Wonders Why it’s an Economic Basket Case

Now, consider the contrast with the Coalition’s Croesus-like corporate welfare directed at the wind industry.

The wind industry exists – and ONLY exists – to wallow in a subsidy stream which will hit $3 billion annually in 2019; and which continues at that colossal rate until 2031.

True it is, the PM is keen to R.E.D.U.C.E the LRET subsidy for these things, but plenty of other Coalition lightweights and wind industry shills – like Dan Tehan, Sarah Henderson and young Gregory Hunt (and the wind industry plants that work in his office) believe that the cost of the massive subsidies directed to wind power outfits under the LRET is magically picked up by fairies and pixies; and that the policy is a no-cost, family and business friendly vote winner.

However, the Senators on the Inquiry – including Coalition Members,Chris Back and Matt Canavan – have worked out that the truth is all the other way – which has led to the recommendation of a 5 year limit to the rort. That limit will kill the wind industry stone-dead: no ‘investor’ will stump up a penny from here-on, unless the subsidies are written in stone, to last indefinitely.

The wind industry, its parasites and spruikers didn’t see it coming – and have been reduced to wailing about their imminent demise. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

senate review

There is Absolutely NO Doubt About It….Wind Turbines Make People SICK!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

FACT: Wind Turbines Make You Sick

“From a legal point of view what is important is that the courts, including the Supreme Court, accepted the expert evidence of the authors of this paper concerning the terrible toll that infrasound and low-frequency noise has on both humans and animals, whilst it rejected the opposing evidence led by the wind industry lawyers.”

By Neil van Dokkum (B. SocSc; LLB; LLM; PGC Con.Lit)

Neil van Dokkum
Neil van Dokkum is a law lecturer.

I have just finished reading a fascinating article “Low Frequency Noise-Induced Pathology: Contributions Provided by the Portuguese Wind Turbine Case” written by Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, MD, Senior Surgical Pathologist; Mariana Alves-Pereira, PhD, Biomedical Engineer; Augusto Martinho Pimenta, MD, Senior Neurologist; and José Reis Ferreira, MD, Senior Pneumologist; all resident and practising in Lisbon, Portugal. The authors were involved in giving evidence to the Portuguese courts culminating in a Supreme Court action.

Their findings were presented and accepted as expert evidence to Portuguese courts which eventually resulted in the wind farm developer being ordered by the Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal to remove the wind turbines from the vicinity of the applicant’s property (Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal. Decision No. 2209/08.oTBTVD.L1.S1, 30 May 2013).

These legal proceedings involved four wind turbines (although more were built subsequent to the commencement of the legal proceedings).
The four wind turbines were located adjacent to the family farm as follows:

  • No. 1: 321.83m from the house and 182.36m from the stables,
  • No. 2: 539.92m from the house and 439.64m from the stables,
  • No. 3: 579.86m from the house and 565.50m from the stables,
  • No. 4: 642.08m from the house and 503m from the stables.

The distances are important to Irish readers as our current guidelines suggest a clearance of 500m from residential homes (which wind developers routinely ignore in any event). Therefore, three of the listed turbines would be in a permissible position in Ireland.

What are expert witnesses?

As a general rule, witnesses can only testify about facts. It is the task of the jury, or the judge if there is no jury, to draw inferences from the facts presented in court, and witnesses must not be allowed to usurp this central function.

There are two notable exceptions to this general rule. First, expert witnesses may give opinion evidence, which is their primary function. Secondly, non-experts are sometimes allowed to give opinion evidence in defined circumstances, usually where their evidence would not make any sense if it were not accompanied by opinion.

Generally, a witness is considered an expert on the basis of their experience, training and knowledge. An expert witness is there to assist the court in coming to a conclusion in areas where the trial judge or jury might not have considerable expertise.

The expert witness is called for his or her expertise and as such should regard themselves as ‘neutral’ witnesses, there to help the court rather than to help one of the litigating parties. Indeed, the authors point this out very clearly at the end of their paper, saying that they are only interpreting the evidence, and in fact support the push towards renewable energy.

A famous decision setting out what is expected of expert witnesses is National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v. Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 68 Where the court held:

  • Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.
  • An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise.
  • An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.
  • An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.
  • If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one.
  • If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his view on a material matter having read the other side’s report or for any other reason, such change of view should be communicated to the other side.

What is also important to remember is that an expert witness must be recognised as such by the court. The party who wants to lead expert evidence has to prove to the court that their witness is indeed an expert in their field. The opposition (in this case the wind industry) is entitled to attack the qualifications of the expert witness and attempt to convince the court that the witness should not be allowed to give his or her expert evidence. They can also call an opposing expert witness.

In this case the Portuguese Supreme Court not only accepted the expertise of the authors of this article and allowed them to give evidence, but the Court also preferred their evidence to that of the expert witnesses used by the wind industry, whose evidence was rejected.

So what was that evidence?

The family in question consisted of a father, a mother, and two children. Before the wind farm was built, the eldest son was a high achiever and regularly came top of his class at school. The authors take up the story:

“The Industrial Wind Turbines were installed at a distance of 321-642 m from the residential home. Complaints of sleep disturbances were first reported in December 2006. In mid-March, Mr. and Mrs. R received a letter from their 12-year-old son’s schoolteacher, expressing concern for the growing difficulties in an otherwise outstanding student, “particularly in English, Humanities and Physical Education. He progressed in Mathematics, which is a field that naturally attracts his type of intelligence. However, in the above mentioned coursework, it seems that [the child] has lost interest, makes a lesser effort, as if he were permanently tired. In Physical Education, an abnormal amount of tiredness is also observed. Is [the child] leading a healthy life? Does he sleep sufficient hours during the night?”
This immediately prompted the parents to begin legal proceedings and seek medical assistance, and thus, this team’s first contact with Family R.”

The family hired an accredited acoustical firm to conduct continuous acoustical monitoring both inside and outside their home, for a period of 2 weeks, and that included real time wind speed data. Numerical data regarding acoustical and wind speed information, independently collected by the accredited firm, was then provided to these experts (the abovementioned authors) for analysis and these experts deemed the turbine noise to be dangerous to the health of this family.

On that basis the family were sent for medical examination. The authors summarise the findings of the examinations (my emphasis):

“The 12-yearold child received a neurological test assessing cortical nerve conduction times: P300 Event Related Evoked Potentials (ERP). P300 ERP disclosed nerve conduction time to be 352 ms, when expected value should be closer to 300 ms. Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials (BAEP) disclosed asymmetries in the right and left nerve conduction times, and the right I-V interval interlatency value was at the threshold of normal (4.44 ms). Mr. and Mrs. R. disclosed slight to moderate pericardial thickening: between 1.7 mm and 2.0 mm (normal for the equipment in use: <1.2mm) [12]. Respiratory drive was below normalized values in both adults (46%-53%, normal: >60%), suggesting the existence ofbrain lesions in the areas responsible for the neurological control of breathing.

Observations made by the family included animal behavioural changes: Horses were seen to lie down and sleep during the day; Dogs were lethargic, and no longer jumped up requesting attention from their owners. Ants simply disappeared.”

Remember that these examinations are carried out in 2007, just a few months after the wind turbines are erected, and already the effects are dramatic.

Alarmed by these symptoms, the mother and children moved into an apartment in the city in 2007. The boy’s health improved immediately and dramatically:

“After the summer vacation in 2007, spent away from the farm, the 12-year-old child had again received the P300 ERP examination that, this time, disclosed nerve conduction times much closer to normal: 302 ms. In 2010, this child was again an outstanding student, top of his class.”

The father, Mr. R, did not have the option of moving into town, as he had to stay with the family business on the farm. In contrast to his son, his health continued to deteriorate rapidly in those three years between 2007 and 2010:

“Over these 3 years, Mr. R’s health and wellbeing had continuously and visibly deteriorated: intolerance to (any) noise had become more severe; situations compatible with an unregulated sympathetic nervous system increased in frequency; and cognitive impairment became more pronounced.”

I would like a medical person to comment on this but to me this sounds like the father became seriously noise-sensitive, nervous and jumpy, and confused in his thinking.

The family’s business was also threatened:

“Between 2000 and 2006, 13 healthy thoroughbred Lusitanian horses were born and raised on Mr. R’s property. All horses born after 2007 (after the wind farm was erected) on his farm developed asymmetric flexural limb deformities. Besides the IWT (Industrial Wind Turbines) installed in November 2006, no other changes (constructions, industries, etc) were introduced into the area during this time.”

This echoes the findings of another study detailing limb deformities in horses caused by industrial wind turbines.

In 2015 the following alarming observations were made on the father’s health:

“Mr. R continues to live away from Mrs. R and the children, and his health has further deteriorated. The respiratory drive value that in 2007 was 46% (normal: >60%) is now at 28%. The development of balance disturbances associated with loss of consciousness has apparently caused several falls, requiring medical treatment for facial and rib fractures. This situation is still under clinical study, as late-onset epilepsy is one of the most severe outcomes of excessive ILFN (Infrasound & Low Frequency Noise) exposure.”

In May 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal decided that the remaining 3 turbines had to be removed from the vicinity of Mr. R’s property. The lower court had ordered the removal of the closest turbine but allowed the other three to stay, hence the appeal to the Supreme Court. The developer is apparently appealing the decision to the European Court.

In addition to ordering the removal of the wind turbines, the court also granted damages to the family. The wind farm developer was ordered to pay damages as follows:

  1. For personal injury, the sums of € 250,000.00 to Mr. R, and the sum of € 150,000.00 each to Mrs. R and the two children.
  2. To Mr. and Mrs. R, as co-owners of the land, the difference in value of the land before and after the wind turbines were erected.
  3. The payment of € 200,000.00 to Mr. R, for his business losses.
  4. The payment of all legal fees and costs, whether judicial or extrajudicial, that the family have incurred in order to bring the legal action and the cost of relocation of people and goods during the period of operation of the wind turbines.

A bittersweet victory given that Mr R’s health is ruined and the family’s way of life destroyed. Money cannot fix that sort of damage. Further turbines have also been built in the area as these legal proceedings concerned only the first four that were built (adjoining the family farm) and therefore the battle is not over yet.

From a legal point of view what is important is that the courts, including the Supreme Court, accepted the expert evidence of the authors of this paper concerning the terrible toll that infrasound and low-frequency noise has on both humans and animals, whilst it rejected the opposing evidence led by the wind industry lawyers.

A court is clearly neutral in this matter and has no hidden interests in a decision going one way or the other. A civil court must decide the evidence on a balance of probabilities. This means that before it accepts evidence, the court must be satisfied that the evidence is probable (capable of belief) and that it is more probable than the evidence given by the other side. In this case the Supreme Court accepted the evidence of the independent and neutral expert witnesses concerning the destructive effect of infrasound and low-frequency sound on the health of this family, whilst rejecting the evidence of the wind farm developer’s expert witnesses who claimed that the noise was within acceptable limits.

As the authors conclude:

“An effort toward developing and implementing appropriate construction techniques that would minimize the deleterious effects of in-home ILFN could be, perhaps, an excellent beginning. The hindrance to this apparently viable beginning is the sine qua non prior recognition that ILFN is, de facto, a physical agent of disease.”

Again, I am not a medical person but I take that to mean: Wind farms are a danger to our health. Period.

Aussies Call to Slash Wind Turbine Subsidies! Can’t be too soon!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Call to slash wind farm subsidies

A Senate committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20.
It also wants the issue of renewable energy certificates restricted to projects in states that adopt federal regulations on infrasound and low frequency noise.

A Senate committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20. Source: Supplied
The AustralianJuly 31, 2015Australia

Canberra urged to strip billions from windfarm subsidies

By Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, Sydney

The Abbott government is being urged to strip billions more from subsidies to wind farms in the final report of a Senate committee that has already pushed renewable ­energy investment to favour solar.

In its recommendations, the committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20.

It also wants the issue of renewable energy certificates restricted to projects in states that adopt federal regulations on infrasound and low frequency noise.

The final report of the Senate investigation into wind farms and their possible health effects will be tabled in parliament on Monday.

The report has been circulated and details have been provided to The ­Australian.

The call for time limits on sub­sidies and federal noise oversight is likely to provoke a backlash from the wind industry, already reeling from a federal government directive to the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation that it stop lending to wind projects.

The lending freeze was agreed with crossbench senators after the federal government adopted the committee’s interim report recommendations.

The deal included crossbench support to include forest waste in the revised renewable energy ­target legislation.

In a letter tabled in the Senate, Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the federal government would respond “actively and in good faith” to the Senate committee findings.

The final report says a five-year limit on renewable energy certificates, down from more than 20 years, recognised that wind turbine technology was well developed and a “mature” industry.

A ban on issuing RECS to wind farms in states that do not adopt federal guidelines on infrasound is designed to force the hand of governments that rejected a nat­ional approach at the last Council of Australian Governments meeting.

At present, noise guidelines are administered by the states, but ­renewable energy certificates are ­issued by the commonwealth.

Renewable energy companies are issued RECS for the amount of power they generate.

The RECS are sold to power authorities, which must secure a set portion of their supply from ­renewable sources under the RET.

The cost of buying RECS is added to consumer electricity bills as a subsidy for renewable energy over other sources of power.

Crossbench senators are confident the federal government will accept the recommendations and the measures can be passed through both houses. Adoption will require legislative changes to the Clean Energy Act.

Legislation would require the support of six non-government senators in the upper house.

The Senate committee has been particularly concerned by complaints from people living near wind farms who believe low- frequency noise and infrasound is having an impact on their health.

The existence of health impacts from wind turbines has been ­rejected as unproven by health authorities, but as the number of complaints increases the issue is being investigated worldwide.

The final Senate report recommends the scientific committee have the power to provide “guidance, advice and oversight” to ­bodies funding and undertaking research into infrasound.

Los Angeles Supervisors Ban Wind Turbines in Rural Areas…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

LA Supervisors Ban Wind Turbines in Rural Areas

MONDAY, JUL 20, 2015 BY

LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, July 14 unanimously approved to ban utility-scale wind turbines in the unincorporated areas of the county, according to a news release from the office of Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.

0720_factflyer_i12_preview

Antonovich, who introduced the motion to the board, said wind turbines create visual blight on the desert landscape, generate noise, impact wildlife and contradict the county’s Dark Skies ordinance in the Antelope Valley.

“Our residents have consistently opposed wind turbine development that would create an industrial backdrop similar to what Kern County has allowed in the Tehachapis,” he said.

The motion also directed the Department of Public Health to report back in 60 days on a protocol for requiring soil tests to detect Valley Fever when developing renewable energy projects in the Antelope Valley.

The Rural Outdoor Lighting District (Dark Skies) Ordinance promotes dark skies in selected unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County for the enjoyment and health of humans and wildlife, according to county officials. In particular, the ordinance regulates light emissions to prevent the disruption of animal and bird habitats that are threatened from light trespass.

More information on the Rural Outdoor Lighting District (Dark Skies) is available atLACounty.gov/dataportal.

Corruption and Collusion in the Relationship, Between EPA and Faux-green Alarmist Groups.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation

/ 2 hours ago July 30, 2015
EPA_collusion
Washington, D.C. — Today, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a 501 (c) (3) watchdog group, released an investigatory report, Back to Square One: Unlawful Collusion with Green Pressure Groups Should Doom U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation  and an appendix of source documents.  The report, which is based on e-mails and other documents obtained under numerous Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests and litigation, details illegal activities by EPA staff, colluding with certain environmental lobbyists to draft EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) rules behind the scenes, outside of public view, and to the exclusion of other parties.  More importantly, it clearly shows that EPA must start anew if it wishes to regulate GHGs. (A two-minute companion video is available for use.)
With EPA’s GHG rules going final any day, it is critical to inform the public of the emails detailed in this report for what they show about how EPA has developed these costly public policies with select, ideologically aligned outside interests, and its continuing efforts to obscure and even hide the content of discussions with those same lobbyists.
“E&E Legal has obtained proof that EPA’s GHG rules are the product of unlawful collusion and are themselves therefore unlawful,” said E&E Legal Senior Legal Fellow Chris Horner and author the report.  “Congress or the courts — or EPA, in a moment of rationality — should stop these rules from taking effect before the (intended) anticipatory harms of a sham rulemaking are imposed upon millions of Americans, without years of delay and devastation before the ultimately illegal agency rulemaking is overturned.”
EPA is a regulatory agency tasked with protecting the environment. EPA can regulate greenhouse gases thanks to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision. It is not compelled to do so, and it remains prohibited under the law from regulating with an “unalterably closed mind”, for the purposes of completing a “naked transfer of wealth”, or to do the bidding of ideologically aligned pressure groups.
“This pattern of conducting official business in secret and outside of the legal parameters is unfortunately a hallmark of this Administration,” said E&E Legal Executive Director Craig Richardson.  “In the case of the EPA, green groups led by the Sierra Club and NRDC set up shop at the EPA, even before Obama took office, with a plan to eliminate the U.S.’s most abundant source of electricity, coal-fired power plants.  Part of this was to shift the public’s wealth to renewable energy, where the large benefactors of these same green groups are now poised to make significant money.”
The report comes as President Obama prepares to announce these rules next week, and follows anE&E Legal interim report released last September which also showed that EPA was working with outside green lobby groups on a common regulatory agenda, often with deliberate secretiveness and unlawfully.   Since the 2014 report, E&E Legal has pried many hundreds of relevant emails out of EPA in several requests and lawsuits.  The record is not complete, of course, but reflects only those records responsive to E&E Legal’s search terms and that EPA, or its now-departed activist-staffers, decided to produce. EPA continues to improperly withhold certain obviously important information with no conceivable legal justification.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.

Death Knell for the Wind Industry! Subsidies being slashed!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Rocketing Power Prices see Subsidies Slashed, Bringing Europe’s Wind Industry to its Knees

July 30, 2015 by

9

****

The Australian wind industry is copping a belting from all sides at the moment.

With the Senate Inquiry about to release its final report on the great wind power fraud; retailers flatly refusing to enter long-term Power Purchase Agreements – essential to obtain finance for new wind farms; and with an increasing number of farmers refusing to host these things and/or hell-bent on getting out of their contracts to do so, its parasites and spruikers have been reduced to making wild and unsubstantiated claims about the continued growth of wind power in European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Spain and the UK.

The only trouble with that story is the fact that all of them have slammed the bag on further subsidies; some of them have, in effect, set upmoratoriums against any more new wind farms; and all of them are facing a furious backlash from power consumers (read ‘voters’) fed up with escalating power bills.

The consequence of the European’s retreat from their respective wind power disasters is that investment in wind power has dropped off a cliff (see the graph above – which tends to suggest a little trend) – in the UK, with David Cameron’s election win, subsidies have been pulled to a halt and, as an inevitable result, hundreds of threatened projects have been blown to the four winds.

The unvarnished truth about the European wind power debacle isn’t something you’re likely to read in any of the struggling Fairfax mastheads; or hear about on your ABC. No, as has often been the case with the mainstream press, it’s down to Graham Lloyd from The Australian, to throw a little light on the subject.

Europe slashes subsidies for renewables as energy prices rise
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
25 July 2015

Shorten’s vow on green energy comes just as other governments scale back

More than three million people a week watch the heute-show, Germany’s answer to The Chaser, which cuts through the pretence to slaughter society’s holy cows.

Last year heute-show host, comedian and journalist Oliver Welke, sacrificed the holiest of them all, Germany’s multi-billion-euro renewable energy transformation that routinely is held up as green-friendly world’s best practice. “Could it be that the Grand Coalition has gone nuts?” Welke said.

His comments followed release of an expert panel report commissioned by the Merkel government that found the much lauded Renewable Energy Act (EEG) a failure.

“So she (Merkel) pays these academic eggheads and as a thank you they give her in writing that she’s dumber than a box of hair!” said Welke. “Her own experts write ‘the green energy policy makes energy prices go up up up … and leads to less climate protection’,” he said.

Cue the canned laughter. Increasingly, however, it is not funny. Particularly not for German electricity consumers whose power bills have risen to become the second highest in Europe, behind Denmark.

And not for German industry, which has threatened to shift manufacturing offshore because it cannot compete with lower energy prices in the US.

Proving that Welke’s quips were not all jest, the German government has since slashed subsidy support for new wind and solar projects after it was forced to face the economic reality of what had been promised.

The German experience is relevant for Australia given the ALP’s pledge this week to boost Australia’s renewable energy target to 50 per cent by 2030 without any real details on how this would be achieved and the possible cost.

Also relevant is the green energy subsidy train wreck unfolding in Britain since the national election. This week, the Cameron government’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary, Amber Rudd, cut the subsidies to small-scale solar projects following earlier cuts to subsidies for onshore wind, large-scale solar and energy efficiency schemes.

The newly re-elected government also has angered the renewable energy industry with the introduction of a tax on producers of green power.

But Britain and Germany are not alone.

Since the global financial crisis, renewable energy subsidies have been slashed across Europe including Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Denmark and elsewhere.

The lesson around the world is that while projections for future investment in renewables remain high, the free ride from electricity users in developed nations is coming to an end.

Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change has estimated the cost of renewables in Britain could reach £9.1 billion ($19.3bn) a year by the 2020-21 tax year compared with a proposed budget of £7.6 bn.

“We can’t have the situation where industry has a blank cheque and that cheque is paid for by people’s bills,” Rudd told BBC radio.

“My priorities are clear,” she told the Financial Times. “We need to keep bills as low as possible for hardworking families and businesses while reducing our emissions in the most cost-effective way. Our support has driven down the cost of renewable energy significantly. As costs continue to fall it becomes easier for parts of the renewables industry to survive without subsidies.”

After all, isn’t that what the renewables industry had promised?

But Jim Watson, from the UK Energy Research Centre, has warned that if solar subsidies disappeared completely the government risks the industry “dropping off a cliff”.

The change of approach to renewables does not suggest that governments in Europe have weakened their concerns about climate change or resolve to cut carbon dioxide emissions as part of a grand compact due to be declared in Paris in December.

But the more tough-love approach being adopted reflects public anger at rising power prices and concerns that public support may stifle innovation rather than promote it.

This is one reading of the report at the centre of the German comedy skit.

The report was prepared by the Commission for Research and Innovation (EFI) and recommended the Merkel government abolish all subsidies for green energy. The EFI report concluded that the system of feed-in-tariffs, under which the green power producers were paid guaranteed above market prices, was fundamentally flawed.

Subsidy support was neither a cost-effective way to address climate change nor was it producing a measurable effect on innovation, when assessed by the registration of patents.

“For both these reasons, there is no justification for a continuation of the EEG,” the report said.

The findings were seized on by German industry, including the BDI Industry Association, which represents about one-quarter of the German economy.

BDI managing director Markus Kerber told Reuters all support for renewable technologies must be designed in a way to “help companies be competitive and to innovate”.

But the EFI report findings were rejected by Germany’s economy ministry and environment groups.

Since the report was released, however, the German government has radically overhauled its feed-in tariff structure and renewable energy subsidy schemes.

Caps have been put on the amount of new onshore wind and solar that can be added to supply and the rates paid for renewable energy supply have been cut.

Support for renewables continues to be granted for a 20-year period but at much lower rates after the first five years.

Except for small plants, most renewables power sales will be sold by “direct marketing”, with payments supplemented by premiums similar to the support rates. The new scheme replaces feed-in tariffs, which the EC has ordered to be phased out over 2016 to 2020.

The government also has pulled back from placing a promised levy on coal-fired power plants and baulked at ordering the immediate shutdown of the most highly polluting.

Coal producers also have been told they will be compensated if they participate in a new “capacity reserve” system where coal-fired plants are kept in reserve and brought online when needed.

The reserve system again highlights a key weakness of the renewables revolution to date, intermittency.

Despite expanding its coal-fired industry to help replace baseload power surrendered through the closure of nuclear plants in the wake of the Fuku­shima disaster in Japan, Germany is still forced to draw heavily on nuclear power from neighbouring countries to back up renewables when the wind fails to blow or sun to shine.

Supporters of the renewable transformation say these pur­chases are balanced by the sale of surplus renewable energy to neighbouring markets at other times.

But this misses the fundamental point that, unlike coal, gas and nuclear, exactly when renewable energy will be available cannot be guaranteed to match when it is needed.

The proof of intermittency in Australia is the extent to which South Australia draws on brown-coal fired generators in Victoria to secure its electricity supply during times of low wind.

The EU is pushing to greatly expand the trade of electricity between states to mirror Australia’s National Electricity Market.

In addition to guaranteed above-markets rates, intermittency helps explain why the addition of large scale renewables can lead to higher prices for electricity consumers.

“When you study the states of Australia that have had dramatic increases in their household power bills in recent years you will find a direct correlation to the number of wind turbines that have been connected to the grid in those states,” independent senator John Madigan told the Senate last month. “You will find the same correlation in European countries.

This is irrespective of whether wholesale electricity prices fall as a result of additional renewable energy forcing its way into an already oversupplied market.

Indeed, Germany has some of the lowest wholesale electricity prices in Europe but some of the highest retail prices.

This is because any money received on the spot market is of only secondary consideration for renewable energy suppliers who receive additional subsidy payments.

But an oversupply of electricity from renewables — and the depressing effect it has on spot prices — is potentially devastating for the economics of traditional generators.

This is why Germany is being forced to consider paying subsidies for coal and gas plants to keep them on standby.

Supporters of renewable energy argue many of these problems will be overcome as electricity grids develop through the take-up of new battery storage technology and more sophisticated monitoring and control systems.

The big generators, in Europe and Australia, are anticipating the change.

In a recent interview, former World Energy Council European chairman Johannes Teyssen said the energy world was diverging.

“On the one hand, the energy world of the future — characterised by renewables, intelligent networks and tailor-made customer-orientated energy solutions — is taking shape rapidly,” he said.

“On the other hand, the classical energy world — of the backbone systems characterised by high-volume production and trading structures for electricity, gas and other commodities — remains irreplaceable for the public good.”

But renewables will not simply replace conventional energy ­sources and, poorly handled, the transition carries grave risks to the security of once-stable electricity supplies.

More than anything, governments are learning that electricity consumers all around the world are becoming more wary of paying twice for power.

With the pullback of government subsidies, the renewable energy industry is challenged to innovate, both on cost of production and security of supply, and prove it is capable of standing on its own.
The Australian

Another solid effort from Graham Lloyd, but – as we’ve pointed out before – the wind industry’s claims about cost-effective storage of bulk electricity is little more than patent nonsense:

The Patent Nonsense of ‘Storing’ Wind Power Smashed

Even Bill Gates has pointed to the bleeding obvious:

“There’s no battery technology that’s even close to allowing us to take all of our energy from renewables,” he said, pointing out – aswe’ve noted on these pages before – that it’s necessary “to deal not only with the 24-hour cycle but also with long periods of time where it’s cloudy and you don’t have sun or you don’t have wind.”

And we’ve dealt with the ludicrous concept of an electricity grid somehow reaching a state of ‘Zen consciousness’ that will overcome the chaotic and only occasional delivery of wind power – on that score, the video of Andrew Dodson at the end of this post is well worth watching:

Germany’s Wind Power Debacle Escalates: Nation’s Grid on the Brink of Collapse

The video of the German skit Graham refers to appears in this post:

Friday Funnies: German Satirical Take on Renewables Disaster

And, for a properly detailed insight into the cost of Australia’s wind power debacle, here’s the speech by Senator John Madigan, referred to by Graham:

Wind Power Fraud Finally Exposed: Senator John Madigan Details LRET’s Astronomical 45 Billion Dollar Cost to Power Consumers

Slowly, but surely – thanks to efforts by journos like Graham – Australians are waking up to the fact that the wind power fraud is precisely the same, the world over.

Nightmare (1962) Jerry wakes up

Dr. Robert McMurtry Tells Australian Senate Inquiry About Adverse Health Effects From Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Dr Robert McMurty tells Senate: ‘Annoyance’ caused by Wind Turbine Noise includes ‘Sleep disturbance’ & is Adverse to Health

July 29, 2015 by

senate review

****

The Senate Inquiry has had to wade through a fairly pungent cesspit of ‘material’ dropped on it by the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers. No doubt to their great relief (or, in the case of wind industry stooge, Anne Urquhart, infuriation) the Senators have heard from a raft of genuine and highly qualified people, who are clearly dedicated to protecting their fellow human beings – rather than ridiculing, denigrating or deriding them as “anti-wind farm wing-nuts” or “Dick Brains”.

One voice of common sense and compassion – to the contrary of the nasty nonsense pitched up by the shills that run interference for their wind industry clients – came from Dr Bob McMurty – a highly (and relevantly) qualified Professor from Ontario. Here’s what Bob told the Australian Senate.

Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines – 29 May 2015

CHAIR: I now welcome Dr Bob McMurtry by teleconference. For the Hansard record, will you please state your name and the capacity in which you appear.

Dr McMurtry: My name is Robert Younghusband McMurtry. The capacity in which I appear today is as an independent witness: I am Professor Emeritus of Western University in London, Ontario, and I have been researching and reviewing this topic for the past eight years; I probably have put in over 10,000 hours over those years. In addition, I have been in communication with or—more to the point—people have been in communication with me who are suffering adverse health effects. I have detailed my curriculum vitae and its summary. I will stop there.

CHAIR: Thank you. Could you please confirm that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence has been provided to you?

Dr McMurtry: I can confirm it has.

CHAIR: The committee has your submission. I now invite you to make a brief opening statement. At the conclusion of your remarks, I will invite members of the committee to put questions to you.

Dr McMurtry: Thank you for the privilege of presenting to this committee. I will make 10 points that are in my executive summary on the assumption that the material has been read. First, adverse health effects have been reported globally in the environs of wind turbines for more than 30 years with the old design and the new. Second, the wind energy industry has denied adverse health effects, preferring to call it ‘annoyance’ even though annoyance, however, is an adverse health effect. Certainly it is a non-trivial effect when sustained because it results in ‘sleep disruption’, ‘stress’ and ‘psychological distress’—those are direct quotes from others’ research. Third, annoyance is recognised and was treated by the World Health Organization as an adverse health effect, which is a risk factor for serious chronic disease including cardiovascular and cancer.

Fourth, experts retained by the wind energy industry have preferred the diagnosis of nocebo effect to explain the adverse health effects, but the claim does not withstand critical scrutiny as there is a dose-response effect and nocebo does not have a dose-response effect. And there is a clear correlation between exposure and adverse health effects. Researchers have talked about dose-response. I should also comment that making that diagnosis without a comprehensive evaluation of a person or patient would qualify as non-practice, and I know that has been said in this committee before.

Fifth, the regulations surrounding noise exposure are based upon out-of-date standards ETSU-97, which fail to evaluate infrasound and low-frequency noise, preferring instead to use DBA. The issue of ILFN is a problem and it has been confirmed by numerous acousticians including Paul Schomer, a leading international acoustician. Sixth, the setbacks for wind turbines are highly variable across jurisdictions and here is the key point: there is no evidence base in human health research for the setbacks. The turbines have gone ahead without an evidence base.

Seven, there is an urgent need for human health research to provide evidence based guidelines for noise exposure. Eight, the call for third-party research and evaluation has been made by many including in France by the Academy of Medicine of France in 2006 and many times since. As I detailed to you, I made it before government bodies in Canada. Nine, there is an urgent need to monitor the health effects of people exposed to turbines over time and that has been missing virtually in all jurisdictions. Tenth, third-party evaluations of the economic and social benefits of wind energy are needed as suggested by the findings of the Auditor-General of Ontario—I sent his reports to you including highlights—and more recently by the Northern Ireland Assembly committee, and I understand that is part of the charge of this committee. With that, I would be very happy to answer questions.

CHAIR: Is it correct to say that in your experience there are different streams of opposition to wind turbines in the wider public? For example, one stream opposes the technology outright but another supports the use of technologies as long as they are appropriately regulated to safeguard people and the environment. Which stream are you in, Dr McMurtry?

Dr McMurtry: I am in the stream that says positioned safely and on an evidence base with, as I mentioned, guidelines. I think that is fine. There are clear applications for wind turbines when they are appropriately deployed, which is not happening currently.

CHAIR: There is a growing community of medical experts, doctors and acoustic engineers questioning the adverse health impacts of wind turbines and inadequate regulatory standards. On the basis of your knowledge on an international level, how are the opinions and standing of these professionals treated publicly by the wind energy industry?

Dr McMurtry: I am afraid there is a routine strategy that proponents of wind turbines, including the industry, on websites will name people and pillory them basically, assail their reputations. That is something that has been seen internationally, most specifically towards Dr Nina Pierpont from the United States, and towards Dr Sarah Laurie in Australia. But I have certainly experienced it personally to a lesser extent. It seems to be: if you do stick-up and say something or you have concerns about the wind industry then you can expect to be attacked.

Senator BACK: We know that.

CHAIR: Your submission comments on researchers in the Department of Biological Engineering at MIT undertaking research for the Canadian Wind Energy Association and also providing expert testimony to wind farm developers in its planning tribunals. I note you say here, however, they did not declare an interest when the research was published. You describe this behaviour as ‘odd’ in your submission. From a professional perspective, what does ‘odd’ mean? What are the professional requirements or etiquette when publishing research and declaring an interest?

Dr McMurtry: The key is to declare a conflict and that was done in the sense that they described their engagements with the wind turbine industry, especially Dr McCunney the lead author, and Dr David Colby. So that was done. But it is only a first step when you declare a conflict. There are many other things you should do to manage the potential conflict of interest, in particular take special care to control for bias. There are various ways of doing that.

I do not want to say negative things about Dr McCunney; I am sure he is a very capable person does good work in this field. The wind industry put the money before MIT and it was from that funding that the research was carried out. It was from funding of the wind industry an earlier part he participated in with the Canadian Wind Energy Association. He appears frequently on behalf of the wind industry and he references his work in both the papers I have cited. I view that as stretching things. I think some better management of the conflicts ought to be carried out. Two points, for example, could be: bring it before an ethics committee or at least get that kind of advice.

CHAIR: Finally, later in your submission I note you discuss the origins of nocebo. I presume from that discussion, you are aware of Prof. Simon Chapman and his work?

Dr McMurtry: I am aware of Prof. Simon Chapman, yes.

CHAIR: Prof. Chapman has also provided expert testimony to a wind farm developer in a planning tribunal but does not declare his interest in subsequent publications. Is there some sort of professional amnesty that allows researchers to withhold disclosure of their interest? How do researchers and practitioners like yourself perceive that kind of behaviour amongst your peers? And what impact does this have on the professional standing of researchers more generally and the tenor of the debate and understanding in the industrial wind turbine area?

Dr McMurtry: There are a lot of elements to that question. The key consideration is that you should always declare a conflict of interest and manage it appropriately so that there is no discomfort being experienced by colleagues from whom you want to seek their opinions. As I said, an ethics committee would be included in that consideration. More importantly, the WHO and many other bodies have found that research sponsored by industry does not have the objectivity that characterises independent research. That has been described time and again with industry. I believe Dr Chris Hanning spoke to that in some detail at his presentation, the sorts of difficulties that you get into. As far as peers are concerned, when you are receiving money and it is a substantial amount for each appearance then I think ought to be extremely cautious about declaring and making a statement as he did in this most recent paper, ‘I declare no conflict of interest.’ That was what I found to be particularly odd. That quotation is included in my submission.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Thank you for your submission. I found it extremely illuminating, very thorough and you addressed many questions that I had in my mind so I really do appreciate it. What I am curious about though is you are a very experienced medical doctor. You have come down fairly clearly in support of annoyance as being the source of the adverse complaints that people have about wind turbines. We have heard from other witnesses who have suggested a vestibular effect, an effect on the vestibular mechanism and others who have suggested either the middle ear or perhaps inner ear. Why have you nominated annoyance as the source? Have you discounted the others? Or is there something else?

Dr McMurtry: Not at all. I do not mean to discount the other symptoms. I have referenced the diagnostic criteria for being exposed to wind turbines and suffering adverse effects. It was most recently in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in the fall of 2014. Those sorts of additional symptoms are listed. What I have made clear, and this was first done by Pederson in her many papers, is that annoyance in the context of wind turbines translates to ‘stress, psychological distress, difficulty initiating sleep and sleep disruption’—I believe those words, although from memory, are a direct quote—so it is a very serious business. The most common problems without question we find are sleep disturbance and stress. Those two are always there. Vestibular disturbance we are also finding. There is no question though when the vestibular gets perturbed, it can make you uneasy, make you feel unwell or nauseated, for example. It may be the mechanism. I am in no way discounting it and it is considered in my diagnostic criteria.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Do you have a feel for what proportion of the community that lives within a nominated distance of wind turbines or a wind farm actually experiences any symptoms?

Dr McMurtry: The lowest number I have ever seen is five per cent. The highest number I have seen is over 30 per cent. There is a range. Firstly, with ongoing exposure, the people I have seen who have been adversely affected become worse. Secondly, increasing numbers of people become adversely affected. What is missing in the research is longitudinal studies. Dr McCunney and I agree on this in terms of his paper that I was talking about earlier. What is needed is something more than cross-sectional epidemiological studies, which are studies at one point in time. They do not follow people longitudinally. Following people longitudinally—that is, over time—is crucial to understand the adverse effects. That has not been done. I agree that we should have cohort studies—that means a group exposed, a group not exposed—and compare them over time, and then you will have some notion of incidence. Anecdotally, when dealing with people, I have found that some do not start experiencing symptoms until a year or two out. I think the incidence might very well go up, and that is a concern.

In relation to the other research, if I may say before stopping again, there has been a missed opportunity. We absolutely should be doing the sort of work that has been done by Steven Cooper, where he looked at six people in three homes. They were adversely affected. You have to study those folks to understand the mechanism better. That is research that is really needed. It is only when that research is done, when we can hone down on the mechanism of the problem, that we can then inform the prospectus for the longitudinal studies of cohorts of people. I hope that is clear. You need research on adversely affected people to understand the mechanism and, secondly, of course, that you confirm that they meet the diagnostic criteria and that their adverse effects are reproducible when they are blinded. You want to do that to be sure. You have that group. Then you want to know exactly what is occurring. Steven Cooper moved things ahead great deal. Then you are well put up for the place to do the cohort studies or the longitudinal studies.

Senator LEYONHJELM: That does raise a question though. These sorts of questions have been asked; there have been complaints about wind turbines. You have been studying this now for six or seven years. Why is it that no definitive, independent research into this has been conducted over those years? It is quite a long time.

Dr McMurtry: I agree with you. I am dismayed by that, especially when it has been asked for nine years. It is coming back to the Academy of Medicine of France. I have pointed out many times in my publications and in my government presentations that there are two opinions and both cannot be right. One is that adverse effects are genuinely occurring and people are being harmed. The other opinion is that that is not the case and that it is in the news, a nocebo effect, or some other manageable problem. Both cannot be right. Always, I have heard calls for research from those concerned about adverse health effects. I have not heard them from those who are proponents—and certainly not from the industry.

To give you a very specific example, Paul Schomer, previously cited, is a leading acoustician internationally known for his standards for noise. He asked Duke Energy—and he has published this—to turn the turbines off and on, and they said they would not. That is pretty much the response you do get. There have been offers to do that. The Steven Cooper work was exceptional because the person who was responsible for that turbine installation in fact did turn off the turbines to enable him to do that research. I believe it was Cape Bridgewater.

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Leyonhjelm. Senator Urquhart?

Dr McMurtry: By the way, I have debated publicly with proponents, including David Colby. I have always challenged, ‘Why don’t we do the research. Let’s settle this’, and the response has been: ‘There is no need.’ That is the response I have heard in debates, for example.

CHAIR: Thank you, Dr McMurtry. Senator Urquhart?

Senator URQUHART: Thanks, Dr McMurtry. I was just picking up the point that you talked about where the lowest number of people affected by wind farms was five per cent—I think I understood you correctly there—and the highest was 30 per cent. Did I understand you correctly?

Dr McMurtry: Yes you did. That has been the studies to date. As I mentioned, longitudinal studies may reveal a higher number.

Senator URQUHART: Can you just explain to me why the majority of wind farms in Australia do not have any complaints at all.

Dr McMurtry: I think I have heard Simon Chapman make that complaint, if that is who you are quoting. What I noticed about his research is that he was going to the wind farm people themselves and asking them if there were adverse health reports. That does not withstand critical appraisal. You must have an independent determination to determine if in fact there was a problem. That to me undermines this facility, substantially. So I think that claim is dubious. I will stop there.

Senator URQUHART: I did not hear that last point.

Dr McMurtry: The point I made is that when you are trying to glean information from the industry, whose interest is harmed by acknowledging problems, then you are not likely to get as accurate an answer than if you had independent determination of people’s complaints. I am speaking specifically about Simon Chapman’s work, and looking at his methodology.

Senator URQUHART: Do you live or have you lived near an existing or proposed wind farm?

Dr McMurtry: Yes. I do not live near a proposed wind farm. I live near one that is going to be built something in the neighbourhood of 1½ kilometres away. At the moment it is before the courts.

Senator URQUHART: I understand that you are a founder of the Society for Wind Vigilance. Is that right?

Dr McMurtry: Yes, in 2010. I was the founding chair, from 2010 to 2012, at which point I resigned.

Senator URQUHART: The status of the proposal is before the courts, I think you indicated?

Dr McMurtry: That is correct. There is always more than one proposal on the go, but the one that is most proximate to me is still in review legally, through a judicial process.

Senator URQUHART: How is the Society for Wind Vigilance funded?

Dr McMurtry: Just by donations from members.

Senator URQUHART: Who are the major donors?

Dr McMurtry: There is no major donor. The only income the Society for Wind Vigilance ever received was when they held a first conference in adverse health effects, which is described in my submission. We charged people $100 to come, as I recall. We realised some income from that. There was no surplus, I can assure you, because we had to cover the cost of the food and all the usual things you do with a conference. We have received no money whatsoever from any energy-related industry. Not ever.

Senator URQUHART: What about from other companies or organisations?

Dr McMurtry: No private enterprise company, no for-profit company, no agency and no charitable agency. Nothing. That has been suggested before. It is disturbing to me, because we are recurrently having to repeat what to me is obvious: there has simply been no financial support coming from outside. None.

Senator URQUHART: I think it is good to get that on the record. Thank you. Have you ever published any work in a peer-reviewed academic journal about the possible impacts of wind farms.

Dr McMurtry: Yes, probably several times. That is included in my submission. For example, I published two papers on the criteria for diagnosis: one in 2011 in the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, and the second one in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, in either October or November of 2014. I have also submitted the peer-reviewed blogs from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which is the lead journal in Canada, where I comment on the Health Canada study. That was peer-reviewed. We have also had something accepted that I submitted in confidence for the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. In addition, I have presented before the Acoustical Society of America. I have presented before government at three levels: municipal, provincial and federal.

Senator URQUHART: I wanted to pick up on the point about the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society. I understand that this publication was de-indexed in 1995.

Dr McMurtry: SAGE Publications have since resurrected it. It now is appearing in the Index Medicus. More significantly, the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine has been a recognised journal for over 100 years. The Index Medicus did not come along until later, or the similar indices. It is a progression from towards the diagnostic criteria, which is in the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society to the second paper on diagnostic criteria, which was in 2014. That is a journal that is well recognised.

Senator BACK: In the PowerPoint presentation you sent us, you comment on biological gradients: that greater exposure should generally lead to greater incidence of the effect. It causes me to ask about the proposal with the independent medical research that has been commissioned now by the Abbott government her in Australia. One witness has proposed to our inquiry that a one-off, laboratory-based test for audible and infrasound could be undertaken with people who participate for periods of somewhere around about 10 to 30 minutes, or maybe up to an hour, once only. From your experience do you believe that the results of a study of that type would be of any value in determining possible adverse health effects?

Dr McMurtry: I think it would have value, but not in and of itself. It is perhaps a necessary but insufficient condition. There are features of industrial wind turbine noise that, when people are in their homes, are very different from in the laboratory setting, and capturing all that in the laboratory setting is virtually impossible. This is basically unwanted noise and unpredictable noise. It occurs at night. It pulses and it also has the quality of resonating within the home. The sound energy comes out—it may be low-frequency or infrasound—and there can be resonance in the home. That cannot be captured in the laboratory. Some people, for example, are being disturbed at night and go outside and they are less disturbed. I would cite in particular Malcolm Swinbanks, a well-known acoustician, who described that very thing and presented it in Glasgow two or there months ago. That has been reported by many people. It has been sound for as long as 30 years ago.

Senator BACK: People have put to us that infrasound can occur from waves crashing on the beach and trucks going along highways, and therefore there is nothing special about infrasound from industrial wind turbines, so why all the fuss. Could you comment on the different sources of infrasound and how they might affect people?

Dr McMurtry: What is very important here is to realise that my background is not as an acoustician. You might be better to direct that question to an acoustician. To answer as best as I am able, the acousticians have pointed out that there is a unique signature to wind turbine noise that has not be found elsewhere. I cite, for example, Steven Cooper, whom you have heard. There is also the recent work of Paul Schomer, as well as the 2012 publication with Walker, Hessler, Hessler, Rand and himself, in which they made clear that there were non-auditory and non-visual queues that disturbed people. The other sources of infrasound that people are talking about do not mimic, are not the same as, the signature that is coming from wind turbines. It is unprecedented, so it is crucial that any research captures exactly what people are experiencing.

Senator BACK: You made a comment a moment ago in response to a question from a colleague that you had commented on the Health Canada study. Briefly, could you point us to what your comments were on the Health Canada study?

Dr McMurtry: Yes. You have a copy of that in my submission. It is the CMAJ submission and, I think, appendix 7. Ms Carmen Krogh and I did it. I recently was on the same panel with David Michaud and I pointed out some of the shortcomings, but the single most important one is that it is a cross-sectional study. There are other important problems. They started out with 2,004 houses and some 400 were ruled out of scope—424, as I recall; I am going by memory—and then, when they sent out the questionnaires, another 322 dropped out, which left 766 out of the original group. I wish there had been an analysis of the abandoned or non-eligible homes. I think an opportunity was lost there. Another opportunity lost is that the people most often affected—and I certainly know this from my own experience—are people who are over 79 and under 18. Children are more vulnerable than, say, young adults or middle-aged adults. The Health Canada study looked at people from 18 to 79 and then excluded the rest. They are leaving out the most vulnerable groups.

Senator BACK: Thank you very much. I appreciate that advice.

CHAIR: Thank you, Dr McMurtry, for your appearance before the committee today.

Dr McMurtry: I thank you very much for this opportunity.

Hansard, 29 May June 2015

Dr McMurtry’s evidence is available from the Parliament’s website here. And his submission is available here in a Zip file: documents

bob mcmurtry

What Happens When “Novelty Energy”, is Used to Power a Nation!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK’s Wind Power Debacle Deepens: Widespread Winter Blackouts Forecast

July 28, 2015 by

hell-freezing-over1

****

The lunatics that push wind power are being forced to face up to the fact that it is – and will always be – meaningless as a power generation source. Which to the sane and rational is no surprise: a ‘system’ that relies on the vagaries of the weather isn’t a ‘system’ – it’s ‘chaos’. Here’s a tale from Britain on just where that chaos is heading.

Britain could face blackouts if the wind doesn’t blow
Emily Gosden
17 July 2015
The Telegraph

National Grid proposes bringing in emergency measures to bolster electricity supplies as new analysis shows power crunch worsening

Britain could face blackouts if the wind doesn’t blow in winter 2016-17, unless emergency measures are brought in to bolster electricity supplies, official analysis suggests.

Output from Britain’s power plants would not be enough to meet peak demand if there was “low wind” meaning the thousands of wind turbines across the country would generate very little electricity, forecasts show.

Old mothballed power plants are now likely to be paid millions of pounds to fire back up or factories paid to switch off at peak times, under proposed emergency measures to ensure the lights stay on.

Normally, the UK’s electricity grid has a spare capacity “margin” meaning more power is available than is expected to be needed to meet peak demand.

The margin ensures that “consumers are not affected” if demand for electricity increases unexpectedly – such as in a cold snap – or power plants break down, Ofgem says.

But the margin has eroded in recent years as environmental regulations force the closure of old coal-fired power plants.

Emergency measures to keep the lights on were first introduced last winter, when the margin fell to 4.1 per cent, and are also in place for this winter, when the margin is expected to fall to 1.2 per cent.

The measures had not been expected to be needed in winter 2016-17, but officials now believe the situation could worsen significantly as more plants may be closed, meaning the margin could fall to zero .

With unusually low wind, the margin could fall to minus 1.1 per cent – meaning peak demand exceeds the amount of power typically available.

National Grid has now proposed extending the emergency measures for two more winters.

An Ofgem spokesman said: “In a small minority of scenarios there is the possibility of negative margins. But the likelihood of these sorts of circumstances is very low.

“Even if this were to occur, National Grid already has a range of tools at its disposal to balance supply and demand without having to resort to controlled disconnections.”

A National Grid spokesman said: “While we want an adequate safety cushion to manage unforeseen events on the network, negative margins do not mean blackouts.”

Peter Atherton, analyst at Jefferies, said the UK was heading into “uncharted territory, where the underlying situation on the system is becoming very unstable and therefore National Grid is having to deploy more and more emergency measures to compensate”.

“These emergency measures should work, but there is clearly a greater risk of a security of supply incident than we have been used to,” he said.

Telegraph analysis earlier this year showed that peak demand coincided with the lowest wind output of the winter just gone.

In its security of supply report, Ofgem said: “There is a widespread belief that the wind stops blowing when there is a severe cold spell, resulting in lower wind availability at times of high demand for electricity. We have considered the possibility that a relationship does exist, and have assessed its impact.”

Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom said: “Our number one priority is to ensure that hardworking families and businesses have access to secure, affordable energy supplies they can rely on.

“In the short term, we have put measures in place to meet sudden increases in demand. In the longer term, we are investing in infrastructure and sensible policies to improve energy security.”
The Telegraph

turbine-collapse-germany1

Wind Industry Shills want More Money Wasted on Useless Wind Energy…Aussies say NO!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Adam Creighton: Labor’s Ludicrous Wind Power Policy to Squander more than $100 Billion

July 27, 2015 by

Money Wasted

****

In Sunday’s post, we detailed Labor’s descent into wind power madness – with its impossible push for a 50% renewable energy target.

One of the immediate responses has come from the press-pack; who have now turned on the great wind power fraud with a vengeance.

Journalists with a modicum of common sense have woken up to the fact that they’ve been lied to and taken for fools by the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers for years now.

The backlash amongst journos to Labor’s lurch to the infantile left, has caused an ‘awakening’, which has been swift and scathing. The Australian’s Adam Creighton – a lad with a solid economics background – is among those who have caught on to the scale and scope of the fraud.

In this thumping little piece, Adam slams “rent-seeking global turbine manufacturers” – which we take to mean struggling Danish fan maker, Vestas – and otherwise clobbers the pointlessness and insane cost of trying to rely on a power generation source that means future power “supply would depend on the weather” – rather than on that silly old economic chestnut: power consumers’ actual ‘demand’. Over to Adam.

Labor’s renewable energy target policy would waste $100bn
The Australian
Adam Creighton
24 July 2015

To make sure we have enough electricity over the next 15 years we can either spend $100 billion on new generating capacity, or we can spend next to nothing.

Both strategies will meet our electricity needs. Labor has decided the former makes a lot more sense, given its new policy to require 50 per cent of electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2030. In practice this would require tripling the Renewable Energy Target to about 100 terawatt hours by 2030.

This is bizarre policy, not least because Labor agreed with the government to lower the RET to 33 by 2020, only last month. It reflects an almost religious and increasingly pervasive devotion to wind and solar power, whatever the cost.

Hiking the RET so dramatically would divert massive resources into construction of unreliable and costly generating capacity with limited environmental benefits.

ACIL-Allen reckons the cost of new wind, geothermal and solar capacity would come to about $100bn. The extra 11,000 wind turbines alone — 10 times the present number — would cost $65bn.

This is money that could have been used for projects that don’t require government compulsion to make them viable. Or it could have used to research ways to curb carbon emissions rather than enrich rent-seeking global turbine manufacturers.

Australia doesn’t need to invest in any new electricity supply; spending billions to get zero extra output is economic vandalism. In fact, electricity demand has been steadily falling (from 198 TwH in 2009 to 184 in 2014) because of higher network prices, our dwindling industrial base and popular energy-efficiency initiatives.

Current estimates see modest increases to 2030, which could be accommodated by existing capacity. Gas and coal-fired power stations are already being mothballed or closed, Alinta’s Port Augusta plants being recent examples.

Yet an axis of ignorance and self-interest is trying to argue Labor’s 50 per cent mandate will ultimately lower prices for households and create jobs. They seized on initial modelling by Frontier Economics this week that showed typical electricity bills under Labor’s plan would fall by $30 a year from 2016 to 2022 and then rise by $4 a year will 2030.

This occurs because existing fossil-fuel generators are assumed to bear heavy losses. The policy-induced glut of new supply pushes wholesale electricity prices down (especially in a market where demand was falling anyway), in some cases by more than the cost of the renewable energy certificates that the RET compels retailers to buy. The RET, as the government’s 2014 review found, “transfers wealth from electricity consumers and other participants in the electricity market to renewable generators”.

Existing generators might put up with this for a while — shutting a coal power station can cost more than running it at a loss — but in the longer run Alfred Marshal’s basic principle that the prices we pay for goods and services must ultimately cover their costs will begin to kick in.

“We might see a serious backlash from consumers in the medium to long run as fossil fuel generators leave the market, and retail costs start to reflect the cost and fundamentals of renewable energy,” says Tony Wood, an impartial energy expert at the Grattan Institute.

Consider a 100 per cent RET. Without base-load, conventional power sources — be they nuclear, coal or gas — supply would depend on the weather, and prices would reflect the far greater actual costs of production.

Large-scale wind and solar-powered electricity is two to four times more expensive than coal-power electricity, a discrepancy that could grow if the sunniest and windiest sites have been used up already. Whenever in doubt, ask: if renewable energy were so much more efficient and cost-effective than fossil fuels, why do we need to force people to buy it, by law?

Of course, wind and sunshine are free, so the marginal costs of renewable energy can be lower than those for fossil fuels once the turbines and solar grids are built. But it is irrational to ignore their upfront costs and junk perfectly satisfactory power stations unless other benefits were truly massive.

But they aren’t. Yes, the RET will create jobs, but so would deliberately complicating the tax system and hiring 10,000 public servants to enforce it.

Furthermore, the RET, along with the government’s Emissions Reduction Fund, is a terribly inefficient way to reduce greenhouse emissions. Large-scale solar, for instance, does so at about $200 a tonne or 10 times the cost of a simple carbon tax or emissions trading scheme, which both Labor and Coalition now spurn. Wind is about $100 a tonne.

Surely $100bn could be better spent on developing Australia’s rich uranium reserves to create a base-load power industry that can replace fossil fuel generators when they naturally expire.

But when renewable energy is seen as a religion, the case is far stronger. Certain religious observances might appear irrational but if they make people happy they serve a valid purpose. This is the best argument for a $65bn wind turbine building program.
The Australian

adam-creighton

****

A very solid wrap-up from Adam – who, based on that effort, is likely to end up in STT’s Hall of Fame. However, Adam needs to drill a little deeper on the true costs of the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time; and – given his apparent antipathy to the wind power rort – we fully expect him to.

As we detailed in Sunday’s post, contrary to Matt Harris’ musings, the impact of momentary spurts of wind power on power prices is limited to the dispatch price (when the wind is actually blowing).

When the wind is blowing – the impact on retail prices (the price that troubles households and businesses) has retailers paying up to $120 per MWh (AGL pays $112) for every MWh of wind power dispatched to the grid – irrespective of the dispatch or wholesale price – which at night time will often be close to – or less than – zero. The rates retailers pay are set by long-term Power Purchase Agreements.

Wind power outfits steadfastly refuse to disclose their PPAs, for obvious political reasons. Infigen and the like aren’t going to win many hearts and minds if they revealed the fact that – in order to remain profitable over the long-term – they need a guaranteed price of around 4 times the average wholesale price of $35 – which doesn’t quite gel with their PR spruiker’s endless nonsense about the ‘wind being free‘.

The other critical detail that Adam needs to expand on, is the actual operating costs of wind turbines – such as operating and maintenance costs (recurring and increasing over time as these things grind their way to a halt): costs that – at $25 per MWh for every MWh dispatched – compare, not so favourably, with the ability of Victorian coal fired power generators to profitably deliver power to the grid, at less than $25 per MWh.

The operation of PPAs and their effect on retail power prices is covered in detail here – as is the actual operating costs of turbines:

When will the Wind Industry Stop Lying?

Australia’s Most Notorious Wind Power Outfit – Infigen – says “Move Over Pinocchio, Here We Come”

Then there’s the way in which the REC Subsidy paid to wind power outfits operates as an additive tax on all Australian power consumers – under the current LRET – a figure that runs to more than $45 billion:

Out to Save their Wind Industry Mates, Macfarlane & Hunt Lock-in $46 billion LRET Retail Power Tax

The other misconception – arising from guff pitched up by Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute – is that increasing wind power capacity will see “fossil fuel generators leave the market”. In terms of the fossil fuel generating capacity required to meet total consumer demand – no it won’t.

Fossil fuel generators – with a capacity at least equal to 100% of any installed wind power capacity – will be required to be available and online as ‘spinning reserve’ – 100% of the time – to account for total (and totally) unpredictable collapses in wind power output.

It does not matter whether there are 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 turbines spread out across the Eastern Grid, as a natural, meteorological phenomenon the wind will stop blowing across that entire area, such that wind power output will drop to a doughnut hundreds of times every year. And that’s a FACT:

The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 2 – The Whole Eastern Grid Debacle

June 2015 National

The cost of building and maintaining – what is now referred to as ‘redundant’ capacity – essential to provide back-up ‘cover’ for a further 11,000 3MW turbines – would be astronomical:

Lessons from Germany’s Wind Power Disaster

Not to mention the need to pay fossil fuel generators millions upon millions of dollars in ‘capacity payments’ to ensure sufficient ‘spinning reserve’ and/or fast start up peaking power plants such as Open Cycle Gas Turbines and diesel generators to cover wind power output collapses, almost every day:

Power Punters to Pay Double for Wind Power “FAILS” – REAL Power Generators Paid to Cover Wind Power Fraud

Labor’s latest move has simply magnified the costs of the current LRET debacle by a factor of two or more. However, with journalists like Adam Creighton on the trail it won’t be long before Australians work out just why their power bills are going through the roof, now. And when they do, it will be a matter of when, not if, the LRET policy meets its political doom.

CPI and electricity