Faux-green

High Energy Costs Hurt Seniors and other Vulnerable Citizens!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

New Obama EPA Rules Will Devastate Seniors

Jim Martin | Jul 28, 2014

 

When President Obama proposed healthcare reform that added 30 million to the insurance rolls while promising lower costs, most people who passed fourth grade math raised an eyebrow, if not a ruckus. The simple realities of supply and demand, coupled with the burden of government mandates, could only push healthcare costs skyward. With Obamacare now in effect, those early concerns have come to be realized through skyrocketing premiums, as confirmed by a recent Morgan Stanley survey of 148 national insurance brokers.

Premiums are up as much as 100 percent in some cases, and this is after Obama promised “savings.” One can only imagine what would happen to the cost of a commodity the President promises to make Americans pay more for. Unfortunately, we don’t have to imagine, as this is exactly what Obama promised his energy plan would achieve.

In January of 2008, candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that “under my plan… electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” No sanguine language here about savings, just a flat out mission to make Americans pay through the nose for energy. It’s no coincidence that under Obama gasoline prices have doubled, and have remained above $3 per gallon throughout his two terms.

Now to make good on his promise to make electricity cost more, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have issued brutal new rules on emissions for electricity generating power plants, just what the doctor ordered for skyrocketing electricity prices. This is a story largely ignored by the mainstream press who never miss an Obama chip shot on to the green or a grip and grin in some remote diner. But Americans are catching on fast.

On HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy declined to disagree with the host’s contention that Obama was waging a “war on coal.” Indeed, it was candidate Obama who in the same Chronicle interview stated, “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can. It’s just that [my plan] will bankrupt them.” The President makes no bones that his aim is to make producing electricity cost-prohibitive, but in the end it will be you, me, and everybody with an outlet and a light switch paying the bill.

The EPA’s war on coal is no less than a war on seniors and our nation’s most vulnerable. Seniors on fixed and diminishing incomes pay a disproportionate share of their monthly budget on utilities, and Obama’s EPA will serve only to make them poorer and more vulnerable. A recent Harris poll found 88 percent of seniors are at least somewhat concerned that the new EPA rules will force them to pay more. Sharing this view is a U.S. Chamber of Commerce analysis showing the new EPA rules will cost Americans $17 billion a year more to pay their electricity bills, and hit the economy with $50 billion a year in new costs.

As recently as six years ago coal accounted for about 50 percent of America’s electricity, and now stands at 40 percent. Obama wants it below 30 percent, a chokehold on energy production which is nothing short of pulling the emergency brake on the economy and letting America’s most vulnerable go flying through the windshield.

Seniors of limited means are least able to absorb the increasing costs of energy and electricity, as we’ve seen from far too many stories of elderly dying in their homes or requiring hospitalization during severe weather conditions. Clearly the President and the EPA are willing to gamble with the lives of seniors for the sake of their extreme ideology.

A study of the Administration’s new power plant emissions rules revealed job losses of 442,000 by 2022, and a loss of 40 percent of electrical capacity generated by coal in the next 15 years. What’s even more alarming is that the environmentalists at the EPA can’t even point to a tangible, achievable benefit to these new proposed standards. The truth is these additional regulations are of benefit to no one, and do nothing to address the fact that developing nations like China and India will double their power-plant emissions in short order with Americans essentially subsidizing their increased production.

The EPA counters that the short-term cost increase is easily absorbable and by 2030 we will all be paying less for energy, thanks to Obama and his environmental mandates. This is little comfort to the tens of millions of seniors now paying the price for Obama’s healthcare “savings.”

Concerns About Wind Turbines Too Close to Gas Lines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Turbine setback from gas lines sours some  

John Kreinbrink, an engineer who said he has worked on sour gas lines, contended that the potential for a puncture exists and that the lines could be damaged by vibrations from the shock if a windmill were to fall so close as allowed by the current setbacks on three DTE natural gas lines and one Omimex sour gas line.

Credit:  Steve Begnoche – Managing Editor, Ludington Daily News, www.ludingtondailynews.com 1 September 2011 ~~

One of the concerns raised during the run up to the Mason County Planning Commission’s approval of a special use permit for Consumers Energy’s proposed Lake Winds Energy Park was the seeming lack of awareness of the utility of sour and natural gas lines running through the wind park planned for Riverton and Summit townships.

These gas lines cross the county along rights of way used also by Consumers Energy, but the utility seemed surprised when critics of the proposed wind park pointed out the absence of the gas lines on Consumers’ wind park site maps.

Omimex Energy owns the sour gas lines and DTE the sweet gas lines.

Typically, utility concerns are ironed out in the early stages of planning for projects potentially affecting one another’s lines. The companies typically discuss with one another ways to work out logistics so one’s development doesn’t interfere with existing utility infrastructure, but that didn’t happen in the case of the Lake Winds Energy Park.

In subsequent months, conversations have taken place concerning placements of several of the turbines in relation to the gas lines.

Of concern, is how far away — or close — turbines are to the gas lines. Sour gas — which contains potentially deadly hydrogen sulfide — has to be “sweetened” before it can be used. The Omimex line transports sour gas to a sweetening plant in Manistee County.

The Vestas turbines Consumers plans to use are 476 feet tall to the tip of the 150-foot blades. The nacelle — the unit containing the generator and other equipment and where the blades connect to the tower — stands at 95 meters or about 312 feet.

Prior states in the e-mail that he would like the setback from the gas lines to be “at least a windmill height” and, he told the Daily News last week, he’d prefer it be at least 10 percent more so there could be no chance for the blades to hit the sour gas lines if a tower falls.

Schneider contends that engineering shows that if a windmill were to fall to the ground, the fiberglass blades could not penetrate the ground more than 4 feet, and thus could not damage the sour gas lines.

Prior counters if the turbines are set back beyond a tower’s height, he wouldn’t have to worry if the engineering is correct.

“I feel Consumers should move them to maximum setbacks that they can beyond the 476 feet since our pipeline contains 900 psi (pounds per square inch) of sour gas,” Prior wrote in an e-mail to the DTE Energy that he cc’ed to Mary Reilly, Mason County zoning director. The Citizens Alliance for Responsible Renewable Energy obtained a copy of the correspondence through a Freedom of Information Act request given to Reilly. “If Consumers has to reapply to the FAA, I would rather have them do that than sacrifice the potential safety of our public and our companies’ potential liability than expecting us to agree to lesser setback. If Consumer had done their homework ahead of time, this all could have been avoided.”

Consumers moved one turbine so it presents no concerns to Omimex, yet a second turbine, number 23, moved 95 feet back still is closer to the sour gas line than Prior said he’d like. The turbine is set back 376 feet from the Omimex line. Schneider said at that distance, the wind turbine is far enough away so the nacelle, which is the heaviest part of windmill, can’t fall on it and is situated in such a way that the blades can’t hit the line either. He compared the situation to a person being so close to a horse, that it can’t kick the person with its hoof because the person is too close.

CARRE’s members are using Omimex’s statements in the e-mail as one of the reasons the group wants the Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals to overturn the planning commission’s approval of the special land use permit for Lake Winds Energy Park.

At last week’s meeting, several people spoke about the matter. John Kreinbrink, an engineer who said he has worked on sour gas lines, contended that the potential for a puncture exists and that the lines could be damaged by vibrations from the shock if a windmill were to fall so close as allowed by the current setbacks on three DTE natural gas lines and one Omimex sour gas line.

“That’s a risk that had been ignored by the planning commission,” he said. “It’s something that can be detrimental to the general welfare.”

Evelyn Bergaila, long a critic of the wind park as designed, has spent much of the past year researching issues surrounding it as they have come up. She criticized the setbacks from the gas lines saying Consumers doesn’t want to move them more than the 1 foot vertical change or 100-foot horizontal change the FAA allows in its permit for the park without Consumers going back to that agency for review — a review that could slow down the project. CARRE members have said that rather than rush to construct the wind park, Consumers should slow down and address legitimate concerns, even if that means it misses a 2012 deadline to receive up to $75 million in government funds for the $200 million wind park.

Consumers seeks to have the park in production by the fall of 2012 in order to meet a deadline required for the government green energy subsidies for building the park. It is under a 2015 deadline to produce or purchase 10 percent of its power used in Michigan from renewable sources. Lake Winds Energy Park, and another park planned for the Thumb, are key components to Consumers’ plan to meet that State of Michigan green energy portfolio mandate.

Bergaila began her letter to the ZBA stating the planning commission erred in its decision to grant the permit “because the setback they are allowing for wind turbines to the Omimex sour gas line and the DTE sweet gas lines are inadequate. The health, safety, and welfare of the residents have not been protected as required by the Mason County Zoning Ordinance and Special Land Use Criteria.”

Bergaila contends Consumers is being inconsistent because on other setbacks, for instance one concerning a guy wire, the company recommended a greater setback than it is for the Omimex sour gas line at turbine 23.

“The acceptance of less than a tower height of setback of the wind turbines to sour and sweet gas lines … is an error that is dangerous to the health, safety and welfare of the Riverton community,” she stated.

Later in the same letter, Bergaila states, “The planning commission was both unduly influenced by the needs of Consumers Energy, in particular their schedule, and the commission erred in their decision to approve Consumers Energy’s special land use for 56 wind turbines in Riverton and Summit townships because the plan does not meet criteria number 3. This criteria states that the use ‘will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future permitted uses in the same general vicinity and in the community as a whole.’ The lack of adequate setbacks of the proposed wind turbines to the existing gas lines will be a hazard to our community.”

Complicating matters is that there is no setback standard in current law. Bergaila makes reference to a tower height plus 10 percent standard by the wind industry, but it is not a requirement.

“There are no set rules on the distance of setback and wind turbines,” Prior told the Daily News. “It’s a new concept.”

Prior, in the FOIA’d e-mail, also instructs Mary Reilly, planning administrator for Mason County, not to let Schneider speak on Prior’s or Omimex’s behalf on these matters. Prior state he would prefer not to be caught in the controversy on the matter, and had hoped it could be worked out among the companies.

The Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals will meet Wednesday, Sept. 7 at 7 p.m. in the community room in the basement of the Ludington City Hall. The appeal is expected to be a matter of deliberation. Public comment was taken last week.

Ridiculous Environmental Policies All Part of United Nation’s Agenda 21.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Sniffing Out Bad Environmental Policies Is Much Like Culling Rotten Produce

By  

When buying produce, we’ve found ways to discern which pieces are worthy to place in our basket. Each piece of fruit or stalk of vegetable must be of good quality to justify spending our hard-earned income on it. So we look, we sniff and we gently squeeze them in order to cull the unripe or rotten pieces and glean the good ones.

Perhaps we should use a similar approach when evaluating the competing environmental proposals proffered by various organizations. We should carefully sniff out the rotten assumptions and gently squeeze the reasoning of their justifications in order to glean which proposals might be worthy of our real sacrifice in national treasure and personal freedoms.

For example, consider the World Bank’s proposals for reducing man-made influences over global climate change. Like most other organizations, they stress the urgency for all nations to take immediate, coordinated actions to reduce carbon emissions. However, they stress that the needed sacrifices should not be shared equally among the nations.

Upon closer inspection, the World Bank’s policy recommendations reveal intellectually unripe assumptions that employ ethically rotten reasoning to justify them. For example, in the World Development Report 2010, the President of the World Bank stresses that,

Developed countries have produced most of the emissions of the past and have higher per-capita emissions. These countries should lead the way by significantly reducing their carbon footprints and stimulating research into green alternatives.

First, consider the intellectually unripe assumption that per-capita carbon emissions are an appropriate basis for determining relative global warming culpability across the nations, and to identify which nations should bear the brunt of costly remediation efforts.

Let’s remember that carbon emissions result from economic activity. All else equal, greater economic activity in a nation’s economy creates greater carbon emissions per capita, but also greater prosperity (output per capita) for its citizens enjoy.

Humanitarians should want the citizens of all nations to become prosperous, but to achieve their prosperity with the smallest environmental footprint possible. Therefore, would not an intellectually ripe indicator of culpability be carbon emissions per-dollar of economic output?

Using this perspective, we could identify the various institutional characteristics among the nations that tend to create a “greener” prosperity, which would then better inform the efforts of environmental policy makers. For example, I point out in an earlier blog post that countries pursuing prosperity through free markets rather than through centralized planning consistently produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, per dollar of GDP.

Second, consider the ethically rotten policy implications that this intellectually unripe measure would likely create: In order for a nation with heavy carbon emissions per capita to reduce its culpability in global warming crimes against humanity, it must make relatively greater sacrifices. It must decrease its economic activity using current technologies and divert significant portions of its national treasure towards developing “green” technologies. Nations with lower per-capita emissions would not be called upon to sacrifice as much.

This means a country like China, which has an economy similar in size to the U.S. but generates 43% more total carbon emissions, would be expected to sacrifice less than the U.S. Why? With its 2 billion citizens (6 times the 325 million U.S. citizens), Chinese carbon emissions per capita are still far lower than the U.S.

This ethically rotten perspective ignores the fact that China has produced far more carbon emissions per dollar GDP than the U.S. As a result, Chinese citizens bear a much lower level of prosperity (output per person) than U.S. citizens, despite having imposed a far larger total environmental footprint than the U.S.

Using per-capita carbon emissions as an indicator of climate change culpability?  Hmm… I think I smell something rotten in Denmark.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/sniffing-out-bad-environmental-policies-is-much-like-culling-rotten-produce/#sthash.iZ5AGrRf.dpuf

Discussion on Why Energy Costs in America, Are So High!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

President Obama Keeps Energy Costs High

By Filed under Energy on July 28, 2014 

While Obama has not yet been able to stop the fracking technology that is producing an American oil and natural gas boom on private and state owned lands, he has sharply constricted exploration and development on the extensive federally-owned lands and offshore. That is why gasoline prices have doubled since he became President.

The Heritage Foundation explains that under Obama’s policies, the EPA’s:

Proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions essentially would prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants, and force existing ones into early retirement, driving up the cost of energy on American families and businesses.

Then there is Obama’s indefinite hold up of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would simply transport, at no cost to taxpayers, abundant, low cost Canadian oil and natural gas to American Gulf Coast refineries, assuring American access to low cost, reliable oil and gas supplies. But if Canada cannot sell to America through the Keystone pipeline, then they will sell the oil and gas to our emerging rival in China, through pipelines on the Canadian west coast. These policies would deprive America of 50,000 high paying jobs not only for construction of the extensive pipeline networks, but also for the budding boom and rebirth of American manufacturing and associated higher paying blue collar jobs, which the revival of low cost, reliable American energy supplies is producing.

The Heritage Foundation further explains that “higher energy prices shrink production and consumption, resulting in less income for families, more people in the unemployment line and less economic growth.” All of this means that Obama is on track for increasing electricity and other energy costs that are the inevitable result of a constricted supply of low cost, reliable, American energy.

– See more at: http://environmentblog.ncpa.org/president-obama-keeps-energy-costs-high/#sthash.iy1mLXmu.dpuf

The “Inconvenient Truth”, for Climate Alarmists! Been chilly lately….

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes

Posted: 28 Jul 2014 

 
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
 
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
__________________
Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
“…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
__________________
Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
__________________
Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
“It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t untilrecently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
__________________
Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010
“…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
__________________
Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
“Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
__________________
Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
“…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
__________________
Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September2011
“There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
__________________
Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
“We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
__________________
Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
__________________
Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
“The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
[Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
__________________
Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
“…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
__________________
Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
__________________
Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
“…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
__________________
Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
“The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
__________________
Met Office – July 2013
“The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
………..
Executive summary
The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”
 
__________________
Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
“Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
__________________
Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
“They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
__________________
Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
“Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
__________________
Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
__________________
Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
__________________
Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
“A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
__________________
Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
“Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”

__________________
 
H/t Steve GWR

Heartfelt Poetry, from a Victim of the Wind Scam! Life on a Windfarm…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Life on a Wind Farm: 3 Poems by M. Krochmalnik Grabois

Under the Turbines

Infants and toddlers cannot speak

and even pre-teens

may not have the vocabulary to describe

the unprecedented symptoms they suffer

 

Teenagers can tell you more—

they are developing a lexicon for suffering

They are beginning to see that life is unfair

and full of strife

 

and even if they sometimes feel invulnerable

they watch their parents and know deep inside that

invulnerability is a lie

 

They watch the landscape change around them

see the five-hundred foot turbines erected

 

The sound of the gears up there are not like the sound

of their childhoods swings

which creak in the wind at night

a comforting sound

 

Now they hear the tangible sound of the wealthy

stealing from them

before they have even begun to acquire anything

 

 

More Symptoms from Living in a “Wind Farm”

Sleep disturbance in children and infants is common

Your child may feel bullied

even if no classmate is bullying him

 

He has just begun to get over the idea that there is a monster

under his bed

 

and now he awakens feeling that there is an intruder in the house

an intruder with more powerful weapons than Father’s guns

and a feeling that Father is powerless

against the greater forces in the world

 

Of course, it’s true

Father and his neighbors tried to stop the turbines

He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan

forbade them

 

Father is powerless

 

Grit

I watch my sleeping daughter grit her teeth

When she was three she had bad earaches

and took so many antibiotics

the doctor forbade us to give her milk

because milk is full of antibiotics

and we can’t afford Organic

 

Now she has ear aches again

This time the doctor says there is no treatment

other than moving out of the “wind farm”

 

It’s the pressure he says

and because of her history she is particularly

vulnerable

 

We all involuntarily explore our vulnerabilities now

 

Anxiety, nervousness—

I’ve learned there’s a difference between the two

but when I startle awake with an elevated heart rate

I’m not sure which is which

 

Nausea

I’ve always eaten like a horse and never felt nauseous in my life

Now I feel nauseous all the time

I can’t figure out how the wind turbines cause nausea

though I’ve been told it’s an inner ear thing

I guess it’s something my daughter and I

have in common

 

My neighbor, the professor

now stands in front of the chalkboard

gripping the edges of the podium

staring at his notes

 

He’s got vertigo

and can’t perambulate around his classroom

speaking extemporaneously

like he used to

 

I never much liked that guy

kind of an egghead

who moved here from some city

for the peace and quiet

That’s a laugh, ain’t it, Professor?

 

Now I feel more brotherly toward him

We stood up in public hearings

and our arguments, our pleas

were equally ignored by the corrupt commissioners

 

him with his PhD

me with my high school diploma

 

I think I was right not to go on to college

though my mother told me

I was smart enough

 

(Photo Credit: Steve Sutherland)

Toronto School Boards Really Bad at Math!!! (and science!)

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The green mirage: Toronto school board gets free roof repairs for solar panels — or do they?

Toronto School Board flunks outToronto School Board flunks out

Canada’s largest school board, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), is getting an F on management practices.  Ontario’s Ministry of Education and Ministry of Energy must also receive a failing grade.

It starts with Toronto’s public schools having leaky roofs.  The TDSB, with much fanfareMay 2011, found the Holy Grail when they struck a deal with AMP Solar Limited Partnership for solar panels on school roofs.  TDSB thought the deal with AMP would result in free roof repairs on 450 schools, and, after AMP recovered the cost of the repairs, TDSB would also receive 14.5% of the solar power revenue generated from the Feed-In Tariff or FIT contracts they hoped to obtain from the OPA (Ontario Power Authority).  On paper it sounded wonderful; TDSB’s Director of Education Chris Spence said,  “This is a win-win for everyone involved.”

What he meant was, it would be a losing proposition for Ontario’s ratepayers.

What has happened since that announcement shows someone didn’t do their math homework or anticipate what might go wrong.

One year later: there were delays as the rules under the FIT program changed, creating lower prices for roof-top solar, and then McGuinty prorogued the Legislature.  TheToronto Sun quoted Chris Bolton, TDBS’s chair, confessing the Board didn’t have an alternate plan.  The story went on to say the Ontario government “encouraged” the TDSB to turn to FIT as a resolution to its roof repair backlog.   It is not clear if that suggestion came from the Ministry of Education or the Ministry of Energy.  If it was, it was as a neat budget gambit to fool the taxpayers while sticking it to the ratepayers.   Three weeks prior to the Sun article the Ministry of Education froze new construction approvals, “citing concerns the TDSB was going over budget on building projects and in danger of not wiping out an existing $50 million capital deficit.”

A few “snags”

Fast forward July 25, 2014: the reporter who wrote the Toronto Sun story wrote one for the National Post  headlined  “Solar panel upgrades for public schools hit snags”.  The article infers “the costs” to repair the roofs are “higher than first pegged” and goes on to explain, “That’s because of greater-than-expected costs to the board’s private partner-School Top Solar LP-for roofing, installing the panels and fees to Toronto Hydro for hooking up to its power grid.”  It is unclear who School Top Solar LP is—the original TDSB partner was AMP Solar Limited Partnership, but perhaps they flipped the project to take a nice profit (as has happened with so many companies) that have obtained FIT contracts).

The result of this wonder story is that the most TDSB will get out of this free deal will be to replace one-sixth (720,000 sq. ft.) of the 4.3 million square feet of roofs.    They can also kiss goodbye to the 14.5% energy revenue Chris Spence thought they would get.

Let’s see where the mistakes were made. First, the math on the 66 MW that will be installed: based on the original roof-top solar prices ($700 per megawatt hour), the 66 MW could have generated in excess of $40 million annually and $806 million over the 20-year life of the contract. The developer (AMP) claimed the 66 MW would produce enough electricity to power 6,000 average homes, which means 57,600 megawatt hours (MWh) of power yearly.

Now the roof repair costs: roof replacement repairs to the 4.3 million square feet would run to $8 or $9 per sq. ft., meaning total costs would be in the $40 million range.  Capital cost of solar per MW is $5 million (approximately) as estimated by the U.S. EIA, so 66 MW would have cost $330 million making total costs (including roof repairs) about $370 million and recovery of the cost outlays (including maintenance) should have taken nine to ten years.

If it looks too good to be true, maybe…

The reduction in the FIT rates threw the “free” roof idea into jeopardy. It now looks like the TDSB will have to go cap in hand to the Minister of Education, Liz Sandals, if they want those leaking roofs fixed, without making the Board’s $50-million capital deficit disappear.

What’s funny is that now, as reality hits, a few of the education board trustees interviewed for the National Post said they actually want to blame the school principals(some of them had requested adjustments to the placement of the equipment used to hook up the panels to Toronto Hydro’s electricity grid).

Perhaps Ms. Sandals will solve the TDSB dilemma by getting the teachers unions to back down on their demands for raises and pension benefits until the roof leaks have been plugged!

This is another example of the many logic failures brought to Ontario by the Liberal government and its push for renewable energy on a large-scale!

Parker Gallant,

July 28, 2014

Windweasels Won’t Take NO for an Answer! Appealing Court Decision!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Utility Appeals Wind Turbine Noise Court Ruling

Ruling could impact wind plants across Michigan

By JACK SPENCER | July 29, 2014

The Lake Winds Energy Plant in Mason County.

Consumers Energy is appealing the 51st Circuit Court ruling that upheld Mason County’s determination that the Lake Winds Energy Plant near Ludington is in violation of the county’s 45-decibel noise ordinance.

Arguing that the County’s decision was an “erroneous ruling,” the utility filed a 38-page appeal with the Michigan Court of Appeals on July 18. In addition, Consumers Energy is saying that if the ruling by 51st Circuit Court Judge Richard Cooper were allowed to stand, it could have an impact on many other wind turbine plants across the state.

“This has implications beyond just Mason County,” Dennis Marvin, spokesman for Consumers Energy told Capitol Confidential. “We believe the study the county based its decision on was flawed. We took this decision (to appeal) very seriously, but ultimately our legal staff determined this was in the best interest of our customers and the landowners at the wind park.”

Rick James, of East Lansing-based E-Coustic Solutions, is an acoustician specializing in the production, control, transmission, reception and effects of sound. According to James, Consumers Energy is not exaggerating when it talks about the potential impact of the Lake Winds case.

“Consumers’ appeal has less to do with the supposed 1 decibel error, the topic of the appeal, and more to do with the wind industry’s broader concerns,” James said. “A decision by the Appeals Court in favor of Mason County would make it easier for other counties and townships with wind energy utility noise regulations to prove non-compliance.”

“Consumers would have been better advised if they had not accepted the conclusions of their acoustical consultant that the proposed project could be fit into the host community without causing problems,” James continued. “Both Consumers and its consultant should have known from past work on other projects that locating large, utility-scale wind turbines close to residential homes was likely to result in the type of litigation now in progress.”

Located south of Ludington, Lake Winds was the utility company’s first wind plant project in Michigan. Residents who live near the $255 million, 56-turbine facility started complaining of health problems shortly after the turbines began operating. They filed a lawsuit on April 1, 2013, arguing that noise, vibrations and flickering lights emanating from the wind plant were adversely affecting their health. Among the symptoms noted in the lawsuit were dizziness, sleeplessness and headaches.

Less than six months later, in September 2013, the Mason County Planning Commission determined that the wind plant was not in compliance with safety guidelines. CMS Energy, which is the parent company of Consumers Energy, then appealed that decision to the Mason County Zoning Board of Appeals and lost. In January, CMS took the case to court again, where it lost once more.

As the case began at the Circuit Court level, in January, the utility asked Judge Cooper to delay the requirement that it make efforts to mitigate the alleged noise problem until the court made its final ruling. Cooper denied that request. Now, as part of its appeal, Consumers Energy is asking the same thing of the Appeals Court.

“Lake Winds is an embarrassment for CMS and for good reason,” said Kevon Martis, director of the Interstate Informed Citizens Coalition, a nonprofit organization that is concerned about the construction of wind turbines in the region. “They denied well-established science that indicated in advance that this project would not comply with the noise language CMS essentially dictated to Mason County. The truth is that even if CMS complied with the wind turbine noise limits they demanded from Mason County, evidence from inside Lake Winds, as well as inside almost every major wind plant across the state, is clear: 45-decibel wind turbine noise limits are not adequate to protect homeowners whose township has been turned into a 47-story tall power plant.”

“Ohio just recently modified their turbine setback standards to 1,320 feet and for that distance to be established from property lines,” Martis continued. “Our home rule townships would be wise to adopt similar or stronger language to protect their residents from such abuse.”

Marvin denied that CMS dictated the details of Mason County’s noise ordinance.

“We provided input and so did others,” Marvin said.

Lake Winds is part of the utility’s effort to meet Michigan’s renewable energy mandate, which requires that 10 percent of the state’s energy be produced by in-state renewable sources by 2015. The mandate was supposedly aimed at reducing carbon emissions, however; the 2008 law did not require the monitoring of emissions to measure the mandate’s actual impact. 

~~~~~

97% – 100% of Intelligent People Know That Climate Alarmism is a Scam…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Alarmists’ Battering Ram, their Sham Scam

Posted: 28 Jul 2014 

 

It’s nice to see a media report taking the mickey out of the Global Warming Nazi’s great global warming swindle (See below).

John Ransom, writing for Town Hall Daily:

The Devil in Global Warming Details

Ransom re-exposed the sham scam 97% consensus. Definitely part of the Global Warming Nazi’s Swindle that has been exposed so many times it is amazing that they have the nerve, the sheer gall to keep repeating it. It has been exposed, inter alia, here, here, here, here, here etc etc etc.
Ransom writes:

“The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming,” reports the Daily Caller. 

It seems a blogger has gotten hold of the primary data used in the research, and the data suggests that far from having a consensus that global warming is man-made, scientists are still skeptical. 

This is not the first time that critics have questioned the results of that study.
A catalog of studies in a report published by Science & Education, shows that a little more than one quarter of 1% of all studies conclude that global warming is man-made, says the Daily Caller. 

“In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed,” says statistician Dr William Briggs in a press release accompanying the report. “That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.” 

And here’s what I know about people who lie: they are liars.

And then Ransom reinforces the remark about lying:

“Three years of observations show that the Antarctic ice sheet is now losing 159 billion tonnes of ice each year,” reports the UK’s University of Leeds, “twice as much as when it was last surveyed. A team of scientists from the UK Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, led by researchers at the University of Leeds, have produced the first complete assessment of Antarctic ice sheet elevation change.” ………… 

The press release goes on to say that the ice melt could contribute to an increase in “global sea levels by 0.45 millimetres each year alone.” 

Dr Don Easterbrook exposed this as malarky with his paper

‘UNSTOPPABLE COLLAPSE’ OF THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET IS NOT HAPPENING’

 

The Great GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

Renewable Energy Targets, are the Best Targets to Miss. Stop them All Together!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Hostages to a renewable ruse

Written by Nick Cater, Australian on 28 July 2014.

wind farm blightIf there is a sound more pitiable than the whine of a pious environmental activist, it is the wail of a ­financier about to do his dough.

The mournful chorus now wafting from Greg Hunt’s waiting room is the sound of the two in unison, pleading with the Environment Minister to save the life of their misshapen bastard child, the renewable energy target.

You have to hand it to Hunt, who either has nerves of steel or is stone deaf, for he has retained both his cool and his fortitude.

The RET review by Dick Warburton on the government’s behalf has brought the rent-seekers out in force, for billions of dollars of corporate welfare is resting on its outcome.

As it stands, the RET will produce a bounteous return for a small group of investors shrewd enough to get into the windmill game while the rest of us are slapped with four-figure power bills.

Wind farms may be ugly but they are certainly not cheap, nor is the electricity that trickles from them. No one in their right minds would buy one if they had to sell power for $30 to $40 a megawatt hour, the going rate for conventional producers.

But since the retailers are forced to buy a proportion of renewable power, the windmill mafia can charge two to three times that price, a practice that in any other market would be known as price gouging.

As if a $60 premium were not reward enough, the transaction is further sweetened with a renewable energy certificate that they can sell to energy producers who insist on generating power in a more disreputable manner.

The going rate of $40 a megawatt hour means the total income per megawatt for wind farms is three to five times that of conventional power, and unless the government changes the scheme that return is only going to get better.

In an act of rent-seeking genius, the renewable lobby managed to persuade the Rudd government to set the 2020 target as a quantity — 41 terawatt hours — rather than 20 per cent of overall power as originally proposed.

Since the target was set, the energy generation forecast for 2020 has fallen substantially, meaning the locked-in renewable target is now more like 28 per cent.

That will send conventional producers scrambling for certificates, pushing up their price beyond $100. It’s a mouth-watering prospect for the merchant bankers and venture capitalists who were smart enough to jump on board, and brilliant news for Mercedes dealerships on the lower north shore, but of little or any benefit to the planet.

The cost of this speculative ­financial picnic will be about $17 billion by 2030 or thereabouts, ­according to Deloitte, which produced a report on the messy business last week.

Since the extra cost will be added to electricity bills, the RET is a carbon tax by another name, a regressive impost that will fall most heavily on those with limited incomes, such as pensioners.

The lowest income households already spend 7 per cent of their disposable incomes on energy, according to the Australian Council of Social Service. Energy takes just 2.6 per cent of the budget of those on high incomes.

Thus under the cover of responding to climate change — “the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time” — billions of dollars are taken from the poor and given to the rich investors in the unsightly industrial turbines that are blighting the lives of rural communities and stripping value from the properties of people who just wish to be left to live in peace.

Read rest…