Why Industrial Wind Turbines, are a Waste of Time & Money!

January 8, 2016 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

11 Fatal Flaws with Wind Power

January 8, 2016 by stopthesethings

The wind industry is copping a flogging all over the World. Increasingly, as the industry’s lies and propaganda are replaced by facts, more and more are coming to the obvious conclusion: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK – on any level.

Getting there was only a matter of time.

What has surprised STT is not that journos, pundits and even Global Warming hysterics have sussed the wind power fraud for what it is; it’s that those that previously championed wind power have, instead, joined a chorus calling for serious investment in nuclear power.

Here’s a little ‘paint-by-numbers’ breakdown that reaches that very same conclusion, for much the same reasons.

Top 11 Problems Plaguing Solar And Wind Power
Daily Caller
Andrew Follett
25 December 2015

Despite President Barack Obama’s pocket veto Saturday of attempts to repeal the Clean Power Plan and recent increases in taxpayer support, solar and wind energy are in a tough spot, requiring an estimated $90 trillion of investment to meet carbon dioxide reduction goals.

The fundamental issues of solar and wind power are numerous, so let’s review the top 11.

1: Power Storage Is Incredibly Expensive On A Large Scale

It is currently impossible to economically store power for times when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing. Purchasing enough batteries to provide just three days of storage for an average American household costs about $15,000, and those batteries only last for about five years and are very difficult to recycle.

This is true for home power storage as well, even with the latest batteries. A Tesla power-wall capable of powering a home costs $7,340 to buy. A conservative analysis estimates that a power-wall can save its owner a maximum of $1.06 a day. Such a system would take approximately 25 years to pay for itself, according to the same analysis.

One of the world’s largest and most powerful batteries, located in Fairbanks, Ala., weighs 1,300-metric tons and is larger than a football field. It can only provide enough electricity for about 12,000 residents, or 38 percent of Fairbanks’ population, for seven minutes. That’s useful for short outages, which happen a lot in Alaska, but isn’t effective enough to act as a reserve for solar and wind.

The best way we have of “storing” power is pumping water up a hill, which actually accounts for 99 percent of all global energy storage.

2: The U.S. Power Grid Is Older, And Has Trouble Handling Solar And Wind

“Our power grid works well today. Some complain, but blackouts are rare and large-scale blackout are really rare. The power grid was set up for the [electrical] generation we have. Building a lot of new wind and solar requires much greater expenditure on the grid,” Vice President for Policy of the Institute for Energy Research Daniel Simmons told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

According to the Department of Energy, 70 percent of the transmission lines and power transformers in the country are at least 25 years old.

In order for the power grid to function, demand for energy must exactly match supply. Power demand is relatively predictable and conventional power plans, like nuclear plants and natural gas, can adjust output accordingly. Solar and wind power, however, cannot easily adjust output. They also provide power unpredictably relative to conventional power sources.

On an especially cloudy or windless day, the electrical grid can’t supply enough power from solar or wind alone. Wind and solar also run the risk of producing too much power which can overload and fry the power grid. This is why electrical companies will occasionally pay consumers to take electricity.

3: Rebuilding The Power Grid To Handle Solar And Wind Is Absurdly Expensive

The three power grids that supply the United States with energy are massive and expensive pieces of infrastructure. The power grids are valued at trillions of dollars and can’t be replaced in a timely manner. It takes more than a year to manufacture a new transformer, and transformers aren’t interchangeable, as each one must be individually built specifically for its location. At a time when the U.S. government is more than $18 trillion in debt, building power grids that can handle solar and wind may not be feasible.

Merely building a 3,000-mile network of transmission lines capable of moving power from wind-rich West Texas to market in East Texas proved to be a $6.8 billion effort that began in 2008 and still isn’t entirely finished. Building the infrastructure to move large amounts of solar or wind power from the best places to generate it to the places where power is needed would be incredibly expensive and could cost many times the price of generating the power.

4: Solar and Wind Don’t Provide Power At Useful Times

“Solar is better than wind for providing electricity when electricity is used,” says Simmons. “But during much of the year in, for example, peak electricity demand comes after dark. For example, [on December 17] in California peak electricity demand was at 6pm. But peak solar was at 12:36 and by 6pm, solar production was a zero.”

Power demand is relatively predictable. The output of a solar or wind power plant is quite variable over time and generally doesn’t coincide with the times when power is most needed. Peak power demand also occurs in the evenings, when solar power is going offline. Adding power plants which only provide power at intermittent and unpredictable times makes the power grid more fragile.

5: Solar And Wind Can’t Keep the Lights On By Themselves

Solar and wind power systems require conventional backups to provide power when they cannot. Since the output of solar and wind plants cannot be predicted with high accuracy by forecasts, grid operators have to keep excess reserve running just in case.

But natural gas, coal-fired, or nuclear plants are not simple machines. They can require days to fully turn on from a dead stop. This means that solar and wind power require conventional sources in “stand-by” mode, which means they’re still generating electricity.

Despite this, environmental groups like The Sierra Club still call for “100 percent” solar and wind power.

6: The Best Places For Solar And Wind Are Usually Far Away From Consumers

The places with the highest potential for generating solar or wind power are typically relatively far away from the people who will consume power, according to the Department of Energy. The government agency even maintains maps of how unfeasible long-range transmission can become.

The vast majority of people who use power do not live in deserts or consistently windy areas. The kind of high voltage power lines needed to transport even relatively small amounts of power cost $1.9 to 3.1 million per mile built. Additionally, the kind of “smarter” power systems which can be adjusted to varying energy production created by wind and solar power can cost up to 50 percent more.

7: Solar And Wind Are A Very Small Percent Of The Power Grid Despite Years of Subsidies

“The first 8 months of 2015 wind and solar combined to produce 2.3% of the energy the U.S. consumed. Also wind production is down this year compared to last year,” says Simmons.

Solar and wind have been heavily subsidized since at least the 1970s. In 2010, wind power alone received $5 billion in subsidies, swamping the $654 million oil and gas received in subsides. One in four wind suppliers have gone out of business in the past two years.

In 2014, solar and wind power accounted for only 0.4 and 4.4 percent of electricity generated in the United States, respectively, according to the Energy Information Administration. The total amount of energy created by solar and wind is relatively small even though both systems are heavily subsidized.

8: The Solar And Wind “Low-Hanging Fruit” Have Already Been Taken

The locations where solar and wind power make the most economic sense generally already have a solar or wind power system. Since solar and wind power are only effective in a limited number of locations, “green” power sources are difficult to expand and are simply not practical in some areas.

9: Natural Gas Prices Are Very Low In The United States

Natural gas prices are currently incredibly low in the United States, making it much more difficult for solar and wind power to become cost competitive. Natural gas is already passing coal power as the most used source of electricity. Additionally, natural gas is quite environmentally friendly.

The Department of Energy agrees with research organization Berkeley Earth that “the transition from coal to natural gas for electricity generation has probably been the single largest contributor to the … largely unexpected decline in US CO2 emissions.”

10: Nuclear Energy Has Enormous Potential

The United States just approved its first new nuclear reactor in 20 years. New nuclear reactor designs are much safer and emit less radiation than the coal plants they replace. Nuclear plants take up far less space than wind or solar and do not emit any carbon dioxide.

Recent breakthroughs in fusion could also potentially restart the atomic age when nuclear progress was lauded as a pinnacle of human achievement. Operational fusion power will put most other forms of electricity generation permanently out of business and could occur very soon. Fusion power could easily be “too cheap to meter,” meaning that the cost of generating new power would be below the cost of determining how much power an individual was using, effectively making electricity generation nearly free.

11: Encouraging Wind And Solar Creates Incentives For Massive Corruption

Attempts by governments to encourage solar and wind power have created incentives for corruption even environmentalists acknowledge. The recent Volkswagen scandal illustrates that regulatory attempts to force a specific technology, in this case the adoption of cleaner diesel engines, create incentives that lead to sophisticated cheating by companies. The main incentive of the regulatory agencies is to make rules while avoiding bad publicity, not to actually solve the problem.

The push to encourage “green” systems has already led to serious corruption, such as the Solyndra scandal. Such corruption “crowds out” investment dollars that could be better spent on more workable solutions.
Daily Caller

Government Corruption Involved in Falmouth Wind Turbine Issues!

January 5, 2016January 5, 2016 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Falmouth Turbines 6 Yrs 110 Db Noise Still Not Inputted In Studies

FALMOUTH TOWN OWNED VESTAS WIND TURBINE 110 DECIBELS OF NOISE HAS NEVER BEEN INPUT INTO A NOISE STUDY -WHY ARE THEY HIDING INFORMATION ?

Falmouth, MA

By FRANK HAGGERTY (Open Post) January 5, 2016

Falmouth Turbines 6 Yrs 110 Db Noise Still Not Inputted In Studies

The simple fact is the Town of Falmouth hid a noise warning letter, August 2010, from Vestas wind company that the turbines are 7 decibels over the original studies. The 7 decibels has never been inputted in any studies even now six years later !

The town hid the letter 6 years ago because they would not be able to get Special Permit 240 – 166 to build the turbines. The permit process would require additional studies and notifcations to the residents around the turbines.

The Town of Falmouth has applied for Special Permits for the two turbines that break state noise regulations.

In the following letter Vestas wind company reiterates in writing that the Town of Falmouth had been previously warned the turbine generates up to 110 decibels

The Vestas letter warning to the town in 2010 :

‘The Town has previously been provided with the Octave Band Data / Sound performance for the V82 turbine. This shows that the turbine normally operates at 103.2dB but the manufacturer has also stated that it may produce up to 110dB ‘

Scotts Finally Waking Up to the Wind Scam?

January 5, 2016 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Scots Demand an End to Government’s ‘Un-Democratic Fixation’ with Unreliable, Insecure & Unaffordable Wind Power

January 5, 2016 by stopthesethings 2 Comments

****

It took a little under a decade, but the message is finally getting out: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK – on any level.

There are 3 electricity essentials – that the power source and its delivery to homes and businesses be: 1) reliable; 2) secure; and 3) affordable.

Try to skimp on any one or more of those essential elements and you’re no longer talking about an energy ‘system’, you’re condemning your economy to social and economic ‘chaos’.

Reliability and security mean that power is delivered precisely when and where it’s needed; without exception – satisfying those critical requirements means the supplier doesn’t get off the hook by glibly claiming the wind didn’t blow, the Sun didn’t shine, or the dog ate my homework.

As to affordability, you can have the most reliable and secure system on Earth, but if the cost of what’s to be delivered is beyond the reach of households; or puts power hungry businesses to the wall, then reliability and security become irrelevant: suppliers without customers don’t last for very long, before they too are out of business.

Passing the ‘reliability’ ruler over wind power draws an obvious blank; so too with the idea that a wholly weather dependent power source could, somehow, earn the tag ‘secure’.

Then, on the totally unpredictable occasions when some of its capacity might become available, the cost to Australian retailers sits at over $110 per MWh (AGL, in its capacity as retailer, locked in a fixed price for all of the wind power produced by its suppliers at $112 per MWh, for which it collects a REC as part of the bargain, currently worth $72). That figure (the whole of which is added to retail power bills) compares with an average wholesale price of $35-40 per MWh.

In South Australia – Australia’s ‘wind power capital’, futures contracts on the ASX Energy market for electricity delivered in 2016-18 are between $86 and $90 a MWh. That compares to between just $37 and $41 MWh in Victoria and between $43 and $48 per MWh in NSW. Both NSW and Victoria draw the vast bulk of their power from coal-fired plant. And South Australia draws heavily on Victoria’s and NSW’s coal-fired plant via the Heywood and Murraylink interconnectors. Heywood has a notional capacity of 460MW and Murrylink a notional capacity of 220MW. A recent wind power collapse in SA overloaded the interconnectors, which shut down to avoid a thermal melt-down, and resulted in an almost State-wide blackout (see our post here).

Australia’s Large-Scale RET will add a further $45 billion to retail power bills in wind power subsidies and/or retailer fines between now and 2031 – all designed to be directed to wind power outfits (see our post here).

Already, tens of thousands of Australian households can no longer afford power (see our post here).

In SA, the number of permanently disconnected homes exceeds 50,000 (see our post here).

And one of its biggest employers, Port Pirie’s Nyrstar Smelter is considering its future, due to the phenomenal cost of wind power and the insane cost of running banks of highly inefficient Open Cycle Gas Turbines to cover wind power output collapses: when the wind drops out, on a totally unpredictable basis, the spot price rockets from around $50-70 per MWh (on average) to over $2,000 and often hits the regulated cap of $13,800 per MWh – all borne by power consumers, of course (see our post here).

Nystrar’s completely justified complaint about South Australia’s energy debacle is directed at all 3 of the fundamentals – thanks to its 17 wind farms and the haphazard delivery of any fraction of their notional capacity of 1,477MW – SA’s power supply is no longer reliable, secure or affordable.

And it’s the same 3 essential rules for a meaningful power supply that has Scots demanding an end to its government’s bizarre fixation on wind power; and, instead, has them pushing for reliable, secure and affordable nuclear power.

Former Dana oil chief urges Scot-Govt. to build new nuclear stations for baseload power and end its ‘fixation’ with wind power
Scottish Energy News
30 December 2015

A former North Sea oil company boss and now independent energy advisor has called on the Government to curtail its ‘fixation’ with wind power and to drop its moratorium on building new Scottish nuclear power stations to provide carbon-free baseload electricity generation.

Stuart Paton, former chief executive of Dana Petroleum, publishes his ‘new Scottish energy policy’ in a pamphlet due to be issued in January 2016 by the pro-market Edinburgh-based think-tank, Reform Scotland, where board members include a former Tory MSP.

In his chapter for “Reforming Scotland”, Paton says: “Scotland has to develop its energy policy beyond a fixation on wind power and point scoring with Westminster.

“The challenge of climate change does require a de-carbonisation of energy, but support for nuclear power, unconventional gas, and increased emphasis on reducing energy usage, are all required to meet the challenges of the coming decades”.

Paton is explicitly critical of the Scottish Government’s ‘un-democratic’ policy of continued expansion of wind power, stating that:

“The increase in wind generation is essentially increasing the amount of electricity that will be exported from Scotland.

“Although local campaigners against wind farms often use the ‘we are already generating more than we use locally’ argument, the national question of should we be building more windfarms in Scotland, with the impact on the natural environment, to export power to England has not been asked.

“This is a major energy policy that has been progressed without an explicitly democratic mandate.”

Geoff Mawdsley, Director of Reform Scotland, welcomed Paton’s contribution. He said: “With the challenges we face to our North Sea oil industry, as well as recent substantial changes to UK government support to the renewable sector, this is an ideal time to stand back and consider new approaches to our energy policy.

“Stuart Paton is a recognised expert in his field who makes a powerful argument for a new approach. His contribution to “Reforming Scotland” is a real challenge to this generation of energy policy-makers.

Paton recommends a four-pronged approach to strengthening Scotland’s energy policy, with a focus on alleviating climate change, reducing fuel poverty, establishing security of supply and continuing technological development.

The following policies are extracts from the forthcoming Reforming Scotland pamphlet.

Climate change

First and foremost there should be a focus on achieving the target on carbon free electricity production.

However the Scottish government’s current approach which relies on onshore and, to a lesser extent, offshore wind farms is far too narrow. This does not provide base load capacity, is expensive and is re-distributive to wealthy land-owners.

Further, the huge pressure there is now on any new onshore wind farm development, both from an economic point of view given the removal of Renewable Obligations and local pressure, means this cannot be a significant further contributor to electricity generation.

The government should change its stance and support the construction of new nuclear power stations, most likely at the existing sites at Torness and Hunterston.

This will likely have to follow the British government’s approach and largely be dependent on foreign investment. However, the necessity of providing base load capacity makes support for nuclear electricity generation essential.

Continued use of gas for electricity generation and domestic heating is likely to be inevitable as a ‘bridging’ technology until alternative sources are found. However, support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) development in Scotland for the country’s own use and also as a basis for international leadership is important.

Given the removal of the UK government’s support for the CCS project at Peterhead, the Scottish government should step in with its support.

As discussed above, the challenge of climate change requires changes in domestic heating, domestic insulation and transportation as well as electricity generation. The Scottish government is already playing an active role in this area, through support for local generation, domestic heat generation and improved insulation.

This should be extended. These initiatives will also play a significant role in dealing with fuel poverty both through providing cheaper sources of power and allowing households to use less energy.

Fuel Poverty is a key issue for Scotland, particularly in rural areas where households often rely on oil for heating. Fuel poverty can be alleviated through some of the same approaches as for reducing carbon emissions.

Security of supply

Many of the issues and proposals identified above not only target the challenges of climate change and address fuel poverty, but also address issues of security of supply. Building two new nuclear power stations and the development of shale gas improve security of supply both in terms if reducing requirement for importing power but also in terms of base load supply.

Technological development

Within the framework outlined above, there should be three focus areas for technological focus. Onshore unconventional development and CCS development can benefit from existing expertise in the offshore oil and gas industry and the existing supply chain. In addition to the local impact, both technologies could generate significant export earnings. Thirdly, the construction of nuclear power stations in Scotland could invigorate the expertise already existing at Dounreay”.

Scottish Energy News

Corruption Among Wind Weasels….No Surprise!

January 4, 2016 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Fraud in Falmouth MA – Town Relied on Acoustic Consultants’ Faked Vestas Wind Turbine Noise Report

January 4, 2016 by stopthesethings 2 Comments

There aren’t many certainties in life, save death and taxes. But STT is happy to add – without reservation – to that short-list, another: that you’ll never find the words ‘integrity’ and ‘wind industry’ coupling up in the same sentence.

Lies, fraud and corruption are the norm; and that extends to the industry’s pet acoustic consultants who helped write the noise ‘guidelines’ that deliberately ignored a decade’s worth of research by NASA – which proved that incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound causes adverse health effects, such as sleep deprivation:

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

Not content with setting up ‘standards’ with absolutely no relevance when it comes to protecting neighbours’ sleep and health, the industry’s noise ‘experts’ have repeatedly shown their eagerness to hide ‘unhelpful’ data, to write reports made to ‘measure’; and to otherwise guarantee their pay masters that they can and will continue to destroy neighbours’ abilities to sleep, live in and otherwise enjoy their homes and properties, with state-sanctioned impunity.

One Australian example popped up last year, when Victorian Senator, STT Champion John Madigan exposed one of the wind industry’s ‘favourite’ noise consultants, Marshall Day for producing fraudulent noise ‘compliance’ reports for Pacific Hydro at Cape Bridgewater and Acciona at Waubra:

Pacific Hydro & Acciona’s Acoustic ‘Consultant’ Fakes ‘Compliance’ Reports for Non-Compliant Wind Farms

And the very same type of wind industry backed criminal activity has just been exposed in Falmouth Massachusetts.

Falmouth Taxpayers Hooked Tens Millions Turbine Fraud – Corruption
Frank Haggerty
Falmouth Patch
24 December 2015

Falmouth fraudulent wind studies put Falmouth taxpayers at risk of tens of millions in nuisance litigation. Town Knew Turbines 6 + Decibels: Falmouth Taxpayers Responsible For Tens Millions Fraud – Corruption

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center Board of Directors is aware of the 6 to 7 decibels missing from the Falmouth noise tests.

The MassCEC Board of Directors has given the Town of Falmouth 1.8 million dollars to help pay litigation costs against the wind turbine victims.

This is renewable energy tax receipts your money.

The MassCEC sold the Falmouth Wind I turbine to the Town of Falmouth.

The fraudulent wind turbine studies and corruption puts Falmouth taxpayers at risk of tens of millions in litigation for wind turbine nuisance for up to 200 residential home owners.

“HMMH studies commissioned by the Town AFTER the distress was known acknowledged the maximum sound power level of 110dB(A) for the Vestas V-82, but inputted the averaged Octave Band Data of 103.2 dB(A) power into its projected sound pressures.”

What does it mean? The town knew prior to the installation of Falmouth Wind I the turbines were 6 + decibels over the original studies and hid the information from the public.

On June 15, 2011, Salvatore F. DiMasi became the third consecutive Speaker of the Massachusetts House of Representatives to be found guilty of a federal crime.

DiMasi’s trial and conviction naturally highlighted the issue of political corruption in Massachusetts, which has become a matter of serious public concern in recent years.

Sal Dimasi is considered the father of the Massachusetts Green Communities Act. Former Governor Patrick admitted at the trial of Dimasi that he, Governor Patrick, is “Sally Reynolds” the author of emails from the state house.

Federal law looks at governmental corruption that crosses an imprecise line into dishonest behavior that our society is not prepared to tolerate.

Federal prosecutors seeking to crack down on public corruption have had plenty of targets among Massachusetts elected officials in recent years.

The Town of Falmouth hid a noise warning letter from Town Meeting Members for 5 years that the Vestas wind turbines were 6 to 7 decibels louder than the feasibility studies. At over 100 decibels this more than doubles the noise.

The attorneys for the Town of Falmouth and the news media have been well aware of the noise levels for years. Falmouth taxpayers are paying for litigation in which they can’t win.

The Town of Falmouth today has no study for the two town owned Vestas wind turbines that generate 110 decibels of noise. The wind turbines can not be permitted under any permit.

Public health and safety concerns are the main concern of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The facts have already been established the turbines endanger the public health, safety and substantially diminish or impair property rights.

The Town of Falmouth lied in a federal waiver to buy the foreign made Vestas wind turbines. The town stated they were going to permit Falmouth Wind II with Special Permit 240-166. They also failed to disclose General Electric a domestic wind turbine company refused to build a commercial wind turbine because of set backs to property lines. (6 million dollars)

On April 2, 2013 the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center in a memo to the MassCEC Board of Directors admitted acoustic noise “mistakes” prior to the installation of Falmouth Wind I.

Crimes have a corrosive and harmful effect on public confidence in our government and other trusted institutions, including such crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice.

Massachusetts politicians have found themselves repeatedly in the cross hairs of federal prosecutors seeking to crack down on public corruption. But in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Skilling v. United States, convicting corrupt state legislators and other public servants of so-called “honest services” fraud – long the preferred method of prosecuting official betrayals of the public trust.

The honest services fraud statute remains a practical and effective tool for combating political corruption.

Falmouth Email Shows Wind Turbines 6-7 Decibels Above Studies:

Brian Hopkins Vestas Representative email:

Fri 5/28/2010 1:48 PM
Brian Hopkins brhop@vestas.com
RE: Sound / Feasibility Studies

TO: Wiehe, Stephen, cc Duijvesteijn, Olle; Yanuskiewicz, Francis

“Steve, I don’t believe I saw a feasibility study for Falmouth other than Site Plans.

Was a sound study updated with the additional turbine?

Does the information I provided in the octave band data support the conclusions that you are conservatvely within MA state sound regulations?

The table highlights the fact that V82 produces greater decibels when it reaches its stall regime beyond the IEC design standard at 95% capacity.

The table also helps recognize the effects of shear on the sound levels experienced at receptors which should also be considering with the sound study.

My email was lost from the time we did the first turbine so I don’t have a great record of information but do you have this decibel mapping for Falmouth?”

Note # Question from Vestas: “Do you have this decibel mapping for Falmouth?”

The Answer: There appears to have been no answer to this Vestas email by either the Town or W&S (based on documents requested through discovery, and what has and has not been provided).

There never was any decibel mapping for the second turbine, or for both turbines operating together, as of the date of the Potamis letter accepting responsibility.

The concern of Vestas (accurate acoustical mapping) was apparently ignored.

Note # It is important to note that the HMMH studies commissioned by the Town AFTER the distress was known acknowledged the maximum sound power level of 110dB(A) for the Vestas V-82, but inputted the averaged Octave Band Data of 103.2 dB(A) power into its projected sound pressures.

Thus, the HMMH studies are low by about 6-7 dB(A).

Even so, both the main HMMH study and the supplement showed many instances of exceedances at the neighbors’ homes.

The Falmouth Select Board and Falmouth Town Meeting Members are aware of the above facts.

These facts make you the taxpayers of Falmouth liable for payments to wind turbine victims for the past six years. There are up to 200 residential homes modeled in the CBI WTOP studies:

“participants suggested that this group should carry out a survey of all 200 affected homes separately from the potential DPH study, in order to generate more quantitative data.”

See the Final Meeting Summary.

See this link for more information on how long the Town of Falmouth needlessly tortured their own residents in the name of renewable energy:ZBA Submission.
Falmouth Patch

Part Two and Three of Negative Health Effects from Wind Turbines!

December 28, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

http://hearinghealthmatters.org/hearingviews/2014/wind-turbine-noise-evidence-health-problems/

Windpushers are Harming Residents near Wind Turbines!

December 19, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Finland: Wind Turbine Study Proves Infrasound Causing a Raft of Serious Health Problems

December 19, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

Health problems in Finland caused by infrasound from wind turbine
Windwatch.org
4 December 2015
Source: National Wind Watch
Author: Tuulivoima-kansalaisyhdistys ry
From the English press release:

Tuulivoima-kansalaisyhdistys (TV-KY) ry – the National Association of Citizens Against Giant Windmills – has recently released an extensive report on the infrasound emissions from wind turbines and their impact on people’s health.

The wind turbines being built in close proximity to residential areas in Finland are the biggest in Europe. Their rotating blades generate low frequency noise and infrasound, i.e. frequent and continuous air pressure pulses that can travel for very long distances.

Low frequency noise refers to frequencies between 20-200 Hz that are audible to the human ear, and infrasound refers to frequencies between 0.1-20 Hz that can’t be picked up by the human ear.

Wind power companies, as well as some researchers, have claimed that “infrasound can’t cause adverse health effects as it is inaudible”. Similarly, we could maintain that radiation isn’t harmful as it is beyond sensory perception.

However, in the summer of 2015 the German Max Planck Institute released a study conducted using a new kind of measurement technology.

Contrary to the well-established view, the study showed that the alarm mechanisms of the human brain are sensitive to very low infrasound that is below the hearing threshold.

The need for a survey conducted by the TV-KY Association arose when a growing number of residents in areas located near wind farms started to report health problems, some of which were serious. The measurements showed that the rapidly changing low frequency noise and infrasound caused by wind turbines can indeed be measured inside Finnish homes.

Low frequencies permeate the structures of buildings and they can be disturbingly distinguishable from background noise, particularly indoors.

Infrasound, on the other hand, can’t be picked up by the human ear, but the residents complain over a great number of symptoms, some of which are serious. The emergence and degree of problems depend on the strength and length of exposure.

In Finland, large scale wind farms have only been constructed for a few years. We don’t yet have any records of the number of people who have had health problems caused by the infrasound emissions of wind turbines.

For this report, we interviewed 12 Finnish families who live in close proximity to giant wind turbines in Finland, and we collected the experiences of 55 people concerning the health impacts of industrial wind power production. Out of these 55 people, 33 suffer from sleep disturbances, 26 from ear problems, 23 from headache, 17 from nausea, 11 from heart problems and 11 from inertia.

In addition to infrasound emissions, the audible low frequency noise of the up to 230 m tall wind turbines is directed with force horizontally away from the rotating blades, both downwind and against the wind.

The massive air pressure pulse, generated by the blades, that varies with 1-2 seconds intervals, produces low frequency noise that isn’t actually directed at the foot of the wind turbine or on the side.

This partly explains why the interviewed residents in areas that are close to wind farms don’t react identically to wind turbine noise, which is at its worst during night time.

In our measurements, we used a microbarometer, an exceedingly accurate instrument for measuring atmospheric pressure. The measurements were carried out in homes that had reported adverse health effects caused by wind turbines. The report presents the noise measurements carried out inside the homes of some families interviewed in the survey. The infrasound emissions from wind turbines were clearly perceivable.

The report describes what types of well-known health problems are caused by infrasound and what kind of mechanisms are involved. In addition to this, the report contains basic information on the infrasound emissions of wind turbines and on how those emissions can be measured.

Download original document (in Finnish): “Tuulivoimaloiden infraäänen aiheuttama terveysongelma Suomessa”

Windwatch.org

Wind Energy is NOT Suitable for Prime Time!

December 17, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Cruel Hypocrisy: West Drops Wind Power as it Forces ‘Fake Electricity’ on the World’s Poor

December 18, 2015 by stopthesethings Leave a Comment

****

After the Paris Climate Jamboree, the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers are licking their chops at the prospect of having the rich world fund the construction of millions of these things in the dark corners of the Planet. Sensible first world economies have tumbled (albeit, belatedly) to the fact the wind power is patent nonsense.

Paris, aka ‘The City of Light’ has been lit up by nuclear power for over 50 years, and that’s not about to change any time soon.

Britain has seen the light and has scrapped subsidies to wind power, with the number of threatened wind farms going from a roar to a whimper:

UK Wind Industry Collapses as David Cameron Slashes Subsidies for Wind Power

The Spanish were beguiled for a while by the wind industry’s promises of millions of jobs and free power, in exchange for the €billions in subsidies thrown in hope at the four winds. But, funnily enough, reality has eventually caught up.

Spain slashed its massive wind power subsidy scam back in 2014, with retrospective and crushing effect. Since that change, during the whole of 2014 there was a piddling 27MW of wind power installed (think nine 3MW whirling wonders) and NO new wind power installed during 2015 at all:

Spain Puts its Economy Destroying Wind Industry to the Sword: ZERO MWs Installed in 2015

The wind industry’s Nordic ‘heroes’ have followed the same trend, with ‘investment’ in wind power collapsing this year; and the ‘trend’ means nothing short of inevitable doom:

Wind Power Investment Collapses in Sweden, Denmark, Finland & Norway

And the Germans, early and once eager wind voortrekkers, are back-pedalling fast, as this piece from the Australian shows.

German renewables revolution a ‘lesson in what not to do’
The Australian
Sid Maher
10 December 2015

As he pushes for Australia to rush towards a 90 per cent renewable energy target by 2030, Greens leader Richard Di Natale cites Germany as a “powerhouse” example.

Speaking from the Paris climate conference, his message was clear: Australia’s emissions reduction target is inadequate, coal is a fringe issue in terms of support for cutting poverty in developing countries, and renewable energy is the path to the future. Germany had “become a powerhouse because they’ve embraced the transition towards renewables. It’s jobs rich, it attracts international investment”.

Brett Hogan, the director of energy and innovation policy at the Institute of Public Affairs, says: “Yes, Australia should look to Germany — but as an example of what not to do in the electricity space.” He says Germany’s renewables revolution will cost at least €1 trillion by 2030 (after subsidies to solar and wind), but its electricity system is becoming more expensive and less reliable.

The Economist reported last week that in the first half of this year households in Germany paid €0.30 for a kilowatt hour of electricity whereas the French paid a mere €0.16. It cited a report from McKinsey that said Germany was likely to miss its self-imposed target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions because it had dropped a bid to regulate brown-coal-burning power stations out of existence.

Germany’s use of brown coal could well increase because it is phasing out nuclear power.

Other European countries that have embraced renewables are also less than economic powerhouses. Finland is finishing its fourth year of negative growth and Norway’s economy expanded its fastest pace in three years last quarter largely driven by higher petroleum exports.

One of the key problems faced by any large-scale move to renewables is wind and solar power are intermittent. This is why battery storage is a potential gamechanger. But after the cost of building them, which is subsidised by the government, the marginal cost of generating power is nearly free. This undercuts coal and gas power stations.

“Germany’s major energy companies are now losing billions of dollars each year as subsidised wind and solar power destroys returns on capital and the incentive to invest in more modern, less emissions intensive generators,” Hogan says. He also disagrees with Di Natalie on the future of coal.

“The consumption of coal, to make steel, and electricity, will continue to increase over the next 25 years,” he says.

“With 2.5 billion people expected to move from rural areas to cities in the developing world between now and 2050, coal will continue to be needed to build the homes, factories, roads, buildings and cars that these people are entitled to demand.”
The Australian

Sid Maher’s talk about battery storage being a ‘gamechanger’ and with it, the cost of wind and solar power undercutting conventional generation is childish nonsense.

As we’ve pointed out before – the wind industry’s claims about cost-effective storage of bulk electricity is pure fantasy:

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.”

Germany is re-commissioning coal-fired plant and constructing new coal-fired plant as fast as it can. And, the Germans too have slashed subsidies for wind, with the same halt on wind power ‘investment’ as elsewhere:

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

By no stretch of the imagination can wind power be called a ‘system’ – it’s ‘chaos’, pure and simple. Here’s the output of Australia’s wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid (a notional capacity of 3,669MW spread over NSW, VIC, TAS & SA) during June.

With Westerners a wake-up to the wind power fraud, the wind industry is praying on the Third World as its next gullible target.

The real story behind the Paris global warming hysteria is that the wind and solar industries are looking to feast on the $100 billion designed to be ripped from the rich; and purportedly destined for the poor.

But the catch is that the currently unlit homes of Africa and India are going to be stuck with “fake electricity” and deprived of “real electricity”.

****

Bjorn Lomborg made the point in a recent piece in The Australian, ‘Politicians in pursuit of the impossible‘, which included this tale about solar power being thrust upon unwilling Indians:

“[D]ishing out solar panels is a poor use of aid money. And it’s immoral that to make up the much-vaunted $US100bn fund, many governments, including Britain and Australia, are diverting money from existing development budgets.

Let’s look at a real-life example of climate aid in eastern India — not one involving governments but the international environmental group Greenpeace. On its website Dharnai Live, we see smiling people and solar-panel-covered roofs, and we’re told that after “30 years of darkness” green energy came to the rescue.

But here’s what really happened: last year, under the slogan “Energy access simplified”, Greenpeace supplied Dharnai with a solar-powered micro-grid — not connected to India’s central grid. Greenpeace writes that “Dharnai refused to give into the trap of the fossil fuel industry”. That is a somewhat loose paraphrasing of what the people who lived there wanted for themselves.

Back in 2010, Dharnai’s inhabitants had collected $US680 in the hope of buying their way into the power grid, which in most of India is supplied by coal-fired power plants. Four years later, still with no electricity, Greenpeace swooped to the rescue with a solar system.

The day the electricity was turned on, the batteries were drained of power within a few hours.

A boy from Dharnai remembers wanting to do his homework early in the morning before leaving to work in the fields, but there wasn’t enough power for the family’s one lamp.

Today, power from the solar system costs up to three times as much as power from the central power grid, and it also requires the use of energy-efficient light bulbs, that cost 66 times more than normal light bulbs.

But fortunately for the people of Dharnai — if not for the Greenpeace narrative — the town today is connected to the central power grid. You see, Greenpeace invited the state chief minister to the inauguration of the solar system so he could meet the grateful inhabitants. When he showed up, he was met by a large crowd of people, with signs and songs demanding “real electricity” (the kind you can use to run the stove and the refrigerator) and not “fake electricity” (meaning solar energy).

A week later, a 100kWh transformer was installed, and Dharnai received modern electricity.

Today, two-thirds of the original recipient households have opted out of the solar-panel scheme, and the rest use it primarily as a backup when the central power grid fails.

This is a part of the story you won’t hear from Greenpeace — but it shows why it’s necessary to question when well-meaning people tell us that dishing out solar panels is a good way to spend development money.

And it points to a broader problem with the state of green energy.

Here in Paris, there are many well-meaning people who argue that we need strong carbon cuts and green-energy production subsidies now and for many years to come, to get the world to move towards tackling climate change.

But at the same time, these same people argue that solar and wind is already competitive and effective, or that this moment is just around the corner. The strange thing is that those two arguments are incompatible.

We are often told that green energy is competitive in developing countries, and particularly Africa. Green energy, especially wind, can indeed help African countries, for example, to get electricity to remote, rural areas.

But that is only a small part of the big picture. As we saw in Dharnai, the grid will do by far the most good for the most people. According to a 2011 World Bank study, renewable energy “will be the lowest cost option for a minority of households in Africa, even when likely cost reductions over the next 20 years are considered”.

Popular solar lights cost almost $US2 per kilowatt hour. Using hydro, gas and oil, the grid cost for the main population centres in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Kenya will likely be US16c to US25c a kilowatt hour. In South Africa, where coal powers 90 per cent of electricity, the cost is just US9c a kilowatt hour.

Green energy costs $US168bn in subsidies right now each year, and by 2040 we’ll be paying even more at $US206bn a year.

However, it is also interesting — and surprising to many — to note that even with these massive subsidies and green policies, doing everything governments are now promising, we’ll get just 2.4 per cent of our energy from green sources in 2040, according to the International Energy Agency.

You really have to put on a pair of green-tinted spectacles to see a world in which renewable energy is about to become competitive or already is.

It is for that reason that the Paris Treaty — to be signed today, if all the talking has gone to plan — will cost a fortune and do very little. Until there is a breakthrough that makes green energy competitive on its own merits, massive carbon cuts are expensive and extremely unlikely to happen.
The Australian

Greed and avarice among wind and solar power profiteers are driving the greatest wealth transfer in history. The concept of forcing electricity on impoverished nations of the kind that can’t be delivered on demand to millions of people, who have none, is not just cruel, it’s criminal.

To force taxpayers in developed Nations to fund such a monumental fiasco, only adds to the obscenity. For a handful of human-hating ideologues to determine that the poorest in the world will never have access to that which we take for granted can’t be explained as good intentions being lost in translation.

The West is abandoning wholly weather dependent wind power, for the obvious reason that it is meaningless as a power source; and, no matter how munificent the subsidies, will never have any commercial value simply because it cannot be delivered on demand.

And yet, the West’s leaders slap themselves on the back for a job well done: US Secretary of State, John Kerry calling what they’ve cynically conjured up “the most extraordinary market opportunity in the history of humankind”. Indeed it is, but for all the wrong reasons.

What Kerry and his ilk are crowing about is using other peoples’ money (ie yours) to enable wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers in America to profit to the tune of $billions, while delivering “fake electricity” to millions of people who are desperately crying out for the real stuff.

Ontario A Laughingstock Due to Wind Turbines & Liberals…

December 17, 2015December 17, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Insane Cost of Ontario’s Energy Calamity: Consumers Forced to Pay $170 Billion for Pointless Wind Power

December 17, 2015 by StopTheseThings

Ontario is the place where the most bizarre energy policy in the world has seen thousands of these things speared into the backyards of homes – in the most agriculturally productive part of Canada. When we say “bizarre” we mean completely bonkers.

Canada has one of the “cleanest” power generation mixes on the planet, with the vast bulk of its electricity coming from zero emissions sources such as nuclear and hydro.

Adding to the lunacy is the fact that wind power outfits are guaranteed to reap fat profits despite market conditions.

Where the wholesale market price for power in Ontario is between $30-50 per MWh, wind power generators pocket a fixed price of $135 MWh – even if there is absolutely no market for it and the Province literally has to pay neighbouring US States to take it.

Now, Ontario’s Auditor-General has run the ruler over the insane costs of susbdising an entirely meaningless power generation source, the product of which has no commercial value; save the subsidies it attracts. Not only has Ontario’s energy ‘policy’ destroyed the most productive agricultural communities in Canada, it’s cost unnecessary $billions, with the worst yet to come.

Ontarians paid $37-billion above market for electricity over eight years, Auditor-General’s report says
The Globe and Mail
Adrian Morrow
2 December 2015

Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling, a report from the Auditor-General says. The Liberal government has repeatedly overruled expert advice – and even tore up two long-term plans from the Ontario Power Authority for the electricity system – in favour of political decisions that drove up power costs for consumers, the report says.

What’s more, Hydro One is in rough shape, with ever-increasing numbers of power outages and aging equipment “at very high risk of failing” that needs $4.472-billion worth of repairs – even as the province is selling 60 per cent of the company to the private sector.

The revelations about Ontario’s expensive and aging electricity system were in Auditor-General Bonnie Lysyk’s annual report released on Wednesday.

“We found that the electricity power planning process had essentially broken down over the past decade,” Ms. Lysyk said at a Queen’s Park news conference. “The [energy] ministry has made a number of decisions about power generation that went against the OPA’s technical advice. In addition, these decisions did not fully consider the state of the electricity market or the cost impact on consumers.”

Ms. Lysyk’s report put 14 different government policy areas under the microscope. Among other things, she reported that the province has doled out piles of corporate welfare behind closed doors, gone $90-million overbudget on a flawed computer system for managing social assistance benefits that has resulted in $140-million worth of miscalculated payments, has $500-billion worth of infrastructure that must be fixed and failed to make sure home-care providers look after their patients properly.

But it all paled compared to her criticisms of the government’s management of the electricity system.

By law, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), which has now merged into the Independent Electricity System Operator, was supposed to provide a long-term plan for electricity that independent regulators would vet. But Ms. Lysyk found that in 2007 and 2011, OPA produced such a plan only to have the Liberals overrule it and make ad-hoc decisions on the system by fiat.

As a result, electricity prices for consumers and small businesses jumped by 70 per cent – from 5.32 cents per kilowatt hour to 9.06 cents – between 2006 and 2014, she found.

The largest part of the reason for that is an increase to Global Adjustment Fees, which for the past decade have paid power-generating companies more than market price for their power as an incentive to set up in Ontario. Those fees amounted to $37-billion between 2006 and 2014, and are projected to add $133-billion from 2015 to 2032.

Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli defended the above-market prices as necessary. Before the Global Adjustment, he said, the government had trouble persuading private-sector generating companies to come to the province. “Wholesale market prices were not sufficient to attract much-needed investment in Ontario’s electricity generation sector. In other words, there wasn’t enough revenue coming to the generators, so they weren’t building generating capacity,” Mr. Chiarelli told reporters.

He said the draft long-term plans that the OPA created and the province killed were too “cumbersome” and did not include enough consultation. When he became minister in 2013, Mr. Chiarelli said, he changed the planning process and created a new type of plan that will manage the system in the future.

“When I arrived as a minister, there was a consensus that [the OPA’s plan] was cumbersome,” he said. “We worked aggressively, consulted aggressively and we introduced legislation that provides a good framework for consultation.”

Mr. Chiarelli also contended that some of the higher electricity prices were a cost of weaning the province off coal-fired power and onto cleaner sources.

But Ms. Lysyk said Ontario pays more for green power than other jurisdictions. Compared to U.S. prices, the cost of wind power in Ontario is double and solar power is more than triple.

The 2010 Green Energy Act, Ms. Lysyk said, failed to take advantage of low electricity prices and instead mandated higher prices for wind and solar power companies than they had received previously. This added up to $9.2-billion more in renewables costs.

In another case, when the government closed a coal-fired power plant in Thunder Bay in 2013, it decided to convert the plant to biomass to keep it going. Energy experts at the OPA told the government the conversion was not cost-effective, but the government went ahead anyway.

Power from the plant now costs $1,600/megawatts per hour, which is 25 times the cost at other Ontario biomass plants, Ms. Lysyk found. Some of the biomass burned at the plant is imported from Europe, which undercuts part of the rationale for keeping it going, which was to help Ontario’s forestry industry.

In a third situation, in January, 2010, the OPA warned the province that the Lower Mattagami hydroelectric project was $1-billion over budget, but the government allowed it to proceed. As a result, power from that plant costs $135/megawatts per hour, compared to an average cost of $46/megawatts per hour for two other recent hydro projects, Ms. Lysyk found.

The province also produces enough extra electricity to power the province of Manitoba, an excess that costs consumers, Ms. Lysyk found. For instance, the province paid $3.1-billion to power generators between 2009 and 2014 for power that was not needed, plus another $339-million not to produce power. The province also paid $32.6-million to exporters to distribute the excess power to other jurisdictions.

Mr. Chiarelli said the government opted for the Thunder Bay biomass plant because of “tremendous economic lobbying” from the mayor and the local mining industry, which wanted a source of power nearby. He said the government is also hoping to create a biomass industry in the area.

“We made a decision to proceed with this particular contract, knowing that it had economic development potential, knowing that it was a reliability issue and a very, very strong comfort level to the mining industry,” he said.

Mr. Chiarelli said the government has made numerous improvements to cut costs out of the electricity system, including a new and more competitive process for handing out green energy contracts. Future projects, he said, would be less expensive than previous ones.

Ms. Lysyk’s criticisms come at a crucial time for the government, as it seeks to privatize Hydro One. The province sold 15 per cent of the company on the stock market last month and is planning to sell 60 per cent in total over the next few years.

Progressive Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski said the government must use a lighter touch with the electricity sector.

“The Wynne Liberals often went against the advice of experts, ignoring the long-term impact of Ontario’s electricity system on its ratepayers for its own short-term political gain,” he said. “Ontario’s energy sector should involve limited intervention by government. It should primarily be left to experts in the sector to ensure a cost-efficient, effective electricity system.”

NDP Leader Andrea Horwath said: “This government has made a mess of our electricity system and a sell-off to the private sector will only make it worse.”
The Globe and Mail

Government and Wind Turbine Pushers Know They’re Harming People!

December 16, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

White Pines Environmental Review Tribunal update

Mon, Dec 14th, ’15

Email this story to a friend Share this story on Facebook Tweet this story on Twitter

Report on the ERT Hearing on the White Pines Wind Project – Dec. 11, 2015
By Henri Garand, APPEC

On Day 20 the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) on the White Pines wind project heard APPEC witness Rick James and an expert witness for developer WPD, Dr. Dale Strickland.

Mr. James, qualified previously as an acoustician, presented new evidence in reply to Denton Miller, witness for the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC). Following new ministry guidelines and omitting disallowed wind turbines T7 and T11, he calculated that 13 “points of receptions” (i.e., homes) would suffer noise above 40 dBA.

Both MOECC counsel Andrew Weretelnyck and WPD counsel James Wilson questioned Rick James on 40 dBA as a measure of serious harm. James said the MOECC had set this compliance limit and the World Health Organization (WHO) had found health effects, specifically annoyance and sleep disturbance, start at 40 dBA.

In re-examination APPEC counsel Eric Gillespie confirmed with James that WHO had reported noise complaints during nighttime begin at 35 dBA.

Dale Strickland, Ph.D., founder and president of Western EcoSystems Technology, a Wyoming consulting firm with business and government clients, has published over 150 scientific papers and technical reports during a 40-year career. The Tribunal qualified him as “a zoologist with expertise in ecological research and wildlife management, including assessing the impacts of wind turbines on wildlife.”

WPD counsel Patrick Duffy asked Dr. Strickland about the appropriate scientific measure for serious and irreversible harm. He said it is based on the overall genetic and demographic status of a species’ population.

According to Dr. Strickland, the White Pines surveys of birds and bats are “adequate,” conform to established methods and published guidance, and are similar to those for other wind projects. Bats would not be high in number without the presence of hibernacula. Acoustical surveys are not necessary because they record bats at ground level and the results do not correlate with bat deaths at wind turbine rotor level.

Dr. Strickland also said the effects on habitat would be minimal. Loss from access roads and other construction is relatively small, and displacement from habitat would not be significant because of the project size.

Regarding collisions, Dr. Strickland predicted 5-15 bird deaths annually per turbine, the same as at other North American sites. He defended the Wolfe Island monitoring records, stating the mortality rates are reasonable for a searched radius of 50m, an area commonly used at other wind projects. Considering the project location and size, he concluded that White Pines would not cause serious and irreversible harm to wildlife.

In cross-examination Eric Gillespie confirmed that Dr. Strickland had not visited the White Pines site but had based his opinions on WPD’s reports and on Google Earth images. Although aware of Prince Edward Point National Wildlife Area and Point Petre Provincial Wildlife Area, he did not know their proximity to wind turbines. However, he dismissed the “globally significant” South Shore Important Bird Area because the IBA designation reflects convenient public access and use of the site for bird-watching.

Dr. Strickland did not know of an “activity report” by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forests finding five threatened bird species and three bat species in the White Pines area. He agreed with Mr. Gillespie that such information might have influenced his opinions. Similarly, he conceded that if there had not been adequate surveys for karst, then one needed more information to estimate the bat population. He also admitted that the cumulative effects of wind projects must be considered to determine local impacts on birds.

When asked by ERT co-chair Marcia Valiante about a proposed 31ha compensation property, Dr. Strickland said it would have little measurable effect on the populations of displaced bobolinks and eastern meadowlarks.

Same Damning Evidence of Cover-up, in all Countries with Wind Turbines

December 12, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Queensland Government Cover Up: New Wind Farm Planning Code Deliberately Ignores its own Noise Expert’s Damning Advice

December 13, 2015 by stopthesethings

Hidden documents reveal expert advice on health dangers from wind farms ignored
Wind Energy Queensland
11 December 2015

Right to information search reveals government noise expert’s advice withheld.

The Queensland Government’s own noise expert has warned proposed rules for wind farms in the State could cause public health and environment problems.

Bryan Lyons, spokesman for the community-based Wind Energy Queensland (WEQ) group, said today the warnings were revealed in documents obtained under a Right To Information (RTI) search.

“These documents show that warnings from the Queensland Government’s own noise expert were hidden from the relevant Minister and from the public,” Mr Lyons said.

“The expert report reveals that the proposed Queensland Government Wind Farm Code (V2) will not protect resident’s health and well-being and will not protect their environmental values.

“The documents obtained under RTI also reveal these concerns were not passed on the Planning Department or the Minister for Planning.”

Mr Lyons said the documents show that, on August 26, the noise expert in the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection provided his superiors with a list of nine points of concern regarding the draft Wind Farm Code.

“Those concerns were not subsequently forwarded from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection to the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, who have developed the current draft (version 2) of the Wind Farm Code.

“The concerns raised by the Queensland Government’s own noise expert confirm existing advice that independent noise experts conducting research in this area have already provided to courts, governments, Senate inquiries and community members dealing with wind farm proposals across Queensland.

Mr Lyons said the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection had withheld the expert report.

“Wind Energy Queensland have previously asked Deputy Premier Jackie Trad to seek advice from her own Government noise expert. It is now clear from these documents that concerns were deliberately withheld by the department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

A Senior Official from the Environment and Heritage Protection Department advised the Premier’s Department that they have ‘no fundamental concerns’ with the draft Wind Farm Code.

“However, the advice from the Noise Expert indicates that proposed wind farm standards in Queensland will not protect the health and well-being of our communities. It is extremely disturbing that this advice appears to have been kept secret from the Government department developing the Wind Farm Code, kept secret from the Minister for Planning, and kept hidden from the public.

“We are calling on the Deputy Premier to have the noise sections of the Wind Farm Code redrafted by Noise Experts in the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection and scrutinised by an independent panel of Noise Experts, with those peer reviews made publicly available.

“This newly-revealed advice from the EHP Noise Expert also affects the recently approved Mt Emerald Wind Farm on the Atherton Tableland in North Queensland,” Mr Lyons said. “We believe the Mt Emerald approval is presently being negotiated by the applicant, and we call on the Deputy Premier to take this opportunity to immediately amend the approval.”

Mr Lyons said the Government noise expert’s concerns confirm the concerns of residents in the Mt Emerald area that, if developed, the proposed wind farm will harm their community members even if it complies with the conditions of approval.

WEQ is a community-based group formed to ensure better planning of wind farms in Queensland.

The communities represented include Dalveen, Crows Nest, Cooranga north (west of Kingaroy) and Mareeba.”

Copies of the RTI documents are available on request.

Media inquiries: Bryan Lyons Ph 07 4668 6780
Wind Energy Queensland

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

fighting wind turbines

Why Industrial Wind Turbines, are a Waste of Time & Money!

11 Fatal Flaws with Wind Power

Government Corruption Involved in Falmouth Wind Turbine Issues!

Falmouth Turbines 6 Yrs 110 Db Noise Still Not Inputted In Studies

Scotts Finally Waking Up to the Wind Scam?

Scots Demand an End to Government’s ‘Un-Democratic Fixation’ with Unreliable, Insecure & Unaffordable Wind Power

Corruption Among Wind Weasels….No Surprise!

Fraud in Falmouth MA – Town Relied on Acoustic Consultants’ Faked Vestas Wind Turbine Noise Report

Part Two and Three of Negative Health Effects from Wind Turbines!

Windpushers are Harming Residents near Wind Turbines!

Finland: Wind Turbine Study Proves Infrasound Causing a Raft of Serious Health Problems

Wind Energy is NOT Suitable for Prime Time!

The Cruel Hypocrisy: West Drops Wind Power as it Forces ‘Fake Electricity’ on the World’s Poor

Ontario A Laughingstock Due to Wind Turbines & Liberals…

The Insane Cost of Ontario’s Energy Calamity: Consumers Forced to Pay $170 Billion for Pointless Wind Power

Government and Wind Turbine Pushers Know They’re Harming People!

White Pines Environmental Review Tribunal update

Same Damning Evidence of Cover-up, in all Countries with Wind Turbines

Queensland Government Cover Up: New Wind Farm Planning Code Deliberately Ignores its own Noise Expert’s Damning Advice