Green Energy Policies Driving Up Carbon Emissions

December 3, 2016December 3, 2016 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Ontario green policies actually driving up carbon dioxide

JACK MACLAREN, SPECIAL TO THE TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:14 PM EST | UPDATED: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 01, 2016 05:33 PM EST

The Ontario Liberals’ Green Energy Act is meant to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by generating power from wind turbines and solar panels.

We already know this has turned into a wasteful boondoggle — just look at your hydro bill. But there’s another problem with the Green Energy Act, which I was shocked to learn about.

A 2015 report from the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) makes the alarming case that Ontario green energy policy is actually driving up carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

Wind and solar energy seem like good, clean sources of energy. But wind power is intermittent, and about 40% of the generated power arrives when load demand is low. Solar energy is also intermittent and capacity is very low. All this means that wind and solar power are expensive and unreliable.

Basically, windmills and solar panels only produce power when the wind blows and the sun shines. They need backup in the form of other power sources to provide constant electricity when you need it. Ontario has gone with natural gas backup because that is the cheapest source of energy currently available. Other options were available, including nuclear and hydro plants, but natural gas was chosen.

This is unfortunate because nuclear and hydro do not emit CO2, but natural gas does. So as we dial down nuclear and hydro, we are doubling up on CO2 emissions from natural gas.

According to OSPE, Ontario currently produces electricity at less than 40 grams of CO2 per kWh. But wind and solar with natural gas backup release about 200 grams of CO2 per kWh.

Now, the trouble of building all the windmills and solar panels wouldn’t be so bad if it were actually worthwhile. But it isn’t. We do not have a cheap and effective way of storing the energy generated by wind and solar power. Simply put, storage is too expensive at the moment.

Adding solar and wind power to the Ontario grid just doesn’t make environmental or economic sense. Continuing to add wind and solar can only be justified on ideological grounds.

Admittedly, the Wynne government announced a halt to further wind and solar contracts. I’m not sure how long they’ll put their ideology on hold, but this is a short-term solution anyway.

We need to use more of our cheaper hydroelectric and nuclear power. And we need to stop exporting power abroad at low prices.

We all want to do the right thing for our environment and we all want clean air to breathe and water to drink. I sincerely believe it is important we strive for a cleaner and safer future.

But no one likes being misled or lied to. The Ontario Liberal government’s Green Energy Act is an environmental and economic disaster. As both a farmer and a civil engineer, I know about protecting the environment as well as long-term sustainability. Farming teaches you to understand the risks and benefits of co-operating with Mother Nature. Similarly, engineers are required to build things: We build things to last, and we do so in the public interest.

So I think most Ontarians would agree with me when I say that we need to have affordable, clean, reliable, and sustainable sources of energy which do not increase CO2.

Unfortunately the Green Energy Act just hasn’t got it right.

— MacLaren is the MPP for Carleton-Mississippi Mills

Yet Another Study Showing Harm From Wind Turbines…

November 15, 2016 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

September 2016Sweden

Shared by: Friends Against Wind

Physiological effects of wind turbine noise on sleep

Sleep disturbance — “The presence of beats and strong amplitude modulation contributed to sleep disturbance, reflected by more electrophysiological awakenings, increased light sleep and wakefulness, and reduced REM and deep sleep.”

By Michael G. Smith(a), Mikael Ögren(b), Pontus Thorsson(c), Eja Pedersen(d) and Kerstin Persson Waye(e)

(a) University of Gothenburg, Sweden, michael.smith@amm.gu.se
(b) University of Gothenburg, Sweden, mikael.ogren@amm.gu.se
(c) Chalmers University of Technology Sweden, pontus.thorsson@akustikverkstan.se
(d) Lund University, Sweden, eja.pedersen@arkitektur.lth.se
(e) University of Gothenburg, Sweden, kerstin.persson.waye@amm.gu.se

Abstract

In accordance with the EU energy policy, wind turbines are becoming increasingly widespread throughout Europe, and this trend is expected to continue globally. More people will consequently live close to wind turbines in the future, and hence may be exposed to wind farm noise. Of particular concern is the potential for nocturnal noise to contribute towards sleep disturbance of nearby residents. To examine the issue, we are implementing a project titled Wind Turbine Noise Effects on Sleep (WiTNES). In a pilot study described in this paper, we performed an initial investigation into the particular acoustical characteristics of wind turbine noise that might have the potential to disturb sleep. Six young, healthy individuals spent 5 nights in our sound exposure laboratory. During the final 3 nights of the study, the participants were exposed to wind turbine noise, which was synthesised based on analysis of field measurements. Exposures involved periods of different amplitude modulation strengths, the presence or absence of beats, different blade rotational periods, and outdoor LAEq,8h = 45 or 50 dB with indoor levels based on the windows being fully closed or slightly open. Physiological measurements indicate that nights with low frequency band amplitude modulation and LAEq,8h = 45 dB, slightly open window (LAEq,8h = 33 dB indoors) impacted sleep the most. The presence of beats and strong amplitude modulation contributed to sleep disturbance, reflected by more electrophysiological awakenings, increased light sleep and wakefulness, and reduced REM and deep sleep. The impact on sleep by these acoustic characteristics is currently the focus of interest in ongoing studies.

Download the study

Corruption in the Wind Industry….

November 1, 2016 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Dozens of energy projects referred to DOJ

Credit: Written by Claire Withycombe/Capital Bureau | Portland Tribune | 31 October 2016 | portlandtribune.com ~~

SALEM – Wind, solar and ethanol projects were among the dozens of renewable energy projects referred for investigation to the Oregon Department of Justice by auditors of a discontinued state tax credit program, according to a list released Friday.

The list was compiled by Marsh Minick, P.C., a private firm that conducted an audit of the Department of Energy’s Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC) program under contract with the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office.

That audit was released in early September.

Auditors didn’t find “direct evidence” of fraud, they wrote in their audit report, but said they found “circumstantial evidence” suggesting suspicious activity in a number of BETC projects.

According to the documents listing those projects, there were several projects that exceeded limits on eligible costs.

Oregon statutes limited eligible costs to $20 million per renewable energy facility per year.

Representatives of two groups identified as having projects exceeding eligible costs in the report, Klondike Wind Power and Pacific Ethanol, on Friday defended the projects that received the tax credits.

Klondike Wind Power, known as PPM Energy, Inc., later becoming Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., which then was renamed Avangrid Renewables, had four projects. According to the report, each of them were treated as distinct facilities, qualifying them to receive four times the eligible costs.

Art Sasse, a spokesman for Avangrid Renewables, said the following about the Klondike Wind Power projects in a statement late Friday:

“We’re happy to work with the DOJ to show that we followed both the letter and spirit of the law whenever we utilized the BETC. We built four distinctively different wind farms at our Klondike complex, with each phase of construction representing a different time frame, with placed in service dates that are years apart, with various models of turbines and different customers for each wind farm.”

Pacific Ethanol had two project files in Boardman, Ore., one for ethanol production, and another for ethanol distribution, according to the report.

The auditors noted that the two projects had “similar yet different names,” were located at the same site address and had the same applicant. Those factors raised “red flags” under state administrative rules.

Together the projects had eligible costs totaling $29 million, according to the auditors’ report, exceeding the $20 million limit.

Paul Koehler, a spokesman for Pacific Ethanol, said that the Boardman plants continue to operate.

“I think the Boardman, Ore., ethanol project is a very good example of the use of the Business Energy Tax Credit,” Koehler said.

Cascade Grain Products, Willow Creek Energy and the Portland General Electric Company were also identified as companies with a project or projects that exceeded eligible costs.

Media representatives of these three companies – or companies that subsequently acquired them – could not be immediately reached for comment late Friday.

Cascade Grain Products had two projects: an ethanol production facility and an ethanol distribution facility.

Willow Creek Energy, a subsidiary of Invenergy LLC, had a project that was approved for a tax credit with eligible costs of $22 million, as did Portland General Electric. The specific nature of these projects was not identified in the auditors’ report.

Solar World AG had two projects that exceeded eligible costs. Those two projects had originated as five projects, according to the report. The five original projects were merged into two.

A spokesman, Ben Santarris, said that his company operates according to the “highest ethical and legal standards.”

Auditors stated that in emails, state officials agreed to approve eligible costs that differed from what was permitted under state statute.

The auditors also identified several “projects of concern” in the list released Friday by DOJ, but noted that its list of “concerning” projects was not comprehensive.

“Due to the volume of projects where red-flag activity was observed, investigative efforts were motivated by perceived risks,” the auditors wrote. “This should not be considered a comprehensive list or a complete investigation.”

There are 15 headings in that section of the report, which list individuals or companies, some of which had multiple projects.

A joint legislative committee has been tasked with making recommendations for the future of the department. Their next public meeting is Nov. 4.

“We’re committed to working with the DOJ on any next steps they take,” Oregon Department of Energy Spokeswoman Rachel Wray said in a statement Friday.

Loud Noises Are Slowly Ruining Your Health (Windpushers still in denial)

October 26, 2016October 26, 2016 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Loud Noises Are Slowly Ruining Your Health

rososusilo October 26, 2016

Noise pollution is a lot worse for you than you may have thought. According to the World Health Organization, it’s the second biggest environmental cause of health problems in humans after air pollution. Studies from 2012 suggested it contributed to 910,000 additional cases of hypertension across Europe every year and 10,000 premature deaths related to coronary heart diseases or strokes. Closer to home, a 15-year study found that there was a higher rate of cardiovascular and stroke-related deaths among those living near to the rabble of Heathrow—something residents are sure to cite in the wake of ministers approving a third runway there.

137

So why isn’t anyone talking about it?

“Noise is invisible,” says Poppy Szkiler of Quiet Mark. “I think that’s why the problems associated with it have been ignored, until now.”

Quiet Mark provide a universal stamp of approval for products and companies that recognize the importance of reducing their acoustic footprint. They were born out of the Noise Abatement Society, established in 1959 when John Connell—Szkiler’s grandfather—wrote an angry letter to the Daily Telegraph bemoaning the increasingly invasive levels of noise in the world around him.

He was flabbergasted by the response—”Sackfuls of letters in agreement,” says Poppy—and lobbied Parliament so hard for change that the Noise Abatement Act was passed in 1960. Ever since, the Noise Abatement Society and Quiet Mark have flown the flag for a quieter society. Last week saw the release of their crowdfunded film, In Pursuit of Silence, which examines the way excessive noise has slowly infiltrated every aspect of our lives, and why human lives depend on our ability to combat it.

“Noise abatement is a bit like smoking,” says Szkiler. “It’s a public health issue. One day people just realized you shouldn’t smoke inside buildings. I think we’ve coped with noise for such a long time, but people are starting to recognize the value of a quieter life.” As proof, she points to a partnership with John Lewis, which got involved with Quiet Mark after customer research suggested 65 percent of its customers craved more peace and quiet.

source vice.com

Can Ontario Escape its Self-Inflicted Wind Power Disaster?

***

Ontario’s energy policy is in tatters; power prices have crushed business and the roll out of thousands of these things has wrecked the lives and livelihoods of thousands, in what were once peaceful and prosperous farming communities.

In short, Kathleen Wynne & Co have dug an enormous hole from which there may be no escape. But before the Province considers how it might get out, the only sensible strategy is to stop digging – starting with bringing an end to the ludicrously generous and heavily subsidised wind power contracts that led to the inevitable debacle that’s playing out in Ontario; and which has Wynne’s Liberals petrified of the political consequences the next time their victims come to vote.

Lawrence Solomon: Yes, Ontario’s Liberals can cancel their terrible renewable power contracts—and they should do it now
Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon
15 September 2016

Ontario’s power prices are soaring out of control, industry is leaving the province, the Liberal government is panicking over its re-election prospects, and almost everyone agrees there’s no remedy, that the ludicrously lucrative long-term contracts that the Ontario government signed with wind and solar energy developers condemn the province to many more years of economic hardship.

Except there is a way to deal with the onerous contracts — rip them up. There is no compelling economic, environmental, moral or legal case for the government to “honour” odious contracts. The only honourable course of action for the government, in fact, is to admit its mistakes and pass legislation declaring those contracts null and void.

A compelling economic case? In announcing its Green Energy Act, the Liberals repeatedly boasted they’d be creating 50,000 jobs, boosting the Ontario economy to new heights. With jobs fleeing the province and business confidence at rock bottom, no one hears that boast any longer.

A compelling environmental case? Industrial wind turbines, which rely on fossil fuel backup, do next to nothing to reduce carbon dioxide, the sole rationale for their existence.

In contrast to this trivial and dubious environmental benefit, wind turbines do immense and certain environmental harm by disfiguring the countryside and slaughtering millions of birds and bats.

A compelling moral case? Ontario’s multi-billion “clean energy” industry has a squalid provenance.

This has been largely a closed-door sector in which 11 politically favoured domestic and multinational giants control 90 per cent of the wind power market, letting them pocket an estimated $10 billion in government-mandated subsidies over the next two decades. Although the industry portrays itself as small scale and local, it’s anything but.

A compelling legal case? There is none, if the province proceeds properly, explains Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen’s University, a former adjudicator for the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal and author of the 2014 Fraser Institute study, Cancelling Contracts: The Power of Governments to Unilaterally Alter Agreements.

“The right way is to legislate: to enact a statute that declares green contracts to be null and void, and the province to be free from liability,” he explains. “Statutes can override iron-clad provisions in a contract because that is the nature of legislative supremacy: Legislatures can pass laws of any kind, as long as they are within their jurisdiction and do not offend the constitution. Legislating on electricity production is clearly a provincial power, as are ‘property and civil rights.’”

There is no compelling case for Ontario to honour its odious renewable power deals Pardy’s analysis is sound not just in theory but in practice, as Trillium Power Wind Corp. discovered when it sued for $2.25 billion in damages after the Liberals, to quell fierce public opposition to offshore wind turbines prior to a previous election, unilaterally rewrote the rules.

The appeal court had no time for Trillium’s claims, noting that it was “plain and obvious” and “beyond all reasonable doubt” that Trillium could not succeed in arguing breach of contract.

As an analysis of the case by the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt put it, the appeal court “made it clear that proponents who choose to participate in discretionary government programs, such as Ontario’s renewable energy program, do so primarily at their own risk. Governments may alter the policies that underlie a program, and may even alter or cancel such programs, in a manner that may be fully lawful and immune from civil suit.”

Moreover, the appeal court decision dismissed Trillium’s contention that the government had acted improperly out of “purely political” considerations, rather than out of legitimate public policy considerations.

As Osler explained, governments are free to act in their political interests: “this decision emphasizes that political factors, such as strong public opposition, are legitimate public policy considerations.” These principles aren’t Ontario-specific — they’re fundamental. Throughout Europe, governments are also unilaterally rewriting their unaffordably generous rules governing the renewables industry.

Cancelling Ontario’s odious renewables contracts would immediately and directly lower rates for the province’s citizens and industry, reversing the harm to the provincial economy and improving the government’s prospects in the coming provincial election.

A cancellation would bless the citizens of Ontario — and other provinces —indirectly as well, by disciplining future governments and investors alike. Investors would be leery of participating in future politically motivated government programs that weren’t fundamentally sound, making it difficult for future governments to pursue pet projects that run the risk of harming the citizenry.

Benign government projects — say building a school or hospital — would run no such risk and discourage no investor.

Contracts are sacrosanct between private parties, when they follow the law. Contracts means something else entirely when one party — the government — makes the law and is free to change it. Let the investor beware before getting into bed with government. Let the government think hard about whether its fling with renewables is an affair it wishes to continue.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.
Financial Post

FLASH!

(1) Yesterday, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) announced that bids would open for a further 150 megawatts of electricity on October 31st. The news release by Energy Minister Thibeault on September 27th announced to great fanfare that the Large Renewable Procurement (LRP 2) in process would be suspended, halting procurement of over 1,000 megawatts of energy, including wind and solar. IESO had established that Ontario has a robust supply of electricity over the coming decade to meet demand. Neither yesterday’s IESO announcement nor Thibeault’s news release disclosed that the further 150 megawatts in question had been referred to in the then Energy Minister’s letter of April 5th, 2016, to IESO as a requirement imposed on IESO.

The general reaction to Thibeault’s news release was one of temporary relief that no new wind or solar factories would be imposed on unwilling hosts in 2017. It now seems that to regard it as a cynical ploy motivated politically might be more appropriate.

(2) The Business Section of today’s Globe and Mail under the byline of Richard Blackwell believes that an announcement may soon be made that Windstream Energy, whose massive offshore wind factory not too far from the County was cancelled by Queen’s Park, has been awarded damages of about $25.2 million plus costs of about $2.9 million. The awards were given by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, sitting in the Netherlands, under NAFTA rules. Under those rules, Ottawa is responsible for the actions of the Provinces, so the awards were made against the Government of Canada.

We will follow up on this story as it develops, including how one Liberal government will react against another for the disastrous outcome.

Outsourcing windmill energy is a ‘not in my backyard’ mentality

Oct 07, 2016

To the Editor:

I address this primarily to Mr. Saltonstall and Dr. Francis: Think about this for a moment, please: Hideaway Village in Bourne and the industrial wind turbine neighbors in Plymouth will NEVER be able to “go back to how they were before.” The Stone Estate, in Marion’s estimation, was untouchable, but it was OK to put the 268 homes of Hideaway Village in harm’s way as long as your town did not have to suffer the consequences, the noise annoyance, the loss of private property rights, the loss in property value and the Stone Estate remained “whole.”

The people of Bourne had a right to be freaking out, whether over their roads or over what they knew would occur once those turbines reached the MannProject site in Plymouth. The people on the Bourne side of the project were not part of the process.

Would the residents of Marion have been happy to have that tonnage and vibration brought over their roadways and past the Stone Estate? (Based on the sense of well-being displayed at being able to just go back to your old ways if the MannProject did not work for Marion as expressed in the “success for Marion” article, I think not.)

On both the Bourne side and the Plymouth side of the MannProject, people have begun to feel the impacts of the industrial wind machines that were allowed to be built in Plymouth.

The mentality displayed by the people of Marion in this article is the worst sort of Nimbyism and truly is reflective of, “It is OK to ruin other people’s lives, and I go along with the industrial wind turbine mandates and agenda as long as it is not in my backyard, in my hometown, in the place I call home.”

In 2011, at the time Marion was considering a turbine and rejected it, my neighbors and I were in the process of considering the Moon Island (Quincy) Project. At the time, we knew very little about industrial wind turbines other than what the developer and the pro wind people told us. When the time came closer to making a decision, we began to do our homework in order to ask the right questions and make a good decision.

Not unlike Marion, we learned very quickly about the Falmouth issue. We learned very quickly about negative health impacts from places around the world; we learned about strobing and noise, and at the time we did not even consider the damage the heavy equipment would do to our only access road. Not unlike Marion, we did not feel industrial wind turbines made very good neighbors. As a neighborhood, we were instrumental in rejection of the Moon Island Project for some of the very same reasons that Marion rejected the Great Hill Project.

It is truly unfortunate that people, all people, have not been made aware of the truths of the industrial wind turbine mandates and agenda. It is a costly experiment. It will never change global warming or climate change. I would like to think that the people of Marion, or any other community where they are considering purchasing “energy” produced by another city or town, would turn down the offer by a developer because they knew that someone else was going to be put in harm’s way based on their own knowledge and research. And, if they know nothing about industrial wind turbine “hazards” that minimally they would take the time to learn about the subject before they rejected or signed onto the Power Purchase Agreement. Had there been no takers, the MannProject would not exist.

My connection with the MannProject comes as a result of the Moon Island Project. Since that time, I and others became advocates for industrial wind turbine victims and support groups who are fighting industrial wind turbines in their backyards.

Marie Stamos
Quincy

	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…
	DEROGATE, ILLUMINATI… on Agenda 21, and How it Affects…
	Dr. S. Jeevananda Re… on The Hidden Agenda, Behind The…
	Dr. S. Jeevananda Re… on Climate Change Rhetoric is Not…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

fighting wind turbines

Green Energy Policies Driving Up Carbon Emissions

Ontario green policies actually driving up carbon dioxide

Yet Another Study Showing Harm From Wind Turbines…

Physiological effects of wind turbine noise on sleep

Abstract

Corruption in the Wind Industry….

Dozens of energy projects referred to DOJ

Loud Noises Are Slowly Ruining Your Health (Windpushers still in denial)

Loud Noises Are Slowly Ruining Your Health

Con: Wind an even bigger boondoggle than ethanol…

Posted by Eric A. Tuttle on October 22, 2016

” CON: ”
Wind an even ^bigger boondoggle than
Ethanol

Wynne Uses Wind Turbine Scam to Destroy Ontario’s Financial Stability!

Can Ontario Escape its Self-Inflicted Wind Power Disaster?

Warnings from CCSAGE, on Wynne’s Agenda!

FLASH!

Wind Victim Speaks Out About the NIMBY Label!!!

Outsourcing windmill energy is a ‘not in my backyard’ mentality

Wind Fiasco Promises to be the “Liberal’s Undoing”!

Grits’ failed wind energy to face tough test in 2018

Important new Journal from Rick James and Jerry Punch, on Hearing & Wind Turbine Noise!

Abstract

” CON: ” Wind an even bigger boondoggle than Ethanol

Can Ontario Escape its Self-Inflicted Wind Power Disaster?

Outsourcing windmill energy is a ‘not in my backyard’ mentality

Grits’ failed wind energy to face tough test in 2018

” CON: ”
Wind an even ^bigger boondoggle than
Ethanol