fighting wind turbines

Most People Are Becoming Aware of Wind Turbine’s Futility, and Inaffordability!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Industry Keeps Losing ‘Hearts and Minds’: Community Opposition Rolls & Builds

January 19, 2015 by

1397574371-dublin-thousands-gather-to-protest-against-pylons-and-wind-turbines_4479876

Remember all the guff about everyone just “loving” wind farms: you know, the spin trotted out by wind industry spruikers – like the Clean Energy Council – in Mickey Mouse “surveys” that claim 150% of your compatriots just can’t wait to spear thousands of giant fans into YOUR slice of heaven (not theirs, of course).

As we’ve pointed out before, though, the answer you get depends very much on the question you ask (see our post here).

survey

And – funnily enough – it also depends on WHO you ask.

Sure enough, a gullible-green-voting-skinny-soy-latte-sipper from inner city Melbourne or Sydney is going to Tweet his support for wonderful ‘free’ wind power to Getup! – with exactly the same level of conscious ‘thought’ directed to the energy-end-game as when he’s madly re-Tweeting yet another 100 cat videos to his bearded-band of BFFs.

life organic

But ask anyone with a basic grip on reality – and the facts – and you tend to get a very different response.

Around the world, rural communities are fighting back hard against the great wind power fraud.

Wherever wind farms have appeared – or have been threatened – big numbers of locals take a set against the monsters being speared into their previously peaceful – and often idyllic – rural communities.

Their anger extends to the goons that lied their way to development approval – and the bent officials that rubber-stamped their applications and who, thereafter, help the operators ride roughshod over locals’ rights to live in and enjoy the peace and comfort of their own homes and properties (see our post here).

Australians are in there fighting hard – with the numbers solidly against wind power outfits that cause nothing more than community division and open hostility wherever they go (see our posts here and here and hereand here). In Australia, the wind industry, it’s parasites and spruikers have completely lost their grip on the ‘game’ (see our post here).

The Irish have already hit the streets to bring an end to the fraud: some 10,000 stormed Dublin back in April last year. The sense of anger inIreland – as elsewhere – is palpable (see our post here).

Rural Ontario is seething, with locals taking the law into their own hands – sabotaging turbines and construction equipment in order to defend their (once) peaceful and prosperous communities (see our post here).

And the Scots have joined in – tearing down MET masts in order to prevent wind power outfits from gaining a foothold and, thereafter, violating their right to live free from turbine terror (see our post here).

The back-lash against wind power outfits has been mirrored in the US – with communities rallying to shut down projects before they begin; and a raft of litigation launched by neighbours (see our post here) – as well as 23 Texan turbine hosts suing the wind farm outfit they contracted with for turbine noise impacts and loss of property value, etc (see our post here).

As community and political opposition to the great wind power fraud rolls and builds across the world, the charge that opponents are red-necked climate change deniers, infected with a dose of Not In My Backyard syndrome, starts to ring hollow.

Surely that charge can’t stick to each and every one of the 1,000 who signed the petition against the Mt Emerald wind farm proposal in Far North QLD – and the 92% of locals there who are bitterly opposed to it (see our post here)?

Mt Emerald Summary

The same level of opposition arises at the local level – wherever wind power outfits are seeking to spear turbines into closely settled agricultural communities (see our post here) – and extends to efforts that result in the destruction of pristine and fragile desert environments (seeour post here).

That includes dozens of communities across the Southern Tablelands of NSW, where locals are up in arms at efforts by wind farm outfits and the NSW Planning Department to sack and stack “community consultation committees” to ensure their development applications don’t face any real scrutiny (see our post here).

At Rye Park, 91% of locals are opposed to the wind farm Epuron plans to spear into their peaceful and prosperous farming community (see our post here).  And here’s the results of a survey carried out at a community meeting held there last year – taken by organisers to determine the level of support for wind power development in Boorowa, Yass, Rugby and Rye Park. After the speakers finished, the crowd delivered their responses to the survey to organisers: of the 104 in attendance, 88 people participated. The results were:

  • “I do not support wind power development in Boorowa, Yass, Rugby and Rye Park”: 80 votes (91%)
  • “I do support wind power development in Boorowa, Yass, Rugby and Rye Park”: 6 votes (7%)
  • “I am undecided about wind power development in Boorowa, Yass, Rugby and Rye Park”: 2 votes (2%).

No surprises there.

And communities like Tarago have erupted in anger at plans to destroy their lives and livelihoods (see our post here).

Australian farmers – who had signed up to host turbines based on the promise of a few thousand dollars a year per turbine – and, initially, sucked in by the lies pedalled by the hopeful wind power outfit concerned – have told the companies concerned to stick their fans where the sun don’t shine (see our post here).

A little while back, the usual response from those opposed to wind farms was along the lines of: “we’re all in favour of renewable energy, so long as wind farms are built in the right place”.

But that was before people understood the phenomenal cost of the subsidies directed at wind power through the mandatory LRET (see our post here) – and the impact on retail power prices (see our post here).

Fair minded country people are usually ready to give others the benefit of the doubt; and, not used to being lied to, accepted arguments pitched by wind power outfits about the “merits” of wind power: guff like “this wind farm will power 100,000 homes and save 10 million tonnes of CO2 emissions” (see our post here).

Not anymore.

Apart from the very few farmers that stand to profit by hosting turbines, rural communities have woken up to the fact that wind power – which can only ever be delivered at crazy, random intervals – is meaningless as a power source because it cannot and will never replace on-demand sources, such as hydro, gas and coal.

And, as a consequence, that wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. The wind industry has never produced a shred of actual evidence to show it has; and the evidence that has been gathered shows intermittent wind power causing CO2 emissions to increase, not decrease (see our post here; this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).

The realisation that the wind industry is built on series of unsustainable fictions has local communities angrier than ever and helps explain the remarkable numbers opposed: 90% is what’s fairly called a solid “majority” in anybody’s book.

The hostility that’s erupted among pro-community groups to the great wind power fraud is a world-wide phenomenon – with more than 2,000 groups doing their level best to bring an end to the greatestenvironmental and economic fraud of all time (see our post here).

And, for the wind industry and its parasites, the situation will only get worse from here. In our travels we’ve met plenty of people that started out in favour of wind power and turned against it.  But we’ve yet to meet anyone who started out opposed to wind power, who later became a supporter.  Funny about that.

turbine-2_3153749b

So, with that in mind, let’s have a look a little survey conducted where the right questions were asked of the right people, which gives a fair taste of the scale of the community backlash brewing in New Hampshire: of 353 residents (to whom surveys were sent) 41% are opposed to wind power plants; of the 226 that responded to the survey, 64% are dead-against.

Poll shows Groton voters oppose new wind plants
New Hampshire Union Leader
Dan Suefert
18 December 2014

GROTON — A master plan poll of town residents by the planning board shows most people in town are against adding more wind-energy plants.

According to planning board Chairman Steve Spafford, the board sent 353 mailings to all of the residents on the voting list, and received 226 of them back.

Of those, 89 people said they would approve more wind-energy plants, and 145 were opposed to the idea, Spafford said.

The town, which accepted the plans of Spanish wind-energy developer Iberdrola Renewables and allowed the Groton Wind Power Project, a 25-turbine, $120 million, 48-megawatt plant which went online in 2012, to be built.

In return, the town is given payments from the plant each year which were set at an amount that is roughly the town’s budget amount.

After some debate and legal questioning, the town accepted a proposal from EDP Renewables of Portugal this fall for a test tower on a local hill. Since then, EDP officials have announced that they will be filing an application for a $140 million, 15- to 25-turbine wind project called Spruce Ridge, which, if permitted by the state’s Site Evaluation Committee, would be built on land in five towns, including Groton.

The town is hoping to update its master plan in 2015, Spafford said, and needed to “get a sense of how people are feeling about new power projects, in this case wind projects.”

Earlier this month, the board mailed a survey to residents, asking, “Do you support more wind projects or oppose them?”

“We got a pretty strong response,” Spafford said. “We will likely add some wording on this for the master plan, and now we have something to tell the SEC when (EDP) files for this new project. according to our vote, the town is against more wind projects.”

EDP officials did not return requests for comment.

A local group opposing more wind power plants in the area, New Hampshire Wind Watch, said EDP should not ignore the vote.

“Industrial wind developers take notice, you are not wanted here,” said Wind Watch President Lori Lerner. “We have one huge turbine complex here already. One is one too many.”

“People live in this area because we don’t want to be urbanized. Now that the region has been ‘turbanized’ by (Groton Wind), residents in all towns in the region are coming together to fight this latest industrial scourge from EDP as the residents of Groton did so overwhelmingly (in the poll).”
New Hampshire Union Leader

turbine fire 3

If Supplying Clean, Dependable, Electricity, is the Problem, Wind is NOT the solution!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Greens clueless on energy
The Australian
Brendan Pearson
16 January 2015

DURING his formative years, the legendary 20th-century American journalist Walter Lippman spent a lot of time with revolutionaries, radical intellectuals and others with a weak grip on reality.

But Lippman soon grew tired of “dilettante rebels, he who would rather dream 10 dreams than realise one; he who so often mistakes a discussion in a cafe for an artistic movement, or a committee meeting for a social revolution”. It was, he complained, “a form of lazy thoughtlessness to suppose that something can be made of nothing; that the act of creation consists of breathing upon the void”.

It is a description that is apt for activists, the Greens and related vested interests who argue blithely that fossil fuels can and should be phased out in the next few decades. No thought of the practicality of the goal or consideration of the consequences. No evidence is presented on whether such a transition is possible, or at what cost, including to the world’s poorest people. Nothing is allowed to interrupt the addiction to the pleasures of intellectual condescension.

Certainly no reference is made to the lessons of recent history. Between 1990 and 2010, 1.7 billion people secured access to electricity for the first time. More than 1.27 billion people secured access to electricity powered by fossil fuels. By comparison, 65 million people secured access to electricity for the first time from renewable energy sources. Put another way, 19 gained access to energy from fossil fuels for every one person who secured access via renewable energy sources.

Now let’s consider the plausibility of the challenge. Within a generation, can non-fossil fuel sources provide reliable, affordable electricity to 1.3 billion people who have no access to energy and another two billion people who have only limited access, while also replacing the 82 per cent of global primary energy that is currently supplied by fossil fuels?

According to the International Energy Agency, non-fossil-fuel energy sources (nuclear, hydro and other renewables) accounted for 18 per cent of energy in 2013. Let’s test this proposition using the IEA’s most aggressive emissions reduction scenario, consistent with the goal of limiting the global increase in temperature to 2C. Even under this scenario, fossil fuels will still provide 59 per cent of primary energy in 2040.

In short, if campaigners get their wish and fossil fuels are phased out by 2040, the world will face an energy gap of at least 9.2 billion tonnes of oil equivalent. That is the equivalent of 147 countries with no energy.

To illustrate, an energy gap like that would mean that the 56 nations of Africa, the 44 nations of Latin America, the 12 nations of the Middle East and 35 nations in Asia, including China, would have to exist without energy.

It would be a neo-medieval existence for most of the world’s population — much lower life expectancy and much higher levels of infant mortality, poverty and abject misery.

If nuclear and hydropower are off limits — the Greens are hostile to both — the situation is even worse. You can add the US and Japan to the list of 147 countries with no access to energy.

It is a point that demonstrates the farcical nature of the anti-fossil-fuel movement’s central proposition.

But why can’t renewables fill the gap? Independent analysis has shown that replacing existing fossil fuel-powered electricity with solar power by 2030 would take 470 years at the current rate of deployment. To do so with wind energy would take 270 years and require 3,460,000 wind turbines. (Incidentally that would be good news for the coal sector — every offshore wind turbine uses 250 tonnes of coking coal in its manufacture.)

What’s more, back-up power storage would be necessary for when the sun didn’t shine and the wind didn’t blow. That would mean 4600 new hydro projects — 13 times the number of large dams operating globally today.

The simple reality is that fossil fuels will continue to be indispensable if the world is to meet rapidly growing energy demand.

The good news is that continued fossil fuel use and lower emissions are not mutually exclusive. In addition to good progress on carbon capture and storage, conventional technologies are slashing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired generation by as much as 50 per cent.

The bottom line is that all energy sources will be needed. To pretend otherwise is to substitute an ideological prejudice for empirical evidence. In Lippman’s words, it is simply “breathing upon the void”.

Brendan Pearson is chief executive of the Minerals Council of Australia.
The Australian

Not a bad little wrap-up there by Brendan, but his line “that all energy sources will be needed” – if taken to include wind power – represents the kind of wooly-headed thinking that got the great wind power fraud going in the first place.

The wind industry parades as an “alternative” energy source. Which begs the question: “alternative” to what?

When it comes to their demand for electricity, the power consumer has a couple of basic needs: when they hit the light switch they assume illumination will shortly follow and that when the kettle is kicked into gear it’ll be boiling soon thereafter. And the power consumer assumes that these – and similar actions in a household or business – will be open to them at any time of the night or day, every day of the year.

For conventional generators, delivering power on the basic terms outlined above is a doddle: delivering base-load power around the clock, rain, hail or shine is just good business. It’s what the customer wants and is prepared to pay for, so it makes good sense to deliver on-demand.

But for wind power generators it’s never about how much the customer wants or when they want it, it’s always and everywhere about the vagaries of the wind. When the wind speed increases to 25 m/s, turbines are automatically shut-off to protect the blades and bearings; and below 6-7 m/s turbines are incapable of producing any power at all.

The basic terms of the wind power “deal” break-down like this:

  • we (“the wind power generator”) will supply and you (“the hopeful punter at the end of the line”) will take every single watt we produce, whenever that might be;
  • except that this will occur less than 30% of the time; and, no, we can’t tell you when that might be – although it will probably be in the middle of the night when you don’t need it;
  • around 70% of the time – when the wind stops blowing altogether – we won’t be supplying anything at all;
  • in which event, it’s a case of “tough luck” sucker, you’re on your own, but you can try your luck with dreaded coal or gas-fired generators, they’re burning mountains of coal and gas anyway to cover our little daily output “hiccups” – so they’ll probably help you keep your homeand business running; and
  • the price for the pleasure of our chaotic, unpredictable power “supply” will be fixed for 25 years at 4 times the price charged by those “evil” fossil fuel generators.

It’s little wonder that – in the absence of fines and penalties that force retailers to sign up to take wind power (see our post here) and/or massive subsidies (see our post here) – no retailer would ever bother to purchase wind power on the standard “irresistible” terms above.

If you think we’re joking – or you’re suffering the kind of mental incapacity for which greentards are renowned – we’ll spell it out in pictures.

Here’s a little hard data from July and August last year for the entire Eastern Grid  – which covers every wind farm in Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales, as well as including the 1,329 MW of installed capacity that comes from Australia’s “wind power capital” – South Australia. All of these wind farms are connected to the Eastern Grid and, back then, had a total installed capacity of 2,952 MW. Oh, and if our data looks a little fuzzy, click on the image, it will pop up in a new window, use your magnifier and it will look crystal clear.

JULY20

Entire Eastern Grid – 20 July 2014 – from 12 noon to 6.30pm (6.5hrs):

Total wind farm output: never more than 140 MW; generally less than 70 MW; collapsing to less than 20 MW for 2hrs.  (Note the collapse of over 600 MW between 4.30am and 3pm).

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: 12 noon to 6.30pm – 4.7%, generally less than 2.3%, falling to 0.67%.

Total demand (average): 22,000 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 12 noon to 6.30pm – never more than 0.64%, generally less than 0.32%, falling to 0.09%.

JULY21

Entire Eastern Grid – 21 July 2014 – from 11am to 8.30pm (9.5hrs):

Total wind farm output: never more than 120 MW; generally less than 60 MW; collapsing to less than 20 MW for 2hrs.  (Note the collapse of 580 MW between 3am and 3pm).

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: 11am to 8.30pm – 4.1%, generally less than 2%, falling to 0.67%.

Total demand (average): 24,000 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 11am to 8.30pm – never more than 0.5%, generally less than 0.25%, falling to 0.08%.

JULY22

Entire Eastern Grid – 22 July 2014 – from 3.30am to 6.30pm (15hrs):

Total wind farm output: never more than 140 MW; generally less than 70 MW; collapsing to less than 20 MW for 5hrs.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: 3.30am to 6.30pm – 4.7%, generally less than 2.3%, falling to 0.67%.

Total demand (average): 24,000 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 3.30am to 6.30pm – never more than 0.58%, generally less than 0.29%, falling to 0.08%.

AUGUST2

Entire Eastern Grid – 2 August 2014 – from 4.30am to 9pm (16.5hrs):

Total wind farm output: never more than 165 MW; generally less than 140 MW; dropping to 80 MW.

Output as a percentage of total installed wind farm capacity: 4.30am to 9pm – 5.6%, generally less than 4.7%, falling to 2.7%.

Total demand (average): 22,000 MW.

Contribution to total demand as a percentage: 4.30am to 9pm – never more than 0.75%, generally less than 0.63%, falling to 0.36%.

Bear in mind that the 30 wind farms covered by the data above are spread over 4 States.

Eastern grid3

On the Eastern Grid Australia’s wind farms are spread from: Jamestown in the Mid-North, west to Cathedral Rocks on lower Eyre Peninsula and south to Millicent in South Australia; down to Cape Portland (Musselroe) and Woolnorth (Cape Grim) in Tasmania; all over Victoria; and right up to Cullerin on the New South Wales Tablelands.

Those wind farms have hundreds of fans spread out over a geographical expanse of 632,755 km². That’s an area which is 2.75 times the combined area of England (130,395 km²) Scotland (78,387 km²) and Wales (20,761 km²) of 229,543 km².

One of the wilder claims made by the wind industry is that if you erect thousands of giant fans over a large enough area wind power will produce base-load power and replace on-demand sources such as hydro, gas and coal: the “distributed network” myth.

Nowhere else in the world are so many interconnected wind farms spread over such a large geographical expanse. If there was a shred of substance to the distributed network myth, then it would be just jumping out of the pictures above, but – surprise, surprise – it just ain’t there.

When you have 2,952 MW of installed capacity – connected and spread over an area more than twice the size of Great Britain – producing less than 140 MW for hours on end – and, on plenty of occasions, less than half that figure – the idea that wind power is providing (or could ever provide) “base-load” power – or even power “on demand” – by having wind farms spread far and wide is pure, infantile nonsense.

For a solid debunking of that and other wind industry myths see our post here.

Oh, and if you think the data we’ve picked represents a few “unlucky” days for wind power generators see our posts here and here and hereand here and here and here.

On the FACTS laid out in the pictures above, STT is happy to go all out and say that in Australia wind power requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by conventional generation sources.

Where the TOTAL output from all of the wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid was a derisory 20 MW (or 0.67% of installed capacity) for hours on end (see our post here), the 99.33% of wind power output that went AWOL for hours (at various times, 3 days straight) HAD to come from somewhere.

And that somewhere was from conventional generators; the vast bulk of which came from coal and gas plants, with the balance coming from hydro.

Now and again we get comments which query the comparative costs of wind power and conventional power. But there is simply NO comparison: the question is patent nonsense.

Conventional generation – is available 24 x 7 – ON DEMAND – and doesn’t depend on the weather – therefore, comfortably earning the tag “generation system”.

Wind power will NEVER be available on demand (can’t be stored) – is entirely dependent upon the weather – and is, therefore, not a generation “system” at all: “chaos” and “system” are words that come from completely different paddocks; and which mean completely different things.

If an economy started out with a power generation “system” that was entirely based upon the inherent chaos of wind power generation – in order for its people to enjoy a meaningful power supply (ie, one available around the clock and every day of the year) so as to live, thrive and survive – that economy would inevitably need to build an entire conventional power generation system based on coal, gas, hydro, geo-thermal or nuclear power – with enough capacity to supply 100% of the predictable needs of all power consumers in that economy.

In other words, if an economy with no power generation system at all built a “system” based on wind power alone, it would inevitably need to build a conventional generation system – capable of supplying every last MW of power used by homes, business and industry – of the kind enjoyed by first world economies, like Australia, in any event.

The pictures tell the story.

Rod-Stewart-Every-Picture

Why should anyone be exposed to the dangers of these machines?

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Turbine safety concerns

Print

Published: 16 Jan 2015 17:00

FOLLOWING the unexplained collapse of a wind turbine at a Northern Ireland windfarm last week, one local politician has raised concerns over safety at windfarms closer to home.

Turbine risks?

Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale MP David Mundell is asking the Scottish Government, the Health & Safety Executive and Council Building Control to make them aware of the incident and asking if they are satisfied that all existing local developments are safe, with no likelihood of such a collapse.

Seven remaining wind turbines have been shut down at a wind farm near Fintona, County Tyrone, where a 100-metre high turbine collapsed last Friday night.

Mr Mundell has also expressed that new developments are being proposed with turbines closer to people’s homes and he has asked the Scottish Government and Council to confirm that minimum safe distances between housing and new Windfarms will be strictly enforced.

Mr Mundell said: “I was extremely concerned to learn about this incident at the Screggagh Windfarm in Co Tyronne. It is particularly troubling that there appears to be no obvious explanation such as very high winds at the time. The turbine involved is similar to many locally with a tower height of 60 metres, an 80 metres rotor diameter, and an overall base to blade tip height of 100 metres.

“I understand people in the area said the rotor blades were spinning out of control on the evening the turbine buckled. The sound of the failing mechanical structure was heard more than seven miles away and debris from the stricken turbine was scattered across the mountainside, with a large spike remaining impaled in the earth several hundred yards from the turbine site. I am pleased there were no injuries when the turbine collapsed.”

He added: “It’s now vitally important we get to the bottom of what happened and make sure there are no such incidents possible on local windfarms. That’s why I want to be clear that the Scottish Government, Health and Safety Executive and Building Control are all aware of this incident and the ongoing inquiry. I want to be reassured that all local turbines are completely safe and not in danger of collapse. We might not be so lucky next time to avoid injury or damage to property.

“I have been increasingly concerned about how close some proposed new developments are to people’s homes and this incident reinforces the need for regulation of that and for it to be enforced. So I am also raising those issues with the council and the Scottish Government. Of course, a better solution from my point of view would be to have no new windfarm developments locally at all.”

Local campaigner, Jerry Mulders added: “I share the concern that occasionally small mechanical equipment can fail.

“The concern I would have is with the developer promoting recreational and open areas for land on which windfarms are situated. I would be seeking reassurances from developers that windfarms are not open as recreational areas for things like horse riding as a safety precaution.”

– See more at: http://www.cumnockchronicle.com/news/roundup/articles/2015/01/16/521733-turbine-safety-concerns/#sthash.Zfm2OYG6.dpuf

Plans for Cape Wind, are Blowing Away, As We Speak!

/ 1957chev / 8 Comments

Wind Energy’s Bluster Peters Out

untitledTouted as “America’s first offshore wind project,” Cape Wind became one of America’s most high-profile and most controversial wind-energy projects. Fourteen years in the making, estimated at $2.6 billion for 130 turbines, covering 25 square miles in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project has yet toinstall one turbine—let alone produce anyelectricity. Now, it may be “dead in the water.”

On January 6, the two power companies, National Grid and Northeast Utilities, that had agreed to purchase most of the electricity Cape Wind was to generate, terminated their contracts with the developers due to missed milestones. Under the terms of the contracts, Cape Wind had to secure financing and give notices to proceed to its suppliers to start work by December 31, 2014. Neither happened and both companies filed to cancel power purchase agreements. “The project is in cardiac arrest,” according to Amy Grace, a wind-industry analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Cape Wind has faced stiff opposition since it was first proposed in 2001. Senator Edward Kennedy’s efforts, and those of his wealthy friends, to fight Cape Wind have been the most publicized, but Native Americans, fishermen, and local communities have also battled the industrialization of Nantucket Sound. The town of Barnstable has been particularly active in the fight. The Cape Cod Times reports that Charles McLaughlin, Barnstable’s assistant town attorney, said: “The town’s concerns include the possibility that a collision between a boat and the large electric service platform the project requires could spill thousands of gallons of oil into the sound.”

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) positioned Cape Wind as the centerpiece of his renewable energy goals and invested significant political capital backing the proposal—including tying the NStar power purchase agreement to approval of the NStar and Northeast Utilities merger (given the unfavorable terms of the agreements, the companies may have been looking for any exit ramp). Yet, Ian Bowles, Patrick’s first energy and environment chief who, according to the Boston Globe, “helped shepherd the offshore project,” acknowledgesthat the loss of the power purchase agreements “may have spelled the end for Cape Wind.”

The announcement came two days before Patrick left office. While he claims: “We’ve done everything as a state government to get them over the regulatory lines,” Patrick concedes it is now “up to the market.” According to the Cape Cod Times, the former governor doesn’t know “if the project could survive without the contracts in place.”

Even the Department of Energy (DOE), which seems to indiscriminately throw money at any politically favored green-energy project, was tepid in its support for Cape Wind. DOE’s loan guarantees generally average about 60 percent of the project’s costs, but the $150 million offered to Cape Wind made up a mere 6 percent—and that, only after the project received commitments for about half of its financing. In most cases, the government guarantee comes before the private financing and signals a go-ahead for investors.

While both supporters and detractors believe the project is in jeopardy, environmentalists and Cape Wind Associates LLC have not yet waved the white flag. According to Kit Kennedy, director of the energy and transportation program at the Natural Resources research : “Cape Wind may be down, but it is not out.” The Boston Globe reports that Cape Wind’s president, James Gordon, believes the perpetual litigation “triggered a clause in the contracts that allows for more latitude in Cape Wind’s ability to meet the deadlines.” However, after the company already spent $50 to $70 million on the project, the fact that Gordon opted not to pay the utilities the mere $2 million needed for a six-month extension signals that he doesn’t have confidence that they can continue.

Additionally, the political winds have shifted. While Governor Patrick championed Cape Wind, Massachusetts’ new governor, Charlie Baker (R) is on record as being staunchly opposed to it—even calling it Patrick’s “personal pet project.” While campaigning, Baker “dropped his opposition to Cape Wind” because he believed it was a “done deal.” Now that the deal may well be undone, Baker says he “will not try to influence the outcome of the legal process surrounding the Cape Wind project.”

The cancellation of the contracts is “a near fatal blow” to Cape Wind according to Audra Parker, president of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a Cape Cod based group which has led the fight against cape wind.

Wind energy’s future faces problems beyond Massachusetts.

While Massachusetts’ utility companies filed to cancel power purchase agreements, two Minnesota wind farms, operating as Minwind Companies, were filed for bankruptcy because the eleven turbines needed extensive repairs and the 360 farmers and landowners who invested in the projects can’t afford the maintenance. Minwind CEO Mark Willers explained: “Minwind Companies have enjoyed relative prosperity in recent years, but the April ice storm last year took a toll on equipment—and on the budget.” At a December 17 meeting, hetold shareholders: “We were 200 to 300 percent over budget to make those repairs.”

Minwind’s nine separate limited-liability companies allowed investors to take advantage of federal wind-energy credits, USDA grants, and the now-discontinued state assistance program for small wind projects. The Star Tribune reports: “The owners stand to lose their investment, and the wind farms eventually may have to shut down.”

On the national level, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has continued to lobby for a retroactive extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy that expired at the end of 2013. Disappointing AWEA, the lame-duck Congress did approve a ninth extension—but just through the end of 2014. AWEA’s CEO Tim Kiernan groused: “Unfortunately, the extension to the end of 2014 will only allow minimal new wind development and it will have expired again by the time the new Congress convenes.” In response to the “bare-minimum extension,” Luke Lewandowsi, Make Consulting research manager, said it “casts doubt on the willingness or ability of Congress to revisit the PTC in 2015.”

Adding insult to industrial wind’s injury, wind turbine installation placed number three in the list of 10 dying U.S. industries—following only computer and recordable media manufacturing.

All of this news doesn’t bode well for the wind energy business, but for ratepayers and those who believe in the free market and who believe that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers, current wind conditions are a breath of fresh air. Governments, both state and federal, have given wind energy every advantage, to quote Governor Patrick: “It’s now up to the market”—and even Warren Buffet admits the tax credits are the only reason to build wind farms.

Monte McNaughton offers Hope, for Wind Victims, and Ratepayers!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

McNaughton: I will end the failed Liberal wind energy experiment

January 12, 2015
SHARE THIS:

(London, ON) – Today Monte McNaughton, MPP for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex and candidate for the Ontario PC Leadership, pledged to end the failed Liberal wind energy experiment.

“I will end the Wynne Liberals’ wind energy ripoff of Ontario consumers,” said McNaughton. “As Premier, I would propose specific legislation to repeal and decommission wind turbines in Ontario.”

Wind power is not needed in Ontario – in each of 2013 and 2014, Ontario dumped more than double the amount of power generated by wind turbines into other jurisdictions at money-losing rates: less than 3 cents /KWh, representing a 75% discount of the money wind generators are paid to produce the wind power in the first place.  In 2013, 13.4TWh of excess electricitycapacity was dumped, followed in 2014 by another 13.1TWh.  This loss on excess electricity – paid for by the Ontario consumer — is just another way Ontario loses money with wind power.

 “The only winners under the Liberals’ wind-power scheme are the wind industry and developers, while the losers are Ontario consumers who are forced to pay for expensive electricity even when it isn’t needed,” said McNaughton.

In 2013, Ontario consumers paid over $600 million for a mere 5.2TWh of wind power.  This accounted for only 3.4% of Ontario’s total electricity generating capacity, but represented 20% of the total commodity cost of electricity in the province.

In 2015, it is projected that Ontario consumers will be forced to pay out a startling $1 billion on their hydro bills for a mere 9TWh of expensive wind power at 12 cents / KWh. This figure is expected to continue to rise year after year.

“Ontario consumers simply cannot afford to be gouged to the tune of billions of dollars a year for the next 20 years,” said McNaughton.  “If we do not take action, this failed experiment will cost Ontario consumers between $20 billion and $60 billion over the next 20 years.”

Under McNaughton’s plan, all wind turbines would be decommissioned but some compensation would be offered to contract holders using a formula developed by experts to mitigate any losses. Independent analysis has shown that such compensation would represent only a fraction of the wind-power costs currently forced on consumers by the Liberals’ wind power scheme.

“Wind energy is not only extremely expensive, but it was built in many cases over the opposition of local residents and municipalities. Under my leadership a PC government will introduce specific legislation to end the wind energy contracts and begin the decommissioning of existing turbines,” said McNaughton.

The Ontario legislature has the ability to enact specific legislation to repeal the wind-power program and decommission the wind turbines, saving Ontario consumers from unnecessary costs on their electricity rates for power they do not use.

Visit www.Monte.ca to learn more about McNaughton’s plan to end Ontario’s wind energy experiment, and other issues that are part of his plan for Ontario.

Monte McNaughton Has the Best Suggestion, Yet! Tear ’em Down!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

GREEN ENERGY

Monte McNaughton says he would get rid of all wind turbines

By Debora Van Brenk, The London Free Press

Monday, January 12, 2015 

Ontario PC MPP Monte McNaughton (QMI Agency file photo)

Ontario PC MPP Monte McNaughton

Ontario wind turbines would stop spinning for good — saving money in the long run, despite up-front cancellation costs — if he became premier, says the Tory leadership candidate from Southwestern Ontario.

“It’s time to end this ripoff,” said MPP Monte McNaughton, one of five candidates for the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership and the only one from thesouthwest, where many of wind farms are located.

“Wind power is going to cost between $20 billion and $60 billion over the next 20 years,” said McNaughton, a second-term MPP from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Tearing up existing contracts would cost less than what turbines are costing Ontarians now, he said, but he had no estimates of the cost to cancel contracts and raze turbines.

“We’ve got to cut our losses now,” he told The Free Press on Sunday, ahead of rolling out his plan Monday.

McNaughton said he’d repeal legislation that allows turbines to be built and would decommission ones already on the grid.

Lightning rods for opposition in many areas, giant wind turbines were pushed by the Liberal government with hefty subsidies paid for the electricity they generate as the province phased out its dirty, coal-fired power plants.

But as Ontarians saw when the Liberals cancelled two natural gas-fired power plants in the Toronto area, moving them to the east and west at a cost of more than $1 billion, scrapping energy contracts doesn’t come cheap.

McNaughton is the first PC leadership candidate to come out against one of the most contentious rural issues. But while turbines are a hot issue in the countryside, with many residents saying they pose health concerns for humans and animals, they haven’t been so for urbanites.

McNaughton hopes to draw support by pointing out electricity prices have soared for all Ontarians, which he says affects home affordability and business viability.

Making electricity more affordable “is the single biggest thing” that can restore Ontario’s prosperity, McNaughton said.

Wind companies have built or plan to build more than 6,700 wind turbines in Ontario. They’re paid a premium for the energy they produce.

McNaughton said most of that energy is surplus to Ontario’s needs, and is sold at a discount to other jurisdictions so that, he said, wind represents 4% of Ontario’s production and 20% of its energy costs. “It’s a complete failure and it will never be economical,” he said.

Former Tory leader Tim Hudak, who resigned after the Liberals won a majority government in June, had vowed to repeal the Liberals’ Green Energy Act, but stopped short of saying he’d tear up existing wind turbine contracts.

Other candidates chasing Hudak’s old job are MPPs Christine Elliott, Vic Fedeli and Lisa MacLeod and MP Patrick Brown. Conservatives will choose their leader in voting set for May 3 and 7. The next leadership debate is scheduled Jan 26 in London.

deb.vanbrenk@sunmedia.ca

Wind Weasels Go Out of Their Way, to Dodge Responsibility!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

“Unscheduled” Wind Farm Shut-Down Shows Low-Frequency Noise Impact at Waterloo, SA

January 12, 2015 by

waterloo

One of the major obstacles faced by acoustic experts when trying to do meaningful wind turbine ‘noise’ testing is the dogged refusal of wind farm operators to provide wind speed and operational data.

Moreover, wind power outfits have resisted, with granite-like tenacity, quite reasonable calls by noise experts to shut down their turbines (ie “on-off testing”) during the process; a step that would show – unequivocally – what noise is attributable to the turbines’ operation (as complained of by victims) and what might be put down to “wind in the trees”, the source wind industry spin-masters routinely scape-goat as the reason for the neighbours’ complaints.

mary-morris

STT champion, Mary Morris changed all that when she provoked the South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct on-off testing at the Waterloo wind farm in SA’s mid-north.

Mary hit them with an absolute cracker of a letter (see our post here) and went on to badger SA’s rotten little EPA into reluctant action (see our post here).

Mary’s efforts set up a unique opportunity, which attracted several of Australia’s top research acousticians to the neighbouring farm houses –  in the hope of finally getting a meaningful data set, with the turbines shut-off for periods long enough to separate out turbine noise from the rest. Those that lined up at Waterloo included top-flight noise and vibration experts, like Professor Colin Hansen (see our posts here andhere).

However, the operator – Energy Australia – fighting all the way – ‘offered’ to do no more than shut down its turbines for trifling intervals of 40-50 minutes – and to do so at times when complaints don’t normally occur (ie during the day-time). Hmmm…

But – to the noise experts’ delight –  where decent and reasonable corporate conduct failed them – mechanical serendipity intervened: acable fault in the line that feeds power from the wind farm to the substation nearby saw the whole operation shut down for 54 hours straight. The ‘lucky’ break occurred at a time when the independent noise experts had the surrounding homes bristling with state-of-the-art kit.

The results gathered, didn’t disappoint: a top-team from Adelaide University, headed up by Professor Hansen, were able to separate out the ‘environmental’ noise (wind in the trees, etc) from the low-frequency noise generated by turbines at distances out to 8.7km.

The length of the unscheduled shut down allowed the team (Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamšek, and Professor Hansen) to identify the turbine noise ‘signature’ within and external to three neighbouring homes.

Their results were presented at the Internoise Conference (43rd International Congress on Noise Control Engineering November 16-19, 2014 in Melbourne, Australia) in a paper titled “Comparison of the noise levels measured in the vicinity of a wind farm for shutdown and operational conditions” – which can be accessed here as a PDF.

Internoise2014s

The team – using narrow band spectra analysis – were easily able to contrast ‘environmental’ noise from the turbine ‘signature’ – as depicted in the graphs below: the blue lines showing noise levels with the turbines off; and the red lines showing noise levels with the turbines on (to enlarge it, click on the graph, it will pop up in a new window and you can use your magnifier from there).

Wind turbine signature

So far, so obvious.

When even Blind Freddy can spot the difference, it’s little wonder that wind power outfits have fought tooth-and-nail to avoid meaningful on-off noise testing.

Thanks to their ‘lucky’ break, the researchers conclusions in their paper were:

There is a significant difference in the unweighted third-octave spectra when the Waterloo wind farm is shut down compared to when it is operational for each of the three residences investigated in this study.

The most prominent difference occurs in the 50 Hz third-octave band and it has been shown that operational levels can be as much as 30 dB higher than shutdown levels.

The peak in this third-octave band is also higher than the audibility threshold defined in ISO 389-7 (12) by as much as 10 dB for the outdoor measurements.

This peak was also measured indoors when the wind farm was operational but the magnitude is slightly lower and the rms level averaged over 10 minutes is at the same level as the audibility threshold defined in ISO 389-7 (12), although the variability in the noise results in the peak levels being much higher than the rms audibility threshold.

Outdoor infrasonic noise levels associated with wind farm operation vary depending on the local wind speed at the microphone. During periods of negligible wind at the microphone, distinct peaks corresponding to blade-pass harmonic frequencies are clearly distinguishable.

The outdoor results presented for House 3, where the wind speed at the microphone was zero, showed the most distinct peaks in the infrasonic frequency range out of the three residences investigated. For Houses 1 and 2, these peaks in the outdoor spectra were evidently masked by wind-induced noise and this is further confirmed by their presence in the indoor spectra for measurements at these locations, as shown in Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

The wind-induced noise is caused by pressure fluctuations and vortex shedding, which are sensed by the microphone but bear no relation to acoustic disturbances. Therefore, to adequately portray the levels of infrasound outdoors, it is imperative that there is negligible wind in the vicinity of the microphone.

The shutdown times selected by the wind farm operator gave few opportunities to record such conditions. Hence, it is suggested that in future studies, times between 12 am and 5 am with negligible wind at the measurement locations are selected for shutdown/operational comparisons.

The narrow-band spectra associated with wind farm operation show a consistent occurrence of peaks at specific frequencies in the infrasonic and low frequency ranges.

The frequencies of these peaks are the same at each residence and they are not present when the wind farm is shut down, which indicates that they are the result of wind farm noise.

The low frequency peaks at 23.3 Hz, 28 Hz, 46.6 Hz and 56 Hz are surrounded by side-bands spaced at the blade-pass frequency of 0.8 Hz. Results obtained by increasing the frequency resolution indicate that it is quite feasible that the low frequency peaks are harmonics of the blade-pass frequency.

Thus their presence can either be attributed to selected amplification of blade-pass frequency harmonics or amplitude modulation of a turbine associated noise source at the blade-pass frequency. Further investigation into the source of the noise is currently being undertaken.

Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamšek, and Professor Hansen (2014)

Nice work team!

But results like that shouldn’t require ‘lucky’ breaks and serendipitous shut-downs. Meaningful, independent wind turbine noise testing should be available to neighbouring victims, as a matter of course.

The terms and times at which turbines should be shut down for that purpose should be a matter for the experts engaged – not the wind industry, its parasites or the pet acoustic consultants that it employs tofluff and obfuscate on its behalf (the ones that wrote the noise standards for the wind industry on a ‘made-to-not-measure’ and ‘avoid-scrutiny-at-all-costs’ basis and – who, for no other reason than benefiting their wind industry paymasters, upped the noise limits from 35dB(A) to 40dB(A) – as Mary Morris points out in her brilliant letter to the EPA).

No, ‘luck’ should only be a matter of concern to horse punters and cardsharks, not independent acoustic experts trying to help wind farm victims get control of a noise source that destroys their ability to sleep, and otherwise drives them mad in their homes; if it hasn’t already driven their owners out of them.

Fortunately, it’s wind industry shenanigans – like that outlined above (that requires good fortune – rather than common sense and science to get to the proper result) that is squarely in the sights of the Senate Select Committee, it’s terms of reference including the following:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Wind Turbines be established to inquire into and report on the application of regulatory governance and economic impact of wind turbines by 24 June 2015, with particular reference to:

…

(d) the implementation of planning processes in relation to wind farms, including the level of information available to prospective wind farm hosts;

(e) the adequacy of monitoring and compliance governance of wind farms;

For those suffering from or threatened by turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, now is you chance to hammer the so-called ‘standards’ and planning ‘controls’ that mean proper noise testing is a matter of ‘luck’ and not good measure.

Why not drop a submission to the Senate Inquiry along those lines?  Note that the opportunity to make submissions to the Committee ends on 27 February 2015. See the link here.

bookie

German Citizens are “Fed Up” With the Useless Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

German Citizens Have Had Enough…”Conflict Over Wind Turbines Escalating” …Against “Horror Landscapes”!

By  January 2015

In Germany protests over a broad range of issues have been heightening.

In Dresden citizens have been turning out by the thousands in “Monday demonstrations” to protest the perceived threat of the Islamification of Europe and the so-called “liar media”, which they no longer trust. Since the Paris attacks by radical Islamic terrorists, the protesters have only become more emboldened.

Citizens are also clearly beginning to feel they are being misled by the “liar media” and politicians regarding wind energy. The glaring difference between what was promised and what is actually being delivered can no longer be ignored. Enough is enough!

Germany’s online SVZ.de writes that the “conflict over wind turbines is escalating” and that “criticism and fears are becoming louder” and that “citizen protest groups are forming at many locations“.

What does it mean? It means that wind and solar power are nothing like they were once cracked up to be. They are poor performers, costly, and are creating a nationwide blight that risks permanently scarring Germany’s once idyllic landscape and natural heritage.

Everything and anything can now be sacrificed at the alter of climate protection. Recently Die Welt published a scathing commentary on the “immensely dangerous power of the eco-cartel“, writing that “totalitarian undercurrents are plainly visible” and that the movement is all about power and money, and less so about environmental protection. Germany’s green movement has been corrupted to the bone.

In the state of Mecklenburg-Pomerania the SVZ.de site writes how an organization called Freier Horizont was established last November and serves as the umbrella for 40 citizens initiatives. “They are protesting against what they see as the uncontrolled expansion of wind energy and speak of horror landscapes.”

Freier Horizont Chairman Norbert Schumacher worries that wind energy will have negative impacts on the region’s coastal tourism. Citizens are concerned that Germany’s cherished Baltic Sea coast will be “blighted” and believe political leaders and wind energy developers are not taking their concerns seriously.

They aren’t, of course. It’s all about money. Even the most self-professed Greens are selling out to the big money of wind energy. For example Die Welt writes of German Green Party honcho Boris Palmer, someone “who grew up protesting the installation of power transmission towers is – no joke – demanding that natural parks and reserves be opened for the 200-meter tall rotating monsters, even if they are located right next World Heritage Sites.”

Greens like Palmer no longer have qualms about that, and so it should not surprise us that they are ready to trample and permanently damage heritage locations – e.g. like the Nazca Lines in Peru. It’s all in the name of the Green Allah: Climate Protection. Green madness has taken over in Germany, but citizens are waking up.

=======================

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/09/german-citizens-have-had-enough-conflict-over-wind-turbines-escalating-against-horror-landscapes/#sthash.AcVU3BzX.dpuf

Wind Pushers and Investors Losing Big, as Green/Greed Energy loses it’s Novelty!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

German Wind Power’s ‘Titanic’ Debacle: Bright Future for Coal Guaranteed, as Wind Power Investors Get Fleeced

January 4, 2015 by

titanic

The Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance. The subsidies have been colossal, the impacts on the electricity market chaotic and – contrary to the environmental purpose of the policy – CO2 emissions are rising fast: if “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed (see our post here).

Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. In response, Germans have picked up their axes and have headed to their forests in order to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).

German manufacturers – and other energy intensive industries – faced with escalating power bills are packing up and heading to the USA – where power prices are 1/3 of Germany’s (see our posts here and hereand here). And the “green” dream of creating thousands of jobs in the wind industry has to turned out to be just that: a dream (see our post here).

As Germans count the costs of their runaway wind power policy, a quick look at the CO2 reduction score board shows a monumental “FAIL”: the Germans have scrapped CO2 free nuclear generation and – in order to provide meaningful power (ie sparks available on-demand) – are flat-out building new (and upgrading existing) coal-fired plants. Oops!

The unsinkable German anti-CO2-Titanic just found its iceberg
WattsUpWithThat
Fred F. Mueller
10 December 2014

Unpleasant encounter with hard facts

Until just a few days ago, the determination of the German government to halt the presumed Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) seemed to be absolutely imperturbable.

The main driver behind the German resolve to hammer down CO2 emissions both domestically and abroad while at the same time finishing off its last remaining nuclear power generating units is Chancellor Angela Merkel. The daughter of a clergyman socialized in the formerly communist east of the country, she is known for her outstanding political cleverness and flexibility in avoiding conflicts she feels she can’t win.

Nevertheless, there are certain aspects where this cleverness is superseded by an almost fundamentalist doggedness when it comes to certain key points – such as exterminating nuclear power or saving the planet from overheating.

Only a few weeks ago, Germany engaged in a new initiative to revitalize the ailing international effort to reverse the course of constantly increasing worldwide CO2 emissions by replacing the vintage Kyoto protocol by more stringent and binding reduction targets at the UN conference that will be held in Paris in November/ December 2015.

To this effect, Germany convinced the other European Union states to agree to a 40% reduction scheme by 2030, sweeping across opposition from negatively affected member countries using a combination of compromises, financial incentives and sheer politico-economic pressure. As a result, the EU came out with bold CO2 reduction commitments. These in turn were meant to be used as a political lever during the preparatory meetings taking place in the current run-up to the big show.

The push for increased CO2 sobriety…

In order to underscore its ambition to shine out as a beacon of climate saving efforts, the German government additionally decided to further strengthen its position by renewing domestic efforts aimed at achieving its own commitment of reducing national CO2 emissions by 40% (compared to 1990) until 2020.

This target had at first seemed to be easily attainable since the country benefitted from the opportunity to decommission the ridiculously inefficient and energy-squandering industry it inherited from the former communist DDR. But in the past years, this special effect waned and the CO2 emissions even reversed course and climbed again. This countertrend was further underpinned when in the wake of the Fukushima events; the German government ordered to halt eight out of 17 existing nuclear power plants and decided to phase out the remaining ones by 2022.

The share of nuclear power was largely taken over by lignite- and coal-fired units, with the result that in the field of power generation, Germany was unable to achieve any reduction since 2000. During the same time period, the electric power markets were flooded with heavily subsidized “green” power, causing prices to collapse to a point where conventional power utilities were unable to generate sufficient revenues. Share pricescollapsed and more than ten thousand qualified jobs disappeared.

In the centers of political power in Berlin, the grievances of the sector went unnoticed and even the most urgent submissions fell on deaf ears. To add insult to injury, just a few weeks ago, the sector was confronted with tough additional regulations requiring it to further reduce its CO2 emissions, while signs of mounting albeit muted unease in a growing number of industrial sectors heavily burdened by skyrocketing energy prices were ignored.

This resulted in the rebellion of vital players…

In this situation, the frustration felt by a number of foreign investors in the sector – in the first place those involved in the energy giants E.ON and Vattenfall, a subsidiary of a Swedish state-owned energy producer, culminated. The background is highlighted in a recent article written for the renowned German financial newspaper “Handelsblatt” by Wolfram Weiner, former chief editor of several leading print media. In his item, he used unusually drastic language to chastise the current state of the sector: “In reality, E.ON is capitulating.

Faced with wrong decisions and impositions instigated by the German energy policy, the power generation industry is giving up in despair because political leaders have narrowed down their maneuvering space to such an extent that they are choking to death.

For too long a time, the political class naively believed that E.ON and RWE (the second in rank of the sector) could be indefinitely squeezed just as a lemon – but now it is dawning to some that there simply is no more juice left…the “Energiewende” (Energy U-turn) resembles a communist command economy … (the policy) has within a short period of time achieved what the communists had been dreaming of for decades: Power generating groups are being dismantled, market rule is supplemented by command economy. But the question remains – who will in the futurecare about Germany’s power supply, who will invest? Is the state willing to take over these activities too in order to finalize energy-socialism”?

The led to an event that can be likened to the proverbial iceberg unexpectedly popping up right in front of the German state ship while it was plowing through the waves on its climate-saving mission at full-steam.

With just a 48-hour notice delivered by a personal phone call to Ms. Merkel on a Saturday, the CEO of E.ON, the largest German and European power producer, let it be known that the company had decided to split itself in two, one part grouping fossil and nuclear power generation and a second part encompassing the “politically correct” activities in the field of “renewable” energies. Sort of a “Bad E.ON” / “Good E.ON” move.

The intention is to get rid of the “bad” part as soon as possible by putting it up for sale. At the same time, this also means the “good” part will cease to be duty bound to ensure a stable power supply under all circumstances. Obviously, such a liability is not enforceable from an entity whose only power sources are unstable wind and solar power plants. In a nutshell, the message behind this move is that the silverback of the “big four” German energy producers who group the bulk of the country’s conventional and nuclear power production is about to close shop at short notice. The others will probably follow suit.

Inflicting a deadly setback…

A situation where a country’s leadership is left only 48 hours to digest this sort of threat can be likened to the sudden crash of the Titanic hitting its iceberg. Although most of the German public has not yet noticed that something really important has gone wrong, frantic activities can be noticed on the bridge, with both the minister for economic affairs and the chancellor’s office hastily preparing new legislation aiming at enhancing the situation of coal-fired plants by implementing an all-new market design. It will most certainly provide for compensation payments for coal-fired plants forced to turn idle or at minimum load when the grid is clogged by an oversupply of wind and solar energy.

According to comments in various press articles, the German government seems to have realized its vessel is taking in water and is starting to list. So while the ship’s orchestra composed of green and socialist parties together with assorted NGO’s and the accomplices in the media is doing its best to drown out first anxious noises by playing climato-patriotic anthems at full pitch, the power brokers in Berlin seem to be hammering out a plan B in a desperate attempt to fend off a catastrophic breakdown of the nets.

Outlines currently emerging suggest that:

A) Nuclear power will remain banned. More than 30 years of demonization of the technology probably cannot be reversed;

B) Plans to rein in the soaring price of electric power prices will be abandoned. A key representative of the ruling CDU party has already warned that price hikes will continue;

C) The hope of the government that highly flexible combined cycle gas-fired power plants can be deployed in large numbers to offset the highly volatile production from wind and solar plants has gone up in smoke since these entities have much higher costs than coal-fired units. They thus were the first to succumb to the market distortions brought about by the heavily subsidized “renewable” technologies;

D) The government now implicitly recognizes that in the years to come, coal and lignite fired plants will play a substantially bigger role in securing the country’s power supply than projected. The obvious hope is that it may be possible to stabilize the vessel without having to explicitly admit the core pieces of the previous strategy have to be scrapped.

On to sweet green dreams

While the German public, lulled by decades of seemingly incessant economic upturn, will probably continue to ignore these harsh realities for some time, the long-term implications for CAGW supporters inside and outside of the country do not bode well.

Given the fact that the “renewable” energy lobby remains extremely strong, with millions of people having been misguided to invest their life’s savings and pension claims into “planet-saving” energy projects, resistance to any plans to limit further engagements in the “green energy” sector will be extremely fierce.

Together with the need to stabilize the ailing conventional energy sector in order to avoid a total breakdown, all requirements for energy costs spiraling out of control are in place. The government can only hope that the public will continue to accept these hikes without too much resistance. But a major stumbling blocks remains in place: German electric energy prices, already the second-highest in Europe, are increasingly choking off economic growth.

More and more key sectors such as the aluminum, steel making and chemical industry are increasingly opting out of investing in the country, turning to regions offering more reasonable energy prices, notably the US. Over time, this will put the wealth of the country and with it the fate of its political leaders in jeopardy.

Germany’s anti-CO2 policy is poised to fail

With their naïve two-pronged approach to abolish nuclear and fossil fuel powered electricity generation in parallel, the German political leaders have maneuvered themselves into an impasse and now find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.

The “renewable” sector propped up with at least half a trillion € in subsidies has reached proportions making it too big to fail, while conventional generation will now call in the same favors that had hitherto been granted to the “good ones”, threatening to cut supplies if they are not treated likewise.

Embittered by more than a decade and a half of injuries “sweetened” by insults, one can expect that they will probably be pushing for fulfilment of their demands with little regard as to whom it might hurt. With the door to nuclear generation firmly shut and welded tight, German CO2 emissions are set to increase as naïve expectations of falling electricity demand will dissipate. Especially since no-one seems to have taken into account the power requirements of e.g. the many million electric cars that are supposed to crowd German streets in the coming decades.

While arrogantly claiming the role of a vanguard policy-maker with respect to climate-saving measures, German politicians have entangled themselves in a maze of conflicting interests and harsh realities restraining their actions to near-immobility.

At some point, when the populace will finally realize it has been fooled and plundered, politicians will refrain from CAGW aspirations when it becomes evident they will not be favorable for their future prospects to be elected. And if and when Germany fails in full focus of the spotlights they themselves asked to be turned upon them, the CAGW theories will suffer a major blow on a worldwide scale. This might hopefully turn out as an important contribution to the demise of the whole CAGW scam.
WattsUpWithThat.com

Meanwhile – despite the fact the the wind industry in Germany has pocketed the lion’s share of at “least half a trillion € in subsidies” – wind farm investors are being fleeced by the same types of hucksters and weasels that run outfits like near-bankrupt Infigen (aka Babcock and Brown); and the smarmy gits that set up so-called “community wind farms” – praying on greentard gullibility in their efforts to pocket $billions in REC Tax/Subsidies.

The scam is the same the world over: pitch numbers that show returns that are too good to be true (they are) and watch the suckers beat a path to your door: greed trumps common sense often enough.

As PT Barnum said: “every crowd has a silver lining” – an adage put to great effect by wholesale fraudsters like Bernie Madoff in scams often tagged “Ponzi” schemes; named after Charles Ponzi – who would have taken to the wind industry like a duck to water.

Madoff – who ended up with a 150 year stretch in stir for his share-market shenanigans – would, no doubt, be pleased to know that the wind industry has followed his “model” and is keeping the Ponzi “dream” alive.

Wind power outfits routinely base their expected returns on pumped up wind forecasts – thereby way overstating their anticipated gross returns (see our posts here and here and here and here).

While, at the same time, lying about their true operating costs (see ourpost here), which start to tack up pretty quickly when it’s revealed that turbines last less than half the time claimed: with an ‘economic’ lifespan of 10-12 years, as opposed to the 25 years wildly claimed by fan makers (see our post here).

Or, in the case of top-flight German manufacturer, Siemens – less than 2 years – one of it’s latest batches required wholesale blade and bearing replacement, starting almost as soon as they cranked them into gear (seeour post here) – Siemens blaming “harsh weather conditions both onshore and offshore” – as if its fans had been designed to run inside aircraft hangars ….

Little wonder then that in Germany, “37 percent of wind farms are losing investors’ money” and “two thirds are in deficit or just about cover their running costs”. Here’s Focus Magazine on how easy it is to separate fools and their money.

turbine fire 7

Eco-Paradise Lost: Wind Power Bleeds Investors
Focus Magazine
Alexander Wendt
20 November 2014

Germany’s green paradise, where wind turbines were considered a foolproof investment, has burned down.

For a long time, German wind power was seen as a safe investment thanks to generous subsidies. Green investors are now losing massive amounts of money – because they overlooked major pitfalls.

Beliefs do not disappear quickly. “I’m still a proponent of renewable energy,” says Dresden engineer Wolfgang Strübing. Political scientist Christian Herz from Berlin and tax auditor Werner Daldorf from Kassel see it the same way. The three share a lot: They are among tens of thousands of Germans who have invested their money in wind turbines. And they sit on the Investor Advisory Board of the German Wind Energy Association.

Suspiciously viewed by the association’s leadership, the three began to collect information about tricks, traps and false promises in the wind power industry from all over Germany. The trio has now collected the by far greatest amount of data on this problem in Germany. And according to their data, many of the approximately 24,000 wind turbines are investment destroyers – despite massive subsidies. The eco-paradise, where wind turbines were considered as a foolproof investment, has burned down.

Just over a third of all wind farms return more than they cost

Werner Daldorf, Chairman of the Investor Advisory Board of the German Wind Power Association, examined 1,400 annual accounts of 192 wind farms in Germany over a period of ten years. His sobering conclusion: 37 percent of wind farms are losing investors’ money: “The repayment of loans was higher than the generated funds.”

Only 35 percent of the wind power companies paid two or more percent return to their investors. For wind farms with a fund structure, two thirds are in deficit or just about cover their running costs, according to Daldorf.

His colleague Christian Herz evaluated the accounts of 1,400 wind power funds. His conclusion: “Two thirds are far below the investment return that was originally predicated.”
Translation Philipp Mueller: Full story (in German)
Focus Magazine

half shorn sheep

More Evidence of the Futility of the Wind Scam!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

AS BRITAIN FREEZES, WIND FARMS TAKE POWER FROM GRID TO PREVENT ICING
AFP
by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS  2 Jan 2015
As Britain shivers under a blanket of snow and ice, it has emerged that offshore windfarms have been idling to prevent icing up – and drawing electricity off the national grid to do so. Critics have pointed out the “folly” of having windfarms idle in a cold snap, but industry experts insist that all forms of power generation involve some electrical input.

The issue has been raised by Brian Christley, a resident of Abergele, Wales, who wrote to the Daily Telegraph to say: “Over the weekend just gone, the coldest of the year so far, all 100-plus off-shore wind turbines along the North Wales coast were idling very slowly, all using grid power for de-icing and to power their hydraulic systems that keep the blades facing in the same direction.

“Thanks to Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, we will be subsidising these follies for the next 30 years. And then, if we continue to vote for technically naive green politicians, for further periods after that.”

The energy firm which owns the 30 turbines off the North Wales coastline has countered that, on the days in question, the turbines were actually a net contributor to the grid. A spokesman said: “Our turbines were not idling but generating electricity during each of the days in question, contributing a positive balance of energy into the grid. All energy generators use a small amount of electricity to keep their systems running smoothly, in the case of wind farms drawing power from either an adjacent operating turbine or the grid.”

John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity which promotes sustainable development through the use of renewable energies, said: “We know that in Denmark there are days when their wind farms are net consumers of electricity, so in some ways this is not surprising. It’s another example of how wind power is difficult and expensive to manage.”

Theoretically, Britain’s wind farms, both onshore and off, have a combined capacity of 12.1GW, enough to power 8.8 million homes. However, a report published last October by the Scientific Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute found that the chance of all Britain’s windfarms running at full capacity together was “vanishingly small”, meaning that actual output is often far lower. Rather, they found that the average output was just eight percent of the headline figure.

Moreover, they can only produce energy if the wind is blowing at between 10 and 50 mph, above which they automatically shut down to prevent damage. And in freezing conditions they must draw on the energy grid to rotate their blades slowly to prevent them icing, and to power the system which turns the blades into the wind. It also costs about twice as much to produce offshore wind energy as it does to produce traditional coal fired energy.

Roger Helmer, energy spokesman for the UK Independence Party, who want to see wind farm subsidies scrapped, told Breitbart London: “We’re familiar with the layers of subsidy necessary to make wind farms viable. We’re familiar with the inefficiency of the necessary back-up fossil fuel generation, for when the wind doesn’t blow. Now we learn that on windless days these wind turbines are cannibalising power from the grid merely to help maintain them. Will the folly never stop?”