More Evidence of the Wind Scam!

Wind Power: Not ‘Cheap’, Not ‘Clean’ and Not ‘Green’

steel in turbine

The central, endlessly repeated lie upon which the wind industry seeks to ‘justify’ the colossal and endless subsidies upon which it critically depends; the destruction of wind farm neighbours’ health, wealth and happiness; and the slaughter of millions of birds and bats, is that wind power causes substantial reductions of CO2 emissions in the electricity sector.

STT has been slamming that myth since we cranked into gear nearly 3 years ago. It’s a topic that attracts plenty of interest.

Our post – How Much CO2 Gets Emitted to Build a Wind Turbine? – has clocked over 11,000 hits; and still attracts plenty of attention.

One petulant retort is that building a coal-fired power plant (or, heaven forbid, a skyscraper) using thousands of tonnes of concrete and steel adds mountains of CO2 gas (incidentally, an odourless, colourless naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on Earth) to a soon to incinerate atmosphere. Ah, but the distinction, lost on these ‘wits’ is that those building meaningful power generation sources (or high-rise buildings in densely packed cities) don’t make any claims to reduce/abate CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, or at all.

Out on its own, the wind industry claims – as the ‘justification’ for the $billions in endless subsidies and the excuse for the fact that it is meaningless as a power source – simply because it cannot be delivered on demand – that wind power makes very substantial reductions in CO2 emissions, when, in fact it does no such thing.

This little piece from Christine Whitaker shows that the ‘wind power is saving the planet’ mantra has lost whatever persuasive power it may once have had, save amongst infants and the intellectually lazy and/or dishonest.

Wind power as a form of “green energy” is far from green
Christine Whitaker
29 November 2015

We are climbing on the wind power bandwagon just as other countries are jumping off.

As suggested by recent announcements by Premier Brad Wall and SaskPower, we are likely to see more wind farm projects in Saskatchewan in the near future.

There are many reasons why wind power has fallen into disrepute. It is not the most reliable source of electricity. Turbines are only 30 per cent efficient at best and they must be taken offline in adverse weather conditions, which cause malfunctions. At one wind farm in Britain, diesel-powered generators are on standby to cut in when the turbines are shut down.

diesel generators UK

Wind power is also extremely expensive. Governments have poured millions of dollars into the construction of wind farms, in the form of subsidies and other incentives, resulting in high power bills for consumers — as Ontario residents know well.

Turbine blades are very efficient killers of bats and birds. One British environmentalist claims that 200,000 bats are killed every year in Germany; tens of thousands of eagles in America. As Saskatchewan is on a major flight path of migrating birds, we should consider the consequences to species such as whooping cranes and many others.

eagle at waterloo

The main reason, however, is that this form of “green energy” is far from green.

The manufacture and construction of wind farms contributes more to global CO2 emissions than they will save in their useful life (which is approximately between 15 and 20 years).

turbine base1

The construction of one typical turbine involves the use of heavy equipment to create roads to the site; dig a hole 10 feet deep and 100 feet wide. Into this are deposited 53 truckloads of concrete and 96,000 lbs of steel rebar.

Then eight truckloads of components arrive: a base tower weighing 87,450 lbs; a mid-section of 115,500 lbs; a top tower of 104,167 lbs, and then the rotor assembly and blades.

The transportation and erection of these components require the use of heavy machinery and large cranes. These facts are taken from a video produced by a wind energy company. The total CO2 emissions to build one turbine is estimated at 241.85 tons.

The supreme irony is that in Baoding, China’s most polluted city, the major industry is the production of turbine towers and blades. The power for this industry is supplied by several large coal-fired plants. By attempting to cut Canadian emissions (currently 1.6 per cent of global totals), we are adding to China’s emissions, at 24.1 per cent and growing.

china rare earth toxic lake

A Leader-Post article (Nov. 21) promotes the advantages of wind power, as perceived by its supporters. One refers to all the “space” in Saskatchewan where turbines could be built. I live in rural Saskatchewan, and can look at this space through every window of my home. Rather than seeing a place for wind farms. I see land that produces essential food ingredients, such as wheat, barley, lentils and canola, and pastures where cattle graze.

Many of my rural neighbours are opposed to the destruction of our agricultural land and the desecration of our landscape by hosts of monstrous engines striding across the countryside like white giants with arms flailing wildly.

There are many other problems for those living near wind turbines. There are the emotional and physical effects of listening to the constant hum, 24/7. There is also the depreciation of property values.

lake winds

Nobody will buy a home or farm close to turbines. There are well-documented cases of rural Ontario residents who have walked away from their property because they can no longer live with the effects of the wind farms on their health — but cannot sell their homes.

Landowners who signed leases to allow turbines on their property eventually will discover that when the useful life of the wind farm is over, nobody is responsible for dismantling the turbines and hauling them away. Instead, these towers will remain as eroding monuments to the misguided energy policies that put them there in the first place.

Christine Whitaker is a freelance writer from Edgeley.

Vestas turbine on fire

People All Over the World are Fighting Back Against the Wind Scam!

Forces Marshall in International Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud



Across the Globe – wherever these things things have been threatened upon rural communities – or the threat has been realised – outrage follows.

One line spun is that the hostility is an entirely English speaking phenomenon. That piffle was firmly skewered by Lilli-Anne Green (an American researcher and documentary film-maker, who has spoken to hundreds of victims around the World) – when she appeared before the Australian Senate:

Lilli-Anne Green – no ‘Green’ Dupe – tells Senate: Wind Farm Health Impacts ‘Universal’

And STT has picked up plenty of examples to the same effect:

Winning Taiwanese Hearts and Minds?

Turkish Court Shuts Down 50 Turbines: Yaylaköy Residents Delighted at 1st Chance to Sleep in Years

Germany’s Wind Power ‘Dream’ Becomes a Living Nightmare

Vestas’ Danish Victims Lay Out the FACTS

Now, that’s not to overlook the fact that the English themselves are just as hostile to the concept of massive streams of government mandated subsidies, being filched from power consumers and taxpayers and used by wind power outfits to literally steal peoples’ homes.

This ripping little website shows just how switched on our British counterparts are – going head-to-head with the most polished band of liars and fraudsters ever assembled in the same tent:

The site is a cracker; and leaves no room for error about what is – to those gifted with our good friends ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ – patently obvious: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK – on any level.

Here’s a sample of the unassailable from its pages – in relation to an effort by RES to destroy another idyllic part of Ol’ Blighty:

The subsidy farming McAlpine/RES, the same massive group who the BBC’s Panorama accused of setting up the illegal blacklist in the building trade, have put in another application to build four wind turbines in the Warwickshire heritage and wildlife beauty spot of the Upper Swift Valley.


This new application, along with bribes for the NIMBYs, will not only receive the same degree of local rejection on the same grounds as the earlier proposal was unanimously rejected but with the encroachment of an intense windfarm landscape in the last two years, there are even more planning reasons now for rejection.

There is no rational energy or economic reason in favour of these wind turbines that steal some 15% of everybody’s bills and stuff the subsidies into the pockets of speculators and rent-seeking landowners – 10% (33% by 2020) in green taxes plus a proportion of the new infra-structure cost of linking turbines to the grid.


How can it be right for companies to be paid twice to three times the going rate for electricity when they are damaging the environment and communities?

The alarmist propaganda in favour of wind turbines relies on the argument that they reduce the UK’s 2% of the world’s man-made CO2 emissions and thereby infinitesimally reduce global warming.

But actually the intermittency of wind makes it necessary to have fossil-fuel back-up spinning the whole time for the National Grid to maintain an even voltage; (electricity cannot be stored) therefore wind turbines don’t even save CO2 anyway. (also the scientists say that GW has not increased since 1997 – seventeen years of stand-still).


Mr Lorne Smith from ASWAR (Against Subsidised Windfarms Around Rugby) said:

“The community around Churchover/Cotesbach turned out in force to show their dislike at being victims of the windfarm scam for a second time. With each windfarm job in the UK being subsidised by £100,000 from our electricity bills, and 10 McAlpine/RES staff supporting their propaganda exhibition, there was £1 million of our money walking around Churchover today!”

It is surprising that anybody can support this energy policy that is making this nation globally uncompetitive, driving manufacturing jobs overseas and ordinary people into fuel poverty (a record number of people died from cold last winter), while attacking the asset values of innocent property owners and killing birds and bats (scientists say 900,000 bats are killed by wind turbines every year).

“Surprising”, indeed!

In the latter stages of 2015 – with the scale and scope the fraud laid bare for all to see – continuing ‘support’ for wind power can’t be explained by simple, seasoned ignorance. As Ben Franklin put it:

“We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid”.

Those that parade as ‘journalists’ – especially at wind-worship cult-compounds – like The Guardian, the BBC – and here at Fairfax and the ABC – they’re clearly working very hard; with obvious success.

But – despite long, sweaty sessions inside their editorial bunkers, aimed at ensuring the public remain blissfully ignorant, too – the FACTS keep bubbling to the surface.

Facts like the obvious impacts caused to health – like constant sleep deprivation – from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, that leads to homes being uninhabitable and, therefore, worthless:

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning

Along with every other sensate being on the face of the Earth, the Poles have long-since had enough of being treated as wind industry “road-kill”, too. Hence, this promise made in April this year, by Presidential hopeful, Andrzej Duda:

“… if I am elected to be the President of Poland, I will propose a legislative initiative to introduce safe setbacks of wind parks from people’s dwellings…”



Andrzej Duda
Candidate in the Polish Presidential Elections
Zabkowice Slaskie, 8 April 2015

Fellow Poles!

The recent weeks have brought many intense encounters with people across Poland in the context of this presidential campaign. There have also been numerous opportunities to discuss the maladies encountered by citizens and their everyday worries. It has become apparent that the siting of wind farm developments gives rise to frequent protests, which are heard in hundreds of municipalities in our country.

Poles complain that their voices are being ignored, and large wind turbines that are placed excessively close to dwellings not only ruin the landscape, but also cause a serious reduction in the value of their properties. Furthermore, they bring attention to numerous procedural irregularities. These were also identified by the Supreme Audit Office (NIK) in its July 2014 report. I am sorry to say that the governing coalition of the Civic Platform and Polish Peasants’ Party have successfully prevented, during the last several years, the adoption of measures intended to properly regulate the matter of where wind farms are located.

I do recognise the importance of the issues addressed here. Therefore, I declare that, if I am elected to be the President of Poland, I will propose a legislative initiative to introduce safe setbacks of wind parks from people’s dwellings, ban such developments in municipalities where no zoning plans are currently in place, and, most importantly, to ensure effective participation of society in ongoing administrative proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

Andrzej Duda

[original in Polish available here]

Setting out with a sensible policy, built on common sense and human compassion, Mr Duda was duly elected. No surprises there.

STT hears that hundreds of Australian rural communities are gearing up, too.

The Coalition’s LRET policy is designed by its instigator and head wind industry spruiker – young Gregory Hunt – to see another 2,500 of these things speared into thousands of backyards across the Country. Labor’s insane 50% RET would up the ante, by carpeting the best, most productive and densely populated regions with more than 10,000:

Labor’s Renewable Target is Pure Insanity: the Coalition’s Target is Simply Madness

Given that our political betters are encumbered with ‘tin ears’ and ‘flat feet’, it’s now down to every man, woman and child to fight for what’s rightfully theirs: the ability to live, sleep in and otherwise comfortably use their very own homes.


Those Brilliant Aussies, Have Recommended Safeguards Against the Windscam!

Australian Senate’s Recommendations to Curb the Wind Industry – Driven by Common Sense & Compassion

senate review


After almost 6 months, 8 hearings in 4 States and the ACT, dozens of witnesses and almost 500 submissions, the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud has delivered its ‘doorstop’ final report, which runs to some 350 pages – available here: Senate Report

The first 200 pages are filled with facts, clarity, common sense and compassion; the balance, labelled “Labor’s dissenting report”, was written by the wind industry’s parasites and spruikers – including the Clean Energy Council (these days a front for Infigen aka Babcock & Brown); theAustralian Wind Alliance; and Leigh Ewbank from the Enemies of the Earth.

Predictably, Labor’s dissenting report is filled with fantasy, fallacy and fiction – pumping up the ‘wonders’ of wind; completely ignoring the cost of the single greatest subsidy rort in the history of the Commonwealth; and treating the wind industry’s hundreds of unnecessary victims – of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound – with the kind of malice, usually reserved for sworn and bitter foreign enemies.

Labor receives $millions in operational and election funding from Union Super Funds – which its members (both past and present) run as political slush funds – funds which are handled with wanton disregard for the working class mum and dads – who unwittingly end up ‘investing’ their hard earned savings in disasters like Pacific Hydro – a wind power outfit that torched $700 million of mum and dad super savings in a single year:

Pacific Hydro’s Ponzi Scheme Implodes: Wind Power Outfit Loses $700 Million of Mum & Dad Retirement Savings

So, with their snouts wedged deep in the wind industry subsidy trough – and with everything to lose, it’s no surprise that Labor’s dissenting report is full of self-serving lies, omissions and half truths.

Fortunately, however, the majority of Senators on the Committee worked overtime to get the truth out – and made a suite of recommendations based on facts and evidence; and driven by those truly human attributes – common sense and compassion.

STT notes and thanks Coalition Members, Senators Chris Back and Matt Canavan – and Senators, John Madigan, David Leyonhjelm, Bob Day and SA’s Favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon for their tireless efforts throughout: efforts which have done more than any other Parliamentary Inquiry – anywhere on Earth – to expose the insane cost and utter pointlessness of the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

Here’s a succinct little wrap-up on the Senate’s recommendations from Senator David Leyonhjelm.

Wind turbine report vindicates Senate scrutiny
Liberal Democratic Party
Monday August 3, 2015

Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW, David Leyonhjelm has hailed the findings of the Select Committee Inquiry on Wind Turbines as vindication of his motion to establish the inquiry and confirmation that regulation of the wind industry needs to change.

“It is abundantly clear from the evidence of regulators, the community, local councils and wind farm operators that the status quo is untenable,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.

“Only the wind industry and its cheer squad disagree. There are glaring planning and compliance deficiencies plus growing evidence, domestic and international, that infrasound and low frequency sound from wind turbines is having an adverse health impact on some people who live in the vicinity of wind farms. This is not something a responsible government can ignore.”

The report is critical of the work previously undertaken by the National Health and Medical Research Council on wind farm noise emissions, which many have relied upon to declare wind farms have no adverse health effects.

The committee is also concerned about “the lack of rigour” behind the position statement of the Australian Medical Association on wind turbine operations. The inquiry report criticised the AMA for refusing to give evidence before the inquiry, describing their position statement as “irresponsible and harmful”.

The final report, tabled in the Senate today, retains the recommendations of the interim report (which the government has accepted) but expands on these and adds more.

Among them is a requirement for wind farms to comply with national noise standards in order to be eligible for consumer funded Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), that eligibility for RECs cease after five years to lessen the financial burden on consumers, that state EPAs have jurisdiction over wind farms rather than local councils, that the Clean Energy Regulator be subject to a performance audit by the ANAO, and that the Productivity Commission be required to examine the impact of wind power generation on retail electricity prices.

“Senators involved in this inquiry have been attacked by the Big Wind lobby and those who see it is an assault on all renewable energy. The Labor representative on the Committee, Senator Anne Urquhart, joined this criticism following the interim report.

“However, the report shows there is a problem with the wind industry, not renewables such as solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass. There are potentially just as many jobs in these and nobody living close to them is getting sick. Labor’s enthusiasm for renewables needs to incorporate some compassion for those being hurt.”

Senator David Leyonhjelm

Senator David Leyonhelm


A fair call David – but, then again, common sense rarely needs an advocate.

Meanwhile, Committee Chair, Senator John Madigan went on the offensive in his home state of Victoria – where wind industry front man, Labor Premier, Daniel Andrews has adopted an approach to his constituents that would have made his pin-up boy, Generalissimo Stalin, glow with pride.

Senator Madigan warns Premier Andrews: ‘Don’t gamble with the health of Victorians’
Senator John Madigan
Independent Senator for Victoria
July 16, 2015

Independent Senator for Victoria John Madigan has warned Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews the Victorian Government’s unshakeable commitment to wind energy is putting the health of Victorians at risk, while potentially exposing the state to future legal liabilities.

“There is growing evidence living near wind turbines can be detrimental to health,” Senator Madigan said.

“While for a long time this evidence mainly came from the reports of affected individuals, more recently a number of studies have lent scientific weight to their concerns, such as the German and Japanese studies recently reported on,” Senator Madigan said.

“Yet, in the face of this, we have the Premier telling us his government is ‘unashamedly pro-wind power’ and indicating plans to boost investment in the sector.

“Beyond the detrimental health impacts, this could leave the state liable to future claims by those who suffer ill-health as a result. Where there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm the law requires us to act prudently to avoid that harm. If we fail to do so we are expected to compensate those impacted. The Andrew’s government is confronted with just this type of situation.”

Senator Madigan said the Premier had been aware of the potential health impacts of wind turbines since at least June 2010 when, as Health Minister, he attended a community cabinet meeting in Bendigo and was handed a file containing approximately twenty statutory declarations made by people living near Waubra wind farm. Each statutory declaration detailed negative health impacts residents attributed to noise from the wind turbines.

Senator Madigan said: “Given the Premier has known about this for some time, it is completely irresponsible for him to be promoting the construction of more wind farms around the state.

“With peoples’ health at risk, the state government should exercise the precautionary principle and delay the approval of any further wind farms until their health impacts are properly understood. This is the only responsible position under the circumstances.”

Senator Madigan said he would write to the Premier to request a moratorium on the development of further wind farms until their health impacts are properly understood.

Senator John Madigan

John Madigan

Wind Turbines, are Bird Blenders. Killing Birds and Bats, with Impunity!

Wind Farms: ‘Blending’ ‘Green’ Dreams with Wholesale Avian Slaughter



The rampant slaughter of millions of birds and bats – including rare, endangered and majestic species, like America’s iconic bald and golden eagles – is one of the many ‘inconvenient’ facts that moves the wind industry to lie like fury and – when the corpses can no longer be hidden and the lying fails – to issue court proceedings to literally bury those facts (see our post here).

But – in America, at least – it seemed that the ‘inconvenient’ facts were starting to catch up with a vengeance, with US authorities finally doing their jobs, punishing wind power outfits for what is nothing less than thepointless slaughter of thousands of rare, endangered and, what should be, protected birds:

US Wind Power Outfit Whacked with $2.5 million Fine for Rampant Golden Eagle Slaughter

The avian victims of these things in the US, include its National Icon, the bald eagle which – despite their revered status – get sliced, diced and dumped at the bases of turbines in the same unceremonious manner as other less-loved species (see this article). And also include a mounting pile of golden eagle corpses.



Wherever these things operate, majestic raptors cop a merciless belting: 3MW monsters with 50m blades, have outer tips thundering along at over 350km/h – which tend to make short work of an eagle on the hunt for prey:

Bird Carcass Count proves AGL’s Macarthur Wind Farm is an Avian Slaughterhouse

However, in the US, as the corpses and fines mount up, wind power outfits are looking to slip the noose, by … you guessed it … rewriting the rules.

Sorry, Bald Eagles: Wind Farms Are Allowed to Kill You Now
The Corner
Verinique De Rugy
27 June 2015

If you and I kill a bald eagle or disturb its nest, the consequences can be severe. Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the felony killing of a bald eagle is punished by a fine of $250,000 and prison time. The authorities are taking the killing seriously. Well, sort of.

As it turns out, not everyone is equal under the do-not-kill-bald-eagles law. If you happen to be a favored industry like say, a wind farm, you could get a get-out-of-jail-free card after killing up to five bald eagles if you request a permit and the feds grants it. The Associated Press reports:

A California wind farm will become the first in the U.S. to avoid prosecution if eagles are injured or die when they run into the giant turning blades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Thursday. Under President Barack Obama, wind energy has exploded as a pollution-free energy source that can help reduce the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. But it is not without opposition from wildlife advocates. The Shiloh IV Wind Project LLC will receive a special permit allowing up to five golden eagles to be accidentally killed, harmed or disturbed over five years. Previously, such a violation could potentially draw criminal charges and discourage private investment in wind farms, which are known for catching birds in their rotors.

Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel Ashe said the permit encourages development of renewable energy while requiring the wind company to take steps to protect eagles from turbines and power lines. The move will help California reach its goal of producing one-third of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, he said.

“We can’t solve the problem of eagle mortality at wind farms overnight,” Mr. Ashe said in a statement. The Federal government is being sued over the permits, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Bald eagles watch out, turns out, you are not that special after all. That’s a lesson some 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds had to learn back in 2012.

The Federal government is being sued over the permits, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Bald eagles watch out, turns out, you are not that special after all. That’s a lesson some 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds had to learn back in 2012.
The Corner



It’s not just raptors that cop a flogging, migratory species are also sliced and diced too – at least you can’t pin the wind industry for being ‘speciest’.

Chaplin, Saskatchewan, is an area with a large salt lake and is also peppered with a number of smaller lakes and wetlands. The brine shrimp that inhabit the salt lakes, attract thousands of migratory birds that turn up to feast on their way North in the summer and South in the winter:see this CBC News report here.

But the weary travellers’ desire to fatten up on their journeys is going to come with a mortal risk, with plans to install 77 giant bird blenders smack in the middle of the lake and wetland complex.

Naturalist opposes wind turbine system in bird sanctuary; 77 wind turbines proposed for bird sanctuary near Chaplin, Sask.
CBC News
29 July 2015

This diagram shows the environmental assessment study area for a wind turbine system, proposed to be built in the area north of Chaplin, Sask.


A Saskatchewan-based naturalist and author is worried that migratory birds will be killed by wind turbines proposed to be built near Chaplin, Sask. The proposed development site sits approximately three kilometres north of an internationally recognized bird sanctuary at Chaplin Lake. “The Chaplin Lake area is crucial to several species of shore birds, including some endangered species such as the piping plover,” said Trevor Herriot, who’s based in Regina.

Herriot said he’s unconvinced by assertions in an environmental impact study that 77 wind turbines built north of the Chaplin Lake reserve will pose a low risk to the migratory birds passing north through the area. Ontario-based Algonquin Power Company won SaskPower’s request for proposals to develop and build the wind turbine system. Algonquin is a subsidiary of Windlectric Inc. SaskPower estimates the turbine system will generate an additional 175 megawatts of wind power for the province’s power grid. The project is expected to be finished by the end of 2016.

“There are hundreds of thousands of birds who will pass north of that lake every year, and they will go directly through this gauntlet of 77 wind turbines,” Herriot said. He noted that four per cent of the global population of piping plovers nest there. Other well-known shorebirds, like the sanderling, pass through the area at counts of 50,000 or 60,000 each spring, he said.

In a blog post, referring to the “terms of reference for environmental impact statement” drafted by the engineering firm Stantec, Herriot notes the environmental impact statement was paid for by Algonquin. In an interview on CBC Saskatchewan’s the Morning Edition, Brady Pollock, director of environmental assessment for the province, responded to the potential conflict of interest by Algonquin paying Stantec for the environmental study about land it seeks to build wind turbines on.

Saskatchewan naturalist and author Trevor Herriot says that as many as 40,000 to 50,000 sanderlings, pictured here, have been seen at one time at Chaplin. (Submitted by Trevor Herriot)


“This is simply the process. The proponent prepares the document and then it undergoes a rigorous and thorough review by government itself. So it really is an independent, arms-length review of information provided by the proponent,” Pollock said.

Pollock said the process is independent, because the government conducts an independent analysis. “It considers all available information, whether it’s info provided directly in the environmental statement [provided by Algonquin] or various literature sources out there, or previous experiences at our own available data on the existing site,” Pollock said. Once the review is complete, analytical findings based on that review will be made available to the public, along with the environmental impact statement, Pollock said.

For his part, Herriot said he’s not opposed to wind turbine systems for generating power. He does, however, disagree with the proposed location for Algonquin’s system. “It’s one of the birdiest spots on the Great Plains and here we are putting a wind turbine there,” he said. “They’re saying there are very few birds that use the area or move through it. I’d like to see how many days of research they did that. And I’d like to see them take that information to a bird scientist at a university who is independent, and see whether it has any rigor or validity,” Herriot said.

CBC News

For a little taste of what so-called “green” power is all about, we’ve put together this little collection of videos:

Eagle carcass counting in Norway

A flock of partridges try to fly through a wind turbine facility in Germany

Then there are the flocks of vultures crossing the Gibraltar strait.

Eagles maimed and killed in California

The fastest in flight – a white-throated needletail – downed in front of bird watchers in the Hebrides, off the coast of Scotland.

A vulture meets with a wind turbine in Lentas, south Crete, Greece.

In this satirical piece – we learn that wind turbines help us to clear the skies of pesky birds

And this review of environmental harm to birds and bats by wind turbines.

eagle eyes the turbine crop

Los Angeles Supervisors Ban Wind Turbines in Rural Areas…

LA Supervisors Ban Wind Turbines in Rural Areas

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


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

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

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

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

More information on the Rural Outdoor Lighting District (Dark Skies) is available

Wind Turbines….Useless, Inefficient, Unreliable. Just Giant “Bird Blenders”.

Wind Power: ‘Shredding Birds and Mincing Logic’

eagle 1


Shredding Birds and Mincing Logic
Quadrant Online
Peter O’Brien
1 July 2015

That wind farms are ugly is the least of the problems their heavily subsidised, rent-seeking promoters are inflicting on the rest of us. Quite apart from their damage to avian populations, the very process of manufacturing them generates a vast tonnage of toxic waste.

Recently, Tony Abbott caused a stir with his entirely rational and reasonable observation that wind turbines are ugly — an opinion that further disturbed Fairfax opinion-page fixture Elizabeth Farelly, who countered that she likes ‘their whiteness and grandeur, and how they catch the morning light like so many celestial beings beamed across the landscape’.  The obvious response, once one has recovered from exposure to such fly-blown prose, is that, while beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder, the bottom-line cost of extracting volts from zephyrs presents an irredeemably ugly mess of red ink.

Simply put, when the outrageously expensive hilltop turbines are judged against the cost of electricity from coal- and gas-fired power plants they make no economic sense whatsoever. As to their alleged environmental benefits, no amount of ‘whiteness and grandeur’ can blind the rational observer — a category which would not, on almost any topic, include Farrelly –  to turbines’ disastrous environmental and ecological impacts.

Let’s have a look at one of the largest wind farms in the world, Roscoe in Texas.  It is rated at 782MW, but its actual output is closer to 230MW.  It cost $1 billion to construct.  It requires a back-up capacity that is not included in this cost.

But these wind turbines, which so many environmentalists find charming, are very resource-intensive creations.  Each turbine requires about 250 to 350 tonnes of raw materials to construct, not including the thousand-or-so tonnes of reinforced concrete that form the base of each tower. At Roscoe, there are 782 turbines spread over 400 square miles and, generally, they’re spaced about 300 metres apart.

So we’re talking about 200,000 tonnes of raw materials, mainly metal, and 782,000 tonnes of concrete.  The CO2 emissions from the manufacture of the concrete bases alone is in the order of 800,000 tonnes.  To that must be added the CO2 emissions from the back-up generator.  Suddenly, the CO2 abatement provided by Roscoe doesn’t look like a very significant number.

Australia currently has an installed power generation capacity of just over 40,000MW.  A Roscoe equivalent could provide, say, 200MW.  Therefore, to replace all our existing power with wind would require 200 Roscoes.  That is 80,000 square miles of Australian landscape, roughly the area of Victoria, covered with 150,000 towers at a cost of $200 billion.  Add to that the cost of back-up generation, thousands of kilometres of new roads, transmission lines, substations and so on.  A simplistic comparison, I grant you, because we would, of course, add solar to the mix as well.  Less raw materials and land coverage,  but at a much higher price per megawatt.

But it doesn’t end there.   We haven’t talked about the human factor.  The effect that wind power on this scale has on land values, scenic beauty or people’s health.  Or on wildlife.


The Spanish Ornithological Society estimates that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines kill between six million and 18 million birds and bats per year.  That estimate may be on the high side, but even the lower estimatereported by the Smithsonian Institution for avian casualties in the US alone — between 140,000 and 328,000 birds every year — is deeply shocking.



As an example closer to home, the endangered Tasmanian wedgetail eagle is one species identified as being impacted by the Woolnorth wind farm, operating a grand total of just 62 turbines. Worth noting is that, in 2005, a report based on models and conjecture noted that eagles are intelligent birds and, therefore, would be unlikely to be brought down in significant numbers by whirling rotors. Ten years later, according to the World Council for Nature,  casualties have been such that Tasmania wedgetails’ survival as a sub-species is in grave doubt.



But wait.  There’s more!

The heart of any wind turbines, the permanent magnet, is made from rare earth minerals, most of which are mined in China.  (As an aside, is it any wonder that China is promoting wind power?)

To put it bluntly, mining and refining of rare earth minerals is far from an environmentally friendly process.  Here are some figures that might will more likely horrify.  Each ton of refined rare earth products produces about 10,000 cubic metres of gas contaminated with flue dust, hydrochloric and sulphuric acid and sulphur dioxide.  There are also 75 cubic metres of acidic waste water,  one ton of radioactive waste residue and, finally, 2,000 tons of tailings, which also contain radioactive elements.

Each modern wind turbine requires two tons of refined rare earth elements, so for each turbine we double the amount of these contaminants.  To put that in perspective, there are currently 200,000 wind turbines worldwide.  That is 400,000 tons of rare earths.  A simple mathematical calculation shows us that, worldwide, the production of these machines has resulted in 400,000 tons of radioactive waste residue, 4,000,000 cubic metres of contaminated gas and 40,000,000 tons of radioactive tailings.  All this environmental damage to produce a mere 1% of the world’s electricity, and that piddling amount not even a reliable supply.

Ninety-five per cent of these rare earth minerals are produced in China and a large percentage of these waste products find their way into the environment.  The Chinese government has estimated that production of rare earths in Baotou region alone results in 10,000,000 tons of contaminated waste water every year, most of which is discharged, untreated, into waterways.

china rare earth toxic lake

All of this leads me to put a question to Ms Farelly: Suppose, just for a minute, that CO2 were not the villain you’ve been told it is.  If that were the case, would wind power seem like a proposition that a passionate environmentalist like yourself would rush to embrace?
Quadrant Online

eagle 2

How Climate Alarmism Hurts All of Us! Stop Government-Induced “Climaphobia!”

“Ellesworth American” Editorial – Speaks the Truth About the Wind Scam!

Another reason to just say “No”

Several good reasons exist to oppose the ongoing proliferation of giant windmills on Maine’s ridges and mountains. Recently, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIF&W) added yet another one in its recommendation that the Weaver Wind farm proposed by SunEdison in the towns of Eastbrook and Osborn be rejected. The department cited what it considers unacceptable risks to birds and bats migrating through the Hancock County region where one wind farm already is operating and another has been permitted but not yet constructed.

The Bull Hill Wind farm includes 19 turbines, each 476 feet tall, in Township 16. SunEdison’s Hancock Wind farm in Townships 16 and 22, already permitted, will add 18 more of the three-bladed monsters. Those two projects were enough to cause staff at the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to voice concerns, in a June 15 analysis, about their cumulative effect on the bird and vulnerable bat populations in the area. The Weaver Wind farm would introduce 23 more turbines, each nearly 600 feet tall, into the mix. The DEP analysis made reference to DIF&W concerns “with the risks to migrating birds and bats” posed by the proposed Weaver Wind project. “Avian passage rate, which is an index to mortality risk, was the highest record for any project in northern New England and fatality estimates of birds at the nearby Bull Hill Wind Project also were the highest recorded in the region,” said the fish and wildlife department.

Some may regard the mortality risk to birds and bats posed by the windmill blades as inconsequential. Taken by itself, that risk may seem a small price to pay for wind farm development. But there are other compelling arguments against wind energy projects and the state policy that encourages them.

Much of the scenic beauty for which Maine is so widely known will be despoiled. The stated 2,700-Megawatt goal of Maine’s Wind Energy Act would require as many as 1,500 wind turbines, each hundreds of feet tall, with accompanying access roads and new transmission lines, on up to 300 miles of Maine’s hills and mountains. Those transmission lines, to carry the electricity that could be provided by a single, high-quality conventional generator, will add billions of dollars to New England electric bills.

Maine already is one of the cleanest states in the nation for CO2 emissions and the massive buildup of wind farms will not improve that, since almost 90 percent of our CO2 emissions are from sources other than electricity generation. The myth that wind will “get us off oil” is just that. Oil accounts for just two percent of Maine’s electricity generation.

But there is a major wind generation flaw — one that goes unaddressed by wind power advocates: it is both intermittent and unpredictable. It will not — indeed, it cannot — replace constant capacity generators that meet peak load and base load demands. A 2010 New England Wind Integration Study stated, “Wind’s intermittent nature would require increased reserves, ensuring that there are other generation options when the wind isn’t blowing.”

It’s unfortunate that such concerns fall largely on deaf ears in the small communities where wind farms are proposed. Former Governor John Baldacci and the Legislature did much to assure a warm welcome for such projects by requiring that developers provide thousands of dollars in ongoing community benefit funds for public purposes in such communities. Added sweeteners are the resulting temporary construction jobs, payments to property owners where the turbines are based and the very few permanent jobs that are created  — all of which benefit a handful of local residents while undermining Maine’s quality of place and imposing unnecessary extra statewide costs on taxpayers and ratepayers.

Notwithstanding the rosy and patently false picture painted by wind farm developers and their supporters, the costs and impacts of hundreds of land-based industrial wind turbines vastly exceed the minimal benefits. And despite all the hype, it remains likely that wind never will be more than a marginal supplier of electricity.

Wind-Pushers in Denial, to Avoid Being Held Accountable…Gov’t covers up for them.

Wind farm impact ‘under-assessed’

2 July 2015 by Press Association

The impact of wind farm noise and appearance on residents living nearby is sometimes under-assessed by developers, a report said
The impact of wind farm noise and appearance on residents living nearby is sometimes under-assessed by developers, a report said

Developers are sometimes under-assessing the impact of wind farm noise and appearance on residents living nearby, according to new research.

The two-year study looked at how the visual, shadow flicker and noise impacts predicted by developers at the planning stage of ten wind farms across Scotland compared to the reality once operational.

The test sites included wind farms at Dalswinton in Dumfries and Galloway, Achany in the Highlands, Drone Hill in the Borders, Hadyard Hill in South Ayrshire, Little Raith in Fife and West Knock Farm in Aberdeenshire.

In some cases what was set out in planning applications did not match the actual impact, the research by climate change body ClimateXChange concluded.

It also found that efforts to engage with the public had not always adequately prepared residents for the visual, shadow flicker and noise impacts of a development.

The information was gathered through a combination of residents’ surveys and assessments by professional consultants.

The report said: “T here was a reasonable correspondence between the predicted impacts at application stage and the study team’s assessment of the as-built impacts.

“However, there were some instances in respect of each of the topics where impacts were under-assessed.

“This divergence between objective measurement and experience of impacts was evident from the residents’ survey which captured a range of responses.

“In respect of all three types of impacts considered by the study there were instances where no or limited impacts were predicted by the expert team, but residents reported experiencing adverse impacts.

“This finding points to the difficulties of predicting or assessing experiential responses.

“It is therefore important that the assessment process and subsequent consideration of applications by relevant authorities takes account of this.”

Researchers said this could be achieved through good project siting and design, rigorous impact assessments and improved public engagement.

Project manager Ragne Low said: “As the study has focused on issues relating to the planning process, we are confident that the findings will feed into improved practice in measuring the predicted impacts of proposed wind farms and in communicating this to decision-makers and those likely to be affected.

“The findings point to several possible improvements in planning guidance and good practice.

“Some have been implemented in the time between the case study wind farms being planned and built, and the present. The study will contribute to building on these improvements.”

Linda Holt, spokeswoman for the campaign group S cotland Against Spin, welcomed the findings.

She said: “For too long, people who have complained about wind farms have been dismissed as nimbies and we applaud the energy minister Fergus Ewing for commissioning this work.

“The recommendations show that the planning system is ill-equipped to address potentially adverse impacts on wind farm neighbours and we urge the Scottish Government to lose no time in implementing them.

“For too long, decision-makers on wind farms have been asked to determine applications while blind-folded about the true impacts of placing enormous industrial machines near people’s homes.”

A spokesman for Scottish Renewables said: “This study highlights the high standards of guidance available for those planning an onshore wind farm in Scotland, and we were pleased to see the sector has been putting these into practice.

“The industry has long worked with government and its agencies to put these high standards in place and this report demonstrates how much we have continuously improved, while identifying areas for further improvements for future schemes.”

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: ” We welcome the publication of the wind farm impacts study report which is the first of its kind in the world and presents the findings of a two-year study involving a wide-range of interest groups.

“The report shows improvements have already been made in our planning system, which is rigorous and ensures appropriate siting of wind farms, and studies like this will make sure this improvement continues, and we look forward to considering the recommendations carefully.

“Our policy on wind farm applications strikes a careful balance between maximizing Scotland’s huge green energy potential and protecting environmental interests and residential amenity.”