Liberal corruption and incompetence.

Saul Alinski’s Rules for Radicals, and the Path to Communism….FIGHT AGENDA 21

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

SAUL ALINSKY’S
RULES FOR RADICALS

(or understanding current Democratic tactics)

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy.

Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag.

Rule 8: Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

Rule 10: Maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

Rule 11: If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

Rule 12: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

Rule 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

COMMUNIST MANIFESTO 10 PLANKS

10 Conditions For Transition To Communism

  1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
  6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
  7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
  8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
  9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
  10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Wind Energy….Not Fit For Commercial Use. Not reliable or affordable!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2014

Another environmentalist lie. Here about the benefits of wind power.

Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States

Electricity prices are soaring in states generating the most wind power, U.S. Energy Information Administration data show. Although U.S. electricity prices rose less than 3 percent from 2008-2013, the 10 states with the highest percentage of wind power generation experienced average electricity price increases of more than 20 percent.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the 10 states in which wind power accounts for the highest percentage of the state’s electricity generation are:
Iowa – 27%
South Dakota – 26
Kansas – 19
Idaho – 16
Minnesota – 16
North Dakota – 16
Oklahoma – 15
Colorado – 14
Oregon – 12
Wyoming – 8
The wind power industry claims switching from conventional power to wind power will save consumers money and spur the economy. However, data from the top 10 wind power states show just the opposite. From 2008-2013 electricity prices rose an average of 20.7 percent in the top 10 wind power states, which is seven-fold higher than the national electricity price increase of merely 2.8 percent.
wind turbines transmission photos 1
The 2008-2013 price increases in the top 10 wind power states were:
Iowa – 16%

South Dakota – 25

Kansas – 26
Idaho – 34
Minnesota – 22
North Dakota – 23
Oklahoma – -2
Colorado – 14
Oregon – 16
Wyoming – 33
With the sole exception of Oklahoma, every one of the top 10 wind power states saw its electricity prices rise at least 14 percent. For each of these states, electricity prices rose at least five times faster than the national average.
The electricity price increases in states producing the most wind power don’t tell the whole story. Federal and state taxpayer subsidies to wind power producers hide additional costs of wind power. The federal wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC), for example, gave wind power producers 2.3 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind power production last year. With U.S. retail electricity prices at 10.08 cents per kilowatt hour, the PTC allowed wind power producers to hide over 20 percent of wind power costs. This allowed the wind power industry to charge the American people still more money in backdoor tax bills, in addition to the higher retail electricity prices documented above.
Higher electricity prices in states producing the most wind power are taking a devastating toll on disposable incomes and the overall economy.
In Colorado, for example, electricity consumers spent $5.3 billion on electricity in 2013. Had Colorado electricity prices risen at merely the national average from 2008-2013, however, Colorado electricity consumers would have spent only $4.8 billion on electricity. That’s $500 million in excess electricity costs in 2013. If we divide that up among Colorado’s 2 million households, the extra electricity costs drained $250 from the average Colorado household in 2013.
In Minnesota, electricity consumers spent $6.4 billion on electricity in 2013. Had Minnesota electricity prices risen at merely the national average from 2008-2013, however, Minnesota electricity consumers would have spent only $5.4 billion on electricity. That’s $1 billion in excess electricity costs in 2013. If we divide that up among Minnesota’s 2.1 million households, the extra electricity costs drained $476 from the average Minnesota household in 2013.
In Kansas, electricity consumers spent $3.8 billion on electricity in 2013. Had Kansas electricity prices risen at merely the national average from 2008-2013, however, Kansas electricity consumers would have spent only $3.1 billion on electricity. That’s $700 million in excess electricity costs in 2013. If we divide that up among Kansas’ 1.1 million households, the extra electricity costs drained $636 from the average Kansas household in 2013.
The wind power industry’s fallback position is wind power benefits state economies, despite rapidly rising electricity costs, because the switch from conventional power to wind power generates jobs within the wind power industry. This argument, however, amounts to nothing more than a misleading head-fake. Shifting electricity production from conventional power to wind power does not create any net new jobs – it merely shifts jobs from one sector (conventional power) to another sector (wind power). Jobs created in the wind power industry come at the price of eliminating jobs in the conventional power industry.

Worse yet, the jobs shifted to the wind power industry fail to equal the number of jobs eliminated in other sectors of the economy for two important reasons.

Even among the top seven manufacturers of the wind turbines that are deployed in the United States, only one is located in the United States.
By contrast, conventional power plant operation requires far more workers than wind farms. More jobs are created in the conventional power industry even while electricity production costs go down. And unlike wind power jobs, nearly all U.S. conventional power plant manufacturing and operational jobs go to American workers – and especially to workers within the resident state of the conventional power plant.
Second, higher electricity prices caused by wind power kill jobs throughout the entire state and national economy. For example, when the average household in Kansas spends an extra $636 on electricity each year due to unnecessarily high electricity prices, that means the average Kansas household spends $636 less on other goods and services. The aggregate effect of such reduced spending in the Kansas economy (equaling $700 million in Kansas economy-wide reduced spending in 2013) eliminates thousands of jobs that would otherwise be created or sustained throughout all segments of the Kansas economy with higher consumer spending.
Any way you cut it, wind power is needlessly raising living costs, reducing living standards, and destroying American jobs. Fortunately, states can easily rectify the problem by repealing renewable power mandates and taxpayer subsidies that perpetuate higher electricity costs and widespread job destruction.

Unreliable, Unaffordable, Unwanted Wind Turbines…They’ve got to go!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Parker Gallant Uncovers the Hidden Costs of Ontario’s Insane Wind Power Policy

October 18, 2014 by

turbines ontario

Ever tried to imagine hell on earth?

Ever imagined a nightmare turned to reality?

Then you’ve probably landed in Ontario.

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

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

Ontario energy mix 2013

As Professor Ross McKitrick explains in this post, Ontario has built a policy that sees wind power (when the wind is blowing) “displace” emissions free hydro at enormous cost to power consumers and taxpayers.

And then there’s the colossal human impact of plonking thousands of turbines as close as 550m from hundreds of homes (see our posts hereand here).

image

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

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

Parker Gallant – a former banker – is out to ensure that Ontario’s power consumers and taxpayers are aware of just how ludicrous its energy policy has become.

Parker Gallant: the cost of curtailing wind is borne by all

Parker has been busy letting everyone know about the the hidden financial costs of Ontario’s wind farm fever.

Late last year the Ontario Energy Minister said that the cancelling a gas plant would cost the people of Ontario no more than the price of a cup of “Timmies”: coffee brewed up by Canada’s favourite coffee franchise, Tim Horton’s.

A few weeks back, during a windy weekend, Ontario was “blessed” with an abundance of wind power – which – on the first pass – cost it $135 per MWh in guaranteed payments to wind power outfits. But – because what was produced was excess to requirements – Ontario’s taxpayers were stung a second time for the cost of paying New York and Michigan and Quebec to take it.

The total cost was hardly small change – whether measured in cups of coffee or hard cold cash. Here’s Parker doing the sums.

Another expensive weekend, thanks to Ontario wind farms
Parker Gallant
7 October 2014

On the weekend just past, October 4 and 5, wind turbines in Ontario once again proved they can produce lots of electricity—when demand for power is low. At the same time, they drove down the hourly Ontario electricity price (HOEP) and played a role in generating lots of power that was then exported to our neighbours at a substantial cost to Ontario’s ratepayers.

Total demand for electricity on October 4 was 393,816 MWh (megawatt hours); 18.1% (71,328 MWh) of it was exported. In the process of exporting the HOEP generated a negative “weighted average price” of minus 32 cents a MWh. Ontario paid our neighbours to snap up our excess power which presumably included all of wind’s production of 32,958 MWh. Ontario’s ratepayers picked up the tab which for wind power alone ($135.00/MWh + .32 cents = $135.32 MWh) was $4,459,877.

Sunday, October 5 wasn’t much better: total demand was 379,656 MWh and 66,408 MWh (17.5%) was exported at a negative “weighted average price” of minus $2.64 a MWh. Wind production for that day was 30,359 MWh and we must assume it again played a role in driving down the HOEP. So, those wind exports alone cost Ontario’s ratepayers $4,181,649 ($135/MWh + $2.64 = $137.24 MWh).

Ontario ratepayers picked up the tab of approximately $8.6 million for those two days. That $8.6 million would be equivalent, to paraphrase our Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, the price of a “Timmies” coffee for Ontario’s 4.6 million ratepayers.

If one also includes the $7 million or so that the other 75,000 MWh exported cost it becomes two “Timmies”! Add in the price of the steamed off power from Bruce Nuclear, payments to the gas plants for idling, to OPG for the Atikokan biomass plant and their spilled hydro, to the NUG (non utility generators) contracted parties, the weekend probably hit the ratepayers with total costs well over $20 million.

If that happened every weekend the cost would be equivalent to the cost of moving a couple of gas plants! Lots and lots of Timmies.

When will Ontario’s Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli wake up and smell the coffee?

This story was also picked up Sun News – aptly describing Ontario’s wind turbines as a money pit. Here’s an interview between journalist Jerry Agar and Parker Gallant, that was aired on October 8. The transcript follows…

**********

Jerry Agar: So over the weekend, this one just past it was proven in Ontario, that by golly those big wind turbines can pump out some power so Parker Gallant is here. So this is all good news?

Parker Gallant: Well not really Jerry, no because when they were pumping….

Jerry Agar: Are you going to be grumpy about this?

Parker Gallant:  I am, that’s my usual ploy isn’t it?

Jerry Agar: I see.

Parker Gallant: Yes they were pumping out out the power, but we didn’t need it so that meant we had to export it. As a result of that it drove down the wholesale price so we were paying New York and Michigan and Quebec to take our excess power.

Jerry Agar: I see, so when we export power – we don’t sell it, we pay people to take it from us.

Parker Gallant: You’ve got it.

Jerry Agar: Are we making it up in volume – I mean – how exactly does that make any sense?

Parker Gallant: It doesn’t make any sense and that’s certainly been my efforts is to make the Ministry of energy aware of that. We shouldn’t be handing out any more wind turbine contracts because we don’t need the excess power.

Jerry Agar:: Well what was the point of even producing power then?

Parker Gallant:  Well, there was a lot, believe it or not, there was a lot of wind turbine developers in that same weekend, that were paid for not producing power. That’s on top of those that were paid for producing the power.

Jerry Agar: Just a minute, I want to add this up. We were paying people not to produce power then we were producing power and we were paying people to take that power.

Parker Gallant: You’ve got it.

Jerry Agar: All right. This from the government that spent $1 billion not building a power plant.

Parker Gallant: That’s right, or moving a power plant.

Jerry Agar: Yes, yes. Now the government got re-elected.

Parker Gallant: I know. Its unfortunate but.

Jerry Agar: We live in a world we could never have imagined.

Parker Gallant: No we can’t.

Jerry Agar: So then what’s the addiction to these wind turbines if in fact they were pumping out power, and they were reducing our cost because hey they turn around and around for free apparently with wind power, it would all be great.

Parker Gallant:  it would be yeah, but we don’t offer, we don’t get competitive contracts. We just simply say we are going to pay you $135 a MWh four 13 1/2 cents per kilowatt hour
if you throw up a wind farm. You know that makes…

Jerry Agar: So for the producers it’s a no lose situation.

Parker Gallant: It’s a no lose situation. Exactly. They get paid whether they produce power or they don’t produce power as long as that wind turbine up, and they don’t actually produce power,
they still get paid.

Jerry Agar: But we don’t need the power. So what are we building them for?

Parker Gallant: Well, I don’t know. Perhaps to green the province, to save the planet from climate change. I mean that seems to be the objective.

Jerry Agar:  Its ideological?

Parker Gallant: Yes it’s very ideological.

Jerry Agar: Because it’s certainly not economical.

Parker Gallant: No it doesn’t make any economic sense and of course they never did a cost benefit analysis.

Jerry Agar: There is another issue here. Do you give credence to those people who actually say that living next to them is damaging?

Parker Gallant: Oh definitely. I’ve met people that have lived next to them and are forced to move out of their homes. There is a percentage of the population – there was a study just came out of the UK I believe that says that a certain percentage of the population will be affected by the infrasound, the noise that we can’t hear, that’s emanating from these wind turbines throughout the province.

Jerry Agar: It doesn’t bother everybody?

Parker Gallant: No it doesn’t bother – its like (sea sickness) …

Jerry Agar: So I’d go and it would bother me but it wouldn’t bother you.

Parker Gallant: That’s correct. Yes. There’s a percentage of the population, so 5 to 15% that will be affected. Autistic children are very much at risk when they live near a wind turbine.

Jerry Agar: Really?

Parker Gallant: Yes.

Jerry Agar: Okay but there’s never any consideration. This government  has, I would use the word foisted these things on communities. They haven’t even asked the community. They haven’t even had the deference to go to the Mayor – much less the local citizens.

Parker Gallant: No. That’s true. The Green Energy Act gave the provincial government all the powers to be able to put these wind turbines up no matter where, just as long as they meet the setback requirements and you know the minimum standards that they set under the Green Energy Act.

Jerry Agar: There are more being built. Construction of a giant wind turbine project in Huron County will go on. The judge denied the work stoppage proposed by local residents.

Parker Gallant: The judge did not grant the stay that the citizens had brought to stay motion before the courts to basically stop the construction. But there is still an appearance that will be coming up in the Superior Court of Ontario. So that means that if the citizens win in the Superior Court, the developers will have to remove and decommission those wind turbines. So why they’re taking the chance is beyond me, except maybe they get them in before the cold weather season hits.

Jerry Agar: You know, this is one of those situations I believe where the mass of the population in urban areas here in Toronto, where you and I are right now, love these things, because they love that greenie idea, but they don’t live next to them.

Parker Gallant: No they don’t. Well a lot of people in the green movement will say “Oh we live next to one” because there is one at Exhibition Place.

Jerry Agar: The thing barely turns.

Parker Gallant: It barely turns and it doesn’t provide any power. And it’s mostly all…

Jerry Agar: Not hooked up? A show thing?

Parker Gallant: It’s sort of hooked up. It really is a show thing. If you go back …

Jerry Agar: And nobody lives there anyway.

Parker Gallant: Yes, no, right.

Jerry Agar: All right. But if they went and stuck one right next to one of the condo buildings, although I don’t know if you will be able to fit one in now in down town Toronto. They will feel differently about it.

Parker Gallant: Yeah, I thought they should mandate putting 49 metre blades on top of the buildings that they’re allowing to be built here. The condo buildings. And maybe we could generate some power because they would be way up there in the higher atmosphere and….

Jerry Agar: And then your condo could just jiggle you to sleep. That would be nice. All right, thanks very much.

Parker Gallant: Well thank you Jerry.

Jerry Agar: I don’t know if you made us feel better but thanks for the information.
Sun News

Toronto turbine at Exhibition Place

Parker then knocked up this spreadsheet itemising the total cost of paying neighbours to take Ontario’s excess wind power.

Ontario’s expensive electricity week: what could $44M have bought?
Ontario Wind Concerns
13 October 2014

Blowing Ontario’s ratepayer dollars Money lost in just one week could have paid for 580 nurses

So far this October, Ontario’s electricity sector has been blowing our money away at an awesome pace.

Scott Luft, whom I admire for his ability to assimilate comprehensible data, posted on Tumblr some disturbing information about the first 10 days of electricity production (and curtailed production) in Ontario. Because the fall means low demand for electricity, our current surplus energy supply (principally, wind, solar and gas) was curtailed to the extent that it cost ratepayers $20 million, while the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) generated only $8.2 million. That $20 million of curtailment cost will find its way to the Global Adjustment (GA) pot and onto ratepayers’ bills.

I took a different route and looked at the cost of Ontario’s exports for the week of October 3rd to October 9th —those numbers are also disturbing. During those seven days, Ontario exported 399,048 MWh (megawatt hours) which was 15.7% of total Ontario demand. Wind turbines generated and delivered 184,204 MWh, which was surplus to our needs and probably exported. The money generated via the HOEP from all of the export sales was $56,300 or 14 cents a MWh. Wind turbines produced just $15,164 and we sold that production for just 8 cents a MWh.

To put this in perspective, the exported production’s cost all-in (contract value per MWh + regulatory + transmission + debt retirement charge) averaged $110/MWh, according to the latest monthly IESO Market Summary August 2014 report’s findings. Using $110/MWh the 399,000 MWh exported in those seven days hit Ontario’s ratepayers with about $44 million (less the $56,300) via allocation to the GA—that will show up on the electricity line on our bills.

Wind generation alone at the contracted rate of $135/MWh cost ratepayers $24,900,000 plus another $5 to $6 million for their curtailed production, according to Scott Luft. That $30 to $31 million plus the cost of steaming off Bruce Nuclear, paying idling gas plants, etc., and the additional cost of solar generation, would confirm the $44 million is a reasonable estimate.

What has Ontario missed out on by having ratepayers subsidizing those exports by $44 million for those seven days?

  • the annual salary of 293 family physicians, or
    580 nurse practitioners, or
  • repairing all the Toronto District School Board’s school roofs, or
  • one and a half days of interest on Ontario’s public debt, or
  • all of Ontario’s 301 MPP salaries for a full year, or
  • 40 MRI machines, or
  • 100 months of mortgage payments on the empty MaRS Phase 2 building, or
  • increasing funding for autistic children by 30% over current levels.

Just a few examples of how the wasted subsidy money that cost each Ontario ratepayer $10 for just one week could have been used!
Parker Gallant

NAPAW Discusses Low Frequency Noise Testing, & it’s Implications for Wind Industry!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

NAPAW: WILL ILFN BE THE “SILENT” INDUSTRY DESTROYER? PLYMPTON WYOMING BYLAW UPDATE

Dear friends,

Please find attached a media release that we would appreciate having wide circulation.

pdf file : media release v 4 plympton wyoming

Word Document file:  media release v 4 plympton wyoming

MEDIA RELEASE

October 16, 2014

BOOKEND HEALTH ISSUES TURBINES: Existing project in Glenmore WI (Brown County) formally declares its Duke’s “Shirley Wind” project a “health hazard”, and Mayor Lonny Napper and council in Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, anticipating several projects, create a revolutionary bylaw that includes ILFN (Infra and Low Frequency Noise) penalties

By Sherri Lange

Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, Mayor Lonny Napper is astonished. “With all the available evidence from around the world about the effects of Low Frequency and Infrasound from industrial wind turbines, it amazes me that the alarms are not sounding earlier and stronger.”

With about 1,000 acres of prime land under lease for turbine development, signed up between willing hosts and developers, this council is fighting to protect its citizens’ health. A new bylaw signed and completed third reading, October 8th, 2014, sets a new and interesting precedent by mentioning and effecting fines for health impairing ILFN. ILFN is well known to be an industrial plague, now exacerbated by industrial wind turbines that plague every corner of the globe, without, as is now acknowledged widely, producing viable, reliable or “green,” energy.

In Glenmore WI, the Health Department in Brown County, almost simultaneously with the efforts of the Mayor of Plympton Wyoming and CAO, Kyle Pratt, and council, declares that the Shirley Wind Project, containing some of the largest turbines in the US, is already the site of an industrial human health hazard.

“On Monday night, the Brown County Board of Health in Wisconsin voted to declare the Shirley Wind Project to be a human health hazard.  The approved motion states:

“To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI. A Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.””

While the State of Wisconsin controls siting of industrial wind, it cannot override or subjugate the “public health hazard” declaration and initiatives. A health hazard, in most jurisdictions, is a condition of high alert, where acute or chronic illness, or death, may occur due to prolonged exposure. The hazard must be reported, and in some areas,mandated abatement must take place.

Mayor Lonny Napper seems to be of the same mind, noting that the Green Energy and Green Economy Act has taken away much democratic decision-making: his council’s bylaw aims to ensure people in his jurisdiction will be protected from turbine related ILFN and the effects that are recorded, sadly, worldwide.

Common effects are from chronic unrelenting noise, sleep disorders, hormone level disruption, increased risk of disease, diabetes, hypertension, depression, heart arrhythmias, and possibly even cancer. (Carmen Krogh and Dr Robert McMurtry recently published a case definition that accepts inner ear disruption, sleep disorders, hypertension, mood disorders, nausea, tinnitus, as part of the presenting complaints combined with proximity to wind turbines.)

“When I took an oath to protect my community, I took it very seriously,” continues Mayor Napper. “The information about what other communities are suffering, disruption, noise, degradation of precious landscapes, seriously divided communities, and to see that this possible devastation is in my full view, for my residents, something has to give.”

Mayor Napper does not understand the delay for protective measures. “People are suffering in other projects. My community is slated for multiple developers and several proposed wind projects. The time for action, and protective measures, has been with us for some time now….we can’t continue to bounce around the same arguments and with no noticeable gain in community health rights. The protection of health is first.”

Lange, of the North American Platform Against Wind Power (NA-PAW) agrees. “We have for some time now sounded the alarm for what amounts to a turbine factory health pandemic: similar effects are reported in communities worldwide. These “factories” operate without the sanction of communities. They operate without fire controls, without any regard for environmental practices, and they certainly override what is now common knowledge about noise: audible, shadow flicker, vibration and Low Frequency and Infrasound, and related air pressure fluctuations, which in combination or separately, are known to extract “torture” on unwilling people/communities.”

Both Mayor Napper and Mr. Pratt, CAO, agree that individual communities need to understand that they can use bylaw powers to protect health as required. “If Ontario communities are having so little jurisdiction to control development of massive electrical producing facilities within their boundaries, the least the council can do is to mediate the devastating health effects already reported and well known to exist, that many feel are sure to happen here.” Mr. Pratt says that he hopes the bylaw will be an example to other councils. Pratt adds, “The Town of Plympton-Wyoming Council has worked hard to protect our residents, and make sure that developers are required to deal with issues and appropriately respond to complaints and requirements from council.”

Adds Lange, “The known effects of infrasound and low frequency noise may well turn out to be the death sentence for a non-performing, entirely subsidy driven, outrage.”

Even the MOE (Ministry of Environment Ontario) admits in 2009 the complex nature of sounds and pressures:

“I went out last night for about 5 hours (got home midnight) and got some real firsthand experience with different types of noise that the turbines can create. The same turbine or groups of turbines could create 3-4 different types of noise and at different magnitudes at different times in the evening all depending on meteorological conditions, time of day, their orientation, and how they readjusted themselves (auto or by manual control – we don’t know) to wind speed and direction. Also I was able to experience firsthand wind shear conditions (no wind at ground but turbines still generating creating noise) and how that plays an important role in noise impacts.”  —Oct. 29, 2009, Bill Bardswick, Director West Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Environment

ORDER TO STAND DOWN

“Ok, message received and understood. Cam [Cameron Hall] and I will  stand down until directed otherwise.”  —Mar. 8, 2010, Gary Tomlinson, Provincial Officer, Senior Environmental Officer, Guelph District Office, West Central Region, Ontario Ministry of the Environment

For more information please contact:

Mayor Lonny Napper

Town of Plympton-Wyoming

546 Niagara Street, P.O. Box 250

Wyoming, Ontario N0N 1T0

Phone: 1 226 307 0523

Napper1@cogeco.on.ca

Kyle Pratt MPA, CMM III, CHRP, CMO

Chief Administrative Officer

Town of Plympton-Wyoming

546 Niagara Street, P.O. Box 250

Wyoming, Ontario N0N 1T0

Phone: 519-845-3939

Toll Free (Ontario): 1-877-313-3939

kpratt@plympton-wyoming.ca

Sherri Lange

CEO NA-PAW (North American Platform Against Wind Power)

kodaisl@rogers.com

416 567 5115

REFERENCES

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/10/13/world-first-ontario-council-includes-infrasound-in-wind-farm-noise-law/

http://www.obwf.ca/industrial-wind-turbines-declared-a-human-health-hazard/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-shirley-wind-project-wisconsin-usa/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/brown-county-ordinance-chapter-38-public-health-nuisance/

http://www.na-paw.org/pr-121207.php

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/definitive-document-wind-turbine-noise-simple-statement-facts-august-2014/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/definitive-document-wind-turbine-noise-simple-statement-facts-august-2014/

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/10/wind-energy-power-farms/

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/10/16/board-of-health-declares-wisconsin-wind-farm-a-human-health-hazard/

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/02/14/dr-mariana-alves-pereira-how-to-test-for-the-effects-of-low-frequency-turbine-noise/

file:///C:/Users/Home/Downloads/JRSM_Open-2014-McMurtry-.pdf

Wind Turbine Host, Tells the Truth About the Harm the Do!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Video – Brown Country Wisconsin Wind Turbine Host Speaks Out

Dick Koltz speaks about regretting signing on with a wind developer, and explains the color “green” when it comes to wind developers.

Video from public forum at VanAbles, Town of Holland, Brown County Wisconsin, February 18, 2010, by courtesy of Better Plan, Wisconsin.

Windpushers Need to Prove That They are NOT Harming Residents!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wisconsin Health Board Puts Onus on Wind Company

OCTOBER 16, 2014

Enz homeAfter a year-long health study, the Duke Energy wind turbine project in Wisconsin was declared a human health hazard. The  Board of Health of Brown County voted to take the action on October 14, 2014, according to JMKraft writing in Illinois Leaks (Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind Farm Declared Health Hazard).

The decision was based on a report of a year-long study conducted by the Enz family to document infrasound in homes within a radius of 6 miles of the Shirley Wind turbines.

The vote to declare it a Human Health Hazard puts Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind utility on the defensive to prove to the Board they are not the cause of the health complaints documented in the study and could result in a shut down order.

According to the Waubra Foundation, the wording of the motion was:

To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County WI a Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.

Proximity of Enz home to 6 turbinesFour different acoustical engineering firms performed the study, “A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin,” which was partially funded by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.  The technicians recorded readings from several  homes the residents had abandoned (citing turbine emission health impacts).  The results included a statement agreed upon by all four firms – some of whom work for wind turbine developers – that in their opinion, “enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry.”  WWMA summarized the study in a January 2014 post.

Sarah Laurie, of the Waubra Foundation in Australia, noted earlier this year (“Letter to Slovenia re Known Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise” Aug. 11, 2014) that:

Unlike most other products, where prior product safety is established, the wind industry has never been required to show there are no adverse health effects. … [I]n fact the wind industry are well aware of the serious health problems their productsdirectly cause, and indeed that they have known for thirty years.

There are eight 500-foot turbines in the Shirley Wind project.

Anesthesiologist Tells the Facts About CO2. It is NOT the Demon they Pretend!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

American Thinker
October 10, 2014
50,000 dot com
By Charles Battig
Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…
That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…

That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development Declared a “Hazard to Human Health”!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Duke Energy’s Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development a “Hazard to Human Health” Declares Brown County Board of Health

October 14, 2014.

The Brown County Board of Health voted tonight to declare the Shirley Wind Turbine Development a Human Health Hazard.

The decision was based on a report of a year-long study conducted by the Enz family with assistance from Mr Rick James to document acoustic emissions from the wind turbines including infrasound and low frequency noise, inside homes within a radius of 6 miles of the Shirley Wind turbines.

The wording of the motion was as follows:

“To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County. WI. a Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.”

The context is in reference to Brown County Code 38.01 in the Brown County Ordinances, in Chapter 38, relating to Public Health Nuisance (section (b) Human Health Hazard).

“Human Health Hazard” means a substance, activity or condition that is known to have the potential to cause acute or chronic illness or death if exposure to the substance, activity or condition is not abated.

The vote to declare it a Human Health Hazard now puts Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind Development on the defensive to prove to the Board they are not the cause of the health complaints documented in the study, and could result in a shut down order.

Read the Brown County Ordinances – http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_c581ca2d560f/?department=e4cd9418781e&subdepartment=3810f83bcbd2

Additional Background Information

In January 2012, the Brown County Town Board of Health called for emergency state aid for families suffering near wind turbine developments.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/emergency-aid-sought-for-families-suffering-around-wind-turbines/

The Duke Energy Shirley Wind Development was also the site of the December 2012 Cooperative Acoustic Survey by Acoustic consultants Schomer, Walker, Hessler, Hessler and Rand.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/co-operative-measurement-survey-analysis-low-frequency-infrasound-at-shirley-wind-farm/

On 21st January, 2013, the Wisconsin Towns Association Board of Directors adopted a resolution that the Wisconsin State and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission should enact a moratorium to“stop the permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies are done, solutions are found, and the State’s wind siting rule (PSC 128) is modified to implement standards that address ultra-low-frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines that will protect the health and safety of residents”. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wisconsin-towns-association-resolution-enact-moratorium-wind-farms/

As Dr Paul Schomer pointed out in his conference paper in August 2013, Duke Energy chose to refuse to cooperate with the request from the acoustic consultants conducting this groundbreaking cooperative acoustic survey to participate in “on off” testing.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schomer-et-al-wind-turbine-noise-conference-denver-august-2013/

Mr Rick James, Noise Engineer, gives some detail about some of the acoustic testing in Wisconsin which he has conducted in his opening statement of evidence to the Bull Creek appeal in Alberta Canada in November, 2013 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/james-richard-r-opening-statement-nov-18–2013-bluearth-project-bull-creek-alberta/

Dr Jay Tibbetts is a local medical practitioner with first hand experience of treating wind turbine noise affected residents in Brown County, including from the Shirley Wind Development, and he shared his experiences in his letter to the Australian AMA in March 2014.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/tibbetts-dr-jay-j-md-appalled-at-ama-statement/

Information from impacted residents

Wind turbine host Dick Koltz speaks candidly about what his experiences were as a wind turbine host in Brown County, Wisconsin and openly expresses his regrets to signing up with the wind developer. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-brown-country-wisconsin-wind-turbine-host-speaks-out/

There is additional testimony about the experiences of numerous families in Brown county living near the Shirley Industrial Wind Development here:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-shirley-wind-project-wisconsin-usa/

A Brilliant Explanation, of the Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

A Father and Daughter Discussion

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal
Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of
higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words,
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that
she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she
felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how
she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many
college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked , ‘How is your friend Audrey
doing?’ She replied, ‘ Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are
easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She Is
so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited
to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for
classes because she’s too hung over.’

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s
office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’ The
daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired
back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really
hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard
work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played
while I worked my tail off!’

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to The
conservative party.’ If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between conservative and Liberal I’m all ears.

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on,
this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat..
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have
a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Windweasels Using “Faux-green Shills”, to Scream for Subsidies….Useful Idiots!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Wind Industry Pays “Green” Groups $millions to Chant for More Subsidies

October 14, 2014 by

Pied_Piper

A little while back, the good Senator from Victoria, John “Marshall” Madigan launched an Exocet missile at the seedy world of hard-green-left politics and the wind power outfits that fund the Australian Greens (seeour post here).

The Greens have been particularly coy about where the hundreds of thousands of dollars used to fund their last Federal election campaign (including the rerun of the West Australian Senate election) came from. The key beneficiaries of that fat pile of corporate cash have been lunatics like Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator from South Australia. Sarah set out to crush SA’s favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon but, in the result, she was lucky to sneak over the line herself. Nick (a true STT Champion) – who ran as an independent candidate – polled a snicker under 25% in the South Australian Senate race (beating the Labor Party’s vote of 22.7%) – an all-time record for an independent Senator.

But, we digress. Since the launch of Vestas’ “Act on Facts” campaign in June last year it was evident that the Greens “fortunes” had – mysteriously – improved (see this article and see our post here). Since then the Greens have been very keen to “sing” for their supper. Recently, it’s come to light that the billionaire founder of wotif.com, Graeme Wood has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Green’s coffers. And, just like Vestas, is looking to use the Greens to advance his wind farm interests, proving that the Greens truly are the best party money can buy.

Paying $millions to so-called “green” politicians and astro-turfing propaganda outfits like the WWF (see our post here), Getup! and 350.org (see our post here) has become a central wind industry strategy: if you’re a foreign owned company worth $billions, with no political credibility and rolling in mountains of (other peoples’) cash, why not pay a bunch of slick little political manipulators to plead and beg to governments on your behalf?

It’s a strategy employed around the globe: the US providing just another example of the tangled web woven by wind industry rent-seekers. Here’s an American take on the mother of all scams.

Wind Cronies Funding Anti-GOP Attack Ads Through LCV: Seeking Tax Subsidies as Their Reward
Daily Surge
Roberto Escoban
8 October 2014

Republicans in targeted Senate races are finding themselves under attack from millions of dollars in attack ads from the League of Conservation Voters (LVC). Seen as anti-business, the LVC has a new ally that has opened their pocketbooks in a big way to support their efforts — the wind energy industry.

Wind power is inefficient, kills endangered birds at alarming rates and relies on taxpayer handouts and subsidies to survive. One of the subsidies is a tax credit that has been described as a “Wall Street wolf in green clothing.” Most of the tax benefits goes to big investors to offset tax liabilities on their other investments. Warren Buffet, for instance, admitted he invested in wind farms to lower his tax rates. “That’s the only reason to build them,” he said.

The tax credit expired in the last Congress but the Democrat Senate is prepared to renew it. That’s why the wind power industry has become tight allies with LCV. For instance, Tom Kiernan, the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) sits on the board of LCV and currently serves as Treasurer.

Peter Mandelstam also sits on the board of LCV. Mandelstam served for 13 years on the Board of American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and chaired AWEA’s Offshore Group for 7 years. Mendelson even founded his own wind energy company, Green Sail Energy in 2012.

The incestuous relationship between wind power industry and the LCV doesn’t end there.

Theodore Roosevelt IV, the Managing Director at Barclays Capital for Investment Banking and Chairman of their CleanTech Initiative sits on the board of LCV too. Barcalys provided the financing for the Cape Wind offshore wind farm.

Flush with cash and the help of the cronies who rely on the tax credit to profit, LCV and AWEA have launched ads in the Iowa and Colorado Senate races attacking Republican candidates and supporting Democrat candidates eager to keep the flow of taxpayer funds moving to these enterprises.

It should be noted that when Tom Kiernan became the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) saying he wanted to strengthen ties between conservationists and the business community.

Kiernan wrote in The Huffington Post, “For my entire career, I’ve sought to strengthen the ties between conservation and the American business community, because a strong environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. Wind power has enormous potential to reduce humanity’s overall footprint on the environment and the planet.”

Kiernan does not talk about how LCV has become a front for the corporate effort to extend a tax benefit that does little to help the environment and a lot to help Wall Street investors pocket more money. AWEA’s top priority is “keeping the production tax credit” because “the political climate in Washington is getting tougher.” He has spent nearly $3 million so far lobbying to get the job done.

If you live in a state with a targeted Senate seat and see one of these LCV attack ads, it would be prudent to remember the cronies priming the pump to put these ads on the air.
Daily Surge

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal