Liberal corruption and incompetence.

Wind Power….Nothing More Than “Novelty” Energy!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Terry McCrann: The Answer to Our Energy Future Ain’t Wind Power

September 14, 2014 by

terry_mcrann

Answer ain’t blowing in the wind
Terry McCrann
The Australian
13 September 2014

IT’S doubtful that those who have attacked Dick Warburton’s review of the Renewable Energy Target have actually read even the executive summary, other than through a misty film of increasingly foam-flecked rage or rising horror at the prospect of the cookie jar being snatched from their grasp.

His review has been falsely and very deliberately mischaracterised as a work of climate scepticism. In short, he doesn’t believe in climate change and so he wants to ditch or fundamentally undermine the last substantive policy standing between us and climate catastrophe, to say nothing of ­impoverishing the climate main-chancers.

As the review noted, about $9.4 billion — of NPV (net present value) subsidies had already flowed to those renewable energy main-chancers — to stress: my word, not his. But more than double that, about $22bn, was up for grabs over the rest of the scheme.

Again, that was in NPV terms; the actual dollars-of-the-day out to 2030 would be much, much greater. Any wonder a primeval scream of pain burst from those renewable main-chancers.

It’s much easier to slime the ­author to avoid engaging with the substance of the review’s analysis even more particularly than its ­argument and recommendations.

Perhaps even more importantly, it was critical to head off any risk of the mainstream media engaging with the report other than to similarly, instinctively and with both ignorance and malice aforethought, slime it.

In fact, and in simple terms, the Warburton Report is a meticulous forensic assessment of the RET on its own terms. It accepts the policy desire to promote (so-called, my word again) renewable energy and merely analyses the effectiveness, cost and alternatives.

It also does so in the context of the investments that have been made or are committed. Someone driven solely by climate scepticism would not have made the recommendations that Warburton did. He very deliberately carved a path between wasting more money and the obligation to investors who acted on legislated policy of both the Howard and Rudd-Gillard governments.

This produced his two alternatives. The first was to let the RET continue to 2030, to honour all existing and, importantly, committed investment, but to close it to new entrants. This would, as he noted, “provide investors in existing renewable generation with continued access to certificates so as to avoid substantial asset value loss and retain the CO2-emissions reductions that have been achieved so far.”

The second was to move the RET in line with growth in ­demand for electricity, allocating to renewables 50 per cent of that growth.

Again, as Warburton said: “This would protect investors in existing renewable generators and would support additional ­renewable generation when ­demand is growing.”

The core problem is that the supposedly 20 per cent (of power generation) RET has grown to somewhere between a 26-30 per cent RET.

When the Rudd government set a specific number of 41,000 GWh that had to be supplied by renewable energy in 2020, it was expected to equate to 20 per cent of total electricity output (and ­demand) in that year.

In fact, it’s going to be closer to 30 per cent because power demand has been falling — essentially because of soaring power prices. The falling demand has ­included the deliberate closure of big consumers like aluminium smelters, as a consequence of a mix of factors including power price.

Now the pro-RET advocates have seen this as a wonderful win-win, ahem, windfall. We get more clean (sic) power and so less “dirty” power, and more dollars to boot. What’s to complain about?

They’ve also been able to seize on the argument that as more and more of our power comes from mandatory renewables this will arguably cut prices to consumers.

But as Warburton points out — to further enrage the believers and main-chancers — this is a shell game. It’s only because it creates excess supply and mainstream — I would use the word, real — power generators have to compete for their declining share of the market.

Those lower prices would be simply unsustainable. If you produce 30 per cent of your power from very high-cost wind, ultimately the price to the consumer would have to be higher. Along the way generators would close, investors — in coal and gas — plants would lose money (yet another “windfall” gain!) and then the survivors would raise their ­prices to necessary levels.

That points to a simple question: if reducing uneconomic wind would be unfair to investors in that sector — essentially accepted by Warburton; surely force-feeding future renewable investment and so forcing the closure of other existing power generation would be unfair to their investors?

The other element is the sheer impossibility of installing enough wind capacity to meet the 41,000GWh. In their usual dishonesty with key numbers, renewable advocates roll hydro into renewable capacity, to suggest the target isn’t that onerous.

There is about 12GW of installed “renewable” capacity in Australia. But less than one-third of that is wind, most of the rest is hydro.

As Energy Australia explained in a submission to Warburton, we would need to install 10GW of new capacity to be able to produce. 41,000GWh. A little short of doubling installed “renewable” capacity and doing so in just six years would be daunting enough.

But as most of it would have to be wind — it’s hard to know which is worse to a Green: coal or hydro power? — this means we would have to install something like 250 per cent of the existing entire wind capacity that we have today, and do so in six years!

This is simply impossible. It would also be sheer and utter madness. And if we needed any reassurance on that, in a heaven-sent coincidence, last week Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute graced our shores.

In a presentation to the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne midweek, Bryce utterly shredded wind as a realistic source of power, far more effectively than those wind turbines shred birds on the odd occasions when they turn.

Former journalist Tony Thomas provides an excellent detailed exposition of what Bryce had to say at the Quadrant website.

One reference from Bryce was especially telling: the way our nearest and most important neighbour Indonesia has increased its use of coal-fired power generation.

We all know — or should know — about China and its voracious appetite for our coal. But since 1985, according to Bryce, Indonesia has increased its coal usage by 5000 per cent. “Between 1990 and 2010, about 100 million Indonesians gained access to electricity — coal provided more than half of that growth.

As a consequence, Indonesia’s per-capita GDP rose by 442 per cent. Life expectancy increased by eight years. Infant mortality fell by 45 per cent. Child malnutrition fell by 65 per cent. Illiteracy declined by 77 per cent

“Countries with cheap, abundant, reliable supplies of electricity can grow their economies and educate their citizens. They can build their manufacturing bases and export goods.

“The countries that lack electricity can’t. Period. Full stop,” Bryce noted.

The rest of his analysis was ­majestic in its substance and powerful in its ineluctable conclusion. The energy of today is coal; but so also is the future.

Wind is both a fantasy and a wasteful indulgence. With apologies to Bob Dylan, the answer is not blowing …
The Australian

STT covered Robert Bryce’s brilliant lecture in this post. We think it should be compulsory viewing for anything that walks upright, has opposable thumbs and doesn’t swing from trees. But don’t take our word for it, why not hear it from Terry McCrann, who gave the vote of thanks to Robert for his remarkable speech:

****

For Those of You, Who Are Unfamiliar With Agenda 21….

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Agenda 21 – The Death of Farming, Rationing and Overcrowded Ghetto Cities

By Neil Foster,

In today’s Irish Independent we see the article below stating that mortgage lenders will be less likely to approve loans for those who wish to live outside the already deliberately overcrowded cities and make a life for themselves in the countryside.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/mortgage-providers-to-restrict-loans-for-homes-in-rural-areas-2500005.html

This ‘idea’ from the banks should be rightly called Agenda21. This is the UN’s programme for ‘sustainable’ living due to global warming which every western country has signed up to, right down to your local councils. I was on Highland Radio in Donegal last year when a local Green councillor Frank Gallagher denied any knowledge of Agenda 21. He is at best misinformed or completely ignorant of the council he sits on or he’s quite simply a liar!

Agenda 21 includes plans to wipe out rural populations and move them into the cities which will inevitably and ultimately become the mass concentration camps of the future, basically ghettos for the masses of ‘useless eaters’.

This will also include farmers and farm workers who will be driven from their land through ‘legislation and taxation to the point where it is no longer viable to farm small scale. When this occurs big agri companies will monopolise Irish agriculture. Monsanto already have an office in Dublin.

The UN has stated in the past that it, an unelected, private organisation, will control the world’s food supply by allocating food to countries based on population size. Regardless of any growth in the population, the quota of food will not increase and nations will have to deal with so called ‘overpopulation’ by any means at their disposal. I’ll leave that to your imagination but when Bill Gates talks about reducing the population by 15% using vaccines and healthcare, you know where this is heading!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSqcRMVbtpo

On another part of Agenda 21 we find this report

http://www.greenwisebusiness.co.uk/news/report-calls-for-energy-rationing-within-the-decade-2045.aspx

Yep, you read right… FUEL RATIONING! That doesn’t just mean petrol or diesel for your car. It also includes home heating fuel which is already rising at an astounding rate. Rationing heating fuel at a time of GLOBAL COOLING is tantamount to freezing pensioners to death in their own homes, but hey, they’re useless eaters anyway aren’t they? They’re not ideal UN citizens in that they only consume and do produce anything other than love for their children and grandchildren.

So here it is, our personal carbon credit, sorry ration! This will be on your ration card which you’ll have to produce every time you make a purchase of ANYTHING! This will mean, as reported in the last edition of The Sovereign Independent, a carbon element will be deducted from your ration which you’ll be allocated within a specified timeframe. This will simply mean that if you’re not careful and spend wisely, you’ll end up running out of credits and will be able to purchase NOTHING including food!

All this is going on when we’ve just experienced the coldest winter in a century with record early snowfall and freezing temperatures and we’re only in mid January!

Wake up people, there’s OBVIOUSLY another reason for this and it’s not to save the planet from the lie of manmade global warming!

For more info on Agenda 21 and its EVIL intent, read here:

http://afteramerica.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/agenda-21-exposted/

Source…

– See more at: http://therealnewsjournal.com/?p=4801#sthash.AyTW4T4Z.dpuf

Proof that the Wind Industry and Gov’t Know That Wind Turbines Decrease Home Values!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Secret wind farm report into house price blight

The official report at the centre of the Coalition row over renewable energy will disclose for the first time the impact of wind farms on rural house prices, The Telegraph has learned.

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson Photo: REX FEATURES

Peter Dominiczak and Emily Gosden

9:50PM BST 22 Aug 2013

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, has commissioned a consultancy to investigate whether renewable technologies – including wind turbines – lower house prices in the countryside.

Coalition sources said the report is being blocked by officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), run by Ed Davey, a Liberal Democrat, amid fears it will conclude that turbines harm property prices.

Mr Paterson has made clear that he intends to make the document public as soon as it is completed.

On Tuesday, this newspaper disclosed that a report into renewable energy had been commissioned by Mr Paterson’s Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The decision to order the report is said to have caused anger within Mr Davey’s department, which viewed it as encroachment upon its remit.

Mr Davey has strongly denied that anyone in his department is trying to suppress the investigation.

It has emerged that a significant focus of the report will be the financial impact of wind farms upon the value of neighbouring properties.

Opponents of wind farms claim it is “highly likely” that the report will reveal that turbines in rural areas will detract from the value of nearby homes.

The consultancy company, Frontier Economics, has been asked by Defra to calculate how house prices will be affected by a series of energy projects across Britain. It has been asked to look at onshore and offshore wind, overhead power lines, shale gas, anaerobic digestion plants and nuclear power plants.

The remit of the report states that it “aims to determine whether [energy projects] have a significant impact on the prices of houses nearby and, if so, compare how that impact differs between different types”.

It will feed into Mr Paterson’s final report on how renewables affect the countryside and the rural economy.

MPs tonight said that Mr Paterson must be allowed to publish his department’s findings.

Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative MP for Daventry, said: “Wind farms definitely affect house prices and it is highly likely that this report will come to that conclusion.

“I would expect there to be billions of pounds of planning blight because of wind turbines close to properties.”

He added: “It’s almost like elements of DECC are acting like a mafia … now you’ve got DECC trying to stick its dirty great footprints all over another department’s work.

“While this is unsurprising, it will all unravel in the end and I’m sure the evidence will come out soon that proves a number of these points correct.”

He said that one of his constituents had seen the value of their £700,000 property fall by £250,000 because of approved plans for a wind turbine.

Glyn Davies, the Conservative MP for Montgomeryshire, said: “I’m expecting this report to find that house prices will be reduced over the country by a measure of billions. It is my view that any unbiased study will show that. What is absolutely crucial is that this report is allowed to come out.” He added: “I can’t see how anyone wouldn’t want the public to know the conclusions – irrespective of what the report says.”

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph today, Mr Davey says: “My department is not blocking a Defra report on the impact of wind farms.

“The Government is committed to moving to a secure, affordable, low carbon energy system, without excessively relying on any single technology.

“So, this cross-government study will look at maximising the benefits and minimising the negative impacts of all technologies, including shale gas and nuclear.”

Details of the study, the first major review of renewables and their impact on house prices, were disclosed in The ENDS Report , an environmental policy magazine. A spokesman for Defra said: “It is our role to rural-proof policy. We need to ensure that energy is generated in a way that is sustainable. Sustainability includes the economic as well as social and environmental impacts.”

Jennifer Webber, of RenewableUK, said: “All the expert academic research published in this country and abroad over the last few years shows there’s no conclusive evidence to suggest that wind farms affect house prices.”

The dispute between Defra and DECC comes after a series of Coalition rows over wind farms. Mr Davey last year slapped down a former Conservative energy minister, John Hayes, after he said the spread of wind farms across the countryside would be brought to a halt.

David Cameron this month said people should not “expect to see a lot more wind power onshore in the UK” and that there was a “limited potential for onshore wind”.

Agenda 21, and How it Affects Rural Ontario! A MUST-READ!

/ 1957chev / 2 Comments

Rural Ontario is certainly in the throes of a “correction”.

http://cherylgallant.com/2014/08/28/report-parliament-9/

Report from Parliament

August 28, 2014

I hope everyone had an enjoyable summer. Thank-you to all who attended the various constituency clinics that have been held throughout our Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke riding. Whether it was just to drop by and say hi, or to share an interest or concern, I appreciate the opportunity of you letting me know what is on your mind.

After the high cost of electricity, one of the issues that has arisen as a topic of concern is the public move by the City of Ottawa to petition the province to use its legislation to restrict growth in places like Renfrew County. That could mean no more provincial funding for roads, sewers, hospitals and other infrastructure renewal. Without infrastructure renewal, employment opportunities would leave as would residents who need services, and particularly our young people who need jobs. It has been suggested this is a result of “Agenda 21”, a United Nations’ policy the provincial government has adopted in an extreme form. This radicalized environmental version is now being pushed in Ottawa by the same liberal advisors behind the so-called “Green Energy Act” that has meant crippling electricity prices, resulting in high provincial unemployment and energy poverty.

In 2005, the liberal government in Ontario passed legislation called the “Places to Grow Act” to align its land use/planning codes and government policies to United Nations Agenda 21. Like many ideas that may sound good on paper, when it comes to implementation by individuals with no real-world experience, these ideas can become dangerous.

While many people support the United Nations for its ‘peacekeeping’ efforts, hardly anyone knows the organization has very specific land use policies they would like to see implemented in every village, town, city, county, province and nation.  The specific plan is called United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, which has its basis in Communitarianism.  Most Canadians have heard of sustainable development, but are largely unaware of the U.N. initiative Agenda 21. A non-governmental organization headquartered in Toronto called theInternational Council of Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI, is tasked with carrying out the goals of Agenda 21 worldwide.

In a nutshell, the plan calls for government to eventually take control of all land use removing decision making from the hands of private property owners.  It is assumed people are not good stewards of their land and “the government” will do a better job if it is in total control.  Individual rights in general are to give way to the needs of communities as determined by the governing body.

Human habitation, as it is referred to in Agenda 21, would be restricted to lands within the “Urban Growth Boundaries” of a city like Ottawa.  Only certain building designs are permitted.  Opponents of Agenda 21 also assert that rural property could be more and more restricted in what uses can be done on it.  The provincial government says it will support agricultural uses, eating locally produced food, and farmer’s markets, etc. In fact there are so many regulations restricting water and land use (there are scenic corridors, inland rural corridors, baylands corridors, area plans, specific plans, redevelopment plans, tree-cutting by-laws, endangered species legislation, huge fees, fines, etc.) that small farmers and rural landowners are struggling to keep their lands altogether.  County roads will not get paved. The push will be for people to get off of the land, become more dependent, and go into the cities.  People will have to move from private homes and into single dwellings like apartments, as homeownership will become largely unaffordable the way it is in many urban areas like Toronto today. More extreme measures like a federal liberal carbon tax will force people out of private cars and onto public transit that only exists in cities.

U.N. Agenda 21 proponents cite the affluence of North Americans as being a major problem which needs to be corrected. The document calls for a redistribution of wealth, lowering the standard of living for Canadians so that maybe the people in poorer countries will have more.  Although people around the world aspire to achieve the levels of prosperity we have in our country, and will risk their lives to get here, North Americans are cast in a very negative light for our energy consumption. Agenda 21 aims to reduce Canadians to a condition closer to average in the world.  Only then, say the promoters of Agenda 21, will there be their social justice which is the so-called cornerstone of the U.N. Agenda 21 plan.

I am pleased to thank members of County Council who are voicing their opposition to provisions of the “Places to Grow Act” ‘Agenda 21-type’ provincial legislation, and against the City of Ottawa’s position,  standing up for the people of Renfrew County. As your Federal Member of Parliament, I will oppose any effort by the liberal party in Ontario to redirect Federal Infrastructure funding away from rural or small town communities the way it takes provincial gas taxes away from rural drivers to pay for Toronto’s subways.

With your support and encouragement, I will continue to expose the hidden agenda of the merged liberal party of Toronto in Ottawa. They have condemned our children to a lifetime of debt repayment by promoting wacky social experiments like Agenda 21, the Places to Grow, Green Energy Acts and similar misguided policies.

Mike Barnard…..Windweasel – EXPOSED! A Paid Shill for the Wind Industry.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Mike Barnard’s disreputable wind industry propagandist role revealed

J A Rovensky

Vicious, grossly inaccurate and sometimes defamatory attacks on professionals and researchers are relentless from the wind industry and its vocal cheer squad. Their targets include individuals such as Dr Nina Pierpont, Professor Bob McMurtry, Dr Michael Nissenbaum, Dr Sarah Laurie, Mr Steven Cooper, Professor Colin Hansen, Mr Les Huson, Mr Rick James and numerous others, who work to uncover the truth of reported acoustic emission related adverse health impacts linked to Industrial Wind Turbines.

One of the most prolific and virulent is someone called Mike Barnard, an IBM employee. It seems he began his attacks when living in Canada, and is now physically located in Singapore. Whilst Barnard claims to be operating independently of his employer, IBM, the amount of time he spends blogging on wind power and smart grid related issues, and the business connections IBM have with the renewables industry with respect to smart grid technology and renewable energy, make his assertion that IBM are not involved and supporting his activities questionable.

When one of Barnard’s cyber bullying victims informed him what he’d written was libellous, Barnard’s comment in response was to the effect that he was laughing at them because he was untouchable by living in Singapore and utilising free blogging software in a “Cloud”? IBM has a strict policy on cyberbullying, and has been specifically made aware of Barnard’s activities. What action has IBM taken to discipline their vocal employee, who is bringing their organisation into considerable international disrepute with his behaviour?

So who is Mike Barnard, and what are his professional qualifications? On Barnard’s personal blog site he states he became interested in blogging on energy concerns several years ago, and this led:

to significant contacts, research and writing related to wind energy and its myriad societal and commercial interconnections, including the electrical grid, wind energy innovations, social license, health, noise and legal aspects.[1]

In a response to comment on one of his blogs he responded with:

For a little context on my background, I was the Business Architect responsible for delivery of the world’s first full public health surveillance system for communicable diseases, … funded by the Canadian government …

On his blog site introduction he states:

IBM was engaged to build the major technical solution which automated management of communicable disease and public health surveillance.

This related to Canada. He goes on to state he:

joined the program in the late 2000’s as the business architect, responsible for understanding policy, epidemiology and other business drivers and balancing them with what was pragmatically possible …

IBM was contracted in 2006 to design a system to be completed in 2007. They completed the design of the program in 2008, but in June 2013 the Canadian Medical Association Journal : Journal de l’Association medicale canadienne (CMAJ:JAMC) published an article which reported since then progress had been delayed because of numerous technical problems and confusion among provinces and little had been heard of the program since, “The concept has gone almost nowhere” [2].

Barnard continues to inform us how he has read through health studies and reviews related to wind power from around the world and claims:

constant and deep access and conversations related to public health management, epidemiology and the nature of medical evidence … That experience and on-the-job education has been invaluable as I’ve read through health studies and reviews related to wind power from around the world …

This has apparently also led to

recognition of my expertise … I’m pleased to say that my material is helping to shape legal defences of wind energy, advocacy programs and investments in several countries.

In addition in 2013 he was assigning a blog “debate” relating to bird flight paths through a proposed Wind Turbine site, as being his impetus to start collecting material, and creating his own personal blog saying:

A few years ago I started down a road that has led to an unexpected place.

However, blogs can be found from him on energy from around 2010 [3], his voyage into health issues seems to have begun around 2012 when he attacked Dr Nina Pierpont and Dr Nissenbaum. Barnard has been involved in blogging on wind energy issues for some time, and he considers himself to be an integral part of the wind industry’s product defence strategy, which is certainly consistent with his behaviour. This is also consistent with how he is perceived by others who are also actively engaged in the same dishonest activities of denying the known adverse health impacts of wind turbine acoustic emissions; known to the wind industry and acousticians to cause damage to health via “annoyance” symptoms including sleep disturbance and body vibrations for nearly thirty years, since the work undertaken by Dr Neil Kelley et al in collaboration with NASA and a number of research organisations and wind turbine manufacturers.

The list of “publications” following these claims relate to blog sites and/or websites which are sites supporting Renewable Energy production and blogs which repeat the misinformation. They are not peer reviewed journal articles, nor has Mr Barnard been qualified to give expert evidence in any jurisdiction on wind turbine health and noise issues.

Barnard proudly displays a list of his 50 “Skills and Expertise” which includes “Wind Energy and Health”. None of the others cover any medical or health skill or expertise, and it hasn’t been possible to locate any medical or health related training or degree, or indeed any other relevant technical, professional or academic qualifications he has achieved with direct relevance to wind turbine noise or health, as he does not provide details of them. This suggests that Mr Barnard does not have that relevant professional background, academic training or expertise.

Just what is Mr Barnard’s specific expertise in this area?

Throughout Barnard’s blogging career he has concentrated on castigating, defaming and ridiculing those who do have qualifications, research and/or authorships, and who are demonstrably independent of the wind industry and from those who benefit financially from its operations.

One person in particular he’s taken aim at is Dr Sarah Laurie from South Australia, who is the CEO of the Waubra Foundation. The Waubra Foundation was established to facilitate independent multidisciplinary research into the impacts of infrasound and low frequency noise and vibration on human health. Wind turbine noise is just one source of noise the Foundation is concerned with.

Dr Sarah Laurie is a fully trained and qualified doctor, with clinical experience as a highly regarded rural General Practitioner, but she is not currently registered to practice medicine because of personal and family health issues and caring responsibilities. In Australia, it is a requirement that to practice medicine, you must be currently registered with the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA). Dr Laurie is not currently practising medicine with her current work as CEO of the Waubra Foundation. She is not seeing patients, she is not diagnosing conditions, and she is not prescribing medicine. She is listening carefully to what people adversely impacted by environmental noise tell her about their health problems, and the diagnoses their treating health practitioners have given them, if they choose to share that information with her.

Claims made by Mr Barnard (and others working with the wind industry such as Infigen Employee Laura Dunphy, and VESTAS employee Ken McAlpine) that she is deregistered are deliberately false. Implying that she has been “struck off” for professional misconduct is just one example of Barnard’s regular defamatory utterances, which are then repeated by others. Further his claims that she was “forced” to stop using the title of Doctor are also false. Mr Barnard continually deliberately misleads his readers with such comments and is clearly disinterested in the truth.

Because of a spurious complaint to the regulatory authority that she was “practising medicine whilst being unregistered” Dr Laurie voluntarily offered to AHPRA not to use the title “Dr” which retired or non-practising doctors are legally entitled to do in Australia, because she did not wish to mislead anyone about her current non registered status in her work with the Waubra Foundation. There had been no complaints to AHPRA from anyone who Sarah had interacted with that she had misled them as she had always been careful to ensure that anyone contacting her directly for information about their own circumstances was well aware of her current unregistered status. Indeed anyone with any awareness of this issue would be well aware of her current unregistered status because of the wide and frequent publicity this issue was given by the wind industry and its vocal supporters, particularly Professor Simon Chapman, the ABC and Fairfax media.

There is no restriction on anyone else referring to her as “Dr”, nor is there a restriction on her using the title if she was not performing her role as the Waubra Foundation CEO. AHPRA staff expressed their gratitude to her for this offer not to use the title “Dr”, which they accepted, with the proviso that when she reregistered to practice she would resume using the title “Dr”.

This issue was specifically clarified in the Environmental Review Tribunal Decision: Bovaird v. Director, Ministry of the Environment where the judgment stated the following:

The Tribunal finds that this evidence supports Ms. Laurie’s assertion that the AHPRA did not make any finding in respect of the complaint made against her.

Why did Mike Barnard ignore this finding of the Tribunal?

It is clear that he did not mention it because his intent was to deliberately smear Dr Laurie’s professional and personal reputation. It is also clear that the original widely publicised complaint to the NHMRC and AHPRA alleging professional and research misconduct, was done for precisely the same reasons by those within public health and wind industry circles in Australia who were unhappy with the attention the issue of health damage from wind turbine noise was attracting.

Those involved in this sordid episode include senior people in the ranks of public health bodies in Australia, including the Public Health Association of Australia, whose CEO, Michael Moore made the complaint, and whose computer created the defamatory “anonymous” allegation document. Mr Moore has since apologised to Dr Laurie, and the NHMRC CEO Professor Warwick Anderson has also apologised for the NHMRC’s behaviour towards Dr Laurie in a letter to the Chair of the Waubra Foundation, Peter Mitchell. The NHMRC unnamed “spokesperson” had leaked information about the allegations to crikey journalist Amber Jamieson, specifically naming Dr Laurie. Others such as Professor Simon Chapman have admitted they “saw a draft” of the defamatory allegations document, and Infigen Energy’s propagandist Ketan Joshi is uncharacteristically silent when challenged by others on various blog sites about his knowledge and involvement in the production and distribution of this defamatory document. The format of the document was remarkably similar to the way Infigen energy prepares their responses to issues raised by objectors to their environmental assessments.

Among Dr Laurie’s credentials are her positions as a former Examiner for the Australian College of General Practitioners, a former Mid-North Division of General Practice representative and former member of the regional Mental Health Advisory Committee. She was a provider of pro bono services to the local Aboriginal community and a cofounder of the regional Rape and Sexual Assault service. She also undertook emergency care work at the local rural hospital as a visiting medical officer, in addition to her role as an employee, associate and then partner in a local medical practice.

These credentials are not confidential, and are available to Mr Barnard and anyone else who wishes to ascertain her qualifications, just by looking at the Waubra Foundation website [4], and reading the speech given in the Australian Federal Parliament about this matter, by the former Member for Hume, Alby Schultz [5].

Dr Laurie states clearly she has no expertise in acoustics, but does consult regularly and collaborates closely with those who are acousticians, to help ensure she understands what she needs to in relation to exposure levels of infrasound, audible noise and vibration and correlations with reported health symptoms. She also repeats constantly she does not undertake and is not trained to do research in an academic manner, but is actively facilitating the research being conducted by others. What she goes to great pains to explain is that she listens very carefully to the symptoms people living near environmental noise experience themselves and then try and describe. This is a core skill required by rural general practitioners, something she was specifically trained to do and was particularly skilled at. Rural doctors need excellent diagnostic skills, most of which is dependent on taking a very careful clinical history, as they do not have the luxury of specialists “next door” and easy and rapid access to a range of diagnostic facilities which city counterparts take for granted.

Dr Laurie then collects and collates pieces of information given to her by people reporting changes to their health after wind turbines and other industrial noise sources begin operating in their vicinity, looking for similarities and patterns which give important clues as to direct causation. Occasionally people provide her with some of their medical records and other health data, which is kept confidential unless the person concerned gives their permission for the information to be out in the public domain, or the information has already been reported publicly in the media or in oral or written testimony to courts, tribunals, and parliamentary inquiries.

Dr Laurie always maintains confidentiality, even when under significant and very public pressure from others demanding she release information to them for their research. One example is the repeated private and public harassment from Professor Simon Chapman, Professor of Public Health at Sydney University, and Expert Adviser to the Climate and Health Alliance, to release the names of residents forced to leave their homes and other details such as locations of their abandoned homes [6]. Much of that information had been provided to her in confidence, and some of the information could have caused significant harm to the people concerned – for example because of non-disclosure clauses in legal documents signed by people providing the information, or by their close relations. Others requested privacy because of concerns about property damage, burglary or arson to unoccupied homes. It has subsequently emerged from inquiries made by Senator Madigan’s staff, that at the time Professor Chapman conducted his inquiries, he did not have in place prior ethics committee approvals from the Sydney University Ethics Committee. Requests for information were made directly to wind turbine noise affected residents, causing them considerable distress.

Whatever the Bovaird ERT Tribunal said in Ontario, Dr Laurie cannot be objectively considered as having been “diagnosing” patients since she ceased practicing.

Examination of information consisting of health issues diagnosed by treating physicians and discussing this information with the informants does not constitute “making a diagnosis”, which is a process requiring a thorough clinical evaluation by a treating health practitioner. What Dr Laurie did in the Boviard case is no different to what she has done elsewhere, and can only be considered as evaluating the combination of specific individual clinical circumstances with respect to the available research evidence and clinical knowledge. That was precisely what Dr Laurie had been asked to do. She was not asked to diagnose patients, nor would she have done so, as she is well aware of the appropriate constraints on such activities for those who are not currently registered to practice medicine.

Irrespective of the Environment Review Tribunal’s questionable determination in the Boviard case, which is consistent with other questionable decisions made by the same Tribunal resulting in many rural Ontarians being harmed by wind turbine noise because of unsafe and continuing wind turbine development approvals, it is logically impossible for anyone to diagnose someone “before” they have symptoms.

Identifying that some people who have one or more acknowledged risk factors prior to Industrial Wind Turbines beginning to operate provides information about predictable health problems which may ensue with exposure to infrasound and low frequency noise. You don’t have to be a trained doctor or research academic to come to that conclusion, but clearly the knowledge attained from years of study and subsequent clinical practice does put a formerly registered practising medical practitioner in a position where her expertise can be utilised, as an expert witness in this field, without her currently “practising” medicine.

The complete lack of critical thinking used by members of the Ontario Environment Review Tribunal who used such irrational logic to determine whether someone has the ability to offer a hypothesis, is mind boggling at best and disturbingly suggestive of bias at worst.

There are constant references to Dr Laurie not being able to stipulate what distance she determines is a safe distance these turbines should be from people. Dr Laurie consistently states she cannot provide a fixed distance, as there are many variables to be considered and the multi-disciplinary research needs to be undertaken first. After all, not only are turbines becoming larger, and installed in greater numbers in individual projects or through extending existing project many other variables have to be taken into account, such as the geology, wind directions and speed, seasonal changes, temperatures to name some.

Professor Colin Hansen’s research group’s latest acoustic survey at Waterloo Wind Development in South Australia [7] is a good example of the sort of research Dr Laurie has been stating is required for the last four years. That acoustic survey demonstrated that there is indeed a low frequency noise problem for neighbours to Waterloo wind development, and that it can extend out even beyond 8km under certain circumstances.

This is precisely what Dr Laurie stated three years ago; when the Waubra Foundation’s explicit Cautionary Notice was issued on 29th June, 2011. The information which led to the distance of 10km being specified in that document came from adversely impacted residents at Waterloo. Professor Hansen’s team’s research findings have now supported Dr Laurie’s statement in 2011 about the distance of impact and are consistent with the residents’ consistent reports for nearly four years of a low frequency noise problem from the wind turbines at Waterloo, which severely disrupts their sleep.

Much is made by Mr Barnard and others of the “nocebo” effect, whilst they dismiss the existence of “wind turbine syndrome”. However Mr Barnard fails to disclose that British Acoustician Dr Geoff Leventhall specifically acknowledges the existence of the symptoms of wind turbine syndrome, indeed Leventhall stated in June 2011 in a presentation to the National Health and Medical Research Council [8] that he had been familiar with the identical symptoms to WTS which he calls “noise annoyance” for “years”. Leventhall further noted that Dr Nina Pierpont’s contribution to the field of environmental noise was to identify certain risk factors for developing “noise annoyance” symptoms.

For those interested, the presentation and the slide show are available on the NHMRC website, and also on www.wind-watch.org. The relevant slides are slides 42–44, and the footage is between 49 and 52 minutes of the video.

Mr Barnard has also failed to disclose that leading otologist, and Harvard Professor Steven Rauch has recently confirmed that he is seeing patients with the characteristic symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome”. Journalist Alex Halperin had this to say in a recent article [9]:

Dr Steven Rauch, an otologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and a professor at Harvard Medical School, believes WTS is real. Patients who have come to him to discuss WTS suffer from a “very consistent” collection of symptoms, he says. Rauch compares WTS to migraines, adding that people who suffer from migraines are among the most susceptible to turbines. There’s no existing test for either condition but “Nobody questions whether or not migraine is real.”

“The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” Rauch says. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim.”

Mr Barnard also fails to mention the opinions of rural family physicians such as Dr Sandy Reider, from Vermont, who is at the front line of clinical care for those affected by wind turbine noise, that “wind turbine syndrome” is a euphemistic description which does not sufficiently depict the clinical severity of the clinical cases he is seeing [10].

Mr Barnard fails to mention the opinion of Irish Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Colette Bonner, who has also publicly acknowledged the existence of “wind turbine syndrome” and said that those affected need to be treated with understanding. A recent media report from Ireland stated the following [11]:

The Department of Health’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Colette Bonner, has said that older people, people who suffer from migraine, and others with a sensitivity to low-frequency vibration, are some of those who can be at risk of “wind turbine syndrome”.

“These people must be treated appropriately and sensitively as these symptoms can be very debilitating,” she commented in a report to the Department of the Environment last year.”

Mr Barnard, and those whose commercial interests he is working so hard to protect, is involved in a grubby, dishonest, misinformation and vilification campaign, as part of a global defence strategy for the global wind industry. This industry has been well aware of the problems directly caused by wind turbine noise since 1987, when Dr Neil Kelley’s research [12] establishing direct causation of annoyance symptoms from infrasound and low frequency noise was presented at the American Wind Energy Association conference.

Mr Barnard and his associates’ behaviour is further eroding the personal and professional reputations of all those involved, and eroding the reputations of the companies and organisations they work for, including in this instance IBM.

However, perhaps more importantly Mr Barnard’s behaviour is further eroding the public’s confidence in the global wind industry and its social licence to operate. Such tactics in Australia will only result in the lessening of political and public support for the large subsidies from electrical consumers which are required to keep the wind industry operating.

As Professor Ross McKitrick from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, recently pointed out, the wind industry runs on subsidies [13]. Without the support of the public who are funding the wind industry via their mounting electricity bills, and the politicians responsible for the legislation which forces the subsidies to be collected directly from the public, the wind industry in Australia and elsewhere around the world is doomed – a fitting consequence for such a dishonest and health damaging industry which has shattered the lives of too many rural residents and their families for too long.

It’s time, as a growing number of professionals and researchers are openly saying, for the wind industry to accept the problem, and work to eliminate it. “Shooting the professional messengers” as the Energy and Policy Institute publication by Barnard [14] has tried to do, will not stop the litigation for noise nuisance, negligence against complicit acousticians, or applications for injunctions to cease the operation of turbines, and will only further reduce the diminishing social licence for the wind industry to operate.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.barnardonwind.com

2. CMAJ 2013. DOI:10.1503/cmaj.109-4450 June 11 2013. National electronic disease surveillance: a dream delayed

3. http://www.umrscblogs.org.

4. http://www.waubrafoundation.com.au

5. http://www.stopthesethings.com May 31, 2013, Schultz Slams Simon Chapman and Mauls Michael Moore in the Big House on the Hill.

6. http://www.reneweconomu.com.au by Simon Chapman, Where are Australia’s wind farm refugees, by Simon Chapman. 3 October 2013 and Abandoning homes due to wind farm : the deep fragrance of factoid. 25 July 2014

7. Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamesek and Colin Hansen, Noise Monitoring in the vicinity of the Waterloo Wind Farm. School of Mechanical Engineering, University of Adelaide, May 2014

8. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au Leventhalls June 2011 NHMRC presentation, Wind Farms and Human Health Scientific Forum, 7 June 2011

9. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118138/big-wind-is-better-than-big-oil- by Alex Halperin, June 15, 2014

10. http://www.waubrafoundation.com.au Dr Sandy Reider, Testimony, Wind Noise & Adverse Health Effects PBS Hearing July 29, 2914: Wind Noise and Adverse Health Effects

11. http://www.waubrafoundation.com/2014/i-need-protect-my-child-from-wind-farms Credit: by Celine Naughton/Irish Independent/ Published 9 June 2014

12. Kelly, et al, 1898, Acoustic Noise Associated with the MOD 1 Wind Turbine. Solar Energy Research Institute, Feb 1985

13. http://www.stopthesethings.com Professor Ross McKitrick: Wind Turbines don’t run on wind, they run on subsidies, August 31 2014.

14. http://www.energyandpolicy.org Wind Health Impacts Dismissed in Court, Authors: Gabe Elsner and Matt Kasper, Forward Simon Chapman, August 2014.

Additional References:

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/shepherd-k-hubbard-h-noise-radiation-characteristics- westinghouse-wwg-0600-wind-turbine-generator/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/swinbanks-m-nasa-langley-wind-turbine-noise-research/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/moller-pedersen-low-frequency-noise-from-large-wind- turbines/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/falmouth-mass-judge-muse-decision-shut-down-wind- turbines-causingirreparable-harm/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/judgement-erikson-v-min-environment-suncor-kent-breeze- case/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/cherry-tree-wind-farm-vcat-heating/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/vcat-cherry-tree-wind-farm-hearing-orders/
http://waubrafoundation.org.au NSW Planning Assessment Commission concerning Gullen Range Wind Development. 5 September 2014
https://www.wind-watch.org

Climate Alarmists are Not to be Taken Seriously! They are Scammers!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

An economist’s bad climate advice

 

You are here: Home › All Posts › An economist’s bad climate advice

  • CO2_fraud

September 7, 2014 by , 

If I need my car repaired, I do not take it to a dentist. If I am seeking advice about the climate I check out what climatologists and meteorologists are saying, at least those who have not sold their souls to the global warming/climate change hoax.

On September 3rd,  The Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Edward P. Lazeartitled “The Climate Change Agenda Needs to Adapt to Reality: Limiting carbon emissions won’t work. Better to begin adjusting to a warming world.”

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! It’s cooling, not warming.

Apparently Mr. Lazear is unaware that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years. A visit to

Edward P. Lazear

www.climatedepot.com or a subscription to the Heartland Institute’s monthly Climate & Environmental News or a copy of its policy studies, “Climate Change Reconsidered”, would help him understand why he’s wrong. Check out www.climatechangedispatch.com as well for the latest commentaries.

Perhaps his error should be forgiven because Mr. Lazear is an economist. He was the chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors (2006-09) and head of the White House Committee on the Economics of Climate Change (2007-08). Presently he is a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.

He’s not a fool, but like a lot of academics who lack a background in science, he has been fooled by the legion of global warming/climate change charlatans from Al Gore through the ranks of organizations such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that depend on maintaining the hoax.

Mr. Lazear has fallen for the greatest lie ever; the assertion that greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, are warming the Earth. The hoaxers are calling the past seventeen years “a pause” in warming, but it is actually an indicator that the Earth is on the cusp of the next ice age. The period in between ice ages is calculated at 11,500 years and we are at the end of the current interglacial period.

“The Obama administration is instituting a variety of far-reaching policies to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate climate change. Are any of these capable of making a difference?” asked Mr. Lazear. “Simple arithmetic suggests not.” Up to this point I was very pleased with his conclusion, but then he wrote “Given this reality, we would be wise to consider strategies that complement and may be more effective than mitigation—namely, adaptation.”

Humans have been adapting to the climate—the weather—since they emerged as homo sapiens about 195,000 years ago.

What Mr. Lazear wants the U.S, to do is limit “carbon emissions” but admits that “The economics also work against a major transformation in the technology of producing power, either mobile or stationary. Coal is cheap. Natural gas is becoming even cheaper.”

The primary flaw in his commentary is simply that more carbon dioxide is a good thing. As the primary gas utilized by all vegetation, more means greater crop yields and healthier forests. What carbon dioxide doesn’t do is “trap” heat long enough to lower the Earth’s temperature. It represents a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.

The Earth is not a greenhouse with a glass roof. The amount of heat in the atmosphere is totally dependent on the amount of heat the Sun produces. In its current cycle, it is producing less.

“Carbon math,” wrote Mr. Lazear, “makes clear that without major effort and a good bit of luck, we are unlikely to control the growth of emissions enough to meet the standards that many climate scientists suggest are necessary.” Those scientists are usually on college or university faculties where securing federal and other grants to study a warming that is not occurring leads to urging limits on carbon dioxide. Others are just huge liars who, like Al Gore, have been making predictions of warming that have not and are not coming true.

There’s another reason why there will be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It involves two of the most swiftly developing nations in the world, China and India, both of whom are building coal-fired plants to generate electricity as fast as they can. This is happening while the Environmental Protection Agency has been engaged in an all-out war on coal that has closed several hundred U.S. plants. If an especially cold winter occurs, the demand for electricity to warm homes and other facilities may overload a system that has been diminished in scope.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the driving force behind the global united-nations-building-1-1106992-mwarming hoax. It is holding a climate change summit on September 23. Guess who won’t be attending? Chinese president Xi Jinping, India’s prime minister, Narenda Modi, and for good measure, Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel. Others whose leaders will not be attending include Canada, Japan, and Russia.

In typical fashion, always predicting climate conditions decades from now, the United Nations, according to a report in The Guardian, “is warning of floods, storms and searing heat from Arizona to Zambia within four decades, as part of a series of imagined weather forecasts” to publicize the climate summit.

All of the forecasts made by a legion of climate charlatans in the 1980s and 1990s turned out to be WRONG.

You cannot trust the UN’s World Meteorological Organization which like the IPCC is just part of a vast matrix of groups that have been so severely corrupted by the global warming/climate change hoax that one must exercise caution when hearing its forecasts. If they are for anything beyond two weeks hence, you would be wise to be dubious.

Mr. Lazear is just one of many, often with distinguished careers in other fields than meteorology or climatology, who have bought into the hoax and who declaim the need to reduce carbon dioxide. He’s wrong. The others are wrong.

And you need to educate yourself to avoid being afflicted by various government policies intended to advance the hoax. To start with, do not vote for any politician who talks of global warming/climate change or uses the term “sustainability.”

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/07/an-economists-bad-climate-advice/#sthash.Pkjvx1cg.dpuf

STOP lying about the 97% Consensus! It’s FRAUD!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Press Release 08/09/14

New Paper: Fraud, Bias &

Public Relations

Claims of 97% Consensus are based

on research described as fraudulent

and biased 
 

London, 8 September: A new briefing note published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation examines claims made by a great many commentators across the world, including President Obama and Ed Davey, of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. These depend on research that has been subject to public and entirely unrebutted allegations that it is fraudulent.

Although the authors of the research claim to have shown that most climate change papers accept that mankind is responsible for the majority of recent warming, in fact the underlying study shows no such thing.

One senior climatologist described the paper as ‘poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed’. Another researcher called it ‘completely invalid and untrustworthy’, adding that there was evidence of scientific fraud.

Andrew Montford, the author of the paper, said: “It has now been shown beyond doubt that the claims of a 97% consensus on climate change are at best misleading, perhaps grossly so, and possibly deliberately so. It’s high time policymakers stopped citing this appalling study.”

Full paper (pdf) – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics

Contacts

Andrew Montford
e: awmontford@gmail.com 

Dr Benny Peiser
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
e: benny.peiser@thegwpf.org 

Wind Turbines Increase the Amount of CO2 Being Produced to Make Electricity!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Why Intermittent Wind Power Increases CO2 Emissions in the Electricity Sector

September 7, 2014 by  

lies

The central, endlessly repeated lie (upon which the great wind power fraud rests) is that increasing wind power generation results in decreases in CO2 emissions.

In Australia, the central object of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is for “renewable” energy to “reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector” (see s3). But, somewhere along the way, what was a CO2 abatement scheme became an industry subsidy scheme which is nothing short of “corporate welfare on steroids” (see our post here).

At no point since that legislation took effect over 13 years ago has the wind industry provided any actual proof that it has in fact reduced CO2 emissions in the electricity sector. When we talk about “proof” we’re not talking about smoke and mirrors “modelling” based on long-term average wind farm output – which ignores the extra gas and coal being burnt (and wasted) in order to balance the grid to account for wild fluctuations in wind power output (see our post here); and to maintain additional “spinning reserve” (see our post here) to account for complete collapses in wind power output – as seen in this post.

As we have pointed out just once or twice – the need for 100% of wind power capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources means that wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and hereand here and here and here and here and here).

E.ON operates numerous transmission grids in Germany and, therefore, has the unenviable task of being forced to integrate the wildly fluctuating and unpredictable output from wind power generators, while trying to keep the German grid from collapsing (E.ON sets out a number of the headaches caused by intermittent wind power in the Summary of this paper at page 4). Dealing with the fantasy that wind power is an alternative to conventional generation sources, E.ON says:

“Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent. Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online [and burning fuel] in order to guarantee power supply at all times.”

STT is happy to go all out and say that in Australia wind power requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by conventional generation sources. As just one recent example, on 3 consecutive days (20, 21 and 22 July 2014) the total output from all of the wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid (total capacity of 2,952 MW – and spread over 4 states, SA, Victoria, Tasmania and NSW) was a derisory 20 MW (or 0.67% of installed capacity) for hours on end (see our post here). The 99.33% of wind power output that went AWOL for hours (at various times, 3 days straight) was, instead, all supplied by conventional generators; the vast bulk of which came from coal and gas plants, with the balance coming from hydro.

For wind power to reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector it has be a true “substitute” for conventional generation sources. Because it can’t be delivered “on-demand” (can’t be stored) and is only “available” at crazy, random intervals (if at all) wind power will never be a substitute for conventional generation sources (see our post here).

Perhaps the reason that the wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence to show that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in Australia’s electricity sector is simply because it can’t. Running counter to wind industry claims about wind power abating CO2 emissions, the result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; this American article and this Dutch study here).

This American study details just why increasing wind power capacity – and trying to incorporate its wildly fluctuating output into a coal and gas fired grid – results in increased CO2 emissions across the electricity sector.

Wind Integration vs. Air Emission Reductions: A Primer for Policymakers
Master Resource
Mary Hutzler
24 June 2010

Many claim that wind generation is beneficial because it reduces pollution emissions and does not emit carbon dioxide. This isn’t necessarily the case. The following article explains a phenomena called cycling where the introduction of wind power into a generation system that uses carbon technologies to back-up the wind actually reduces the energy efficiency of the carbon technologies. Recent studies with actual data have estimated the impact of cycling on air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions.

Energy modelers evaluating the impact of legislation such as Senator Bingaman’s American Clean Energy Leadership Act and the American Power Act proposed by Senators Kerry and Lieberman should take note for their models most likely are underestimating the cost of compliance by incorrectly modeling the integration of wind power into the electricity grid.

Wind is not a new technology. It was one of our principal sources of energy, along with wood and water, prior to the carbon era. But the use of renewables in the pre-carbon age was very different from the current use of renewables. Today, people rely on energy being available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, regardless of whether the sun shines, the wind blows, or there are high or low water levels.  We now have over 1,000 gigawatts of generating plants[1], and a large and elaborate electrical grid that requires great coordination among system operators to avoid disruptions.

Also, in the pre-carbon energy era, when renewables were the sole source of energy, there were no coal-fired or natural-gas fired power plants to provide back-up power. Studies have found that the efficiency of those carbon-based plants is affected by incorporating wind energy into the system. When a plant’s efficiency is reduced, its fuel consumption and emissions increase, causing unintended consequences that wind proponents do not disclose. Requiring even larger amounts of renewable energy through renewable portfolio standards will only exacerbate this problem.

Picture1

Background

Our various electricity generating technologies were designed and constructed to meet electricity demand based on their best operating characteristics for meeting portions of the electricity load duration curve. The load duration curve illustrates periods of constant demand that are served by base-load power versus periods of intermediate and peak demand. Owing to their high capital cost, low fuel cost, and high capacity factors, technologies such as coal and nuclear were designed to operate continuously to meet the base-load demand component. Owing to their lower capital costs but higher fuel costs, natural gas technologies, including combined-cycle and turbine plants, were designed to meet intermediate and peak electrical load.

Wind is an intermittent technology since it can generate power only when the wind blows. Its low operating cost (with no fuel component) and the mandates of state Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) make it practically a “must take” technology for system operators. RPSs require that a certain amount of electricity generation be produced by renewable fuels. The renewable target mandates tend to start out low but increase over time, with those of most RPS states reaching 15 to 30 percent by 2020 or 2025.[2] Wind tends to be the primary technology for meeting RPS targets, since it is lower in capital cost than solar, thermal, and photovoltaic technologies, the other politically acceptable “green” technologies.

Part of the rationale for introducing RPSs is that the substitution of “green” technologies for carbon technologies is supposed to reduce pollution emissions as well as carbon dioxide emissions. However, studies have shown that this may not be the case. As conventional generation (coal or natural gas) is reduced to make room for wind generation and is then increased as wind generation subsides, its heat rate rises. The heat rate is a measure of a generating station’s thermal efficiency commonly stated in units of Btu per kilowatt-hour. This reduction in efficiency  increases its fuel consumption and emissions. When sudden increases or decreases occur in generation output, it is referred to as “cycling”.

The Bentek Study

Bentek did a study of the results of integrating wind into the generation mix of the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO), using data from the company’s financial reports, the Energy Information Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.[3] PSCO is a largely coal-fired utility with 3,764 megawatts of coal-fired generators, 3,236 megawatts of gas-fired combined-cycle and gas turbine capacity, 405 megawatts of hydro and pumped storage capacity, and 1,064 megawatts of wind generators. Colorado has an RPS that required 3 percent of the electricity generated by investor-owned utilities come from qualifying renewable technologies by 2007, and 30 percent by 2020.[4]

Colorado’s energy demand is highest during the day, peaking in late afternoon or early evening. Wind generation, however, is greatest between the hours of 9 pm and 5 am; it cannot be counted on to provide power when most needed, and so is used when available to meet the RPS. Most of the time that wind generation is available, it backs out (or replaces) natural gas. However, there are times when coal generation, which provides over 50 percent of PSCO’s base-load generation, is backed out to make room for the wind generation. When this happens, coal generation is cycled, causing its heat rate to increase and resulting in more fuel consumption and emissions. In PSCO, coal cycling predominates because of the low amount of gas generation in the system since most of its gas-fired generation is from turbines and because wind is strongest at night when coal use is even more pronounced.

Picture2

In the Denver non-attainment area, PSCO has 4 coal-fired plants: Arapahoe, Valmont, Pawnee, and Cherokee. Between 2006 and 2009, these coal-fired plants have experienced higher emissions rates ranging from 17 to 172 percent higher for sulfur dioxide, 0 to 9 percent higher for nitrous oxide, and 0 to 9 percent higher for carbon dioxide. In 2008, Cherokee even switched to a lower sulfur coal, but still ended up with sulfur dioxide emissions higher by 18 percent. And, between 2006 and 2009, these plants reduced their generation by over 37 percent, exacerbating further the increase in emissions.

Because the PSCO data are limited, Bentek checked their results against data from the Energy Reliability Council of Texas, whose utilities are required to report generation levels by fuel every 15 minutes. Texas has the most wind capacity in the country—over 9,500 megawatts.[5] Texas also has an RPS that was instituted during George W. Bush’s governorship and that pushed Texas ahead of California in wind capacity during 2006. The Texas renewable portfolio standard requires that utilities have 5,880 megawatts of renewable capacity by 2015, including a target of 500 megawatts of renewable-energy capacity from resources other than wind. The legislation also set a target of reaching 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2025, although it will be exceeded much earlier.[6] However, even in Texas, which has a large natural gas–fired capacity base, with over 40 percent of its generation being natural gas-fired,[7] coal-fired generation is cycled as is shown in the graph below.

Picture3

Another benefit that wind power generators get is that their forecast power generation entails no penalty if it is not available. Other generators must provide their own back-up power if their generation is suddenly unavailable. But the owners of wind generators believe that they can’t be held accountable for whether the wind blows and thus for inaccuracies in their forecasting capability. For example, on February 26, 2008, a cold front moved through West Texas and rendered wind’s output 1,000 megawatts less than promised, and that unexpectedly had to be made up by other generating technologies.[8] Only careful and extensive coordination, such as was carried out in West Texas on that cold February day, can prevent brown outs and black outs from occurring.

The Netherlands Experience[9]

Two researchers, C. le Pair and K. de Groot, found that the Netherlands government was overestimating the amount of carbon dioxide reductions associated with wind production. The government was using incorrect data because it did not correct for the reduction in efficiency of the conventional power plants once wind was introduced into the system. Using data provided by CBS, the Dutch Institute for Statistics, the researchers made an estimate of the “turning point” where the efficiency reduction of conventional power plants balances out the fuel savings from wind energy. Using data for 2007, when wind power was at 3 percent, they found the turning point to be at an efficiency reduction of 2 percent based on all the power stations serving the Netherlands. That is, when the efficiency of the back-up plants was reduced by over 2 percent due to cycling caused by the integration of wind energy into the system, fuel use and emissions of the back-up plants increased.

Heat Rate Simulations

An engineer, Kent Hawkins, evaluated several heat rate simulations to represent cycling of the plants when wind is introduced into the system.[10] One set of simulations evaluates wind energy replacing coal power with different technologies serving as the back-up power to wind, in order to evaluate their effect on fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions. He found that because of cycling, carbon dioxide emissions increase with the incorporation of wind energy if coal is the sole back-up power for wind. If coal and gas turbines or gas combined-cycle and gas turbines are used to back up the wind power, carbon dioxide emissions are reduced mainly due to the lower carbon dioxide emissions produced from natural gas generators as compared to coal generators. This is best seen by examining the last bar in the chart below where the lowest carbon dioxide emissions result when natural gas combined-cycle plants are solely used to replace coal.

Picture4

An interesting consequence of this analysis is that certain areas of the world where wind is integrated into a system that is primarily coal-based may result in an increase in total carbon dioxide emissions from using wind in their generating sector. That is, in these circumstances, wind would not be providing an offset in carbon dioxide emissions, but would actually be providing an increase in those emissions. China, for example, relies on coal for 80 percent of its generation and natural gas for only 2 percent.[11] China also added the most wind power of any country in 2009, 13 gigawatts,[12] ranking third in the world in total wind capacity, with the United States first and Germany second.[13] Since China’s wind would primarily be backed up by power from coal-fired generating units, it is no wonder that China’s carbon dioxide emissions increased by 9 percent in 2009.[14]

Conclusion

As more wind units are built and data become available regarding their integration into conventional energy systems, we will learn more about the effects of wind units on the operation of conventional plants. A few studies have been done showing that the effect of wind integration on both fuel consumption and emission reductions can in fact be negative. Further evaluation of our current wind units and their effects on fuel consumption and emissions should be done before increasing the penetration of renewable energy to the 20 and 30 percent levels currently mandated by some state renewable portfolio standards, and before a national renewable portfolio standard is considered for enactment.

[1] Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual,http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p2.html

[2] Institute for Energy Research, Energy Regulation of the States: A Wake-up Call, www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/

[3] Bentek Energy LLC, How Less Became More: Wind, Power and Unintended Consequences in the Colorado Energy Market,http://www.bentekenergy.com/WindCoalandGasStudy.aspx

[4] Institute for Energy Research, Energy Regulation of the States: A Wake-up Call, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/colorado/

[5] American Wind Energy Association,http://www.awea.org/projects/projects.aspx?s=Texas

[6] Institute for Energy Research, Energy Regulation of the States: A Wake-up Call, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/states/texas/

[7] Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, March 2010, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/electricity/epm/02261003.pdf

[8] The Wall Street Journal, Natural Gas Tilts at Windmills in Power Feud, March 2, 2010,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083982637451248.html

[9] The impact of wind generated electricity on fossil fuel consumption, C. le Pair and K. de Groot, http://www.clepair.net/windefficiency.html

[10] Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part V: Calculator Update), Kent Hawkins, February 12, 2010,http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/#more-7271

[11] Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Tables H10, H12, and H13,http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/ieoecg.pdf

[12] Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0

[13] Global Wind Energy Council, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=13, and Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0

[14] Reuters, China top carbon emitter for second year running, June 9, 2010, http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6580Y1.htm

Facts

All of the Negativities of Wind Turbines are Hidden or Denied…check this out!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Safety fears after faults found in toppled turbines

By Western Morning News  |  Posted: September 07, 2014

By Phil Goodwin

turbs

A collapsed turbine

Comments (2)

Safety concerns have been raised about the wind energy industry after reports showed two Westcountry turbines collapsed because of faults.

The giant masts crashed down on farmland amid initial rumours of sabotage and claims they had fallen victim to severe weather.

Documents obtained by the WMN on Sunday have revealed that the towers actually toppled over due to defects and mistakes in the construction process.

A 115ft (34 metre) mast at East Ash Farm, Bradworthy, in Devon, tumbled in January 2013, prompting claims of foul play from the local parish council.

 

Around the same time, a 60ft (18-metre) tower sited at Winsdon Farm, North Petherwin – the family farm of Liberal Democrat Cornwall Councillor Adam Paynter – also came loose from its moorings and fell.

Subsequent investigations by both manufacturers identified further defects and prompted warnings to other sites, including in Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.

Glasgow-based Gaia Wind wrote to owners and overhauled its entire first generation fleet.

Canadian firm Endurance Wind Power said it was also concerned about machines on dozens of locations.

Initial reports suggested high winds may have been responsible for the failures but restricted reports by the Healthy and Safety Executive (HSE), obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI), have blamed the way the towers were secured.

Specialist inspector Darren Nash concluded that the first generation model of the turbine sited in Cornwall appeared “susceptible to fatigue failure” and said Gaia Wind had found “ten units with existing defects” out of the company’s 70 or 80 turbines.

“A plan of remedial actions is in place to address these units,” he wrote.

Endurance Wind Power, makers of the E3120 turbine which fell in Devon, identified a further 29 turbines that might have been affected by a problem with the foundations.

Mr Nash said it had fallen because Dulas – the installation company – had used “cosmetic grout” to cement the structure in place and not the “prescribed” substance.

On his visit to the site on May 8, more than three months later, he also noted that the turbine had already been “re-instated using the original anchor bolts and studs.

He added that “no evidence remained to assist investigation”, recommending that Edurance improve its quality assurance procedures.

Dr Philip Bratby, a retired nuclear scientist and spokesman for the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said several wind turbines in Devon were sited much too close to roads and factories and “pose a real threat to the public”.

“It is not the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive at the planning stage – they can only get involved after an incident occurs,” he added.

“It has been apparent to me for a long time that most developers of wind turbines and wind farms do not do a proper assessment of safety and of the risks to the public from wind turbines and none of them have acceptable quality assurance procedures in place.”

Alan Dransfield, a campaigner based in Exeter, who visited the Devon site days after the incident and later secured the two reports, said he was “disappointed”.

He criticised the response from the HSE, which rather than publish their findings, said the documents were not available in electronic form then only released the papers after a formal FoI request.

“These wind turbines which collapsed were unsafe and unfit for purpose,” he added.

“We should not have to resort to Freedom of Information Act to find this out.

“The root causes were not high winds but poor design, inferior materials and a systemic failure through the chain of command.”

Martin Paterson, spokesman for Gaia-Wind, said:

the firm and its reselling agents inspected all “first generation” towers, which were designed to the “prevailing engineering standard of the time”.

“This standard was superseded in early 2011 and this tube tower design is no longer available for sale or installation,” he added.

“Our second generation towers are designed to current industry standards reflecting the development of more demanding design protocols in this field.”

Dulas declined to comment on the findings.

Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Safety-fears-faults-toppled-turbines/story-22887067-detail/story.html#hTGPwKsugFcxR9xK.99#ixzz3Cdt98cM9