Liberal corruption and incompetence.

People in Maine Catching On to the Futility of Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Maine poll exposes softness in wind energy support

Credit:  Wind Poll Results: Learn More, Like Less | Friends of Maine’s Mountains | May 20, 2014 | www.friendsofmainesmountains.org ~~

(Portland, Maine) Answers to questions asked recently by an independent, nonpartisan polling firm indicate that support for building industrial wind turbines in Maine is not as strong as wind power cheerleaders have led policy makers and the public to believe.

Friends of Maine’s Mountains (FMM), a group that opposes industrial wind turbine projects, commissioned Critical Insights of Portland, Maine to ask three questions about wind energy in its semi-annual Tracking Poll. The company completed 601 telephone interviews (including cell phones) with randomly selected voters across the state between April 16th and April 24th, 2014. CLICK HERE for a PDF of the results, which indicate that support for building industrial wind turbines declines appreciably when respondents learn that:

  • Building industrial wind turbines does not significantly reduce Maine’s reliance on nuclear energy, coal or oil;
  • Building industrial wind turbines in Maine yields only a negligible reduction in carbon dioxide emissions;
  • Maine may not experience positive benefits from the proliferation of industrial wind turbines on the state’s mountains.

(Click HERE for PDF of supporting information, and click HERE for PDF of Maine generation sources.)

Chris O’Neil, spokesperson for Friends of Maine’s Mountains, said the results raise questions about the extremely positive approval numbers that wind developers routinely cite when they attempt to justify steep taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies.

“For years wind developers have peddled the general benefits of wind energy, and they have a lot of financial resources behind them that we’ll never match,” O’Neil said. “People certainly want to believe it’s all good. But impacts to Maine exceed the benefits, and these poll results point out weak support for industrial wind when that shortfall is understood. Mainers expect tangible benefits for the enormous investment the government is forcing taxpayers and ratepayers to make in wind energy.”

O’Neil noted that almost 80% of respondents reported that they’re less likely to support building industrial wind turbines “if the development will not positively impact Maine.”

O’Neil said skepticism about wind energy is increasing, and as a result Maine policy makers are starting to ask much tougher questions about the benefits of industrial wind turbines in sensitive mountain areas. He pointed to several anti-wind bills in the last Legislative session that fared well, including legislation that would have eliminated the state’s “megawatt goals” and replaced them with a policy objective of demonstrated and “tangible” benefits.

“Now that policy makers have driven a new car off the lot, they’re finally kicking the tires and looking underneath the hood. Expect to see much tougher scrutiny of proposed wind projects in the future,” O’Neil said.

For more information about Friends of Maine’s Mountains, visit www.FriendsOfMainesMountains.org. For more information about Critical Insights, visit www.CriticalInsights.com.

Trees are Much Better for the Environment, than Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

RESEARCH BY CERN INDICATES TREES AND CO2 HELP KEEP THE EARTH IN BALANCE

Investigate Magazine — May 18, 2014

Research by CERN on how clouds form has found emissions by trees and galactic cosmic rays are two primary drivers of cloud formation, which in turn helps cool the planet by reflecting sunlight off the cloud layer.

Although not expressly stated so bluntly, the research suggests a CO2 cycle has kept earth in balance – the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the faster and bigger that plants grow, and the more that plants grow the more their emissions help form planet-cooling clouds.

The full press release from CERN follows:

Geneva 16 May 2014. In a paper published in the journal Science today, CERN’s* CLOUD** experiment has shown that biogenic vapours emitted by trees and oxidised in the atmosphere have a significant impact on the formation of clouds, thus helping to cool the planet. These biogenic aerosols are what give forests seen from afar their characteristic blue haze. The CLOUD study shows that the oxidised biogenic vapours bind with sulphuric acid to form embryonic particles which can then grow to become the seeds on which cloud droplets can form. This result follows previous measurements from CLOUD showing that sulphuric acid alone could not form new particles in the atmosphere as had been previously assumed.

“This is a very important result,” said CLOUD spokesperson Jasper Kirkby, “since it identifies a key ingredient responsible for formation of new aerosol particles over a large part of the atmosphere – and aerosols and their impact on clouds have been identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the largest source of uncertainty in current climate models.”

Cloud droplets form on aerosol particles that can either be directly emitted, such as evaporated sea spray, or else form through a process known as nucleation, in which trace atmospheric vapours cluster together to form new particles that may grow to become cloud seeds. Around half of all cloud seeds are thought to originate from nucleated particles, but the process of nucleation is poorly understood.

The CLOUD chamber has achieved much lower concentrations of contaminants than previous experiments, allowing nucleation to be measured in the laboratory under precisely controlled atmospheric conditions. The experiment has several unique aspects, including the ability to control the “cosmic ray” beam intensity from the CERN PS, the capability to suppress ions completely by means of a strong electric clearing-field, precise adjustment of “sunlight” from a UV fibre-optic system, and highly-stable operation at any temperature in the atmosphere.

Sulphuric acid is thought to play a key role, but previous CLOUD experiments have shown that, on its own, sulphuric acid has a much smaller effect than had been assumed. Sulphuric acid in the atmosphere originates from sulphur dioxide, for which fossil fuels are the predominant source. The new result shows that oxidised biogenic vapours derived from alpha-pinene emitted by trees rapidly form new particles with sulphuric acid. Ions produced in the atmosphere by galactic cosmic rays are found to enhance the formation rate of these particles significantly, but only when the concentrations of sulphuric acid and oxidised organic vapours are relatively low. The CLOUD paper includes global modelling studies which show how this new process can account for the observed seasonal variations in atmospheric aerosol particles, which result from higher global tree emissions in the northern hemisphere summer.

“The reason why it has taken so long to understand the vapours responsible for new particle formation in the atmosphere is that they are present in minute amounts near one molecule per trillion air molecules”, explains Jasper Kirkby. “Reaching this level of cleanliness and control in a laboratory experiment is at the limit of current technology, and CERN know-how has been crucial for CLOUD being the first experiment to achieve this performance.”

Biogenic vapours join another class of trace vapours, known as amines, that have previously been shown by CLOUD to cluster with sulphuric acid to produce new aerosol particles in the atmosphere. Amines, however, are only found close to their primary sources such as animal husbandry, whereas alpha-pinene is ubiquitous over landmasses. This latest result from CLOUD could therefore explain a large fraction of the birth of cloud seeds in the lower atmosphere around the world. It shows that sulphuric acid aerosols do indeed have a significant influence on the formation of clouds, but they need the help of trees.

Real Green Movement

The Liberals Belong in Prison, Not Queen’s Park! Check this out!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Monday, May 19, 2014

A Voice of Reason, from a CAW member (retired)

Why Would Any Ontario Voter Want Even One More Minute Of This?



Let alone 4 more years:

The Liberal record:
1. “We will hold the line on taxes”
— McGuinty’s signature promise in the 2003 election campaign,
which he shredded with a $2.6 billion tax grab, the largest in Ontario history.
The HST, which massively extended the reach of the province’s 8% sales tax
to such necessities as gasoline, electricity and home heating fuels, soon followed.
2. “We will not raise the debt”
— The Liberals have doubled Ontario’s debt to $281 billion since taking office.
Paying interest on debt, at $10.6 billion annually, is now our third-largest expenditure,
after health and education.
3. “We will make sure the debt goes in only one direction, down” — See above.
4. “We will stop the waste of taxpayers’ dollars”
— The Ornge, eHealth and gas plant scandals alone,
in which billions of tax dollars were wasted, put the lie to this Liberal promise.
5. “We will respect your hard-earned tax dollars” — See above.
6. “We will balance the budget” — See above.
7. “We will live by the balanced budget law”
— In 2003, McGuinty pledged, in writing:
“I … promise if my party is elected as the next government, that I will:
Not raise taxes or implement any new taxes without the explicit consent of Ontario voters.
And not run deficits.” After the election, he broke all three promises.
8. “We will measure every investment against results.” If the Liberals had kept this promise,
the eHealth, Ornge and gas plant scandals would never have happened.
9. “We will make sure your health care dollars are invested wisely” — See Ornge and eHealth, above.
10. “We will bring peace and stability to our schools”
— Ontario students have just lived through a year of teacher unrest,
including the shutdown of extra-curricular activities, over the Liberals’ belated
attempt to rein in teacher salaries and benefits, after nine years
of throwing our money at them.
11. “We will ensure there is transparency in public education”
— Instead, the Liberals unleashed a controversial sex education curriculum
with no warning to ordinary parents. Now we’ve learned
Education Minister Liz Sandals doesn’t even read the curriculum documents she signs.
12. “We will ease gridlock with a seamless transportation network across the Greater Toronto Area”
— After 10 years in power, gridlock across the GTA is worse than ever and
the Liberals are making exactly the same broken promise again.
13. “We will shut down Ontario’s coal-burning plants by 2007”
— The Liberals still haven’t closed them, now promising to do so in 2014.
14. “We will bring clean, renewable energy to Ontario”
— Under the Liberals, wind and solar power are producing minuscule amounts of
unneeded, unreliable, inefficient and expensive electricity,
which has to be backed up by fossil fuels. This will, according to the Auditor General,
cost Ontarians billions of dollars extra on their hydro bills, for decades to come.
15. “We will bring stability to Ontario’s electricity market” — See above.
16. “We will respect the views of rural constituents by giving their MPPs free votes”
— If that was true, Liberal MPPs wouldn’t be responding to furious complaints
from their constituents about having industrial wind turbines rammed down their throats
with form letters.
17. “We will ensure that all developers play by the rules”
— Unless they’re wind developers, where the Liberals took away the rights of local citizens
to oppose wind projects.
18. “We will give real legal rights to victims of crime”
— In 2007, Ombudsman Andre Marin described Ontario’s Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
as “unreasonable, oppressive, unjust (and) wrong,” stooping so low as to
humiliate a grieving father when he asked for funds to help bury his five-year-old daughter,
who had been raped and murdered.
19. “We will lift the veil of secrecy on government agencies and appointments”
— In fact, the Liberals routinely resort to obfuscation, stonewalling, misdirection and
deceit when answering even basic questions about who does what in their government.
Think of their farrago of lies in the gas plants scandal.
20. “We will help create jobs and spur economic growth”
— According to the Auditor General, Ontario is losing two to four jobs for every
“green” job the Liberals create, due to skyrocketing electricity costs.
– The EHealth scandal
– The slush fund scandal
– The lottery corp scandals
– The CancerCare scandal
– The MPAC scandal
– The Children’s Aid scandal
– The hospital consultants scandal
– The Niagara Parks Commission scandal
– The tire tax
– The electronics tax
– The cheap beer surtax
– The hidden hydro tax
– The planned hidden gas tax
– The ‘smart meter’ tax
– The ‘Eco’ tax
– The auto pension bailouts
– The Nortel pension bailouts
– No reduction in HST despite $4.3 Billion from the feds
– The forcing of WSIB on all construction owners
– The staggering increase in the Sunshine List
– The failure at Caledonia
– Selling out to the teachers & civic unions
– The blatant Nanticoke lie
– The squandering of record revenues
– The nanny-state banning of nearly everything
– The public funding of sex-changes while de-listing eye exams phsyio & chiro  <<<======
– The billion-dollar-per-year burden of Family Day
– The billion-dollar flip-flop on The Oakville gas plant
– Saddling rate-payers with billions in subsidies to Samsung & Ikea
– The various Ombudsman/Auditor-General condemnations
– Turning Hydro into a luxury for the rich
– The by-election bribery’s
– The refusal to correct foreign ownership of our beer market
– The outrageous property assessments
– The stifling of private health services
– The illegal and unconstitutional secret G20 law
– The acceptance of garbage-striker extortion
– The harassing labour inspectors
– The idiotic preoccupation with homosexuality lessons for third-graders
– Dumping the blue box program onto small businesses
– Imposing blood alcohol rules that punish the innocent
– The $58 Million ‘severance’ to tax-collectors who didn’t miss a single day’s work
– Socialized daycare
– Canceling the ‘mandatory’ LHIN review & giving their CEO’s $15000 raises
– Sneaking tax-dollars into Liberals campaign team coffers
– Raising tuition & auto insurance to highest in Canada
– Sinking Ontario into Have-Not status.
-And just in time for the election: cleaner kickback scandals
-The Centre of Forensic Services cutbacks
-The Ontario Health Premium
-The Introduction of the Harmonized Sales Tax
-Wynne’s brother-in-law appointed as $210,000/year interim eHealth CEO
-The London CAS charged $1.4M for false accusation and deleting documents
-David Peterson, brother-in-law of Deb Matthews,
appointed Pan American Games organizing committee chair
-Health Minister Deb Matthews blames doctors for nursing homes drugging residents at an alarming rate
-The Ring of Fire fiasco
-The 500+ deaths in hospitals with c. difficile and then all reports on the quality of care
made subject to privacy legislation
-Wynne’s wife owns 50% of a consulting company that gets government business – including Ministry of Health
-The numerous CAS problems identified by Provincial Auditor General include luxury vehicles,
resort vacations, etc.
-The lack of oversight regarding how often babies die in unregulated child care
-The lack of enforcement of education law by the Ministry of Education
-The billions in subsidies to Samsung and Ikea
-The Northlands fiasco – more costly to shut down than to operate
-The huge severance packages and bonuses paid out by taxpayer dollars
-The creation of the Ontario College of Trades
-The Solid Gold scandal
-The AGCO decision disallows contract brewers like left field brewery at events that are
licensed with a Special Occasion Permit (SOP)
-The Full Day Early Learning – Kindergarten Program
-The Drive Clean Program changed to cost more
-The 21,000+ adults and children with developmental disabilities on wait lists
-The proposed hospital and winery grant to to win another by-election (fails)
-The minimum wage increase concerns
-The $1.4B Windsor Parkway’s serious safety flaws from substandard materials
-Mike Crawley awarded $456M wind contract while Liberal Party president
-The $2.5B lawsuit from cancellation of turbines of Scarborough shore which
saved 2 Liberal seats and led to WTO ruling
-The mishandling of the outlaw of pit bulls
-The $10 tax on tax increase on license plate stickers every year for the past 3 years
-The introduction of a “modest” 70% increase on the heavy truck licensing sticker fees.
-The lack of provincial action regarding the Law Society of Upper Canada that
does not protect the public from lawyers who steal from their clients.
-Millions spent to remove the “C” from OLGC – to redesign our Provincial logo
while at the same time telling us that $5 was more than enough to feed seniors
in a nursing home every day
– $4 billion dollars taken from the debt retirement charge fund, thereby adding 5 more years
to the payoff time
-The whole new division of civil servants when McGuinty hired people all over Ontario to plan
bus routes for school kids – before that it was done FREE by the school bus companies
and school management – a mess because McGuinty’s people sit in a room with a map and school
bus companies drive the route to make sure it’s safe for kids but McGuinty’s people don’t know
what side of the road the sidewalk is on – total chaos and we now pay more people for a terrible job.
-The Liberal’s clean air reports over the years. They change the data from year to year,
and explain that away as “updated information”. So for example, if you superimpose the
new data over the old, what they claim as a reduction in emissions, is actually stagnant
straight line. Nothing but a constant barrage of lies, lies and more lies.

People of Port Elgin Discuss Wind Turbines, and the Troubles they Cause!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Friday, May 16, 2014 2:38:36 EDT PM

The Unifor (former CAW) wind turbine in Port Elgin

The Unifor (former CAW) wind turbine in Port Elgi

A town hall style meeting was held at Maple Hall in Port Elgin Thursday night on the subject of wind turbines.

The meeting falls shortly after the one year anniversary the Unifor turbine blades started spinning it was fourth in a series of open meetings for continued education. The turbine meeting, which was hosted by Saugeen Shores Turbine Operation Policy (S.T.O.P) brought in two speakers with new theories and histories in the fight against wind power.

Organizer Greg Schmaltz quipped “people are probably tired of hearing from him,” so he brought in some featured speakers from Toronto.

First to speak was Sherri Lange, the co-founder of Toronto Wind Action “whose claim to fame is that they beat the turbines on the Scarborough Bluffs down in Toronto,” said Schmalz.

Lange is also CEO of NAPAW (North American Platform Against Wind).

The second speaker Thursday evening was Kevin Dooley “who likes to be called an inventor and he truly is, with over one hundred US patents’ to his name,” Schamlz added. “He is a retired jet engine turbine specialist; his life’s mission is all about vibration which of course noise is a vibration.”

The S.T.O.P spokesperson said Dooley has interesting theories about how people suffering adverse effects from industrial turbines are in fact identical to motion sickness that you would experience on a boat caused by atmospheric pressure changes “which is a pretty cutting edge scientific data.”

Dooley’s presentation showcased The McMauley Hypothsis about infrasound and how it causes tempera illness. He displayed acoustic data captured from Port Elgin homes showing the rate of the blade passing the tower in a pulse spectra analysis.

“These frequencies of thumping are specific to each wind turbine”, said Dooley.

Following his presentation the room was open to public questioning and Dooley was happy to simplify the statistics that he presented in his presentation which followed Lange’s.

“This is a worldwide movement with cases and court proceedings stretching out as far as Germany,” said Schmalz. “The movement on a worldwide basis needs to be based on scientific fact. You have to really prove without a shadow of a doubt you can show how and why people are being made sick through low frequency noise and that’s [Dooley’s] mission.

“The struggle will continue until you can get to court and prove that they should not be operation,” he said.

A key point that the S.T.O.P wants to make clear is its fight has nothing to do with the people that work for Unifor. That [members] believe it truly is a policy that the directors have taken and they propose a meeting with representatives from Port Elgin.

“We just want a knowledgeable civil discussion on how to mitigate the harm that their machine is doing to the neighbor’s that surround their facility,” added Schmalz. “There is no questions the harm was not there before that change was made–by putting that one machine in the neighborhood.”

S.T.O.P would appreciate the opportunity to sit down and share all the measurement data collected which indicates the high levels of low frequency noise in the victim’s homes.

“There’s a huge amount of information about what extended exposure to low frequency noise does to the human body and it’s identical to what the people of Saugeen Shores are experiencing,” concluded Schmalz.

 

The “Gang-green”, would like to eradicate the Humans on this earth!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Marita on the Well Being of Humans

Some people are convinced that we have no business on this earth, and we have no right to use the resources–the planet should be some kind of park.

 I would disagree, at least until I am dead or demented. Marita explains how modern exploration and production processes are enviro- friendly. But these greenies are really people haters, no question. If somebody needs electricity in the 3rd world, better not violate some green idea of what’s right for mother Gaia. Guess what, Mother Gaia doesn’t exist, except in their true believer heads.

Marita’s essay for this week.

For immediate release: May 19, 2014

Commentary by Marita Noon

Executive Director, Energy Makes America Great Inc.

Contact: 505.239.8998, marita@responsiblenergy.org

Words: 1606

The liberty and energy connection

Following my appearance on the Daily Show, I’ve received emails and phone calls from people who don’t agree with my views about energy and the advantages America’s energy abundance provides—benefits that drive both progress and prosperity.

Some of the emails can’t be read in polite company, but one that can asked: “Please explain how energy from mountain top removal, fracking, and tar sands makes America great.” The word choices Greg selected tell me that he isn’t truly seeking enlightenment and is instead aiming to antagonize me. The next day, he sent another: “I have yet to hear back on this simple question. Please respond.”

It does seem like a simple question. One I should be able to answer in an instant. But I didn’t want to offer platitudes. I felt the question deserved a thoughtful answer. So, Greg, here you are.

I’ve spent the past couple of days at a conference on “Energy, Economics and Liberty.” There discussions took place on the energy debate, government’s role, market solutions, and the geo-politics of energy. About twenty men—all experts in various aspects of energy—attended. I wasn’t just the only female I was the only energy advocate. The topics brought Greg’s request to mind and the conversations helped form the answers.

One of the participants, Jim Clarkson, wrote an article titled: “The Shale Gas Paradigm,” in which he states: “Increased access to energy is a key to economic progress in the undeveloped world.” Similarly, in my book, Energy Freedom, I quote Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry, who says: “Electricity is the energy commodity that separates the developed countries from the rest. Countries that can provide cheap and reliable electric power to their citizens can grow their economies and create wealth. Those who can’t, can’t.”

Senate Major Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) once said: “Oil and gas are making us sick.” But I contend that they—along with coal—are the very things keeping us well. In Energy Freedom’s introduction, I point out: “Energy saves lives. When fire strikes or hurricanes are bearing down upon a city, it is energy—in this case in the form of gasoline—that allows people to drive away and escape death. … When weather is extreme, it is energy—usually in the form of electricity (most frequently from coal or natural gas)—that keeps people alive. Air conditioning allows people to live in comfort in Arizona in the summer. Heating keeps people from freezing to death in Alaska in the winter. Energy keeps us well. Energy makes us comfortable.”

The Energy, Economics and Liberty conference was hosted by the Liberty Fund. On its website, it offers this definition of liberty: “the beginning and the source of happiness from which all beneficial things flow in return.” Much like liberty, energy is the source from which many beneficial things flow. Energy has been a source of America’s freedom, a big part of what has made America great.

The conflicts in Ukraine have made the importance of energy freedom clear. Because of being on the Daily Show talking about fracking, I’ve been given other opportunities to address the topic. One was with former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura for his show Off the Grid. At the end of the twenty-minute interview, he asked me for closing comments. I said something like: “Because of fracking, OPEC would never be able to use energy as a weapon as it did to America in 1973 and as we see Russia doing to Ukraine today.”

Greg’s email to me used terms that lead to three different energy sources: coal, natural gas, and oil—and each have been big contributors to America’s progress and prosperity. Each has made the personal lives of Americans more pleasant and less painful. Together these energy sources have made America energy secure.

The email used the term “mountain top removal,” which is a method by which coal can be mined. It is safer than underground mines because it removes the risk of mine accidents, the horror of which we’ve recently witnessed in Turkey. (Note: America has far more stringent mining regulations today than does most of the world.) Greg likely selected the term “mountain top removal” because it sounds harsh. In fact, in the mountainous regions of Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, this surface mining process allows for hospitals, housing developments, shopping centers to be built—all which bring more economic development and much needed jobs.

I’ve toured regions where “mountain top removal” is being done and stood on top of the massive coal seam. The procedure is amazing. Picture the region like lots of upside down ice cream cones next to each other. Hills and valleys—but no place to create a community. In that mountain is a thick layer of coal that goes all the way through the mountain, north to south, east to west. To access it, the dirt, the tip of the ice cream cone, is taken off and the coal is removed.

In the past, when the coal had been extracted, a private landowner could ask the mining company to level out the land—making it economically productive. However, today’s regulations take away that property owner’s rights and require that the mountain be rebuilt and put back to its original condition. If the landowner wants to turn his land into a housing development, he then has to incur the expense of, once again, removing the peak and leveling the land.

The coal provides, and has provided, America with low-cost, base-load electricity—which, as we’ve already addressed, has given us a competitive advantage in the global marketplace and unmatched personal progress. And, therefore, energy from mountain top removal makes America Great.

Fracking—short for hydraulic fracturing—combined with the amazing technology of horizontal drilling, has brought America into a new era of energy abundance. Clarkson states: “Gas using industries are expanding while we enjoy a distinct advantage over the rest of the world.” He explains: “Shale gas lay worthless beneath the earth’s surface for the whole of man’s previous existence until human intelligence made it valuable”—and that was done with fracking.

One of the definitions of liberty found at Dictionary.com is: “freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.” Clarkson points out: “There were no federal programs with subsidies, tax breaks, and mandated markets to favor the shale industry. …The new shale order of things is a triumph of free enterprise over government planning. The shale revolution shows that the good old American know-how and individual initiative that made this country great have survived the burden of big government and can still create economic miracles.” Clarkson closes with: “Some observers are already calling this the century of natural gas. This could also be the century of prosperity, free markets, and optimism as America regains its energy mojo.”

Unlike the pariah Greg presumes fracking to be, it is responsible for the shale gas phenomenon.

Last, Greg asked about tar sands and how they make America great. Tar sands, or oil sands, allow America to get oil from our friendly Canadian neighbor and reduce our need to import OPEC’s oil. We then refine that oil into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that fuels our transportation fleet—something that wind and solar power cannot do.

I have been to the oil sands of Canada and what they are doing there is, like fracking and horizontal drilling, a technological miracle.

If you have ever walked on a California beach and stepped on a tar ball (created when the oil seeps out of the ground and is washed ashore mixed with sand), you have a clue what the tar sands are like. The naturally occurring tar sands are a layer in the earth (much like coal). This layer has raw crude oil mixed with the dirt/sands. I recall driving to the tar sands from the town where we stayed. As the elevation increased, I noticed that trees reached a certain height and then died. It was explained that as soon as the roots hit the bitumen (or tar) it kills the tree.

At the extraction site, the tar sands are bulldozed and dumped into giant trucks (much like surface coal mining). The tar and sand mixture is processed to separate the oil and the sand. (Think of taking that tar ball from the beach and boiling it. The oil melts and floats while the sand drops to the bottom.) The oil is now available for use and the clean sand is put back into the earth—only now the trees can actually grow. The reclaimed land is teaming with wildlife that lives in the healthy forest the extraction process provides. As a result, when the Keystone pipeline is approved, America would be far less dependent on people who aim to do us harm and OPEC couldn’t cause an instant recession as it did in 1973. Plus, Keystone will be safer and cheaper—not to mention creating more jobs—than shipping the oil via rail as we are currently doing.

And that, Greg, is how tar sands can make America greater.

Yes, mountain top removal—or coal; fracking—or natural gas; and tar sands—or oil, make America great. The use of natural resources are a part of liberty: “freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.”

People like Greg want to interfere, restrict, and hamper North America’s energy abundance—which will take away America’s ability to provide cheap and reliable power to her citizens and take away the ability to grow the economy and create wealth. Why would anyone want to do that?

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE)

More Proof, that Wind Turbines can Harm the Health of Nearby Residents!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Study to be Published

Sunday, May 18, 2014 12:08 PM by Matt Villeneuve
MOH report that links turbines to health issues will be published in academic journal.

(Grey Bruce)– 

The Wind Turbine Study completed by the Grey-Bruce Medical Officer of Health and Sudbury based researcher Doctor Ian Arra has been accepted for publication in an academic journal.

Cuerus — a peer-reviewed journal managed by academics from Stanford University, the University of Chicago, John Hopkins, the American Medical Association — has accepted the document following an external review.

In an email, Doctor Arra says only minor adjustments will be made to the paper.

MOH Doctor Hazel Lynn tells Bayshore Broadcasting News the study was fairly comprehensive, prompting its submission for the peer-review process.

And she says the Cuerus journal is a creditable international organization.

Dr. Lynn and Dr. Arra’s report found that there is a link between wind turbines and specific health concerns, such as headaches and sleeplessness.

The report — which analyzed other peer-reviewed studies — was presented last February to the Grey-Bruce Board of Health, and was then submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Health.

 

 

 

Liberals believe Others Should Learn from Lib’s Mistakes…But the Libs never did!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

ONTARIO LIBERALS CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES,

IT’S IN THEIR DNA TO LIE!

 from Donna Quixote

(Editor’s note:  Hudak never said that he was going to rip up existing wind and solar contracts.  He specifically said that he would not approve any more contracts because we have too much electricity in this province now.  I wish that these liars would spontaneously combust every time they opened their mouths. — DQ)

Brad Duguid Rips PC Plan for Wind and Solar Contracts 

Antonello Artuso — Toronto Sun — May 18, 2014

TORONTO – Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak has learned nothing from Liberal government mistakes made in the billion-dollar gas plants controversy.

That was the unusual message from Liberal MPP Brad Duguid, who said Hudak is about to waste 20 times as much public money if he proceeds with his plans to tear up solar and wind power contracts.

“Ontarians should be asking Tim Hudak whether he’s learned from the mistakes that were made during the gas plants issue,” Duguid said Sunday. “We certainly as a government have. We’ve taken a number of measures to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

“Tim Hudak, though, in his plan, would repeat the same darn mistake again, costing us tens of billions of dollars.”

The former energy minister said that people understand that governments and politicians make mistakes — as was done in the case of siting two gas plants in residential neighbourhoods without adequate public consultation — but expect that lessons will be learned and not repeated.

Ontarians will fork over up to $1.1 billion extra over the next couple of decades for reneging on two signed gas plant contracts for Oakville and Mississauga.

Continue reading AND leave a comment here…..

mcginty

Liberals Greed Energy Scam is Destroying Our Energy System Entirely!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Figuring out Ontario’s energy future

BY DAVID REEVELY, OTTAWA CITIZEN MAY 18, 2014
1
Figuring out Ontario's energy future

OTTAWA, ON. APRIL 4, 2014 — Gary MacDonald’s message was clear: “Fix Hydro Now!” which received dozens of car honks from passing traffic. About 300 people gathered outside Liberal Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli’s office on Carling Avenue Friday to protest rising energy prices. (Julie Oliver/Ottawa Citizen) #116634.

Photograph by: JULIE OLIVER , Ottawa Citizen

Electricity in Ontario is so expensive because generations of governments have treated it as a tool of politics and for intervening in the economy, none of the major parties contesting the current election is going to stop, and nobody, but nobody, will cut your hydro bill meaningfully.

We call it “hydro” but that’s already misleading: Ontario’s electricity is mostly nuclear. Last year almost twice as much of Ontario’s energy came from nuclear reactors as from all other sources put together. Why? Because in the 1950s and ’60s, our governments thought they could kickstart an international export business by developing Canadian nuclear reactors. We sold a few, but to this day hardly anybody in the world uses CANDU reactors but us.

“I see energy as an economic fundamental and not a plaything,” Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak told the Citizen’s editorial board this week. Hudak says the government’s priority should first be to make sure Ontario’s power supply is reliable and, after that, as cheap as possible.

If he didn’t treat energy as a plaything, he’d be the first premier who didn’t.

Supply, at a price

Ontario’s energy supply is in better shape than when the Liberals took office in 2003: Nuclear reactors have been refurbished, new generating stations have been built, old coal plants have been all but wiped out, and we consistently generate more energy than we need. The Liberals crow about all those things and they aren’t wrong.

But they came at a big, big cost. The average price of electricity so far this year is the highest it’s ever been. Usually electricity is most expensive in summer, but according to the agency that monitors Ontario’s power system, the Independent Electricity System Operator, the price this past March was more than double what it was last July — more expensive than it’s been in any June, July or August since 2005, in fact, when the system was at its most delicate and we were buying power from anywhere we could.

The price is going to keep going up. The Liberals’ own long-term energy plan, a government document, predicts the total cost of Ontario’s electricity supply will keep increasing until 2022 before it stabilizes — but even then, it will be more expensive than it is today.

The Liberals have invested heavily in a power grid that was in dangerously ramshackle condition when they took it over. For decades nobody wanted to face up to the reality that Ontario Hydro was dysfunctional and was neither charging nor spending enough; the Tories under Mike Harris and Ernie Eves recognized there was a crisis in the 1990s and broke it up into smaller Crown corporations and agencies, but they hadn’t got around to renovating power plants and replacing power lines.

That was overdue work, it was expensive, and the Liberals kept on with it.

But they also got cocky, investing heavily in wind and solar power — billions of dollars’ worth — to try to kickstart a domestic green-energy industry.

The great green experiment

The Liberals’ green-energy policy has run over local governments by taking away cities’ and towns’ authority over new wind and solar farms. You can hardly drive along any rural highway in Ontario without seeing a billboard, placards on fences, makeshift signs on stakes damning the Liberals for ruining the countryside with wind farms.

Australian Renewable Energy Agency, On the Chopping Block!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Government axes renewable energy agency.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 15/05/2014

Reporter: Kerry Brewster

The government plans to axe the funding body for new technologies in renewable energy, ARENA the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, in order to save a billion dollars.

Transcript

TONY JONES, PRESENTER: The clean energy industry is voicing dismay over the Government’s plan to axe the key funding body for new technologies in renewable energy.

The dismantling of ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency will save more than a billion dollars. But ARENA says that money would have helped to build a $7.7 billion fleet of projects to develop solar, wave and geothermal technologies.

Kerry Brewster reports.

KERRY BREWSTER, REPORTER: Private investors in this solar demonstration plant in New South Wales say ARENA’s financial assistance was crucial.

ANDREW WANT, VASTSOLAR: Without support from ARENA for that private investment, helping absorb the risk, we would have had no option but to go offshore and try to access similar sorts of grant facilities overseas. We didn’t want to do that. We wanted to develop this technology in Australia for Australian markets.

KERRY BREWSTER: But Andrew Want says his dream of large solar thermal plants powering the nation’s cities has been dashed, with the Abbott Government announcing it will axe the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. 

According to the Treasurer, $1.3 billion in savings will go towards repairing the budget and funding policy priorities.

ANDREW WANT: Why Australia would want to send investment signals saying, “We are shut for business,” is beyond me.

KERRY BREWSTER: Solar businesses agree.

MARK TWIDELL, SMA: Just at a time when funding is there for the development of the future technologies, we’re scaling it back.

KERRY BREWSTER: Mark Twidell sells German-made solar inverters, but he’s not sure there’ll be an Australian market to sell to.

MARK TWIDELLL: ARENA was supporting the Australian universities, the Australian researchers, the Australian small-to-medium enterprises, getting their products, getting their technologies in order so that they could compete in a global marketplace.

KERRY BREWSTER: ARENA’s CEO says Australia could be the loser if more than a billion dollars of support for world-leading scientific R&D ends.

IVOR FRISCHKNECKT, AUST. RENEWABLE ENERGU AGENCY: The University of NSW, the ANU, the University of Queensland, CSIRO, all have incredibly strong programs, many people working in this area, lots of intellectual property being exported, lots of foreign students coming in here to be educated in those programs. We risk losing that. We also risk losing the rollout, so essentially delaying our transition to a renewable energy future and having lower-cost energy technologies available.

KERRY BREWSTER: This week the International Energy Agency said that for the world to meet its carbon reduction targets, 65 per cent of all power needed to be generated from renewable sources by 2050.

Energy specialist, journalist Giles Parkinson, says the race is on.

GILES PARKINSON, RENEW ECONOMY: I watch very carefully what’s going on in the rest of the world. I’ve been to Germany, I’ve been to other parts of Europe, I’ve been to the US. They’re all going fast forward on this and in Australia the rhetoric seems to be that nobody else is doing anything and nor should we, but it’s just not true. In the US they’re investing billions and billions of dollars.

KERRY BREWSTER: Andrew Want says he won’t be in the race if there are no ARENA funds to help attract further private investment.

ANDREW WANT: Investors in Europe, in the States, in Japan are thoroughly confused by why Australia is trying to shut down renewable energy.

KERRY BREWSTER: Mark Twidell, who ran the seed funding body that preceded ARENA predicts a renewable energy brain drain.

MARK TWIDELLL: We will see good technologies, good ideas, good companies seeking to go to other countries in the world and we’ll see those companies that were thinking about installing renewables perhaps starting to think again.

KERRY BREWSTER: The Government must pass legislation to abolish the agency, so its fate rests with the Senate. Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane told Lateline his department will focus on bringing to fruition the 180 research and development projects that have already received close to $1 billion of ARENA investments. 

Kerry Brewster, Lateline.

Time to Put an End to the Renewables Scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

End to solar farm blight as subsidy scheme is scrapped

Green energy subsidy scheme will be shut to large solar farms as ministers attempt to curb blight to countryside

Subsidies for solar panels will be scrapped to help reduce household electricity bills, energy minister in charge of climate change has declared


Subsidies that have driven the spread of large solar farms across Britain are to be scrapped under plans to stop the panels blighting the countryside.

Energy companies that build solar farms currently qualify for generous consumer-funded subsidies through the so-called ‘Renewable Obligation’ (RO) scheme, and had expected to keep doing so until 2017.

But the Department of Energy and Climate Change announced on Tuesday that it planned to shut the RO to new large solar farms two years early, from April next year.

The decision follows an admission by ministers that far more projects have been built than expected, leading to a rising subsidy bill for consumers and increasing local opposition.

Greg Barker, the energy minister, pledged last month that solar farms must not become “the new onshore wind” and said he wanted solar panels installed on factory rooftops instead.

A Whitehall source said: “Large scale solar shouldn’t be in any place or at any cost. The direction of travel is away from farms – especially where communities don’t want them.”

Leonie Greene, head of external affairs for the Solar Trade Association, said the industry was “dismayed” at the proposals.

She said that the replacement subsidy scheme – so-called ‘contracts for difference’ (CfD) – simply “doesn’t work for solar”.

The new scheme will have a capped budget and onshore wind and solar farm projects will be forced to compete with each other in reverse auctions to win subsidy contracts.

Ms Greene said that, on current costs, solar farms “can’t compete with onshore wind”. The uncertainty in the auction process also made solar farm development too risky for the small businesses who typically build them.

“Unless we can get major amendments to CfDs and fair treatment, they [large-scale solar farms] won’t get built,” she said.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Large-scale solar is deploying much faster than we expected. Industry projections indicate that, by 2017, there could be more solar deployed than is affordable – more than the 2.4-4GW set out in the electricity market reform (EMR) delivery plan.

“We need to manage our financial support schemes effectively and responsibly. That means that we need to ensure that the growth of the solar sector is delivered in a way that gives best value for money to consumers and allows us to offer effective support to the renewables sector as a whole.

“So we are also consulting today on proposals to close the RO to new solar PV capacity above 5MW from 1st April 2015, across England, Wales and Scotland. Those proposals include grace period arrangements to protect developers who have already made significant financial commitments.”

In a solar strategy released last month, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said: “We want to move the emphasis for growth away from large solar farms.”

Seb Berry, head of public affairs at solar company Solarcentury, said: “Today’s announcement is unnecessary and totally at odds with the government’s desire to reduce the cost to energy bill payers of delivering the 2020 renewable energy target.

“This policy proposal will undermine investor confidence in the entire UK renewable energy sector, by removing at a stroke the short and medium-term policy certainty required for major project investments.

“It is surprising that the government is trying justify this proposal on cost grounds. Large-scale solar is already significantly cheaper than offshore wind and will be competitive with onshore wind by 2017. In deliberately setting out to strangle the growth of cheaper solar from 2015, Secretary of State Ed Davey can no longer claim that government policy will deliver the most cost-effective mix of technologies by 2020.”