Wonderful Video Showing How they Fight the Windscam, in France!

September 22, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

French Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud

September 22, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

The French have treated revolution as a National pastime, for much of their history: storming the Bastille in 1789; and the streets of Paris in 1969, to name a couple of people-power-hits.

Today, the target of the seething masses is these things; or to the French: éoliennes.

And – with a burning desire to Stop These Things – the French follow events here, with a keen interest. See this story, for example (you’ll need High School French or better): Les effets néfastes de fermes éoliennes sur la santé sont réels – STT followers will recognise STT Champions, Dr Sarah Laurie and Senator John Madigan, as the stars of that post.

The wind industry in France is equipped with same snake-like ‘charm’, as elsewhere. As we reported earlier this year, French wind power outfits are hell-bent on destroying the final resting places of thousands of Australian soldiers, who perished defending French soil a Century ago:

The Wind Industry Knows No Shame: Turbines to Desecrate the Unknown Graves of Thousands of Australian Soldiers in France

Now to a tale of a French farmer fighting to regain the health of his previously happy herd.

French farmer sues energy giant after wind turbines ‘make cows sick’
The Telegraph
Rory Mulholland
18 September 2015

Yann Joly is suing CSO Energy for €356,900 (£260,000) over wind turbines which he alleges have led to a dramatic fall in cows’ milk output

A French dairy farmer is suing a wind energy company whose turbines have allegedly made his cows sick and led to a dramatic fall in their milk output.

An expert brought in to provide evidence to a Paris court confirmed that the 120 animals had been drinking much less water since the turbines were installed in early 2011.

This had led to a large drop in milk production, as cows need to drink at least three litres of water for every litre of milk they produce, and has damaged the cows’ general health, the expert said.

“The farmer is ruined,” Philippe Bodereau, his lawyer, told The Telegraph. His client, Yann Joly, is suing CSO Energy, which operates wind farms in France and Germany, for €356,900 (£260,000). Mr Joly wants the firm to remove its turbines.

He says he is being forced to sell his cows and will grow crops on his land instead.

“I am now in the process of selling the cows because it is not profitable to keep them,” he told The Telegraph. “I had an employee on the farm and am having to let him go. I will have to get a job outside the farm in order to try and keep it. I will also use my fields to grow crops instead: beetroot, wheat and colza.”

Mr Bodereau said: “This is the first time in the world that there is a document from an expert concluding that there is no other reason but wind turbines that could be to blame for animals being sick.”

Christiane Nansot, an agricultural expert, who wrote the report, said the drop in milk production began when the 24 turbines were installed next to the family farm, in Le Boisle district, near the Abbeville, northern France.

“The geologist said that a geographical fault in the underlying rock could be leading to an amplification in the waves emanating from the turbines,” she said.

But she cautioned that other farms where turbines are installed near faults would have to be studied before it could be definitively concluded that the turbines were making the Le Boisle animals sick.

The report says that the cows are also prone to mastitis – udder inflammation.

It does not decisively lay the blame on the turbines for the milk yield drop or the symptoms, but says all other possible causes have been ruled out.

A ruling is expected next spring.

CSO Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

Wind turbines have been blamed for killing large numbers of wild birds and bats but there have been few other claims of them damaging animals’ health.

Critics insist they are damaging to human health because they create infrasound – sound at such low frequency that it cannot be picked up by the human ear, but can carry through the atmosphere for great distances.
The Telegraph

That incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound causes adverse health effects – such as sleep deprivation – is a FACT – and it’s been known by the wind industry (lied about and covered up) for 30 years:

Three Decades of Wind Industry Deception: A Chronology of a Global Conspiracy of Silence and Subterfuge

That dairy cows set upon by the same forces of noise and vibration should also react unfavourably should – to those gifted with our good friends ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ – not come as any great surprise.

STT has reported on the impact of turbine noise on horses and dogs once or twice:

Farmers Tell Wind Farm Developer to Stick its Turbines Where the Sun Don’t Shine

As to the impact on humans and dogs, AGL operates a non-compliant wind farm called Oaklands Hill, near Glenthompson in Victoria – where the neighbours began complaining about excessive turbine noise the moment it kicked into operation in August 2011.

Complaints from neighbouring farmers, Bill and Sandy Rogerson, included the impact of turbine noise on their hard working sheepdogs.

The Rogersons – whose prized paddock dog goes ballistic every time AGL’s Suzlon s88s kick into action – complained bitterly about the noise impacts on them and their 5 working dogs: one of them became disobedient and extremely timid, hiding in her kennel whenever the turbines were operating.

In an effort to provide a little respite to the affected Kelpies, AGL stumped up $20,000 for a deluxe, soundproof dog kennel. AGL doesn’t give money away without a reason, so you’d tend to think there was something in it.

The Rogersons gave evidence to the Australian Senate earlier this year about the noise impacts on them and their prized working dogs, covered in this post:

Senate Inquiry: Hamish Cumming & Ors tip a bucket on the Great Wind Power Fraud

In France, it’s not just a bovine revolt that’s brewing; French men, women and children are fighting back too. As this clever – and very French – little video details.

****

More About Wind Travesty in Falmouth – Wind Proponents Ignored Harm to Citizens

September 21, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Resident Should Hang Their Head In Shame For What They Have Done To Their Neighbors

Falmouth, MA

By FRANK HAGGERTY (Open Post) September 21, 2015

Falmouth Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Below are three links it should be mandatory that everyone in Falmout watch these two videos and read the power point presentation by Attorney Chris Senie

What citizens should find interesting is the interaction between Attorney Chris Senie and the Zoning Board of Appeals just prior to the power point presentation in the Part 1 video about 35 minutes into the video.

Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals Orderer Ceast & Desist Falmouth Wind Turbine #1

Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 1

http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-1

Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 2

http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-2

Zoning Board of Appeals September 17, 2015 Senie & Associates, P.C. Representing Impacted Neighbors

https://windwisema.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/senie-to-zba-ceasedesist-2015-09-17.pdf

Warning from Vestas Wind Company Falmouth Wind ll

Before the supply contract for Wind 2 was signed with the manufacturer, Vestas, the Town was asked by Vestas and its general contractor on the project (Lumus) to sign a letter taking full responsibility for the siting of Wind 2 in light of Vestas’ articulated concerns about the sound pressures this turbine is capable of creating in this location.

This request came in the form of a letter from Lumus dated August 3, 2010 (the “LumusLetter”).

Click here to read letter hidden for 5 years : August 3, 2010
Mr. Gerald Potamis
WasteWater Superintendent
Town of Falmouth Public Works
59 Town Hall Square
Falmouth, MA 02540

Lumus Letter :
http://www.windaction.org/posts/41357-vestas-raises-concerns-about-turbine-noise-letter#.Vfy4Y99Viko

The Town had its Wastewater Superintendent Gerald Potamis respond (the same day the Lumus letter was received), by sending a separate letter directly to Vestas. In that letter the Wastewater Superintendent assumed, for the Town, all such siting responsibility and liability (the “Potamis Letter”). An earlier draft of the Potamis letter, dated July 1, 2010 (so more than a month before the Potamis letter was sent to Vestas), called for the signature of the Falmouth
Town Manager.

The Town Manager was to Sign

During this month of discussion of what to do about the Vestas refusal to sell Wind 2 because of sound pressure concerns:
(1) it appears that no-one on the staff brought this to the attention of the Board of Selectmen (based on BOS meeting minutes); and (2) the signer was switched from the Town Manager to the Wastewater Superintendent (who apparently signed this letter assuming responsibility without authority).

The Distress Was Well Known (1)

As of August 3, 2010 Lumus warning letter, and the Potamis assumption of liability letter sent the same day (the “Warning Date”), The Town was well aware of the distress being caused by Wind 1.
By the Warning Date, the Town had received numerous complaints from neighbors. Brian and Kathryn Elder had sent the Town a registered letter (dated May 5, 2010), and met with the Assistant Town Manager and Building Commissioner at their property to show the degree of distress to Town officials. By the Warning Date the Town Planner had sent an email to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 3, 2010) regarding the turbine distress. Also by the Warning Date, the ZBA and the Falmouth Planning Board had held a joint meeting to discuss the problems with Wind 1 (that meeting took place on June 4, 2010

By the August 3, 2010 Warning Date the Town had held a meeting to discuss the scope of a sound study (to be done by an engineering firm known as HMMH) of Wind 1 (actual) and Wind 2 (projected) sound pressures (that meeting held on June 10, 2010).
Also a letter had been sent from Assistant Town Manager, Heather Harper, to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 15, 2010) discussing measures being taken by the Town in response to complaints. In her letter to Mr. Funfar, she indicates that the Town has instituted a mitigation measure which turns off Wind 1 in certain wind conditions, which had, by the date of that letter, been utilized 39 times, and had a “positive impact”.

Vestas Asked Weston & Sampson for an “updated study” for Wind 2
Fri 5/28/2010 1:48 PM
Brian Hopkins brhop@vestas.com
RE: Sound / Feasibility Studies
TO: Wiehe, Stephen, cc Duijvesteijn, Olle; Yanuskiewicz, Francis

“Steve, I don’t believe I saw a feasibility study for Falmouth other than Site Plans. Was a sound study updated with the additional turbine?

Does the information I provided in the octave band data support the conclusions that you are conservatvely within MA state sound regulations?
The table highlights the fact that V82 produces greater decibels when it reaches its stall regime beyond the IEC design standard at 95% capacity. The table also helps recognize the effects of shear on the sound levels experienced at receptors which should also be considering with the sound study.

My email was lost from the time we did the first turbine so I don’t have a great record of information but do you have this decibel mapping for Falmouth?”

There never was a reponse to this above email in town records –

It was assumed due to the lack of an email response in town records no noise decibel mapping was done for both Falmouth 1 & 2 together.

Thanks to STT for Almost 3 Years of Educating the Public About the Wind Scam!

September 21, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Costly & Pointless Wind Power Subsidies Slammed by Australia’s National Party

September 21, 2015 by

****

When STT cranked into gear in December 2012, hammering the wind industry was a fairly lonely occupation: hardly fashionable; a bit like wearing yellow to a funeral, really.

Back then, openly questioning the “wonders” of wind power was a guaranteed dinner party showstopper. Nervous hosts – choking on their organic pinot gris – would seek to segue to another less contentious topic – the joys of dancing cat videos, say; tempers might flare, among raised voices one of the more passionate would shout something about: “the science is settled man”.

The protagonist asserting that dreaded CO2 gas was an obvious planet killing “problem”; to which the only “solution” was carpeting the world in an endless sea of bat-chomping, bird slicing, blade-chucking, pyrotechnic,sonic-torture devices – not that the wound-up wind power advocate would have ever presented, let alone dealt with, minor issues like those, as part of his “we’ve gotta save the planet” manifesto.

But that was then, this is now.

Now, people with a modicum of intelligence – anything like an inquisitive nature; and gifted with a shred of logic – are able to unpick the fraud in several easy steps. Indeed, in discourse among those with an adult’s mental capacity it’s no longer a mortal sin these days to express the bleeding obvious: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK.

On the contrary, calling the great wind power fraud for what it is has become fashionable: for want of a better phrase it’s “the new black”.

For another look at the latest fashion trend, we’ll cross to a report on a motion to support the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time – foolishly pitched to members of Australia’s National Party (the minority Party that forms the Federal Coalition government).

Nats Reject Renewables
The Land
Colin Bettles
17 September 2015

THE Federal National party’s weekend conference rejected a controversial motion calling for support of the renewable energy sector and the federal government to back related projects based in regional centres.

The motion was moved and spoken for strongly mostly by delegates from Western Australia who raised concerns about excessive costs and access to power generation in regional areas.

The WA delegation also expressed concerns the party must be progressive through a statement of support for renewable energy projects and seeking to capture future economic opportunities.

But a rear-guard action – spearheaded by former long-serving Queensland Senator Ron Boswell and current Queensland Hinkler MP Keith Pitt – saw the motion eventually defeated by a 43-34 vote.

Opponents of the motion, including Queensland National Party Womens’ president Theresa Craig, argued that renewable energy projects like wind farms were heavily subsidised by taxpayer funds which they opposed.

Ms Craig said, as a scientist and a regional person “I’d love to support this but I can’t because the facts do not add up”.

“Unfortunately the Green propaganda has not given us the facts,” she said.

“Today, 5 per cent of clean energy adds an extra 15pc to our utility bill; reference Queensland University of Technology.”

Ms Craig said research by the Heartland Institute had also said that every job created by the renewable energy sector meant two to three jobs were lost.

“Renewable energies are the way of the future but right at the moment it’s being subsidised,” she said.

“What we need to do is put the support into getting renewable energies that can stand on their-own two feet.

“We as farmers, don’t we have to stand on our own two feet?

“We have to do it by ourselves, so this needs to be done the same way for the renewable energy people.”

Young WA Nationals president Lachlan Hunter said he majored in agricultural science studies at UWA and believed the conference should “get over the semantics” and consider the motion’s intent.

Mr Hunter said the motion wasn’t saying coal should be “cut out” or remove the way energy is traditionally produced in Australia.

He said it was “simply saying we support the renewable energy sector and to have those projects based in regional centres”.

“Don’t get hung up on the words ‘renewable energy’ just because it’s related to the Greens,” he said.

“I think we can be proactive in this space and actually support it if the science does prove that it’s out there and it’s a sustainable industry.”

Newly elected WA Nationals president James Hayward also spoke strongly for the motion saying its critics had strayed “well beyond what it’s about”.

He said the reality was, “sustainable energy is something that we need to embrace in some form”.

“Windmills that chop up birds are perhaps not the answer,” he said.

“This motion does not say (renewable energy) is the answer; it says this space needs to be part of who we are and what we do.

“We cannot allow the Greens or Labor to take responsibility for looking after our space, our environment.

“We’ve got a generation of younger people growing up and those people, for whatever reason, are simply more connected to the idea of looking after the environment and we need to grasp and get hold of that.

“This motion doesn’t talk about offering financial incentives.

“It just says it’s on the radar for us and we know that technology is out there and part of the future and we need to embrace it.”

But Mr Boswell returned fire with an impassioned plea saying he was “vehemently” against the motion.

“Whichever way you cut and dice this motion the motion goes out that says you support renewable energy,” he said.

Mr Boswell said his advice to Mr Hayward, gained by serving a number of years in federal parliament, was “don’t ever try and be a Green”.

“Don’t ever try and be one (a Green) because you are neither the Nationals or a Green and you just lose everyone so let’s be distinct about what we stand for,” he said.

Mr Boswell said subsidies on renewable energy were impacting energy prices and adding to agricultural production or processing costs in areas like beef, grains and dairy.

“You are paying through the nose for this renewable energy,” he said.

“Rural Australia is probably paying more than anyone else for it.

“It will only work if it’s subsidised and who’s going to pay for it, you are.”

WA Mining and Pastoral Region MLC Dave Grills said those in favour of the motion were asking the Nationals Australia to support renewable energy and were not asking for billions and billions of dollars in taxpayer dollars.

“We’re asking for your support to do it because economically, it suits regional WA,” he said.

Another speaker, representing Wide Bay in Queensland said, “I’m totally over it with my tax dollars paying for subsidies for renewable energy windmills”.

“I resent my birds in this nation being chopped sliced and diced by these devices.”

Mr Pitt said there was a place for renewables for remote power generation but that decision should be made by those who distribute it.

He said under the current agreed, Renewable Energy Target ET of 33,000 gigawatt hours, as much capacity as has been produced in last 15 years, will need to be built in five years.

Mr Pitt said renewable energy certificates on an average of $47 would, over the next 15 years, cost electricity users $24 billion – but could go as high as $93 costing $43 billion.

“Every single job in renewables is subsidised to the tune of $200,000,” he said.

Queensland LNP speaker Rohan McPhee said the purpose of the motion had been misconstrued.

“We’re not calling for the federal government to go out and start paying for wind farms in regional towns,” he said.

“This is just encouraging innovation and investment in renewable energy.

“Whether or not you believe in climate change – and we can debate that for days – but the fact of the matter is the world consensus is it’s here and whether we like it or not we have to get with the program.

“We’re going to be left behind.

“Australia has such a great landscape for innovation in this area we’ve got so much space – we’ve got sun and wind and we’ve got so much potential to develop new technologies in the renewable energy sector.

“It’s a global market and the renewable energy market is growing every day for new technology.

“The fear I have is that if we don’t support this motion we don’t send a message to potential businesses that can grow and innovate new technology and we get left behind.”
The Land

An obvious battle for common sense there, but, thankfully they got there in the end. STT always cringes when arguments are peppered with nineties-inanities like “proactive” and “sustainable”. It’s a sign that the protagonist hasn’t really got anything to say, but is keen to be heard, just the same.

****

The ‘meat and potatoes’, was helpfully dished up by long-time STT Champion, Ron Boswell and relative new-comer, Keith Pitt.

Ron targeting the cost of the wind power debacle to real, productive industries; and Keith Pitt ripping into the insane cost of the single largest corporate welfare scheme ever devised.

Keith Pitt – an electrical engineer – gets it. His speech to Parliament back in June is clearly worth a re-run. Here it is.

Mr PITT (Hinkler) (18:34): I will not be supporting the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 that is currently before the Australian parliament. In my view, the renewable energy target—the RET, the deal the coalition has been forced into with Labor—will achieve only three things. It will increase the cost of electricity for those who can least afford it, Australian taxpayers will have spent billions of dollars subsidising private enterprise, and, come 2020, environmentalists will have little more to show for it than a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Let me explain. When I entered parliament in 2013 I was still a registered professional electrical engineer in the state of Queensland, and I promised to be a common-sense voice for the people of Hinkler and regional Australia. Over the past 18 months the issue raised most often with my office has been the spiralling cost of electricity—and for good reason. The median personal income in Hinkler is just $411 a week—just $411. A substantial number of pensioners call Hinkler home, and we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Unfortunately, many of Hinkler’s major employers are making workforce decisions based on the cost of energy—local foundries, farmers and manufacturers all say their overheads are rising at an unsustainable rate. Any relief businesses and households might have felt with the repeal of Labor’s carbon tax quickly turned to dismay when Queensland electricity retailers substantially increased their tariffs. The end result was a net price increase of about five per cent. It is no coincidence that in 2013-14 the number of households in regional Queensland disconnected for debt or non-payment rose 87 per cent to 12,454. The Fraser Coast Chronicle last week reported that the local Meals on Wheels electricity bill jumped from $5,700 to $12,200 in just one year. The not-for-profit organisation says it has only two choices if it is to remain viable: to either increase the price of the meals or find $85,000 to buy solar panels.

What is the solution? I have heard politicians on both sides tell people to shop around for the best rate. That might be possible in the capital cities, but there is generally only one retailer in most regional communities. The lack of market competition will only worsen if the Queensland Labor government proceeds with its plan to merge state-owned corporations Ergon, Energex and Powerlink. The merger, combined with already high electricity prices, falling energy consumption and the renewable energy target, will result in substantial job losses in the energy sector. We heard a lot from the Electrical Trades Union during the January 2015 state election, but why aren’t they out there actively fighting for their members’ jobs right now?

In his second reading speech to this bill, the Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, said the renewable energy target introduced by the Rudd government resulted in:

… new subsidised capacity … being forced into an oversupplied electricity market …

I appreciate the government is trying to put the RET on a sustainable footing, but, in my view, this current legislation will still result in an increase in power prices, paid for by the people who can least afford it. Australians are using less electricity now than they were 10 years ago. The AEMO Electricity statement of opportunities report in August 2014 stated:

More than 7,500 MW would need to be removed from the market to affect supply-adequacy in 2014-15.

There is potentially between 7,650 MW and 8,950 MW of surplus capacity across the NEM in 2014-15.

Under any risk scenario, no additional capacity is required for at least 10 years. It also states that approximately 90 per cent of this excess is in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. Furthermore: As operational consumption grows, the level of surplus capacity decreases. However, even with 10 years of consumption growth, by 2023-24 between 1,100 MW and 3,100 MW of capacity could still be withdrawn from each of New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria without breaching the reliability standard.

The problem is that forecast consumption is expected to fall by 1.1 per cent per year at a minimum.

Current renewable technologies like wind and solar do not reliably generate power on a constant basis, and so the baseload coal or gas fired power stations still have to maintain capacity for peak use times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing. Most of that peak occurs in the evening, after dark and, in many locations, when it is calm. Without some type of affordable storage system, there is no option but to maintain baseload power, and that will continue to force up the price of electricity. Put simply, if your running costs remain the same and you are selling less product, the next logical step is to increase the price of the product to be able to maintain your operations.

However, the Australian Energy Regulator, the AER, has advised of its plans to restrict Ergon Energy’s proposed revenue by 27 per cent over the next five years, well below the $8.24 billion that Ergon requested. The measure is expected to save Ergon customers between $16 and $44 in network charges on their bills each year. The savings would have been substantially higher if not for the exorbitant feed-in tariff offered to solar users by the former Queensland Labor government. In very simple terms, the AER makes its decisions based on how much the businesses need to spend delivering electricity prudently through the distribution network, putting an end to the so-called ‘gold-plating’ that occurred in the Beattie years. The AER says any costs above efficient levels are to be funded by the network owners and not the customers. On the one hand, federally we are trying to keep power prices down for consumers by reducing the operating expenses and revenue of electricity companies; but, on the other hand, our current environmental policies are inflating the price of electricity because, without baseload power, you have to start turning the lights off.

The public expects coal fired energy companies to maintain the same availability and readiness, but the renewable energy target encourages people to use more renewables in an already oversupplied market. To give you a simple example, I spoke with a pensioner in my electorate last week. He gets up in the middle of the night, each and every night, to turn off his refrigerator so he does not use as much electricity. He relies on his rooftop solar to power the fridge during the day, and he would rather risk food poisoning than run up an electricity bill that he cannot afford to pay.

I would support the move towards renewable energy if wind, solar and battery technology actually worked—meaning if it were capable of reliably supplying electricity during peak periods to replace traditional baseload power generators. Plus, the cost at this point in time is astronomical.

Under this bill, $15 billion will be spent over the next five years on infrastructure that will run concurrently with coal fired generators, supplying into a market that is excessively supplied. Broad estimates by the department indicate that renewable energy certificates from 2015 to 2030, at an average of $47 per certificate, will cost $24 billion. If the RECs are allowed to reach penalty at $93, the cost to users will be $43 billion. Can you imagine the response if we went to the Australian people and said they needed to contribute an additional $43 billion through their electricity pricing as a surcharge? To meet the target, Australia will need to build as many renewable generators in five years as we have built over the past 15—all of which will need to be replaced in the short to medium term, when the technology outdates and the equipment deteriorates. Putting aside the cost of building the infrastructure, renewable energy is extremely expensive to generate. Coal fired power costs about $36 per megawatt hour to produce, compared to $190 per megawatt hour for solar and up to $120 for wind. If renewable energy were a sound investment, governments would not need to subsidise private businesses with renewable energy certificates.

I find it absurd that we on the conservative side of politics have abandoned the stated belief in the free market to reach a deal with Labor. Labor’s recalcitrance will only hurt the very people they always purport to represent, and that is the poor. The Coalition’s Direct Action Plan costs around $14.50 per tonne of carbon abated at its first auction. That is compared to $25 under Labor’s carbon tax and a whopping $95 to $175 per tonne of carbon abated through the renewable energy target for the small systems scheme. Rather than subsidising jobs in private renewable energy businesses to the tune of almost $200,000 each over the period 2015 to 2030, we should be spending taxpayers’ funds on research to advance renewable technologies that have real promise—growing our fuel, finding cheap and effective storage sources and ensuring ongoing jobs in Australian manufacturing through competitive energy pricing. The enormous buckets of money thrown at renewable research by Labor was haphazard and predominantly unsuccessful in large-scale trials.

I have personally worked in hydro power stations that have been operational for more than 50 years and they will continue to work into the future. These plants provide a multiplying effect into the local economy, providing water storage, generating capacity and long-term infrastructure with real benefits. They are a true renewable, with their energy source replenished every time it rains. The greatest of these installations is, of course, the Snowy hydro scheme. Hydros can be used as peakers. They are flexible and can be run up quickly, and at night, when there is no wind or sun, they still work.

If you really want to do something about emissions, we need to be having a proper debate about zero-emission next-generation nuclear technology. If you want renewables, we should consider growing the fuel source. Spend money on research for natural fuel sources such as biomass, where every year 100 per cent of the fuel supply can be regrown, providing long-term jobs. There is a proposal floating around for loans for irrigators to install solar pumps. Unfortunately, they will only be able to irrigate when the sun is shining—and it is back to the bad old days of watering in the middle of the day, when evaporation is at its highest. All of those years of water-use efficiency and capital installation down the drain. Typically, irrigation only occurs during times of low rainfall and drought, when water is scarce, but it is either be killed by electricity bills or invest in capital.

The public perception is that we have not done enough with respect to renewable energy. In fact, there was a large amount of capacity before the target was even set. The price of installing rooftop PV solar has fallen substantially. In terms of installed capacity, that is, gigawatts, rather than generation, that is, gigawatt hours, coal is currently only providing around 50 per cent of the energy mix. To even come close to meeting the target set in this bill, around 1,500 to 2,000 wind turbines would need to be built. Wind turbines are intrusive, ineffectual and always best placed in your neighbour’s property, and out of view of your own. The remaining sites capable of having any chance of even 30 per cent utilisation for wind turbines are very limited, because you need a location where the wind blows consistently, of which there are not that many. And it should be close to where the energy is used.

Do I honestly think they can install the capacity needed to meet the reduced target? My answer is no. We will be back having this debate again in two or three years’ time, when it becomes apparent that even huge subsidies will not be enough to get sufficient facilities built. If you want to subsidise businesses, subsidise exporters that create long-term jobs. Do not subsidise businesses that devalue and destroy assets already predominantly owned by the taxpayer.

Every business owner in my electorate would like to have the upper hand against their competitors. They would love to receive a guaranteed price for the products they produce, regardless of need, subsidised by someone else. If—and I say if—Australia meets its 2020 renewable energy target, it will not be because we have created an economically self-sustaining, reliable source of renewable energy. People will be using less coal-fired electricity for one reason only: they simply cannot afford it.

Hansard, 2 June 2015

Story of a Victim of the Corrupt Wind Industry, and it’s Complicit Gov’t Supporters…

September 19, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Too Close – A Falmout Wind Turbine Victim’s Story

Bourne, Massachusetts citizens TOO CLOSE to the Plymouth gigantic wind turbines had best cue in on the present happenings. Once the machines are constructed it is an expensive multiyear battle to bring them down.

“Compliance” with the MASS DEP sound ordinance is A HUGE JOKE which is on YOU the neighbor of these STRESS GENERATING machines.

The ordinance in place utilizing the A weighted db scale is there solely to further wind renewables in this State.

NO ONE is looking out for the innocent abutter neighbors.

If you live within a full mile of these proposed Plymouth turbines chances are very good that your peace and tranquility and enjoyment of your home and property will plummet.

I would not have to say a thing. I could simply let fate bring the detrimental consequences of these too close mega turbines to your homes.

Forgive me, but I am only attempting to warn you of what happened to “we neighbors” now the “victims” of Falmouth’s wind project.

We have been fighting our Town at great expense for going on six years to regain the properties and homes that we rightfully own but can no longer enjoy because of Falmouth’s municipal wind turbines.

BE UP FRONT. Do not allow this project to take root. Those TOO CLOSE families will certainly suffer the consequences. Under a mile? Think NOW. Not after the machines are in place.

I KNOW from my first hand experience of living 1500-1600 feet from two 1.65MWatt wind turbines. I believe some of your residents will be closer to even bigger generators. Their lives will be compromised. The bigger the turbine the more noise it makes. Do not let them fool you. Your quality of life and that of your family is what you should focus on. Quality of life matters–for ALL of us.

Sincerely,
Barry Funfar

Falmouth Massachusetts

Windpushers Trying To Deny Accountability, for Making People Sick!

September 18, 2015 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060024771

Wis. ‘health hazard’ ruling could shock wind industry

Residents in rural Wisconsin claim noise from a nearby wind farm is making them sick. Their campaign to shut down the turbines could pose a major threat to the national wind industry. Photo by Noelle Straub.

A Wisconsin town of fewer than 1,200 stands on the verge of sending shock waves through the wind energy industry.

Late last year, Glenmore, a rural community just south of Green Bay, persuaded its county’s board of health to declare that the sounds of an eight-turbine wind farm pose a “human health hazard.”

It was the first time a health board has made such a determination. Wind energy opponents from across the country seized on the decision as proof of “wind turbine syndrome,” a supposed illness caused by low-frequency noise and “infrasound” that is typically undetectable to the human ear.

Local activists have continued to press the issue in hopes of shutting down the turbines, pointing to families who complain of sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea and dizziness — symptoms similar to sea sickness. Lawns display signs saying, “Turbines kill: Birds, Bats, Communities” and “Consider How Your Turbine May Harm Your Neighbor.” More than one family has moved out of their home.

Duke Energy Corp., which purchased the Shirley wind farm in 2011, has strongly pushed back against the hazard determination, pointing to a series of studies that have found no connection between infrasound and the symptoms described by the local residents. The case has caught the attention of the national wind industry, which is concerned about the precedent it could set and whether it could embolden local activists around the country. They claim it is part of a politically motivated campaign by anti-wind advocates.

Attention has now turned to the county’s lead health official, who has said she will rule on the issue by the end of the year. It’s unclear whether the official can force the wind farm to shut down, but if she does, Duke will be quick to challenge the decision in court.

By the end of the month, the local campaign, Duke Energy and other parties will submit binders of public comments making their cases. The local advocates appear bullish about their chances.

“Abandoned homes, sick families, continued Duke Energy ordinance violations,” said Steve Deslauriers of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the principal group opposing the farm. “If this were any other industry, they would already be shut down. It is high time that wind developers are held accountable for the hell they levy upon families.”

The Shirley wind farm looms large over Glenmore, with its sweeping turbines situated close to farms and family homes. It went online in December 2010 amid local opposition. Local newspapers featured opinion pieces and letters to the editor that expressed various concerns about the project, including health effects.

It produces 20 megawatts of electricity that it supplies to the utility Wisconsin Public Service Corp., enough to power 6,000 homes.

The controversy over the farm ramped up after Duke purchased it at the end of 2011. As the state was preparing to permit a larger wind farm elsewhere, it requested a study on the sound and health issues reported at the Shirley turbines.

In December 2012, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, which is an independent regulatory agency, and the environmental group Clean Wisconsin released a study that included the findings of four acousticians. The consultants spanned the ideological spectrum; some worked primarily for opponents of wind farms, while others had worked on both sides of the issue.

Local advocates are posting home-made signs on their lawns in Glenmore. Photo by Noelle Straub.

The report’s top-line conclusion appeared incriminating.

“The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify [low frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry,” it said.

It acknowledged that there is “sparse or non-existent” evidence of sickness in “peer-reviewed literature” but concluded that the four specialists “strongly recommend additional testing” at the Shirley farm.

Local advocates seized on the findings as validation that their symptoms were caused by the turbines. They pressed the seven-member Brown County Board of Health to declare the farm a health hazard. In particular, they highlighted the conclusions of Robert Rand, a Maine-based “acoustics investigator” who has primarily worked for groups opposing wind projects.

Rand said turbine sounds and infrasound cause effects similar to sea sickness and health boards shouldn’t need peer-reviewed scientific papers to accept the health impacts.

“Most people accept — because it’s been occurring for thousands of years — that people get motion sickness,” Rand said in an interview. “And yet, in this particular case, there seems to be a lot of pushback.”

The findings grabbed the attention of the health board. Audrey Murphy, its president, said in an interview that the “symptoms are pretty universal throughout the world.”

Murphy insisted the board doesn’t oppose wind energy, saying the turbines should be located farther from homes. In Wisconsin, they must be at least 1,250 feet away.

There is some precedent for the board’s decision. The issue has long plagued local health boards in Massachusetts. Fairhaven, Mass., for example, in June 2013 shut down the town’s two turbines at night in response to complaints about sleep deprivation.

Falmouth, Mass., found in 2012 that one turbine was violating local ordinances because it was too close to a home and emitting too much audible noise — not infrasound. But the controversy spurred studies by acousticians, including Rand, that concluded the turbines produce sounds capable of disturbing nearby residents and may lead to annoyance, sleep disturbance and other impacts. That led multiple residents to file lawsuits seeking damages for their health problems, claiming the turbines were to blame.

But wind supporters cite other studies showing no such linkages.

Murphy said the Wisconsin board has sought to take all the relevant findings into account.

“This has been done very slowly and very methodically,” she said. “The board has been concerned about the health of these people.”

‘No factual basis’

Wind proponents are quick to try to poke holes in the board’s findings, as well as the local activists’ evidence.

They start in Massachusetts. After the action in Falmouth, the state agency convened a panel of independent scientists and doctors. They found no evidence that wind turbines pose a tangible health risk to those living near them.

Plus, there have been several peer-reviewed scientific studies since then that have reached similar conclusions, including one by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another by Canada’s health ministry. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recognize “wind turbine syndrome” as an illness. The term was created by a pediatrician, Nina Pierpont, around 2006. Pierpont’s husband is an anti-wind activist.

Health Canada’s 2014 study, for example, found no evidence to suggest a link between exposure to turbine noise and any self-reported illnesses, including dizziness, migraines and chronic conditions.

North Carolina-based Duke Energy claims the complaints are unique to Brown County.

“Duke Energy Renewables operates about 1,200 wind turbines around the United States, and we’ve only had health complaints about the eight turbines we operate in Brown County,” said Tammie McGee, a company spokeswoman. “We don’t see these kinds of complaints, for the most part, anywhere else.”

She added: “We feel confident that we’ve met all the state and the town of Glenmore’s conditions for operations and compliance with all noise ordinances and laws and regulations.”

The American Wind Energy Association has also responded to the local group’s claims and pointed to some research on a “nocebo” effect. The concept is the opposite of the placebo effect, meaning that people who are told to expect certain symptoms may experience them whether or not the supposed cause of the symptom — in this case, turbines — is actually present.

But perhaps most importantly, some who were involved in the 2012 Public Service Commission study dispute the advocates’ interpretation.

Katie Nekola, the general counsel of Clean Wisconsin, which helped fund the study, said it was only an inventory of noise levels and shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions on health effects.

The local groups, she said, “took the equivocal nature of the preamble to mean that things are falling apart and everyone is going to die.”

There is “no factual basis in what they found for the health determination that the county made,” she added. “Nothing in our study provided any kind of basis to say that noise was making them sick.”

Rand, the acoustician who worked on the earlier study, contended that the results show what he’s argued for years: Some people experience the health effects, and they are real and scary. Others simply don’t and refuse to acknowledge they exist.

“Some people are saying this isn’t happening — or people are making it up in their heads,” Rand said. “People who don’t get seasick will never understand what you’re talking about. … It doesn’t require peer-reviewed scientific studies to accept that some people get motion sickness and sea sickness.”

What comes next

Deslauriers, the representative of the local group opposing the farm, declined to comment further, citing the ongoing public comment period on the health board’s finding.

That window closes at the end of September. Then the county’s top health officer, Chua Xiong, will rule on the issue by the end of the year after meeting with stakeholders and doctors.

It is unclear, however, whether she has the authority to shut down the turbines. Murphy, the head of the county’s health board, thinks Xiong does. Duke isn’t sure but will challenge such a determination in court.

The county lawyer, Juliana Ruenzel, refused to answer a question on Xiong’s enforcement authority before abruptly ending an interview with Greenwire. Xiong did not return several messages seeking comment.

Nekola of Clean Wisconsin said a county determination would apply only to local projects and shouldn’t affect other wind farms that have obtained permits from the state.

She said the Brown County effort was indicative only of a localized desire to block wind farms motivated by a not-in-my-backyard sentiment.

“There is just a contingent of people who oppose wind,” she said. “And they will use any mechanism they can think of to stop a project.”

But Rand sought to emphasize that the symptoms are real and he has felt them.

“This isn’t an intellectual exercise,” he said. “People get sick.”

Falmouth Wind Turbine Emissions Ignored….Nearby Residents, Tormented!

September 17, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Neighbors are far better acoustic analyzers for determining the quality of their life

By FRANK HAGGERTY (Open Post) September 17, 2015

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Tonight ,September17, 2015 at 6:30 PM the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals will hear several appeals regarding lack of zoning enforcement by the Zoning Enforcement Officer to cease and desist operations of Wind 1 and Wind 2 turbines located at 154 Blacksmith Shop Rd, West Falmouth.

The Board of Appeals acts on matters within its jurisdiction under Sections 10 and 11 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts Generals Laws, as amended and subject always to the rule that it will give due consideration to promoting the public health, safety, convenience and welfare, encouraging the most appropriate use of land, and conserving property value, that it shall permit no building use, injurious, noxious, offensive or detrimental to a neighborhood, and that it shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in each case.

The ZBA’s determination should be a belief that there’s nothing more important than good health.

Neighbors are far better acoustic analyzers for determining the quality of their life.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) is a publicly-funded agency dedicated to a renewable energy agenda of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy at the cost of residential home owners health, property and all Massachusetts taxpayers. The agenda calls for an all out war on fossil fuels. They are fighting the war as a real war taking the health, property rights and tax money of anyone who has property in the way of the agenda.

The MassCEC state agency has an agenda likened to a 1943 country in Europe where like Falmouth human dignity has been ignored.

Falmouth has lost sight of the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. Health and saftey is primary in a civilized society.

Falmouth public officials are following a “Dangerous” script paid for by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. The MassCEC recently gave Falmouth 1.8 million taxpayer dollars to help pay litigation costs and finance a drawn out protracted legal defense of Falmouth wind turbine # 1. Falmouth officials are being “advised” how to vote.

You can say wind turbine victims and taxpayers are being shot with their own tax dollars paying massive litigation fees making law firms rich at taxpayer expense.

The Friends of Falmouth Wind a group of former and present elected officials have convinced a majority of Falmouth voters its OK to take the health and property rights of their neighbors for the greater good for the past five years with no compensation. They are playing God. They should hang their heads in shame.

The Town of Falmouth has broken two of the Ten Commandments;

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Falmouth taxpayers are obvious to the tax liabilty they are incuring torturing their neighbors for the past 5 years. The town commercial general liability insurance will not pay one dime towards any court restitution with the wind turbine victims. At some point in time in the future the court is going to order taxpayes to pay restitution to pay back the damage you caused to the victims.

The taxpayes are on the hook because the MassCEC knew the Falmouth Wind 1 turbine had noise problems prior to the installation. The town had been warned prior to the installation by the manufacturer Veatas Wind Company. The MassCEC was the owner and seller of the turbine to the Town of Falmouth. The MassCEC in April of 2013 three years after the installation sent a memo to the Town of Falmouth admitting they knew and extrapolated noise tests to pass Massachusetts noise regulations. As expected the turbine broke state noise guidlines. They always knew they would.

The town hid the noise warning letter for five years, memos, not posted wind studies and in general kept negative information from the public. The town was found guilty of not following its own bylaws in Massachusetts Superior Court. The Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals found twice in the past the turbines are a nuisance. The Massachusetts courts shut the turbines down 12 hours a night and Sundays.

In the written injunction to shut the turbines down. Judge Muse said the court finds the wind turbine victims claims that they did not experience such symptoms prior to the construction and operation of the turbines, and that that each day of operation produces further injury, to be credible.

The Court rejected the town’s claim that reducing the turbines in hours would cause financial harm, as it was counting on revenue generated by the sale of excess energy back to the grid.

The Falmouth taxpayers had a chance to take down the turbines for 12 or 15 million dollars. Today with all the facts including the hidden letters, documents, videos and studies how much is a jury going to award up to 200 residential home owners for five plus years of torture ?
The Town of Falmouth always knew the turbines were too loud

Massachusetts Judge Robert Rufo did not rule out imposing a cease and desist order at any point it time.

Important Information on the MOECC Proposal for Removal off 550m Setbacks…

September 16, 2015September 16, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Click on to read…

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=442e1005fd&view=att&th=14fd7eec07ee4bb6&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=c1783546396d8a1_0.1&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=442e1005fd&view=att&th=14fd7eec07ee4bb6&attid=0.2&disp=inline&realattid=c1783546396d8a1_0.2&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=442e1005fd&view=att&th=14fd7eec07ee4bb6&attid0.3&disp=inline&realattid=c1783546396d8a1_0.3&safe=1&zw

Video of Senator John Madigan Speaking About the Victims of the Wind Turbine Industry…Brilliant!

September 16, 2015September 16, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Below, is the transcript of Senator Madigan’s speech.

Fraud and corruption in the power generation industry

September 16, 2015

Tonight I speak about corruption and fraud in the power generation industry.

The Senate Wind Turbine Inquiry’s final report made 15 important recommendations. Today, I rise to speak in support the Labor senators’ Dissenting report’s fifth recommendation:

that state and territory government consider reforming the current system whereby windfarm developers directly retain acoustic consultants to provide advice on post-construction compliance.

Avoiding noise from wind turbines is an expensive bother that does not hold any appeal to windfarm operators. Slowing down turbines increases costs and slows down profits.

So I was not surprised to learn that in the seven years of its controversial operation, the adjustments necessary to ensure Cape Bridgewater Windfarm operated in compliance with its planning permit have never been applied.

Mr President, wind farm operators have found a far less expensive and simple process to game the system. They employ compliant “experts.”

In 2006, Marshall Day Acoustics with consultant Christophe Delaire prepared a pre-construction Noise Impact Assessment for the Cape Bridgewater Windfarm.

The report predicted that compliance could not be achieved at Cape Bridgewater windfarm without operating 13 of 29 wind turbines in reduced operational noise modes.

Before it was even built, developers knew this windfarm would operate in breach of permit unless adjustments were made.

But Delaire told the committee of inquiry:

following measurements on site, it was found that noise optimisation was not required.

How did Delaire’s “expert” pre-construction and post construction reports come to draw such contrasting conclusions?

The answer is simple. Pacific Hydro didn’t noise optimise turbines at Cape Bridgewater because they knew they wouldn’t have to! They only had to commission a post-construction noise report to say the windfarm was compliant.

On both occasions, Pacific Hydro got exactly the report they wanted from MDA. But the compliance assessments were not compliant with the standard and neither were the reports!

Questions of multiple reports reaching opposite conclusions were raised at the Portland Hearing.

During the Cape Bridgewater windfarm’s noise monitoring program, measurements were taken every month and monthly noise reports were generated to assess compliance at dwellings.

Let’s look at a few from House 63.

October 2008: “windfarm noise levels exceed the NZ noise limits.”

June 2009: “the NZ limits are significantly exceeded”.

July 2009: “the NZ limits are significantly exceeded”.

MDA’s original reports identified noncompliance at multiple homes and every wind speed.

This didn’t satisfy the client.

On 22 July, MDA reissued revised monthly reports for every house and every month. These reports were to Pacific Hydro’s satisfaction (but not the permit’s.)

The reissued versions for October and July said: there is reasonable correlation between measured noise levels and wind speeds.

References to exceeding the NZ limits, erased.

Without incriminating original reports, MDA’s final report concluded: noise emissions from the Cape Bridgewater Windfarm comply with the NZ noise limits at all houses and at all assessed wind speeds.

Pacific Hydro submitted it to the Planning Minister as “proof” the Cape Bridgewater Windfarm was compliant.

But how?

MDA combined all the reissued monthly reports and averaged them out for each property.

There is nothing in the 1998 NZ standard that allows acousticians to find “average” post- construction noise levels and yet Pacific Hydro told the Committee:

Current noise standards require the average post-construction wind farm noise level.

There is no tolerance within the Standard that would allow a windfarm to casually comply with its noise limits, in some months but not others. Condition 13 does not allow the windfarm to occasionally comply with its permitted use.

NZ Standard is supposed to protect amenity and night time sleep. Windfarm planning permits are issued with conditions that decision-makers expect will protect the communities that host them – in real time.

In February 2009, the panel assessing the Lal Lal windfarm stated:

There is little point in giving permission for a windfarm to operate under certain conditions unless compliance with those conditions can be demonstrated.

adding,

Any exceedance of the limit should be considered as a breach of the condition.

An “average” noise level means nothing. That’s why the permit requires that when the windfarm is operated it must comply with the NZ noise limits at all dwellings and clearly, this one doesn’t.

The Cape Bridgewater windfarm has never been compliant, despite the falsified conclusions drawn by MDA and the claims of its master, Pacific Hydro.

A Victorian Planning officer told the Committee: “studies need to be done in a way which is robust. That is why the peer review of the work is important.”

So why wasn’t a review of the Cape Bridgewater report commissioned as a matter of due diligence, not to mention consistency?

When Acciona gave the Minister its report, the Minister sent a copy to the EPA and within a week, he had commissioned an independent technical review.

He promptly wrote to Acciona describing multiple breaches of permit and expressing his dissatisfaction that compliance had been achieved with the noise monitoring program required by condition 17.

He said that the report shows that the operation of the Waubra Windfarm does not comply with the noise standard at several dwellings and he was not satisfied in accordance with Condition 14 that the operation of the facility complies with the relevant standard.

Then he asked Acciona to “noise optimise the turbines.”

Delaire from MDA prepared Waubra’s Windfarm’s preconstruction noise report which predicted noise would exceed the NZ limits and would only comply if 50 of its 128 turbines were noise optimised.

Same preconstruction formula, same post-construction problems.

If not for that pesky peer-review, Acciona might have got away with it. They had never intended to operate noise optimise turbines in compliance with the limits.

WHY? Acciona had a MDA post construction noise report that concluded Waubra Windfarm operated in compliance with noise limits without needing to noise optimise any turbines, let alone fifty of them.

The Minister wrote to Acciona again a year later, stating that the MDA report it submitted showed non-compliance and that testing wasn’t undertaken in accordance with the NZ standard. The Minister queried “who it was that undertook the assessment and whether this person or people were qualified and experienced to do so.”

MDA’s website says Delaire graduated with an engineering diploma in 2002 after beginning with MDA as a work experience student the year before.

Delaire has prepared acoustic reports for 50 wind farms.

MDA’s website promotes its: “Proven record of successful wind farm approvals” and credits Delaire for developing a ‘specialty’ in wind farm environmental noise assessments.”

At the beginning of MDA’s reports there is an extraordinary disclaimer which acknowledges that reports are written to satisfy the client’s brief. It says their reports ‘may not be suitable’ for other uses.

MDA’s disclaimer proves they are not fit for purpose as independent compliance documents.

MDA is a member firm of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants whose Code of Professional Conduct requires that members avoid making statements are misleading or unethical and endeavour to promote the well-being of the community.

They must not knowingly omit from any finalised report any information that would materially alter the conclusion that could be drawn from the report.

MDA has clearly failed the community. Consistently.

There’s no doubt that MDA’s commercial arrangements with both Acciona and Pacific Hydro adversely affected the independence of reports and the legitimacy of conclusions.

This example alone shows exactly why we needed an Inquiry that examined the regulatory governance of wind farms and why the scrutiny of an independent, national wind farm commissioner is essential.

There must be arm’s length relationships between acousticians and windfarm operators. Independence would put a stop to the practice where false compliance documents allow operators to gain pecuniary advantage!

Local, state and Commonwealth government authorities, departments and agencies have been duped by sham compliance reports.

A windfarm that is “compliant” with state laws can receive RECs.

A “compliant” windfarm can secure finance – like the $70 million Pacific Hydro swindled from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

But those who these reports fail most are decent rural people left suffering the consequences of deception. A shonky noise report can’t erase away the harm and nuisance it has caused for those living, working and suffering beside excessively noisy industrial machines.

Last month I asked the Victorian government to take a good hard look at all the submissions we received, in particular, from people duped by the regulatory failures of the Waubra and Cape Bridgewater windfarms.

Samantha Stepnell’s submission is #470. Melissa Ware’s submission is #206.

While Acciona and Pacific Hydro were busy breaching their permits to maximise their profits, residents were and still are often exposed to horrendously excessive noise. Twenty or more of these same people had sent affidavits to former Health Minister and current Victorian Premier, Daniel Andrews, in June 2010.

They reported severe sleep disturbances and a series of unexplained adverse health effects that were not present before the windfarm started operating. Local doctors and a Sleep specialist confirmed concerns of a correlation.

By December 2010, eleven families around Waubra alone had vacated their homes, citing noise nuisance as the reason.

But the Victorian government refused Pyrenees Council’s request for a Health Impact Assessment, citing the NHMRC’s Rapid Review. That very rapid review found that there was no evidence of adverse effects when planning guidelines were followed.

At Waubra, we know that they were not. A simple peer review would have found that they weren’t followed at Cape Bridgewater either.

With callous indifference, the Victorian government has consistently failed in its duty of care to these people.

These people represent the human cost of corporate fraud, regulatory failure and political indifference.

These families still have the right to be able to sleep at night, to work safely on their farms and to live in the peace and quiet enjoyment of their homes. This is as much a human rights issue as it is an environmental one.

The nocebo theory is obliterated by the fact that the noise measured at Waubra and Cape Bridgewater exceeds World Health Organisation recommendations for sleep protection. Sleep deprivation is an indisputable adverse health effect.

Even the NHMRC now admits there are “probably” adverse health impacts for residents living within 1.5kms of a wind turbine.

I have been writing to the AMA since May 2014 about its windfarm position statement, asking why audible noise impacts had not been considered. The AMA has failed to respond but blindly endorses the disproven nocebo drivel by Chapman and Crichton stating:

The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infrasound or low frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they are currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity.

That’s because infrasound and low frequency sound from windfarms aren’t regulated in Australia!

Irrespective of what the AMA has been told or wants to admit, exposures to excessive audible noise, low frequency pressure and vibration cause debilitating nuisance, sleep disturbance and compromised health and amenity that reduces quality of life.

So where does that leave those suffering the continuing nuisance at Cape Bridgewater?

In submission #206, Melissa Ware said she was driven beyond despair and wretchedness.

Last year, Pacific Hydro told residents: “it is our goal to improve your quality of life or at least restore it to what it was before the wind farm was there.”

They told me personally: “We recognise that the wind farm has reduced their quality of life, and we want to help them get it back.”

But that was before Steven Cooper’s study found that all six residents surveyed are adversely impacted by the operation of the Cape Bridgewater Windfarm.

Funnily enough, Cooper was instructed not to test compliance!

Despite the infamous screeching, thumping, whirring, whistle and siren-like audible sounds produced by the Cape Bridgewater windfarm, Special Audible Characteristics weren’t assessed in MDA’s report. If the 5 db SAC penalty were properly applied, an independent report would identify non-compliance at every dwelling, at every wind speed.

The Waubra and Cape Bridgewater reports were written within months of each other by the same acoustician from the same firm, using the same formula.

Perhaps the Planning Minister hasn’t commission a review of Cape Bridgewater’s report because he already knows it shows non-compliance?

Is this the real reason why the Planning Minister insists that it’s Glenelg Shire’s responsibility to enforce noise compliance at Cape Bridgewater, not his?

Glenelg Shire can’t enforce compliance without any access to noise reports and the complaints procedure. Only the minister has that information.

Condition 13 says compliance must be to the satisfaction of the Minister. Council cannot legally exercise that judgement.

Condition 13 remains un-resolved, Cape Bridgewater windfarm continues to operate at full capacity and maximum noise without any regulatory authority accepting responsibility for enforcement.

In submission 456, Sonia Trist explains how officers from the Victorian Planning Department admitted noise limits are exceeded at her home, one apologising that:

“The Department adjusts information to obtain the required results.”

In June 2014, this retiring officer called me and later sent me an email, blowing-the-whistle on his department.

There is so such more to convey and I am sorry that I cannot do so now. Department incompetence and indifference is the primary reason for the current situation.

I found it hard to find the truth, working inside, so it must be hard for your side.

On “my side” are those exposed to excessive and harmful, sleep destroying, audible noise emissions at levels that exceed noise standards and breach permits.

Those not on my side include complicit regulators, wilfully blind health bodies, greedy operators who put corporate profits before country people. And neither are crooked acousticians flaunting a fraudulent reporting formula, that concludes compliance when there isn’t.

Notable for their refusal to attend the senate inquiry and be questioned, the Australian Medical Association were not alone. Others who similarly refused were the authors of the two NHMRC commissioned Literature Reviews from both Adelaide University and Monash University, and Professor Gary Wittert.

In December, 2013, I warned about the culture of non-compliance arising from systemic regulatory failure in Victoria.

But that culture of non-compliance, aided, abetted and enabled by recklessly irresponsible reporting and regulatory indifference will only continue for as long as we tolerate it.

This industry demands root and branch regulatory reform.

Those who have actively and deceptively harmed communities, gamed the planning system, rorted the RET and exposed the CEFC and the private sector to investment risk must be investigated and held to account.

I urge the government to swiftly adopt the prudent Recommendations of the Wind Turbine Inquiry. We insist that the Labour Senator’s fifth recommendation is acted upon as a matter of urgency.

Acoustics Experts Help to Expose the Corrupt Practices of the Wind Industry…

September 16, 2015 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

Incessant Wind Turbine Infrasound: An Acoustic Invader

September 16, 2015 by stopthesethings

Among the growing list of what’s getting to the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers is the fact that – despite their relentless efforts to cover up both the work and the results – highly skilled people are working flat out around the world to discover the precise mechanism that causes the adverse health effects from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, including sleep deprivation, vertigo and the like.

It’s not only the fact of their rather obvious conclusions that has wind-spinners in apoplexy, it’s the fact that they’re looking at all.

You see, the line being run is that there is NO problem – a tobacco advertising guru said so – so why on earth should anyone be looking?

For the wind industry and its parasites, the problem is, that there IS a problem: teams of highly skilled scientific investigators don’t generally devote their every waking hour to chase answers and solutions, when there’s nothing to chase.

Here’s just another example of what properly qualified people can do when looking for answers to real problems.

This time the work is that of Rob Rand – a Maine boy, who’s been hunting down acoustic trespassers for 20 years; and who – unlike the wind industry’s pet acoustic ‘experts’ – regards his ethical responsibility to “hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public” as a way of professional life, not some throwaway line.

***

Wind farm and health issues
Lindsey Harrison
New Falcon Herald
September 2015

According to an Aug. 26 El Paso County press release, construction at the NextEra Energy Resources wind farm project in Calhan is nearing completion. “All 145 concrete foundations to support the wind turbine towers have now been completed … and 120 of the authorized 145 turbines are now fully erected, with only electrical work remaining to be completed.”

Although the press release states that the turbines will not be functional until the electrical work has been finished, it also states that the turbines could move in the wind, which is already causing health concerns for residents living within the wind farm’s footprint.

One resident, who wished to remain anonymous, said she knew right away that the turbines were moving because she began to feel nauseous, along with a headache. “I have 100 turbines to the north of me, 25 to the west and 20 to the southwest,” she said. “When the wind was coming out of the north, I woke up feeling dizzy and nauseous.”

She also said her animals were acting strangely. “My donkeys and horses keep wanting to go back into their stalls,” she said. “They have not wanted to leave the barn all day.”

Robert Rand, a Boulder, Colorado, resident and an acoustic investigator and member of the Acoustical Society of America, said the reason for the headaches and nausea is directly related to the wind turbines. It has to do with infrasound and low frequency noise, he said.

According to an article written by acoustic engineer Richard James, published at http://wiseenergy.org Feb. 20, “Infrasound is acoustic energy, sound pressure, just like the low to high frequency sounds that we are accustomed to hearing. What makes infrasound different is that it is at the lowest end of the acoustical frequency spectrum even below the deep bass rumble of distant thunder or all but the largest pipe organ tones.

“As the frequency of an infrasonic tone moves to lower frequencies: 5Hz, 2Hz, 1Hz and lower, the sounds are more likely to be perceived as separate pressure pulsations … . Unlike mid and high frequency sound, infrasound is not blocked by common construction materials. As such, it is often more of a problem inside homes, which are otherwise quiet, than it is outside the home.”

Rand said the separate pressure pulsations are like the “whump, whump, whump,” people sometimes experience when they are riding in a car with the windows down. “I have been attempting to acoustically measure phenomena that could present a conflict to human physiology that could then provide a basis to do more research,” Rand said. “My work in acoustics has really been designing and planning. I don’t need more medical research because I know what they (wind turbines) do to people because it happened to me.”

According to an article accepted into The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America Feb. 4, when the body experiences an external force on the inner ear, such as acoustic pressure pulses — but there is no visual input to associate with that pressure — a sensory conflict occurs. That conflict is felt as motion sickness, and it is felt to the same degree as seasickness.

The wind energy industry has claimed for decades that this phenomenon does not exist, in part, because about one-third of the human population is essentially immune to the effects of motion sickness, which is what these pressure pulsations induce, Rand said. Similarly, about one-third of the population appears to be readily prone to motion sickness, he said. “The third that is not affected by this will never understand it and will not know what you are talking about,” Rand said.

According to an article published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society March 2, 2011, written by Dr. Alec Salt: “Infrasound from wind turbines is unlikely to be harmful in the same way as high-level audible sounds.”

However, Salt also states that numerous reports “are highly suggestive that individuals living near wind turbines are made ill, with a plethora of symptoms, which commonly include chronic sleep disturbance. The fact that such reports are being dismissed on the grounds that the level of infrasound produced by wind turbines is at too low a level to be heard appears to totally ignore the known physiology of the ear.”

Dirty electricity concerns
Rebecca Rivas, a Calhan resident with a wind turbine located about 1 mile from her house, said there are other serious health concerns to consider. “My husband had open heart surgery in 2007 and had a mitral valve replaced,” she said. “It is a metal valve now, and he can’t go through metal detectors or any thing.” Rivas said her husband’s cardiologist told him that, with wind turbines that close to their residence, staying there would be like playing Russian roulette with his life.

Rivas said the reason is because the wind turbines emit not only sound waves or pressure waves, but electromagnetic waves as well.

According to an article published online in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society Sept. 30, 2011, “The electromagnetic waves are generated by the conversion of wind energy to electricity. This conversion produces high-frequency transients and harmonics that result in poor power quality … . High-frequency transient spikes that contribute to poor power quality, also known as dirty electricity, can flow along wires, damage sensitive electronic equipment, and adversely affect human and animal health.”

Rivas said she was advised that the electromagnetic waves could send her husband into atrial fibrillation. AFib is a quivering or irregular heartbeat that can lead to blood clots, stroke, heart failure and other heart-related complications, according to the American Heart Association. “I’ve watched doctors flatline my husband (stop his heart) five times to try to get his heart back into rhythm,” Rivas said. “Because my husband’s life is at stake, I have to speak up.”

Brown County, Wisconsin
Residents of Brown County, Wisconsin also decided to speak up when the Shirley Wind Farm, owned by Duke Energy, was under construction.

Barbara Vanden Boogart, vice president of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, worked with other members of the BCCRWE to present a case in front of the Brown County Wisconsin Board of Health about the dangers of the wind turbines.

Vanden Boogart said the presentation contained various pieces of evidence, including the following: 21 peer-reviewed articles on health and industrial wind turbines; analyses of the effects of wind turbines on property values; personal accounts from residents near the wind farm; and studies done in the homes near the Shirley Wind Farm where infrasound and low frequency noise was detected that emanated from the turbines.

According to the minutes from the Brown County Board of Healthmeeting on Oct. 14, the board voted 4-0 to “declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI a human health hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to infrasound/low frequency noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.”

“They (Duke Energy) were planning to put up 100 turbines within our town and two other adjacent ones, with six on our country block alone,” Vanden Boogart said. “We fought hard, fast and loud in every way we could, and they succeeded in shutting down the wind farm.

“Wind farms are making people ill and the wind energy industry has known about it since 1979. They knew for decades and instead of notifying people, they have been changing the attention to audible noise. This industry is filthy, dirty, corrupt and committing crimes knowingly against people.”

Laura Wilson, a member of the El Paso County Property Rights Coalition, said Vanden Boogart shared all the information that the BCCRWE presented to their board of health with her; and, on Aug. 26, Wilson and 11 other concerned residents attended the El Paso County Public Health board meeting.

“I gave them all the information and told them everything I knew, and they just looked at me with total indifference,” Wilson said. “They were actually eating their lunches while we were all testifying.”

The EPCPRC has a lawsuit pending against the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners and NextEra, citing that the BOCC “exceeded its jurisdiction when it approved the (Golden West Wind Farm) project” at the Feb. 5 meeting, according to the article, “Wind farm goes to roads,” in the May issue of The New Falcon Herald. No hearing date has been set yet. Because of the pending lawsuit, EPC Public Health declined an interview with the NFH.

David Gil, project manager with NextEra, also declined an interview but sent an email to the NFH, with this statement about the Brown County Board of Health declaration: “I am not aware of the declaration.”

Chris Ollson, who testified on behalf of NextEra at the Feb. 5 BOCC meeting also declined an interview, but sent an email stating he was “on holiday.”

Ollson, vice president of strategic development for Intrinsik Inc., is considered an authority in environmental health issues related to the energy sector and has provided risk communication support for wind turbine projects, according to Intrinsik’s website. Ollson has a doctorate in Environmental Sciences from the Royal Military College of Canada.

Wilson said the property rights coalition is hoping to raise more funds to pay the attorney’s fees for the pending litigation; she and the other coalition members intend to keep fighting.
New Falcon Herald

Europeans Regret….Wind Energy is a Bad Deal, No Matter Where You Go!

September 11, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Europeans Lament their Wind Power Fiasco

September 11, 2015 by stopthesethings

Hurrah! Windfarms produce whopping ONE PERCENT of EU energy
The Register
Lewis Page
27 July 2015

The colossal, hugely expensive windfarms that are spread across huge areas of Europe’s land and sea, which are projected to drive up household energy bills by more than 50 per cent in coming years, have achieved … almost nothing in terms of reducing EU carbon emissions.

We here on the Reg energy desk only noticed this particularly this week because of a chirpy press release that flitted past us just the other day, claiming that “wind energy provides 8 per cent of Europe’s electricity.”

Hey, we thought, that sounds almost like it’s getting somewhere! So we looked into it. The eight per cent figure comes from the latest Wind Status Report (pdf) from the EU Joint Research Centre, and sure enough, it’s claimed therein that all those massive wind farms produced no less than 238 terawatt-hours of the 2,942 TWh of ‘leccy used in the EU nations last year.

That’s eight per cent, right enough – and that’d be a noticeable bite out of EU carbon emissions, maybe even one worth tying an energy-prices ball and chain round the ankles of the European economies.

Except it isn’t, of course. Like most developed economies, the EU nations use the great bulk of their energy in non-electric forms: we burn fuels to run transport, to provide heating and cooking and hot water, to power most of our industry. And this accounts for most of our energy use and carbon emissions.

By the most recent figures available, in fact, the EU is using around 1,666 million-tonnes-of-oil-equivalent of energy from all sources every year:that’s 20,710 TWh. Wind electricity makes up just over one measly percentage point of that. Solar? About half that again, for a total renewable-‘leccy contribution of around 1.5 per cent and a roughly corresponding CO₂ reduction.

The large majority of the “renewable energy” figure claimed by the EU is produced by optimistic accounting on biomass and renewable-waste, much of which is dubiously renewable at best. Even the proper renewable electricity figures are not to be relied on, particularly in southern Italy where the Mafia is well known to be heavily involved in the industry.

Actual renewables, despite their horrific expense, are not even scratching the surface of real-world modern civilisation’s energy requirements.

Comment

It really is getting clearer and clearer. Bill Gates is right: top Google engineers are right: global-warming high priest James Hansen is right: theUN IPCC is wrong. The renewable energy technologies of today simply cannot provide the power needed to keep the lights on, not at any cost.

Anybody who thinks that carbon emissions are a big threat to humanity – or alternatively, anybody who thinks that becoming ever more dependent on Russian gas and Middle Eastern oil is a bad idea, for instance – needs to get their head around this and move on. The current, cripplingly expensive schemes which crank up the price of energy and channel the resulting cash to windfarms and solar panels need to be scrapped – they will never achieve anything useful.

Perhaps the money saved could be spent on R&D instead, to find some new source of low-carbon energy. But in fact, such a source already exists; the problem is really one of public understanding, rather than a lack of low-carbon energy in the world.
The Register

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Noise & Infrasound

Wonderful Video Showing How they Fight the Windscam, in France!

French Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud

More About Wind Travesty in Falmouth – Wind Proponents Ignored Harm to Citizens

Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Falmouth, MA

Thanks to STT for Almost 3 Years of Educating the Public About the Wind Scam!

Costly & Pointless Wind Power Subsidies Slammed by Australia’s National Party

Story of a Victim of the Corrupt Wind Industry, and it’s Complicit Gov’t Supporters…

Windpushers Trying To Deny Accountability, for Making People Sick!

Wis. ‘health hazard’ ruling could shock wind industry

‘No factual basis’

What comes next

Falmouth Wind Turbine Emissions Ignored….Nearby Residents, Tormented!

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Neighbors are far better acoustic analyzers for determining the quality of their life

Important Information on the MOECC Proposal for Removal off 550m Setbacks…

Video of Senator John Madigan Speaking About the Victims of the Wind Turbine Industry…Brilliant!

Fraud and corruption in the power generation industry

Acoustics Experts Help to Expose the Corrupt Practices of the Wind Industry…

Incessant Wind Turbine Infrasound: An Acoustic Invader

Europeans Regret….Wind Energy is a Bad Deal, No Matter Where You Go!

Europeans Lament their Wind Power Fiasco

Comment