Wind Turbines are NO Benefit to Anyone But the Rich Investors…

November 6, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Massive Subsidies for Wind Power a Crony Capitalist “Gift”

November 6, 2014 by stopthesethings

Ex-Rep. Istook: Wind Energy a Crony Capitalist Gift
Newsfront
Sean Piccoli
23 October 2014

Wealthy investors in wind power are reaping profits from an expensive — and subsidized — form of green energy that is driving up the electricity bills of ordinary Americans, a former Oklahoma congressman told Newsmax TV on Thursday.

Under the guise of saving the planet from global warming, wind power has become a taxpayer ripoff and a boon to investors claiming massive federal subsidies for an industry that cannot compete on price with traditional energy sources, former Republican Rep. Ernest Istook told “MidPoint” host Ed Berliner.

Of the $40 billion annually doled out to various green energy incentives, grants and loans, one of the biggest magnets for public funds is a wind energy tax credit first enacted in 1992, said Istook.

“For every megawatt hour that [producers] generate through wind energy, they get $23 from the U.S. Treasury,” he said, “and of course you multiply that by the many thousands of megawatt hours that are generated — which is still a small fraction of what the country uses — and they’re talking about an $18 billion renewal of this.”

“Now, this was supposed to be a temporary tax credit back in 1992 to help the industry get on its feet,” said Istook. “Well, the problem is wind power is such an expensive way to generate electricity, that even with these major subsidies — plus all sorts of subsidies from different states — it still is one of the costliest forms of power. And it makes people’s electric bills skyrocket.”

Istook said a new study from the Energy Information Administration — the U.S. Department of Energy’s statistical service — finds electric ratesrising four times faster in the states that use the most wind power.

He said the arrangement continues year in and year out thanks to a classic “vicious cycle,” in which subsidy recipients use their profits to secure more subsidies.

“I want to give you a quote, though, from one individual who was a major wind energy investor and getting a lot of these tax benefits: Warren Buffett,” said Istook, citing the Nebraska-based billionaire investment guru.

“These are his words, not mine: ‘We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.’ Those are Warren Buffett’s words,” said Istook.

“The people that are making this investment recognize that unless they can get these crony capitalism dollars, it’s a bad investment,” he said. “But government is paying them to do that. It’s paying some people to get rich at our expense while our utility bills go up.”

Istook said the public has a chance to put a stop to the tax credit, which expired last December, but is being pushed for retroactive renewal by the administration during the lame-duck congressional session that begins after the Nov. 4 midterm elections.

“They’ve got the skids greased in the U.S. Senate to do it,” said Istook.

And they will, too, he said, “unless people call their member of Congress and say, ‘Don’t vote for anything that renews this $18 billion giveaway, no matter what it’s packaged with. Don’t vote for it.’ That’s the only way we’re going to put a stop to this crony capitalism.”
Newsfront

World Council for Nature Shares Info. On Wind Turbines!

November 3, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Note: Infrasound & Low Frequency Noise is often referred to as “ILFN”

Simulation of infrasound waves propagating in the atmosphere
Source: BGR http://www.bgr.bund.de

IMPORTANT NEWS Nº 1:

Health Board: wind turbines are a hazard to human health

October 17th, 2014
GLENMORE, WISCONSIN, USA: “This week the Brown County Health Board went on record declaring that wind turbines “are a human health hazard“.

“Folks living in the Glenmore area near the Shirley Wind Project have been saying this for years though, and now they have the health department on their side. By state statute wind turbines can be within 1250 feet of a home. The Brown County Board of Health says that’s too close for comfort.”

Read more: windfarm a health hazard — don’t miss the video

The wording of the motion was as follows:

“To Declare The Industrial Wind Turbines In The Town Of Glenmore, Brown County. WI. A Human Health Hazard For All People (Residents, Workers, Visitors, And Sensitive Passersby) Who Are Exposed To Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise And Other Emissions Potentially Harmful To Human Health.”

Victims of the Windweasels & Their Turbines, are Treated with Disdain!

November 2, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Macarthur Wind Farm Disaster: Jim Doukas Slams Fellow Moyne Shire Councillors’ Utter Contempt for Victims

November 1, 2014 by stopthesethings

Moyne councillor Jim Doukas critical of Macarthur wind farm report
The Standard
Anthony Brady
30 October 2014

A DEFIANT Moyne Shire councillor angered his fellow councillors but delighted the wind farm critics during a heated exchange in the council chambers this week.

A large gallery of wind farm critics cheered on Jim Doukas when he criticised the council’s response to complaints about noise issues relating to the giant Macarthur wind farm.

Cr Doukas was the only councillor to oppose the passing of a report approving the council’s handling of the complaints.

Cr Doukas claimed the report was biased and weak and brought into question the council’s relationship with wind farm owner AGL.

“The report is so light on information and facts it seems like it is bias. Is AGL doing something for us we don’t know about, because it looks that way.”

This comment brought an indignant response from mayor James Purcell.

“I may have misheard your representation, it appeared you were insinuating that this council, the integrity of councillors, was at risk here,” Cr Purcell said.

“This council has the highest integrity of any council any where in the world,” the mayor said.

Cr Doukas denied he had questioned the integrity of his fellow councillors but remained strong in his attack of the report.

He said council should do the right thing by the community and revisit this issue by conducting another investigation to come up with an “unbiased” outcome.

“It is not treating the people being affected fairly and not treating the other residents of the Moyne Shire fairly, because it’s the rate money we are going to have to spend when it goes to court.

“It’s all very well for us to sit here and act tough because we have ratepayers’ money, but if we had to defend ourselves with our own money maybe we’d have a different outlook.”

Earlier in the meeting Macarthur resident Jan Hetherington addressed the councillors, warning them of dire consequences should they approve the report.

“It is the opinion of the residents you may put yourselves in a position where you may be held accountable under the Australian Criminal Code Act,” Ms Hetherington said.

“Of which you have been made fully aware and in which case you most probably will not be covered by Moyne Shire’s insurance policies.”

She labelled information from the council’s solicitors that noise from the wind farm is not substantial and unreasonable as “utter rubbish” and said council should be ashamed of itself if it accepts such a poorly presented report.

“Should you approve of this report and its totally wrong conclusion you, through your continual ignorance and seeming willingness to hide and ignore all the evidence of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, will be knowingly allowing ongoing torture in the form of sleep deprivation.”

Cr Ralph Leutton caused a stir in his address supporting the report when he put forward his own scenario to Cr Doukas’ suggestion that wind farms should be turned off at night time.

He asked Moyne CEO David Madden if he could turn off the waves crashing on the beach in Port Fairy at night if that noise was causing a lack of sleep for residents.

A member of the gallery injected loudly that she had not chosen to live next to wind farms and that councillors had no idea of what residents are going through.
The Standard

Ralph Leutton’s attitude towards the suffering of his constituents tends to undermine James Purcell’s wild claim about the Moyne Shire Council having the “highest integrity any where in the world”.

That would be a mighty big claim at the best of times, but with this council thumbing its nose at its statutory duty “to achieve the highest attainable standard of public health and wellbeing by protecting public health and promoting conditions in which persons can be healthy” (set by s4 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008) – Purcell’s claim that it has world beating “integrity” falls just a little flat.

When it comes to “noise or other emissions” the Council (under s60 of that Act) comes under an express “duty to remedy as far as is reasonably possible all nuisances existing in its municipal district”. That duty applies to “nuisances which are, or are liable to be, dangerous to health or offensive”. Where “offensive” means noxious or injurious to personal comfort”.

The decision of the majority simply cocks a snook at the Council’s absolute duty under the Act, which is clearly designed to protect and promote the health of ALL Victorian citizens. ALL citizens, that is, except those with the misfortune of being stuck next to 140 giant 3MW, Vestas V112s – according to the Moyne Shire Council.

Jim Doukas’ comment that the Council’s report is “biased” in favour of the operator, AGL is mastery in understatement.

In dismissing the residents’ well-documented complaints out of hand, the Council’s whitewash asserts that: “The social utility of the Macarthur WEF is significant, in that it is a source of renewable energy that does not cause greenhouse gases or other pollutants”.

So, let’s get this straight: if the Macarthur Wind Energy Facility was being run on coal or gas instead, the residents’ complaints would have been treated seriously; the Council would have acted consistently with its duty under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act; and ordered that the Facility be shut down at night?

But because we’re talking about “wonderful” wind power, the Council gets to ignore their suffering; abdicate its statutory duty to its residents (and ratepayers); treat them as “road-kill” and leave them to rot in what have become sonic torture traps (see our post here).

As we said in this post: “When those that govern us become indifferent to the reasonable demands of those they’re paid handsomely to represent, the very integrity of the institution of government suffers. When that indifference turns to open contempt (as it has), it isn’t long before ordinary people become fed-up, grab their pitchforks and revolt.”

Using the tag “renewable energy” in a cynical effort to “justify” the suffering caused to the health and well-being of hard-working, tax-paying citizens by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound is nothing short of monstrous (see our post here).

The Council’s report concedes that the noise generated by AGL’s turbines causes “sleep disturbance” and yet says that suffering from “sleep deprivation” is not “dangerous to health”.

That “finding” will come as news to the World Health Organization which – in its Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – the Executive Summary at XI to XII covers the point – says:

NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH

There is plenty of evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance in children and in shift workers clearly show the adverse effects.

Noise disturbs sleep by a number of direct and indirect pathways. Even at very low levels physiological reactions (increase in heart rate, body movements and arousals) can be reliably measured. Also, it was shown that awakening reactions are relatively rare, occurring at a much higher level than the physiological reactions.

The review of available evidence leads to the following conclusions.

Sleep is a biological necessity and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of adverse impacts on health.
There is sufficient evidence for biological effects of noise during sleep: increase in heart rate, arousals, sleep stage changes and awakening.
There is sufficient evidence that night noise exposure causes self-reported sleep disturbance, increase in medicine use, increase in body movements and (environmental) insomnia.
While noise-induced sleep disturbance is viewed as a health problem in itself (environmental insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and well-being.
There is limited evidence that disturbed sleep causes fatigue, accidents and reduced performance.
There is limited evidence that noise at night causes hormone level changes and clinical conditions such as cardiovascular illness, depression and other mental illness. It should be stressed that a plausible biological model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of the causal chain.

But what would the World Health Organization know about night-time noise, sleep and health, hey? Apparently, half-a-dozen country bumpkins wedded to defending the wind industry at all costs know better than the world’s top public health experts.

Maybe it’s that level of “expertise” that’s led to the Moyne Shire Council having the “highest integrity any where in the world”? This is one group of councillors who will never be accused of modesty.

STT loves Ralph Leutton’s specious comparison between noise from turbines and waves lapping on a moonlit beach – a line that comes straight from the wind industry play book.

The wind industry wrote the noise standards that councils (see our post here), planning departments (see our post here) and EPAs (see our post here) use to cover up the noise problem (see our post here); invented lies about wind turbines sounding like a refrigerator 500m away; or like waves lapping on a moonlit beach (see our post here); and invented a nonsense theory that the only people suffering from turbine noise impacts are red-necked climate change DENIERS who refuse to fall in love with the “majestic” look of giant fans – a class of people that one advocate of the “nocebo” story calls “wind farm wing nuts” (see our post here).

For Ralph Leutton’s benefit here’s a video of what his beloved turbines really sound like – the first sequence is from Macarthur. STT finds it hard to believe that anyone in touch with their earthly senses could compare wind turbine noise to waves lapping on a beach:

****

Wind Turbines….The Facts Blow Them Out of the Water…..Useless Machines!

November 2, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Turbine Campaign

People often ask me to explain ’ What have I got against wind turbines?’

Here are a few of their problems:

1 They exacerbate flooding due to the massive concrete bases being built on our hills for turbines which cause faster run-off during periods of heavy rain. Old wind farms, such as at Llandinam, have passed their sell-by date much earlier than expected and are being replaced by larger turbines, each of which requires a new concrete base. They old bases are left in the ground. As you will appreciate, the mountain will eventually be covered in concrete, a highly-polluting process itself, and this will increase flooding many-fold.

2 Proximity to wind turbines can cause high blood pressure, tinitus, sleeplessness and many other health problems, due to infra-sound – there is now much evidence of this in many countries, with massed chronic examples in the US, Canada and Australia. (many reports, including Wind Turbines Make Waves: Why Some Residents Near Wind Turbines Become Ill, contained in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30th September 2011; Wind Turbine Syndrome, A Report on a Natural Experiment, by Dr Nina Pierpont, published 2009 by K-Selected Books, Santa Fe). The UK government insists on using a system called ETSU-97 for monitoring wind noise, but this is 16 years old, produced when turbines were far smaller, and there is much more sensitive equipment available now, which they refuse to use because it will reveal the shortcomings of the industry. Unbelievably, the Health & Safety Executive are kept well away from wind turbine developments, when every other form of activity in the UK is subject to their investigations, even harmless bookshops in Brecon.

3 Despite what government and the wind industry say, turbines devalue property and in many cases destroy any chance of selling the property – there is a lot of evidence from estate agents all over the UK.

4 In extreme cases people such as Jane and Julian Davis in Lincolnshire even had to abandon their property. There is no provision for compensation for such people.

5 Wind energy destroys local jobs: according to a report commissioned by the Scottish government 3.7 jobs in the UK are lost for every 1 wind one produced (Verso Economics: The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK 2011).

6 The Mid-Wales economy relies heavily on tourism, and many businesses will have to close and the economy devastated if hundreds more turbines are erected. It is completely unfair that Powys should bear such massive numbers of these alien, out-of-scale objects and have to pay some £3m to fight it through the public inquiries – that is why we have the highest hike in council tax in the country. See the PCC Red Kite newsletter.

7 Industrialising much of our finest natural landscapes that are vital for people’s wellbeing, tourism, etc, is totally unacceptable in a civilised society. We need natural landscapes unadulterated by monstrous metal structures, for our well-being.

8 Introducing gridlock into Mid-Wales highways over 7 years or more as is forecast by Powys CC (comment by Dale Boyington, Director of Highways, PCC in 2012) if current proposals go ahead will inevitably destroy much of the fabric of our society and culture, but this matters not a jot to those in Cardiff or Westminster.

9 This is leading to the disintegration of local communities, many of whom will be virtually imprisoned when surrounded by monstrous metal turbines nearly 500 feet high.

10 Billions of our money going abroad to foreign energy corporations (who form some 70% of our energy companies), furthering problems with our balance of payments.

11 Energy bills are rising alarmingly, mainly because of subsidies to wind energy, thus creating fuel poverty for so many in Mid-Wales, with consequent increase in deaths in winter.

12 Turbines kill birds (particular raptors) and bats, also spook many domestic animals. Horses are especially vulnerable.

13 Turbine bases destroy vast areas of peat blanket, the British equivalent of a rain forest and thus releasing vast tonnes of CO2.

14 The intermittency of wind energy makes it a pretty useless source of energy, leading to brown-outs, grid destabilisation and costly backup from traditional power stations which are forced to operate at inefficient levels, and thus creating more CO2 than if they operated normally without the turbines.

15 People regard nuclear power as being dangerous, yet more people have died from wind turbine accidents over the last five years than from nuclear ones. During the 5 years up to December 2011 there were 1,500 accidents and incidents on UK wind farms, with four deaths, according to Renewable UK.

16 During periods when the grid cannot cope with input from wind turbines the latter are told to shut down, yet are given hundreds of thousands of pounds for not producing any power.

17 Wind turbines each have a magnet as part of their structure, and some of the content for this comes from rare earth minerals mined exclusively in China. This process is dirty and dangerous, with waste products, including radioactive thorium apparently allowed to leech into the waterways. See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html

This book explains much of the above in greater detail:
The Wind Farm Scam by Dr John Etherington, £9.99 Stacey International publishers

David Bellamy

Watch this excellent film by Godfrey Bloom explaining the economics and the threats to our energy supply that will result from our government’s obsession with wind energy

Mynydd y Gwair, Watercolour by David Bellamy

There is a proposal to built a large Wind Turbine development on this beautiful unspoilt common land, with views across Swansea Bay, the Bristol Channel and the Decon coastline. The local people will loose their peace and serenity, and walkers will loose the sense of isolation and solitude so vital to restore well-being in many of us. And all for the sake of a small supply of intermittent electricity

We are both very concerned about the impact of proposed Wind Turbine developments in the Welsh Uplands. Numerous developments of large Wind Turbines are currently being proposed for many of the country’s most beautiful hilltops. Sixteen wind turbine developments already exist in Wales creating an unacceptable visual intrustion. Some turbine developments are currently being built such as Cefn Croes in Ceredigion where huge tracts of land are being devastated in order to install access roads. Visit Cefn Croeswebsite to see the damage. All this destruction in order to produce a very small and intermittent supply of electricity.

‘We are both working to bring about more awareness of the issues’

The two David Bellamys have met on two protest marches against wind turbine developments in Wales.

David and Jenny passionately believe in the principle of renewable energy but wind turbines are the least reliable or productive, and the most intrusive of all the renewable options.

Far from being a ‘green’ option, there are many arguments against them. For example – here are just two of the many facts

1. Their unreliability means that conventional coal, gas or oil fired power stations will still have to be kept running on standby in case the wind stops blowing, or blows too fast, thus any perceived saving of carbon emissions is a myth.

2. 1,000 tons of concrete is required to install each individual turbine. Concrete production is the second most polluting industrial process in the world.

Please take the time to educate yourself on this subject as we are being told by our government that this is the solution to reducing our carbon emissions but wind tubines cannot help to solve the problem of global warming in fact they may even be adding to it.

The only people to benefit from this industrialisation of our countryside will be the developers.

New Paper on Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound! by: J. Vanderkooy & R. Mann

October 31, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

New paper published by Vanderkooy and Mann: Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound

Posted on 10/31/2014 by windaction

Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound
MannVanderkooy John Vanderkooy and Richard Mann
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Department of Computer Science University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Date posted: 2 October, 2014

Abstract
To extract the optimum coherent infrasound signal from a wind turbine whose rotation is not precisely periodic, we use an optical telescope fitted with a photodetector to obtain reference blade passage periods, recording these together with the microphone infrasound signal. Signal processing of the quasi-periodic microphone signal is then used to obtain periodic data, which are analyzed by an appropriate length DFT to extract optimum values for the fundamental and harmonics of the coherent signal. The general procedure is similar to order domain analysis for rotating machines and is thoroughly explained and illustrated with measurements and analysis from a number of different wind farms. If several turbines are measured by a single microphone with blade passage periods obtained from several separate reference tracks, it may be possible to retrieve separate useful coherent signals from multiple turbines by appropriate processing.

Conclusion
Our paper shows how the coherent part of the infrasound from a single WT can be extracted from a microphone signal by using a blade passage reference track from the turbine under study.

Our analysis reveals a characteristic infrasonic pulse. We conjecture that the pulse from a single WT is caused by the interaction of the blades against the pylon, while the rather more complex background
signal relates to the radiation of the Tyler-Sofrin spinning modes.

The random component of the infrasonic signal exceeds the coherent part, and this random component is related to wind noise, which appears to be similar whether one is near or far from a wind farm.

Our paper avoids the issue of health effects from WT infrasound. Information on both sides of the controversy abounds in the literature. Read full article

Wind Company Admits That Barb Ashbee’s Home, was Uninhabitable….

October 31, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Barb Ashbee: wind company “agreed that we couldn’t live there any more”

Posted on 10/31/2014 by windaction

I’m sure everyone reading this has had the experience of phoning some corporate entity (Hydro, Bell, Visa, etc.) and heard the pre-recorded message, “This call is being recorded for quality assurances purposes…”. Yeah right. Well, a similar act is played out in the ERT hearings. Often the wind company will engage a court reporter to provide a transcript of the testimony. Other parties will be offered copies IF they pony up a portion of the costs. Often the MOE will do so. They will use this record further down the line when final submissions are made. What they likely will not do is get the transcript certified. Why, you ask? Because certified transcripts must be submitted to the ERT and then it becomes a public document that anyone can a have access to.

There’s lots of stuff that happens in an ERT that a wind company and their helpers (MOE) wouldn’t want the public to hear. I wish we could have afforded the cost of a court reporter for Nextera’s Adelaide ERT appeal. That’s the way the game is played.

So when an actual certified transcript becomes available, it’s a rare thing indeed. Such is the case with the St.Columban and K-2 appeals and excerpts appeared in the factum submitted for the court case in London in mid-November. Of particular note is the testimony of the post-turbine witnesses for those appeals. The first installment is Barb Ashbee’s testimony for both appeals.

Read on:

Evidence of post-turbine witnesses heard on all three appeals

The Dixon-Ryan Appellants called the evidence of two post-turbine witnesses, Barb Ashbee and Sandy MacLeod, both of whom were forced to leave their home because of the effects that the wind turbines were having on their health. Their evidence was subsequently entered before the Tribunal by way of transcript on the Drennan and Kroeplin appeals.

In 2005, Barb Ashbee and her husband moved into a home located in Shelbourne, Ontario. The home was intended to be their retirement property. Shelbourne is home to one of the first wind power projects in Ontario, the Melancthon EcoPower Project. The project consists of two phases and is comprised of approximately 123 wind turbines.

When Ms. Ashbee first learned of the project she was excited about the prospect of wind energy. She recalled telling her family and friends about how exciting it was that they were getting turbines, and would go out in her backyard and take pictures.

Ms. Ashbee’s home was affected by phase two of the project which began commercial operation in 2008. Ms. Ashbee’s home was located 457 meters from the closest turbine. She had four more turbines located within one kilometer, and another 15 turbines within two kilometers.

She began keeping a journal to describe what the noise sounded like and any symptoms she and her husband were experiencing.

Ms. Ashbee experienced sleep deprivation, stomach aches, heart palpitations, headaches, and dizziness. In addition, she began having nosebleeds and experiencing terrible cognitive and memory problems as time wore on.

Ms. Ashbee never sought medical attention specifically for the symptoms she was experiencing but did explain to her doctors what was going on with the wind turbines. Ms. Ashbee recounted that she informed her doctors about the wind turbines “because when I had the appointment with them I was severely sleep deprived and impacted and I wasn’t my normal self and I did want to tell them about what was going on.”

Ms. Ashbee immediately reported her symptoms to the project owner and they began conducting testing. Soon thereafter the MOE became involved in the process of monitoring the turbines and of receiving complaints. After the MOE and the project owner began testing on the project, they indicated to Ms. Ashbee that the project was in compliance with the guidelines and the 40dBA level permitted by the regulatory guidelines.

To try and mitigate the effects that the Ashbees were experiencing in their home, the wind company shut down the five turbines closest to their home. Despite this, the Ashbees reported still feeling a vibration and humming in the house, and they continued to be deprived of sleep and to experience headaches.24

The Ashbees tried to adjust to the turbine noise with ear plugs, but found no relief with these because the vibration was being felt throughout the house. They moved their bed out into the detached garage to see if it would help but this did not give much relief.25

During the period from May 8, 2009 to June 25th, 2009, at which time they left their home for good, the Ashbees moved into a tent in their backyard with their animals to gain respite from the vibration they were experiencing within their home.

Q. Okay. And so during the entire period did you remain in your house?

A. Yeah.

Q. And so you slept the entire time in your bedroom?

A. No, we got to the point we started looking for a rental and because our, like, we were all affected and we started, first I started looking for a rental, but we had three dogs, two cats to move and there’s not very many people that will rent with that many pets. And plus we were paying the mortgage and would have to pay out money for rent again and it was horrible.

And we thought well, we’ll rent a trailer, like, park it on the driveway; four wheel trailer thing. And I phoned around to a few places and there was nothing. I couldn’t find anything, nobody rented them.

We moved the bed out into the detached garage hoping it would be quieter out there so we wouldn’t have the vibration and noise and it was actually out there too. So it really didn’t help anything.

The wind company offered us a house a concession over from us and we did attempt to move into it. There were problems with it, with mould in it, so we couldn’t move in. So we were stuck, again.

So we ended up moving into a tent in the backyard because the turbines were being shut down at night and the vibration wasn’t there like it was in the house. You would feel it a little bit, a little bit of it but it wasn’t resonating like it was in the house. So we bought a tent. We went through two, actually, put the tent in the backyard, put our bed out there, a little table and a heater and a light and all the animals slept out there with us and that’s how we coped.

Q. And how long did you have to do that for?

A. May until we left.

Q. And when did you leave?

A. June 25th. I think it was May, early May. It’ll be in here, actually I guess. Do you want the date?

Q. If you have it.

A. May 7 we bought the tent.

Q. Okay. So then would May 8 be your first night in the tent?

A. Yeah, that was yeah, we set it up and put the bed in.

Q. And, sorry, you said you left June 25th?

A. Twenty fifth.

Q. So for almost two months did you sleep in the tent constantly every night?

A. Pretty much. The odd night when it didn’t seem too bad we would try it in the house. We put the spare bed in the tent and we still had the bed in there but there weren’t very many nights we were able to stay in the house.

Q. So did you have some alleviation from your symptoms while you slept in the tent?

A. Oh, yeah, we could sleep again, yeah. It still wasn’t the best because we were in a tent and it was still pretty cold still, but it was better than the house.26

Once Ms. Ashbee and her husband moved from their home, they no longer experienced any of the adverse health effects they had while living in the home.

Q. And so the symptoms that you described for us earlier, do you still suffer from any of those symptoms?

A. No.

Q. Okay. And when did those symptoms stop altogether?

A. Within pretty much within weeks, a month after we moved. Like, the sleep deprivation stopped immediately. The headaches stopped and that. I mean, the other effects, the upset and anger and that lasted a little bit longer, but as far as the stomach aches, the chest pressure, that was pretty much gone.

Q. Okay. And just so that we make sure it’s on the record, can you tell us how long you were in the environment when you were exposed to the wind turbines and these adverse health effects?

A. From early December 2008 to June 25th, 2009.

During cross examination, Ms. Ashbee was vigorously questioned about the source of the noise and vibration that she experienced in her home. The questioning was directed at demonstrating that her concerns arose not from the audible noise, but rather from some low frequency sound. This low frequency sound and its impacts is the same issue that Health Canada is now investigating through their study.

Q. And how long after they became operational did you notice that you were having problems?

A. Pretty much right away, like, within the first week, two weeks.

Q. And you talked about and I know from reading through your journal that the vibration was particularly a problem for you, correct?

A. Yeah, mm hmm.

Q. Would you say that that was the bigger problem than the noise?

A. It was as big a problem. The noise was a big problem. When they started shutting them down, it alleviated that, but the vibration was just as bad. Like, it didn’t fix that part of it.

Q. And you would know that because when five of the closest turbines were down around you, you were still bothered significantly by the noise?

A. The vibration.

Q. Or by the vibration, yes.

A. Yeah.

Q. Including the fact that you were in a tent and it was better in the tent than in your home, right?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Okay. And you think that’s because of the and I don’t mean to demean you by saying you think your belief is that that’s because there was vibrations at that time with the turbines down was the problem?

A. Well, it was in the house. Whether it was coming from the turbines or the electrical, I don’t know.

Q. Okay. So you still have never been given an answer on that?

A. No. Excuse me, there was a 160 spike measured by the wind developer, low frequency spike and so that was determined that it was in our house. It was measured. And Gary Tomlinson told me that that 160 hertz was coming off all the turbines, not just the one behind us.

Q. So when you say a spike, was that a one time thing?

A. No, it’s acoustical terminology. And I don’t know acoustics.

Q. You’re as blind as me on that.

A. They showed us the graph and it’s a spike. It’s continuous, but it shows the spike and they were outside measuring and inside measuring and a spike happened and they went oh, there’s a 160 spike and then the wind developer told us there’s definitely a problem with the low frequency in our house. So I don’t understand the rest.

Q. That was going to be my next question that you have said the wind turbine company acknowledged to you that there was a problem in your home because of the turbine, some aspect of the operation of the turbines?

A. Yeah.

Q. And to your knowledge, was that the reason for the buy out of your home?

A. They agreed that we couldn’t live there any more, yeah.

Although Ms. Ashbee and her husband suffered these adverse health effects, they did not seek medical attention. Ms. Ashbee chose not to seek medical attention because her doctors “were not very engaging with wind turbine problems” at the time she was experiencing her symptoms. Additionally, Ms. Ashbee felt that she knew that the wind turbines were what was causing her health problems.

Q. And it’s fair to say that they weren’t concerning you enough that you went to a doctor to have them checked out?

A. I knew what was causing them so.

Q. Okay, but even if you know the cause of something, it didn’t concern you enough to go to a doctor to have them check out whether or not they should be doing something, putting you on heart medication?

A. I talked to this doctor and I talked to my doctor in Toronto, and they weren’t very engaging with wind turbine problems. So I mean, I — what do you want me to do? I know what’s causing them. If they stopped them, we knew because, I mean, we were both going through the same thing, sometimes at different times it would come on.

Ms. Ashbee’s evidence is consistent with the evidence of other post-turbine witnesses that when they left the vicinity of the wind project, they no longer experienced the adverse health effects. Another witness that provided similar evidence before the Tribunal was Ms. Sandy MacLeod. Ms. MacLeod is a high school teacher and lived in Ripley, Ontario, the home of the Ripley Wind Project.

Oxford Professor Tells the Truth About Green Energy!

October 30, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

OXFORD PROF SHREDS GOVERNMENT’S GREEN ENERGY POLICY

by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS 29 Oct 2014 30POST A COMMENT

An Oxford University Professor has torn the UK government’s energy policy to shreds in his appearance before the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.

Speaking to the Lords yesterday, Professor Dieter Helm said that the “Miliband-Huhne-Davey” policy (referring to the last three energy secretaries), which is based on an assumption that fossil fuel prices would rise, was “dramatically wrong”. (h/t to Bishop Hill, where the full exchange of views can be seen).

The Lords Committee gathered to hear evidence from a range of energy experts including power companies and the National Grid to determine whether there was indeed a risk of the lights going out this winter, as has been widely reported (including on Breitbart London).

Opening the second session, Professor Helm gave his name and title, before delivering a short two minute speech lambasting the governance of energy policy in recent times.

“It is a quite extraordinary state of affairs for a major industrialised economy to find itself even debating whether there is a possibility that the margins may not be sufficient of electricity to guarantee supply,” he said.

“If it was achieving carbon objectives and if it was producing low prices there might be some consolation. The wholesale price in Great Britain is twice that of northern Europe and on a CO2 front we’ve been switching from gas to burn as much coal as possible, and our emissions are actually rising on a production basis and of course on a carbon consumption basis which is the basis that matters for decarbonisation.

“For a major industrial economy to fail on one of the three objectives is a serious problem. But to fail on security and on competitiveness of price, and on decarbonisation is a sad state of affairs. And it’s even sadder in the context of which the problem isn’t fundamentally particularly difficult.

“It’s ultimately about having enough power stations and enough wires to supply the needs of the population. It’s a problem that’s been with us for a century. Many other countries solve these problems and it’s, as I say, rather sad that we’ve got to this particular point.”

The Committee probed the professor on a range of aspects including “resilience”, which the Professor explained was a matter not just of physical capability, but also the price which people are asked to pay for the energy supplied. If prices rise above people’s desire or ability to pay, people simply “turn themselves off, as happened in California”, he pointed out.

“The kit is there. If the will is there to do it, and the expertise and capacity of the grid I think is up to it, they will manage to make supply equal demand. The question is: how much higher will the price go as a result, and how long will Britain carry on having such high wholesale prices with all the consequences there are for British industry and also consumers?” he asked.

When questioned about medium term threats to resilience, Prof Helm was particularly scathing. Pointing to the fact that “the commodity super-cycle is over” and that gas, coal and oil prices are all falling, he blasted energy secretary Ed Davey, saying “We have a policy with the secretary of state repeatedly reminds us is based on the idea that gas prices are rising and volatile. Well, they’re falling and the volatility is something that we don’t want to protect customers from. [That is, downwards volatility is good for customers who want the benefit of cheaper prices immediately].

“Should we worry about resilience of fuel supplies? No, I don’t think so. The world is awash with gas. Unconventional gas is popping up all over the place America is no longer importing, plenty of supplies around, plenty more being discovered.

“The one medium term ‘risk’ that I would pay much less attention to but clearly the government thinks they should pay much more attention to is whether or not we’ll get enough supplies of fossil fuels. We have enough fossil fuels in the world to fry the planet many times over.”

He then set his target wider, laying into the “Miliband-Huhne-Davey policy”, so called “because it’s very consistent through that period”, as a whole. Successive energy secretaries had based their policy on the assumption that fossil fuel prices would continue to rise, making renewables comparatively cheaper by the 2020s and allowing subsidies to fall away; an assumption that the professor said “[doesn’t have] any part in energy policy.

“That fossil fuel prices are going to go up. … That’s an outcome of the market, not a policy assumption to make. … If your bet turns out to be dramatically wrong, you’re going to have lots of technologies which are ‘out of the market’ for some considerable period to come. We will have to subsidise those technologies right through the 2020s and beyond.

“This knowledge that politicians have, that politicians know what the winners are, we’ve been there so many times before. It usually turns out badly and it has done this time.”

Health Dept. working on a Way to Force Wind Industry to Address Health Concerns…

October 27, 2014October 27, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Health officials weigh next step in wind turbine battle

Paul Srubas, Press-Gazette Media7:03 p.m. CDT October 26, 2014

Brown County health officials have declared wind turbines a public health risk, but they haven’t determined how to put their declaration into action.

The county’s Health Board this month declared the Shirley Wind Farm operated by Duke Energy Renewables poses a health risk to its neighbors in the town of Glenmore. Three families have moved out of their homes rather than endure physical illness they blame on the low-frequency noise the wind turbines generate, according to Audrey Murphy, president of the board that oversees the Brown County Health Department.

“We struggled with this but just felt we needed to take some action to help these citizens,” Murphy said.

Murphy called the declaration a first step, but “the second step is up to the director of our Health Department, Judy Friederichs, and corporation counsel.”

The Health Department has statutory authority for licensing, inspection and enforcement for businesses where health and environmental problems are at issue, but just what that means for the wind farm has not yet been determined, Friederichs said.

State health officials have expressed interest in participating in Brown County’s discussion of the issue, Friederichs said. She, board members and the county’s lawyer need to put their heads together to determine the next step, she said. No timeline has been established.

“We’re all saying the same thing here: Now what?” Friederichs said. “There aren’t a lot of alternatives to mitigation. It really depends now on where this goes, what type of referrals we get, etc. There’s ongoing concerns. We’re going to have to really look at it, and it’s more of a legal question.”

Whatever happens, residents “are grateful to the Board of Health for reviewing the research and listening to the people of Brown County,” said Susan Ashley, who also lives in the Shirley area and who has helped rally opposition to the wind farm through the years.

Twenty families in the town have documented health issues since the wind farm started operated in 2009, Ashley said.

Duke Energy Renewables was not invited to the health board’s discussion and would have cited tests that determined sound levels from the wind generators were low and could not be linked to adverse health impacts, company spokeswoman Tammie McGee said. The company has not received any formal word about the board’s declaration, McGee said.

Dr. Jay Tibbetts, vice president of the Brown County health board and its medical adviser, said he knows of no science that proves there isn’t a link between health problems and the low-frequency noise the giant fans produce.

“There’s been nothing that’s debunked anything,” he said. “As far as what’s happening to these people, it doesn’t make a difference whether you’re in Shirley or Denmark, or Ontario, Canada. Forty people have moved out of their homes, and it’s not just for jollies. In Shirley, three people have moved out of their homes. I know all three. They’re not nuts. They’re severely suffering.”

People might not be able to hear the sounds the Shirley turbines produce, but Tibbetts said he knows of a teenager living in the area who can tell when the turbines are off or on without being able to see them. Area residents or former residents report headaches, nausea and other symptoms they say are brought on by the turbines, and those symptoms clear up when the residents move elsewhere for a time, Tibbetts said.

The board’s declaration may be cutting edge and controversial, but it wasn’t made lightly or without the weight of science behind it, Murphy said

“This is a serious step,” she said. “We didn’t make it lightly. There is science from around the world — the World Health Organization, Denmark, Poland, Germany. We believe there’s enough science.”

Darrell Ashley, who is Susan Ashley’s father-in-law and lives within a mile of the Shirley turbines, said his wife moved out of the house for several months until her symptoms disappeared. She has since moved back, and her symptoms are coming back, he said.

“I’m getting worse and I can’t afford to move out,” he said. “I’m just getting weaker — my legs, back, feet. My concentration is gone, head pressure, ear aches, headaches, it just goes on and on.”

Prior to 2009, when the turbines weren’t operating, he and his wife had no such problems, he said. He praised the health board and said he appreciated that someone finally listened to residents’ complaints.

Murphy said Brown County is probably the first governmental body in Wisconsin and perhaps the first in the country to make the formal declaration.

The board has been wrestling with the issue for about the last four years, Murphy said. While some scientific studies have failed to find a link between health risks and the low-frequency noise that wind turbines generate, two studies done recently on the Shirley Wind Farm specifically say otherwise, Murphy said.

“While there may still be debate about the precise mechanism that causes these sounds to induce the symptoms, it is clear from (these studies) … that acoustic energy emitted by operation of modern wind turbines is at the root of adverse health effects,” Murphy said.

More Proof, of the Futility of Wind Turbines….

October 27, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Written by Kate Andrews | Monday, October 27th, 2014

A new study has found that wind farms generate below 20% of their supposed output for 20 weeks a year, and generate below 10% for 9 weeks a year.

Wind farms, on average, only exceed 90% of their rated output for 17 hours a year.

Though the government acknowledges that wind farms produce much less energy than their sticker capacity would suggest, the report shows that even the average production (of around a quarter of capacity) is extremely misleading about the amount of power wind farms can be relied up to provide.

Wind farms are extremely volatile, with outputs fluctuating by five percentage points over short periods of time, a report based on new data by the Adam Smith Institute and Scientific Alliance has found. These findings suggest the UK’s energy infrastructure can never be reliant on them in any significant way.

Specifically, the study found that wind farms generate below 20% of their supposed output for 20 weeks a year, and generate below 10% for 9 weeks a year. Wind farms, on average, only exceed 90% of their rated output for 17 hours a year.

The paper, “Wind Power Reassessed: A review of the UK wind resource for electricity generation”, (http://www.adamsmith.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Assessment7.pdf) looks at previously unexamined wind speed data reported by anemometers located at various airfields, used as a proxy for nearby wind farms, and concludes that UK wind farms, on average, exceed 80% of their supposed output for less than one week every year.

The study also looks at the short-term (30 – 90 minute) variability of wind generation and reveals swings in output are far higher than is normal from conventional energy generation, such as from gas or nuclear plants. Swings of five percentage points of output are not uncommon, which contradicts the claim that a widespread wind fleet installation will smooth variability. There are frequent but unpredictable periods where wind energy generation fails for days on end.

The report will severely undermine the case for a move towards yet more wind generation because it suggests that wind can never be a major, reliable source of energy for the UK. It also suggests that the UK’s drive to reduce its carbon footprint through expanding wind power is misguided. Wind power is so unreliable and intermittent that it makes much more sense to look to nuclear and gas as better low emission alternatives to the status quo.

In his research, the report’s author Dr. Capell Aris looked at 6.5m individual recordings from 22 sites in the UK and 21 from Ireland and the continent.

Commenting on the report, Dr Aris said:

The current reliance on wind energy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is inefficient and compromises energy security. Power output of the studied system is below 20% of nominal capacity for over 20 weeks of the year, and below 10% for 9 weeks.

When we study those periods when production falls below 20% of rated capacity, more than three quarters of this occurs in periods longer than 12 hours. Each winter has periods where wind generation is negligible for several days.

The situation across the whole of northern Europe is much the same, so a Europe-wide power grid would provide no extra security; the study demonstrates that interconnectors will not solve wind’s intermittency problem.

Head of Policy at the Adam Smith Institute, Ben Southwood, said:

Wind farms are a bad way of reducing emissions and a bad way of producing power. They are expensive and deeply inefficient and it seems like they reduce the value of housing enormously in nearby areas. We probably do want to reduce carbon emissions, because according to the IPCC global warming will begin to slow economic growth in one hundred years, but nuclear and gas power are our best ways of doing that until cheap and efficient energy storage options are available on a vast scale to smooth the highly variable output of renewables.

Director of the Scientific Alliance, Martin Livermore, said:

This study is a graphic illustration that wind turbines cannot provide a secure supply of electricity, no matter how large the distribution grid.

Notes to editors:

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Kate Andrews, Communications Manager, at kate@adamsmith.org / 07584 778207.

The Adam Smith Institute is an independent libertarian think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

The Scientific Alliance was formed in 2001 to encourage politicians to make policy on the basis of scientific evidence rather than lobbying by vested interests.

Wising Up to the Great Wind Power Fraud!

October 27, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Jay Lehr: Sooner or Later the World will Wise-up to the Great Wind Power Fraud

October 27, 2014 by stopthesethings

The Rationale for Wind Power Won’t Fly
Heartland.org
Jay Lehr PhD
21 October 2014

To understand the folly that drives too much of the nation’s energy policies, consider these basic facts about wind energy.

After decades of federal subsidies – almost $24 billion according to a recent estimate by former U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm – nowhere in the United States, or anywhere else, has an array of wind turbines replaced a single conventional power plant. Nowhere.

But wind farms do take up space. The available data from wind-power companies, with which the Environmental Protection Agency agrees, show that the most effective of them can generate about five kilowatts per acre. This means 300 square miles of land – 192,000 acres – are necessary to generate the 1,000 megawatts (a billion watts) of electricity that a conventional power plant using coal, nuclear energy or natural gas can generate on a few hundred acres. A billion watts fulfills the average annual power demand of a city of 700,000.

Taxpayer support for wind energy will eventually come to an end, I optimistically predict. The only question is how soon. My pessimistic guess is it will take another decade – by which time the number of wind turbines, currently about 45,000 according to the American Wind Energy Association, could more than double.

It is unclear whether very many wind-energy firms have sufficient monetary reserves to cover dismantling these behemoth lawn sculptures once the tax credits wind down or disappear. If not, the result will be a scene from a science fiction movie – as though giant aliens descended onto our planet only to freeze in place.

The promise that wind and solar power could replace conventional electricity production never really made sense. It’s known to everybody in the industry that a wind turbine will generate electricity 30% of the time – but it’s impossible to predict when that time will be. A true believer might be willing to do without electricity when the wind is not blowing, but most people will not. And so, during the 30% of the time the blades are spinning, conventional power plants are also spinning on low, waiting to operate during the other 70% of the time.

Importantly, the amount of electricity the wind can generate per acre of land is unrelated to the size of the turbines. Yes, by doubling the turbine’s blade length you quadruple the turbine’s power output. The problem? If the turbines are big and tall you need fewer of them, but they must be more widely separated. If they’re smaller you need more of them, closer together.

Another inescapable problem for electricity grids: The power generated by a wind turbine varies with the cube of the wind speed. When the wind speed doubles – say from 10 miles per hour to 20 miles per hour – the energy output increases eightfold (2 x 2 x 2). Someone, or some computer, has to balance these huge variations on the grid by calling on standby generators to produce more or less power to maintain the stability essential to the grid.

So, you might wonder, do high winds make turbines really hum? No. Turbines must be shut down in high winds because centrifugal force would begin to tear the blades apart. Also, the world has learned from experience in Europe – whose wind sculpture gardens may one day dwarf ours – that a one-millimeter buildup of bugs on the blades reduces their power output by as much as 25%.

There are other problems. Thousands of turbine breakdowns and accidents have been reported in recent years. The basic concrete foundations are suffering from strains, as reported by industry sources and on the wind-farm construction website windfarmbop.com.

And there are environmental factors. Annoying, low-frequency noise produced by wind turbines, particularly large turbines, is driving some people away from their homes, according to numerous press reports. (Low-frequency noise regulations are already in place in Denmark while the phenomenon is the subject of continuing research.) The Audubon Society now estimates bird deaths from turbines exceed a million per year.

Wind is at best a niche player in energy. Grandiose claims made on behalf of wind-generated electricity are rubbish, whether or not renewable-energy advocates admit it. Wind-power developers will milk taxpayers across the world out of a few billion more dollars, euros or pounds in subsidies, tax credits and the like, but sooner or later the public will wise up.
Heartland.org

	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

Wind Turbines are NO Benefit to Anyone But the Rich Investors…

Massive Subsidies for Wind Power a Crony Capitalist “Gift”

World Council for Nature Shares Info. On Wind Turbines!

Victims of the Windweasels & Their Turbines, are Treated with Disdain!

Macarthur Wind Farm Disaster: Jim Doukas Slams Fellow Moyne Shire Councillors’ Utter Contempt for Victims

Wind Turbines….The Facts Blow Them Out of the Water…..Useless Machines!

Wind Turbine Campaign

New Paper on Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound! by: J. Vanderkooy & R. Mann

New paper published by Vanderkooy and Mann: Measuring Wind Turbine Coherent Infrasound

Wind Company Admits That Barb Ashbee’s Home, was Uninhabitable….

Barb Ashbee: wind company “agreed that we couldn’t live there any more”

Oxford Professor Tells the Truth About Green Energy!

OXFORD PROF SHREDS GOVERNMENT’S GREEN ENERGY POLICY

An Oxford University Professor has torn the UK government’s energy policy to shreds in his appearance before the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee.

Health Dept. working on a Way to Force Wind Industry to Address Health Concerns…

Health officials weigh next step in wind turbine battle

More Proof, of the Futility of Wind Turbines….

Press Release: Wind farms generate below 20% of their supposed output for 20 weeks a year, a new report finds

Wising Up to the Great Wind Power Fraud!

Jay Lehr: Sooner or Later the World will Wise-up to the Great Wind Power Fraud