The Wind Scam is Obvious to Intelligent People…

Wind turbines a government-backed Ponzi scheme

Sunday, March 5, 2017

To the editor:

All you people out there complaining about your hydro prices need to realize some important facts about the Kathleen Wynne government.

  1. The global adjustment charge on your hydro bill is to pay for the giant industrial wind turbines Wynne  has placed all  over rural Ontario.
  2. Wind turbines a useless technology that destroys our rural environment, ruins people’s health and poisons our drinking water aquifers.
  3. The only reason these turbines were erected was so Liberal insiders and their friends could get filthy rich.
  4. Wynne will not cancel the turbine projects or reduce the subsidies because the turbine lobbyists know where the political bodies are buried.
  5. Wynne has taken away the democratic rights of the people for her own financial and political gain.
  6. Wynne has sacrificed the health of rural citizens just so her friends can get rich.
  7. In a few year’s time, when it inevitably collapses, this wind turbine scam will be revealed for what it is: An enormous government-backed Ponzi scheme, founded on greed, corruption and stupidity.

Leonard Vandenbosch

West Grey, Ont

 What’s on your mind?

Property Rights Group Formed to Fight Wind Turbines!

Coalition for Rural Property Rights Formed

November 1, 2016
Emmetsburg News

To the Editor:

The Coalition for Rural Property Rights has been formed in response to the Supervisors’ acceptance of a wind energy ordinance that favors the wind companies but does not protect the rural citizens of Palo Alto. This ordinance affects everyone who owns land or has a rural home.

We agree with the Planning and Zoning’s recommendation of 2640 foot setbacks from homes, not 1500 feet the wind company demanded.

We want 1000 foot setbacks from property lines that include the blades, not 1.2 x the height of the turbine from the tower which equals about 360 feet.

We want the Supervisors to take the advice of Jim Hudson, the drainage attorney who said that the connecting cables “must be the lower of 7 feet below the surface or 2 feet below any known and existing district or private tile”, not just 5 feet of cover.

We want a setback of 1 mile from sensitive wildlife areas, not 1500 foot.

If these turbines are built and if there is a problem with noise or shadow flicker or with tiling or aerial applications what recourse will citizens have? Mid American may offer money but only if that landowner then signs a contract with again the same sort of easement that the turbine hosts sign. One where they have a perpetual easement over and under all the landowner’s land that can be sold or re-leased at the wind company’s discretion. That won’t fix the problem either. If we wanted to be bought, we would’ve already signed a contract.

This energy does not supply our area. Iowa may have excess energy when the wind is blowing and Mid American is using its power of eminent domain for power lines to ship the energy out, making it not a utility but a commodity. The closest area that even “needs” this energy would be at the base of Lake Michigan which has more available offshore wind energy than all of Iowa but the folks living on the coasts do not want wind turbines in their views.

Our right to peace for our homes and our right to protect our businesses is not for sale. Support the people and businesses that are already here paying into the tax base.

I ask that the people who want wind turbines stop destroying our signs. Your opinion would be voiced with 50-story wind turbines. If you want any kind of respect for your opinions, please respect ours.

(signed) Janna Swanson

for: Coalition for

Rural Property Rights. com

Renewables may Lose “First to the Grid Privileges in EU”.

Renewables could lose European power grid priority, documents reveal

Industry concern after confidential impact assessment models scenarios for paring back the ‘priority dispatch’ system for clean energy

The sun reflects off a solar collector assembly at the Andasol solar power station, southern Spain. Retroactive changes to funding rules have caused disputes and cutbacks in several countries, notably Spain.
The sun reflects off a solar collector assembly at the Andasol solar power station, southern Spain. Retroactive changes to funding rules have caused disputes and cutbacks in several countries, notably Spain. Photograph: Marcelo Del Pozo/Reuters

Windfarms and solar power could soon lose the privilege of getting priority over other energy sources on European electricity grids, leaked documents show.

Paring back the “priority dispatch” system could increase carbon emissions by up to 10%, according to a confidential EU impact assessment seen by the Guardian. But the document goes on to model four scenarios for doing just that, in a bid to make Europe’s energy generators more flexible and cost-competitive.

Some industry sources have told the Guardian they are alarmed and think it highly likely that priority dispatch for clean energy will be scrapped from the EU’s renewable energy directive, which is currently being redrafted for the post-2020 period.

Oliver Joy, a spokesman for the WindEurope trade association, said: “Removing priority dispatch for renewable energies would be detrimental to the wind sector, which would face more curtailment across the continent. It also seems to be at odds with Europe’s plans to decarbonise and increase renewables penetration over the next decade.”

“Investors took priority dispatch into account when projecting revenues in the original investment decisions, and it could have a bearing on existing projects if they are not protected from the change.”

The issue of retroactive changes to funding rules for renewables in Europe has been a cause for disputes and cutbacks in the wind and solar sectors of several countries, notably Spain.

Senior industry sources say they will push for financial compensation and access to balancing markets to help prevent a significant industry contraction, if priority dispatch is ended.

“We have had enough instability and retroactivity in Europe and going forward, the difference between existing and future assets should be well distinguished,” said one industry source.

“I would be extremely worried if they just removed priority of dispatch and did not touch other key issues around market design. It would mean that the commission was taking measures against the same renewable industries that they defend in public.”

Fossil fuel power providers argue that renewables have the lowest operating costs and so would anyway receive priority access to the grid network.

They also say that taking the clean energy sector out of priority dispatch would prevent “negative prices” – where more energy is produced than can be sold – and eliminate anti-competitive subsidies.

The EU’s assessment views the abolishing of priority dispatch as a step towards the creation of a “level playing field” for energy generators.

But without such a system, renewable sources may be the most likely to be taken offline because of the relative ease of switching off a wind turbine compared to a coal or nuclear plant.

The energy source with the lowest marginal cost – almost always renewables – is usually the first in line to be shut down by power grid operators.

As things are, a Europe-wide trend towards ending financial support has constrained the forward march of renewables on the continent, and siphoned off investment to elsewhere in the world.

“Everyone is investing in renewables outside Europe right now,” said one industry source. “If you want to bring investors back you have to send very relevant signals.

Removing wind and solar power from priority dispatch may be intended to help reform the capacity market system, which currently pays gas generators to remain idle. Ironically though, it could lead renewable generators to demand an extension of the same mechanism to their own sector.

“If priority dispatch is removed, then renewables must be given a fall-back option of access and remuneration in the balancing markets to help stabilize the system, or clear levels of compensation in the event that curtailment is necessary,” Joy said.

Priority dispatch is supposed to be mandatory under current EU rules, although the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands are among countries that do not comply.

The study says that “the biggest impacts on generation [from ending priority dispatch] would be observed in Denmark, Great Britain and Finland, where biomass holds a large share of generation capacity”.

But this would be felt more in terms of bio-energy’s “expensive” production costs than its carbon emissions reduction potential, which is disputed inside and outside the commission.

“The removal of priority dispatch for biomass would indeed, in the first instance, imply an increase in GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions,” the paper says.

The four scenarios for scaling back priority dispatch involve an increase in CO2 emissions of 45m-60m tonnes.

Con: Wind an even bigger boondoggle than ethanol…

” CON: 
Wind an even bigger boondoggle than
Ethanol

Three wind turbines from the Deepwater Wind project off Block Island, R.I., are viewed Monday, Aug. 15. Deepwater Wind’s $300 million five-turbine wind farm off Block Island is expected to be operational this fall. It will be the first offshore wind farm in the U.S. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

By Mark J. Perry

Before we become too hopeful about the prospects of using offshore wind power as a fuel source of the future, let’s not forget that government data shows that offshore wind power cannot survive in a competitive environment without huge taxpayer subsidies.

Today, wind power receives subsidies greater than any other form of energy per unit of actual energy produced.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., a key member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, says that public subsidies for wind on a per megawatt-hour basis are 26 times those for fossil fuels and 16 times those for nuclear power.

Alexander estimates that the production tax credit over the next decade will cost American taxpayers more than $26 billion.

The tax credit gives $23 for every megawatt-hour of electricity a wind turbine generates during the first 10 years of operation.

Wynne Uses Wind Turbine Scam to Destroy Ontario’s Financial Stability!

Can Ontario Escape its Self-Inflicted Wind Power Disaster?

wynne

***

Ontario’s energy policy is in tatters; power prices have crushed business and the roll out of thousands of these things has wrecked the lives and livelihoods of thousands, in what were once peaceful and prosperous farming communities.

In short, Kathleen Wynne & Co have dug an enormous hole from which there may be no escape. But before the Province considers how it might get out, the only sensible strategy is to stop digging – starting with bringing an end to the ludicrously generous and heavily subsidised wind power contracts that led to the inevitable debacle that’s playing out in Ontario; and which has Wynne’s Liberals petrified of the political consequences the next time their victims come to vote.

Lawrence Solomon: Yes, Ontario’s Liberals can cancel their terrible renewable power contracts—and they should do it now
Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon
15 September 2016

Ontario’s power prices are soaring out of control, industry is leaving the province, the Liberal government is panicking over its re-election prospects, and almost everyone agrees there’s no remedy, that the ludicrously lucrative long-term contracts that the Ontario government signed with wind and solar energy developers condemn the province to many more years of economic hardship.

Except there is a way to deal with the onerous contracts — rip them up. There is no compelling economic, environmental, moral or legal case for the government to “honour” odious contracts. The only honourable course of action for the government, in fact, is to admit its mistakes and pass legislation declaring those contracts null and void.

A compelling economic case? In announcing its Green Energy Act, the Liberals repeatedly boasted they’d be creating 50,000 jobs, boosting the Ontario economy to new heights. With jobs fleeing the province and business confidence at rock bottom, no one hears that boast any longer.

A compelling environmental case? Industrial wind turbines, which rely on fossil fuel backup, do next to nothing to reduce carbon dioxide, the sole rationale for their existence.

In contrast to this trivial and dubious environmental benefit, wind turbines do immense and certain environmental harm by disfiguring the countryside and slaughtering millions of birds and bats.

A compelling moral case? Ontario’s multi-billion “clean energy” industry has a squalid provenance.

This has been largely a closed-door sector in which 11 politically favoured domestic and multinational giants control 90 per cent of the wind power market, letting them pocket an estimated $10 billion in government-mandated subsidies over the next two decades. Although the industry portrays itself as small scale and local, it’s anything but.

A compelling legal case? There is none, if the province proceeds properly, explains Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen’s University, a former adjudicator for the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal and author of the 2014 Fraser Institute study, Cancelling Contracts: The Power of Governments to Unilaterally Alter Agreements.

“The right way is to legislate: to enact a statute that declares green contracts to be null and void, and the province to be free from liability,” he explains. “Statutes can override iron-clad provisions in a contract because that is the nature of legislative supremacy: Legislatures can pass laws of any kind, as long as they are within their jurisdiction and do not offend the constitution. Legislating on electricity production is clearly a provincial power, as are ‘property and civil rights.’”

There is no compelling case for Ontario to honour its odious renewable power deals Pardy’s analysis is sound not just in theory but in practice, as Trillium Power Wind Corp. discovered when it sued for $2.25 billion in damages after the Liberals, to quell fierce public opposition to offshore wind turbines prior to a previous election, unilaterally rewrote the rules.

The appeal court had no time for Trillium’s claims, noting that it was “plain and obvious” and “beyond all reasonable doubt” that Trillium could not succeed in arguing breach of contract.

As an analysis of the case by the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt put it, the appeal court “made it clear that proponents who choose to participate in discretionary government programs, such as Ontario’s renewable energy program, do so primarily at their own risk. Governments may alter the policies that underlie a program, and may even alter or cancel such programs, in a manner that may be fully lawful and immune from civil suit.”

Moreover, the appeal court decision dismissed Trillium’s contention that the government had acted improperly out of “purely political” considerations, rather than out of legitimate public policy considerations.

As Osler explained, governments are free to act in their political interests: “this decision emphasizes that political factors, such as strong public opposition, are legitimate public policy considerations.” These principles aren’t Ontario-specific — they’re fundamental. Throughout Europe, governments are also unilaterally rewriting their unaffordably generous rules governing the renewables industry.

Cancelling Ontario’s odious renewables contracts would immediately and directly lower rates for the province’s citizens and industry, reversing the harm to the provincial economy and improving the government’s prospects in the coming provincial election.

A cancellation would bless the citizens of Ontario — and other provinces —indirectly as well, by disciplining future governments and investors alike. Investors would be leery of participating in future politically motivated government programs that weren’t fundamentally sound, making it difficult for future governments to pursue pet projects that run the risk of harming the citizenry.

Benign government projects — say building a school or hospital — would run no such risk and discourage no investor.

Contracts are sacrosanct between private parties, when they follow the law. Contracts means something else entirely when one party — the government — makes the law and is free to change it. Let the investor beware before getting into bed with government. Let the government think hard about whether its fling with renewables is an affair it wishes to continue.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.
Financial Post

digging-a-hole

Terence Corcoran Talks About the Wind Fiasco Perpetrated by Ontario’s Liberals!

Ontario’s electricity, “carnage”, “a train wreck”, electricity costs double to reduce carbon at $250/ton

 Boondoggle: How Ontario’s pursuit of renewables broke their electricity system

Financial Post, Terence Corcoran

The Green industry has done over Ontario consumers. Government control of the electricity market was “cheered on by a growing industrial complex of wind and solar promoters backed by a large contingent of financial firms, big name consultants, fee-collecting law firms and major corporations. All were anxious to play a lucrative role fulfilling renewables objectives”.

Ontario was going to be the North American leader in renewable energy. It would save lives, create jobs, cost nothing, but instead the electricity bills have doubled, no lives were saved and the only jobs created were temporary (and almost certainly cost more jobs in other areas due to high electricity costs). The only “success” for the extra wind and solar power that’s locked into the grid is that it has “saved” some meaningless CO2 emissions at the exorbitant, flagrant cost of $250 per ton. Green energy was supposed to save $4.4billion in healthcare and other costs, but virtually none of that materialized.

Canada, electricity, supply, demand, costs.Costs have gone from 5.5c a KWh in 2006 to 11c KWh in 2016. (How is it still so incredibly cheap ask Aussies? We are the largest coal exporters in the world and have some of the largest uranium reserves but Australians pay from 25c to 36c per KWh* and the currencies are 1:1).

According to Terence Corcoran things are so on the nose that the premier can’t even mention hydro without getting booed. The costs of going green have been estimated at $170 billion over 30 years, and while smog has decreased somewhat, no one is sure whether that was due to the coal stations closing in Ontario, or is linked to US changes. In any case, the coal plants could have been fitted with smog-cleaning gear for a tiny fraction of the cost.

The Ontario government has finally started canceling new wind projects, but there are long term contracts for current wind farms that go on for years. Jan Carr was head of the Ontario Power Authority and says the government is “finally waking up to Ontario’s electricity carnage.”

Ontario’s Society of Professional Engineers has issued many reports describing how dismal the green policies are, but the Premier’s office appear to have been fooled completely by the Green machine. A former head of the OSPE, Paul Acchione, says“because they know how to turn a light bulb on and off, they’ll issue policy statements on the most complex engineering system on the planet”. He said the Premier’s office was pretty much running the grid and “hiring political scientists and environmentalists because they thought they were the experts”. (Does Australia have an OSPE equivalent, wonders Jo?)

But demand for electricity has cratered as the prearranged contracts for green energy have surged, and Canadians are paying for expensive electricity that comes at the wrong time of day and isn’t needed.

In a normal market when supply outstrips demand, prices are supposed to fall. But put a government in charge and the most expensive provider can get a guarantee to get paid, even if their product isn’t needed.

A bunch of parasites fooled the Premier and they are getting rich by selling expensive electrons that are supposed to change the weather 50 years from now.

h/t to Clipe, Pat and David B.

________________

*Australia retail prices. For cost estimates read AMEC’s 2015 report.  Each State is listed in the summary pages viii to xii, “In 2014/15, a representative consumer [in WA] using 5,229 kWh per year paid the government-set price and had an annual bill of $1,319 exclusive of GST. “  “In 2014/15, a representative consumer [in SA] on the representative standing offer using 5,000 kWh per year had a total annual bill of $1,811 exclusive of GST.”

Warnings from CCSAGE, on Wynne’s Agenda!

FLASH!

(1) Yesterday, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) announced that bids would open for a further 150 megawatts of electricity on October 31st. The news release by Energy Minister Thibeault on September 27th announced to great fanfare that the Large Renewable Procurement (LRP 2) in process would be suspended, halting procurement of over 1,000 megawatts of energy, including wind and solar. IESO had established that Ontario has a robust supply of electricity over the coming decade to meet demand. Neither yesterday’s IESO announcement nor Thibeault’s news release disclosed that the further 150 megawatts in question had been referred to in the then Energy Minister’s letter of April 5th, 2016, to IESO as a requirement imposed on IESO.

The general reaction to Thibeault’s news release was one of temporary relief that no new wind or solar factories would be imposed on unwilling hosts in 2017. It now seems that to regard it as a cynical ploy motivated politically might be more appropriate.

(2) The Business Section of today’s Globe and Mail under the byline of Richard Blackwell believes that an announcement may soon be made that Windstream Energy, whose massive offshore wind factory not too far from the County was cancelled by Queen’s Park, has been awarded damages of about $25.2 million plus costs of about $2.9 million. The awards were given by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, sitting in the Netherlands, under NAFTA rules. Under those rules, Ottawa is responsible for the actions of the Provinces, so the awards were made against the Government of Canada.

We will follow up on this story as it develops, including how one Liberal government will react against another for the disastrous outcome.