Obama’s Heavy-handed Regulatory Policies, Will Mean the Destruction of the American Economy!!

Paul Driessen on political developments and the highjacking of the American government

Well lets just be a little old fashioned and assume that the American Experiment in Government was designed by wise men who had studied the human reality and decided to form a union based on the best of principles of self government.

Then imagine that intrusive ideologies arose that would corrupt and then destroy those best of principles.

Paul Driessen speaks to some of those concerns.

President Obama and many Democrats have excoriated companies for utilizing “tax inversions” to repatriate stockpiles of cash from overseas bank accounts, thereby avoiding the 35% US corporate tax rate and providing new funds for plants and equipment, innovation, hiring and keeping workers, and tapping new markets. Calling this “unpatriotic” and “immoral” is just another false, distracting, divisive community agitator tactic.

What America really needs right now is regulatory patriotism – and Executive Branch morality, citizenship, and fealty to our Constitution and laws. What we’re stuck with is a destructive, unpatriotic regulatory onslaught. The bare tip of the iceberg is that confiscatory 35% corporate tax rate, which is embedded in a Tax Code that is 74,000 pages and 33 million words long – 42 times more words than in the King James Bible.

As President Obama said recently, “Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.” He’s absolutely right. Will American voters remember that when they head to the polls in November?

Thank you for posting my article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.

Best regards,

Paul

We need some regulatory patriotism!

President Obama condemns tax inversions, but pillages America with his regulatory agenda

“My policies are on the ballot, every single one of them,” he reminded voters on October 2.

Paul Driessen

It’s no mystery why American companies have stockpiled over $2 trillion of overseas earnings in foreign bank accounts. If they bring it to the United States, the IRS would grab 35% of it. That’s the US corporate tax rate – the highest in the developed world, double the average in EU nations.

Medtronic found a creative way to repatriate its cash, allowing it to bring money to the USA subject to just a 12.5% tax. The company acquired Covidien, another, smaller medical device firm in Ireland and will establish its formal headquarters in Dublin, thereby slashing its tax rate by two-thirds, and leaving it with far more cash for plants and equipment, innovation, hiring and keeping workers, and tapping new markets.

Pharmaceutical, biotechnology, healthcare and other companies have concluded or are pursuing similar “tax inversion” strategies. The actions have outraged the White House, “progressive” activists and many Democrats in Congress – except when President Obama’s BFF Warren Buffett engineered Burger King’s acquisition of Canada’s Tim Horton café and bakery chain.

The President says the practice is “unpatriotic” and “immoral,” calls the companies “corporate deserters,” and says businesses must start acting like “good corporate citizens.” Congressional Democrats have issued similar denunciations and want inversions prohibited or punished. They’re barking up the wrong tree.

The proper solution is comprehensive tax reform. However, Republicans want to address both corporate and individual tax issues, Democrats insist that only corporate taxes on the table, and Mr. Obama is typically not inclined to do the hard work of forging bipartisan compromises. Instead, he wants his IRS and Treasury Department to review “a broad range of authorities for possible administrative actions” and ways to “meaningfully reduce the tax benefits after inversions take place,” as one Treasury official put it.

Companies, workers and investors are bracing for the coming executive fiats. The diktats epitomize a huge problem that neither Congress nor the courts have been willing to address, but which continues to drag our nation’s economy and employment into the abyss: an out-of-control federal bureaucracy that is determined to control virtually every aspect of our business and personal lives – at great cost, for few benefits, and with little or no accountability for mistakes or even deliberate harm.

Of course we need taxes, laws and regulations, to set norms and guidelines, safeguard society, punish miscreants and pay for essential government programs. No one contests that. The question is, How much?

What we need right now is regulatory patriotism – and Executive Branch morality, citizenship, and fealty to our Constitution and laws. The federal behemoth today is destructive, and unpatriotic.

* The confiscatory 35% corporate tax rate is embedded in a Tax Code that’s 74,000 pages long, counting important cases and interpretations. It totals some 33 million words (compared to 788,280 in the King James Bible) and is loaded with crony corporatist provisions and complex, indecipherable language.

* A 906-page, 418,779-word (un)Affordable Care Act that has already metastasized into more than 10,000 pages of complex, often contradictory regulations, with more interpretations and clarifications to come.

* The 2,300-page Dodd-Frank law has already spawned over 14,000 pages of banking and financial rules.

* Over 175,000 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations are coupled with more than 1.4 million pages of tiny-type Federal Register proposed and final rules published just since 1993, at the rate of over 71,000 pages per year. Doctors, patients, insurers, businesses large and small – much less average citizens – cannot possibly read, comprehend or follow this onslaught.

* At least 4,450 federal crimes are embedded in those laws and regulations (with some 500 new crimes added per decade) – often for minor infractions like failing to complete or file precisely correct paperwork for selling orchids or importing wood for guitars. Neither inability to understand complex edicts, lack of knowledge that they could possibly exist, nor absence of intent to violate them is a defense, and the “crime” can bring military swat teams through doors, and land “violators” in prison for months or years.

* Production Tax Credits and other sweetheart “green” energy subsidies and grants total some $40 billion a year – for ethanol producers and folks like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Mr. Tom Kiernan, who is both CEO of the American Wind Energy Association and treasurer of the League of Conservation Voters, which gives millions to mostly Democratic candidates to perpetuate the arrangements.

* American businesses and families must pay $1.9 trillion per year to comply with these mountains of regulations. That’s one-eighth of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product; it’s almost all the corporate money now held overseas: $5,937 a year for every American citizen – and far more than the $1.6 trillion in direct economic losses that re-insurer Munich Re blames on weather-related disasters between 1980 and 2011.

* $353 billion of these regulatory costs are inflicted by the Environmental Protection Agency alone, say Competitive Enterprise Institute experts who prepared the $1.9 trillion regulatory costs analysis for 2013.

Even worse, these criminal complexities and costs are being imposed by increasingly ideological, left-of-center, anti-business “public servants” who target conservatives and are intent on advancing President Obama’s agenda of “fundamentally transforming” the United States. They are determined to redistribute wealth, pit economic and ethnic groups against each other, close down coal-fired power plants, ensure that electricity prices “necessarily skyrocketing,” and stop drilling, mining, ranching, fracking and pipelines.

Poll after poll finds Americans focused on jobs and the economy, and on ISIL, terrorism and Ebola. Not so our federal government. Secretary of State John Kerry says climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” posing “greater long-term consequences” than terrorism or Ebola. For EPA the biggest issues are global warming, “environmental justice” and “sustainable development.”

How is the US economy responding to these policies? Median household income is down $2,000 since Obama took office, while costs of living continue to rise. Despite the subsidies, electricity prices have soared 14-33% in states with the most wind power. Some 45 million Americans now live below the poverty line – a 50% increase over the 30 million in poverty on inauguration day 2009.

While the official unemployment rate is now under 6% for the first time in six years, University of Maryland economist Peter Morici puts the real jobless rate at closer to 20% – which includes the millions who have given up looking for work, those who want to work full-time but must settle for part-time, and students enrolled in graduate school because their employment prospects are so bleak.

The labor force participation rate now stands at 62.7 percent, the lowest level in 36 years, with over 92 million adults not working. Over the past six years, one million more Americans have dropped out of the labor force than have found a job.

Indeed, a hallmark of the Obama recovery is its unique ability to convert three full-time jobs with benefits into four part-time positions with no benefits – and then say unemployment is declining.

It’s hardly surprising that dozens of senators and congressmen who voted with Mr. Obama 90-99% of the time now want to be seen as “moderate independents” – and do not want to be seen with the President.

But as President Obama told Northwestern University students October 2, “Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot, every single one of them.”

He’s absolutely right. So are his economic and employment records. Time will tell how many people remember that when they vote November 4.

_________

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

Congratulations to the Fighting Irish! Winning the War Against Windweasels!

Irish Wind Farm Victories Mount

1397574371-dublin-thousands-gather-to-protest-against-pylons-and-wind-turbines_4479876

There aren’t many guarantees in life – death and taxes spring to mind: to which can be added community opposition to giant fans.

Wherever wind farms have appeared – or have been threatened – big numbers of locals take a set against the monsters being speared into their previously peaceful – and often idyllic – rural communities. Their anger extends to the goons that lied their way to development approval – and the bent officials that rubber-stamped their applications and who, thereafter, help the operators ride roughshod over locals’ rights to live in and enjoy the peace and comfort of their own homes and properties.

The Irish have already hit the streets to bring an end to the fraud: some 10,000 stormed Dublin back in April. The sense of anger in Ireland – as elsewhere – is palpable (see our post here). And they’re tooling up for a raft of litigation in order to prevent the construction of wind farms, wherever they’ve been threatened on the Emerald Isle (see our post here).

Irish energy and activism is fast paying dividends as their wins against wind farm proposals start to mount. Here’s The Irish Examiner on some recent victories.

Kerry windfarm rejected as 1,000 voice opposition
The Irish Examiner
Gordon Deegan
10 October 2014

Kerry County Council has refused planning permission for a 10-turbine wind farm proposed for the Ballyhorgan area, near Listowel

More than 1,000 people signed a petition opposing plans, while objectors attended several public meetings locally as well as staging protests outside the council’s Tralee headquarters.

Around 250 objections were lodged against the planning application submitted by Stacks Mountain Windfarm Ltd.

Giving reasons yesterday for rejecting the application, the council said the development would seriously injure the amenities of the area and would be contrary to wind-energy guidelines for local authorities.

Had they been allowed to proceed, the 156.5m turbines would be highest in the State and taller than the Dublin Spire by 30m.

The North Kerry Wind Turbines Awareness Group, which led the opposition, claimed the sheer size of the turbines would dominate the rural community, would destroy the landscape, devalue homes, and cause disruption to local life through noise and shadow flicker.

The group maintained that there were already too many turbines in the region, which includes towns and villages such as Listowel, Ballyduff, and Ballybunion.

Several postings appeared on the group’s Facebook page welcoming the decision, with some posters saying it was a victory for common sense and logical thinking. The group had threatened to take its case to the EU.

Earlier this year, hundreds of signs were erected in the area saying homes would be offered for sale in the Ballyhorgan and Finuge areas if the windfarm was granted the green light.

In reaching its decision, the council said the windfarm on the scale proposed would create a “significant visual intrusion’’.

Enerco Energy, the parent of company of Stacks Mountain Windfarm Ltd, had argued the project would be in line with state policy to have 40% of our energy produced from renewable sources, chiefly wind, by 2020.

The company also said it carried out extensive studies of wildlife, archaeology, hydrology, and every aspect of natural life in the area as part of a comprehensive impact assessment. The company has four weeks to submit an appeal to An Bord Pleanála.

Planning refused

US billionaire Donald Trump has blown plans for a giant windfarm near his Irish golf resort off course — with a little help from a critical endangered pearl mussel.

Yesterday, Clare Co Council refused planning permission to Clare Coastal Wind Power Ltd to erect a nine-turbine 126ml windfarm within sight of Mr Trump’s Doonbeg Golf Resort on Clare’s coast.

Mr Trump had led the charge against the planned windfarm, which also attracted widespread local opposition groups and from Friends of the Irish Environment, while An Taisce and the Irish Peat Conservation Council also expressed concerns.

Twenty-three landowners in the area stood to receive an annual dividend from allowing the turbines be built on their lands.
The Irish Examiner

Ireland sign

Wind Turbines Cause Mental and Physical Anguish….Worldwide!

The symptoms they claim to have suffered may vary – including dizziness; increased blood pressure and depression – but the theme remains the same

Photomontage of a wind turbine; while some people have welcomed the wind farms, others say they have a detrimental effect on their health

Photomontage of a wind turbine; while some people have welcomed the wind farms, others say they have a detrimental effect on their health

It was Uplawmoor’s tranquillity and wild beauty that drew civil servant Aileen Jackson to settle there 28 years ago.

She’d had enough of life in the big city. Now she wanted somewhere quiet and rural to start a family, keep her horses, and enjoy the magnificent views down the valley and out to sea to the western Scottish isles of Arran and Ailsa Craig.

Then, two years ago, she says, it all turned sour.

A neighbour with whom she and her family had been friends decided to take advantage of the massive public subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

He put up a 64ft-high wind turbine which, though on his own land, stood just 300 yards from the Jackson family’s home.

The sleepless nights caused by its humming were only the start of their problems. Far worse was the impact on their health.

Aileen, a diabetic since the age of 19, found her blood glucose levels rocketing – forcing her to take more insulin and causing her to develop a cataract, she says.

Her younger son, Brian, an outgoing, happy, academically enthusiastic young man, suddenly became a depressive, stopped seeing his friends and dropped out of his studies at college.

A turbine beside a house near Hartlepool

A turbine beside a house near Hartlepool

Aileen’s husband William, who had always had low blood pressure, now found his blood pressure levels going ‘sky high’ – and has been on medication ever since.

So far so coincidental, you might say. And if you did, you would have the full and enthusiastic support of the wind industry.

Here is what the official trade body RenewableUK has to say on its website: ‘In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the world, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind farms.’

But in order to believe that, you would have to discount the testimony of the thousands of people just like Aileen around the world who claim their health has been damaged by wind farms.

You would have to ignore the reports of doctors such as Australia’s Sarah Laurie, Canada’s Nina Pierpont and Britain’s Amanda Harry who have collated hundreds of such cases of Wind Turbine Syndrome.

And you’d have to reject the expertise of the acoustic engineers, sleep specialists, epidemiologists and physiologists who all testify that the noise generated by wind farms represents a major threat to public health.

‘If this were the nuclear industry, this is a scandal which would be on the front pages of every newspaper every day for months on end,’ says Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative MP for Daventry who has been leading the parliamentary revolt against wind farms, demanding that their subsidies be cut.

‘But because it’s wind it has been let off the hook. It shouldn’t be.’

Wind Turbine Syndrome. Until you’ve seen for yourself what it can do to a community, you might be tempted to dismiss it as a hypochondriac’s charter or an urban myth.

But the suffering I witnessed earlier this year in Waterloo, a hamlet outside Adelaide in southern Australia, was all too real.

The place felt like a ghost town: shuttered houses and a dust-blown aura of  sinister unease, as in a horror movie where something terrible has happened to a previously thriving settlement but at first you’re not sure what.

Then you look to the horizon and see them, turning in the breeze…

‘The wind farm people said we’d be doing our bit to save the planet,’ said one resident.

‘They said these things were quieter than a fridge. They said it was all going to be fairy floss and candy.

‘So how come I can’t sleep in my own house any more? How come sometimes I’m having to take 15 Valium tablets a day? How come, when I used to be a pretty mellow sort of person, I’m now so angry it’s only a matter of time before I end up in jail?’

Aileen Jackson, a diabetic since the age of 19, found her blood glucose levels rocketing - forcing her to take more insulin and causing her to develop a cataract, she says

Aileen Jackson, a diabetic since the age of 19, found her blood glucose levels rocketing – forcing her to take more insulin and causing her to develop a cataract, she says

I’ve since heard dozens of similar stories from nurses, farmers, panel-beaters, civil servants, businessmen and forestry workers across the world, from New South Wales to Sweden and Pembrokeshire.

The symptoms they claim to have suffered may vary – dizziness; balance problems; memory loss; inability to concentrate; insomnia; tachycardia; increased blood pressure; raised cortisol levels; headaches; nausea; mood swings; anxiety; tinnitus; palpitations; depression – but the theme remains the same.

Here are ordinary people who settled in the country for a quiet life only to have their lives and property values trashed at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.

In December 2011, in a peer-reviewed report in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Dr Carl Phillips – one of the U.S.’s most distinguished epidemiologists – concluded that there is ‘overwhelming evidence that wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate’.

According to a study by U.S. noise control engineer Rick James, wind farms generate the same symptoms as Sick Building Syndrome – the condition that plagued office workers in the Eighties and Nineties as a result of what was eventually discovered to be the Low Frequency Noise (LFN), caused by misaligned air conditioning systems.

The combination of LFN and ‘amplitude modulation’ (loudness that goes up and down) leads to fatigue, poor concentration and dizziness.

And sleep specialist Dr Chris Hanning believes it stimulates an alert response, leading to arousal episodes throug the night that make restful sleep impossible.

‘I’ve spoken with many sufferers and sadly the only treatment is for them to move away from the wind farm.’

But if the problem is really so widespread, why isn’t it better known?

The short answer is money: the wind industry is a hugely lucrative business with millions to spend on lobbying.

What’s more, until recently, it benefited from the general public mood that ‘something ought to be done about climate change’ and wind power – supposedly ‘free’, ‘renewable’ and ‘carbon-friendly’ – was the obvious solution.

‘For years among the metropolitan elite it has been considered heretical to criticise wind power,’ says Heaton-Harris.

A wind farm in Lanarkshire - some UK wind farms have more than 100 turbines

A wind farm in Lanarkshire – some UK wind farms have more than 100 turbines. In Britain, onshore wind farms are subsidised by a levy on consumer bills at 100 per cent; offshore wind is subsidised at 200 per cent

In the last decade, however, a host of evidence has emerged to indicate it is not the panacea it was thought to be.

From economists such as Edinburgh University’s Dr Gordon Hughes we are told that wind energy is unreliable and intermittent, with no real market value because it requires near 100 per cent back-up by conventional fossil-fuel power.

From research institute Verso Economics we are told that that for every ‘green job’ created by taxpayer subsidy, 3.7 jobs are killed in the real economy.

It is said that thanks to the artificial rise in energy prices caused by renewable subsidies, expected to reach £13 billion per annum by 2020, at least 50,000 people a year in Britain are driven into fuel poverty.

And newly released Spanish government research claims that each turbine kills an average 300 birds a year (often rare ones such as eagles and bustards) and at least as many bats.

Yet still, despite collapsing share prices and increasing public scepticism, the industry continues to grow.

As Matt Ridley noted recently in The Spectator, there are ‘too many people with snouts in the trough.’

Aristocratic landowners have done especially well, such as the Earl of Moray (£2 million a year from his Doune estate) and the Duke of Roxburghe (£1.5 million a year from his estate in Lammermuir Hills).

South of the border, the Prime Minister’s father-in-law Sir Reginald Sheffield makes more than £1,000 a day from the eight turbines on his Lincolnshire estates. Even smaller landholdings can generate a tidy profit: around £40,000 per year, per large (3MW) turbine, for no effort whatsoever.

The biggest winners, though, are the mostly foreign-owned (Mitsubishi, Gamesa, Siemens) firms for whom wind was until recently a virtually risk-free investment.

In Britain, onshore wind farms are subsidised by a levy on consumer bills at 100 per cent; offshore wind is subsidised at 200 per cent: no matter how little energy the turbines actually produce, in other words, healthy returns are guaranteed.

The debate over wind farms has aroused huge passions.

‘I’ve had death threats. I’m told I’m a witch. I’ve had my reputation trashed in the newspapers,’ says Australian campaigner Dr Sarah Laurie.

‘And for what? All I’ve ever done is say, “People are getting sick and something should be done to stop it.”’

When Aileen Jackson protested about some of the 23 new turbine projects proposed for Uplawmoor, she too was threatened.

An anti wind farm march, led by botanist David Bellamy

An anti wind farm march, led by botanist David Bellamy

Her car, she says, was vandalised; broken glass was strewn in her horses’ field; on two occasions she found her horses’ anti-midge coats had been cut off and slashed to pieces, the horses left covered in blood from where they rubbed themselves against a fence to stop the itching.

There’s no suggestion anyone locally concerned with wind farms was involved.

But legitimate proponents of wind farms are candid about the benefits.

‘There’s so much money to be made from these things, that’s the problem,’ says Jackson.

‘You’ll talk to the farmers and they’re quite open about it. “I’ve worked hard all my life and this is my pension plan,” they’ll tell you.’

What horrifies the communities threatened by wind farm developments is how powerless they are to stop them.

At Northwich in Cheshire, I attended the annual meeting of National Opposition to Windfarms (NOW), where lawyers including Lord Carlile (NOW’s chairman) advised local protest groups on how to challenge wind developments in their area.

The desperation was palpable. Current planning laws have a presumption ‘in favour of sustainable development’.

Wind farms are deemed vital to Britain’s EU-driven campaign to cut its carbon emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. Arguments about wind turbines’ public health impacts seem to cut little ice with planning inspectors.

The whole system has been rigged in the industry’s favour. One of the biggest bones of contention is regulation of acceptable noise levels.

In Britain, wind developers are bound by ETSU-R-97, a code that places modest limits on sound within the normal human hearing range – but which fails to address the damaging aspect of wind turbines: infrasonic (ie, inaudible) Low Frequency Noise.

But according to RenewableUK’s ‘Top Myths About Wind Energy’ section, accusations that wind farms emit ‘infrasound and cause associated health problems’ are ‘unscientific’.

It quotes Dr Geoff Leventhall, author of the Defra report on Low Frequency Noise And Its Effects: ‘I can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of wind turbines.’

And Robert Norris, head of communications at RenewableUK, says: ‘There’s no evidence to link the very low levels of noise produced by wind farms with any effects on people living nearby.

Windfarms near you

‘Low frequency noise isn’t a problem. Extensive measurements taken repeatedly by scientists across Europe and the USA show the level of sound is so minimal that it can’t be perceived, even close up.’

However, Robert Rand of Rand Acoustics in Maine, who has done work on wind farms and been a consultant in acoustics since 1980, says: ‘All wind turbines produce low-frequency noise. The reason it doesn’t show up on wind industry tests is that the equipment they use excludes low-frequency noise.’

Dr John Constable Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation adds: ‘Audible noise disturbance from wind turbines, particularly at night, is known to be a very serious and fairly common problem, but low frequency noise is a mystery.

‘No one knows enough about it to say anything definite, one way or the other. This is one of those cases where more research really is needed.’

Dr Alec Salt, a cochlear physiologist at the Department of Otolaryngology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, has studied the topic since the Seventies.

‘The idea that there is no problem with infrasound couldn’t be more wrong,’ he says.

‘The responses of the human ear to  LFN are just enormous. Bigger than to anything in the audible range.’

Audible sound stimulates the inner hair cells on the cochlea (the auditory portion of the inner ear), but LFN triggers the outer hair cells, sending neural signals to the brain. Military special ops departments have known about it for some time.

A 1997 report by the U.S. Air Force Institute For National Security Studies notes: ‘Acoustic infrasound: very low frequency sound which can travel long distances and easily penetrate most buildings and vehicles.

‘Transmission of long wavelength sound creates biophysical effects, nausea, loss of bowels, disorientation, vomiting, potential organ damage or death may occur.’

Yet as Dr Phillips notes, instead of protecting the public, governments are actually complicit by encouraging wind farm development via generous subsidies.

‘It’s ridiculous. Here is an industry which is putting the health of tens of thousands of people at risk. If this were a pharmaceutical company sales would have been suspended by now. ’

His views are shared by orthopaedic surgeon Dr Robert McMurtry, once Canada’s most senior public health official: ‘Whatever you think about climate change, you can be sure that wind energy is not the solution.

‘There is an abundance of evidence to the show that infrasound from wind farms represents a serious public health hazard. Until further research is done, there should be an immediate moratorium on building any more of them.’

Newspaper columnist Christopher Booker called wind farms ‘the greatest political blunder of our time’ and ‘a monument to an age when our leaders collectively went off their heads’.

But a recent statement by energy minister Charles Hendry says: ‘Studies have considered the noise phenomenon known as amplitude modulation (AM) but show that to date only one wind farm in the UK has presented a noise nuisance to residents. The issue has since been resolved.

‘We will keep the issue of AM under review and welcome the additional research on AM that RenewableUK have commissioned,’ in answer to a parliamentary question from Chris Heaton-Harris.

Heaton-Harris is not impressed.

‘Wind farms are destroying people’s lives, destroying the environment, destroying the economy – but instead of opposing it, all three main political parties are committed to building more of them.

‘And it’s not accidental. This is a stitch-up between the wind lobby and its friends in Parliament and it’s an outrage.

‘It’s the biggest health scandal of our age and the metropolitan elite just don’t care.’

An earlier version of this article showed an image of some countryside in Bedfordshire that appeared to show two wind turbines close to some houses.  In fact, this picture was an artist’s production image for an illustration in the magazine and should not have been published.  There is only one turbine in that position.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-2199284/Wind-farms-Are-wind-farms-saving-killing-A-provocative-investigation-claims-thousands-people-falling-sick-live-near-them.html#ixzz3FkoQeYpO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Why People who Support Wind Farms are Either Deluded, Criminals, or Insane!!!

James Delingpole: Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane

bedlam

Ten Reasons why People who Support Wind Farms Are Deluded, Criminal or Insane.
Which One Are You, Vince Cable?
Breitbart.com
James Delingpole
8 October 2014

Opposing wind farms is “irrational”, claimed Liberal Democrat MP Vince Cable at his party conference yesterday.

Actually, no. Here are some reasons why anyone who doesn’t oppose wind farms is most probably either deluded, criminal or insane.

1. Wind turbines kill bats on an industrial scale – nearly 30 million a year in the US alone, according to some estimates. This is somewhat ironic since most of those pushing for more wind are ardent greenies, who presumably understand that the reason bats are such a heavily protected species is that their breeding cycle is so slow and their life cycle so long – making them especially vulnerable when a breeding pair is killed.

2. Wind turbines kill birds on an industrial scale. Between 110 and 330 birds per turbine per year, according to the Spanish conservation charity SEO/Birdlife – though other research puts the mortality rate as high as 895. In the US, they have killed tens of thousands of raptors including golden eagles and America’s national bird, the bald eagle. In Spain, they threaten the Egyptian and Griffon vulture. In Australia, they have driven the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle close to extinction. Yet bizarrely wind farms are supported by bird charities including the RSPB, because their ideological commitment to “clean energy” trumps the interests of birds, apparently.

3. Wind turbines produce Low Frequency Noise and infrasound, which can cause those who live nearby a range of health problems including insomnia, raised cortisol levels, headaches, panic attacks, tachycardia, nausea, mood swings, palpitations, depression. The corrupt wind industry has known about this for years – with the complicity of certain tame acousticians – contrived to cover up the problem, recognising that if ever the word gets into the public domain the lawsuits are going to be immense.

4. Wind turbines have terrible impacts on animals besides birds and bats. They have caused stillbirth and deformations in livestock; they can turn healthy, responsive dogs into nervous wrecks. In Denmark they caused the premature births of 1600 mink at a fur farm. In Canada they caused the closure of an emu farm popular with tourists, because the turbines made the docile birds (which cost $3,000 a pair) aggressive.

5. Wind turbines kill jobs. According to research by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Carlos university in Madrid, they destroy 2.2 jobs in the real economy for every Potemkin job (“green job”) created by government malinvestment. Separate research suggests that the damage in the UK may be even higher: 3.7 real jobs lost for every fake green one created.

6. Wind turbines are like a reverse Robin Hood, lining the pockets of the rent-seeking rich – such as Prime Minister David Cameron’s father-in-law,Sir Reginald Sheffield, Bt, who makes a £1000 a day just for sitting on his arse while the eight turbines on his Leicestershire estate turn idly in the breeze – at the expense of the ordinary energy user. If this were free market capitalism, fine. But it’s not: it’s the exact opposite – crony capitalism in which economic favours are handed out not by the market but by government fiat. This is the kind of state-endorsed social injustice of which bloody revolutions are made.

7. Wind turbines – as any rural community which has tried fighting the heavily-rigged planning system will know – are disruptive, divisive and unjust. They turn neighbour against neighbour. They force country folk who really would have preferred to do other things with their lives to expend vast quantities of money, time and energy trying desperately to preserve the character and charm of their neighbourhood by fighting wind projects with all their might. Often – that rigged planning system – they fail. So one local person gets rich, earning perhaps £30,000 a year per turbine on his land. But everyone else suffers in the form of blighted views, reduced property values, noise disturbance etc.

8. Wind turbines are economically pointless. Because the “energy” they produce is unreliable, unpredictable and intermittent (sometimes the wind blows; sometimes it doesn’t; sometimes it blows so hard that the turbines have to be switched off) it has no genuine market value. Electricity users want electricity as and when they need it, not when the wind deigns to blow. That’s why it has to be so heavily subsidised by the taxpayer – because without bribes no developer would risk the capital outlay on something so unproductive. And it’s why wind energy has constantly to be backed up by more conventional power like coal, gas and oil. One 25 hectare fracking site and one medium sized fossil fuel power station can produce the same amount of energy as ALL the wind turbines in Britain.

9. Wind farms are partly responsible for the thousands of people who die every year of fuel poverty. (Plus, of course, all those people who’ve been fatally injured in turbine fires, air crashes, or by flying blades – for full details see here.) This is because, being so disproportionately expensive – between roughly twice and three times the cost of conventional fossil fuel power, depending on whether we’re talking onshore or offshore wind – and being, by government order, a compulsory part of our “energy mix”, they drive up energy to artificially high levels. The carbon saving benefits of wind farms are largely imaginary; the effects on “global warming” marginal to illusory; but the people who actually die each year, unable to afford their rising fuel bills, are very, very real.

10. Wind farms are a blot on the landscape. They just are. And don’t give me any of that “Well I think they’re rather handsome actually” crap. Your warped personal aesthetics ought not to be anyone’s problem but your own.
Breitbart.com

Not a bad start there, James. STT is sure our followers can easily tack a few more to your solid little list.

james-delingpole_3334

Wind Industry is NOT Viable, and we Can’t afford to Support Them!

Photo: Ingram/Getty Images

One of the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturers let loose a bit of truth and self-admission to the Financial Times: We still need help, and that help must come from taxpayers.

The wind production tax credit, a generous $23 per-megawatt-hour tax credit the producer receives for 10 years, expired last year. At that rate, taxpayers are effectively covering half the wholesale price of electricity and, in some areas of the country, the entire wholesale price. The PTC expired at the end of 2013, but several policymakers are pushing for an extension.

Lisa Davis, who leads the global energy business at Siemens, told the Financial Times the wind industry was close to grid parity with conventional sources of electricity such as coal and natural gas, but “we’re not there yet.”

“We’ve not yet got to the point where it’s truly self-sustaining,” she said. “We’ve got to focus on cost competitiveness.”

So the way to become self-sustaining and cost-competitive is to plead for extended reliance on the taxpayer? That is exactly why Congress needs to cut the cord on wind energy subsidies from the federal government. The wind industry cannot focus on lowering costs while it is so heavily subsidized because subsidies enable them to ignore costs. So, rather than trying to achieve the true price point necessary for cost-competitiveness, the wind industry concentrates on securing more subsidies. Eliminating the PTC for good will allow wind producers to become self-sustaining if the technology truly can compete with other sources of energy.

If wind cannot compete, then it doesn’t belong in our energy mix. America has a robust and diverse supply of electricity generation where our energy demands are met through coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydropower and other renewable sources. We don’t need the federal government to create artificial diversity that wastes taxpayer dollars and promotes stagnation. This holds true for all energy sources.

The reality is startups and new ideas and technologies succeed and fail all of the time. Failure should not be a signal for the federal government to come to the rescue; it’s a signal those resources can be put to more productive use in the economy. But the wind industry is no start-up. It’s been more than 22 years since Matthew Wald of the New York Times wrote, “Because of striking improvements in technology, the commercial use of these windmills, or wind turbines as the builders call them, has shown that in addition to being pollution free, they can now compete with fossil fuels in the cost of producing electricity.”

There is no justification for propping up established companies, either. If Chi Chi’s pleaded for handouts to stay competitive with the likes of Applebees, or Microsoft told America it needed support from the taxpayer to sell more Zunes, policymakers rightfully would scoff. Those companies didn’t fail because they weren’t cost competitive; they simply offered a product consumers didn’t want to buy.

Rather than creating a sustainable industry, the PTC artificially propped up an industry, advanced special interests and allocated labor and capital away from more competitive uses in the marketplace. Extending the credit would only exacerbate those problems and complicate opportunities for real tax reform. Congress should hold its ground and keep the sun set on the wind PTC.

Carbon Capture and Storage….Another Huge Waste of Our Money!!

CCS is really a good idea, for wasting money

The Canadian foray into Carbon Capture and Storage is quite a money waster.  Why do we keep pursuing it? From EUReferendum.com, Energy: CCS – the fantasy continues

There should a special place reserved in Hell for the government officials and politicians who waste public money by employing the likes of Ashley Ibbett, the Director of the Office of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

It is there, at DECC, that Mr Ibbett is the Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) for the CCS Commercialisation Programme, a multi-billion pound programme which aims to develop the first CCS-equipped power generation in the UK.

One could, of course, rail against the huge waste on expenditure on the CCS programme, but it is easier to direct one’s loathing at a named individual – which is one of the reasons why we have politicians, to act as lightning conductors for public disaffection.

But in this case, Mr Ibbett has broken cover in the DECC blog with a gushing and ultimately dishonest report of a jolly to Canada (at taxpayers’ expense).

This was to visit the Boundary Dam coal fired power plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, and witness “the historic moment” when Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan, switched on a $1.4 billion coal-fired generator, fitted with CCS which will “capture more than 90 percent of the carbon dioxide that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere”.

Says the gushing Ibbett, this demonstrates to sceptics that CCS can be deployed at scale. Several pilot scale capture facilities have operated in the past, but this is the first time carbon capture has operated on a commercial scale on a power station anywhere in the world.

Where the dishonesty comes in here is by omission. Ibbett is very keen to point out that the plant will capture around one million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year – equivalent to taking 250,000 cars off Saskatchewan roads annually, he says – but is extremely reticent about revealing the costs of this fantasy project.

In fact, of the total $1.4 billion plant cost, the reports put the actual cost of upgrading the 30-year-old plant at $400 million,putting the CCS at a cool billion, tripling the capital needed to provide a modest 110MW generating capacity.

But the omissions don’t stop there. The original plant was rated at 139MW so, for the expenditure of $1.4 billion, the Canadians have ended up with an overall reduction of 29MW capacity. Here, Ibbett’s dishonesty is compounded by that of the plant operator, SaskPower, which tells Reuters that the loss of the 29MW capacity represents an “energy penalty” of around 20 percent.

We have to go to a local report, however, to find that the upgrade, including a new, high-efficiency boiler and steam turbine, cranked up the nameplate capacity to 162MW. But the CCS unit needs about 34 MW to operate, resulting in a “parasitic loss” of about 21 per cent of plant’s power. Then, another 18MW are needed for other systems, reducing the net output to 110MW.

This cost of 52MW represents a loss not of 20 percent, as the plant operator is stating, but 32 percent, just one point short of a full third loss in capacity. Effectively, therefore, efficiency is cut by a third, for a tripling of the capital cost.

Going back to the Reuters report, it tells us that most modern ultra-supercritical coal power plants can achieve a thermal efficiency of up to about 45 percent. Retrofitting such a plant would reduce its efficiency to around 35 percent, a penalty of around 25 percent.

But for less-efficient supercritical and sub-critical power plants, with initial thermal efficiencies of less than 40 percent and in some cases less than 30 percent, the penalty could amount to 40 percent or even 50 percent of the plant’s total electrical output.

Even a 20-30 percent energy penalty, Reuters says, is enormous and would radically affect the operations of coal-fired power plants in North America and the rest of the world if all power plants were retrofitted with CCS systems. Retrofitting all coal-fired plants in the United States would increase coal consumption by 400-600 million tonnes per year, or cut their net electrical output by 75-100GW, more than the peak demand of California.

Even then, there is no direct comparison between different sites. The majority of the captured gas from the Boundary Dam site is being sold to operator Cenovus for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at its Weyburn oilfield. Cenovus has set up injection wells and built a 40 mile-long pipeline connecting Weyburn with Boundary Dam. Many CCS sites will be much further than 40 miles from an injection site.

Yet this is the technology we are paying Mr Ibbett to gush over, a madcap scheme that will massively increase the amount of fuel we will have to use in order to generate electricity at massively increased cost. Is this really what we want our civil servants to be doing?

Higher costs for construction, loss of output for CCS and loss of thermal efficiency.  This CCS thingy is really a great idea, yet the pols keep pushing it.  This facility was covered by Junkscience earlier, but I thought this article was worth doing again.  A special place in Hell…

And we keep pushing this in the US.

Hosting a Wind Turbine May Seem Like A Good Idea……BUT! BEWARE!!

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

marilyn garry2

The great wind power fraud depends on a few gullible land owners signing up to host turbines for charming wind power outfits like Thailand’s RATCH (see our posts here and here and here).

No turbine hosts; no wind industry.

Lured by annual licence fees of around $10,000 per turbine, farmers who do sign up are obviously happy to destroy the ability to live in and enjoy their own homes – if they live on the property concerned; and are quite prepared to draw the eternal damnation of their neighbours for their responsibility for introducing a constant source of annoyance and misery to once happy and peaceful communities.

When the question is asked fair and square, the great majority of those in places where wind farms are threatened are bitterly opposed to having giant fans speared into their rural communities: and when we say “great” majority we mean 90% or more (see our posts here and here).

No wonder then that turbine hosts often end up as social pariahs.

Not only are turbine hosts prepared to earn the opprobrium of whole communities, they’re happy to side with outfits like near-bankrupt, Infigen – an outfit run by a bunch of thugs – that’s quite prepared to threaten and intimidate its potential turbine hosts when they have (quite reasonable) second thoughts about remaining in their contracts.

A little while back at Flyers Creek, 3 potential turbine hosts pointed to their lapsed contracts and told Infigen that they were no longer willing to host turbines. Instead of accepting the freely formed (and legally correct) decisions of the landholders concerned, Infigen adopted a course of legal threats, bullying and harassment (see our post here).

And so harmonious are the relationships between Infigen and its turbine hosts that David and Alida Mortimer (farmers and turbine hosts for Infigen at Lake Bonney, SA) have spent the last few years taking every opportunity to tell the story of their self-inflicted acoustic misery – and to warn rural communities around the globe about the very real impacts on sleep and health caused by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound (see our posts here and here).

So much for all that warm and fuzzy support for wind farms – if those that pocket a handy sum for hosting them have nothing but tales of woe to tell.

And it’s not just humans that cop a belting from turbine noise emissions.

Productive grazing operations often depend on a team of happy, healthy and well-rested working dogs.

border-collie-16

Last time STT worked with sheepdogs it was pretty clear that they can hear a pin drop at 500 paces.

If human ears are affected by low frequency noise, infra-sound and the enormous air pressure fluctuations generated by giant Vestas V112s each with 3 x 56m blades, with their outer tips travelling at over 350km/h (seeour post here) – then it’s a pretty fair bet that young Rex’s ears are copping a belting too.

In addition to its Macarthur disaster, AGL operates another 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 included the impact of turbine noise on hard working sheepdogs.

One local farming family – 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. It’s just a pity that AGL doesn’t treat its human victims with the same kind of respect (see our post here).

And it’s not just dogs that cop a belting from turbine noise, horses cop it too (see our post here).

Michelle Edwards is an Irish-born thoroughbred horse trainer who operates from her property right next to Origin’s Cullerin windfarm, NSW.  Where 15 RePower MM82 and MM92 turbines have been driving her and her horses nuts since 2009.  Her horses are quite apparently bothered by noise from operating turbines (located on the range behind their property) and, in response to it, graze the paddocks they roam in as far away from the fans as possible – whenever the turbines are running.

Michelle Edwards

Horses are often spooked by loud noises (police horses are trained to remain calm during crowd control duties by repeatedly exposing them to noises like fireworks and sirens) so it’s little wonder that Michelle fears for her safety when working her racing horses next to operating turbines (for a taste of what Michelle’s horses have to put up with – listen to the video in this post).

Having worked with horses all her life (first in Ireland, and now, Australia) Michelle knows a thing or two about horse psychology and behaviour.

Trying to work thoroughbred horses in the acoustic hell created by 15 giant fans has been a nightmare – with a serious impact on her ability to safely train winners, as Michelle put it: “I can’t have track work riders ride either because under occupational health and safety, I have to ensure that the environment that people are riding in, is safe.”  Michelle features in this ABC 7.30 Report video at the 2:45 mark.

Far from being a benign source of cash for turbine hosts, the destruction of the acoustic environment can soon become a misery for horses, hounds and humans alike.

Keen to avoid the misery foisted on turbine hosts like the Mortimers, Binalong grazier Marilyn Garry has told wind power outfit, Epuron “thanks, but no thanks” – rejecting its offer of $30,000 a year for hosting three turbines and other infrastructure on her family’s property, North-West of Yass, NSW.

Farmer rejects wind turbines – and $30,000 carrot
The Canberra Times
John Thistleton
29 September 2014

Marilyn Garry has rejected wind farm proponent Epuron’s offer of $30,000 a year for hosting three turbines and other infrastructure on her family’s grazing property near Binalong.

Wind farm hosts generally welcome an opportunity to host turbines because the cash flow counters drought and volatility in agriculture.

Epuron proposes a $700 million wind farm with more than 130 turbines on the peaks of Coppabella hills and Marilba hills. The two ranges sit on either side of Mrs Garry’s property “Mylora”.

Mrs Garry’s husband John died in April. She said while he considered hosting wind farm infrastructure following a meeting six years ago between Epuron and surrounding farmers, he eventually rejected them, too.

“They are just hideous. They will make sheep and cattle sterile,” Mrs Garry said. “The government is paying subsidies, if they don’t pay, if they pull the rug, the turbines will be left here to rust.

“We have an airstrip on our property. Our son flies down twice a year from Toowoomba with his wife and children. Everyone around here uses the airstrip for spreading aerial super, they pay $1 a tonne. It is also used for fire fighting,” Mrs Garry said.

She said turbines and powerlines would prevent aircraft from using the landing strip.

Mrs Garry has written to NSW Planning saying despite her rejection of Epuron’s turbines, they were still shown on maps, along with infrastructure.

Neighbour Mary Ann Robinson said NSW Planning had been led to believe Mrs Garry was to be a host, which meant Epuron was not required to do as many impact assessments.

Epuron says it will not discuss agreements it has with individual landholders.

Construction manager Andrew Wilson said even when a wind farm project had planning approval, infrastructure could not be built on any land without the consent and agreement of the landowner.

“Wind farms are not like other resource projects such as coal-seam gas as it can only proceed with the consent of the landowners and also involves the establishment and annual contribution to a community enhancement fund,” Mr Wilson said.

Epuron lodged a development application in 2009 and says the project has been on public exhibition twice, in 2009 and a preferred project report in 2012.

NSW Planning is now preparing an assessment report, which should be released soon, Mr Wilson said.

“The benefits of renewable energy and wind farms in particular are well established, not just for the landowners who lease part of their land to the wind farm company, but also for the surrounding community,” Mr Wilson said.

Epuron told the Renewable Energy Target review panel in June it had spent $470 million and, with certainty over the RET, would invest several billion dollars more in renewables.
The Canberra Times

Marilyn Garry is alive to the rort with her keen observation that: “The government is paying subsidies, if they don’t pay, if they pull the rug, the turbines will be left here to rust.”

Spot on, Marilyn!

While $10,000 a year might have sounded like easy money at the beginning, getting rid of a rusting turbine is going to cost a whole lot more than that (think crane hire at $10-30,000 per day, heavy haulage, de-construction specialists and dumping costs) – and don’t expect the wind farm operator to be around to pick up the tab.

The entities that developers use for their land holder agreements are invariably $2 companies, with no fixed assets. In the highly likely event that the parent company goes belly up, the entity that holds the land holder agreement would be wound up in a heartbeat and the turbines would remain rusting in the top paddock as reminders of a moment’s short-sighted greed.

Greed and stupidity are often found in the same bed: see if you can find a turbine host who had the foresight to obtain a decommissioning bond from the developer – backed up by some kind of valuable security, like an irrevocable performance bond, say.

Wise move, Marilyn.

Implicit in Marilyn’s rejection of Epuron’s overtures, is a rejection of the great wind industry lie about wind turbines “drought proofing” agricultural properties.

If a farming or grazing operation – like Marilyn’s – wasn’t viable over the long-term, then $10,000 per turbine per year wasn’t going to remedy that.

The Australian climate cycle is – as Dorothea Mackellar told us – built around “droughts and flooding rains”.

Competent farmers and graziers plan for dry spells with adequate fodder reserves (or ready access to same) and modify cropping programs or stocking rates to fit the rainfall that’s actually delivered: none of which depends on hosting wind turbines.

In reality, the wind industry pitch about “drought proofing” just points to the obvious: that a little additional and regular income can help pay the store account, irrespective of whether the heavens open.

In that respect, hosting turbines is no different than earning income “off-farm” – sons going out shearing to earn cash elsewhere; or having a wife working as a nurse or teacher in town, for example – activities which aren’t called “drought proofing”. However, none of those activities generate the deep seated animosity of (former) friends and neighbours that comes with hosting turbines (see our post here).

To consider that a paltry $10,000 per turbine amounts to just compensation is to overlook the $600-800,000 in annual income that the operator will collect from it (which includes $300-400,000 in RECs).

And it’s the REC cost to power consumers that has Victorian Farmers up in arms.

Farmers are power consumers too – and can fairly chew it up, depending on the type of operation.

Irrigators, horticulturalists, pig, poultry and dairy producers use tonnes of the stuff, so any increase in power prices means a hit to wafer thin margins; and their bottom line.

Far from wind farms “drought proofing” farming operations, the mandatory RET (upon which all wind farms critically depend) is “profit proofing” them. Here’s a Media Release from the Victorian Farmers Federation.

Renewable Energy Targets costs farmers millions
Victorian Farmers Federation
Friday 5 September, 2014

VICTORIAN farmers have called on the Federal Government to abolish the Renewable Energy Target (RET), arguing it costs them millions of dollars in higher electricity bills.

“The RET is simply unsustainable as it forces all of us to pay millions more for electricity to subsidise everything from solar hot water systems to wind farms and solar power stations,” Victorian Farmers Federation president Peter Tuohey said.

VFF analysis has shown horticulture, dairy, chicken meat, egg and pig producers are paying up to 10 per cent more for electricity as a result of these charges.

“We’ve got rid of the carbon tax, now let’s get rid of the RET,” Mr Tuohey said.

The RET charges appear on farmers’ bills as:

  • The SRES (Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme), which forces electricity consumers to subsidise small-scale renewable energy systems in homes (solar water heaters, solar panels and small-scale wind and hydro systems.)
  • The LRET (Large-scale Renewable Energy Target), to cover large-scale investment in renewable energy projects, such as wind and solar farms.

Mr Tuohey said the Federal Government’s Expert Panel Report on the RET Scheme had already warned it would cost Australian’s $28 billion and 5000 jobs to ensure at least 20 per cent of Australia’s energy is from renewable sources by 2020.

“The RET is a high cost approach to reducing emissions, given it simply focuses on electricity generation, not efficiency,” he said.
Victorian Farmers Federation

peter touhey

Wind Energy…Not Only Unnaffordable, but does NOTHING to improve our Environment!

Pac Hydro Write-Down Proves Wind Farms Don’t Run on Wind, they Run on Subsidies

subsidies

Remember all that huff and puff put out over the last few months by the Clean Energy Council and near-bankrupt wind power outfit, Infigen about wind power becoming so cheap as to be competitive with coal and gas fired generators?

You know, the fantastic tales about wind power causing a reduction in Australian retail power prices?

Never mind, that nowhere in Australia have retail power prices decreased; and that – thanks to its ludicrous efforts to “rely” on wind power – South Australians pay the highest retail power prices in the world (see our post here).

In a “hey, quick look over there” approach to media manipulation, the CEC and its clients bang on about the effect of wind power on the wholesale market (on those rare occasions when the wind happens to be blowing, of course – see our post here) – while steering well clear of the actual cost of wind power to retailers.

These hucksters never talk about the prices fixed under Power Purchase Agreements with retailers – set at $90-120 per MWh versus $30-40 for conventional power – and recovered from retail customers, irrespective of the wholesale price (see our post here); and they run a mile from any mention of the Renewable Energy Certificates that get directed to wind power outfits; that have added $9 billion to power bills already; and that will add $50 billion to Australian power bills over the next 17 years, if the Large-Scale RET remains in place (see our post here).

No, the wind industry’s main pitch over the last few months has been that it’s delivering a “stand-alone” product at a price which is lower than its conventional generation “competitors” (see our post here).

Now, if there was a just a whiff of substance to the wind industry’s spin, then you’d think the industry would welcome the chance to stand on its own two feet – and jump at the opportunity to finally take on coal and gas generators in a head-to-head battle that the wind industry (with its abundant source of “free” fuel) is just bound to win, right?

But, hold the phone. It seems all that wind industry talk was … well …, just “talk”.

Despite all that chest-thumping and “big-boy” posturing, the wind industry turns out to be a sooky little mummy’s boy, after all. Here’s The Age stripping away a little of the wind industry’s false bravado.

Pacific Hydro write-down
The Age
Tim Binsted
6 October 2014

Heavyweight fund manager IFM Investors has taken a $685 million write-down on its Pacific Hydro renewable energy business due to the adverse impact of the Abbott government’s Warburton review, weaker electricity demand in Australia, and tax changes in Chile.

IFM Investors has $50 billion in assets under management and is owned by 30 pension funds with more than 5 million Australian members, including funds such as AustralianSuper, Cbus and HostPlus.

The hefty valuation changes to Pacific Hydro – which has hydro, wind, solar and geothermal projects in Australia, Brazil and Chile – were driven partly by businessman Dick Warburton’s review into the renewable energy target. His report is with the government for its consideration.

IFM Investors chief executive Brett Himbury said the review had undermined confidence for renewable energy investors.

“There’s two primary factors [impacting the Australian assets]: a lowering of energy demand and uncertainty around the current laws,” he said.

“It’s a great shame that at a time when the likes of President Obama are saying there’s no bigger challenge for the globe than climate change, we’ve got this policy uncertainty.”

On August 28, the Warburton RET review made two recommendations to the government: either allow the large-scale RET to continue to operate until 2030 for existing and committed renewable generators, but close it to new investment, or modify the fixed target for 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020 to a “real 20 per cent” of actual electricity demand.

Both of these outcomes would be negative for the renewable energy sector. Pacific Hydro has assumed a “20 per cent real” RET in its valuation.

The “real target” would reduce the annual production of renewable energy in 2020 from 41,000 gigawatt hours to about 27,000GWh.

Compounding the sector’s woes, the Australian Energy Market Operator in June made big cuts in its annual forecasts for electricity demand over the next decade.

The combined impact of lower anticipated energy demand and assuming a “20 per cent real” RET have hit the valuation of Pacific Hydro by $220 million.

“We’d like to see continued commitment to the current bipartisan agreed target and more broadly as investors we’d prefer to see a relatively certain [regulatory] environment,” Mr Himbury said. “As long-term investors you’d like to think that there is economic value in renewable energy, but what we need is clarity and certainty.”

Infigen Energy boss Miles George has previously warned that an overhaul of the target would be “disastrous” for the industry and push investment overseas.

Infigen, one of Australia’s biggest wind farm operators, has warned it could breach its debt covenants within three months if the RET is wound back without compensation for investors.

The renewable energy industry has warned any moves to scrap the target would jeopardise $15 billion in renewable energy investment.

The RET review also contributed to a further $60 million write-down on the value of the company’s development portfolio in Australia and South America.

“Under the current environment it wouldn’t be economic to bring the development book to market. There’s a knock-on effect that could impact thousands of construction jobs,” Mr Himbury said.

Grattan Institute energy director Tony Wood said the proposed Warburton RET changes were not just a headache but entering “serious migraine territory” for anyone exposed to renewable energy investments.

“It’s not like a slight change in the offside rule in AFL or NRL. This is changing the game,” he said.

“Existing projects are almost certainly not making money at the moment. The REC [renewable energy credit price] is suppressed because there is an oversupply of credits, and renewable energy itself has suppressed the wholesale [energy] price. It’s good for consumers but it hurts the return on capital.”

Underscoring the dangers of regulatory change, Pacific Hydro’s Chilean assets have taken a $210 million hit after tax reforms proposed by Chilean President Michelle Bachelet were approved by the country’s congress.

The reforms include a rise in the base corporate tax rate from 20 per cent to 25 per cent by 2017 and an increase in the stamp tax payable on financing proceeds from 0.4 per cent to 0.8 per cent.

Chilean hydro generation has also been hurt by prolonged drought in that country.

Primarily as a result of the Pacific Hydro write-downs, IFM’s mammoth Australian Infrastructure Fund is expected to decline in value by about 5 per cent for the September quarter. This is a major hit given infrastructure investments are supposed to be stable, defensive assets for the long term.

IFM will host an investor briefing, with a special focus on Pacific Hydro, on October 7.

The fund manager is undertaking a strategic review of Pacific Hydro called Project Primavera that is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

The RET was introduced with bipartisan support by the Howard government in 2001 and was expanded by the Labor government in 2009.

According to its 2013 report, Pacific Hydro has 18 operating assets, employs 294 people and generates annual revenues of $224 million.
The Age

There. Pac Hydro’s write-down proves it: wind farms don’t run on wind, they run on subsidies (see our post here).

The wind industry was created by the mandated target set by the LRET – and the $billions worth of RECs directed to wind power outfits at power consumer expense, issued under it.

Without the guaranteed transfer of $billions worth of RECs, wind power outfits would be out of business in a heartbeat – which explains the wind industry’s desperation to maintain the mandatory LRET at all costs.

It also explains why wind industry rhetoric never seems to match reality. Or, as the Americans put it, why “money talks, and bullshit walks.”

cow_dung

Excellent Letter Describing the Futility of Wind Turbines…

Jenny Keal 4:04am Oct 7

“The Salisbury Review — Autumn 2014

Web: www.salisburyreview.com

Wind Turbines: Even Worse Than We Feared
Russell Lewis
Most of the criticism of wind turbines until now has, with every justification, been directed at their economic folly and spectacular inefficiency. They only work when the wind blows above 7 mph; in a good year they typically operate at a quarter of their stated capacity, and they shut down when the wind blows too hard – typically in excess of 50 mph. And for the vast tracts of land they take up, they also have a low power density, producing only 1.2 watts per square metre – compared with 53 watts per square metre for a gas power station. In a small country like Britain, what a criminal waste of space!

What then is the point of building them?

The answer is that their installation is entirely subsidy- and penalty-driven. Power-producers are required by law to produce a growing percentage of their output from renewables or pay someone else to do so. Some may shrug their shoulders and accept the official explanation that this is the price we pay for preventing future global warming, through the reduction of carbon emissions. This is based on the mistaken assumption that intermittent renewables are a better way to reduce CO2 than gas or nuclear power. But as the penetration of intermittent renewables rises, the only way they can be accommodated for backup when the blades are not turning requires an unseen armada of mobile and dirty diesel generators to quickly match power demand, whose emissions make a joke of the professed aim of CO2 reduction.

The good news is that the tide is turning. The Prime Minister – or someone close to him – made a famous outburst about ‘green crap’ and seems finally to have realized that people don’t like ballooning fuel bills. Some also have the most powerful of reasons for hating them in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. There is mounting evidence that the proximity of wind turbines threatens the value of your property. Not long ago, a study by the London School of Economics showed that the value of homes close to wind farms could be slashed by 11 per cent.

There may be even more extreme consequences. There have been cases in America where an individual possessing a home near a wind farm found that it was unsellable. All this is without even considering the report that claims that only one in ten wind farm fires are reported. The real number has been about 1500, including one in North Ayrshire in 2011 in which a 300 foot turbine was burnt out. In general, the report says, these fires tend to be ‘catastrophic’ – ie the end of the turbine and a total loss to the taxpayer and the investor.

There are other very good reasons why people don’t fancy having a wind turbine near their home.

Scientific studies have shown that wind farm noise harms sleep and health, causing headaches, anxiety and stress. Apparently it is not what you can hear that does the damage, but what you can’t. Known as the infrasound, or low frequency noise, is what does the physiological damage.

This is perhaps the main factor in the rise of anti-wind energy groups of which there are now 400 in Europe. They are well represented even in Denmark – often considered the Mecca of wind energy enthusiasts. The consensus among the opponents of wind turbines is that they should be located at least two kilometres from any residence. No such requirements however exist in the UK.

Wind turbines are not merely damaging to humans paradoxically for environmentalists, they are lethal to wildlife. According to the research group SEO/Birdlife in Spain alone, these avian death traps kill 18 million birds and bats every year. Of course it’s not that easy to measure, because to use the jargon, you can’t account for ‘scavenger removal’ – and offshore at sea, well, pick a number.

The unfortunate thing is that birds, particularly rare-ish soaring birds like eagles, disorientated by the artificial change in air currents from wind turbines, or migrating flocks blindly following each other and a magnetic field, are very prone to get the chop.

In America there has always been official concern about protecting rare and valuable species of birds like the bald eagle. The Obama administration, which has been active in prosecuting oil, gas and other businesses for harming protected bird species, has turned a blind eye to the deaths of the same creatures caused by wind turbines.
It’s a tragedy then that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is far too committed to policies aimed at protecting the planet against global warming at the end of the century to make a fuss about the appalling massacre of birds by wind turbines in the present day. The situation is even worse for bats, for which there is much protective legislation to conserve them as they breed very slowly. That is why the finding that German turbines slay three million bats a year is particularly worrying for nature lovers. For bats, their final moments are different to birds and this type of death is known as barotrauma. They are attracted to turbines as they think they look like tall trees from which to attract a mate. But on approach, the dramatic change in air pressure near the turbine blades gives them the bends and may cause their lungs to explode.

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, wind turbines are not only dangerous but ugly and ever more of a blot on the landscape. The latest extra-large version is as
tall as the London Eye!

Studies show that they are driving tourists away from the loveliest parts of our countryside. Over two-thirds of those surveyed were put off visiting Scotland by wind farms. The Scottish Nationalists have particular reason to be worried because it is their announced intention to produce 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from wind power. The trouble with this policy – apart from its economic insanity – is that, since the wind farms are generally at a long distance from their market in the urban areas, their pernicious growth must mean swathes of the countryside being populated with pylons, making the landscape even more unappealing to visitors and odious to the locals.

One might expect that all landowners would heartily welcome the boon offered them by the hugely subsidised wind farms. However The Duke of Northumberland, the biggest landowner in England, who owns 100,000 acres, has no time for wind farms and refuses to have a single wind turbine on his domain. The Crown Estate also has large acreages suitable for wind farms, but Prince Philip has expressed strong opposition to them. He told a wind farm developer that wind farms were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidy and an absolute disgrace. ‘You don’t believe in fairy stories do you?’ he asked Mr Wilmar of Infinergy, who expressed surprise at the Prince’s very frank views.

I really can’t think of anyone I’m happier to have trumping my detestation of these evil, misbegotten and inhuman machines.

Russell Lewis was a journalist on the Daily Mail. Picture: whirlopedia.com:wind-turbine-accidents.htm
———————————————————————————————–

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

defrock.org's principal concern is the environmental and human damage of industrial wind turbines on rural communities

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...my own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem