not financially feasible

Climate Alarmists Do NOT Want Anyone Exposing the Truth!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Dr. Bengtsson confronts warming bias & bullies

  • Bengtsson Feature

May 24, 2014 by 

Which is more troubling, that Dr. Lennart Bengtsson was bullied and slandered, or that the warming crowd suppressed publication of his conclusion that climate computer models are inaccurate?  If temperature observations show climate sensitivity to CO2 to be far less than is programmed into the models, does this not demand scientific publication?

After having his research suppressed and his character attacked, Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, former Director of the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, had this to say:

As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us.

During the last weeks there has been a lot of speculation regarding my views and my scientific standpoint on climate research. I have never really sought publicity and it was with a great deal of reluctance that I began writing articles for public media. A large part of my unwillingness to partake in public debate is connected to my friend Sven Öhman, a linguist who wrote about semantics and not least about the difficulties specialists run into when attempting to communicate with the public. Words and concepts have different meanings and are interpreted differently depending on one’s background and knowledge.

Sometimes such misunderstanding can be disastrous.

This is also true for concepts such as climate and climate forecasts. Climate is nothing but the sum of all weather events during some representative period of time. The length of this period cannot be strictly specified, but ought to encompass at least 100 years.

Nonetheless, for practical purposes meteorologists have used 30 years. For this reason alone it can be hard to determine whether the climate is changing or not, as data series that are both long enough and homogenous are often lacking. An inspection of the weather in Uppsala since 1722 exemplifies this. Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.

Despite all these issues, climate research has progressed greatly, above all through new revolutionary observations from space, such as the possibility to measure both volume and mass of the oceans. Temperature and water vapor content of the atmosphere are measured by occultation with GPS satellites. Our knowledge of earlier climate has increased substantially.

It is not surprising that the public is impressed by this and that this trust transfers to climate forecasts and the possibility to predict the earth’s future climate. That all this occurs within a context of international cooperation under the supervision of the UN, and with an apparent unity among the scientists involved has created a robust confidence in IPCC’s climate simulations, in Sweden not the least. SMHI’s [Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute] down-scaled climate simulations for 100 years are impressive and show in detail and with splendid graphics how the climate will turn out both in Östergötland [the Swedish province of East Gothland] and in Västerbotten [West Bothnia].

This is invaluable for municipality climate experts and planners who are working feverishly to avoid future floods and forest fires. The public is in good hands in the benevolent society.

Unfortunately, things are not as splendid as they seem. As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. It would not help even if we knew the exact amount of greenhouse gases. Add to this the uncertainty about the future of the world. This should be clear to anyone, simply by moving back in time and contemplating what has unfolded from that viewpoint. As Daniel Boorstin put it: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”.

I’m concerned that this is the problem of the present, and the real reason for me to choose to partake in the climate debate over the last couple of years. I don’t think anyone disputes that I have been highly critical of those who completely reject the effects of greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate. This is however not the problem, but rather how much, how soon and to what extent “climate change” will happen. There is no 97% consensus about this, and even less concerning how weather and climate will turn out in Västerbotten [West Bothnia] in 80 years. This is why it unfortunately is misleading of SMHI to show their beautiful maps, because people may actually believe that this is the way the climate will turn out. The climate scientists of SMHI know this, of course, but for the users this is not clear. My colleague in Hamburg, Guy Brasseur, told me the other day that an insignificant change on about 70 km height in a climate model’s mesosphere, made the weather systems relocate from north Germany to the Alps, consequently with radical regional climate change as a result.

Even more alarming is the tendency of giving people the impression that weather events are becoming more extreme, and that this has actually already occurred. Apart from a possible increase in precipitation and a possible intensification of tropical hurricanes that has not yet been detected, there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations.

This has convincingly been demonstrated and also held up by the IPCC. Damages are increasing, as are damages from earth quakes, but this due to the growing economy. It is also important to stress that injuries suffered by humans during extreme weather has decreased substantially due to better weather forecasts.

What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.

That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous.

I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers. The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry. I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years. For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”.

Einstein’s “anti-social behavior”, when he besides his responsible work as a patent office clerk in Bern also researched on the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, was of course reprehensible, and to do this during work-time! Even current labor unions would have strongly condemned this.

____________

http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-my-view-on-climate-research/

– See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2014/05/24/dr-bengtsson-confronts-warming-bias-bullies/?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_campaign=3419fc677f-Bengtsson_s_smoking_gun5_24_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a28eaedb56-3419fc677f-270050433#sthash.GC2HHswm.dpuf

The Truth is….Wind Turbines are NOT Good for our Environment!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

What’s the footprint of a Wind Turbine? Ask Howard Hayden

Posted on May 26, 2014 by  

The green thugs claim that Wind Tubines have a positive impact on the enviornment. Birds and Bats might disagree–but there’s more, courtesy of Howard Hayden

Howard is emeritus prof of physics at U Conn. I asked him if I could put up his essay on developments related to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming, now called climate disruption (apparently carbon dioxide is now a toxic air pollutant, and we mammals are just like diesel trucks, spewing evil CO2).

An item that deserves attention for Howard Hayden’s last newsletter is his short essay on the imprint and substructure of a typical 2.5 Mega Watt wind turbine, much like the wind turbines that were spread out over Mills County, Texas, in the past year–100 turbines on the ridge next to the road I travel to go to Fort Hood to work.

100 wind turbines built for more than 100 million dollars and they would produce about one-third of their rated capacity over a year, so they would produce about 90 Megawatts but require on-line backup for windless days.

However they make it because of mandated alternative energy portfolios in Texas, tax credits and subsidies. Farmers and ranchers are easy targets for the lease payments or royalties, whatever the arrangements are.

10 miles of open country spoiled by 300 foot bird and bat Cuisinarts, sitting on a prominent 50-100 foot ridge. Ruins the vista for hunters and retirees, and anyone who loves the country, pockmarks the land with access roads and transmission lines, and the land use is 500 acres at about 5 acres per fan. Electricity output is, at best, one tenth of a typical 1000 Mega watt coal plant that is on-line all the time and reliable, and takes about 100 acres and can be built where the grid is readily accessible and where the plant is not a sore on the horizon.

However, the power lines and the scarred up ranch land is factor–and the actual site is another matter, ranch land is not so valuable as farmland for ag production, and in Texas the fans are on ridges in pastureland–imagine when they site them in Mid Western row and field crop farmland.

When installed the fans have to have a stout substructure.

Howard explains.

The Energy Advocate
A monthly newsletter promoting energy and technology
May 2014 (Vol. 18, No. 10) P.O. Box 7609, Pueblo West, CO 81007 Copyright © by The Energy Advocate

STEM Notes: Wind Power
Wind turbines exert considerable leverage (a.k.a. torque, lever-arm length multiplied by force) on the base of the structure. The force is never published, but it is easy to calculate: Power = force times velocity. For a 2.5-MW wind machine in Cashton Greens Wind Farm in Wisconsin, at 25 m/s wind speed (above which the machine must be turned off) 2.5  106 W  25m/s = 100,000 newtons (  22,500 pounds). The tower height is 117 meters (385 ft).
For this case wind turbine’s torque on the ground is equivalent to the weight of a large school bus at the end of a plank the length of a football field from field-level spectator to field-level spectator. Accordingly, the base of the structure must be very substantial.

The circular part of the structure shown in the Cashton Greens picture will be the only part that shows after the rest has been covered with dirt, and it will contain 63 metric tons of concrete; the rest of the base will contain 570 metric tons. The base will contain 41 metric tons of rebar.

Dunn note: let’s see, what’s the carbon imprint of making and installing all that concrete? How about the carbon imprint of building a fan and tower? We don’t start the first day with a 0 imprint, do we and they have to be linked to a reliable source of energy–so what’s the benefit except to the gamers playing the tax credits and the mandates, and the subsidies. Warren Buffett recently stated that wind power goes nowhere without the tax credits so i have to look at 100 ugly fans and wonder how many birds are going to killed for what? So anxious greenies and gamers can do their projects?

Medical Professionals Everywhere are calling for Studies, Rather than Denying the Facts!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Austrian Medical Association Issues Warning,

Calls for Comprehensive Studies on Wind Turbine Noise

by ashbee2

Austrian Medical Association Issues Warning, Calls for Comprehensive Studies on Wind Turbine Noise

The Medical Chamber (equivalent to the Austrian Medical Association) is issuing a warning on behalf of large-scale wind turbine installations. The Chamber is calling for comprehensive studies on potential negative health effects as well as minimum safety distances to populated areas.
Vienna — Noise problems, caused by the operation of wind turbines, are drawing increasingly more attention from scientists. This was pointed out todday, Wednesday, by the Medical Chamber on the occasion of the International Noise Awareness Day. The Medical Chambe is now calling for comprehensive studies on potential negative health effects as well as a minimum safety distance to populated areas.

Wind power plants are — as opposed to individual wind turbines — very large scale operations and clustered into “wind parks”. The rotor diameter of current turbines can measure up to 114 metres — almost the length of a soccer pitch. Rotational speeds of the rotor blades lie in between 270 and 300km/h, which is causing distinct acoustic patterns and noise.

This is the point the Medical Chamber is making: “It has to be our objective to prevent sleep disorders, psychological effects and irreversible hearing damages, as they are also caused by wind farms” says Piero Lercher, the Chamber’s spokesperson for environmental medicine.

As complaints from residents about excessive and especially low-frequency noise and infrasound near wind farms are mounting, full scale investigations of potentially health-damaging effects are indispensable.

The phenomena currently observed in connection with the operations of large-scale wind power plants justify the demand for adequate safety distances — which is consistent with most expert’s view on following a precautionary principle on that issue. Says Lercher: impairments of well-being have to be taken seriously from a medical perspective, even if they are frequently attributed to a so-called “nocebo” phenomenon.

Lercher requires from manufacturers the use of environmentally friendly technologies and substances. “For example, so-called “permanently exited generators” contain large amounts of rare earths, whose mining processes lead to toxic and radioactive contaminations of vast areas in the mining regions” warns the environmental physician.

What Windpushers do to Rural Residents, is Outrageous! Corruption!!!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment


Written by an Ontario Wind Victim

by ashbee2

Remember the days when you used to go to the local outdoor market to buy fresh baked goods, flowers and honey, and not to drag 120 “STOP THE WIND TURBINE” signs from the trunk of your car in hopes of educating the visitors.

Remember the days when you went to a council meeting because your neighbour two farms down wanted to sever a lot and build their parents a home, but not to beg the council to uncover some hidden ancient by-law to protect the sanctity of your health and home from swarming developers.

Remember when you could contact your health department with a concern and they would do everything in their power to help you, whatever it took, and they did not dismiss, insult and deny you with an issue serious enough that forced you to leave your home.

Remember when you used to get together once a year with your neighbours at the local town hall to have potluck just to catch up, not to line up at microphones wondering how you were going to protect each other?

Remember when children and the elderly were protected and cherished as those who may be considered at a disadvantage or needed extra loving care, not some extras in the household with “collateral damage” signs hanging from their necks.

Remember when someone asked what your favourite thing is and you said just going home, having a drink on the deck and forgetting my cares for the day, instead of locking the windows and doors up tight to block out the invasion and running away when you have to.

Remember when you used to go to family weddings and birthdays and could get lost in the excitement celebrating with everyone else, not sitting glumly in a corner with no recall of how to carry on a conversation that wasn’t slamming the government or railing against developers.

Remember the friends that used to come and visit once in a while, for some good conversation and a bite to eat, who now don’t come near you because you have been taken into the netherworld and you can’t get out.

Remember when you used to get in the car and drive for miles in anticipation of a great trip to a new unknown, and not driving for miles because you have to try to convince someone you’re having a big problem and you need them to listen.

Remember when you could come home, respond to your emails in 10 minutes and carry on with your family, and not sit in front of your computer researching, preparing and communicating until 12 AM and rising at 6 to start all over again.

Remember your Dad, pointing out the bird species and flora so you could recognize it when they graced your home, and not staring into the back yard and wondering where all the birds went and are they safe?

Remember the sounds on a warm summer night?

The sounds……

english_countryside_blue_fields

 

Lying Liberals have Got a lot of Nerve…..More finger-pointing from Wynne’s team!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Reblogged from Sun News!

I’d love to give you details of Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne’s campaign platform released Sunday.

Sadly, I can’t.

The Liberal campaign chose to release further details of their platform in Thunder Bay.

She took it as far away as she could from Toronto, no doubt to attract as few reporters as possible.

Only those news outlets that could afford the $7,000-$8,000 that the campaigns are charging reporters to sit in their buses could be there.

Those of us on more modest budgets are left to follow the campaign online.

And their Livestream system was a joke. It didn’t work.

At one point, I thought she said they’d “invest in in” and “build more hops.”

It could mean they’re going to invest in infrastructure and build more hospitals, but why take the risk of misquoting her?

If they want positive ink, they need to act in a more competent fashion.

Meanwhile, PC Leader Tim Hudak held a news conference to push his Million Jobs platform — and to counter Mississauga South Liberal Charles Sousa’s assertions that the Tories had their numbers wrong.

It started to sound like an economist’s version of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I start to giggle when I hear a Liberal accusing anyone of getting their numbers wrong.

This is the party that came to power in 2003 by lying. They lied again in 2007, when they slammed John Tory’s plan for faith-based funding. By the 2011 election they were allowing “religious accommodation” in public schools.

One school in Kathleen Wynne’s own Don Valley West riding actually allows Friday prayers in a public school cafeteria for Muslim students.

If that’s not publicly funded faith-based schooling, I don’t know what is.

This is the government that told us their appalling Green Energy Act would create 60,000 jobs. In fact, as former auditor general Jim McCarter pointed out in a scathing report, not only did it not create jobs, it’s caused massive job losses in the manufacturing sector because the added cost of electricity has wreaked havoc in the rust belt.

Now we have Sousa, he of the avuncular voice, lecturing the Tories on their numbers.

To paraphrase a negative Working Families’ ad in the 2003 election, “Not this time, Charlie.”

If anyone actually believes the nonsense Sousa and his Liberal buddies are spouting in yet another say-anything-to-get elected campaign, they deserve the bad government they’ll get.

This is the same Liberal Party that scrapped the Mississauga gas plant during the last election, saying it would cost $40 million. The bill to scrap two plants came in at a whopping $1.1 billion.

Their May 1 budget was a joke. If they implement it, this province will be plunged even deeper into debt — and likely see a credit downgrade.

Hudak said Wynne and New Democrat Leader Andrea Horwath are “paralyzed by a desire to be popular,” while he’s giving voters the straight goods up front.

“The finance minister (Sousa) and Kathleen Wynne are so far in the pockets of the big government unions, they can’t see the reality out there,” Hudak told reporters.

From what I can gather from the glitchy livestream, Wynne promised to send Alberta what’s left of the Ontario manufacturing sector by introducing a new mandatory tax to pay for a pension plan only people now in their 20s will benefit from.

It almost makes you glad the Liberal track record is to lie about what they’ll deliver.

Remember, this is the party that came to power with a promise not to increase your taxes “one cent,” then brought in the biggest tax hike the province has ever seen in the first budget after they were elected.

I can’t believe there are enough suckers out there who are willing to give the Liberals a new mandate.

The polls say differently.

Apparently, the Liberals have such a sketchy platform, they’ll do anything not to tell us about it — and then blame computers.

A Conservative Government is What we Need, to Save our Economy!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Governments rip up renewable contracts

Brady Yauch, Special to Financial Post 

Europe’s renewable energy investors are facing a harsh reality – that the promises from politicians can be taken away at any moment. Canada’s renewable energy investors may soon face that same reality.

Postmedia NewsEurope’s renewable energy investors are facing a harsh reality – that the promises from politicians can be taken away at any moment. Canada’s renewable energy investors may soon f

Companies ‘do not have a right [to expect the compensation] not to be changed’

Governments across Europe, regretting the over-generous deals doled out to the renewable energy sector, have begun reneging on them. To slow ruinous power bills hikes, governments are unilaterally rewriting contracts and clawing back unseemly profits.

In Italy, one of Europe’s largest economies and one that lavished billions in subsidies on the renewable sector, the government in 2013 applied its so-called “Robin Hood tax” to renewable energy producers. Under the new rule, renewable energy producers with more than €3 million in revenue and income greater than €300,000 must now pay a tax of 10.5%.

That follows a 2012 move to charge all solar producers a five cent tax per kilowatt hour on all self-consumed energy. The government also told solar producers that it would stop taking their power – and would offer no compensation – when their output overwhelms the system.

The result of these and other changes, says the solar industry, has been a surge in bankruptcies and a massive decrease in solar investment.

In Belgium – where both regional and federal bodies hand out renewable subsidies – a number of retroactive changes have capped the largesse renewable producers once received. In one region the price for “green certificates” – which producers received for renewable energy – was slashed by 79%. The government original committed to buy green certificates at a benchmarked price for 20 years, then cut it to 10 years.

Belgium’s regulators tried to impose a fee on all energy added to the grid from small- to medium-sized solar producers. While the country’s court of appeals struck down that fee, a defiant regional government plans to reintroduce it next year, forcing all solar producers to pay an annual fee that varies with the power they pump into the grid. Various municipalities, meanwhile, are introducing taxes on new and existing wind turbines.

As in Italy, Belgium’s renewable sector in the county has gone dark –“imploded” in the view of a solar industry publication. Many companies shrank or went bankrupt.

In France the government last year cut by 20% the “guaranteed” rate offered to all solar producers, and retroactively applied it to projects connected to the grid in the previous three months. The government is also considering ending an 11% tax break on solar energy producers.

Perhaps the most dramatic moves occurred in Spain, for years the poster child for those touting a transition to green energy. Since 2000, Spain has given renewable producers $41-billion more for their power than it has fetched on the open market. To recover those subsidies, the Spanish government recently killed its Feed In Tariff (FIT) program for renewables, which paid them an outlandishly high guaranteed price for their power, replacing it with the market price for their power plus a subsidy deemed more “reasonable.” Companies’ profits are now capped at a 7.4% return, following which they must then sell their power at market rates. That measure is retroactive, with renewable energy producers who got too fat off their profits now being starved until they reach the 7.4% cap.

For example, if a company spent $100-million on a solar installation in Spain and was posting a return of 14%, or $14-million, annually on that investment, then the government would cut it off from subsidies until its total return – starting from when it was first built – fell to 7.4%, or $7.4 million, a year.

Wind projects built before 2005 will no longer receive any form of subsidy – a move a wind energy trade group called a “sacking” of the sector that will see more than a third of wind producers lose their subsidy.

The fallout in Spain was immediate. Its solar sector, which once employed 60,000 workers, now employs 5,000. The wind sector is estimated to have laid off 20,000 workers. Ikea – the Swedish furniture retailer that became enamoured of renewables – announced it was cutting its losses and abandoning a solar plant it had built in Spain. Investment in the sector also collapsed. In 2011, Spain attracted $10 billion in solar investment. In 2013, the level of investment dropped by almost 90%.

Spain’s Supreme Court offered no sympathy to the solar industry, in ruling against its argument that the government’s retroactive changes were wrong.  “The evolution of the energy sector …  was putting the financial sustainability of the electricity system at risk,” the court decided, adding that the companies “do not have a right [to expect the government compensation regime] not to be changed.”

Europe’s renewable energy investors are facing a harsh reality – that the promises from politicians can be taken away at any moment. Canada’s renewable energy investors may soon face that same reality.

Brady Yauch is an economist and executive director of Consumer Policy Institute, a division of Energy Probe Research Foundation.

Memorial Day for Wind Turbine Victims in Massachusetts!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
Memorial Day Fairhaven & Falmouth Massachusetts

http://falmouth.patch.com/groups/opinion/p/memorial-day-fairhaven–falmouth
Memorial Day Fairhaven & Falmouth – Remember the Wind Turbine Victims Massachusetts

Memorial Day Fairhaven & Falmouth

Posted by Frank Haggerty , May 26, 2014

Memorial Day Wind Turbine Victims

Memorial Day Fairhaven & Falmouth Massachusetts
Remember the Massachusetts wind turbine victims on Memorial Day
The Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform has declared an actual war on fossil fuels. The party has prioritized its attention and action on the scale equivalent to a major war. The decision has been made to take immediate action at all levels of government.
Massachusetts has a renewable energy goal of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy by the year 2020.
Reference : Climate Crisis in this link; http://massdems.org/state-committee/governance/platform/
There is a war brewing in American over commercial wind turbines that, in times past, could not have been predicted or imagined. This is a war that involves the invasion of American’s rights and freedoms and will, if allowed to continue unabated, lead to the destruction of the U.S. Constitution as well as our democracy.
Investigative journalists should understand that their reckless ignorance of wind turbine victims rights could have an adverse effect on this nation’s Constitutional right of the freedom of speech as exercised by its journalistic community.
There are those who are not afraid to expose serious government abuses.
On Veterans Day ,November 14, 2011 the Town of Fairhaven and wind turbine contractors used that day to start construction of two massive megawatt wind turbines. The work continued through the Veterans Day weekend to clear land. The abutters to the wind turbine site were taken by surprise with no formal warning. Where was the respect for all the Veterans on this weekend ?
The common problem with commercial wind turbines is the two types of noise described in a wind turbine study done for the Town of Mattapoisett in 2005. The reference to the two distinct types of noise was dropped in order to build the Falmouth wind turbines in 2010. State officials were aware of noise issues in 2005. No turbines were ever built in Mattapoisett because of the reference to the two types of noise.
Residents of Falmouth & Fairhaven in order to file a noise complaint against the turbines had to fill out special written certified noise complaints which had to be documented by local town officials. The state felt that people would huff and puff and just go away. Today, Massachusetts is faced with thousands of certified noise complaints.
For the last four years state and local boards of health officials have ignored the documented noise complaints. They have taken no action.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has found the turbines out of state noise regulations and has taken no action.
The war on fossil fuels declared by the Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform is ongoing. Laws and regulations are being ignored that effect the wind turbine victims around the wind turbines. These victims are viewed as collateral damage in the war on fossil fuels.
The general public has been conditioned over the past years to expect the abutters of the wind turbines to sacrifice their health and constitutional property rights so the rest of us can breathe clean air.
Massachusetts officials in the executive branch of government have used obfuscation as a method to stop the thousands of wind turbine noise complaints. Massachusetts appointed wind turbine advocates to conduct a state wind turbine study with a predetermined conclusion.
The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center is now paying the Town of Falmouth up to 1.8 million dollars to pay court costs of the wind turbines against the wind turbine victims.
How much longer can local residents fight for their health and rights without resources.
The war continues in Falmouth with the town filing lawsuit after lawsuit against itself.
Folks, The wind turbine victims in Massachusetts are veterans of the actual war declared by the Massachusetts Democratic Party Platform. These people are not dead but are and have been wounded by the poor placement of commercial wind turbines.
Ed & Sue Hobart of Falmouth put up a brave fight against the wind turbines. The cost of litigation, health and noise from the turbines caused them to give up their dream home on six acres of land in Falmouth.
They are the real heroes today.
On this Memorial Day I ask you all to remember all the victims of the wind turbines and the ongoing war on fossil fuels.
Remember NIMBY used to mean “not in my back yard.” Today it means “next it could be you. “


Government needs to Stop the Abuse of Citizens, by Unscrupulous Wind Pushers!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Federal Government’s Mandatory RET

pays Pac Hydro to Steal Sonia Trist’s Home

May 25, 2014 by 

Sonia Trist

As STT followers are well aware, the mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the Renewable Energy Certificates issued to wind power generators under it amount to a Federal Tax on all Australian power consumers. The value of the REC Tax is then transferred to wind power outfits – like Union Super Fund backed, Pacific Hydro – to the tune of $billions each year.

As a direct consequence of the Federal government’s RET policy, Pac Hydro speared 29 giant fans into the heart of the peaceful Victorian coastal community of Cape Bridgewater back in 2008: no RET, no RECs, no wind farm – pure and simple.

Pac Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater wind farm does not – and will never – comply with the noise conditions of its planning permit. The Victorian government are well aware of that fact but – in a form of malign acquiescence – aid and abet the offender, by doing nothing.

One of Pac Hydro’s numerous Cape Bridgewater victims, Sonia Trist has finally had enough and has decided to abandon her beautiful seaside home. Sonia’s decision was made for no other reason than to escape the incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound generated by Pac Hydro’s turbines – and the impact that noise has on her ability to sleep, to use and enjoy her (otherwise) perfectly comfortable home.

Here is Sonia talking a while back about the merciless nature of the noise generated by Pac Hydro’s non-compliant wind farm.

****

****

Here’s local rag, the Portland Observer talking about Sonia’s anguished decision to leave the place she dearly loves – but then the paper otherwise acts as an apologist for Pac Hydro – as Bill Meldrum lets its execs entirely off the hook. So much for hard-hitting journalism.

Turbines forces owner to quit home
Portland Observer
Bill Meldrum
17 April 2014

A CAPE Bridgewater resident is on the verge of abandoning her dream property because of the impacts nearby wind turbines are having on her health.

Sonia Trist said on Friday she was resigned to inevitability that she will have to leave her 2.2 hectare property on the cape.

The closest turbine to Miss Trist’s house is about 600 metres away, and is one of a cluster of five on the north side of Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater wind farm.

She said she bought the property in 2006-07, saying she was fully aware a wind farm would be built in the area, but it was only when the construction started in 2007 and finished in 2008 that she became aware of the size of the turbines.

“It has become unbearable, there is the proximity of the turbines, the shadow flicker caused by them and the noise – in an easterly wind they are really noisy and in a south-westerly there is a rumble,” she said.

She said that she had lived at the property full-time since 2011 since she sold her previous property in Brisbane, but that whenever she has lived at the house since the turbines started her health had deteriorated.

“I have palpitations, anxiety connected to sleep deprivation … I would love to sleep with the windows open, enjoy the fresh air, but had to close the windows because of the noise,” she said.

“It is really difficult to explain the different impacts these turbines have on different people … The best example I can draw on is that some people get seasick when they are on a boat, others don’t.”

She said it was a very emotional decision to abandon a property.

“You don’t make a decision like that without a great deal of thought … The natural environs are really beautiful here,” she said.

It is not the first time Miss Trist has mentioned abandoning her property, having done so previously in 2012.

“It is an emotional attachment here … The property is not on the market and I have received legal advice saying there is a definite liability I would have if I rented it out and the tenants found they were unable to sleep ,” she said. “I have been looking at rental properties in Hamilton to live in short term so I am close enough to see the acoustic testing being done by Steven Cooper (Sydney-based noise engineer) and being arranged by Pacific Hydro at the property … he will need access to the property and house,” she said.

“I will be leaving for six months from July to be with my daughter in Great Britain, after that I just don’t know … all I know is that in all reality I won’t be living at Cape Bridgewater.”

Pacific Hydro government and corporate affairs executive manager Andrew Richards confirmed last Friday that the testing at three properties including the Trist property would start soon.

“From our point of view, it is likely to be the most extensive testing undertaken relating to noise from a wind farm,” he said.

Mr Richards said the tests would involve audible sound, vibration and infrasound.

“The reason it has taken so long to get a start on the actual testing is the scope of the testing, it will be interested on people and the fact that there will be equipment, wires and access to their properties needed,” he said.

Both Mr Richards and company commercial head Rachel Watson said they were disappointed with Miss Trist’s decision to abandon her property.

“We have found her feedback valuable at the meetings, we are disappointed that she has made a decision to leave,” they said.
Portland Observer

A few posers Bill Meldrum (or anyone professing to be a journalist) might have put to Pac Hydro are:

  • a large number of your neighbours have been complaining about turbine noise since 2008, so why has it taken you 6 years to bother doing any serious testing?
  • have you ever simply considered shutting your turbines off at night to let your neighbours sleep? And if not, why not?
  • what does Pac Hydro propose doing if Steven Cooper’s noise testing proves non-compliance? Will Pac Hydro shut its turbines down then? Will it inform the Clean Energy Regulator that it does not comply with the conditions of its planning consent and is, therefore, ineligible to receive RECs?
  • does Pac Hydro plan to compensate Sonia Trist for the loss of the use and enjoyment of her home? And if not, why not? (At this point, a real journalist would hit Pac Hydro’s spin doctors with the hypocritical fact that Pac Hydro – and a bunch of other rent-seeking wind power outfits – are currently bullying the Federal government with nonsense claims for “compensation” if the mandatory RET is scaled back or scrapped.)

Although, in fairness to Bill, he’s probably never spent a single night trying to sleep with turbine noise – let alone 6 years of being pounded night after night by the incessant grinding, metallic, low-rumbling of the gearbox and generator – combined with the roaring, thumping, air-tearing-blade noise.

For Bill’s benefit (and the benefit of those fortunate enough to have never suffered through it) here is a video recording taken at Sonia Trist’s home, providing a minute fraction of what Sonia has had to put up with for 6 years – and maybe, just maybe a logical reason as to why Sonia is set to abandon her home.

****

 

****

The “screech” heard in the video is a “special” feature that was added in 2011 to the “Psychopath’s Symphony” that Pac Hydro has faithfully rendered, whenever the wind is blowing, since 2008 (see our post here).

So, in the end result, a law-abiding Australian citizen is driven from her own home, to which the offender’s glib response is that it’s “disappointed” with her decision.

The offender was only placed in the position to ruin that person’s life (andmany other citizens’ lives) by virtue of a perverse Federal government industry subsidy scheme, that has added $billions to power consumers’ bills – lining the pockets of outfits like Pac Hydro – and which has done nothing at all to reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (its stated aim).

In substance, the mandatory RET/REC scheme is financing outfits like Pac Hydro to take peoples’ homes (some 40, so far) without paying any valuable consideration – or, in simpler terms again, Pac Hydro and other wind power outfits are literally stealing Australian citizens’ homes with Commonwealth government assistance (see our post here).

Call us old fashioned, but in STT’s view there’s something very wrong with that picture.

thief

 

 

If Global Warming is the problem….Wind turbines are NOT the Solution!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ken Braun: If the climate is ablaze, why waste time

and money on wind-powered fire trucks?

NUKE PLANT.jpg
Palisades Nuclear Power Plant in Covert Township. ((Mark Bugnaski | MLive/Kalamazoo Gazette/FILE))

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts we can’t stop the impact of rising seas and flooded cities, and demands radical cuts to carbon emissions or Doomsday will be worse. The loudest climate alarmists demand energy options that produce zero carbon, and show it by supporting the continued river of tax dollars washing toward promises of producing lots of our power from pleasant breezes and rays of sunshine: wind and solar.

It would be easier to take this all more seriously if they’d propose realistic solutions. Skeptics of the Doomsday scenarios are constantly beat about the head regarding the overwhelming “scientific consensus” regarding the implications of climate change.

Yet where is the overwhelming statement of scientific consensus in favor of pouring all these tax subsidies into options that really work, such as low carbon natural gas and zero carbon nuclear?

If the emergency is as dire as advertised, climate scientists should be united in loudly denouncing the wind welfare lobby for wasting so much of the rescue money.

A report from the Brookings Institution demonstrates that wind doesn’t always blow, and often blows most when needed least. Windmills run at just 25 percent capacity (versus 90+ percent for coal, gas and nuclear.) The story is more sad for solar: 15 percent. Factoring this in, wind power is 50 percent more expensive than coal or natural gas.

Tens of billions of dollars (or more) have already flooded down this rathole, and the wind lobby wants more, calling for a continuation of the recently cancelled federal wind power subsidy. This would chew up another $60 billion over ten years.

Low carbon natural gas provides the cheapest and most readily available electricity source there is. But instead of demanding it receive the corporate welfare, climate alarmists instead attack the hydraulic fracking technology that makes natural gas so attractive.

Well, is the world on fire or not?

Brookings supports a carbon tax, but is very critical of the wind subsidies. The report says nuclear energy is a more costly alternative than coal and natural gas, but is vastly cheaper than wind.

Leaving aside low carbon – yet not zero carbon – natural gas, if climate-saving corporate welfare really must be used to produce power without any carbon emissions at all, then nuclear is the place to spend it. Excluding the safety scofflaws of the former Soviet Empire, nuclear power has an excellent safety record: Nobody died from Fukushima, compared to 65 American coal miners killed just since 2001.

A new nuclear plant in Georgia is expected to cost its owner something north of $14 billion (let’s round up crazy to $20 billion.) When operational, just this plant will crank out power equal to ten percent of the total electricity produced by every single wind farm in America last year.

With the objective of cooling the climate, $60 billion from the 2009 federal “Stimulus” Bill went to subsidize green energy, public transit, energy efficiency and the like. Now the wind welfare lobby wants another $60 billion to save its own dubious corporate welfare.

That $120 billion could provide a ten percent subsidy to build 60 nuclear plants like the one in Georgia. Those sixty plants would create six times more electricity than every wind farm currently in operation.

If climate scientists believe the planet is in peril, then they owe it to their cause to denounce climate alarmists who burn our cash on bogus solutions. Otherwise, the advice they’re giving us is this: “The town is ablaze right now, but please waste billions of dollars and hours building wind-powered fire trucks.”

Pardon the skepticism.