Return to sanity!

Plans for Cape Wind, are Blowing Away, As We Speak!

/ 1957chev / 8 Comments

Wind Energy’s Bluster Peters Out

untitledTouted as “America’s first offshore wind project,” Cape Wind became one of America’s most high-profile and most controversial wind-energy projects. Fourteen years in the making, estimated at $2.6 billion for 130 turbines, covering 25 square miles in Nantucket Sound off the coast of Massachusetts, the Cape Wind project has yet toinstall one turbine—let alone produce anyelectricity. Now, it may be “dead in the water.”

On January 6, the two power companies, National Grid and Northeast Utilities, that had agreed to purchase most of the electricity Cape Wind was to generate, terminated their contracts with the developers due to missed milestones. Under the terms of the contracts, Cape Wind had to secure financing and give notices to proceed to its suppliers to start work by December 31, 2014. Neither happened and both companies filed to cancel power purchase agreements. “The project is in cardiac arrest,” according to Amy Grace, a wind-industry analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Cape Wind has faced stiff opposition since it was first proposed in 2001. Senator Edward Kennedy’s efforts, and those of his wealthy friends, to fight Cape Wind have been the most publicized, but Native Americans, fishermen, and local communities have also battled the industrialization of Nantucket Sound. The town of Barnstable has been particularly active in the fight. The Cape Cod Times reports that Charles McLaughlin, Barnstable’s assistant town attorney, said: “The town’s concerns include the possibility that a collision between a boat and the large electric service platform the project requires could spill thousands of gallons of oil into the sound.”

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) positioned Cape Wind as the centerpiece of his renewable energy goals and invested significant political capital backing the proposal—including tying the NStar power purchase agreement to approval of the NStar and Northeast Utilities merger (given the unfavorable terms of the agreements, the companies may have been looking for any exit ramp). Yet, Ian Bowles, Patrick’s first energy and environment chief who, according to the Boston Globe, “helped shepherd the offshore project,” acknowledgesthat the loss of the power purchase agreements “may have spelled the end for Cape Wind.”

The announcement came two days before Patrick left office. While he claims: “We’ve done everything as a state government to get them over the regulatory lines,” Patrick concedes it is now “up to the market.” According to the Cape Cod Times, the former governor doesn’t know “if the project could survive without the contracts in place.”

Even the Department of Energy (DOE), which seems to indiscriminately throw money at any politically favored green-energy project, was tepid in its support for Cape Wind. DOE’s loan guarantees generally average about 60 percent of the project’s costs, but the $150 million offered to Cape Wind made up a mere 6 percent—and that, only after the project received commitments for about half of its financing. In most cases, the government guarantee comes before the private financing and signals a go-ahead for investors.

While both supporters and detractors believe the project is in jeopardy, environmentalists and Cape Wind Associates LLC have not yet waved the white flag. According to Kit Kennedy, director of the energy and transportation program at the Natural Resources research : “Cape Wind may be down, but it is not out.” The Boston Globe reports that Cape Wind’s president, James Gordon, believes the perpetual litigation “triggered a clause in the contracts that allows for more latitude in Cape Wind’s ability to meet the deadlines.” However, after the company already spent $50 to $70 million on the project, the fact that Gordon opted not to pay the utilities the mere $2 million needed for a six-month extension signals that he doesn’t have confidence that they can continue.

Additionally, the political winds have shifted. While Governor Patrick championed Cape Wind, Massachusetts’ new governor, Charlie Baker (R) is on record as being staunchly opposed to it—even calling it Patrick’s “personal pet project.” While campaigning, Baker “dropped his opposition to Cape Wind” because he believed it was a “done deal.” Now that the deal may well be undone, Baker says he “will not try to influence the outcome of the legal process surrounding the Cape Wind project.”

The cancellation of the contracts is “a near fatal blow” to Cape Wind according to Audra Parker, president of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, a Cape Cod based group which has led the fight against cape wind.

Wind energy’s future faces problems beyond Massachusetts.

While Massachusetts’ utility companies filed to cancel power purchase agreements, two Minnesota wind farms, operating as Minwind Companies, were filed for bankruptcy because the eleven turbines needed extensive repairs and the 360 farmers and landowners who invested in the projects can’t afford the maintenance. Minwind CEO Mark Willers explained: “Minwind Companies have enjoyed relative prosperity in recent years, but the April ice storm last year took a toll on equipment—and on the budget.” At a December 17 meeting, hetold shareholders: “We were 200 to 300 percent over budget to make those repairs.”

Minwind’s nine separate limited-liability companies allowed investors to take advantage of federal wind-energy credits, USDA grants, and the now-discontinued state assistance program for small wind projects. The Star Tribune reports: “The owners stand to lose their investment, and the wind farms eventually may have to shut down.”

On the national level, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has continued to lobby for a retroactive extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy that expired at the end of 2013. Disappointing AWEA, the lame-duck Congress did approve a ninth extension—but just through the end of 2014. AWEA’s CEO Tim Kiernan groused: “Unfortunately, the extension to the end of 2014 will only allow minimal new wind development and it will have expired again by the time the new Congress convenes.” In response to the “bare-minimum extension,” Luke Lewandowsi, Make Consulting research manager, said it “casts doubt on the willingness or ability of Congress to revisit the PTC in 2015.”

Adding insult to industrial wind’s injury, wind turbine installation placed number three in the list of 10 dying U.S. industries—following only computer and recordable media manufacturing.

All of this news doesn’t bode well for the wind energy business, but for ratepayers and those who believe in the free market and who believe that government shouldn’t pick winners and losers, current wind conditions are a breath of fresh air. Governments, both state and federal, have given wind energy every advantage, to quote Governor Patrick: “It’s now up to the market”—and even Warren Buffet admits the tax credits are the only reason to build wind farms.

Monte McNaughton offers Hope, for Wind Victims, and Ratepayers!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

McNaughton: I will end the failed Liberal wind energy experiment

January 12, 2015
SHARE THIS:

(London, ON) – Today Monte McNaughton, MPP for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex and candidate for the Ontario PC Leadership, pledged to end the failed Liberal wind energy experiment.

“I will end the Wynne Liberals’ wind energy ripoff of Ontario consumers,” said McNaughton. “As Premier, I would propose specific legislation to repeal and decommission wind turbines in Ontario.”

Wind power is not needed in Ontario – in each of 2013 and 2014, Ontario dumped more than double the amount of power generated by wind turbines into other jurisdictions at money-losing rates: less than 3 cents /KWh, representing a 75% discount of the money wind generators are paid to produce the wind power in the first place.  In 2013, 13.4TWh of excess electricitycapacity was dumped, followed in 2014 by another 13.1TWh.  This loss on excess electricity – paid for by the Ontario consumer — is just another way Ontario loses money with wind power.

 “The only winners under the Liberals’ wind-power scheme are the wind industry and developers, while the losers are Ontario consumers who are forced to pay for expensive electricity even when it isn’t needed,” said McNaughton.

In 2013, Ontario consumers paid over $600 million for a mere 5.2TWh of wind power.  This accounted for only 3.4% of Ontario’s total electricity generating capacity, but represented 20% of the total commodity cost of electricity in the province.

In 2015, it is projected that Ontario consumers will be forced to pay out a startling $1 billion on their hydro bills for a mere 9TWh of expensive wind power at 12 cents / KWh. This figure is expected to continue to rise year after year.

“Ontario consumers simply cannot afford to be gouged to the tune of billions of dollars a year for the next 20 years,” said McNaughton.  “If we do not take action, this failed experiment will cost Ontario consumers between $20 billion and $60 billion over the next 20 years.”

Under McNaughton’s plan, all wind turbines would be decommissioned but some compensation would be offered to contract holders using a formula developed by experts to mitigate any losses. Independent analysis has shown that such compensation would represent only a fraction of the wind-power costs currently forced on consumers by the Liberals’ wind power scheme.

“Wind energy is not only extremely expensive, but it was built in many cases over the opposition of local residents and municipalities. Under my leadership a PC government will introduce specific legislation to end the wind energy contracts and begin the decommissioning of existing turbines,” said McNaughton.

The Ontario legislature has the ability to enact specific legislation to repeal the wind-power program and decommission the wind turbines, saving Ontario consumers from unnecessary costs on their electricity rates for power they do not use.

Visit www.Monte.ca to learn more about McNaughton’s plan to end Ontario’s wind energy experiment, and other issues that are part of his plan for Ontario.

Monte McNaughton Has the Best Suggestion, Yet! Tear ’em Down!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

GREEN ENERGY

Monte McNaughton says he would get rid of all wind turbines

By Debora Van Brenk, The London Free Press

Monday, January 12, 2015 

Ontario PC MPP Monte McNaughton (QMI Agency file photo)

Ontario PC MPP Monte McNaughton

Ontario wind turbines would stop spinning for good — saving money in the long run, despite up-front cancellation costs — if he became premier, says the Tory leadership candidate from Southwestern Ontario.

“It’s time to end this ripoff,” said MPP Monte McNaughton, one of five candidates for the Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership and the only one from thesouthwest, where many of wind farms are located.

“Wind power is going to cost between $20 billion and $60 billion over the next 20 years,” said McNaughton, a second-term MPP from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex.

Tearing up existing contracts would cost less than what turbines are costing Ontarians now, he said, but he had no estimates of the cost to cancel contracts and raze turbines.

“We’ve got to cut our losses now,” he told The Free Press on Sunday, ahead of rolling out his plan Monday.

McNaughton said he’d repeal legislation that allows turbines to be built and would decommission ones already on the grid.

Lightning rods for opposition in many areas, giant wind turbines were pushed by the Liberal government with hefty subsidies paid for the electricity they generate as the province phased out its dirty, coal-fired power plants.

But as Ontarians saw when the Liberals cancelled two natural gas-fired power plants in the Toronto area, moving them to the east and west at a cost of more than $1 billion, scrapping energy contracts doesn’t come cheap.

McNaughton is the first PC leadership candidate to come out against one of the most contentious rural issues. But while turbines are a hot issue in the countryside, with many residents saying they pose health concerns for humans and animals, they haven’t been so for urbanites.

McNaughton hopes to draw support by pointing out electricity prices have soared for all Ontarians, which he says affects home affordability and business viability.

Making electricity more affordable “is the single biggest thing” that can restore Ontario’s prosperity, McNaughton said.

Wind companies have built or plan to build more than 6,700 wind turbines in Ontario. They’re paid a premium for the energy they produce.

McNaughton said most of that energy is surplus to Ontario’s needs, and is sold at a discount to other jurisdictions so that, he said, wind represents 4% of Ontario’s production and 20% of its energy costs. “It’s a complete failure and it will never be economical,” he said.

Former Tory leader Tim Hudak, who resigned after the Liberals won a majority government in June, had vowed to repeal the Liberals’ Green Energy Act, but stopped short of saying he’d tear up existing wind turbine contracts.

Other candidates chasing Hudak’s old job are MPPs Christine Elliott, Vic Fedeli and Lisa MacLeod and MP Patrick Brown. Conservatives will choose their leader in voting set for May 3 and 7. The next leadership debate is scheduled Jan 26 in London.

deb.vanbrenk@sunmedia.ca

Wind Weasels Go Out of Their Way, to Dodge Responsibility!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

“Unscheduled” Wind Farm Shut-Down Shows Low-Frequency Noise Impact at Waterloo, SA

January 12, 2015 by

waterloo

One of the major obstacles faced by acoustic experts when trying to do meaningful wind turbine ‘noise’ testing is the dogged refusal of wind farm operators to provide wind speed and operational data.

Moreover, wind power outfits have resisted, with granite-like tenacity, quite reasonable calls by noise experts to shut down their turbines (ie “on-off testing”) during the process; a step that would show – unequivocally – what noise is attributable to the turbines’ operation (as complained of by victims) and what might be put down to “wind in the trees”, the source wind industry spin-masters routinely scape-goat as the reason for the neighbours’ complaints.

mary-morris

STT champion, Mary Morris changed all that when she provoked the South Australian Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct on-off testing at the Waterloo wind farm in SA’s mid-north.

Mary hit them with an absolute cracker of a letter (see our post here) and went on to badger SA’s rotten little EPA into reluctant action (see our post here).

Mary’s efforts set up a unique opportunity, which attracted several of Australia’s top research acousticians to the neighbouring farm houses –  in the hope of finally getting a meaningful data set, with the turbines shut-off for periods long enough to separate out turbine noise from the rest. Those that lined up at Waterloo included top-flight noise and vibration experts, like Professor Colin Hansen (see our posts here andhere).

However, the operator – Energy Australia – fighting all the way – ‘offered’ to do no more than shut down its turbines for trifling intervals of 40-50 minutes – and to do so at times when complaints don’t normally occur (ie during the day-time). Hmmm…

But – to the noise experts’ delight –  where decent and reasonable corporate conduct failed them – mechanical serendipity intervened: acable fault in the line that feeds power from the wind farm to the substation nearby saw the whole operation shut down for 54 hours straight. The ‘lucky’ break occurred at a time when the independent noise experts had the surrounding homes bristling with state-of-the-art kit.

The results gathered, didn’t disappoint: a top-team from Adelaide University, headed up by Professor Hansen, were able to separate out the ‘environmental’ noise (wind in the trees, etc) from the low-frequency noise generated by turbines at distances out to 8.7km.

The length of the unscheduled shut down allowed the team (Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamšek, and Professor Hansen) to identify the turbine noise ‘signature’ within and external to three neighbouring homes.

Their results were presented at the Internoise Conference (43rd International Congress on Noise Control Engineering November 16-19, 2014 in Melbourne, Australia) in a paper titled “Comparison of the noise levels measured in the vicinity of a wind farm for shutdown and operational conditions” – which can be accessed here as a PDF.

Internoise2014s

The team – using narrow band spectra analysis – were easily able to contrast ‘environmental’ noise from the turbine ‘signature’ – as depicted in the graphs below: the blue lines showing noise levels with the turbines off; and the red lines showing noise levels with the turbines on (to enlarge it, click on the graph, it will pop up in a new window and you can use your magnifier from there).

Wind turbine signature

So far, so obvious.

When even Blind Freddy can spot the difference, it’s little wonder that wind power outfits have fought tooth-and-nail to avoid meaningful on-off noise testing.

Thanks to their ‘lucky’ break, the researchers conclusions in their paper were:

There is a significant difference in the unweighted third-octave spectra when the Waterloo wind farm is shut down compared to when it is operational for each of the three residences investigated in this study.

The most prominent difference occurs in the 50 Hz third-octave band and it has been shown that operational levels can be as much as 30 dB higher than shutdown levels.

The peak in this third-octave band is also higher than the audibility threshold defined in ISO 389-7 (12) by as much as 10 dB for the outdoor measurements.

This peak was also measured indoors when the wind farm was operational but the magnitude is slightly lower and the rms level averaged over 10 minutes is at the same level as the audibility threshold defined in ISO 389-7 (12), although the variability in the noise results in the peak levels being much higher than the rms audibility threshold.

Outdoor infrasonic noise levels associated with wind farm operation vary depending on the local wind speed at the microphone. During periods of negligible wind at the microphone, distinct peaks corresponding to blade-pass harmonic frequencies are clearly distinguishable.

The outdoor results presented for House 3, where the wind speed at the microphone was zero, showed the most distinct peaks in the infrasonic frequency range out of the three residences investigated. For Houses 1 and 2, these peaks in the outdoor spectra were evidently masked by wind-induced noise and this is further confirmed by their presence in the indoor spectra for measurements at these locations, as shown in Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

The wind-induced noise is caused by pressure fluctuations and vortex shedding, which are sensed by the microphone but bear no relation to acoustic disturbances. Therefore, to adequately portray the levels of infrasound outdoors, it is imperative that there is negligible wind in the vicinity of the microphone.

The shutdown times selected by the wind farm operator gave few opportunities to record such conditions. Hence, it is suggested that in future studies, times between 12 am and 5 am with negligible wind at the measurement locations are selected for shutdown/operational comparisons.

The narrow-band spectra associated with wind farm operation show a consistent occurrence of peaks at specific frequencies in the infrasonic and low frequency ranges.

The frequencies of these peaks are the same at each residence and they are not present when the wind farm is shut down, which indicates that they are the result of wind farm noise.

The low frequency peaks at 23.3 Hz, 28 Hz, 46.6 Hz and 56 Hz are surrounded by side-bands spaced at the blade-pass frequency of 0.8 Hz. Results obtained by increasing the frequency resolution indicate that it is quite feasible that the low frequency peaks are harmonics of the blade-pass frequency.

Thus their presence can either be attributed to selected amplification of blade-pass frequency harmonics or amplitude modulation of a turbine associated noise source at the blade-pass frequency. Further investigation into the source of the noise is currently being undertaken.

Kristy Hansen, Branko Zajamšek, and Professor Hansen (2014)

Nice work team!

But results like that shouldn’t require ‘lucky’ breaks and serendipitous shut-downs. Meaningful, independent wind turbine noise testing should be available to neighbouring victims, as a matter of course.

The terms and times at which turbines should be shut down for that purpose should be a matter for the experts engaged – not the wind industry, its parasites or the pet acoustic consultants that it employs tofluff and obfuscate on its behalf (the ones that wrote the noise standards for the wind industry on a ‘made-to-not-measure’ and ‘avoid-scrutiny-at-all-costs’ basis and – who, for no other reason than benefiting their wind industry paymasters, upped the noise limits from 35dB(A) to 40dB(A) – as Mary Morris points out in her brilliant letter to the EPA).

No, ‘luck’ should only be a matter of concern to horse punters and cardsharks, not independent acoustic experts trying to help wind farm victims get control of a noise source that destroys their ability to sleep, and otherwise drives them mad in their homes; if it hasn’t already driven their owners out of them.

Fortunately, it’s wind industry shenanigans – like that outlined above (that requires good fortune – rather than common sense and science to get to the proper result) that is squarely in the sights of the Senate Select Committee, it’s terms of reference including the following:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Wind Turbines be established to inquire into and report on the application of regulatory governance and economic impact of wind turbines by 24 June 2015, with particular reference to:

…

(d) the implementation of planning processes in relation to wind farms, including the level of information available to prospective wind farm hosts;

(e) the adequacy of monitoring and compliance governance of wind farms;

For those suffering from or threatened by turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound, now is you chance to hammer the so-called ‘standards’ and planning ‘controls’ that mean proper noise testing is a matter of ‘luck’ and not good measure.

Why not drop a submission to the Senate Inquiry along those lines?  Note that the opportunity to make submissions to the Committee ends on 27 February 2015. See the link here.

bookie

German Citizens are “Fed Up” With the Useless Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / 3 Comments

German Citizens Have Had Enough…”Conflict Over Wind Turbines Escalating” …Against “Horror Landscapes”!

By  January 2015

In Germany protests over a broad range of issues have been heightening.

In Dresden citizens have been turning out by the thousands in “Monday demonstrations” to protest the perceived threat of the Islamification of Europe and the so-called “liar media”, which they no longer trust. Since the Paris attacks by radical Islamic terrorists, the protesters have only become more emboldened.

Citizens are also clearly beginning to feel they are being misled by the “liar media” and politicians regarding wind energy. The glaring difference between what was promised and what is actually being delivered can no longer be ignored. Enough is enough!

Germany’s online SVZ.de writes that the “conflict over wind turbines is escalating” and that “criticism and fears are becoming louder” and that “citizen protest groups are forming at many locations“.

What does it mean? It means that wind and solar power are nothing like they were once cracked up to be. They are poor performers, costly, and are creating a nationwide blight that risks permanently scarring Germany’s once idyllic landscape and natural heritage.

Everything and anything can now be sacrificed at the alter of climate protection. Recently Die Welt published a scathing commentary on the “immensely dangerous power of the eco-cartel“, writing that “totalitarian undercurrents are plainly visible” and that the movement is all about power and money, and less so about environmental protection. Germany’s green movement has been corrupted to the bone.

In the state of Mecklenburg-Pomerania the SVZ.de site writes how an organization called Freier Horizont was established last November and serves as the umbrella for 40 citizens initiatives. “They are protesting against what they see as the uncontrolled expansion of wind energy and speak of horror landscapes.”

Freier Horizont Chairman Norbert Schumacher worries that wind energy will have negative impacts on the region’s coastal tourism. Citizens are concerned that Germany’s cherished Baltic Sea coast will be “blighted” and believe political leaders and wind energy developers are not taking their concerns seriously.

They aren’t, of course. It’s all about money. Even the most self-professed Greens are selling out to the big money of wind energy. For example Die Welt writes of German Green Party honcho Boris Palmer, someone “who grew up protesting the installation of power transmission towers is – no joke – demanding that natural parks and reserves be opened for the 200-meter tall rotating monsters, even if they are located right next World Heritage Sites.”

Greens like Palmer no longer have qualms about that, and so it should not surprise us that they are ready to trample and permanently damage heritage locations – e.g. like the Nazca Lines in Peru. It’s all in the name of the Green Allah: Climate Protection. Green madness has taken over in Germany, but citizens are waking up.

=======================

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/09/german-citizens-have-had-enough-conflict-over-wind-turbines-escalating-against-horror-landscapes/#sthash.AcVU3BzX.dpuf

Another Huge problem, Caused by Useless, Destructive, Wind Turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Research – Bees and wind turbines

It is a known to everyone that noise from wind turbines generates sound both heard and inaudible to humans. Sounds emitted that are not within the scope of being audible to humans, basically come in the form of vibrations. These vibrations can travel much further than audible sound and affect a vast area, several miles from the wind farm itself. Downwind, these low frequency vibrations can travel up to 50 KM from the source.

Wind turbine mapThe drastic increase in the number of wind farms in the United States began between 2004 and 2005, and has blossomed to cover vast sections of the country today, as seen on the blue map below.

Interesting to note is the time frame of drastic increases of the number of wind farms from 2004 to 2005. This time frame becomes very important, because it is also the exact time when massive disappearances of honey bees began to be reported, beginning in 2005, with drastic increases in the years to follow.

The next map shows the states where the most losses of honeybees have occurred.

The orange amp below is also an interesting map, because if you didn’t know better, you would believe it is another wind farm map. Although the southeast area of the United States, such as Florida does not have large numbers of operating wind farms, the honeybee disappearances in that area are attributed to weather events.

Wind turbine mapA series of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, including hurricane Katrina virtually wiped out this area’s honeybee population. With this in mind, the direct link to wind farms for the massive die off can be made.

While scientists scramble trying to find answers and offer theories ranging from a new form of virus, the earth’s magnetic shift, to perhaps solar flares. It would be wise for them to look into the effects of sound vibrations emitted from wind turbines.

In a report by WH Kircher, titled Acoustical Communication in Honeybees on 02/05/1993, finds that airborne sounds and vibrations play an important role in honeybee communication. It is also coming to light that honeybees use sound vibrations to navigate, similar to sonar used by marine life and bats.

Since vast areas are within affective range of low frequency sound levels emitted by wind turbines, it becomes clear that there is a connection between low frequency sound produced by wind turbines and the disappearance of honeybees. The areas with the most disappearances of honeybees directly

correspond with that of operating wind farms.

California is second, behind North Dakota for honeybee losses and first in wind farm operations, within range of areas where honeybee colonies are located. As of 2007, most North Dakota wind farms were concentrated within a small area in the southeastern portion of the state. Since then, wind farms have spread to many other sections of the state, and the resulting losses of honeybees will most likely increase as well.

On a world scale, areas of honeybee disappearances does correlate with operating wind farms in particular regions. It isn’t enough that the wind industry continues to operate under the guise of being a renewable energy source that will help in getting us off fossil fuel, when in reality they use more fossil fuel than they will ever produce.

The sad fact is this industry is only responsible for degrading our countryside with useless spinning towers. While the building and operations of the wind farms are killing millions of endangered bird species, raping pristine land and turning it into nothing more than a cluttered mess of steel and fiberglass. Turbines are destroying the natural habitat of wildlife in such areas. It seems now, that it may be responsible for the near destruction of the world’s honeybee population.

***************************************************************************

The above has been taken directly from the http://www.ufodigest.com website and does give room for thought on the matter. To see what a research consultant says about this aspect of possible bee destruction, let’s take a look at what Bio3 says about the matter.

Bio3 is a company recognized as a national leader in biodiversity consultancy, research and information systems. It has been awarded the title of SME Leader in Portugal in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. In 2011 Bio3 was considered one of the 174 most innovative SME’s operating in Portugal and was integrated in the COTEC SME Innovation Network.

Founded in 2005, Bio3 achieved a solid growth rate and is currently a national reference operating in its market. During the first 7 years of existence, Bio3 developed the biological section of over 400 projects, mostly related to environmental assessment, post-evaluation, environmental management and planning. Bio3 also executes applied research studies. They are experts on Ecological Baseline Studies and Biodiversity Monitoring Surveys, with an emphasis on renewable energy projects. Our clients include big Portuguese companies, such as EDIA, EDP Renewables, ENEOP2, ENERSIS, GALP Energia, GENERG, IBERWIND, REN and Ventinveste.

From day to day experience and knowledge of bee behaviour and ecology serious concerns are arising concerning to potential negative impacts of wind farms on bees derived from several effects, such as the noise, stray voltage, air pressure changes and turbulence and electromagnetic field caused by the turbines.

Some American apiarists have shown concern by the shadowing, flashing, strobing effect from the blades, since it lasts 2 to 3 hours a day for 2 to 3 weeks in spring and fall when the sun comes up. They fear that the bees would either become disoriented or irritated by the effect. Other concerns of these apiarists were the “thumping noise” from the blades and the effect of “stray voltage” to the bees.

Wind Pushers and Investors Losing Big, as Green/Greed Energy loses it’s Novelty!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

German Wind Power’s ‘Titanic’ Debacle: Bright Future for Coal Guaranteed, as Wind Power Investors Get Fleeced

January 4, 2015 by

titanic

The Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance. The subsidies have been colossal, the impacts on the electricity market chaotic and – contrary to the environmental purpose of the policy – CO2 emissions are rising fast: if “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed (see our post here).

Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. In response, Germans have picked up their axes and have headed to their forests in order to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).

German manufacturers – and other energy intensive industries – faced with escalating power bills are packing up and heading to the USA – where power prices are 1/3 of Germany’s (see our posts here and hereand here). And the “green” dream of creating thousands of jobs in the wind industry has to turned out to be just that: a dream (see our post here).

As Germans count the costs of their runaway wind power policy, a quick look at the CO2 reduction score board shows a monumental “FAIL”: the Germans have scrapped CO2 free nuclear generation and – in order to provide meaningful power (ie sparks available on-demand) – are flat-out building new (and upgrading existing) coal-fired plants. Oops!

The unsinkable German anti-CO2-Titanic just found its iceberg
WattsUpWithThat
Fred F. Mueller
10 December 2014

Unpleasant encounter with hard facts

Until just a few days ago, the determination of the German government to halt the presumed Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) seemed to be absolutely imperturbable.

The main driver behind the German resolve to hammer down CO2 emissions both domestically and abroad while at the same time finishing off its last remaining nuclear power generating units is Chancellor Angela Merkel. The daughter of a clergyman socialized in the formerly communist east of the country, she is known for her outstanding political cleverness and flexibility in avoiding conflicts she feels she can’t win.

Nevertheless, there are certain aspects where this cleverness is superseded by an almost fundamentalist doggedness when it comes to certain key points – such as exterminating nuclear power or saving the planet from overheating.

Only a few weeks ago, Germany engaged in a new initiative to revitalize the ailing international effort to reverse the course of constantly increasing worldwide CO2 emissions by replacing the vintage Kyoto protocol by more stringent and binding reduction targets at the UN conference that will be held in Paris in November/ December 2015.

To this effect, Germany convinced the other European Union states to agree to a 40% reduction scheme by 2030, sweeping across opposition from negatively affected member countries using a combination of compromises, financial incentives and sheer politico-economic pressure. As a result, the EU came out with bold CO2 reduction commitments. These in turn were meant to be used as a political lever during the preparatory meetings taking place in the current run-up to the big show.

The push for increased CO2 sobriety…

In order to underscore its ambition to shine out as a beacon of climate saving efforts, the German government additionally decided to further strengthen its position by renewing domestic efforts aimed at achieving its own commitment of reducing national CO2 emissions by 40% (compared to 1990) until 2020.

This target had at first seemed to be easily attainable since the country benefitted from the opportunity to decommission the ridiculously inefficient and energy-squandering industry it inherited from the former communist DDR. But in the past years, this special effect waned and the CO2 emissions even reversed course and climbed again. This countertrend was further underpinned when in the wake of the Fukushima events; the German government ordered to halt eight out of 17 existing nuclear power plants and decided to phase out the remaining ones by 2022.

The share of nuclear power was largely taken over by lignite- and coal-fired units, with the result that in the field of power generation, Germany was unable to achieve any reduction since 2000. During the same time period, the electric power markets were flooded with heavily subsidized “green” power, causing prices to collapse to a point where conventional power utilities were unable to generate sufficient revenues. Share pricescollapsed and more than ten thousand qualified jobs disappeared.

In the centers of political power in Berlin, the grievances of the sector went unnoticed and even the most urgent submissions fell on deaf ears. To add insult to injury, just a few weeks ago, the sector was confronted with tough additional regulations requiring it to further reduce its CO2 emissions, while signs of mounting albeit muted unease in a growing number of industrial sectors heavily burdened by skyrocketing energy prices were ignored.

This resulted in the rebellion of vital players…

In this situation, the frustration felt by a number of foreign investors in the sector – in the first place those involved in the energy giants E.ON and Vattenfall, a subsidiary of a Swedish state-owned energy producer, culminated. The background is highlighted in a recent article written for the renowned German financial newspaper “Handelsblatt” by Wolfram Weiner, former chief editor of several leading print media. In his item, he used unusually drastic language to chastise the current state of the sector: “In reality, E.ON is capitulating.

Faced with wrong decisions and impositions instigated by the German energy policy, the power generation industry is giving up in despair because political leaders have narrowed down their maneuvering space to such an extent that they are choking to death.

For too long a time, the political class naively believed that E.ON and RWE (the second in rank of the sector) could be indefinitely squeezed just as a lemon – but now it is dawning to some that there simply is no more juice left…the “Energiewende” (Energy U-turn) resembles a communist command economy … (the policy) has within a short period of time achieved what the communists had been dreaming of for decades: Power generating groups are being dismantled, market rule is supplemented by command economy. But the question remains – who will in the futurecare about Germany’s power supply, who will invest? Is the state willing to take over these activities too in order to finalize energy-socialism”?

The led to an event that can be likened to the proverbial iceberg unexpectedly popping up right in front of the German state ship while it was plowing through the waves on its climate-saving mission at full-steam.

With just a 48-hour notice delivered by a personal phone call to Ms. Merkel on a Saturday, the CEO of E.ON, the largest German and European power producer, let it be known that the company had decided to split itself in two, one part grouping fossil and nuclear power generation and a second part encompassing the “politically correct” activities in the field of “renewable” energies. Sort of a “Bad E.ON” / “Good E.ON” move.

The intention is to get rid of the “bad” part as soon as possible by putting it up for sale. At the same time, this also means the “good” part will cease to be duty bound to ensure a stable power supply under all circumstances. Obviously, such a liability is not enforceable from an entity whose only power sources are unstable wind and solar power plants. In a nutshell, the message behind this move is that the silverback of the “big four” German energy producers who group the bulk of the country’s conventional and nuclear power production is about to close shop at short notice. The others will probably follow suit.

Inflicting a deadly setback…

A situation where a country’s leadership is left only 48 hours to digest this sort of threat can be likened to the sudden crash of the Titanic hitting its iceberg. Although most of the German public has not yet noticed that something really important has gone wrong, frantic activities can be noticed on the bridge, with both the minister for economic affairs and the chancellor’s office hastily preparing new legislation aiming at enhancing the situation of coal-fired plants by implementing an all-new market design. It will most certainly provide for compensation payments for coal-fired plants forced to turn idle or at minimum load when the grid is clogged by an oversupply of wind and solar energy.

According to comments in various press articles, the German government seems to have realized its vessel is taking in water and is starting to list. So while the ship’s orchestra composed of green and socialist parties together with assorted NGO’s and the accomplices in the media is doing its best to drown out first anxious noises by playing climato-patriotic anthems at full pitch, the power brokers in Berlin seem to be hammering out a plan B in a desperate attempt to fend off a catastrophic breakdown of the nets.

Outlines currently emerging suggest that:

A) Nuclear power will remain banned. More than 30 years of demonization of the technology probably cannot be reversed;

B) Plans to rein in the soaring price of electric power prices will be abandoned. A key representative of the ruling CDU party has already warned that price hikes will continue;

C) The hope of the government that highly flexible combined cycle gas-fired power plants can be deployed in large numbers to offset the highly volatile production from wind and solar plants has gone up in smoke since these entities have much higher costs than coal-fired units. They thus were the first to succumb to the market distortions brought about by the heavily subsidized “renewable” technologies;

D) The government now implicitly recognizes that in the years to come, coal and lignite fired plants will play a substantially bigger role in securing the country’s power supply than projected. The obvious hope is that it may be possible to stabilize the vessel without having to explicitly admit the core pieces of the previous strategy have to be scrapped.

On to sweet green dreams

While the German public, lulled by decades of seemingly incessant economic upturn, will probably continue to ignore these harsh realities for some time, the long-term implications for CAGW supporters inside and outside of the country do not bode well.

Given the fact that the “renewable” energy lobby remains extremely strong, with millions of people having been misguided to invest their life’s savings and pension claims into “planet-saving” energy projects, resistance to any plans to limit further engagements in the “green energy” sector will be extremely fierce.

Together with the need to stabilize the ailing conventional energy sector in order to avoid a total breakdown, all requirements for energy costs spiraling out of control are in place. The government can only hope that the public will continue to accept these hikes without too much resistance. But a major stumbling blocks remains in place: German electric energy prices, already the second-highest in Europe, are increasingly choking off economic growth.

More and more key sectors such as the aluminum, steel making and chemical industry are increasingly opting out of investing in the country, turning to regions offering more reasonable energy prices, notably the US. Over time, this will put the wealth of the country and with it the fate of its political leaders in jeopardy.

Germany’s anti-CO2 policy is poised to fail

With their naïve two-pronged approach to abolish nuclear and fossil fuel powered electricity generation in parallel, the German political leaders have maneuvered themselves into an impasse and now find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place.

The “renewable” sector propped up with at least half a trillion € in subsidies has reached proportions making it too big to fail, while conventional generation will now call in the same favors that had hitherto been granted to the “good ones”, threatening to cut supplies if they are not treated likewise.

Embittered by more than a decade and a half of injuries “sweetened” by insults, one can expect that they will probably be pushing for fulfilment of their demands with little regard as to whom it might hurt. With the door to nuclear generation firmly shut and welded tight, German CO2 emissions are set to increase as naïve expectations of falling electricity demand will dissipate. Especially since no-one seems to have taken into account the power requirements of e.g. the many million electric cars that are supposed to crowd German streets in the coming decades.

While arrogantly claiming the role of a vanguard policy-maker with respect to climate-saving measures, German politicians have entangled themselves in a maze of conflicting interests and harsh realities restraining their actions to near-immobility.

At some point, when the populace will finally realize it has been fooled and plundered, politicians will refrain from CAGW aspirations when it becomes evident they will not be favorable for their future prospects to be elected. And if and when Germany fails in full focus of the spotlights they themselves asked to be turned upon them, the CAGW theories will suffer a major blow on a worldwide scale. This might hopefully turn out as an important contribution to the demise of the whole CAGW scam.
WattsUpWithThat.com

Meanwhile – despite the fact the the wind industry in Germany has pocketed the lion’s share of at “least half a trillion € in subsidies” – wind farm investors are being fleeced by the same types of hucksters and weasels that run outfits like near-bankrupt Infigen (aka Babcock and Brown); and the smarmy gits that set up so-called “community wind farms” – praying on greentard gullibility in their efforts to pocket $billions in REC Tax/Subsidies.

The scam is the same the world over: pitch numbers that show returns that are too good to be true (they are) and watch the suckers beat a path to your door: greed trumps common sense often enough.

As PT Barnum said: “every crowd has a silver lining” – an adage put to great effect by wholesale fraudsters like Bernie Madoff in scams often tagged “Ponzi” schemes; named after Charles Ponzi – who would have taken to the wind industry like a duck to water.

Madoff – who ended up with a 150 year stretch in stir for his share-market shenanigans – would, no doubt, be pleased to know that the wind industry has followed his “model” and is keeping the Ponzi “dream” alive.

Wind power outfits routinely base their expected returns on pumped up wind forecasts – thereby way overstating their anticipated gross returns (see our posts here and here and here and here).

While, at the same time, lying about their true operating costs (see ourpost here), which start to tack up pretty quickly when it’s revealed that turbines last less than half the time claimed: with an ‘economic’ lifespan of 10-12 years, as opposed to the 25 years wildly claimed by fan makers (see our post here).

Or, in the case of top-flight German manufacturer, Siemens – less than 2 years – one of it’s latest batches required wholesale blade and bearing replacement, starting almost as soon as they cranked them into gear (seeour post here) – Siemens blaming “harsh weather conditions both onshore and offshore” – as if its fans had been designed to run inside aircraft hangars ….

Little wonder then that in Germany, “37 percent of wind farms are losing investors’ money” and “two thirds are in deficit or just about cover their running costs”. Here’s Focus Magazine on how easy it is to separate fools and their money.

turbine fire 7

Eco-Paradise Lost: Wind Power Bleeds Investors
Focus Magazine
Alexander Wendt
20 November 2014

Germany’s green paradise, where wind turbines were considered a foolproof investment, has burned down.

For a long time, German wind power was seen as a safe investment thanks to generous subsidies. Green investors are now losing massive amounts of money – because they overlooked major pitfalls.

Beliefs do not disappear quickly. “I’m still a proponent of renewable energy,” says Dresden engineer Wolfgang Strübing. Political scientist Christian Herz from Berlin and tax auditor Werner Daldorf from Kassel see it the same way. The three share a lot: They are among tens of thousands of Germans who have invested their money in wind turbines. And they sit on the Investor Advisory Board of the German Wind Energy Association.

Suspiciously viewed by the association’s leadership, the three began to collect information about tricks, traps and false promises in the wind power industry from all over Germany. The trio has now collected the by far greatest amount of data on this problem in Germany. And according to their data, many of the approximately 24,000 wind turbines are investment destroyers – despite massive subsidies. The eco-paradise, where wind turbines were considered as a foolproof investment, has burned down.

Just over a third of all wind farms return more than they cost

Werner Daldorf, Chairman of the Investor Advisory Board of the German Wind Power Association, examined 1,400 annual accounts of 192 wind farms in Germany over a period of ten years. His sobering conclusion: 37 percent of wind farms are losing investors’ money: “The repayment of loans was higher than the generated funds.”

Only 35 percent of the wind power companies paid two or more percent return to their investors. For wind farms with a fund structure, two thirds are in deficit or just about cover their running costs, according to Daldorf.

His colleague Christian Herz evaluated the accounts of 1,400 wind power funds. His conclusion: “Two thirds are far below the investment return that was originally predicated.”
Translation Philipp Mueller: Full story (in German)
Focus Magazine

half shorn sheep

More Evidence of the Futility of the Wind Scam!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

AS BRITAIN FREEZES, WIND FARMS TAKE POWER FROM GRID TO PREVENT ICING
AFP
by DONNA RACHEL EDMUNDS  2 Jan 2015
As Britain shivers under a blanket of snow and ice, it has emerged that offshore windfarms have been idling to prevent icing up – and drawing electricity off the national grid to do so. Critics have pointed out the “folly” of having windfarms idle in a cold snap, but industry experts insist that all forms of power generation involve some electrical input.

The issue has been raised by Brian Christley, a resident of Abergele, Wales, who wrote to the Daily Telegraph to say: “Over the weekend just gone, the coldest of the year so far, all 100-plus off-shore wind turbines along the North Wales coast were idling very slowly, all using grid power for de-icing and to power their hydraulic systems that keep the blades facing in the same direction.

“Thanks to Ed Davey, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, we will be subsidising these follies for the next 30 years. And then, if we continue to vote for technically naive green politicians, for further periods after that.”

The energy firm which owns the 30 turbines off the North Wales coastline has countered that, on the days in question, the turbines were actually a net contributor to the grid. A spokesman said: “Our turbines were not idling but generating electricity during each of the days in question, contributing a positive balance of energy into the grid. All energy generators use a small amount of electricity to keep their systems running smoothly, in the case of wind farms drawing power from either an adjacent operating turbine or the grid.”

John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity which promotes sustainable development through the use of renewable energies, said: “We know that in Denmark there are days when their wind farms are net consumers of electricity, so in some ways this is not surprising. It’s another example of how wind power is difficult and expensive to manage.”

Theoretically, Britain’s wind farms, both onshore and off, have a combined capacity of 12.1GW, enough to power 8.8 million homes. However, a report published last October by the Scientific Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute found that the chance of all Britain’s windfarms running at full capacity together was “vanishingly small”, meaning that actual output is often far lower. Rather, they found that the average output was just eight percent of the headline figure.

Moreover, they can only produce energy if the wind is blowing at between 10 and 50 mph, above which they automatically shut down to prevent damage. And in freezing conditions they must draw on the energy grid to rotate their blades slowly to prevent them icing, and to power the system which turns the blades into the wind. It also costs about twice as much to produce offshore wind energy as it does to produce traditional coal fired energy.

Roger Helmer, energy spokesman for the UK Independence Party, who want to see wind farm subsidies scrapped, told Breitbart London: “We’re familiar with the layers of subsidy necessary to make wind farms viable. We’re familiar with the inefficiency of the necessary back-up fossil fuel generation, for when the wind doesn’t blow. Now we learn that on windless days these wind turbines are cannibalising power from the grid merely to help maintain them. Will the folly never stop?”

Faux-green Zealots Destroying Britain’s Economy….All for NOTHING!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Exposure of UK’s Wind Power’s Crippling Costs sees Britain’s “Greenblob” Turn to Doublethink & Doublespeak

December 23, 2014 by

1984-george-orwell-adaptation-slice

Britain’s energy policy is a debacle. It’s been driven by Marxist zealots of the hard-‘green’-left – branded the “Greenblob” by the reasonable and honest folks in politics, like Owen Paterson (see our post here).

The Greenblob have set Britain up for an inevitable economic disaster, by wedding its increasingly bleak future to insanely expensive, intermittent and utterly unreliable wind power (see our post here).

The obvious and inevitable consequence of throwing £billions in subsidies at wind power outfits and setting terms in 20 year contracts that see offshore wind power generators guaranteed obscene returns – being able to charge “three times the current wholesale price ofelectricity and about 60% more than is promised to onshore turbines” – is spiralling power bills (see our post here).

But sending millions into power-price-penury isn’t all that politically palatable, so the Greenblob spends much of its time covering up the true and hidden costs of wind power; and lying like fury when – despite their best efforts – those facts “unhelpfully” pop into view.

The hard numbers are, of course, “inconvenient” and, therefore “unhelpful” to the narrative being spun by Britain’s wind industry spin-masters embedded in Ed Davey’s Department of Energy and ClimateChange (DECC).

Instead of levelling with power punters on the true and ultimate costs of throwing £billions in subsidies at wind power outfits, the spinners at the DECC simply kept the “unhelpful” stuff under wraps. And, if the “Greenblob” operatives at DECC HQ had their way the hard facts would have never seen the light of day.

Well, thanks to some persistent digging by Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, the truth is out.

john constable

Here’s The Telegraph exposing DECC’s determined efforts to see that British power punters are kept in the dark – in more ways than one.

Green policies to add up to 40pc to cost of household electricity
The Telegraph
Robert Mendick
14 December 2014

Official figures – initially withheld by ministers – show steep rises in the price of electricity by the end of the decade to pay for the Government’s policies to tackle climate change

The cost of household electricity will rise by as much as 40 per cent by the end of the decade because of the Government’s green energy policies.

Official figures — initially withheld by ministers — show an alarming increase in the price of electricity caused by generous subsidies to wind farms as well as other policies.

An average household is expected to pay as much as £250 more for electricity – mainly through consumer subsidies – to pay for the Government’s green energy schemes, while an electrically heated house could be as much as £440 a year worse off.

And by 2030, when thousands of planned offshore wind turbines are finally operating, the burden will be even greater, the numbers show. The average household could be paying an extra 60 per cent for electricity – equivalent to £350 more a year.

Medium-sized businesses will be hit very hard, according to the new data. On average such companies will see electricity bills rise by more than £500,000 a year – a cost likely to be passed on to consumers.

The figures were made public last week by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) following a Freedom of Information request by campaigners. The information was initially prepared for an official DECC report – released at the beginning of November – which claimed that the average household fuel bill had fallen by £90 thanks to the “impact of DECC policies”.

But the tables showing the actual cost of green policies on future electricity prices for households and businesses in 2020 and 2030 were kept secret because they were “thought to be confusing”.

Their release now will embarrass ministers, who are accused of presiding over an expensive consumer subsidy system.

The Government’s climate change policies include complex consumer subsidies for wind and solar farms, as well as grants for energy efficiency measures such as loft and wall insulation, available to certain households.

The introduction of smart meters, which it is hoped will encourage lower consumption, also helped contribute to rising electricity prices.

Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, the think tank whose Freedom of Information request was responsible for forcing DECC to release the price impact tables, said: “The striking scale and increasing trend of the climate policy energy price impacts are bad enough in themselves, but DECC’s attempt to conceal these vitally important figures is breathtaking.”

Dr Constable said he had been told by informed sources that pressure had been put on DECC to withhold the tables.

“This is a very unsatisfactory situation,” he said, “Energy price impact data is so intrinsically important, and policy transparency so crucial to public trust in government, that very firm intervention is needed to clear the air and ensure that it will not happen again. This sounds like a job for the Prime Minister.”

DECC’s initial 88-page report was published on Nov 6, but the raw data on which the findings were based were omitted.

The Renewable Energy Foundation requested the figures and this week they were finally made available.

The supplementary tables show the “average impact of energy and climate change policies on households’ energy prices” will see the cost of electricity rise by as much as 42 per cent by 2020 from £131 per megawatt hour (MWh) to £186.

An average household uses about 4.5 MWh, meaning a rise of as much as £250 in the cost of electricity. By 2030, the price of a megwatt hour will increase by 60 per cent to £206.

Medium-sized businesses, according to DECC’s own figures, will pay as much as 77 per cent more for electricity in 2020 and 114 per cent more in 2030.

Such business on average consume 11,000 MWh – adding as much as £560,000 a year to the electricity bill. A typical bill could rise from £760,000 a year to £1.3 million.

DECC has claimed overall bills will fall because its green policies will lead to a reduction in household energy consumption with measures such as improved insulation and increased efficiency of electrical appliances leading to an overall drop in bills, it says.

A DECC spokeswoman said a decision had been taken to withhold the tables because it was “thought to be confusing”.

She said: “We always said we would publish the data anyway. It is not written anywhere but that is what we were quite clear about.”

She added: “Without the Government’s policies bills would still be higher.”
The Telegraph

ed davey DECC

George Orwell conjured up his nightmare world of malicious bureaucrats engaged in pernicious mind control in his novel, 1984.

At the time 1984 hit bookshelves in 1949, it was largely taken as a warning; directed at avoiding a future dominated by a malign few, at the expense of a pliant and gullible many. As the Iron Curtin descended across Europe, many took it as an analogue of the “how to” manual used by the Iron-Fisted, Communist regimes that ran the Soviet Bloc.

These days – as the great “Greenblob” (just the latest tribe of Neo-Marxists hell-bent on destroying free-market democracy from within) infects every aspect of political life and society – his prescient insights have taken on the air of a hard-hitting political documentary: from the piece above, it’s clear that Orwell’s future is now.

Orwell’s tongue wasn’t exactly wedged in his cheek when he coined terms such as “newspeak”; “doublespeak”; and “doublethink”: he was in deadly earnest.

“Doublethink” involves ordinary people simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct; but differs from plain old hypocrisy and neutrality. Somewhat related but almost the opposite is “cognitive dissonance”, where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one’s mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — as brainwashing renders the “doublethinker” completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

And, so it’s come to pass that those that purport to govern us, fight tooth-and-nail to bury the facts about the insane costs of wind power; and, when the facts get out, take to lying and obfuscation like ducks to water.

In Orwell’s dystopian vision, the Party spent its every energy to ensure the people knew nothing of what was really going on, ensuring that only a narrative approved by the “Ministry of Truth” saw the light of day.

When it comes to energy policy, Britain’s Big Brother mind control network is under the firm grip of the apparatchiks from the DECC: like the faceless, nameless “double-spokeswoman” who – along with her fellow travellers – decided to conceal the critical data on the true and hidden costs of wind power, because such “unhelpful” facts were “thought to be confusing”.

Heaven forbid! Facts? Confusing?

Sure, there’s always a risk that data spelling out, in unequivocal terms, the unassailable fact that paying wind power outfits 3-4 times the cost of conventional power results in escalating power bills (as night follows day), might end up “confusing” the average power punter. But we doubt it.

In bending over backwards to keep the facts secret – DECC’s real fear was more likely to be “confusion” amongst power punters about the motives of those they pay handsomely to serve and protect them: “confusion” about how that energy policy “giant”, Ed Davey could get it so, so wrong; and why his Department kept a lid on the facts that would reveal the lie?

Ed’s protectors at the DECC know full well that, as The Economist put it:

Offshore wind power is staggeringly expensive. Dieter Helm, an economist at Oxford University, describes it as “among the most expensive ways of marginally reducing carbon emissions known to man”. Under a subsidy system unveiled late in 2013, the government guarantees farms at sea £155 ($250) per megawatt hour for their juice. That is three times the current wholesale price of electricity and about 60% more than is promised to onshore turbines (see our post here).

Which is where DECC’s resort to “doublethink” comes into play. As Orwell defined it, “double think” is:

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

In a perfect example of Orwell’s “doublethink” in action, the “doublespeak” spinners with DECCs are able to deliberately lie by running the line that power prices will fall – due to its “brilliant” policy of throwing £billions in subsidies at wind power outfits – while simultaneously equipped with hard data that says just the exactly the opposite. Hmmm …

The deceit and high-handed arrogance of these people is, as the Renewable Energy Foundation’s director, Dr John Constable puts it: “breathtaking”. And it’s a phenomenon that’s overrun energy policy around the world.

When it comes to the dismal forecast laid out in 1984, that – if left to their own devices – those in power will inevitably corrupt and destroy the institutions that are meant to benefit society and, ultimately, destroy the society itself, George Orwell was an optimist.

george-orwell-6