Not clean, green, or efficient. Just a waste of time and MONEY!!!

WIND ENERGY — FREE AND CLEAN? ACTUAL WORLD DATA PROVES OTHERWISE

High numbers of wind turbines equals the highest electricity rates.

Tip of the hat to the Galileo Movement for this chart.

This chart uses data from 2011.  Ontario, which has seen several rate hikes since then is not on this chart, but is lumped in with the rest of Canada.  However, we  know that Ontario (the province with the most wind turbines in Canada) also has the highest rates, so if it were listed separately, it would be much higher up on the graph.

Notice also that California and Texas, 2 states that have heavily invested in wind turbines, are much higher on the list than states that haven’t.

Interesting to note that the countries with the most wind turbines also have the highest electricity prices. Among the top 10 countries with the highest rates are Denmark, Germany, Australia and Norway, all of which are world leaders in wind turbines blanketing their lands.

As noted a couple of weeks ago, those same places have seen a dramatic rise in their CO2 emissions.  Thus proving that 2 of the main reasons for switching to wind, according to the wind energy associations around the world — CHEAP or FREE energy that also helps to reduce CO2 emissions — are complete lies.

When is this corrupt industry going to be exposed for the liars and con artists that they are?  But more importantly, why are our politicians and governments going along with this corruption? Money?  Political influence?  Eco lobbyists?

10173542_612379845519382_9013984296746024166_n

Not all Physicians are afraid to tell the truth!

BRITISH MEDICAL PRACTITIONER IN THE ENERGY FIELD FOR OVER 32 YEARS SAYS TURBINES DO AFFECT HEALTH

Letter to the Editor – Blackmore Vale Magazine — April 6, 2014

I strongly contest Dr Erik Blakeley‘s comments in your recent article calling wind turbine noise as a placebo effect. As a medical practitioner in the energy field of over 32 years I disagree.

I have amassed over the last few years negative health evidence from across the globe wherever wind turbines are erected, many locals even supported their erection initially only to find their health began to deteriorate afterwards.

Apart from Canadian, American, Danish and Australian information I have articles from specialists in “sleep disorder“ from the BMJ (British Medical Association) referring to ‘wind turbine syndrome‘ . It is the ULF (Ultra Low Frequency)or ELF vibrations that cause the most harm and cannot be heard. Can Dr Blakeley deny the MoD developed and used these frequencies for “acoustic warfare“ and in Russia ULF was developed by Vladimir–Gavreau for use in the Cold War of the 1950s onward only to be banned because it was so devastating on the human organism!

We must remember each person is an individual, some more sensitive than others and this has to be respected. The global evidence that amasses are that the main symptoms are insomnia, elevated blood pressure, depression, irritability and even suicide, never mind the effects on epileptics and hyperactive children. As our whole world is comprised of energy, we live in a time of Einstein and Quantam Physics not Newton, so as to accuse locals as “fools to their symptoms“ is not only utterly insulting to their intelligence but also ignores their individual health susceptibility.

Mrs S.Gonzalez BA.,MCH.,R.S.Hom,Milborne St Andrew

Wind pushers deny, but the truth is known!

Alan Jones interviews Professor Alec Salt on turbine noise impacts

Researchers

Crack Neuro-Physiologist, Professor Alec Salt was interviewed by Alan Jones last week and laid out – in clear and simple terms just why so many people are suffering the adverse heath impacts caused by turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

Oh, and Alan gives the great wind power fraud a little curry from the first bounce.

Alan has a little radio show that more than just a few Australians tune into each morning. Syndicated through over 77 Stations and with close to 2 million listeners Countrywide – AJ as he’s known – is one of those people that leads the political charge on many issues that really affect ordinary Australians and which the rest of the press ignore.

To hear the interview click on the player below.

The transcript follows:

Alan Jones: Look if you sat where I sit, you would not believe the correspondence that comes across my desk in relation to household bills, and we talked about health insurance recently, but in particular electricity prices. Businesses and individuals just saying simply ‘something has to give’. Why are they the way that they are?

Well the carbon dioxide tax is one of the issues, but as I said last night on the show with Richo on Sky news the Renewable Energy Target says that we have to have 40% of our electricity power from renewable energy by 2035. Just that. Don’t worry about the consequences of this. Over and above the carbon dioxide tax consumers are paying in New South Wales at least $200 a year each more for these green subsidies.

Now Tony Abbott brilliantly, not long after he became Prime Minister, and during the election campaign said he wasn’t going to run down the road with a bucket of money after Holden. He told SPC Ardmona there was no taxpayers money. He told Toyota there was no tax payers money. Why then it is their taxpayers money for wind power and solar power?

As I said on television last night, Richo and I could run a business if the costs was picked up by the taxpayer. And as Alby Schultz said, now retired from the Federal seat of Hume, to be replaced by the quite brilliant newcomer Angus Taylor, Alby Schultz said that in Hume alone,  one Federal seat, the turbines subsidies are between $500 million and a billion dollars a year. $10 billion over 10 years. Billion! As he said you can rebuild the Goulburn hospital for $150 million. You can fix mobile and TV blackspots for $2 million. You can duplicate the Barton Highway for $600 million and this is the age when we were supposed to be ending entitlements. As John McEnroe would say, ‘you can’t be serious’. This must end.

I’ve got endless letters from business people. Just one alone – an industrial user the other day, got a $244,000 electricity bill. $32,500 attributable to renewable energy targets. $45,000 for the carbon tax. Every individual faces higher electricity bills due to a carbon dioxide tax and this Renewable Energy Target.

This is all this CO2 rubbish that we’ve gone on with. The sheer cost of this ideological nonsense especially when we have brown coal reserves that would last 539 years, black coal reserves which would last for 111 years and we are sabotaging our greatest competitive advantage – cheap energy – by pushing the price of power through the roof and business knows this. Big business writes to me. I don’t know why they don’t write to government? Surely if you wanted to harm your country you would put your energy security at risk. The idea that you could power a modern economy with giant steel wind turbines and solar energy verges on criminal stupidity.

I mentioned recently that Professor Hughes from Edinburgh University calculated the UK bill for wind energy by 2020 will cost British consumers a staggering 120 billion dollars. Here according to the rubbish peddled since Rudd became Prime Minister, before the end of this decade, it’s 2014 now, we’ll have spent $17 billion erecting between 7 to 10,000 wind turbines. You’re paying.

Worldwide they are waking up  about the cost of this and what it’s doing to health. And this renewable energy nonsense has got no currency in Europe. Germany and China are pushing ahead with new coal-fired electricity plants because of political and public concern over the cost of renewable energy and the health consequences of wind turbines. Britain’s once Conservative-led government is in open revolt. And even Energy Australia’s Chief Executive, Richard McIndoe said two years ago, there is no social licence to ramp up the construction of wind farms so rapidly, he said. We are just going to end up flat on our face, from a social licence prospective because the social licence isn’t there.

But these things are everywhere, in every state in Australia. Conga lines of them. The deputy chief health officer of Victoria refuses to conduct a health impact statement. People have been getting sick for years. No one assesses the noise inside peoples’ homes. Under government guidelines it doesn’t have to be measured. And this is going on all over Australia.

Anne Gardner in the middle of this wretched Macarthur wind farm in Victoria wrote to AGL and said, ‘come down here for a few nights, stay with us, stay with the Jan Hetherington, stay with Ron Gelbart, stay with Simon and Louise Manifold. Stay with Maria and Colin Linke. 140 turbines of enormous size. She wrote to Scott Thomas the general manager of power development with AGL. She said ‘I wonder how you would feel if you and your wife were affected in the same way that we’ve been impacted over the last few months?
This monster is destroying us.’  This is from a health perspective.

Yet it if it weren’t for government subsidies wind power would never ever be cost-effective. Wind turbines are technological and economic white elephants. And of course when the wind doesn’t blow, no electricity. They’re expensive and inefficient. And they are unhealthy. Now the wind industry itself is proof that there are unhealthy because wind companies are paying people to put these wind turbines on their property and then sign them to secrecy.

Listen to this letter which came to me. One contract, quote, can’t tell you who the poor bugger was, because he would get blown away, but the contract says this the landholder, he’s had to sign up, this is in his contract. The landholder acknowledges and agrees, that it accepts the noise impacts which the landholder also agrees will not cause him or her nuisance. And agrees that he or she will not make any claim, objection or complaint and releases the developer from any claim of liability. The bloke doesn’t know what to do. Wind turbine renewable energy – this is Pink Batts, the Building the Education Revolution and NBN  altogether – and yet, nothing is being done. Tony Abbott has to scrap this stuff immediately.

Well, you then get the AMA on March 18, releasing a position paper on wind farms. The AMA do you mind, no listed authors. No information that has anything to do with health research. But the AMA supporting wind farm development applications, and there’s been an outcry from across the world. A South Australian Doctor, Dr Gary Hopkins, has 30 years experience as a physician. He wrote to the AMA – quote – ‘I am rendered speechless by your irresponsible, ill researched, ill advised and reckless statement that those who might suffer physical effects from the presence of wind turbines, are suffering a psychological condition, anxiety. Your very statement itself causes anxiety in those likely to be affected.’

This is the AMA, in bed with the wind turbine industry.

And as I’ve said many times if these things didn’t cause ill-health, why wouldn’t we put them in Macquarie Street? Or Parramatta Road? Or Collins Street Melbourne? In Kings Park in the middle of Perth, if they didn’t cause any problems in relation to health? There are people all over Australia are writing to me about this health issue. I don’t know why they don’t write to government, but they’re desperate. They have become refugees in their own homes. In their own land.

The Irish Department of health recently warned people who live near wind turbines that they risk having their health and psychological well-being compromised. The deputy chief medical officer in Ireland said, ‘there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines’ you see, wind turbine syndrome. This is when they’re in earshot of the noise made by these blades as they spin around. And these blades make what are called infra-sound vibrations, and you can’t consciously hear them, but they have an effect on the inner ear. And they cause fatigue and dizziness and headaches and insomnia and all the rest of it.

Yet AGL recently sent, yes in the same AGL from up Gloucester way, sent a letter to 12 medical centres in south-west Victoria, AGL, they are wind turbine vandals too, 12 medical centres in south-western Victoria, in November 2012, the letters have just come to light. I’ve got a copy of it. They’ve informed doctors that there was no evidence of health impacts from wind turbines and that should any patient present with symptoms, that they attribute to AGL’s turbines AGL recommends the doctors tell patients to consult either AGL or the AGL website. The website also indicates that wind turbines have no impact on health. This is a large Australian Company, AGL, attempting to influence medical doctors – and it has  in a significant part of Victoria, violating the privacy of patients resulting in doctors neglecting patient illness and refusing to help sick people. Where is government? Stands by.

Professor Alec Salt is an eminent world authority from the Washington University School of Medicine. In a journal last week, called Acoustics Today, he said the measurement of turbine noise used by the wind industry, and all Australian regulatory agencies was highly misleading as it masked the level of infra-sound. Yet here we have our own AMA stating
that sub-audible infra-sound cannot cause health effects. On the line from Missouri, Saint Louis, Professor Salt. Professor Alec Salt good morning.

Alec Salt: Good morning.

Alan Jones: You’ve got expertise in this field, what do you make of the AMA?

Alec Salt: Their position is – it’s very cleverly crafted words. They talk about whether the health effects are accepted and basically any scientific issue, there is always a degree of acceptance. If you look at either global warming or evolution, there are some people that don’t accept these things. So the point is that, they’re sheltering behind very carefully crafted words. There is good evidence …

Alan Jones: Yes, good evidence, go on.

Alec Salt: Yes there is good evidence, we have good evidence that this sound is definitely picked up by the ear. I mean the sounds that you can’t hear, the infrasounds down to 1 Hz or something, that’s one cycle per second, we know that this is detected by the ear at quite low levels and even though you don’t hear it, it is still stimulating the ear and potentially affecting you in other ways.

Alan Jones: And what does it do to people?

Alec Salt: Well, from our perspective, it may account for the sleep disturbance people have, like thunderstorms wake you up you know even though they are far away, thunderstorms wake people up because it’s the low frequency of the thunderstorm that you’re detecting. So the point is if, they, wind turbines generate a lot of low frequency like this, it’s potentially it’s going through pathways that lead to disturbing of sleep.

Alan Jones: So what impact, I mean does this have, could this have on pregnant women, on children, on the elderly, on neighbours?

Alec Salt: Well obviously if you’re, if you’re disturbing people’s lives there are other symptoms people have – that we think the sound is generating a condition called endolymphic hydrops in the ear and this gives rise to symptoms like dizziness, you feel like you are seasick so there is nausea, mild nausea feeling slightly dizzy and upset. I mean if people are living like that long term, then of course it’s going to be bad for the health.

Alan Jones: Yes. But the AGL, one of the proponents of wind farming here, sends a letter to 12 medical centres in south-west Victoria informing doctors that there is no evidence of
health impacts from wind turbines and tells them what they should do if patients present with symptoms. What would you say to that?

Alec Salt: I’m appalled by it. I mean, basically the medical profession claims the acoustician should be protecting people from these things. So the idea that the medical profession is saying is telling these people to go away, it’s in their imagination, it’s a nocebo effect, all this claptrap that they tell people. I mean, it’s outrageous to be honest. Basically, people should, I mean if you go to a doctor with most other ailments, they will consider it and try to find the cause of the problem.

Alan Jones: Didn’t we have this with tobacco and asbestos where massive amounts of money were made to persuade the world that there were no consequences of tobacco smoking.

Alec Salt: And that’s exactly the problem now that you have a very powerful and well funded industry that is trying to protect their turf, to protect their financial interests. And eventually science will prove what is going on. But it requires scientists who are not affected by the money that’s sloshing around supporting these things.

Alan Jones: Professor Salt, we will leave it there, and I am glad that we have spoken to you, but we may need to speak again.

Alec Salt: OK.

Alan Jones: Can I just say though that I was sent a quote the other day from the novelist Emile Zola, “if you shut up truth and bury it under the ground it well but grow and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.’ And this may well be the fate of those politicians and others who have turned a blind eye to the problems associated with wind turbines, coal seam gas and the lot of it. I don’t apologise for alerting you to these issues. Everyone I meet says ‘well I wouldn’t want to live in a coal seam gas field’, every one I speak to, ‘well I wouldn’t like to live next to a wind turbine’. What do we do as Australians? Just let other people suffer? Not Alan Jones.

011012-Alan-Jones

Trying to correct the misinformation given out by the wind pushers!

Informed farmers coalition to educate farmers on wind turbine projects

Credit:  By: staff | Amboy News Informed | Posted: Tuesday, Apr 8th, 2014 | www.amboynews.com ~~

WALNUT – The Informed Farmers Coalition (IFC), a group of Lee, Bureau and Whiteside county landowners and citizens, is working to spread awareness about wind turbine project development and the adverse effects it may have on these communities. The group is hoping to raise awareness about the Green River and Walnut Ridge turbine projects owned by Geronimo Energy. Geronimo is currently contacting area farmers to sign new contracts with the company. IFC wants to make sure all area farmers understand the facts concerning wind farm development.

“The Informed Farmers have spent the last three years attempting to educate local citizens on the problems and challenges associated with Wind Turbine Developments. In that time more and more information has become available and the public has become more informed. However, turbine developers continue to mislead the public about problems that continue to exist with wind development. That fact, in addition to a renewed effort to reach new landowners by a subsequent buyer of two local projects, causes us to renew our efforts to make sure the citizens of our local community are informed,” said Kendall Guither, IFC spokesperson.

Many families are speaking up and sharing their personal experience with a wind turbine project near their home. Ted Hartke is a landowner who learned the hard way that the benefits do not outweigh the hardships. He says his entire family has been negatively affected by the turbines on their property.

“I never had any concerns about the wind project being built near my home and had initially thought that the project would be good for my community and my children’s school,” stated Hartke. “But then the turbines turned on and the noise began hurting my wife and kids. Because of wind turbine noise, our entire family suffered major sleep deprivation and then we all began developing health problems. My children struggled at school, and my wife and I began having difficulty with our memory and ability to concentrate and function at work.”

There are both health and financial risks involved in allowing a wind turbine to be built on one’s property. It has been reported that noise and shadow flicker from the turbines can cause sleep deprivation, vertigo, stress and nausea. The financial risks can include the cost associated with decommissioning, damage to a farmer’s land and the increased cost of spraying pesticides.

The IFC urges landowners to contact them to discuss these issues as well as many more associated with these turbines. A concerned farmer should also discuss the pros and cons with their friends and neighbors as well as have an attorney look at any contract before signing.

For more information please contact informedfarmers@yahoo.com or consult the website http://www.wind-watch.org.

De-programme your kids when they come home from school….

Schools “climate-brainwash” children, reveals report (United Kingdom)

Apr 9, 2014

school

.
Editor’s note
:  If you’re not familiar with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), you’re missing out.  Click here for their statement, “Who we are.”  Clickhere for their Board of Trustees.  And here for the Academic Advisory Council.

Basically the GWPF is a group of former high level U.K. government officials, Members of Parliament, and a host of scholars from heavy-weight universities, worldwide, who are alarmed at the hysteria and brainwashing being orchestrated by energy corporations (read:  Wall St. banks) who have much to gain.  (Note:  The GWPF does not accept money from any energy company or donor representing the interests of an energy company.  In other words, it is not a front for Big Oil or Big Wind or Big Nuclear, or Big Anything for that matter.)

The GWPF does not deny climate change; indeed, its members cover the entire spectrum, from those who are convinced it’s chiefly human-caused to those who think the whole thing is moonshine.  Listen carefully to what I’m saying:  The GWPF is insisting on real science, not agenda-driven science.  It is insisting on rational decisions, not “climate dogma,” as we chart our future.  Their goal is to tone down the rhetoric, strip ideology out of climate science, and remove the corporate financial agenda and government power-grabbing from the whole climate conversation.

As a retired professional historian, I agree.  History is loaded with paroxysms of mass hysteria about one “belief system” or “cause” or “noble ideal” after another — with results that were always disastrous.  That’s not all:  Someone always got very wealthy and powerful from championing that noble ideal or doctrine or to-kill-for worthy cause.  Someone always morphed into a tyrant and became completely corrupt, and did incalculable damage, from being the “savior-in-chief” of humanity — whatever the issue du jour.

I warn you:  Don’t let this happen!  I see the GWPF as a sane voice in the gathering madness of “Oh my god, the earth is about to incinerate as a result of human misbehavior, and governments and corporations and schools need to do something about it, NOW!”  This is a recipe for dictatorship.  Tyranny.  Big Brother.  Totalitarianism.  The likes of which humanity has never seen.

Anyhow, the GWPF has just issued a stunning document on how children in British public schools are being brainwashed (greenwashed) about global warming.  Again, I caution you:  The GWPF is not taking a position “yea” or “nay” on global warming; it’s stripping the discussion of junk, agenda-driven science, corporate interference, and political opportunism and imperialist ambition.

“Imperialism”?  Yes, as with natural gas fracking becoming a weapon, a tool of public policy over who supplies Eastern Europe, especially the Ukraine, with fuel.  When matters of empire, politics, ideology, or corporate profit enter the debate — be it wind energy, fracking, solar power, oil, nuclear — science and reason immediately become corrupt and, frankly, dangerous.  Readers of this blog have witnessed this aplenty in the wind energy uproar — rife with ideologically-driven science and medicine.

greenwash
.

“Climate Control:  Brainwashing in Schools”

— by Andrew Montford & John Shade
.
_ (Click here for PDF of the report, here for its appendices, and here for a link.)

Children are being treated as political targets by activists who wish to change society in fundamental ways. This is unacceptable whether or not they are successful — from the Introduction, p. 10.

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body — John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.”

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read.  The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think.  The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling — Thomas Sowell, “Inside American Education.”

.
Foreword
 by Professor Terence Kealy, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham

Politicians and political activists have always wanted to control the schools, for obvious reasons. St Francis Xavier of the Jesuits may or may not have said ‘give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man’ but too many politicians have wanted the child until he or she is seventeen, just to make sure.

In this impressive paper Andrew Montford and John Shade have shown how effectively eco-activism appears to have captured our schools’ curriculums. It is of course true that the greenhouse effect is based on good physics, but even better physics recognises that the globe is a complex system and that many different effects – not just the greenhouse effect – will influence the climate. And since we cannot yet model the world’s climate with confidence, we must be suspicious of the certainty with which eco-activists seek to influence the schools’ curriculums.

Eco-activism is, as Montford and Shade have shown, only the most recent example of attempted curriculum-capture by political activists, so we need to construct institutions to protect the schools from such capture. Montford and Shade have invoked the horrible examples of education under the communist regimes of Eastern Europe or China, and in so doing they point the way to the only solid future – democracy.

Educational researchers such as EG West (Education and the State, 1965) and James Tooley (The Beautiful Tree, 2009) have shown how the nationalisation of the schools in England and Wales during the 19th century was a mistake, which neither increased the expenditure per pupil nor fostered social justice – it only handed the schools over to John Stuart Mill’s ‘dominant power in government.’

But the nationalisation of the schools is now effectively irreversible, so how can we protect the curriculum within it? One harbinger is provided by the UK Statistics Authority, which is funded by government but which reports not to a minister but directly to Parliament. Thus its independence is optimised. Perhaps we now need a Curriculum Authority, reporting to Parliament via a select committee, because by its nature a legislature can foster a wider range of views than can the executive branch of government.

In the meantime, let us echo the call from Montford and Shade for an independent review of our current climate curriculum, because if – as the title of their paper suggests – schools are indoctrinating rather than educating, we have a problem.

.
Executive summary

We have found examples of serious errors, misleading claims, and bias through inadequate treatment of climate issues in school teaching materials. These include many widely-used textbooks, teaching-support resources, and pupil projects.

We find instances of eco-activism being given a free rein within schools and at the events schools encourage their pupils to attend. In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think. In some instances, we find encouragement to create ‘little political activists’ in schools by creating a burden of responsibility for action on their part to ‘save the planet’, not least by putting pressure on their parents.

The National Curriculum has recently been reviewed by the government, but the proposed changes seem unlikely to prevent such practices.

Surveys show that many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate.

Teachers and administrators have a fairly free hand to choose textbooks, other materials, visiting speakers and school trips for pupils provided they fit in with curricular goals. This raises the risk that some may select alarming and politi- cally loaded sources in order to win children over to the ‘environmental cause’. This ‘cause’ is often presented through the notion of ‘sustainability’, a poorly- defined catchword covering political and personal actions for which funda- mental criticism is rarely entertained.5 Many campaigning NGOs and other organisations with vested interests such as energy companies proffer teach- ing materials and other resources for use in schools. Some of it is presumably being used.

There are clear grounds for very serious concern. We therefore call upon the Secretary of State for Education and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to undertake urgent inquiries into climate change education in our schools. Only a systematic evaluation of what is going on can determine the extent of the indoctrination as well as the emotional and educational harm to pupils that is undoubtedly resulting.

 

 

Wind Industry not a “safe bet”!

Wind Power “Investors” and Retailers – Enter Contracts at your own RISK

panicked crowd

Wind Industry hits the panic button.

With the Coalition’s RET Review Panel sharpening their axes the wind industry and its parasites have descended into a disorderly state of panic.

For the very first time the industry’s wild and unsubstantiated claims about CO2 emissions reductions; its ludicrous claims about being “competitive” with conventional generation sources; and nonsensical claims about having minimal impact on power prices come under the microscope.

Faced with imminent obliteration, the industry’s chief spin doctors – the Clean Energy Council – has been working overtime in the last few weeks pumping press releases to print journos and doing the rounds on radio and TV. Mind you, it’s only the “friendlies” in the green-left dominated Fairfax/ABC outlets that are still naive and gullible enough to suck-up the CEC’s twaddle about the “wonders” of wind power – in the same way that kiddies hang on to their belief in Father Christmas – long after they’ve worked out the bloke on the red suit is really uncle Ted.

The CEC’s spin masters have been pleading for mercy – pressing for the retention of the current 41,000 GW/h annual mandatory target.

Central to its case is the claim that the “uncertainty” created by the RET review has choked off investment by creating “sovereign risk”.

The industry – and the CEC that spruiks for it – seem to think that the words “sovereign risk” are some kind of magic spell and a complete defence against regulatory change.

From their point of view, government (read taxpayer and power consumer) largesse can only ever be a one-way street. Once the gravy train rolls, it would be a manifest injustice to those on board to ever bring it to a halt.

Here’s a great little piece from the Financial Post to the contrary.

Lawrence Solomon: North America slow to reverse renewables projects, but its turn will come soon
Financial Post
4 April 2014

Europe taught us to spare no expense in supporting wind and solar projects, the better to help the planet survive. Now Europe is teaching us how to tear down those same projects, the better to help ratepayers, and politicians, survive.

UK Prime Minister “David Cameron wants to go into the next election pledging to ‘rid’ the countryside of onshore wind farms,” the London Telegraph announced this week. He intends “to toughen planning laws and tear up subsidy rules to make current turbines financially unviable – allowing the government to ‘eradicate’ turbines,” the goal being to “encourage developers to start ‘dismantling’ turbines built in recent years.”

Cameron will have no shortage of methods in taking down the now-unpopular wind turbines — in recent years countries throughout Europe, realizing that renewables delivered none of their environmental promises, have been systematically cutting their losses by ditching their renewable commitments. Here’s Spain, unilaterally rewriting renewable energy contracts to save its treasury. And France, slashing by 20% the “guaranteed” rate offered solar producers. And Belgium, where producers saw their revenues slashed by as much as 79%. And Italy and others, which clawed back through taxes the gross profits that renewables companies large and small were raking in at the expense of average citizens and the economy as a whole.

North America has been slow in systematically recognizing the damage wrought by renewable megaprojects but its turn will come soon enough, possibly among the 30 U.S. states with onerous renewable mandates, possibly among the Canadian provinces. No citizenry would more benefit from reversing the wind and solar gravy train than Ontario’s: Its developers have received up to 20 times the market rate of power, leading to a tripling of power rates and a gutting of the province’s industrial base, and helping to turn Ontario into a have-not province.

North America’s politicians have at their disposal all the methods employed in Europe to undo the odious arrangements voters find themselves in. Those squeamish about the optics of unilaterally ripping up a contract with the private sector can consider more genteel methods of skinning the cats.

Ontario’s property tax system, for example, allows for numerous residential and industrial tax classes, among them farms, forests, and pipelines. The provincial government could add wind and solar to the list, and then let local governments set whatever tax rates the local councillors, in fulfillment of the democratic will of their constituents, deem just. Given the view of many rural residents toward their windfarm neighbours, councillors will swiftly ensure a just end, sometimes by deterring new installations, sometimes by speeding their dismantling, sometimes by using the extra revenues to compensate victims.

Penalties also provide a mechanism for clawbacks. When Syncrude Canada’s lack of foresight led to the death of 1600 birds, it was fined $3-million, or $1875 per bird. Wind turbines kill birds in large numbers — according to a study in Biological Conservation, between 140,000 and 328,000 per year in the U.S. At $1875 per bird, the fine would be between $262.5-million and $615-million per year.

But governments need not feel squeamish about forthrightly shredding deals they enter into with private sector companies. Contracts are sacred when inked between private parties — if one party transgresses, the other has recourse to the law. But only those in fantasyland should expect a contract to be sacrosanct when one party to the transaction makes the law.

The Ontario Court of Appeal said as much when a major wind developer, Trillium Power Wind Corporation, objected when the provincial Liberals, to win some seats in the last election, abruptly changed the rules of the game. Trillium sued for $2.25-billion in damages on numerous grounds. According to an analysis by the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, the Appeal Court all but laughed Trillium out of court.

The Appeal Court noted “that not only was it ‘plain and obvious’ but ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ that Trillium could not succeed in its claims based on breach of contract, unjust enrichment, expropriation, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and intentional infliction of economic harm,” Osler stated. The only part of Trillium`s claim that could proceed was based upon misfeasance in public office, which would require proving that a public official knowingly acted unlawfully to harm Trillium.

Can the government break a contract for political purposes? Yes, says Osler. The Appeal Court, in fact, “made it clear that proponents who choose to participate in discretionary government programs, such as Ontario’s renewable energy program, do so primarily at their own risk. Governments may alter the policies that underlie a program, and may even alter or cancel such programs, in a manner that may be fully lawful and immune from civil suit.”

Renewable developers take note: Governments are entirely within their rights in going back on a deal. In a democracy, when the deals are not only inspired by rank politics but are also so odious as to outrage the voters, developers should expect nothing less.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.
Financial Post

When a system or policy is unsustainable it will inevitably fail or be scrapped.

In the current climate the wind industry can expect no sympathy from a Coalition government which has, quite rightly, signalled its intention to make businesses stand on their own 2 feet.

The Coalition’s response to pleading from the motor manufacturers, Ford and Holden, for yet more $billions in taxpayer subsidies – a firm and decisive “NO” – Coca-Cola got the same treatment in its efforts to secure a fat pile of taxpayers’ cash to compensate it for its mismanagement of the SPC Ardmona fruit cannery – gives a pretty fair indication of its attitude to rent seekers.

And that’s what the wind industry has been reduced to – rent seekers – well, OK, that’s all they’ve ever been.

Having already pocketed more than $8 billion in RECs – a Federal Tax on all Australian electricity consumers and a direct subsidy to wind power generators – these boys have the audacity to plead a “special case” to maintain the current RET in order to receive a further $50 billion plus worth of RECs over the next 17 years.

But the real risk attached to the mandatory RET is to the Australian economy as a whole. In recent memory Australia enjoyed the lowest electricity prices in the world – now it suffers the highest.

Manufacturers, industry and mineral processors have closed their doors as input costs – particularly electricity – have soared in the last decade.

The unemployment figures released this week saw significant improvements in all of the mainland states, except South Australia – where unemployment rose from 6.7% to 7.1% – giving it the highest level of unemployment among the mainland states by a substantial margin (Western Australia’s rate is 4.9% – down from 5.9%).

Thanks to the fact that around 40% of SA’s (notional) generating capacity is in wind power, South Australian households and businesses are paying the highest power prices in Australia, if not the world (see the league table at page 11 here: FINAL-INTERNATIONAL-PRICE-COMPARISON-FOR-PUBLIC-RELEASE-19-MARCH-2012 – the figures are from 2011 and SA has seen prices jump since then). As to why SA pays the highest power prices in the world see our posts here and here.

Once upon a time SA enjoyed cheap reliable sparks and manufacturing and industry flourished there (see our post here). Now – with already crippling and escalating power costs – it’s a case of the last man out please turn out the lights.

None of these matters will be lost on the team hand-picked by Tony Abbott for the RET review.

If the motor manufacturing industry – directly employing around 4,000 with thousands more in the component making sector got short shrift from the Coalition – the wind industry – employing a handful and costing power consumers $billions in subsidies annually – is unlikely to find much sympathy from either the RET review panel or the Coalition.

In the current climate, anyone looking to do business with wind industry rent seekers – bankers or retailers, say – ought to heed the old buyer’s warning: caveat emptor.

Danger-Enter-At-Your-Own-Risk-Sign