Unreliable, Unaffordable, Unwanted Wind Turbines…They’ve got to go!

Parker Gallant Uncovers the Hidden Costs of Ontario’s Insane Wind Power Policy

turbines ontario

Ever tried to imagine hell on earth?

Ever imagined a nightmare turned to reality?

Then you’ve probably landed in Ontario.

Ontario is the place where the most bizarre energy policy in the world has seen thousands of giant fans speared into the backyards of homes – in the most agriculturally productive part of Canada. When we say “bizarre” we mean completely bonkers.

Canada has one of the “cleanest” power generation mixes on the planet, with the vast bulk of its electricity coming from zero emissions sources such as nuclear and hydro.

Ontario energy mix 2013

As Professor Ross McKitrick explains in this post, Ontario has built a policy that sees wind power (when the wind is blowing) “displace” emissions free hydro at enormous cost to power consumers and taxpayers.

And then there’s the colossal human impact of plonking thousands of turbines as close as 550m from hundreds of homes (see our posts hereand here).

image

Adding to the lunacy is the fact that wind power outfits are guaranteed to reap fat profits despite market conditions.

Where the wholesale market price for power in Ontario is between $30-50 per MWh, wind power generators pocket a fixed price of $135 MWh – even if there is absolutely no market for it and the Province literally has to pay neighbouring US States to take it.

Parker Gallant – a former banker – is out to ensure that Ontario’s power consumers and taxpayers are aware of just how ludicrous its energy policy has become.

Parker Gallant: the cost of curtailing wind is borne by all

Parker has been busy letting everyone know about the the hidden financial costs of Ontario’s wind farm fever.

Late last year the Ontario Energy Minister said that the cancelling a gas plant would cost the people of Ontario no more than the price of a cup of “Timmies”: coffee brewed up by Canada’s favourite coffee franchise, Tim Horton’s.

A few weeks back, during a windy weekend, Ontario was “blessed” with an abundance of wind power – which – on the first pass – cost it $135 per MWh in guaranteed payments to wind power outfits. But – because what was produced was excess to requirements – Ontario’s taxpayers were stung a second time for the cost of paying New York and Michigan and Quebec to take it.

The total cost was hardly small change – whether measured in cups of coffee or hard cold cash. Here’s Parker doing the sums.

Another expensive weekend, thanks to Ontario wind farms
Parker Gallant
7 October 2014

On the weekend just past, October 4 and 5, wind turbines in Ontario once again proved they can produce lots of electricity—when demand for power is low. At the same time, they drove down the hourly Ontario electricity price (HOEP) and played a role in generating lots of power that was then exported to our neighbours at a substantial cost to Ontario’s ratepayers.

Total demand for electricity on October 4 was 393,816 MWh (megawatt hours); 18.1% (71,328 MWh) of it was exported. In the process of exporting the HOEP generated a negative “weighted average price” of minus 32 cents a MWh. Ontario paid our neighbours to snap up our excess power which presumably included all of wind’s production of 32,958 MWh. Ontario’s ratepayers picked up the tab which for wind power alone ($135.00/MWh + .32 cents = $135.32 MWh) was $4,459,877.

Sunday, October 5 wasn’t much better: total demand was 379,656 MWh and 66,408 MWh (17.5%) was exported at a negative “weighted average price” of minus $2.64 a MWh. Wind production for that day was 30,359 MWh and we must assume it again played a role in driving down the HOEP. So, those wind exports alone cost Ontario’s ratepayers $4,181,649 ($135/MWh + $2.64 = $137.24 MWh).

Ontario ratepayers picked up the tab of approximately $8.6 million for those two days. That $8.6 million would be equivalent, to paraphrase our Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, the price of a “Timmies” coffee for Ontario’s 4.6 million ratepayers.

If one also includes the $7 million or so that the other 75,000 MWh exported cost it becomes two “Timmies”! Add in the price of the steamed off power from Bruce Nuclear, payments to the gas plants for idling, to OPG for the Atikokan biomass plant and their spilled hydro, to the NUG (non utility generators) contracted parties, the weekend probably hit the ratepayers with total costs well over $20 million.

If that happened every weekend the cost would be equivalent to the cost of moving a couple of gas plants! Lots and lots of Timmies.

When will Ontario’s Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli wake up and smell the coffee?

This story was also picked up Sun News – aptly describing Ontario’s wind turbines as a money pit. Here’s an interview between journalist Jerry Agar and Parker Gallant, that was aired on October 8. The transcript follows…

**********

Jerry Agar: So over the weekend, this one just past it was proven in Ontario, that by golly those big wind turbines can pump out some power so Parker Gallant is here. So this is all good news?

Parker Gallant: Well not really Jerry, no because when they were pumping….

Jerry Agar: Are you going to be grumpy about this?

Parker Gallant:  I am, that’s my usual ploy isn’t it?

Jerry Agar: I see.

Parker Gallant: Yes they were pumping out out the power, but we didn’t need it so that meant we had to export it. As a result of that it drove down the wholesale price so we were paying New York and Michigan and Quebec to take our excess power.

Jerry Agar: I see, so when we export power – we don’t sell it, we pay people to take it from us.

Parker Gallant: You’ve got it.

Jerry Agar: Are we making it up in volume – I mean – how exactly does that make any sense?

Parker Gallant: It doesn’t make any sense and that’s certainly been my efforts is to make the Ministry of energy aware of that. We shouldn’t be handing out any more wind turbine contracts because we don’t need the excess power.

Jerry Agar:: Well what was the point of even producing power then?

Parker Gallant:  Well, there was a lot, believe it or not, there was a lot of wind turbine developers in that same weekend, that were paid for not producing power. That’s on top of those that were paid for producing the power.

Jerry Agar: Just a minute, I want to add this up. We were paying people not to produce power then we were producing power and we were paying people to take that power.

Parker Gallant: You’ve got it.

Jerry Agar: All right. This from the government that spent $1 billion not building a power plant.

Parker Gallant: That’s right, or moving a power plant.

Jerry Agar: Yes, yes. Now the government got re-elected.

Parker Gallant: I know. Its unfortunate but.

Jerry Agar: We live in a world we could never have imagined.

Parker Gallant: No we can’t.

Jerry Agar: So then what’s the addiction to these wind turbines if in fact they were pumping out power, and they were reducing our cost because hey they turn around and around for free apparently with wind power, it would all be great.

Parker Gallant:  it would be yeah, but we don’t offer, we don’t get competitive contracts. We just simply say we are going to pay you $135 a MWh four 13 1/2 cents per kilowatt hour
if you throw up a wind farm. You know that makes…

Jerry Agar: So for the producers it’s a no lose situation.

Parker Gallant: It’s a no lose situation. Exactly. They get paid whether they produce power or they don’t produce power as long as that wind turbine up, and they don’t actually produce power,
they still get paid.

Jerry Agar: But we don’t need the power. So what are we building them for?

Parker Gallant: Well, I don’t know. Perhaps to green the province, to save the planet from climate change. I mean that seems to be the objective.

Jerry Agar:  Its ideological?

Parker Gallant: Yes it’s very ideological.

Jerry Agar: Because it’s certainly not economical.

Parker Gallant: No it doesn’t make any economic sense and of course they never did a cost benefit analysis.

Jerry Agar: There is another issue here. Do you give credence to those people who actually say that living next to them is damaging?

Parker Gallant: Oh definitely. I’ve met people that have lived next to them and are forced to move out of their homes. There is a percentage of the population – there was a study just came out of the UK I believe that says that a certain percentage of the population will be affected by the infrasound, the noise that we can’t hear, that’s emanating from these wind turbines throughout the province.

Jerry Agar: It doesn’t bother everybody?

Parker Gallant: No it doesn’t bother – its like (sea sickness) …

Jerry Agar: So I’d go and it would bother me but it wouldn’t bother you.

Parker Gallant: That’s correct. Yes. There’s a percentage of the population, so 5 to 15% that will be affected. Autistic children are very much at risk when they live near a wind turbine.

Jerry Agar: Really?

Parker Gallant: Yes.

Jerry Agar: Okay but there’s never any consideration. This government  has, I would use the word foisted these things on communities. They haven’t even asked the community. They haven’t even had the deference to go to the Mayor – much less the local citizens.

Parker Gallant: No. That’s true. The Green Energy Act gave the provincial government all the powers to be able to put these wind turbines up no matter where, just as long as they meet the setback requirements and you know the minimum standards that they set under the Green Energy Act.

Jerry Agar: There are more being built. Construction of a giant wind turbine project in Huron County will go on. The judge denied the work stoppage proposed by local residents.

Parker Gallant: The judge did not grant the stay that the citizens had brought to stay motion before the courts to basically stop the construction. But there is still an appearance that will be coming up in the Superior Court of Ontario. So that means that if the citizens win in the Superior Court, the developers will have to remove and decommission those wind turbines. So why they’re taking the chance is beyond me, except maybe they get them in before the cold weather season hits.

Jerry Agar: You know, this is one of those situations I believe where the mass of the population in urban areas here in Toronto, where you and I are right now, love these things, because they love that greenie idea, but they don’t live next to them.

Parker Gallant: No they don’t. Well a lot of people in the green movement will say “Oh we live next to one” because there is one at Exhibition Place.

Jerry Agar: The thing barely turns.

Parker Gallant: It barely turns and it doesn’t provide any power. And it’s mostly all…

Jerry Agar: Not hooked up? A show thing?

Parker Gallant: It’s sort of hooked up. It really is a show thing. If you go back …

Jerry Agar: And nobody lives there anyway.

Parker Gallant: Yes, no, right.

Jerry Agar: All right. But if they went and stuck one right next to one of the condo buildings, although I don’t know if you will be able to fit one in now in down town Toronto. They will feel differently about it.

Parker Gallant: Yeah, I thought they should mandate putting 49 metre blades on top of the buildings that they’re allowing to be built here. The condo buildings. And maybe we could generate some power because they would be way up there in the higher atmosphere and….

Jerry Agar: And then your condo could just jiggle you to sleep. That would be nice. All right, thanks very much.

Parker Gallant: Well thank you Jerry.

Jerry Agar: I don’t know if you made us feel better but thanks for the information.
Sun News

Toronto turbine at Exhibition Place

Parker then knocked up this spreadsheet itemising the total cost of paying neighbours to take Ontario’s excess wind power.

Ontario’s expensive electricity week: what could $44M have bought?
Ontario Wind Concerns
13 October 2014

Blowing Ontario’s ratepayer dollars Money lost in just one week could have paid for 580 nurses

So far this October, Ontario’s electricity sector has been blowing our money away at an awesome pace.

Scott Luft, whom I admire for his ability to assimilate comprehensible data, posted on Tumblr some disturbing information about the first 10 days of electricity production (and curtailed production) in Ontario. Because the fall means low demand for electricity, our current surplus energy supply (principally, wind, solar and gas) was curtailed to the extent that it cost ratepayers $20 million, while the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) generated only $8.2 million. That $20 million of curtailment cost will find its way to the Global Adjustment (GA) pot and onto ratepayers’ bills.

I took a different route and looked at the cost of Ontario’s exports for the week of October 3rd to October 9th —those numbers are also disturbing. During those seven days, Ontario exported 399,048 MWh (megawatt hours) which was 15.7% of total Ontario demand. Wind turbines generated and delivered 184,204 MWh, which was surplus to our needs and probably exported. The money generated via the HOEP from all of the export sales was $56,300 or 14 cents a MWh. Wind turbines produced just $15,164 and we sold that production for just 8 cents a MWh.

To put this in perspective, the exported production’s cost all-in (contract value per MWh + regulatory + transmission + debt retirement charge) averaged $110/MWh, according to the latest monthly IESO Market Summary August 2014 report’s findings. Using $110/MWh the 399,000 MWh exported in those seven days hit Ontario’s ratepayers with about $44 million (less the $56,300) via allocation to the GA—that will show up on the electricity line on our bills.

Wind generation alone at the contracted rate of $135/MWh cost ratepayers $24,900,000 plus another $5 to $6 million for their curtailed production, according to Scott Luft. That $30 to $31 million plus the cost of steaming off Bruce Nuclear, paying idling gas plants, etc., and the additional cost of solar generation, would confirm the $44 million is a reasonable estimate.

What has Ontario missed out on by having ratepayers subsidizing those exports by $44 million for those seven days?

  • the annual salary of 293 family physicians, or
    580 nurse practitioners, or
  • repairing all the Toronto District School Board’s school roofs, or
  • one and a half days of interest on Ontario’s public debt, or
  • all of Ontario’s 301 MPP salaries for a full year, or
  • 40 MRI machines, or
  • 100 months of mortgage payments on the empty MaRS Phase 2 building, or
  • increasing funding for autistic children by 30% over current levels.

Just a few examples of how the wasted subsidy money that cost each Ontario ratepayer $10 for just one week could have been used!
Parker Gallant

NAPAW Discusses Low Frequency Noise Testing, & it’s Implications for Wind Industry!

NAPAW: WILL ILFN BE THE “SILENT” INDUSTRY DESTROYER? PLYMPTON WYOMING BYLAW UPDATE

Dear friends,

Please find attached a media release that we would appreciate having wide circulation.

pdf file : media release v 4 plympton wyoming

Word Document file:  media release v 4 plympton wyoming

MEDIA RELEASE

October 16, 2014

BOOKEND HEALTH ISSUES TURBINES: Existing project in Glenmore WI (Brown County) formally declares its Duke’s “Shirley Wind” project a “health hazard”, and Mayor Lonny Napper and council in Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, anticipating several projects, create a revolutionary bylaw that includes ILFN (Infra and Low Frequency Noise) penalties

By Sherri Lange

Plympton Wyoming, Ontario, Mayor Lonny Napper is astonished. “With all the available evidence from around the world about the effects of Low Frequency and Infrasound from industrial wind turbines, it amazes me that the alarms are not sounding earlier and stronger.”

With about 1,000 acres of prime land under lease for turbine development, signed up between willing hosts and developers, this council is fighting to protect its citizens’ health. A new bylaw signed and completed third reading, October 8th, 2014, sets a new and interesting precedent by mentioning and effecting fines for health impairing ILFN. ILFN is well known to be an industrial plague, now exacerbated by industrial wind turbines that plague every corner of the globe, without, as is now acknowledged widely, producing viable, reliable or “green,” energy.

In Glenmore WI, the Health Department in Brown County, almost simultaneously with the efforts of the Mayor of Plympton Wyoming and CAO, Kyle Pratt, and council, declares that the Shirley Wind Project, containing some of the largest turbines in the US, is already the site of an industrial human health hazard.

“On Monday night, the Brown County Board of Health in Wisconsin voted to declare the Shirley Wind Project to be a human health hazard.  The approved motion states:

“To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI. A Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.””

While the State of Wisconsin controls siting of industrial wind, it cannot override or subjugate the “public health hazard” declaration and initiatives. A health hazard, in most jurisdictions, is a condition of high alert, where acute or chronic illness, or death, may occur due to prolonged exposure. The hazard must be reported, and in some areas,mandated abatement must take place.

Mayor Lonny Napper seems to be of the same mind, noting that the Green Energy and Green Economy Act has taken away much democratic decision-making: his council’s bylaw aims to ensure people in his jurisdiction will be protected from turbine related ILFN and the effects that are recorded, sadly, worldwide.

Common effects are from chronic unrelenting noise, sleep disorders, hormone level disruption, increased risk of disease, diabetes, hypertension, depression, heart arrhythmias, and possibly even cancer. (Carmen Krogh and Dr Robert McMurtry recently published a case definition that accepts inner ear disruption, sleep disorders, hypertension, mood disorders, nausea, tinnitus, as part of the presenting complaints combined with proximity to wind turbines.)

“When I took an oath to protect my community, I took it very seriously,” continues Mayor Napper. “The information about what other communities are suffering, disruption, noise, degradation of precious landscapes, seriously divided communities, and to see that this possible devastation is in my full view, for my residents, something has to give.”

Mayor Napper does not understand the delay for protective measures. “People are suffering in other projects. My community is slated for multiple developers and several proposed wind projects. The time for action, and protective measures, has been with us for some time now….we can’t continue to bounce around the same arguments and with no noticeable gain in community health rights. The protection of health is first.”

Lange, of the North American Platform Against Wind Power (NA-PAW) agrees. “We have for some time now sounded the alarm for what amounts to a turbine factory health pandemic: similar effects are reported in communities worldwide. These “factories” operate without the sanction of communities. They operate without fire controls, without any regard for environmental practices, and they certainly override what is now common knowledge about noise: audible, shadow flicker, vibration and Low Frequency and Infrasound, and related air pressure fluctuations, which in combination or separately, are known to extract “torture” on unwilling people/communities.”

Both Mayor Napper and Mr. Pratt, CAO, agree that individual communities need to understand that they can use bylaw powers to protect health as required. “If Ontario communities are having so little jurisdiction to control development of massive electrical producing facilities within their boundaries, the least the council can do is to mediate the devastating health effects already reported and well known to exist, that many feel are sure to happen here.” Mr. Pratt says that he hopes the bylaw will be an example to other councils. Pratt adds, “The Town of Plympton-Wyoming Council has worked hard to protect our residents, and make sure that developers are required to deal with issues and appropriately respond to complaints and requirements from council.”

Adds Lange, “The known effects of infrasound and low frequency noise may well turn out to be the death sentence for a non-performing, entirely subsidy driven, outrage.”

Even the MOE (Ministry of Environment Ontario) admits in 2009 the complex nature of sounds and pressures:

“I went out last night for about 5 hours (got home midnight) and got some real firsthand experience with different types of noise that the turbines can create. The same turbine or groups of turbines could create 3-4 different types of noise and at different magnitudes at different times in the evening all depending on meteorological conditions, time of day, their orientation, and how they readjusted themselves (auto or by manual control – we don’t know) to wind speed and direction. Also I was able to experience firsthand wind shear conditions (no wind at ground but turbines still generating creating noise) and how that plays an important role in noise impacts.”  —Oct. 29, 2009, Bill Bardswick, Director West Central Region, Ontario Ministry of Environment

ORDER TO STAND DOWN

“Ok, message received and understood. Cam [Cameron Hall] and I will  stand down until directed otherwise.”  —Mar. 8, 2010, Gary Tomlinson, Provincial Officer, Senior Environmental Officer, Guelph District Office, West Central Region, Ontario Ministry of the Environment

For more information please contact:

Mayor Lonny Napper

Town of Plympton-Wyoming

546 Niagara Street, P.O. Box 250

Wyoming, Ontario N0N 1T0

Phone: 1 226 307 0523

Napper1@cogeco.on.ca

Kyle Pratt MPA, CMM III, CHRP, CMO

Chief Administrative Officer

Town of Plympton-Wyoming

546 Niagara Street, P.O. Box 250

Wyoming, Ontario N0N 1T0

Phone: 519-845-3939

Toll Free (Ontario): 1-877-313-3939

kpratt@plympton-wyoming.ca

Sherri Lange

CEO NA-PAW (North American Platform Against Wind Power)

kodaisl@rogers.com

416 567 5115

REFERENCES

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/10/13/world-first-ontario-council-includes-infrasound-in-wind-farm-noise-law/

http://www.obwf.ca/industrial-wind-turbines-declared-a-human-health-hazard/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-shirley-wind-project-wisconsin-usa/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/brown-county-ordinance-chapter-38-public-health-nuisance/

http://www.na-paw.org/pr-121207.php

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/definitive-document-wind-turbine-noise-simple-statement-facts-august-2014/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/definitive-document-wind-turbine-noise-simple-statement-facts-august-2014/

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/9/10/wind-energy-power-farms/

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/10/16/board-of-health-declares-wisconsin-wind-farm-a-human-health-hazard/

http://stopthesethings.com/2014/02/14/dr-mariana-alves-pereira-how-to-test-for-the-effects-of-low-frequency-turbine-noise/

file:///C:/Users/Home/Downloads/JRSM_Open-2014-McMurtry-.pdf

Wind is Novelty Energy…..Scrap the Climate Change Act!

UK’s Wind Power Debacle Threatens to Leave Brits in the Dark

Owen-Paterson_323885k

Scrap the Climate Change Act to keep the lights on, says Owen Paterson
The Telegraph
Christopher Hope
11 October 2014

The Climate Change Act 2008, which ties Britain into stringent environmental measures, should be suspended – and then scrapped – if other countries refuse to agree legally binding targets, says Owen Paterson MP

Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week.

Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed.

He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say.

The speech will be Mr Paterson’s first significant intervention in the green energy debate since he was sacked as environment secretary during this summer’s Cabinet reshuffle.

In his address, he will set out an alternative strategy that would see British homes serviced by dozens of small nuclear power stations.

The Climate Change Act 2008, which ties Britain into stringent environmental measures, should be suspended – and then scrapped – if other countries refuse to agree legally binding targets, says Owen Paterson MP

He will also suggest that home owners should get used to temporary power cuts — cutting the electricity to appliances such as fridges for two hours at a time, for example — to conserve energy.

Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet.

In the speech, entitled “Keeping the lights on”, he will say that Britain is the only country to have agreed to the legally binding target of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Campaigners fear that this will bring a big increase in the number of wind farms.

They say that to hit the target Britain must build 2,500 wind turbines every year for 36 years.

Mr Paterson will say that the scale of the investment required to meet the 2050 target “is so great that it could not be achieved”. He will warn that Britain will end up worse off than if it adopted less ambitious but achievable targets. Mr Paterson voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act in opposition and loyally supported it when he was in power.

However, since he left office he has considered the effect of the legislation and has decided that Britain has to change course.

He will argue this week that ministers should exercise a clause in the Act that allows them to suspend the law without another vote of MPs.

In his speech, on Wednesday night, Mr Paterson will state that, without changes in its current policy, large-scale power cuts will plunge homes across the country into darkness.

“Blind adhesion to the 2050 targets will not reduce emissions and will fail to keep the lights on,” he will say. “The current energy policy is a slave to flawed climate action.

“It will cost £1,100 billion, fail to meet the very emissions targets it is designed to meet, and will not provide the UK’s energy requirements.

“In the short and medium term, costs to consumers will rise dramatically, but there can only be one ultimate consequence of this policy: the lights will go out at some time in the future.

“Not because of a temporary shortfall, but because of structural failures, from which we will find it extremely difficult and expensive to recover.”

He will say that the current “decarbonisation route” will end with the worst of all possible worlds.

The Government will have to build gas and coal power stations “in a screaming hurry”.

Britain’s energy needs are better met by investing in extracting shale gas through fracking and capturing the heat from nuclear reactors, Mr Paterson will argue.

He proposes a mix of energy generation based on smaller “modular” nuclear reactors and “rational” demand management. This would see dozens of small nuclear power stations, using reactors that are already fitted into submarines, being built around the country.

Home owners would also have to get used to timed power cuts using special switches that would cut electricity used by appliances.

“Let us hope we have an opportunity to put it into practice,” he will say. “We must be prepared to stand up to the bullies in the environmental movement and their subsidy-hungry allies.

“What I am proposing is that instead of investing huge sums in wind power, we should encourage investment in four possible common sense policies: shale gas, combined heat and power, small modular nuclear reactors and demand management.

“That would reduce emissions rapidly, without risking power cuts and would be affordable. What’s stopping this programme? Simply, the 2050 target is.”

Mr Paterson has spent the past few months visiting rural Tory seats — he visited six in the week after he was sacked by David Cameron in July.

He said he was appalled at the damage to the countryside from new pylons to take electricity from remote onshore wind farms.

This week’s speech will be Mr Paterson’s first intervention since he lost his job in the Cabinet reshuffle in the summer. He is to make another speech on Europe before Christmas as he seeks a more active role on the Right.

Mr Paterson has already set up a think tank called UK2020 to consider new policies on personal taxation, immigration and the economy.

However, his intervention was dismissed last night by Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

Mr Davey said: “Ripping up the Climate Change Act would be one of the most stupid economic decisions imaginable.

“The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change exists while most leading British businesses and City investment funds agree with the Coalition that taking out an ‘insurance policy’ now will protect the UK against astronomical future costs caused by a changing climate.

“The majority of European countries are ready to implement proposals that would see [them] adopt targets similar to our Climate Change Act in a deal the Prime Minister should seal later this month.

“With the USA, China and India also now taking the climate change threat seriously, the global marketplace for green technology is increasingly strong.”
The Telegraph

ed-davey_885751c

Wind Turbine Host, Tells the Truth About the Harm the Do!

Video – Brown Country Wisconsin Wind Turbine Host Speaks Out

Dick Koltz speaks about regretting signing on with a wind developer, and explains the color “green” when it comes to wind developers.

Video from public forum at VanAbles, Town of Holland, Brown County Wisconsin, February 18, 2010, by courtesy of Better Plan, Wisconsin.

Windpushers Need to Prove That They are NOT Harming Residents!

Wisconsin Health Board Puts Onus on Wind Company

OCTOBER 16, 2014

Enz homeAfter a year-long health study, the Duke Energy wind turbine project in Wisconsin was declared a human health hazard. The  Board of Health of Brown County voted to take the action on October 14, 2014, according to JMKraft writing in Illinois Leaks (Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind Farm Declared Health Hazard).

The decision was based on a report of a year-long study conducted by the Enz family to document infrasound in homes within a radius of 6 miles of the Shirley Wind turbines.

The vote to declare it a Human Health Hazard puts Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind utility on the defensive to prove to the Board they are not the cause of the health complaints documented in the study and could result in a shut down order.

According to the Waubra Foundation, the wording of the motion was:

To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County WI a Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.

Proximity of Enz home to 6 turbinesFour different acoustical engineering firms performed the study, “A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin,” which was partially funded by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission.  The technicians recorded readings from several  homes the residents had abandoned (citing turbine emission health impacts).  The results included a statement agreed upon by all four firms – some of whom work for wind turbine developers – that in their opinion, “enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry.”  WWMA summarized the study in a January 2014 post.

Sarah Laurie, of the Waubra Foundation in Australia, noted earlier this year (“Letter to Slovenia re Known Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise” Aug. 11, 2014) that:

Unlike most other products, where prior product safety is established, the wind industry has never been required to show there are no adverse health effects. … [I]n fact the wind industry are well aware of the serious health problems their productsdirectly cause, and indeed that they have known for thirty years.

There are eight 500-foot turbines in the Shirley Wind project.

Nothing Good About wind Turbines….Inefficient, Unreliable & Unaffordable.

Ex-minister attacks green obession at heart of Whitehall: Owen Paterson accuses ministers of raising energy prices for the poor

  • Former Environment Secretary said support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive
  • He called on Whitehall to was to scrap the Climate Change Act
  • Warned claims of impending environmental disaster were ‘exaggerated’
Owen Paterson said  support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive

Owen Paterson said  support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive

The former Environment Secretary attacked a so-called ‘green blob’ at the heart of Government yesterday – accusing Whitehall officials and ministers of raising energy prices for the poor.

Owen Paterson said their support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive.

He said the ‘green blob’ included civil servants and quangos in thrall to the climate change and environmental lobby. He claimed it had blocked him from prioritising shale gas exploration as a more efficient way to secure energy for the future.

Mr Paterson, who was removed as Environment Secretary in July, said the only way to ‘keep the lights on’ was to scrap the Climate Change Act, which requires the UK to use more renewable energy and is backed by civil servants.

He warned claims of impending environmental disaster were ‘widely exaggerated’, and accused a series of energy secretaries – including the Lib Dem incumbent Ed Davey – of being ‘Sheriffs of Nottingham’ by taking from the poor.

He said: ‘It amazes me that our last three energy secretaries, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, have merrily presided over the single most regressive policy we have seen in this country since the Sheriff of Nottingham: the coerced increase of electricity bills for people on low incomes to pay huge subsidies to wealthy landowners and rich investors.’

The former minister also said he was disgusted by rich film stars who fly to Africa to preach against the burning of fossil fuels there. His reference to the ‘green blob’ follows former Education Secretary Michael Gove’s description of the teaching establishment as the ‘blob’.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2794803/ex-minister-attacks-green-obession-heart-whitehall-owen-paterson-accuses-ministers-raising-energy-prices-poor.html#ixzz3GGxIjatq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

In Spite of Propaganda, Bribes, and Outright Lies, Wind’s Favourability is dying!

Commentary by Mark Whitworth, Executive Director of 

Energize Vermont.

Big Wind has a big public relations problem. A new WCAX poll shows public support for wind plummeting from 66 percent in 2013 to 50 percent now.

Wind developers may search for clues about this reversal of fortune in a UVM honors undergraduate thesis written by Neil Brandt. Mr. Brandt says that media coverage of ridgeline wind in Vermont dropped in favorability from 47 percent in 2003 to a measly 26 percent in 2012.

One of Gov. Shumlin’s aides didn’t need a university study to see this: “We are losing the water cooler debate about wind.” This may be why the governor’s talk of renewable energy now emphasizes solar, not wind.

(Of course, if Mr. Brandt were to conduct a similar study of solar, he’d find that poor siting choices are creating a backlash against solar that’s reflected in the state’s media. How long before that shows up in statewide polls?)

In carrying out his ridgeline wind study, Brandt collected 10 years’ worth of relevant news stories from the Caledonian Record, Burlington Free Press and the Associated Press’ Vermont bureau. He broke each of the stories down into individual statements and classified each statement in a variety of ways: who made the statement, what issue it addressed, and did it support or oppose wind.

He identified trends in Big Wind’s media messaging as well as trends in public attitudes.

For example, between 2003 and 2012, Big Wind stopped emphasizing energy independence. The argument must not have been working. Were Vermonters skeptical of the claim that small amounts of electricity produced at random times would make them independent? Was it David Blittersdorf’s pronouncement that he needed 200 miles of ridgeline wind in Vermont?

Brandt says that local economic gain was once the dominant pro-wind theme. Not anymore. Now we know that the wind jobs were temporary. And the good ones went to out-of-state specialists. Heck, even the driver that tipped over his tractor-trailer on his way to Lowell was a specialist from Texas. Any of my neighbors could have driven that truck off the road. I would have been proud to do it myself.

Brandt analyzed coverage of aesthetics. For years, Big Wind has tried to ridicule opponents by calling them NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) who selfishly imperil the planet in order to preserve scenery. Brandt dismisses the NIMBY characterization: “…local opposition to renewable energy development is multi-faceted and based on more than a knee-jerk NIMBY reaction.” Brandt says that aesthetics arguments were prevalent in 2003, but in 2012, only 12 percent of anti-wind statements related to aesthetics.

While aesthetics arguments were falling, human health arguments were rising. By 2012, 33 percent of anti-wind statements involved human health impacts. Interestingly, he found no statements about health impacts from state government. This is not surprising—both the governor and the Department of Health have been missing in action on wind’s health impacts. The department has met with neither turbine neighbors nor the doctors who treat them. But, that hasn’t deterred the department from announcing that negative health impacts result from bad attitudes and are thus the fault of the sufferers themselves.

Big Wind knows that their turbines create ill health because the U.S. Department of Energy told them so. A study conducted for the DoE from 1979 to 1985 investigated complaints of families living near a single 200-foot tall wind turbine. (Picture this pathetic little turbine amidst Lowell’s 459-footers.) The cause of the complaints was found to be infrasound.

Vermont turbines are not monitored for infrasound; only audible noise is monitored. And it’s not monitored continuously. Turbine operators can choose who does the monitoring; they only hire firms that will swear everything is ok. In Vermont, this is easy because the standards are so lax.

Big Wind uses audible noise as a red herring to divert attention away from infrasound. They compare turbine noise to rustling leaves. But neighbors describe turbine effects that cut right through rustling leaves — concussive, more felt than heard. That’s how it is with infrasound.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch. It’s used in conjunction with a technique called “the fallacy of the excluded middle” – the oldest advertising gimmick in the book: Chew Clorets and have lots of fabulous lovers. Don’t chew Clorets and watch Gilligan’s Island — alone.

It’s the same technique that Texas Gov. Rick Perry uses to talk about immigration, terrorism, and Ebola.

Here’s how it goes: If we don’t convert our ridgelines into wind power plants, we’re going to get wiped out by another tropical storm Irene.

Whoa. This proposition excludes more than the middle:

1. We cannot reverse climate change just by reducing our carbon emissions.

2. Climate change or not, next big storm will come; industrializing our ridgelines will only worsen storm damage.

3. Healthy ridgelines are crucial for enabling climate adaptation and survival for a wide range of species. Our best response to climate change is to preserve essential wildlife habitat.

4. If we’re serious about reducing carbon emissions, we should first focus our limited resources on weatherization: bigger payoff, less cost, no environmental destruction, no disasters. No big money for Big Wind.

Do industrial wind turbines reduce carbon emissions? Can they even erase their own carbon footprints? During the last legislative session, one Senate committee entertained a bill that would have required developers to account for carbon emissions over the life of a wind project—from manufacture to decommissioning. Vermont’s leading faux-environmental group opposed the bill, calling it “anti-renewable.” I guess it wouldn’t serve the public interest to question industry propaganda.

Big Wind probably won’t just pack its bags and leave—there’s too much money to be made off Vermonters. The energy independence and economic growth arguments haven’t worked, so Big Wind will make its last stand in Vermont by turning up the heat on climate change.

Be on the lookout for the excluded middle — that’s where Big Wind hides its inconvenient truths.

Anesthesiologist Tells the Facts About CO2. It is NOT the Demon they Pretend!

American Thinker
October 10, 2014
50,000 dot com
By Charles Battig

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…
That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Let’s start a new carbon dioxide (CO2) website. Let’s forget unimaginative and puny sites anchored in the mid 300’s. How about “50,000 dot com”? 50,000ppm to be exact…

That is a really big number in view of claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and buttressed by Federal judges’ non-scientific rulings. If a 400ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is adjudged by such political entities to be an endangerment to human health, a danger to the environment, and an all-round pollutant, then certainly 50,000ppm must be a vicious killer, no?

Well, no. As a physician practicing the specialty of anesthesiology, my training included the details of human respiratory physiology, and knowledge of the movement of the essential gases in and out of my patients’ lungs. A most basic mechanism of human life is the cycle of oxygen in; carbon dioxide out. What is the exhaled concentration of CO2 in your lungs? Physiology texts give a normal range of 4 to 5 per cent. In the climate change nomenclature arena, that would be expressed as an equivalent 40,000 to 50,000 ppm! Imagine that, your own lungs manufacture the EPA-defined pollutant carbon dioxide at levels one-hundred times that of the air we breathe in. Not only do the innermost parts of your body tolerate chronic exposure to this scary EPA pseudo-pollutant, longevity records confirm our increasing lifespan, in spite of this officially labeled, EPA internal CO2 pollution.

The EPA and Federal agencies have bullied automobile producers into producing cars with ever lower carbon dioxide emissions per mile, yet our own bodies consistently produce high CO2 concentrations with each exhalation. Once our regulatory agencies finally learn the details of basic human respiratory physiology, there will be demands that measures be taken to regulate our bodies’ CO2 output. Perhaps mandatory face masks to capture and neutralize our “polluting” CO2 emissions will be decreed. Such breathing apparatus would be rated on its efficiency in capturing bodily carbon emissions; physical exertion would be limited to “safe” levels since greater exertion causes the body to produce more CO2 than sedentary lack of activity. School children are badgered to mind their “carbon footprints.” Who shall break the news to them and their parents that their own precious bodies spew forth this falsely maligned natural product of human life processes?

Alice in Wonderland would have faced a test of her incredulity were she to have read the non-science, non-sense spewing from governmental agencies, environmental radicals, rent-seeking politicians, and the scientifically illiterate regarding carbon dioxide. And yes, Alice, there really has been no global temperature rise for the past eighteen years and counting. Poor old Humpty Dumpty and his climate computer have had a really great fall, and all the Federal agencies and presidential appointees cannot put all his bits and bytes together again. Alice did give us fair warning, though, in her encounter with the Queen of Hearts and the Queen’s rant of “off with their heads.” One prominent spokesman of the “Regressive Party” has been quoted calling for similar punishment for non-believers of their carbon-dioxide climate hoax.

Charles Battig, MD , Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website ishttp://www.climateis.com

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

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

Gerold's Blog

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

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

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

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

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

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem