Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development Declared a “Hazard to Human Health”!

Duke Energy’s Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development a “Hazard to Human Health” Declares Brown County Board of Health

October 14, 2014.

The Brown County Board of Health voted tonight to declare the Shirley Wind Turbine Development a Human Health Hazard.

The decision was based on a report of a year-long study conducted by the Enz family with assistance from Mr Rick James to document acoustic emissions from the wind turbines including infrasound and low frequency noise, inside homes within a radius of 6 miles of the Shirley Wind turbines.

The wording of the motion was as follows:

“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.”

The context is in reference to Brown County Code 38.01 in the Brown County Ordinances, in Chapter 38, relating to Public Health Nuisance (section (b) Human Health Hazard).

“Human Health Hazard” means a substance, activity or condition that is known to have the potential to cause acute or chronic illness or death if exposure to the substance, activity or condition is not abated.

The vote to declare it a Human Health Hazard now puts Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind Development 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.

Read the Brown County Ordinances – http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_c581ca2d560f/?department=e4cd9418781e&subdepartment=3810f83bcbd2

Additional Background Information

In January 2012, the Brown County Town Board of Health called for emergency state aid for families suffering near wind turbine developments.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/emergency-aid-sought-for-families-suffering-around-wind-turbines/

The Duke Energy Shirley Wind Development was also the site of the December 2012 Cooperative Acoustic Survey by Acoustic consultants Schomer, Walker, Hessler, Hessler and Rand.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/co-operative-measurement-survey-analysis-low-frequency-infrasound-at-shirley-wind-farm/

On 21st January, 2013, the Wisconsin Towns Association Board of Directors adopted a resolution that the Wisconsin State and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission should enact a moratorium to“stop the permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies are done, solutions are found, and the State’s wind siting rule (PSC 128) is modified to implement standards that address ultra-low-frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines that will protect the health and safety of residents”. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wisconsin-towns-association-resolution-enact-moratorium-wind-farms/

As Dr Paul Schomer pointed out in his conference paper in August 2013, Duke Energy chose to refuse to cooperate with the request from the acoustic consultants conducting this groundbreaking cooperative acoustic survey to participate in “on off” testing.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schomer-et-al-wind-turbine-noise-conference-denver-august-2013/

Mr Rick James, Noise Engineer, gives some detail about some of the acoustic testing in Wisconsin which he has conducted in his opening statement of evidence to the Bull Creek appeal in Alberta Canada in November, 2013 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/james-richard-r-opening-statement-nov-18–2013-bluearth-project-bull-creek-alberta/

Dr Jay Tibbetts is a local medical practitioner with first hand experience of treating wind turbine noise affected residents in Brown County, including from the Shirley Wind Development, and he shared his experiences in his letter to the Australian AMA in March 2014.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/tibbetts-dr-jay-j-md-appalled-at-ama-statement/

Information from impacted residents

Wind turbine host Dick Koltz speaks candidly about what his experiences were as a wind turbine host in Brown County, Wisconsin and openly expresses his regrets to signing up with the wind developer. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-brown-country-wisconsin-wind-turbine-host-speaks-out/

There is additional testimony about the experiences of numerous families in Brown county living near the Shirley Industrial Wind Development here:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-shirley-wind-project-wisconsin-usa/

A Brilliant Explanation, of the Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals….

A Father and Daughter Discussion

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal
Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of
higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words,
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that
she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she
felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how
she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many
college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked , ‘How is your friend Audrey
doing?’ She replied, ‘ Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are
easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She Is
so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited
to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for
classes because she’s too hung over.’

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s
office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’ The
daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired
back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really
hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard
work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played
while I worked my tail off!’

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to The
conservative party.’ If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between conservative and Liberal I’m all ears.

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on,
this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat..
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have
a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Windweasels Using “Faux-green Shills”, to Scream for Subsidies….Useful Idiots!

The Wind Industry Pays “Green” Groups $millions to Chant for More Subsidies

Pied_Piper

A little while back, the good Senator from Victoria, John “Marshall” Madigan launched an Exocet missile at the seedy world of hard-green-left politics and the wind power outfits that fund the Australian Greens (seeour post here).

The Greens have been particularly coy about where the hundreds of thousands of dollars used to fund their last Federal election campaign (including the rerun of the West Australian Senate election) came from. The key beneficiaries of that fat pile of corporate cash have been lunatics like Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator from South Australia. Sarah set out to crush SA’s favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon but, in the result, she was lucky to sneak over the line herself. Nick (a true STT Champion) – who ran as an independent candidate – polled a snicker under 25% in the South Australian Senate race (beating the Labor Party’s vote of 22.7%) – an all-time record for an independent Senator.

But, we digress. Since the launch of Vestas’ “Act on Facts” campaign in June last year it was evident that the Greens “fortunes” had – mysteriously – improved (see this article and see our post here). Since then the Greens have been very keen to “sing” for their supper. Recently, it’s come to light that the billionaire founder of wotif.com, Graeme Wood has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Green’s coffers. And, just like Vestas, is looking to use the Greens to advance his wind farm interests, proving that the Greens truly are the best party money can buy.

Paying $millions to so-called “green” politicians and astro-turfing propaganda outfits like the WWF (see our post here), Getup! and 350.org (see our post here) has become a central wind industry strategy: if you’re a foreign owned company worth $billions, with no political credibility and rolling in mountains of (other peoples’) cash, why not pay a bunch of slick little political manipulators to plead and beg to governments on your behalf?

It’s a strategy employed around the globe: the US providing just another example of the tangled web woven by wind industry rent-seekers. Here’s an American take on the mother of all scams.

Wind Cronies Funding Anti-GOP Attack Ads Through LCV: Seeking Tax Subsidies as Their Reward
Daily Surge
Roberto Escoban
8 October 2014

Republicans in targeted Senate races are finding themselves under attack from millions of dollars in attack ads from the League of Conservation Voters (LVC). Seen as anti-business, the LVC has a new ally that has opened their pocketbooks in a big way to support their efforts — the wind energy industry.

Wind power is inefficient, kills endangered birds at alarming rates and relies on taxpayer handouts and subsidies to survive. One of the subsidies is a tax credit that has been described as a “Wall Street wolf in green clothing.” Most of the tax benefits goes to big investors to offset tax liabilities on their other investments. Warren Buffet, for instance, admitted he invested in wind farms to lower his tax rates. “That’s the only reason to build them,” he said.

The tax credit expired in the last Congress but the Democrat Senate is prepared to renew it. That’s why the wind power industry has become tight allies with LCV. For instance, Tom Kiernan, the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) sits on the board of LCV and currently serves as Treasurer.

Peter Mandelstam also sits on the board of LCV. Mandelstam served for 13 years on the Board of American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and chaired AWEA’s Offshore Group for 7 years. Mendelson even founded his own wind energy company, Green Sail Energy in 2012.

The incestuous relationship between wind power industry and the LCV doesn’t end there.

Theodore Roosevelt IV, the Managing Director at Barclays Capital for Investment Banking and Chairman of their CleanTech Initiative sits on the board of LCV too. Barcalys provided the financing for the Cape Wind offshore wind farm.

Flush with cash and the help of the cronies who rely on the tax credit to profit, LCV and AWEA have launched ads in the Iowa and Colorado Senate races attacking Republican candidates and supporting Democrat candidates eager to keep the flow of taxpayer funds moving to these enterprises.

It should be noted that when Tom Kiernan became the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) saying he wanted to strengthen ties between conservationists and the business community.

Kiernan wrote in The Huffington Post, “For my entire career, I’ve sought to strengthen the ties between conservation and the American business community, because a strong environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. Wind power has enormous potential to reduce humanity’s overall footprint on the environment and the planet.”

Kiernan does not talk about how LCV has become a front for the corporate effort to extend a tax benefit that does little to help the environment and a lot to help Wall Street investors pocket more money. AWEA’s top priority is “keeping the production tax credit” because “the political climate in Washington is getting tougher.” He has spent nearly $3 million so far lobbying to get the job done.

If you live in a state with a targeted Senate seat and see one of these LCV attack ads, it would be prudent to remember the cronies priming the pump to put these ads on the air.
Daily Surge

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal

Climate Alarmists are Looking Rather Foolish, as the Earth Cools Down……

Global warming scare declared over

Source: WND  agw-earth

‘Past time to stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat’

Scientists and others on a team assembled by the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which focuses on free-market solutions to today’s problems, say the “scare” of global warming from the use of carbon fuels and other human activities “is over.”

It’s “past time” for the world to realize that and “stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat,” contends Kenneth Haapala, the executive vice president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project at the Heartland Institute.

Institute experts said Thursday the Remote Sensing Systems, which provide data to NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation, have confirmed “the global mean surface temperature has not risen for 18 consecutive years.”

“This extends the so-called ‘pause’ in global warming to a new record, one not predicted by the climate models of the United Nations’ International Panel on Climate Change,” the organization said.

Craig Idso, senior fellow in environment for the Heartland Institute and co-editor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a counterpart to the IPCC, said that to “the world’s climate alarmists, atmospheric carbon dioxide is a dangerous trace gas, and for years, they have been insisting its increase will raise global temperatures and wreak havoc upon Earth’s climate and biosphere.”

“Yet, despite a 9 percent increase in CO2 over the past 18 years, there has been no rise in global temperature,” he said.

“Think about that. Over this time period the air’s CO2 content has risen some 40 parts per million, which represents fully one-third the total global CO2 increase since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, yet contrary to model projections, planetary temperatures have failed to rise,” Idso said.

Idso said it’s “time for global warming diehards to face the facts.”

“Stop denying the models have got global temperature projections wrong. Stop denying CO2 has a lower climate sensitivity than you have been claiming. Stop denying the societal benefits of continued fossil fuel use. It’s not too late to make a course correction and support sound science,” he said.

James Taylor, the institute’s senior fellow for environmental policy, said, based on the latest results in the climate studies, that the “ongoing 18 years without any warming strongly contradict alarmist predictions of global warming doom-and-gloom.”

“According to nearly all of the United Nations’ computer models, this lack of warming could not occur,” he noted. “The real-world climate proves the alarmist computer models overstate the warming properties of carbon dioxide. Even when Earth resumes its modest warming, which it likely will at some point in the next couple of decades, the pace of warming will continue to be quite modest and beneficial to human welfare and global ecosystems.”

Haapala dinged the federal EPA over the issue.

“The EPA claimed that carbon dioxide emissions are pollutants that endangers human health, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on this planet. Green plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis to create the food plants and animals need to survive. The EPA stated that it based its finding on three lines of evidence. These lines of evidence do not exist, or no longer exist. They are: (1) a distinct human fingerprint in the atmosphere over the tropics; (2) late 20th century warming was unusual; and (3) climate models predict that human-caused warming would become dangerous to humans in the 21st century. No one, including the National Academy of Sciences, has been able to find the distinct human fingerprint except those who falsely claim such a warming is uniquely human-caused,” he said.

“Late 20th century warming stopped about 18 years ago. Climate models cannot explain why, even though, according to the White House, federal expenditures on climate science and programs to fight global warming/climate change amount to about $22.5 billion a year. There is no scientific reason to assume significant warming will occur in the future from human carbon dioxide emission.”

Haapala said it’s “past time to stop the madness of wasting great sums of money on EPA’s imaginary threat to human health.”

Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, pointed out that the established criteria of global-warming alarmists shows their models are not reliable.

“In 2008, the NOAA ‘State of the Climate’ report specified exactly what observations would indicate whether the models are reliable or not: Fifteen years of no warming. In 2009, climate scientist Phil Jones agreed, telling a colleague in one of the leaked Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried,’” Harris said.

“Having just passed 18 years with no warming, the criteria, as set by alarmists themselves, is now satisfied. The global warming scare is over,” Harris said.

H. Sterling Burnett, research fellow at the institute and managing editor at Environment & Climate News, said this year’s high school graduates “were raised to believe in and fear something that stopped happening before they were born.”

“Growing Antarctic ice sheets, increased greening of the earth, more walruses and polar bears than at any time since the beginning of the 20th century, fewer hurricanes and tornadoes, only a modest sea level rise, longer life spans and better overall health … if these are the terrors of global warming, I’ll have more please.”

James Rust, retired professor of nuclear engineering at Georgia Tech, said there have been dozens of “explanations” for the “pause in global warming – most claiming heat is hidden somewhere in the ocean.”

“These claims are fiction, as was the claim by a British meteorologist in 2001 that children today, in 2014, would never witness snow,” he said.

Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot, said the evidence simply shows carbon dioxide is not the “overriding driver of the climate.”

And meteorologist John Coleman said it’s time to get over it.

“There has not been any significant man-made global warming in the past, there is none now, and there is no reason to expect any in the future,” he said. “The computer models that predicted the warming have failed to verify. There has been no warming in 18 years. The ice at the poles is stable. The polar bears are increasing. The oceans are not rising.”

Mischa Popoff, institute policy adviser, said, “Here we are in 2014 and there has been no global warming for the past 18 years.”

Alan Caruba of the National Anxiety Center said that after 18 years of observing no increase in average global temperature, it’s bad enough that the IPCC and it’s defenders won’t concede they were wrong, and the media won’t report it.

“But the worst of this 18-year anniversary of the lack of warming is the fact we have a president, a secretary of state and others in the Obama administration who continue not only to proclaim warming – now called climate change – but suggesting that it is the greatest threat to the nation and the world,” he said. “The absurdity of this should hold them up to ridicule, but these pronouncements are published without criticism.”

He said the current cooling cycle Earth is experiencing will continue for many years to come.

The cause, he said, is “nothing more mysterious than our sun – which is, itself, in a natural cycle of lower radiation.”

“As always, nature, not man, will have the last word.”

Just days ago, WND columnist Lord Monckton wrote: “Worldwide, the liarists – growing ever more desperate as the Great Pause grows ever longer – are taking up the cry that The Models Were Right All Along But The Warming Has Gone Into Hiding, Really And Truly It Has, With Knobs On, Cross My Heart And Hope To Die, So There.

“Just one problem with that. The catastrophist clique no longer entirely controls the scientific journals. It tried to, but it didn’t get away with it. In addition to ‘The ocean ate my global warming,’ the scientific journals contain a host of recent papers giving between them no less than 25 – yes, 25 – mutually incompatible explanations of the Great Pause.”

One year ago, Cairo saw its first snow in 100 years. Oregon, like several other states, reached its coldest temperature in 40 years. Chicago saw its coldest days ever, and – as if to add finality to the trend – Antarctica reached the coldest temperature ever recorded anywhere on earth.

The holes in the theory have been documented. For example, London’s Independent newspaper declared at the turn of the millennium “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The report quoted David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, long considered an authoritative resource for global warming research, as saying snow would soon be “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he claimed at the time.

But the authoritative reputation of East Anglia was seriously downgraded in 2009 when leaked emails proved researchers there were engaged in a major scheme to manipulate and suppress evidence against global warming, misconduct London’s Telegraph newspaper called “the worst scientific scandal of our generation.”

The rhetoric and predictions of global warming acolytes have been every bit as confusing in the United States, with former vice president and carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore telling an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” And his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.

Well-known scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project which to date has gathered the signatures of 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

They say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plan and animal environments of the Earth.”

Robinson, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Cal Tech, where he served on the faculty, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-recipient Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

He told WND that weather does change over time and that the global system goes through cycles, some slightly warmer and some slightly cooler than others.

Right now it’s cooler, he said.

Be Sociable, Share!

Intelligent people Know the Climate Agenda is an Unaffordable Waste of Time and Resources!

Owen Paterson To Call For Suspension Of UK Climate Change Act

power-lines-ukBritain 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. 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. –Christopher Hope, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2013

It is safe to predict that no speech made by a British politician this week will be more surprising or significant than that to be delivered by Owen Paterson, a senior Conservative, who was sacked from the Cabinet last July for being too good at his job. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014

The high cost of energy could drive companies out of the UK, according to the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation.  The EEF claims that the projected 50 per cent rise in electricity prices by 2020 would harm British manufacturing. The warning follows research from the EEF which shows that rising energy costs would lead to a quarter of manufacturers considering investment overseas. —Yorkshire Post, 13 October 2014

The very idea that an advanced economy such as ours faces an energy crisis within the next few years should attract the most urgent attention of our political leaders. Yet we appear to be drifting into a situation of great seriousness because they are all wedded to unrealistic decarbonisation targets that none seems willing to revisit. Owen Paterson has begun a debate that cannot be shut down simply because it raises some difficult political questions. If this is not gripped now, then the next government, of whatever stripe, will need to explain to the country why they could have prevented the lights going out, but didn’t. –Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014

EU leaders face difficult negotiations to agree a package of climate change targets for 2030 at an end-of-October summit, with coal-reliant Poland leading objections, sources said on Friday. “The European Council will agree on the 2030 climate and energy policy framework for the European Union,” said the draft prepared for the bloc’s 28 member state leaders. But the question of “burden sharing” is central to actually closing a deal, a European source said, with sharp differences between those dependent on fossil fuels, such as Poland, compared with France and Britain which favour nuclear, and Germany which is looking towards renewables. Poland’s new prime minister, Ewa Kopacz, said earlier this month that her coal-reliant country would not rule out vetoing the high carbon cuts. —AFP, 10 October 2014

Forget QE, surely the precipitous oil price decline in the last couple of weeks will finally give the down-trodden European economy the big boost it needs. After three years of prices north of $100 a barrel, surely a big cut in Europe’s energy bill will provide a stimulus effect that Mario Draghi could only dream of? I’m afraid not. Why? Europe is overwhelmed by taxation, subsidy, over-capacity and green incentivisation plans that have conspired to make hydrocarbons a dirty and expensive source of energy. –Steve Sedgwick, City A.M., 7 October 2014

Canadian Nuclear Association claims wind energy isn’t green

By John Miner, The London Free Press

Samsung's South Kent wind farm seems to surround the 401 looking west from Kent Bridge Road. Mike Hensen/The London Free Press

Samsung’s South Kent wind farm seems to surround the 401 looking west from Kent Bridge Road.

I’m green and you’re not.

​The battle to be embraced as the best environmental choice for Ontario’s electricity supply is getting down and dirty.

Fed up with the wind farm sector enjoying what it considers an undeserved reputation as a pristine energy supplier, Canada’s nuclear industry has launched a public relations assault against wind.

“Wind power isn’t as clean as its supporters have claimed. It performs unreliably and needs backup from gas, which emits far more greenhouse gas than either wind or nuclear power,” said Dr. John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, in an email to The Free Press.

The Canadian Nuclear Association hired Toronto-based Hatch Ltd., a global consulting an engineering firm, to compare wind farm and nuclear energy.

Hatch reviewed 246 studies, mostly from North America and Europe,.

Their 91- page report released last week concludes that wind energy over the life time of an installation produces slightly less green house gas than nuclear and both produce a lot less than gas-fired generating plants.

But Hatch says it is an entirely different picture when wind energy’s reliance on other generating sources is considered.

The engineering firm calculates wind turbines only generate 20% of their electrical capacity because of the times when the wind isn’t blowing.

When gas-fired generating stations are added into the equation to pick up the slack, nuclear produces much less green house gases, the Hatch study concludes.

Its analysis is for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced nuclear power emits 18.5 grams of greenhouse gases. Wind backed by natural gas produces more than 20 times more – 385 grams per kilowatt hour.

“We wanted a real-world, apples to apples comparison of how nuclear, wind and natural gas power plants generate greenhouse gases while producing electricity,” Barrett said.

The nuclear industry attack on wind might not be a welcome message for the Ontario Liberal government that has justified its multi-billion dollar investment in Southwestern Ontario wind farms on the basis it is providing green energy.

But it is a position that resonates with Ontario’s anti-wind farm movement.

“We share their concerns on this issue and have been speaking about this for years. We have taken advice from engineers in the power industry, who say that wind power cannot fulfill any of the environmental benefit promises made for it, because it needs fossil-fuel backup.,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario.

On the other side of the debate, the Canadian Wind Energy Association said it has had an opportunity to review the Hatch study.

It said there is no surprise that when wind and natural gas generation are paired that the mix creates more greenhouse gases than nuclear. But when wind is paired with other potential electricity suppliers the results are different.

“Realistic, alternative scenarios see wind energy partnered with hydroelectric power, varying mixes of emerging renewable energy sources like solar energy, and the use of energy storage and demand side management.

“Unfortunately, by choosing to focus on only one scenario, the study failed to consider a broad range of equally or more plausible scenarios for the evolution of Canada’s electricity grid.

CanWea also argues wind energy is cheaper than new nuclear, is cost competitive with new hydroelectric development and is not subjuect to the commodity and carbon price risks facing natural gas.

“We are confident that no potential source of new electricity generation in Canada better addresses these multiple objectives than wind energy,” CanWea said in a statement.

As for the natural gas industry, it points out that it is much better for the environment than burning coal or oil for power.

“It can substantially reduce Ontario’s carbon footprint and is the ideal complement to intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar for power generation,” says the Ontario Natural Gas Alliance.

Canadian Nuclear Association arguments against wind power

  • a wind turbine usually produces only 20 percent of its potential power. If a turbine can physically produce up to one megawatt (MW) of electricity, then it typically turns in one-fifth of that, or 200 kilowatts (kW).
  • because we don’t have big-enough batteries yet to store electricity from wind turbines, the power company needs to get the other 800 kW from somewhere else, like a gas plant.
  • in Ontario, power demand is highest during the day, and in the summer. But the wind blows mostly at night, and in the winter and spring. By its nature, wind power finds itself out of step with power demand

How Ontario’s electricity was produced by fuel type​

2013

Nuclear: 59.2%

Hydro: 23.4%

Gas: 11.1%

Wind: 3.4%

Coal: 2.1%

Other: 0.8%

Oct. 13, 2014 at 8 a.m.

Nuclear: 65.8%

Hydro: 24.6%

Wind: 5.9%

Gas: 2.7%​

john.miner@sunmedia.ca

Plympton-Wyoming’s Proposed By-Law, To Protect Their Citizens from Noise & Infrasound!

Infrasound in Wind Farm Noise Law

when-is-wind-energy-noise-pollution

The most common source of complaint from those unfortunates forced to live next to wind farms is the incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound generated by giant industrial wind turbines: turning a quiet night in into an occasion of acoustic torture (see our post here); and destroying many a good night’s sleep (see our post here).

But the low-frequency noise and massive air pressure fluctuations generated by giant fans have never been part of any noise standard or regulation for wind farms.

The noise standards – written by the wind industry – rely on the dB(A) weighting and, therefore, deliberately ignore the vast bulk of the sound energy produced by turbines – which pervades homes as infrasound and in frequencies that cause sleep deprivation and other adverse health effects (see our post here).

The idea of “testing” for the impacts from turbine noise and vibration without including infrasound and low-frequency noise is completely bonkers. Dr Mariana Alves-Pereira – who has been studying low-frequency noise impacts with her research group for 30 years, certainly thinks so (see our post here).

The standards not only ignore infrasound, but the South Australian EPA’s noise guidelines even ludicrously assert that infrasound was a feature of earlier turbine designs that is not present at “modern wind farms”. SA’s EPA – despite being incapable of following its own guidelines when it came to noise testing at Waterloo – managed to find infrasound present inside neighbouring homes at a very modern wind farm, that started operation in 2010 (see our posts here and here).

For a great little summary on wind turbine generated infrasound and its adverse affects on health, check out this video of Professor Alec Salt laying it out in clear and simple terms:

****

****

Given the work of Professor Salt (outlined in the video) and Steven Cooper’s findings at Cape Bridgewater (see our post here) the need to mandate the proper measurement of turbine low-frequency noise and infrasound as part of any reasonable noise standard is simply common sense.

The direct link between very low-frequency turbine noise, sleep disturbance and annoyance was well and truly established by Neil Kelley & Co over 25 years ago (see posts here and here and here). And the wind industry knew all about it (see our post here).

But, the wind industry has steadfastly refused to be regulated by science, common sense or, especially, by any form of human decency (see our post here). Danish fan maker, Vestas went so far as to lobby the NSW Planning Department to remove any reference to low-frequency noise from its draft noise guidelines – as well as the entire section on human health – with Vestas stooge, Ken McAlpine admitting that: “the existing and well validated industry standard models for acoustic propagation are NOT designed to deal with frequencies at the low end of the audible spectrum” (see this article and our post here).

The wind industry’s approach to noise regulation can wrapped us as follows:

But – for the first time since the great wind power fraud kicked off – low-frequency noise and infrasound is about to appear on the wind farm noise regulation menu.

In Ontario, the lakeside county of Lambton has been speared with hundreds of giant fans. With turbines lobbed 550m from homes – wind farm neighbours have been slaughtered by turbine noise and vibration (see our post here). Locals there have been hammering their political betters for a better deal – and the Plympton-Wyoming Council has stopped to listen – introducing the kind of noise regulation that the wind industry has fought tooth and nail to avoid all over the globe. Here’s The Independent reporting on a win for common sense and human decency.

New bylaw will hold turbines companies to keep it down
The Independent
8 October 2014

Plympton-Wyoming’s proposed wind turbine noise bylaw is going where no regulation has gone before.

Council has given first and second reading to a bylaw which regulates the amount of noise coming from industrial wind projects. Council asked staff and the municipality’s lawyers to come up with the bylaw since much of the concern about the project has to do with the potential health effects of the noise coming from the turbine.

Clerk Brianna Coughlin says much of the regulation set out in the bylaw meets standards already set by the provincial government. “We can’t go beyond that,” she says.

But Plympton-Wyoming is going to hold the wind energy companies to a new standard. “The only difference (from the provincial standards) is the bylaw has mention of infra-sound which not regulated by the province right now,” says Couglin.

Infrasound is inaudible for most people but can be perceived by other senses and it is measurable according to some experts says Couglin.

Under the bylaw, if a resident complains about infra sound, the municipality would hire an engineer qualified to take the measurements before laying a charge.

Under the proposed bylaw, fines – if a company is found guilty – can range from $500 to $10,000 per offence and could exceed $100,000 if the offense continues. The municipality could also recoup the cost of the specialized testing under the bylaw.

Plympton-Wyoming Mayor Lonny Napper says that while Suncor Energy (which is developing the Cedar Point project in the municipality) has yet to comment on the inclusion of infrasound in the bylaw, he thinks it is necessary.

“We think it is our obligation to look after the health of the people,” he says. “You just can’t make rules and not cover everything.”

And he believes the proposed fines are appropriate. “It’s no worse than polluting,” he says.

Council will get another look at the bylaw Wednesday. Couglin says council could decide to hold a public meeting to get input or it could pass it without public comment that evening.

Meantime, the municipality also introduced a bylaw which would see Suncor provide a letter of credit for the value of the scrap metal for the turbines instead of providing a deposit.

The bylaw would also see Suncor pay building permit fees of nearly $300,000 for the 27 turbines it plans to erect near Camlachie.
The Independent

wind farm noise

World-wide Energy Poverty Worsens, as Governments Enforce Unaffordable Energy Policies

Video: why renewables equal death

energy_poverty

Videographer Paul Budline writes:

First, pardon the overwrought subject heading.  But I would like as many people as possible to see a 5-minute piece that I just finished.  It focuses on the unintended consequences of marchers demanding an end to fossil fuels.
It’s obviously shot on a shoestring and relies heavily on stock footage, but it’s an important topic:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSugIzPGa5I

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

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

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

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

Paul Driessen speaks to some of those concerns.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

Paul

We need some regulatory patriotism!

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

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

Paul Driessen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________

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