Residents of Slovenia Looking for Protection from Wind Turbines!

August 13, 2014 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

Letter to Slovenia re Known Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise

Mr Diego Loredan, Chairman,
Ms Katarina Dea Zetko,

Civil Initiative for the Protection of Seno žeška Brda

I have been asked by Ms Katarina Dea Zetko to write to you, concerning the proposals to site large industrial wind turbines, 130 metres high, sited as close as 800 metres to homes in rural Slovenia. You are welcome to use this letter to educate others, and to make it publicly available.

In my opinion, based on my first hand knowledge of what has happened to wind turbine neighbours in Australia and elsewhere internationally, this is a recklessly irresponsible and dangerous plan and will inevitably result in serious adverse health effects for citizens of Slovenia who are neighbours of such turbines, out to significant distances. This is happening around the world, and I know of no reason why Slovenian citizens will not have the same adverse health impacts being reported internationally.

Breaches of UN Convention Against Torture

Decisions made by public officials to approve such an unsafe development, or to allow a development to continue to operate in spite of directly causing adverse health consequences such as sleep deprivation and “sensory bombardment from noise”, could be held to be breaches of the UN Convention Against Torture. Both “sleep deprivation” and “sensory bombardment from noise” have been acknowledged as methods of torture by the Physicians for Human Rights. TheUN Committee Against Torture has also specifically acknowledged that sleep deprivation is used as a method of torture.

The Committee against Torture (CAT) has noted that sleep deprivation used for prolonged periods constitutes a breach of the CAT, and is primarily used to break down the will of the detainee. Sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory and cognitive functioning, decreased short term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression.”

Consequently, behaviour by public officials including specifically elected politicians and public servants in Slovenia, such as approving such a dangerous development, or allowing a wind development to continue to operate, whilst knowing that the turbines are causing adverse health effects from sleep deprivation and sensory bombardment with noise could be held to be a breaches of the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, which I note Slovenia is a signatory to. Article 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture states:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Background

By way of background, I am the CEO of the Waubra Foundation, which is a not for profit charity, established in Australia in 2010, to advocate for independent multidisciplinary research to investigate the reported health problems being reported by people exposed to infrasound and low frequency noise. Sources of that environmental noise include machinery used in coal mining, turbines used in gas fired power stations, compressors used in refrigeration units and field compressors used in extraction and transportation of gas, as well as industrial horizontal bladed wind turbines. I have worked full time, pro bono for the Foundation since July 2010.

My previous occupation and professional training was in rural general practice, where I worked as a medical practitioner in rural and remote environments in Australia.

I have been accepted to give expert evidence in legal tribunals on this subject in both my own country, Australia, and Canada, and have given evidence at multiple parliamentary inquiries in Australia. I have been involved in facilitating multidisciplinary research and acoustic data collection in Australia, and have been actively collaborating with concerned health practitioners, researchers and acousticians internationally for four years.

What Distance Is Safe?

We don’t know.

The necessary research has not yet been done. 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. It will become evident, below, that in fact the wind industry are well aware of the serious health problems their products directly cause, and indeed that they have known for thirty years.

Clinically, we know the impacts of chronic sleep deprivation and chronic stress increase over time with cumulative exposure. These effects from exposure to excessive environmental noise especially at night are very well known, and have been the subject of numerous reports from the World Health Organisation.

We also know that serious adverse health effects including chronic severe sleep deprivation are being reported by residents living up to 10km away from 37 VESTAS V 90 wind turbines (approximately 130 metres from tower base to blade tip) located along a ridge top in Australia, at Waterloo Wind Development. At that location, I am personally aware of the occupants of five households who have either permanently left their homes, or are forced to leave regularly in order to regain their health, some under the instruction of their treating health professionals, who have included local general practitioners (family physicians) or cardiologist. The turbines have been operating almost four years.

We also know that as wind turbines become more powerful power generators (taller towers and longer blades) that their sound energy shifts down to lower frequencies, below 200 Hz. As Danish Professor Henrik Moller pointed out in his paper in 2011, this will predictably cause more “annoyance” symptoms for the neighbours. Therefore a larger buffer distance will be required, if larger wind turbines are used, in order to protect people’s physical and mental health and sleep.

We also know that when wind turbines are sited too close together, with insufficient inter turbine separation distances, that this will increase the generation of infrasound and low frequency noise from upwind bladed wind turbines, and will therefore additionally increase the adverse health effects from “annoyance” symptoms, including repetitive sleep disturbance, which are directly caused by the infrasound and low frequency noise.

The recommended inter turbine spacing separation distance to minimize the generation of turbulence, accepted by acousticians based on aeronautical engineering knowledge has historically been 5 – 8 rotor diameters. The three sites in Australia where population noise impact surveys have been conducted have all had almost all inter turbine separation distances significantly less than the recommended 5 – 8 rotor diameters. Those surveys are at Waterloo 15 (by Mrs Mary Morris), at Macarthur 16 (by Mrs Anne Schafer) and at Cullerin Range (by Mrs Patina Schneider). This may partly explain the number of reports of sleep disturbance from the operating wind turbines, and the distance of impact.

This distance of 10km for reported acoustic impacts is consistent with my knowledge of the acoustic impact zone, from individual residents reports to me, which resulted in our Explicit Cautionary Notice in June 2011 with a ten km suggested buffer zone between wind turbines and homes. Since then, residents who have become sensitized to these frequencies have reported they are noticing impacts out to 17 – 20 km and in some instances even further, particularly at night, when they are downwind, when there is heavy cloud cover, or very cold air and a temperature inversion effect, and where there are multiple wind turbines. These are all acoustic and weather factors long known to acousticians to facilitate sound energy propagation. The residents’ reports are consistent with this knowledge, yet most of the residents (who are generally farmers) have no backgound knowledge in acoustics – they simply report what they experience and the wind and weather conditions at the time.

I note that one of the acoustic consulting firms environmental assessment for a recent wind project proposal in Australia has acknowledged a distance of 10km from cumulative impacts. Marshall Day Acoustics in their report for RATCH re the Mt Emerald wind development have recently referred to 10km in the context of cumulative impacts from other wind developments, and they are now specifically referencing infrasound and low frequency noise. In section 5.6 they stated in their section “review of cumulative impact” (my emphasis in red):

“Separate wind farm developments that are in close proximity to each other have the potential to impact on the same receiver. It is therefore necessary to assess any potential cumulative noise impact on receivers, where such circumstances exist

We understand that there are no other wind farm developments currently planned or operating within 10km of the proposed MEWF. On this basis, cumulative impacts of noise from more than one operating wind farm are not considered further.”

The existence of adverse health effects including repetitive sleep disturbance out to 10km has therefore been specifically confirmed with three population impact surveys conducted in Australia at the Cullerin Range, Waterloo and Macarthur wind developments, which were all presented as evidence in the Cherry Tree legal case in Victoria in October 2013. In that case, the two tribunal members specifically acknowledged the existence of adverse health effects including sleep deprivation in their comments, despite eventually approving the development, “because it was government policy”. In their orders in April 2013, they stated:

” 116 There is evidence before the Tribunal that a number of people living close to wind farms suffer deleterious health effects. The evidence is both direct and anecdotal. There is a uniformity of description of these effects across a number of wind farms, both in south east Australia and North America. Residents complain of suffering sleep disturbance, feelings of anxiety upon awakening, headaches, pressure at the base of the neck and in the head and ears, nausea and loss of balance.

117 In some cases the impacts have been of such gravity that residents have been forced to abandon their homes.

118 On the basis of this evidence it is clear that some residents who live in close proximity to a wind farm experience the symptoms described, and that the experience is not simply imagined.”

The 2012 Waterloo survey by Mrs Morris submitted to the Cherry Tree Tribunal hearing was accepted as the only Australian research included in the recent National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) 2014 Systematic Literature Review. The other surveys, conducted in an identical manner by Schneider and Schafer for the Cherry Tree case were not completed in time for the NHMRC nominated cut off date for inclusion in its review (September, 2012), although that rule was inconsistently applied in the final NHMRC Literature review document.

Whilst there are serious concerns about the NHMRC 2014 Literature Review, with respect to the misclassification and exclusion of relevant studies, the 2014 NHMRC systematic literature review did concede that there is research evidence of sleep disturbance / deprivation, “annoyance” symptoms and poorer quality of life in wind turbine neighbours.

Conflict of interest issues concerning a number of members of the NHMRC literature review panel have been identified, and remain unresolved. It would appear these conflicts of interest have indeed had an impact on some of the decisions made by that panel, particularly with respect to directing that certain research should not be considered by the literature review authors.

These conflicts of interest are a serious matter, and were exposed in Parliament by two Federal Senators; Senator John Madigan and Senator Chris Back, who are both directly well aware of the adverse health effects experienced by wind turbine neighbours in Australia.

Other supportive relevant evidence, professional opinions and affidavits used in legal proceedings relating to the distance of impact issue are listed in Appendix 1, at the end of this letter.

Knowledge of Direct Causation Of “annoyance” Symptoms FromILFN in the 1980s

Dr Neil Kelley’s research funded by the US Government in the 1980’s, performed in collaboration with multiple research universities and institutes including two separate branches of NASA and aeronautical faculties established a direct causal relationship between wind turbine generated impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise and what were called “annoyance” symptoms, which included repetitive sleep disturbance and body vibrations.

The direct causal relationship between these frequencies and annoyance symptoms was later confirmed in a laboratory study, which Dr Neil Kelley reported to the American Wind Energy Association conference in 1987. This research resulted in a significant change to the design of horizontal axis wind turbines from downwind bladed to upwind bladed, in order to prevent or minimize the generation of these frequencies, because of their known, established, adverse health effects.

Subsequent research by NASA researchers Shepherd and Hubbard in 1989 established that the new upwind bladed wind turbines could also generate surprisingly elevated levels of infrasound and low frequency noise, when the incoming air was turbulent. Turbulent air is inevitable when wind turbines are sited too close together, hence the critical importance of ensuring sufficient inter turbine separation distances of at least 5–8 rotor diameters, mentioned previously.

However, as you know, from experiences already reported by neighbours to turbines in Slovenia, a single smaller wind turbine can cause the generation of infrasound and low frequency noise, particularly as the blade passes the tower, so one turbine can be enough to cause serious health problems for neighbours who become sensitized to the lower frequency sound energy, if it is sited too close.

Are “Annoyance” Symptoms The Same As “Wind Turbine Syndrome”?

I am aware that Dr Nina Pierpont has already written to you on this subject and confirmed that in her opinion, “Wind Turbine Syndrome”, long denied by the wind industry and some of its vocal supporters in Public Health to exist, has the same symptoms as “annoyance” symptoms, which were reported by Dr Neil Kelley’s research participants, and which have been long known to acousticians working particularly in the area of low frequency noise.

These symptoms were listed by Dr Pierpont in her study and the executive summary, and include sleep deprivation, along with a variety of other disabling symptoms such as severe nausea, vertigo, tinnitus, body vibrations, anxiety symptoms, and numerous other symptoms documented consistently by the various researchers and medical practitioners who have treated these people, which also include physiological stress symptoms.

There are an increasing number of health and acoustics professionals and researchers with direct knowledge of the severity of the reported health problems who are also using the phrase “Wind Turbine Syndrome” to describe the symptoms. These include most recently Dr Colette Bonner, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for Ireland, and Dr Steven Rauch, Harvard Medical School Professor, and Director of the Massachussets Eye and Ear “Clinical Balance and Vestibular Centre”. Dr Rauch was recently reported in an article as follows:

Dr Steven Rauch, an otologist at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, and a professor at Harvard Medical School, believes WTS is real. Patients who have come to him to discuss WTSsuffer from a “very consistent” collection of symptoms, he says. Rauch compares WTS to migraines, adding that people who suffer from migraines are among the most susceptible to turbines. There’s no existing test of either condition but “nobody questions whether or not migraine is real.”

“The patients deserve the benefit of the doubt,” Rauch says. “It’s clear from the documents that come out of the industry that they’re trying very hard to suppress the notion of WTS and they’ve done it in a way that [involves] a lot of blaming the victim.”

I note that British Acoustician Dr Geoffrey Leventhall who consults extensively for the wind industry, has acknowledged that these symptoms of “annoyance” caused by exposure to environmental noise, are identical to the symptoms of “wind turbine syndrome” and further, that the symptoms have been known to him for years. This view is reinforced by the contents of the Literature Review written by Dr Leventhall for the UK Government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in 2003.

I have heard Dr Leventhall acknowledge this specific point that the “annoyance” symptoms are identical to “wind turbine syndrome” symptoms in a presentation he gave, via video link, to a workshop run by the National Health and Medical Research Council, in June 2011 in Canberra. The link to the presentation and powerpoint presentation are available on the National Health and Medical Research Council’s website.

So, to summarise, the key points so far:

1. There is agreement amongst the leading Acoustician used by the wind industry, and a growing number of medical practitioners, including senior government medical practitioners and leading clinicians that “Wind Turbine Syndrome” symptoms exist, and are caused by wind turbine acoustic emissions, and that they include sleep disturbance.

2. There is research from 30 years ago which established a direct causal relationship between acoustic emissions in the infrasound and low frequency noise range and “annoyance” symptoms including sleep disturbance.

3. Sleep disturbance, if prolonged, will lead to chronic sleep deprivation.

4. The clinical consequences of sleep deprivation are well known, are deleterious for both mental and physical health, and have been well documented in the research literature including the WHO.

5. Sleep deprivation is acknowledged as a method of torture, which the UN Convention against Torture prohibits, under any circumstances, even in war, and the order of a superior cannot be used to excuse culpability for allowing it to occur, or to continue. Criminal sanctions apply.

Recent acoustic survey research by Australian independent acoustician Steven Cooper, commissioned by wind developer Pacific Hydro, and conducted in collaboration with three households at Cape Bridgewater in Victoria, has provided further confirmation of the work by Dr Neil Kelley. The preliminary results of this work are publicly available on Pacific Hydro’s website, and are explained in a recent media article by Australian journalist Graham Lloyd. In the case of one research participant, there was 100% accuracy with her predictions about whether or not the turbines were operating, based on her perceptions inside the home.

This resident is partially deaf, and like others, has become progressively more sensitized to the emissions, over the five years the turbines have been operating.

What About The Wind Industry Assertions About The “Nocebo Effect” Causing the Symptoms?

This recent Cape Bridgewater evidence from research commissioned by Pacific Hydro, conducted by Steven Cooper, and that of the US Research in the 1980’s led by Dr Neil Kelley (well known for thirty years to the global wind industry), are in direct contrast to the unproven assertions by the wind industry and some of its vocal supporters that a “nocebo effect” is responsible for the symptoms being reported by the residents. A nocebo effect can be summarized as the assertion that publicity about the symptoms is itself causing them.

As Australia’s National Health and Research Council’s recent Systematic Literature Review acknowledged, there is no research evidence (collected from the residents reporting the symptoms), to support a “nocebo effect” being responsible for the resident’s symptoms.

I further note Dr Michael Nissenbaum’s salutary warning that such a diagnosis of “nocebo effect” in the absence of a proper investigation to determine the cause of the reported symptoms, would lead to a charge of professional misconduct by the health practitioner making that diagnosis in most western medical systems. As Dr Nissenbaum also points out, non medical practitioners (such as some in public health who are proposing these theories) do not have such legal obligations to their patients.

The leading proponent of the nocebo effect hypothesis is a Professor of Public Health at Sydney University with a background in sociology and epidemiology, and an expert advisor to the Climate and Health Alliance. Professor Simon Chapman is not a health practitioner, and has no clinical training or legal responsibilities including a duty of care to patients.

Professor Chapman’s active role in assisting a wind turbine product manufacturer (VESTAS) launch a global denial of any adverse health effects from its products, when VESTAS own engineer Erik Sloth had stated otherwise ten years earlier and had specifically mentioned the need for research and safer buffer distances, gives cause for concern.

Can The Frequencies be Prevented From Entering Homes?

There is no known way of preventing large industrial upwind bladed horizontal axis wind turbines from generating these frequencies, because they are generated every time the turbine blades pass the tower. In other words, they are an inherent design constraint of horizontal axis wind turbines.

Steven Cooper’s work together with work by another Australian Acoustician Les Huson has also suggested that in some locations, vibration caused by the tower resonating in the wind, without the blades turning, is also generating frequencies in the infrasound and low frequency noise range. It is possible that these frequencies may themselves also be causing symptoms and sensations for some people, as they are being reported by some particularly sensitized people when the turbine blades are not turning but the frequencies are still present.

There is no known way currently to prevent these very low frequencies entering building structures and impacting adversely on humans.

The only way to prevent the symptoms including chronic sleep disturbance and consequent severe cumulative sleep deprivation from long term exposure is to ensure the wind turbines are sited far enough away from homes and workplaces, so people do not become progressively sensitized to the sound and vibration energy, and adversely impacted by it, especially with respect to their sleep.

The Problem of Increasing Sensitisation

Dr Leventhall and Dr Neil Kelley have both acknowledged historically that increasing sensitization is known to be a problem with prolonged exposure to ILFN. More recently, ENT specialist Dr Amir Farboud and his colleagues from the United Kingdom have also raised this issue, and speculated as to the possible mechanisms.

In other words, people “do not get used to” or habituate to the low frequency sound energy – rather they become more adversely affected with prolonged exposure, unless they can remove themselves from the environment, OR the noise source is turned off.

This fact adds strength to the call for adequate buffer distances, in order to protect the health of the community.

The wind industry itself acknowledged the need for adequate buffer distances in 2004, in aVESTAS presentation to the Australian Wind Energy Association, (later the Clean Energy Council). VESTAS engineer Erik Sloth conceded that the noise models used at that time were not accurate, and that there was a need for adequate buffer distances, and a need for more research.

Industrial wind turbines have increased significantly in size since this presentation was given, ten years ago. As previously stated, Professor Henrik Moller’s research clearly showed that as the power generating capacity of the wind turbines increase, so too does the proportion of sound energy in the low frequency and infrasonic range, and therefore it can be predicted there will be more “annoyance” symptoms for the neighbours.

Concluding remarks

All Slovenian public officials, including politicians and public servants, who are involved in approving these projects, and responsible for health and noise pollution regulation subsequently, need to be mindful of the obligations of Slovenia from the UN Convention Against Torture.

They need to ensure they are aware of the very latest research in this area, as well as historical research from thirty years ago, which clearly demonstrated a direct causal link between wind turbine generated impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise and serious adverse health effects, known as “annoyance”.

If this particular project is approved, with such large powerful wind turbines so close to homes, it is inevitable that some Slovenian residents will be seriously harmed, from the consequences of cumulative sleep disturbance and long term sleep deprivation alone. This is regardless of what other symptoms individual residents may develop because of individual pre existing vulnerabilities or risk factors, identified by Dr Pierpont’s research, and confirmed or acknowledged by others since including Dr Leventhall (namely extremes of age, migraines, motion sickness and existing inner ear pathology).

I am happy to provide further specific information on request.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Laurie,
Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery, Flinders University, 1995

CEO, Waubra Foundation

See following pages for the list of attachments to this letter, and for the appendix.

Attachments (downloadable at the following links)

Waubra Foundation: Recent Summary of Adverse Health Effects, 1st June, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-noise-adverse-health-effects-june-2014/

Waubra Foundation: Open letter to NHMRC re flaws in 2014 Systematic Literature Review, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waubra-foundation-open-letter-nhmrc-re-systematic-literature– review/
Waubra Foundation: Submission to the Australian Federal Government RET Review, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/renewable-energy-target-review-waubra-foundation-submission– 2014/

Explicit Cautionary Notice http://waubrafoundation.org.au/about/explicit-cautionary-notice/

Explicit Warning Notice http://waubrafoundation.org.au/2013/explicit-warning-notice/

Letter to AMA and recent literature review, Emeritus Professor Alun Evans, Epidemiologist, Ireland, 2014 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/evans-prof-emeritus-alun-dismiss-any-adverse-effects-absurd-view-mounting-evidence/

Letter to AMA by Swedish Otoneurologist Dr Hakan Enbomhttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/enbom-h-infrasound-from-wind-turbines-can-trigger-migraine-and-related-symptoms/

Letter to AMA from Danish Occupational Health Physician, Dr Mauri Johansson, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/johansson-dr-mauri-m-d-highly-alarming-position-paper-from-medical-association-ama /

Letter to AMA from Professor Robert McMurtry, Canada, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/prof-robert-mcmurtry-former-dean-medicine-writes-ama/

Letter to AMA from NZ scientist Dr Bruce Rapley, New Zealand. 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/rapley-b-letter-ama-audibility-and-effects-infrasound/

Article by Professor Salt and Professor Lichtenhan in the Winter Edition of Acoustics Today, 2014http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/salt-n-lichtenhan-j-t-how-does-wind-turbine-noise-affect-people/

Physicians for Human Rights, “Leave No Marks” 2007 with particular reference to pp 22 – 26 relating to the use of sleep deprivation and sensory bombardment with noise as methods of torture http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/reports/leave-no-marks-report-2007.html

Appendix 1 — Evidence for 10km acoustic impact zone from 2 – 3 MW turbines

Waubra Foundation’s Explicit Cautionary Notice, June 2011 first mentioned problems out to 10kmhttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/about/explicit-cautionary-notice/

Acoustic evidence of wind turbine noise extending out to 10km

NASA research from 1985 by William Willshire http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/nasa-long-range-down-wind-propagation-low-frequency-sound/

Professor Colin Hansen’s ongoing work relating to wind turbine noise out to 10km from Waterloo wind turbines is not yet published, however his opinion based on acoustic evidence was included in his letter to the Victorian Department of Health, regarding false and misleading statements about infrasound in their technical document issued in 2013http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/prof-colin-hansen-writes-victorian-dept-health-recent-wind-arms-health-doc/

Steven Cooper’s acoustic data from Waterloo wind development (8km)http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/are-wind-farms-too-close-communities/

Mr Les Huson’s expert evidence from the Cherry Tree case, relating to Macarthur, where he found that there was no attenuation of infrasound between 1.8km and 6.4 km from the nearest wind turbines, indicating that wind turbine generated infrasound will be travelling for very large distances (much greater than 10km) http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/huson-l-expert-evidence-at-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/

The various population noise impact surveys done in Australia are here:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/library/community-noise-impact-surveys/
Waterloo, South Australia – VESTAS V 90 (37 along a ridge)

Mrs Mary Morris’s 2012 survey conducted at Waterloo in South Australia. This survey was the only Australian research included in the 2014 NHMRC Systematic Literature Reviewhttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/waterloo-wind-farm-survey-2012/

This 2012 survey by Mrs Morris was based on one conducted in 2011 by Frank Wang, an Adelaide University Masters student, but the population surveyed in Wang’s survey was only out to 5km http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/evaluation-wind-farm-noise-policies-south-australia/

Mrs Morris then compiled this information in 2013 showing what happened when the turbines at Waterloo were off for a week http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/morris-m-waterloo-case-series-preliminary-report/

Cullerin Range, NSW, 2 MW Repower turbines, sited on a ridge

Mrs Schneider’s 2012 and 2013 population noise impact surveys show the extent of the sleep deprivation. Nothing has been done about the severe night time noise related sleep disturbance and adverse health impact for these NSW residents by any NSW government department, despite many complaints which are documented in the 2013 survey.

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/cullerin-range-wind-farm-survey-august-2012/

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schneider-p-cullerin-range-wind-farm-survey-follow-up-july-august-2013/

Macarthur Wind Development, 140 3 MW V 112 VESTAS wind turbines, sited on flat land in Victoria

This survey was conducted only 6 months since the wind development commenced operating. Residents report being far more adversely impacted now, because of the predictable and known adverse cumulative health effects of chronic sleep deprivation and chronic stress.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/macarthur-wind-energy-facility-preliminary-survey/

Evidence from Macarthur Wind Development Residents and acoustician Mr Les Huson was heard during the Cherry Tree Court case before the Victorian Civil Administrative Appeal Tribunal in 2013. Links to affidavits from Macarthur residents relating to that court case are below:

Mrs Maria Linke (lives 5km away, with her husband and four children – sleep adverse affected immediately) http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/linke-m-witness-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/

Mrs Jan Hetherington, widow, glass artist, working from her home 3km away from nearest wind turbine http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/hetherington-j-witness-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-tribunal/

Mr Andrew Gardner, Farmer, home is 1.8km away from nearest wind turbinehttp://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/gardner-statement-vcat-cherry-tree-hearing/ (1.8km away)

Download the letter including footnotes and attachments→

When the Outrageous Subsidies Disappear, so does the Viability of the Wind Turbines.

August 13, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

CEZ Predicts Further Drop in Power Prices as Profit Declines

By Ladka Bauerova August 12, 2014

CEZ AS, the largest Czech utility, predicted a further drop in European electricity rates after reporting a 32 percent decline in second-quarter profit on lower prices, reduced income from its Romanian wind farm and a cut in output.

“The prices probably won’t rise in the foreseeable future,” Chief Executive Officer Daniel Benes told reporters today in Prague, after releasing earnings. “They are more likely to fall further.”

CEZ, along with its European peers, has been battling waning demand and falling electricity prices, hovering near a record low. Reduction of subsidies for renewable energy in Romania, where CEZ operates a 600-megawatt wind park, also eroded earnings in the quarter.

VIDEO: What’s Behind Singapore Air’s Profit Drop?

Net income fell to 7.3 billion koruna ($351 million) in the three months ended June 30 from 10.7 billion koruna a year earlier, the Prague-based company said today in a statement. That missed the 7.5 billion-koruna average of 12 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Revenue fell 9 percent to 48.5 billion koruna.

“The decline in earnings reflects the ever-worsening conditions in the European energy sector, falling power prices and an exceptionally warm and dry winter,” Benes said in the statement.

CEZ shares gained as much as 0.9 percent to 596.90 koruna and traded at 593.10 koruna as of 12:17 p.m. in Prague. The stock has gained 15 percent this year.

VIDEO: Softbank Profit Slumps on Alibaba Charge

Higher Target

Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 10 percent to 18.7 billion koruna. That beat the average analyst estimate of 17.7 billion koruna. The company maintained its full-year Ebitda target of 70.5 billion koruna and slightly raised its target for net income to 29 billion koruna from 27.5 billion koruna previously.

Power for 2015 delivery to Germany, where CEZ sells part of its output, dropped 3.3 percent this year, extending the 16 percent decline in 2013. The forward contract decreased to a record 33.75 euros ($45) per megawatt-hour on April 4.

Ebitda in Romania, where CEZ runs a 600-megawatt wind farm, dropped by 1.1 billion koruna in the first half of the year after the country cut support for renewable energy and power prices plunged. The wind farm is receiving only one green certificate from the government for every megawatt-hour generated, instead of two previously.

VIDEO: Standard Chartered Profit Drops, CEO Under Pressure

First-half Ebitda in the Czech Republic dropped 20 percent to 23.1 billion koruna.

Pre-Sale

CEZ has pre-sold 82 percent of its 2015 output at 39.5 euros per megawatt hour, 54 percent of 2016 production at 36.5 euros per megawatt hour, and 22 percent of 2017 generated power at 36 euros per megawatt hour, the company said.

The company plans to cut operating costs in the next two years by 16 percent, according to the statement. Through an arbitration suit, CEZ reached an agreement with the Albanian government for a 100 million-euro compensation for having its license revoked and assets confiscated last year.

STORY: The Totally Unsurprising Apple-Samsung Patent Truce

In April, the utility called off a $15 billion tender for two new reactors at its Temelin nuclear power plant after the Czech government refused to provide guarantees to ensure the project’s profitability. The government is drawing up a new national energy strategy to be introduced at the beginning of next year.

CEZ is interested in Enel SpA’s assets in Slovakia, which the Italian company plans to sell to cut debt. The process is “at the very beginning,” Benes said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ladka Bauerova in Prague at lbauerova@bloomberg.net

VIDEO: Why Did HSBC’s Profit Fall in the First Half?

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Will Kennedy at wkennedy3@bloomberg.net Indranil Ghosh, Ana Monteiro

The People of Ontario Want, and Deserve, Some Straight Answers!

August 13, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Eric Jelinski

9:38pm Aug 12

Sharing a letter that a friend has sent to Bob Chiarelli, Ontario Minister of Energy,

Dear Minister Chiarelli,

RE: Electricity Questions:

As you may or may not be aware for the past several years I have taken an interest (some would say compulsive) in the electricity sector and during that time have written extensively in several media outlets including the Financial Post. I also took directorships in organizations like Energy Probe and Wind Concerns Ontario both of whom have expressed concern about the aggressive push, by your government, for the addition of unreliable, intermittent and expensive wind and solar electricity generation. This letter is not meant to argue your support or otherwise of “renewable energy” but to present questions that baffle me and many others. The questions are outcrops of the various legislative and regulatory changes the OLP have made from within your ministry since first elected as the governing party in 2003. The questions below are begging for answers so I would greatly appreciate your giving serious thought to them and recognize that the intent is for enlightenment. Convince me and others that your Ministry does have a plan that will present industry with competitive electricity pricing without driving residential ratepayers into “energy poverty”!

Here are my questions:

Q.1.The Ontario government hands out up to $8,500 to purchasers of EVs (electric vehicles) if they buy a high end $85,000 Tesla automobile and presumably don’t collect an “ecotax” but if an Ontario resident purchases a 12 volt replacement battery for their car they pay $15.00. A Telsa battery is 375 volts so shouldn’t your government be collecting an ecotax of $470.00 from the buyer instead of handing out $8,500 as a grant?

Q.2.Why do all of the local distribution companies (LDC) hand out discount coupons encouraging us to purchase CFL bulbs that contains mercury; a deadly toxin and where the packaging suggests you almost have to use a hazmat suit if it breaks to clean it up?

Q.3.Why does the Ontario Ministry of Energy classify “conservation” as a generation source of electricity if we can’t plug our toaster into an outlet powered by “conservation” that will actually toast it?

Q.4.What grid is “conservation” generation connected to and is any of it exported?

Q.5.Why did you, as Energy Minister, order the creation of a service “Stream” that offers large industrial companies very cheap rates, for “consuming more electricity” when the rest of Ontario is told to “conserve?

Q.6.Why is the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) allowed to claim they will pick up your “old” fridge or freezer for “FREE” when they know the costs to pick them up are billed to the ratepayers via the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GAM)?

Q.7.Why do all the TV, radio and newspaper ads that the OPA and the LDCs contract for in the media, at the end of the commercial, say or state: “paid for by the OPA” when the truth is that the ads are “paid for by the ratepayers of Ontario via the GAM?

Q.8.Why are average ratepayers obliged to pay the costs of meteorological stations erected at industrial wind turbine installations to measure the electricity they may have generated but are being paid to NOT PRODUCE power?

Q.9.Why is the 36 page submission to the OEB (EB-2013-0326) by the OPA for the $483.4 million “Conservation” spending planned for 2014 considered a “business plan” when they have no specific information on the makeup of that almost $500 million spending of ratepayer dollars?

Q.10.Why does the term “Global Adjustment Mechanism” contain the word “Global” when the makeup of the GAM is all driven by the contracts signed by the OPA and other directives/regulations issued by the Ministry of Energy and apply only to Ontario’s ratepayers?

Q.11.Why is the 10% reduction on our electricity bills (due to expire December 31, 2015) referred to as a “Clean” Energy Benefit when it is a benefit that is the responsibility of the taxpayers; so shouldn’t it be labeled a “Taxpayer Energy Benefit?

Q.12.Why are consumers of electricity charged for electricity they never consumed, ie; “line losses”, no matter how far they are from the generator of that electricity and why has it been moved from the “electricity” line to the “delivery” line on our bills?

Q.13. Don’t you think this (Q.12.) is something that David Orazietti, Minister of Government and Consumer Services should look into and perhaps seek clarification on Q.6. And Q.7?

Q.14.Why hand out grants (funded by Ontario’s ratepayers via the GAM) of $650 towards the installation of energy efficient air conditioners while handing out only $431.76 on average (2012) to a only a few (.002% ) ratepayers suffering from “energy poverty” and may have to freeze in the cold or forgo nutritious food because their local distribution company has cut or threatened to cut their power?

Q.15.Why did you claim Ontario had generated a $6 billion profit from selling our excess electricity via the export market when that number was simply what we received for selling excess power that ratepayers had paid for at prices that were multiples of the $6 billion?

Q.16.Why did George Smitherman negotiate that “sole sourced” Samsung contract without the company having demonstrated any previous expertise in the generation of electricity from either wind or solar?

I have many more questions related to the activities of your Ministry over the past decade but have kept the list relatively short so I sincerely hope you will have the time to answer the few that I have raised. With the legislative recess set to go through to October 20, 2014 it would appear that you or your Ministry staff will have more than sufficient time to respond.

On another note some of my questions are directed at the Ministry of the Environment & Climate Change who are responsible for the issuing of the Renewable Energy Approvals (REA). Rather than writing a separate letter to Minister Murray I would appreciate it if you could have someone in your office co-ordinate his Ministry’s response. I have copied him via his e-mail address but for your edification here are those questions!

Questions for your colleague, Glen Murray in the Ministry of the Environment Chair:

Q. 1. Why does the Ministry of the Environment [and Climate Change] issue Renewable Energy Approvals (REA) when the applications are incomplete and lacking in the detail required under the rules/regulations established under the Green Energy and Economy Act?

Q.2. Why is the MoE not equipped to measure “infra-sound” when it has been found to be a major issue in many jurisdictions; causing health problems and is measurable?

Q.3. Why is the MoE unable to order compliance requirements to wind turbine developers when their “audible” noise limits exceed the guidelines/rules established?

Q.4. Why does the MoE issue REAs that are located in Important Bird Areas (IBA) that may endanger many “species at risk”?

I wish to thank you, Minister Chiarelli and Minister Murray, in advance, for your anticipated cogent reply to each of my questions as it will assist me and many of my friends, relatives and media followers in understanding exactly what it is that the Ontario Liberal Party is attempting to do with the Energy sector in the Province. The impact of the “sea change” that has occurred in the “Energy” portfolio are immense, affecting so many facets of the lives of the residents of the province. The latter point is particularly noticeable when toting up the directives (85) that the Ministry has issued to just the OPA since that entity was created by one of your predecessors, Dwight Duncan, in the Energy chair you now occupy. Many other directives/letters have been issued to the OEB, the OPG and Hydro One so it is obvious that there is a plan. I believe it is important to convey to the residents and voters exactly what that “plan” is and why it has been enacted in Ontario but is being abandoned elsewhere around the world.

I await your edification!

Wynne’s Liberals Out to Bankrupt Ontario, for No Benefit At All!~

August 12, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Achtung, Ontario! Renewables are a money pit

Brady Yauch, Special to Financial Post | August 12, 2014

Germany’s decision to support renewable energy at all costs has, ultimately, cost the country’s ratepayers billions of dollars and led to a doubling of monthly electricity bills over the past decade. So, why is Ontario following Germany's lead?

FotoliaGermany’s decision to support renewable energy at all costs has, ultimately, cost the country’s ratepayers billions of dollars and led to a doubling of monthly electricity bills over the past decade. So, why is Ontario following Germany?

Germany, the model for Ontario’s wind and solar developments, now regrets its spending spree

Germany – the country on which Ontario modelled its approach to renewable energy development – has a $412-billion lesson for Ontario. That’s the amount the country has spent on subsidies in support of solar and wind energy, among other renewables, over the past 20 years, all in the push to wean the country off fossil fuel and nuclear generation.

On the surface – and according to many news sites – the program has been a success, and not just because of the 378,000 people renewables now employ.

By the end of 2012 (the most recent year for data), wind and solar provided about 13% of all German electricity consumption. Adding in hydro and biomass, renewables provided more than 23%. And in May, headline writers around the world proudly trumpeted that renewable energy provided 75% of the country’s total electricity consumption.

But scratch a bit below the surface and an entirely different picture emerges – one with households being pushed into “energy poverty” as renewable subsidies lead to soaring power bills, handouts to the country’s big businesses and exporters so they can avoid paying for those subsidies and a systematic bankrupting of traditional utilities. As for that one day in May when headlines celebrated that 75% of power generation came from renewables, well, it was a Sunday when demand for power is at its lowest level.

Germany’s decision to support renewable energy at all costs has, ultimately, cost the country’s ratepayers billions of dollars and led to a doubling of monthly electricity bills over the past decade. Households now pay the second highest rates for electricity in the EU – second only to Denmark, the world leader in wind turbines. The country’s feed-in tariff program – which offers renewable energy producers a guaranteed rate for their power – has already cost $412-billion, but could, according to one estimate from the former Minister of the Environment Peter, produce an $884-billion price tag by 2022. Germany will hand out $31.1-billion of renewable energy subsidies in this year alone.

The price of electricity paid by German households has increased from 14 cents (euro) per kilowatt hour in 2000 to 29 cents per kilowatt hour last year – marking a 107% increase, while inflation over that time period was about 22%. The biggest reason for that increase is the renewable energy subsidy, which amounted to 1.4% of the total bill when it was first introduced in 2000, but now accounts for 18%. That renewable levy now costs the average household in Germany more than $320 a year.

Rising electricity prices for households ledDer Spiegel, one of the country’s most respected magazines, to warn that electricity was becoming a “luxury good.” More than 300,000 households each year are being left in the dark because they can’t afford electricity.

German households are being hit particularly hard by the cost of renewable subsidies because the country’s largest businesses – many of them exporters and in energy-intensive sectors – have been exempt from paying for them. Regulators and politicians – fearing that that high electricity prices would hurt the economy and result in job losses or plant closures – gave big business a free pass and instead shifted the costs to households.

The renewable subsidies have distorted Germany’s power market to such an extent that traditional utilities are being pushed to the brink of collapse. Electricity generated from solar and wind has no relationship with the market. Because the price the producers receive is guaranteed and is not based on demand, they dump their output whenever it is produced. This glut of power has, at times, pushed the price of wholesale power below zero – meaning the utilities need to pay someone to use it. This has skewed the price to such an extent that traditional generators can’t economically produce power – they simply stop producing when the price goes too low.

While the answer would seem to be to close those uneconomic generators, that’s not possible since renewable energy is intermittent – at times it will produce no power, while at others it will produce too much – and traditional generators are needed to provide a secure, reliable source of power. Utilities are being asked to keep producing power even though the economics of it don’t make sense anymore. To prevent utilities in Germany from pulling out of the business of generation, the government now offers more than billion dollars in “balancing payments” – sometimes 400 times the price of power – to stabilize the grid.

The rise of renewable power has also led to coal making a comeback. The amount of generation from coal actually increased from 43% of all output in 2011 to nearly 45% in 2012. Electricity generation from lignite, a cheaper and dirtier form of coal, has also been on the rise because, according to one Germany utility, it’s the only thing that can compete with subsidized renewable energy.

The energy situation in Germany has become so disruptive and politically untenable that the government has recently done everything it can to pull back on subsidies and other support for renewable energy, much to the dismay of renewable producers that still can’t survive on their own.

Far from being a success, Germany’s rush into renewable energy has crushed households, taxpayers and utilities. Ontario needs a better model.

Brady Yauch is an economist and the executive director of Consumer Policy Institute.

Fracking is by Far….Better than Wind Turbines!

August 12, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Fracking – Fact or Fantasy

by Dougal Quixote

The green movement doesn’t like Fracking but they do like Wind. Why? Fact is wind is intermittent, drives people into fuel poverty and has to be supported by subsidy. Fracking on the other hand has reduced energy prices in the US, created thousands of jobs as energy prices tumble to the benefit of US industry and needs no subsidy. So why has the Green Lobby reacted so viciously to fracking. Their web sites are a liturgy of lies and obfuscations.

$fracking objectors$

They are the great unwashed, the swampies and the anti capitalist objectors and yet they are also rent a mob. Never has a Wind Farm objection rally needed the police manpower that fracking does. Truth is that it is simply political activism, what Patterson referred to as the Green Blob. How seldom do we see locals in their ranks. Those that are have believed the hype and failed to properly study the fact. Flaming faucets: cold bed methane in groundwater that would be there without any mining. Nothing to do with fracking at 8000ft well below groundwater. There are dangers, but none that cannot be adequately addressed by good management and oversight by an effective regulator. After all it is not in the developers interest to be faced with expensive clear up costs and loss of production.

So what about the real legacy of fracking. In the south we haver been drilling the Whytch oil field for years and few even know it exists. Fracking, as a technique, has been used for the best party of forty years but new equipment and deep wells have brought it into it’s own more recently. Centrica have been fracking wells for gas in Norway for the last few years. Interestingly they are using mostly Scottish engineers. Good well paid jobs for the indigenous population.

So what effect does fracking have. Essentially a fracking site will experience disturbance for about forty weeks after which it will revert to a simple well head.

This is in Marcellus, New York State, and cannot be seen from the road. The alternative is something like this at Ardrossan.

Ardrossan

Of course the first runs 24/7/365 for some forty years and the second runs as about 21% when the wind blows and has a life of about 16 years before it needs re-powering. We have all been promised a maximum of 25 years but do we believe them? No way. Read the small print. In practice what will happen is either the death of the industry with wholesale bankruptcies and rusting hulks littering our scenery or bigger monstrosities here for forty years or more.

For a safe, sustainable, future the truth is we need deliverable energy at a cost we can afford with a mix of clean coal, gas, nuclear and hydro. It is without doubt that as civilisation moves forward we will have an expanding demand for electricity, not because it is green, but because it is easy. Cars, buses, trains will all demand much higher energy requirements than we could currently(sic) supply. So listen to the Royal Geological Scociety, the Nuclear Industry and the engineers in the power industry. Don’t listen to the Swampys and green ideologues as they peddle dis-information. Get your facts from people who know, not the Green lobby with their eschewed values which even their founders now despair of.

We need to build a future based on fact, not fantasy!

Windweasels “Stack the Deck” for “Community Consultations”

August 12, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

NSW Planning Department Helps Wind Farm Developers Rig Community “Consultations”

August 12, 2014 by stopthesethings

As community hostility to wind farm plans erupts across the Southern Tablelands of NSW, wind power outfits have taken to sacking and stacking committees to ensure the “process” of “community consultation” is little more than high farce.

Spanish outfit, Union Fenosa didn’t like the prospect of having Tony Abbott’s key business adviser, Maurice Newman challenge its wild and fictional claims, so it did what any reasonable corporate citizen would do: it booted him off the committee at Crookwell (see our post here). What’s that you say about “shaping the debate”?

Now, EPYC – an outfit planning to spear 100 turbines into the heart of picture post-card Tarago – has adopted the same tactics: stacking the consultation committee with “friendlies” and preventing the appointment of anyone with any insight into the scope of the fraud. Here’s the Goulburn Post with a tale that sounds more like something from the old Soviet Bloc.

Windfarm group demands action
Goulburn Post
Louise Thrower
4 August 2014

OPPONENTS of a proposed wind farm near Tarago are calling on the state government to ‘do its job.’ Community consultative committees (CCCs) are mandatory under guidelines but are nothing more than a ‘fig leaf,’ says a residents’ group.

The Residents Against Jupiter Wind Farm (RAJWF) has not ruled out political action to press their point.

Last month the group met with a senior advisor to Planning Minister and Goulburn MP Pru Goward and a departmental official in Sydney.

Member and Tarago district resident Dr Michael Crawford said the government had the power to appoint CCCs but was abrogating its responsibility and letting wind farm companies decide the make-up.

“It’s not an even handed process but they want it to look as though it is by putting it in the guidelines,” Dr Crawford said.

“The Department is not doing its job to appoint community representatives and the independent chairperson and it doesn’t pull anyone up on it. We tried to get some real change.”

Instead, Dr Crawford said the Department gave him the “soft shoe shuffle.”

His comments follow Union Fenosa’s sacking of Maurice Newman from the Crookwell Three wind farm CCC. The move sparked outrage from NSW Landscape Guardians president Humphrey Price-Jones who called on Ms Goward and the Department to intervene.

Under existing draft guidelines, the director general signs off on CCC membership. But even Union Fenosa conceded that given the draft document, the state was leaving membership up to wind farm companies.

Tarago residents at least argue this is unacceptable.

“Nowhere in the guidelines is there any latitude for the wind farm developer to have a say about choosing community reps,” resident Jane Keaney stated in a letter to the editor.

“In fact, even without the guidelines, anyone with the faintest sense of fair play would recognise that allowing a developer of any sort to select the people who are going to be allowed to talk to the developer on behalf of the community, is anathema. How has the department come to tolerate this corruption of process?” The group has already asked Palerang and Goulburn Mulwaree Councils to help with election of its CCC.

In June, EPYC, which wants to build the 100 turbine wind farm southeast of Tarago, called for community representation.

In response, the group nominated seven people including Mr Crawford, who it wanted on the committee, with a further eight as alternative delegates. The Reverend Tom Frame supervised the election.

Dr Crawford said to date there has been no response from the company or the Department of Planning.

At the most recent Goulburn Mulwaree meeting, planning director Chris Stewart was appointed as Council’s representative.

While companies like Union Fenosa have defended their ability to appoint a wide cross section of views to the committees, others like Mr Price-Jones have branded them “wind farm propaganda” machines.

Dr Crawford said while all the Tarago nominees oppose the wind farm, he would welcome a variety of voices on the committee.

But he’s adamant that the state government needs to regain control.

“The government wants to paper the State with wind farms but the process is nothing more than a fig leaf,” he said.

“… At the meeting in Sydney I said they have to understand our timetable. There’s an election next year and if our members feel political action is required, we won’t sit on our hands.

It’s about government policy and the way to deal with it is through the political process.”

Ms Goward told the Post she had asked her department for a report on CCCs.

“We made it clear that we expect wind farm companies to genuinely consult with communities and the history is that they haven’t,” she said.

“We need to be sure CCCs are genuine, that they genuinely represent the community and can give unfettered advice.”

The company had not responded to requests for comment by the time of going to press.
Goulburn Post

STT is pleased to hear that Pru Goward has taken an interest in what can fairly be described as government gone rotten. The NSW Planning Department – like state planning departments around Australia – is infected with a pernicious brand of groupthink driven by the childish fantasy that wind power is a solution to “climate change” (previously known as “global warming” – until it became evident that it stopped getting warmer 17 years ago – see our post here).

Wedded to a delusion, woe betide anyone – like Maurice Newman or Dr Michael Crawford – who has the temerity to question their mantra. Hence the need to load these so-called “community consultation committees” with gullible “yes-men”.

Wind power – delivered at crazy, random intervals – requires 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation sources and, therefore, cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (see our posts here and here and here and here andhere and here and here).

Wind power is not a substitute for conventional generation sources and – if CO2 is the problem – presents as a solution to nothing (see our post here).

Remember that the ONLY justification for the $billions in subsidies directed at wind power (see our post here) is CO2 emissions abatement in the electricity sector. It’s the central and endlessly repeated lie that wind power outfits routinely trot out in their planning applications. You know, the guff about “powering 100,000 homes” and abating millions of tonnes of CO2 (see our post here).

Well, STT hears that the industry is about to be put to proof on its CO2 abatement claims.

The wind industry has never produced a shred of evidence to show that wind power has reduced CO2 emissions in Australia’s electricity sector. To the contrary of wind industry claims, the result of trying to incorporate wind power into a coal/gas fired grid is increased CO2 emissions (see thisEuropean paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).

Strip away that myth and the mandatory RET – upon which the entire wind industry depends – can be seen for what it is: the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

Ineffective, Unreliable, Unaffordable, Wind Turbines!

August 11, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

LETTER: Wind turbines are a waste of time and money

The coalition has sanctioned the construction of Rampion, despite the overwhelming evidence that wind turbines are unreliable, grossly inefficient, inflict huge damage on the environment and wildlife, do not reduce greenhouse emissions one iota, and are, by a large margin, the most expensive means of generating electricity.

Thus, one could be forgiven for thinking the two headlines are linked.

Consider, as revealed by the company awarded the contract for the construction of the off-shore wind farm that, although the designed output is 700 megawatts (MW) because of the unreliability of wind turbines, the actual output will be no more than 240MW. Compare this with the output of a gas-fired generator, costing less than half the over £2bn for Rampion, which produces ten times as much electricity 100 per cent of the time.

Some years ago, Centricia, and other electricity-producing companies, made it absolutely clear to the government that, because of the unreliability of the wind, full back-up of conventional power stations is essential.

Therefore, greenhouse gas-emitting generating plants will have to remain permanently in service – thus, there is no point in building wind turbines.

Denmark, which has the greatest number of wind turbines per capita, has the most expensive power in Europe. I have yet to meet

a qualified electrical engineer who thinks the construction of wind turbines to power the national grid is a good idea.

Rampion will cover 60 square miles from Beachy Head to the Isle of Wight. The unreliability, comparatively short life, and huge cost of maintaining the turbines, means that it is only a question of time before Rampion is seen as one of the biggest scrap metal sites in the world.

France, where 80 per cent of electricity is produced by nuclear power, has the cheapest electricity in Europe. To satisfy the Green lobby, nuclear power stations in the UK should employ thorium as the fuel which is much safer than uranium. Nuclear bombs cannot be produced using thorium.

I do hope everyone reading this will write to their MP, county and district councillors, demanding the construction of all wind turbines, both on and off-shore, be halted immediately.

Ideally, those wind turbines already constructed should be dismantled.

Derek Hunnikin

St Leodegar’s Way

Hunston

Faux-green Environmentalists (EPA), Push Their Political Agenda!

August 11, 2014August 11, 2014 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

EPA goes from Environmental Protection Agency to Extremist Political Agenda

A report from the EPA’s public hearings on the proposed Clean Power Plan

During the week of July 28, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held hearings in four cities: Atlanta, Denver, Pittsburgh, and Washington, DC. The two-day sessions were to allow the public to have their voice heard about the proposed rules it released on June 2 that will supposedly cut CO₂ emissions by 30%.

Many, including myself, believe that these rules are really an attempt to shut down coal-fueled electricity generation and implement a cap-and-trade program that the Administration couldn’t get through Congress in 2009, when cap-and-trade’s obvious allies held both houses of Congress.

If the EPA’s plans were clear, direct, and honest, the public would likely revolt outright. Instead, the intent is hidden in pages of cumbersome language and the messaging becomes all about clean air and water—and about the health of children.

Because I was in the area—speaking a few hours from Atlanta on Sunday—I took advantage of the proximity and signed up to speak at the hearing. When I first attempted to sign up, day one was already full. The EPA had so many people who wanted time to share their opinions, a second day was added, and I was put on the schedule.

The first day, Tuesday, July 29, included competing rallies held in near-record-low temperatures for Atlanta in July. Supporters of the EPA’s plan—many of whom were bussed in from surrounding states—gathered in Centennial Olympic Park. I spoke at the rally, made up of plan opponents, that was organized by Americans for Prosperity’s Georgia chapter held at the Sam Nunn Federal Center—where the hearing was originally scheduled (before a power outage forced a move to the Omni Hotel).

I spent the rest of the day at the hearing. It had a circus-like atmosphere. With tables of literature, people carrying signs, and many of the plan’s supporters identified by their matching pale-green tee shirts emblazoned with:

Protect our communities

CLIMATE ACTION NOW.

Once I had a taste of what to expect the next day, when I was to present my comments in the five minutes allotted, I prepared what I wanted to say. The following is my original text—though I had to edit it down to get it within the allowed time frame. For presentation here, I’ve also enhanced my comments with some additional insights from others. The verbiage that is not a part of my original testimony is included in italics.

* * * *

I was here yesterday and earlier today. I’ve listened to the well-intentioned pleas from many who have begged you, the EPA, to take even stronger action than this plan proposes. One even dramatically claimed: “You are the Environmental Protection Agency. You are our only hope. If you don’t protect us no one will?”

I heard a teary-eyed, young woman tell a tale about a man she knows who is dying of cancer, supposedly because he grew up near a coal-fired power plant—he couldn’t be here, so she told his story. She also said: “I am fortunate enough to have not been around in the 1960s when there was real smog.” Her father has told her about it.

One woman claimed her neighbor had gotten asthma from global warming.

Another addressed how she gets headaches from emissions. She told how lung tissue could be burned. And, how particulates are why people can no longer see the mountain in her region.

An attorney’s testimony told about seeing “carbon pollution” every day from his 36^th floor office “a few blocks from here” from where he looks “out over a smog-covered city.”

The passion of these commenters supersedes their knowledge, as none of the issues I’ve mentioned here, and there are many more, are something caused by carbon dioxide—a clear, colorless gas that each of us breathe out and plants breathe in.

Dave Bufalo is a retired civil engineer who attended and testified at the EPA’s Denver location. He told me he had a similar experience: “I was only able to stay for about an hour but I did hear about 10 testimonials. They were all in support of the EPA’s proposed regulation. I don’t believe that anyone had really read the proposal prior to testifying. Their testimonies seemed to lack an understanding of the chemical nature of CO₂. One elderly woman could only state that she thanked the EPA for insuring that she had clean air and water. One gentleman was clearly pushing for the sale of his company’s solar panels.”

James Rust, Ph.D., is a retired professor of nuclear engineering from Georgia Tech. In his testimony in Atlanta, he referenced thousands of peer-reviewed papers showing carbon dioxide emissions had a negligible effect on climate change. He pointed to the stack of documents from the Heartland Institute called Climate Change Reconsidered I and II that contained these peer-reviewed articles. It was at that point, that a man in the front row shouted out “Liar!” Rust told me: “This is the typical type of response from the mob that promotes this climate change scare. They use ad hominem attacks and don’t debate the real issues because they have no experimental data that backs up what they are proposing.”

Carbon dioxide is a natural, and essential, part of the environment— massive, unknown, quantities of carbon dioxide are emitted each year from natural sources, such as volcanoes. Were we able to eliminate carbon dioxide from every industrial source in the United States, it would have virtually no impact on global carbon dioxide emissions.

I understand the concerns over true smog and pollution. I grew up in Southern California—graduating from high school in 1976. At that time, we had made a mess of our environment. We had polluted the air and water. Cleaning up our collective act was an important public policy issue. San Bernardino, where my family lived, is in a valley, surrounded by mountains. It was not uncommon for a family to move into the area in the summer, when the smog was the worst, and not even know the beautiful mountains existed. In the fall, when the winds came in and blew the smog out to sea, newcomers where amazed to discover the mountains.

But that pollution, that smog, has largely been cleaned up. Utilities have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on scrubbers, and on other highly technical equipment such as SCR’s, electrostatic precipitators, and bag houses, to successfully remove the vast majority of the particulates.

People often see a billowing white cloud coming from the stacks at a coal-fueled power plant and confuse it with pollution when it is really H₂O—water in the form of steam. Depending on the time of year, or the time of day, it may be more, or less, visible. The weather conditions may make it settle like fog until the sun burns it off. And this, I believe, is mistaken for pollution.

If you haven’t seen Randy Scott Slavin’s Bird’s-Eye-View of New York City, I encourage you to check it out. The book shows an amazingly clean city—despite the more than 8 million people living in those compact 469 square miles. New York City is one of the most populated places on the planet, yet its air is sparkling.

This rule is not about pollution. It is about shutting down coal-fueled power plants, and thus killing jobs and raising electricity rates—both of which punish people who can least afford it. But plenty of others have addressed the economic impact, so I won’t take more of my time on that topic.

Dozens of members from a variety of different unions were present in Atlanta to speak out against the plan. Skip Howard, Business Manager for Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 421 in North and South Carolina, explained: “Although Nuclear Power is a clean, renewable source of energy and not affected by fluctuating oil-and-gas prices, energy from Coal-fired Plants is cheaper and helps keep the cost of electricity affordable to consumers. Coal-fired Plants are reliable and cheaper to build than a Nuclear Plant. Coal-fired plants are now designed to be a safe and efficient source of energy that supports grid systems, helping to avoid blackouts. New clean coal technologies create many thousands of new high-wage jobs across our country, helping our economy grow.”

Several of the union members who testified in Atlanta assailed the EPA representatives because the hearing locations were far from where those most impacted—the coal miners—live.

I spent some time on Tuesday talking with many of the union representatives. David Cagle, Marketing Representative for the Plumbers, Pipefitters, and HVAC/R Service Technicians Local Union 72 based in Atlanta, told me: “I appreciate your interest in helping our country to be able to continue to provide economical electric energy and well-paying jobs to America’s families and businesses.” He then offered me this brief history of what the coal-fired electric energy industry means to his family:

After World War II my father worked in one of the first large coal-fired powerhouses built in the state of Georgia. That well-paying job allowed him to help his parents pay off the mortgage on their house and also to start saving for a down payment for a home of his own one day. My father worked on several coal-fired powerhouses throughout his career in the piping industry. These well-paying jobs provided a decent standard of living for his family.

The powerhouses that my father helped build are still providing well-paying jobs for the people who run them and the workers who do the maintenance on them. Hundreds of thousands of construction workers have benefited from the well-paying jobs in the construction and maintenance of these facilities. They are also still providing low-cost electrical power to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of customers.

””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””

Beside my family benefiting from the coal-powered electric generation industry, I can tell you firsthand what coal does for our country across the continent.

I lived in Campbell County, Wyoming, for two years in the mid-90s. Campbell County is the Energy Capital of the United States. Thousands of families would lose a very good way of living, if the coal mines in Wyoming were shut down. The coal mined there is very low in sulfur and produces some of the cleanest electricity on earth. I also know many people from West Virginia who depend on coal to be able to make a decent living.

I fully understand the devastating effects the Obama Administration’s new EPA rules on coal-fired powerhouses would have on people on a fixed income. My parents are in their late 80s and early 90s. They are on a fixed income and in poor health. The last thing they need are large power bills that would destroy their budget and force them to rely on their children to help pay their power bills.

My whole family are outdoorsmen. We have all been raised to hunt and fish and respect and protect our environment. My family would be the first to embrace a low-cost, environmentally sound alternative to coal-fired powerhouses. The problem is, there is no alternative economically viable source available at this time.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) covered a union protest that took place at the Pittsburgh hearing. It states: “Unions opposing the proposed rule argue that U.S. workers will pay the price for lowering emissions domestically while other countries—most notably China, where coal usage has grown rapidly—will continue to burn coal and emit carbon dioxide.” The WSJreported: “Unions focused their efforts on Pittsburgh, sending busloads of unionized miners, utility workers, railroad workers, and others from Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Alabama, and other states.”

I also want to address the constitutionality of the proposed plan, as it does exactly what the Supreme Court admonished the EPA about on June 23. Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority, wrote this about the Tailoring Rule decision: “Were we to recognize the authority claimed by EPA in the Tailoring Rule, we would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers… The power of executing laws…does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” Yet, this is exactly what this proposed plan will do.

Later in the decision, Scalia says: “When an agency claims to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power to regulate ‘a significant portion of the American economy’ . . . we typically greet its announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance.’”

I believe on these grounds, this plan must not go forward. It is one more example of executive overreach.

I fear that if it does, America will pay a dear price. This hearing was scheduled to take place down the street at the Sam Nunn Federal Center. However, it was moved due to a power outage. Note: business cannot be done without power. You were able to move this hearing. In a reduced-power environment businesses will move to places where they have access to energy that is effective, efficient, and economical. They will move, as many have already done, to places with far-looser environmental policies and the perceived gain will be lost.

Thinking that what we do in the United States will have a serious impact on global carbon dioxide emissions is like thinking that declaring a “no pee” section in the swimming pool will keep the water urine free.

I’ll end with a quote from the smog-viewing attorney who closed with: “I am hopeful that my new grandchildren, who will live into the 22^nd century, will enjoy a world that my grandparents, born in the 19^th century, would recognize.” If this plan is passed, he may get his wish. His grandparents’ world contained none of the energy-based modern conveniences or medical miracles we consider standard and essential today—let alone those yet to be developed or discovered by the 22^nd century. In his grandparents’ day, life expectancy in the U.S. was estimated at 45 years. By 2000, this had increased to 78 years—mostly due to our expansion of cost-effective electricity throughout the nation.

Remember, the countries with the best human health and the most material wealth are those with the highest energy consumption. America needs energy that is abundant, available, and affordable.

* * * *

Wind Turbines are “Faux-Green”!

August 11, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Opposing wind generators is not anti-green

August 8 2014
By Keith Brier

The intolerance of dissenting views by the Green Lobby is an unpleasant aspect of some of its members. They are perhaps unaware that tolerance of difference is a pillar of democracy and essential to individual freedom. But, whatever the reasons for vitriolic attacks on those against wind generators, environmentalists should take a closer look at Scottish opposition.

The most prominent in Scotland is the Windfarm Action Group. This group firmly states that everyone should take environmental responsibilities seriously. Whatever the causes of global warming and the varying views on what causes it, we must protect our earth and steward it wisely. It accepts a need to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. It wants cleaner, reliable energy. It supports sound scientific solutions with the goal of a cleaner, greener world.

No sane, sensible person can disagree with this. Even the most rabid environmentalist should agree too.

But this green group and 300 others like in Britain, plus another 400 in four EU countries, are against windfarms. They have gone into the subject thoroughly and engineers and scientists back up their conclusions.

To those who accuse them of merely being concerned with their own backyards and not the common good, they say add up our membership and you will find an awful lot of backyards. They are simply against what does not make good sense. They are convinced that wind power:

– Is not a technically legitimate solution.

– Does not meaningfully reduce CO2 emissions.

– Is not a commercially viable source of energy

– Is not environmentally responsible.

They believe there are better solutions to Britain’s energy concerns; solutions that meet scientific, economic, and environmental tests – and they have good reasons.

They point to the massive subsidies that windfarms received initially from the British taxpayer, money that attracts multinational corporations like flies to treacle. These subsidies added to the higher price ordinary British householders pay for their electricity.

This “stealth” tax was considerable. Most consumers were unaware that it was used to make wind-generated economically feasible on the one hand, and to fill the pockets of the manufacturers on the other.

This largess allowed wind-generation companies to make generous payments to landowners for permission to use their land. Such was the temptation that some Welsh farmers trying to raise sheep in arduous and scarcely profitable areas leapt at it.

One told his local newspaper that if it were not for the payments he got, he would have given up farming long ago.

The Wind farm Action Group quotes British government documents that say each wind turbine in Britain still receives an annual subsidy of more than £235 000 (R4.3 million). Britain has about 1 120 turbines in 90 parts of the country.

Among the usual objections to windfarms – they do not work all the time, they are noisy, kill birds and bats, and so on, the group adds a few more. For example, wind generators interfere with radar; dirt and flying insects affect their performance; ice build-up on the propellers affects performance even more; and wind turbulence further reduces their power production.

Finally, there is rust. Britain is a wet place but offshore wind turbines have salt to contend with as well. One Danish offshore wind farm had to be entirely dismantled for repair when it was only 18 months old.

Yes, groups such as these exist almost everywhere there are windfarms. They are often, like this Scottish one, as caring of the environment as anyone, perhaps more so. They are not only concerned with their own backyard; they are concerned about everyone’s backyard.

Yet they say this: “We believe that in time this [windfarms] may well be the greatest environmental disaster that mankind in panic, haste, folly and greed, has ever conceived.”

Britain is an old country and its language is full of folk wisdom like this: “No one ever built a windmill, if he could build a watermill.”

A more modern version of common sense would be: “Using wind power to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is akin to trying to empty the Atlantic Ocean with a teaspoon.”

Wind Pusher’s Conduct, Called Into Question!….Not acceptable!

August 11, 2014August 11, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

MSP calls for wind farm developer code of conduct

The move comes after constituents raised concerns about the activities of one particular developer in trying to garner public support for its proposed wind farm.

Speaking from his constituency office, Mr Fergusson said: “As competition grows for wind farm sites, developers will be keener than ever to attract support from communities and individuals for their proposed developments.

“In doing so, it would seem that one company in particular has angered a large number of my constituents by negotiating secret agreements with individuals to ensure that they don’t object to the development in return for an undisclosed sum of money.

“This activity causes suspicion between neighbours, division within communities and is the polar opposite of the levels of openness and accountability that ought to characterize the local negotiations that precede any wind farm development.

“In my opinion, a code of practice for developers would ensure that all affected communities and individuals would be treated with respect as negotiations move forward and remove the atmosphere of distrust and suspicion that clearly exists in at least one particular local situation.

“I have written to the minister to suggest a code of practice, and will pursue the possibility through normal parliamentary processes.”

Earlier this year, 50 community councils from across the region called for a moratorium on consent for wind farms in the region, claiming a map produced by Scottish Natural Heritage shows southern Scotland has more onshore wind farm developments proposed than any other part of the country.

	How The Climate Grif… on There is NO Global Warming…
	Bob Bateman on Government-Induced Climaphobia…
	William Hooi on Germany’s Renewable Energy Dis…
	Jessica on Issues for Landowners to Consi…
	Raymond on Poorest Families Left Powerles…

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Residents of Slovenia Looking for Protection from Wind Turbines!

Letter to Slovenia re Known Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise

Mr Diego Loredan, Chairman,
Ms Katarina Dea Zetko,

Civil Initiative for the Protection of Seno žeška Brda

Breaches of UN Convention Against Torture

Background

What Distance Is Safe?

Knowledge of Direct Causation Of “annoyance” Symptoms FromILFN in the 1980s

Are “Annoyance” Symptoms The Same As “Wind Turbine Syndrome”?

What About The Wind Industry Assertions About The “Nocebo Effect” Causing the Symptoms?

Can The Frequencies be Prevented From Entering Homes?

The Problem of Increasing Sensitisation

Concluding remarks

When the Outrageous Subsidies Disappear, so does the Viability of the Wind Turbines.

CEZ Predicts Further Drop in Power Prices as Profit Declines

Higher Target

Pre-Sale

The People of Ontario Want, and Deserve, Some Straight Answers!

Wynne’s Liberals Out to Bankrupt Ontario, for No Benefit At All!~

Achtung, Ontario! Renewables are a money pit

Fracking is by Far….Better than Wind Turbines!

Fracking – Fact or Fantasy

Windweasels “Stack the Deck” for “Community Consultations”

NSW Planning Department Helps Wind Farm Developers Rig Community “Consultations”

Ineffective, Unreliable, Unaffordable, Wind Turbines!

LETTER: Wind turbines are a waste of time and money

Faux-green Environmentalists (EPA), Push Their Political Agenda!

EPA goes from Environmental Protection Agency to Extremist Political Agenda

Wind Turbines are “Faux-Green”!

Opposing wind generators is not anti-green

Wind Pusher’s Conduct, Called Into Question!….Not acceptable!

MSP calls for wind farm developer code of conduct

Letter to Slovenia re Known Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise

Mr Diego Loredan, Chairman,Ms Katarina Dea Zetko,

Breaches of UN Convention Against Torture

Background

What Distance Is Safe?

Knowledge of Direct Causation Of “annoyance” Symptoms FromILFN in the 1980s

Are “Annoyance” Symptoms The Same As “Wind Turbine Syndrome”?

What About The Wind Industry Assertions About The “Nocebo Effect” Causing the Symptoms?

Can The Frequencies be Prevented From Entering Homes?

The Problem of Increasing Sensitisation

Concluding remarks

CEZ Predicts Further Drop in Power Prices as Profit Declines

Higher Target

Pre-Sale

Achtung, Ontario! Renewables are a money pit

NSW Planning Department Helps Wind Farm Developers Rig Community “Consultations”

Opposing wind generators is not anti-green

Mr Diego Loredan, Chairman,
Ms Katarina Dea Zetko,