People Fighting Harm from Windweasels, All Over the World

Polish Ombudsman Fights to Secure Human Rights for Wind Farm Victims

polish wind farm

****

One of the myths pedalled by Australia’s self-appointed wind farm noise, sleep and health ‘expert’ (a former tobacco advertising guru) is that the known and obvious adverse health impacts from incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound are a cooked-up “phenomenon”, exclusive to the English speaking world. Trouble with that little tale is that’s been scotched by the Danes:

How can we help people who have wind turbines above their homes?

Earlier this month Poland’s Commissioner for Human Rights (CHR) addressed this question to three competent Ministers, for the Environment, Infrastructure and Construction, and Health, demanding that the rights of people residing in the vicinity of wind farms be adequately protected.

The official website of Poland’s CHR explains (in English) that:

The Commissioner’s Office receives more and more letters from citizens complaining about a deterioration of their health due to the wind turbines’ influence, as well as about the wind farm locating and building procedures. During a meeting with dr. Bodnar, the residents of the Suwałki Region also expressed their concern about the safe placement of wind farms. The Commissioner has contacted the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Infrastructure and Construction on that matter. (https://www.rpo.gov.pl/en/content/rights-residents-living-near-wind-farms).

The page also includes links to a report on dr. Bodnar’s meeting with residents of the Suwalki region and to the three official intervention letters addressed to the Ministers for the Environment, Infrastructure and Construction, and Health.

Importantly, this is the second time that a Polish Ombudsman has intervened on behalf of the people affected by the untrammelled construction of wind farms in Poland.

In August 2014 the then Commissioner for Human Rights, professor Irena Lipowicz, wrote a letter to Polish Prime Minister demanding the introduction of proper setbacks from residences.

The letter stated that “since the current legislation does not provide for the minimum distances from residential areas to be observed in the siting of wind farms, there exists a risk of violation of the constitutional rights to the protection of health and to the legal protection of human life (Articles 68 and 38, respectively of the Constitution of Poland)”.

The 2014 letter further pointed out that:

As numerous scientific publications demonstrate, wind turbines unquestionably impact human health by emitting low frequency noise, infrasound, acoustic and optical impacts or pulsation […]

[Therefore,] the Commissioner for Human Rights asks for immediate action to be taken with a view to developing andSYSTEMATIZINGtechnical norms that may afford an adequate level of protection to the health of residents living in the area adjacent to wind farms.

This letter in Polish can be found here:http://www.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/do-prezesa-rady-ministrow-ws- uregulowania-minimalnych-odleglosci-farm-wiatrowych-od-zabudowy

That letter sent to the Prime Minister Donald Tusk by Ombudsman Lipowicz in mid-2014 did not prompt the then coalition government of the Civic Platform and the Polish Peasant Party to take any significant steps to comprehensively address the regulation of siting wind farms in Poland. As a result, in early 2016 wind farms are still being built as close as 300 metres from human dwellings.

It is important to note that both Polish Ombudsmen, prof. Lipowicz in 2014 and dr. Bodnar at present, are appointees of the ruling coalition that lost power in the Fall 2015 to the Law and Justice Party.

Moreover, the Law and Justice Party opposed the appointment of Dr Bodnar in 2015 on the grounds that his leftist views are not representative of the Polish public opinion. This shows that the issue of wind farm regulations transcends any political or ideological divides in Poland.

It is also worth recalling that former Prime Minister Tusk is the current President-in-Office of the Council of the European Union.

Regional newspaper Współczesna.pl interviewed some of the residents whose plight prompted Ombudsman Bodnar to intervene with the government ministers.

One local resident, Elzbieta Pietrolaj, whose farm is surrounded by five wind turbines, one of which is located 450 metres from her home, said: “With the slightest breeze you can’t sleep a wink because of the booming noise.”

The newspaper explains that Ms Pietrolaj is ailing. “I am constantly nervous. In these conditions it is difficult to get better.” (source:http://www.wspolczesna.pl/wiadomosci/suwalki/art/9414563,wiatraki-na-suwalszczyznie-mieszkancy- wiatraki-zabraly-cisze-marzenia-i-spokoj,id,t.html).

We encourage international media to contact the office of Commissioner for Human Rights for further information:

Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights
Aleja Solidarności 77
00-090 Warszawa
Poland
phone (+ 48 22) 55 17 700
fax (+ 48 22) 827 64 53
biurorzecznika@brpo.gov.pl
Article authored by: stopwiatrakom.eu kontakt@stopwiatrakom.eu

insomnia

Dr. Sarah Laurie’s Speech to Citizens in Falmouth, Fighting Back, Against the Windpushers!

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your rally. I first wish to pay tribute to the long suffering residents of Falmouth USA, who lived or are still living near the wind turbines owned by the town. These people have made an incredible contribution to our knowledge of wind turbine acoustics, wind turbine adverse health impacts, and have shown true human courage and compassion for others in a similar situation – both in their own country and further afield.

We owe them, their acoustics and health professionals, and their supporters, a great debt of gratitude. Their lived experiences, which are now very much in the public domain, in part because of their determination to fight for their legal and human rights, are a window on the incredible suffering which excessive intrusive wind turbine noise can cause. These people are just like you and me but have had to suffer intolerably and disgracefully because of gross government regulatory failure and corporate bastardry, deceit and greed. They are simply trying to live their lives, free from the devastating adverse health effects resulting from what can only be described as an invasion of their home, resulting in acoustic trespass and noise nuisance, from pulsing infrasound and low frequency noise.

These frequencies have been known to be harmful for over thirty years since the seminal research work by Dr Neil Kelley and his team from NASA and other research organisations. Wind turbines are of course not the only source of this damaging sound energy, their body and brain don’t care what the source of the pulsing sound is – it is going to react anyway, at ever decreasing doses, until or unless they can remove themselves from that exposure. The only two options are turn off the noise OR move away. It is not humanly possible to go for long without good quality sleep and remain unharmed and as you all probably know, sleep deprivation from repeated sleep disturbance is the commonest problem reported by most residents living near industrial wind power facilities. This inevitably results in exhaustion, and consequently serious and predictable adverse physical and mental health effects. The Centre for Disease Control in America has recently stated the obvious – that insufficient sleep is a public health problem. Their website states the following: “Sleep is increasingly recognized as important to public health, with sleep insufficiency linked to motor vehicle crashes, industrial disasters, and medical and other occupational errors.1 Unintentionally falling asleep, nodding off while driving, and having difficulty performing daily tasks because of sleepiness all may contribute to these hazardous outcomes. Persons experiencing sleep insufficiency are also more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, depression, and obesity, as well as from cancer, increased mortality, and reduced quality of life and productivity.”

So why are the most commonly reported symptoms of wind turbine neighbours, ignored by the American Health Authorities? Where are the public health physicians? Why has there not yet been even one detailed case study of one person, anywhere in the world, examining the full spectrum of acoustic exposures overnight, together with concurrent sleep study EEG and continuous heart rate monitoring? The Waubra Foundation has been calling for this precise research for the last five years. As you all no doubt know, US Acousticians Rob Rand and Steve Ambrose conducted the wonderful initial acoustic investigation in Falmouth, USA funded by the generosity of Bruce McPherson, which provided vitally important clues about the causes of the symptoms. This study is still of global importance, and is something which Falmouth residents should be very proud of.

Other acoustic investigators have followed, and made other significant contributions. But where are the medical and public health investigators? They seem to be in hiding; either ignoring important research evidence in the case of Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council “expert panel” with members who had documented conflicts of interest, or in the case of Health Canada, deliberately choosing study designs which do not directly investigate the problems in the best possible way. For example any doctor knows that you do not make clinical judgements about someone’s blood pressure with a single once off measurement, yet that is what this Health Canada team did – with no concurrent measurement of the acoustic exposure at the time. You must repeat the measurement. This is junk science, and Health Canada know it, and are trying to hide it by dribbling the study results out slowly and in small “bites”, restricting access to the raw data and other results, making it very difficult for others to critically evaluate their results. I applaud Falmouth Psychiatrist Dr William Hallstein for his professional integrity, courage, and honesty – advocating so strongly for his patients, to whom he owes a professional and ethical duty of care, which he clearly takes seriously. Others need to follow his example. I also applaud Dr Nina Pierpont for her research, and her courage and integrity, and her work with Falmouth residents, helping them expose their stories to the public. But where are their colleagues? Why the silence? 1 http://www.cdc.gov/features/dssleep/ The silence of too many professionals, or indeed even active collusion with noise polluters to hide or ignore the evidence of serious harm, has allowed this serious abuse of the legal and human rights of residents in Falmouth, and indeed all over the world, to occur, and to continue.

But why are the public servants responsible for environmental health, planning and noise pollution regulation, seemingly so complicit with the harmful abuse of the rights of citizens? Is it ignorance or incompetence? Is it pure corruption? Is it regulatory capture? Is it ideological zealotry – an attitude that leads to the concept that people who are noise impacted from wind turbine noise are somehow acceptable “collateral damage”. Is it fear of being ridiculed or ostracized by colleagues?

I am very glad that you are showing such open and public support for the impacted Falmouth residents today, and I join with you in demanding immediate change before any more damage is done to vulnerable citizens. There must be full spectrum acoustic measurements inside and outside people’s homes, with the complete cooperation of the wind turbine operators so that on off testing can be performed to determine the true contribution of the wind turbines to the soundscape, and so the symptom triggers can be properly identified. If the turbines are disturbing sleep, they must be turned off at night. If health is being adversely impacted, there needs to be a resolution – two alternatives being property buy outs with compensation for nuisance, or wind turbines being deconstructed and removed. There are precedents for both. Planning regulations and siting decisions must in future taken notice of empirical acoustic and health data and ensure there is sufficient buffer zone in order to protect people. It’s time people’s health, and their human rights are properly protected – in particular the right to attain the best possible physical and mental health. That fundamental human right to the best possible health specified in most United Nations Human Rights instruments, is not possible if people cannot sleep.

Sarah Laurie, CEO Waubra Foundation

Wind Industry Cannot Compete With Reliable Economical Energy Sources!

Killing the Wind Industry: It’s a ‘Gas’

coal-seam-gas

****

With subsidies for wind power being slashed around the Globe (or with that outcome inevitable where they remain) the wind industry is being given a chance to finally experience the opportunity to back up its endless (but empty) claims about being cheaper than gas and coal-fired power.

Until now, wind power outfits have wallowed in the massive subsidies and ideologically driven market perversion that sees them ‘earning’ guaranteed prices 3-4 times the price of conventional power, for a chaotic, weather-driven power source that – but for the subsidies it attracts – has NO commercial value.

Now, adding to their wows – and much to the horror of their parasites and spruikers – market forces are crushing what little hope they held of surviving in a world where subsidies have either disappeared or are about to. In short, it seems the wind industry is now suffering from a terminal case of ‘gas’.

Greens terrified cheap energy will kill wind and solar
Daily Caller
Andrew Follett
23 February 2016

Cheap coal, oil and natural gas are outcompeting wind and solar power despite massive government support, and environmentalists are really upset about it.

“I believe low energy prices may complicate the transformation, to be very frank, and this is a very important issue for countries to note; all the strong renewables and energy efficiency policies therefore may be undermined with the low fossil fuel prices,” Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), told reporters in Brussels.

Americans are spending less on energy than they have at virtually any other point in recent history. Energy prices dropped by 41 percent in 2015 due to innovative new techniques to extract hydrocarbons, like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.

Environmentalists are also terrified that the rise of cheap conventional energy will hurt wind and solar.

“Increasing reliance on natural gas displaces the market for clean energy,” reads The Sierra Club’s website. This concern notably did not impact The Sierra Club when it took $26 million from natural gas interests to oppose coal power.

Natural gas electricity, in particular, is so cheap that it’s already passing coal power as the most used source of electricity.

Projections from the IEA estimate that developing wind and solar power to substantially impact global warming could cost up to $16.5 trillion between now and 2030. To put such numbers in perspective, the U.S. government is just under $19 trillion in debt and only produced $17.4 trillion in gross domestic product in 2014.

American taxpayers spend an average of $39 billion a year financially supporting solar energy, according to a 2015 report by the Taxpayer Protection Alliance.

The same report shows President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus package contained $51 billion in spending for green energy projects, including funding for failed solar energy companies such as Solyndra and Abound Solar.
Daily Caller

Here’s another take on the wind industry’s demise from Alan Moran.

Carbon abatement’s snake venom: diluted but still poisonous
Catallaxy Files
Alan Moran
25 February 2016

Motley events offer hope of a fraying of the policies stemming from climate change hysteria.

While the UN is trying to organise a reaffirmation meeting in April by national leaders of the sacred emission reduction pledges they made in Paris last December, reality is moving against it.  The UN climate change agreement was engineered and negotiated by the Obama administration which pressured the (mainly willing) OECD nations to accept 26 per cent emission reductions and allowed developing countries to emit want they want as long as they paid lip service to them levelling out at some distant time.

The Supreme Court’s stay of execution on Obama’s attempt to by-pass Congress by using regulations on electricity generators to kill coal was a blow for sanity.  The death of Antonin Scalia may still clear the way for the US to kill its coal by these means.  But the Obama administration is taking no chances.  Chief climate negotiator, Todd Stern, is touring the world proclaiming that even if that ruse by Obama fails he has other economy-crippling shots in his locker.

In this the US is faithfully supported by international appendages like the International Energy Agency (IEA).  But the collapse of energy prices is undermining the policy and shifting still further into the future the mirage of competitive renewable energy.  The disappointment of this to green advocates is a position shared by IEA chief Fatih Birol,  who regrettedly said, “all the strong renewables and energy efficiency policies therefore may be undermined with the low fossil fuel prices.”  Birol was recently in Australia promoting his economic poison to Ministers.  Why do we finance such harmful bodies?

In the UK, success of fracking is also counteracting the cost impositionsof the government’s renewable energy requirements  leading to disappointment on the part of those who prefer economic distress and their backers in the renewable energy field.

The unproductive expenditure on renewables in Australia and elsewhere is one of the reasons why we have such persistent low growth.  To combat this the IMF is calling for yet another antidote of increased pump-priming.  That would prove as counterproductive as all the previous ones – one appropriate solution of dismantling costly energy policy impositions on business and households would be plain sacrilege to the international bureaucrats.

While the American Interest view, that the Paris agreement is dead in the water, is a tad over-optimistic, boredom is setting in.  There are far fewer media mentions and an absence of mass rallies.  Moreover, aside from the innovation-driven cost reductions in fossil fuels, Japan has quietly moved to avert a self-enforced energy starvation by approving new coal fired power stations – 50 of them.  These developments make it most unlikely that Japan can meet the obligations it made in December – as it did with Kyoto, Japan will readily welch on an agreement once it realises that its costs are too great.

Unfortunately accords, like the UN Climate Change Convention in Paris last December, develop their own momentum in Australia, where governments will engage in hidden economy-sapping expropriations to please rent-seekers and the international diplomatic community.  The last time around the Howard Government cooperated with ALP state governments in a policy of regulating land use and curtailing irrigation in the Murray basin.  These measures stopped the expansion of farming.  Sadly, even the much vaunted new priority on agriculture to supply Chindia will likely prove unable to unravel the myriad environmental bulwarks that we have put in place to raise costs and limit the expansion of agriculture.
Catallaxy Files

turbine collapse fenner NY

Novelty Energy is Not Reducing CO2. No Bang for our Billions of Bucks!

Why Squander $Billions on Wind Power? If CO2 is the Threat, Nukes is the Answer

 

How to squander ₤4 billion of other peoples’ money.

****

If policy is driven by petulant, infantile ideology, instead of cool-headed economics, the result is, without exception, an unmitigated disaster. Here’s a nice little wrap-up based on the latter policy approach, that unpicks the falsehoods of the former.

(Guaranteed) power to the people
Scientific Alliance
12 February 2016

This week saw the opening of a massive energy project centred on Shetland. A consortium led by the French energy company Total has invested £3.5bn in extracting gas from deep undersea over 100 km west of the islands, receiving it onshore at a new complex adjacent to the existing Sullom Voe oil terminal, and then feeding it into the UK mainland gas grid. According to the report “the Shetland Gas Plant is said by its operator Total to be capable of supplying energy to two million homes”(Total turns on gas from west of Shetland Laggan and Tormore fields).

By coincidence, an article last week reported that Hornsea takes the world lead in offshore wind. Hornsea is a project which has two things in common with the Shetland gas terminal: it is offshore (120 kilometres off Yorkshire) and big (with a peak capacity of 1.2 gigawatts, nearly twice the size as the London Array, currently the world’s largest such installation). The big difference, though, is that gas supplies are guaranteed, barring a system failure, while the output of any wind farm varies uncontrollably.

The ‘peak capacity’ quoted for Hornsea would give a theoretical energy output of nearly 10.5 terrawatt-hours. If we take 80% as the actual capacity factor, comparable to an efficient conventional station, this would generate sufficient electricity to power about half a million homes (using the 2011 ONS figure of 16 MWh for total annual household consumption of energy as electricity and gas), if it was available on demand. But in reality, the capacity factor would be half that, so the figure for homes supplied would come down to 250,000.

For more background information, it’s interesting to look at the London Array, as the Engineer journal did in 2013 (Your questions answered: the London Array). This wind farm occupies 100 square kilometres in the Thames estuary. The current 630MW peak output arrangement was intended to be added to in a second phase, but this has now been dropped because of concerns about the impact on overwintering Red Throated Divers.

In response to a question about expected output, the engineering team answered “We expect a load factor of c.40%, giving output of c.2,200,000MWh – enough to meet the electricity needs of around 500,000 households.” On that basis, we can expect the claim for the planned Hornsea project to be for a million homes to be supplied with electricity. However, if we take overall household energy consumption, the output of this giant wind farm will supply only a quarter of that number over a year.

The important point is that this quarter of a million is simply the expected output of the wind array divided by the average household energy consumption. It should not be confused with a real figure; it is by no means a guarantee that this number of houses could be supplied with energy at any one time.

To continue the comparison, Hornsea is said to cover an area more than five times the size of Hull, which would make it at least 350 km2. The developers will not reveal the cost, but the London Array cost £1.9bn, so let’s assume around £4bn. The Shetland gas terminal, on the other hand, is reported to be part of an overall £3.5bn investment by Total and its partners and the biggest construction project in the UK since the London Olympics. However, it has a footprint of only about half a square kilometre (this and other facts from Building the Shetland Gas Plant on the Petrofac website).

Gas will, of course, be sold at market prices, although in practice often on long-term contract. Some will go directly to homes and commercial premises for heating, and some to power stations, which will provide electricity also at market prices. On the other hand, we read that World’s biggest offshore wind farm to add £4.2 billion to energy bills.

Under a contract agreed in 2014 with Ed Davey, Energy Secretary in the then coalition government, electricity from Hornsea will cost £140/MWh – four times the current market price – for a guaranteed 15 year period. It is estimated that this will cost domestic and commercial consumers £4.2bn in total, or an average of £280 million each year.

The National Audit Office was critical of the deal, and with good cause. In 2015, a competition for available subsidies for existing wind farms resulted in prices as low as £115/MWh being agreed. By way of comparison, the troubled Hinkley C nuclear project would attract a price of £92.50/MWh, which has been widely condemned as being unnecessarily expensive. Against the price for offshore wind, it begins to look like a real bargain.

So, what we have in the case of Laggan/Tormore and Hornsea can be summed up as follows. One is a plant with capital costs of £3.5bn, which should not increase energy bills (and may help to keep them down) and will not cost taxpayers anything over its lifetime, capable of supplying the entire energy needs of two million homes reliably (that’s 8% of national energy demand).

The other has much the same capital costs and will add an estimated £4.2bn to energy costs over 15 years (and more if it lasts longer). On a straight comparative basis, it is theoretically capable of supplying the energy needs of a quarter of a million houses, or about 1% of total UK energy use. Not factored into this are the additional costs of accommodating the fluctuating output into the grid and the need to have conventional backup to maintain a stable supply.

The simple question to ask is why a government would support a project with at best one-eighth of the output of Laggan/Tormore and costing the country at least twice as much over its (almost certainly shorter) lifetime? The answer would of course be to meet emissions reduction targets. But there is a much more reliable way of doing that, which is to build nuclear stations.

The fact that we are still so far from doing this is down to problems with finance and lengthy design approval as well as the arbitrary inclusion of targets for renewable energy to emissions reduction goals. To have a secure, affordable, low carbon energy system, we need more nuclear and gas use rather than more massive wind farms. Unfortunately, in the case of offshore wind, it seems to be a question of out of sight, out of mind, at least until the bills start ratcheting up.
Scientific Alliance

Australia’s Federal Government is, under its Large-Scale RET, set up torob power consumers of $45 billion, designed to be thrown at wind power outfits; the ‘bottom line’ of which will be laid out a decade or so from now, as thousands of these things rusting in some dimwit’s top paddock, the end of energy hungry businesses – like mineral processors – and thousands of households rubbing along with candles and kero fridges.

If a fraction of that colossal sum was directed to a couple of nuclear plants  – starting now – Australia could avoid an unmitigated energy disaster, retain a manufacturing industry, keep mineral processors operating on Australian soil; and see future generations able to enjoy lasting employment, not least in the high-end work that comes with nuclear power generation.

As an added bonus, there would still be more than $25 billion of REC Tax/Subsidy leftover in change – who know’s Greg Hunt, Patrick Gibbons & Co might even stick it in an envelope marked ‘Return to Sender’?

Oh, and if CO2 gas is really the serious threat that we’re constantly harangued about, then those plants ought to satisfy the global warming catastrophists, too.

After cold beer (with a lasting job to generate the thirst for it), hot showers and, instead of random wind power blackouts, 24 x 365 reliable power – that’s affordable and satisfies the CAGW crowd? Then it’s nukes or nothing.

nuclear-power-a

Liberated Wind Turbine Blades…..”Tourist Attraction”?

Wind Industry Claims Flying Blades & Crashing Turbines a ‘Landmark & Tourist Attraction’

BladeFailure_Spain

****

The number of cases involving collapsing turbines and flying blades (aka “component liberation”) has become so common that, if we were a tad cynical, we would go so far to suggest the possibility of some kind of pattern, along the lines proffered by Mr Bond’s nemesis, Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times it’s enemy action”.

Turbines keep crashing back to earth in frightening numbers – from Brazilto KansasPennsylvaniaGermany and ScotlandDevon and everywhere in between: Ireland has been ‘luckier’ than most (see our posts here and here) and their luck is being enjoyed in Sweden too (see our post here).

A month or so back, Swedes had the pleasure of waking up to the sound of a vertically-challenged 290 tonne, whirling Danish Dervish splattering itself across a country road, fortunately free of Volvos at the time:

vestas v112

****

Then there’s the wild habit of these little ‘eco-friendlies’ unshackling their 10 tonne blades, and chucking them for miles in all directions – see our posts here and here and here and here and here.

Adding to the list of unscheduled component ‘liberation’ events is this tale from Madison County, New York.

***

from WKTV

***

113-foot blade falls off windmill that previously toppled in Madison County
Syracuse
Elizabeth Doran
11 February 2016

blade fail

FENNER, NY – A 113-foot blade fell off a wind turbine at the Fenner wind farm off Bellinger Road in the town of Fenner in Madison County, according to Fenner town officials.

The blade appears to have fallen off at about 9:30 a.m. today, and town officials think it may have been caused by a bolt failure, said Paula Douglas, Fenner town clerk.

Town officials didn’t think the wind had anything to do with the incident.

Fenner town officials said it’s the same 187-ton windmill – No. 18 of 20 –that collapsed in December 2009. It was replaced with a new wind turbine, Douglas said.

Enel Green Power-North America officials said they are working with the turbine supplier to investigate what happened, but said it’s too early to determine the cause. EGP-NA also said there is no threat to the community, and asked that residents keep a safe distance away from the site to allow workers to conduct their assessments.

The 200-foot-plus structure is one of 20 windmills that generate electricity at the Fenner Wind Farm operated by EGP-NA.

The windmills were erected in 2001 atop a hill at a cost of $34 million. At the time, it was the largest wind-energy facility in the Eastern United States, but that’s no longer the case.

The wind farm, a landmark and tourist attraction to some, provide enough electricity for 10,000 homes.
Syracuse

blackout

****

The usual infantile ‘analysis’ from Elizabeth Doran there – with bunkum about “20 windmills powering 10,000 homes”. Unless those households are prepared to sit freezing or boiling in the dark around 70% of the time, they will, in fact, be ‘powered’ by conventional sources such as coal, gas, hydro and nuclear.

That journalists are still pushing that kind of wind industry propaganda in 2016 is not just dumb, it’s lazy. A quick glance at performance sites like,Aneroid Energy makes a nonsense of the “this wind farm powers XX homes” furphy.

And the line about these being a ‘landmark’ and providing a ‘tourist attraction’ had us giggling too; given that fact that the turbines in question seem to let loose with the regularity of Yellowstone’s Old Faithful: this is not the first time blades have busted loose or turbines have tumbled at Fenner. No, Fenner’s local wonders regularly turn-on ‘action/adventure’ shows that, no doubt, thrill visitors.

blaid fail ny pick up

****

Turbine blade falls at 30-MW wind farm in New York
SeeNews Renewables
Ivan Shumkov
12 February 2016

One of the blades of a Goldwind (HKG:2208) turbine at the 30-MW Fenner wind farm in Madison County, New York, fell off on Thursday, the Post-Standard of Syracuse reported.

Fenner town officials told the newspaper it was unlikely that the incident was caused by the wind, but rather by a bolt failure.

The North American unit of Italy’s Enel Green Power SpA (BIT:EGPW) is the operator of the wind park, which has been generating power since 2001. According to the officials, the turbine is in the same location as one that had to be replaced after crashing down in December 2009.

Representatives of Enel Green Power North America told the newspaper that they are investigating the incident in collaboration with the turbine supplier. The Fenner wind farm consists of 19 pieces of 1.5-MW turbines made by General Electric (GE) and one 1.5-MW Goldwind machine.
SeeNews Renewables

turbine collapse fenner NY

Turn off the Money Tap, and the Wind Scam will “Dry UP”!

Doomed & Desperate: UK Wind Industry Attempts to Engineer Backdoor Subsidies

panic-disorder-971

David Cameron’s Conservatives strode to outright power on the back of a ‘crystal clear’ manifesto to cut subsidies to wind power and to give locals the right to veto wind farm projects at the planning stage.

But, in a ‘never-say-die’ last ditch attempt to obtain ‘backdoor’ access to the perpetual subsidies that are the only reason it exists at all (see our posts here and here), the wind industry – along with its plants in the Department of Energy and Climate Change – have hatched a plan to get around Cameron’s pledge to permanently cut its lifeline.

Humpty Dumpty was famously (and rightly) challenged by a scornful and quizzical Alice for haughtily claiming that he – as ‘Master’ in a ‘Looking Glass’ World – could make words mean whatever he chose them to mean.

Taking its cue from that pompous and brittle egg, the wind industry – in pitching a panicked salvation package – has primed its DECC’s puppets to call a “government guaranteed fixed price for wind power” a “subsidy-free contract”, in what can be fairly described as very scrambled logic.

Revealed: the great wind farm tax ‘con’
The Telegraph
Emily Gosden
13 February 2016

Ministers may break pledge to stop funding onshore turbines with consumer subsidies

Ministers have been accused of planning a U-turn that would see consumersFUND new onshore wind farms through green levies.

The Government confirmed it was “looking carefully” at a wind industry proposal to continue public financial support for new turbines, despite a manifesto pledge to halt expansion.

Critics described the proposal as a con, and said the Conservatives’ policy had been “crystal clear” that the subsidies would stop.

Under the plan, households would still be forced to pay millions of pounds on their energy bills to fund new wind farms – but the payments would no longer be defined as subsidies.

The wind industry’s plan hinges on the fact that no new power plants are commercially viable to build at the moment without extra financial support from bill-payers.

If wind farms can be built at lower cost to consumers than alternatives, such as new gas plants, then payments toFUND them should no longer be classed as “subsidy”, the industry argues.

Andrea Leadsom, the energy minister, admitted that the proposal for so-called “subsidy-free” contracts would not in fact be “cost free” for bill-payers, but said the Government was “listening carefully to industry on how it can be delivered”.

Opponents called the plan “outrageous” and said that the proposals under consideration would still constitute subsidies.

Owen Paterson, the Tory MP and former environment secretary, said: “Hard-working energy consumers will not be conned by a change in name. The Conservative manifesto was crystal clear that public subsidies for onshore wind will stop.

“There is absolutely no place for subsidising wind – a failed medieval technology which during the coldest day of the year so far produced only 0.75 per cent of the electricity load.”

The Conservatives pledged in their 2015 manifesto to “halt the spread of onshore wind farms” and vowed to “end any new public subsidy” for the turbines.

More than 5,000 wind turbines have so far been built onshore in the UK under efforts to hit renewable energy and climate change targets.

Consumers are already estimated to pay in excess of £800 million a year in subsidies for the turbines, adding about £10 to an annual household energy bill.

David Cameron has said that Britain does not “need to have more of these subsidised onshore”.

But the proposal being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) would see onshore wind farms continue to qualify for an existing subsidy scheme that guarantees developers a fixed price for electricity generated.

The most recent onshore wind farm contracts awarded under the scheme, early last year, were at prices of about £80 per megawatt hour (MWh) – more than double current market prices of about £35/MWh. Consumers willFUND the difference through green levies on their energy bills.

Under the proposals being looked at by DECC, prices of between £60/MWh and £80/MWh would be regarded as “subsidy-free” by 2020.

John Constable, of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a group critical of renewable energy costs, said it would be “outrageous” to regard the proposal DECC was considering as “subsidy free”. “It is justSPIN doctor stuff, it’s playing with words,” he said.

Glyn Davies, the Tory MP, a member of the energy select committee, said: “I don’t think we should be introducing mechanisms that continue with subsidy – just to say there’s no subsidy when there actually is.”

He said he would be “very concerned” if ministers continued payouts to new onshore wind farms.

Fellow Tory Peter Lilley said the wind industry’s proposal “wouldn’t be subsidy-free” and that wind farms should not receive the same support as gas plants, because the power they produced was not reliable and was therefore worth less.

Mr Paterson added: “If we must support energy, we should help develop combined heat and power which increases efficiency from 50 per cent to 80 per cent or we should develop new technologies which actually work.”

A DECC source insisted energy secretary Amber Rudd was “crystal clear that the manifesto commitment to end new public subsidies for onshore wind and give local people the final say is delivered to the letter”.

“Any idea that doesn’t do this is simply not going to get the green light,” the source said.

The influential think-tank Policy Exchange has said that “subsidy-free” contracts should be offered to support the construction of new onshore wind farms in Scotland and Wales, as well as replacing old turbines with new, far bigger ones.

Maf Smith, deputy chief executive of Renewable UK, said it would be “anti-competitive” to bar any technology from competing for the financial support being offered for new power plants.

A DECC spokesman said: “There is no change to our commitment to end new onshore wind subsidies. Our actions have shown that we will be tough on subsidies, in order to keep bills down for our families and businesses.”
The Telegraph

Maf-Smith

****

Maf Smith has a somewhat confused take on ‘competition’. It’s precisely what David Cameron has given the wind industry a chance to finally experience; with an opportunity toBACK UP its endless (but empty) claims about being cheaper than gas and coal-fired power. Well, Maf? What are you and your paymasters waiting for?

The only reason the UK has to offer any financial support to conventional generators is thanks to the perverse policy that, until now, has guaranteed prices 3-4 times the price of conventional power, for the chaotic, weather-driven delivery of a source that – but for the subsidies it attracts – has NO commercial value.

A rebranded wind farm subsidy is still a subsidy
The Telegraph
Telegraph View
24 February 2016

The public aren’t fools. If the Government wants them to pay for the construction of inefficient wind farms, let it admit to it

The 2015 Conservative Party manifesto took a clear and sensible stance on the issue of wind farms. It stated that while they can form part of the “energy mix”, they are “unable by themselves to provide the firm capacity that a stable energySYSTEM REQUIRES”. The manifesto pledged to “end any new public subsidy for them”. So it is more than a surprise and a disappointment to discover that the Government is considering a reversal – keeping the subsidies and simply rebranding them.

Popular opposition to wind farms is practical, not ideological. Most people recognise that we need to develop sustainable technologies and reduce pollution. But Britain also needs cheap, plentiful energy – to fuel its economic growth and provide a highQUALITY OF LIFE for all its citizens.

Wind farms often fail to meet these criteria. Some people complain that they despoil the environment by being ugly, loud and deadly to birds. Others point out that they can be desperately inefficient. Britain demands energy most in the winter, to heat our homes. But at this time of the year it is often windless, despite recent storms. The turbines stand still and useless – a complete waste of the generous subsidies that come from levies on consumers’ energy bills. To make matters worse, when the wind blows too hard, the Government actually pays the industry to turn the turbines off. Strong wind conditions in late January threatened to overwhelmTHE GRID with more power than was needed – so the National Grid offered lucrative payouts of between £58 and £115 per MWh to shut down the supply.

If the Government believes there is a case to be made for continuing to subsidise the industry then it should make it openly and honestly. What the public does not want to hear isSPIN – which is what the proposal of redefining a subsidy amounts to. Lobbyists say that any new onshore wind farms will cost less to build than the old, non-renewable plants they are replacing, so they are a fair deal. Yet not only will the new turbines be less efficient than gas or coal, but there is also no escaping the conclusion that hard-pressed consumers will still be bank-rolling the expansion of a controversial energy source through their domestic bills. We sincerely hope that the Government rejects any advice to rebrand this arrangement as subsidy-free. The public deserves transparency in this debate.
The Telegraph

SWITZERLAND-WEF-DAVOS-CAMERON

Wind Turbine Projects Suck the Life Out of Another Economy!

South Australia’s Economy the Victim of a Wind Power ‘Suicide Pact’

suicide-note

****

South Australia – Australia’s ‘Wind Power Capital’ – is like the cooking show moment where – through the magic of clever editing – a perfect soufflé is slid in front of the camera and the grinning, self-satisfied cook announces ‘here’s one I prepared earlier’.

Except that, in SA’s case, what’s been plated up is an unmitigated energy disaster; that no amount of post-production cutting and splicing can salvage. In SA, its wind power soufflé failed to rise and, once failed, has no hope of rising again.

The recipe for the disaster in SA was drawn up by the boys from Babcock & Brown (aka Infigen) and a disgraced American lawyer and convicted con-man, Tim Flato (who robbed his clients of close to US$400,000, got struck-off, and scuttled off to set up the wind industry in SA and elsewhere) – with plenty of eager help from Greg Hunt’s staffer, Patrick Gibbons and his best mate, Vesta’s Ken McAlpine (back when they both worked as advisers to a Labor Minister in Victoria, Theo Theophanous) (see our post here).

STT operatives have been feverishly digging up more dirt on Tim Flato and his fellow travelers. Turns out Tim was, at various critical times, a director of Babcock & Brown and several of its subsidiaries. But, we digress.

Back to South Australia and its costly wind power flop, with a short and sharp piece from Alan Moran.

South Australian electricity – the state’s suicide mission
Catallaxy Files
Alan Moran
19 February 2016

Here is an object lesson of the effects of winner picking by governments. South Australia’s electricity industry is now threatening to seriously undermine the state’s economy.

Back in October 2014, the electricity market manager, AEMO together with the South Australian state based transmission business, ElectraNet, made some ostensibly soothing comments that the wind dominated South Australia system could continue to operate securely.

Wind is inherently unreliable as well as costing two and a half times as much as coal. But the 2014 report said that this reliability depended upon transmission support that allowed increasing amounts of reliable coal generated electricity to be imported from Victoria and NSW.

South Australia is able to boost wind only because of the subsidy which the Commonwealth’s renewable program and the state’s own measures force consumers of other fuels to transfer to the renewables.

Wind and solar account for 40 per cent (p.5) of South Australia’s generation.

By October of last year the officials’ balm was being used less sparingly.The head of AEMO, following a series of high priced events in South Australia as a result of the wind stopping – as it does – was warning of increasing blackouts in South Australia unless the transmission system was augmented. And the effectiveness of such a patch up would diminish if subsidies cause the share of wind to increase in other states – in this respect the ALP has an “aspirational” goal of 50 per cent renewable share.

South Australia’s problems are about to become more acute with the closure next month of the coal fired 550 MW Northern Power station, a measure brought about by the increasing amount of subsidised wind becoming available.

The latest report [press release here and the full report here: Joint AEMO ElectraNet Report_19 February 2016] again addresses the issue in technical language but is foreshadowing major new investment being required – $1 billion to duplicate the existing transmission links plus other expenditures to allow for coverage of short term drops in generation.

All this spending is necessary in order to facilitate a shift from a low cost traditional electricity supply to high cost rent-seeker sponsored and trendy wind. These measures hammer additional nails in the state’s coffin.

Perhaps the ultimate solution for South Australia, where coal costs are quite high, is nuclear.

The ALP has shifted to support a waste dump but a nuclear generator is a long way off. And in the interim, the government is opening the door to the coal seam and shale exploration that has been rejected by green influenced politicians in NSW and Victoria but again South Australia may have less promising reserves.
Catallaxy Files

Here’s one STT prepared earlier, with a little help from Aneroid Energy – the chaotic ‘output’ from SA’s 17 wind farms during May 2015:

May 2015 SA

Winweasels Will Say Anything, To Try To Protect Their Scam!

Orwellian Eco-Fascist Ideology Ramming Wind Turbines Into Everyone Else’s Backyards

200355536-002

****

Those that accuse community defenders of being nothing more than self-interested ‘NIMBYs’ are hardly what you’d call ‘disinterested observers’.

No, it’s their willful ignorance and lack of human empathy that gives them away – that and the fact that they will never, themselves, have to tolerate a ‘life’, suffering incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound.

Reminiscent of the porcine ‘elite’ that ran Orwell’s Animal Farm (with one of its central themes the promised construction of a windmill that was said by its piggy-proponents to offer ‘free electricity’, a life of leisure and wealth for the lower orders) in his obsession to carpet your patch of paradise with hundreds of whirling Danish-Dervishes, the eco-fascist is always ready to line you up to make the sacrifices that they themselveswouldn’t tolerate for a second.

Some might call it ‘green hypocrisy’: STT calls it an inexcusable form of malevolence of the very worst kind – one, long on sanctimony, and short on either scientific or economic logic. Precisely the attributes exhibited by Orwell’s selfish and mean-spirited barnyard overlords.

These days, the characters drawn by George don’t grunt, they rant – and use self-affixed titles such as “Friends of Mother Earth”. Here’s a run-down on how these characters roll, from Virgina.

Van Velzer: Botetourt ignores the hazards of wind energy
The Roanoke Times
Bill Van Velzer
15 February 2016

On Jan. 26, Botetourt County’s Board of Supervisors gave its unanimous blessing to the construction of 25, 550-foot tall wind turbines on North Mountain.

This decision has brought cheers from local environmentalists who identify themselves as “friends of Mother Earth.” As with the siting of any industrial facility, the proposed Rocky Forge project is replete with enough technical minutiae that any complete understanding of its true environmental and human impact requires tremendous attention to hours of intense study.

For this reason, Rockbridge County’s Board of Supervisors requested of Botetourt County a reasonable 90-day delay period. This delay was denied while the project was allowed to proceed.

Wind does not respect arbitrary political boundaries; neither do the impacts that industrial wind facilities have on nearby residents and wildlife. So when one of the speakers referred to a need to push wind turbines into the view sheds of “the wealthy Rockbridge elites,” one wonders if there is another agenda at work that has little to do with the facts of this issue. Unfortunately, this seems to be the world we live in nowadays.

Indeed, it seems that discussions of wind energy fit into a larger political matrix. We must avoid this. This issue — when properly vetted — should transcend political ideology and rest on factual evidence. Each of us has a right to define our own quality of life. When someone insists that their emotionally-driven opinion is more important than my factual analysis, I have to begin wondering if I’m getting too close to a larger ideological vulnerability.

Having said this, there are legitimate issues concerning both Botetourt County’s rush to judgement and the larger assumptions about wind energy. From local to global, here is where we are:

First is the issue of “unconstitutional taking of private property.” In short, your right to enjoy your private property cannot trump my right to the enjoy mine. This is an essential ingredient of American jurisprudence, originating in English common law. It is at the heart of how we define fairness. Yet the precedent set by the Botetourt Board of Supervisors allows 550’-tall wind turbines 605 feet from a neighboring property line, and 820 feet a from a neighbor’s home.

Moreover, the 60dBA noise limit “restriction” is commensurate with sound at a busy urban intersection. North Mountain is clearly a rural environment with an ambient noise level at exactly half of this figure. Will these allowances not impact neighboring property values?

Of course, these issues have everything to do with whether or not prospective purchasers of your property — should you decide to sell — would want to hear this cacophony of noise, and see spinning blades from your deck or picture window at all hours and days of the year.

Infrasound belongs to the above argument, but really deserves space of its own. The wind industry denies its existence like tobacco companies used to deny any link between smoking and lung cancer.

Not surprisingly, Botetourt County doesn’t recognize infrasound, either. This cannot and will not continue, due to the rapidly accumulating evidence that infrasound’s wave pulses are a much greater health concern than is audible sound.

Infrasound deprives people of sleep, causes irritability and loss of concentration, and general anxiety. Don’t take my word for it — scores of YouTube videos have documented the abandonment of homes due to this unforgivable negligence on the part of local government officials.

Impact on wildlife is the flip side of human impact. Infrasound impacts animals in the same way that it impacts humans; the difference is that wildlife simply leaves impacted areas.

sleep with turbines

However for avian populations, the destruction is more graphic. For this reason, wind turbines have been called “Cuisinarts of the air.”

“Windustry” denies this, while claiming that cats, windows and cars take far more birds and bats than do wind turbines. This is beyond disingenuous. How many house cats kill an eagle, a hawk, an owl annually? None other than the American Bird Conservancy documents bird and bat deaths in the U.S. as 573,000 and 888,000 respectively, as of 2012.

dead_eagle_at_base_of_turbine

The “kicker” here is that Botetourt County doesn’t require independent monitoring of bird and bat kills — even for resident eagle populations. Ditto for threatened and endangered bats. Is this prudent?

So while Rocky Forge supporters congratulate themselves, more deliberative minds ponder the future. Unbeknownst to most valley residents, Botetourt County’s master wind resource map identifies 11 ridges and mountains as potential industrial wind energy sites. I’ll leave the last assumption to you.
The Roanoke Times

lake winds

One Billion Dollars to “Fix” Mistakes that Should NOT Have Been Made!

‘Saving’ South Australia from its Self-Inflicted Wind Power Disaster Needs $1 Billion Right NOW!

head slap

****

Wind and solar create headaches for energy market operator
Australian Financial Review
Mark Ludlow
19 February 2016

State governments may have to spend billions of dollars to duplicate the electricity network to cope with the unreliability of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, according to the national energy forecaster.

As the Australian Energy Market Operator released a report [press release here and the full report here: Joint AEMO ElectraNet Report_19 February 2016] that found there could be reliability issues for the South Australian market, which has embraced renewable technology, its chief executive, Matt Zema, said the rise of wind and solar could also create problems throughout the country.

“It is becoming more and more of a challenge. We might need to build another interconnector to the South Australian market to improve reliability and in the longer term another bigger loop across the nation to be a back-up,” Mr Zema told The Australian Financial Review.

Electricity prices spiked in South Australia late last year after problems with the Heywood interconnector to Victoria, effectively cutting off South Australia from the NEM. South Australia did not have enough of its own locally generated power to cope with demand, which significantly pushed up prices.

A joint report between AEMO and South Australia’s electricity transmission company Electranet found there will be ongoing issues with controlling reliability in the state’s power network either during or following any future loss of the Heywood interconnector and the closure of coal-fired power stations.

Interconnectors are high-voltage transmission cables connecting electricity markets.

“Measures can be taken in the short term to address some of the immediate operational effects, but as the power system continues to evolve, in the longer term there could be an increasing need for changes to market arrangements or infrastructure to continue to meet security and reliability expectations, particularly at times when SA is synchronously islanded [separated] from the remainder of the NEM,” the report found.

AEMO is conducting further studies to maintain power system security in South Australia if it becomes isolated from the NEM.

Grappling with implications

Mr Zema said state governments were still grappling with the implications of moving away from the more reliable coal and gas-fired generation. He said they may have toINVEST billions of dollars in a back-up “loop” of interconnectors to ensure there are not reliability issues which could lead to blackouts.

“South Australia is at the front end of this [renewable] curve, Tasmania is not far behind as they are finding out with Basslink connection to the mainland,” Mr Zema said.

“If you build another interconnector to Victoria you may well extend it from Victoria to NSW.”

A new interconnector between South Australia and Victoria which would cost about $1 billion.

Mr Zema said the only alternative to building back-up interconnectors or more gas-fired power stations to cover for wind and solar – when the sun isn’t shining or the wind is not blowing – would be to dismantle the NEM.

“You either strengthenTHE GRID and have more reliability and more paths or you break it up and its gets smaller and smaller and each state becomes an island,” he said.

“You either become better connected toTHE GRID or you become your own grid which would result in huge price fluctuations.”

South Australia is leading the charge towards renewable energy, especially with the closure of coal-fired power stations, including Alinta Energy’s coal-fired power stations at Port Augusta.

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill last year said the price fluctuations would not last and the state would benefit from leading the adoption of wind and solar power.

The precarious nature of the electricity network was further demonstrated by Tasmania also being isolated due to problems with the Bass Strait undersea power cable.

Victoria’s energy market could also be facing an overhaul with Alcoa’s Portland smelter – a large energy users – close to closure. It is negotiating with AEMO about an energy subsidy for its poles and wires.
Australian Financial Review

jay weatherill

****

SA’s vapid Premier – a former worker’s compensation solicitor – wouldn’t be STT’s first pick when it came to sorting out a power market in absolute crisis and a grid on the brink of total collapse. His ‘belief’ that betting his beleaguered State’s failing ‘fortunes’ on more of the same smacks of child-like delusion, but, given more sensible (but costly) moves made recently (albeit under pressure) politically driven deception.

Contrary to Jay’s let’s all ‘hold-hands-around-a-turbine’ chanting Kumbaya – and Matt Zema’s line about “moving away from the more reliable coal and gas-fired generation” – SA’s Labor government has just signed their constituents up to throw $50 million a year in subsidies at the French owner of a mothballed CCGT plant at Pelican Point.

That panicked move is all about ensuring something like a reliable power flow (for the time being); and, at the political triage level, is an attempt to avoid any more ‘unhelpful’ wind power blackouts: like the one that plunged almost the entire State into Stone Age darkness last November; and that has businesses, like Uni SA coping with power supply ‘interruptions’ and total blackouts on a regular basis.

email ML

Once upon a time, thanks to the pragmatic vision of its longest-ever-serving Premier, Sir Tom Playford, South Australians enjoyed both energy autonomy and the cheapest and most reliable power in the Country – if not the world; and, with it, unparalleled growth in population, employment and incomes. Now, the reverse is true on all counts.

Always the mendicant State, SA’s Labor government – having willingly signed up to an economic suicide pact – will do what it does best: beg like fury for the Federal Government to bail it out, which means its neighbours will end up footing the bill for the most ridiculous power ‘policy’ ever devised.

tom playford-anzac-parade

South Australia’s Wind Farm Fiasco Heralds a Nuclear Powered Future

Nuclear is the Way to Go….Wind = FAIL!

stopthesethings's avatarSTOP THESE THINGS

koutsantonis Er, Tom this is one message that requires your full attention …

****

Earlier in the week, we detailed how South Australia’s wind farm fiasco has left its taxpayers on the hook for tens of $millions in subsidies, to be directed to the French owner of a mothballed Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power plant at Pelican Point, on the Lefevre Peninsula north-west of Adelaide.

Not that its vapid Premier Jay Weatherill or its Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis will ever admit it, but the heavily subsidised deal they have struck with GDF Suez to guarantee the 24/365 availability of 479MW of dispatchable (ie ‘controllable’) power, is a monumental concession that SA’s too-long held dream of being powered by the wind has turned into energy chaos and an economic nightmare.

There are 3 electricity essentials – that the power source and its delivery to homes and businesses be: 1) reliable; 2)…

View original post 703 more words