Why Wynne Pushes Wind…..Follow the Money Trail!

Wind Industry Welfare: How Crony Capitalism Drives the Great Wind Power Fraud

 crony-capitalism

‘Wind PTC Action Hub’: Time to End Energy Cronyism
Master Resource
Robert Bradley Jr.
9 October 2015

“Without the PTC, any mandated wind generation would be an even bigger political problem because its cost inflation would be exposed. The wind-is-competitive-with-fossil-fuels hyperbole would be refuted in real time.”

Congress enacted the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC) in 1992 as a temporary measure for an “infant” industry.

Decades and nine extensions later, it is time to eliminate the PTC.

Subsidized wind power inflates electricity costs, compromises taxpayers, and destabilizes the electric grid (wind-generated electricity is intermittent).

The huge tax credit allows pricing that ruins the economics of steady, conventional generation sources. Wind power, indeed, is the perfect imperfect energy.

The PTC It is most beneficial to wealthy wind developers who are able to reduce their tax rate at the expense of the rest of us. It is past time to end corporate welfare for this mature, and in their own words,competitive, wind industry.

Obama Needs the PTC

President Obama and the EPA’s aggressive regulation of existing power plants amounts to a federal takeover of the electricity system. One of the goals of this regulation is to shift electricity from affordable and dependable sources like coal toward expensive and unreliable sources like wind. (On-grid solar does the same thing.)

Without the PTC, any mandated wind generation would be an even bigger political problem because its cost inflation would be exposed. The wind-is-competitive-with-fossil-fuels hyperbole would be refuted in real time.

Extending the Wind PTC helps Obama/EPA get away with this phase of their forced energy transformation. It is past time to let wind producers stand on their own merit.

In short, a vote for the PTC is a vote for the President’s federal energy takeover.

To this end, the American Energy Alliance has launched a Wind PTC Action Hub. Yesterday’s press release follows:

WASHINGTON — Today, the American Energy Alliance launchedwww.EndWindWelfare.org—a resource and activist hub aimed at eliminating the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).

With this new tool, which includes a legislative tracker and an action center, AEA will encourage lawmakers to support efforts to end this taxpayer-funded handout. One feature of the hub is a video illustrating how the PTC is tied to President Obama’s new carbon dioxide regulation.

The goal of this regulation is to shift electricity generation from affordable and dependable sources like coal toward expensive and unreliable sources like wind. Obama’s plan will unavoidably raise electricity rates – hurting poor and middle class families the most. But without the PTC, mandating industrial wind power is a much more difficult task, as wind power needs handouts to survive.

Thus, Congress can take meaningful action against the Obama’s administration’s anti-energy agenda by eliminating the PTC. Watch the video below:

****

****

The hub’s legislative tracker shows which representatives have publicly taken a stand against the PTC, allowing Americans to thank their elected leaders for opposing this handout, or hold them accountable for supporting wind welfare.

Our action center will also serve as a resource for policymakers and activists by providing recent reports, blog posts and ongoing advocacy efforts on the PTC.
Master Resource

In Australia, exactly the same forces are at work, driven by wind industry plants inside Environment Minister, Greg Hunt’s office, like Patrick Gibbons – who just happens to be very best mates with Vesta’s little darling, Ken McAlpine.

One of STT’s operatives recently stumbled across a cache of documents – recording a mass of work done by Gibbons, McAlpine and Miles George – of near-bankrupt wind power outfit, Infigen – back then known as Babcock and Brown. This mountain of documents – including internal memos, emails, press releases and presentations given to their political targets, like then Labor leader, Mark Latham – detail efforts by the trio to downplay any likely obstacles to their plans; and to blow the claimed ‘benefits’ of Babcock and Brown’s wind farms – and a planned Vesta’s blade manufacturing plant – out of all proportion with the truth.

Babcock and Brown’s investors, shareholders and creditors all ended up more than just a little worse for wear (to the tune of about $10 billion) as a result of precisely that kind of spin-doctoring shenanigans (see our post here).

In recent times, Gibbons is still working overtime to protect the wind industry by, among other skulduggery, rigging the terms of reference for the new wind farm commissioner in his benefactors’ favour; and appointing one of their own – a former renewable industry crony – as the commissioner.

Gibbons was also in there stacking the expert panel on wind farm noise emissions with hand-picked wind industry pets, like Kym Burgermeister – a noise ‘expert’ who has been defending his wind industry clients in the usual way for years.

Gibbon’s efforts to ‘fix’ it for his wind industry mates, by derailing the work done by the Senators on the Inquiry into the great wind power fraud, has left the Senate Cross-benchers – including STT Champion, David Leyonhjelm – furious.

Wind farm watchdog’s powers ‘not enough’ for crossbench senators
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
10 October 2015

The federal government has been accused of “reneging” on its commitment to crossbench senators regarding the powers of a scientific panel established to monitor wind turbine noise and health.

Australia’s renewable energy industry has promised to co-operate with a new wind farm commissioner and independent scientific committee appointed yesterday to handle complaints, and provide advice on health concerns and low frequency noise monitoring.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the appointments honoured a deal between the government and crossbench senators after a long Senate committee investigation earlier this year.

But senator David Leyonhjelm, who was on the committee, said the government had fallen short of its promise made to ensure passage of its renewable energy target legislation.

“I welcome the appointments of both the wind commissioner and the members of the expert scientific panel,” Senator Leyonhjelm said. “However, Minister Hunt has substantially strayed from the commitment he gave to crossbench senators on 23 June in the terms of reference for the expert scientific panel released today.

“Mr Hunt has reneged on his commitment, and it is difficult to see how the crossbench will be able to believe any of his undertakings in future.”

Crossbench senators had expected the panel to have greater investigatory powers.

But under the terms of reference the committee’s role will be to “improve science and monitoring of the potential impacts of sound from wind turbines (including low frequency and infrasound) on health and the environment’’. It will provide advice on the development of Australian methodologies and frameworks in sound measure­ment and standards for wind farms, including in the field of infra­sound and low frequency sound.

Mr Hunt appointed Andrew Dyer as National Wind Farm Commissioner for three years. Mr Dyer is a former chairman of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman Council and has worked in the renewable energy industry.

The independent scientific panel will be chaired by RMIT adjunct professor Jon Davy.
The Australian

Patrick Gibbons has been the captain of crony wind industry capitalism inside the (purportedly) Conservative Coalition; and has fought tooth-and-nail to ensure that the most colossal industry subsidy scheme in the history of the Commonwealth – that will cost all Australian power consumers $3 billion a year in higher power prices – all of which will be directed to Gibbon’s wind industry mates – is maintained:

Out to Save their Wind Industry Mates, Macfarlane & Hunt Lock-in $46 billion LRET Retail Power Tax

Thankfully, Australian banks and power retailers aren’t having a bar of it:

Let the Sun Shine In: Australia’s BIGGEST Power Retailer Determined to Kill Wind Power

Wind Industry Still Wailing About ‘Uncertainty’ as Australian Retailers Continue to Reject Wind Power ‘Deals’

Which means that Gibbons’ plans to destroy Australia’s economic future, on behalf of his mates at Infigen & Co, will eventually come to a shuddering halt:

Australia’s Most Notorious Wind Power Outfit – Infigen – Blames $304 Million Loss on the WIND

Wind Power ‘Investors’ Cut & Run from Australia as Ponzi Scheme Implodes

Any policy that is unsustainable – as America’s PTC and Australia’s LRET most clearly are – will inevitably collapse under its own weight; or be ignominiously scrapped by those that created it. And that is a fact of economic and political life.

turbine fintona 4jpg

Negative Health Effects From Wind Turbines…Chickens Coming Home to Roost!

US Wind Industry in Flat Panic: Report Confirms Turbines a ‘Human Health Hazard’

panic-disorder-971

Back in October last year, we reported on the Brown County’s Board of Health’s declaration that Duke Energy’s Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development is a “Hazard to Human Health”:

Board of Health Declares Wisconsin Wind Farm a “Human Health Hazard”

Since then, for the wind industry, things have gone from bad to worse.

Wisconsin ‘health hazard’ ruling could shock wind industry
E&E Publishing, LLC
Jeremy P. Jacobs
17 September 2015

A Wisconsin town of fewer than 1,200 stands on the verge of sending shock waves through the wind energy industry.

Late last year, Glenmore, a rural community just south of Green Bay, persuaded its county’s board of health to declare that the sounds of an eight-turbine wind farm pose a “human health hazard.”

It was the first time a health board has made such a determination. Wind energy opponents from across the country seized on the decision as proof of “wind turbine syndrome,” a supposed illness caused by low-frequency noise and “infrasound” that is typically undetectable to the human ear.

Local activists have continued to press the issue in hopes of shutting down the turbines, pointing to families who complain of sleep deprivation, headaches, nausea and dizziness — symptoms similar to sea sickness. Lawns display signs saying, “Turbines kill: Birds, Bats, Communities” and “Consider How Your Turbine May Harm Your Neighbor.” More than one family has moved out of their home.

Duke Energy Corp., which purchased the Shirley wind farm in 2011, has strongly pushed back against the hazard determination, pointing to a series of studies that have found no connection between infrasound and the symptoms described by the local residents. The case has caught the attention of the national wind industry, which is concerned about the precedent it could set and whether it could embolden local activists around the country. They claim it is part of a politically motivated campaign by anti-wind advocates.

Attention has now turned to the county’s lead health official, who has said she will rule on the issue by the end of the year. It’s unclear whether the official can force the wind farm to shut down, but if she does, Duke will be quick to challenge the decision in court.

By the end of the month, the local campaign, Duke Energy and other parties will submit binders of public comments making their cases. The local advocates appear bullish about their chances.

“Abandoned homes, sick families, continued Duke Energy ordinance violations,” said Steve Deslauriers of the Brown County Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy, the principal group opposing the farm. “If this were any other industry, they would already be shut down. It is high time that wind developers are held accountable for the hell they levy upon families.”

The Shirley wind farm looms large over Glenmore, with its sweeping turbines situated close to farms and family homes. It went online in December 2010 amid local opposition. Local newspapers featured opinion pieces and letters to the editor that expressed various concerns about the project, including health effects.

It produces 20 megawatts of electricity that it supplies to the utility Wisconsin Public Service Corp., enough to power 6,000 homes.

The controversy over the farm ramped up after Duke purchased it at the end of 2011. As the state was preparing to permit a larger wind farm elsewhere, it requested a study on the sound and health issues reported at the Shirley turbines.

In December 2012, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, which is an independent regulatory agency, and the environmental group Clean Wisconsin released a study that included the findings of four acousticians. The consultants spanned the ideological spectrum; some worked primarily for opponents of wind farms, while others had worked on both sides of the issue.

The report’s top-line conclusion appeared incriminating.

“The four investigating firms are of the opinion that enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify [low frequency noise] and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry,” it said.

It acknowledged that there is “sparse or non-existent” evidence of sickness in “peer-reviewed literature” but concluded that the four specialists “strongly recommend additional testing” at the Shirley farm.

Local advocates seized on the findings as validation that their symptoms were caused by the turbines. They pressed the seven-member Brown County Board of Health to declare the farm a health hazard. In particular, they highlighted the conclusions of Robert Rand, a Maine-based “acoustics investigator” who has primarily worked for groups opposing wind projects.

Rand said turbine sounds and infrasound cause effects similar to sea sickness and health boards shouldn’t need peer-reviewed scientific papers to accept the health impacts.

“Most people accept — because it’s been occurring for thousands of years — that people get motion sickness,” Rand said in an interview. “And yet, in this particular case, there seems to be a lot of pushback.”

The findings grabbed the attention of the health board. Audrey Murphy, its president, said in an interview that the “symptoms are pretty universal throughout the world.”

Murphy insisted the board doesn’t oppose wind energy, saying the turbines should be located farther from homes. In Wisconsin, they must be at least 1,250 feet away.

There is some precedent for the board’s decision. The issue has long plagued local health boards in Massachusetts. Fairhaven, for example, in June 2013 shut down the town’s two turbines at night in response to complaints about sleep deprivation.

Falmouth, Massachusetts, found in 2012 that one turbine was violating local ordinances because it was too close to a home and emitting too much audible noise — not infrasound. But the controversy spurred studies by acousticians, including Rand, that concluded the turbines produce sounds capable of disturbing nearby residents and may lead to annoyance, sleep disturbance and other impacts. That led multiple residents to file lawsuits seeking damages for their health problems, claiming the turbines were to blame.

But wind supporters cite other studies showing no such linkages.

Murphy said the Wisconsin board has sought to take all the relevant findings into account.

“This has been done very slowly and very methodically,” she said. “The board has been concerned about the health of these people.”

‘No factual basis’
Wind proponents are quick to try to poke holes in the board’s findings, as well as the local activists’ evidence.

They start in Massachusetts. After the action in Falmouth, the state agency convened a panel of independent scientists and doctors. They found no evidence that wind turbines pose a tangible health risk to those living near them.

Plus, there have been several peer-reviewed scientific studies since then that have reached similar conclusions, including one by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another by Canada’s health ministry. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn’t recognize “wind turbine syndrome” as an illness. The term was created by a pediatrician, Nina Pierpont, around 2006. Pierpont’s husband is an anti-wind activist.

Health Canada’s 2014 study, for example, found no evidence to suggest a link between exposure to turbine noise and any self-reported illnesses, including dizziness, migraines and chronic conditions.

North Carolina-based Duke Energy claims the complaints are unique to Brown County.

“Duke Energy Renewables operates about 1,200 wind turbines around the United States, and we’ve only had health complaints about the eight turbines we operate in Brown County,” said Tammie McGee, a company spokeswoman. “We don’t see these kinds of complaints, for the most part, anywhere else.”

She added: “We feel confident that we’ve met all the state and the town of Glenmore’s conditions for operations and compliance with all noise ordinances and laws and regulations.”

The American Wind Energy Association has also responded to the local group’s claims and pointed to some research on a “nocebo” effect. The concept is the opposite of the placebo effect, meaning that people who are told to expect certain symptoms may experience them whether or not the supposed cause of the symptom — in this case, turbines — is actually present.

But perhaps most importantly, some who were involved in the 2012 Public Service Commission study dispute the advocates’ interpretation.

Katie Nekola, the general counsel of Clean Wisconsin, which helped fund the study, said it was only an inventory of noise levels and shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions on health effects.

The local groups, she said, “took the equivocal nature of the preamble to mean that things are falling apart and everyone is going to die.”

There is “no factual basis in what they found for the health determination that the county made,” she added. “Nothing in our study provided any kind of basis to say that noise was making them sick.”

Rand, the acoustician who worked on the earlier study, contended that the results show what he’s argued for years: Some people experience the health effects, and they are real and scary. Others simply don’t and refuse to acknowledge they exist.

“Some people are saying this isn’t happening — or people are making it up in their heads,” Rand said. “People who don’t get seasick will never understand what you’re talking about. … It doesn’t require peer-reviewed scientific studies to accept that some people get motion sickness and sea sickness.”

What comes next
Deslauriers, the representative of the local group opposing the farm, declined to comment further, citing the ongoing public comment period on the health board’s finding.

That window closes at the end of September. Then the county’s top health officer, Chua Xiong, will rule on the issue by the end of the year after meeting with stakeholders and doctors.

It is unclear, however, whether she has the authority to shut down the turbines. Murphy, the head of the county’s health board, thinks Xiong does. Duke isn’t sure but will challenge such a determination in court.

The county lawyer, Juliana Ruenzel, refused to answer a question on Xiong’s enforcement authority before abruptly ending an interview with Greenwire. Xiong did not return several messages seeking comment.

Nekola of Clean Wisconsin said a county determination would apply only to local projects and shouldn’t affect other wind farms that have obtained permits from the state.

She said the Brown County effort was indicative only of a localized desire to block wind farms motivated by a not-in-my-backyard sentiment.

“There is just a contingent of people who oppose wind,” she said. “And they will use any mechanism they can think of to stop a project.”

But Rand sought to emphasize that the symptoms are real and he has felt them.

“This isn’t an intellectual exercise,” he said. “People get sick.”
E&E Publishing and Mid-West Energy News

Good to see the AWEA still sticking the long-debunked ‘nocebo’ story. Proving that desperation is a stinky cologne – when you’ve got nothing else, cling to what’s left.

The AWEA’s – indeed the entire wind industry’s – last redoubt is the same theory that was cooked up by a former tobacco advertising guru – lambasted by the Australian Senate after his hand-trembling appearance before them, to defend the desktop ‘studies’ he has plopped together for his wind industry employers. Our Senate stating that:

The committee highlights the fact that Professor Chapman is not a qualified, registered nor experienced medical practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, acoustician, audiologist, physicist or engineer. Accordingly:

  • he has not medically assessed a single person suffering adverse health impacts from wind turbines;
  • his research work has been mainly—and perhaps solely—from an academic perspective without field studies;
  • his views have been heavily criticised by several independent medical and acoustic experts in the international community; and
  • many of his assertions do not withstand fact check analyses.

For more on the guru’s ‘nocebo’ theory and what the Australian Senate concluded about it:

Wind Industry’s Propaganda King – Simon Chapman Forced to Apologise to Dr Sarah Laurie for False & Malicious Taunts

As for what turbine noise does to the class of people the guru says never, ever complain about adverse health effects from turbine noise:

SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Destroying Noise

Wisconsin sign sick and tired

Wonderful Video Showing How they Fight the Windscam, in France!

French Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud

storming_the_bastille1-e1318690559144

****

The French have treated revolution as a National pastime, for much of their history: storming the Bastille in 1789; and the streets of Paris in 1969, to name a couple of people-power-hits.

Today, the target of the seething masses is these things; or to the French: éoliennes.

And – with a burning desire to Stop These Things – the French follow events here, with a keen interest. See this story, for example (you’ll need High School French or better): Les effets néfastes de fermes éoliennes sur la santé sont réels –  STT followers will recognise STT Champions, Dr Sarah Laurie and Senator John Madigan, as the stars of that post.

The wind industry in France is equipped with same snake-like ‘charm’, as elsewhere. As we reported earlier this year, French wind power outfits are hell-bent on destroying the final resting places of thousands of Australian soldiers, who perished defending French soil a Century ago:

The Wind Industry Knows No Shame: Turbines to Desecrate the Unknown Graves of Thousands of Australian Soldiers in France

Now to a tale of a French farmer fighting to regain the health of his previously happy herd.

French farmer sues energy giant after wind turbines ‘make cows sick’
The Telegraph
Rory Mulholland
18 September 2015

Yann Joly is suing CSO Energy for €356,900 (£260,000) over wind turbines which he alleges have led to a dramatic fall in cows’ milk output

A French dairy farmer is suing a wind energy company whose turbines have allegedly made his cows sick and led to a dramatic fall in their milk output.

An expert brought in to provide evidence to a Paris court confirmed that the 120 animals had been drinking much less water since the turbines were installed in early 2011.

This had led to a large drop in milk production, as cows need to drink at least three litres of water for every litre of milk they produce, and has damaged the cows’ general health, the expert said.

“The farmer is ruined,” Philippe Bodereau, his lawyer, told The Telegraph. His client, Yann Joly, is suing CSO Energy, which operates wind farms in France and Germany, for €356,900 (£260,000). Mr Joly wants the firm to remove its turbines.

He says he is being forced to sell his cows and will grow crops on his land instead.

“I am now in the process of selling the cows because it is not profitable to keep them,” he told The Telegraph. “I had an employee on the farm and am having to let him go. I will have to get a job outside the farm in order to try and keep it. I will also use my fields to grow crops instead: beetroot, wheat and colza.”

Mr Bodereau said: “This is the first time in the world that there is a document from an expert concluding that there is no other reason but wind turbines that could be to blame for animals being sick.”

Christiane Nansot, an agricultural expert, who wrote the report, said the drop in milk production began when the 24 turbines were installed next to the family farm, in Le Boisle district, near the Abbeville, northern France.

“The geologist said that a geographical fault in the underlying rock could be leading to an amplification in the waves emanating from the turbines,” she said.

But she cautioned that other farms where turbines are installed near faults would have to be studied before it could be definitively concluded that the turbines were making the Le Boisle animals sick.

The report says that the cows are also prone to mastitis – udder inflammation.

It does not decisively lay the blame on the turbines for the milk yield drop or the symptoms, but says all other possible causes have been ruled out.

A ruling is expected next spring.

CSO Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

Wind turbines have been blamed for killing large numbers of wild birds and bats but there have been few other claims of them damaging animals’ health.

Critics insist they are damaging to human health because they create infrasound – sound at such low frequency that it cannot be picked up by the human ear, but can carry through the atmosphere for great distances.
The Telegraph

That incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound causes adverse health effects – such as sleep deprivation – is a FACT – and it’s been known by the wind industry (lied about and covered up) for 30 years:

Three Decades of Wind Industry Deception: A Chronology of a Global Conspiracy of Silence and Subterfuge

That dairy cows set upon by the same forces of noise and vibration should also react unfavourably should – to those gifted with our good friends ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ – not come as any great surprise.

STT has reported on the impact of turbine noise on horses and dogs once or twice:

Farmers Tell Wind Farm Developer to Stick its Turbines Where the Sun Don’t Shine

As to the impact on humans and dogs, AGL operates a non-compliant wind farm called Oaklands Hill, near Glenthompson in Victoria – where the neighbours began complaining about excessive turbine noise the moment it kicked into operation in August 2011.

Complaints from neighbouring farmers, Bill and Sandy Rogerson, included the impact of turbine noise on their hard working sheepdogs.

The Rogersons – whose prized paddock dog goes ballistic every time AGL’s Suzlon s88s kick into action – complained bitterly about the noise impacts on them and their 5 working dogs: one of them became disobedient and extremely timid, hiding in her kennel whenever the turbines were operating.

In an effort to provide a little respite to the affected Kelpies, AGL stumped up $20,000 for a deluxe, soundproof dog kennel. AGL doesn’t give money away without a reason, so you’d tend to think there was something in it.

The Rogersons gave evidence to the Australian Senate earlier this year about the noise impacts on them and their prized working dogs, covered in this post:

Senate Inquiry: Hamish Cumming & Ors tip a bucket on the Great Wind Power Fraud

In France, it’s not just a bovine revolt that’s brewing; French men, women and children are fighting back too. As this clever – and very French – little video details.

****

More About Wind Travesty in Falmouth – Wind Proponents Ignored Harm to Citizens

Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Resident Should Hang Their Head In Shame For What They Have Done To Their Neighbors
Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Falmouth Mandatory Reading Wind Turbines & Human Rights Abuse

Below are three links it should be mandatory that everyone in Falmout watch these two videos and read the power point presentation by Attorney Chris Senie

What citizens should find interesting is the interaction between Attorney Chris Senie and the Zoning Board of Appeals just prior to the power point presentation in the Part 1 video about 35 minutes into the video.

Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals Orderer Ceast & Desist Falmouth Wind Turbine #1

Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 1

http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-1

Zoning Board Of Appeals September 17, 2015 Part 2

http://www.fctv.org/v3/vod/zoning-board-appeals-september-17-2015-part-2

Zoning Board of Appeals September 17, 2015 Senie & Associates, P.C. Representing Impacted Neighbors

https://windwisema.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/senie-to-zba-ceasedesist-2015-09-17.pdf

Warning from Vestas Wind Company Falmouth Wind ll

Before the supply contract for Wind 2 was signed with the manufacturer, Vestas, the Town was asked by Vestas and its general contractor on the project (Lumus) to sign a letter taking full responsibility for the siting of Wind 2 in light of Vestas’ articulated concerns about the sound pressures this turbine is capable of creating in this location.

This request came in the form of a letter from Lumus dated August 3, 2010 (the “LumusLetter”).

Click here to read letter hidden for 5 years : August 3, 2010
Mr. Gerald Potamis
WasteWater Superintendent
Town of Falmouth Public Works
59 Town Hall Square
Falmouth, MA 02540

Lumus Letter :
http://www.windaction.org/posts/41357-vestas-raises-concerns-about-turbine-noise-letter#.Vfy4Y99Viko

The Town had its Wastewater Superintendent Gerald Potamis respond (the same day the Lumus letter was received), by sending a separate letter directly to Vestas. In that letter the Wastewater Superintendent assumed, for the Town, all such siting responsibility and liability (the “Potamis Letter”). An earlier draft of the Potamis letter, dated July 1, 2010 (so more than a month before the Potamis letter was sent to Vestas), called for the signature of the Falmouth
Town Manager.

The Town Manager was to Sign

During this month of discussion of what to do about the Vestas refusal to sell Wind 2 because of sound pressure concerns:
(1) it appears that no-one on the staff brought this to the attention of the Board of Selectmen (based on BOS meeting minutes); and (2) the signer was switched from the Town Manager to the Wastewater Superintendent (who apparently signed this letter assuming responsibility without authority).

The Distress Was Well Known (1)

As of August 3, 2010 Lumus warning letter, and the Potamis assumption of liability letter sent the same day (the “Warning Date”), The Town was well aware of the distress being caused by Wind 1.
By the Warning Date, the Town had received numerous complaints from neighbors. Brian and Kathryn Elder had sent the Town a registered letter (dated May 5, 2010), and met with the Assistant Town Manager and Building Commissioner at their property to show the degree of distress to Town officials. By the Warning Date the Town Planner had sent an email to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 3, 2010) regarding the turbine distress. Also by the Warning Date, the ZBA and the Falmouth Planning Board had held a joint meeting to discuss the problems with Wind 1 (that meeting took place on June 4, 2010

By the August 3, 2010 Warning Date the Town had held a meeting to discuss the scope of a sound study (to be done by an engineering firm known as HMMH) of Wind 1 (actual) and Wind 2 (projected) sound pressures (that meeting held on June 10, 2010).
Also a letter had been sent from Assistant Town Manager, Heather Harper, to neighbor Barry Funfar (dated June 15, 2010) discussing measures being taken by the Town in response to complaints. In her letter to Mr. Funfar, she indicates that the Town has instituted a mitigation measure which turns off Wind 1 in certain wind conditions, which had, by the date of that letter, been utilized 39 times, and had a “positive impact”.

Vestas Asked Weston & Sampson for an “updated study” for Wind 2
Fri 5/28/2010 1:48 PM
Brian Hopkins brhop@vestas.com
RE: Sound / Feasibility Studies
TO: Wiehe, Stephen, cc Duijvesteijn, Olle; Yanuskiewicz, Francis

“Steve, I don’t believe I saw a feasibility study for Falmouth other than Site Plans. Was a sound study updated with the additional turbine?

Does the information I provided in the octave band data support the conclusions that you are conservatvely within MA state sound regulations?
The table highlights the fact that V82 produces greater decibels when it reaches its stall regime beyond the IEC design standard at 95% capacity. The table also helps recognize the effects of shear on the sound levels experienced at receptors which should also be considering with the sound study.

My email was lost from the time we did the first turbine so I don’t have a great record of information but do you have this decibel mapping for Falmouth?”

There never was a reponse to this above email in town records –

It was assumed due to the lack of an email response in town records no noise decibel mapping was done for both Falmouth 1 & 2 together.

Story of a Victim of the Corrupt Wind Industry, and it’s Complicit Gov’t Supporters…

Too Close – A Falmout Wind Turbine Victim’s Story

Bourne, Massachusetts citizens TOO CLOSE to the Plymouth gigantic wind turbines had best cue in on the present happenings. Once the machines are constructed it is an expensive multiyear battle to bring them down.

“Compliance” with the MASS DEP sound ordinance is A HUGE JOKE which is on YOU the neighbor of these STRESS GENERATING machines.

The ordinance in place utilizing the A weighted db scale is there solely to further wind renewables in this State.

NO ONE is looking out for the innocent abutter neighbors.

If you live within a full mile of these proposed Plymouth turbines chances are very good that your peace and tranquility and enjoyment of your home and property will plummet.

I would not have to say a thing. I could simply let fate bring the detrimental consequences of these too close mega turbines to your homes.

Forgive me, but I am only attempting to warn you of what happened to “we neighbors” now the “victims” of Falmouth’s wind project.

We have been fighting our Town at great expense for going on six years to regain the properties and homes that we rightfully own but can no longer enjoy because of Falmouth’s municipal wind turbines.

BE UP FRONT. Do not allow this project to take root. Those TOO CLOSE families will certainly suffer the consequences. Under a mile? Think NOW. Not after the machines are in place.

I KNOW from my first hand experience of living 1500-1600 feet from two 1.65MWatt wind turbines. I believe some of your residents will be closer to even bigger generators. Their lives will be compromised. The bigger the turbine the more noise it makes. Do not let them fool you. Your quality of life and that of your family is what you should focus on. Quality of life matters–for ALL of us.

Sincerely,
Barry Funfar

Falmouth Massachusetts

Falmouth Wind Turbine Emissions Ignored….Nearby Residents, Tormented!

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Neighbors are far better acoustic analyzers for determining the quality of their life

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Tonight ,September17, 2015 at 6:30 PM the Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals will hear several appeals regarding lack of zoning enforcement by the Zoning Enforcement Officer to cease and desist operations of Wind 1 and Wind 2 turbines located at 154 Blacksmith Shop Rd, West Falmouth.

The Board of Appeals acts on matters within its jurisdiction under Sections 10 and 11 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts Generals Laws, as amended and subject always to the rule that it will give due consideration to promoting the public health, safety, convenience and welfare, encouraging the most appropriate use of land, and conserving property value, that it shall permit no building use, injurious, noxious, offensive or detrimental to a neighborhood, and that it shall prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in each case.

The ZBA’s determination should be a belief that there’s nothing more important than good health.

Neighbors are far better acoustic analyzers for determining the quality of their life.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center (MassCEC) is a publicly-funded agency dedicated to a renewable energy agenda of 2000 megawatts of renewable energy at the cost of residential home owners health, property and all Massachusetts taxpayers. The agenda calls for an all out war on fossil fuels. They are fighting the war as a real war taking the health, property rights and tax money of anyone who has property in the way of the agenda.

The MassCEC state agency has an agenda likened to a 1943 country in Europe where like Falmouth human dignity has been ignored.

Falmouth has lost sight of the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. Health and saftey is primary in a civilized society.

Falmouth public officials are following a “Dangerous” script paid for by the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center. The MassCEC recently gave Falmouth 1.8 million taxpayer dollars to help pay litigation costs and finance a drawn out protracted legal defense of Falmouth wind turbine # 1. Falmouth officials are being “advised” how to vote.

You can say wind turbine victims and taxpayers are being shot with their own tax dollars paying massive litigation fees making law firms rich at taxpayer expense.

The Friends of Falmouth Wind a group of former and present elected officials have convinced a majority of Falmouth voters its OK to take the health and property rights of their neighbors for the greater good for the past five years with no compensation. They are playing God. They should hang their heads in shame.

The Town of Falmouth has broken two of the Ten Commandments;

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Falmouth taxpayers are obvious to the tax liabilty they are incuring torturing their neighbors for the past 5 years. The town commercial general liability insurance will not pay one dime towards any court restitution with the wind turbine victims. At some point in time in the future the court is going to order taxpayes to pay restitution to pay back the damage you caused to the victims.

The taxpayes are on the hook because the MassCEC knew the Falmouth Wind 1 turbine had noise problems prior to the installation. The town had been warned prior to the installation by the manufacturer Veatas Wind Company. The MassCEC was the owner and seller of the turbine to the Town of Falmouth. The MassCEC in April of 2013 three years after the installation sent a memo to the Town of Falmouth admitting they knew and extrapolated noise tests to pass Massachusetts noise regulations. As expected the turbine broke state noise guidlines. They always knew they would.

The town hid the noise warning letter for five years, memos, not posted wind studies and in general kept negative information from the public. The town was found guilty of not following its own bylaws in Massachusetts Superior Court. The Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals found twice in the past the turbines are a nuisance. The Massachusetts courts shut the turbines down 12 hours a night and Sundays.

In the written injunction to shut the turbines down. Judge Muse said the court finds the wind turbine victims claims that they did not experience such symptoms prior to the construction and operation of the turbines, and that that each day of operation produces further injury, to be credible.

The Court rejected the town’s claim that reducing the turbines in hours would cause financial harm, as it was counting on revenue generated by the sale of excess energy back to the grid.

The Falmouth taxpayers had a chance to take down the turbines for 12 or 15 million dollars. Today with all the facts including the hidden letters, documents, videos and studies how much is a jury going to award up to 200 residential home owners for five plus years of torture ?
The Town of Falmouth always knew the turbines were too loud

Massachusetts Judge Robert Rufo did not rule out imposing a cease and desist order at any point it time.

Important Information on the MOECC Proposal for Removal off 550m Setbacks…

Click on to read…

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=442e1005fd&view=att&th=14fd7eec07ee4bb6&attid=0.1&disp=inline&realattid=c1783546396d8a1_0.1&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=442e1005fd&view=att&th=14fd7eec07ee4bb6&attid=0.2&disp=inline&realattid=c1783546396d8a1_0.2&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=442e1005fd&view=att&th=14fd7eec07ee4bb6&attid0.3&disp=inline&realattid=c1783546396d8a1_0.3&safe=1&zw

Wind Turbines, are Bird Blenders. Killing Birds and Bats, with Impunity!

Wind Farms: ‘Blending’ ‘Green’ Dreams with Wholesale Avian Slaughter

blender

***

The rampant slaughter of millions of birds and bats – including rare, endangered and majestic species, like America’s iconic bald and golden eagles – is one of the many ‘inconvenient’ facts that moves the wind industry to lie like fury and – when the corpses can no longer be hidden and the lying fails – to issue court proceedings to literally bury those facts (see our post here).

But – in America, at least – it seemed that the ‘inconvenient’ facts were starting to catch up with a vengeance, with US authorities finally doing their jobs, punishing wind power outfits for what is nothing less than thepointless slaughter of thousands of rare, endangered and, what should be, protected birds:

US Wind Power Outfit Whacked with $2.5 million Fine for Rampant Golden Eagle Slaughter

The avian victims of these things in the US, include its National Icon, the bald eagle which – despite their revered status – get sliced, diced and dumped at the bases of turbines in the same unceremonious manner as other less-loved species (see this article). And also include a mounting pile of golden eagle corpses.

dead_eagle_at_base_of_turbine

****

Wherever these things operate, majestic raptors cop a merciless belting: 3MW monsters with 50m blades, have outer tips thundering along at over 350km/h – which tend to make short work of an eagle on the hunt for prey:

Bird Carcass Count proves AGL’s Macarthur Wind Farm is an Avian Slaughterhouse

However, in the US, as the corpses and fines mount up, wind power outfits are looking to slip the noose, by … you guessed it … rewriting the rules.

Sorry, Bald Eagles: Wind Farms Are Allowed to Kill You Now
The Corner
Verinique De Rugy
27 June 2015

If you and I kill a bald eagle or disturb its nest, the consequences can be severe. Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the felony killing of a bald eagle is punished by a fine of $250,000 and prison time. The authorities are taking the killing seriously. Well, sort of.

As it turns out, not everyone is equal under the do-not-kill-bald-eagles law. If you happen to be a favored industry like say, a wind farm, you could get a get-out-of-jail-free card after killing up to five bald eagles if you request a permit and the feds grants it. The Associated Press reports:

A California wind farm will become the first in the U.S. to avoid prosecution if eagles are injured or die when they run into the giant turning blades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Thursday. Under President Barack Obama, wind energy has exploded as a pollution-free energy source that can help reduce the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. But it is not without opposition from wildlife advocates. The Shiloh IV Wind Project LLC will receive a special permit allowing up to five golden eagles to be accidentally killed, harmed or disturbed over five years. Previously, such a violation could potentially draw criminal charges and discourage private investment in wind farms, which are known for catching birds in their rotors.

Fish and Wildlife Service Director Daniel Ashe said the permit encourages development of renewable energy while requiring the wind company to take steps to protect eagles from turbines and power lines. The move will help California reach its goal of producing one-third of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, he said.

“We can’t solve the problem of eagle mortality at wind farms overnight,” Mr. Ashe said in a statement. The Federal government is being sued over the permits, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Bald eagles watch out, turns out, you are not that special after all. That’s a lesson some 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds had to learn back in 2012.

The Federal government is being sued over the permits, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Bald eagles watch out, turns out, you are not that special after all. That’s a lesson some 888,000 bats and 573,000 birds had to learn back in 2012.
The Corner

turbines-birds

***

It’s not just raptors that cop a flogging, migratory species are also sliced and diced too – at least you can’t pin the wind industry for being ‘speciest’.

Chaplin, Saskatchewan, is an area with a large salt lake and is also peppered with a number of smaller lakes and wetlands. The brine shrimp that inhabit the salt lakes, attract thousands of migratory birds that turn up to feast on their way North in the summer and South in the winter:see this CBC News report here.

But the weary travellers’ desire to fatten up on their journeys is going to come with a mortal risk, with plans to install 77 giant bird blenders smack in the middle of the lake and wetland complex.

Naturalist opposes wind turbine system in bird sanctuary; 77 wind turbines proposed for bird sanctuary near Chaplin, Sask.
CBC News
29 July 2015

This diagram shows the environmental assessment study area for a wind turbine system, proposed to be built in the area north of Chaplin, Sask.

***

A Saskatchewan-based naturalist and author is worried that migratory birds will be killed by wind turbines proposed to be built near Chaplin, Sask. The proposed development site sits approximately three kilometres north of an internationally recognized bird sanctuary at Chaplin Lake. “The Chaplin Lake area is crucial to several species of shore birds, including some endangered species such as the piping plover,” said Trevor Herriot, who’s based in Regina.

Herriot said he’s unconvinced by assertions in an environmental impact study that 77 wind turbines built north of the Chaplin Lake reserve will pose a low risk to the migratory birds passing north through the area. Ontario-based Algonquin Power Company won SaskPower’s request for proposals to develop and build the wind turbine system. Algonquin is a subsidiary of Windlectric Inc. SaskPower estimates the turbine system will generate an additional 175 megawatts of wind power for the province’s power grid. The project is expected to be finished by the end of 2016.

“There are hundreds of thousands of birds who will pass north of that lake every year, and they will go directly through this gauntlet of 77 wind turbines,” Herriot said. He noted that four per cent of the global population of piping plovers nest there. Other well-known shorebirds, like the sanderling, pass through the area at counts of 50,000 or 60,000 each spring, he said.

In a blog post, referring to the “terms of reference for environmental impact statement” drafted by the engineering firm Stantec, Herriot notes the environmental impact statement was paid for by Algonquin. In an interview on CBC Saskatchewan’s the Morning Edition, Brady Pollock, director of environmental assessment for the province, responded to the potential conflict of interest by Algonquin paying Stantec for the environmental study about land it seeks to build wind turbines on.

Saskatchewan naturalist and author Trevor Herriot says that as many as 40,000 to 50,000 sanderlings, pictured here, have been seen at one time at Chaplin. (Submitted by Trevor Herriot)

***

“This is simply the process. The proponent prepares the document and then it undergoes a rigorous and thorough review by government itself. So it really is an independent, arms-length review of information provided by the proponent,” Pollock said.

Pollock said the process is independent, because the government conducts an independent analysis. “It considers all available information, whether it’s info provided directly in the environmental statement [provided by Algonquin] or various literature sources out there, or previous experiences at our own available data on the existing site,” Pollock said. Once the review is complete, analytical findings based on that review will be made available to the public, along with the environmental impact statement, Pollock said.

For his part, Herriot said he’s not opposed to wind turbine systems for generating power. He does, however, disagree with the proposed location for Algonquin’s system. “It’s one of the birdiest spots on the Great Plains and here we are putting a wind turbine there,” he said. “They’re saying there are very few birds that use the area or move through it. I’d like to see how many days of research they did that. And I’d like to see them take that information to a bird scientist at a university who is independent, and see whether it has any rigor or validity,” Herriot said.

CBC News

For a little taste of what so-called “green” power is all about, we’ve put together this little collection of videos:

Eagle carcass counting in Norway

A flock of partridges try to fly through a wind turbine facility in Germany

Then there are the flocks of vultures crossing the Gibraltar strait.

Eagles maimed and killed in California

The fastest in flight – a white-throated needletail – downed in front of bird watchers in the Hebrides, off the coast of Scotland.

A vulture meets with a wind turbine in Lentas, south Crete, Greece.

In this satirical piece – we learn that wind turbines help us to clear the skies of pesky birds

And this review of environmental harm to birds and bats by wind turbines.

eagle eyes the turbine crop

Wynne Protects her Granddaughters “Future”, at the Expense of My Child’s Well-Being, NOW!

An Ill-Wind in Ontario

78808847Despite rising public complaints about adverse health effects from industrial wind turbines, thousands continue to be erected across the province.

Environmentalists often talk about people whose lives are ruined by man-made global warming.

But they never mention the lives that are devastated by misguided climate change policy.

There is no better example than the debilitating human health impacts of the hundreds of thousands of industrial wind turbines (IWTs) that are being erected around the world to supposedly mitigate climate change.

In “Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines,” a 2013 paper in the magazine of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, Dr. Roy D. Jeffery, Carmen Krogh, and Brett Horner explained, “People who live or work in close proximity to IWTs have experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression, and cognitive dysfunction.”

“The problem is not just cyclical audible noise keeping people awake but also low frequency infrasound which can travel many kilometres,” notes Dufferin County-based Barb Ashbee, who says she was forced out of her Amaranth, Ontario home by the siting of IWTs too close to it.

“Infrasound goes right through walls,” said Ashbee, operator of the Wind Victims Ontario website. “It pummels your body.”

Tens of thousands of complaints have been received by governments around the world.

Sherri Lange, CEO of North American Platform Against Wind, said, “I have personally received hundreds of phone calls from distressed people who need to vacate their homes [because of IWTs].”

Lange contended governments try to not address the issue.

“It is my experience from talking to doctors, researchers and other high-level professionals, that governments seem to be (under the influenced of) the industry.”

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne promised her government would not force any of the 6,736 IWTs being erected by the province into “unwilling communities”.

To date, 90 communities have declared themselves as “Unwilling Hosts”, yet construction is underway, or planned, in many of these areas.

For example, in West Lincoln and surrounding regions, wind developers have received approval to install at least 77 three-Megawatt IWTs, each as tall as a 61-storey building, despite strong public objections.

Local resident Shellie Correia is particularly concerned.

Her 12-year-old son, Joey, has been diagnosed with Sensory Processing Disorder and it is crucial that he live in a quiet environment.

But now, as part of the Ontario government’s climate change plans, an IWT will be sited only 550 metres from his home, the closest “setback” allowed in Ontario for residents who do not sign lease agreements with wind companies.

The province, which cites a 2010 report from its Chief Medical Officer of Health that found no direct causal links between IWTs and adverse health effects, has claimed the province’s setbacks are “the most stringent in North America”.

In reality, most jurisdictions in Canada, the U.S., Australia, and Europe require greater setbacks. Two kilometres is commonplace.

As Correia explained in her January, 2015 presentation before the government’s Environmental Review Tribunal, “On top of the incessant, cyclical noise, there is light flicker, and infrasound. This is not something that my son will be able to tolerate.”

Correia is supported by her son’s pediatrician, Dr. Chrystella Calvert, a specialist in the care of children with developmental and mental health problems.

Calvert says, “I, as a ‘normal brain’ individual would not want this risk [of an IWT] to my mental health (or my children’s) in my neighbourhood.”

Like most governments, Ontario officials insist the adverse health effects of IWTs are minimal, citing various studies.

But there is much scientific evidence to the contrary and studies are lacking with regards to children.

Krogh, one of the authors of the report on health problems linked to IWTs that appeared in the magazine of The College of Family Physicians of Canada, wrote in a May 13, 2013 open communication to Canada’s health minister, “Vigilance and long-term surveillance systems regarding risks and adverse effects related to children are lacking. … This evaluation should take place before proceeding with additional approvals.”

But the approvals go ahead regardless.

As Correia notes, “Wynne speaks about ‘protecting’ her granddaughter’s future (in defending her government’s plan to introduce carbon pricing through cap-and-trade.) Why then, is it not important for her to protect my son, now?”

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

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

PolitiSite

Pioneer in Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Fact-Checking

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs

stubbornlyme.

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

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

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

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem