Wynne and Her Merry Band of Miscreants, Robbing us Blind!

One month and one billion dollars more wasted…

CleanLicencePlate_wynne_windmill

I have to ask… where is the main stream media?

Kudos to the Toronto Sun for posting the story by Parker and Lufts who run the blog Wind Concerns Ontario.  And of course Sun News for trying to get this across to the people of Ontario.

Are you aware that it only took 30 days for the Liberals to piss away yet ANOTHER ONE billion dollars (yes with a B! for Billion) in order to over pay for hydro production?

30 days and 1 billion dollars GONE!  Pfffsst gone!  If it’s any conciliation, for the previous 30 day period of September 2014, they only pissed away 800 million dollars to pay more than the actual market value of said produced electricity.

Wynne and her gang of liberal marauders have now successfully created a billion dollar a month money funnel, in order to fund their green energy scheme.

Can we predict November’s numbers?  Another billion?  Safe bet.  And December?  Another Billion?  Yep.  And on and on it will go.

Not ONE penny of that endless cycle of monthly missing billions per month will go to benefit the Ontario resident. NOT ONE PENNY!

Are you queasy yet?  Or hopefully you are angry.

No money for sick kids, no money for diabetics, no money for road infrastructure and no money for non Liberal causes.  LOTS AND LOTS of billions though for the sucking black hole of grossly expensive and unnecessary green energy projects and their owners.

We can no longer continue to give these slugs a free pass while we are being robbed blind by this Green Energy disaster.  Who’s with me?

Feel free to link or share via social media.  Please do not alter.  Thanks.

Wind Turbine Noise, is Indeed, Harmful to Human Health!

Wind Turbine Noise a “Hazard to Human Health”: Alan Jones interviews Dr Jay Tibbetts

warning_health-hazard-405x300

Last month we brought you the story of how the Shirley Wisconsin wind energy project was declared a human health hazard. Now we share this interview with Alan Jones from 2GB with the Vice-President of the Board of Health, Dr. Jay Tibbetts, where they discuss why the Medical Board had no choice but to declare the wind energy facility a human health hazard – not only to the community, but also to visitors and even a hazard to the health of passers-by.

263977-alan-jones

Alan Jones

Alan has a little radio show that more than just a few Australians tune into each morning. Syndicated through over 77 Stations and with close to 2 million listeners Countrywide – AJ as he’s known – is one of those people that leads the political charge on many issues that really affect ordinary Australians and which the rest of the press ignore.

You can listen to the audio or read the transcript below.

Alan Jones AO: Just changing direction here, because to most people listening to the program, I suppose, right now, although not people west of the Great Dividing Range – this tends to be fundamentally meaningless. When you talk about wind power. And of course all this debate about renewable energy targets. And we know that they’e pushing up the price of power. We know that they’re driving businesses offshore. We know that you are finding and you are writing to me that your electricity bill going through the roof. We are losing our international competitive advantage because we used to have the cheapest energy in the world and now we’ve demonised coal fired power and run like lunatics to embrace wind power and solar power.

But of course if wind power was not injurious to health, why wouldn’t we put the turbines where the wind is, in Parramatta Road all Macquarie Street, or on Bondi Beach or in Pennsylvania Avenue? We have a Federal Energy Minister Macfarlane, who cares nothing about the issues which drive from wind power. Indeed he sent a letter to Coalition members, Senators and staff recently which said: “Please find attached and below a standard letter in response to renewable energy target queries”. That is the argument that these targets should be abolished. And this is what he has told them. “The renewable energy sector should have greater clarity. By removing the need for a review of the target every two years, this proposal” – and he outlines some rubbish – “would ensure a doubling of new large scale and new small-scale renewable energy production under the renewable energy target scheme between now and 2020. In short, there will be more new renewable energy installed over the next six years of the renewable energy target than has been installed in the first 14 years of the scheme.” Well that will get him a job when he doesn’t stand at the next election with one of these companies on a big salary. But in other words more wind turbines and your electricity bill goes higher and higher.

What about the health consequences? Dr Michael Crawford is the director of the Waubra Foundation. They’ve been trying to alert government to health risks of wind power. They wrote very recently to Prime Minister Abbott, October 30, part of the letter says,

“The Australian government’s policies and practices in relation to wind farms are devastating many rural families through prolonged sleep deprivation and other health impacts”.

The letter says, “prolonged sleep deprivation is recognised as torture by the United Nations and thus all Australian public officials are prohibited from causing it by section 274.2 of the Australian Criminal Code. The Clean Energy Regulator public officials may face primary liability, under section 274 of the Criminal Code Act, for failing to avert situations which amount to torture by continuing to issue renewable energy certificates, for developments where persisting sleep deprivation has been reported”.

The letter goes on, the UN committee against torture explains why sleep deprivation is torture and they quote – this letter has gone to the Prime Minister –

“Sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory, and cognitive functioning, decreased short-term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression”.

This is a UN committee. The letter to the Prime Minister said, of October 30 this year,

“The harm is being done to Australians with the complicity of the Australian government agencies, and apparently with the knowledge and acquiescence of ministers in your government. The problem is not a matter of wind farms per se, it is about where they are built in relation to people and how they are operated with respect to harmful noise generation. Current siting and operational decisions are based on maximising revenue for developers …”

foreign developers, I might add,

“… while ignoring and denying or downplaying the harm being done to people. In other words, torture is being done for profit”.

I would have thought that’s a pretty serious letter. Serious allegations.

What does our AMA say, the Australian Medical Association? “The available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infra …” – it’s run by a left-winger by the way, the AMA now – constantly criticising the Abbott government, but it says, “the available Australian and international evidence does not support the view that the infra-sound or low-frequency sound generated by wind farms, as they’re currently regulated in Australia, causes adverse health effects on populations residing in their vicinity.” And it goes on – the AMA.

I have a file here which you couldn’t jump over, of dreadful, dreadful letters from you people listening. I’ll just give you one. This is a woman who wrote to me, she is right next to a wind farm.

“Early this morning at 12

– this is awful –

12:30 AM, I woke suddenly to an excruciating pain in the muscle above my elbow on my left arm. I was lying on my right side. I hadn’t slept. The pain was enormous. I got out of bed. I went back to bed and the left arm pulsating with pain. At 5:45 AM I woke again. The sound of intermittent ring, like a distant bell and my body felt sore. When I got out of bed, my body was stiff and sore. Aching around my kidneys, and hips and back. The last episode has just reduce me to tears and today I’ve just had enough. I don’t want to have to leave my beautiful farm in a pine box. This is my home. This is my life. I am so frightened about what’s happening to me as in long-term damage to my health.”

Now I have letters like these a mile long. “I wonder” … – one woman wrote to a newspaper down in Victoria dismissing the concerns about wind energy and health. And a woman wrote, a mother,

“I wonder if Jo Smith,

that’s the woman who wrote the letter,

would be quite so cocky if she’d spent the last few nights sleeping to the east of the Macarthur wind farm. If she came and talked to us she’d hear of our sleep disrupted nights, because of the noise is incessant and debilitating. When you try to block it out it comes through the pillow. She’d learn that there are nights when the noise is heard above the television. She might feel sympathy for those who suffer headaches and nausea which began after the turbines started turning. There are people at least 5 km away who are feeling the effects and suffering sleep deprivation. Not every night is as bad, but this week’s been awful. This morning we drove our son to Tulamarine. We were all wide awake about 2.30, we couldn’t go back to sleep. I had a fitful two hours of sleep prior to that. In total I had about two hours sound sleep. How safe are we driving on the roads if we’re sleep deprived?”

The letters go on. There is a mile of them.

“I arrived home this afternoon from a couple of days respite from Macarthur wind factory to see all the turbines turned off at 4:30 PM. I thought great, no infra-sound. When I walked into my home it felt quiet and peaceful. The air was clear. At 6:15, I was at my computer and I thought a large truck was coming down my driveway. I had to stop what I was doing and listen for a moment to work out what was going on. The noise was horrendous. The rumbling and rattling and thumping and banging – and for a moment I wasn’t sure what it was. I drove down to the corner and saw the turbines turning. That was what the ruckus was about. They were all being turned on again. Since then and now at 8:55 PM I felt as though I could jump out of my skin or go a round with a punching bag. My muscles are tight and electric. I feel as though I want to release this enormous energy. The air in the house is electric. My body is vibrating. My voice is even vibrating when I speak. Now I know how the prisoners felt in the war when Germany used infra-sound to torture them. This is what it must’ve been like. To send them mad. To scramble their brains. To render them helpless. This is infra-sound.

You know it.

I know it.

And my independent acoustician knows it.

Turn the turbines off at night so we can get a good nights sleep. Do the decent thing if that’s possible.”

Letters everywhere. Letters everywhere.

Well Dr Jay Tibbetts is a practising physician – a member of the Brown County Board of Health. A medical advisor to the Brown County Health Department in Wisconsin, America.

He has been alerted to the position of the Australian Medical Association and has called them ‘misguided’.

He has indicated that over the last few years his Board, the Brown County Board of Health, has studied the deleterious effects of wind turbines on human health and has found that they constitute ‘\”a human health hazard” for “residents, workers, visitors and passers by”. In other words, this is coal seam gas all over again. Shove them up and don’t worry about them. Dr Tibbetts has written to the AMA about its stance. Not only does Dr Tibbetts have the US study to fall back on, he’s well-informed in terms of the Australian perspective. And basically Brown County Board members in the State of Wisconsin in America have declared wind turbines a public health risk*. Dr Jay Tibbetts is on the line from Wisconsin. Dr Tibbetts thank you for your time.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Thank you Alan and good morning Australia and Sydney.

Alan Jones AO: What do you make of all of this, it’s astonishing isn’t it, that political leaders can ignore that kind of on-the-ground, at-the-coalface evidence?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well that is the problem and as you said, it’s political, or at least a lot of it is. And it has to do with jobs and things that we don’t have a lot of control over at this time.

Alan Jones AO:  I mean you have this Shirley wind farm near the town of Glenmore. Duke Energy Renewables. Three families have had to move out of their homes rather than endure physical illness. And your Health Department is the statutory authority for licensing, for inspection and for enforcement. What does that mean for wind farms where you are?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well, this is a whole new territory. As you said, we have authority over facilities, specifically food establishments and so on, but the utility is a different thing. However we have a situation where we are really – we have no option but to declare this a human health hazard under Section 38 of the Public Health Nuisance Ordinance of Brown County. And I just want to read to you the section that we used that’s section B under 38.01,

“A human health hazard means a substance, activity or condition that is known to have the potential to cause acute or chronic illness or death if exposure to the substance, activity or condition is not abated”.

Now, you know there’s no question in my mind, nor is there any question in the Brown County Board of Health’s mind, that this fits the description of a human health hazard.

Alan Jones AO:  Yes, I mean, you have got on-the-ground evidence. I mean I read about a fellow called Darren Ashley, Darrell Ashley who lives within a mile of turbines there. He said his wife moved out of the house for several months until her symptoms disappeared. She has since moved back and the symptoms have returned. He said,

“I am getting worse and I can’t afford to move out. I’m just getting weaker. My legs, my back, my feet. My concentration is gone. Head pressure, earaches, headaches, it just goes on and on”.

How can government ignore this?

Jay Tibbetts MD: Well that’s the big question. And again it’s a political issue and it’s how we get to the authorities that we need to and unless there is enough of a cage rattle, things are not going to get done. I think right now we kind of poked a hole in a hornet’s nest and we’re going to hopefully make some progress here.

Alan Jones AO:   I mean the UN Committee Against Torture says – we are talking about sleep deprivation here – I’ve got a file that you couldn’t jump over. About these desperate people writing to me to say that you’re the only person we can talk to who’s prepared to listen. The UN committee against torture says sleep deprivation can cause impaired memory and cognitive functioning, decreased short-term memory, speech impairment, hallucinations, psychosis, lowered immunity, headaches, high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, stress, anxiety and depression. I mean all these things are related to me by the people who write to me, living within the vicinity of wind turbines.

Jay Tibbetts MD: Well that’s very true and yes, we have in our community, we distributed an informational letter to all the physicians in our community, in the County of Brown. And amazingly one large clinic refused to share the information with its providers because they had questions about whether any of these issues are really true.

Alan Jones AO:  Well that’s right, I mean the letter that was written here, to the Prime Minister, was referred to the Minister for Industry and Energy, rather than the Minister for Health!

Jay Tibbetts MD: Yes.

Alan Jones AO:  What!

Jay Tibbetts MD: Well what does that tell you?

Alan Jones AO:  What does that tell you? I mean, our Coalition here, the Abbott Coalition made an election promise – before the election last year, to ensure that research recommended ‘as a priority’ – multidisciplinary research – would be conducted into this issue, but of course the wind power industry have lobbied the government – nothing has happened. And these people write and complain – where on earth do we go to get health justice for these people?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well I want to correct one thing – we declared it a human health hazard (*not a risk).

Alan Jones AO:   Hazard.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  I interpret a risk being something you could take and not take. These people have no option. They live in an area that is a human health hazard.

gpgwindturbines026

Alan Jones AO:   Good on you.

Jay Tibbetts MD: So they don’t have any option.

You asked, where we go from here. I think the best thing is, right now, to use some of the information that Rick James has given us. He states that:

“wind turbines produce infrasound at significant levels where an indicator is a human health response”.

His conclusion is, based on the above,

“it’s reasonable to conclude that the adverse health effects reported by members of the Shirley community are linked to the operation of the Shirley wind project turbines. While there may be debate about the precise mechanism that causes these sounds to induce the symptoms, it is clear from this study and others conducted in different parts of the world by other acousticians, that acoustic energy emitted by the operation of modern, utility scale wind turbines is at the root of adverse health effects”.

Now his solution, if you will,

“following the precautionary principle, it is concluded that the operation of Shirley wind project is exposing the community members to acoustic energy that can be linked to the reported adverse health effects. It’s similar to other historical problems and other infrasound sources. And the only method available to protect the community’s health, is not to operate the wind turbines close to homes.

Alan Jones AO:  That’s it, that’s it.

Jay Tibbetts MD: For that to occur, either the utility must terminate operations, or it should operate a buffer zone – which you and I and everybody else knows does not exist in this point in time – between the wind turbines and the closest residential properties.  Rick …

Alan Jones AO:   That’s it, that’s it. Yes but – sorry just interrupting- earlier this year – so you’re talking about that survey – earlier this year, the Irish Department of Health, the Chief Medical officer warned in Ireland, that

“people who live near wind turbines risked having their health and psychological well-being compromised”.

And the Irish Examiner newspaper reported that following a review of research on the effects of wind turbine noise on human health, the deputy chief medical officer said

“there is a consistent cluster of symptoms related to wind turbine syndrome which occurs in a number of people in the vicinity of industrial wind turbines”.

And they called the wind turbine syndrome:

“a condition suffered by people living within earshot of the noise made by wind turbine blades as they spin around”.

Now if it weren’t a risk, why not put them on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington?

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Well of course – then you have the option of avoiding them.

Alan Jones AO:  Yes. Just Amazing.

Jay Tibbetts MD: These people don’t have that option.

Alan Jones AO:  No option at all.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  They’re living in this stew, if you will.

Alan Jones AO:  Yes, human health hazard – a stew, a stew.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  That’s exactly what the motion was – a human health hazard.

Alan Jones AO: Good on you. Good to talk to you. And thank you for your time and we may need to talk again.

Jay Tibbetts MD:  Very well, and we will certainly be available to do it any time.

Alan Jones AO:  There he is Dr Jay Tibbetts, the Vice President of the Brown County Health Board in Wisconsin. They’ve declared wind turbines a human health hazard. We’re asking poor Australians, defenceless Australians, to just cop it. And in Canberra, Macfarlane and Co. They write to the Prime Minister, and the letter gets to the Department of Energy, the Minister of Energy, not the Minister for Health.
2GB

For a detailed discussion on the Brown County Board of Health’s declaration that:

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

The impacts of turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound are known and obvious to those unfortunates living in what have become sonic torture traps. But, for the uninitiated, it’s like trying to explain a migraine to someone who’s never had a headache.

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

sleeping baby

Human beings place enormous value on silence. A while back we covered a piece from The Economist that argued that it simply makes good business sense to keep the noise down (see our post here).

As The Economist noted, humane societies have separated noisy activities since the time of the ancient Greeks – booting roosters, tinsmiths and potters out of Greek cities – and, in later times, organ grinders out of London.

In Australia today, roosters are banned in cities, suburbs and in most country towns.  They have a body clock set earlier than most people and have a routine habit of waking up the whole neighbourhood.  Faced with an errant rooster, authorities are quick to act against Foghorn Leghorn & Co on PUBLIC HEALTH GROUNDS.

foghorn

Planning laws in most States prevent panel beaters from operating in built up areas before 8am and after 6pm.

And – either by operation of EPA regulations or planning laws – there is a total ban on the operation of chainsaws and lawn mowers in cities, suburbs and most towns.  That strictly enforced prohibition operates, in Victoria, for example, Monday to Friday: before 7 am and after 8 pm; and on weekends and public holidays: before 9 am and after 8 pm.

So why then is it that hard-working rural people – who live in very quiet night-time environments – are bound to put up with this, night after merciless night?

As we’ve pointed out there’s nothing “odd” about the impact of incessant low-frequency noise on human health.  Neil Kelley was all over the relationship between turbine generated low frequency noise and sleep disturbance over 30 years ago (see our posts here and here). And noise-induced sleep disturbance has long been defined by the WHO: “as a health problem in itself (environmental insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and well-being” (see our post here).

So, if night-time noise isn’t a health problem, then why is it that there are strict rules about the permitted times for operating chainsaws and lawn mowers – rules that keep roosters out of towns and cities – and rules that mean the plug gets pulled on rock bands and music venues at midnight in residential areas?

But this is to comment on the noise that wind farm victims get to hear, whereas much of the acoustic energy emitted by giant turbines is not heard, but felt: which, by definition, is referred to as “infrasound”. Infrasound has been the wind industry’s “elephant” in the room – it’s made sure to bury it by drafting noise standards that ignore it; and, when hit with the evidence, lying about its impacts – but that line of “defence” is unlikely to last much longer (see our post here).

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

wind farm noise

Great News! Useless Wind Turbines May Soon Kill the Wind Industry!

Faulty Turbines Sending Siemen’s Wind Power Division Broke as Samsung Cuts & Runs from Europe

siemens-turbines

German fan maker, Siemens has been running a huge propagandacampaign in South Australia over the last couple of weeks, surrounding the opening of the extension of the Snowtown wind farm – wheeling in Australia’s 2011 Tour de France winner, Cadel Evans as their pet-pedal-powered mascot.

And its highly paid wind farm ambassador, Tim Flannery – Australia’s world-renowned (but self-appointed) long-range weather forecaster – has been on the front foot in the press in recent weeks screaming about imminent “global incineration”. Tim’s “solution”? Why more giant (Siemens) fans, of course!

Not that he makes much noise about it, but Tim sits on Siemen’s Sustainability Advisory Board and – true to the title – has been working flat-out to “sustain” Siemen’s ability to flog its fans in Australia – with a mix of hysterical hectoring and overweening political pressure – all built around the mystical ability of wind turbines to suck CO2 out of the sky and drop world temperatures on a made-to-measure basis. A bit like a heavenly thermostat, apparently.

Although, being a loyal and faithful servant of his German masters, Tim hasn’t limited himself to just being Siemen’s top fan salesman. Oh no – Siemens is in the Carbon Capture & Storage business – so Tim took tospruiking the merits of CCS as only a recent “covert” could.

This little “switcheroo” required Tim to bury his hitherto well-publicised revulsion to coal:

Interviewed in 2007, he likened the coal industry – which employs thousands of Australians and provides the vast majority of our cheap power generation – to those that had sold asbestos. He also argued their ‘social license to operate’ should be withdrawn. A year before, he wrote that ‘the old coal clunkers need to be closed as quickly as possible’ and proposed that they be replaced with hitherto unproven technologies like geothermal and wave energy (see this article for more).

One thing’s for sure, this boy knows how to sing for his supper!

Tim – an expert on extinct giant Australian marsupials – and obviously the first person you’d call when it came to water management issues – predicted right throughout one of Australia’s frequent, prolonged droughts – that it would be “hotter and drier forever”.

flummery

Check out his doomsday interview with Maxine McKew in 2005 – here – a classic example of how being wedded to a delusional belief in “Catastrophic Global Warming” overtakes history and science all in one breath.   He kept that rubbish up – right until the floods started inQueensland in December 2010 –  a totally normal La Nina related flooding event – preceding the three wettest years (on average) recorded since white settlement. In 2013, Adelaide – in the driest State – recorded one of its wettest Julys ever. Onya Tim!

If it was just a bit of good-ol-fashioned shamanism, you might forgive Tim for his over-blown rantings – but his doomsday drought prophecies came with a multi-$billion price-tag. Tim warned that Australian cities would all die of thirst: the “solution”? Massive desalination plants for Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide (all bar Perth’s were mothballed, no sooner than the concrete had set). Thanks Tim!

But this wasn’t all wasted effort on Tim’s part. Oh no, through his “it’s desal or death” mantra Tim was able to help “sustain” Siemens – itbagged a very big slice of the desal plant action.

But Tim may need to think about where his next meal is coming from, as his paymaster’s wind power division hits the wall. Not only did Siemens find itself in huge strife being convicted of bribery and corruption – leading to hundreds of $millions in fines (see our post here) – its wind turbine arm is losing money hand-over-fist. The problem?: Siemens turbines are suffering catastrophic bearing and blade failures, requiring urgent, wholesale replacements. Here’s Reuters setting out a little of Siemen’s escalating financial woes.

Turbine faults cost Siemens €223million
Wind Power Monthly
Patrick Smith
6 November 2014

GERMANY: Costs related to faulty wind turbines have hit Siemens’ results, forcing the wind division into a loss for both the fourth quarter and 2014.

The German manufacturer said it was impacted by EUR 223 million in charges for inspecting and replacing main bearings in onshore turbines, as well as repairing blades on both onshore and offshore turbines.

Head of the Siemens energy business Lisa Davis said: “The charge is related to inspecting and replacing bearings due to the early degredation in certain turbine models. We believe this is related to recent batches of bearings and we are in discussions with the supplier.”

She said that the blade degredation was due to “harsh weather conditions both onshore and offshore”. She added that Siemens has “implemented a design change for leading edge protection” for new blades and will be implementing a “similar retrofit” for existing blades.

These faults resulted in a loss for the wind division of EUR 66 million in the quarter to the end of September. This compares with a profit of EUR 179 million a year before. Revenue remained steady at EUR 1.62 billion.

For the year, the division made a loss of EUR 15 billion, compared to a profit of EUR 306 billion despite a 6% increase in revenue to EUR 5.5 billion.

Siemens has previously had issues with faulty blades and bearings. Blade breakages on a number of onshore turbines last year caused the curtailment of 700 turbines worldwide. And in 2010, the company was forced to carry out maintenance work on four offshore wind farms after it was discovered the bearings in the 3.6MW turbines’ were corroding.

In addition to the write down due to turbine faults in the latest quarter, the wind division’s performance was adversely affected by a lower profit contribution from the higher margin offshore business. The division’s margin slumped from 11.1% to negative 4% in the latest quarter.
Wind Power Monthly

One of the wilder claims made by the wind industry and its parasites is that wind power production costs will inevitably fall (sometime over the next space-time-continuum, apparently) – some fantasists even go so far as to claim that wind power is already cheaper to deliver than coal and gas-fired power – as to which, see our post here.

However, the fact that Siemen’s turbines – barely out of the factory – need wholesale bearing and blade replacement doesn’t bode well for claims that wind power production costs fall over time: a line that’s proved to be nothing more than hot air – as blades continue to fracture; and bearings, generators and gearboxes wear out twice as fast as predicted (see our post here). And more and more turbines spontaneously combust (see our post here). The cost of replacement is phenomenal (see our post here).

Bearings: The Achilles Heel of Wind Turbines
wattsupwiththat.com
Eric Worrall
26 August 2014

A few years ago, I used to know a senior wind turbine engineer. One evening, over a few beers, he told me the dirty secret of his profession:

“The problem is the bearings. If we make the bearings bigger, the bearings last longer, but making the bearings larger increases friction, which kills turbine efficiency. But we can’t keep using the current bearings – replacing them is sending us broke. What we need is a quantum leap in bearing technology – bearing materials which are at least ten times tougher than current materials.”

At the time there was very little corroborating online material available to support this intriguing comment – but evidence seems to be accumulating that bearings are a serious problem for the wind industry.

Siemens citing bearing failures as part of the reason for a substantial fall in profit:
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2014/05/07/siemens-energy-division-profit-down-54-pct/

In the announcement of the opening of a new Siemens research facility:
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2013/03/19/siemens-wind-turbine-research/
“… The Brande test center would evaluate the main parts of their wind turbines such as main bearings …”

http://www.geartechnology.com/newsletter/0112/drives.htm (an attempt to make direct drive turbines, to reduce bearing wear) “… More accurately, it is typically the bearings within the gearbox that fail, in turn gumming up the gearbox, but that’s a story for another time. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burbo_Bank_Offshore_Wind_Farm
“… During summer 2010 Siemens decided to change the blade bearings on all 25 turbines as a pre-emptive measure after corrosion was found in blade bearings found on other sites. …”

Of course, there is the occasional video of catastrophic turbine failure:

And suggestions that the industry is trying to conceal the scale of the turbine fire problem:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2695266/Wind-turbine-fire-risk-Number-catch-alight-year-ten-times-higher-industry-admits.html

All of which creates an interesting question – just how much of our money is the government prepared to waste, to keep their wind dream afloat? If the costs are far greater than the industry admits, how long is the wind industry going to carry that additional hidden cost, before they try to push the costs onto taxpayers, or abandon wind technology altogether?:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html

Wattsupwiththat.com

runaway train lone ranger

Meanwhile, in yet another sign the walls are falling off of the wind industry’s gravy train, Korean fan maker, Samsung has pulled the plug on its European operations; and appears set to abandon major projects on its home turf.

Samsung winds down European wind activities
Wind Power Monthly
Patrick Smith
16 October

SOUTH KOREA: Samsung Heavy Industries (SHI) has shut two of its wind energy offices in Europe and is downsizing its wind business in Korea.

A spokesperson confirmed that SHI has shut down wind activities at its Hamburg and London offices, but denied that the company was pulling out of wind altogether.

“We are now downsizing the [wind] business based on our new strategy. It has not been closed down,” she said. The company refused to comment further.

A source within the company said that SHI would still explore opportunities in Europe, but was unable to define what those activities would be.

Windpower Monthly reported in June that SHI was initiating a review of its offshore activities in Europe.

The London office had been the base for the marketing of the 7MW offshore turbine, a prototype of which started operating in Scotland earlier this year. SHI said that the ship building division would continue to operate out of the London office.

While the spokesperson said that the offshore project is still alive, she was unable to point to any activity concerning plans to take the turbine into production.

Windpower Monthly spoke to a number of Korean employees that had been moved from their previous positions in the wind division to roles in the shipbuilding business.

Several employees said that SHI was winding down the division entirely, but the company said that this is merely a “rumour”.

The fate of the 7MW prototype at the Fife Energy Park in Scotland is unclear. A spokesperson for Fife council, which is running the project in conjunction with Scottish Enterprise, said that activities are continuing to certify the turbine. SHI said it is still operating an office at the energy park.

SHI also had plans to construct the 84MW Daejeong offshore wind project in South Korea, but it is not known whether it will go ahead with the development.
Wind Power Monthly

dirtyrottenscoundrelsoriginal

Slaughter of Birds by Wind farms, Goes on Unchecked!

BIRDS AND WIND FARMS

Written by Mark Duchamp, President, Save the Eagles International on 10 Nov 2014

In an article published in The Guardian on November 7th, the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) is quoted saying that since 1980, across 25 European countries, house sparrow numbers have declined by 147 million, a 62% drop to 90 million. wind turbine bird kill According to the same report, starlings have fallen by 45 million, down to 40 million. As for Skylarks, their population went down by 37 million, to 43 million today. Says the author of the article, “It’s principally agricultural intensification that is behind the crisis.” (1)

Populations ranging from 40 to 90 million birds, for the most common of passerine species, are surprisingly small, spread as they are over 25 countries. Thus, if the researchers quoted by the RSPB are correct in their estimates, we are entitled to conclude that wind turbines and their power lines will have a significant impact on the number of all passerines flying our skies, eating our insects etc. Indeed, we know for instance that, in Spain alone, wind turbines kill 6 to 18 million birds and bats a year (2). Supposing that Europe has about 5 times as many wind turbines as Spain, the death toll for Europe would be 30 to 90 million birds and bats per annum – i.e. roughly 10 to 30 million birds a year, given that bats are attracted to wind turbines and killed about twice as often as birds. Comparing the numbers, and all things being equal, it is obvious that bird populations will erode further on account of wind farms, much faster than previously thought.

But no mention is made of this in the article. It’s not surprising, as both the RSPB and The Guardian are promoting theinstallation of ever more wind farms across Europe.

We also learn from The Guardian that the population of some raptors “is on the up in Britain”.  This assertion sounds suspicious to us at Save the Eagles International, for two main reasons:

A) – the article quotes no figures, no studies and no dates, and

B) – we know that raptors are attracted to windfarms (2), and killed in significant numbers (3).

The truth is that raptors have been recuperating in the UK since a very low point reached after two centuries of persecution.  Some species were wiped out. Then, a law was enacted to protect birds of prey, and reintroduction programmes were launched, e.g. for the Red Kite and the White-tailed Eagle.

Protection and reintroduction caused raptors’ numbers to go up. But the question is: until when? We suspect that the recuperation of raptors in Britain has stopped with the advent of wind turbines, which attract and kill them. Actually, judging from the high mortality of raptors in other countries’ windfarms, their UK population is most likely to be on the decline as well. But Britons are not being kept informed of these things, politics oblige. (4)

To wit: in 2013 became due the decadal census of golden eagles. But nothing happened, and to those who inquired it was replied that the interval between these surveys had been changed from 10 years to 12. This does nothing to allay our fears that Scottish golden eagles are being decimated by wind turbines, many of which are spinning their deadly blades in their habitat.

Mark Duchamp      +34 693 643 736
President, Save the Eagles International
www.SaveTheEaglesInternational.org
Chairman, World Council for Nature
www.wcfn.org

References:

1) – Bird decline, The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/07/bird-decline-common-species-rspb

2) – In Spain, wind turbines kill 6 to 18 million birds and bats a year: http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/spanish-wind-farms-kill-6-to-18-million-birds-bats-a-year.html

3) – Circumstantial evidence of golden eagles’ population declines in California, France, Italy, Galicia (Spain) and Sweden: available upon request.

4) –  Cover up of bird mortality at wind farms in the UK:

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/windfarms-bird-mortality-cover-up-in-the-uk.html

The Truth Has Been Out There a Long time…Why Won’t the Gov’t Listen?

Unreliables cannot provide energy security or enhance natural environment

My new word for the energy sources popularly known as “renewables” is “unreliables”. Though there may be some tiny exceptions, the general characteristic is that they are all diffuse sources that cannot actually be controlled by humans or automated control systems.

One of the main reasons that energy has been a huge political topic since about World War I is that it plays a major role in the economic security posture of any nation. With accessible sources of energy that can be focused and exploited in a short period of time, a nation literally has the “power” to do great things for its population or to do very nasty things to others. It is a matter of choice as to how that power (energy per unit time) is deployed.

One of the issues that caused Japan to attack Pearl Harbor was a desire to protect sea lines of communication to secure sources of energy in the South Pacific. One of the main reasons that Hitler pressed into Russia was a desire to access energy sources in the Caspian region. A primary purpose of Rommel’s move through North Africa was gaining access to oil. Though there were other factors, America’s secure Texas, California, Oklahoma and Louisiana oil fields were a major factor in our ability to deploy sufficient power to defeat the Axis nations.

Throughout my military career, which lasted 33 years from the time I first entered the Naval Academy, I studied the importance of energy in our foreign policy actions. When I learned about Henry Kissenger’s famous statement “America doesn’t have friends. America only has interests.” it was in the context learning about efforts to secure access to energy resources that could supply our economy, ships, aircraft, trucks and tanks.

In the name of energy security, there are some people, like T. Boone Pickens, who try to sell the idea that unreliables like wind and solar energy can make a contribution. As a trained military man, that whole concept makes no sense. A diffuse source of energy that cannot be called on when needed is not a source of power; it is a source of impotency. It turns people into passive recipients of nature’s largess instead of being able to establish control and decision making authority.

Ready for Appalachian Trail
Please do not get me wrong; I like the natural environment. I simply do not agree with the notion that building massive collecting systems to harness energy from nature has anything to do with improving national security or providing power to the people. It does not enable development, but forces a reduction in living standards that is often portrayed as some kind of admirable “conservation”. The act of “doing without” might bring some kind of inner pleasure to some, but for a nation it brings poverty vice economic prosperity.Finally, I want to point out that many advocates of unreliables will attempt to point out that nuclear energy does not replace oil since we do not use oil in the continental United States to operate our power grid anymore. My response is multidimensional.

  • The operative word regarding oil on the electrical grid is “anymore”. Until nuclear pushed oil out of the market, it provided as much as 17% of our power. We burned it at the rate of a million barrels of oil per day in 1978.
  • Solar, wind, geothermal, waves, and ocean thermal energy cannot directly power cars and trucks either.
  • We do use a lot of oil for process heat. Nuclear energy can provide reliable heat as well as electricity.
  • Nuclear energy can push natural gas out of the electricity market and force well capitalized oil and natural gas companies to invest in compressed natural gas infrastructure to open up a new market in vehicles.

Most of the time, unreliables advocates get impatient with me before I finish the first bullet.

A contact suggested that blogging on Atomic Insights and engaging in discussions in a group called Nuclear Safety might be limiting the conversation to those who already agree with me. At his advice, I joined the “Sierra Club” group on LinkedIn. (The group is not affiliated or sponsored by the Sierra Club, but it includes individual members and other people who are interested in the Sierra Club.)

Some views can only be accessed by walking
That contact had started a conversation thread about nuclear energy and attracted some rather pointed commentary. Here is my first contribution to that discussion, which had already included almost two dozen comments.

Please allow me to politely join the conversation.

I am not a Sierra Club member, but I wish I could be one. I respect the organization’s long record of wilderness preservation achievements and agree with about 90% of the organization’s goals. I have studied its history in the roots of Ansel Adams (no relation) and John Muir and its epic struggles to prevent filling priceless canyons with water held back by enormous hydroelectric and flood control dams.

Though I am a life-long suburban dweller, I have spent many of the best hours of my life practicing “no trace” camping and hiking in eastern mountains in Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. I have been driving a 40+ MPG car since 2001, but even before that I always bought cars with as high a gas mileage as possible.

The reason I cannot join the Club is that I cannot come to terms with the illogic of its shift, dating back more than 30 years, from an official policy of “Atoms Not Dams” to a strong and inflexible antinuclear stance. I call myself a hard headed BHL; I learned that from my dad, the guy who taught me to appreciate camping in National Forests as being a lot more fun than the trips to Disney World that most of our neighbors took during their vacations.

Dad was an electrical engineer who was firmly rooted in rational approaches to problem solving. When I was about 8 years old, he came home from work and told me about the amazing new power plants that his company was building at Turkey Point, Florida that did not even need any smoke stacks.

We talked a lot more about nuclear power and by the time I was ready to go to college, I had decided I would become a nuclear engineer. I got detoured slightly; I actually majored in English, but I did it at a school where English majors were still required to take 4 semesters of calculus and post calculus math, 2 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of chemistry, 2 semesters of thermodynamics, a semester of basic propulsion systems and 2 semesters of electrical engineering.

When I graduated, I entered into the Navy nuclear power training pipeline and eventually served as the Engineer Officer on a submarine. When you have lived in a completely closed environment with a nuclear reactor as your sole source of power, it becomes very difficult to see why there is so much concern about the technology. We had clean air, all the clean fresh water we could want, air conditioning, and refrigeration. Our computers did not contribute to global warming.

The 9,000 ton ship I was on operated for about 14 years on a quantity of fuel that weighed just a little bit more than I do. Every used core that the Navy has produced since starting to operate the USS Nautilus is stored in a single, modestly sized building with an indoor pool in Idaho.

That almost magical technology is built on an incredible gift from god (mother nature if you prefer) that packs as much energy into a pound of uranium as it packed into 2 MILLION pounds of oil. I cannot understand why an organization that was founded on protecting as much of the natural environment and heritage as possible would prefer to cover vast quantities of it with industrial scale wind turbines built by some of the world’s largest and least admirable corporations. I do not understand why the Club supports projects like the Abengoa solar project that will cover hundreds to thousands of acres in the Mohave desert with shiny mirrors aimed at hazardous heat transfer liquids for no more than 50% of the day and predictably become idle monstrosities every single night.

Finally, and most illogically, I cannot understand why the national club, supported by Carl Pope’s strong statements over a number of years, is ignoring the feedback from local chapters in Pennsylvania who have seen first hand the full scale of the environmental destruction that comes with the industrial process of extracting methane gas using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

(Note: BHL – Bleeding Heart Liberal)

I’ll let you know if any interesting conversation develops. During my twenty years of Internet conversations – dating back to Prodigy, USENET and AOL – I have had the sometimes disheartening experience of making the last comment in an interesting thread.

Wind Turbines are Indeed, a Health hazard!

Wind turbines declared health hazard in Wisconsin

An historic first! Jack Spencer in Michigan Capitol Confidential writes:

…the Board of Health in Brown County, Wisconsin, where Green Bay is located, has declared a local industrial wind plant to be a human health hazard. The specific facility consists of eight 500-foot high, 2.5 megawatt industrial wind turbines.

The board made its finding with a 4-0 vote (three members were not present) at an Oct. 14 meeting after it had wrestled with health complaints about the wind plant for more than four years. Ultimately, the board’s ruling was based on a year-long survey which documented health complaints and demonstrated that infrasound and low-frequency noise emanating from the turbines was detectable inside homes within a 6.2-mile radius of the industrial wind plant.

Jay Tibbetts, a physician and a member of the Brown County Board of Health, said the board based its position that the turbines constitute a health hazard on the weight of evidence.

“I can tell you that we are absolutely not an anti-wind energy board,” Tibbetts said. “We worked on this for four and a half years before making this decision. Three families have moved out. I knew all of them. We also know that this isn’t only happening here. In Ontario 40 families have abandoned their homes to get away from the effects of wind turbines.”

According to Tibbetts, micro barometers were placed in homes located in the area surrounding the industrial wind plant. The purpose of this was to detect acoustic emissions, including infrasound and low frequency noise emanating from the turbines.

“They found that there were tones of infrasound and low frequency noise as far away as 6.2 miles from the nearest wind turbine,” Tibbetts said. “There were no complaints associated with the home that was 6.2 miles away, but there were complaints associated with one 4.2 miles away.

“We have 80 people on record who have made health complaints, including a nurse who is going deaf,” Tibbetts continued. “We can’t just ignore this.”

In addition to these problems, I am aware that wind turbines sin arid locales, such as the massive wind farm near Palm Springs, California, kick uop a lot of dust, aka particulate matter. Moreover, there is no mention of the toll on migratory birds that tend to follow the same wind patterns that wind farms are situated to exploit. Doug Schmidt points out:

The Truth About the Climate Scam, Fear Mongering, and Faux-Green Energy!

Bjørn Lomborg: Climate Change “Fixes”? – the “Cure” is Worse than the “Disease”

Bjorn-Lomborg-wsj

When it comes to assessing the costs, risks and benefits of environmental policy, Bjørn Lomborg is one of the very few that provide balanced, detailed analysis supported by facts and evidence. The economic choices we make – about allocating scarce resources to unlimited wants – should – as Lomborg consistently points out – be made taking into account all of the costs weighed against properly measured benefits (see our post here).

Bjørn Lomborg has become one of the most high profile critics of insanely expensive and utterly pointless renewable energy policies across the globe (see our posts here and here and here).

Bjørn’s back –  in this piece published by The Telegraph – in which he hammers the insane cost and utter pointlessness of tying our energy futures to unreliable and intermittent renewables, like wind power.

Climate change is a problem. But our attempts to fix it could be worse than useless
The Telegraph
Bjørn Lomborg
3 November 2014

Panicked, ill-thought-through responses to the threat of climate change could hurt more people than they save

The UN Climate Panel came out with its final report yesterday. It is a summary of its 3 main reports, published over the last year. It tells us that global warming is real and a significant problem. And as usual, the media hears something else – in the words of Mother Jones magazine, how future warming will be “ghastly, horrid, awful, shocking, grisly, gruesome.”

In between the alarmist hype and the reality of climate change we once again risk losing an opportunity to think smartly about energy and find a realistic way to fix global warming.

We need to realise that the world will not come off fossil fuels for many decades. Globally, we get a minuscule 0.3pc of our energy from solar and wind. According to the International Energy Agency, even with a wildly optimistic scenario, we will get just 3.5pc of our energy from solar and wind in 2035, while paying almost $100 billion in annual subsidies. Today, the world gets 82pc of its energy from fossil fuels, in 21 years it will still be more than 79pc.

The simple reason is that cheap and abundant energy is what powers economic growth. And for now, that means four fifths from fossil fuel, and much of the rest from water and nuclear. While wind is lower cost in a few, rural areas, coal is for the most part much cheaper, and provides power, also when the wind is not blowing.

As the poor half of our world is reaching for a similar development to that of China, they will also want much, much more power, most of it powered by coal. Even the climate-worried World Bank president accepts that “there’s never been a country that has developed with intermittent power.”

poverty_2226036b (1)

Realising that fossil fuels will be here for a long time means stronger focus on moving from coal to gas, since gas emits about half the greenhouse gasses. The US shale gas revolution has reduced gas prices and lead to a significant switch from coal to gas. This has reduced US CO₂ emissions to their lowest in 20 years.

In 2012, US shale gas reduced emissions three times more than all the solar and wind in Europe. At the same time, Europe paid about $40 billion in annual subsidies for solar, while the Americans made more than $200 billion every year from the shale gas revolution. Gas is obviously still a fossil fuel and not the final solution, but it can reduce emissions over the next 10-20 years, especially if the shale revolution is expanded to China and the rest of the developing world.

While global warming will be a problem, much of the rhetoric is wildly exaggerated – like when UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon calls it “an existential challenge for the whole human race.” The IPCC finds that the total cost of climate change by 2070 is between 0.2pc and 2pc of GDP. While this is definitely a problem, it is equivalent to less than one year of recession over the next 60 years.

ban-ki-moon-hd-picture

Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems. While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years, 4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution, 800 million are starving, and 2.5 billion live in poverty and lack clean water and sanitation.

When the UN asked 5 million people for their top priorities the answers were better education and health care, less corruption, more jobs and affordable food. They placed global warming at the very last spot, as priority number 17.

Climate policies can easily cost much more than the global warming damage will – while helping very little. The German solar adventure, which has cost taxpayers more than $130 billion, will at the end of the century just postpone global warming by a trivial 37 hours.

While a low carbon tax in theory could help a little, the political reality is that climate policies almost everywhere have been ineffective, done little good while sustaining the most wasteful technologies. The IPCC warns than less-than-perfect climate policies can be 2-4 times more expensive. Biofuels, for instance, have driven up food costs, likely causing an extra 30 million starving, with prospects of starving another 100 million by 2020. And it is likely that biofuels cause net increase in CO₂ emissions, because they force agriculture to cut down forests elsewhere to grow food.

This is why we have to be careful in pushing for the right policies. For twenty years, the refrain has been promises to cut CO₂, like the Kyoto Protocol. For twenty years these policies have failed. We should instead look to climate economics to find smarter solutions.

The fundamental problem is that green energy is too expensive, which is why it will need billions in subsidies the next two decades. Instead of making more failed promises to pay ever more subsidies, we should spend the money on research and development of the next generations of green energy sources. If we can innovate the price of green energy down below the cost of fossil fuels, everyone will switch, including China and India. Economics confirm that for every dollar spent on green R&D, we will avoid $11 of climate damage.

But this requires us to separate the hype from the real message from IPCC: global warming is a problem, but unless we fix it smartly, we won’t fix it at all.
The Telegraph

panic-disorder-971

Green Energy Nightmare Worsens in Ontario…

Wynne’s billion-dollar hydro boondoggle

Ontario hydro customers are trapped by the Wynne Liberals’ mad obsession with expensive and unneeded green energy

lorrie-goldstein

BY , TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 08, 2014 

windtubines
Ontario is heavily subsidizing companies to construct electricity generating wind turbines in a push for more renewable energy. 

TORONTO – For anyone who wants to understand what a complete mess Ontario’s Liberal government has made of our hydro bills, Parker Gallant is must reading.

A retired banking executive, he easily dissects and explains in English the never-ending nonsense the Liberals pump out to justify their green energy financial disaster.

An occasional Sun News Network contributor and newspaper columnist, Parker and Scott Luft, an energy analyst and blogger, published a report last week on energy pricing for Wind Concerns Ontario — an anti-wind turbine group — that was truly alarming.

Titled: “October, 2014, Ontario’s breath-taking, record-breaking month for electricity bills”, Parker and Luft reveal that last month, Premier Kathleen Wynne’s Liberal government paid $1 billion more for electricity than the market value of that power.

Put another way, the so-called “Global Adjustment” in Ontario — the difference between the market value of electricity and what it actually cost to produce — topped $1 billion, for the first time, ever.

For the average Ontario household, Parker and Luft note, that will mean an extra charge of about $30 on November’s hydro bill alone, although it won’t appear as a separate item on many residential hydro bills because the Global Adjustment is incorporated into “time of use” rates.

The Liberals say the main reason for the Global Adjustment is to “cover the cost of building new electricity infrastructure … as well as providing conservation and demand response programs.”

But as Parker and Luft explain it:

“The situation has developed as a result of Ontario’s rush to incorporate renewable energy in the form of wind, solar and biomass into the grid, without proper planning on how this new capacity would align with demand.

“The result is that during the spring and fall seasons, when demand is lower, IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) has a surplus supply capacity of over 100% during many hours of the day. Through the Global Adjustment fund, Ontario’s electricity consumers pay contracted generators to idle or curtail generation of thousands of megawatts.

“In October, wind power generators produced almost 600,000 MWh of electricity at a cost of $81 million and additionally were paid another $11 million for 100,000 MWh that they could have produced, but were asked not to add to the grid.

“Due to the glut of power in October, Ontario sold this power to neighbouring jurisdictions at an average of 4.31 per MWh, or $2.6 million, meaning a loss of almost $90 million for Ontario electricity users.”

Parker and Luft note these costs do not include the amount the government had to pay to the province’s privately-run nuclear operator not to produce electricity, because under the 20-year deals it signed with wind (and solar) operators, it has to buy their power first, meaning other sources have to be reduced when there’s a surplus of wind and solar .

Their advice to the Liberals is the same as energy analyst Tom Adams and University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick gave in their recent report for the Fraser Institute, What Goes Up.

That is, at least stop making the situation worse by bringing more wind and solar power on line.

As Adams put it: “Wind and solar power systems provide less than 4% of Ontario’s power but account for 20% of the cost paid by Ontarians, yet the government wants to triple the number of wind and solar generators. That’s a good deal for wind and solar producers but a raw deal for consumers.”

(The Liberals insist wind and solar power only account for 8% of the cost of our energy bills — and that they were needed to close down polluting, coal-fired electricity. But that’s absurd because the Liberals didn’t replace coal power with wind and solar, but with nuclear power and natural gas).

Sadly, the longer the Liberals double down on their green disaster, the faster hydro rates are going to rise.

Even the Liberals acknowledged last year that hydro bills would jump 42% over the next five years.

Now-retired auditor general Jim McCarter produced similar numbers in his 2011 report that was sharply critical of the Liberals’ renewable energy programs, noting green energy initiatives would account for more than half (56%) of a 7.9% annual increase in hydro bills over the next five years.

Hydro rates were bumped up again on Nov. 1 and there’s no relief in sight.

Then again, Al Gore does think the world of the Liberals.

Massive Wind Project Planned for Key Migratory Bird Corridor-Lake Huron

MEDIA RELEASE

Short-eared Owl by Ashok Khosla

The Short-eared Owl, a species listed as endangered in Michigan, is one of many birds using the area in Huron County slated for major wind energy expansion.
(Washington, DC, November 6, 2014) American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has raised serious concerns about a plan by Heritage Sustainable Energy, DTE Energy, Exelon Corporation, and NextEra Energy to construct additional commercial wind turbines in Huron County, Michigan, which could eventually result in up to 900 turbines in the area. This plan is advancing despite the fact that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) radar studies show vast numbers of birds migrating through or wintering in this area.
In an October 30 letter to the FWS Regional Director, ABC charged that the proposed expanded wind development—which already includes 328 turbines—threatens a major confluence of neotropical migratory birds and raptors, including federally protected Bald and Golden Eagles.
“Many species that are threatened or endangered in the U.S. and within the state of Michigan, such as the Piping Plover, Kirtland’s Warbler, Henslow’s Sparrow, and Short-eared Owl, migrate through or inhabit this area. This triggers serious Endangered Species Act (ESA) concerns,” said ABC’s Dr. Michael Hutchins, National Coordinator, Bird Smart Wind Energy Campaign.
“We have reviewed the recent radar studies conducted by FWS in this area and must conclude that Huron County is not an appropriate area for wind energy development, given the potential and substantial risks it poses to federally protected birds. If this is an example of ‘proper’ siting of wind energy development, then we wonder what criteria are being used to make such decisions,” Hutchins said further.
“An annual spring migration of thousands of eagles, hawks, and falcons travel through this area and congregate along the Huron County shoreline,” said Monica Essenmacher, President of Port Crescent Hawk Watch, a raptor conservation group in Michigan. “We have documented this occurrence since 1992, so there is a high likelihood of major raptor mortality from continued construction of these turbines.”

The ABC letter says that in addition to ESA-protected birds, vast numbers of other migrants also move through or breed in these areas. Although there is no current provision for a federal permit to harm or kill these birds (called a “take permit”) under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), ABC suggests that the FWS should consider this option as soon as possible, so that it can be used as an additional tool for proper siting and operation of future wind energy facilities.

Under FWS’ current voluntary permitting guidelines, wind energy companies are not required to apply for incidental take permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or the ESA when the project sits on private property. ABC asserts that this is a loophole allowing wind developers to kill federally protected birds with impunity. To remedy this, the organization is calling for independent post-construction monitoring and for the institution of a permit process that imposes fines to developers who kill more protected birds than their permit would allow.
ABC supports the development of clean, renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar power, but also believes that it must be done responsibly and with minimal impact on our public trust resources, including native birds and bats and particularly threatened, endangered, and other protected species. ABC supports Bird Smart Wind Energy, which emphasizes the importance of careful siting and mitigation to prevent unintended impacts to wildlife. As this study suggests, the risk to birds and bats can be substantial, depending on the circumstances. Another studysuggests even higher mortality.
Developers typically argue that they can effectively mitigate the impacts of wind development, but ABC—and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)—caution that most forms of mitigation touted by the wind industry have not yet been scientifically tested for their efficacy. ABC strongly agrees with the DOE’s recent statement that “…technologies to minimize impacts at operational facilities for most species are either in early stages of development or simply do not exist.”
Regarding the Huron County wind energy expansion, ABC has requested that an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared for the project and says that “… the voluntary (FWS) guidelines (must) be followed to the letter, which means consultation under Section 7 of the ESA, applications for incidental take permits under the ESA and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, a three-mile setback from any shoreline, and an Avian Protection Plan … before the companies are allowed to go ahead with any construction.”
ABC also asks that the wind energy companies share bird mortality data with the public. “At present, these data are being treated as proprietary information, but these are public trust resources being taken,” said Hutchins. “The public has a right to know.”
#
American Bird Conservancy is the Western Hemisphere’s bird conservation specialist—the only organization with a single and steadfast commitment to achieving conservation results for native birds and their habitats throughout the Americas. With a focus on efficiency and working in partnership, we take on the toughest problems facing birds today, innovating and building on sound science to halt extinctions, protect habitats, eliminate threats, and build capacity for bird conservation.

Wind Turbines Get the Green Light, to Slaughter Birds & Bats…NOT GREEN!

It just gets worse:

[…] Wildlife consultant Jim Wiegand has written several articles that document these horrendous impacts on raptors, the devious methods the wind industry uses to hide the slaughter, and the many ways the FWS and Big Green collude with Big Wind operators to exempt wind turbines from endangered species, migratory bird and other laws that are imposed with iron fists on oil, gas, timber and mining companies. The FWS and other Interior Department agencies are using sage grouse habitats and White Nose Bat Syndrome to block mining, drilling and fracking. But wind turbines get a free pass, a license to kill.

Big Green, Big Wind and Big Government regulators likewise almost never mention the human costs – the sleep deprivation and other health impacts from infrasound noise and constant light flickering effects associated with nearby turbines, as documented by Dr. Sarah Laurie and other researchers.

In short, wind power may well be our least sustainable energy source – and the one least able to replace fossil fuels or reduce carbon dioxide emissions that anti-energy activists falsely blame for climate change (that they absurdly claim never happened prior to the modern industrial age). But of course their rants have nothing to do with climate change or environmental protection.

The climate change dangers exist only in computer models, junk-science “studies” and press releases. But as the “People’s Climate March” made clear, today’s watermelon environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) do not merely despise fossil fuels, fracking and the Keystone pipeline. They also detest free enterprise capitalism, modern living standards, private property … and even pro football!

They invent and inflate risks that have nothing to do with reality, and dismiss the incredible benefits that fracking and fossil fuels have brought to people worldwide. They go ballistic over alleged risks of using modern technologies, but are silent about the clear risks of not using those technologies. And when it comes to themselves, Big Green and the Billionaires Club oppose and ignore the transparency, integrity, democracy and accountability that they demand from everyone they attack.

Read it all …

Typical of the political green class, and ‘Big Media’. Hypocrites. Climate Change was just the line needed to cover their extortion.