Wind Weasels in Scotland, are Being Sent Packing! Way to Go, Scots!!

August 8, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Scots Rejoice as Highland Fan Plan Canned & Wind Power Jobs Myth Exposed

August 8, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

The Scots have been set upon by particularly rabid strain of wind weasel:

Got ‘Mercenary Sociopath’ on your CV? Then why not join the Wind Turbine ‘Taliban’

The wind power outfits that have set out to destroy Scotland are peopled by the usual type of bullies and thugs – that are quick to send in the muscle, in efforts to generate ‘community support’ for these things:

Scots Fight-back as Wind Power Outfit Aims to Thump its ‘Community Message’ Home

Faced with a brand of ‘corporate social responsibility’ that would have done the GDR’s Stasi proud, many might have given up and retreated to lick their wounds. But, the Scots are a tenacious bunch, who never say die:

Subsidies Scrapped: Scots Rejoice at Wind Industry’s Demise – Time for a Wee Highland Fling

And now – through their undying efforts to protect the heritage that is the rugged, unspoilt beauty of its majestic Uplands – Highlanders can raise a dram (or three) to celebrate a mighty victory for common sense and Scotland.

£120m Cairngorms wind farm plan blown out
The Scotsman
Alistair Munro
30 July 2015

A CONTROVERSIAL £120 million wind farm proposal has been thrown out by the Scottish Government who admitted that it would scar the Cairngorms National Park.

The 31-turbine Allt Duine development was to be sited within a designated Wild Land area in the Monadhliath mountains near Aviemore.

After a lengthy public inquiry, Deputy First Minister John Swinney has concluded the plan did not represent sustainable development, adding: “The Scottish Government’s policy on wind farms strikes a careful balance between maximising Scotland’s huge green energy potential and protecting some of our most scenic landscape and wild areas.

“We have been clear that wind farms can only be built in the right places and planning policy sets out rigorous steps to ensure wind farms are sited appropriately and sensitively. I have considered the Allt Duine application fully and have refused permission as the proposal would have a significant and unacceptable landscape and visual impacts in the local area, including on the Cairngorms National Park.”

The proposed turbines, which would have stood at 125 metres, would have been visible from nearly 26,000 hectares of the national park, including landmark high points such as popular Munros including Ben Macdui, Cairn Gorm and Braeriach.

The application, by RWE Innogy, was opposed by all statutory consultees, including the government’s own advisers Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Cairngorms National Park Authority and Highland Council.

But RWE Innogy UK has expressed disappointment, claiming it prevents a multi-million pound energy project from going ahead along with the creation of up to 100 jobs. Spokesman Mike Parker said: “We believe that we have designed a wind farm that is appropriate for the area in terms of the location, number and size of the turbines.

“At a time when the industry is under fire from the UK government it is increasingly damaging that this decision has been made. We would like to remain committed to investing in renewable energy projects in Scotland and to doing what we can to invest in the Scottish economy through jobs and community investments.

“However the result on this project has been discouraging. We will now consider the findings further before deciding next steps.”

Chris Townsend, a spokesman for the Save Monadhliath Mountains campaign, welcomed the decision, saying: “This is a victory for common sense, the safeguarding of the wild land in the Monadhliath Mountains and the absolute protection of the Cairngorms National Park. This scheme was the wrong development in the wrong location.”
The Scotsman

****

To our Scottish brothers and sisters, we raise one too, and wish the victors slàinte mhath!

But before we leave this bonnie tale, we can’t help but square up on the drivel in the piece above, that the project would have led to the “creation of up to 100 jobs”. No it wouldn’t.

Once the turbines had been planted, the project would have created less than a handful of full-time jobs, all involving maintenance or repairs.

Hubris and overstatement are, of course, the stock-in-trade for wind weasels, wherever they ply their trade – Scotland – no different.

Here’s a report on yet another wind industry jobs fantasy beat-up, being beaten down by …. you guessed it …. reality.

Tiny fraction of projected jobs bonanza for Scotland’s offshore wind industry becomes a reality
Scotland Herald
Mark Latham
5 July 2015

Only six per cent of the 30,020 jobs projected to be created in Scotland by 2015 through the growth of the offshore wind industry have actually materialised, the Sunday Herald can reveal.

A 2010 report on the future of the sector commissioned by industry body Scottish Renewables forecast that, under the most optimistic scenario, 30,020 full-time equivalent jobs would be in existence by 2015 and that this number would grow to 48,554 by 2020.

But the most recent figures show that in 2013 just 1,842 people were employed in the sector in 2013: a figure that is unlikely to have changed substantially as no offshore wind farms have been built in Scottish waters since then.

Those 1,842 created jobs are however more than twice the number of the study’s worst case scenario projection of 741 jobs by 2015, but far short of the 17,076 estimated under a second “more moderate” development scenario and considerably less than the 5,346 projected under the study’s third scenario of the number of jobs that would be created by 2015 “if Scotland fails to capture the economic benefits of offshore wind development.”

The gap between optimism and reality for Scotland’s offshore wind industry was laid bare last week when the South Korean multinational Samsung Heavy Industries said it would not be going ahead with a planned £100 million offshore wind turbine factory in Methil in Fife, which would have brought 500 jobs to one of Scotland’s most deprived areas.

The project was Scotland’s last remaining hope of creating hundreds of construction jobs in the offshore wind sector, after Spanish wind power firm Gamesa earlier this year dropped plans to build a wind turbine factory and servicing yard for the offshore energy sector in Leith, which would have seen the creation of 800 high-skilled engineering jobs.

In the end the Methil project – which received £6 million from Scottish Enterprise – only led to the creation of 20 research and development jobs following the installation of a 7MW test turbine in the Firth of Forth in 2013, which is now likely to be sold to the Glasgow-based Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult.

If offshore wind finally takes off in Scotland (so far only one offshore wind farm, the 180MW Robin Rigg farm in the Solway Firth, has been installed in Scottish waters) Scottish Renewables believes that more jobs will be created through the operation and maintenance of wind farms than from the construction of turbines or components.

Lindsay Roberts, senior policy manager for offshore wind at the industry body, told the Sunday Herald that the 2010 report’s best case scenario prediction of 30,020 jobs by 2015 was predicated on an assumption that there would be 10GW of installed capacity in Scottish waters by 2020.

“That is clearly now unachievable,” she said. “We appear to be on track to deliver within the lower scenario ranges.”

“The industry across the UK, but particularly in Scotland, is adjusting to a markedly different policy and funding landscape to that envisaged just a few years ago.

“The visibility of a sustainable market throughout the 2020s is the single most important driver of cost reduction in offshore wind. This is partly due to the ability to create a market of sufficient size to drive competition between multiple turbine suppliers and that’s why clarity over the UK Government’s long term support for this sector is so important.”

Roberts disagreed with criticism from the anti-wind farm lobby that Scotland’s deeper waters and more extreme wind conditions make it less suitable for offshore wind farms than England.

“The shallower, more benign, waters found south of the border were a perfect place for a young offshore wind industry to start in the UK but our technology and experience has now developed to a level that makes exploiting more challenging sites around the UK and in Scotland, not just possible, but desirable,” she said.

Linda Holt, spokesperson for the campaign group Scotland Against Spin, said that Samsung’s decision to pull out of the Methil project was “inevitable because Scotland’s offshore wind industry is a dead duck” and that the estimates of 30,020 jobs coming to Scotland by 2015 were “hilarious”.

Holt points to the fact that generous public subsidies have spawned almost 20 wind farms off the coast of England and Wales over the last decade but during that time only one offshore farm has been built in Scottish waters.

“The main reason is that the technical and financial challenges of building and servicing wind farms off the Scottish coast are very much greater than for wind farms in England and Wales. These are located in shallower waters, with less harsh weather and closer to centres of demand for electricity than Scottish ones would be.”
Herald Scotland

Windpushers Lie About the Cost of Producing Wind Energy!

August 7, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

US Wind Power Spruikers – AWEA – Caught Lying About Wind Power Costs

August 7, 2015 by stopthesethings Leave a Comment

****

The wind industry was built on lies, half-truths and critical omissions – and it prays on misconception, ignorance and downright stupidity.

The standard tactics are to go on the offensive, with well-oiled spin from the wind industry’s “play-book”. However, as time marches on, the myths and lies are being called for what they are.

The result has the wind industry’s spruikers floundering around with nonsensical and nasty attacks: attacks not just against the opinions and the conclusions of those who challenge the fraud; and personal attacks on those that express them – but – most desperately of all – they’ve been reduced to lying about the black-and-white facts upon which those opinions and conclusions are based.

This insidious feature of the wind industry – and the parasites that dine at its table – is no more evident in their efforts to downplay the insane costs of seeking to rely upon a meaningless power source, which was abandoned in the 18^th century, for obvious reasons:

The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 1 – the South Australian Wind Farm Fiasco

The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 2 – The Whole Eastern Grid Debacle

Here’s America’s Institute for Energy Research responding to a raft of rubbish pitched up by the American Wind Energy Association – the equivalent of Australia’s Clean Energy Council.

Wind Lobby’s Critique of IER Study Fails on All Fronts
Institute for Energy Research
24 July 2015

IER recently released a first-of-its-kind study on the cost of electricity from the existing generation fleet, titled “The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources.” A major takeaway from the study is that the cost of electricity from new wind resources is three times more expensive than electricity from existing nuclear, hydroelectric, and coal power plants. Power from new combined cycle natural gas plants—the lowest-cost new source of electricity—is about twice as expensive as existing coal-fired electricity.

The bottom line: shutting down existing power plants before the end of their economic lives and replacing them with new generation resources will increase electricity rates.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the lobbying arm of the wind industry, wrote a response to the IER study. AWEA referred to our study as “a new attack piece” against the wind industry, despite the fact that the study was general in nature and reported on all major sources of electricity including natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydroelectric power. The central theme in AWEA’s argument is that wind energy “is one of the lowest cost sources of electricity, particularly among low- and zero-emission energy sources.”

AWEA may not like our finding that existing nuclear power plants provide electricity at a levelized cost of $29.60 compared to new wind’s Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of $106.80. But AWEA’s vitriol towards data-driven reports by IER is nothing new—in the past AWEA has reacted withname-calling when IER publishes facts about the wind industry. Below, we go point-by-point through AWEA’s claims and show that our study stands up to AWEA’s scrutiny.

AWEA Claim #1: the “first trick in their paper The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Sources is using obsolete wind cost assumptions.”

This claim is false, unless data that was current until June 2015 is considered “obsolete” for a study released in the same month. Our study was finalized in June 2015—the same month the Energy Information Administration (EIA) came out with new LCOE data for new sources of electricity. We used EIA’s 2014 data, which was the most recent available at the time. Updating to 2015 data does not change the result of the analysis, as the table below shows.

The LCOE 2015 update from EIA reduces the cost of wind by about $7 per megawatt-hour (MWh) from $80.30 to $73.60. Crucially, even that lower estimate (which excludes some categories of the cost of wind) shows that wind electricity is twice as expensive as existing nuclear ($29.60), hydroelectric ($34.20), and coal-fired power ($38.4).

AWEA Claim #2: “[M]arket data indicate the actual average purchase price for wind energy was $25.59/MWh in 2013, or well under $50/MWh if the impact of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) on long-term wind purchase prices is removed.”

This claim is wildly misleading. It may be true that the average price of recent power purchase agreements (PPAs) is only $25/MWh, but that says little about the true cost of wind power. AWEA lobbyists know better than anyone how many subsidies and mandates are built into PPA prices for wind power. Wind is the beneficiary of dozens of subsidies and other government support, yet AWEA only recognizes one of the largest sources—the wind production tax credit (PTC).

The reality is that AWEA’s own made-up numbers actually show that wind is not competitive with existing sources of generation—and calculating the cost of existing sources of generation was the point of our report. Taking AWEA’s figure above ($50/MWh) indicates that building new wind is already an unattractive option relative to existing resources like nuclear power ($29.60). By failing to recognize this simple math, AWEA seems to miss the point of our study.

However, the PTC is not the only subsidy distorting the PPA price for wind power. Wind is the beneficiary of at least five major subsidies:

Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC)
Accelerated depreciation rules
Federal loan guarantees
Renewable Energy Certificates
State and local utility property tax rebates

But don’t take our word for it. These subsidies are well known. In 2010, a White House report written by Larry Summers, Ron Klain, and Carol Browner explained that the subsidies for wind projects are massive. They explained that total government subsidies for the Shepherds Flats wind project totaled $1.2 billion. The total project cost $1.9 billion. When government subsidies cover nearly 60 percent of the value of a project, the sale price loses meaning as a true measure of cost.

And as we highlighted in our report titled The Case Against the Wind Production Tax Credit, which AWEA did not challenge, the Government Accountability Office counted 82 initiatives across nine federal agencies that supported the wind industry. It is disingenuous for AWEA to point to one subsidy and pretend it tells a complete story about the federal support enjoyed by wind power.

Because of the many subsides artificially lowering the PPA price for wind power, PPA prices do not tell an accurate story of the real cost of electricity from wind facilities. EIA estimates of the LCOE of wind power are much more defensible.

EIA notes that “The LCOE values for dispatchable and nondispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because caution should be used when comparing them to one another.” This is because wind is, by its nature, not reliable. The wind doesn’t always blow. In order to make more apples-to-apples comparisons with other sources of generation, we needed to make some adjustments to EIA’s estimates to reflect wind’s unreliability and need for back up when the wind isn’t blowing.

To EIA’s baseline data, we added in the costs imposed by unreliable wind electricity on other resources—we call these “imposed costs.” Because wind is unreliable, it imposes very real and significant costs on other sources of electricity generation and the power grid. With a more complete picture of the cost of wind power, we estimate that the LCOE for wind is $106.80.

AWEA Claim #3: “Imposed Costs are actually ‘sunk costs.’”

False. By definition, sunk costs are already incurred and hence unavoidable. In contrast to sunk costs, the imposed costs we calculate in our study not only apply to existing generation resources but also new resources. The costs are ongoing and avoidable. In fact, the way we calculated imposed costs ties directly to the most relevant comparison of ongoing—not sunk!—costs in the electricity industry: the pairing of new wind facilities with new combined cycle gas plants. On this point, AWEA fails basic economics.

What are the “imposed costs” of wind? Notably, wind is the only intermittent resource in our study. One implication of wind power’s intermittency is that it has a parasitic effect on the rest of the generation fleet, which has to back down its output—which is controllable or “dispatchable”—in lockstep with any increase in wind generation. By displacing the energy from other generation resources without replacing their capacity to the same extent, wind imposes costs on the dispatchable fleet and raises the LCOE for dispatchable resources.

In the chart below, the dark blue areas represent the “cutting in” effect of wind power on the power grid. The gas plant’s output (light blue) represents the non-wind resources on the power grid, which are forced to back down in order to accommodate the unreliable wind output (dark blue). Our estimate of “imposed costs” shows how this parasitic effect increases the LCOE for non-wind resources using natural gas plants as a proxy.

In our calculation of the imposed cost of wind, we used new combined cycle natural gas output as a proxy for the mix of generation wind might displace. Specifically, we applied the fixed costs of new combined cycle gas at two different capacity factors—best case and fleet average—to estimate the effect on each of intermittent wind generation. This is a reasonable and fair choice for the example because: 1) new combined cycle gas is the most common dispatchable technology being built today, and 2) new combined cycle gas units have the lowest fixed cost per MWh of all new dispatchable generation technologies. If wind displaced resources with higher fixed cost, imposed cost would be higher.

Using conservative estimates, we find that the “imposed cost” of wind power on the dispatchable fleet is between $15.87 and $29.94 per MWh. These costs are in no way “sunk.”

AWEA Claim #4: “EIA’s method shows that a MWh of wind energy has an average economic value of $64.60/MWh, much higher than the current cost of wind energy of under $50/MWh, indicating wind energy provides net benefits for consumers.”

False. Just dead wrong. At this point in the “critique,” AWEA’s sleight of hand reaches new levels.

Even if you agree that the EIA estimate above ($64.60/MWh) reflects the real economic value of wind to the power grid, AWEA’s claim that electricity from wind only costs $50/MWh has no basis in reality. As we explained above, AWEA’s estimate ignores the dozens of subsidies that wind receives in addition to the wind production tax credit.

If AWEA had used EIA data to calculate the “net benefits” of wind power, it would have subtracted EIA’s cost estimate of $73.60/MWh from EIA’s “benefit” estimate of $64.60/MWh to come up with negative $9/MWh. The results only get worse when we adjust the EIA estimates to reflect the imposed costs highlighted above. Using our own updated cost estimate of $106.80/MWh for wind and EIA’s “benefit” estimate, we would have to conclude that wind power falls woefully short in a cost-benefit test—net benefits would be negative $42.20/MWh.

Conclusion

Our study on the cost of electricity from the existing generation fleet is a data-driven analysis of the economics of the power grid. AWEA’s characterization of the study as “a new attack piece” against the wind industry is unfounded—unless AWEA perceives reality as an attack on the wind industry. The fact is, shutting down existing power plants before the end of their economic lives is an incredibly expensive thing to do and, as a result, will increase the cost of electricity. That is true whether the replacement technology is wind, natural gas, or any other new resource.

AWEA’s misinformation surrounding IER’s work is nothing new. As with previous critiques of IER reports, AWEA’s rebuttal to “The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources” fails to identify any problems with our paper while exposing AWEA’s own flawed analysis.
Institute for Energy Research

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

August 6, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

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

August 6, 2015 by stopthesethings 1 Comment

***

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.

****

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

***

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

***

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.

***

“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.

Some People Are Very Slow to see the Truth! Wind Energy is USELESS!

August 5, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

‘Silly’ Sarah Henderson joins ‘Disappointing’ Dan Tehan, as another ‘Green’ in Conservative Clothing

August 5, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

In recent weeks, with the wind industry copping it from all sides, the battle lines have been drawn, with politicians choosing sides. Although, not always the side one might expect. Old guard Labor men – like Gary Johns have rumbled the fraud:

The Wind Industry’s “Fossil-Fuel-Free” Fantasy Scotched

And the PM, Tony Abbott – as a Liberal should be – is no lover of “these things”; and, true to his Conservative roots, is on record as being keen to further R.E.D.U.C.E the staggering LRET subsidy paid to wind power outfits:

Australia’s PM – Tony Abbott – Out to STOP THESE THINGS

Among his team of Liberals and Nationals, there are plenty who get it; and who are quick to call out the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time – such as Craig Kelly, Keith Pitt, Angus Taylor, Matt Canavan and Chris Back:

STT Champions in Coalition Ranks – Craig Kelly & Keith Pitt – Turn on $46 Billion LRET Debacle

The Wind Industry’s Worst Nightmare – Angus Taylor – says: time to kill the LRET

Senator Matt Canavan: Australia’s RET Policy: “Robin Hood visits Bizarro World”

Chris Back meets Alan Jones & Graham Richardson on Sky News

However, lurking amongst Conservative ranks are a handful of characters, whose recent wailings about the inevitable demise of the wind industry, sound more like the kind of hysterics we’ve come to expect from the lunatics that front up for the Australian Greens.

Separating what comes out of Environment Minister, young Gregory Hunt’s office from the 100% renewable-rantings of Christine Milne or Bill Shorten’s 50% flight of fan-tasy – and their endless tirades about the wonders of wind power – is like trying to pick fly shit out of pepper while wearing boxing gloves:

Australian Wind Industry’s ‘Armageddon’: PM Chops Public Finance for Wind Power

Having a pair of wind industry plants as his advisers, doesn’t help Greg come to grips with the most expensive and pointless policy ever designed. And, barely visible Liberal back-bencher, Dan Tehan suffers from the same lack of common sense and knowledge of basic economics – ‘attributes’ that would qualify him perfectly for Greens pre-selection:

Disappointing Dan: Liberal MP becomes Wind Industry Spruiker

Adding to the list of “Greens” in Conservative clothing is Victorian ‘Liberal’, Sarah Henderson – who in the last few weeks has been out helping to salvage the great wind power fraud with a zeal that would make Christine Milne proud.

****

Greg Hunt, Dan Tehan and Sarah Henderson all seem to believe (and publicly claim) that the cost of the massive subsidies directed to wind power outfits under the LRET is magically picked up by fairies and pixies; and that the policy is a no-cost, family and business friendly vote winner. And these policy lightweights also seem to think that treating the honest, hard-working country people, who have to suffer these things, with high-handed contempt will earn them a badge of “green” honour. Contempt for power consumers of all shades is a given – hell, why not simply follow the Green power model and condemn your constituents to freezing or boiling in the dark:

Victoria’s Wind Rush sees 34,000 Households Chopped from the Power Grid

Casualties of South Australia’s Wind Power Debacle Mount: Thousands Can’t Afford Power

As STT followers are well aware, the mandatory Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) and the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) issued to wind power generators under it amount to a Federal Tax on all Australian power consumers. The value of the REC Tax is then transferred to wind power outfits – like Union Super Fund backed, Pacific Hydro. Under Greg Hunt’s current formula, the REC Tax/Subsidy will add $45 billion to power bills from hereon.

As a direct consequence of the Federal government’s LRET policy, Pac Hydro speared 29 of these things into the heart of the peaceful Victorian coastal community of Cape Bridgewater back in 2008: no LRET, no RECs, no wind farm – pure and simple.

Pac Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater wind farm does not – and will never – comply with the noise conditions of its planning permit. The Victorian government are well aware of that fact but – in a form of malign acquiescence – aid and abet the offender, by doing nothing.

Some time ago, Sonia Trist – one of Pac Hydro’s numerous Cape Bridgewater victims – decided her ability to sleep and be healthy was more important than staying in her beautiful seaside home. Sonia’s decision to vacate it was made for no other reason than to escape the incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound generated by Pac Hydro’s turbines – and the impact that noise has on her ability to sleep, to use and enjoy her (otherwise) perfectly comfortable home.

Here is Sonia talking a while back about the merciless nature of the noise generated by Pac Hydro’s non-compliant wind farm.

****

Now, Sonia has launched into ‘Silly’ Sarah Henderson for running a line that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – a Green/Labor renewables slush fund – should keep throwing $millions at losers like Pac Hydro – despite her own party’s direction to the contrary.

Subject: CEFC comment on ABC radio national Monday 27/07.

Sarah Henderson, I woke this morning to hear you speaking with Fran Kelly on ABC National Radio.Over the past 6/7 years, living closeby wind turbines, I have learned to listen intently, on hearing mention of renewable energy. In particular wind energy, and matters concerning proposals, commissioning, operations and machinations of this careless industry.

Many people I know listen for any item of news which might bring a ray of hope to our domestic circumstances, living and working as we do, in the all pervasive shadow of the wind industry.

My personal definition of closeby is 620 metres from the kitchen area of my home at Cape Bridgewater.

A very old cypress tree on my fence line, partially shields me, visually, from the revolutions of Pacific Hydro’s number three turbine. Further to the right of the tree I can see five 110m high turbines, each under a kilometre from the kitchen window. 29 wind generators in total, constitute Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater energy facility. All visible on the approach to my home.

Proximity, and the sanctioning of this proximity, is culpable.

For some reason, known only to themselves and speculated on by others, Pacific Hydro agreed, and negotiated with Steven Cooper, to participate with six residents, of whom I was one, in acoustic testing for a period of eight weeks mid 2014. Pacific Hydro’s acknowledged plan was to ‘restore our lives to those we had had prior to the wind farm.’

Just why this was undergone, only to be reneged upon so brutally by CEO Lane Crockett, at the public presentation of the Cooper Report in PORTLAND in February this year, is beyond words. The company’s reasons can only be suspect.

Now Pacific Hydro’s complaints service has been thoroughly degraded. The 24 hour complaints phone line can ring out when we phone to complain of grotesque noises emanating from the turbines at midnight and the early hours of morning.

Recently we recorded a previously unheard noise from the turbine behind our house. This was sent to Pacific Hydro, only to be asked by them in a brusque, accusatory email, what equipment we had used to capture the noise, alleging falsification.

The family member who resides here with me, has professional photographic and recording equipment and has no need to tamper with the recording process, having been woken by the noise, and not being able to ‘get through’ on the 24 hour complaints service.

I am tired. I did not plan to spend precious years in “the pervasive shadow of this careless wind industry.” It is a nightmare situation, and seems to intensify each time we seek to resolve it.

I simply ask you, why? Why do you want us to cradle this industry, which has already been overfed by subsidies, pampered to our destruction, exposing the wilful emanations of the industry’s influence and power play.

If this industry is so mature, dependable and productive, why does it need to bleed our coffers?

We know the reason and so do you, if you reflect on the process in an informed way.

Wind turbines are not the ‘be all’ of renewables. They can never be, whilst dependent on gas and coal fired back up, intermittent wind, causing health issues of various symptoms, harmful sleep deprivation, anxiety attacks. The effects roll on. The pressure fluctuations in my home last evening caused punchy ear and head aches and breathlessness. Infrasound … well known by the industry for years and years.

Be humanely professional. Let your informed coalition colleagues get on with the job of directing the financing of innovative and reliable renewables. The CEFC was set up for precisely that reason.

In a fragmented world let’s be caring adults. Divisive commentary concerning your Party, to a media saturated in pro-wind propaganda, belatedly destabilising Senator Mathias Cormann’s progress in putting the CEFC back on track, is exceedingly questionable.

It exposes an insensitivity to afflicted residents, struggling to maintain some balance, in conditions knowingly imposed upon them, which suspend and threaten their productivity and lives, in uninhabitable and unsaleable homes.

Loyalty to your electorate and considered respect for your political advocacy, should be paramount.

Why was your position on this matter not discussed within the party at the appropriate time? What is your disruptive agenda?

You have recreated doubt in the minds of people, struggling to understand how they can survive a parliamentary process which permits an out of control industry to control that very process, just when they had taken a breath at the realigning of process by Senator Mathias Cormann and colleagues in the Coalition, regarding the CEFC.

Why?

Sincerely,

Sonia Trist
Corkhill
Cape Bridgewater
Victoria

To give some idea of what Pac Hydro has done to destroy the lives of those – like Sonia – trying to live at Cape Bridgewater, cop an earful of this:

****

The “screech” heard in the video is a “special” feature that was added in 2011 to the “Psychopath’s Symphony” that Pac Hydro has faithfully rendered, whenever the wind is blowing, since 2008 (see our post here). In the result, a law-abiding Australian citizen is driven from her own home.

The offender was only placed in the position to ruin Sonia Trist’s life (andmany other citizens’ lives) by virtue of a perverse Federal government industry subsidy scheme, that has added $billions to power consumers’ bills – lining the pockets of outfits like Pac Hydro – and which has done nothing at all to reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (its stated aim).

In substance, the mandatory LRET/REC scheme is financing outfits like Pac Hydro to take peoples’ homes (some 40, so far) without paying any valuable consideration – or, in simpler terms again, Pac Hydro and other wind power outfits are literally stealing Australian citizens’ homes with Commonwealth government assistance (see our post here). Call us old fashioned, but in STT’s view there’s something very wrong with that picture.

The fact that so-called Conservatives, like Greg Hunt, Dan Tehan and Sarah Henderson have chosen to side with the offenders is nothing short of a disgrace.

Games the Windpushers Play…. Rural residents are always on the losing end. It’s Universal!

August 4, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Falmouth Wind 1 Turbine : Corruption Speaks Out

Falmouth has to face some facts. Those facts are corruption and its not hard to figure it out !

By FRANK HAGGERTY (Open Post) August 4, 2015

Falmouth Wind 1 Turbine : Corruption Speaks Out

Falmouth Wind 1: Corruption Speaks Out

Falmouth Flushing Taxpayer Dollars Down The Toilet

The Town of Falmouth is wasting money on its commercial wind turbines

You have to ask how do people sit back and allow politicians to flush our money down the toilet ?

The average citizen is always trying to make ends meet. If Jill or Joe citizen waste or lose money, they feel it in their wallet.

It is clear and obvious – corruption is a huge problem, through corruption we are wasting billions and billions of our taxpayer’s money .

Falmouth has to face some facts. Those facts are corruption and its not hard to figure it out !

The town was warned prior to any installations of wind turbines that the Vestas wind turbine known as Falmout Wind 1 generated 110 decibels of noise almost twice the manufacturers specifications. That warning meant the turbine would break state noise regulations. The end result was the courts shut down the turbines because they broke state noise laws. Everyone always knew they would !

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center in April 2013 gave a memo to the Town of Falmouth admitting they made mistakes in noise studies prior to the installation of the wind turbines. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center knew well before the installations because they had owned the turbine for several years being held in storage for over $3300.00 a month for several years. They couldn’t sell the turbine even at auction. The turbine was a political embarrassment. They had to dump it on someone.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center offered the Town of Falmouth a one million dollar bribe to take the embarrassing old turbine held in storage off their hands as it was becoming a political embarrassment.

In Massachusetts this is called ( One Hand Washes the Other ). Everyone involved with Falmouth Wind 1 knew prior to the installation the turbine generated 110 decibels of noise almost double the specifications. The Falmouth turbine is a Vestas V-82 1.65 megawatt wind turbine. Vestas wind company had just bought out another company,Neg Micon, prior to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center making the purchase. Falmouth Wind 1 is actually a Neg Micon NM- 82 1.65 megawatt turbine. A turbine that generates 110 decibels of noise.

In order to sell the Falmouth Wind 1 turbine to Falmouth the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center had to get a good noise test to install the turbine in Falmouth. That was simple they made what they call “mistakes” in the noise tests and then admit a few years later after the installation in an April 2013 memo to the Town of Falmouth they made a “mistake.”

Along with the memo Nils Bolgen the wind turbine manager at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center around the same time as the memo in a press release tells the public the Falmouth Wind 1 turbine was installed “Ad Hoc.”

Prior to the Falmouth wind turbine installation the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center was caught making “mistakes” in a 23 page wind turbine study in Mattapoisett. There was at least one mistake on each page that included contradictions between several sections and some cases up to three “mistakes” per page and it wasn’t spelling or punctuation. Nils Bolgen the wind turbine manager at the time blamed the mistakes on engineering students. Highly unlikely knowing what we know today.

The turbines were not installed in Mattapoisett because of a reference to two distinct types of noise. The distinct types of noise were “regulatory: and “human annoyance.” Today we know “human annoyance” is infra sound or low frequency noise.

To this day it has never been explained why the reference to “human annoyance” was dropped from the Falmouth wind study and there was NO warning to the Town of Falmouth or its citizens. Three guesses why they dropped the reference !

The only conclusion is everyone for years before the installation of Falmouth Wind 1 was aware of major noise issues with the Falmouth Wind 1 turbine. The noise issues included regulatory noise violations and human annoyance noise issues today known as infra sound or low frequency noise. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center in 2005 described “ human annoyance” yet today acts like it doesn’t exist. Aka the Mass Clean Energy Center caught again in a contradiction.

The Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals thinks the Town of Falmouth acted in good faith avoiding getting a special permit 240-166 prior to the installation of Falmouth Wind 1 ? Where have these people been ? At the beach with their heads buried in the sand ?

The facts speak for themselves. Had Falmouth applied for special permit 240-166 it would have required additional studies and the turbine would never have been installed. A simple fact.

This wind turbine installation is not just a mishap or “mistake.” The hiding of the noise warning from Vestas wind company, the noise study “Mistakes” by the Mass Clean Energy Center, Admission of an Ad Hoc installation, dropping noise warnings in prior studies about “human annoyance” aka infra sound and then the one million dollar bribe to the Town of Falmouth

The judicial branch of government could only conclude one thing ; C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N

The question of the 6 million dollars in stimulus funds, ARRA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was the money for Falmouth Wind II a loan or a grant has never been answered.

Today everyone has got something on everyone else. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center made its “mistakes” the town avoided the special permit 240-166 and they all knew well in advance the turbine was too loud.

Now the Town of Falmouth has the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center over a barrel and made them fork over 1.8 million dollars to help pay the town litigation fees.

Folks– You the taxpayers are financing this bunco scheme. You the taxpayers are being taken for ride of your life.

Please for the sake of humanity wake up this isn’t a dream. They are taking your health, property and your money.

Windweasels Need A Big Hearty Dose of Reality!!

August 4, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Wind Industry’s “Fossil-Fuel-Free” Fantasy Scotched

August 4, 2015 by stopthesethings

***

At STT we love scotching wind power myths – and all the more so when it can be done with pictures:

The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 1 – the South Australian Wind Farm Fiasco

The Wind Power Fraud (in pictures): Part 2 – The Whole Eastern Grid Debacle

The ‘arguments’ pitched up by the greentard about these things ‘saving the planet’; and being the ‘answer’ to ‘cataclysmic’ global warming (or ‘climate change’, whichever is your poison) require the suspension of our good friends – ‘logic’ and ‘reason’.

To make it plain – wind power generation has NOTHING to do with the CLIMATE – one way or the other.

STT seeks to completely disconnect claims for and against man-made ‘global warming’, and wind power generation (see our post here).

As laid out in the posts linked above the simple FACT is that wind power can only ever be delivered (if at all) at crazy, random intervals.

It doesn’t matter how many turbines are planted – or how far apart they’re spread – wind power will NEVER amount to a meaningful power source.

It will always require 100% of its capacity to be backed up 100% of the time with fossil fuel generation sources; in Australia, principally coal-fired plant. As a result, wind power generation will never “displace”, let alone “replace” fossil fuel generation sources.

Contrary to the anti-fossil fuel squad’s ranting, there isn’t a ‘choice’ between wind power and fossil fuel power generation: there’s a ‘choice’ between wind power (with fossil fuel powered back-up equal to 100% of its capacity) and relying on wind power alone. If you’re ready to ‘pick’ the latter, expect to be sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark more than 60% of the time.

Wind power isn’t a ‘system’, it’s ‘chaos’ – the pictures we’ve thrown up time and time again, tell the story.

When Labor came out to announce its ludicrous 50% renewable energy target (even more ludicrous than the current $45 billion monster) a week or so back (see our post here) – we predicted that the attentions of journos and politicians would be drawn to the great wind power fraud, in much the same way multiple car pile ups draw a crowd.

Much to STT’s delight, what’s occurred is a flurry of mainstream-press-pieces, that are starting to sound a whole lot like the authors have been perusing these very pages: articles that start with facts, instead of fantasy – and which end with the obvious conclusion – that these things will NEVER WORK.

And so it is with the claims being run by the intellectually compromised, who steadfastly “believe” that wind power will ‘kill coal’ and ‘gas’; and everything else their puny little minds have taken a set against.

As we’ve pointed out, diggers and drillers simply love these things, as they provide no threat to their opportunity to sell their wares – on the contrary – coal miners and oil and gas producers would profit very handsomely if the wind power fraud was taken to its illogical ‘conclusion’:

Why Coal Miners, Oil and Gas Producers Simply Love Wind Power

Here’s former Labor man, Gary Johns picking precisely the same theme.

Wind farms use fossil fuels, too … lots
The Australian
Gary Johns
28 July 2015

Bill Shorten should have asked a couple of questions before committing Australia to a 50 per cent renewable target. Can you build a wind turbine, or start a wind turbine, without fossil fuels?

The answer is no and no, you cannot. So what is the point of saddling Australia with an increasing load of wind turbines? (Much is also true for solar.)

Whatever one’s beliefs on the veracity and level of threat from climate change, what is the point in spending hard-earned dollars on expensive and inadequate-for-purpose technology?

The energy density of wind power is a little over one watt a square metre. As Smaller, Faster, Lighter, Denser, Cheaper author Robert Bryce tells, if all the coal-fired generation capacity in the US were to be replaced by wind, it would need to set aside land the size of Italy. Hydrocarbons are denser energy sources than wind. There is nothing that can overcome that fact.

James Hansen, the former NASA climate scientist, wrote in 2011: “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase out rapidly fossil fuels is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter bunny.”

The other thing about renewables is that they cannot produce the intensity of heat required to not only build turbines but just about anything else that makes the modern world modern.

The material requirements of a modern wind turbine have been reviewed by the US Geological Survey (Wind Energy in the United States and Materials Required for the Land-Based Turbine Industry From 2010 Through 2030). On average, 1 megawatt of wind capacity requires 103 tonnes of stainless steel, 402 tonnes of concrete, 6.8 tonnes of fibreglass, three tonnes of copper and 20 tonnes of cast iron. The blades are made of fibreglass, the tower of steel and the base of concrete.

Robert Wilson at Carbon Counter takes us through the science. Fibreglass is produced from petrochemicals, which means that a wind turbine cannot be made without the extraction of oil and natural gas. Steel is made from iron ore. To mine ore requires high energy density fuels, such as diesel. Transporting ore to steel mills requires diesel.

Converting iron ore into steel requires a blast furnace, which requires large amounts of coal or natural gas. The blast furnace is used for most steel production.

Coal is essential, not simply a result of the energy requirements of steel production but of the chemical requirements of iron ore smelting.

Cement is made in a kiln, using kiln fuel such as coal, natural gas or used tyres. About 50 per cent of emissions from cement production comes from chemical reactions in its production.

Then there is the problem of priming windmills. Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Wind plants must use electricity from the grid, which is powered by coal, gas or nuclear power.

A host of the wind turbine functions use electricity that the turbine cannot be relied on to generate — functions such as blade-pitch control, lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, oil heater, pump, cooler, filtering system in gearboxes, and much more.

Wind turbines cannot be built and cannot operate on a large scale without fossil fuels.

As important, wind and solar do not have the energy densities to create an economy. Forget trains, planes and automobiles; your humble iPhones, laptops and other digital devices consume huge amounts of electricity and cannot be made with renewables. That most modern of new economy inventions, the computing cloud, requires massive amounts of electricity.

As Mark Mills wrote: ‘‘The cloud begins with coal.’’ The greenies who got into the ears of Labor leaders to convince them that the era of fossil fuels is over should think again.

Reservoirs of methane hydrates — icy deposits in which methane molecules are trapped in a lattice of water — are thought to hold more energy than all other fossil fuels combined.

The Japanese, among others, hope that the reservoirs will become a crucial part of the country’s energy profile, as Nature reported in April 2013. A pilot project 80km off the country’s shores has produced tens of thousands of cubic metres of gas.

As with any new resources there are risks and much work is to be done for safe extraction, but the UN Environmental Program report in March, Frozen Heat: A Global Outlook on Methane Gas Hydrates, was very keen to ‘‘explore the potential impact of this untapped natural gas source on the future global energy mix’’.

Bill, you are suffering from Big Wind. You have let down the party and the nation.
The Australian

Corrupt Wind Industry Treats People Like Trash!

August 2, 2015 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

The Wind Industry: Always and Everywhere the Result of Massive & Endless Subsidies (Part 1)

August 2, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

In Australia, the wind industry exists – and ONLY exists – to wallow in a subsidy stream which will hit $3 billion annually in 2019; and continue at that colossal rate until 2031. The cost of the greatest subsidy rort in the history of the Commonwealth will exceed $45 billion – every last cent of which will be recovered from Australian power consumers through retail power bills:

Wind Power Fraud Finally Exposed: Senator John Madigan Details LRET’s Astronomical 45 Billion Dollar Cost to Power Consumers

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

True it is, that the PM is keen to R.E.D.U.C.E the LRET subsidy for these things, but plenty of other Coalition lightweights and wind industry shills – like Dan Tehan, Sarah Henderson and young Gregory Hunt (and two wind industry plants that work in his office) believe (or publicly claim) that the cost of the massive subsidies directed to wind power outfits under the LRET is magically picked up by fairies and pixies; and that the policy is a no-cost, family and business friendly vote winner.

However, the Senators on the Inquiry into the great wind power fraud – including Coalition Members, Chris Back and Matt Canavan – have worked out that the truth is all the other way – which has led to the recommendation of a 5 year limit to the rort:

Senate Recommendations Spell ‘DOOM’ for the Australian Wind Industry

The response from the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers – like the Clean Energy Council – is as galling as it is pathetic; predictably pathetic.

You see, we’re consistently told how wind power is getting cheaper all the time – so cheap, in fact, that it’s cheaper than the cheapest of them all: coal-fired power (for a trip to a parallel universe see this piece of twaddle from ruin-economy).

The Clean Energy Council would have us believe that its clients – although now that it’s headed up by Miles George from near-bankrupt wind power outfit, Infigen (aka Babcock and Brown), it’s hard to tell who’s servant and who’s master – are blessed with a kind of ‘divine altruism’, under which their only objective is to power the world for free, while saving the planet from the ‘dreaded’ CO2 gas; and otherwise spreading health, wealth and happiness all over the planet.

****

But all of that benevolent bonhomie seems to melt away, like snow in summer, with the merest hint that the massive stream of power consumer and/or taxpayer subsidies are under threat.

Here’s STT Champion, Graham Lloyd with the parasites’ response to the Senate recommendations.

Subsidy limits ‘a wind farm body blow’
The Australian
Graham Lloyd
1 August 2015

Limiting subsidy payments for new wind farms to five years would destroy the future of renewable energy, says the industry’s peak lobby group, the Clean Energy Council.

A Senate committee will next week recommend the winding back of billions of dollars in subsidy support for wind farms. It will also recommend renewable energy certificates not be issued to projects in states which do not comply with federal guidelines on low frequency noise.

The final Senate report is due to be tabled in federal parliament on Monday.

Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the government presently had no plans to amend the Clean Energy Act but would consider the Senate inquiry recommendations after the report had been tabled.

The government accepted interim recommendations from the Senate committee to establish an independent scientific panel to oversee research into the impact of infrasound and low frequency noise.

It agreed to appoint a wind farm commissioner to receive complaints. And the government also instructed the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to concentrate future funding on large-scale solar projects and emerging technologies rather than wind.

The final report of the Senate committee will call for new wind farm projects to be given renewable energy certificates for a maximum of five years, rather than 20. Clean Energy Council chief executive Kane Thornton said this would damage Australia’s international investment reputation.

“Business needs stability and confidence to invest, and this has only recently been restored to the renewable energy sector after 18 months of uncertainty,” he said. “Adopting the headline recommendation of this report would be economically reckless, and shows some of the senators are out of touch with the business community and the Australian people.”

Mr Thornton said the wind industry remained open to scrutiny, provided that the scrutiny was objective and based on evidence. “The wind industry remains committed to constant improvement in the way it interacts with the local communities surrounding wind farms, and to treating all community members with respect,” he said.

Mr Hunt said he would consider the Senate report. “We’ve recently passed Renewable Energy Target legislation that gives certainty to the industry and will see 23.5 per cent of Australia’s energy come from renewable sources by 2020,” he said. “We are not proposing and have no plans to make any changes to RET legislation.”
The Australian

Kane Thornton’s whining is not just pathetic; it’s embarrassing.

Running counter to the CEC’s repeated claims about wind power being competitive and becoming cheaper all the time, Kane tells us that limiting the flow of renewable energy certificates (RECs) to a period of five years, spells the end of the wind industry.

What Kane won’t tell you, is that the amount of subsidy available for a single 3 MW turbine operating 35% of the time (with RECs trading at their expected value of $93) will top $855,000 annually. That single turbine – if planted in 2015 will keep raking in that same amount of subsidy until 2031; allowing its owner to pocket a total in the order of $13,686,624 over the remaining life of the LRET: all at power consumers’ expense.

So, Kane’s complaint breaks down to this: if the subsidy scam is limited to 5 years, his client’s turbines will only get to rack up RECs worth a mere $4,275,000.

And that’s just the federal government’s mandated subsidy: wind power outfits receive guaranteed rates of around $120 per MWh under power purchase agreements, which run for 10-15 years – a price which takes account of the assumed value of the REC received for the MWh dispatched. That figure compares, somewhat unfavourably, with the average wholesale price of around $35 per MWh.

Bear in mind, that a 3MW machine and its installation costs less than $3 million; and that being able to spear it into some dimwit’s back paddock under a landholder agreement costs a piddling $10-15,000 per year. Oh, and as the CEC and its clients keep telling us, the “wind is free”; and that these things run on the smell of an oily rag for over 25 years:

Australia’s Most Notorious Wind Power Outfit – Infigen – says “Move Over Pinocchio, Here We Come”

So, Kane? Where’s the problem?

Under the Senate’s recommendation, your clients would get to pocket RECs worth over $4 million per turbine, at power consumers’ expense – more than the price of the turbine – where, on your case, the “fuel” is “free”; and the power produced is so cheap, retailers are just chafing at the bit to take it (although the fact that commercial retailers haven’t signed a PPA with a wind power outfit since November 2012, suggests otherwise). So, 5 years of RECs should be seen as money for jam, Kane?

The CEC, and the wind power outfits that it’s paid handsomely to represent, are starting to sound like a bunch of spoiled brats being disciplined for the very first time.

****

The other Kane ‘cracker’ – that we just can’t let go – is his throwaway that the “wind industry remains committed to constant improvement in the way it interacts with the local communities surrounding wind farms, and to treating all community members with respect”.

Either Kane has been living under a rock, and remains blissfully unaware of just how his clients “interact” with rural communities and the kind of “respect” that they mete out; or his idea of community “interaction” and “respect” is drawn from the pages of the old GDR’s Stasi Handbook on community relations.

****

As noted above, Kane’s boss, Miles George runs Infigen – an outfit that has had many “interactions” with rural communities; and has, apparently, created its own definition of “respect”.

Back in June, three farmers told the Senate Inquiry about how Infigen managed to force them to enter land holder contracts with it, through a combination of threats, bullying and deceit. One of them, Robert Griffin, told the Senate:

It is hard for us to generalise because we have one man, Jonathan Upson, from one company, Infigen. I must say he was really shocking. He was an incredibly arrogant man. He was arrogant about everyone. All the protesters were just idiots. You could never have any discussion. They were just idiots. The department of planning were dopey. When we raised problems, we were the troublemakers.

We never got anywhere with him at all, except to get threats. Even when the department of planning first said that they would have to get our written signature on a document after the date of approval we never got any consultation. We read in the local newspaper that we were going to be made to come into line. For six months we did not get one bit of consultation from them. They could not come around and try and sweet talk us—’What’s your problem?’- none of that. We just got threats straight away, right from the word go. We were told, ‘They will be made to step into line.’ That was the thing in the local newspaper and that was the attitude.

Funnily enough, the farmers in question have resolved to get out of their contracts with Infigen; and wish to have nothing more to do with goons like Jonathan Upson:

Unwilling Turbine Hosts Tell Senate: Australia’s Most Notorious Wind Power Outfit – Infigen – a Team of Bullies, Liars & Thugs

Then there’s that paragon of community relations, Pac Hydro. The union super fund backed Pac Hydro has destroyed the ability of the Cape Bridgwater community to sleep, live in and otherwise enjoy their homes for over 7 years:

Federal Government’s Mandatory RET pays Pac Hydro to Steal Sonia Trist’s Home

After receiving hundreds of complaints over that time – largely ignoring and dismissing them – Pac Hydro was eventually forced by residents to engage Steven Cooper to carry out some proper acoustic testing. Cooper’s work – properly described as groundbreaking by qualified acoustic experts, including America’s best – demonstrated that the terrible effects being suffered – including constant sleep deprivation – were clearly related to the operation of Pac Hydro’s turbines:

The Smoking Gun: Top US Noise Experts – Paul Schomer & George Hessler – Endorse Steven Cooper’s Wind Farm Study

NHMRC Fails Science 101 in Continued Wind Farm Health Cover Up

After Cooper’s smoking gun research was made public, Pac Hydro was faced with a community and media backlash. True to form, Pac Hydro responded with its own brand of community “respect”. During a “community relations” meeting in February its then head-spruiker, Lane Crocket accepted Cooper’s work, and then practically told its numerous and long-suffering victims to “get stuffed”:

Pacific Hydro’s Cape Bridgewater Wind Farm Public Relations Disaster: Video of a Corporate Calamity Unfolding

After that effort, wind industry corporate relations were never sunnier – well, not since James Hardie spent $millions trying to cover up and avoid its liability for thousands of asbestos-related deaths and illnesses – all with the help of the same class of so-called “academics”, that help run cover for the wind industry today (see our post here).

STT can only endorse the CEC’s brand of “community interaction”; and the type of “respect” dished up by Infigen, Pac Hydro & Co. If there was anything that was guaranteed to result in the demise of the wind industry, it’s treating honest, decent hard-working country people with condescending contempt, of the kind usually reserved for bitter and sworn enemies.

Australians – especially rural Australians – aren’t so gullible and guileless to tolerate the lies, treachery and deceit doled out by the likes of the CEC and its clients. Under the current LRET, the Coalition is expecting rural communities to cosy up alongside another 2,500 of these things; Labor’s 50% renewable energy target lunacy requires more than 10,000.

There is no way that rural Australians will take this rubbish lying down. Not anymore.

STT hears that hundreds of people, in dozens of communities are already organising the mother of all counter-attacks. And it’s the high-handed arrogance of outfits like the CEC, Infigen and Pac Hydro that’s driving them to revolt. Thanks Kane.

There is Absolutely NO Doubt About It….Wind Turbines Make People SICK!

August 1, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

FACT: Wind Turbines Make You Sick

By Neil van Dokkum (B. SocSc; LLB; LLM; PGC Con.Lit)

I have just finished reading a fascinating article “Low Frequency Noise-Induced Pathology: Contributions Provided by the Portuguese Wind Turbine Case” written by Nuno A. A. Castelo Branco, MD, Senior Surgical Pathologist; Mariana Alves-Pereira, PhD, Biomedical Engineer; Augusto Martinho Pimenta, MD, Senior Neurologist; and José Reis Ferreira, MD, Senior Pneumologist; all resident and practising in Lisbon, Portugal. The authors were involved in giving evidence to the Portuguese courts culminating in a Supreme Court action.

Their findings were presented and accepted as expert evidence to Portuguese courts which eventually resulted in the wind farm developer being ordered by the Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal to remove the wind turbines from the vicinity of the applicant’s property (Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal. Decision No. 2209/08.oTBTVD.L1.S1, 30 May 2013).

These legal proceedings involved four wind turbines (although more were built subsequent to the commencement of the legal proceedings).
The four wind turbines were located adjacent to the family farm as follows:

No. 1: 321.83m from the house and 182.36m from the stables,
No. 2: 539.92m from the house and 439.64m from the stables,
No. 3: 579.86m from the house and 565.50m from the stables,
No. 4: 642.08m from the house and 503m from the stables.

The distances are important to Irish readers as our current guidelines suggest a clearance of 500m from residential homes (which wind developers routinely ignore in any event). Therefore, three of the listed turbines would be in a permissible position in Ireland.

What are expert witnesses?

As a general rule, witnesses can only testify about facts. It is the task of the jury, or the judge if there is no jury, to draw inferences from the facts presented in court, and witnesses must not be allowed to usurp this central function.

There are two notable exceptions to this general rule. First, expert witnesses may give opinion evidence, which is their primary function. Secondly, non-experts are sometimes allowed to give opinion evidence in defined circumstances, usually where their evidence would not make any sense if it were not accompanied by opinion.

Generally, a witness is considered an expert on the basis of their experience, training and knowledge. An expert witness is there to assist the court in coming to a conclusion in areas where the trial judge or jury might not have considerable expertise.

The expert witness is called for his or her expertise and as such should regard themselves as ‘neutral’ witnesses, there to help the court rather than to help one of the litigating parties. Indeed, the authors point this out very clearly at the end of their paper, saying that they are only interpreting the evidence, and in fact support the push towards renewable energy.

A famous decision setting out what is expected of expert witnesses is National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v. Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”) [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 68 Where the court held:

Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert, uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation.
An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise.
An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion.
An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.
If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one.
If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his view on a material matter having read the other side’s report or for any other reason, such change of view should be communicated to the other side.

What is also important to remember is that an expert witness must be recognised as such by the court. The party who wants to lead expert evidence has to prove to the court that their witness is indeed an expert in their field. The opposition (in this case the wind industry) is entitled to attack the qualifications of the expert witness and attempt to convince the court that the witness should not be allowed to give his or her expert evidence. They can also call an opposing expert witness.

In this case the Portuguese Supreme Court not only accepted the expertise of the authors of this article and allowed them to give evidence, but the Court also preferred their evidence to that of the expert witnesses used by the wind industry, whose evidence was rejected.

So what was that evidence?

The family in question consisted of a father, a mother, and two children. Before the wind farm was built, the eldest son was a high achiever and regularly came top of his class at school. The authors take up the story:

“The Industrial Wind Turbines were installed at a distance of 321-642 m from the residential home. Complaints of sleep disturbances were first reported in December 2006. In mid-March, Mr. and Mrs. R received a letter from their 12-year-old son’s schoolteacher, expressing concern for the growing difficulties in an otherwise outstanding student, “particularly in English, Humanities and Physical Education. He progressed in Mathematics, which is a field that naturally attracts his type of intelligence. However, in the above mentioned coursework, it seems that [the child] has lost interest, makes a lesser effort, as if he were permanently tired. In Physical Education, an abnormal amount of tiredness is also observed. Is [the child] leading a healthy life? Does he sleep sufficient hours during the night?”
This immediately prompted the parents to begin legal proceedings and seek medical assistance, and thus, this team’s first contact with Family R.”

The family hired an accredited acoustical firm to conduct continuous acoustical monitoring both inside and outside their home, for a period of 2 weeks, and that included real time wind speed data. Numerical data regarding acoustical and wind speed information, independently collected by the accredited firm, was then provided to these experts (the abovementioned authors) for analysis and these experts deemed the turbine noise to be dangerous to the health of this family.

On that basis the family were sent for medical examination. The authors summarise the findings of the examinations (my emphasis):

“The 12-yearold child received a neurological test assessing cortical nerve conduction times: P300 Event Related Evoked Potentials (ERP). P300 ERP disclosed nerve conduction time to be 352 ms, when expected value should be closer to 300 ms. Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potentials (BAEP) disclosed asymmetries in the right and left nerve conduction times, and the right I-V interval interlatency value was at the threshold of normal (4.44 ms). Mr. and Mrs. R. disclosed slight to moderate pericardial thickening: between 1.7 mm and 2.0 mm (normal for the equipment in use: <1.2mm) [12]. Respiratory drive was below normalized values in both adults (46%-53%, normal: >60%), suggesting the existence ofbrain lesions in the areas responsible for the neurological control of breathing.

Observations made by the family included animal behavioural changes: Horses were seen to lie down and sleep during the day; Dogs were lethargic, and no longer jumped up requesting attention from their owners. Ants simply disappeared.”

Remember that these examinations are carried out in 2007, just a few months after the wind turbines are erected, and already the effects are dramatic.

Alarmed by these symptoms, the mother and children moved into an apartment in the city in 2007. The boy’s health improved immediately and dramatically:

“After the summer vacation in 2007, spent away from the farm, the 12-year-old child had again received the P300 ERP examination that, this time, disclosed nerve conduction times much closer to normal: 302 ms. In 2010, this child was again an outstanding student, top of his class.”

The father, Mr. R, did not have the option of moving into town, as he had to stay with the family business on the farm. In contrast to his son, his health continued to deteriorate rapidly in those three years between 2007 and 2010:

“Over these 3 years, Mr. R’s health and wellbeing had continuously and visibly deteriorated: intolerance to (any) noise had become more severe; situations compatible with an unregulated sympathetic nervous system increased in frequency; and cognitive impairment became more pronounced.”

I would like a medical person to comment on this but to me this sounds like the father became seriously noise-sensitive, nervous and jumpy, and confused in his thinking.

The family’s business was also threatened:

“Between 2000 and 2006, 13 healthy thoroughbred Lusitanian horses were born and raised on Mr. R’s property. All horses born after 2007 (after the wind farm was erected) on his farm developed asymmetric flexural limb deformities. Besides the IWT (Industrial Wind Turbines) installed in November 2006, no other changes (constructions, industries, etc) were introduced into the area during this time.”

This echoes the findings of another study detailing limb deformities in horses caused by industrial wind turbines.

In 2015 the following alarming observations were made on the father’s health:

“Mr. R continues to live away from Mrs. R and the children, and his health has further deteriorated. The respiratory drive value that in 2007 was 46% (normal: >60%) is now at 28%. The development of balance disturbances associated with loss of consciousness has apparently caused several falls, requiring medical treatment for facial and rib fractures. This situation is still under clinical study, as late-onset epilepsy is one of the most severe outcomes of excessive ILFN (Infrasound & Low Frequency Noise) exposure.”

In May 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal decided that the remaining 3 turbines had to be removed from the vicinity of Mr. R’s property. The lower court had ordered the removal of the closest turbine but allowed the other three to stay, hence the appeal to the Supreme Court. The developer is apparently appealing the decision to the European Court.

In addition to ordering the removal of the wind turbines, the court also granted damages to the family. The wind farm developer was ordered to pay damages as follows:

For personal injury, the sums of € 250,000.00 to Mr. R, and the sum of € 150,000.00 each to Mrs. R and the two children.
To Mr. and Mrs. R, as co-owners of the land, the difference in value of the land before and after the wind turbines were erected.
The payment of € 200,000.00 to Mr. R, for his business losses.
The payment of all legal fees and costs, whether judicial or extrajudicial, that the family have incurred in order to bring the legal action and the cost of relocation of people and goods during the period of operation of the wind turbines.

A bittersweet victory given that Mr R’s health is ruined and the family’s way of life destroyed. Money cannot fix that sort of damage. Further turbines have also been built in the area as these legal proceedings concerned only the first four that were built (adjoining the family farm) and therefore the battle is not over yet.

From a legal point of view what is important is that the courts, including the Supreme Court, accepted the expert evidence of the authors of this paper concerning the terrible toll that infrasound and low-frequency noise has on both humans and animals, whilst it rejected the opposing evidence led by the wind industry lawyers.

A court is clearly neutral in this matter and has no hidden interests in a decision going one way or the other. A civil court must decide the evidence on a balance of probabilities. This means that before it accepts evidence, the court must be satisfied that the evidence is probable (capable of belief) and that it is more probable than the evidence given by the other side. In this case the Supreme Court accepted the evidence of the independent and neutral expert witnesses concerning the destructive effect of infrasound and low-frequency sound on the health of this family, whilst rejecting the evidence of the wind farm developer’s expert witnesses who claimed that the noise was within acceptable limits.

As the authors conclude:

“An effort toward developing and implementing appropriate construction techniques that would minimize the deleterious effects of in-home ILFN could be, perhaps, an excellent beginning. The hindrance to this apparently viable beginning is the sine qua non prior recognition that ILFN is, de facto, a physical agent of disease.”

Again, I am not a medical person but I take that to mean: Wind farms are a danger to our health. Period.

Windweasels and Windpushers….a Nasty Bunch, to say the Least!

July 31, 2015 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

Got ‘Mercenary Sociopath’ on your CV? Then why not join the Wind Turbine ‘Taliban’

July 31, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

The wind industry attracts a very ‘special’ kind of person, as James Delingpole details below.

The SNP has done for Scotland’s landscape what ISIS have done to Palmyra
Breitbart
James Delingpole
23 July 2015

Dear Mr Delingpole,

I am just completing my BA joint honours degree in Candy Crush and Rape Culture studies and wondered whether you could kindly advise me on my career options.

A bit about me: I’m a vicious sociopath looking for an utterly pointless job which pays me vast amounts of money while making the world an uglier place. Though I’ve considered applying to Goldman Sachs and various French arms manufacturers, they strike me as insufficiently evil for my purposes. Ideally this job should have a caring image so that hot chicks want to sleep with me. My skills include lying, puppy factory-farming, and burning ladybirds with a magnifying glass. I appreciate I might sound like a bit of a crazy mixed up kid. But I thought if anyone could solve my problem, it would be you….

Yours, etc

As you can imagine, I get this kind of letter from the younger generation all the time. And up until now I’ve had no hesitation in telling these future masters-of-the-universe where to go:

“Head for Scotland, my son,” I tell them. “And get your snout deep into the wind farm trough. If you have no conscience, no morals, no aesthetic sensibility, no understanding of free markets; if you hate wildlife, people and the natural landscape, if you loathe private property, if you want to show how much you despise the traditions of the nation that once yielded Adam Smith, James Watt, James Boswell, Charles Rennie Mackintosh and the rest, then the Scottish wind industry is undoubtedly the place for you.”

But I think in the light of recent events I may have to reconsider my advice. Obviously the Scottish wind industry remains as evil and pointless as ever it was – and the destruction it has wrought on the landscape of what was formerly one of world’s more strikingly beautiful countries has been truly spectacular.

Only the Taliban at Bamiyan or ISIS at Palmyra can really come close to matching the wind industry’s scorched-earth zeal in places like Scotland, Ontario, Texas, Denmark, Australia and New Zealand.

This map, produced last year by the John Muir Trust, gives a good indication of how impressively these veritable Attilas of aeolian slaughter have done their work.

Scotland used to be a remarkably wild, unspoilt place. Not any more, though. There’s now only 40 per cent of Scotland left where wind turbines are not blighting the view. (And already that figure is out of date because lots more turbines have sprung up since like skeletons in Jason of the Argonauts, and many more are planned).

And let’s not forget the human cost: all those Scots whose rural tranquillity and health have been jeopardised by these bat-chomping, bird-slicing, subsidy-troughing eco crucifixes.

Sadly, though, it seems the golden age of renewable rapine may bedrawing to a close. Cameron’s “greenest government ever” has finally decided to call quits on the vast subsidies which have been drawing unscrupulous rent-seeking corporatists to Scotland like sharks to blood. The renewables troughers are shrieking like staked vampires.

WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said the decision risked undermining the development of the cheapest form of renewables in the country, and was “bad news” for Scotland’s clean energy ambitions.

Jeremy Sainsbury, director of Natural Power, a renewables consultancy which employs about 300 people, mainly in Scotland, said the firm has opportunities to deploy its workforce to projects overseas.

But he added: “It’s not very healthy that Westminster has come out with this, which is clearly based on the views of some Tory MPs from middle England without really assessing the impact on investment in jobs in Scotland, or Wales for that matter, and without properly dealing with the implications in relation to the plans of those countries for delivery of their 2020 targets or their environmental commitments.

Scotland’s first minister Nicola Sturgeon isn’t too happy either.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said the decision was “wrong headed, perverse and downright outrageous.”

During First Minister’s Questions at Holyrood, she said: “I think it severely undermines any Tory claims to be pro-business.”

She added: “This decision comes despite the UK energy secretary admitting on radio this very morning that onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective ways of developing renewable energy.”

Ms Sturgeon argued that the move would also send out the wrong message ahead of a conference in Paris later this year aimed at getting a new global agreement on climate change.

The Scottish government believes the decision would have a disproportionate impact on Scotland, as about 70% of onshore wind projects in the UK planning system were in the country.

But personally, methinks Lady Macbeth doth protest too much. After all, long after her own name and that of her predecessor Alex Salmond are but distant memories, visitors to the blighted industrial zone formerly known as rural Scotland will be able to view their handywork on every hill top. It will be like the final scene in Spartacus, only with wind turbines instead of crucifixes.

Si monumentum requires, circumspice, eh, Nicola, eh Alex?
Breitbart

Aussies Call to Slash Wind Turbine Subsidies! Can’t be too soon!

July 31, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Call to slash wind farm subsidies

A Senate committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20. Source: Supplied

The AustralianJuly 31, 2015Australia

Canberra urged to strip billions from windfarm subsidies

By Graham Lloyd, Environment Editor, Sydney

The Abbott government is being urged to strip billions more from subsidies to wind farms in the final report of a Senate committee that has already pushed renewable energy investment to favour solar.

In its recommendations, the committee says renewable energy subsidies for new wind farms should be limited to five years from more than 20.

It also wants the issue of renewable energy certificates restricted to projects in states that adopt federal regulations on infrasound and low frequency noise.

The final report of the Senate investigation into wind farms and their possible health effects will be tabled in parliament on Monday.

The report has been circulated and details have been provided to The Australian.

The call for time limits on subsidies and federal noise oversight is likely to provoke a backlash from the wind industry, already reeling from a federal government directive to the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation that it stop lending to wind projects.

The lending freeze was agreed with crossbench senators after the federal government adopted the committee’s interim report recommendations.

The deal included crossbench support to include forest waste in the revised renewable energy target legislation.

In a letter tabled in the Senate, Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the federal government would respond “actively and in good faith” to the Senate committee findings.

The final report says a five-year limit on renewable energy certificates, down from more than 20 years, recognised that wind turbine technology was well developed and a “mature” industry.

A ban on issuing RECS to wind farms in states that do not adopt federal guidelines on infrasound is designed to force the hand of governments that rejected a national approach at the last Council of Australian Governments meeting.

At present, noise guidelines are administered by the states, but renewable energy certificates are issued by the commonwealth.

Renewable energy companies are issued RECS for the amount of power they generate.

The RECS are sold to power authorities, which must secure a set portion of their supply from renewable sources under the RET.

The cost of buying RECS is added to consumer electricity bills as a subsidy for renewable energy over other sources of power.

Crossbench senators are confident the federal government will accept the recommendations and the measures can be passed through both houses. Adoption will require legislative changes to the Clean Energy Act.

Legislation would require the support of six non-government senators in the upper house.

The Senate committee has been particularly concerned by complaints from people living near wind farms who believe low- frequency noise and infrasound is having an impact on their health.

The existence of health impacts from wind turbines has been rejected as unproven by health authorities, but as the number of complaints increases the issue is being investigated worldwide.

The final Senate report recommends the scientific committee have the power to provide “guidance, advice and oversight” to bodies funding and undertaking research into infrasound.

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

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Corruption among Windies!

Wind Weasels in Scotland, are Being Sent Packing! Way to Go, Scots!!

Scots Rejoice as Highland Fan Plan Canned & Wind Power Jobs Myth Exposed

Windpushers Lie About the Cost of Producing Wind Energy!

US Wind Power Spruikers – AWEA – Caught Lying About Wind Power Costs

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

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

Some People Are Very Slow to see the Truth! Wind Energy is USELESS!

‘Silly’ Sarah Henderson joins ‘Disappointing’ Dan Tehan, as another ‘Green’ in Conservative Clothing

Games the Windpushers Play…. Rural residents are always on the losing end. It’s Universal!

Falmouth Wind 1 Turbine : Corruption Speaks Out

Falmouth has to face some facts. Those facts are corruption and its not hard to figure it out !

Windweasels Need A Big Hearty Dose of Reality!!

The Wind Industry’s “Fossil-Fuel-Free” Fantasy Scotched

Corrupt Wind Industry Treats People Like Trash!

The Wind Industry: Always and Everywhere the Result of Massive & Endless Subsidies (Part 1)

There is Absolutely NO Doubt About It….Wind Turbines Make People SICK!

FACT: Wind Turbines Make You Sick

What are expert witnesses?

So what was that evidence?

Windweasels and Windpushers….a Nasty Bunch, to say the Least!

Got ‘Mercenary Sociopath’ on your CV? Then why not join the Wind Turbine ‘Taliban’

Aussies Call to Slash Wind Turbine Subsidies! Can’t be too soon!

Call to slash wind farm subsidies

Canberra urged to strip billions from windfarm subsidies

Scots Rejoice as Highland Fan Plan Canned & Wind Power Jobs Myth Exposed

US Wind Power Spruikers – AWEA – Caught Lying About Wind Power Costs

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

‘Silly’ Sarah Henderson joins ‘Disappointing’ Dan Tehan, as another ‘Green’ in Conservative Clothing

The Wind Industry’s “Fossil-Fuel-Free” Fantasy Scotched

Share this:

The Wind Industry: Always and Everywhere the Result of Massive & Endless Subsidies (Part 1)

What are expert witnesses?

So what was that evidence?

Got ‘Mercenary Sociopath’ on your CV? Then why not join the Wind Turbine ‘Taliban’

Canberra urged to strip billions from windfarm subsidies