Unaffordable, Unreliable, Novelty Energy!

New Yorkers Count the Staggering Cost of Cuomo’s Wind Power Obsession

STT has fought the battle against the great wind power fraud on a number of fronts over the years: the totally unnecessary harm caused to wind farm neighbours by incessant, turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound; the pointless slaughter of millions of birds and bats; the environmental harm caused by the growing mountains and lakes of toxic waste generated in the production of the magnets used in turbines; and the chaotic delivery of power from a wholly weather dependant source that causes load shedding and blackouts by wrecking the stability of once perfectly reliable grids.

But we have always believed that it is the staggering cost of subsidised wind power that ultimately destroys the wind industry around the World. Part of that phenomenal cost is, of course, the consequence of intermittency, which requires 100% of all wind power capacity to be backed up 100% of the time by an equal capacity held by conventional generators; coal, gas, nuclear and hydro in roughly that order of delivery. Although Australia is yet to grow up and join the rest of the world in the use of nuclear power.

Whereas the immediate and local effects on wind farm neighbours, birds and bats and Chinese peasants forced to live with the toxic byproducts of so-called ‘green energy’ are serious enough, the vast majority of citizens suffer none of those consequences and have little or no idea that wind power involves those kinds of social and economic costs.

However, wind farm neighbours, real environmentalists (those truly dedicated to protecting birds, bats and the like) and everybody else all ultimately find themselves in the same boat: being belted by rocketing power prices and, in places like South Australia, being forced to develop strategies to deal with wind power’s proven ability to destroy the reliable delivery of power, including purchasing portable generators and otherwise behaving like doomsday preppers.

Americans in general, and New Yorkers in particular, are now starting to realise that moral posturing and virtue signalling come with a monstrous price tag.

Paying Attention To The Huge Costs Of Generating Electricity From Intermittent Sources
Manhattan Contrarian
Francis Menton
29 March 2017

Yes I sometimes feel lonely harping away at the huge costs of trying to make a functioning electrical grid out of intermittent wind and solar sources.  For a few of my posts on the subject, see here, here, and here.  Maybe with President Trump’s dramatic move yesterday to back away from fossil fuel suppression under the guise of “climate” control, this whole thing will quickly fade away.  But as of now, many states, not the least California and my own home state of New York, soldier on with so-called “renewable portfolio standards” for electric utilities, requiring ever increasing amounts of generation from the unreliable renewables.

I start from the proposition that, in the world of intentionally deceptive and fraudulent government data on virtually everything important (GDP, poverty, government debt, temperature records, etc.), it is still almost impossible to top the intentional deception that the government puts out on the subject of the cost of obtaining electricity from the intermittent sources.  (OK, I have dubbed the temperature data tampering fraud the “Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.”  But the fraud on the subject of the cost of wind and solar power is not technically a scientific fraud.)  The idea as to the energy costs is to put out numbers purporting to show that wind and solar power are no more expensive than, or possibly even cheaper than, reliable and dispatchable sources like natural gas and coal.  This is done by creating an arbitrary and useless concept known as the “levelized cost of energy” (“LCOE”) that simply leaves out all of the massive extra costs that use of intermittent sources requires if you want a system that actually works 24/7/365 — costs of things like backup from dispatchable sources, storage, extra transmission costs, and extra costs from running backup plants in a mode of constantly cycling up and down.  Thus the government’s annual Energy Information Agency report, most recently issued in August 2016, shows the LCOE from wind turbines as much less than nuclear and just slightly higher than natural gas — and actually cheaper than natural gas once you take into account the tax credits!  Their chart of comparative costs on page 6 at the link does not even deign to put a cost on new coal facilities.  Hey, this was the Age of Obama!  Coal was to be verboten!

The LCOE concept at best addresses the costs associated with adding one facility of any one of the generation types to our massive existing infrastructure.  But suppose that instead of adding a few more wind turbines, we actually propose to take wind-generated electricity up to 30%, or 50%, or even 90% of all generation.  What then?  EIA’s LCOE numbers do not remotely address that question.  Back of the envelope calculations at some of my previous posts (linked above) suggest that such an effort could multiply the cost of electricity by a factor of five, or ten, or even more.  Moreover, this would be one of those unbelievably giant engineering projects — orders of magnitude bigger than, say, the California bullet train — that inevitably have massive cost overruns.  Can somebody other than yours truly please pay attention to this subject?

A couple of things in the last week indicate that a few people are beginning to wake up at least a little.  But unfortunately “little” is the operative word.

Last week I attended the International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, put on by the Heartland Institute.  One of the panels addressed the cost of alternative sources of energy, and one of the three panelists on the panel addressed, at least to some extent, the incremental costs of adding wind and solar sources to an electric grid.  That panelist was Mary Hutzler, who appears to be employed by a think tank called the Institute for Energy Research.  Ms. Hutzler has actually done research aimed at correcting some of the more egregious omissions from the EIA’s LCOE calculations, including a fairly detailed report from 2015 titled “The Levelized Cost of Electricity from Existing Generation Resources.”   Her presentation at the Conference is available at the Heartland site here.  Comparing her presentation to the Report, it seems that most of the presentation came from the Report, including many of the charts.

Frankly, I found Ms. Hutzler’s presentation extremely disappointing.  The basic thing that she and co-authors had tried to do in the Report was to add in to EIA’s LCOE numbers some obvious adjustments to account for things that EIA just fraudulently left out, even at today’s low levels of generation from intermittent sources — things like capacity factor adjustments to the actual capacities that wind turbines have achieved, adjustments of the assumed lifetime of wind turbines to match real experience, and attribution to the cost of power from wind of at least some of the costs of backup fossil fuel power.  With these adjustments, wind power suddenly becomes about 50% more expensive than combined cycle natural gas, according to a chart on page 26 in the Report.

Fair enough.  But what additional costs would be needed if we tried to make a fully functioning electricity system where the electricity itself comes out of predominantly wind, say 70% or 90%?  That question was not addressed by Ms. Hutzler in her presentation, nor is it addressed in the Report.  Nor was it clear from the presentation that that question was not addressed.  You had to get the underlying Report and study it.  And when you study it you find that it basically addresses scenarios where wind turbines are matched with gas plants of similar “capacity,” so that the gas plant can cycle up and down as the wind blows less and more.  Those scenarios will never get the generation from wind up much above 30%.  To get higher you will need to avoid calling on the fossil fuel backup as much as possible.  You will thus need multiple times excess wind turbine capacity, plus some combination of vastly increased transmission capacity or storage capacity or both.  To find out how much you will have to pay for four times excess capacity in wind generation, tens of millions of Teslas worth of batteries, and massive new transmission capacity (and, of course, full fossil fuel backup — just in case!), you will have to look elsewhere.

Well, you could try looking in the new report just out from the UK’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, written by a consultancy called Frontier Economics.  The report has long been known to be in the works, and supposedly was to address the “total system costs” of variable renewable electricity generators.  It had been expected out about a year ago, but then ran into a long unexplained delay, and finally came out last Friday.  Oh, according to the press release from the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “The study is not only very late, but contains no quantitative estimates of additional system costs.”

What?  Wasn’t that the whole point?  It gets worse.  They include in the released material some peer review comments, from which one can infer that quantitative estimates of those additional costs were in the drafts but have been deleted from the final.  Here is the comment from GWPF, titled “Is the UK Concealing ‘Very High’ Renewables System Cost Estimates.”   Excerpt:

After an unexplained delay of a year since completion the UK’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has published (24.03.17) a report by Frontier Economics on the total system costs of uncontrollably variable renewable generators, a topic of crucial importance in understanding the cost-effectiveness of current climate policies. The study is not only very late, but entirely qualitative, and contains no quantitative estimates of additional system costs per megawatt hour (i.e. £/MWh), figures which would normally be considered the principal output of such work. However, examination of the peer reviews, which are published with the study, reveals that an entire table of numerical cost estimates, some of which were described by the external reviewer as “very high”, were in fact present in the version sent out for comment in mid 2015, but have been subsequently removed. This does not smell right and BEIS should release the original draft.

If you are starting to get the impression that you are being defrauded, you are right.  Kudos to the GWPF for joining in the small and still nascent efforts to hold the crooks to account.  But, when will any government put out a remotely honest effort to calculate the real cost of the mostly-wind-and-solar generation system that they are busy trying to force on the people?  Probably, not before the entire current crop of bureaucrats in the field have been fired and/or jailed.
Manhattan Contrarian

This one is from the archive, but forecasts perfectly the economic disaster set up by Andrew Cuomo’s obsession with wind power.

Cuomo’s Energy Boondoggle Triggers Bipartisan Rejection
The Daily Caller
Timothy Lee
22 December 2016

Anyone mourning the death of bipartisanship in the wake of a most divisive election need only cast their gaze toward Albany to be disabused of that notion.

Citizens and activists from across the political spectrum have been coalescing against the disastrous energy mandate, an egregious example of crony capitalism concocted by Governor Andrew Cuomo and his well-placed allies.

Ultimately, New York taxpayers stand likely to suffer the consequences, so it’s critical that residents recognize the peril, register their objection and join the growing bipartisan opposition movement.

The New York Public Service Commission (whose board Cuomo appointed in its entirety) voted earlier this year to impose a new Clean Energy Standard (CES) for the entire state. The new CES requires that 50% of New York’s energy must come from carbon-neutral sources by the year 2030.

Unfortunately, that draconian and arbitrary mandate isn’t even the worst aspect of the scheme.

The CES plan openly subsidizes financially struggling nuclear power plants in upstate New York through something called Zero Emission Credits (ZECs). In essence, New York’s other utilities would be compelled to purchase the ZECs from a government bureaucracy, which the bureaucracy first obtains from the company operating the struggling upstate nuclear plants. It all amounts to a wealth redistribution from healthy power plants to financially faulty plants to satisfy carbon-free green energy regulations. Anyone familiar with renewable energy subsidy debacles for wind and solar operators such as the Solyndra example will realize the obvious pitfalls.

Exacerbating matters, the steep cost will be paid by New York consumers and businesses, even those that live nowhere near, and receive no electricity from, the subsidized struggling plants.

Specifically, the scheme guarantees $1 billion to the struggling plants in the first two years alone, with an estimated total cost of $8 billion over the entire duration of the CES scheme. The final cost to consumers through 2030 will depend upon ever-fluctuating wholesale electricity costs, how many of the non-self-sufficient reactors continue to operate, and other unknowns. Moody’s went so far as to warn investors that the ZEC cost over the duration of the program are “quite substantial,” which it estimates at $17.48 for each megawatt hour of production. For the nuclear utilities, even with their subsidies, it estimates a disturbing 45% price increase.

Even the Cuomo Administration acknowledges that individuals and businesses in the state should expect their power bills to rise.

Adding insult to considerable injury, those defects and costs of the plan aren’t even the worst part. The CES scheme constitutes a crony capitalist boondoggle of the sort opposed by all portions of the political spectrum.

That’s because the subsidy scheme will benefit a single company named Exelon, which controls the struggling plants that qualify for the subsidy (the Ginna nuclear power plant in Wayne County and the Nine Mile Point plant in Oswego County). Exelon also stands poised to acquire another plant whose current owner had planned to close in upcoming months.

Conspicuous procedural problems also bedevil the CES plan. Not only was the approval process rushed through with only two weeks for public comment, but the ZEC subsidy rates will be determined in part by an obscure “social cost” of carbon.

These myriad defects help explain the broad opposition to Cuomo’s plan.

As just one prominent example, the environmental organization New York Public Interest Research Group rightly notes that New York ratepayers who weren’t consulted about the scheme will be hit with higher utility fees. As the group’s executive director Blair Horner stated, “These charges are essentially a tax to keep aging nuclear plants online.”

Conspicuously, Cuomo Administration officials remain unable to defend the plan against burgeoning public opposition. In a recent local television appearance, Cuomo’s Public Service Commission Chair Audrey Zibelman couldn’t justify the decision to provide billions of dollars in subsidies to upstate plants while simultaneously closing downstate plants, and she stubbornly refused to acknowledge the plan’s high costs.

Nuclear power remains a reliable domestic energy source that the United States can cleanly and safely utilize to a far greater extent.

Governor Cuomo’s crony capitalist CES scheme isn’t the way to go about it. The growing bipartisan opposition movement is an encouraging sign, one that should confirm for New Yorkers of all political leanings that the plan should be rejected.
The Daily Caller

Advertisements

Wynne Uses Wind Turbine Scam to Destroy Ontario’s Financial Stability!

Can Ontario Escape its Self-Inflicted Wind Power Disaster?

wynne

***

Ontario’s energy policy is in tatters; power prices have crushed business and the roll out of thousands of these things has wrecked the lives and livelihoods of thousands, in what were once peaceful and prosperous farming communities.

In short, Kathleen Wynne & Co have dug an enormous hole from which there may be no escape. But before the Province considers how it might get out, the only sensible strategy is to stop digging – starting with bringing an end to the ludicrously generous and heavily subsidised wind power contracts that led to the inevitable debacle that’s playing out in Ontario; and which has Wynne’s Liberals petrified of the political consequences the next time their victims come to vote.

Lawrence Solomon: Yes, Ontario’s Liberals can cancel their terrible renewable power contracts—and they should do it now
Financial Post
Lawrence Solomon
15 September 2016

Ontario’s power prices are soaring out of control, industry is leaving the province, the Liberal government is panicking over its re-election prospects, and almost everyone agrees there’s no remedy, that the ludicrously lucrative long-term contracts that the Ontario government signed with wind and solar energy developers condemn the province to many more years of economic hardship.

Except there is a way to deal with the onerous contracts — rip them up. There is no compelling economic, environmental, moral or legal case for the government to “honour” odious contracts. The only honourable course of action for the government, in fact, is to admit its mistakes and pass legislation declaring those contracts null and void.

A compelling economic case? In announcing its Green Energy Act, the Liberals repeatedly boasted they’d be creating 50,000 jobs, boosting the Ontario economy to new heights. With jobs fleeing the province and business confidence at rock bottom, no one hears that boast any longer.

A compelling environmental case? Industrial wind turbines, which rely on fossil fuel backup, do next to nothing to reduce carbon dioxide, the sole rationale for their existence.

In contrast to this trivial and dubious environmental benefit, wind turbines do immense and certain environmental harm by disfiguring the countryside and slaughtering millions of birds and bats.

A compelling moral case? Ontario’s multi-billion “clean energy” industry has a squalid provenance.

This has been largely a closed-door sector in which 11 politically favoured domestic and multinational giants control 90 per cent of the wind power market, letting them pocket an estimated $10 billion in government-mandated subsidies over the next two decades. Although the industry portrays itself as small scale and local, it’s anything but.

A compelling legal case? There is none, if the province proceeds properly, explains Bruce Pardy, professor of law at Queen’s University, a former adjudicator for the Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal and author of the 2014 Fraser Institute study, Cancelling Contracts: The Power of Governments to Unilaterally Alter Agreements.

“The right way is to legislate: to enact a statute that declares green contracts to be null and void, and the province to be free from liability,” he explains. “Statutes can override iron-clad provisions in a contract because that is the nature of legislative supremacy: Legislatures can pass laws of any kind, as long as they are within their jurisdiction and do not offend the constitution. Legislating on electricity production is clearly a provincial power, as are ‘property and civil rights.’”

There is no compelling case for Ontario to honour its odious renewable power deals Pardy’s analysis is sound not just in theory but in practice, as Trillium Power Wind Corp. discovered when it sued for $2.25 billion in damages after the Liberals, to quell fierce public opposition to offshore wind turbines prior to a previous election, unilaterally rewrote the rules.

The appeal court had no time for Trillium’s claims, noting that it was “plain and obvious” and “beyond all reasonable doubt” that Trillium could not succeed in arguing breach of contract.

As an analysis of the case by the law firm Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt put it, the appeal court “made it clear that proponents who choose to participate in discretionary government programs, such as Ontario’s renewable energy program, do so primarily at their own risk. Governments may alter the policies that underlie a program, and may even alter or cancel such programs, in a manner that may be fully lawful and immune from civil suit.”

Moreover, the appeal court decision dismissed Trillium’s contention that the government had acted improperly out of “purely political” considerations, rather than out of legitimate public policy considerations.

As Osler explained, governments are free to act in their political interests: “this decision emphasizes that political factors, such as strong public opposition, are legitimate public policy considerations.” These principles aren’t Ontario-specific — they’re fundamental. Throughout Europe, governments are also unilaterally rewriting their unaffordably generous rules governing the renewables industry.

Cancelling Ontario’s odious renewables contracts would immediately and directly lower rates for the province’s citizens and industry, reversing the harm to the provincial economy and improving the government’s prospects in the coming provincial election.

A cancellation would bless the citizens of Ontario — and other provinces —indirectly as well, by disciplining future governments and investors alike. Investors would be leery of participating in future politically motivated government programs that weren’t fundamentally sound, making it difficult for future governments to pursue pet projects that run the risk of harming the citizenry.

Benign government projects — say building a school or hospital — would run no such risk and discourage no investor.

Contracts are sacrosanct between private parties, when they follow the law. Contracts means something else entirely when one party — the government — makes the law and is free to change it. Let the investor beware before getting into bed with government. Let the government think hard about whether its fling with renewables is an affair it wishes to continue.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.
Financial Post

digging-a-hole

Warnings from CCSAGE, on Wynne’s Agenda!

FLASH!

(1) Yesterday, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) announced that bids would open for a further 150 megawatts of electricity on October 31st. The news release by Energy Minister Thibeault on September 27th announced to great fanfare that the Large Renewable Procurement (LRP 2) in process would be suspended, halting procurement of over 1,000 megawatts of energy, including wind and solar. IESO had established that Ontario has a robust supply of electricity over the coming decade to meet demand. Neither yesterday’s IESO announcement nor Thibeault’s news release disclosed that the further 150 megawatts in question had been referred to in the then Energy Minister’s letter of April 5th, 2016, to IESO as a requirement imposed on IESO.

The general reaction to Thibeault’s news release was one of temporary relief that no new wind or solar factories would be imposed on unwilling hosts in 2017. It now seems that to regard it as a cynical ploy motivated politically might be more appropriate.

(2) The Business Section of today’s Globe and Mail under the byline of Richard Blackwell believes that an announcement may soon be made that Windstream Energy, whose massive offshore wind factory not too far from the County was cancelled by Queen’s Park, has been awarded damages of about $25.2 million plus costs of about $2.9 million. The awards were given by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, sitting in the Netherlands, under NAFTA rules. Under those rules, Ottawa is responsible for the actions of the Provinces, so the awards were made against the Government of Canada.

We will follow up on this story as it develops, including how one Liberal government will react against another for the disastrous outcome.

Governments Intentionally “Dumbing Down” the Populations…In Order to Manipulate!

Wikileaks reveals “conspiracy to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry’

Wind warriors – ever wonder how woefully hard it is for truth, justice and the American way to prevail over propaganda by paid off politicians, media and environmental groups in the wind battle?

Some of the answer is right here:

“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry,” he writes”.

The email is a shocking insight into the elitist and arrogant mindset, with Americans viewed as dumb sheep who need to be herded in the right direction.

http://www.infowars.com/clinton-campaign-email-outlines-effort-to-p…

Wind Fiasco Promises to be the “Liberal’s Undoing”!

Grits’ failed wind energy to face tough test in 2018

By Jim Merriam

Monday, October 3, 2016 

Premier Kathleen Wynne

Premier Kathleen WynneBookmark and Share

You have to wonder how bad the Ontario Liberal party’s internal polls are to force the government to fold on its signature green energy policies.

Published polls show both Premier Kathleen Wynne and party have found a basement under rock bottom and it’s likely private polls show the same or worse.

The fact wind factories were destroying communities and tearing families apart in rural Ontario meant nothing at Queen’s Park.

Likewise, the Grits ignored endless pleas and protests from municipal leaders and wind opponents. They dismissed as meaningless complaints about wind turbines driving families from their homes.

Even the mounting evidence giant turbines are contaminating nearby wells didn’t move Wynne and company.

Plus, the Liberals were experts at ignoring the media, who repeatedly pointed out green energy problems that were leading Ontario into power poverty, particularly in rural areas.

As the old joke about always being ignored until you pass gas in an elevator goes, it only took one Scarborough byelection loss to change the landscape.

The Grits’ first response was the throne speech fiasco to “reset” the agenda. That brought the eight per cent tax rebate on energy bills, a give that went over like a lead balloon.

Now future renewable energy projects valued at over $3 billion are gone because experts said Ontario has excess power.

It’s too bad bureaucrats couldn’t have figured that out for themselves months ago when they started delivering extra power across neighbours’ borders at huge losses to Ontario.

The big question is, now what? Cancellation of future projects will keep power bills from rising by a measly $2.45 per month in the future. But that does nothing about the current power crisis.

Obviously there’ll be more goodies to come on the power front as the government gets ready to face the people in 2018 but with a provincial debt of $300 billion and counting, how significant can they be?

Besides all the ways in which the people of Ontario have been victimized by green energy initiatives, the biggest crime is the bad rap the experiment has given to renewable energy.

Former premier Dalton McGuinty and his energy minister George Smitherman got in bed with international companies to bring green energy to Ontario at the highest possible cost.

Had these two done their homework and paid even scant attention to the people of the province, they would have found all kinds of ways to introduce renewable energy on a smaller scale with Ontario residents, not offshore companies, reaping most of the benefits.

Instead McGuinty set the stage for all that was to come by prejudging most criticism of green energy projects as nothing but NIMBYism, (Not in My Back Yard).

From that moment of insult to the intelligence of rural Ontario residents, the entire green energy plan became more farce than future.

Wynne, of course, doubled down on all that was wrong with the program and has brought Ontario to the financial disaster in which it finds itself today. The antipathy is massive towards Wynne in rural Ontario because of the energy mess and other fumbled files from health care to the environment to trail development. Her government is unlikely to recover in the boondocks.

The interesting question for 2018 is how many urban folks can be convinced that the Liberals have learned their lesson and suddenly will become good stewards of Ontario’s money and interests.

Even that seems to be an insurmountable hill to climb.

jmerriam@bmts.com

Corrupt Liberal Gov’t Denies Tampering With Witness List….

Liberal government denies tampering with witness list for wind turbine hearing…

THE CANADIAN PRESS

FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2016 

Glen Murray
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Mark Blinch)

Ontario’s Liberal government denies Opposition charges that it interfered with the witness list for a hearing into a plan to install at least six, 152-metre-high wind turbines near the Collingwood airport.

Progressive Conservative house leader Jim Wilson says the province decided at the last minute to call a witness from NAVCanada instead of an expert from Transport Canada at an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing.

NAVCanada is a private corporation that owns and operates the country’s civil air navigation service, while Transport Canada is the federal government department responsible for transportation policies and programs.

Wilson says the witnesses were changed because Transport Canada has concerns about putting industrial wind turbines between the Collingwood Regional Airport and the Stayner aerodrome.

He says the Ontario government refuses to acknowledge that putting giant turbines so close to the small airports pose a hazard to aircraft operations.

But Environment Minister Glen Murray says it would be against the law for him to play any role in determining witnesses or influencing the environmental tribunal.

“I will keep it as a non-political process and let the experts choose the witnesses,” Murray told the legislature.

“I wish the member opposite would not be politicizing it in the way he’s trying to, because neither he nor I should be involved in this process.”

Wilson said a witness from Transport Canada “would have made much more sense” since it is the agency tasked with ensuring aviation safety.

“Minister, you can spin this all you want, but my people believe, and we have reason to believe — good reason to believe — that somebody in your ministry tampered with the witnesses,” he said.

Wilson said the Liberal government has agreed it could no longer support two of the eight proposed turbine locations near the airport because they pose a serious safety risk, and asked why officials “refuse to act on the serious risk posed by the other six turbines” when experts say they are also dangerous.

But again, Murray said he would stay out of the process.

“I had nothing to do with the decision to change the configuration of turbines,” he said. “Experts did that. I had no role, nor did any politician on this side or any other influencer, in who witnesses are.” 

Wind Pushers Struggle to Avoid Accountability….

Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property


Falmouth Wind Turbine Trial Doctors Expert Testimony May Be Tossed

In Falmouth residents of the multiple lawsuits are seeking protection from adverse health effects, and loss of use and value of their property, by requiring illegally permitted wind turbines be placed away from their properties.

The Massachusetts court system recently this week showed one of multiple lawsuits filed over the wind turbines was scheduled to be heard from September 12 to September 16. The trial has been postponed again and the only thing on the court website is: ” On 09/12/2016 Opposition to to Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney filed by Town of Falmouth”

A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case.

The town is asking to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Robert McCunney ? Isn’t Dr. Robert McCunney the expert witness for the Town of Falmouth wind turbine number one ?

The original court file date is June 5, 2013. The case number is 1372CV00281 Town of Falmouth vs. Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals et al.

I am no legal scholar but it appears from the posting on the court docket the Town of Falmouth is asking the courts to throw out testimony from their own wind turbine expert a doctor ?

Over time as the Falmouth wind turbine lawsuits have dragged through the court system for six years worldwide the setbacks are increasing and even doctors have changed their views on setbacks because of human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise.

Nils Bolgen the wind turbine director at the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center uses 2000 feet as the standard setbacks today.

Falmouth taxpayers are paying up to $300,000.00 every six months for wind turbine litigation and this is the strategy ?

It appears today that the safe setbacks to commercial megawatt wind turbines is five times the height of the turbines or in the case of one wind turbine such as Falmouth it would be 3000 feet. The Town of Falmouth has two wind turbines. Dr. Robert J. McCunney, a medical doctor and a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology an expert witness for the Town of Falmouth Wind turbine number 1 permit . Wind turbines should be five ( 5 ) times the height of the turbines

Quote : “He said any measurable health effects, referred to in some circles as “wind turbine syndrome,” are in fact the result of stress reactions to a sound an individual finds objectionable or annoying. For that reason, he noted, some communities in the US observe a noise mitigation setback standard of five times the height of the turbine – more than three times the distance recommended by the CCC.”

Above quote from Enterprise Published: 01/28/11http://archive.capenews.net/communities/region/news/827

The Cape Cod Commissions wind turbine rules today are nearly identical to expert testimony which is hard evidence to overcome.Dr. Robert McCunney (expert witness for the Town Of Falmouth) graphical presented to the board why nearly 3000’ was necessary between industrial wind turbines and residents.

As a paid consultant by the Town of Falmouth , Dr. McCunney’s recently updated power point presentation appeared in conflict with his personal sentiments offered to the board. Contradictions and compromises to previously held positions by the good doctor are notable.As matter of note regarding Dr. McCunney’s power power presentation almost 200 residential homes are within 3000’ of Wind 1 and Wind 2

——————————————————————————————————

Falmouth, Massachusetts 2010

Article :

The next time McCunney appeared on my radar was his July 15, 2010 appearance in Falmouth .

It was a meeting before a number of people, some of whom had experienced first-hand the effects of living close to (in this case, just one!) a wind turbine. They were curious if their symptoms – all of which should be familiar to us by now – were due to the noise or were “in their heads”.

His explanation indicated their symptoms were due to annoyance, which in turn was due to their dislike of turbines. He had no explanation why presumably disinterested kids as well as people on record as supporting turbines were also having problems. He also ignores the possibility that maybe the annoyance leads to the dislike instead of the wind industry’s preferred other way around.I thought his statements were disingenuous enough that I started a posting on his activities.

File under annoyance. The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center is aware of two distinct types of noise from wind turbines. First regulatory noise measured in decibels and second human annoyance or today what is called infra sound or low frequency noise

http://windfarmrealities.org/?p=548

Note # Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty interviews

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

A new look at the Wind Industry

Gerold's Blog

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

PolitiSite

24 Years of Political Commentary, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Media Appearances

Birds and Blades

Broken Wing, The Book

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

“Edgar County Watchdogs"

stubbornlyme.

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

The Muslim Issue

"Muhammad was once a refugee taken in by the Jewish City of Medina. Within 5-years, he had driven out, executed, or enslaved every jew there."

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

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

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR