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: 01/28/11

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

Note # Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty interviews


Windpushers are so Corrupt, it Will Turn Your Stomach! Liars & Thieves!

Next on Patch » John Wesley United Methodist Church Youth Group Holds…

Massachusetts Epicenter Of US Wind Turbine Corruption

Falmouth, Massachusetts Ground Zero For Poorly Placed Wind Turbines Using Vestas Wind Turbine Company.
Massachusetts Epicenter Of US Wind Turbine Corruption

Massachusetts Epicenter Of US Wind Turbine Corruption

Falmouth, Massachusetts Ground Zero For Poorly Placed Wind Turbines Using Vestas Wind Turbine Company.

The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, MTC, today known as the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, MassCEC, bought two massive commercial Vestas V-82 commercial wind turbines to place in residential communities.

The trail of corruption starts in 2004 with the Massachusetts state legislature and former Governor Deval Patrick also known as “Sally Reynolds” to wind turbine contractors.

The former author of the “Green Communities Act” Massachusetts Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi sits in an undisclosed federal prison serving an eight year sentence for corruption.

Vestas wind company had to OK site plans to install any of its wind turbines in the United States. They gave the OK to install two town owned Vestas V-82 commercial 1.65 megawatt wind turbines in Falmouth, Massachusetts.

Vestas wind company had merged with a company called NEG Micon and was well aware the V-82 megawatt turbine installed in Falmouth produced 109 decibels of noise over twice the manufacturers written specifications. Vestas admitted the noise level in an August 3, 2010 letter to the Town of Falmouth, Massachusetts. The Town of Falmouth hid the letter from the public until recently.

The MassCEC also dropped the warning of two distinct types of noise found in all boiler plate noise studies prior to the Falmouth wind turbine installations. The two types of noise were “regulatory” measured in decibels and “human annoyance” measured in low frequency. The noise tests were corrupt because they omitted warnings that would have alerted residents as they did in other towns prior to Falmouth. If this wasn’t corrupt was is corrupt ?

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center unable to place the wind turbines in other communities extrapolated acoustic noise test results in Falmouth to come in under Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection laws. As soon as the first turbine started in 2010 in Falmouth the noise complaints started. The corruption started to take the health and property rights of the residents. The MassDEP notified the Town of Falmouth the turbines are out of state noise compliance. The corrupt politicians always knew it would be.

Everyone involved in the installations of the Falmouth turbines knew the turbines were too loud. They needed a hook to fish in the local officials. The MassCEC unable to sell the loud turbines anywhere including an auction had to bribe local officials with one million dollars in renewable energy funds. They took the bait and went forward illegally permitting the turbines knowing the special permit requirements would require additional tests and notifications. How do you spell c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n?

Massachusetts officials embarrassed over the corruption over the poor placement of commercial wind turbines in Massachusetts are now going all in on the gamble they took with the health and property rights of its own citizens. More taxpayer money to cover up the corruption !

The MassCEC has provided the Town of Falmouth with another 1.8 million more in renewable energy funds to hire a Boston law firm to outspend the Falmouth victims who lost their health and property rights.

The plan now is to take the victims property through Article 2 at Falmouth Special Town Meeting November 10, 2015. The town wants to take up to 200 residential homes or purchase easements from the homes within 3000 feet of the turbines. The article creates the possibility of a 70 million dollar class action litigation of the homes based on an average cost of 350 thousand per home. The Falmouth Select Board has endorsed this article. The Boston attorneys may as well move to Falmouth for the foreseeable future. Another ten years of litigation.

The Massachusetts courts have ruled the wind turbines were illegally installed. The town now wants to go back in time and ask Town Meeting Members to change the laws in Article 3 at Falmouth Special Town Meeting November 10, 2015. This article creates a group of second class citizens living around the wind turbines. The Massachusetts constitution does not allow second class citizens.

There are many other communities in Massachusetts facing the same issues. Massachusetts has created a special class of second class citizens in Massachusetts who have had their health and property rights taken with no compensation.

It should be noted the news media in Massachusetts has to share the guilt as well. Over the years the main stream media has reproduced state press releases about commercial wind as real stories or what I call “puff” stories. It’s no secret editors of local news papers have retired and gone on the work for the Massachusetts Wind Energy Center. You be good to us and we will be good to you in the old boy network.

When Falmouth Wind 1, the first town owned wind turbine began to spin residents around the turbines immediatly began to complain about noise. During the first year the Falmouth Board of Health issued a special wind turbine noise complaint form. Today the Falmouth Board of Heath is in posession of thousands of certified hand or electronically written noise complaints, documents, studies and memos.

The certified noise complaints are the number one proof that the turbines were built far too close to residential homes. The written certified noise complaints are documents that show the main complaint of a lack of sleep.

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

Sleep deprivation is the major complaint from the wind turbine victims in Falmouth and other communities with megawatt turbines placed in residential communities.

The Falmouth Board of Health recently ignored all the thousands of complaints, documents and studies and only produced one document out of thousands for the Special Permitting process going on today. The omission of all the other documents is corruption. What else do you call the constant omission and deleting of the truth ?

Town Meeting Member David Moriarty discusses the upcoming Special Town Meeting concerning Wind 1 on youtube :

Wind Industry Thugs….Destroying Lives, With Impunity. (Gov’t sanctioned)

Fighting a Monstrous & Cruel Industry: Ireland Declares War on the Great Wind Power Fraud



What kills the wind industry is facts; including the fact that rural communities are fighting back, simply because THESE THINGS DON’T WORK at any level. Here’s a tale from the Emerald Isle that combines just about every pertinent fact, of the kind that spells inevitable doom for the wind industry and its parasites, everywhere.

Families forced to move out of homes due to industrial monster wind turbines
Irish Mirror
Henry Fingleton
9 October 2015

Prolonged exposure to this low frequency noise causes insomnia, headaches, nosebleeds, anxiety and a general inability to function normally

turbines pylons


A war is taking place in rural Ireland. Not one with guns, bullets or bombs but with wind turbines and pylons.

Families are being forced to move out of their homes due to the negative health impacts of these giant industrial monsters.

The enormous turbines make so much noise, people who live near them cannot sleep.

Prolonged exposure to this low frequency noise causes insomnia, headaches, nosebleeds, anxiety and a general inability to function normally. Children are especially vulnerable.

Were you ever in the toilets of a night club and noticed how you could feel the base drum in your chest – that’s low frequency noise.

Imagine your children trying to sleep with that sensation.

Shortly after a turbine was built 1.6km from their home, one Co Cork family noticed their kids falling asleep at breakfast. This quickly became a rush to hospital with severe headaches and nosebleeds.

This family was forced to move from their home.

Thankfully, once at a safe distance away, they eventually returned to full health.

The wind developers denied liability and are facing legal action.

Meanwhile, this family can’t live in their home and can’t sell it because once a windfarm is built near a home, the value plummets.

Families are effectively being evicted by these developers.

But who can they turn to for help? Who is protecting our families, our children?

Alan Kelly is Environment Minister and it is his department’s job to make sure proper guidelines are in place to protect us.

But the wind industry is a cruel business and is forcing the Government to ignore the problem.

These turbines are so big – up to 185m. If you laid this out flat in Croke Park it wouldn’t fit in the stadium.

Labour Minister Alex White certainly isn’t helping.

He has been heavily lobbied by the wind industry not to publish guidelines so they have effectively blocked any measures that would help prevent this terrible situation where families all over the country are being made so sick they have to leave their homes.

Mr White says we can’t put anything in place that might impinge on wind developers because it’s the only way to meet renewable energy targets.

But opponents point to a fully-costed and assessed plan to convert Moneypoint power station in Co Clare from coal to sustainable biomass as a viable alternative.

If this was done, there would be no need for the massive grid upgrade with towering pylons snaking through the countryside to carry the power from the wind farms.

And we would save the country almost €3.5billion.

That’s almost €2,000 for every single worker in Ireland – €2,000 of your taxes wasted on pylons we don’t need.

But it gets worse. You also have to pay for the expensive electricity created by all these wind farms.

Look at your next ESB bill, see the PSO levy – most of it is meant for the wind developers.

Another way of taking money out of your pocket.

Converting Moneypoint could be done for a tenth of the cost of the Government’s plans for all the turbines and pylons.

Mr White admits, incredibly, they’ve never even looked at this alternative.

Besides the tragedy of families having to move from their homes, all of us have to pay huge electricity prices.

We have the third highest in Europe, mainly because of the cost of wind energy.

Contrary to popular belief, it turns out wind farms are not even good for the environment, giving us tiny CO2 savings.

So much for the “green, clean” image – turns out it’s a marketing slogan churned out by public relations gurus.

If there’s one thing this country can be really proud of is our truly world-class racehorses and stud farms.

Ann Marie O’Brien of world-renowned Ballydoyle racing stables says: “Wind turbines and pylons are incompatible with racehorses.”

This energy policy will destroy our bloodstock industry which directly employs 15,000 people.

That would be a devastating loss for our country.

Government energy policy is to turn our beautiful country into a pin cushion of massive industrial wind turbines, pylons and power lines.

And ALL for what?

No benefit for the economy, no benefit for the environment, and definitely no benefit for the ordinary working people.

It’s time this Government called a halt to the marching terror these wind farms and pylons are bringing to all corners of the country.

Time to stop the war that is being waged on our landscape.

Until that happens, nowhere is safe.
Irish Mirror

armed robber

Wind Pushers Want to Evict People From Their Homes, via “Eminent domain”…

Falmouth Wind Turbines 2nd American Civil War

Falmouth Wind Turbines 2nd American Civil War

When the Town of Falmouth evicts the wind turbine neighbors and absorbs their properties through an act of eminent domain, those same townspeople will have to open their doors to their own wind power refugees. They may need to be reminded of the hard hearted turning back of the New Orleans Hurricane Katrina refugees as they tried to cross the bridge into the next parish by the Parish Sheriffs.

When civility disappears, it can get pretty brutal.

Anyone reading this needs to understand that this is the 2nd American Civil War, and it is being fought in many American communities.
The sooner the people can come to their senses about the “Falmouth Version of Climate Change BS”, the sooner they will be able to recover from this folly that is destroying them.

Already there is a significant feeling among the Town Meeting members that they are now reluctant to vote on the proposed Articles 1,2,&3 because they were not truthfully explained to them by the Select Board . (Obfuscation, anyone?)

The eminent domain presentation can be viewed on the link below Article 2 :
Board of Selectmen 10/5/15 part 2— 1:30 minute mark presentation and endorsement 2:24 minutes

All this erodes the people’s trust in government, and feeds anarchy. The situation in Falmouth, seized by anarchy, has behaved horribly. The very prospect, the very thought of seizing someone’s home by phony, 50% valuation, eminent domain turns one’s stomach. Some land of the free!

The noise torture :

While there are many sources of Infra-sound, most of them are generated by passing and sporadic sources, like rockets, aircraft, volcanoes, etc. Wind turbines are permanent installations. They operate at variable speeds. The kinds of noise that they produce is modulated, increases and decreases in intensity, dependent on local wind speeds. They confuse the nervous system and trigger the “fight, flight, freeze response” that all humans have hardwired into our nervous systems.

We developed this response to sense the approach of low growling lions and tigers back when we roamed the African savannah in search of food and shelter. This was a MOVING source of noise that we recognized as lethal.

Now, the wind turbines, a technological source of lethal noise, while fixed in place, produce (infra-sound and low frequency noise) in a modulated fashion, triggering the FFF response, causing a cascade of alarm hormones; adrenalin to flood the nervous system.

This may be adaptive to modern humans; case in point, some imbecile cuts you off in traffic and forces you to suddenly swerve and apply the brakes. You fuss and fume, but you are able to recover from this and continue to drive on normally.

When wind turbines sporadically impact on people in their sleep, they are aroused in a state of anxiety, and are unable to get back to sleep. This systematic sleep deprivation far exceeds any methods of interrogation so far devised, and presents these unsuspecting residents with the most exquisite form of torture yet.

When they finally seek legal redress they are met by measures of eminent domain to silence them and remove them from the state-driven wind power agenda.

Town Meeting Member Dave Moriarty discusses the upcoming Special Town Meeting concerning Wind 1
Click here to watch the youtube video : Falmouth MA Wind Turbine Fiasco 2015

Last please view the presentation by Attorney Chris Senie

Falmouth ZBA Sept 17 with Chris Senie -This link :
Zoning Board of Appeals September 17, 2015 Senie & Associates, P.C. Representing Impacted Neighbors

Aussies Not Going to Force Wind Turbines on Communities….For Real??

Angus Taylor MP: Retailer Boycott – Wind Farms will NOT be Built where there is ‘Negative Community Reaction’

Angus Taylor


Angus Taylor, the Liberal Federal Member for Hume gave a wind industry scorching interview on Alan Jones’ Breakfast show on 2GB last week. For Australian rural communities fighting the threat of these things, STT thinks that what Angus had to say is the best news that they will have heard, since their battles began.

Alan Jones AO: Which brings us back, thank God we’ve got some like it, to the man I’ve talk to you about many times, Angus Taylor, this bloke has ability. He is an outstanding Federal member for the seat of Hume, a Rhodes scholar. He’s from the bush. He’s got degrees in economics and law from Sydney University, a masters degree from Oxford University in economics and let me fire a warning shot here, because I now learn that the factions, remember Malcolm Turnbull said there were no factions in the Liberal party? The left are cutting loose. Just as the leader now, Tony Abbott has gone, and they’re lining up probably to have a shot at people like Angus Taylor and Craig Kelly and others, mobilising pre-selection. Malcolm Turnbull said at the Liberal party council meeting a couple of weeks ago – the party is not run by factions – Malcolm, you’re kidding us. Joe Hockey’s resigned. I’m telling you the next member for the seat of North Sydney has already been decided. You can forget about your pre-selection. The bloke the factions have decided will be Trent Zimmerman. Now as I told you last time, this gifted and talented Angus Taylor, didn’t make it amongst the 41 ministries handed out by Malcolm Turnbull. It doesn’t worry him because he is very strong on policy. He’s on the line, Angus Taylor, good morning.

Angus Taylor MP: Morning Alan.

Alan Jones AO: Where do we go on all of this? ‘Cos there is an interconnectedness isn’t there, between carbon dioxide, global warming, Paris and a a fortune being spent and then suddenly, embracing renewable energy. And you’ve got this in your electorate.

Angus Taylor MP: I certainly do, I mean I’ve probably got more wind farms planned in my electorate than anywhere else and at the end of the day Alan what we’ve got is a situation where people will move into my electorate from Sydney or Canberra. They’ll pull all of their savings into buying a block of land, a few acres, and a little farm only to discover a year or two later that a big 170 metre wind turbine is going to be overlooking them. And it’s just not on Alan when these things are getting $600,000 or more of subsidies a year …

Alan Jones AO: Each, each.

Angus Taylor MP: Each. Each turbine, each one of them.

Alan Jones AO: Stop stop Angus. Out there, remember what this man has said, this is not some dumbbell from you know out the back blocks, we’re talking to a Rhodes scholar. A bloke with masters from Oxford University in economics. $700,000 of your money per wind turbine and they’re owned by foreign interests.

Angus Taylor MP: The extraordinary thing about is that we don’t have a planning system to deal with it. This is the equivalent of a factory being built in the middle of a new suburb. That’s what’s happening here. And of course if anyone moved into a new suburb and built their house and then suddenly found, without expecting it, without knowing it, a factory was going to turn up next door, ‘cos they’d scream about it, and so they should.

Alan Jones AO: See people are writing to me Angus they’re refugees in their own homes now – they have to leave.

Angus Taylor MP: Well that’s right, practically speaking,  there’s only 2 ways that we can sort this out. One is, we need a planning system that recognises these areas that I’ve got, that are really rural residential now and zones them in a way where you can’t have these sort of industrial developments, or, and this is very important that the energy retailers who enter into long term contracts to allow these developments to be built, say look we are not going to build developments like this in areas where there’s community reaction, very negative community reaction. People like AGL and Origin, Energy Australia, and the ACT Government as well.

Alan Jones AO: But Angus, you’re trained, your academic discipline was economics, but you weren’t just academic, you then worked in that field at an international level.

Angus Taylor MP: That’s right.

Alan Jones AO: Just explain this to me why does it, when the pastry cook whose listening to you now. He’s been up making bread and pastry since 2 o’clock doesn’t get one dollar in subsidy, why should wind turbines be getting billions of dollars of tax payer’s money in subsidies? I don’t understand.

Angus Taylor MP: Well it’s extraordinary, isn’t it. So, let me give you some numbers that I think are really, really stunning. We are – and just accept for the moment, I heard your introduction. But just accept for the moment that we are going to reduce carbon emissions by some amount. We are doing it now, through the Direct Action program, a lot of which is about land use, agricultural land use, at about $15 a tonne. But we are paying these wind turbines about $50 or $60 a tonne to do it. So it’s 4 times more than we know we can do it. Greg Hunt has been able to do this for $15 and yet we are choosing to do it for 4 times that. So it doesn’t make economic sense. And I think the important point here is that if we are going to go down this path, we can not make ourselves uncompetitive, we can’t throw this sort of money at it, particularly when, particularly when we know that significant communities are being very, very negatively affected by what’s going on.

Alan Jones AO: But Angus all this environment crap about carbon and wind turbines – how much carbon dioxide, if that’s the fear, if that’s the demon, how much carbon dioxide is created by building these blasted things? What about you know, when you’re constructing the turbine? You’ve got to get iron ore to build the turbine. You’ve got to make steel to build the turbine. You’ve got to transport the turbines. You’ve got to have tens of thousands of concrete that go into each of these turbines. How much carbon dioxide is created to build these “environmentally friendly” wind turbines? This is a nonsense.

Angus Taylor MP: Well there is a light, and of course the other factor, which you mentioned earlier on, is the volatility of it. It’s unpredictable, it’s  interruptable as they say. And the important point about that is that electricity is no good to anyone unless its at the right place at the right time. And of course you can’t predict when you’re going to get electricity from wind turbines.

Alan Jones AO: And if they weren’t injurious to health, why wouldn’t you put them on Bondi beach, Queens street Brisbane, Collins Street Melbourne, Paramatta road? If they weren’t injurious to health.

Angus Taylor MP: And this is my point. What we are effectively doing is putting big factories into areas which are increasingly subdivided. Look, in my electorate between Sydney and Canberra, there’s more and more people moving in, which is great thing, a great thing. But they’re moving in and suddenly discovering that they’re next door to a cluster of wind turbines and the impact that’s having on their land values, on their peace of mind is enormous.

Alan Jones AO: Astonishing, Astonishing. Now look, we’re going to keep talking to you and I hope that you can persuade some of those people in your Caucasus to all of this because this nonsense somewhere has got to end. But well done, you continue to do terrific work, we’ll talk again soon.

Angus Taylor MP: Thanks Alan.

Alan Jones AO: It’s Angus Taylor, the Federal member for Hume.
2GB Alan Jones’ Breakfast

Angus Taylor delivering with the very substance and style that earned him the well-deserved tagline, “The Enforcer“; and, with one quibble, an exceptional effort.

Where Angus starts talking about the cost of CO2 reductions in the electricity sector purportedly attributable to wind power, he heads off into the land of myth and make believe.

The wind industry has yet to produce a single shred of credible evidence that demonstrates wind power reducing CO2 emissions in the electricity sector (to any degree; or at all). Instead, the hard evidence suggests precisely the opposite result:

Wind Industry’s Bogus CO2 Abatement Claims Smashed Again

Why Intermittent Wind Power Increases CO2 Emissions in the Electricity Sector

But, with that aside, Angus’ considered observations deliver a body blow to the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers – when he talks about how Australia’s power retailers are boycotting planned wind farms in communities that make it clear they do not want them. As the message is critical to every community defender, wherever they are in Australia, we’ll set it out again:

this is very important that the energy retailers who enter into long term contracts to allow these developments to be built, say look we are not going to build developments like this in areas where there’s community reaction, very negative community reaction. People like AGL and Origin, Energy Australia, and the ACT Government as well.

Angus delivered the same message at the recent packed-hall meeting at Yass in NSW, where 160 turned up to make it clear that more than 90% of the Yass/Rye Park communities are bitterly opposed to plans by Kiwi owned Trustpower to turn their slice of Southern Tablelands’ Heaven into an industrial wasteland:

NSW Minister – Pru Goward – Joins Forces with Community Defenders to Kill Plans for Trustpower’s Rye Park Wind Farm Disaster

Not least because the thugs employed by Trustpower and Epuron belted into a 79 year-old pensioner and a disabled farmer at an earlier meeting (see our post here), the crowd at the Yass meeting were keen for revenge (probably why, despite a cordial invitation, Trustpower’s thugs lacked the nerve to show their heads).

The communities’ attitude is pretty well captured by this letter from local STT Champion, Jayne Apps to the local rag, the Boorowa News.

A Letter to the Editor
22 October 2015

To the Editor,

On Friday, October 9 a Public Meeting organised by the Rye Park Action Group was held in Yass. The meeting was widely advertised and open to anyone who wanted more information on the large number of ‘Wind Farms’ being planned and built on the Southern Tablelands and South West Slopes.

Attendees were given information about the effects of sound, including infrasound, from people living at the Gullen Range WF near Crookwell.

Speakers also came from South Australia to tell the audience about the problems of being a WF host on their land and their inability to continue living so close to operating turbines resulting in the eventual sale of their property, and a Yass Real Estate agent gave his opinion about the difficulties he is having selling properties that will be visually impacted by the proposed Yass Valley and Rye Park WFs and the price reductions vendors are taking as a result.

A solar expert also gave a talk, and had a display, on one of the alternatives to wind power and local residents and business owners stressed the need for people to research and ask questions of the developers before agreeing to, and signing, contracts with wind power developers.

The meeting was attended by 160 people, and although the meeting was open to supporters of wind power as well as those seeking more information the majority of these people came from the villages and farming communities that will be impacted by the many developments.

When you take into account that most of these people would have been representing families and friends I think it could be said that there is a large amount of opposition to wind power development in the area.

Trustpower (Rye Park WF) tell us there is widespread community support for their development but after several years of promoting community knowledge on wind power in rural areas I have yet to see any sign of these supporters.

The only supporters I have come across are those who will be benefiting financially, and those who trespass on my land and steal signs, most recently a 760mm high x 1830 wide sign that was several metres inside my boundary fence.

I find it disturbing that a person who is supporting wind power can be offended by a ‘No Wind Turbines” sign that is less that a metre high, but will allow Rye Park to be surrounded with 109 wind turbines that will be 175 metres high and will make a lot of noise, without even taking into consideration the impact it will have on the community as a whole and the precious remnant vegetation and animal habitats that will be destroyed in the construction process.

As a matter of interest, a poll was taken on the night of the Public Meeting.

The question was asked ‘Are you in favour of wind turbines being built in Yass Valley, Boorowa, Rye Park and the surrounding villages and rural areas?.’

Of the 160 people in attendance 138 of them voted. 136 voted no and 2 voted yes.

This is in stark contrast to the survey done several years ago that the wind power companies love to quote saying 80% of people want wind power.

I would also like to note that I personally invited Trustpower representatives Michael Head, Wind Development Officer, and Rontheo Van Zyl, Development Manager, to speak at the public meeting and have a display but they were adamant they would not be attending such a meeting.

I again urge those living in Boorowa to take notice of what is going on around you, give support to your local farmers and residents of Rye Park and do some research on the impact the Rye Park WF, Bango WF and Rugby WF will have if they are approved for construction.

If you would like more information please email: or get onto Trustpower’s Rye Park Wind Farm website and look at their maps.

Also talk to your Boorowa Councillors.

They are currently deciding on the future of our roads that are to be used in the development stages of the Rye Park WF and if approved will be allowing the huge amount of oversized traffic to pass through Boorowa streets and local roads.

Jayne Apps – Rye Park

Nice work, Jayne. With that sort of response from locals, STT is happy to call the ‘community reaction’ from Rye Park and Yass, ‘very negative community reaction’ – of precisely the kind that will see power retailers refusing to sign the Power Purchase Agreements which are an essential pre-requisite for wind power outfits, like Trustpower to obtain the finance needed to build the wind farms still threatened. No PPAs; means no new wind farms – it’s a simple as that.

For every community defender, wherever you are in Australia, follow the lead set by Rye Park and Yass.

Get angry, get organised, get vocal and help prevent your community from being treated as ‘road-kill’ in the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time. Fight them now; and they will flee – empty handed.


Brits Beginning to Hold Wind Pushers Accountable!

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning



In a stunningly brilliant legislative move, David Davis MP recently introduced a Bill in UK’s Parliament which will allow Britons to enforce judgments against wind power outfits; and which will ensure the removal of these things when they grind to an inevitable halt within the next decade or so – whether because the massive subsidies they run on are chopped; or because they have flamed out; rusted out; thrown their blades to the four winds; or have simply collapsed in heaps.

The standard corporate structures used by wind power outfits involve a parent company – like Infigen, say – usually as a holding company, with a subsidiary, which usually takes on the name of the wind farm (threatened or realised), such as Cherry Tree Wind Farm Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of Infigen – going nowhere, thanks to its inability to obtain a Power Purchase Agreement).

The subsidiary is lumbered with all the current debts and other liabilities, which are loaded up in such a way as to exceed its assets (as long as the wind farm is operating, the parent sees that sufficient cash flushes through the subsidiary for it to remain technically solvent, at least in the short term).

In the event that a creditor pursues the subsidiary for any substantial claim, the parent (or related holding company) simply sits back and watches its subsidiary wind up in insolvency; leaving the creditor(s) without so much as a penny to pinch. Infigen has done it all before, back when it was called “Babcock and Brown”.

Among the class of creditors seeking to recover, are wind farm neighbours who successfully sue the windfarm operator (ie the subsidiary company) and who obtain a substantial award of damages for nuisance.

In David Davis’s speech below, he refers to the case of Julian and Jane Davis who successfully obtained a £2 million out of court settlement from a wind farm operator, for noise nuisance; and the resultant loss of property value (the home became uninhabitable due to low-frequency noise, infrasound and vibration).

The Particulars of Julian and Jane Davis’ Claim are available here: Davis Complaint Particulars of Claim

And Jane Davis’ Statement (detailing their unsettling experiences and entirely unnecessary suffering) is available here: davis-noise-statement

So, the next time you’ve got some wind industry parasite mouthing off that there has never been a successful claim against a wind power outfit, simply flick them a link to this post.

The other reason for setting up £2 subsidiary companies (in Australia referred to as $2 companies) of little or no real value, is to avoid (by winding up in insolvency) liability to clean up the mess after the rort is all over and done with.

Hawaii rusting turbines


While planning authorities often talk about obtaining what are called “decommissioning bonds”, whatever promises are made, are given by the subsidiary (not the parent), which is designed to have no assets available to cover the cost of decommissioning; whenever that inevitable event takes place. Hence, the thousands of wind turbines scattered all over California and Hawaii, left rusting as monuments to our political betters’ collective stupidity (see our post here).

To avoid that event, David Davis introduced the “Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill”, which is to be voted on sometime next month. Here’s David’s speech as he introduces the Bill  – video and then audio (Hansard – Transcript follows).



Audio Player


Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill
David Davis
21 July 2015
House of Commons Hansard

Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make provision about obligations on wind farm operators in respect of financial cover for potential liabilities arising from cause of public nuisance; and for connected purposes.

Wind farms are contentious. Some argue passionately that they are a great public good and the solution to global warming while others equally passionately believe they are a waste of money. This Bill takes no side in that debate. It is narrowly defined to one aspect of public interest; it requires the operators of wind farms, who are in receipt of £797 million of public subsidy a year, to organise their affairs so that they are able to meet the costs of any nuisance imposed on people living near them.

In 1995 the World Health Organisation recommended that to prevent sleep interruption low frequency noise should not exceed 30 decibels. However, in 1996 the Government’s Energy Technology Support Unit—ETSU—set the noise limit for wind turbines at 43 decibels. That is an enormous difference; on the logarithmic decibel scale it is approximately double the WHO limit. We still use those standards today.

In the last five years no planning application was refused on noise-related grounds, but there have been 600 noise-related incidents arising from wind farm operations. The majority of complaints arise as a result of amplitude modulation, which is the loud, continuous thumping or swishing noise regularly described by those living near wind farms.

Numerous studies have identified that sleep is disturbed on a regular basis even at distances over 1 km away from turbines, yet under the ETSU standards turbines can be installed just 600 metres away from residential property. The wind farm companies are acutely aware of this, and all the more so since a member of the public, Jane Davis, sued a wind farm near her home for noise nuisance. The matter was settled out of court, and there is a gagging order preventing us from knowing the details, but the settlement is rumoured to have been in the region of £2 million.

Since this case, some dubious measures have been taken by the industry to obstruct perfectly legitimate claims for nuisance. The use of shell companies in the wind industry seems to be the commonest trick. The parent company provides a loan to a specially created subsidiary to set up the wind farm, then leaves it in control of operations. The subsidiary’s balance sheet typically comprises the wind farm physical assets, but they are more than offset by a very large loan from the parent company, with a resulting net liability. Profits from energy generation and large amounts of public subsidy are siphoned off to the parent company. The subsidiary is left as a financial shell, with very few liquid assets and total liabilities greater than total assets. That makes it impossible to bring litigation against a wind farm, simply because there is nothing to win from them. As such companies have negative net assets, even liquidating them would generate no cash to pay either damages or a legal bill.

One of my constituents bought his house in my constituency to enjoy a quiet retirement with his wife. After living there for more than a decade a 10-turbine wind farm was built near the house. The closest windmill is just over 600 metres from his home. He was assured at the planning stage that the wind farm would not trouble him, yet he has suffered the misery of regular noise and turbine blade flicker which has rendered his home almost unliveable. The low frequency noise from the turbines easily penetrates the double glazing. The couple have had to change bedrooms in order to sleep, but even so the persistent noise from the wind farm has taken its toll on his wife’s health; she now suffers heart palpitations and is prescribed anti-depressants on a permanent basis by her doctor.

My constituent, fearing his retirement has been ruined and his home thoroughly devalued, attempted to use his legal insurance to claim for nuisance from the wind farm operators. While there was a good chance of success in court, the company’s finances were organised so that there was no realistic prospect of recovering either damages or the legal costs of bringing the case. That being so, his insurers would, quite understandably, not cover his legal costs. That is despite the fact that the eventual owner of the wind farm is AES, a multibillion dollar international company involved partly in renewables but largely in coal and gas, that paid its chief executive $8.4 million last year. It laughably claims in its annual report to be a “World’s Most Ethical Company”.

It is not alone in its hypocrisy. In March I raised this disreputable practice with Falck Renewables, prospective operators of a wind farm near my own village in my constituency. I asked it whether it was going to do the same. It did not reply.

My constituents have no way to recover the tranquillity of the lives that they thought they were going to enjoy when they first moved to rural Yorkshire. They can neither sell their house nor get any financial recompense to enable them to afford to move, so they are trapped in this misery.

My point is a simple one. My constituents are just individual representatives of a situation that is repeated up and down the country. Wind farm companies must be adequately capitalised so that there can be a reasonable prospect of financial success for prospective litigants whose way of life they have damaged.

It is not only the noise that is a nuisance, of course. When the sun is low in the sky behind a turbine it creates a “strobe effect” which can be harmful to health and wellbeing, and there are also now concerns that some wind farms could be abandoned at the end of their operational lifespan, creating another sort of visual blight, this time in perpetuity.

The simple solution that I propose in this Bill is to require wind farm-operating companies to hold enough cash in hand to manage a legal case at any time, and in addition a financial bond—a guarantee, or insurance policy—as a security against potential liabilities, including all public nuisance and final decommissioning costs.

Any wind farm that fails to do that should lose its right to subsidy—which, as I said, amounted to £797 million in one year for the industry.

This would ensure that citizens could reasonably sue when they suffer damage, but, just as importantly, it would be a strong incentive for the companies to operate wind farms in such a way as to avoid public nuisance, which is causing great distress in some cases, and would mean that when the turbines are decommissioned there is money or insurance to cover the cost of clearing the wind farm, avoiding a situation whereby the local council has to pick up the bill.

Whatever our stance on onshore wind, companies in receipt of public subsidy should be required to meet their public responsibilities. This measure seeks to ensure that the big wind farm companies can truly be held liable when they are at fault and gives families the protection they deserve. I beg to move.

Question put and agreed to.


That Mr David Davis, supported by Chris Heaton-Harris, Tom Pursglove, John Mann and Jim Shannon, present the Bill

Mr David Davis accordingly presented the Bill

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be presented (Bill 62).

Public Nuisance from Wind Farms (Mandatory Liability Cover) Bill


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

French Revolt Against the Great Wind Power Fraud



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A ruling is expected next spring.

CSO Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

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

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

Falmouth ZBA Following Dangerous Wind Turbine Script

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Windpushers Want Guarantees, That Their Scam Will be Allowed to Continue!

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

June 2015 SA

[Could it be something about the ‘product’, maybe?]

Back in February this year, STT covered the unassailable fact that Australia’s Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) – then set at a colossal 41,000 GWh – was completely unsustainable on every level – economic, political and social:

LRET “Stealth Tax” to Cost Australian Power Punters $30 BILLION

Our little analysis came at a time when a debate was underway about not whether, but by how much, the ultimate annual target needed to be cut to preserve a little of the wind industry’s furniture.

You see – with the ultimate target set at 41,000 GWh for 2020 – barely 16,000 GWh of power available from eligible renewable sources – and no new wind power capacity being built and none likely to be built – the imposition of the whopping $65 per MWh “shortfall charge” was then looming fast.

The actual cost to consumers of what is, pure and simple, a Federally mandated fine on electricity retailers – which will be recovered from all Australian power consumers – is around $93 per MWh, which is added to the average wholesale price of around $35 per MWh.

The Coalition’s wind industry front man, young Gregory Hunt calls it his “massive $93 per tonne carbon tax”. Its particular political toxicity was what focused the minds of our political betters in Canberra; and resulted in the first cut to the LRET’s ultimate annual target from 41,000 GWh to 33,000 GWh.

The principal logic that drove both the Coalition and Labor to slash the LRET target being fear of a power consumer (read “voter”) backlash – a revolt that will inevitably result when power consumers receive spiralling bills spelling out the fact that they are being hit with a mammoth, Federal electricity stealth tax.

Politicians of all hues know it – and, more importantly, Australia’s major electricity retailers know it: there is absolutely no way that – in an economy about to start going backwards – struggling businesses, manufacturing industries and cash-strapped households will tolerate the imposition of an enormous (and utterly pointless) Federal tax on electricity consumption.

Remember, this is the same electorate that smashed Julia Gillard over her ‘carbon tax’ – which, as another Federally mandated tax on electricity, was seen by voters as economically ‘toxic’; and gifted government to Tony Abbott’s Coalition 2 years ago.

After a lot of huffing and puffing – and shenanigans in the Senate – the reduced LRET target passed in June. At the time, the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers were howling one minute about the attack on “wonderful wind”; and breathing a collective sigh of relief that the dreaded “uncertainty” about the target was finally over.

Well, the trouble is that certain “certainties” still, and will always exist, in relation to the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time: THESE THINGS DON’T WORK.

The retailers are about selling power on demand; not according to the vagaries of the wind.

Now, our favourite wind-worship cult-commanders – the Climate Spectator’s Tristan Edis (see this piece of wishful thinking) and ruin-economy’s Giles Parkinson – are furious about the fact that – despite the ‘agreement’ that settled on the latest LRET target – Australia’s retail power companies have absolutely NO interest in signing up to buy a “product” that can only ever be delivered at crazy random intervals, if at all. A product that brings total chaos for grid managers and allows peaking power operators to scoop up $millions in minutes:

South Australia’s Unbridled Wind Power Insanity: Wind Power Collapses see Spot Prices Rocket from $70 to $13,800 per MWh

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

On top of that, the Senate Inquiry’s report (see our post here) into the great wind power fraud concluded that the adverse health effects caused by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound – such as sleep deprivation – are real; and not the product of some BIG COAL plot.

With 200 pages setting out the evidence of victims like SA turbine hosts, Clive and Trina Gare (see our post here), retailers are fully alive to the fact that it’s a matter of when, not if, wind farm neighbours start suing wind power outfits for $millions in damages. ‘Slam dunk’ common law claims in nuisance for the loss of the use of their homes; loss of property values etc, are brewing up as we speak. The outcome of which is that the $2 outfits used as fronts for the likes of Infigen will be insolvent, as soon as the victims file their claims:

Potential Wind Farm Neighbour Finds Idyllic Property is Now ‘Unsaleable’ at Any Price

Brits to Force £2 Wind Power Outfits to Hold £Millions in Reserve to Pay Damages to Victims & for Decommissioning

Bankers, retailers and anyone else with real skin-in-the-game hate risk – of any description. Signing up to lend money to – or buy wind power from – an outfit liable to go under in heartbeat is bad enough, but where the wind power outfit in question is in the gun for $millions in liability claims for nuisance or negligence, then it’s RISK that only the crazy-brave would take on.

But it’s risk of a different kind that has poor old Giles Parkinson almost turning on the waterworks in this, his latest lament: Renewable investment drought to continue as utilities extend buyers’ strike

Giles cites Miles George – head of Australia’s most notorious wind power outfit, Infigen (aka Babcock and Brown) – as he rails against the fact that Australia’s 3 biggest retailers – Origin, EnergyAustralia and AGL – have no intention of entering power purchase agreements with wind power outfits, which means they will never obtain the finance needed to build any new wind power capacity, anywhere FULL STOP.

Although never one quick to join the dots, Giles fails to make the (fairly obvious) connection between the unwillingness of $billion outfits – like Origin – to contract with near-bankrupt Infigen – even though Giles focuses on Infigen’s latest whopping $304 million annual loss: ever heard of ‘due diligence’, Giles?

In the mother of all ironies, Infigen, again blames its latest financial disaster on ….. wait for it …. “PARTICULARLY POOR WIND CONDITIONS”.

Oh, mother!

But should Miles and the gang really be complaining? After all, the wind is – as they repeatedly tell us – “FREE”. Which calls to mind that old chestnut about “getting precisely what you pay for”.

We’ll pick up Infigen’s latest ‘be-calmed-cash-loss-calamity’ in another post, shortly.

The ONLY reason power retailers do any business with cowboys like Infigen and union backed thugs like Pacific Hydro, is to obtain renewable energy certificates (RECs); and, thereby, avoid the imposition of the shortfall penalty. However, the likes of Giles and Tristan are unable to recognise that power retailers do, in fact, have a ‘choice’, in that respect.

They do not need to purchase RECs at all – power retailers are perfectly entitled to pay the fine and collect it from their customers. Which brings us back to ‘pending political toxicity’.

The big retailers know full well that Australian power consumers will not tolerate being lumbered with fines that will add close to $22 billion to their power bills, over the life of the LRET scheme. Here’s the calculus of what no-one – on either side of government – is willing to reveal, let alone prepared to ‘sell’, to voters.

The LRET target is set by s40 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (here). At the present time, the total annual contribution to the LRET from eligible renewable energy generation sources is 16,000 GWh; and, because commercial retailers have not entered PPAs with wind power outfits for well over 2½ years – and have no apparent intention of doing so from hereon – that’s where the figure will remain.

In the table below, the “Shortfall in MWh (millions)” is based on the current, total contribution of 16,000,000 MWh, as against the current 33,000 GWh target, set out as the “Target in MWh (millions)”.

A REC is issued for every MWh of eligible renewable electricity dispatched to the grid; and a shortfall penalty applies to a retailer for every MWh that they fall short of the target – the target is meant to be met by retailers purchasing and surrendering RECs. As set out below, the shortfall charge kicks in this calendar year. Given the impact of the shortfall charge, and the tax treatment of RECs versus the shortfall charge, the full cost of the shortfall charge to retailers is $93. Using that figure, here is the cost of the shortfall penalty.

Year Target in MWh (millions) Shortfall in MWh (millions) Penalty on Shortfall @ $65 per MWh Minimum Retailers recover @ $93
2015 18.85 2.85 $185,250,000 $265,050,000
2016 21.431 5.431 $353,015,000 $505,083,000
2017 26.031 10.031 $652,015,000 $932,883,000
2018 28.637 12.637 $821,405,000 $1,175,241,000
2019 31.244 15.244 $990,860,000 $1,417,692,000
2020 33.85 17.85 $1,160,250,000 $1,660,050,000
2021 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2022 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2023 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2024 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2025 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2026 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2027 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2028 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2029 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
2030 33 17 $1,105,000,000 $1,581,000,000
Total 490.043 234.043 $15,212,795,000 $21,765,999,000

The almost $22 billion in fines payable by power consumers will sit on top of the $22-23 billion worth of RECs that will also be added to power bills (see our post here).

Now, while Giles Parkinson’s article misses the point, his headline, which includes the words “buyers’ strike” touches on the “golden rule”: whoever has the gold, makes the rules.

When we first looked at this issue in February, we drew the analogy with another Federal government backed producer subsidy scheme, which also imploded due to a “buyers strike”.

With Giles, among others, struggling to come to terms with the “golden rule”, we think that it would be rude not to give that analysis another run.

In a little case of déjà vu, STT thinks that there are some significant parallels and important lessons to be learnt from how the Australian wool industry saw its Federally mandated subsidy scheme implode during the 1990s; all but killing the industry and costing growers and taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

The wool industry’s “cause of death” was the Federally backed Reserve Price Support scheme (RPS), which set a guaranteed minimum price for all Australian wool.

A little background on the RPS

For over 150 years, Australia happily rode on the sheep’s back: until the 1970s the wool industry was, for the Australian economy, the “goose that laid the golden egg”; textile manufacturers from all over the world clamoured for the fibre; which was, for most of that time, the largest single commodity export by value; Australia produces over 80% of the world’s apparel wool. However, as fashions changed (the three-piece wool suit became, well, so “yesterday”) and new synthetics began to eat into its market share, the dominance of Australian apparel wool was no longer a certainty.

Against the backdrop of increasing competition, for the wool industry there was always the perennial issue, not only of fluctuating demand, but also of wildly fluctuating swings in production. Dorothea McKellar’s land of “droughts and flooding rains” meant that a few years of meagre production (and favourable, and even phenomenal, wool prices) would be soon eclipsed by sheds and wool stores overflowing with fibre ready for market (sending prices and woolgrower profits plummeting).

The response to these (often climate driven) marketing “swings and roundabouts”, was the establishment of the Australian Wool Corporation (AWC) and the RPS in 1973.

The RPS would set a minimum price for all types of wool, guaranteeing woolgrowers a minimum return; such that if supply exceeded demand, the AWC would purchase any wool being offered, if it failed to reach the minimum price set (referred to as the “floor price”).

Wool being offered at auction that failed to meet the floor price was purchased by the AWC and “stockpiled” (ie stored), until such time as either supply fell or demand conditions improved; at which point the AWC would offer stockpiled wool to the trade. The aim being the smooth and more orderly marketing of wool over the supply and demand cycle; with higher average returns to growers; and less risk for buyers and sellers along the way.

The scheme worked swimmingly (as designed and intended) until the late 1980s.

The reserve price set under the RPS was fixed in Australian dollar terms. However, with the float of the Australian dollar in 1983 (resulting in a massive 40% depreciation of the dollar between February 1985 and August 1986), maintaining the reserve price without reference to the terms of trade and fluctuations in trading currencies (particularly the US dollar) set the scheme up for a spectacular failure; simply because what goes down can just as easily go up.

During the 1980s, there was a solid increase in demand for wool, driven by demand from the USSR, a then fast growing Japan, buoyant Europeans, and a newly emergent China, as a textile manufacturer and consumer. However, that surge in demand occurred in the context of an Australian dollar trading in a range around US$0.55-75.

During the 1980s, under pressure from wool grower lobby groups, the floor price was continually increased: from 1986 to July 1988 the floor price jumped 71% to 870 cents per kilogram.

That did not, in itself, create any problems: a general surge in demand, relatively low production and a plummeting Australian dollar generated auction room sale prices well above the rising floor price, which reached their zenith in April 1988: the market indicator peaked at 1269 cents per kg, and the market continued its bull run for most of that year, well above the 870 floor price set in July.

However, as international economic conditions worsened, Australian interest rates soared (the consequence of Paul Keating’s “recession that we had to have”) and the value of the Australian dollar with it (hitting US$0.80 by early 1990), the market indicator headed south and, over the next few years, the AWC was forced to purchase over 80% of the Australian wool clip at the 870 cent per kg floor price. Adding to the AWC’s difficulties was a massive surge in production; driven by growers responding to the high and “guaranteed” floor price; and a run of exceptional growing seasons (1989 being a standout across Australia). Production went from 727 million kg in 1983/84 to over 1 billion kg in 1990/91.

Despite worsening market conditions, the AWC, under pressure from wool grower lobby groups, was forced to maintain the 870 cent per kilogram floor price.

However, from around August 1989, international wool buyers simply sat on their hands in auction sale rooms (in May 1990 the AWC bought 87.5% of the offering); and waited for the RPS to implode.

Knowing that the system was unsustainable, the last thing that buyers wanted was to be caught with wool purchased at prices above the floor price which, when the floor price was cut or collapsed, would immediately be worth less than what they had paid for it. Moreover, traders were dumping stock as fast as they could to avoid the risk of a collapse in the RPS and, therefore, a collapse in the price of any wool they happened to hold.

The RPS was ultimately backed by the Federal government. With the buying trade sitting on their hands, those responsible for maintaining the floor price ended up in a staring competition, the only question was, who would blink first: the AWC (or, rather, the government underwriting the RPS); or the buyers?

With the AWC purchasing millions of bales of wool at the floor price the cost of supporting the RPS was running into the billions of dollars: primarily the support came from a grower levy on sales, but, at the point which that soon became insufficient to support the RPS (despite upping the levy from 8% to 25%), support came from $billions in mounting government debt; the buyers had no reason to blink.

Instead, in May 1990, the government announced its decision to retreat to a new floor price of 700 cents per kilogram, and directed the AWC to fight on in support of the reduced floor price. The Minister for Primary Industry, John Kerin boldly asserting that the 700 cent floor price was “immutable, the floor price will not be reduced”.

But, having blinked once, the buyers largely continued to sit on their hands and simply waited for the government to blink again. The stockpile continued to balloon; and with it government debt: by February 1991 the stockpile reached 4.77 million bales (equivalent to a full year’s production); the accrued government debt stood at $2.8 billion; and the cost of storing the stockpile was over $1 million a day.

Faced with the inevitable, the government blinked, again: John Kerin was forced to eat his words about the floor price being “immutable”; on 11 February 1991, announcing the suspension of the floor price. The RPS had totally collapsed; the buyers had won.

The wool industry’s saga is beautifully, if tragically, told by Charles Massy in “Breaking the Sheep’s Back” (2011, UQP), which should be required reading for any of our political betters pretending to know more than the market (eg, the power market).

Which brings us to the lessons and parallels.

The LRET effectively sets the price for RECs: the minimum price is meant to be set by the shortfall charge of $65 per MWh (rising to $93 when account is given to the tax benefit), as the penalty begins to apply on the shortfall (as detailed above). That equation is based on an ultimate 33,000 GWh target.

In the event that the cost of the shortfall charge was reduced, there would be a commensurate fall in the REC price. Likewise, if the LRET target was further reduced: the total number of MWhs which would then attract the shortfall charge if RECs were not purchased would fall too; also resulting in a fall in the REC price.

In addition, any reduction in the LRET would simply result in a reduction in the demand for RECs overall: fewer RECs would need to be purchased and surrendered during the life of the LRET; again, resulting in a fall in the REC price. Of course, were the LRET to be scrapped in its entirety, RECs would become utterly worthless.

The retailers, are alive to all of this, hence their reluctance to enter PPAs for the purpose of purchasing RECs; agreements which run for a minimum of 15 years.

In December last year, Ian “Macca” Macfarlane and his youthful ward, Greg Hunt started running around pushing for a target of 27,000 GWh; and their boss made clear that he wanted to kill it outright. There followed overtures from the Labor opposition pitching for a target around 35,000 GWh.

Whether they knew it or not – with their public debate on what an amended target should be – in the staring competition with retailers – these boys blinked.

Faced with the inevitable political furore that will erupt when power consumers (ie, voters) realise they are being whacked with the full cost (and some) of the shortfall charge (being nothing more than a “stealth tax” to be recovered by retailers via their power bills), the pressure will mount on both sides of politics to slash the LRET – once again.

That both Labor and the Coalition have already blinked (in obvious recognition of the brewing political storm in power punter land over the inevitable imposition of the shortfall charge) is not lost on the likes of Grant King from Origin, and all of Australia’s other electricity retailers.

And for retail power buyers the choice of sticking with permanent recalcitrance has been made even easier: Tony Abbot making it plain that he would have cut the LRET even harder, were it not for a hostile Senate; and Labor’s Bill Shorten pushing for an entirely ludicrous 50% LRET – that would require a further 10,000 of these things to be speared all over Australia’s rural heartland. Where there was once ‘bipartisan’ support for these things, the major parties are diametrically opposed.

Grant King


With the politics of the LRET already on the nose, like wool buyers sitting on their hands in sale rooms during 1990, waiting for the floor price to collapse, electricity retailers need only sit back and wait for the whole LRET scheme to implode.

Like wool buyers refusing to buy above the floor price and carry stock with the risk of the RPS collapsing, why would electricity retailers sign up for 15 year long PPAs with wind power outfits in order to purchase a stream of RECs over that period, knowing the value of those certificates depends entirely upon a scheme which is both economically and politically unsustainable?

However, the similarities between the wool market and the market for wind power end right about there.

There is, and always was, a natural market for Australian wool; the only issue during the late 80s and early 90s was the price that had to be paid by buyers to beat the floor price, set artificially under the RPS.

Wind power has no such market.

Available only in fits and spurts, and at crazy, random intervals, at a price which is 3-4 times that of conventional generation, retailers have no incentive to purchase it.

In the absence of the threat of the $65 per MWh fine (the stick), coupled with the promise of pocketing $93 as a subsidy in the form of a REC (the carrot), electricity retailers would not touch wind power with a barge pole: it simply has no commercial value.

Moreover, with an abundance of conventional generation capacity in Australia at present, retailers are very much in a “buyers’ market”. Overcapacity, coupled with shrinking demand (thanks to policies like the LRET that are killing mineral processors, manufacturing and industry) means that retailers can expect to see wholesale prices decline over the next few years, at least. And, for the first time in almost 20 years, a sharply declining Australian economy is a fast looming reality: unemployed households have an even tougher time paying rocketing power bills.

With those fundamentals in mind, electricity retailers will simply opt to pay the shortfall charge and recover it from power consumers, knowing that that situation will not last for very long.

Sooner or later, the Federal government (whichever side is in power) will have to face an electorate furious at the fact that their power bills have gone through the roof, as a result of a policy that achieved absolutely nothing.

Tony Abbott’s chances of leading his Coalition to a second term are tied to fundamental ‘mum and dad’ policies like electricity costs. Power prices matter; and in a battle between Australia’s Big 3 Retailers and the LRET, STT’s money is firmly on commercial self-interest.

STT hears that the big retailers are planning to wait until they look like exhausting the pile of RECs that they’re sitting on at present. At which point they’ll build some large-scale solar power facilities, in order to obtain the RECs needed to avoid the shortfall charge; for as long as it takes for the politics to turn gangrenous. As soon as the LRET gets scrapped, the plan is to sell the panels back into the residential roof-top market.

The cost of the LRET – and all that comes with it – to retail customers is at the heart of what’s driving retailers’ efforts to crush the LRET; and the wind industry with it.

This might sound obvious, if not a little silly: electricity retailers are NOT in the business of NOT selling power.

Adding a $45 billion electricity tax to retail power bills can only make power even less affordable to tens of thousands of households and struggling businesses, indeed whole industries, meaning fewer and fewer customers for retailers like Origin, AGL and EnergyAustralia.

The strategy adopted by retailers of refusing to ‘play ball’ by signing up for PPAs will, ultimately, kill the LRET; it’s a strategy aimed at being able to sell more power, at affordable prices, to more households and businesses.

And it’s working a treat, so far.

The wind industry’s incessant daily whining about “uncertainty”, is simply a signal that the retailers’ have already won. Once upon a time, the wind industry and its parasites used to cling to the idea that the RET “has bi-partisan support“, as a self-comforting mantra: but not anymore. And it’s the retailers refusal to sign PPAs that’s thrown the spanner in the wind industry’s works.

While the likes of Tristan, Giles and Miles will continue to work themselves into a lather about their inevitable fate, in the meantime, retailers, like Origin, AGL and EnergyAustralia, can simply sit back, watch the political fireworks, and wait for the inevitable and complete collapse of the LRET; and, with it, the Australian wind industry.

wind turbine Screggah-wind-turbine-Padraig-McNulty-6-460x345

Wind Turbines causing a “World of Trouble”!

Turbine protests: Green Energy Act under fire

Credit:  Kingston, ON, Canada / CKWS TV | CKWS Newswatch | September 03, 2015 | ~~

Whether you like them or not, wind and solar panel farms are going up in an area near you. The Liberal government is approving wind and solar farms across the province, most recently here on Amherst Island.

“They continue to approve these wind turbines, they’re doing it in Prince Edward County, they’re doing it on Amherst Island, they’re doing it in Addington Highlands, they’re doing it all across South Western Ontario, it’s not providing a reliable source of electricity and an affordable source.”

The Green Energy Act and the province’s Hydro policy were slammed during a public meeting hosted by MPP Todd Smith in Prince Edward County. About fifty concerned residents from across the region attended the roundtable discussion where Senator Bob Runicman talked about the steps anti-wind turbine groups could take to quash the act …like challenging it in a court of law and calling for a judicial inquiry.

“I think we’ve got to find ways to raise funds to be able to do this and at the very least try and delay it until the next provincial election and hopefully we’ll have a change in government with a different approach.”

Parker Gallant, a writer with the Financial Post and Green Energy Act critic says electricity costs are forcing people to make a tough choice, heat or eat.

“We have just a mess in our electricity sector it’s probably the most complex in all of North America.”

“It’s nothing short of insanity but they continue down that path and we have to fight them with every possible tool available.”

Smith says the green energy act is to blame.

“It’s taken Ontario from having the lowest cost electricity to the highest in North America in just a couple of years.”

“And it’s not only affecting homeowners. Goodyear decided not to expand it’s Napanee location. One of the reasons…rising electricity costs. A recent report from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce suggests that one in 20 Ontario Businesses will close their doors in the next five years due to rising electricity prices. Morganne Campbell CKWS Newswatch Prince Edward County.”

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Gerold's Blog

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


Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

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


My own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

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


Wandering Words

Patti Kellar