Wind Pushers try to Discredit, Doctor Sarah Laurie, Advocate for Victims of Wind Turbine Emissions!

August 19, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind farm advocate Simon Chapman sorry for false allegations

The Australian
August 19, 2015
Graham Lloyd

Simon Chapman n has been widely criticised for his outspoken advocacy for the wind industry and research.

Public health professor and wind farm advocate Simon Chapman has published a long apology to industrial noise campaigner Sarah Laurie for falsely claiming she had been deregistered as a doctor.

The apology exposes a long-running campaign to discredit Dr Laurie, who has spoken out for residents affected by noise from wind turbines and other industrial sources through the Waubra Foundation.

Dr Laurie welcomed the apology but said Professor Chapman’s personal attacks on her professional integrity were “just one example of a broader strategy employed by the wind industry to denigrate, marginalise and, therefore, exclude from public and political discourse anyone sincerely investigating a worldwide public health issue’’.

Lawyers for Dr Laurie have threatened action against wind industry employees Ken McAlpine, formerly from Vestas, Ketan Joshi from Infigen and Fairfax Media over a tweet first posted by Mr McAlpine in March last year.

Professor Chapman, who is not a medical practitioner, repeated the tweet, which said “NOT DROWNING, RANTING: Deregistered “Dr” Sarah Laurie doesn’t like the medicine dished up by @ama_media Waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/open”.

In his apology, Professor Chapman said the tweet implied that Ms Laurie had given cause to the Medical Board of Australia to deregister her on account of unprofessional conduct, that she was not entitled to use the title “Dr”, and that she did so in contravention of the laws that govern the conduct of medical practitioners.

“These allegations were implied without foundation and are entirely false,” Professor Chapman said.

“Ms Laurie is not deregistered and has never been sanctioned by the Medical Board of Australia.’’

Dr Laurie told a Senate committee into wind turbines and health this year that she graduated from Flinders University with a bachelor of medicine and a bachelor of surgery in 1995 and attained a fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners in 1998.

Dr Laurie had been a councillor on the South Australian Medical Association branch but that was prematurely cut short when she was diagnosed with an illness.

Dr Laurie said she was still legally entitled to use the honorific Dr but voluntarily offered not to use it for her work with the Waubra Foundation to prevent members of the public from thinking she was currently registered.

Dr Laurie told a Senate committee she had been “very reluctant to accept that there could be anything wrong (with wind turbines)”.

“I used to take my children to go and watch wind turbines being built locally near our home,” she said. “I had no idea about any adverse health impacts from wind turbines.

“But, when you listen to the stories of people affected by noise when they are trying to sleep in their beds at night, it does not matter what the source of the noise is if they cannot sleep and they are having these other very distressing symptoms and deteriorating health.”

Professor Chapman has been widely criticised for his outspoken advocacy for the wind industry and research, which found complaints about wind turbines were due to a “nocebo” effect.

Senator John Madigan told parliament in June last year that Professor Chapman “obtained his PhD from the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, a self-proclaimed expert in marketing and public manipulation via media sources”.

“He is a person who is not lawfully permitted to conduct any form of medical research or study in relation to human health,” Senator Madigan said.

He said Professor Chapman’s undergraduate qualifications were in sociology and his PhD looked into the relationship between cigarette smoke and advertising.

Professor Chapman told the recent Senate inquiry he had “a PhD in medicine and I am a fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia”.

He was awarded an Order of Australia for distinguished service to medical research, particularly in the area of public health policy.

Asked about the offending tweet by the Senate committee, he said: “I would regret having retweeted that one, because obviously ‘deregistered’ is incorrect.”

He did not respond to The Australian yesterday.

Stop the Subsidies for Novelty “Wind Energy”! It is a waste!

August 17, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Wind Industry Pockets Lion’s Share of Subsidies for Commercially Generated Power

August 17, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

STT followers are painfully aware that the wind industry exists – and ONLY exists – to wallow in an endless stream of subsidies filched from power consumers and/or taxpayers:

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

The Wind Industry: Always and Everywhere the Result of Massive & Endless Subsidies (Part 2)

One of the sillier claims made by wind-worshippers is that to focus on the massive pile of cash added to power bills and directed to these things, is to overlook what are said to be ‘colossal subsidies’ paid to BIG COAL and BIG GAS.

However, like most eco-fascist fictions, scratch the surface of their fossil-fuel subsidy myth, and you’ll find that there’s nary a tad of subsidy directed to electricity producers using coal or gas (see above).

True it is that solar generation is well soaked in subsidy (see above), but that’s to limit the analysis to the cost per MWh delivered to the grid.

Wind power – provided the subsidies keep flowing – is (occasionally) delivered in commercial quantities. Wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid sometimes deliver around 75% of their 3,669MW installed capacity – at least for a few short hours – until the whole outfit completely downs tools, and produces a tiny fraction of that, or even next-to-nothing, for hours; and even days at a time:

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

Solar, however, is, in the main, generated on the rooftops of domestic dwellings; and barely adds 1% to total power production in Australia – there is very little ‘large-scale’ solar in Australia, as yet.

So, while the subsidy per MWh for solar is colossal, its impact on retail power prices pales by comparison to what is pocketed by the wind industry. Here’s a little wrap-up from the Minerals Council on a report put together by Principal Economics.

The high cost of renewable energy subsidies
Minerals Council
Brendan Pearson
7 August 2015

A report, undertaken by economic consultancy Principal Economics, has found that Australia’s renewable energy sector received subsidies (including the Renewable Energy Target, feed in tariffs and other green policy costs) worth $2.8 billion in 2013-14. This dwarfed the public support for research and demonstration projects for low emissions coal technologies being conducted by the CSIRO and other research bodies (and matched by the coal industry).

On an output basis, these renewable subsidies translated into almost $412 per megawatt hour (MWh) for solar technologies, $42 per MWh for wind and $18 per MWh for all other renewable sources (including hydro).

By comparison coal fired power received less than $1 per MWh and natural gas less than 1 cent per MWh delivered.

In 2013/14, these renewable energy subsidies added between 3 to 9 per cent to the average household bill and up to 20 per cent for some industrial users.

The report uses the World Trade Organisation’s definition of subsidies, an approach similar to the method used by the Productivity Commission in its annual Trade and Assistance Review.

At face value, increasing Australia’s share of renewable energy is a laudable goal. The minerals industry is a user of renewable energy and hopes that it will provide a solution to provision of competitively priced energy, especially in remote areas. And renewable energy depends on the minerals sector – after all, every off shore wind turbine contains 250 tonnes of metallurgical coal.

But renewable energy must win increased market share on its own merits, not be guaranteed it by expensive mandatory targets and feed-in tariffs, the cost of which is simply borne by householders and industrial users. For household consumers, the burden falls heaviest on low income households. For industrial users, the burden shackles export and import-competing businesses in many sectors.
Minerals Council

You can read the report in full here: Electricity production subsidies in Australia.

Here’s an important little snippet from the report.

Implications for electricity customers
Principal Economics
2015

While the cost of public support financed through government budgets is recovered from taxpayers, the subsidies created by the RET and FiT schemes are levied on electricity customers.

Given the very large sums involved, the impacts on electricity bills for households and businesses have been substantial.

Estimates of the impacts of the RET and FiT schemes on customer bills vary. According to the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC, 2014), an average household paid around $109 per annum in South East Queensland, $107 in New South Wales and $155 in South Australia for the combined LRET, SRES and FiT components of household bills in 2013-14. These payments are estimated by the AEMC to make up between 3 and 9 per cent of annual household bills. In contrast, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART, 2013) estimated the combined costs of the RET and FiT schemes for a typical residential customer in New South Wales at around $145 in 2013-14.

ROAM/Synergies Consulting (2014) considered the impacts of renewable schemes on electricity bills of households and businesses, and concluded that the RET accounts for a significant component of bills (Chart 1). ROAM/Synergies estimate that during 2013-14, the RET comprised 3 per cent of the typical household or small business electricity bill and 9.6 per cent for a large business that consumes more than 5 GWh of electricity per annum and is not eligible for partial exemption certificates. They conclude that, as is the case for other renewable schemes, the LRET and SRES contribute a relatively higher percentage of costs for large businesses.

According to ROAM/Synergies (2014), state-based energy policies – of which FiT schemes are by far the most costly – impose comparable or higher costs than the LRET and SRES combined. They estimate that these state-based schemes account for up to 12 per cent of the electricity bill for a large business.

***

Overall, ROAM/Synergies highlight the proliferation of green energy policies over the last decade at both the federal and state level and the significant cumulative impacts of these policies:

For residential and small business customers, green energy policies (excluding a carbon price) represents 5 per cent of electricity bills
For large business customers, green energy policies represent around 20 per cent of electricity bills (with the RET up to 9.6 per cent and state-based schemes up to 12 per cent respectively) excluding carbon price.

Looking forward, the burden on electricity customers as a result of the RET and FiT schemes is unlikely to diminish:

While the most generous FiT schemes have now been closed to new applicants, the obligations entered into by state governments imply that considerable subsidies will continue to have to be paid to eligible households for many years into the future. For instance, the Queensland Competition Authority (QCA 2013) has estimated that Energex and Ergon Energy will incur accumulated feed-in tariff payments of around $2.9 billion by the end of the scheme in 2028, and that these costs will flow directly through to network charges and electricity bills.
The RET will similarly continue to represent a significant burden on customers. The LRET has been revised to achieve a target of 33,000 GWh in 2020 (Australian Government 2015), almost double the 2014 target of 16,950 GWh. No changes have been made to the SRES, which will continue to offer significant financial incentives for customers with PV installations by legislating demand for the corresponding certificates.

Principal Economics

Like most efforts to tally up the insane costs of Australia’s Renewable Energy Target, Principal Economics largely takes the “rear-view mirror” approach, by focusing on what’s been and gone. Although, in the very last dot point above its at least noted that the LRET target doubles – from its current annual target of 16,950 GWh – to 33,000 GWh by 2020 – at which poverty inducing and economy killing level it remains until 2031.

STT has, instead, had its eyes peeled on the road ahead, from the very beginning, as did Victorian Senator, John Madigan, when spelling out in his speech to the Senate, that the future cost of the LRET will add $45 billion to retail power bills, in terms of the REC Tax/Subsidy alone:

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

But even that horrifying prospect for Australian power punters, is to ignore the chaos that attempting to integrate a wholly weather dependent power generation system has on power markets, such as Australia’s so-called wind power capital – and resultant economic basket case – South Australia:

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

So, with the Coalition’s 33,000 GWh LRET target – and Labor’s plan for a 100,000 GWh target – Australia’s poorest and most vulnerable can look forward to eating tins of cold baked beans, while sitting freezing (or boiling) in the dark.

Every Country That Has Wind Turbines, Has People Suffering From the Effects!

August 16, 2015 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

Lilli-Anne Green – no ‘Green’ Dupe – tells Senate: Wind Farm Health Impacts ‘Universal’

August 16, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

Following almost 6 months of solid graft, 8 hearings in 4 States and the ACT, dozens of witnesses and almost 500 submissions, the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud delivered its ‘doorstop’ final report, which runs to some 350 pages – available here: Senate Report

The first 200 pages are filled with facts, clarity, common sense and compassion; the balance, labelled “Labor’s dissenting report”, was written by the wind industry’s parasites and spruikers – including the Clean Energy Council (these days a front for Infigen aka Babcock & Brown); theAustralian Wind Alliance; and Leigh Ewbank from the Enemies of the Earth.

Predictably, Labor’s dissenting report is filled with fantasy, fallacy and fiction – pumping up the ‘wonders’ of wind; completely ignoring the cost of the single greatest subsidy rort in the history of the Commonwealth; and treating the wind industry’s hundreds of unnecessary victims – of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound – with the kind of malice, usually reserved for sworn and bitter foreign enemies.

To get to the truth, the Inquiry had to wade through a fairly pungent cesspit of ‘material’ dropped on it by the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers. No doubt to their great relief (or, in the case of wind industry stooge, Anne Urquhart, infuriation) the Senators heard from a raft of genuine and highly qualified people, who are clearly dedicated to protecting their fellow human beings – rather than ridiculing, denigrating or deriding them as “anti-wind farm wing-nuts” or “Dick Brains”.

One voice of common sense and compassion – to the contrary of the nasty nonsense pitched up by the shills that run interference for their wind industry clients – came from Lilli-Anne Green – an active environmentalist and CEO of a healthcare consultancy that covers the USA. Lilli-Anne was – with her late husband – the creator of ‘Pandora’s Pinwheels: the Reality of Living with Wind Turbines‘ – the first and best account of the hell-on-earth these things create for those who have to suffer incessant low-frequency noise and infrasound on a daily basis. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:

***

Backing up the insights in that hard-hitting documentary, here’s what Lilli-Anne told the Australian Senate.

Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines – 29 June 2015

GREEN, Ms Lilli-Anne, Private capacity
Committee met at 08:35
Evidence was taken via teleconference—

CHAIR ( Senator Madigan ): Welcome. I declare open this final public hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines. We acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay our respect to elders past and present. This is a public hearing and a Hansard transcript of the proceedings is being made. The audio of this public hearing is also being broadcast via the internet. Before the committee starts taking evidence, I remind all present here today that in giving evidence to the committee witnesses are protected by parliamentary privilege. It is unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to the committee and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence to the committee.

The committee prefers all evidence to be given in public, but under the Senate’s resolutions witnesses have the right to request to be heard in private session. It is important that witnesses give the committee notice if they intend to ask to give evidence in camera. If you are a witness here today and you intend to request to give evidence in camera, please bring this to the attention of the secretariat staff as soon as possible.

Do you have any comments to make on the capacity in which you appear?

Ms Green: I am CEO of a healthcare consulting firm with a national reach in the United States. My company works in all sectors of the healthcare industry. One of the core competencies of the firm is to develop educational programs to help doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers to better communicate with their patients around the various disease states. Currently, as a volunteer in my town, I am secretary of our energy committee and a delegate to the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission as an alternate. Cape Cod National Seashore is part of the United States National Park Service. In the late 1970s, I built a passive solar superinsulated home. I directed an environmental education school for several years. I work seasonally as a naturalist interpretive ranger for the National Park Service. I have been interested and active in the environmental movement since the early seventies. Today, I speak as a private citizen.

CHAIR: Thank you. Could you please confirm that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence has been provided to you?

Ms Green: It has.

CHAIR: Thank you. The committee has your submission and we now invite you to make a brief opening statement and at the conclusion of your remarks, I will invite members of the committee to put questions to you.

Ms Green: Thank you. Until the beginning of 2010, I believed wind turbines were good and green. My town was interested in constructing wind turbines and a friend visited my office in early March 2010 to provide my husband and business partner and me with new information. Following the visit, I spent the next 10 hours researching wind turbines. That very day, after concluding my research, I was saddened but I became convinced there was credible evidence that wind turbines cause adverse health impacts for some people who live nearby. In the past, over five years, I have learned it is a global phenomenon that wind turbines make some people who live nearby sick and it is a dose response so these people become more ill over time.

My husband, who is now deceased, and I travelled to Australia and New Zealand in 2010-11 and subsequently created a film called Pandora’s Pinwheels: The Reality of Living with Wind Turbines. We then travelled around the world in 2012 and conducted interviews in 15 different countries. Most of the people we interviewed expressed that they were in favour of wind energy prior to wind turbine construction nearby. There are some common symptoms people the world over report who live and work too close to wind turbines. A good summary is found in the book Wind Turbine Syndrome: A Report on a Natural Experiment by Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD.

It does not matter whether people live in English-speaking countries or in countries where people do not speak English. People reported to us they are made sick when they live too close to wind turbines, no matter what country they live in. We interviewed people in both English-speaking countries and non-English-speaking countries alike who reported to us they were not ill prior to wind turbine construction nearby and after the wind turbines were operational nearby they were made sick.

We interviewed people in five countries — France, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Sweden — who either needed an interpreter to speak with us or who spoke broken English. Some locations were quite rural with little or no internet connection. Still, the people we interviewed through interpreters expressed the same symptoms, others the world over described to us. These people with no or limited internet connection even used similar phrases, analogies and gestures, as others did globally to describe their symptoms. What we actually found is most people are reluctant to speak about their health problems.

In the United States, there are privacy laws regarding medical information. Culturally, people do not openly discuss their health problems with strangers. We found this to be the case in the countries we visited around the world. It was a brave person who opened up to us about their health problems. Usually, the people we interviewed expressed they wanted to help others. If anything, people tended to minimise their symptoms of try to attribute the symptoms to other circumstances. Even when they acknowledged a common symptom such as sleep deprivation, many people who experienced additional common symptoms were reluctant to attribute these other symptoms to the wind turbines nearby. Furthermore, people the world over reported that they and their healthcare providers puzzled over health problems that appeared after wind turbines were constructed near their homes.

Many endured a huge battery of medical tasks to try to determine what the cause of their health problems were. The medical tasks, at a huge cost to the healthcare system, only ruled out various diseases. Typically, the cause of their sickness was not diagnosed by their healthcare professional. Frequently, we heard that the patients would be in a social situation with others in their neighbourhood and eventually people they knew well confided they had similar health problems that recently appeared, or after research online about a different topic these people reported stumbling upon the cause of their health problems, which were the wind turbines constructed nearby.

We even interviewed people who lived for 11 years near wind turbines in a non-English speaking country — and that was in 2012. Several people came to an interview to talk about their property devaluation. It was only during the interviews when they heard others speak about health problems that the people realised they had been suffering because they lived too close to wind turbines. One man in his 80s sobbed during his interview. He had been visiting his doctor for 11 years trying to figure out what was wrong with his health.

The woman who invited us to interview her and her neighbours learned about health problems from wind turbines when she saw the film I produced Pandora’s Pinwheels, with interviews conducted in Australia and New Zealand, that was translated into her language. These people needed an interpreter; they did not speak English. She told me that her husband had passed away in the not too distant past due to heart problems. Before he died, he had complained quite frequently of common health symptoms people living near wind turbines experience. Although they visited their doctor frequently, no-one could figure out why he was so sick. She thanked us because, in seeing our film, it helped her to understand what her husband had been going through and why. It gave her closure that she did not have prior to viewing our film.

Another person at the interview told us she had to hold on to the walls of her house some days in order to walk from room to room and felt nauseous frequently. She knew she was unwell in her home and abandoned it. She did not know why until she saw our film. She came back to the area for the interview because she wanted to tell the world that wind turbines made her so ill that she sold her home at a huge loss.

One of the people I have known for the past five years lives in Falmouth, Massachusetts, which is very close to where I live — it is an hour and a half away. In 2010, he had recently retired to his dream home of many years. He was in great physical health, very fit and has over a 20-year record of normal to low to blood pressure. Since the wind turbines have been constructed in Falmouth, Massachusetts, he has reported that his blood pressure skyrockets to heart attack and stroke levels when the wind is coming in the wrong direction for him.

In Falmouth there are three wind turbines that are 1.65 megawatts near this person’s home. This person’s doctor, whom he has seen over the past 20 years, is in the Boston area and his doctor has been quite blunt. The doctor has told the patient that his life is in danger and he must move. Unfortunately, the Falmouth resident is crushed and cannot bear to leave his dream home at this point in time. He goes to other locations when the wind is predicted to be coming from the wrong direction. Others we interviewed in many different countries told us similar stories. Many reported they have abandoned their homes, sold their homes at a huge loss, purchased other homes to live in when the wind is coming from the wrong direction or in order to sleep in, and others spend time away from their homes at a huge and unexpected expense. People considered their homes as sanctuaries prior to the construction of wind turbines nearby. Now their opinion is not the same.

We have interviewed people on three continents who live more than five miles from the nearest wind turbine and are sick since wind turbine construction. I contend that we need honest research to determine how far wind turbines need to be sited from people in order to do no harm. People report to us that over time their symptoms become more severe. Many report not experiencing ill effects for some time following wind turbine construction, meanwhile their spouse became ill the day the wind turbines nearby became operational. They speak of thinking they were one of the lucky ones at first, but after a number of months or years they become as ill as their spouse. Not one person who stayed near wind turbines reported to us that they got used to it or got better; they all became more ill over time.

Since we are dealing with a dose response, we do not know over the projected lifetime of a wind turbine — say, 20 to 25 years — how far from people it is necessary to site wind turbines. To me, it is just wrong to knowingly harm the health and safety of people. There are responsible solutions to environmental issues that do not impact the health and safety of people nearby. Our humanity is in question when we continue to knowingly harm others. I thank you for your time today. I sincerely hope that you do take active steps to help the people in your country who are suffering due to living and working too close to wind turbines, and I am glad to answer questions you may have.

CHAIR: Thank you.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Good morning, Ms Green — I suppose it is not morning there. Thank you for your submission —

Ms Green: No, it is Sunday evening here.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Sunday evening? I am sorry to being interrupting your evening.

Ms Green: I am glad to speak with you.

Senator LEYONHJELM: You have interviewed people in 15 countries, I think you said, under all different circumstances and so on. I appreciate we are not pretending this is a gold-plated, statistical survey, but I am interested in your impressions because I think you have more experience of this than any other witness we have heard from. What do you think, based on your experience, are the common factors in the people you have interviewed in different communities living near wind turbines? What are the common factors to all of them?

Ms Green: I think we seriously do not have enough research to understand this problem fully. We saw the same symptoms. Slide 17 that I submitted has a listing of the common symptoms that Dr Pierpont lists in her book. I really believe that we just do not have enough information yet. But throughout the interviews, country by country, people described the same symptoms. Many times they used the same phrases to describe them and the same gestures — and they were not speaking English. There is a common thread here.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Do you get the impression that not everybody exposed to wind turbines is affected the same? Have you seen evidence of substantial individual variation?

Ms Green: I have, indeed. Just as some people are more prone to asthma and some people are more prone to lung cancer, let’s say, or any disease, we did see a variation. It appeared that if there were people who were, say, prone to migraine headaches, they were severely affected. But, again, there were people who did not seem to have the symptoms who were living either in the same house or nearby. I do not know whether it is a question of time, if over 20 years people become more sensitised and they will become sick. Very frequently we did hear the same theme running through the stories of the people we interviewed, where, say, the husband thought he was one of the lucky ones and six months later he could not sleep, he was experiencing ear pressure, ear pain and severe headaches or other symptoms.

Senator LEYONHJELM: We are aware of community groups in English-speaking countries who have expressed opposition to wind turbines, but we are not aware of that sort of phenomenon in non-English speaking countries. Have you encountered that?

Ms Green: Yes, indeed. We travelled around the world. It was a 10-year goal. We had it very well planned out and we thought it was for pleasure. But people kept emailing us and asking us to come and interview them. So we met people in a lot of non-English speaking countries, and they were such nice people, I have to say. They had just about any profession you would like to mention. They just wanted to tell their story. Many times these people wanted to talk to us for other reasons such as their house had been devalued because the wind turbines were nearby. As they were listening to other people in the room talking about their health problems, these people realised that they had been struggling with the same illness since the wind turbines were constructed nearby. They had never made that correlation before; in fact, they were quite frustrated. They told us that they would go back and back continually to their healthcare provider and talk about these symptoms, and they could not find a resolution or a reason. As I said, there is one man I recall quite vividly just sobbing — and that was in 2012; he was in his 80s. He had realised that since the wind turbines had been constructed nearby he was experiencing these symptoms that were the common symptoms.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Some witnesses have suggested to us that there is a relationship between not only the distance their residence is from the turbine but also the power of the turbine, the size of the turbine. Have you been able to come to any conclusions on that or is that outside your interest area?

Ms Green: No, it is not outside my interest area. In fact, it is quite alarming to me, because I have interviewed people who live near wind turbines that you in Australia would probably consider to be quite small and solitary — wind turbines that are 100 kilowatts, even — and they are experiencing health problems, even people living near a 10-kilowatt wind turbine. Frankly, it is the nearest wind turbine to where I live, and a number of neighbours are having problems, and not just with the audible noise but with the infrasound and low-frequency noise, based upon the symptoms they are reporting to me. It really is quite alarming. In my state, Massachusetts, there is a woman who has told me she lives more than five miles from the nearest wind turbine and she is quite ill. The onset of her symptoms was when the wind turbine was constructed. When she went on trips she was fine; when she came back she was ill, and it has only become worse over time. That wind turbine is not as powerful as wind turbines in Australia, and it is a solitary wind turbine.

Again, we travelled quite a distance in France — mid-south-eastern France — over a number of days at the invitation of the people in the area and visited several different communities where there were wind turbines. One of the situations is that the wind turbine is 10 kilometres from one of the neighbours who is very ill and 12 kilometres from the other neighbour. The person who lives 12 kilometres away reported to us that she had been very supportive of the wind turbines. She is very well known as an environmentalist in the area, has quite a reputation as an environmentalist and is highly regarded. But she is quite ill, and it was very difficult for her to speak with us.

The other person related a story of trying to detect what the problem was because he could not sleep and was becoming so frustrated that he would go in his car to try to find the source of what was keeping him awake. He talked about going night after night until he went into the wilderness. He could not imagine what was there, and then he found the wind turbines. They were creating a humming noise in his head at that point. He could actually hear this frequency. In our discussions with researchers, medical professionals and scientists, one of the scientists told us that what people hear is mostly a bell curve — that is the way it was described to us. Most people hear audible noise within a certain range, but there are people who are more sensitive to noise, and they hear sounds that most people would consider inaudible.

Senator URQUHART: I have a lot of questions. I am not going to get through them all, so I am wondering whether you are able to take some on notice at the end.

Ms Green: I will try. I am very busy, but I will try.

Senator URQUHART: In your submission you say you run a healthcare consultancy. Do you have any qualifications in health care or medicine?

Ms Green: I have a background in education.

Senator URQUHART: What is the name of your company?

Ms Green: I do not want that on the record.

Senator URQUHART: Can I ask why?

Ms Green: I am speaking today as a private citizen. I would be glad to give you that information if it is held as in-confidence.

Senator URQUHART: Okay. How many employees do you have?

Ms Green: My husband has passed away. He was my business partner, and I have scaled back the business. I am the only employee at this point in time. However, I will tell you that I have created in our company, with teams of people, educational programs that have been implemented throughout the United States. One of the oncology programs that was created by my team, which was quite a large team, interviewed over 100 oncology patients throughout the United States and numerous doctors and nurses and was mandatory for all of the nurses in the Kaiser health system in California.

Senator URQUHART: In your submission you say that 300,000 physicians have undertaken training through your company.

Ms Green: That is correct.

Senator URQUHART: What are the products or services? Is it communication? What is it that you actually sell?

Ms Green: There is a number of different core competencies in our company. One is developing educational programs around different disease states, such as oncology, diabetes, heart disease and various other disease states. Another path we have taken is to develop a service quality initiative. My husband was an extraordinary speaker and was often the keynote speaker for national conferences in all sectors of the healthcare industry.

Senator URQUHART: In your opening statement you talked about how you had interviewed many people from various countries. I could not find any of the transcripts, either in your submission or online. I am sorry if I have missed them.

Ms Green: You have not missed them. In the company we are still in the process of editing the films. It is a huge undertaking of many months, at huge expense. There is a lot of information that is still being edited.

Senator URQUHART: Are you able to provide copies of the transcripts and the full names of the people you interviewed?

Ms Green: No. It is on film; it is videotaped interviews, and the film is being edited.

Senator URQUHART: You talked about how you undertook the research after you had new information from people within your area who were concerned about wind farms. Was that the purpose of the interviews?

Ms Green: No. In my town, one month after we learned that our energy committee wanted to put a 1.65 wind turbine in our town — and we had conducted the research and people in our town were quite concerned — our board of selectmen, which is like your town councils, decided to not move forward with the project. I am on my energy committee, as secretary, and we are devising a plan to become 100 per cent electrical energy efficient without wind energy but using other alternative methods. Are you asking me what propels me to do the interviews?

Senator URQUHART: Yes. I guess my real reasoning was whether the purpose of the interviews was to inform the body of research on international attitudes to wind farms. Is that why —

Ms Green: No. It is not an attitude; it is to understand the realities of living near wind turbines — living, working, attending school, being incarcerated near wind turbines.

What happened was that my stepson was living in Australia and we went to Australia at the end of 2010. I knew there was a location called Waubra and I had seen the Dean report that had been recently published. I put out one little email asking ‘Do you happen to be in the Melbourne area and is it possible to meet some of the people that are living near the wind turbines at Waubra? Is it possible to see the Waubra area?’

It was amazing that I was connected with the people in that area of Australia. My husband and I drove to the area and we interviewed over 17 people in one day. They welcomed us into their homes. We did not know what to expect. We turned the camera on and we asked them questions, and they told us their story. We had no idea what we were going to find. We went to New Zealand and people emailed us after they had heard we had been to Waubra. They asked us if we would come and visit them and interview them. We did that in two different locations in New Zealand. When we came home we put together this film called Pandora’s Pinwheels —

Senator URQUHART: You interviewed people —

Ms Green: We just thought we would go back to Waubra and talk to the people at Waubra because we had been emailing them over the year. People around the world kept on emailing us and asking us to come and interview them.

Senator URQUHART: So you conducted interviews in 15 countries, as I understand it from your submission. Is that how you got the contact information on the people you interviewed?

Ms Green: I do not understand your question. Everywhere we were travelling people kept on emailing us and contacting us and asking if we would come and interview them and talk with them. They wanted to go on camera and tell their story. We had no agenda; we had no plan. We work in the healthcare industry; we talk about various illnesses and disease states, and we educate doctors and nurses about disease states. I am sorry; I want to retract that: we find a cross-section where patients are having issues with the communication around their disease state, and the doctors and nurses are having issues around communicating with their patients. We find those intersections and help doctors and nurses better communicate with the patients. So we are trying to improve patient care. That is what we do as one of the core competencies of our business.

When we found the health problems with the wind turbines and when we saw in every country we visited that people were saying the same thing, we wanted to get that word out to people like you who are hearing from your constituents that they are having health problems. That is all I want to do — to provide you with the truth.

Senator DAY: Ms Green, as you might imagine, we have received submissions from hundreds of people who have reported adverse health impacts and yet we are being accused of trying to destroy the wind industry. We are being accused of rigging this inquiry and of being engaged in a political stitch up. What has been your experience with such hostility towards genuine inquiry?

Ms Green: I really do not have a response for you, Senator. I have heard a lot of stories from people and I have experiences myself, but I really do not have a response on that topic.

Senator DAY: Okay. I will follow up then: you say that a number of governments around the world are realising there is a need for more or better regulation surrounding the wind energy industry. Which governments are doing better in this area, in your opinion?

Ms Green: I know that in my state, I have a new governor and my governor has a background in health care, and I am expecting that my governor understands that people do have health problems when they live and work too close to wind turbines in my state.

Senator BACK: Ms Green, I have just one quick question; I know that we are over time. In Australia, we are proceeding to have independent medical research undertaken for the first time. One of the proposals put to us is that they try and simulate this effect of either noise or infrasound, and do so in a one-off exposure in a clinically sterile circumstance for exposure times of somewhere between 10 to 30 minutes and an hour. From what you have learned and heard — and from interviewing people — do you think there would be anything to be learned in exposing somebody for a very limited period of time, and once only, in a sort of laboratory-type circumstance? Do you believe that is likely to lead to any reasonable outcome or result that we might be able to use?

Ms Green: Senator, I am not a researcher or a doctor. But given what I have heard from people and what people have reported to me, I find it highly unlikely that that would have any results that would have any validity.

Senator BACK: Thank you.

CHAIR: Thank you for evidence today to the committee, Ms Green. You will receive questions on notice and if you are able to come back to us with answers to those, that would be appreciated.

Ms Green: Absolutely. I would like to thank the committee; the chair, Senator Madigan, and the members of the committee, and also to thank you, Graham.

CHAIR: Thank you, Ms Green.

Hansard 29, June 2015

Ms Green’s evidence is available on the Parliament’s website here. And her submission to the Inquiry is available here (sub467_Green).

Ordinarily, STT has let the Senate’s witnesses do the talking, but the Inquisition launched by Labor’s Anne Urquhart is, self-evidently, worthy of a little passing comment.

That her questions were virulently loaded in favour of the wind power fraud, is largely a product of the fact that the vast bulk of them were drawn up by wind industry parasites and spruikers; like Andrew Brayfrom the Australian Wind Alliance and/or Leigh Ewbank from the Enemies of the Earth – who, during the Inquiry’s hearings, fed Urquhart with a constant stream of pointed fact-dodging, ‘Dorothy Dixers’ – directed to her iPad – in an infantile effort to protect their pay-masters’ interests.

Having adopted her usual tactic throughout the hearings – of trying to shoot the messenger because they did not hold highly relevant qualifications, such as journalism or sociology degrees – Urquhart – in a fit of disgust – drills Lilli-Anne about the obviously “insidious” purpose of the interviews that she’s carried out around the world.

And, from her – rabid-dog-with-a-bone – line of questioning, it’s apparent that Urquhart was utterly horrified that Lilli-Anne had the unmitigated temerity to interview ANYONE, ANYWHERE at ALL. This outrage would have never been sanctioned if Urquhart – and the other apparatchiks from the Ministry of Truth – had known about it.

You see, the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers – like Urquhart – cannot abide even the merest possibility that facts and evidence might see the light of day.

Suppression, obfuscation, denial – and, when all that fails – downright lying, characterises the wind industry; and all those that supp from the same subsidy trough.

Thankfully, however, those good Senators – not in the pay or thrall of the wind industry – were able to defeat efforts – by the likes of Urquhart – to suppress the truth; and, to thereby, maintain the stinking status quo.

The Wind Scam in Germany, (and elsewhere), Keeps on Getting Worse….

August 15, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Germany’s Wind Power Surges Plunge Their Neighbours Into Darkness

August 15, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

The economics of Germany’s “Energiewende” are so bizarre, that you’d think it had been put together by the GDR’s ‘brains trust’, before the Berlin Wall took its tumble in 1989.

In Germany, around €100 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.

Squandering €18 billion a year on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar?

The answer is: NOT MUCH: Germans Spend 100s of €Billions on their “Energiewende” & Get Only 3% of their Power in Return

But that’s merely to focus on the insane cost to German power consumers and taxpayers – and the meagre returns for their hundreds of €billions in subsidies – of what can only be described as an energy market fiasco.

At a more practical – and to power punters more significant – level chaotic unpredictable surges in wind power output have brought the German grid to the brink of collapse:

Germany’s Wind Power Debacle Escalates: Nation’s Grid on the Brink of Collapse

Unable to build any further transmission capacity of its own – principally because Germans are fed up with having their bucolic homeland turned into an industrial wasteland – not to mention the colossal and wholly unnecessary cost of building a duplicated network simply to take occasional bursts of wind power output – Germany is dumping power into its neighbours’ grids.

The result is that their Czech, Polish, Dutch, Belgian and French neighbours’ grids are being swamped with excess power – whenever the wind picks up in Germany’s North – resulting in grid instability and blackouts.

Germany has – from time to time – been a somewhat boisterous neighbour. With Germany dumping excess wind power on an unscheduled basis – into grids which are simply not designed to take rapid increases in volume – neighbours are fuming again about German arrogance and the cost of accommodating it.

Here’s a couple of takes on yet another aspect of Germany’s wind power disaster.

Germany’s Neighbors Rankled by Its Energiewende
The American Interest
4 August 2015

The German energy mix has been radically changed in recent years, predominantly driven by two forces: a desire to expand renewables’ market share (a task accomplished by generous state subsidies called feed-in tariffs), and an aversion to nuclear power following the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Within Germany these changes have had a number of perhaps unforeseen and certainly unfortunate consequences, including jacked-up power bills for businesses and households and, somewhat bizarrely, an increased reliance on the particularly dirty type of coal called lignite. But the ripple effects of Berlin’s energiewende are expanding past national boundaries, and, as Politico reports, Germany’s neighbors are finding their own grids strained by intermittent solar and wind production:

The country’s move away from nuclear power and increase in production of wind or solar energy has pushed it to the point where its existing power grids can’t always cope. And it’s the Czech Republic, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium and France that have taken the brunt.

“If there is a strong blow of the wind in the North, we get it, we have the blackout,” Martin Povejšil, the Permanent Representative of the Czech Republic to the EU said at a briefing in Brussels recently.

Germany has failed to beef up its energy transmission infrastructure at the same pace as its burgeoning solar and wind industries, that is, and on especially sunny and windy days it relies on the hospitality of its neighbors to distribute those supplies. Poland and the Czech Republic have been forced to pony up $180 million “to protect their systems from German power surges”, while within Germany itself NIMBY-ism is preventing the construction of some key transmission lines.

When examining the costs of boosting renewables, it’s a big mistake to leave out the expense of building out the grids needed to handle production. Germany seems to have made just that error with its energiewende, and central Europe is struggling to cope.
The American Interest

German winds make Central Europe shiver: Junking nuclear power is creating problems for Germany’s neighbors.
Politico
Kalina Oroschakoff
3 August 2015

Germany’s shift to renewable energy has been hailed as an historic policy move — but its neighbors don’t like it.

Germany’s north-south power lines have too limited a capacity to carry all the power that is produced from wind turbines along the North Sea to industrial states like Bavaria or Baden-Württemberg and onto Austria. That means the extra electricity is shunted through the Czech Republic and Poland.

To put an end to the often unexpected power flows from Germany — so-called loop flows — the countries are taking the matter into their own hands. Concerned about the stability of their own grids, additional costs and the ability to export their own power, the Czechs, for example, are installing devices to block the power from 2016 onwards.

Poland is also working on the devices, known as phase shifters, and expects to have some operating this year. To the west, the Netherlands, Belgium and France have also installed phase shifters to deal with the flows.

These separate moves come as Brussels pushes for integration of Europe’s energy markets. The struggle shows how the drive toward more renewables, combined with outdated infrastructure and inconsistent cooperation within the EU, is having unintended consequences.

“In the past, with coal and nuclear power plants, the power system was extremely predictable. Now, with ever more renewable energy coming online, the system isn’t as predictable anymore, which can cause challenges also for the single market debate,” said Joanna Maćkowiak Pandera, a senior associate with German think tank Agora Energiewende.

“We have been telling that to the Germans, ‘Increase your transmission system, or we will shut you off’,” an EU diplomat said at a briefing in Brussels recently.

Power loop flows occur when a country’s power grid infrastructure isn’t sufficient to handle new production, so the electricity is automatically diverted through neighboring countries on its way to its destination in the producing country.

“This also leads to congestion in neighboring systems,” said Georg Zachmann of the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank, adding that to deal with the situation countries can also reduce their own electricity exports to South Germany to make space for the German power. That, however, means that Germany’s energy transition is affecting the export potential of countries like the Czech Republic and France.

Pressure is building on Germany to expand its north-south connection. But the idea has aroused local opposition in Bavaria, with residents unwilling to see their picturesque countryside spoiled by unsightly transmission towers.

“If we want to have a growing share of renewables, we must build the grids,” Walter Boltz, vice chair of the regulators board of the EU’s Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER), told POLITICO.

The simplest solution, he said, would be for Germany to build up the necessary links. But that will take time. Alternatively, Germany could simply shut down wind power on highly productive days. But the country’s current policy stands in the way.

“It’s an uncomfortable problem and has to do with Germany’s irrational priority dispatch policy under which you cannot shut down renewables,” Boltz said.

Germany’s neighbors aren’t immune from criticism on the issue.

Poland, for instance, could also consume the power it imports from Germany, something it resists to shield its own industry, Boltz said. Further, Poland’s grids needed expansion, he said.

More cooperation

Germany, for its part, has stepped up cooperation with its neighbors to remedy the issue.

Energy Secretary Rainer Baake recently addressed criticism that Germany’s energy transition was an unilateral policy move, Germanmedia reported, saying, “People in this country and also outside of Germany who believe this must be some kind of act of re-nationalization of energy policy […] could not be more wrong.”

In 2014, German transmission operators agreed with the Czechs to regulate cross-border power flows to protect the Czech grid from overloading and reduce the danger of blackouts. A similar agreement was struck between the Polish and German sides.

On a political level in June, Germany signed a pact with 11 “electrical” neighbors, including France, Poland and the Czech Republic, to promote the integration of the respective power markets, counter overcapacity and let the market determine power prices.

Still, Poland’s regulator last year sent a letter to the ACER, asking it to come forward with an opinion on the loop flows from Germany. The response is expected in September.

In 2013, the agency issued an opinion on unscheduled loop flows, concluding that “in most cases these flows are a threat to a secure and efficient functioning of the Internal Electricity Market.”

Energy mix is a national policy

The situation is delicate for the Czech Republic and Poland, which have long insisted that choosing whether power should be generated by solar, wind, coal, nuclear or other ways remains a national issue, not one for Brussels.

So Germany is free to make decisions about how to generate electricity, in this case to shut down its nuclear plants.

Brussels has stepped up efforts to connect the bloc’s energy markets, with the European Commission in a policy paper in February stressing “the interconnection of the electricity markets must be a political priority.”

The Commission released an initial plan in mid-July about how to build a borderless power market that can deal with the rise in renewables. Draft legislation is expected in 2016.

“We haven’t developed the grids,” the EU bloc’s energy chief Miguel Arias Cañete told POLITICO last month, adding that while there has been a lot of investment in renewables, grids aren’t up to standard. That’s also why Brussels is keen on increasing cross-border power interconnections.

It’s making political and financial efforts to finally link up at least 10 percent of the EU’s installed electricity production capacity by 2020.

But it’s a long slog to connect the bloc: EU countries had originally pledged that target in 2002.
Politico

The Wind Scam Proves to be a Huge Waste of Money!

August 13, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Germans Spend 100s of €Billions on their “Energiewende” & Get Only 3% of their Power in Return

August 13, 2015 by stopthesethings Leave a Comment

The Germans are rueing the day the bought into the great wind power fraud.

The Germans went into wind power harder and faster than anyone else – and the cost of doing so is catching up with a vengeance. The subsidies have been colossal, the impacts on the electricity market chaotic and – contrary to the environmental purpose of the policy – CO2 emissions are rising fast: if “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed (see our post here).

Some 800,000 German homes have been disconnected from the grid – victims of what is euphemistically called “fuel poverty”. In response, Germans have picked up their axes and have headed to their forests in order to improve their sense of energy security – although foresters apparently take the view that this self-help measure is nothing more than blatant timber theft (see our post here).

German manufacturers – and other energy intensive industries – faced with escalating power bills are packing up and heading to the USA – where power prices are 1/3 of Germany’s (see our posts here and hereand here). And the “green” dream of creating thousands of jobs in the wind industry has turned out to be just that: a dream (see our post here).

The ‘gloss’ has well and truly worn off Germany’s wind power ‘Supermodel’ status – as communities fight back against having thousands of these things speared into their backyards – and for all the same reasons communities are fighting back all over the world; those with a head for numbers have called the fraud for what it is; and medicos have called for a complete moratorium on the construction of new wind farms in an effort to protect their patients and quarantine their professional liability:

Germany’s Wind Power ‘Dream’ Becomes a Living Nightmare

German Medicos Demand Moratorium on New Wind Farms

And, on a practical level, those in charge of Germany’s power grid have stepped up calls for an end to the lunacy of trying to absorb a wholly weather dependent generation source into what was never designed to deal with the chaos presented on a daily basis:

Germany’s Wind Power Debacle Escalates: Nation’s Grid on the Brink of Collapse

And the economics are so bizarre, that you’d think its “Energiewende” policy had been put together by the GDR’s ‘brains trust’, before the Berlin Wall took its tumble in 1989.

Squandering €18 billion on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar?

The answer is: NOT MUCH.

Germany gets only 3.3% of its energy consumption from wind and solar. Ignore the headlines
Carbon Counter
Robert Wilson
31 July 2015

“Give a man a reputation as an early riser and he can sleep til noon” – Mark Twain.

There is apparently no greater leader on climate change than Germany. Here is some evidence. This country will build almost 11 GW of new coal power plants this decade, and is in the process of licensing new lignite coal mines. It prematurely shut down 8 zero-carbon nuclear power plants in 2011, closed another one this year, and will prematurely close all remaining nuclear power plants by 2022. Germans have reassured themselves by turning from the disturbing vision of the split atom to the nostalgia of coal fires.

But where does Germany’s climate change reputation come from? It certainly does not come from achievements in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This decade Germany’s emissions have been essentially flat, and Germany is on course to come a long way short of meeting its 2020 national targets for emissions reductions.

This planet saving reputation instead comes from what Germany has supposedly achieved with renewables. The German renewables revolution is apparently in full gear. If you want to understand what is happening in the world it is better to ignore adjectives and instead count.

Counting is instructive about the realities of renewables in Germany. According to the most recent data, Germany got only 3.3% of its final energy consumption from wind and solar installation (Eurostat data for 2013 available here and here).

Does that sound like a revolution? Obviously not.

The 3.3% figure above tells us that renewables are in fact marginal to Germany’s energy system. So where does this idea that there is a renewables revolution in Germany come from?

The answer is easy to find by googling and searching social media. This will immediately lead you to the following type of headline:

Germany Just Got 78 Percent Of Its Electricity From Renewable Sources

Another popular variant are headlines about German solar output exceeding 50% of electricity demand. The obvious problem with these headlines is that many people come to the mistaken conclusion that these record highs are somehow representative of what goes on the rest of the time. They are not.

Let’s quantify this. The record high renewables output (which included biomass and hydro, a fact rarely pointed out) occurred on the 25th July. Total wind and solar output was around about 39 GW according toFraunhofer ISE data.

How often does this happen? This is relatively easy to find out. All we need to do is add up all hourly wind and solar output and see how it is distributed throughout the year.

I have done this in the graph below. Hourly output was rounded to the nearest gigawatt. I have then added up the number of hours when total wind and solar output fell under each GW bracket. Each bracket covers the average output over an individual hour, in GW.

In total we have about 40 brackets, starting at 0 GW. Yes, German wind and solar falls to zero gigawatts, rounded to the nearest gigawatt. Resist that temptation to write “German wind and solar now meeting 0.1% of Germany energy needs” headlines.

Mean hourly output of German wind and solar was 9.6 GW in 2014, while the median output was 8 GW. The maximum output was almost 39 GW; four times greater than the average, no matter how you define the average.

Furthermore, total wind and solar output was above 30 GW only 2.1% of the time. It was above 25 GW only 9.6% of the time.

The heavily skewed distribution shown above has clearly lead to heavily skewed perceptions about German renewables.

So each time you see headlines about record high renewables output remember this: average output of combined German wind and solar is roughly one quarter of these record highs, and German wind and solar is still just over 3% of final energy consumption in Germany.
Carbon Counter

Aussies Fighting Back Against the Irresponsible Wind Industry!

August 12, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

An extract from the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines Final Report

Posted on 3:21 pm, August 7, 2015 by Sinclair Davidson

Professor Chapman and his critics

2.19 Professor Simon Chapman AO, Professor of Public Health at the University of Sydney, has been an outspoken critic of those who suffer ill-effects from wind turbines. In both his written and oral submissions, Professor Chapman cited many of his own publications in support for his view that:

…the phenomenon of people claiming to be adversely affected by exposure to wind turbines is best understood as a communicated disease that exhibits many signs of the classic psychosocial and nocebo phenomenon where negative expectations can translate into symptoms of tension and anxiety.

2.20 Several highly qualified and very experienced professionals have challenged this argument. Dr Malcolm Swinbanks, an acoustical engineer based in the United Kingdom, reasoned:

The argument that adverse health reactions are the result of nocebo effects, ie a directly anticipated adverse reaction, completely fails to consider the many cases where communities have initially welcomed the introduction of wind turbines, believing them to represent a clean, benign form of low-cost energy generation. It is only after the wind-turbines are commissioned, that residents start to experience directly the adverse nature of the health problems that they can induce.

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

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

2.22 Professor Chapman has made several claims which are contrary to the evidence gathered by this committee. First, he argues that the majority of Australia’s wind turbines have never received a single complaint. There are various problems with this statement:

wind turbines located significant distances from residents will not generate complaints;
many residents suffering adverse health effects were not aware of any nexus between their health and the impact of wind turbines in order to make a complaint;
just because residents do not lodge a formal complaint does not mean they are not suffering adverse health effects;
data obtained by Professor Chapman from wind farm operators of the numbers of complaints lodged cannot be relied upon; and
the use of non-disclosure clauses and ‘good neighbour agreements’ legally restricts people from making adverse public statements or complaints.

2.23 Second, Professor Chapman has argued that complaints of adverse health effects from wind turbines tend to be limited to Anglophone nations. However, the committee has received written and oral evidence from several sources directly contradicting this view. The German Medical Assembly recently submitted a motion to the executive board of the German Medical Association calling for the German government to provide the necessary funding to research adverse health effects. This would not have happened in the absence of community concern. Moreover, Dr Bruce Rapley has argued that in terms of the limited number—and concentrated nature—of wind farm complaints:

It is the reporting which is largely at fault. The fact is that people are affected by this, and the numbers are in the thousands. I only have to look at the emails that cross my desk from all over the world. I get bombarded from the UK, Ireland, France, Canada, the United States, Australia, Germany. There are tonnes of these things out there but, because the system does not understand the problem, nor does it have a strategy, many of those complaints go unlisted.

2.24 Third, Professor Chapman has queried that if turbines are said to have acute, immediate effects on some people, why were there no such reports until recent years given that wind turbines have operated in different parts of the world for over 25 years. Several submissions to the committee have stated that adverse health effects from wind turbines do not necessarily have an acute immediate effect and can take time to manifest.

2.25 Fourth, Professor Chapman contests that people report symptoms from even micro-turbines. The committee heard evidence that once people are sensitised to low frequency infrasound, they can be affected by a range of noise sources, including large fans used in underground coal mines, coal fired power stations, gas fired power stations and even small wind turbines. As acoustician Dr Bob Thorne told the committee:

Low-frequency noise from large fans is a well-known and well-published issue, and wind turbines are simply large fans on top of a big pole; no more, no less. They have the same sort of physical characteristics; it is just that they have some fairly unique characteristics as well. But annoyance from low-frequency sound especially is very well known.

2.26 Fifth, Professor Chapman contends that there are apparently only two known examples anywhere in the world of wind turbine hosts complaining about the turbines on their land. However, there have been several Australian wind turbine hosts who have made submissions to this inquiry complaining of adverse health effects. Paragraphs 2.11–2.12 (above) noted the example of Mr Clive Gare and his wife from Jamestown. Submitters have also directed attention to the international experience. In Texas in 2014, twenty-three hosts sued two wind farm companies despite the fact that they stood to gain more than $50 million between them in revenue. The committee also makes the point that contractual non-disclosure clauses and ‘good neighbour’ agreements have significantly limited hosts from speaking out. This was a prominent theme of many submissions.

2.27 Sixth, Professor Chapman claims that there has been no case series or even single case studies of so-called wind turbine syndrome published in any reputable medical journal. But Professor Chapman does not define ‘reputable medical journal’ nor does he explain why the category of journals is limited to medical (as distinct, for example, from scientific or acoustic). The committee cannot therefore challenge this assertion. However, the committee does note that a decision to publish—or not to publish—an article in a journal is ultimately a business decision of the publisher: it does not necessarily reflect the quality of the article being submitted, nor an acknowledgment of the existence or otherwise of prevailing circumstances. The committee also notes that there exist considerable published and publicly available reports into adverse health effects from wind turbines.

2.28 The committee also notes that a peer reviewed case series crossover study involving 38 people was published in the form of a book by American paediatrician Dr Nina Pierpont, PhD, MD. Dr Pierpont’s Report for Clinicians and the raw case data was submitted by her to a previous Australian Senate inquiry (2011) to which Dr Pierpont also provided oral testimony. Further, at a workshop conducted by the NHMRC in June 2011, acoustical consultant Dr Geoffrey Leventhall stated that the symptoms of ‘wind turbine syndrome’ (as identified by Dr Pierpont), and what he and other acousticians refer to as ‘noise annoyance’, were the same. Dr Leventhall has also acknowledged Dr Pierpont’s peer reviewed work in identifying susceptibility or risk factors for developing wind turbine syndrome / ‘noise annoyance’. Whilst Dr Leventhall is critical of some aspects of Dr Pierpont’s research, he does state:

Pierpont has made one genuine contribution to the science of environmental noise, by showing that a proportion of those affected have underlying medical conditions, which act to increase their susceptibility.

2.29 Seventh, Professor Chapman claims that no medical practitioner has come forward with a submission to any committee in Australia about having diagnosed disease caused by a wind farm. Again, Professor Chapman fails to define ‘disease’. Nonetheless, both this committee, and inquiries undertaken by two Senate Standing Committees, have received oral and written evidence from medical practitioners contrary to Professor Chapman’s claim.

2.30 Eighth, Professor Chapman claims that there is not a single example of an accredited acoustics, medical or environmental association which has given any credence to direct harmful effects of wind turbines. The committee notes that the semantic distinction between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ effects is not helpful. Dr Leventhall and the NHMRC describe stress, anxiety and sleep deprivation as ‘indirect’ effects, but these ailments nonetheless affect residents’ health.

2.31 Finally, Professor Chapman queries why there has never been a complainant that has succeeded in a common-law suit for negligence against a wind farm operator. This statement is simply incorrect. The committee is aware of court judgements against wind farm operators, operators making out of court settlements or withdrawing from proceedings, injunctions or shutdown orders being granted against operators, and properties adjacent to wind turbines being purchased by operators to avoid future conflict. The committee also reiterates its earlier point that contractual non-disclosure clauses have discouraged legal action by victims.

Once Again, Those Amazing Aussies are Fighting Back!

August 12, 2015August 12, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Three Magnificent Women Take On Australia’s Monstrous Wind Power Outfits & their Pathetic Political Backers

August 12, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

The wind industry in Australia is in full-scale panic because the recently completed Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud turned a (long-overdue) blowtorch on the biggest rort in Australian history, with their thumping report on Australia’s wind power fraud – available here: Senate Report

The first 200 pages involve a detailed and thorough analysis of every aspect of the most ludicrous piece of energy ‘policy’ ever devised; the balance – written by the wind industry – and headed ‘Labor’s dissenting report’ – requires the suspension of our good friends, ‘logic’ and reason’, in order to digest.

Last Tuesday, STT Champion, Alan Jones picked up on the recommendations – first, on his 2GB breakfast radio show and, later, on Sky News – on ‘Richo + Jones’.

Alan’s morning radio show reaches some 2 million listeners through over 77 Stations, Countrywide; Sky New’s ‘Richo + Jones’ is a top rater, amongst politicians and pundits of all persuasions. So, when AJ, talks – those in power tend to listen.

Along with applauding the efforts of the Senators on the Inquiry, Alan interviewed three of the most courageous, magnificent and stoic Australians of modern times – in Sonia Trist, Jan Hetherington and Annie Gardner. Each of them are entirely unnecessary victims of Australia’s great wind power fraud; and all of them are fighting back.

****

Sonia Trist had her beautiful seaside home stolen by union super fund backed, Pacific Hydro – aided and abetted by the Federal government’s mandatory Renewable Energy Target:

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

Jan Hetherington and Annie Gardner have the misfortune of trying to live next door to AGL’s Macarthur wind farm disaster; suffering the daily onslaught of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound from 140 3MW, Vestas V112s.

In modern times, we’re told that the internet is all; when it comes to spreading news and telling peoples’ stories. However, take your time to listen to this little broadcast which demonstrates that – in the hands of a master – radio has lost none of its awesome power to convey human dignity, grace, strength and suffering. STT commends it as one very powerful piece of media.

Alan Jones AO: Well the final report of the latest Senate inquiry into wind farms has been tabled in the Parliament. It’s urged that the Parliament should draw up National rules restricting how wind farms are built and operated and punish States that don’t accept them.

The final report, published yesterday evening by the Senate Committee in wind farms puts forward a range of measures to curb them, including recommendations to reduce support for projects under the National Renewable Energy Target. The report recommended subsidies to new wind farms be limited to 5 years rather than the current period of 20 years.

This is ridiculous isn’t it? Subsidies to wind farms. There are mechanics, and bakers and taxi owners and hire car owners all listening to me this morning-businesses everywhere listening to this program – they don’t get any subsidies at all. Why should foreign-owned wind farms get 2 cents?

But the Clean Energy Council, wind energy’s peak body says ‘limiting wind farm subsidies to 5 years will destroy the future of the industry’. How can an outfit make any sort of claim to commercial viability if its unable to survive without 20 years of subsidies? And a government, which is operating on borrowed money?

Amid the recommendations is a proposal that an independent scientific panel be established which would have the power to block new projects being registered by the government, if it believed human health was at risk. The panel would help draw up “National wind farm guidelines” which the Federal government would introduce and ask State governments to adopt. The guidelines will include – and this by the way is just the Senate Committee’s recommendation- would include National standards on wind farms for infrasound, vibrations, air craft safety, indigenous heritage, birds and bats, shadow flicker, fire risk, electromagnetic interference and blade glint, amongst other things. Remember amazingly wind farms are currently approved and none of these receive any consideration.

The committee recommends that if a State government didn’t accept the new National measure for infrasound and low frequency noise, the Committee recommends that wind projects built in those States should not get Renewable Energy Certificates, that is, money. Yours. Unbelievable. Money – which subsidises these wind farms.

But cop this, this is the ultimate kick in the guts from Canberra. A spokesman for the Environment Minister Greg Hunt said ‘The government had no plans to make further changes to the Renewable Energy Target’. In other words the Senate committee all party committee can get stuffed. In one hit the recommendation seemed to be ruled out. Shouldn’t be available if they’re operated in States which don’t comply with new National noise rules. Remember noise guidelines are a State issue and a number of States refuse to agree to a National noise standard at the last COAG Meeting. Believe me, this renewable energy stuff is money down the drain. The cost of it with subsidies is exorbitant and you’ll pay by your electricity bills or if you’re a business, via your energy costs. And without subsidies this whole industry is not viable.

Yes it’d be nice to have clean quiet cheap energy, a bulk supply of it – everyone would love that, but the reality is that it doesn’t exist. There are wind and solar generators being built all over the world and they only add a small amount to the overall power demand and this is all because of a problem with carbon dioxide. And this is all happening because there’s a Paris conference coming up. And you know the story about carbon dioxide the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.04% of all gases. 97% of of that 0.04 of a percent, is naturally occurring. You can’t effect it. Only 3% of it, 0.04 of a percent is caused by human activity. And we, Australia, are responsible for 1% of that 3%. What are we doing? Spending billions of dollars and Bill Shorten says well we’ll have 50% renewable energy, 50% by 2030. Utterly unaffordable, impossible to implement.

And Tony Abbott said when he became Prime Minister he wasn’t going to be chasing Holden up the road with a blank cheque. Why are we chasing foreign owned wind turbine companies up the road with a blank cheque?

Now the problem here is we’ve got ground-breaking research from Germany on low frequency infrasound which concludes that ‘exposure to infrasound below the range of hearing stimulates parts of the brain that warn of danger’. German research. Only a couple of months old. That human beings can ‘hear sounds lower than had been assumed and the mechanisms of sound perception are much more complex than previously thought’. Scientists in Japan have measured brain function and reported last year – it showed the brains of Japanese wind turbine workers could not achieve a relaxed state. In Tehran a study of 45 people, found that despite all the ‘good benefits’ of wind turbines, it can be stated, this technology has health risks. The German project leader, Christian Cox said, ‘it’s been agreed that infrasound is perceived by human beings and it represents an unknown hazard to human health’.

Well, the people who complain to me in droves are fools, idiots and ignored. Thank God they’re women because women don’t take no for an answer. I’ve got women here who have suffered. Sonia Trist is on the line – Sonia good morning.

Sonia Trist: Good morning Alan.

Alan Jones AO: So you are 620m wind farms from your kitchen window.

Sonia Trist: From my closest wind turbine, yes.

Alan Jones AO: And your Federal member is this Dan Tehan – who is nowhere to be seen.

Sonia Trist: Dan Tehan, nowhere to be seen.

Alan Jones AO: You’ve written to him, no answers.

Sonia Trist: Repeatedly, yes.

Alan Jones AO: Repeatedly. And this Pacific Hydro mob are at Cape Bridgewater, they’ve got 29 wind generators.

Sonia Trist: They certainly have, yes.

Alan Jones AO: And it impacts on you in disturbing and harmful ways.

Sonia Trist: Most certainly, most certainly, extremely disturbing.

Alan Jones AO: But you’re just a dumb complainant.

Sonia Trist: Well, I think one thing that you learn Alan, when you lived near these things for a while, If you can possibly, possibly keep breathing, you don’t give up. And you were saying, you sort of cast a shadow on the possibility of the Senator’s recommendations getting through, well I’ve learned to look at it a different way, I think they’ve opened the window to – they’ve revealed so much, that worked so hard, they’ve open the window to the next step that we have to take, this is a journey.

Alan Jones AO: Sonia, you said something very significant, she wrote to me Sonia, and she said, ‘subsequent generations won’t march in our memory – surrounded by fields of concrete, cabling, collapsed towers and fragmenting fibreglass blades we’ve created layers of industrial graffiti across rural Australia. What a monument to progress in a young country’.

Just hang on Sonia, I’ve got Jan Hetherington on the line. Jan Good morning.

****

Jan Hetherington: Oh hello Alan.

Alan Jones AO: You’ve suffered a range of ailments, haven’t you?

Jan Hetherington: I have yes, I have.

Alan Jones AO: No one wants to listen to you.

Jan Hetherington: No, nobody wants to listen to me.

Alan Jones AO: You paid $10,000 for testing in your own home.

Jan Hetherington: I did, yes, yes.

Alan Jones AO: You wake up 4-5 times a night.

Jan Hetherington: Yes, yes.

Alan Jones AO: You wake up with vibrations in your body and your eyes are wobbly.

Jan Hetherington: Yes, yes.

Alan Jones AO: You said the impact on human physiology from low frequency noise has been known for over 50 years.

Jan Hetherington: That’s right.

Alan Jones AO: And you’ve reported to authorities all these studies.

Jan Hetherington: Yes.

Alan Jones AO: And that they have frequent noise and infrasound creates nausea. You’ve talked about vertigo-like symptoms.

Jan Hetherington: Yes.

Alan Jones AO: No one wants to know.

Jan Hetherington: No, nobody does.

Alan Jones AO: AGL are the people that you have been dealing with – they ignore you.

Jan Hetherington: Yes, they do. I send in many, many complaints and I …

Alan Jones AO: In fact you’ve written to them, you’ve written to all senators and all Federal MPs.

Jan Hetherington: That’s right. and I don’t hear from a lot of them. There’s only the, well only about 4 or 5 that are interested in it – and Senator Madigan and Leyonhjelm and Senator Back and what have you – they are interested. Our local member Dan Tehan, couldn’t ..

Alan Jones AO: Unbelievable this bloke, this bloke Tehan.

Jan Hetherington: He couldn’t care less.

Alan Jones AO: You said to said to me early this morning ‘you woke up at 4.35 with a very sharp ice pick stabbing on the top of my head.

Jan Hetherington: Oh yes.

Alan Jones AO: … behind my right ear.

Jan Hetherington: Yes

Alan Jones AO: ‘This was followed by vibration running through my body, then came the headache in my right temple and right eye. I just had to get out of bed. Unfortunately there’s no running away from this infrasound. Nothing can stop it’.

Jan Hetherington: That’s right, that’s right, it is terrible … oh it’s hard to talk about it because it’s so, it’s so real, it happens.

Alan Jones AO: I know Jan. I know. Jan has written to me and said ‘I am sick of living like this. This is not what I intended for my future. It was to live my life in peace on my farm and enjoy the natural beauty of the landscape, not to live in fear for my health and well-being. It’d be nice to think that just one of you reads this and thinks, yes there is a problem and decides to do the right thing by the residents suffering at the hands of the Macarthur wind factory’.

Jan Hetherington: That’s right, that’s right. I just wish somebody would do something. Sorry Alan.

Alan Jones AO: Jan, you hang on – we’re here. But just hang on there, ‘cos I’ve got Annie Gardner. Who’s, well this women is built of concrete and granite. Annie, good morning. You’ve written to everybody.

Annie Gardner: Good morning Alan, yes I do, and I keep doing it in the hope that one day somebody might do something.

Alan Jones AO: Including the ABC and now they no longer accept your emails.

Annie Gardner: Yes that’s been going on since the start of the year Alan. I have a group of journalists, probably about 20, on my complaint list and every time I send complaints to everybody, it bounces back undeliverable. But in actual fact, it’s not just those journalists. I tried someone in the ABC I’d met years ago, which wasn’t on this list, and it bounced back too. I’ve written to the Chairman of the ABC over five weeks ago I think, and still haven’t had any reply from my request.

Alan Jones AO: No, No answer, no answer from those members. And I have spoken to Annie before because this destroyed your ultra-fine merino wool growing enterprise – the sheep simply couldn’t produce in this environment. You’ve written to me to say ‘we suffer badly from infrasound emitted by the turbines in the form of headaches, severe nose pressure, excruciating ear pain, nausea, chest burning, just to mention a few. As a result from being hammered by infrasound, we’re unable to sleep at night. We’re forced to leave our home and property for at least 2 nights a week just to get some sleep’. I mean, how – you wrote that Annabel Crabb on the ABC described you on the Robyn Williams science show, you people who complain about health impacts are ‘dick brains’.

Annie Gardner: That’s correct, she did and I wrote to her, actually inviting her to come and visit us and realise that we’re not necessarily dick brains, we’re actually, some of us are quite intelligent people, if we weren’t, we would have lost our farms years ago because of, you know, unfortunate financial …

Alan Jones AO: But you can’t get local government, or anybody, politicians. And you’ve said and Jan says, and poor Jan can’t even talk about it. There are people who wake up in the early hours suffering from vibrations and dizziness caused by giant wind energy plants and Macarthur, the one you’re exposed to, is the largest of its kind in the Southern hemisphere.

Annie Gardner: That’s correct Alan.

Alan Jones AO: And a farmer, Ron Gelbart said he regularly had to leave his home to sleep in Hamilton. ‘Something is there and we can’t understand but we can not live with’. I mean everywhere, people are writing and telling these stories and Parliamentarians won’t listen.

Annie Gardner: No. That’s correct Alan, not many of them, except for the good Senators.

Alan Jones AO: Well David Leyonhjelm is but now we’ve got the statement by Greg Hunt’s spokesperson saying we’re not changing anything about the Renewable Energy Target. Just stay there Annie, a quick word, because we are beaten for time. Jan – just come back to Jan,

Jan Hetherington: Yes

Alan Jones AO: I just hope…it makes you just a bit better that we do care.

Jan Hetherington: Thank you, at least somebody does. And I’m sorry – I just get emotional.

Alan Jones AO: Don’t apologise. Don’t apologise. These people should be made to live in the circumstances you are enduring.

Jan Hetherington: Well we’ve invited so many people to come and stay with us but nobody will take the offer up.

Alan Jones AO: Invited them … no one comes, no one comes. Sonia, Just to say goodbye to you and keep in touch.

Sonia Trist: Alan – thank you very much.

Alan Jones AO: Keep in touch.

Sonia Trist: I certainly will.

Alan Jones AO: You let me know when you write letters to these people and they refuse to answer. You let me know.

Sonia Trist: I certainly will, and thanks for your work Alan, bye.

Alan Jones AO: Not at all, and Annie, hang in we talk everyday. This is disgraceful, we’ll get somewhere.

Annie Gardner: Thank you very much Alan for your help, we certainly appreciate it.

Alan Jones AO: Not at all. And we will be looking at this issue again tonight with Riccho and Jones, it’s an absolute national disgrace.

That wonderful women like these are reduced to tears on national radio is nothing short of a complete disgrace; that they are left to plead to our political betters through the media, for an end to the misery that they – and hundreds of others like them – have been forced to endure at the hands of an industry that treats all and sundry with callous disregard, is a moral and political outrage.

Not content with that stand-out piece of radio journalism, Alan followed it up that night on Sky, with an equally brilliant effort. This time interviewing Senator David Leyonhjelm about the Senate’s recommendations; and bringing Annie Gardner into the Sky News studio for a reprise of her morning’s efforts on 2GB – only for Annie to excel as a voice for those set upon by an industry and its political backers – all of whom stand shorn of any trace of human empathy or compassion.

****

Those Brilliant Aussies, Have Recommended Safeguards Against the Windscam!

August 10, 2015 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Australian Senate’s Recommendations to Curb the Wind Industry – Driven by Common Sense & Compassion

August 10, 2015 by stopthesethings

****

After almost 6 months, 8 hearings in 4 States and the ACT, dozens of witnesses and almost 500 submissions, the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud has delivered its ‘doorstop’ final report, which runs to some 350 pages – available here: Senate Report

Labor receives $millions in operational and election funding from Union Super Funds – which its members (both past and present) run as political slush funds – funds which are handled with wanton disregard for the working class mum and dads – who unwittingly end up ‘investing’ their hard earned savings in disasters like Pacific Hydro – a wind power outfit that torched $700 million of mum and dad super savings in a single year:

Pacific Hydro’s Ponzi Scheme Implodes: Wind Power Outfit Loses $700 Million of Mum & Dad Retirement Savings

So, with their snouts wedged deep in the wind industry subsidy trough – and with everything to lose, it’s no surprise that Labor’s dissenting report is full of self-serving lies, omissions and half truths.

Fortunately, however, the majority of Senators on the Committee worked overtime to get the truth out – and made a suite of recommendations based on facts and evidence; and driven by those truly human attributes – common sense and compassion.

STT notes and thanks Coalition Members, Senators Chris Back and Matt Canavan – and Senators, John Madigan, David Leyonhjelm, Bob Day and SA’s Favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon for their tireless efforts throughout: efforts which have done more than any other Parliamentary Inquiry – anywhere on Earth – to expose the insane cost and utter pointlessness of the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time.

Here’s a succinct little wrap-up on the Senate’s recommendations from Senator David Leyonhjelm.

Wind turbine report vindicates Senate scrutiny
Liberal Democratic Party
Monday August 3, 2015

Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW, David Leyonhjelm has hailed the findings of the Select Committee Inquiry on Wind Turbines as vindication of his motion to establish the inquiry and confirmation that regulation of the wind industry needs to change.

“It is abundantly clear from the evidence of regulators, the community, local councils and wind farm operators that the status quo is untenable,” Senator Leyonhjelm said.

“Only the wind industry and its cheer squad disagree. There are glaring planning and compliance deficiencies plus growing evidence, domestic and international, that infrasound and low frequency sound from wind turbines is having an adverse health impact on some people who live in the vicinity of wind farms. This is not something a responsible government can ignore.”

The report is critical of the work previously undertaken by the National Health and Medical Research Council on wind farm noise emissions, which many have relied upon to declare wind farms have no adverse health effects.

The committee is also concerned about “the lack of rigour” behind the position statement of the Australian Medical Association on wind turbine operations. The inquiry report criticised the AMA for refusing to give evidence before the inquiry, describing their position statement as “irresponsible and harmful”.

The final report, tabled in the Senate today, retains the recommendations of the interim report (which the government has accepted) but expands on these and adds more.

Among them is a requirement for wind farms to comply with national noise standards in order to be eligible for consumer funded Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), that eligibility for RECs cease after five years to lessen the financial burden on consumers, that state EPAs have jurisdiction over wind farms rather than local councils, that the Clean Energy Regulator be subject to a performance audit by the ANAO, and that the Productivity Commission be required to examine the impact of wind power generation on retail electricity prices.

“Senators involved in this inquiry have been attacked by the Big Wind lobby and those who see it is an assault on all renewable energy. The Labor representative on the Committee, Senator Anne Urquhart, joined this criticism following the interim report.

“However, the report shows there is a problem with the wind industry, not renewables such as solar, hydro, geothermal and biomass. There are potentially just as many jobs in these and nobody living close to them is getting sick. Labor’s enthusiasm for renewables needs to incorporate some compassion for those being hurt.”

Senator David Leyonhjelm

****

A fair call David – but, then again, common sense rarely needs an advocate.

Meanwhile, Committee Chair, Senator John Madigan went on the offensive in his home state of Victoria – where wind industry front man, Labor Premier, Daniel Andrews has adopted an approach to his constituents that would have made his pin-up boy, Generalissimo Stalin, glow with pride.

Senator Madigan warns Premier Andrews: ‘Don’t gamble with the health of Victorians’
Senator John Madigan
Independent Senator for Victoria
July 16, 2015

Independent Senator for Victoria John Madigan has warned Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews the Victorian Government’s unshakeable commitment to wind energy is putting the health of Victorians at risk, while potentially exposing the state to future legal liabilities.

“There is growing evidence living near wind turbines can be detrimental to health,” Senator Madigan said.

“While for a long time this evidence mainly came from the reports of affected individuals, more recently a number of studies have lent scientific weight to their concerns, such as the German and Japanese studies recently reported on,” Senator Madigan said.

“Yet, in the face of this, we have the Premier telling us his government is ‘unashamedly pro-wind power’ and indicating plans to boost investment in the sector.

“Beyond the detrimental health impacts, this could leave the state liable to future claims by those who suffer ill-health as a result. Where there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm the law requires us to act prudently to avoid that harm. If we fail to do so we are expected to compensate those impacted. The Andrew’s government is confronted with just this type of situation.”

Senator Madigan said the Premier had been aware of the potential health impacts of wind turbines since at least June 2010 when, as Health Minister, he attended a community cabinet meeting in Bendigo and was handed a file containing approximately twenty statutory declarations made by people living near Waubra wind farm. Each statutory declaration detailed negative health impacts residents attributed to noise from the wind turbines.

Senator Madigan said: “Given the Premier has known about this for some time, it is completely irresponsible for him to be promoting the construction of more wind farms around the state.

“With peoples’ health at risk, the state government should exercise the precautionary principle and delay the approval of any further wind farms until their health impacts are properly understood. This is the only responsible position under the circumstances.”

Senator Madigan said he would write to the Premier to request a moratorium on the development of further wind farms until their health impacts are properly understood.

Senator John Madigan

One Man’s Tale, About the “Renewables Scheme”, and the Ultimate Consequences…

August 9, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

A Simple Tale About Switching To Renewable Power: Requirements & Consequences.

Guest Blogger / August 9, 2015

Don Bogard,

The tale below is fictional, but every one of its elements and issues has been or will be experienced somewhere in the process of switching electrical power production from fossil fuels to renewable wind and solar. Hopefully this tale will illustrate in a non-technical way some of these complications and potential issues that can and often will arise. My reference to “city” and “government” and “city fathers” are generic and could apply to different entities and scales.

Visualize a medium-size city with two very functional electrical power plants, each producing 500 Mega-watts of electricity, with one fueled by coal and one by natural gas. (About 2/3 of U.S. power is produced from these two sources.) The government decrees that this city must reduce its CO2 emissions. The city fathers decide to retire their coal-fired plant because it generates more CO2 and replace it with 350, General Electric (G.E.) 1.5 Mega-watt wind towers (total rated capacity 525 M-watt). The entire city celebrates over their good fortune in moving into a modern era of green energy. The mood is jovial.

The city planning begins. Each of these G.E. wind towers consists of 116-ft blades atop a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet, and the blades sweep an area just under an acre. Each tower weighs 164 tons and is mounted on 1,000 tons of concrete and steel rebar and must be outfitted with flashing red lights.

City Problem #1. These 350 wind towers are expensive, about $2 million each. Luckily the government will subsidize most of the cost (paid by taxpayers elsewhere).

City Problem #2. Whereas the coal plant occupies fewer than 20 acres, each GE 1.5-megawatt turbine requires a minimum of 32 acres and needs 82 unobstructed acres in order to optimally utilize wind from any direction. This is a total of 28,700 acres, or about 45 square miles of land. That much space is way too expensive to purchase, so the city fathers convince the county and state to fund subsidizes to surrounding farms to host such towers, or decree eminent domain to force their location on unwilling farmers.

City problem #3. The coal plant was located close to town. To service these new wind towers new expensive access roads and power transmission lines must be funded and constructed.

Some grumbling begins, mainly among those whose farms were forced to accept the towers, among coal plant workers who are soon to be fired, and among those long range planners of future city budgets.
The wind towers are finally constructed and tied into the city power grid.

City Problem #4. Before the coal plant is retired, which operated 24/7/365, the city planners realize that the wind does not always blow. Further, even when it does blow, it often does not blow enough, and at these times the wind towers generate less than their rated electrical output. Often some towers will be out for maintenance.
The city fathers decide to keep the coal power plant in operation (after all, it was paid for) and only use it as back-up power for when the wind does not blow.

City Problem #5. It is discovered that when the coal plant must be fired up to replace wind power that has suddenly diminished, it cannot come to power quickly enough to prevent brown-outs (voltage drops), even an occasional black-out (no power). Further, these times of rapid cooling and heating of the boilers are degrading them much faster than when they operated continuously.
Citizen grumbling increases over the power issues they individually are experiencing.

The city fathers decide to build another gas-fired plant to replace the coal plant.
Grumbling increases among city dwellers over the increased taxes and electricity costs required to pay for the second gas plant. For the first time in many years, serious challengers arise in the upcoming city council election.

The second gas plant is constructed. One gas plant operates continuously, and the second plant operates in a near idle mode (but still burning some gas and producing CO2) so that it can be rapidly fired up when the wind dies. Keeping both gas plants operating, even at lower level for one, is more expensive than expected, but now they offer adequate back-up for when the wind-towers generate too little power.
Some city citizens forget that they are now paying sizably higher electricity bills and are happy that their CO2 production is now somewhat lower than originally. But many other citizens grumble and discuss recall elections.

Time passes. The city grows and needs more power. Further, the government gives a new decree to lower CO2 emissions even more. The city fathers decide to construct more wind towers. The reasoning is threefold: a) adequate power would still be available when the wind blew only lightly; b) extra power generated by wind could be sold to the surrounding cities; and c) the city’s gas plants would not have to operate as often, thus lowering CO2 generation. The plan sounded reasonable to city council.

City Problem #6. Large citizen protests erupt. The city mayor and two city council members are recalled. Yet under demands from the government, the new city government barely convinces the annoyed citizens to proceed. Active animosity develops between those who support this rapid move to renewable energy and those who do not.

City Problem #7. With the prospect of large flows of energy among various cities, extra and expensive long-distance transmission lines must be constructed.

The city goes even much more heavily into debt and several hundred extra wind towers are constructed. Counting total power capability from two gas plants and many hundreds of wind towers, the total potential power production is much more than twice what the original power capability was, although the city has only grown by 20%.

City Problem #8. The city is now sharply divided over this issue. The “green” citizens emphasize the good that wind power is doing in reducing CO2 emission and think that good justifies the many extra costs. Financially practical citizens complain that city electricity costs are now much higher than before, that much more open land is being compromised, and that the wind towers are noisy and unsightly, whereas CO2 emissions have only modestly been reduced.
The city fathers argue than the extra wind power produced by the new turbines can be sold to ally some of their costs.

City Problem #9. However, when the wind blows hard and extra wind power is produced, the city fathers discover that surrounding cities, which by now also have converted heavily to wind power, often also have too much wind power and are not in the market for any more. The city cannot sell its unused power, and having no way to store the extra power, must simply “dump” it unused. City fathers also realize that sometimes the wind quits blowing not just over a local region, but over a very widespread one. In these cases most or all of the local cities produce too little total power, and regional brown-outs develop.

The city fathers have a new idea — develop solar energy. Often the Sun shines when the wind does not blow and the wind often blows at night. But the city citizens would never permit a huge central solar power facility, and there is no suitable place to locate such a facility. But, the city fathers learn that the government heavily subsidizes PV-solar equipment for individual homes and businesses. The city fathers again decide to utilize government subsidizes paid for by others elsewhere. The city fathers appeal to the “green” citizens to use some of their funds along with the government subsidies to install PV-solar systems on their roofs. To give further enticements, the city fathers decree that the city electrical power company must purchase at full retail prices all excess solar power than these “green” citizens may produce. Many “green” citizens comply and a few hundred extra M-watts of solar power becomes available.

City Problem #10. However, the city fathers soon discover that when the Sun is brightly shinning, these PV-solar panels feed so much solar power into the grid that sometimes either the gas-fired plants or some wind towers must be curtailed in their power production. This produces further complications in keeping power fed into the local grid precisely in balance with the local and total power demand, as it must be if equipment damages are to be avoided. The city power company strongly complains about the new problems it has been handed.

City Problem #11. Further, the city power company discovers that on sunny days, it is buying so much solar power at retail prices, that it must raise power rates to those customers who do not have PV-solar grids.
Citizen complaints about power costs increase. Some prospective new industries with sizeable power demands decide to locate elsewhere.

Surrounding cities, which have also encouraged rooftop PV systems, find themselves with similar problems.
The city finds itself in a catch-22 situation. Both producing too much power and too little power, both at significantly increased prices, have negative and unintended consequences.

MORAL OF THE TALE. Conversion of electrical power generation from fossil fuels to renewable wind and solar is a process that can readily be both quite expensive and filled with unexpected negative consequences. For governments to rush into such a transfer too quickly or without a fully thought out a plan may be a recipe for higher electricity costs, customer dissatisfaction, social disruption, and ultimate political consequences.

The Insanity of Wind Energy…Just ask Southern Australians. It’s Killing their Economy!

August 9, 2015 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

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

August 9, 2015 by stopthesethings 4 Comments

****

To call what South Australia’s Labor government has ‘gifted’ their constituents an energy ‘policy’, is to flatter it as involving some kind of genuine ‘design’. It’s an economic debacle, pure and simple.

The current mess started under former Premier, Mike Rann – a former spin-doctor, whose relatives all lined up at the wind power subsidy trough from the get-go.

Under its current vapid leader, Jay Weatherill, SA’s Labor government has been talking up a wind powered future for months now – he’s presiding over the worst unemployment in the Nation, at 8.2% and rising fast – and seems to thinks the answer is out there somewhere – ‘blowin’ in the wind’. Its wind power debacle has led to South Australians paying the highest power costs in the Nation – if not (on a purchasing power parity basis) the highest in the world – and, yet, the dimwits that run it wonder why it’s an economic train wreck (see our posts here and here).

A few posts back – always ready to rain on the wind industry’s parade – as well as the gullible and corrupt that cheer it on – we spelt it out in pictures – that even the most intellectually interrupted should be able to grasp:

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

But that woeful missive merely drew focus on the pathetic performance of SA’s 17 wind farms; and their ‘notional’ installed capacity of 1,477MW – it has the greatest number of turbines per capita of all States – and the highest proportion of its generating capacity in wind power by a country mile.

Now, we’ll take a look at the effect on SA’s power market when wind-watts go completely AWOL, almost every other day. The chaos that wind power brings with it, has created the perfect opportunity for peaking power operators to make out like bandits at power consumers’ expense – simply because it can predictably ‘relied’ on to disappear without warning.

Wind power driven, market chaos clearly has the Australian Energy Market Operator worried; as its ‘Pricing Event Report’ for July shows.

To make clear just what was driving rocketing spot prices, we’ve added pictures, care of Aneroid Energy.

And when we say ‘rocketing’ we mean with all the thrust of Apollo 11. For the year to date, SA’s average spot price for power is $74 per MWh (compared to Victoria’s $35) – the reason for the price difference might just come from the fact that the Victorians have a relatively tiny proportion of their generating capacity in wind power; and the largest coal-fired generators in the country.

Now, with SA’s average of $74 per MWh in mind, consider the number of occasions in July when – as wind power output collapses – the spot price approaches or hits the Market Price Cap. That cap – currently $13,800 per MWh – sets the upper limit of what peaking power generators can extort from the system: for a rundown on how the National Energy Market is designed to work, see this paper: AEMO Fact Sheet National Electricity Market

That’s the ‘design’; here’s the reality.

Pricing Event Reports – July 2015

Electricity Pricing Event Report – Tuesday 28 July 2015 (TI ending 1830 hrs)

Market Outcomes: South Australian spot price reached $1,967.51/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 1830 hrs.

South Australian FCAS prices (Volume Weighted FCAS Prices) and energy and FCAS prices for the other NEM regions were not affected by this event.

South Australia had an actual Lack of Reserve 1 (LOR1) from 1800 hrs to 2030 hrs (Market Notices 49437 and 49438).

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price reached $10,759.20/MWh for dispatch interval (DI) ending 1820 hrs. The high price can be attributed to rebidding of generation capacity and limited interconnector flows during the evening peak demand period. Wind generation was low during this period in South Australia.

The South Australian demand was 2,233 MW for TI ending 1830 hrs. During the same TI, wind generation in South Australia was at 18 MW.

For DI ending 1820 hrs, a total of 38 MW of generation capacity was rebid from Hallett PS and Northern PS unit 2 from bands priced at or below $590.07/MWh to bands priced above $13,333/MWh. South Australian generation capacity was offered at less than $591/MWh or above $10,759/MWh resulting in a steep supply curve.

Cheaper priced generation were restricted by their ramp rates (Mintaro GT) and FCAS profiles (Torrens Island A units 3 and 4). Generation offers at $10,759.20/MWh had to be cleared from Dry Creek GT unit 3 to meet the demand for the DI.

During the affected DI, the target flow towards South Australia on the Heywood interconnector was constrained to 403 MW by an outage constraint equation V::S_XKHTB1+2_MAXG. This transient stability constraint equation manages the Victoria to South Australia flow for the loss of the largest generation block in South Australia during the outage of both parallel Keith – Tailem Bend 132 kV lines.

The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 68 MW towards South Australia by the outage constraint equation, V>X_NWCB6022+6023_T1. This constraint equation limits flow from Victoria to South Australia on Murraylink during the planned outage of the Monash – North West Bend No. 2 132 kV line from 22 July 2015.

The 5-minute price reduced to $104.27/MWh in the subsequent DI to the high priced interval when 673 MW of generation capacity was rebid from higher priced bands to the market floor price of -$1,000/MWh.

The high 30-minute spot price for South Australia was forecast in pre-dispatch schedules prior to TI ending 1130 hrs. The pre-dispatch schedule for TI ending 1830 hrs forecast a spot price of $590.07/MWh. The difference in prices between Pre-dispatch and Dispatch was a result of rebidding of generation capacity within the affected trading interval. The wind generation forecast for pre-dispatch was also marginally higher, which also contributed to the difference in prices.

Electricity Pricing Event Report – Tuesday 28 July 2015

Market Outcomes: South Australian spot price reached $2,390.06/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 0800 hrs.

South Australian FCAS prices and energy and FCAS prices for the other NEM regions were not affected by this event.

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price reached the Market Price Cap (MPC) of $13,800/MWh in South Australia for dispatch interval (DI) ending 0750 hrs. The high price can be attributed to rebidding of generation capacity resulting in a steep supply curve during the morning peak demand period. Wind generation was low during this period in South Australia.

The South Australian demand was 1,915 MW for TI ending 0800 hrs. During the high priced TI, wind generation in South Australia was at 19 MW.

For DI ending 0750 hrs, AGL shifted a generation capacity of 160 MW from Torrens Island B PS from bands priced at or below $124.99/MWh to bands priced at MPC of $13,800/MWh. South Australian generation capacity was offered at less than $591/MWh or above $12,195/MWh resulting in a steep supply curve.

Cheaper priced generation were restricted by their ramp rates (Hallett PS, Mintaro GT, Quarantine PS unit 4) and fast-start profiles (Dry Creek GT unit 3) which required time to synchronise.

Generation offers at Market Price Cap (MPC) of $13,800/MWh had to be cleared from Torrens Island B PS to meet the demand for the DI.

During the affected DI, the target flow towards South Australia on the Heywood interconnector was constrained to 460 MW by the Victoria to South Australia Heywood upper transfer limit thermal constraint equation, V>S_460. The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 61 MW towards South Australia by the outage constraint equation, V>X_NWCB6022+6023_T1. This constraint equation limits flow from Victoria to South Australia on Murraylink during the planned outage of the Monash – North West Bend No. 2 132 kV line from 22 July 2015.

The 5-minute price reduced to $109.32/MWh in the subsequent DI to the high priced interval when South Australia demand reduced by 77 MW. Approximately 101 MW of non-scheduled generation came online. Generation capacity was also rebid from higher price bands to the market floor price of -$1000/MWh which also contributed to reducing the dispatch price.

The high 30-minute spot price for South Australia was not forecast in the pre-dispatch schedules, as it was a result of rebidding of generation capacity within the affected trading interval. The wind generation forecast for pre-dispatch was also marginally higher, which also contributed to the difference in prices between pre-dispatch and Dispatch.

Electricity Pricing Event Report – Monday 27 July 2015

Market Outcomes: South Australian spot price reached $4,449.17/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 0800 hrs.

South Australian FCAS prices and energy and FCAS prices for the other NEM regions were not affected by this event.

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price reached the Market Price Cap (MPC) of $13,800/MWh and $12,195.07/MWh in South Australia for dispatch intervals (DIs) ending 0755 hrs and 0800 hrs respectively.

The high prices can be attributed to rebidding of generation capacity resulting in a steep supply curve during the morning peak demand period. Wind generation was moderately low during this period in South Australia.

The South Australian demand was 1,896 MW and the temperature in Adelaide was 4.9 °C for TI ending 0800 hrs. During the high priced TI, wind generation in South Australia was at 141 MW.

For DI ending 0755 hrs, AGL shifted a generation capacity of 200 MW from Torrens Island B PS from bands priced at or below $174.99/MWh to bands priced at MPC setting the high price. South Australian generation capacity was offered at less than $591/MWh or above $10,759/MWh resulting in a steep supply curve.

Cheaper priced generation were restricted by their ramp rates (Hallett PS), FCAS profiles (Northern PS unit 2) and fast-start profiles (Dry Creek GT units 2 and 3) which required time to synchronise.

For DI ending 0800 hrs, cheaper priced generation were restricted by fast-start profiles (Dry Creek GT units 2 and 3) which required time to synchronise. Generation offers at $12,195.07/MWh had to be cleared from Hallett PS to meet the demand for the DI.

During the high priced DIs, the target flow on the Heywood interconnector was limited up to 418 MW towards South Australia by the binding transient stability constraint equations, V::S_NIL_MAXG_SECP and V::S_NIL_MAXG_AUTO. The V::S_NIL_MAXG_SECP constraint equation prevents transient instability by limiting flow on the Heywood interconnector from Victoria to South Australia for the loss of the largest generator in South Australia for periods when the South East capacitor is unavailable for switching. The V::S_NIL_MAXG_AUTO constraint equation prevents transient instability by limiting flow on the Heywood interconnector from Victoria to South Australia for the loss of the largest generation block in South Australia.

The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 58 MW towards South Australia by the outage constraint equation, V>X_NWCB6022+6023_T1. This constraint equation limits flow from Victoria to South Australia on Murraylink during the planned outage of the Monash – North West Bend No. 2 132 kV line from 22 July 2015.

The 5-minute price reduced to $174.99/MWh in the subsequent DI to the high priced interval when generation capacity from several South Australian generators were shifted to lower priced bands.

Electricity Pricing Event Report – Wednesday 22 July 2015

Market Outcomes: South Australian spot price reached $2,296.07/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 1830 hrs.

South Australian FCAS prices and energy and FCAS prices for the other NEM regions were not affected by this event.

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price reached $13,481.81/MWh in South Australia for dispatch interval (DI) ending 1810 hrs. The high price can be attributed to a steep supply curve of generation capacity offered during evening peak demand period when wind generation was low in South Australia.

The South Australian demand was 2,100 MW for TI ending 1830 hrs. During the high priced TI, wind generation in South Australia was low at 39 MW.

For DI ending 1805 hrs, Energy Australia shifted a generation capacity of 34 MW from Hallett PS from bands priced at $360.81/MWh to bands priced at $13,481.81/MWh. For DI ending 1810 hrs, AGL rebid a generation capacity of 100 MW from Torrens Island B PS from bands priced at or less $64.99/MWh to bands priced at $13,500/MWh. South Australian generation capacity was offered at less than $591/MWh or above $10,750/MWh resulting in a steep supply curve. Cheaper priced generation was restricted by FCAS profiles (Northern PS unit 2 and Torrens Island PS unit A4) and fast-start units (Mintaro PS and Quarantine PS) which required time to synchronise.

Generation offers at $13,481.81/MWh had to be cleared from Hallett PS to meet the demand for the DI.

The target flow on the Heywood interconnector was limited to 447 MW towards South Australia by the binding transient stability constraint equation, V::S_NIL_MAXG_AUTO. This constraint equation prevents transient instability by limiting flow on the Heywood interconnector from Victoria to South Australia for the loss of the largest generation block in South Australia. The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 64 MW towards South Australia by the outage constraint equation, V>X_NWCB6022+6023_T1.

This constraint equation limits flow from Victoria to South Australia on Murraylink during the planned outage of the Monash – North West Bend No. 2 132 kV line from 22 July 2015.

The 5-minute price reduced to $53.42/MWh in the subsequent DI to the high priced interval. South Australia demand reduced by 103 MW when 101 MW of non-scheduled generation came online. Generation capacity was also rebid from higher price bands to the market floor price of -$1000/MWh which also contributed to reducing the dispatch price.

Electricity Pricing Event Report – Sunday 19 July 2015

Market Outcomes: South Australian spot price reached $2,372.11/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 1830 hrs.

South Australian FCAS prices and energy and FCAS prices for the other NEM regions were not affected by this event.

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price in South Australia reached $13,333.95/MWh for dispatch interval (DI) ending 1830 hrs. The high price can be attributed to a steep supply curve in generation capacity during the evening peak demand period when wind generation was low in South Australia.

The South Australian demand was 2,066 MW for TI ending 1830 hrs. The high evening peak demand was due to the cool weather in Adelaide, with a low temperature of 7.3°C at 1830 hrs. During the high priced TI, wind generation in South Australia was low at 3 MW for TI ending 1830 hrs.

For DI ending 1825 hrs, Alinta Energy rebid 95 MW of Northern PS generation capacity from bands priced at or less than $286.95/MWh to $13,333.95/MWh. South Australian generation capacity was offered at less than $591/MWh or above $10,750/MWh resulting in a steep supply curve for the high priced DI. Cheaper priced generation were restricted by ramp rates (Torrens Island Unit A4), FCAS profiles (Northern PS Unit 2) or required time to synchronise (Hallett PS).

Generation offers at $13,333.95/MWh had to be cleared from Northern PS units to meet the demand for the DI.

The target flow on the Heywood interconnector was limited to 448 MW towards South Australia by the thermal constraint equation, V>S_NIL_HYTX_HYTX. This system normal thermal constraint equation manages post contingent flow on the Heywood 500/275 kV transformers by reducing Heywood interconnector flow when the actual flow exceeds the pre-defined transformer rating. The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 64 MW towards South Australia by the outage constraint equation, V>X_NWCB6225+6021_T1. This constraint equation limits flow from Victoria to South Australia on Murraylink during the planned outage of the North West Bend 132 kV circuit breakers from 13 July 2015.

The 5-minute price reduced to $115.77/MWh in the DI subsequent to the high priced interval when demand reduced by 111 MW and 101 MW of non-scheduled generation came online.

The high 30-minute spot price for South Australia was not forecast in the pre-dispatch schedules, as the forecast demand in pre-dispatch was lower.

Electricity Pricing Event Report – Friday 17 July 2015 (TI ending 0000 hrs on 18 July 2015): South Australia

Market Outcomes: South Australian spot price reached $2,256.25/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 0000 hrs (on Saturday, 18 July 2015).

FCAS prices and energy prices for the other NEM regions were not affected by this event.

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price reached $13,333.95/MWh in South Australia for dispatch interval (DI) ending 2340 hrs on 17 July 2015 during high demand period due to hot water load management (ripple control). Between DIs ending 2325 hrs and 2340 hrs, the South Australian demand increased by 311 MW. This additional load represented an 18% increase in the South Australian demand.

Wind generation in South Australia was approximately 120 MW for TI ending 0000 hrs on 18 July 2015.

At DI ending 2335 hrs, a total of 150 MW of generation capacity from Northern PS was shifted from bands priced at or less than $286.95/MWh to $13,333.95/MWh. The high price for DI ending 2340 hrs was set by Northern PS at $13,333.95/MWh. Cheaper priced generation was available from fast-start units (Hallet and Dry Creek unit 3) which required time to synchronise.

The target flow on the Heywood interconnector was limited to 449 MW towards South Australia by a thermal constraint equation, V>S_NIL_HYTX_HYTX for DI ending 2340 hrs. This system normal constraint equation manages post contingent flow on the Heywood 275/500 kV transformers by reducing the Heywood interconnector flow when the actual flow exceeds the pre-defined transformer rating. The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 66 MW towards South Australia by an outage constraint equation, V>X_NWCB6225+6021_T1. This constraint equation manages limits flow from Victoria to South Australia on Murraylink during the planned outage of the North West Bend 132 kV circuit breakers from 13 July 2015.

The 5-minute price reduced to $47.13/MWh for the next interval (DI ending 2345 hrs) when the demand reduced by approximately 122 MW and 102 MW of non-scheduled generation came online. A total of 349 MW of generation capacity was also rebid from higher priced bands to the market floor price of -$1,000/MWh.

The high 30-minute spot price for South Australia was not forecast in the pre-dispatch schedules, as it was a result of a 5-minute load increase that caused a price spike in the 5-minute dispatch prices.

Electricity Pricing Event Summary – Tuesday 7 July 2015*

Market Outcomes: South Australia spot price reached $1,221.54/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 1900 hrs. South Australia FCAS prices and energy and FCAS prices in other regions were not affected.

Summary:

South Australia 5-Minute dispatch price reached $6,794.04/MWh for dispatch interval (DI) ending 1855 hrs due to a steep supply curve in generation capacity during a period of low wind generation. Planned outages affecting the interconnector flow into South Australia also contributed to the high price.

Low levels of wind generation in South Australia at approximately 60 MW at TI ending 1900 hrs

Rebidding of 20 MW of Hallett PS generation capacity from bands priced at or less than $360.81/MWh to bands priced at $13,481.81/MWh for DI ending 1840 hrs

For DI ending 1855 hrs, South Australian generation capacity was offered at less than $590/MWh or above $10,750/MWh resulting in a steep supply curve

Cheaper priced generation were restricted by a fast-start unit (Dry Creek GT unit 3) which required time to synchronise

The target flow on the Heywood interconnector was limited to 430 MW towards South Australia by a planned outage thermal constraint equation, V>S_APHY2_NIL_HYTX2. This constraint equation manages flow of the Heywood M2 transformer during the outage of APD-HYTS No. 2 500 kV line

The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 181 MW towards South Australia by a planned outage constraint equation, S>>RBTX1_RBTX2_WEWT. This constraint equation manages post contingent flow of Waterloo East – Waterloo 132 kV line for the trip of Robertstown No. 2 132/275 kV transformer during the outage of Robertstown No. 1 132/275 kV transformer.

South Australia energy price reduced to $46.14/MWh for DI ending 1900 hrs when:

Demand reduced by 144 MW and 104 MW of non-scheduled generation came online

Generation capacity was rebid from higher price bands to the market floor price of -$1000/MWh which also contributed to reducing the dispatch price.

The high 30-minute spot price for South Australia was not forecast in the pre-dispatch schedules, as the forecast demand in pre-dispatch was lower.

* A summary was prepared as the maximum daily spot price was between $500/MWh and $2,000/MWh

Electricity Pricing Event Report – Friday 03 July 2015

Market Outcomes: South Australian spot price reached $2,296.32/MWh for trading interval (TI) ending 0830 hrs.

South Australian FCAS prices and energy and FCAS prices for the other NEM regions were not affected by this event.

Detailed Analysis: 5-Minute dispatch price reached $13,333.95/MWh in South Australia for dispatch interval (DI) ending 0810 hrs. The high price can be attributed to a steep supply curve of generation capacity offered during morning peak demand period when wind generation was low in South Australia.

The South Australian demand was 1,990 MW for TI ending 0830 hrs. The high morning peak demand was due to the cool weather in Adelaide, with a low temperature of 3.5 °C at 0800 hrs gradually rising to 6.5°C at 0900 hrs at Adelaide Airport. During the high priced TI, wind generation in South Australia was low at 45 MW for TI ending 0830 hrs.

For DI ending 0810 hrs, South Australian generation capacity was offered at less than $590/MWh or above $10,750/MWh resulting in a steep supply curve. Cheaper priced generation were restricted by a fast-start unit (Hallett PS) which required time to synchronise.

Generation offers at $13,333.95/MWh had to be cleared from Northern PS units to meet the demand for the DI.

The target flow on the Heywood interconnector was limited to 444 MW towards South Australia by the binding thermal constraint equation, V>S_NIL_HYTX_HYTX. This system normal thermal constraint equation manages post contingent flow on the Heywood 275/500 kV transformers by reducing Heywood interconnector flow when the actual flow exceeds the pre-defined transformer rating. The target flow on the Murraylink interconnector was limited to 179 MW towards South Australia by a voltage stability constraint equation, V^SML_NSWRB_2. This constraint equation avoids voltage collapse in Victoria for loss of the Darlington Point to Buronga (X5) 220 kV line.

The 5-minute price reduced to $103.93/MWh in the subsequent DI to the high priced interval. South Australia demand reduced by 96 MW when 105 MW of non-scheduled generation came online. Generation capacity was also rebid from higher price bands to the market floor price of -$1000/MWh which also contributed to reducing the dispatch price.

The high 30-minute spot price for South Australia was not forecast in the pre-dispatch schedules, as the forecast demand in pre-dispatch was lower. The wind generation forecast for pre-dispatch was also marginally higher, which also contributed to the difference in prices between pre-dispatch and Dispatch.
AEMO July 2015

****

Next time you’ve got some wind-worshipper or wind industry parasite claiming that wind power lowers power prices, flick them a link to this post and ask them to explain – if they can? – how a wholly weather dependent power generation source lowers power prices when the wind drops to a zephyr?

When wind power output completely disappears – as it does almost every day – spot prices head north at rates slicker than anything set by Australian Formula One Ace, Mark Webber.

A whole shadow industry has been developed around wind power ‘outages’.

****

In the reports above, you’ll see references to the “fast-start unit (Hallett Power Station)”; “fast-start unit (Dry Creek GT)”; “Mintaro GT and “Quarantine PS”. Each of these “fast-start units” use Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGTs) – which are little more that jet engines, run on gas or fuel oil (diesel).

The initial capital outlay is low, but their operating costs are exorbitant – depending on the fuel input costs (the gas dispatch price varies with demand, for example) operators need to recoup upwards of $300-400 per MWh before they will even contemplate firing them into action. For a wrap up on “fast-start-peakers” see this paper: Peaker-Case-Histories

As to the insane cost of running them, see this article: OPEN GAS CYCLE TURBINES: Between a rock and a hard place

For peaking power operators, the inevitable and total collapses in wind power output is where the greatest rort of all time begins.

You see, it’s not really about the costs of running OCGTs (or diesel engined generators) is all about what the operator can get away with.

The pattern was set up by the energy market whizzkids from Enron – back in the days when it raped and pillaged the Californian power market, using much the same tactics. Wait for an “outage” – self-generated in Enron’s case – sit back and watch the grid manager panic about widespread blackouts; and then ‘offer’ to solve the problem by delivering power in the nick of time at rates 1000 times the average price: the Enron rort was detailed in the doco “The Smartest Guys in the Room”.

For the purchaser (grid manager), it’s not about how much the vendor ‘needs’ to cover its costs – it’s all about how much the grid manager has ‘got’: some might call it ‘chiselling’; others ‘naked theft’. Hence, the NEM rules that set the upper limit of what can be charged at $13,800 per MWh.

However, there is a serious move to increase the cap to …. be sure you’re seated for this … $80,000 per MWh. See this paper by Dr Jenny Riesz here: Energy-only markets with high renewables: Can they work?

For a ‘wishy-washy’ analysis on the debacle above, note the excuses from wind power fans, Watt-Clarity, here: Why large energy users are concerned about last week’s machinations in South Australia

The ‘alternative’ to increasing the mandatory price cap from its already whopping $13,800 per MWh to a phenomenal $80,000, is to pay baseload generators $millions upfront to hold additional spinning reserve – with plants permanently ready to come online to cover wind power collapses; and, therefore, burning coal and gas around the clock – with what are called “capacity payments”:

Power Punters to Pay Double for Wind Power “FAILS” – REAL Power Generators Paid to Cover Wind Power Fraud

All of this power market insanity is the direct consequence of inevitable but unpredictable wind power output collapses; the criminal scenarios detailed above will only get worse if young Gregory Hunt’s ultimate annual 33,000 LRET were ever met; and would become a complete social and economic disaster if Labor’s 50% renewable target fantasy were ever realised.

One way or another – whether it’s the daily spot price “bonanza” enjoyed by peaking-power-piranhas; or paying millions of dollars in capacity payments to baseload generators, just to keep the grid from collapsing when the wind stops blowing – it’s power punters that pay the ultimate price. And, for South Australians, the only way is up.

Once upon a time, South Australia enjoyed the cheapest power prices in the world; and, with it, an unparalleled burst of economic growth and prosperity:

ETSA: Sir Tom Playford’s Ghost

Today, however, thanks to the most ludicrous power ‘policy’ in the Nation, it’s an economic train wreck. And they wonder why?

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

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

Dysfunctional wind turbines!

Wind Pushers try to Discredit, Doctor Sarah Laurie, Advocate for Victims of Wind Turbine Emissions!

Wind farm advocate Simon Chapman sorry for false allegations

Graham Lloyd

Stop the Subsidies for Novelty “Wind Energy”! It is a waste!

Wind Industry Pockets Lion’s Share of Subsidies for Commercially Generated Power

Every Country That Has Wind Turbines, Has People Suffering From the Effects!

Lilli-Anne Green – no ‘Green’ Dupe – tells Senate: Wind Farm Health Impacts ‘Universal’

The Wind Scam in Germany, (and elsewhere), Keeps on Getting Worse….

Germany’s Wind Power Surges Plunge Their Neighbours Into Darkness

The Wind Scam Proves to be a Huge Waste of Money!

Germans Spend 100s of €Billions on their “Energiewende” & Get Only 3% of their Power in Return

Aussies Fighting Back Against the Irresponsible Wind Industry!

An extract from the Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines Final Report

Professor Chapman and his critics

Once Again, Those Amazing Aussies are Fighting Back!

Three Magnificent Women Take On Australia’s Monstrous Wind Power Outfits & their Pathetic Political Backers

Those Brilliant Aussies, Have Recommended Safeguards Against the Windscam!

Australian Senate’s Recommendations to Curb the Wind Industry – Driven by Common Sense & Compassion

One Man’s Tale, About the “Renewables Scheme”, and the Ultimate Consequences…

A Simple Tale About Switching To Renewable Power: Requirements & Consequences.

The Insanity of Wind Energy…Just ask Southern Australians. It’s Killing their Economy!

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