Britts Will Suffer, Because of The Insane Energy Practices of their Government!

October 20, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Brits Belted by Insanely Expensive and Utterly Unreliable Wind Power

October 20, 2014 by stopthesethings

Britain’s political betters have set it up for one enormous gamble. Britain is wagering its entire economic future on its – out of control – wind power boondoggle.

Back in January, The Economist reported on the INSANE cost of delivering offshore wind power – where generators are guaranteed obscene returns – being able to charge “three times the current wholesale price of electricity and about 60% more than is promised to onshore turbines.”

The Economist reported that “offshore wind power is staggeringly expensive” and “among the most expensive ways of marginally reducing carbon emissions known to man”. But that is merely to compare the insane costs of onshore wind power with the completely insane costs of offshore wind power (see our post here).

Now Britain’s House of Lords has weighed in with an inquiry into their runaway wind power policy – a policy which promises to not only put them in the poor house, but to leave them in the dark. Here’s the Daily Express with the latest on Britain’s wind power debacle.

UK’s wind farm ‘folly’: Electric bills to soar by £1000 thanks to reliance on wind power
Daily Express
John Ingham
15 October 2014

HOUSEHOLDERS are facing soaring energy bills and winter power cuts thanks to the “folly” of relying on wind power, experts said last night.

The green crusade of successive governments is set to double electricity bills for households and cost homes £26billion a year by 2030, it was claimed yesterday.

The cost of renewable energy and carbon taxes will put an extra £983 a year on household bills by then, compared to relying on a mix of nuclear and new gas-fired power stations, three experts told a Lords committee.

They also said the “foolhardy” green policy will do little to cut emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The Scientific Alliance report highlights warnings by the regulator Ofgem that the margin for electricity production for the 2015-16 winter will be at an all-time low of 2 per cent compared to the pre-privatisation requirement of at least 20 per cent.

It means that in times of high demand, such as during very cold weather, Britain would be at risk of power cuts.

The alliance argues that wind power – which is the main renewable energy source depended on by Government – is unreliable.

One of the experts, Sir Donald Miller, former chairman of Scottish Power, said: “The blind reliance by successive governments on unreliable, intermittent renewable energy has reduced the margin of safety to a critical level.

“This has brought the country to a position where power cuts could become a regular feature of cold winters for several years.”

The written report has been submitted to the Lords Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into the nation’s electricity infrastructure.

At the inquiry’s launch its chairman, the Earl of Selborne, said: “We are set to see our safety cushion between demand and supply drop to particularly low levels over the next two winters.”

And yesterday’s report stated: “The foolhardy policy of replacing reliable and efficient gas, nuclear and coal power stations by expensive and inefficient wind turbines and solar farms has raised energy prices while doing little to cut emissions of carbon dioxide.

“The total costs are some £12billion per year more in 2020 than an optimum programme of gas turbines and nuclear, and almost £26billion per year more by 2030.”

The alliance calls for new nuclear power plants to help plug shortfalls caused by the closure of ageing coal-fuelled power stations and rising demand.

The report was released as former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson prepares to deliver a lecture tonight urging the Government to stand up to green bullies and go nuclear.

Last night Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Forum said: “The irony is that energy prices around the world are falling, particularly for oil and gas. But households are not profiting because Government policies are making energy more expensive.”

The wind energy body RenewableUK said the study was “out of line” with other research.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change said onshore wind is cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear energy when the costs of factors like air quality, toxicity and climate change are taken into account.

“Our policies are designed to keep the lights on, cut energy use and reduce polluting emissions, at the lowest possible cost to gas and electricity customers.”
Daily Express

Predictably deluded ramblings coming from RenewableUK and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. We’d love to see the evidence to support the story about wind power reducing CO2 emissions.

DECC’s wild claims about wind power reducing “polluting emissions, at the lowest possible cost” is, well, nothing more than hot air.

Nowhere in the world has the wind industry produced a shred of evidence to support its – long on emotion and short on facts – claims about cutting emissions in the electricity sector. Probably because all of the evidence that’s been properly gathered points in the opposite direction – ie, that trying to incorporate wildly intermittent wind power into a gas and coal-fired grid results in an increase in CO2 emissions (seeour post here).

If DECC was serious about reducing CO2 emissions in the electricity sector, it would be pushing for massive investment in nuclear power plants: nuclear power plants, which run at about 90% of capacity, avoid almost four times as much CO2 per unit of capacity as do wind turbines, which run at about 25% (although they can’t tell you just which 25% of the time that might be) and at a fraction of the cost (see our post here).

As DECC says it’s all about reducing “pollution” (although we’re pretty sure they’re talking about CO2 gas – an odourless, colourless, beneficial trace gas essential for life on earth – plants are lapping it up, right now) – but their perverted ideology means they can’t see the gas for the trees.

STT has long held the view that if governments were seriously committed to reducing CO2 emissions to avert “climate change” (formerly known as “global warming”), they would have started building nuclear power plants at a cracking pace 20 years ago, when the alarmists started wailing “climate catastrophe” at every available opportunity.

But, no. Instead they’ve redirected $billions of subsidies to wind power outfits – filched from unwitting taxpayers and power consumers – to support a “technology” that will never be any kind of sensible alternative to anything (unless freezing or boiling in the dark are your kind of thing) – let alone a substitute for coal, gas, hydro or nuclear power (see our post here).

Luckily for Brits, the House of Lord’s inquiry is being presented with some of these (unavoidable) facts about the cost and pointlessness of wind power.

As the second leg of a ripping “Daily Double”, here’s the Editor.

Costly, ineffective and ugly: It is time to confront wind power
Daily Express
15 October 2014

ENERGY sources should be cheap and reliable but wind power is neither.

A Lords committee was told by energy experts yesterday that our “foolhardy” reliance on wind energy will double electricity bills for households by 2030 so it cannot be considered cheap.

And because they do not work when there is too much or too little wind they cannot be considered reliable.

The experts say this unreliability has left us at risk of power cuts.

In fact wind power does not even have a significant impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Due to their extreme unreliability, conventional power stations have to be kept on standby, burning coal or oil all the while to make up for when wind turbines are out of action.

Hitting us in the pocket may be bad enough but wind farms have also ruined huge swathes of our most picturesque countryside as well as being deafeningly loud and presenting a significant danger to various forms of wildlife.

These facts mean nothing to the green lobby who will continue to forcefully oppose shale gas exploration and the building of nuclear power plants even though these sources could provide us with reliable energy at a fraction of the cost of wind power.

The Government needs to stand up to environmentalists, stop listening to their misleading claims and start putting our energy security first.
Daily Express

Hear, hear!!

The Undeniable Facts About Useless Wind Energy!

October 19, 2014 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

With wind turbines, ‘rotten’ cuts both ways

Joan M. Lagerman11:14 p.m. CDT October 18, 2014

Bill Lueder’s Oct. 13 Money & Politics column in The Reporter — Wisconsin Lags on Renewable Energy — focuses on the progress of renewable energy projects in our state. He discusses solar and wind project development.

The author quotes Matt Neumann, president of the Wisconsin Solar Energy Industries Association, who says that Wisconsin’s recent record on renewable energy is “rotten.”

As a resident for six years in the Blue Skies Green Fields industrial wind project in Fond du Lac County, “rotten” is how I would describe what life has been like for my family and a number of my neighbors.

Yes, most citizens likely want energy policies that include a conservation plan, as well as different forms of renewable energy. I am not against renewable options. But what wind developers and the author of this article won’t tell you is that increasing numbers of wind turbine project residents report being sick in their homes with headaches, ear pressure, ear pain, nausea, dizziness and sleep deprivation from the infrasound and inaudible Low Frequency Noise emitted by the giant wind turbine blades.

Lueder’s article used numbers and percentages to make his case supporting renewable energy. In regard to industrial wind turbines (IWTs), what the article fails to tell readers is that industrial-scale wind turbines after 20 years of federal tax dollar subsidies in the form of Production Tax Credits have a capacity factor rated from only 17 percent to 25 percent. IWTs are not reliable and cost-effective.

When there is no measurable wind, the IWTs are not adding electricity to the grid. In fact, they require winds up to eight miles per hour before they add electricity to the grid. The money could be better spent on biomass, solar and conservation programs because wind-generated electricity is not only unsafe when sited too close to people, but is 45 percent more expensive than conventional energy systems in the state of Wisconsin.

Michael Vickerman, a spokesman for Renew Wisconsin and lobbyist for wind turbine projects, stated in the column that wind projects have “flatlined.” He added that no new wind turbine projects have been built in 2013 and 2014.

In my opinion, that is because rural Wisconsinites are educating themselves on the hazards of living 1,250 feet from these massive wind generators as set by Public Service Commission guidelines. They won’t tell you about the over 100 wind project residents in five counties who have completed notarized affidavits submitted to their county Boards of Health and reporting the above adverse health symptoms.

When these residents leave their homes for a few days, the adverse symptoms disappear. They can sleep at night. They do not experience the ear pressure and pain and tinnitus. After years of the state ignoring these complaints and their calls for a state-ordered scientific health study, last week the Brown County Board of Health weighed the scientific data collected, including the December 2012 noise testing from Shirley Wind in southern Brown County, and voted unanimously on the following resolution:

“To declare the Industrial Wind Turbines at Shirley Wind Project in the Town of Glenmore, Brown County, WI a Human Health Hazard for all people (residents, workers, visitors, and sensitive passersby) who are exposed to Infrasound/Low Frequency Noise and other emissions potentially harmful to human health.” (Brown County Board of Health, 10/14/2014)

These victims in five Wisconsin counties can no longer be dismissed and discredited by some journalists and the wind lobbyists.

Joan M. Lagerman of the town of Marshfield is a member of Concerned Citizens of Fond du Lac County.

Wind Energy….Not Fit For Commercial Use. Not reliable or affordable!

October 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2014

Another environmentalist lie. Here about the benefits of wind power.

Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States

Electricity prices are soaring in states generating the most wind power, U.S. Energy Information Administration data show. Although U.S. electricity prices rose less than 3 percent from 2008-2013, the 10 states with the highest percentage of wind power generation experienced average electricity price increases of more than 20 percent.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the 10 states in which wind power accounts for the highest percentage of the state’s electricity generation are:

Iowa – 27%

South Dakota – 26

Kansas – 19

Idaho – 16

Minnesota – 16

North Dakota – 16

Oklahoma – 15

Colorado – 14

Oregon – 12

Wyoming – 8

The wind power industry claims switching from conventional power to wind power will save consumers money and spur the economy. However, data from the top 10 wind power states show just the opposite. From 2008-2013 electricity prices rose an average of 20.7 percent in the top 10 wind power states, which is seven-fold higher than the national electricity price increase of merely 2.8 percent.

The 2008-2013 price increases in the top 10 wind power states were:

Iowa – 16%

South Dakota – 25

Kansas – 26

Idaho – 34

Minnesota – 22

North Dakota – 23

Oklahoma – -2

Colorado – 14

Oregon – 16

Wyoming – 33

With the sole exception of Oklahoma, every one of the top 10 wind power states saw its electricity prices rise at least 14 percent. For each of these states, electricity prices rose at least five times faster than the national average.

The electricity price increases in states producing the most wind power don’t tell the whole story. Federal and state taxpayer subsidies to wind power producers hide additional costs of wind power. The federal wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC), for example, gave wind power producers 2.3 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind power production last year. With U.S. retail electricity prices at 10.08 cents per kilowatt hour, the PTC allowed wind power producers to hide over 20 percent of wind power costs. This allowed the wind power industry to charge the American people still more money in backdoor tax bills, in addition to the higher retail electricity prices documented above.

Higher electricity prices in states producing the most wind power are taking a devastating toll on disposable incomes and the overall economy.

In Colorado, for example, electricity consumers spent $5.3 billion on electricity in 2013. Had Colorado electricity prices risen at merely the national average from 2008-2013, however, Colorado electricity consumers would have spent only $4.8 billion on electricity. That’s $500 million in excess electricity costs in 2013. If we divide that up among Colorado’s 2 million households, the extra electricity costs drained $250 from the average Colorado household in 2013.

In Minnesota, electricity consumers spent $6.4 billion on electricity in 2013. Had Minnesota electricity prices risen at merely the national average from 2008-2013, however, Minnesota electricity consumers would have spent only $5.4 billion on electricity. That’s $1 billion in excess electricity costs in 2013. If we divide that up among Minnesota’s 2.1 million households, the extra electricity costs drained $476 from the average Minnesota household in 2013.

In Kansas, electricity consumers spent $3.8 billion on electricity in 2013. Had Kansas electricity prices risen at merely the national average from 2008-2013, however, Kansas electricity consumers would have spent only $3.1 billion on electricity. That’s $700 million in excess electricity costs in 2013. If we divide that up among Kansas’ 1.1 million households, the extra electricity costs drained $636 from the average Kansas household in 2013.

The wind power industry’s fallback position is wind power benefits state economies, despite rapidly rising electricity costs, because the switch from conventional power to wind power generates jobs within the wind power industry. This argument, however, amounts to nothing more than a misleading head-fake. Shifting electricity production from conventional power to wind power does not create any net new jobs – it merely shifts jobs from one sector (conventional power) to another sector (wind power). Jobs created in the wind power industry come at the price of eliminating jobs in the conventional power industry.

Worse yet, the jobs shifted to the wind power industry fail to equal the number of jobs eliminated in other sectors of the economy for two important reasons.

First, wind power employs very few workers. After the tremendous start-up costs necessary to build wind turbines and place them in industrial wind farms, operational wind power facilities employ few workers. Nor does wind turbine manufacturing adds many jobs in top wind power states. Of the world’s top 10 wind turbine manufacturers, only one is located in the United States. Wind turbine manufacturing jobs are created in places like Germany, Denmark, and China more than in the United Sates.

Even among the top seven manufacturers of the wind turbines that are deployed in the United States, only one is located in the United States.

By contrast, conventional power plant operation requires far more workers than wind farms. More jobs are created in the conventional power industry even while electricity production costs go down. And unlike wind power jobs, nearly all U.S. conventional power plant manufacturing and operational jobs go to American workers – and especially to workers within the resident state of the conventional power plant.

Second, higher electricity prices caused by wind power kill jobs throughout the entire state and national economy. For example, when the average household in Kansas spends an extra $636 on electricity each year due to unnecessarily high electricity prices, that means the average Kansas household spends $636 less on other goods and services. The aggregate effect of such reduced spending in the Kansas economy (equaling $700 million in Kansas economy-wide reduced spending in 2013) eliminates thousands of jobs that would otherwise be created or sustained throughout all segments of the Kansas economy with higher consumer spending.

Any way you cut it, wind power is needlessly raising living costs, reducing living standards, and destroying American jobs. Fortunately, states can easily rectify the problem by repealing renewable power mandates and taxpayer subsidies that perpetuate higher electricity costs and widespread job destruction.

Unreliable, Unaffordable, Unwanted Wind Turbines…They’ve got to go!

October 18, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Parker Gallant Uncovers the Hidden Costs of Ontario’s Insane Wind Power Policy

October 18, 2014 by stopthesethings

Ever tried to imagine hell on earth?

Ever imagined a nightmare turned to reality?

Then you’ve probably landed in Ontario.

Ontario is the place where the most bizarre energy policy in the world has seen thousands of giant fans speared into the backyards of homes – in the most agriculturally productive part of Canada. When we say “bizarre” we mean completely bonkers.

Canada has one of the “cleanest” power generation mixes on the planet, with the vast bulk of its electricity coming from zero emissions sources such as nuclear and hydro.

As Professor Ross McKitrick explains in this post, Ontario has built a policy that sees wind power (when the wind is blowing) “displace” emissions free hydro at enormous cost to power consumers and taxpayers.

And then there’s the colossal human impact of plonking thousands of turbines as close as 550m from hundreds of homes (see our posts hereand here).

Adding to the lunacy is the fact that wind power outfits are guaranteed to reap fat profits despite market conditions.

Where the wholesale market price for power in Ontario is between $30-50 per MWh, wind power generators pocket a fixed price of $135 MWh – even if there is absolutely no market for it and the Province literally has to pay neighbouring US States to take it.

Parker Gallant – a former banker – is out to ensure that Ontario’s power consumers and taxpayers are aware of just how ludicrous its energy policy has become.

Parker has been busy letting everyone know about the the hidden financial costs of Ontario’s wind farm fever.

Late last year the Ontario Energy Minister said that the cancelling a gas plant would cost the people of Ontario no more than the price of a cup of “Timmies”: coffee brewed up by Canada’s favourite coffee franchise, Tim Horton’s.

A few weeks back, during a windy weekend, Ontario was “blessed” with an abundance of wind power – which – on the first pass – cost it $135 per MWh in guaranteed payments to wind power outfits. But – because what was produced was excess to requirements – Ontario’s taxpayers were stung a second time for the cost of paying New York and Michigan and Quebec to take it.

The total cost was hardly small change – whether measured in cups of coffee or hard cold cash. Here’s Parker doing the sums.

Another expensive weekend, thanks to Ontario wind farms
Parker Gallant
7 October 2014

On the weekend just past, October 4 and 5, wind turbines in Ontario once again proved they can produce lots of electricity—when demand for power is low. At the same time, they drove down the hourly Ontario electricity price (HOEP) and played a role in generating lots of power that was then exported to our neighbours at a substantial cost to Ontario’s ratepayers.

Total demand for electricity on October 4 was 393,816 MWh (megawatt hours); 18.1% (71,328 MWh) of it was exported. In the process of exporting the HOEP generated a negative “weighted average price” of minus 32 cents a MWh. Ontario paid our neighbours to snap up our excess power which presumably included all of wind’s production of 32,958 MWh. Ontario’s ratepayers picked up the tab which for wind power alone ($135.00/MWh + .32 cents = $135.32 MWh) was $4,459,877.

Sunday, October 5 wasn’t much better: total demand was 379,656 MWh and 66,408 MWh (17.5%) was exported at a negative “weighted average price” of minus $2.64 a MWh. Wind production for that day was 30,359 MWh and we must assume it again played a role in driving down the HOEP. So, those wind exports alone cost Ontario’s ratepayers $4,181,649 ($135/MWh + $2.64 = $137.24 MWh).

Ontario ratepayers picked up the tab of approximately $8.6 million for those two days. That $8.6 million would be equivalent, to paraphrase our Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli, the price of a “Timmies” coffee for Ontario’s 4.6 million ratepayers.

If one also includes the $7 million or so that the other 75,000 MWh exported cost it becomes two “Timmies”! Add in the price of the steamed off power from Bruce Nuclear, payments to the gas plants for idling, to OPG for the Atikokan biomass plant and their spilled hydro, to the NUG (non utility generators) contracted parties, the weekend probably hit the ratepayers with total costs well over $20 million.

If that happened every weekend the cost would be equivalent to the cost of moving a couple of gas plants! Lots and lots of Timmies.

When will Ontario’s Energy Minister, Bob Chiarelli wake up and smell the coffee?

This story was also picked up Sun News – aptly describing Ontario’s wind turbines as a money pit. Here’s an interview between journalist Jerry Agar and Parker Gallant, that was aired on October 8. The transcript follows…

**********

Jerry Agar: So over the weekend, this one just past it was proven in Ontario, that by golly those big wind turbines can pump out some power so Parker Gallant is here. So this is all good news?

Parker Gallant: Well not really Jerry, no because when they were pumping….

Jerry Agar: Are you going to be grumpy about this?

Parker Gallant: I am, that’s my usual ploy isn’t it?

Jerry Agar: I see.

Parker Gallant: Yes they were pumping out out the power, but we didn’t need it so that meant we had to export it. As a result of that it drove down the wholesale price so we were paying New York and Michigan and Quebec to take our excess power.

Jerry Agar: I see, so when we export power – we don’t sell it, we pay people to take it from us.

Parker Gallant: You’ve got it.

Jerry Agar: Are we making it up in volume – I mean – how exactly does that make any sense?

Parker Gallant: It doesn’t make any sense and that’s certainly been my efforts is to make the Ministry of energy aware of that. We shouldn’t be handing out any more wind turbine contracts because we don’t need the excess power.

Jerry Agar:: Well what was the point of even producing power then?

Parker Gallant: Well, there was a lot, believe it or not, there was a lot of wind turbine developers in that same weekend, that were paid for not producing power. That’s on top of those that were paid for producing the power.

Jerry Agar: Just a minute, I want to add this up. We were paying people not to produce power then we were producing power and we were paying people to take that power.

Parker Gallant: You’ve got it.

Jerry Agar: All right. This from the government that spent $1 billion not building a power plant.

Parker Gallant: That’s right, or moving a power plant.

Jerry Agar: Yes, yes. Now the government got re-elected.

Parker Gallant: I know. Its unfortunate but.

Jerry Agar: We live in a world we could never have imagined.

Parker Gallant: No we can’t.

Jerry Agar: So then what’s the addiction to these wind turbines if in fact they were pumping out power, and they were reducing our cost because hey they turn around and around for free apparently with wind power, it would all be great.

Parker Gallant: it would be yeah, but we don’t offer, we don’t get competitive contracts. We just simply say we are going to pay you $135 a MWh four 13 1/2 cents per kilowatt hour
if you throw up a wind farm. You know that makes…

Jerry Agar: So for the producers it’s a no lose situation.

Parker Gallant: It’s a no lose situation. Exactly. They get paid whether they produce power or they don’t produce power as long as that wind turbine up, and they don’t actually produce power,
they still get paid.

Jerry Agar: But we don’t need the power. So what are we building them for?

Parker Gallant: Well, I don’t know. Perhaps to green the province, to save the planet from climate change. I mean that seems to be the objective.

Jerry Agar: Its ideological?

Parker Gallant: Yes it’s very ideological.

Jerry Agar: Because it’s certainly not economical.

Parker Gallant: No it doesn’t make any economic sense and of course they never did a cost benefit analysis.

Jerry Agar: There is another issue here. Do you give credence to those people who actually say that living next to them is damaging?

Parker Gallant: Oh definitely. I’ve met people that have lived next to them and are forced to move out of their homes. There is a percentage of the population – there was a study just came out of the UK I believe that says that a certain percentage of the population will be affected by the infrasound, the noise that we can’t hear, that’s emanating from these wind turbines throughout the province.

Jerry Agar: It doesn’t bother everybody?

Parker Gallant: No it doesn’t bother – its like (sea sickness) …

Jerry Agar: So I’d go and it would bother me but it wouldn’t bother you.

Parker Gallant: That’s correct. Yes. There’s a percentage of the population, so 5 to 15% that will be affected. Autistic children are very much at risk when they live near a wind turbine.

Jerry Agar: Really?

Parker Gallant: Yes.

Jerry Agar: Okay but there’s never any consideration. This government has, I would use the word foisted these things on communities. They haven’t even asked the community. They haven’t even had the deference to go to the Mayor – much less the local citizens.

Parker Gallant: No. That’s true. The Green Energy Act gave the provincial government all the powers to be able to put these wind turbines up no matter where, just as long as they meet the setback requirements and you know the minimum standards that they set under the Green Energy Act.

Jerry Agar: There are more being built. Construction of a giant wind turbine project in Huron County will go on. The judge denied the work stoppage proposed by local residents.

Parker Gallant: The judge did not grant the stay that the citizens had brought to stay motion before the courts to basically stop the construction. But there is still an appearance that will be coming up in the Superior Court of Ontario. So that means that if the citizens win in the Superior Court, the developers will have to remove and decommission those wind turbines. So why they’re taking the chance is beyond me, except maybe they get them in before the cold weather season hits.

Jerry Agar: You know, this is one of those situations I believe where the mass of the population in urban areas here in Toronto, where you and I are right now, love these things, because they love that greenie idea, but they don’t live next to them.

Parker Gallant: No they don’t. Well a lot of people in the green movement will say “Oh we live next to one” because there is one at Exhibition Place.

Jerry Agar: The thing barely turns.

Parker Gallant: It barely turns and it doesn’t provide any power. And it’s mostly all…

Jerry Agar: Not hooked up? A show thing?

Parker Gallant: It’s sort of hooked up. It really is a show thing. If you go back …

Jerry Agar: And nobody lives there anyway.

Parker Gallant: Yes, no, right.

Jerry Agar: All right. But if they went and stuck one right next to one of the condo buildings, although I don’t know if you will be able to fit one in now in down town Toronto. They will feel differently about it.

Parker Gallant: Yeah, I thought they should mandate putting 49 metre blades on top of the buildings that they’re allowing to be built here. The condo buildings. And maybe we could generate some power because they would be way up there in the higher atmosphere and….

Jerry Agar: And then your condo could just jiggle you to sleep. That would be nice. All right, thanks very much.

Parker Gallant: Well thank you Jerry.

Jerry Agar: I don’t know if you made us feel better but thanks for the information.
Sun News

Parker then knocked up this spreadsheet itemising the total cost of paying neighbours to take Ontario’s excess wind power.

Ontario’s expensive electricity week: what could $44M have bought?
Ontario Wind Concerns
13 October 2014

Blowing Ontario’s ratepayer dollars Money lost in just one week could have paid for 580 nurses

So far this October, Ontario’s electricity sector has been blowing our money away at an awesome pace.

Scott Luft, whom I admire for his ability to assimilate comprehensible data, posted on Tumblr some disturbing information about the first 10 days of electricity production (and curtailed production) in Ontario. Because the fall means low demand for electricity, our current surplus energy supply (principally, wind, solar and gas) was curtailed to the extent that it cost ratepayers $20 million, while the HOEP (hourly Ontario energy price) generated only $8.2 million. That $20 million of curtailment cost will find its way to the Global Adjustment (GA) pot and onto ratepayers’ bills.

I took a different route and looked at the cost of Ontario’s exports for the week of October 3rd to October 9th —those numbers are also disturbing. During those seven days, Ontario exported 399,048 MWh (megawatt hours) which was 15.7% of total Ontario demand. Wind turbines generated and delivered 184,204 MWh, which was surplus to our needs and probably exported. The money generated via the HOEP from all of the export sales was $56,300 or 14 cents a MWh. Wind turbines produced just $15,164 and we sold that production for just 8 cents a MWh.

To put this in perspective, the exported production’s cost all-in (contract value per MWh + regulatory + transmission + debt retirement charge) averaged $110/MWh, according to the latest monthly IESO Market Summary August 2014 report’s findings. Using $110/MWh the 399,000 MWh exported in those seven days hit Ontario’s ratepayers with about $44 million (less the $56,300) via allocation to the GA—that will show up on the electricity line on our bills.

Wind generation alone at the contracted rate of $135/MWh cost ratepayers $24,900,000 plus another $5 to $6 million for their curtailed production, according to Scott Luft. That $30 to $31 million plus the cost of steaming off Bruce Nuclear, paying idling gas plants, etc., and the additional cost of solar generation, would confirm the $44 million is a reasonable estimate.

What has Ontario missed out on by having ratepayers subsidizing those exports by $44 million for those seven days?

the annual salary of 293 family physicians, or
580 nurse practitioners, or
repairing all the Toronto District School Board’s school roofs, or
one and a half days of interest on Ontario’s public debt, or
all of Ontario’s 301 MPP salaries for a full year, or
40 MRI machines, or
100 months of mortgage payments on the empty MaRS Phase 2 building, or
increasing funding for autistic children by 30% over current levels.

Just a few examples of how the wasted subsidy money that cost each Ontario ratepayer $10 for just one week could have been used!
Parker Gallant

Wind is Novelty Energy…..Scrap the Climate Change Act!

October 17, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

UK’s Wind Power Debacle Threatens to Leave Brits in the Dark

October 17, 2014 by stopthesethings

Scrap the Climate Change Act to keep the lights on, says Owen Paterson
The Telegraph
Christopher Hope
11 October 2014

The Climate Change Act 2008, which ties Britain into stringent environmental measures, should be suspended – and then scrapped – if other countries refuse to agree legally binding targets, says Owen Paterson MP

Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week.

Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed.

He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say.

The speech will be Mr Paterson’s first significant intervention in the green energy debate since he was sacked as environment secretary during this summer’s Cabinet reshuffle.

In his address, he will set out an alternative strategy that would see British homes serviced by dozens of small nuclear power stations.

He will also suggest that home owners should get used to temporary power cuts — cutting the electricity to appliances such as fridges for two hours at a time, for example — to conserve energy.

Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet.

In the speech, entitled “Keeping the lights on”, he will say that Britain is the only country to have agreed to the legally binding target of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Campaigners fear that this will bring a big increase in the number of wind farms.

They say that to hit the target Britain must build 2,500 wind turbines every year for 36 years.

Mr Paterson will say that the scale of the investment required to meet the 2050 target “is so great that it could not be achieved”. He will warn that Britain will end up worse off than if it adopted less ambitious but achievable targets. Mr Paterson voted for the 2008 Climate Change Act in opposition and loyally supported it when he was in power.

However, since he left office he has considered the effect of the legislation and has decided that Britain has to change course.

He will argue this week that ministers should exercise a clause in the Act that allows them to suspend the law without another vote of MPs.

In his speech, on Wednesday night, Mr Paterson will state that, without changes in its current policy, large-scale power cuts will plunge homes across the country into darkness.

“Blind adhesion to the 2050 targets will not reduce emissions and will fail to keep the lights on,” he will say. “The current energy policy is a slave to flawed climate action.

“It will cost £1,100 billion, fail to meet the very emissions targets it is designed to meet, and will not provide the UK’s energy requirements.

“In the short and medium term, costs to consumers will rise dramatically, but there can only be one ultimate consequence of this policy: the lights will go out at some time in the future.

“Not because of a temporary shortfall, but because of structural failures, from which we will find it extremely difficult and expensive to recover.”

He will say that the current “decarbonisation route” will end with the worst of all possible worlds.

The Government will have to build gas and coal power stations “in a screaming hurry”.

Britain’s energy needs are better met by investing in extracting shale gas through fracking and capturing the heat from nuclear reactors, Mr Paterson will argue.

He proposes a mix of energy generation based on smaller “modular” nuclear reactors and “rational” demand management. This would see dozens of small nuclear power stations, using reactors that are already fitted into submarines, being built around the country.

Home owners would also have to get used to timed power cuts using special switches that would cut electricity used by appliances.

“Let us hope we have an opportunity to put it into practice,” he will say. “We must be prepared to stand up to the bullies in the environmental movement and their subsidy-hungry allies.

“What I am proposing is that instead of investing huge sums in wind power, we should encourage investment in four possible common sense policies: shale gas, combined heat and power, small modular nuclear reactors and demand management.

“That would reduce emissions rapidly, without risking power cuts and would be affordable. What’s stopping this programme? Simply, the 2050 target is.”

Mr Paterson has spent the past few months visiting rural Tory seats — he visited six in the week after he was sacked by David Cameron in July.

He said he was appalled at the damage to the countryside from new pylons to take electricity from remote onshore wind farms.

This week’s speech will be Mr Paterson’s first intervention since he lost his job in the Cabinet reshuffle in the summer. He is to make another speech on Europe before Christmas as he seeks a more active role on the Right.

Mr Paterson has already set up a think tank called UK2020 to consider new policies on personal taxation, immigration and the economy.

However, his intervention was dismissed last night by Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

Mr Davey said: “Ripping up the Climate Change Act would be one of the most stupid economic decisions imaginable.

“The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change exists while most leading British businesses and City investment funds agree with the Coalition that taking out an ‘insurance policy’ now will protect the UK against astronomical future costs caused by a changing climate.

“The majority of European countries are ready to implement proposals that would see [them] adopt targets similar to our Climate Change Act in a deal the Prime Minister should seal later this month.

“With the USA, China and India also now taking the climate change threat seriously, the global marketplace for green technology is increasingly strong.”
The Telegraph

Windpushers Need to Prove That They are NOT Harming Residents!

October 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wisconsin Health Board Puts Onus on Wind Company

OCTOBER 16, 2014

After a year-long health study, the Duke Energy wind turbine project in Wisconsin was declared a human health hazard. The Board of Health of Brown County voted to take the action on October 14, 2014, according to JMKraft writing in Illinois Leaks (Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind Farm Declared Health Hazard).

The decision was based on a report of a year-long study conducted by the Enz family to document infrasound in homes within a radius of 6 miles of the Shirley Wind turbines.

The vote to declare it a Human Health Hazard puts Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind utility on the defensive to prove to the Board they are not the cause of the health complaints documented in the study and could result in a shut down order.

According to the Waubra Foundation, the wording of the motion was:

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

Four different acoustical engineering firms performed the study, “A Cooperative Measurement Survey and Analysis of Low Frequency and Infrasound at the Shirley Wind Farm in Brown County, Wisconsin,” which was partially funded by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. The technicians recorded readings from several homes the residents had abandoned (citing turbine emission health impacts). The results included a statement agreed upon by all four firms – some of whom work for wind turbine developers – that in their opinion, “enough evidence and hypotheses have been given herein to classify LFN and infrasound as a serious issue, possibly affecting the future of the industry.” WWMA summarized the study in a January 2014 post.

Sarah Laurie, of the Waubra Foundation in Australia, noted earlier this year (“Letter to Slovenia re Known Adverse Health Impacts of Wind Turbine Noise” Aug. 11, 2014) that:

Unlike most other products, where prior product safety is established, the wind industry has never been required to show there are no adverse health effects. … [I]n fact the wind industry are well aware of the serious health problems their productsdirectly cause, and indeed that they have known for thirty years.

There are eight 500-foot turbines in the Shirley Wind project.

Nothing Good About wind Turbines….Inefficient, Unreliable & Unaffordable.

October 16, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ex-minister attacks green obession at heart of Whitehall: Owen Paterson accuses ministers of raising energy prices for the poor

Former Environment Secretary said support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive
He called on Whitehall to was to scrap the Climate Change Act
Warned claims of impending environmental disaster were ‘exaggerated’

By DANIEL MARTIN FOR THE DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 22:24 GMT, 15 October 2014

Owen Paterson said support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive

The former Environment Secretary attacked a so-called ‘green blob’ at the heart of Government yesterday – accusing Whitehall officials and ministers of raising energy prices for the poor.

Owen Paterson said their support for flawed wind and solar power cost billions and made electricity and gas needlessly expensive.

He said the ‘green blob’ included civil servants and quangos in thrall to the climate change and environmental lobby. He claimed it had blocked him from prioritising shale gas exploration as a more efficient way to secure energy for the future.

Mr Paterson, who was removed as Environment Secretary in July, said the only way to ‘keep the lights on’ was to scrap the Climate Change Act, which requires the UK to use more renewable energy and is backed by civil servants.

He warned claims of impending environmental disaster were ‘widely exaggerated’, and accused a series of energy secretaries – including the Lib Dem incumbent Ed Davey – of being ‘Sheriffs of Nottingham’ by taking from the poor.

He said: ‘It amazes me that our last three energy secretaries, Ed Miliband, Chris Huhne and Ed Davey, have merrily presided over the single most regressive policy we have seen in this country since the Sheriff of Nottingham: the coerced increase of electricity bills for people on low incomes to pay huge subsidies to wealthy landowners and rich investors.’

The former minister also said he was disgusted by rich film stars who fly to Africa to preach against the burning of fossil fuels there. His reference to the ‘green blob’ follows former Education Secretary Michael Gove’s description of the teaching establishment as the ‘blob’.

In Spite of Propaganda, Bribes, and Outright Lies, Wind’s Favourability is dying!

October 15, 2014 / 1957chev / 1 Comment

Commentary by Mark Whitworth, Executive Director of

Energize Vermont.

Big Wind has a big public relations problem. A new WCAX poll shows public support for wind plummeting from 66 percent in 2013 to 50 percent now.

Wind developers may search for clues about this reversal of fortune in a UVM honors undergraduate thesis written by Neil Brandt. Mr. Brandt says that media coverage of ridgeline wind in Vermont dropped in favorability from 47 percent in 2003 to a measly 26 percent in 2012.

One of Gov. Shumlin’s aides didn’t need a university study to see this: “We are losing the water cooler debate about wind.” This may be why the governor’s talk of renewable energy now emphasizes solar, not wind.

(Of course, if Mr. Brandt were to conduct a similar study of solar, he’d find that poor siting choices are creating a backlash against solar that’s reflected in the state’s media. How long before that shows up in statewide polls?)

In carrying out his ridgeline wind study, Brandt collected 10 years’ worth of relevant news stories from the Caledonian Record, Burlington Free Press and the Associated Press’ Vermont bureau. He broke each of the stories down into individual statements and classified each statement in a variety of ways: who made the statement, what issue it addressed, and did it support or oppose wind.

He identified trends in Big Wind’s media messaging as well as trends in public attitudes.

For example, between 2003 and 2012, Big Wind stopped emphasizing energy independence. The argument must not have been working. Were Vermonters skeptical of the claim that small amounts of electricity produced at random times would make them independent? Was it David Blittersdorf’s pronouncement that he needed 200 miles of ridgeline wind in Vermont?

Brandt says that local economic gain was once the dominant pro-wind theme. Not anymore. Now we know that the wind jobs were temporary. And the good ones went to out-of-state specialists. Heck, even the driver that tipped over his tractor-trailer on his way to Lowell was a specialist from Texas. Any of my neighbors could have driven that truck off the road. I would have been proud to do it myself.

Brandt analyzed coverage of aesthetics. For years, Big Wind has tried to ridicule opponents by calling them NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) who selfishly imperil the planet in order to preserve scenery. Brandt dismisses the NIMBY characterization: “…local opposition to renewable energy development is multi-faceted and based on more than a knee-jerk NIMBY reaction.” Brandt says that aesthetics arguments were prevalent in 2003, but in 2012, only 12 percent of anti-wind statements related to aesthetics.

While aesthetics arguments were falling, human health arguments were rising. By 2012, 33 percent of anti-wind statements involved human health impacts. Interestingly, he found no statements about health impacts from state government. This is not surprising—both the governor and the Department of Health have been missing in action on wind’s health impacts. The department has met with neither turbine neighbors nor the doctors who treat them. But, that hasn’t deterred the department from announcing that negative health impacts result from bad attitudes and are thus the fault of the sufferers themselves.

Big Wind knows that their turbines create ill health because the U.S. Department of Energy told them so. A study conducted for the DoE from 1979 to 1985 investigated complaints of families living near a single 200-foot tall wind turbine. (Picture this pathetic little turbine amidst Lowell’s 459-footers.) The cause of the complaints was found to be infrasound.

Vermont turbines are not monitored for infrasound; only audible noise is monitored. And it’s not monitored continuously. Turbine operators can choose who does the monitoring; they only hire firms that will swear everything is ok. In Vermont, this is easy because the standards are so lax.

Big Wind uses audible noise as a red herring to divert attention away from infrasound. They compare turbine noise to rustling leaves. But neighbors describe turbine effects that cut right through rustling leaves — concussive, more felt than heard. That’s how it is with infrasound.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch.

Brandt found that Big Wind has latched on to climate change in a big way and it now dominates their sales pitch. It’s used in conjunction with a technique called “the fallacy of the excluded middle” – the oldest advertising gimmick in the book: Chew Clorets and have lots of fabulous lovers. Don’t chew Clorets and watch Gilligan’s Island — alone.

It’s the same technique that Texas Gov. Rick Perry uses to talk about immigration, terrorism, and Ebola.

Here’s how it goes: If we don’t convert our ridgelines into wind power plants, we’re going to get wiped out by another tropical storm Irene.

Whoa. This proposition excludes more than the middle:

1. We cannot reverse climate change just by reducing our carbon emissions.

2. Climate change or not, next big storm will come; industrializing our ridgelines will only worsen storm damage.

3. Healthy ridgelines are crucial for enabling climate adaptation and survival for a wide range of species. Our best response to climate change is to preserve essential wildlife habitat.

4. If we’re serious about reducing carbon emissions, we should first focus our limited resources on weatherization: bigger payoff, less cost, no environmental destruction, no disasters. No big money for Big Wind.

Do industrial wind turbines reduce carbon emissions? Can they even erase their own carbon footprints? During the last legislative session, one Senate committee entertained a bill that would have required developers to account for carbon emissions over the life of a wind project—from manufacture to decommissioning. Vermont’s leading faux-environmental group opposed the bill, calling it “anti-renewable.” I guess it wouldn’t serve the public interest to question industry propaganda.

Big Wind probably won’t just pack its bags and leave—there’s too much money to be made off Vermonters. The energy independence and economic growth arguments haven’t worked, so Big Wind will make its last stand in Vermont by turning up the heat on climate change.

Be on the lookout for the excluded middle — that’s where Big Wind hides its inconvenient truths.

Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development Declared a “Hazard to Human Health”!

October 15, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Duke Energy’s Shirley Wisconsin Wind Development a “Hazard to Human Health” Declares Brown County Board of Health

October 14, 2014.

The Brown County Board of Health voted tonight to declare the Shirley Wind Turbine Development a Human Health Hazard.

The decision was based on a report of a year-long study conducted by the Enz family with assistance from Mr Rick James to document acoustic emissions from the wind turbines including infrasound and low frequency noise, inside homes within a radius of 6 miles of the Shirley Wind turbines.

The wording of the motion was as follows:

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

The context is in reference to Brown County Code 38.01 in the Brown County Ordinances, in Chapter 38, relating to Public Health Nuisance (section (b) Human Health Hazard).

“Human Health Hazard” means a substance, activity or condition that is known to have the potential to cause acute or chronic illness or death if exposure to the substance, activity or condition is not abated.

The vote to declare it a Human Health Hazard now puts Duke Energy’s Shirley Wind Development on the defensive to prove to the Board they are not the cause of the health complaints documented in the study, and could result in a shut down order.

Read the Brown County Ordinances – http://www.co.brown.wi.us/departments/page_c581ca2d560f/?department=e4cd9418781e&subdepartment=3810f83bcbd2

Additional Background Information

In January 2012, the Brown County Town Board of Health called for emergency state aid for families suffering near wind turbine developments.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/emergency-aid-sought-for-families-suffering-around-wind-turbines/

The Duke Energy Shirley Wind Development was also the site of the December 2012 Cooperative Acoustic Survey by Acoustic consultants Schomer, Walker, Hessler, Hessler and Rand.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/co-operative-measurement-survey-analysis-low-frequency-infrasound-at-shirley-wind-farm/

On 21st January, 2013, the Wisconsin Towns Association Board of Directors adopted a resolution that the Wisconsin State and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission should enact a moratorium to“stop the permitting and installation of industrial wind turbines until further studies are done, solutions are found, and the State’s wind siting rule (PSC 128) is modified to implement standards that address ultra-low-frequency sound and infrasound from wind turbines that will protect the health and safety of residents”. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wisconsin-towns-association-resolution-enact-moratorium-wind-farms/

As Dr Paul Schomer pointed out in his conference paper in August 2013, Duke Energy chose to refuse to cooperate with the request from the acoustic consultants conducting this groundbreaking cooperative acoustic survey to participate in “on off” testing.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/schomer-et-al-wind-turbine-noise-conference-denver-august-2013/

Mr Rick James, Noise Engineer, gives some detail about some of the acoustic testing in Wisconsin which he has conducted in his opening statement of evidence to the Bull Creek appeal in Alberta Canada in November, 2013 http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/james-richard-r-opening-statement-nov-18–2013-bluearth-project-bull-creek-alberta/

Dr Jay Tibbetts is a local medical practitioner with first hand experience of treating wind turbine noise affected residents in Brown County, including from the Shirley Wind Development, and he shared his experiences in his letter to the Australian AMA in March 2014.http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/tibbetts-dr-jay-j-md-appalled-at-ama-statement/

Information from impacted residents

Wind turbine host Dick Koltz speaks candidly about what his experiences were as a wind turbine host in Brown County, Wisconsin and openly expresses his regrets to signing up with the wind developer. http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-brown-country-wisconsin-wind-turbine-host-speaks-out/

There is additional testimony about the experiences of numerous families in Brown county living near the Shirley Industrial Wind Development here:http://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/video-shirley-wind-project-wisconsin-usa/

Windweasels Using “Faux-green Shills”, to Scream for Subsidies….Useful Idiots!

October 14, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

The Wind Industry Pays “Green” Groups $millions to Chant for More Subsidies

October 14, 2014 by stopthesethings

A little while back, the good Senator from Victoria, John “Marshall” Madigan launched an Exocet missile at the seedy world of hard-green-left politics and the wind power outfits that fund the Australian Greens (seeour post here).

The Greens have been particularly coy about where the hundreds of thousands of dollars used to fund their last Federal election campaign (including the rerun of the West Australian Senate election) came from. The key beneficiaries of that fat pile of corporate cash have been lunatics like Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator from South Australia. Sarah set out to crush SA’s favourite Greek, Nick Xenophon but, in the result, she was lucky to sneak over the line herself. Nick (a true STT Champion) – who ran as an independent candidate – polled a snicker under 25% in the South Australian Senate race (beating the Labor Party’s vote of 22.7%) – an all-time record for an independent Senator.

But, we digress. Since the launch of Vestas’ “Act on Facts” campaign in June last year it was evident that the Greens “fortunes” had – mysteriously – improved (see this article and see our post here). Since then the Greens have been very keen to “sing” for their supper. Recently, it’s come to light that the billionaire founder of wotif.com, Graeme Wood has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the Green’s coffers. And, just like Vestas, is looking to use the Greens to advance his wind farm interests, proving that the Greens truly are the best party money can buy.

Paying $millions to so-called “green” politicians and astro-turfing propaganda outfits like the WWF (see our post here), Getup! and 350.org (see our post here) has become a central wind industry strategy: if you’re a foreign owned company worth $billions, with no political credibility and rolling in mountains of (other peoples’) cash, why not pay a bunch of slick little political manipulators to plead and beg to governments on your behalf?

It’s a strategy employed around the globe: the US providing just another example of the tangled web woven by wind industry rent-seekers. Here’s an American take on the mother of all scams.

Wind Cronies Funding Anti-GOP Attack Ads Through LCV: Seeking Tax Subsidies as Their Reward
Daily Surge
Roberto Escoban
8 October 2014

Republicans in targeted Senate races are finding themselves under attack from millions of dollars in attack ads from the League of Conservation Voters (LVC). Seen as anti-business, the LVC has a new ally that has opened their pocketbooks in a big way to support their efforts — the wind energy industry.

Wind power is inefficient, kills endangered birds at alarming rates and relies on taxpayer handouts and subsidies to survive. One of the subsidies is a tax credit that has been described as a “Wall Street wolf in green clothing.” Most of the tax benefits goes to big investors to offset tax liabilities on their other investments. Warren Buffet, for instance, admitted he invested in wind farms to lower his tax rates. “That’s the only reason to build them,” he said.

The tax credit expired in the last Congress but the Democrat Senate is prepared to renew it. That’s why the wind power industry has become tight allies with LCV. For instance, Tom Kiernan, the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) sits on the board of LCV and currently serves as Treasurer.

Peter Mandelstam also sits on the board of LCV. Mandelstam served for 13 years on the Board of American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and chaired AWEA’s Offshore Group for 7 years. Mendelson even founded his own wind energy company, Green Sail Energy in 2012.

The incestuous relationship between wind power industry and the LCV doesn’t end there.

Theodore Roosevelt IV, the Managing Director at Barclays Capital for Investment Banking and Chairman of their CleanTech Initiative sits on the board of LCV too. Barcalys provided the financing for the Cape Wind offshore wind farm.

Flush with cash and the help of the cronies who rely on the tax credit to profit, LCV and AWEA have launched ads in the Iowa and Colorado Senate races attacking Republican candidates and supporting Democrat candidates eager to keep the flow of taxpayer funds moving to these enterprises.

It should be noted that when Tom Kiernan became the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) saying he wanted to strengthen ties between conservationists and the business community.

Kiernan wrote in The Huffington Post, “For my entire career, I’ve sought to strengthen the ties between conservation and the American business community, because a strong environment and a strong economy go hand in hand. Wind power has enormous potential to reduce humanity’s overall footprint on the environment and the planet.”

Kiernan does not talk about how LCV has become a front for the corporate effort to extend a tax benefit that does little to help the environment and a lot to help Wall Street investors pocket more money. AWEA’s top priority is “keeping the production tax credit” because “the political climate in Washington is getting tougher.” He has spent nearly $3 million so far lobbying to get the job done.

If you live in a state with a targeted Senate seat and see one of these LCV attack ads, it would be prudent to remember the cronies priming the pump to put these ads on the air.
Daily Surge

	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!