Wind Industry Knows They’re Harming People….

Call for moratorium on future wind farm developments

Independent Senator for Victoria John Madigan has welcomed the announcement of a study into the effects of wind farms on human health, while calling for a moratorium on all future windfarm developments pending its outcome.

Senator John Madigan
Senator John Madigan

This NHMRC’s announcement is in line with its 2014 recommendations, made following a review of the literature, which found that while it was clear that some people who live in close proximity to wind farms complain that the turbines make them sick, to date there has not been research of the kind needed to properly test these claims.

Senator Madigan said: “This is a very simple issue. We have a new industry operating infrastructure that some people say is making them sick. There is insufficient research of the type needed to determine the validity of these claims. Therefore, the NHRMC has commissioned a study that will do this. In the circumstances, it is the only sensible course of action.

“In the meantime, the precautionary principle requires that all future wind farm development should be put on hold, pending the outcome of the study.

“Criticism of the cost of the study is so misconceived it is difficult to take seriously. Are critics seriously suggesting the government should not spend the $3.3 million necessary to fund a sophisticated epidemiological study that will resolve an issue concerning a threat to national health and conversely, the future of a billiondollar industry that is the beneficiary of hundreds of millions of dollars in government issued subsidies?

“I was initially surprised by the hostile reaction of activist groups and sections of the media to this announcement. These people dispute the claims of those living under wind turbines that this makes them sick. That’s fine: It’s these claims the proposed study is designed to test. Why on earth would they oppose settling the issue through rigorous scientific research? Presumably they expect to be vindicated. Why would they so vehemently oppose this?

“The uncomfortable truth is that many of these activists are passionate about their cause to the point of zealotry. Like all zealots, their excessive passion to advance their cause at any cost has seen them lose perspective when it comes to a broader moral compass. At the end of the day these people don’t care if wind farms make people sick. They just want them built due to their obsession with climate change.

“How else to explain the deeply shameful attacks by Greens politicians and other activists on the people who say they are getting sick. Throughout the inquiry I chaired these people were relentlessly mocked, labelled ‘flat earthers’ and alien abductees, by the Greens, their activist supporters and sections of the media. They justified this on the basis their symptoms were all in their minds, rather than having a genuine physical basis. Yet, even if it turns out to be a psychological issue that made these people sick, how on earth does this justify attacking them.”

Australian Researchers To Study Health Effects from Wind Turbines.

NHMRC awards funding into wind farms and human health

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has awarded two grants totalling $3.3 million to enrich the evidence-based understanding of the effects of wind farms on human health.

Anne Kelso
NHMRC CEO Professor Anne Kelso

NHMRC CEO Professor Anne Kelso noted that further research is needed to explore the relationships between wind farms and human health.

“Existing research in this area is of poor quality and targeted funding is warranted to support high quality, independent research on this issue.

“To address this, we need well designed studies conducted by excellent researchers in Australian conditions.

“These grants directly support the Australian Government’s commitment to determine any actual or potential effects of wind farms,” Professor Kelso said.

NHMRC funded research at the Flinders University of South Australia will explore relationships between noise from wind farms and effects such as annoyances and reduced sleep and quality of life.

Research at the University of New South Wales will investigate the broader social and environmental circumstances that may influence the health of people living near wind farms.

The outcomes of this research will assist in developing policy and public health recommendations regarding wind turbine development and operations in Australia.

Professor Kelso said it was important to note that the funding will support only high quality, well designed research proposals.

“NHMRC supports only the most outstanding research. Each application for this funding underwent the same stringent independent review process we apply to all NHMRC grant applications,” Professor Kelso said.

These grants are awarded in response to the 2015 Targeted Call for Research into Wind Farms and Human Health, following the release of the NHMRC Statement: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health.

Information relating to the individual grants is available on the NHMRC website –nhmrc.gov.au

Contact: NHMRC Media Team (0422 008 512 or media@nhmrc.gov.au)

Grant highlights

Associate Professor Peter Catcheside, Flinders University of South Australia
$1,357,652

Good sleep is essential for normal daytime functioning and health. Wind farm noise includes audible and unusually low frequency sound components, including infrasound, which could potentially disturb sleep through chronic sleep disruption and/or insomnia. This project will, for the first time, directly evaluate the sleep and physiological disturbance characteristics of wind farm noise compared to traffic noise reproduced in a specialised and carefully controlled laboratory environment.

Professor Guy Marks, University of New South Wales
$1,943,934

The human health impact of infrasound that comes from wind turbines has not been well researched. This project will assemble a team of researchers with a broad range of expertise to run a short term and longer term study to investigate whether exposure to infrasound causes health problems. The short term study will be laboratory-based and run for three one week periods. The longer term study will be community based and run for six months. Sleep quality, balance, mood, and cardiovascular health will all be measured.

Download the media release

Windpushers Destroying Economies World-Wide…Energy Poverty!

How Massively Subsidised Wind Power Destroys Power Markets & Economies

economics101

Wind and solar have destroyed the ability of the market to signal price
The Telegraph
Rupert Darwall
7 March 2016

Before the election, high electricity prices made the Big Six energy companies everyone’s favourite whipping boys. A report by the competition watchdog exonerated them. Government-driven social, environmental and network costs were the main drivers of rising electricity bills, the Competition and Markets Authority found. Now the Big Six have put themselves squarely back in the frame.

A 125-page report by the electricity industry lobby group, Energy UK, supports phasing out cheap coal power and demands more subsidies for wind and solar.

It is a high-risk strategy. In capitulating to “Big wind” and solar, the Big Six energy companies have no one to blame but themselves for the heightened political risk caused by rising electricity prices and theinevitable consumer backlash.

Weather-dependent wind and solar power is inherently unreliable and high cost. In addition to subsidies, wind and solar need more grid infrastructure. When the wind blows and the sun shines, they swamp the grid with zero marginal cost electricity, forcing gas, coal and nuclear to reduce their output.

Lower prices and lower output demolish the investment case for building the gas-fired power stations the Government says are vital. These hidden costs are the real killer.

As Amber Rudd, the energy and climate secretary, observed in her “smell the coffee speech” last November, “we now have an electricity system where no form of power generation, not even gas-fired power stations, can be built without government intervention”.

Advocates of wind and solar claim falling costs mean renewables will soon reach “grid parity”. Anyone who knows anything about electricity understands this is highly misleading.

To its great discredit, the Big Six report peddles the grid-parity fib, which ignores the hidden costs imposed on the rest of the system. Rather lamely, the report calls for government and industry to conduct further analysis on the whole-system costs of weather-dependent renewables, something it very well could have done itself.

While the Government insulates wind and solar investors from the damaging effect their output has on the market, the report admits that wind and solar have destroyed the ability of the wholesale market to provide price signals to guide investment decisions.

It envisages more wind and solar on the grid, leading to more electricity priced as garbage that consumers are forced to pay someone else to take away during periods of negative prices.

Since last summer, almost 8.5 gigawatts of conventional capacity has closed or faces closure. In 2014, the Big Six made £556m from renewables and lost £1,615m on their gas and coal-fired power stations.

Without cheap electrical storage, wind and solar can’t keep the lights on. The report foresees storage as the “single most important technological breakthrough” likely in the next 15 years. One thing’s for sure. It hasn’t happened yet.

Thanks to government policies deliberately distorting the market, wehave over-invested in wind and solar. It has blighted investment in reliable capacity that can keep the lights on.

This is the crux of Britain’s energy crunch. Clearly it was a colossal mistake to have embarked on renewables with storage unsolved.

The Big Six could have drawn attention to a situation where, in a world awash with hydrocarbons, Britain has an increasing shortage of generating capacity. There is no shortage of energy in the world. Oil prices have been falling. Last month, the US started exporting natural gas for the first time. In the first decade of electricity privatisation, around half Britain’s generating capacity was renewed. The market worked.

Now that the market has been destroyed, the real choice is between finding a path back to the market or accepting the Government is running the show. Private ownership and state control is the worst of all worlds.

Political risk is borne by the private sector, which in turn means higher electricity bills. Financial efficiency would see new investment being funded off the Government’s balance sheet and reinstating the Central Electricity Generating Board. Instead, the Big Six report calls for more honesty about the impact of more renewables on electricity bills without providing any itself. For the industry, higher bills are primarily a PR problem to be solved by better communication.

Energy UK’s chief, Lawrence Slade, goes out on a limb in advocating a British equivalent of Germany’s disastrous Energiewende (Energy Transition). In 2004, the Green energy minister, Jürgen Trittin, claimed that the extra cost of renewable energy on monthly bills was equivalent to the cost of a scoop of ice cream.

Nine years later, CDU minister Peter Altmaier said Energiewende could cost around €1 trillion by the end of the 2030s. The cost of feed-in tariffs and other subsidies is currently €21.8bn a year; €20bn is being spent on a new north-south high voltage line and investment in other grid infrastructure is likely to double that number.

Thanks to the high volatility of wind and solar output, 25pc of Germany’s green energy is dumped on other countries at low or negative prices, destabilising the grid of Germany’s neighbours. At home, the situation is just as serious.

In 2013, 345,000 households could not pay their electricity bills. In January 2014, Deutsche Bank warned that Germany’s energy cost penalty was already eroding its industrial base.

In a 2013 survey by the German Chambers of Commerce, over half of industrial companies reported that Energiewende was having a negative or very negative impact on their competitiveness.

To see a successful energy transformation, you have to look across the Atlantic. In the most telling indication of the Big Six surrender to the green lobby, there is not a single mention of fracking and the US shale revolution. But, as the report states, it is assumed that the UK remains part of the European Union and continues to try to meet its legally binding renewable energy targets for 2020 under the 2009 renewable energy directive. The underlying message from the Big Six is clear: if you want lower electricity bills, vote leave.

Rupert Darwall is the author of The Age of Global Warming: A History (Quartet, 2013)
The Telegraph

Rupert Darwall

WindWeasels Hate to be Fair to Nearby Residents of Wind Projects….

Wind Industry Howls ‘Wolf’ as Poles Finally Get a Few Half-Decent Wind Farm Rules

brat

****

A week or so back we covered a Bloomberg article on new rules set to be imposed in Poland, with the predictable – we’re “doomed” – response from the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers.

Here’s an analysis of what the new rules really mean.

Polish Wind Industry ‘Cries Wolf’ at First Attempt of Proper Regulation
Stopwiatrakom
Editors’ comment
8 March 2016

The Wind industry in Poland has had 15 years to become a responsible partner for rural communities. Now it cries wolf at first attempt of proper regulation.

The Polish and European wind industry lobby are railing against the draft law providing for setbacks of giant wind turbines from people’s homes.

A clear example is a report published by the influential international business news provider, Bloomberg.com (see:  Jessica Shankleman, “Wind farms now come with the threat of jail”, http://www.bloomberg.com, 3.03.2016 – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/jail-and-new-fees-threaten-key-european-market-for-wind-turbines).

Their aim is to discredit the Polish draft law as motivated by an unreasonable, ideological bias against industrial wind power.

Keep in mind that the Polish chapter of European wind industry lobby, or the Polish Wind Power Association (PSEW), has been a vigorous player in the country since 1999.

That is plenty of wasted opportunities to demonstrate the industry’s commitment to being responsible partners in the sustainable development of Polish rural areas. Perhaps PSEW  should have been a little less single-minded in “overcoming barriers to wind energy development”, that is to say in its focus on securing remarkably generous, by European standards, public subsidies and privileged treatment in the Polish electrical energy system.

A more socially responsible and inclusive approach would induce an honest pursuit of fair negotiations with real hosts of their gigantic industrial installations. These are not primarily mayors and local council members, who according to the 2015 report of the National Audit Office (NIK) are disturbingly frequently beneficiaries of land leases for wind farms, but rather actual rural communities.

Stretching their comfort zone beyond expansion & profits issues would have helped the wind industry to focus on being good neighbours of residents living next to their industrial turbines.

Was it wise to defend the option of planning procedures that exclude any meaningful participation of local communities, to be applied when the local authority is sufficiently amendable?

With hindsight, making wind turbines exempt from any technical inspections or supervision, as has been the case to date, might have eased the imports of used German and Danish wind turbines into Poland but reflects badly on the wind industry’s regard for the country’s long-term interests.

Today the lobby is trying to scuttle the setback legislation. True to form, its arguments are based on half-truths or outright distortions.

1. The proposed legislation does not prevent the wind industry from carrying on its business or limit their freedom to undertake economic activity, but simply takes into account the social context (social externalities) of its expansion, in accordance with requirements of the Polish Constitution (protection of human health, proper spatial governance).

The legislation lays down a transparent criterion for siting wind turbines. It allows for the construction of new wind turbines on hundreds of thousands of hectares, in addition to the existing c. 3000 turbines. However, the proposed setback of 10 x turbine height does indeed foreclose the option of turning rural areas in Poland into an industrial zone for the wind industry – which is what the “European power house”, mentioned in the Bloomberg article, really amounts to.

The European wind lobby’s apparent hope for tens of thousands of giant wind turbines to be built in our country cannot be realised for the simple reason that it entails no protection for the constitutionally guaranteed rights of rural residents.

2. Contrary to what the title of the Bloomberg article implies (jail terms for wind farm developers!), the proposed law does not threaten wind industry with any special sanctions. This title is a sad testimony to an unbalanced reporting on an issue of great public importance.

The draft legislation includes ordinary enforcement provisions, in particular with respect to the technical inspection of giant machinery. In fact, the law would close the period when the wind industry enjoyed an extensive de facto legal immunity in Poland.  This applies in particular to the lack of any technical supervision whatsoever.

The status quo was documented in detail by the National Audit Office in its 2014 report on “Siting and Construction of Onshore Wind Farms”. The fact that European wind lobby spokesmen believe such legal changes to be prejudicial reveals the mindset of an industry claiming special legal privileges, unavailable to other economic operators.

The loopholes in the Polish legal system effectively deprive Polish citizens of their right to effective remedy, including before administrative courts, in cases relating to the functioning of industrial wind power installations.

The Polish wind power lobby should not criticize the costs attendant on the transition to a sound regulatory environment, considering that it has opposed the introduction of such legal regulations in the past. The scale and seriousness of existing irregularities was amply demonstrated by the cited report of the National Audit Office, produced under the previous government of the Civic Platform and Polish Peasant Party, that is before the recent political changes in Poland, and without any involvement or inspiration of the then parliamentary opposition.

3. Increased costs of pursuing industrial wind business are largely due to the expected rise in taxes payable to the local authority’s budget, resulting from the elimination of a legal fiction that has existed in this area to date.

The draft legislation simply provides that local taxes would be assessed in relation to the wind turbine as a whole, and not only to some parts, as was the case so far.  This means that wind turbines will be taxed just like any other commercial structures. In fact, the current practice constitutes yet another form of public aid or a de facto transfer from local budgets to the industry.

4. The “mitigation measures” to limit the negative impacts of wind turbines on residents that are proposed in the cited article by Bloomberg’s own analyst–as an alternative to the setback regulation–have proved not helpful in countless instances both in Poland and worldwide.

The power that local wind farm operators can exert on local communities, and in particular in their dealing with affected residents, makes any solution involving temporary shutdown of wind turbines to limit their noise emissions a largely theoretical possibility. This is because such measures would reduce the operator’s profits.  As a matter of fact, wind projects that exceed acceptable noise levels, for example during night-time, should not have been approved in the first place.

The failure of such remedies is evidenced by hundreds of families who have fled their homes worldwide and many thousands of people reporting health problems across the world.

Two Polish Commissioners for Human Rights have formally requested the Polish government on two different occasions to regulate the distance between wind turbines and people’s homes (in 2014 and again in February 2016).

The official website of the Commissioner’s Office explains that they receive “more and more letters from citizens complaining about a deterioration of their health due to the wind turbines’ influence”. This raises the risk of violation of the Constitution of Poland, namely of Article 38 (“The Republic of Poland shall ensure the legal protection of the life of every human being”) and Article 68 (“Everyone shall have the right to have his health protected”) .

Greenpeace Polska is well-known for its commitment to renewable energy. Nevertheless, their own investigation into the practices relating the siting of wind farms in Poland induced Greenpeace Polska to issue already in 2012 a statement “regarding the protests related to the construction of wind farms in Poland”. “Greenpeace takes the view that wind farms should be built where they do not disturb people or endanger the environment, and in particular at locations where construction of them serves the Planet without becoming yet another source of division among people”.

That 2012 statement described a number of needed reforms in wind farm project planning.  Practically none of these recommendations have been implemented since 2012.

5. To win assent of rural residents to a life overshadowed by giant turbines, Bloomberg’s in-house analyst suggests that local people should be encouraged to be become shareholders in wind farms–in Poland, such schemes come under the catch-all slogan  of “(green) energy grassroots democracy”.  For neighbours of giant turbines, this is a window dressing exercise, with serious social and financial consequences for rural communities.

How big a share in a multi-million euro wind farm can be acquired by a typical inhabitant of  Polish countryside? How much would have to come from a bank loan? Who would then be the actual stakeholder – the bank or residents? What will happen if the farm goes bust or fails to generate profits sufficient to guarantee any return on investment or even to cover monthly payments on the bank loan?

This is no scare-mongering, all of this we can see in Germany. Would the State step in with additional aid to keep the wind farm in operation and rescue local shareholders? There is plenty of evidence that shareholders of “citizen” or “community farms” are hardly kinder than big outside companies to complaining neighbours or pesky raptors when their dividends are at stake.

Currently, communities in Poland, just as worldwide, are split between land owners (who in Poland, as in Germany, France and elsewhere are frequently the very municipality officers who approved the local wind farm in the first place) benefitting from leases to wind companies  and the rest of nearby residents. Dividing the village between wind farm shareholders and the rest is not likely to improve community ties, either.

Back in the 1990s we had plenty of first-hand experience with employee share ownership schemes during the drive to privatise  state-owned companies in Poland. The lesson learned is that small minority stakeholders have no say in how the companies are operated, who gets elected to the board or in the choice of corporate policy.

The proper venue for local democracy, including “energy democracy”,  to flourish is the local  community meeting during which residents can make decisions about their common future in a free debate and on the basis of reliable information about the impacts and benefits of any proposed large-scale industrial projects.

6. Comparisons between the costs of wind energy or wind power sector as a whole and other forms of power generation, as presented in the lobby-inspired publications, are misleading. This is because a whole array of costs that are intrinsic to the expansion of wind power industry (especially on the scale hoped for by the wind lobby) are conveniently overlooked.

Wind lobby accounts exclude the cost of disorganisation of existing stable energy systems based on the supply of dispachable energy.  Such costs are visible wherever wind power is able to  “realise its potential”. Not mentioned are the costs, including those to the environment, of experiments in converting existing power generators into the spinning reserve for unpredictable wind turbines. Missing from such calculations are the costs of hundreds of kilometres of additional power lines and systems to manage suddenly unpredictable energy production and markets.

No consideration is given to the expense of setting up and operating programmes for exceptional emergency measures to prevent generalised blackouts when there is too little or too much wind, as are currently being introduced in Germany.  And what about the cost of building gigantic energy storage facilities, using technology that is yet to be invented, of which there has been no need before.

7. In the light of independent research on wind conditions in Poland, wind lobbyists’’ belief that the country represents excellent potential for the growth of wind power appears somewhat farfetched.

According to the data from Barometre Eolien – Eurobserver (February 2015), the capacity factor for Polish wind farms is 21.4%. This figure is among the lowest in Europe. When in summer of 2015 a heat wave raised the prospect of temporary shutdowns or even blackouts, the wind power industry made things worse, not better. “Of the circa 4000 MW of installed wind power capacity, the production of electrical energy from these sources was less than 10% of that figure, and in some hours it barely exceeded 100 MW”, according to the Polish network operator, PSE S.A.

Moreover, “the sections of Poland that are allegedly favourable to industrial wind power developments are mostly high nature value areas under the Green Lungs of Poland conservation programme [the North- East region containing 2500 lakes and largely forested], including buffer zones of several national parks, and also recreational highland areas and the Baltic coast; however, even there the wind conditions are not conducive to achieving capacity factors above  20%” (Prof. Marek Lebiedowski, “The Potential for Rational Use of Wind  as Energy Source in Poland”, 2016 –  http://kdepot.eu/lib/1146552) (in Polish).

8. And finally, the proposed legislation is not a product of ideological bias of politicians of the party in power, but rather a response to clear, long-standing demands of social stakeholders. The same demands impelled two different national Ombudsmen, both of whom were nominated by the previous government, to intervene in defence of residents living in the proximity of wind farms. In February this year, the current Ombudsman, dr. Bodnar asked the minister of the environment: “How can we help people who have wind turbines above their homes?”

Stopwiatrakom.eu

Press Release, from Denmark, WI – Brown County Residents for Responsible Wind Energy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE*** March 20, 2016

County Health Officer Admits Feeling Ill When Near Duke’s Shirley Wind Turbines DENMARK, WI – Brown County appears to be digging a deeper and deeper hole for itself as more facts come to light surrounding Duke Energy’s Shirley Windpower. After an unusually long almost 3 month delay in satisfying a resident’s open records request, the records ultimately provided expose that former Brown County Health Officer Chua Xiong feels ill when visiting the Shirley Wind facility. In an email to her intern Carolyn Harvey she states: “Carolyn the times I have been out there by the Wind Turbines, l get such migraine headaches. I think I should take some preventative Tylenol before I head out there.” Despite this admission, approximately one month later Ms. Xiong went on to make her declaration that “Currently there is insufficient scientific evidence-based research to support the relationship between wind turbines and health concerns.” She then went further in saying that this was her “final decision” and that she would only monitor the situation “on an annual basis”. In this decision she completely ignored the real world health impact of Duke Energy’s wind turbines on Brown County families as evidenced through their sworn affidavits and their documentation of past and continued suffering, not to mention her own repeated migraines when in proximity to Duke’s turbines. So what has happened between Ms. Xiong’s declaration and the March 18th release of the open records showing that Brown County’s Health Officer Chua Xiong suffers migraines when she is by the Shirley Wind turbines? On March 4th, Ms. Xiong submitted her resignation to County Executive Troy Streckenbach. He did not share this with County department heads until just two days prior to March 18th, Ms. Xiong’s last day. This date also coincides with Executive Streckenbach’s announcement of Brown County Corporation Counsel Juliana Ruenzel’s resignation. It is high time that Brown County and its Health Director follow the lead of its own Board of Health who unanimously declared Duke’s wind turbines in Glenmore a “Human Health Hazard”. They need to recognize that residents are sick, homes have been abandoned, that outsiders (even the County’s own Health Director) feel ill while in the project area, and FINALLY do whatever is necessary to protect the health and safety of southern Brown County residents. Brown County does not need Shirley Wind to become its Flint, Michigan. Until the County does the right thing and takes action, families will continue to suffer, the County’s inaction will escalate their legal liability, and this issue will not go away.

Denmark, WI   54208                                                                                                        www.BCCRWE.com

Residents of Huron County, Living Near Wind Turbines, Must Read This!

Patti Kellar, from Huron County, shares news about an investigation into health complaints, regarding the noise and vibrations from wind turbines.
Dear Members of the Community,
Your descriptions of the impact on your health and the loss of quality of life for you and your family from the wind turbine project have finally been heard.
Dr. Owen, the Medical Officer of Health for Huron County has authorized an investigation into determining if the source of the health concerns can be considered a health hazard.  Dr. Erica Clark, the Epidemiologist, is the person who will be organizing and conducting the survey to gather evidence, the first step in the investigation.  
Dr. Clark has described this investigation in the following way:
 “We’re treating it as a potential health hazard investigation… exactly as if it were a food disease outbreak or a cancer cluster” .
We can’t stress enough what a breakthrough this is for the Huron County Health Unit, the first one in Ontario, to pursue an investigation but it requires the involvement of all of you who have been impacted. 
If you or your family members are experiencing any of the impacts associated with the wind turbines, you are asked, even strongly encouraged, to register with the Huron County Health Unit. Information on how to do this is contained in the email below. 
Your personal experience of living with wind turbine noise, vibration, body sensations etc, needs to be collected in a systematic way. This systematic approach is the only way that a conclusion to this investigation can be called  “evidence based’ and thus the only way, based on this evidence for any action to be taken.
 Your contribution is vitally important.
There will be a commitment of time (the researcher recognizes the time must be short to accommodate people’s active lives) to record on a daily basis using a paper or online survey. So people who don’t choose computer access, may use the paper form.
To register at the Health Unit, the process is described below. Then, within our own community, we would arrange a meeting of registrants, sometime mid to later April, to discuss what will be involved and to clarify the process.
Providing a response to this email would let us know how to contact you when that meeting is arranged. 
We ask that you register with the Health Unit, as early as possible. The survey will not be launched until May but they need to register the participants to be ready for this time.
Our local meeting of participants will be after your registration, mid to later April and before May launch. Just to remind you that to know who to contact to let you know of date and place of the local meeting, you would need to reply to this email.
Be assured that your information is confidential within the health unit.
We recognize that this is a sensitive topic for our community. It will take courage and perseverance on your part to be involved but it is a means to take back your control over what is important to all of us, our health and the health of our families and friends. 
Thank you for your participation.
On behalf of the Group of Concerned Citizens in Huron County
Jeanne Melady
Gerry Ryan 
Following is the email from the Huron County Health Unit:
Thank you for your interest in the Huron County Health Unit wind turbine investigation.

 

Registration for the investigation will be available on the Huron County Health Unit website, www.huronhealthunit.ca.

 

We will not be contacting anyone about the investigation until after the online complaint tracking form is launched in May 2016.

 

Huron County residents who do not have internet access will be able to register for the paper version of the survey by calling the Huron County Health Unit at 519-482-3416.

 

Please note that only Huron County residents will be able to participate in the wind turbine investigation.

 

Thank you again for your interest in this survey.

 

Sincerely,

 

Angela Sturdy
Executive Assistant
Huron County Health Unit
77722B London Rd, RR #5
Clinton, ON  N0M 1L0
Toll-free 1.877.837.6143

Enough Trees Cut Down in Niagara Region , to Do Damage, Irreparable for Decades…

Niagara Region Wind won’t say how many trees they are cutting down

Niagara Region Wind Farm project co-ordinator Shiloh Berriman wouldn’t say how many trees would be cut on along the 45 km route laid out for the transmission lines.

 

“That’s not public information that we’re willing to give out. We haven’t finished out tree clearing yet, so I don’t actually have a number. And it’s not something public that we would like to give out,” she said.

1297813168809_ORIGINALBy Allan Benner, The Tribune
Andy Koopal frowned as he looked down at the freshly cut metre-wide tree trunk, recalling the majestic oak that it once supported. “That tree was over 150 years old,” he said. “It was a perfect healthy tree. There was no need for it.”

He said the tree – likely a sapling when Canada became a country – was one of eight old growth oaks that border his 10 hectares of farmland on Concession 6 in Wellandport, near Side Road 42. When the Fort Erie resident drove into Wainfleet recently, he said he was shocked to see that all of the trees were cut down and removed. “I came by here Saturday. Then I saw the damage they did,” he said.

Along with Koopal’s trees, likely hundreds more were cut throughout rural west Niagara to make room for transmission lines feeding into new industrial wind turbines being built near by Niagara Region Wind Farm, said Wainfleet’s engineering manager Richard Nan. The company is building a 230 Megawatt industrial wind farm, with wind turbines located in Wainfleet, West Lincoln and Lincoln. Read article

Another One Bites the Dust!

Germany: 60-Tonne Wind Turbine Rotor Crashes To Earth

turbine rotor germany

****

60-Tonne Wind Turbine Rotor Crashes To Earth
NoTricksZone
Pierre Gosselin
1 March 2016

The online SVZ here reported yesterday on a wind-turbine construction accident occurring in Southern Germany.

Workers of the Hamburg-based Nordex company were operating a large hoisting crane by remote control as it lifted the 60-tonne wind turbine rotor assembly for mounting onto the 200-meter tall tower.

At 60 meters height the entire assembly came crashing down onto the earth below.

According to an eyewitness, a gust of wind may have caused the rotor to strike the tower before falling.

The SVZ reports that the impact likely caused irreparable damage to the structure’s foundation, and so the entire turbine unit will have to be rebuilt complete from scratch.

Damage is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of euros. No one was injured.

The accident is now under investigation and a construction strop has been ordered until the cause of the accident is determined. The SVZ writes that the estimated cost of a new wind turbine is near 5 million euros.
NoTricksZone

turbine fintona 4jpg

Windweasels in Ireland, Slammed for Not Obeying the Rules!

Irish High Court Slams Cork Wind Farm

irish flag15n-1-web

High Court overturns permission for Cork wind farm
The Irish Times
Mary Carolan
25 February 2016

Judge says process used by An Bord Pleanála did not comply with Irish law

The High Court has overturned a grant of planning permission for a wind farm near Inchigeelagh, Co Cork.

Mr Justice Bernard Barton ruled the permission must be quashed after finding that the process under which An Bord Pleanála had decided relevant issues concerning compliance with two European Directives – the Habitats Directive and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive – did not comply with Irish law.

The judge, whose written judgment will be formally published later, adjourned making formal orders in the case to March 10th.

The legal challenge was brought by Klaus Balz and Hanna Heubach, Bearr na Gaoithe, Inchigeelagh, over An Bord Pleanála’s grant of permission toCleanrath Windfarm Ltd to construct 11 turbines up to a height of 126m, and other structures including a 85m meteorological mast, at Cleanrath, Co Cork.

The couple operate a shrubbery business located some 650m from the nearest turbine on the proposed development.

Cork County Council had refused permission for the project in June 2011 because it considered that would result in destruction of a a habitat of high ecological value and have a major impact on an area of high local biodiversity value, the court heard.

Because of this, the council held the proposed development would materially contravene the stated objectives of its current development plan.

The council’s refusal was successfully appealed to An Bord Pleanála which in April 2013 granted permission.

The couple, represented by Eamon Galligan SC, instructed by solicitor Joe Noonan,  then initiated their judicial review proceedings against the Board with the council and Cleanrath Windfarm Ltd as notice parties.

The couple argued the board’s decision was flawed on grounds including failure to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) concerning the project.

The board, it was claimed, failed to carry out an appropriate assessment, as required under the Habitats Directive,  on nearby sites such as the Gearagh Special Area of Conservation and the Mullaghanish to Musheramore Special Protection Areas.
The Irish Times

1397574371-dublin-thousands-gather-to-protest-against-pylons-and-wind-turbines_4479876

Wind & Solar….Not More than “Novelty Energy”!

Wind & Solar Power can NEVER Replace Conventional Power Generation

turbine collapse michigan3

****

The death of the wind industry didn’t come about because BIG Coal felt ‘threatened‘ and set out in some kind of John Grisham conspiracy to wreck it by fair means or foul. No. What kills it is the fact that a growing band of ‘eco-travellers’ – of the kind who once placed their faith in the Wind Gods – have woken up to the scale and scope of the great wind power fraud.

For the climate change Chicken Littles, their quest to rid the planet of dreaded CO2 gas (query how plants and every other living thing survive without it?) has seen the more sensible of their number turn their backs on the wind; and to nuzzle up to nukes, instead.

Dr. Alan Carlin has, despite his background with America’s top environmental lobby, the Sierra Club, not only reached the obvious conclusion (viz, that wind power will never replace conventional generation sources), but has repeatedly determined to put pen to paper, to make sure his peers know all about it.

Alan received an undergraduate degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. He then entered the PhD program in economics at MIT, with two summers spent at the RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, CA. His MIT major was in economic development; his thesis research was carried out in India under a Ford Foundation Foreign Area Fellowship. He then took a position as an economist at RAND, where he pursued primarily economic development and transportation economics.

In the mid-1960s he became active in the environmental movement as a result of his outdoor interests, and co-authored economic analyses of proposed dams proposed for the Grand Canyon in Arizona. The dams were turned down by the Federal Government in 1968 after a nationwide campaign by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups. In 1970 he was elected Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, then the Club’s second largest Chapter.

Soon after Richard Nixon created the US Environmental Protection Agency in late 1970, he followed his increasing environmental interest by taking a position as a manager in their new Office of Research and Development in Washington, DC, for multidisciplinary research on implementation of environmental pollution control. In the late 1970s he worked for about 7 years primarily as a physical scientist managing the development of criteria documents assessing pollutants for possible regulation by EPA. After Reagan institutionalized the economic analysis of Federal regulations in 1981, he transferred to the EPA Policy Office, where he was a senior analyst and economic research manager.

In the mid-2000s he realized that climate would become the major environmental issue of the decade, and undertook a voyage of personal discovery to understand the issue, including both its economic and scientific aspects. With the advent of the strongly environmentalist Obama Administration in 2009 he found himself at odds with EPA’s misguided attempts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which led to considerable media attention and his retirement in early 2010.

He has authored or co-authored over 35 professional publications in his career to date, mostly in economics and energy/climate. Seventeen of these have been published in journals and 8 as part of books.

Now, here’s Alan’s message to the dwindling band of wind-cultists.

The Total Unreality of Substituting Wind and Solar for Fossil Fuel Electricity
Carlin Economics and Science
Alan Carlin
26 February 2016

One of the crucial unrealistic assumptions of the climate alarmist narrative is the belief that non-hydro renewable sources of energy can be easily substituted for fossil fuels for the generation of electricity.

Proponents pretend that this substitution is simple and mainly involves political will for governments to impose the changes, and occasionally that subsidies must also be provided to encourage it. But the technical problems are actually very daunting for extensive substitution as well as expensive.

As substitution increases, the technical problems become increasingly difficult and with attempted full substitution they become impossible except under special circumstances. This has not prevented advocates from pursuing their campaigns against the use of fossil fuel, nuclear, and hydro power at all levels of American government.

Electric Grids Must Balance Supply and Demand

Electricity grids collapse if supply does not exactly balance demand at all times. Using intermittent and largely unpredictable sources of supply such as wind and solar to meet demand is very difficult, particularly at a modest cost that users can afford.

Grid collapse can be monumentally expensive, as can arbitrary reductions in demand known as load shedding which force users to halt all electricity use, usually on an arbitrary rolling basis between various regional areas. Traffic lights, hospitals, and manufacturing cannot do their jobs without reliable, continuous electric power.

Solar and Wind Cannot Provide Power During Some Periods

There are periods when both solar and wind provide little or no useful electric power because the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. These periods can and have lasted for as much as a week in Germany.

Without other sources of supply the grid will collapse during these periods unless demand is arbitrarily reduced–even if the periods are only for a few minutes. Rapid response fossil fuel or hydro backup is required in order to meet demand during these periods.

Many regions have little hydroelectric capacity and the abundant water required to make it productive. In the US only the Pacific Northwest has abundant hydroelectric resources.

Attempts to build enough wind/solar capacity to meet demand during these periods is not practicable and would be extremely expensive if it were practical. During these periods of little sunlight and low wind, solar and wind will produce little power no matter how large or how numerous these facilities may be.

Meeting demand during such periods without huge load shedding would require building huge wind/solar capacity which would almost never be used in order to slightly reduce the chances of grid collapse. And even then full assurance would never actually be achieved because of the high probability that there will be periods when there will be very little or no wind and solar generation.

Alternatives Require Rapid Response Fossil Fuel or Abundant Hydro Capabilities

The alternative is to build and maintain enough fossil fuel capacity which must be in “spinning reserve” in order to respond instantly to fluctuations in demand and wind/solar supplies.

This effectively doubles the cost of supplying electricity since two generating and even transmission fleets must be built and maintained rather than only one–fossil fuel and nuclear generation–except where abundant hydro capacity is available.

In areas where abundant hydro capacity and water to power it are not available, the only way to solve this problem is to build very extensive pumped storage facilities to generate “artificial” hydro power. This is very expensive since power must be used to pump water uphill during off peak periods and the construction of artificial lakes that is often required at two different elevations is quite expensive and is usually opposed by environmental groups.

Adding unreliable, unpredictable electricity sources such as wind and solar will inevitably decrease system reliability–which means increased risks of system collapse with its monumental costs even if every practical safeguard is used.

These problems are not just theoretical. Germany and Great Britain have experienced them in recent years as their percentage of wind/solar has increased, and they have responded by increasing their investment in fossil fueled plants, just the opposite of what they have tried to do.

Like Germany and Great Britain, Denmark also has increasing electricity costs but has solved the wind/solar substitution problem by entering into very high cost arrangements with their Nordic neighbors to supply hydro power when needed.

Despite all these very real problems, the Climate-Industrial Complex (as explained in my book Environmentalism Gone Mad) continues to promote wind and solar, sometimes with the active support of some prominent politicians.
Carlin Economics and Science

Alan Carlin