Energy costs unaffordable

The Futility of Wind, Becomes More Apparent….

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
  • GRAHAM LLOYD
  • THE AUSTRALIAN
Closer look: Mary Morris, at the Waterloo wind farm north of Adelaide, conducted one of t

Closer look: Mary Morris, at the Waterloo wind farm north of Adelaide, conducted one of the only studies accepted by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Picture: Kelly Barnes

WIND farms could face greater Federal Government scrutiny after a last-minute intervention by Tony Abbott ahead of the Senate vote on the revised ­renewable energy target today.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister met four crossbench senators concerned about the cost and possible health impacts of the ­renewable energy technology.

After the meeting, Environment Minister Greg Hunt was asked to write to senators David Leyonhjelm, John Madigan, Bob Day and Jacqui Lambie setting out the new protections.

A spokesman for Mr Hunt confirmed last night that a letter was being prepared.

The government is hoping a written pledge will avoid amendments to the RET legislation, which is expected to be voted on in the Senate today.

The crossbench senators have raised concerns about a range of issues regarding wind-farm developments and the fact that the revised RET will strongly favour wind.

Mr Abbott has said the reduced RET was designed to limit the number of wind farms built.

A Senate inquiry into wind farms will today release an inte­rim report into its hearings, which have taken evidence from the wind industry, acoustics ­experts and residents who claim to have been affected.

The wind industry maintains claims that the technology is inefficient or poten­tially harmful to nearby residents have been thoroughly investigated and discounted. But one farm couple who has been paid $1 million to host 19 wind turbines over five years told the Senate inquiry that the noise had been unbearable.

South Australian cattle grazier Clive Gare told a hearing in Adelaide he was initially excited about hosting renewable energy, but now believed “towers should not be any closer than 5km to a dwelling”.

“If we had to buy another property it would not be within a 20km distance to a wind farm. I think that says it all,” Mr Gare said.

The wind industry has said complaints about noise impacts had not been made by people who received lucrative contracts to host them. Wind farm company AGL has paid thousands to insulate the Gare property from the noise of the wind turbines, which are as close as 800m from the house, but Mr Gare and his wife, Trina, told the inquiry they were still impacted.

Mary Morris, who conducted one of the only studies accepted by the National Health and Medical Research Council, said she would welcome any undertakings by the federal government to increase supervision.

Ms Morris became involved in the wind farms initially to support people who claimed to be affected by the Waterloo wind farm in South Australia.

In a speech to the Senate on the federal government’s compromise RET bill, Senator Leyonhjelm said the revised RET would be “no more than a wind industry support fund”.

Jacqui Lambie received support from Coalition senators for a speech in which she criticised reliance on renewable energy.

“Apart from hydro, the only way to decarbonise energy is to move very quickly to nuclear,” she said. “And it’s about time we move to that option.”

Congratulations to Our Friends in the UK….Sanity Begins to Show Her Face!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

Residents to be given onshore wind farm veto: Tories vow to ‘halt the spread’ of turbines by preventing them being ‘imposed on communities without consultation’

  • Councils in consultation with residents will have final say over windmills
  • 3,000 are currently awaiting consent and could be affected by new rules 
  • Local Government Secretary says communities ‘should be free to decide’
  • Trade body Renewable UK expresses concerns about new regulations

Residents are to be handed powers to stop onshore wind farms being built, ministers will announce today.

The Tories have vowed to ‘halt the spread’ of unsightly turbines by preventing wind farms from being ‘imposed on communities without consultation or public support’.

Changes to the planning laws will ensure that councils in England and Wales – in consultation with residents – have the final say over whether windmills get the green light.

Powers: The Tories have vowed to ‘halt the spread’ of unsightly turbines by preventing wind farms from being ‘imposed on communities without consultation or public support’. A wind farm in Scotland is pictured above 

Powers: The Tories have vowed to ‘halt the spread’ of unsightly turbines by preventing wind farms from being ‘imposed on communities without consultation or public support’. A wind farm in Scotland is pictured above

It follows opposition by local campaigners and Tory MPs to the spread of new turbines up to 400-feet high, which they say blight the landscape and cause noise to nearby households.

There are more than 5,000 onshore turbines across the UK, of which around half are in Scotland. About 3,500 more have planning permission.

'Long-term plan': Energy secretary Amber Rudd (pictured) said the Government wants to 'keep bills as low as possible for hard-working families'

‘Long-term plan’: Energy secretary Amber Rudd (pictured) said the Government wants to ‘keep bills as low as possible for hard-working families’

But just under 3,000 are awaiting consent, and could be affected by the new rules if the operators cannot prove they have the support of residents who are affected.

Greg Clark, the Local Government Secretary, said: ‘Communities should be free to decide whether they want wind turbines in their local area and, if so, where they should go.’

Currently, at least half of wind farm applications are rejected by local planners due to local opposition or because their location is considered inappropriate.

But many of these decisions are then overturned on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate, on the grounds that Britain needs renewable energy to meet climate change targets.

The changes mean that wind farms will only get the go-ahead if they are included in the council’s local plan for the area, which is drawn up every few years in consultation with residents.

Even if turbines meet the criteria set out in the plan, if there is considerable concern from residents about noise or the local environment, the application will need to be amended.

A spokesman for the Department for Communities and Local Government said the new rules would ‘reassure a local community that… any concerns they have about its impact will be addressed.’

Generous subsidies paid to landowners who allow wind farms to be built will also be cut, under proposals announced in the Tory manifesto. This is expected to be announced soon.

In 2014, 57 per cent of all onshore wind applications were rejected, according to figures published in January.

Local people should have a say on development that affects them
Councillor Gary Porter, vice chairman of the Local Government Association

This compares with only 37 per cent rejected in 2013, and 24 per cent back in 2009.

The rate of wind farms being rejected more than doubled in the last Parliament, amid concerns from more than 100 Tory backbenchers that they blight the landscape and upset residents.

Wind farms will continue to be built offshore, where they are more expensive but they attract far less opposition from voters. Small turbines on farm land will not be affected by the rules.

Britain has a legally-binding target to produce 15 per cent of energy from low-carbon sources – such as wind, solar and nuclear plants – by 2020.

But ministers say there are enough wind farms which have already been approved or applications put in, to meet this target.

Choices: Local Government Secretary Greg Clark (above) said communities 'should be free to decide whether they want wind turbines in their local area'

Choices: Local Government Secretary Greg Clark (above) said communities ‘should be free to decide whether they want wind turbines in their local area’

Exceeding it would pile more costs onto household electricity bills.

Amber Rudd, the Energy Secretary, said: ‘Onshore wind is an important part of our energy mix but we now have enough projects in the pipeline to meet our renewable energy commitments.

‘We have a long-term plan to keep our homes warm, power the economy with cleaner energy, and keep bills as low as possible for hard-working families.’

The wind industry trade body Renewable UK expressed concerns about the new planning rules.

Deputy chief executive Maf Smith said introducing tough new rules for wind farms would ‘tilt the playing field’ towards fracking which deeply concerns residents.

He said: ‘We support local councils taking decisions about local projects.

‘Onshore wind is the most cost effective way to generate clean electricity, consistently enjoying two-thirds public support in all the opinion polls, so councils will want to take this into consideration.

‘The Government will wants to keep the lights on at the lowest possible cost – that has to include supporting onshore wind.’

But Councillor Gary Porter, vice chairman of the Local Government Association, said: ‘Local people should have a say on development that affects them.

‘The local planning system provides a democratically accountable and effective means for councils to consult local people and take decisions based on local planning policies.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3128924/Conservatives-vow-halt-spread-wind-farms-countryside.html#ixzz3dNMTKSYP

Aussie PM, Tony Abbott, Trying To Stop The Onslaught of Wind Turbines…

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Australia’s PM – Tony Abbott – Out to STOP THESE THINGS

June 17, 2015 by

tony abbott on 2GB

****

Australia’s PM, Tony Abbott has never had a soft spot for the wind industry (see our posts here and here). Now, he’s effectively set fire to its chances of obtaining the finance it needs to carpet Australia with another 2,500 giant fans. The match was lit on Alan Jones’ breakfast Show last Thursday.

Alan Jones Breakfast
2GB
11 June 2015

ALAN JONES: Now, you have just done a deal with the Labor Party over Renewable Energy Targets which I personally think are ridiculous. I don’t know how any Government could give a green light to wind power. You have got a Senate Inquiry into wind farms. It is an inquiry with all government and most crossbench support. It had its fifth public hearing yesterday.

Senator Leyonhjelm wrote yesterday and I have talked about this for years – quote, “it is beyond dispute that wind turbines emit infrasound and low frequency noise. It is well established that inappropriate levels of infrasound, regardless of the source, cause adverse health impacts. Since 1987,” he wrote, when Neil Kelley and I spoke about this a million times, “identified a direct cause or link between impulsive infrasound and low frequency noise had adverse effects on people.” He said, as part of the inquiry, “I have met these effected people, they tell me they mainly suffer from chronic sleep, some suffer from sinus pressure, tinnitus, pains in the chest, headaches, nausea and vertigo.”

Prime Minister, these people are refugees in their own homes. You have done a deal on Renewable Energy which includes wind power when there is a Senate Inquiry highlighting the deleterious effects these turbines are having on public health. When will someone in Government listen to these poor people and the problems they face? I mean if it didn’t effect health put them on top of parliament House, put them on Macquarie Street, put them on Parramatta Road.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, there are two issues here, Alan. One is the proximity of these things to people’s dwellings and I think that is a very important issues and the state government here in New South Wales, as I understand it, has increased the distance that these have got to be kept away from dwellings…

ALAN JONES: Not really.

PRIME MINISTER: … and the former Liberal Government in Victoria did likewise.

ALAN JONES: No.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, Alan, look, I do take your point about the potential health impact of these things. When I have been up close to these windfarms there’s no doubt not only are they visually awful but they make a lot of noise…

ALAN JONES: So, why are we allowing this? We have done a deal. Why are we allowing this? Leyonhjelm wrote yesterday, he said, “this all reminds me of big tobacco’s denials 50 years ago that cigarettes caused lung cancer.” They denied it. This is having deleterious effects on people’s health and no one, they have written to you, they have written to Sussan Ley, they don’t get an answer.

PRIME MINISTER: Well, I hope they get an answer from me because I do try to respond to the letters that I get.

ALAN JONES: So, what are you saying to these poor people?

PRIME MINISTER: The sites of these things is a matter for the state government.

ALAN JONES: It is!

PRIME MINISTER: What we did recently in the Senate was reduce, Alan, reduce capital R E D U C E, we reduce the number of these things that we are going to get in the future. Now, I would frankly have liked to reduce the number a lot more.

ALAN JONES: Good, well you are the boss.

PRIME MINISTER: We got the best deal we could out of the Senate and if we hadn’t had a deal, Alan, we would have been stuck with even more ofthese things.

ALAN JONES: Isn’t it fair to say, Prime Minister, if it such a good thing, I mean there are people listening to you now and they have got up at 5 o’clock they are only going to make $900 a week if they are lucky. They have rolled their sleeves up. You are not subsidising their little business whether they are breaking bread. Why are we subsidising China’s windfarm at Gullen Range which is illegal? Why?

PRIME MINISTER: Alan, this particular policy was a policy that was put in place in the late days of the Howard Government. Knowing what we know now I don’t think we would have gone down this path in this way. At the time we thought it was the right way forward. Sometimes you have got to deal with the situation that you have got rather than the ideal and what we have managed to do through this, admittedly imperfect but better than the alternative deal with the Senate is reduce the growth rate of this particular sector as much as the current Senate would allow us to do.
Alan Jones Breakfast, 2GB

Glad to see the PM using the correct terminology there (as highlighted)!!

But we have to pull the PM into gear over one or two furphies.

One is the claim that the impacts of the great wind power fraud are all the fault of the States. Without the Coalition’s latest $46 billion wind industry rescue package, there is no way any more of these things would be built, anywhere, FULL STOP:

Out to Save their Wind Industry Mates, Macfarlane & Hunt Lock-in $46 billion LRET Retail Power Tax

Tony Abbott’s line that the “sites of these things is a matter for the state government” is a whole lot like the bloke that sells the sawn-off shotgun to an armed robber; and who then protests his innocence for what follows.

armed robber

****

Sure, the illegal firearm vendor didn’t actually pull the trigger and send a bank teller for an unscheduled trip to the morgue. However, in the absence of the weapon supplied, there may have been no robbery – certainly not an “armed” one – and no harm done to bank tellers, in any event.

In the criminal law, the concept of liability for those who provide the arms to known bandits is picked up in the concepts of accessorial liability – the ol’ chestnuts about aiding and abetting, accessory before the fact and all that.

In this case, though, the Coalition is not only providing the weapon, from now until 2031 it will be supplying the offenders with an endless stream of ammunition – in the form of over 500 million Renewable Energy Certificates; designed to be worth over $90 – as young Gregory Hunt calls them: “a massive $93 per tonne carbon tax” – the $46 billion cost of which will be borne by all Australian power consumers.

Tony, the only way to stop “these things” is to disarm the bandits by killing the LRET now.

The other serious misconception popped up (and jumped on by AJ) is the nonsense that State governments have increased setback distances.

In South Australia – Australia’s wind power capital – it’s a derisory 1,000m. In Victoria, the lunatics from Labor recently cut theirs from 2km to 1,000m too. And Labor’s wind industry masters are pushing hard to do away with even that miniscule distance.

And if the PM thinks that 2km is a fair thing, he might like to pay attention to what Clive and Trina Gare told the Senate last week; viz.:

“towers should not be within five kilometres of residences, and I would personally not buy a house within 20 kilometres of a wind farm”.

And that’s not coming from your average “wind farm wing-nuts”. Oh no. The Gares have, so far, pocketed $1 million for hosting 19 of these things on their property since 2010:

SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Killing Noise

But, hats off to the PM for recognising the adverse health effects suffered by the likes of the Gares – and hundreds of other Australians – forced to live next to these things: the most common and obvious of which is sleep deprivation caused by incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound at night-time.

And, not afraid to go on with it, Tony Abbott backed it up with comments reported in The Australian.

RET deal ‘saved windfarm explosion’
The Australian
Sarah Martin
13 June 2015

Tony Abbott claims the government was “right and proper” to scale back the renewable energy target, saying it had prevented an “explosion” of windfarms across the country.

The Prime Minister said the RET deal struck with the Senate — which resulted in the Coalition and Labor agreeing to lower the target from 41,000 gigawatt hours to 33,000GWh — was a good outcome.

“It’s right and proper that we have reduced the renewable ­energy target because, as things stood, there was going to be an explosion of these things right around our country,” he said.

“There will still be some growth, but it will be much less than it would otherwise have been thanks to measures that this government has taken.”

Mr Abbott also revealed his ­experience encountering an “ugly” wind turbine during a cycling trip on Western Australia’s Rottnest Island.

“I cycled around the island most mornings and my path took me almost directly under the big wind turbine which has been on Rottnest Island for some time,” Mr Abbott said.

“Now, up close, they’re ugly, they’re noisy and they may have all sorts of other impacts which I will leave to the scientists to study, and that’s why I think it’s right and proper that state governments should have increased the distance from habitations that these installations now need to keep.”

The comments come after the renewable energy sector and Labor reacted angrily to Mr Abbott’s claim he had wanted to further slash the growth of wind generation through negotiations on the RET scheme.

But he said what the government could achieve had been limited by a hostile Senate.

When asked if he supported Mr Abbott’s view that wind turbines were “visually awful”, Environment Minister Greg Hunt said he was “neutral” on their appeal.

“Look, I’d put it this way — beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” Mr Hunt said.

“I’m less fussed about them but I know there are many people who are concerned and they have a right to be heard and they have a right to be heard without those who don’t live with them in their backyards deriding them.”

He said he expected more wind power would be required to meet the government’s policy goal of having 20 per cent of energy production from renewable sources by 2020, but said solar was becoming “more competitive.”
The Australian

Good to see young Gregory Hunt continuing to spread the lines fed to him by the wind industry plants and stooges that people his office – like Patrick Gibbons, who just happens to be best mates with Ken McAlpine, the head spruiker for struggling Danish fan maker, Vestas. Although, as events are unfolding, Hunt’s limp efforts at wind industry advocacy are likely to fall entirely flat.

You see, in the last week or so the response by the lunatics from the hard-green-left to the PM’s comments – laid out above – and efforts by the good Senators on the Inquiry to expose the scale and scope of the great wind power fraud (including recent media forays by David Leyonhjelm) – have been little short of hysterical.

2_77

****

STT couldn’t have asked for better. There is no easier battle to win, than the one that your enemies win for you.

Every time one of the wind industry’s parasites or spruikers chimes in with a rant about there being “no evidence …” or “the NHMRC said that …”, these idiots simply highlight the fact that there is a problem.

It’s a bit like police at the scene of a multiple car pileup telling passers-by that “there’s nothing to see here, move on”. The natural human response is to stand fast and gawp at the gore.

And so it is among the wind industry’s erstwhile “helpers”. The more they rant, the more they rave the more attention they attract to the carnage.

From STT’s perspective, the more attention the better. You see, the wind industry’s ability to roll out the 2,500 giant fans needed to satisfy the latest LRET doesn’t depend upon Alan Jones, Tony Abbott or David Leyonhjelm – it depends upon commercial lending institutions (ie banks).

With all the sound, fury and bloodletting taking place in the media on a daily basis, no banker in touch with their earthly senses is going to lend so much as a penny to a wind power outfit to build any new wind farms from here on. The insurmountable obstacle to that event can be summed up in a single word: RISK.

Whether or not the wind industry’s parasites and spruikers’ “case”, about there being no adverse health impacts from wind turbine noise stacks up, is neither here nor there.

What matters is the potential for wind power outfits to be sued by wind farm neighbours; or, of governments responding with increasingly stringent regulation on the operation of wind farms – such as shutting them down at night-time to let the neighbours sleep, say. And it’s the potential realisation of those facts, that will keep bankers from even considering lending any more money to wind power outfits, from here on in.

While there may not always be fire where there’s smoke, sometimes, smoke on its own, is more than enough to signal the risk that one might just get burnt.

Turbine fire with black smoke

The Absolute Futility of Wind Turbines for Electricity! Unreliable, Unaffordable, Unnecessary!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

SA – Australia’s ‘Wind Power Capital’ – Pays the World’s Highest Power Prices and Wonders Why it’s an Economic Basket Case

June 16, 2015 by

tom playford-anzac-parade

****

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away there was a veritable manufacturing and industrial nirvana. Post WWII, its population grew at a phenomenal rate; and so too did the level of prosperity enjoyed by thousands of migrants fleeing to it from war ravaged Europe – cheap and abundant food, decent, affordable housing, motor cars, televisions – all within reach for the first time for this aspiring class of people; it soon became a paradise for the working class: it was called South Australia.

And it got that way through the efforts of a legendary political performer, Sir Tom Playford.

In the 1940s, Playford (Premier for 26 years from 1938 to 1965) had a gift in the form of vast untapped reserves of brown coal located at Leigh Creek, about 260 km north of Port Augusta which sits at the top of the Spencer Gulf.

Through Tom’s tireless efforts he coupled that resource with his own creation, the Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA), which went on to provide cheap reliable power to almost every home, farm and business in very short order: from 1946 to 1965, the proportion of South Australians connected to electricity increased from 70% to 96%.

Port Augusta Power Station

***

Central to his efforts to populate and industrialise South Australia, was the power station at Port Augusta – for a detailed rundown on Tom Playford’s pragmatic political genius see our essay here:

ETSA: Sir Tom Playford’s Ghost

News last week that Alinta Energy will shut down the Port Augusta power station (which carries Tom Playford’s name), was greeted by the economics lightweights that write for The Australian (and others) with seemingly jubilant headlines such as “Jobs blown away as turbines kill coal”. We’ll return to the nonsense contained in that type of infantile journalistic hubris in a moment.

We have no doubt that the closure of the Port Augusta power station will have Sir Tom turning in his grave.

Kicking off in a big way from 2009, South Australia led Australia’s ludicrous “wind rush”: it currently has over 40% of the installed wind power capacity connected to the Eastern Grid (1,477MW out of the 3,669MW total).

Since then, power prices have skyrocketed – and its unemployment rate with it. Last week, South Australia received the dubious honour of having the highest unemployment rate in the Nation: at 7.6% and rising, it’s even worse than moribund Tasmania, which usually tops that list with ease.

Now, those with some sense of economics – like STT Champion, Danny Price – have chimed in to warn that South Australia’s dismal economic situation can only get worse from here –  given that the closure of the Port Augusta power station can only “drive up [power] prices”.

Coal shutdown ‘will drive up power price’
The Australian
Michael Owen, Meredith Booth
13 June 2015

The federal government and economic forecasters are warning South Australia that the closure of coal-fired power stations by April will push up power prices in the state, which has the highest electricity bills in the nation.

South Australia has pursued the rise of green energy since 2002 and generates 37 per cent of its power through solar and wind.

Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price yesterday said it was unusual “so much wind is going into such a market”.

This was raising prices and ­reducing demand for coal power.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the closure of Alinta’s plant will drive up prices,” he said.

“In the last 10 years, new coal-fired power stations (globally) outstrip new renewable generation by five times,” he said.

He said the Alinta power stations at Port Augusta, 310km north of Adelaide, that were slated for closure supplied 16 per cent of the state’s power and their loss would leave it short of cheap base­load electricity.

On Thursday Alinta Energy announced its two power stations, one already mothballed, and an associated coalmine at Leigh Creek, 260km north of Port Augusta, would close 12 years early because they were unviable. Alinta blamed the rise in renewable power, much of it government subsidised.

Federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey, whose seat of Grey takes in Port Augusta and Leigh Creek, yesterday called on Alinta Energy to delay closure until at least 2018.

“Their absence will create a lot of issues about baseline power supply and will lead to price rises across South Australia and difficulties for businesses and other parts of the community,” he said.

Experts say the cheapest solution for the state to deal with a shortage of baseload power was to enlarge the interconnector between South Australia, NSW and Victoria, allowing the state to tap into an excess national supply.

The Australian Energy Regulator last year approved funding to upgrade the interconnector linking South Australia and Victoria, with the $47 million project expected to be commissioned by July next year.

State Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis insisted electricity prices would not rise.

He said coalmining was a dying industry and suggested workers affected by Alinta’s closure were highly skilled and would either take redundancies or find work elsewhere.

South Australia posted its worst unemployment figures in 14 years on Thursday, the rate rising to 7.6 per cent last month, up from 7.2 per cent in April. It was the worst result since July 2001.

Mr Koutsantonis said Thursday’s state budget “would be focused on creating jobs”.

University of Adelaide workforce academic John Spoehr warned the state faced a return to double-digit unemployment.

“Unless we can fill the void, unemployment will rise to 10 per cent over the next two years,” Associate Professor Spoehr said.

“We need to boost infrastructure and the capacity of the public sector with a combination of debt and direct-funded infrastructure. Let’s not be deficit fetishists.”

Alinta chief executive Jeff Dimery said South Australia would have no problems with securing baseload electricity supply.

Additional reporting: Verity Edwards
The Australian

Now, we promised earlier that we would skewer the naive nonsense about wind power “killing coal”.

STT just loves it when a case can be made simply – and even more so when it can be done in pictures.

Aneroid Energy (formerly windfarmperformance.info) tosses up the facts that the wind industry loves to hate; on a daily basis. It’s the very stuff that scotches wind industry bunkum – such as, “the wind is always blowing somewhere”; and “if you build enough turbines and spread them out far enough you’ll have baseload wind power coming out of your ears”:

Wind Power Myths BUSTED

We’ll start with a quick look at Australia’s wind power May-hem. Here’s the chaos delivered by all of the Australian wind farms connected to the Eastern Grid (which covers the ACT, Tasmania, South Australia, Victoria, NSW and Queensland) for the month of May (oh, and if the graphs appear fuzzy, click on them and they’ll pop up crystal clear in a new window).

May 2015 National

Looking a bit like the meanderings of a drunken spider that had dipped one leg in the ink-well and staggered over the page, that’s the nonsense that wind farms can deliver power as an “alternative” to on-demand power generation sources such as hydro, gas and coal belted, yet again.

With 31 ‘chances’ to make a meaningful contribution to lighting up the 1.4 million homes said by wind power outfits to be ‘powered’ by their wind farms – output collapses 7 times to less than 250MW – or less than 6.8% of the total installed capacity of 3,669MW.

Now, let’s have a look at what SA’s 1,477MW of installed capacity was up (or, rather down) to during May.

May 2015 SA

Hmmm …

Instead of ‘blowing coal away’ as the wind industry, its parasites and spruikers would have us believe, wind power managed to produce 5 complete ‘doughnuts’ during May – ie complete collapses in wind power output. So much for the pitch about ‘powering’ all those homes with ‘wonderful, FREE wind energy’ …

And – on 7 other occasions – collapsed to less than 200MW – or less than 13.5% of SA’s the total installed capacity of 1,477MW.

Those inconvenient pics and numbers are more than enough to skewer the typical line spread by fawning and gullible journos, about the contribution from wind power – such as the drivel in the piece above where it gushes that SA “generates 37 per cent of its power through solar and wind”. No it doesn’t.

ICU Respiratory_therapist

****

The demand for power is a ‘here and now kind’ of thing; and from the graphs above (and below), with wind power it’s a case of here for a few hours today; and gone for the day, tomorrow.

But, STT, never afraid to kick a wind industry myth when it’s down, thinks it’s worth drilling a little deeper into the numbers for this month.

Here’s the total output from all wind farms on the Eastern Grid for 2 June 2015.

2 June 2015 National

Thumping stuff – if chaos is your thing: a whopping collapse of 380MW – from 450MW to 70MW in less than 6 hours; with 70MW being around 1.9% of the total installed capacity of 3,669MW.

Now, let’s have a look at SA alone.

2 June 2015 SA

Another phenomenal effort – a 250MW collapse – taking less than 6 hours to bottom out with a big fat ZERO. And struggling to top 20MW (or 1.3% of capacity) for 4 hours – 1pm to 5pm – right at the point when demand hits its straps.

Sure, everyone is entitled to a little down time, so let’s have a look at the situation on the Eastern Grid on 5 June 2015, to see if wind power was able to benefit from its unscheduled R&R two days earlier.

5 June 2015 National

No, apparently the rest didn’t help much. From 10am to midnight total output bubbles along between 200-400MW (or between 5% and 10% of capacity) – with more than 90% of Australia’s wind power capacity taking most of the day off (yet, again).

And, to see if SA’s wind farms were pulling any of what little weight was being pulled by wind power, here’s the numbers from the same day for SA.

5 June 2015 SA

Looking more like the profile of a Swiss ski run, another coal ‘crushing’ effort there from SA’s finest.

Over the day, there’s an almost total collapse of 1,200MW or 81% of capacity going missing. By lunchtime, wind power is off for a well-earned siesta, with output sliding from 200MW (or 13.5% of capacity) to less than 50MW (or less than 3% of capacity) – a whole lot less than the 37% contribution to SA’s power output touted by the gullible young pups from The Australian (solar’s contribution to total output in SA is a pittance, and is, of course, ZERO when the sun sets).

Wind power hasn’t ‘killed coal’ in SA – it hasn’t anywhere.

On the dozens of occasions outlined above – where wind power output struggled to top 10% of its capacity – the balance of the power being chewed up in SA (and elsewhere on the Eastern Grid) ALL came from conventional, on-demand generation sources, predominantly coal, gas and hydro – in that order.

When SA’s wind watts go AWOL for hours – and even days at a time – South Australia imports huge volumes of cheap coal-fired power from Victoria’s La Trobe Valley and NSW, using the Heywood and Murraylink Interconnectors (with a combined notional capacity of 680 MW).

It also has 1,280MW of gas-steam capacity with AGL’s Torrens Island plant near Port Adelaide (see this article).

And – when demand outstrips those base-load sources – SA has a fleet of highly inefficient (and therefore costly to run) Open Cycle Gas Turbines and diesel generators to cover the shortfall.

Peaking power at Hallett

****

The cost of providing power using OCGTs and diesel generators to provide back-up for unpredictable but inevitable wind power collapses is astronomical: the dispatch price has to hit $300 per MWh before OCGT owners even begin to think about firing them up.

In this Wattclarity post on 9 June (on a typically cold SA winter evening) as wind power output collapsed (again) – heading in the opposite direction to demand – OCGTs were cranked into gear, as were diesel generators (referred to as liquid fuel generators in the Wattclarity article). The cost of wind power’s disappearance and the use of OCGTs and diesel generators to meet demand saw the dispatch price zoom from its usual $30-40 per MWh mark to $589.50 per MWh in order to keep the grid up and lights burning (see the NEM data here).

On plenty of other similar occasions the dispatch price in SA hits or gets close to the regulated cap of $12,500 per MWh (see our posts here andhere).

South Australians are already lamenting the fact that they pay the highest power prices in the world:

Why South Australians Pay the World’s Highest Power Prices

And that there are 50,000 homes (in a state with a population of around 1.6 million) that have no electricity whatsoever – and thousands more having their power cut every year – simply because they can no longer afford it:

Casualties of South Australia’s Wind Power Debacle Mount: Thousands Can’t Afford Power

What Danny Price points out is that – with the closure of the cheapest generator in the State – the Port Augusta power station – things can only get worse from here.

The furphy that ‘turbines kill coal’ is covered by the pictures above – how on earth could SA’s wind power be ‘killing’ anything on 2 and 5 June – and on 5 occasions in May – when it was struggling to produce anything at all, let alone enough to boil a kettle?

In truth, what led to Alinta Energy’s decision to ditch its Port Augusta plant is the monstrous market distortion generated by the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target – a Federally mandated $50 billion wind industry subsidy scheme paid for by all Australian power consumers as a hidden tax on retail power bills (see our post here).

On the rare occasions when wind power is able to deliver meaningful output to the grid – which is usually at night-time – wind power outfits are more than happy for the dispatch price (the price paid by the grid operator to generators) to hit zero – and often pay the grid operator to take their output.

The LRET effectively forces retailers to take wind power output ahead of every other generation source. Failure to take wind power and the Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) that go with it, leaves the retailer liable to pay a fine (the “shortfall charge”) of $65 for each MW/h the retailer falls short of the LRET’s mandated target.

The REC that is issued to wind power generators for each MWh of wind power dispatched (currently worth around $50) forms part of the bargain struck under the Power Purchase Agreements wind power generators hold with retailers, containing fixed and guaranteed minimum prices of between $90-120 per MW/h (3-4 times the cost of conventional power). The wind power outfit collects the REC, which passes to the retailer who then surrenders it to the Clean Energy Regulator, thereby, avoiding the “shortfall charge”. The price fixed by the PPA is tied to the expected value of the REC, the wind power outfit gets the price fixed by the PPA, irrespective of the dispatch price; and the power consumer pays the price fixed by the PPA, plus a retail margin on top.

As a result of the above, when they’re delivering to the grid, wind power outfits are happy to watch the dispatch price plummet, punishing base-load generators – like Alinta Energy, while having no impact on their own returns. It’s what’s called “predatory pricing”:

Perverse Renewables Policy turns Wind Power into Super-Predator

What SA’s turbines have ‘killed’ is meaningful employment.

While the article talks of unemployment at 7.6%, that masks the pockets of regional and youth unemployment: Adelaide’s northern suburbs, like Elizabeth have youth unemployment rates in the order of 40% – and, with the imminent closure of big employers, like motor manufacturer, General Motors Holden (with another 1,300 jobs on the chopping block) SA can only look forward to a generation of even more despair (see this Advertiser article).

And that brings us to another well-worn wind industry myth: the yarn about wind power creating thousands of ‘groovy-green’ jobs – lately used by wind industry spruikers to garner support for the retention of the LRET.

SA has more wind turbines per head than any other state – its great ‘wind rush’ took off in earnest in 2010. Since then, its power prices have surged to be among the highest in the world (with the closure of the Port Augusta power station they’re about to rocket again). Over the same time scale, its unemployment rate has jumped to be the worst in the Nation; and – with escalating power prices – can only worsen from here.

Unemployment-Rate-SA-line-2fromGFC

So, with $billions ‘invested’ in wind power in SA, STT puts the poser: what happened to all of the lasting, well-paid jobs promised by wind power outfits during their nauseating community ‘consultations’?  Maybe the answer is found by taking a look at Germany, which, like SA, was beguiled with the self-same same pitch:

Germany’s Unsustainable “Green” Jobs “Miracle” Collapses

Will the last South Australian to leave, please turn out the lights – if anyone can still afford to keep them going, that is?

studying candle

The Gag is Off, and This Wind Turbine Host, Tells the True Story!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

SA Farmers Paid $1 Million to Host 19 Turbines Tell Senate they “Would Never Do it Again” due to “Unbearable” Sleep-Destroying Noise

June 15, 2015 by 4 Comments

gare2

****

Clive and Trina Gare are cattle graziers from South Australia’s Mid-North with their home property situated between Hallett and Jamestown.

Since October 2010, the Gares have played host to 19, 2.1MW Suzlon s88 turbines, which sit on a range of hills to the West of their stately homestead. Under their contract with AGL they receive around $200,000 a year; and have pocketed over $1 million since the deal began.

In a truly noble and remarkable move, the Gares gave evidence to the Senate Inquiry into the great wind power fraud during its Adelaide hearing, last week. Here’s their tragic story.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Proof Committee Hansard
SENATE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON WIND TURBINES
WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE 2015

Mr Gare: Thank you for inviting me to present my submission today.

My submission deals with the impact on my health and lifestyle living in close proximity to a wind farm. Let me say from the outset that we were excited about the prospect of being part of the renewable electricity industry. I am a host to wind towers on my property, the nearest being about 800 metres away with three towers within approximately one to 1.5 kilometres away.

We were not made aware of the impacts of noise on our health or lifestyle. Fortunately, we had heard from others that they were quite noisy. Luckily, in our contracts we inserted clauses about the need for noise mitigation.

I do wonder why though the wind tower operators inserted the following clause in all the hosts’ contracts section 77C, which is on the memorandum of lease which I will table:

‘The landlord acknowledges and agrees that it is adequately compensated for any noise or inconvenience caused as a result of the permitted use of the site or the land and that it will not seek any further compensation from the tenant in relation to such matters.’

If the wind tower operators were confident of their impact studies, that clause would not be necessary.

After a short period of living with an operating wind farm, we had these products installed. I find that, because I work and reside in close proximity to the wind farm, I suffer sleep interruption, mild headaches, agitation and a general feeling of unease; however, this occurs only when the towers are turning, depending on the wind direction and wind strength.

My occupation requires that I work amongst the wind towers during the day which means I suffer the full impacts of noise for days at a time without relief. The impacts are that we are not able to open our windows because of the noise at night and we are not able to entertain outside because of the noise.

In conclusion, if we did not have soundproof batts in VLam Hush windows, our house would not be habitable. In my opinion, towers should not be within five kilometres of residences, and I would personally not buy a house within 20 kilometres of a wind farm. Thank you.

Mrs Gare: Good afternoon Senators, and ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for letting me speak to the committee today. I would like to open my statement with the following: developers and construction. In the beginning, I was excited about the wind farm and of course the financial security for our property and family.

The process began with high-pressure consultations, negotiations for weeks on end, numerous phone calls and face-to-face meetings with the developers. We seemed to be under constant pressure to agree to their wishes and, if we wanted any changes, it took a lot of negotiation.

We had to try and foresee any problems that may impact on our lifestyle for the next 25 years plus. With little or no previous information to go on, this was a very taxing time. Having gone through this, I would like to see that a person or persons – probably with a legal background and well-schooled in wind turbine information – be contactable for future wind farm hosts for advice and even to help with negotiations with the development companies.

Construction was also a very stressful and challenging time. The landowners are up against not only the power company but also all the big contractors and civil works companies. Any meetings with the above parties had to be attended by both of us with me taking notes so that we had some kind of record of what was said and what matters needed to be addressed at the time.

We had a lot of erosion problems from the pads and roadways, which we had to chase up with the power company to get them to address. During construction there were lots of problems with gates left open, boxing up mobs of cattle which then took a full day of redrafting and settling back into their paddocks.

We also had gates opening onto public roadways. We have a main bitumen road that goes past our property. This caused great angst as far as public liability is concerned, if our stock got out into the roads. We also had lots of rubbish scattered around the property. We witnessed one of our cattle eating a one metre by one metre piece of plastic sheeting.

Living with wind turbines.

Our house is solid sandstone, built for the late Charles Hawker in the 1920s, with concrete internal walls and a steel roof. The house is surrounded by a lot of vegetation and trees. I have brought some photos to show the Senate.

In the months after the towers started in October 2010, the noise was unbearable, especially when two towers became in sync. A loud thumping would radiate throughout the house. Even watching TV in the furthermost room from the towers, you could hear them. Sleeping was most difficult. I use, and still do, an earpiece radio every night, which helps block out the noise to a certain degree. If they are really going I have to up the volume.

After some time, due to a very slow installer, the house was finally insulated: sonobatts in the ceiling cavity; all our outside air vents blocked; a special American glass called Vlam Hush, which is two sheets of glass with a special gel between, were installed in every door and window of the house. This has improved the situation for me considerably, but at times the noise still penetrates into the house.

Ongoing issues.

Due to the house being sealed we have refrigerated air conditioning, because we cannot open windows because of the noise. A separate meter was installed on the wind farm operator’s advice, so that they could pay the cost of the air conditioning usage. That went in over 12 months ago and we are still chasing payment.

Another issue is the increase in our emergency services levy. The value of our property has increased by double, which has had a major increase in the levy. The power company pay council rates on the land that they lease, and we pay rates on the rest. We brought up the issue of the increased ESL with the power company, but they have not addressed it. We feel they should be responsible due to the increase in our land value. I have the value difference here: I think it is about $1.6 million increase. I quote from the contract, 6.1, rates and taxes, section B:

However, during each year of this lease the tenant must pay any increase in rates and taxes above the rates and taxes that were payable immediately before the start of the agreement to lease, if the increase is directly attributable to the works or the use of the site for the permitted use.

We also have ongoing problems with the cables which run across our property and connect into the individual towers to transport the power to a substation. There seem to be constant cable breakages, which have to be dug up and fixed. This, of course, happens all over the property. Having 19 towers, it has quite a big impact. Quite a large area is disturbed and then has to be recovered with sand or soil.

We have asked for compensation concerning this, as we have numerous cable breaks on the property with disturbance to our pastures, which interferes with our stock grazing. This was discussed at a meeting back in August 2014. We are still waiting for compensation, which is agreed by the wind operators. As you can see, they are not fast movers.

The land owners need to know their rights in regard to their property and how it is treated during and after construction of towers. Land owners with residences close to towers need to be made aware of the noise impact and there should be discussion of how close towers should be permitted to their premises. In my opinion, towers should not be any closer than five kilometres to a dwelling. If we had to buy another property, it would not be within a 20-kilometre distance to a wind farm. I think that says it all.

We have a son who will come home in a couple of years, and I have concerns for him and a family that he might have in the future, with regard to any health problems that may arise. Having lived with towers now for five years, in my opinion future hosts should glean as much information as they can and find out their rights so they can fully understand what they are taking on.

Senator XENOPHON: I would just like to ask some questions to Mr and Mrs Gare. I think the fact that you are hosts of wind turbines and you are giving evidence is significant. How many turbines are there on your property?

Mr Gare: Nineteen.

Senator XENOPHON: How long have you had them there?

Mr Gare: Five years.

Senator XENOPHON: And when did your start complaining about the turbines in terms of the adverse impacts?

Mr Gare: Straightaway.

Senator XENOPHON: Is it AGL that you are dealing with?

Mr Gare: Yes.

Senator XENOPHON: You may want to provide us with any documents in respect of this. How did they deal with the process? Once you raised the issue, what happened?

Mr Gare: We had it in our contract that if we found there was a problem they would put in noise mitigation products. We said: ‘You will have to do it. We cannot bear it.’ Because it was in the contract they went along with it, but I am sure, Nick, that they would not have if they did not have to.

Senator XENOPHON: It is a contractual relationship so it is under the terms of the contract. Are you able to say – and you may not want to – what level of payment have you been getting? If you do not feel comfortable saying how much you are being paid for the 19 turbines on an annual basis, you do not have to.

Mr Gare: All up, in total, about $200,000, so there is not a lot of advantage for us in coming here today.

Senator XENOPHON: When you experienced the noise, could you stay in the property or did you have to move out?

Mr Gare: If we did not have the noise mitigation products put in, we would have moved out.

Senator XENOPHON: Prior to the noise mitigation products being put in, how did it affect your sleep? Did you spend more time away from home?

Mr Gare: Fortunately, we have eastern rangeland country where I could go to get away from it. As I said in my submission, I am there 24 hours a day in amongst it. I had to go away to wind down. What was your question, sorry?

Senator XENOPHON: What period of time was it from the time the noise affected you until the time you had the noise mitigation – several weeks or several months? How long was it?

Mrs Gare: I reckon it took about 15 months or more. We had a very slow installer of the batts and things.

Senator XENOPHON: You are protected by parliamentary privilege when speaking out here today. Did AGL say to you: ‘Sometimes this happens. It is just one of those things’? Did they give an explanation as to the level of disruption? Did they say, ‘This has not happened before’?

Mr Gare: No. It was all glossed over right from the start. We were given no information.

One of their little tricks is to take people right up to the towers and say, ‘This is how noisy they are.’ But that is not so.

The further you get away from the tower the noisier they are. That is a funny thing, to a point I guess. When you are right underneath them and they are 80 metres up in the air there is very little noise. There is just a bit of wind noise. As you go away one or two kilometres it actually gets worse.

Senator XENOPHON: Before the noise attenuation or noise suppression in your home what was your quality of life like?

Mr Gare: Crap, to put it honestly.

Senator XENOPHON: You got a bit of sleep each night, didn’t you?

Mr Gare: With earplugs, yes. I wore earplugs constantly – only while they are turning, mind you, and providing they are in the right direction and have the right wind strength. Frosty nights are the worst because the sound tends to travel so much clearer and further on a frosty night. But earplugs.

Senator XENOPHON: Anything else, Mrs Gare?

Mrs Gare: No. Pretty much what Clive has said.

Senator XENOPHON: Do you sleep okay now?

Mrs Gare: No, they were waking me up on the weekend. You wake up to the thumping. This is with all the soundproofing in the house. As I said, I sleep with the radio on every night. If they are really cranked up I have to turn the volume up, so I will probably just go slowly deaf.

Senator DAY: I just want to clarify something. Frosty nights are normally not very windy.

Mr Gare: That is a funny thing. Our country is very hilly, and they put wind farms on top of hills. It can be blowing an absolute gale on the top of the hills and you can have frost in the valley.

Senator DAY: It is just that we have heard evidence that, even when the blades are not turning, they do have a similar infrasound impact on people because of the effect of the wind across the blades, across the aerofoil.

Mr Gare: Yes, but if there is that much wind the blades are turning, aren’t they?

Senator DAY: That is right.

Senator LEYONHJELM: If you had your time over again, would you host a wind farm?

Mr Gare: No, absolutely not. If I were a rich man, I would not have a wind farm on my property.

Senator LEYONHJELM: And you said it was $200,000 over five years approximately?

Mr Gare: No, 12 months.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Per year.

Mr Gare: Yes.

Senator LEYONHJELM: That is a fairly healthy income.

Mr Gare: Absolutely.

Senator LEYONHJELM: In spite of that, you would say that you would not have them.

Mr Gare: Absolutely, if I were a rich man, but unfortunately I am a farmer and there are not many rich farmers around.

Senator LEYONHJELM: What sort of farming?

Mr Gare: We are grazing, we can be cropping but we –

Senator LEYONHJELM: Sheep or cattle?

Mr Gare: Mostly cattle.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Has there been any effect on your cattle from the wind farms?

Mr Gare: No.

Senator LEYONHJELM: Okay, thank you.

Hansard, 10 June 2015

The evidence given by Gares will have ramifications for the wind industry, in Australia and beyond. To call it a major development in the ‘debate’ about the impact of incessant turbine generated low-frequency noise and infrasound on human health, is mastery in understatement.

You see, the shills that run propaganda for the wind industry – including a former tobacco advertising guru – run the story that it’s only “jealous” wind farm neighbours who complain about wind turbine noise, “jealous” because they’re not getting paid; and that those who get paid to host them never, ever complain (see this piece of cooked-up propaganda piffle here).

The Gares pocket $200,000 a year for the ‘pleasure’ of hosting 19 of these things; and, yet, make it very clear that it was the worst decision of their lives.

To describe the noise from turbines as “unbearable”; requiring earplugs and the noise from the radio to help them get to sleep at night; and the situation when the turbines first started operating in October 2010 as “Crap, to put it honestly” – is entirely consistent with the types of complaints made routinely by wind farm neighbours who don’t get paid, in Australia and around the world.

The Gare’s evidence is also entirely consistent with the experience of David and Alida Mortimer, also paid to host turbines for Infigen at Lake Bonney, near Millicent in SA’s South-East (see our post here).

Despite AGL spending tens of thousands on noise “mitigation” measures, the noise from turbines continues to ruin their ability to sleep in their own home, as Trina Gare put it:

No, they were waking me up on the weekend. You wake up to the thumping. This is with all the soundproofing in the house. As I said, I sleep with the radio on every night. If they are really cranked up I have to turn the volume up, so I will probably just go slowly deaf.

With the aid of their pets at the NHMRC, the wind industry continues the fluff about there being no evidence of adverse health impacts caused by wind turbines (see our post here). However, the evidence given by the Gares – as to the routine sleep disturbance caused by turbine noise – is, in and of itself, conclusive proof of adverse health effects.

The World Health Organisation has viewed “noise-induced sleep disturbance … as a health problem in itself” for over 60 years – its Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe – the Executive Summary at XI to XII which covers the point – says:

NOISE, SLEEP AND HEALTH

There is plenty of evidence that sleep is a biological necessity, and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of health problems. Studies of sleep disturbance in children and in shift workers clearly show the adverse effects.

Noise disturbs sleep by a number of direct and indirect pathways. Even at very low levels physiological reactions (increase in heart rate, body movements and arousals) can be reliably measured. Also, it was shown that awakening reactions are relatively rare, occurring at a much higher level than the physiological reactions.

The review of available evidence leads to the following conclusions.

  • Sleep is a biological necessity and disturbed sleep is associated with a number of adverse impacts on health.
  • There is sufficient evidence for biological effects of noise during sleep: increase in heart rate, arousals, sleep stage changes and awakening.
  • There is sufficient evidence that night noise exposure causes self-reported sleep disturbance, increase in medicine use, increase in body movements and (environmental) insomnia.
  • While noise-induced sleep disturbance is viewed as a health problem in itself (environmental insomnia), it also leads to further consequences for health and well-being.
  • There is limited evidence that disturbed sleep causes fatigue, accidents and reduced performance.
  • There is limited evidence that noise at night causes hormone level changes and clinical conditions such as cardiovascular illness, depression and other mental illness. It should be stressed that a plausible biological model is available with sufficient evidence for the elements of the causal chain.

STT tends to think the World Health Organization – after more than 60 years of studying the problem – might just know a thing or two about night-time noise, sleep and health. And, after more than 5 years of suffering, so do Clive and Trina Gare.

Notwithstanding a $200,000 annual pay-cheque, and thousands spent on noise ‘mitigation’, the Gares still can’t sleep properly; or otherwise enjoy their own home – their suffering continues.

Against that backdrop, it’s to be noticed that the lunatics that pass for our political betters keep advocating for ever decreasing set-backs for turbines from residential homes: in South Australia, it’s currently a derisory 1,000m; in Victoria, it’s just been cut by the recently installed Labor government to 1,000m, too – although their wind industry masters are pushing to cut that measly distance even further.

So, it is more than just significant to hear from people who’ve had to live up close and personal with these things for over five years, especially when over that period they’ve pocketed over $1 million for doing so – Trina Gare observing, in the same terms as Clive, that:

In my opinion, towers should not be any closer than five kilometres to a dwelling. If we had to buy another property, it would not be within a 20-kilometre distance to a wind farm. I think that says it all.

The other point that arises loud and clear is the developer’s use of bullying, lies and deceit in order to get the Gares into their contract in the first place – starting with lies about the impact of turbine noise, Clive pointing out:

One of their little tricks is to take people right up to the towers and say, ‘This is how noisy they are.’ But that is not so.

The further you get away from the tower the noisier they are. That is a funny thing, to a point I guess. When you are right underneath them and they are 80 metres up in the air there is very little noise. There is just a bit of wind noise. As you go away one or two kilometres it actually gets worse.

And that type of skulduggery was being pulled amidst the usual inordinate pressure applied to unwitting farmers by developers, described by Trina as a process that:

began with high-pressure consultations, negotiations for weeks on end, numerous phone calls and face-to-face meetings with the developers. We seemed to be under constant pressure to agree to their wishes and, if we wanted any changes, it took a lot of negotiation.

All tricks; all traps; and all to the developer’s advantage.

Standard tricks, like telling the potential hosts – on a one-on-one basis – the very same story: “that all of their neighbours had already signed up”. Words usually uttered at a point in time when the developer had not signed ANY contracts in relation to its proposed development at all. Pressure often being added by telling the targets that they needed to sign up quickly, because if they didn’t they would be holding up hundreds of $millions in investment, hundreds of jobs etc, etc.

Working on the adage of “loose lips sink ships”, on each occasion, the farmers being targeted were told that they mustn’t breathe a word about the contract being offered to any living soul: so much easier to perpetuate a lie when it can’t be tested by your target with a quick phone call to their neighbours.

In order to add a little more pressure to their targets – and to get their monikers on the contract being offered – the developer’s goons would tell the target farming family that, because everyone else had signed up, they would end up with turbines right up to the boundaries of their properties (sometimes within a few hundred metres of their homes); so they “may as well sign up anyway”, because that way they would at least get paid for hosting some turbines on their own property.

The thrust of the developer’s pitch being that: your life is going to be ruined by dozens of turbines on your neighbour’s property, so you may as well receive a few grand a year for your pending troubles.

The same set of lies would be told repeatedly; until such time as ink appeared on all of the contracts needed to get the wind farm project off the ground, and on its way to a dodgy-development approval. The ruse has been used in numerous cases in Australia, in the USA and elsewhere:

Turbine Hosts’ Lament: Hammered by Wind Power Outfits; Hated by Former Friends, Relatives & Neighbours

On the strength of what the Gares have told Australia’s Senate, STT can only offer this advice to any farmer considering entering a landholder agreement with a wind power outfit: DON’T.

And, if you’re in a contract, do whatever you can to get out of it NOW. We suggest you obtain competent, independent legal advice on avoiding the kind of suffering thrust upon the Gares.

No matter how much you get paid, your home, along with those of your neighbours, will become practically uninhabitable. Moreover, you are unlikely to remain friends with your neighbours.

The Gares got into their contract at a time when nobody in South Australia knew about how noisy and disruptive giant industrial wind turbines could be in quiet rural environments  But, that’s all changed now. Plenty of rural communities are now suffering in precisely the same manner described by the Gares.

The Gares – along with plenty of others in the same position – were played by wind power outfits for dupes; as their evidence attests.

Admitting to a mistake takes honesty and personal integrity; admitting to a colossal mistake, even more so. However, to not only do so in public, but to your Parliament, exhibits moral decency – especially given the potential of that admission to operate as a sobering warning to others who have made, or who are likely to make, the very same error.

STT hears from its operatives at the hearing, that the Gares were warmly thanked for telling their story publicly. One who did so was STT Champion, Marina Teusner, from SA’s iconic Barossa Valley; and a voice of reason for the solid local group dedicated to killing off Pac Hydro’s threat of turbine terror for Keyneton (see our post here). Marina, in tears, embraced Trina Gare and gave her heartfelt thanks for what the Gares had just done.

As we said above, what the Gares have done is both remarkable and noble: these fine and decent people deserve the gratitude and sympathy of all; from those in their community, and well-beyond.

What they also deserve is that our political betters admit their mistakes; and immediately correct the errors that have led to the single greatest policy disaster in the history of the Commonwealth. After what the Gares have done, anything less is a monstrous insult.

abbottcover

Global Warming Alarmists use Fear, to Extort Money. We need to say NO!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

By: – Climate DepotJune 11, 2015 

WASHINGTON DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears to be “a house of cards” and a “truly a mad issue.”

“This is truly a mad issue,” Happer told the crowd of several hundred at the global warming skeptic conference in Washington DC on Thursday night. The event was sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Happer has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, nor will it cause catastrophic global warming,” Happer explained to the audience at the The Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (#ICCC10).

“This whole climate scare is a house of cards,” Happer said.

“The social cost of carbon is probably negative. There is no social cost of carbon,” he added. Happer has previously testified to the U.S. Congress. See:Flashback 2009: Will Happer Tells Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ — ‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ — ‘Children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science’

Earlier in the day, Atmospheric Physicist Dr. Fred Singer told the summit that the effect of CO2 emissions on climate is “negligible, not important” but very beneficial for agriculture.

Also attending the summit was U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee chairman Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). Inhofe advised Pope Francis to stay out of the climate debate.

“Everyone is going to ride the pope now. Isn’t that wonderful,” Inhofe told reporters. “The pope ought to stay with his job, and we’ll stay with ours.”

Related Links:

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer on AGW: ‘Data has been manipulated, honest scientific debate has been stifled, educational institutions have been turned into brain-washing centers for the cause’

Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing CO2 will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science’

‘In Defense of Carbon Dioxide’ — Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer & NASA Moonwalker Harrison H. Schmitt: ‘The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing CO2 will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science’

Global Wind Day….Let this be the Day to Ramp Up Education and Discussion of the Windscam!

/ 1957chev / 1 Comment

WORLD COUNCIL FOR NATURE

PRESS RELEASE
14 June 2015

GLOBAL WIND SCAM DAY

Tomorrow June 15th, the wind lobby will be celebrating Global Wind Day.
Its choice of day coincides with the WORLD ELDER ABUSE AWARENESS DAY, as
per United Nations’ resolution A/RES/66/127. This evidences a lack of
respect for the elders, especially those that are victims of abuse. Is
it surprising? – Not really. Wind farm victims are also treated with
contempt. They are ignored, or even accused of imagining their
insomnias, headaches, nauseas, tachycardias,  etc.

On June 15th, abused elders will take a second seat as they watch the
hundreds of events organised worldwide to convince people that wind
farms are useful, cheap, harmless to birds and people, good for property
values and great for tourism and the economy.

But are wind farms useful, they might ask?
– Not in the least, say independent engineers. The following cartoon
explains why:

On this special occasion, copyrights to the cartoon are waived by the
author, http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com [1]  We are grateful to him for
this attention.

Wind turbines have been operating since the eighties, yet the problem of
their intermittency hasn’t been solved. Nor has their cost, which
makes their electricity three times more expensive than that generated
by conventional power. This, and other unsolved problems listed below,
make many windfarm opponents claim that WIND TURBINES ARE A SCAM. Their
real purpose would be threefold:
– finance political parties (part of the subsidies are returned through
the famous “revolving door”);
– provide large, guaranteed profits to a new class of “green” crony
capitalists;
– hurt the economies of entire countries or states (starting with Spain,
California, Ontario, etc.), as a prelude to the political takeover by
“anti-establishment” political parties (e.g. “Podemos” in Spain).

Hence the nickname given by some to the Global Wind Day:

GLOBAL WIND SCAM DAY

OTHER UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATED TO WIND TURBINES:
– infrasound emitted by these machines make some residents seriously
ill,
– allowed noise limits are frequently exceeded,

– shadow flicker at certain hours of the day causes added stress to
residents,

– properties within view of the turbines suffer losses in value ranging
from roughly 10% to 50%,

– turbine blades kill birds and bats by the million every year;

– wind turbines depreciate landscapes and heritage sites, and horrify
most tourists;

– subsidies and other financial advantages granted by governments to
support unprofitable and unreliable wind energy cause budget deficits to
soar;

– taxpayers, then consumers foot the bill – fuel poverty soars;

– the high price of electricity causes companies to relocate abroad;

– investors prefer states or countries where energy is cheaper;

– states or countries relying on renewable energy become less
competitive, therefore poorer.

CONTACT:

Mark Duchamp    +34 693 643 736 [2]

Chairman
www.wcfn.org [3]

References available here:
http://wcfn.org/2015/06/04/global-wind-day-2/ [4]

Germany Realizing the Truth, About the Wind Scam!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

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

June 11, 2015 by

claudia schiffer

****

The wind industry, its parasites and spruikers, around the globe, hail Germany as THE wind power ‘Super Model’. Trouble is, in Germany – as elsewhere – the ‘gloss’ has well-and-truly worn off – and the ‘Model’ is looking more than just a little worse for wear.

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

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

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

In response to mounting health complaints, German Medicos have called for an outright halt to wind farm construction, in order to protect their fellow citizens; and to stave off medical malpractice suits:

German Medicos Demand Moratorium on New Wind Farms

Now, apart from unnecessary wind farm harm, Germans are fast waking up the unassailable fact that wind power is not only insanely expensive, it’s utterly meaningless as a power source.

Here’s a couple of recent pieces from Deutschland, that detail the scale of the disaster and the German’s brewing hostility to it.

The Madness Of Germany’s Energy Socialism
GWPF
Wolfram Weimer, Handelblatt
1 May 15

Germany’s energy revolution is getting more and more absurd. After nuclear power and gas, coal power is about to be phased out. The madness is reaching new proportions.

Thirty years ago, he would have certainly been honored as “Master Architect of Socialism” or “Chief Activist of Socialist Labour” – east of the Elbe. Sigmar Gabriel is doing everything possible to re-establish a comprehensive planned economy in Germany: the green energy transition pushes the gates to energy-socialism far open.

His latest coup: the German coal mining industry should be subjected to a national climate change regime and should submit to bureaucratic CO2-tonnes planning and arbitrary special levies. The German economy, the coal-states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Brandenburg, and the unions are up in arms. Verdi boss Frank Bsirske sees up to 100,000 jobs at risk and calls for mass demonstrations. The unfortunate RWE CEO Peter Terium warns desperately: “The levy would mean the immediate end for much of lignite mines and coal-fired plants.” And the Christian Democrat’s Armin Laschet warns:” With its special tax on coal the Minister of Economy purges the last subsidy-free, economic and import-independent domestic energy source from the German electricity market.”

In fact, the new coal plan is just another step in the great socialist power master plan that Sigmar Gabriel is rolling out all over Germany. Already a whole republic of Green electricity councils establishes determined plan-prices, solar and wind comrades produce arbitrary amounts of power, the population pays compulsory levies, supply and demand are suspended and party politics determine plan fulfillment figures. In this eco-socialism, everybody who produces electricity from renewable sources receives a nationally defined “energy feed-in tariff” (the very word sounds like it comes from East Berlin) according to plan specifications. This has as much to do with free market prices for electricity as Stasi boss Erich Mielke had to do with the freedom to travel – nothing.

What was once launched as a – well-intentioned – green energy revolution has now mutated into a giant VEB [i.e. East German state company]. In Gabriel’s system electricity production is no longer determined by demand – as is usual in a market economy. It is not demand that determines supply – but the subsidy billions. Produced is only what wind and solar power and feed-in tariffs expensively allow, not what the public and the economy need – cheap energy. In Gabriel’s national energy system there is an ideological distinction between “good” (green) and “evil” (traditional) energy. Therefore, even profitable and clean gas power plants are switched off – as just happened to Europe’s most modern gas-fired power plant in Irsching. Instead, new subsidy-fed projects are connected to the grid without the necessary network capacity and without the necessary storage technology. For these intermittent power plants, coal power plants have to be kept running as backups, which in turn emit a lot more CO2, which now are also extra-taxed. It all feels like socialist self-perpetuating: this energy revolution cannot be stopped.

Environmental Destruction

The eco-guaranteed prices already lead to all sorts of classic features of a planned economy all of which are well known from the Soviet bloc economies: unprofitable excess capacity, for example. Meanwhile, 1.4 million photovoltaic panels have been installed in the rather shady Germany.

No other country in the world has built up such a tremendous and wholly unprofitable contingent. With around 25,000 wind turbines as well as thousands of biogas plants we are world leader. Like in the five-year plans of the socialist German Democratic Republic, quotas, objectives, and targets are prescribed by central ministries.

The new eco-planned economy devours vast billions in subsidies, not less than 22 billion euros total EEG feed-in tariff per year – and yet electricity from renewable sources, even after more than ten years of continuous subsidies, is more expensive than that from coal, oil, nuclear energy and gas. Rather than terminate the subsidy socialism, however, a parasitic mix of funding application experts, investors, plant manufacturers and subsidy distributers continues to drive the industry forward.

They have created an eco-industrial complex, which performs perfect lobbying in Berlin, but which also ruins the country with windmills and fleeces it with collective money, because on top of that the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (Credit Bank for Rebuilding) grants the green lobby subsidised loans to ensure that the planned economy is also financially rounded.

The wrong-headed system is so expensive that only a very rich country like Germany can afford this large-scale experiment. Around 100 billion euros have already been burnt by this subsidy socialism. Currently the green energy levy costs 56 million euros every day. The expanding eco-socialism has turned energy providers to state combines of the Federal Grid Agency. Because this agency determines which prices may be charged for electricity transmission, it allows subsidies and authorised returns on investments. Because the industrial electricity prices are the second highest in Europe, energy-intensive businesses are gradually saying good-bye to Gabriel’s energy-socialism.

The fact that the colossal construction of wind turbines and solar installations also causes dramatic landscape blight is the sad irony of this green story. A journey through Gabriel-Germany is now like a green tunnel of horror, a roller-coaster ride through vast tracks of destroyed nature, a subsidy-grave filled with turbines and panels.

That’s why – rather than chasing coal off the market too – the green command and control economy needs to be reformed fundamentally. It has set in motion the biggest rip-off subsidy of recent history and has damaged the environment, it burdens the economy and forces all consumers to suffer from rising electricity prices. The worst distortions of the market have to be balanced by more and more new regulations. In this way, one government intervention justifies the next. Germany’s ‘real existing socialism’ has been history since 1989, thank God. The energy-existing Gabriel-socialism, however, is on the rise.
Translation Phillip Mueller
Wirtschaftswoche, 24 April 2015

German wind farm

****

Part of what’s got Germans up in arms is what the wind industry has done to their beloved towns and country-side (for a pictorial taste of the aesthetic destruction – see this article).

And the Germans are not taking what the wind industry has dished up, lying down: they’re getting angrier and more organised by the day.

Germany’s Anti-Wind Energy Elements Morph Into A Massive Network Of Protest Groups… Call Wind Energy “A Lie”
NoTricksZone
4 June 2015

Resistance to the junk green energy is growing in Germany.

Last month a print edition of Germany’s Braunschweiger Nachrichtenfeatured a commentary by the head of a German wind protest organization, Dr. Thomas Carl Stiller. The title: “Madness With Wind Turbines”

Braunschweiger-Zeitung1

Hat-tip K.E. Puls, European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).

In the commentary Stiller says that Germany’s once highly ballyhooed Energiewende (transition to renewable energies) “cannot and will not function“, and what was once only a few single protesters voicing opposition to wind parks, is now an entire nationwide umbrella organization of protest groups against the “subsidy-robbing empire” of wind energy industry.

Stiller describes a technology whose produced energy cannot be stored and which depends on random, unpredictable winds. The technology is so inefficient that builders are now forced to erect 800-foot tall monster size machines in a desperate effort to extract real power. He also writes that “wind energy has done nothing to combat climate change”.

“Despite increased wind energy installation, CO2 emissions in Germany have risen. […] Climate protection and reliable power supply by wind turbines installed on the land is thus a lie.”

Stiller also writes that the maximum output of a wind turbine “is far below its rated capacity” and that the German citizenry is paying 20 billion euros annually for a “misconception“. To illustrate the folly of wind energy, Stiller writes that Germans are paying 20 billion euros a year for a commodity that gets sold on the power exchange for only around 2 billion euros.

What’s encouraging is that Stiller writes:

“German citizens are waking up to this insanity”. He comments that “wind energy would not be able to supply the country even if the entire country were covered with wind turbines”.

Stiller also calls for more research for the health impacts that wind turbines are having and that the energy source has got to be for the good of the public and not profit a few opportunists. He adds:

“Us organized citizens are demanding independent feasibility studies and calling for more transparency during the planning process and that man and nature be put back in the focus.”

NoTricksZone

divine