NASA Climate Alarmists Went As Far As “Faking Data”, To Suit Their Agenda!

June 25, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

GLOBAL WARMING DATA FAKED BY GOVERNMENT,

TO FIT CLIMATE CHANGE FICTIONS

Mike Adams — Natural News — June 23, 2014

When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that’s how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a “climate change narrative” that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), “NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn’t fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using “computer models” and then published as fact.

Here’s the proof of the climate change fraud

Here’s the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930′s, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000: (Click here to see altered charts and continue reading….)

Scotland’s Tories Smart Enough to Know That a Larger Setback is Required!

June 25, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Tories insist no wind turbines within 2km of homes

Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson.

The party warns that turbine numbers in Scotland will rise to more than 5,000 as the SNP moves ahead with plans to generate all of Scotland’s electricity from green energy sources like wind, wave and hydro.

The Nationalist government says it backs two-thirds of local decisions on turbines and the renewables industry provides “essential jobs and investment”.

However, Tory leader Ruth Davidson will say: “It is not fair that anyone should have to live in the shadow of a turbine.

“The SNP may think it’s acceptable to plaster the countryside with windfarms, spoiling the scenery, but the least it could do is offer some kind of quality control on the policy.

“Invoking the two kilometre limit would simply be enforcing the rules that are there, but in too many cases have been ignored.”

Local planning guidelines suggest a two kilometre distance, but this is repeatedly ignored.

The Scottish Conservatives will call on the SNP to ensure legislation is properly enforced to better protect the value of people’s homes. The plan would apply only to new turbines, not those already built.

The Tories will unveil an energy policy titled Power And Responsibility. They will say the Government has “overshot” its own energy targets years early, and could be producing up to 134 per cent of electricity for renewable sources before long.

The party will also urge ministers to carry out a rigid health assessment of turbines to reassure communities living nearby.

There are an estimated 1,996 operational turbines across Scotland, a figure expected to rise to 3,295 once those already given consent come into operation.

A further 1,873 are in planning, meaning Scotland could have a combined total of 5,168 turbines in coming years, not including those yet to be submitted to planners.

An inquiry by Holyrood’s economy committee earlier this year found there was no “robust” evidence that windfarms were a threat to the tourism industry, as suggested by US tycoon Donald Trump, who criticised an offshore development adjacent to his Aberdeenshire golf resort.

The Government said it has “yet to receive any credible, peer-reviewed evidence that wind turbines adversely impact health” even though studies have found that industrial turbine developments “disturbed the sleep and caused daytime sleepiness and impaired mental health in residents living within 1.4km”.

Governments Colluded With Wind Industry, to Hide Truth About Wind Turbine Noise!

June 24, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Low-frequency noise on the line

Credit: Peter Skeel Hjorth, June 13, 2014. jyllands-posten.dk ~~

The government, parliament and all others were fooled by the country’s wind turbine giants and the Environmental Protection Agency, who worked in close cooperation to design the rules for the low-frequency noise limit of 20 decibels, and had them approved politically.

During the course of the proceedings, the EPA itself delivered the evidence that a world-leading noise researcher, Professor Henrik Møller at Aalborg University, was right, and that the EPA had been wrong about the problems of low-frequency wind turbine noise.

The central official of the EPA has retired. He was the link to the wind turbine industry, but not the only person responsible for what was happening. What remains now is a Danish EPA with a huge problem needing explanation. Henrik Møller is now fired.

With a red – i.e. urgent – briefing, the EPA warned the then Minister of the Environment, Karen Ellemann, on May 6, 2011, that » the new turbines from the industry do not comply with the EPA’s recommended low-frequency limit «. There was a very good reason for the briefing being marked red.

Because the Minister had earlier in a reply to parliament said the exactly opposite: » (…) when wind turbines comply with the usual noise limits, the low-frequency noise will not give problems, « she wrote while referring to a report which the private consulting company Delta had prepared for the EPA. The same was said over and over again by the EPA.

Both the EPA and the wind energy industry had taken great care to downplay the significance of low-frequency wind turbine noise, which in the population had given, and gives, rise to widespread concern. The situation was therefore delicate for the EPA.

If you dig yourself through the many acts below the surface, the preparation of the Danish wind turbine statutory order appears in a completely new light, with foul play in the process and other critical conditions that have not been exposed so far.

In the spring of 2011, the parties behind the parliament resolution on the national test center for offshore wind turbines in Thy had demanded a new low-frequency noise limit, and the EPA had started a review of the wind turbine statutory order.

At an initial meeting at Delta in Aarhus, all the participants were from the wind energy industry with the exception of the EPA representative. It was thus the wind turbine industry representatives who discussed and planned how to proceed. They found that it would be fine with a limit of 20 decibels, which is the limit for other industrial noise sources at night. Wind turbines run, as we all know, also during the night.

» But it depends on the overall objective that the new limit should not impose new restrictions on wind turbines. What is possible to establish today should also be possible after the summer; it’s a challenge, « says the minutes from the EPA.

Neither Professor Henrik Møller nor others from the country’s qualified and most independent institution for noise attended the meeting. There had been talks with them a few days before, but at that time no specific plans were on the table. There were fine intentions of good cooperation, but that never got off the ground. Henrik Møller and his colleagues heard nothing more on the matter before the rules had been designed.

If the critics were heard, it could end up with rules that would push wind turbines further away from neighbors. That this, for example, would create problems for the most economical turbine from Vestas, because it was not technically possible to reduce the noise, is documented in the personal letter, then CEO Ditlev Engel sent to the Minister of the Environment later in the process. The wind turbine industry had therefore a clear interest in seeing that the noise limit did not lead to tightened distance requirements.

From Siemens and Vestas the EPA received confidential noise data for a number of large industrial turbines and made confidential consequence analyzes. These showed that the low-frequency noise would often be more than 20 decibels. Now the EPA was left with a Gordian knot, since the Minister insisted that the limit should be 20 decibels.

After this, the EPA held a number of meetings with the Danish Wind Industry Association, Vestas and Siemens. So says the central official’s calendar. But there are apparently no minutes of what was discussed at these meetings. At least, the EPA has to date been unable to find any.

After these meetings, on 23 May 2011, the EPA issued a draft of a revised statutory order. In several stages, the sound insulation figures had been changed. Without further explanation they had now been increased again.

The sound insulation figures describe how well noise is transmitted to the interior of a house. The original numbers stem from measurements made in 1996, when quite simply a noise source was put up in the garden and the sound measured on the other side of the wall inside a number of houses. A high sound insulation figure means a good sound insulation and a low means poor sound insulation.

The use of sound insulation figures and the measurement method for low-frequency noise indoors have been key issues in the professional disagreement between Professor Henrik Møller and the EPA.

In addition to increasing the sound insulation figures, the EPA had introduced a prescribed uncertainty of 2 decibels – i.e. the low-frequency noise may exceed the noise limit by 2 decibels under inspection once the turbine has been set up. An inspection does not consist of a measurement at the neighbors, as one might think, but a measurement close to the turbine and then a calculation of the noise at the neighbor. In this way, the Gordian knot was cut.

At the same time, Aalborg University was underway with an update of a previous report, and the media had made inquiries. The EPA sent another urgent red briefing to the minister, bearing in handwriting » URGENT – political parties’ spokesmen to be informed today «. This means that the spokesmen had to approve the draft before the contents of the report from Aalborg University became known. The critical noise researchers should not be heard.

At that time, there had been a long-term professional disagreement on low-frequency wind turbine noise between researchers at Aalborg University and the EPA’s leading noise expert. Among other things, they had diverging opinions on the how the sound insulation for low-frequency wind turbine noise should be measured.

The EPA used a measurement method that should be applied carefully in order to be suitable. However, it was used incorrectly, said amongst others Henrik Møller. When used properly it may very well be suitable. But it is difficult to use in practice. And this was precisely where things went wrong.

In a so-called technical pre-hearing on the draft order, Professor Dorte Hammershøi from Aalborg University wondered about the interest to relax the rules as much as possible. » If the rules are not properly worked out, it may well be that you comply with them, but neighbors still cannot sleep at night, « she said, according to the report.

In 2008, Delta published a summary report for the Danish Energy Agency. Its professional quality is disputable. It is muddy and lacks consistency in tables and figures. However, it shows that the large turbines are unable to meet the noise limit of 20 decibels.

In 2010, Delta came to the opposite conclusion in a final report to the Danish Energy Agency. Now the noise from the large turbines had decreased to 20 decibels. The Minister has explained that other (higher) sound insulation figures had been used. That explains why the noise from the large turbines was lower. However, at the same time, the noise from small turbines had increased. This is not trustworthy. And the whole thing was just calculations. Not a single measurement of wind turbine noise indoors had been made.

Professor Henrik Møller and his staff were unable to get the numbers in the report to fit. They did further calculations and reached the conclusion that low-frequency noise from large wind turbines is a problem. And that is exactly the report the EPA would forestall politically.

The political parties got a noise limit of 20 decibels – and the wind energy industry got what they wanted. But essential preconditions had been changed behind closed doors.

The political process was guided with a steady hand by a central government official in close collaboration with the wind energy industry, so the mandatory noise limit will have no real impact – just as Delta later happened to reveal in a report to the Norwegian Ministry of the Environment – by mere eagerness to tell the Norwegians that are no problems with low-frequency wind turbine noise. The bottom line remains unchanged: Wind turbines make noise, and the low-frequency noise is a problem for the neighbors.

Also see: The perfect political crime

MPAC Property Devaluation Studies Are Not Worth the Paper They Are Written On!

June 24, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

2012 study of wind turbine impacts on

residential property assessments

Author: “Gulden, Wayne”

Last week [April 2014] the Ontario Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) released the 2012 version of their continuing study (following one in 2008) of wind turbines and property values in Ontario, entitled Impact of Industrial Wind Turbines on Residential Property Assessment In Ontario. To sum it up, they still find no evidence that wind turbines cause property value declines.

The study consists of a 31-page main section [backup link] along with 12 appendices. MPAC seems to have their own language and it isn’t easily penetrated by a layman. I’ve read over it carefully several times and there are still aspects of it that escape me. The appendices are generally beyond anyone who is not a professional. On page 4 they state their goals for this version of the study:

Specifically, the study examined the following two statements:

1. Determine if residential properties in close proximity to IWTs are assessed equitably in relation to residential properties located at a greater distance. In this report, this is referred to as Study 1 – Equity of Residential Assessments in Proximity to Industrial Wind Turbines.

2. Determine if sale prices of residential properties are affected by the presence of an IWT in close proximity. In this report, this is referred to as Study 2 – Effect of Industrial Wind Turbines on Residential Sale Prices.

Their two main conclusions, on page 5, are:

Following MPAC’s review, it was concluded that 2012 CVAs of properties located within proximity of an IWT are assessed at their current value and are equitably assessed in relation to homes at greater distances. No adjustments are required for 2012 CVAs. This finding is consistent with MPAC’s 2008 CVA report.

MPAC’s findings also concluded that there is no statistically significant impact on sale prices of residential properties in these market areas resulting from proximity to an IWT, when analysing sale prices.

Actually, there are three parts to this study, with the third contained in Appendix G [backup link]. Early in 2013 one Ben Lansink published a pretty solid study that showed property value declines of anywhere from 22% to 59% and averaging about 37% on residential properties close (all within 1 km) to IWTs, which I posted on at the time. Apparently Lansink’s work was solid enough that MPAC felt obliged to attack it.

For me to critique all three parts would make for a very long posting, so I’m going to divide it up. Obviously the details will follow in my subsequent postings, but for the impatient let me summarize below.

Part 1, are MPAC’s evaluations close to IWTs as accurate (equitable, in their words) as those further away? This section is only of tangential interest to me, as the central question isn’t MPAC’s accuracy, but rather the effect of IWTs on prices. It seems that, given MPAC’s explanations, their appraisals are accurate. Still, there are some items in this part that are of interest. For example, it seems that MPAC has been playing games to get the appraisals to agree with the market while hiding the effect of wind turbines. They studied turbines 1.5mw and larger, not older turbines and the areas in Ontario where the impact has already been felt.

Part 2, do IWTs have an effect on properties closer to them? This section is of central interest. Unfortunately there are only 5 pages in Part 2, leaving lots of details missing. Things like the sales prices within the close-in areas. MPAC’s major tool for doing mass appraisals (4.7 million in Ontario) is multiple regression analysis and we’ve had lots of experience with how that can be manipulated to obtain the answer your sponsor wants. Instead of providing us the prices and letting us judge for ourselves what any effects might be, they opaquely run those prices through their regressions and voila! claim there’s nothing to see here!

But whoever wrote Part 2 must not have been talking to whoever wrote Part 1. On page 18, well within part 1, there’s Figure 2. It’s purpose there is to show how close the appraisals are to the sales data (the paired blue and green bars) for the different distances from the IWTs.

Note the blindingly obvious. Prices (and appraisals) within 5 km of IWTs are substantially lower than those further away. I’ve added the horizontal lines so we can better determine the values, which are noted to the side. Michael McCann, among others, has done a number of studies on IWTs and prices, and his overall conclusion is a decline of 25-40%, with almost 100% in some cases. Does anyone want to calculate the decline from 228,000 to 171,000? Perhaps the disparity is due to something as simple as the spread between rural and urban properties, but don’t you think MPAC would at least mention something? Nope. Nada.

Part 3, what are the problems with Lansink’s study? Appendix G is more or less readable and provides an excellent example of what David Michaels book, Doubt is Their Product, talks about. MPAC throws up, by my count, 7 objections to Lansink’s methodology; of which exactly zero actually indicate that Lansink’s numbers are wrong. Sewing confusion seems to be the most logical explanation. As an example, objection #4 of the 7 is that for some of the pre-IWT prices Lansink used, gasp!, MPAC’s own appraisals. Perhaps whoever wrote Appendix G didn’t bother reading the conclusions in Part 1.

There’s more details, of course, in the following.

Critique of Part 1

Critique of Part 2

Critique of the Lansink hatchet job

MPAC 2012, Study 1

Part 1 of MPAC’s 2012 study asks if MPAC has as equitably assessed properties close to IWTs as properties further away. This part, although of only tangential interest to wind opponents like myself, occupies the central part of the entire study. We think the larger question is: do IWTs reduce property values, not whether MPAC is clever and honest enough to correctly recognize those reductions.

MPAC is in the business of mass assessments, nearly 5 million in Ontario. Given this volume they have no choice but to use computers and computer-friendly techniques to do their assessments. That translates to a significant reliance on multiple regression analysis. They determine what sorts of characteristics influence the selling prices and then use the computers to find out how much influence each characteristic has. In their experience, 85% of the selling price can be calculated using 5 characteristics, or variables: location, building area, construction quality, lot size and age of the home adjusted for renovations and additions. Note that distance to a wind turbine is not one of their characteristics and MPAC seems determined to keep it so. But also note that location could be used in lieu of distance – more on this later.

MPAC uses the ASR, Assessment-to-Sales Ratio, to determine if their assessments are accurate. It is simply the assessment divided by selling price, with a ratio of 1.0 being a perfect match. MPAC expects ratios between 0.95 and 1.05, and presents what seems to be an endless series of charts demonstrating this, primarily in the appendices. While obviously MPAC (actually everyone) has an interest in accuracy their emphasis on it seems misplaced in a study entitled Impact of Industrial Wind Turbines on Residential Property Assessment In Ontario, which to me and most residents is quite a different question.

Just think of the ramifications if MPAC decided to include distance from an IWT in their regressions. I have little doubt it would make Ontario’s lawyers very happy. It would also put Ontario’s very-pro-IWT ruling party in a difficult political spot. And don’t forget that the board of MPAC is appointed by the Minister of Finance, who is a member of the ruling party’s cabinet.

Upstream I mentioned that MPAC could use the location variables that already exist in their regressions to finesse their way out of this problem. I point to Wolfe Island as an example of how this might work. The western half of WI is now home to 86 IWTs, a project that had been in development since roughly 2000. If this half constitutes a “neighborhood” then MPAC could reduce the values in that neighborhood in a uniform manner and never have to recognize the elephant in the room. As it happens, I posted on MPAC’s actions on Wolfe Island about 18 months ago. In the 7 years when the wind project went from being developed to operational, the roughly 700 properties on Wolfe received the following number and average reductions:

2005/06: 130, 9.3%
2006/07: 33, 15.2%
2007/08: 12, 28.8%
2008/09: 34, 12.4%
2009/10: 44, 29.0%
2010/11: 22, 30.0%
2011/12: 27, 24.0%

That’s a total of 302 reductions, which seems like a rather large percentage of the properties there.

A Wolfe Island couple, the Kenneys, asked for a reduction which they say MPAC was willing to grant, although MPAC wouldn’t let IWTs be used as the reason. It ended up in court, and a local paper [backup link] had a reasonably good account of it. Perhaps MPAC’s reluctance to admit the obvious is that once they admit it they must then include distance in their regressions and doing that (and the legal and political repercussions) is just too unpleasant. So they limp along, using the location instead.

Their favored overall chain of logic seems to be: since the ratios in neighborhoods close to IWTs aren’t much different from those further away, and since those ratios indicate their assessments are accurate, and since MPAC doesn’t include distance to an IWT in their regressions, ergo distance from an IWT isn’t a factor in reducing values. Part 1 of this study is a necessary part of this chain. So the real main purpose of this part of the study (and the study as a whole) seems to be to publicize MPAC’s skills at keeping the assessments in line with reality, and at the same time deflect how MPAC is going about doing this. MPAC is, after all, in a tight spot. The reality is that home prices take a dive when close to IWTs. MPAC somehow has to lower the assessments around IWTs to keep the ASRs in line while keeping their bosses happy.

Unfortunately, the wind industry will be using this study for quite a different purpose – to bolster their argument that IWTs don’t impact home prices in the first place.

MPAC 2012, Study 2

I fear that this part will be a difficult one for most people to follow, not to mention being lengthy. Feel free to skip it. But I think it is important to document what this Study contains, and MPAC made no effort to make understanding it easier. I recommend you print out Study 2′s 5 pages (pdf pages 26 to 30) and have them at hand as you read this.

The purpose of Study 2 is to “study the effect of proximity to industrial wind turbines on residential sale prices.” In summary, Study 2 finds that “With the exceptions noted above, no distance variables entered any regression equations for any of the other market areas.” Say what?

It seems that people who are in the business of estimating real estate prices tend to fall into one of two camps. First are those who make their living providing services to the people who actually own the properties, with real estate brokers being the most obvious examples. These people tend to focus on one property at a time and generally use comps or repeat sales to obtain their estimates. Second are those who make their living providing services to people who don’t actually own the property. Academics and mass appraisers (like MPAC) are the most obvious examples. These people tend to focus on many properties at a time and generally use statistical techniques like multiple regression analysis to obtain their estimates. The second class tends to think in terms of rejecting the null hypothesis – you assume there is no difference between two sets (in this case close-in prices and far-away prices) unless you have “statistical significance”. As a snarky aside, getting to statistical significance in real estate can be quite a challenge, given the wide variance among prices, and can be even more difficult when your sponsor/boss doesn’t want you to do so.

So of course MPAC used their main tool, regression equations that run multiple regression analyses. They created three new variables based on distance from an IWT and entered these into regression equations to see if the new variables were statistically significant. If they aren’t statistically significant they don’t “enter” into the regression equations. As for the exceptions (which we’ll get to shortly), out of 30 possibly significant variables, only 4 were significant and 3 of them were positive! Whew!

So right off the bat MPAC is using a tool that doesn’t provide the answers the actual owners of potentially affected properties really care about. A binary statistical significance indicator does not provide an answer to the “how much” and “how likely” questions a homeowner is going to have. In this case, MPAC has skipped through the study so opaquely that I can’t even have much confidence in my critique. There’s just too many omissions, too many unexplained leaps, too many dangling statements.

There are just 5 pages in Study 2. The first of these (page 25 of the study) lists the three new distance variables and sets their criteria for statistical significance at either 5% or 10%. For those unfamiliar with that concept, the significance is a measure of the odds two populations are in fact just randomly part of the same larger population. In this case, a 5% significance means that there is only a 5% chance that the prices of the close-in homes are the same as the far-away home prices. In other words, there’s a 95% chance that the close-in prices are different from the far-away prices. What if there’s only an 80% chance your home value will drop? Not significant, from MPAC’s perspective.

The second page (page 26) is dominated by Table 9. For MPAC’s purposes Ontario is divided into 130 “market areas”. These areas presumably have some common basis that allows them to be treated as a unit for their regression equations. Unfortunately I couldn’t find where the areas were or how many homes were in each. Of the 130 MPAC found 15 that had large enough turbines in them to be of interest. These 15 are listed in Table 9, along with the numbers of sales within each of the 3 distance variables for both pre-construction and post-construction. MPAC didn’t bother adding them up either horizontally or in total, but I did. The numbers inside the grid add up to 3136, which would be the total sales within 5 km in all the areas. But if you add up their numbers along the bottom you come up with 3143. It turns out that their 142 should be 139 and their 1584 should be 1580. Now this isn’t much of an error, except that any pre-teen with a spreadsheet and 10 minutes wouldn’t have made it.

At the bottom of page 26 they introduce pre-construction and post-construction periods, and that only two of the 15 have enough sales to test both distances and periods. Most of the remaining 13 have “sufficient sales within 1 KM to test the value impact within that distance”. Also that the “sales period to develop valuation ranges from December 2008 to December 2011&”. And that Table 10 provides a summary.

The third page (page 27) is dominated by Table 10. It lists the remaining 10 market areas that presumably have “sufficient sales within 1 KM to test the value impact within that distance”. 2 of these have enough sales to test both distance and periods while the other 8 have enough sales to test just the distance. For each of the 10 areas MPAC list square footage etc and median adjusted prices. Are these the prices for the entire area or just within 1 km? MPAC doesn’t say. What is the criterion for “sufficient”? MPAC doesn’t say. Nor does MPAC include what should obviously be included – both tables. I suspect they are for the entire area, in which case they are useless for our purposes, at least without the close-in comparison.

Presuming the criteria for inclusion into Table 10 is the 1 km test mentioned on page 26, one has to wonder how 26RR010 and 31RR010 got into it, as Table 9 shows they had zero sales within 1 km. Snark alert – maybe the missing 7 sales from Table 9 took place in these areas? And if 1 km isn’t the criterion, what is? MPAC never says.

At the bottom of page 27 they mention that some sales at the 5 km distance were in urban as opposed to rural market areas and thus were eliminated. They don’t say how many, nor what their effects on the regressions might be. They also reiterate their statistical significance levels.

On the fourth page (page 28) they present two more tables, 11 and 12. Table 11 lists the 8 market areas that had sufficient sales (within 1 km?) to test the distance variables while Table 12 lists the 2 market areas that had sufficient sales to test both distance and periods. These tables made absolutely no sense to me until I noticed Appendix F.

For all 10 areas they entered the 3 distances and ran their regressions. In Appendix F they list all the “excluded” variables, in this case all the distance-related variables that didn’t get to statistical significance. They apparently are called “excluded” since, being “insignificant” they don’t enter into MPAC’s final pricing calculations. If you look at the “sig” column you will not see any value less than .100, or the 10% significance level MPAC mentioned on pages 25 and 27. I assume by omission (and that’s all I can do here) that any of the 3 distance variables that are NOT listed in Appendix F are in fact significant.

On my first pass through Appendix F I came up with 6 omitted, and thus assumed significant, variables. Two of the omissions were for zero sales, for areas that shouldn’t even be there by the <1 km criterion. But, maybe the < 1 km variable was never even entered on the exclusion listing in Appendix F, so maybe I had erroneously assumed it was not excluded when in fact it didn’t exist in the first place. So maybe the criterion for inclusion in Table 10 wasn’t significant sales less than 1 km, but rather significant sales less than 5 km out. Just a typo, right? At least Table 11 now is consistent with Tables 9 and 10.

Finally! Out of the 30 tests (10 areas times 3 tests) I count 4 that are significant. Those 4 make up the “non-DNE” entries in Tables 11. MPAC provided absolutely no guidance or explanation about any of this, apparently writing for a very small audience.

Table 12 shows the 2 areas that had enough sales to test both distance and periods. You’d think that they’d be creating 6 variables for each of them instead of the 3 variables the other 8 areas received. Looking at Appendix F all you see is the same 3 as everyone else got. And all of those variables were excluded. But Table 12 shows 2 of the variables being significant for 26RR010. Perhaps Appendix F was based on a 5% significance level and Table 12 was based on 10%. Who knows?

I can only guess that the dollar amounts in Tables 11 and 12 are the effects of being in those areas upon the prices. So, in the Kingston area (05RR030), if you live within 1 km of an IWT, you can expect the value of your home to increase by $36,435! Very impressive – 5 digit accuracy, especially with a sample size of 7.

Finally, thank goodness, we come to the fifth page (page 29). It is the Summary of Findings and contains more words than the rest of the Study put together. This section mostly lists the significant variables and adds some fairly cryptic commentary.

Some Commentary

As I read through and dissected this Study I couldn’t escape the sense that MPAC didn’t want to put much effort into it. Any narrative or explanations or even public-friendly conclusions are absent. The tables that are included are ok, once you take the time to figure them out, but what about all the stuff they should have included but didn’t? Things like the median prices in the areas represented by the 30 variables. Or an Appendix F1 that shows the included variables, allowing us to see the t-scores etc for ourselves. Etc., etc.

These missing items cause this Study to be terribly opaque. I hope my explanation above is accurate, but I can’t be sure due to all the missing items. Maybe the Study reaches valid conclusions, but I sure can’t verify that. Perhaps MPAC thinks we should just trust them to be an honest pursuer of the truth. Sorry, that no longer flies, if it ever did. You have to wonder, is there some reason other than laziness or stinginess that this Study seems so empty? In addition to the opacity the Study includes several cryptic items that MPAC never explains. For example, from the summary, what do these sentences actually mean?

“Upon review of the sales database, it was determined that the IWT variables created for this study were highly correlated with the neighbourhood locational identifier. This strong correlation resulted in coefficients that did not make appraisal sense, and thus have been negated for the purposes of this study.”

If you look at the excluded variables in Appendix F you notice that most of them are named “NBxxxx”. Probably those are neighborhood identifiers the somehow overlay the market areas. MPAC never mentions how many there are or what the criteria are for forming one. But pretty obviously the areas around an IWT could easily coincide with their neighborhoods. So what gets negated? Some of the coefficients? All of them? MPAC provides no further information.

As an aside, I found it interesting to scan over the other excluded variables to see what sorts of things MPAC puts into their regressions. Many of them make no sense and they seem to vary greatly from market to market. I can’t help but think of a bunch of regression-heads sitting at their desks hurriedly making up variables and desperately running regressions in an effort to get the ASRs closer to one (ASRs are covered in Study 1).

I’ll leave (thankfully, believe me) this Study behind with the final thought that it seems so slapped together, so opaque, so disjointed that perhaps even MPAC themselves weren’t sure what significance it holds. Unfortunately, the wind industry won’t care about any of that, and will use this study to continue harming Ontario residents.

MPAC 2012 and Lansink

Ben Lansink is a professional real estate appraiser based in Ontario. In February 2013 he published a study of two areas (Melancthon and Clear Creek, Ontario) where 12 homes all within 1 km of an IWT were sold on the open market. He used previous sales and MPAC assessments to establish what the prices were before the IWTs arrived and then compared that with the open market prices after they went into operation. The declines were enormous, averaging above 30%. The following (thankfully clickable) spreadsheet snapshot gives a good summary of his results.

In quite a departure from MPAC’s style, Lansink lists every sale, every price, every time-related area price increase rate and every source. Lansink establishes an initial price at some time before the IWTs were installed, applies a local-area inflation rate over the period between the sales, and compares the “should-have-been” price with what the actual sales prices was after the IWTs were installed. In all 12 cases the final price was lower than the initial price, leading to an actual loss on the property. When the surrounding real estate price increases were factored in, the resulting adjusted losses are even greater. The compulsive reader might notice that the numbers above vary slightly from Lansink’s. In order to check his numbers I reran all his calculations in the above chart and there are some rounding errors – like on the order of < $10. I posted on Lansink’s study when it came out, along with a second posting on a previous version of his study.

These numbers are pretty easy to understand, and for most actual property owners are a hard-to-refute indication of what awaits us should we be unfortunate enough to own property within 1 km of an IWT. It is powerful enough and inconvenient enough that MPAC felt the need to single it out for a hatchet job, which is contained in the 7 pages of Appendix G. The first couple of pages are introductory stuff. Starting in the middle of page 2 they start their critique with, by my count, 7 issues with Lansink’s methodology. The 7 are:

Lansink uses the local area MLS price index in calculating the inflation rate. MPAC points out, correctly I guess, that within the MLS local area there could be neighborhood variances that could differ from MLS’s area average. MPAC has lots of neighborhoods defined (see Appendix F for a sampling) and it would be more accurate to use them. While more discrete data is generally a good thing, I think most people are quite willing to accept the local area MLS price index as a reasonable proxy. Besides – how would Lansink obtain MPAC’s neighborhood data? He used the best that he had, and that best is no doubt good enough for everyone besides MPAC. As you increase the number of neighborhoods you necessarily decrease the number of homes in each, increasing the chances of distortion by a single transaction. Issue #5 below will mention this as a problem from the opposite direction. No doubt if Lansink would have used neighborhoods MPAC would be criticizing him for not using the more reliable area average. Additionally – how far apart could a neighborhood be from the local area average? Does MPAC provide any indication that this caused an error in Lansink’s conclusions? Of course not.

Lansink used just two points to “develop a trend”. I have no idea what they are talking about. Lansink is not developing any trends. As with neighborhoods, MPAC has more discrete timing adjustments than what Lansink used. In theory, more discrete data might be more accurate. In practice, maybe not, due to outliers. A monthly MLS area average is good enough for, again, everybody but MPAC. Additionally – how far apart could a their timeline be from the local area average? Does MPAC provide any indication that this caused an error in Lansink’s conclusions? Of course not.

Two homes in Clear Creek have their initial and final sales 8 and 15 years apart and there was likely something changed in the interim, affecting the price. People are always doing things to change the value of their homes – does MPAC have any indication that something substantial changed in one of these properties? If not, this is simply idle speculation, designed to instill confusion. Does MPAC provide any indication that this caused an error in Lansink’s conclusions? Of course not.

For the other 5 home in Clear Creek Lansink used MPAC’s 2008 evaluations as the initial price, and MPAC is complaining about that. MPAC is apparently unaware of how ironic this sounds. They just finished, in this very study, bragging about how close their ASR’s were to one. Does MPAC provide any indication that this caused an error in Lansink’s conclusions? Of course not.

For the properties in Melancthon Lansink used the buyout prices from CHD (the wind project developer) as the initial prices. To confirm these prices were at least in the ballpark of local market prices he obtained a local per square foot average price and it compared favorably with the prices paid per square foot by CHD. Since there was only 4 samples in this part of his study, even one outlier becomes a possible source of distortion and this is one of MPAC’s “major concerns”. This seems an odd criticism, coming from someone who relied upon the data in Table 9, with its fair share of single-digit samples. Does MPAC provide any indication that this caused an error in Lansink’s conclusions? Of course not.

MPAC found one house with a basement and since footage in basements is treated differently from footage above ground, this would have changed the square footage price used by Lansink in his comparison with the local average. Since there are only 4 houses in this sample, it would have moved the average up. MPAC spends the bottom of page 2, all of page 3 and part of page 4 discussing basements and whether they are finished or not. Does MPAC provide any indication that this caused an error in Lansink’s conclusions? Of course not.

I’ll quote issue #7 in its entirety so you can fully appreciate it. “One final issue with the sales used in the Lansink study was that the second sale price was consistently lower than the first sale price despite the fact the time frame being analyzed was one of inflation. The absence of variability in the study make them suspect.” Suspect? THESE ARE PUBLIC RECORDS. There’s nothing suspect about them. These are facts. They won’t change. If they don’t fit your narrative perhaps your narrative needs to change, eh? Does MPAC provide any indication that this caused an error in Lansink’s conclusions? Of course not.

These 7 issues are an excellent example of spreading confusion, hoping that some of it will stick, saying whatever you can come up with to discredit an opponent. When you’re reduced to spending over a page discussing basements it provides an idea of just how desperate you are.

The second part of MPAC’s critique involves them running their own study of resales to see how it compares with Lansink’s. They find 2051 re-sales that were part of this same study’s ASR calculations (in Study 1). They use their more discrete time variables in place of Lansink’s MLS local area averages. They use multiple regression analysis because “Paired sales methods and re-sale analysis methods are generally limited to fee appraisal and often too tedious for mass appraisal work.” Their conclusion: “Using 2,051 properties and generally accepted time adjustment techniques, MPAC cannot conclude any loss in price due to the proximity of an IWT.”

In spite of the voluminous tables and examples, MPAC leaves some very basic questions unanswered. Like where were these 2,051 properties located and how were they selected? There’s no mention of them in the body of the 2012 study. Over what period were the resales captured? What were the prices of the close-in re-sales vs the far-away re-sales? Lansink has documented 7 losing resales within 1 km – why does your summary say zero?

MPAC has this habit of expecting us to be impressed with large amounts of data, without divulging where it came from and what filters might have been employed. Same with throwing all these numbers into a computer and expecting us to uncritically accept the output. In short, MPAC expects us to trust them to be fully honest, fully competent and fully independent. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the fine folks at MPAC, but that trust is no longer automatic for increasing segments of Ontario’s population. Lansink’s numbers are out in the open and are processed in a way that anyone can verify. Your numbers suddenly appear and rely upon computers with undocumented processes that always support the agendas of your bosses. Your methods may be satisfactory to some media, some politicians, some courts and all trough-feeders, but please don’t be surprised that they are not satisfactory to those of us living in the trenches.

Wind Pushers Try to Avoid These Nasty Details!

June 24, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Wind Turbines take terrible toll on animals

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh June 23, 2014

I’ve recently reported on the bizarre behavior of animals, 1,600 miscarriages, and fetal deformities at a mink farm in Denmark after the installation and full operation on September 2013 of four 3-MW VESTAS wind turbines within a short distance (328 m) from Kaj Bank Olesen’s fur farm.
The online Aoh.Dk referenced how, since the wind turbines “began to spin last fall, the number of stillbirths and deformed puppies increased fivefold.” Farmer Kaj Olesen Bank also explained, “The proportion of females that refused to mate has quadrupled as compared to last year when there were no wind turbines behind his mink farm.”Mark Duchamp, Chairman of World Council on Nature, released an update on June 23, 2014 that farmer Olesen now believes that when the wind blows from the South West where the wind turbines are located, “mother minks attack their own puppies.” Olesen put down over twenty mink pups and forty are under observation because of deep bites.

You could argue that we are not mink and should not worry that low-frequency vibrations created by wind turbines are harmful to humans. After all, green energy proponents keep reassuring us that wind and solar energy is harmless to the planet and to adjacent populations. When animals such as minks, cattle, sheep, goats, and horses, exposed to wind turbines 24/7, become aggressive, die en masse, abort their fetuses, some with developmental malformations, and attack their young, it is time to ask ourselves, what are wind turbines doing to the human body? The “wind turbine syndrome” is not just hypochondria as the wind industry and the environmental lobby explained.
In Ontario, Canada, local deer werereported as “agitated and awake all night,” “birds were flying all day rather than going to roost,” and “seals suffered miscarriages.”Officials in Taiwan reported that 400 animals died due to sleep deprivation after the installation of eight wind turbines close to their grazing area. Farmer Kuo Jing-shan was left with 250 goats from the original 700 he owned before the wind turbines were installed. Taipower admitted no wrongdoing but “offered to pay for part of the costs of building a new farmhouse elsewhere.”

In Nova Scotia, David and Debi Van Tassell believed that the low-frequency hum of the wind turbines installed in the vicinity of their Ocean Breeze emu farm killed many of their birds after the first turbine went into operation in 2009. The emus were not sleeping and running in pens day and night, losing weight. The remaining birds, which cost $3,000 a pair, were sold for $100 each.

Another study described the case of Lusitanian horses who suffered deformities not attributed to any disease but seemingly connected to the installation of wind turbines nearby. “All horses (N=4) born or raised after 2007 developed asymmetric flexural limb deformities. WT (wind turbines) began operations in November 2006. No other changes (construction, industries, etc.) were introduced into the area during this time.

The low-frequency sound and the constant thump-thump have caused some people to abandon their homes located in the vicinity of wind farms. Health issues such as sleep disturbance, sleep deprivation, dizziness, tinnitus, and constant headaches in humans have been ignored by the main stream media who is eager to promote “clean” solar and wind energy generation.

The Aussies Make Preparations to SCRAP the Renewable Energy Targets! Yaaayyyy!!

June 24, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Kelly O’Dwyer & Angus Taylor Join in a Wreck the RET Duet

June 24, 2014 by stopthesethings

With the RET Review Panel sharpening their axes – and all set to recommend the abolition of the mandatory RET – the wagons are being circled within Coalition ranks.

The vast majority of Coalition members are in favour of scrapping the mandatory RET in its entirety. And barely a day passes without another of their number (publicly) expressing their view that the policy is nothing more than “corporate welfare on steroids”.

Liberal member for Higgins, Kelly O’Dwyer has just penned this piece for the Australian Financial Review – in which Kelly, quite rightly, slams the wind industry and its parasites as nothing more than naked rent seekers.

Green target is industry protection
Australian Financial Review
Kelly O’Dwyer
23 June 2014

Like world peace, everyone loves renewable energy. But that does not mean everyone agrees on the best way to increase its use. For instance, it isn’t obvious that the best way is to drive up the costs of non-renewable energy.

At the last election, Australians clearly indicated they valued more affordable energy when they voted for the repeal of the carbon tax. Some voted for cost-of-living relief; others to remove a cost on business that stymied our international competitiveness and job creation.

But the carbon tax isn’t the only area where Labor-Greens policy has been deliberately driving up energy costs for businesses and households. The lower profile, but no less pervasive, Renewable Energy Target has been quietly forcing low to middle-income earners, small businesses and others to pay higher power bills to fund payments to the renewable energy sector.

The original Mandatory Renewable Energy Target was introduced by the Howard government. Commencing from 2001, large electricity purchasers were required to source an additional 2 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, compared with 1997 levels. The statutory target was intended to remain until 2020, before ceasing. Inevitably, the target resulted in some value transfer from electricity consumers to renewable energy providers. However, dramatic changes to the scheme introduced by the Rudd government in 2009 took things to another level altogether.

They lifted the 2020 target from 2 per cent to 20 per cent, and extended the statutory target to 2030. Taking into account 15,000 gigawatt hours per year of existing renewable energy supply, the 2020 target for additional renewable energy generation became 45,000 GWh – based on an assumed 300,000 GWh of total electricity demand in 2020.

Demand falling

Since then, though, forecast electricity demand has fallen to 230,000 GWh – meaning the real target is now closer to 27 per cent (not the original 20 per cent). This also means consumers will continue to pay for more generation capacity in an electricity market that is already oversupplied.

Estimates of the RET’s actual cost vary. Analysis conducted for the Business Council of Australia concluded in 2013-14, the RET would add about 2.8 per cent to typical household electricity bills and 3.9 to 9.6 per cent for large businesses that consume more than five GWh a year.

Last year, the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal estimated the RET for a typical NSW household cost $107 a year.

But it is clear the added cost is being deliberately directed as a form of industry assistance to one particular sector of the economy: the renewable energy sector.

The arguments are typical of corporate welfare recipients: for example, that the RET supports new jobs in a new industry that wouldn’t be competitive without the subsidy. Like all corporate welfare arguments, they ignore the fact that others (electricity consumers) are picking up the tab for that lack of competitiveness.

Worse, though, ongoing technological developments mean some areas of renewables do not need a subsidy to be cost competitive. For instance, the BCA has noted that the dramatic decline in the cost of rooftop solar since 2009 means it is now at grid parity and offers an economic return to installers that is competitive with retail electricity suppliers.

Some arguments also focus on emissions abatement – even though the RET specifically subsidises renewable energy rather than lower-emissions energy more broadly, and implies a cost of abatement well above even Australia’s internationally uncompetitive carbon tax.

There are complex sovereign risk issues to navigate but, happily, the federal government has commissioned a review of the RET. Awareness is growing that this is just another area where a sense of entitlement is alive and well – this time among the renewable energy sector.

We all want a clean, green planet. But let’s not pretend old-style industry policy dressed up an environmental policy is the best way to achieve it. As legislated, the scheme’s acronym should be more fulsomely expanded to recognise the RET for what it is – a giant REnT.

Kelly O’Dwyer is the federal member for Higgins.
Australian Financial Review

On the previous Monday (16 June 2014) debate was had on the future of the mandatory RET in the Federal Parliament (House of Reps).

The debate kicked off with Labor hackbencher, Pat Conroy waxing lyrical about the wonders of giant fans, pixies, leprechauns and other such magical phenomena.

You know, the usual fantasies about wind power being free; creating millions of jobs; and providing electricity at rates affordable to anyone living in the Third World – he even goes in for the furphy that wind power is produced at zero marginal cost – the wind industry myth which we debunked in yesterday’s post. For a taste of what life’s like in another dimension read what young Pat had to say here.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, Australians are very fortunate to have Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor dedicated to dismantling the wind industry piece by stinking piece. Here’s Angus in response to the Green-Labor giant fan love-in (for a pdf click here).

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PROOF
Federation Chamber
PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
SPEECH
Monday, 16 June 2014 (Page: 140)

Mr TAYLOR (Hume) (12:36): Religious belief is based on faith not facts. The new climate religion, recruiting disciples every day, has little basis on fact and everything to do with blind faith. The new theologians of the green Left are not focused on the hilltop at Calvary, but on hills closer to home – many in my electorate, near Lake George, Gunning and Crookwell. And heaven help the heretics who question them. If you listen to Labor and the Greens, an immediate shift to renewable energy is necessary to avoid Armageddon.

At the other extreme, some believe, we do not need any of this. Of course, the coalition is taking a middle path. We have concluded that well-targeted emissions reduction via Direct Action is good policy. The great virtue of Direct Action is that it provides incentives, not penalties, for emissions reduction across the country. But the hard work starts now. As policymakers, our job is to minimise the cost of reaching our emissions-reduction target, particularly given our economy relies on energy-intensive exports.

Today’s The Australian reports on definitive economic modelling of the Renewable Energy Target recently completed by Deloitte. It tells us what should be obvious: the scheme is poor policy in its current form. The massive subsidy we single out for the wind industry via the LRET is one of the biggest but least understood corporate welfare programs ever conceived. Wind energy typically costs well over $90 to $100 per megawatt hour. The alternative is conventional energy, currently priced about $30 to $40 per megawatt hour, in the absence of a carbon tax. To make things worse, the electricity grid needs extra investment to absorb the intermediate supply from wind.

Deloitte tells us that the cost of reducing carbon emissions via the Renewable Energy Target is a $125 per tonne, more than five times the cost of Labor’s job-destroying carbon tax. The total cost to the economy is expected to be $34.1 billion, in today’s dollars. The extravagance of these massive subsidies to the wind industry is being paid for directly by electricity consumers and generators. Indeed, we have hardly begun. For large-scale renewables, which has come to mean wind, the current target of 16.1 terawatt hours moves to 41 by 2020. At the same time, the market price of delivering those renewables will increase sharply, reaching a legislative cap in the near future.

According to Deloitte, by 2020, the RET will cost the economy $3.4 billion per year. It will destroy almost 5,000 jobs and will drive a substantial reduction in investment and real wages. That is what bad policy does. It wastes money, costs jobs, costs investment and reduces income across the nation. It is true that the cost of renewables will come down over a period of time, but solar will trump wind easily on this count.

Across much of the Western world, policy makers are focused on one easy option to begin decarbonising our electricity grids, while the cost of renewables comes down: natural gas, because it is abundant and because it halves emissions. The United States has presided over a game-changer, achieving rapid reductions in carbon emissions, containing the price of electricity and putting manufacturing back on the map – all on the back of cheap gas. It has given Obama an incredible political opportunity. He is claiming this is a triumph of his new direct action policy when, in fact, gas has done most of the work.

But there is a hitch for us. In Australia gas is more expensive than in the US, because we export it. Of course, there are strengthening calls from the left for a reservation of gas for domestic purposes. We should ignore these calls because we have alternatives. Bear in mind that the electricity grid is responsible for less than half of our emissions. Land use, transport, fuel, agriculture and industry are all responsible for the rest. Indeed, these areas have been central to delivering our Kyoto obligations and will be central to Direct Action.

Burchell Wilson, chief economist of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said in today’s The Australian:

The renewables industry has been standing over the graves of Australian manufacturing concerns, crowing about the jobs the RET is creating in the wind industry.

In short, by 2020, if the renewable energy target is not restructured, the costs will explode and we will all pay for it.

That is why this government is conducting a review of the target and why we committed to this review before the election. Fixing the RET is the next step towards ending the age of entitlement – in this case, wind-industry entitlement.
Angus Taylor (Hume)

Nice work Angus, we couldn’t have said it much better ourselves.

PCC MPP Lisa McLeod, Talks About Fresh Leadership for the Conservatives!

June 24, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Ontario Tories need fresh leadership: PC MPP Lisa MacLeod

A revitalized Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is important not just for PC supporters, but for all Ontarians

By: Lisa MacLeod Published on Mon Jun 23 2014

Ontario voters sent the Progressive Conservative Party a strong message on June 12. Despite the undeniable weaknesses of the Liberal government’s record and its credibility-stretching plan to spend more while still balancing the books, voters returned the Liberals with a majority.

That tells PCs that we let Ontario down by not offering an alternative that more voters were prepared to accept. We have a lot of work to do over the next four years. The party needs renewal, a new direction, and most important, fresh leadership.

For PCs, this is the time to look forward and face those challenges, not to indulge in endless dissection of the 2014 campaign. We must spend our energy preparing for the election in 2018, not refighting the election just past.

The most important decision in front of our party is choosing a new leader. There is no rush to make that choice. It’s more important that we get this right, for our party and for our province. A leadership convention will provide that opportunity.

We need a person who understands urban, suburban and rural concerns, one who gets the complex makeup of this province. In my own riding of Nepean-Carleton, I represent new immigrant communities, expanding suburbs and a large rural area. I also take the lead on the urban issues that affect Ottawa, our second largest city. Nepean-Carleton is a microcosm of the growing and changing Ontario that our party must represent.

Some in the party are looking for a quick decision on a new leader, but the challenge is not just choosing a leader. It is revitalizing our party. If we are to win the next election, the Ontario PC Party must become a broader, bigger, activist organization. It must become a movement for change. Our new leader must have wide support, not just from party elites, but from the members themselves.

A revitalized PC party is important not just for Conservative supporters, but for all Ontarians. Our province needs a party that will offer affordable, practical solutions to improving our health care and our children’s education, and do it within the context of reasonable taxes and a balanced budget.

All major parties agree that we can’t continue to pay for our services with borrowed money. The next few years will show if the Liberals can break their debt dependence. If they cannot, Ontarians will be looking for a party that they can trust to deliver the services we all need, and do it within a sustainable budget supported by an expanding economy.

Our most recent PC platform has been criticized for talking too much about numbers and not enough about people. Fact-based decision making is important, but we can’t overlook the human side. I’m a suburban soccer mom. I care about my child’s school, our local hospital and whether our community is safe, just like so many other Ontarians do.

Ontarians need a party that knows how to make their lives better in measurable ways. For example, the Schools First policy that I put forward as education critic would ensure that schools get built sooner in our rapidly expanding suburbs. Youth mental health and home care for seniors are areas that cry out for real service, not lip service. These two vulnerable groups need more help, and they aren’t getting it.

The 2014 Ontario election campaign will be remembered for its attack ads, and what people felt were a lack of real choices. As a province, we can’t do that again. The PC Party has a responsibility to deliver a strong and broadly acceptable choice the next time. That work starts now. Let’s embrace the challenge and deliver for Ontarians.

Lisa MacLeod is the Progressive Conservative MPP for Nepean-Carleton.

Aussie Senator John Madigan….Hero of Wind Turbine Victims!

June 23, 2014 / 1957chev / 2 Comments

From Hansard: Windfarms

Posted on 7:34 pm, June 23, 2014 by Sinclair Davidson

Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (23:20): I rise to speak tonight on the privilege of this parliament to operate without fear or favour. Members and senators have the right to undertake their duties freely to represent their constituents—it is the reason we are here. Any attempt to gag a senator or member of parliament, any attempt to exert influence by means of threat or intimidation is a breach of parliamentary privilege. This could incur the most serious penalties. Tonight I will speak of such an attempt by a high-profile Australian academic. This academic has a track record of making fun of people in regional and rural communities who are sick. He trades in scuttlebutt. He makes consistent attacks on anyone who makes a complaint against his network of corporate buddies. This academic has become the poster boy for an industry which has a reputation for dishonesty and for bullying.

I have a policy of playing the issue, not the man. Policies should always go before personalities. It is a personal credo, one I have practised all my life and specifically in my professional duties since my election in 2010. But since I have been investigating matters related to wind turbines for almost 10 years now I have recorded a consistent track record of vilification, denigration and attack by those on the other side of this debate. This is an industry that sucks hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from the public purse. This industrial power generation sector is an industry that masquerades under a false veneer of ‘saving the environment’.

The wind industry is about one thing in this country: it exists to make people rich at the expense of many rural and regional Australians, their lives and their communities. My investigation shows it does not decrease carbon dioxide, it does not reduce power costs, it does not improve the environment. And this academic in question stands shoulder to shoulder with the wind industry companies and their colourful—and I use that term deliberately—executives. He promotes their products. He attacks their critics. He attends their conferences. He rubs shoulders with their henchmen. He is, in the words of the former member for Hume, Alby Schultz—who was a great campaigner on this issue, I might add—devoid of any decency and courage.

But, first, some background. My party, the Democratic Labour Party, has a long tradition of standing up for principle in the face of enormous opposition. My party was born in conflict and forged in sacrifice. No other political party in Australia can boast that its parliamentary founders—51 in total, including 14 ministers and a state Premier—were prepared to sacrifice promising political careers to uphold the belief dedicated to freedom from undue and corrupt influence. The DLP was the first Australian political party to promote the vote for 18-year-olds. We were the first political party to call for equal pay for equal work and equity in education funding. We were the first political party to call for an end to the White Australia policy. And when our veterans returned from Vietnam, bloody but unbowed, DLP parliamentarians marched in their ranks while the rest of Australia turned their backs.

The DLP is a party of principle. We respect the dignity and the sanctity of life. From the womb to the grave, from the primary school to the factory floor, we see every life as unique and having intrinsic value. This is the cornerstone of the DLP; this is the foundation upon which I place every vote. That is why my attention has been turned to the wind industry for almost a decade now, even before my election to the Senate. I have seen firsthand the devastation it has caused communities. I have listened firsthand to the stories of wrecked families’ lives: family farms destroyed and small outback areas torn apart. I have seen the empty homes in Victoria at Waubra, Macarthur, Cape Bridgewater and Leonards Hill. I have listened to country people tell me stories of corporate bullying and deceit, and of corporate fraud in matters of compliance. I have repeatedly called for one thing on this issue: independent Australian research into the health problems that wind farms apparently cause. That is all—independent research. It is a question of justice. It is about getting to the bottom of this issue.

So when I spoke with Alan Jones onto 2GB on 27 March, I made one simple point. I told Mr Jones we need to be careful about people who profess to be experts in this area. For the benefit of the Senate I repeat what I said in that interview:

… when we talk about people, using the title, using a title, such as Professor, let us be clear crystal clear here Alan. Most people in the community assume that when you use the title Professor, that you are trained in the discipline of which you speak. And I ask people, look and check. What is the person making these proclamations about other people’s health? What is the discipline they are trained in of which they speak? Because most people in the public assume when you speak of an issue of health, that you are trained in the discipline of which you speak, and there are people making pronouncements and denigrating people who are not trained in human health.

I stand by this statement. It is fair and reasonable to encourage people to look behind the blatant campaigning done by people like Professor Chapman of the University of Sydney.

But it is the statement that has prompted him to threaten me, utilising a law firm that was instrumental in the set-up of Hepburn Wind. He has threatened to sue me for libel over this statement unless I pay him $40,000 plus costs. He has threatened to sue me for libel unless I organise an apology on the website of 2GB and an anti-wind farm website called Stop These Things. He has threatened me with contempt of parliament and a breach of parliamentary privilege if I raise these matters in the Senate. This reaction by Professor Chapman is something that my more experienced parliamentary colleagues have labelled a blatant try-on. It is another attempt by the wind industry to silence me, to scare me off and to intimidate me. It is a case of a Sydney university academic firing shots across the bow of the blacksmith from Ballarat. This is something he has done before now, tweeting about my position on this issue, always in the context of my background as a blacksmith—a background, I add, that I am enormously proud of. I remain one of the wind industry’s most stubborn and outspoken critics. I will not be silenced. I will not give up on the injustice inflicted on people who claim to be impacted by living near turbines. I will not stop. My comments to Alan Jones were a series of rhetorical statements or questions about the assumptions members of the public should be entitled to make when somebody professes to be qualified to speak about an issue of public health. In other words, I was asking people to check that so-called experts on this issue are relevantly trained and qualified. It is a reasonable request. Our media and the internet are crawling with self-appointed experts. Daily we operate in a cacophony of opinion presented as fact.

Professor Chapman has been an outspoken critic of those who have dared to question the wind farm orthodoxy. But is Professor Chapman a medical doctor? Is he legally entitled to examine and treat patients? Is he qualified in acoustics or any other aspect of audiology? Is he a sleep specialist? Does he hold any qualifications in bioacoustics or physiology or neuroscience? How many wind farm victims has he interviewed directly? How many wind farm impacted homes has he visited? Professor Chapman claims to receive no payment from the wind industry. How many wind industry conferences, seminars and events has he spoken at? How many wind industry events has he attended? Writing on the Crikey website in November 2011, Professor Chapman lamented how many conferences do not pay speaker’s fees, and, when one conference organiser refused to pay his hotel bill, he withdrew. This is the same Professor Chapman who was photographed at a campaign launch in Melbourne by the Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas. Did Vestas pay your hotel bill and other costs, Professor Chapman? These are reasonable questions—they put in context his actions.

I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Senate to the discovery of a 2004 PowerPoint presentation by Vestas employee Erik Sloth to the former Australian Wind Energy Association, now the Clean Energy Council. This demonstrated Vestas knew a decade ago that safer buffers are required to protect neighbours from noise. Vestas knew their preconstruction noise models were not accurate. I draw the attention of the Senate to a quote from the presentation that Vestas knew then that ‘noise from wind turbines sometimes annoys people even if the noise is below noise limits.’ This is confirmation that the global wind industry have known for more than a decade that their turbines impact on nearby residents. How can Professor Chapman reconcile his ridicule of the reasons numerous people have been forced to abandon their homes with the knowledge that the company initiating this campaign he attended knew a decade ago there were problems?

As a public health academic, Professor Chapman displays a lack of compassion for people who claim to be suffering debilitating effects from pervasive wind turbine noise. Professor Chapman’s undergraduate qualifications were in sociology. His PhD looked into the relationship between cigarette smoke and advertising. I question his expertise, I question his qualifications and I question his unbridled motivation to promote and support the wind industry at the cost of people’s lives, homes and communities. I question Professor Chapman’s lack of interest in speaking with wind industry victims. Professor Chapman has a record of public denigration of victims. I refer to his tweet in February this year about ‘wind farm wing nuts’.

One of the important things about this fight that is going on across rural Australia is that it is country women who are in the front line. Farmers’ wives are running hard, fighting to save their families, fighting to save their homes, fighting to save their communities. It is often these women who suffer the most denigration. It is a roll call of honour—people like Mary Morris of South Australia; Dr Andja Mitric Andjic in Victoria; Sonya Trist, Joanne Kermond and Melissa Ware at Cape Bridgewater; Colleen Watt in New South Wales; and, of course, the extraordinary Sarah Laurie in South Australia.

One more example: Annie Gardner and her husband, Gus, have lived and worked happily and healthfully for 34 years on their farming property in south-west Victoria. This came to a sudden halt in October 2012 when the first 15 turbines of the Macarthur wind farm began operation. In a recent letter to the AMA Annie said she is now able to get only two or three hours sleep each night in her own home. She writes: ‘At the time of writing this letter, I am suffering terribly from the infrasound emitted by the 140 turbines located far too close to our property. I have a bad headache. I have very strong pains shooting up through the back of my neck and into my head. I have extremely sore and blocked ears and very painful pressure in my nose. I have pressure in my jaws and my teeth. My heart is pounding. I can feel the vibration going through my body through the chair like an electric charge. The infrasound in our bedroom was appalling. I could feel the vibration through the mattress and the pillow like an electric charge through my body. My head felt as if a brick was on it, and the pressure and pain in my nose was extreme.’

Annie Gardner would be what Professor Chapman would call a ‘wind farm wing nut’. Writing on a green movement website earlier this year, Professor Chapman said protesting against wind farms is a fringe activity as if to suggest that the hundreds of people who attended and spoke at anti-wind farm forums I have held across my home state of Victoria and interstate are simply collateral damage. I cannot live with such a utilitarian view. As I said, even putting aside the highly questionable environmental, social and economic benefits of wind farms, every life matters and every life is important. I have sat in people’s homes and kitchens. I know firsthand the suffering they experience from these industrial developments. Professor Chapman’s attempts to gag me are the same as his attempts to silence those who object to the great wind farm scam. It is part of a greater attempt to silence open and transparent debate on this issue. It does no service to academia or to science already under much attack. It does nothing to advance discussion or progress.

Surely the big businesses behind this attempt—the entities who are funding it, like Bleyer Lawyers, who have worked for Hepburn Wind—should remember cases such as McDonald’s and Gunns. For the environmental movement to attempt this shallow legal shooting of a mere messenger is poor judgement in my view. Bullies corporate or otherwise never get far. Surely it is apparent that companies that use the courts to silence opposition lose out in the court of public opinion. To borrow words from the great human rights campaigner Malcolm X:

I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. I’m for justice, no matter who it’s for or against.
If Professor Chapman proceeds with this action, I look forward to having him answer in court those questions I have raised here tonight—questions about his qualifications, his expertise and his links with the wind industry financial or otherwise. I look forward to his cross-examination under oath as equally as I look forward to mine. I say this: his action, if it proceeds, is doomed in a legal setting or elsewhere for one reason; it is not based on the truth.

Hansard June 17, 2014.

Finally….A Climate Change Conference, That is NOT About Fear Mongering!

June 23, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

Global Warming Skeptics!

Learn the Scientific Truth: Humans Are Not Causing a Climate Crisis

President Obama and his army of bureaucrats have picked up where Al Gore left off: Fudging the science and lying about what is really happening to our climate to justify a federal power-grab of our economy.

But you have an opportunity to learn the truth from the leading scientists and policy experts from around the world who question whether “man-made global warming” will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare.

Meet the leaders of think tanks and grassroots organizations who are speaking out against global warming alarmism.

Don’t just wonder about global warming … understand it!

Visit the conference website for more information

_____________________________________________________________

What:	The 9th International Conference on Climate Change, preseneted by The Heartland Institute
When:	Monday, July 7 – Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Where:	Mandalay Bay, Las Vegas (two days before FreedomFest begins)
Cost:	$129 for general admission; $99 for students and senior citizens
Register:	Click here to register!

_____________________________________________________________

An amazing line-up of speakers!

The Heartland Institute has brought together world-class experts about the science, policy, and communcations aspect of climate change. Presenters include:


Walter Cunningham Apollo 7 Astronaut	Christopher Monckton Former Policy Advisor to Margaret Thatcher	John Coleman Founder, The Weather Channel	Joe Bastardi Co-chief forecaster, WeatherBELL Analytics

Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, the University of Alabama-Huntsville

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore (who is now a fierce critic of his former organization)

Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming, Competitive Enterprise Institute

And many more!

_____________________________________________________________

DON’T MISS THE
9th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

The conference is designed to inform both the scientist and the layman with three tracks: the science, the policy, and the communications.

Come learn about the latest data that show natural causes are a bigger driver of climate change than human activity. Come learn about the proper policy actions in light of human activity not causing a climate crisis. And come learn about how to communicate these inconvenient truths to your friends, family, neighbors, and representatives in government.

Read testimonials from attendees of previous conferences! Don’t miss this opportunity to learn from the scientists and experts who are fighting every day to stop the ruination of our economy and the control of our lives over the flawed hypothesis of man-caused climate change.

Register here today!

Or call 312/377-4000 and ask for Ms. McElrath or reach her via email at zmcelrath@heartland.org.

_____________________________________________________________

The Heartland Institute
One South Wacker Drive #2740
Chicago, IL 60606
312/377-4000 phone *312/377-5000 fax
www.heartland.org

Wind Industry will Stop Lying, When Governments Stop Allowing Them To!

June 23, 2014 / 1957chev / Leave a comment

When will the Wind Industry Stop Lying?

June 23, 2014 by stopthesethings

With the Australian wind industry in its death throes, the industry and its parasites are lying around the clock in an effort to preserve the greatest rort of all time – as they seek to fend off the inevitable dismantling of the mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

Lies about the number of jobs at risk. Not jobs in the real economy, mind you, but fantasy jobs that would (might) be created in the wind industry if the mandatory RET were left alone. When we say “fantasy jobs” the numbers given are in the order of 18,000 – which is nothing short of utter bunkum (see our post here).

Lies about the impact of wind power on power prices; always starting off with reference to the wholesale market. Last time we looked, Australian households and businesses were paying the retail price – which has gone from being amongst the cheapest in the world to the most expensive, in less than a decade.

Adding to the litany of wind industry lies, is a story that the marginal cost of delivering wind power is zero – which appears to originate with the “wind is free” myth. This, of course, ignores the upfront capital cost of installing turbines, transmission and network gear etc; and it also ignores the very substantial costs of maintaining, repairing and replacing the major components of turbines.

We’ll debunk these and other myths in a moment, in the meantime here’s The Australian dealing with some of the more outrageous costs associated with the mandatory RET.

Wrong call on energy costs
The Australian
Adam Creighton
20 June 2014

EVEN climate-change deniers may shed a tear over our stillborn carbon emissions trading scheme.

The former government’s policy to link Australia’s scheme to Europe’s, due to start next month at a paltry price of €6 a tonne, was an opportunity to enjoy all the self-righteousness of “doing something” about climate change without much of the cost. All along, imposing a carbon trading scheme and using every dollar of the permit proceeds to cut the bottom two rates of income tax would have been the best policy and, sold well, broadly should have kept everyone happy.

Further, in the unlikely event the rest of the world, which emits the remaining 98.7 per cent of global carbon dioxide, ever agrees on a universal cap and trade system, we would have been prepared — emissions trading remains the most efficient way to limit carbon emission.

Alas, we are governed ineptly: the Coalition has expended its climate-change zeal excising the least bad policy and left us with two worse: the renewable energy target, and the nascent Emissions Reduction Fund (the crux of the Coalition’s direct action policy). Plus we are still lumbered with the absurd carbon tax compensation and higher tax rates to boot.

In 2011 the Rudd and Gillard governments ratcheted up fivefold the Howard government’s 2001 token RET, spurring mainly construction of wind farms, especially in South Australia.

The requirement for retailers to buy what by 2020 will equate to about 27 per cent of total electricity from renewable sources has been a boon for wind farms but a drag for everyone else.

The RET is a highly interventionist and prescriptive way to curb Australia’s carbon emissions, costing about $125 a tonne, or five times the cost of the outgoing carbon tax according to Deloitte Access Economics.

Because it mandates a particular set of technologies (mainly wind), it stops use of much cheaper but non-renewable energy sources, such as gas, that are less carbon intensive.

The insidious cost ripple is significant. Last November the Centre for International Economics concluded the RET was already adding between 4 per cent and 5 per cent to the typical household electricity bill.

Another consulting firm, BAE Economics, concluded in 2012 that the RET would reduce Australia’s national income by between 0.2 per cent and 0.3 per cent and real wages by 2.5 per cent by 2020. Job losses will outweigh job creation (in the renewable sector) by about 4900 by 2020, Deloitte says.

Yet the Clean Energy Council argues the RET will reduce wholesale and perhaps even retail prices too.

This may well occur: renewable energy is characterised by very high upfront costs and zero or close to zero marginal costs. Wind energy, assuming it is sufficiently windy, can compete with gas and coal fire power stations in the wholesale market.

Advocates for renewable energy are seduced by the psychological appeal of zero marginal cost energy.

But that property, however alluring, does not obviate the need for massive set-up costs. Unless the welfare of the present generation is irrelevant compared to those of the future, forcing purchase of renewable energy does not make sense. By definition, if renewable energy were currently able to lower overall costs in energy production it would not need help from government regulation. Investors would be building wind farms regardless.

The government’s RET review, chaired by known climate-change sceptic Dick Warburton and due to report next month or August, will very likely conclude the RET is an inefficient way to abate carbon. But it will likely recommend a freezing of current requirements rather than outright abolition.

This is a shame because arguments about sovereign risk — that, in this case, it is unfair to investors in renewable energy to suddenly drop the policy — are not strong.

If Canberra suddenly nationalised Westpac, that would create sovereign risk. But dropping a policy that investors always knew was highly inefficient and that was introduced against the will of the bulk of Liberal Party members does not. By this definition all government actions — raising taxes, cutting taxes — create sovereign risk and nothing should ever change.

Arguments the RET bolsters Australia’s energy security — by diversifying the range of energy options we have available — are laughable given the rich endowment of mineral resources this nation enjoys.

Indeed, owners of black and brown coal power plants should be encouraged to bid for the ERF to help start construction of a commercial-scale nuclear reactor. Such a facility ultimately would contribute massively to carbon abatement and also encourage development of a skilled workforce.

With near 40 per cent of the world’s uranium reserves and a significant quotient of isolated, uninhabitable land in which to store nuclear waste we are perfectly placed to shift towards nuclear energy, which already supplies 15 per cent of the rich world’s power supply.
The Australian

In an otherwise well-crafted piece, unfortunately, Adam Creighton appears to fall for a couple of classic wind industry furphies – of the kind we mentioned above.

The first is that wind power can be produced at or near zero marginal cost.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Marginal cost” relates to the additional cost of delivering the next unit of production (good or service). In general terms, “marginal cost” at each level of production includes any additional costs required to produce the next unit. For marginal cost to be zero, the additional cost of delivering an additional unit must be zero.

Wind farm operating costs are typically in the range of $25 per MWh dispatched to the grid. That is, every additional MWh delivered, costs an additional $25 to produce; therefore, the marginal cost of production is (at least) $25 per MWh, not zero.

In this glossy tissue of lies (click here for the pdf) Infigen (aka Babcock and Brown) sets out the financial “performance” of its American and Australian operations. From page 26, here’s Table 16 relating to its Australian operations, where it reports “Operating Cost (A$/MWh) as $23.93 for 2012/13 compared to an “Average Price” of electricity sold of $96.57 per MWh.

From page 29, here’s Table 20 where, on total operating costs of $36.3 million, $17.2 million is attributed to “Turbine O&M” (ie operation and maintenance); $0.9 million to “Balance of plant”; and $7.5 million to “Other direct costs”. Infigen’s US operations reported similar operating costs of US$24.18 per MWh for 2012/13 (refer to Infigen’s report at page 20 and Table 15 on page 24).

Those typical operating costs figures are hardly evidence that wind farms operate “at or near zero marginal cost”; but are evidence entirely to the contrary. Bear in mind that wind farm operating costs of $25 per MWh compare with the ability of Victorian coal fired power generators to profitably deliver power to the grid at less than $25 per MWh.

The bulk of wind farm operating costs are taken up by maintenance and repairs (see Table 20 above).

Blades, bearings, gearboxes and generators naturally wear out over time; and often require repair or replacement within the first few years of operation.

At AGL’s Hallett 1 (Brown Hill) wind farm near Jamestown in SA, 45 Indian designed and built Suzlon s88s were used; commencing operation in April 2008. Not long into their operation stress fractures began appearing in the 44m long blades; Suzlon claimed that there was a “design fault” and was forced by AGL to replace the blades on all 45 turbines under warranty. The “old” blades are still sitting on the wharf at Port Pirie, apparently awaiting collection by the manufacturer – now known as Senvion: collection is highly unlikely, as Suzlon/Senvion is in deep, deep financial difficulty.

While that debacle was covered by warranty, not every blade, bearing, gearbox or generator replacement is. The cost of replacing major components is colossal, requiring the use of heavy cranes with specialist operators clocking up rates of between $10-30,000 per day – and effective rates of up to $100,000 per day if a heavy crawler crane is required – bear in mind these giant cranes have to be transported substantial distances to the site as oversize loads, involving police escorts – all at substantial cost.

Over the “life” of a turbine (purported to be 25 years by the manufacturers) metal fatigue, fair wear and tear means that the cost of maintaining, repairing and replacing major components can only increase, not decrease, over time. Noting that the manufacturer’s warranty is ordinarily 2 or, perhaps, 3 years at best – this leaves the wind farm operator picking up an ever increasing repair and maintenance tab. That (substantial) increase in the costs of operation over time (as against a fixed revenue stream set under PPAs – see below) means that it becomes uneconomic to repair and maintain turbines beyond about 12 years of operation.

In this detailed study, Gordon Hughes looked at the rapid decline in turbine efficiency, and showed that turbine output declined rapidly after about 10 years of operation. That decline was in part the product of the increased need for repairs, replacement and maintenance over time (resulting in downtime and, therefore, periods of zero output); and the natural deterioration in the mechanical componentry of the turbine, leading to decreased output as the turbine’s components wore out.

It’s that simple fact of engineering and mechanical life that led Hughes to conclude that the average (economic) life span for modern (onshore) wind turbines is about 12 years (see our post here).

The other trap laid by the Clean Energy Council is the “wind power is reducing the wholesale price of electricity” red herring – and is also reducing retail prices. To his credit, Adam doesn’t appear to fall for the trap, but we’ll deal with it anyway.

The first point is dealt with fairly simply: households and businesses couldn’t care less what the wholesale price of electricity is: they get served with power bills from retail providers which, funnily enough, involve the retail price. And there is absolutely no argument that Australian retail power prices have gone through the roof in the last decade. Australia’s wind power capital, South Australia suffers the highest retail power prices in the world (see page 11 of this paper: FINAL-INTERNATIONAL-PRICE-COMPARISON-FOR-PUBLIC-RELEASE-19-MARCH-2012 – the figures are from 2011 and SA has seen prices jump since then).

Retail prices are impacted by the mandatory RET and wind power in at least two major ways.

The first is the price fixed under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) struck between wind power generators and retailers. That price guarantees a return to the generator of between $90 to $120 per MWh for every MW delivered to the grid. In this company report, AGL (in its capacity as a wind power retailer) complains about the fact that it is bound to pay $112 per MWh under PPAs with wind power generators: these PPAs run for 25 years.

Wind power generators can and do (happily) dispatch power to the grid at prices approaching zero – when the wind is blowing and wind power output is high; at night-time, when demand is low, wind power generators will even pay the grid manager to take their power (ie the dispatch price becomes negative)(see our post here). However, the retailer still pays the wind power generator the same guaranteed price under their PPA – irrespective of the dispatch price: in AGL’s case, $112 per MWh.

PPA prices are 3-4 times the cost that retailers pay to conventional generators; as noted above, retailers can purchase coal-fired power from Victoria’s Latrobe Valley for around $25 per MWh – and the dispatch price ranges from $30-$40, on average.

The second is the cost of backing up wind power when it fails to deliver every day and hundreds of times each year (see our posts here and here).

Fast start-up peaking power plants – predominantly Open Cycle Gas Turbines – cost a fortune to run ($200-$300 per MWh, depending on the spot price for gas on the day).

When wind power output collapses the shortfall is made up with “spinning reserve” held by coal/gas-thermal plants and OCGTs. Bidding between generators with high operating costs sees the dispatch price quickly rocket from the usual $30-40 mark, to in excess of $300 (otherwise OCGT operators will simply not supply to the grid); and, if a wind power output collapse coincides with a spike in demand, the dispatch price rockets all the way to regulated cap of $12,500 per MWh (see our postshere and here).

Call us spoilsports, but STT is always keen to let the facts get in the way of a “good” wind industry story.

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

"Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…

Children Deserve Protection!

fighting wind scam

NASA Climate Alarmists Went As Far As “Faking Data”, To Suit Their Agenda!

GLOBAL WARMING DATA FAKED BY GOVERNMENT,

TO FIT CLIMATE CHANGE FICTIONS

Scotland’s Tories Smart Enough to Know That a Larger Setback is Required!

Tories insist no wind turbines within 2km of homes

Governments Colluded With Wind Industry, to Hide Truth About Wind Turbine Noise!

Low-frequency noise on the line

MPAC Property Devaluation Studies Are Not Worth the Paper They Are Written On!

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation

2012 study of wind turbine impacts on

residential property assessments

MPAC 2012, Study 1

MPAC 2012, Study 2

Some Commentary

MPAC 2012 and Lansink

Wind Pushers Try to Avoid These Nasty Details!

Wind Turbines take terrible toll on animals

The Aussies Make Preparations to SCRAP the Renewable Energy Targets! Yaaayyyy!!

Kelly O’Dwyer & Angus Taylor Join in a Wreck the RET Duet

PCC MPP Lisa McLeod, Talks About Fresh Leadership for the Conservatives!

Aussie Senator John Madigan….Hero of Wind Turbine Victims!

From Hansard: Windfarms

Finally….A Climate Change Conference, That is NOT About Fear Mongering!

Wind Industry will Stop Lying, When Governments Stop Allowing Them To!

When will the Wind Industry Stop Lying?