Keep Roof Top Solar, (Domestic), and get rid of Wind Turbines….BRILLIANT IDEA!

Angus Taylor: Coalition set to kill the wind industry, while supporting rooftop solar


With the wind industry reeling after the RET review panel delivered its recommendation to slam the door shut on any more wind farms (see our post here), it’s sought to whip up support for the mandatory RET by enlisting the usual band of useful Marxist idiots (like GetUp! and to rally a band of imaginary troops (apparently ready to die on the barricades); and to rattle cans to fund super-shrill ad campaigns. What’s that they say about “astro-turfing”?

What the wind industry has counted on (so far) in its attempt to retain the RET, is support from the solar industry; and its many satisfied customers.

The wind industry and its parasites like to shelter under the same umbrella as the solar boys: blancmanging the two very distinct animals under the “renewables” tagline.

There are, however, a number of key distinctions between the wind industry and domestic (rooftop) solar. The differences are significant, have political consequences, and the Coalition government is alive to them.

Installing rooftop solar has created a big number of specialist installers (mostly electricians and panel fitters) who way outnumber the handful of permanent jobs created in the wind industry. This band (numbering some 18,000) work for, or operate, hundreds of small businesses across Australia; and, therefore, have the potential of becoming very vocal regarding any threat to the small scale renewable energy scheme (SRES) – which doles out subsidies for rooftop solar.

The RET review panel delivered a recommendation that the SRES should be scrapped immediately. However, STT hears that (for reasons that follow) the Coalition are not going to follow that recommendation.

Unlike the wind industry, rooftop solar has lots of friends and no real enemies.

Were the Coalition to cut the SRES, thousands of solar installers would immediately face an uncertain future: no doubt, many would lose their jobs. There are thousands of panel installers who are currently employed or who own business built on the SRES – all feel threatened – and have been lobbying Coalition members for a retention of the SRES.

In suburban Australia, rooftop solar has become an aspirational good – with families planning their next home (or new home) with panels; or otherwise hoping to take up rooftop solar in order to reduce their spiralling power bills. To an extent, given the massive take-up of rooftop solar to date, getting solar panels has become a game of “keeping up with the Jones”.

So, between thousands of rooftop solar installers and tens of thousands of families who see solar panels as a right of household passage (all of them potential Coalition voters), the Coalition faces a serious loss of political capital were it to chop the SRES (as recommended by the panel).

The wind industry, on the other hand, has very few friends and lots of enemies (see our posts here and here). Its “friends” are panicky investors and died-in-the-wool Labor and Green voters (predominantly inner city trendies from the hard-green-left) who would never vote for the Coalition in a fit. Pandering to this lot has no political upside for Tony Abbott and his team.

The wind industry was brought to life by the Large-Scale RET (LRET). The RET review panel has recommended that the current target set by the LRET of 41,000 GWh be slashed and that the scheme be closed to new entrants from here on.

STT hears that the Coalition, starting with Tony Abbott, is all set to follow that recommendation. While Environment Minister, Greg Hunt has been working flat-out in the media, touting claims that the Coalition supports a real 20% target, he couldn’t be more isolated from his own party than if he were Robinson Crusoe. STT hears that, for his recent efforts, young Greg is about to have his wings clipped by the Head Boy (as soon as he returns from his trip to India).

Unlike rooftop solar and the SRES, were the LRET scaled back and closed to new entrants hardly any current wind industry jobs would face immediate threat.

In the wind industry, most of the jobs involve the fleeting work created during wind farm construction (see our post here). Australia doesn’t manufacture wind turbines: every single one of them has been imported from Denmark, India, Germany and China.

In Australia, wind farm construction is almost at a standstill: “investment” in the construction of wind farms went from $2.69 billion in 2013 to a piddling $40 million this year (see this article). So it’s not as if thousands of currently employed construction workers will lose their jobs as a result of changes to the LRET.

As to the few permanent jobs created by the wind industry, most of these involve the repair and maintenance of turbines (changing oil, changing over gearboxes, bearings etc); and these jobs are not under immediate threat – turbines put up in the last decade will continue to need repairs (and more so, as time passes).

Employment in the wind industry is all about what might be; rather than what is. With hardly any jobs under immediate threat, the Coalition has little political capital to lose and much to gain in following the panel’s recommendations regarding the LRET.

The SRES is estimated to cost a further $1.5-2 billion, which is chickenfeed compared to the future cost of the LRET. The wind industry has been, and would be, the only practical beneficiary of the LRET; and stands to reap a further $50 billion in subsidies via the REC Tax levied on all Australian power consumers (see our post here).

From a political perspective then, the options are a “no-brainer”: keep the SRES and kill off the LRET.

By closing off any threat to rooftop solar, the Coalition avoids a battle that it’s likely to lose – and also allows it to target the wind industry standing all on its lonesome.

In the battle to “win hearts and minds” over the fate of the RET, the wind industry has used the solar industry as a kind of “human shield”: avoiding political flack by hiding behind a sea of suburban solar panels; the hundreds of small businesses that install them; and the mums and dads that own (or want to own) them.

With the Coalition coming out in support of the SRES, the political “stink” being kicked up by the solar lobby will simply fade away – and the wind industry will lose its “solar shield”. Oops!

Leading the Coalition’s charge to maintain the SRES (and government support for rooftop solar); and to kill the wind industry (by following the panel’s recommendation on the LRET) is STT Champion, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor. Here’s a piece Angus penned for the Australian Financial Review, outlining the Coalition’s shift on renewable policy.

Time to get rational about the RET (Renewable Energy Target)
Australian Financial Review
Angus Taylor
4 September 2014

Now that the renewable energy target (RET) review panel has published its findings, it is time to focus on home truths and explode some myths relating to renewables.

As politicians’ inboxes fill with carefully crafted messages from vested interests with huge dollars at stake, it is important to keep a grip on the facts.

First, we need to remember that, strictly speaking, there is no RET. In fact, there are two schemes. The large scale renewable target (LRET) focused mostly on wind, and the small scale renewable energy scheme (SRES), focused mostly on roof-top solar. Many renewables interests, particularly the wind industry, want to confuse the two, because roof-top solar has far more mainstream political support than other renewables. However, the review made quite different recommendations for the two, and the government will need to announce different policies for each scheme.

Second, the review and other recent work showed that there are many cheaper carbon abatement options than renewables. We should not forget that the purpose of the exercise is to reduce carbon emissions, not to build an industry. If an industry emerges out of our efforts to reduce emissions, then well and good, but industry pork-barrelling has not been an aspiration of this government.

Deloitte tells us that we all wear these costs, but the least well-off are hardest hit by higher retail electricity prices, as with the carbon tax. Investment is not a free lunch, and bad investment reduces productivity, wages and jobs, despite all the talk about green jobs. Deloitte’s estimate is that the cost is 5000 jobs and over $1250 in lost earnings for the average Australian.


Third, it is now very clear that the 20 per cent renewable target was flawed. In an atrocious decision, the former government decided to translate the 20 per cent target into 45,000 GWh of new capacity, allocating 41,000 of the target to large-scale schemes. This was based on ridiculously optimistic views of electricity demand growth and effectively eliminated demand risk for the renewables industry – a risk that other businesses face every day. In reality, electricity demand has been going backwards, not forwards. The forecaster responsible for the current target, AEMO, has done some serious soul searching and will need to do more.

Fourth, according to the spin from the renewables sector, the schemes are costless, because of a magical impact on wholesale electricity prices. No serious economist agrees that these schemes are costless. The review estimates the cross-subsidy to be $22 billion, and the only serious work done on economy wide impacts (Deloitte again) put that at $29 billion.

The critical question is who wears these costs. In reality, they are shared between electricity consumers (via higher electricity bills), electricity generators and the broader economy. The renewables industry likes to imagine that household bills will not go up, but the review rejects that argument, particularly in the next five years. Of course, if the cost of renewables drops in the longer term – which would be a great thing – then subsidies are no longer necessary.


Finally, the review panel recognised the legitimate claim from the renewables industry that past investments were made in good faith, and those investments should be protected from changes to the LRET or the SRES. At the same time, non-renewable generators invested in good faith, and have had to wear a massive increase in capacity while demand has shrunk. We shouldn’t forget that many of the shareholders in these companies are mum and dad investors.

As a result of these competing considerations, the panel rightly recognised the need to scale back the LRET to reduce the massive subsidies to the wind industry, while simultaneously protecting past investment. The review offers two options that will strengthen the economy and reduce electricity prices in time, while maintaining a commitment to large scale renewables.

The prospects for solar are quite different and are positive. The SRES is planned to be phased out in coming years and is responsible for a fraction of the renewable subsidies, but much political noise. In the absence of new hugely expensive state-based feed in tariffs, solar’s future is hitched to its ability to cash in on the excessive network charges in electricity bills. We should support that goal.

Vigilance with the facts and measured policy debate will ensure noisy vested interests don’t subvert the national interest.

Angus Taylor is the federal member for Hume.
Australian Financial Review

Angus Taylor

The Truth About Wind Turbines….A Victim’s Testimony!

Victims of industrial wind

We are “Victims of Industrial Wind” (which is also the name of our open Facebook group, with members from around the world).

We are the Therriens of Sheffield. Many already know our story. We own 50 acres abutting First Wind’s Sheffield project. We have spent more than 18 years living here, cultivating a beautiful sugar bush. Yes, we live off grid. Yes, we live near the Interstate. The interstate is quiet at night, unlike the wind turbines that make noise 24/7 more often than not. The Interstate also does not make a repetitive obnoxious noise that wakes you then keeps you awake, night after night.

We did not oppose the industrial wind power plant at any stage. From proposal to construction, we had no idea what to expect so we were not about to judge.

We never once harassed any employees working on the project nor with First Wind. Not until the project began operating, only when we experienced the noise first-hand, did we begin to understand and wonder just what we were facing. About six months in, we started to realize the project was affecting us. Less than one year in, everything started to add up for us, correlating the connection between the sounds and how we felt. We hardly could believe it was true until we started reading up on wind turbine syndrome. This syndrome is real, too darn real. The exact same symptoms are echoed worldwide.

These facts about wind turbine noise and health have been known for a long time and totally ignored by our federal and state governments. These elected people who are in charge of protecting the public have chosen to blindly believe the big wind developers, while turning a deaf ear to towns and residents to be impacted for the good or bad by industrial power plants.

Health studies should have been done before big wind turbines were put close to people, but they weren’t. Instead we get literature reviews done by people with financial ties to the wind industry who claim there are no “direct” health effects. It has also been spread far and wide that anyone who opposes clean green energy (laugh) is a NIMBY (not in my back yard) or that people are only seeking financial gain by falsely claiming to being negatively impacted.

Positive outcome studies are funded by industrial wind, and they get to hand-pick their experts. The nonpositive studies are done by honest hard-working individuals who face public persecution and possibly the loss of their jobs if they go public with their negative findings.

Just ask Dr. Henrik Moller of Denmark, a highly respected academic noise researcher who was fired after exposing the Danish government’s role in covering up the health risks caused by wind turbine noise pollution. Kind of says a lot right there, doesn’t it?

Even with all this information, no precautions were taken to prepare in advance to rectify any problems that may arise. Various problems have arisen, and yet they are still largely ignored because no one knows how to solve any problems pertaining to industrial wind power plants. We hear “this is all new to us.” Well, it is old hat to us.

The Public Service Board has held hearings and workshops to hear both sides of the story. Now you would be led to believe that both sides would be given equal time to be heard. No, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The developers’ side has gotten most of the time while attending victims have to sit and be further insulted and mistreated in the process and are lucky to speak at all. We attended the PSB’s Morrisville workshop and will never participate in another unless it is to protest. It was that much of an insult.

So here we are nearly three years into this nightmare and no closer to a resolution then we were on day one. We had asked First Wind to buy us out for $150,000. This prompted a meeting where we were told of a possible option to pay us $45,000 for our house and two acres, but it was not an official offer. This is what we were told: “It’s what I think I can do so it’s not as though it’s First Wind’s thing.”

Yeah, right, the head of safety and compliance out of Boston is not about to stick his neck out with talk of a “possible option” if he hadn’t already had some kind of approval. We expected to be low-balled but not to this extreme.

It seems they are well schooled in the art of approaching a town, making promises that the project will cause no harm — while quietly buying/paying off select home/land owners because they know there will be harm. The paid-off residents have signed nondisclosure agreements so they cannot say one word against the project. The developer then sits back after construction and waits for surrounding residents to become so desperate to move they will sell at almost any price. Then try to act like a good neighbor by offering a possible option at a ridiculously low insulting price. And they wanted us to sign a nondisclosure for this pittance.

Luann Therrien lives in Sheffield.

A Wonderful Initiative, that Deserves Our Support! Excellent Educational Tool!


Thank you Very Much Paul Kuster

 & Laura Griffin, for coming up with,

 and promoting, this wonderful idea!



There’s no question that over the past 2 decades, there’s been a

heightened awareness for the environment. One of the more important

areas is how we obtain electricity. One of the proposals has been in the

form of Industrial wind turbines.  We feel there’s a better way to answer

the question of how to retain a reasonable quality of life with a view to

enhancing the environment that we could all mutually benefit. We feel trees

are the answer and wherever you may reside, you can participate.

Here are some of the reasons trees are a superior way to enhance the

environment over industrial wind turbines;

  • Trees absorb CO2 and release O2. An acre ( .405 hectares) of trees
  • will absorb enough CO2 to offset a city driven car for a year, while
  • producing enough O2 for 18 people per day. IWT’s can do neither.
  • IWT’s have a large initial carbon footprint before becoming operable.
  • Trees start their work right away with no initial carbon footprint.
  • IWT’s have within their components, many detrimental compounds
  • detrimental to the environment. Turbine blades contain bisphenol A,
  • a known carcinogen and the hubs contain gear oil that has high levels
  • of mercury. Trees, of course, are without these issues.
  • Trees are superior to IWT’s when it comes to preventing erosion,
  • providing shade, providing habitat for birds and attracting many other
  • forms of wildlife. IWT’s in fact enhance erosion, kill bats and birds and
  • provide no attraction to wildlife.
  • IWT’s are infinitely more costly than trees, trees require no electricity
  • to operate and are for the most part, maintenance free. Trees have
  • proven to enhance property values and provide years of enjoyment no
  • matter if you live in a rural or urban environment.
  • IWT’s require to work in tandem with other power generators. While
  • we’ve essentially eliminated coal as a source of generation, gas plants
  • have come on line to replace coal and to act to back-up wind generation.
  • In order to do this, gas plants run in the most inefficient way possible and
  • in the final tally don’t substantially reduce emissions at all. Trees of course
  • require no gas plant backup and can help reduce heating and cooling costs.

     We listed here just a few of the benefits of trees. We can replace IWT’s with trees

                 and accomplish our goals for a better environment.

                                 This is the REAL green movement.


Wind Turbines are Bad for our Health. No More Denying!

Scotland’s Toxic Shock: Wind Farms Poisoning Neighbours

Laurence Well

Some time back, in our post “The Breakout” we talked about just how sick and tired we all are of crippling wind power driven electricity prices, how those unfortunates stuck with giant fans are sick and constantly tired as a result of incessant and debilitating low-frequency turbine noise – and how the world is growing tired of the nauseating stream of wind industry corruption, lies and deceit.

Adverse interference with water tables is just another “wonderful” feature of “eco-friendly” wind farms.  The largest turbines require a steel reinforced concrete base of around 400 m³.

The base itself – depending on the rock strata – for 3MW turbines will be set up to 30 m below the surface and – if the soil is unstable and rock anchors are required – reinforced concrete pillars are drilled up to 90 m below the surface and literally screwed into the rock strata.  In either event, there will be obvious disturbance of – and interference with – underground water or streams percolating underground.

Wind power outfits routinely lie about the impact of their giant fans on groundwater.  One of them – Scottish Power – was caught out in Bonnie Scotland not only poisoning the local inhabitants drinking from their water supply – the water supply it polluted – but lying and obfuscating in classic wind weasel fashion about the harm that it is causing to human health (see our post here).

Since then, the list of environmental havoc caused by wind farms across Scotland has grown to such proportions as to be fairly called an unmitigated ecological disaster. Here’s the Sunday Post cataloging just some of the trail of toxic destruction caused by the roll-out of wind power across the Highlands.

Special Investigation: Toxic wind turbines
Sunday Post
Derek Lambie
23 March 2014

Damning evidence of wind farms polluting the Scottish countryside can today be revealed by The Sunday Post.

Scotland’s environmental watchdog has probed more than 100 incidents involving turbines in just six years, including diesel spills, dirty rivers, blocked drains and excessive noise.

Alarmingly, they also include the contamination of drinking water and the indiscriminate dumping of waste, with warning notices issued to a handful of energy giants.

The revelations come just a week after our investigation showed £1.8 billion in Government subsidies have been awarded to operators to build turbines since Alex Salmond took office in 2007.

Anti-wind farm campaigners yesterday insisted Scotland’s communities are now “under siege” and demanded an independent inquiry into the environmental damage.

Murdo Fraser MSP, convener of Holyrood’s Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, said: “I am both surprised and concerned by the scale of these incidents.

“The fact there were more than 100 complaints is a dismal record.  This should serve as a wake-up call that wind energy is not as clean and green as is being suggested.”  He added: “What’s worse is that the current Scottish Government seems to have an obsession about wind power and the expansion in the number of turbines shows no signs of relenting any time soon.”

Promotion of green energy, particularly the growth of onshore and off-shore wind farms, has been one of the SNP’s key policies since 2007.

The Scottish Government’s target is to generate the equivalent of 100% of the country’s electricity consumption, and 11% of heat demand, from renewables by 2020.

In recent years, ministers have invested heavily in the sector, insisting Scotland has a quarter of all of Europe’s wind energy potential.

But wind power is becoming increasingly unpopular, with giant turbines now scattered across much of the Scottish countryside.

There are now 219 operational wind farms in Scotland, with at least 2,400 turbines between them.

Moray has the most sites, with 20 in operation, while Orkney has the most turbines, with 600 across the archipelago, although the majority are owned by farmers and other individuals.

Now, we can reveal the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has investigated 130 ‘pollution reports’ connected to wind farms or turbines over the past six years. In June 2012, elevated levels of the banned insecticide Dieldrin were found in samples from a private drinking water supply in Aberdeenshire.

A redacted SEPA report, obtained under Freedom of Information, states: “It was noted a wind turbine had recently been erected by the nearby farmer.”

Run-off from the construction of a wind farm near Loch Fyne in February 2012 caused concern that fish had stopped feeding, with SEPA officers discovering a burn was “running brown” and that “a noticeable slick on Loch Fyne was visible”.

In another incident in November 2011, 1,000 litres of oil leaked from a turbine at the Clyde wind farm in Abington, Lanarkshire, resulting in an emergency clean-up operation.

Warning letters have been sent by the environment agency to a number of operators, including Siemens, after another fuel spill at the same 152-turbine site four months later.

A report on that incident states: “Siemens…maintained it was under control. However…operators who then visited the area did not see any action being taken and fuel ponding at the base of the generator”.

A warning was issued to Scottish and Southern Energy in February 2011 after the Tombane burn, near the Griffin wind farm in Perthshire, turned yellow as a result of poor drainage.

The same firm was sent another letter in June that year after SEPA found high levels of silt in a burn near a wind farm in Elvanfoot, Lanarkshire.

Officers also then discovered “significant damage” to 50 metres of land and found “the entire area had been stripped of vegetation” as a result of unauthorized work to divert water.

Other incidents investigated since 2007 include odours, excessive noise from turbines and heavy goods vehicles and the indiscriminate dumping of waste and soil.

Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity that publishes data on the energy sector, said: “The new information from SEPA deepens concerns about the corrupting effect of overly generous subsidies to wind power.  Many will wonder whether wind companies are just too busy counting their money to take proper care of the environment.”

Linda Holt, spokeswoman for action group Scotland Against Spin, said: “A lot of environmentalists actually oppose wind farms for reasons like this. If you go to wind farms they are odd, eerie, places that drive away wildlife, never mind people. The idea they are environmentally-friendly is not true — they can be hostile. We have always suspected they can do great harm to the landscape and now we have proof.”

Officials at SEPA stressed not all 130 complaints were found to be a direct result of wind farms, with some caused by “agricultural and human activities” near sites and others still unsubstantiated.

A spokesman added: “While a number of these complaints have been in connection with individual wind farms these are generally during the construction phase of the development and relate to instances of increased silt in watercourses as a result of run-off from the site. SEPA, alongside partner organisations, continues to actively engage with the renewable energy industry to ensure best practice is followed and measures put in place to mitigate against any impact on the local water environment.”

Joss Blamire, senior policy manager at Scottish Renewables, insisted the “biggest threat” to the countryside is climate change and not wind farms.  He added: “Onshore wind projects are subject to rigorous environmental assessments. We work closely with groups, including SEPA, the RSPB and Scottish Natural Heritage to ensure the highest conservation and biodiversity standards are met.”

The revelations come just months after evidence emerged of contamination in the water supply to homes in the shadow of Europe’s largest wind farm.

People living near Whitelee, which has 215 turbines, complained of severe vomiting and diarrhoea with water samples showing high readings of E. Coli and other coliform bacteria.

Tests carried out between May 2010 and April last year by local resident Dr Rachel Connor, a retired clinical radiologist, showed only three out of 36 samples met acceptable standards.

Operators Scottish Power denied causing the pollution, but admitted not warning anyone that drinking water from 10 homes in Ayrshire was, at times, grossly contaminated.

Dr Connor said: “I would expect this likely contamination of drinking water must be happening all over Scotland. If there is not an actual cover-up, then there is probably complacency to the point of negligence by developers and statutory authorities.”
Sunday Post

According to Scottish Renewable’s head spin doctor, Joss Blamire, the real threat to peoples’ health is “climate change”. Try telling that to the Whitelee wind farm’s victims – suffering severe vomiting and diarrhea caused by E. Coli and other coliform bacteria.

Much to the annoyance of the likes of Joss Blamire, Dr Rachel Connor has done precisely what competent and caring medicos do: she’s examined the evidence, analysed the data and concluded that peoples’ health is suffering as a direct result of water contamination caused by wind farms. 


Built on subsidies and lies, wrapped in half-truths, peopled by spin doctors, bullies and thugs, and toxic to the point of making people violently ill – the wind industry represents the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time. This insanity must end now. In Australia, that means an end to the mandatory RET – the largest transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest in the history of the Commonwealth (seeour post here). And all that subsidy and suffering for no measurable environmental benefit.


Transport Canada Takes a Stand! Says Wind Turbines Near Chatham Airport, Have to Go!

Transport Canada demanding wind turbines be removed near Chatham airport

CTV Windsor 
Published Sunday, July 6, 2014  

Transport Canada has issued an order requiring the eight wind turbines near Cedar Springs be removed by the end of this year.

The organization originally issued a letter requesting “voluntary compliance” last year.

In a release sent out by the municipality, Chatham-Kent mayor Randy Hope, says,“there is no safety issue so we need to change the regulation rather than force the removal of the turbines.”

The Municipality had been waiting for a reply from Transport Canada on this proposal and was surprised this week to learn that Transport Canada had taken this new step of issuing letters demanding that the turbines be removed by December 31, 2014.

The affected wind turbines are in a “no fly zone” south of the airport.

It is expected that GDF SUEZ, the owner of the affected turbines, will formally object to the order from Transport Canada and seek a hearing before the Minister of Transport through the process laid out in the Aeronautics Act.

Read more:

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Gerold's Blog

The truth shall set you free but first it will make you miserable


Pioneer in Breaking Political News, Election Coverage, Polling Analysis and Fact-Checking

Canadian Common Sense

Canadian Common Sense - A Unique Perspective from Grassroots Canadians

Falmouth's Firetower Wind

a wind energy debacle

The Law is my Oyster

The Law and its Place in Society

Illinois Leaks

Edgar County Watchdogs


My own way.

Oppose! Swanton Wind

Proposed Wind Project on Rocky Ridge

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

4TimesAYear's Blog

Trying to stop climate change is like trying to stop the seasons from changing. We don't control the climate; IT controls US.


Wandering Words

Patti Kellar