The Wind Industry is on Financial Life Support – PULL THE PLUG!

Australian Wind Industry’s House of Cards Collapsing

turbine collapse-1

With Australia’s wind industry in its death throes, STT has already given fair warning to bankers, investors and shareholders with so much as a cent in wind power companies to grab their cash and get out as fast they can (see our post here).

All-wind-power-outfits – like our favourite whipping boys, Infigen – are losing money hand over fist – and have little more to do than to watch their share prices plummet and await a knock on the door from a receiver or liquidator.

As is often the way, financial troubles spread like a contagious disease – the latest to catch the “bug” is Hydro Tasmania.

STT followers will remember Hydro Tasmania as the bunch of liars and thugs that have ridden roughshod over King Island in an effort to spear 250 giant fans all over the jewel of Bass Strait.

In the first round, Hydro Tasmania promised King Island locals that unless 60% supported their planned project, they would simply abandon it – by dropping their planned “feasibility study” (see our posts here andhere). Hydro Tasmania then set about buying the votes it needed to show 60% supporting its project (see our post here).

Those shovelling Hydro Tasmania’s cash out to bribe the locals must have flunked basic arithmetic, because they only managed to muster 58.7% of the vote. But, never mind, Hydro Tasmania simply ignored its earlier promise and launched into its feasibility study, anyway (see our post here). So much for keeping promises.

But, as they say: “what goes around, comes around”.

Hydro Tasmania is losing 10s of $millions on their existing Tasmanian wind farm operations – Musselroe and Woolnorth – and look set to lose 100s of $millions more. And, in the irony of ironies, it’s blaming the Federal Government’s RET Review and the threat that the Government will breach its “promise” to retain the mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

Here’s The Australian on Hydro Tasmania’s date with bad Karma.

Green energy firm Hydro Tasmania faces $20m loss
The Australian
Matthew Denholm
10 May 2014

AUSTRALIA’S largest renewable energy producer, Hydro Tasmania, faces projected losses of up to $20 million a year on wind power deals and blames uncertainty surrounding the Renewable Energy Target.

The state-owned company also revealed it had suspended major spending on $3.6 billion in new wind projects in Australia while the target of 20 per cent by 2020 is reviewed by the Abbott government. Hydro Tasmania chief executive Stephen Davy said significant cuts to the RET could see existing wind farms prematurely abandoned and trigger demands for taxpayer compensation.

A planning document, leaked to The Weekend Australian, shows Hydro Tasmania’s power-purchasing agreements for its major Tasmanian wind farms – Musselroe and Woolnorth – will return a $12.5m loss this financial year, rising to $20.6m in 2014-15. Cumulative losses total $103.6m by 2018-19, according to the document, the authenticity of which was confirmed by the company.

Mr Davy blamed the projected losses largely on uncertainty surrounding the RET, being reviewed amid a push from business, industry and elements of the Coalition to reduce or abolish it to cut power prices.

He said the projections were pessimistic and only part of the equation on wind farm profit­ability, but reflected a significant market decline linked to the pending abolition of the carbon tax and uncertainty on the RET. “Since the time the power purchase agreements were negotiated for these wind farms, there has been significant decline in the market, including the impact of the anticipated removal of a price on carbon,” Mr Davy said. “The market decline has been exacerbated by continued uncertainty about the future of the RET. The ongoing review of the RET has created a lot of uncertainty around wind farm revenues.”

Hydro Tasmania is a major player in renewable energy, particularly through its Chinese wind farm joint venture partners Shenhua Clean Energy.

The Musselroe and Woolnorth wind farms are owned by Woolnorth Wind Farm Holdings, a joint venture between the two companies. The companies have $1.6bn in plans to develop, build and operate a further 700MW of wind farms in Australia by 2020. Separately, Hydro, which exports power to mainland Australia, is investigating a $2bn plan to build the southern hemisphere’s largest wind farm on King Island.

As lobbying intensifies ahead of next week’s closure of submissions for the RET review, Mr Davy said all major expenditure on new wind farms was on hold: “We won’t be able to commit large amounts of money further developing those opportunities until the RET is reaffirmed.”

He warned abolition of the RET would kill off all future wind farm developments.
The Australian

Isn’t it just delicious to hear an accomplished rent seeker – that couldn’t keep the simplest of the promises it made to King Island locals – whining about the Coalition planning to amend (or scrap) the largest (and, hopefully, the last “great”) corporate welfare scheme in the history of the Commonwealth?

The idea that the 41,000 GWh figure set for the large-scale mandatory RET represents some immutable law – or even an implicit promise to maintain that figure – represents wishful thinking at its very best.

The Renewable Energy Act expressly provides for a review of the target to be carried out every 2 years (click here for the relevant section). To believe that the figure – once set – would only ever be maintained or increased – is naive in the extreme – for a company to base its entire business model on it, is just plain stupid.

What is perplexing, though, is how Hydro Tasmania can blame the RET review for losses already incurred? The mandatory RET is, as yet, unchanged, so how can the mere fact of the review (which was only announced in January this year) have caused any booked-losses at all?

STT suspects that Hydro Tasmania has made some “bone-head” plays with its Power Purchase Agreements and/or by banking on a high and rising price for Renewable Energy Certificates.

One likely scenario, is that Hydro Tasmania set a price in its PPAs based on a REC price significantly higher than the prices actually realised (since November last year, RECs have fallen from around $37 to $27 now); or that it has made some bad calls betting in the REC’s futures market. Either way, to blame a regulatory change that hasn’t happened is complete nonsense.

Having said that, Hydro Tasmania is clearly on to something: for wind power companies, the worst is yet to come.

The Treasurer, Joe Hockey sent the wind industry and its parasites into a tailspin after his recent interview with Alan Jones – when he branded wind turbines “a blight on the landscape” and “utterly offensive”. However, it’s what he went on to say about the “age of entitlement” that has wind power investors quaking in their boots (see our posts here and here).

During the interview, Hockey mentioned Coalition plans to scrap the Clean Energy Regulator (CER). Shortly afterwards it was reported from “government sources” that there were no plans to scrap the CER – and that what Joe was referring to was the Coalition’s plan to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which has been on the cards since well before the election last September.

The media heat generated by Hockey’s interview on Alan Jones has stirred more than just passing interest from other Coalition members – who hitherto have had little knowledge of, or interest in, the cost of the mandatory RET or the workings of the CER.

Dozens of Coalition members are now transfixed by the insane cost of the mandatory RET (and the relevance and cost of the CER) – in much the same way that our attention gets drawn to a car crash – no matter how much twisted metal, blood and gore, we find it next to impossible to look away or move on.

The CER – which purports to administer the mandatory RET – is under the control of Environment Minister, Greg Hunt. Since Hockey’s interview, young Greg has been bombarded by his Coalition colleagues demanding to know why he plans to retain the CER at all.

As to the fate of the mandatory RET, one earlier idea floated internally by the Coalition was that the annual large-scale target would be reduced from 41,000 GWh to something between 23-27,000 GWh. That much reduced target would then be met by simply sweeping up anything that vaguely constituted “renewable energy” that hasn’t previously been counted towards meeting the current target. On that scenario, there will be no need for any further renewable energy capacity.

However, the same growing gang of Coalition members calling on Greg Hunt to axe the CER, are now calling for the mandatory RET to be scrapped outright. STT hears that Hunt was told by one member last week: “what are we doing, let’s just kill it now”. Oh dear!

The wind industry is nothing more than a house of cards: remove the coercion placed on retailers by the mandatory RET to take insanely expensive, intermittent and unreliable wind power and it will all collapse in a heartbeat.

house-of-cards

 

Marilyn has compiled a list of Liberal blunders. Yes! It is a Very….Long….List…..

Colette Berthiaume
Colette Berthiaume   May 11
Marilyn TaylorI’ve been tracking Liberal scandals and mishaps for 11 years.

It’s important that people are reminded of the Liberal’s dismal failure in office.
Marilyn Taylor’s List of Liberal Scandals:
Green Energy Act (20 billion)
eHealth scandal (almost 2 billion)
Gas plant scandal (1.1 billion theft and cover-up of our tax dollars)
ORNGE scandal (700 million)
Ontario Northland Railway scandal (820 million)
Caledonia Hydro Line scandal (116 million)
Lobbyist scandal (two multi-million dollar scandals)
Eco-Fee Reversal scandal (18 million)
CancerCare Ontario scandal (millions of dollars)
Slush Fund scandal (32 million)
Niagara Falls Commission scandal
Ontario Power Generation scandal
Children’s Aid Society scandal
Nanticoke Coal Power Plant Shutdown scandal
G20 Secretly Approved Police Power scandal
Auto Insurance scandal
Foreign Scholarships scandal (our students pay the highest tuition in Canada while foreign students get free university educations)
Offshore Wind Turbines scandal
Samsung scandal (sole-sourcing)
Pan Am scandal (cost increase from 1.4 to 2.5 billion)
MPAC scandal (over and under-valuation of properties)
OLG scandal (millions of dollars)
Chemotherapy Dosage scandal
Payout for Pan Am CEO (250 million)
Trillium Wind Power and Sky Power Limited lawsuit (500 million)
Cement company lawsuit (275 million) – Quarry outside Hamilton was scuttled for political reasons
School bus service lawsuit
Augusta/Westland lawsuit as it pertains to ORNGE
Elliot Lake Collapse lawsuits (two lives lost due to recovery delays)
Ontario Medical Association lawsuits – applied to Superior Court alleging McGuinty not negotiating in “good faith”
Breast Screening scandal (ensuing lawsuits due to thousands of misread mammograms, one life lost)
Class-action lawsuit for autism funding cancellation
Over 650 new agencies, boards, commissions and entities such as LHIN’s and CCAC’s
Over 300,000 new public servants many of whom, are on the sunshine list
Public sector employment in health care increased by 39%
Public sector employment in social services increased by 39%
Public sector employment in education increased by 34%
Paying more Liberal taxes only to receive fewer services as taxes now being spent to pay the salaries and perks of newly-assigned, Liberal-friendly public servants
Gutted our manufacturing base (job growth across Canada except in Ontario)
One million Ontarians now out of work
Increased spending by 80% while our economy grew by only 9%
More than doubled our debt to 288 billion
Running a 11.3 billion annual deficit
Debt servicing costs will rise from 11.4 billion today to 14.5 billion once the debt exceeds 300 billion by 2017-18
Interest payments on our debt now the third largest budget expenditure after health and education
Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress confirmed that McGuinty’s Green Energy Act grossly underestimated the cost to consumers and overestimated the number of new jobs that would be created
Tax collectors getting 45,000.00 severance packages for switching job titles from provincial to federal
Two ministries under an OPP criminal investigation – ORNGE and gas plant scandals
Pharmacy war
Illegal green taxes
Increased smart meter, electricity, hydro, tuition and car insurance costs
Implemented tire tax, electronics tax, eco fee, health premium (tax), WSIB tax increase, HST, beer surtax
Failing grade on ADHD education
Ranking the lowest of all provinces for fiscal performance
Delisting eye exams, physiotherapy, chiropractic care, diabetic strips, etc.
Increasing wait time for cataract surgery
No longer covered for eye exams yet taxpayers paying for sex changes
Wait time for nursing home bed tripled
Failure to disclose elevated radiation levels
OES missed its collection and recycling targets by 59%
Not correcting the foreign ownership of our beer market
Acceptance of garbage striker extortion
Harassing labour inspectors
Kowtowing to green energy lobbies
Imposing blood alcohol rules that punish people who are not impaired
Public utilities donating to Liberals
Voting to cover up the Niagara Parks Commission scandal
Emergency room wait times not meeting provincial targets
Put on notice by Standard and Poor, credit rating downgraded, under a very serious credit watch
Have-not province for the first time in Canadian history
Borrowing more debt than any province except NB
Dramatic cuts in health care services in schools
Nurses getting bonuses despite a wage freeze
Insufficient senior homecare services
Failing grade of Family Responsibility Office
Abstained from vote to investigate CBC expenses
Cash kickback scheme involving government cleaning contracts that ended with the conviction of Liberal officials
Talked about a two-year freeze on wages for public sector while previously giving the OPP a 5% wage increase – the OPP received another raise of over 8% in January, 2014
Energy now unaffordable yet we must pay Quebec and some north-eastern States to take our surplus energy
Encouraging farmers to build small-scale solar projects but having no way to connect them to the power grid
Laid up in US hospital beds as no beds available in Ontario
Refusing public inquiry into G20 fiasco
Giving those who hire only newcomers a 10,000.00 tax credit
Third highest user of food banks
Announced pay freezes knowing that 38,000 were getting a 3% salary increase after the election
Hiding hospital errors from the public
Teachers skipping classes to assist with anti-Conservative campaign
Failing grade in northern forestry management
Almost 40 C. difficile deaths to date
Loss of 6,500 cancer patient health records
Highest rent increase rate in years
Ignoring evidence that wind turbines can cause poor health
Workers at eHealth suing for not receiving bonuses
Liam denied eye care that another child is receiving under OHIP
Ontarians pleading for their lives or dying because they aren’t getting the health care they need
Lady with a brain tumor denied help to cover costs which costs are covered in Manitoba
Electricity rates to rise 42% over five years
Prior loss of 60,000 jobs in the horse racing industry – now attempting to correct this
Presto
Ring of Fire
Muslims praying in our public funded school system while the Lord’s prayer is banned
A pedophile was developing the Liberal’s sex education curriculum
Millions spent to remove the “C” from OLG when Ontario Lottery & Gaming Corporation was changed to Ontario Lottery & Gaming
McGuinty defunded the Centre for Forensic Sciences throwing a world-renowned police team who specialized in retrieving deleted computer files out of work two months before he resigned
Millions spent to needlessly redesign our provincial logo
Legal rights of Ontarians disregarded relative to the Caledonia-Mohawk matter
Education minister signing off on documents that she doesn’t even read
More to come….fresh scandals daily…..

If People don’t have enough food….why burn it?

The Ethanol Disaster

America’s renewables policy is bad for consumers, the environment, and the global poor.

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)Last November, when the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) proposed moderating years of escalating mandates by reducing the amount of ethanol that must be mixed into gasoline, a top ethanol lobbyist seemed perplexed. “We’re all just sort of scratching our heads here today and wondering why this administration is telling us to burn less of a clean-burning American fuel,” Bob Dineen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, told The New York Times

Here are a few possible reasons why: America’s ethanol requirement destroys the environment, damages car engines, increases gas prices, and contributes to the starvation of the global poor. It’s an unmitigated disaster on nearly every level.

Start with the environment. After all, when the renewable fuel standard (RFS), which since 2005 has set forth a minimum annual volume of renewable fuels nationwide, was first set, one of the primary arguments for mandating ethanol use was that it was a greener, more environmentally friendly source of fuel that released fewer greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

This turns out to be complete hogwash. Researchers have known for years that, when the entire production process is taken into account, most supposedly green biofuels actuallyemit more greenhouse gasses than traditional fuels.

Some proponents of the ethanol mandate have argued that the requirement was nonetheless necessary in order to spur demand for and development of more advanced, environmentally friendly biofuel like cellulosic ethanol, which is converted into fuel from corn-farm leftovers. But there are two serious problems with cellosic ethanol. The first is that cellulosic ethanol turns out to be rather difficult to produce; despite EPA projections that the market would produce at least 5 million gallons in 2010 and 6.6 million in 2011, the United States produced exactly zero gallons both years—and just 20,069 gallons in 2012.

The second is that cellulosic ethanol is also bad for the environment. At least in the short-term, the corn-residue biofuels release about 7 percent more greenhouse gases than traditional fuels, according to a federally funded, peer-reviewed study that appeared in the journal Nature Climate Change last month.

The environmental evidence against ethanol seems to mount almost daily: Another study published last week in Nature Geoscience found that in São Paulo, Brazil, the more ethanol that drivers used, the more local ozone levels increased. The study is particularly important because it relies on real-world measurements rather than on models, many of which predicted that increased ethanol use would cause ozone levels to decline.

To make things worse, ethanol requirements are bad for cars and drivers. Automakers say that gasoline blended with ethanol can damage vehicles by corroding fuel lines and injectors. An ethanol glut caused by a misalignment of regulatory quotas and demand has helped drive up prices at the pump. And the product is actually worse: ethanol blends are less energy dense than regular gasoline, which means that cars relying on it significantly worse mileage per gallon.

American drivers have it bad, but the global poor have it far worse. Ethanol requirements at home have helped drive up the price of food worldwide by diverting corn production to energy, which dramatically reducing the available calorie supply. A 25-gallon tank full of pure ethanol requires about 450 pounds of corn—roughly the amount of calories required to feed someone for a year. Some 40 percent of U.S. corn crops go to ethanol production, which in effect means we’re burning food for automobile fuel rather than eating it. Studies by economists at the World Bank have found that a one percent increase in world food prices correlates with a half-percent decrease in calorie consumption amongst the world’s poor. When world food prices spiked between 2007 and 2008, between 20 and 40 percentof the effect was attributable to increased global reliance on biofuels. The effect on world hunger is simply devastating.

Ethanol lobbyists are still pretending the renewable fuels mandate is a success, and Senators from corn-friendly states in the Midwest are still urging the agency not to proceed with the proposed reduction to the mandate. But at this point, ethanol requirements have few serious defenders except the people who profit from its production and the politicians who rely on those people for votes and campaign contributions.

Judging by the cut it proposed last November, even the EPA seems to be wavering. A final regulation has yet to be submitted, but the proposal would reduce the amount of renewable fuels the agency requires this year from 18.15 billion gallons to 15.2 billion gallons. That’sif the EPA sticks to its original plan. The agency is under heavy pressure to moderate its proposed cuts, or avoid them entirely.

Those cuts, if approved, would represent a productive step forward. But they wouldn’t be enough. Congress should vote to repeal the renewable fuel standard entirely. The federal government shouldn’t be telling people to burn less ethanol; it shouldn’t be telling anyone to burn any of it at all.

Unless we get a Conservative Majority….this will be our fate!!!

Constraint payments in Scotland soar by 1,300%

Stirling CastleFrom the Times, 11th May 2014

PAYMENTS to green energy firms under a controversial government scheme that compensates them for wasted power have soared by more than 1,300%.

About £35m has been awarded since the start of the financial year to the owners of 21 renewables projects — all of them in Scotland — because Britain’s power network could not cope with the energy they produced.

The figure is a huge increase on the £2.4m paid in 2011-12 under the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change’s “connect and manage” scheme.

Campaigners warn the compensation payments, paid for by the public through their electricity bills, will continue to increase as more wind farms are built. A 2009 report by Frontier Economics for regulator Ofgem estimated the cost of the scheme would reach £2bn by 2020.

A Question not asked, or answered, yet is would constraint payments be made to a foreign country in the wake of a YES vote on the Independence issue. No doubt Salmond will say ‘YES’ and Danny Alexander ‘NO’. The SNP cadre will blame Westminster, again! But then when did you start believing what any politician says, especially “Tipp ‘Eck”! If it adds cost to rUK fuel bills I think the answer is self evident. Not politically acceptable to the the rUK electorate! Even Milibean should see that 😡 .

 

 

Our only Chance, to repair Damage done by McWynnty Gov’t….A Conservative Majority!!

 

John Raymond Crawford 5:03pm May 11
Provincial Popularity Contest: Hudak not interested, winning, regardless.

May 6th: http://globalnews.ca/news/1313199/ontario-pc-leader-tim-hudak-admits-he-may-not-be-popular/

Hudak admits he won’t win a popularity contest.

May 7th: http://ww2.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com%2F2014%2F05%2F07%2Fformer-top-pc-says-tim-hudak-cannot-win-a-popularity-contest-kathleen-wynne-will-be-re-elected

Hudak told that it IS a popularity contest. Critics name Kathleen Wynne as future winner of popularity contest, predicting liberal minority.

May 11th: http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/i-m-not-running-a-popularity-contest-ontario-pc-leader-says-1.1816473

Interesting polls: http://www.cp24.com/news/notes-from-the-campaign-trail-poll-gives-tories-lead-1.1815013

Hudak: ‘I’m not running a popularity contest.’

As of recent polls, asking ‘who would make the best premier’, Hudak leads Wynne by 5-points (34% to 29%), with Horwath in third at 28%.

Recent polls suggest that among likely voters, Conservatives are the most committed to getting to the polls, with NDP voters the least committed. The Conservatives have 44% support among voters who ‘will only miss voting due to an unexpected emergency’.

Hudak joked that he didnt want: “…the power of Hudak mania to overwhelm the power of our ideas.”
(Source: May 11th link).

Hudak’s personal popularity is up two points. 72% of voters want a new government. This is up 4 points this month.

The NDP has remained relatively quiet, and are appartently waiting for the political discourse to shift away from who initiated the election in the first place. Expect the NDP to make a late push, and split the left, as Horwath’s strong popularity polling reasserts itself once voters forgive her for tossing out a government that nobody liked.

It’s more likely to be a Conservative minority or majority.

Hudak is set to stick on-point to a simple job-oriented message, and avoid the ‘foreign workers’ style blunders that hurt him last time around.

Support for Hudak continues to rise as he comes out of the gate, controlling the political conversation with a bold plan, balanced by crystal-clear talking points. “This Campaign is about Jobs.” -Hudak

Vote Conservative. -John Crawford


View Post on Facebook · Edit Email Settings · Reply to this email to add a comment.

 

Unsustainable Renewable Energy Scam, showing fallout, as the pyramid crumbles.

Sun Sets on Spaniards’ Solar Power Dreams

Sun Sets on Spaniards' Solar Power Dreams

AFP

The sun is reflected in a solar panel in a field of Mahora, near eastern Spanish city of Albacete on May 7, 2014.

Albacete:  “The sun could be yours,” the Spanish government promised in 2007, encouraging citizens to invest in solar power. Many who did now wish they could give it back.

Tens of thousands of indebted Spaniards have found themselves lumbered with fields full of expensive solar panels whose subsidies have been unexpectedly cut in the financial crisis.

“How do I feel? Completely fooled,” said David Utiel, a 37-year-old teacher who invested in a solar plant, recalling the government’s sunshine slogan.

“Fooled, swindled, disappointed, disgusted.”

He was one of the 62,000 ordinary citizens in Spain who campaign groups say have been caught in a financial sun trap.

Along with 23 of his neighbours from Madrigueras, near the eastern city of Albecete, he jointly owns nearly 360 solar panels which stand in a field of wild grass and red poppies.

“It was the government that gave us the idea,” he said, walking at the foot of the vast black panels.

“It was supposed to be a good idea to put your money in the whole solar energy thing. They said it could be very profitable.”

In return for promises of a regular return, he invested 450,000 euros ($620,000) in the field in 2007.

“We are completely ordinary people, country people from the village. Some of us work in education, some in farming, others in small businesses,” he said.

“The idea was not to go chasing after subsidies and become millionaires or anything like that. It was to have some kind of pension.”

Long favoured by the state, renewable energies are now feeling the pain of Spain’s economic austerity policies.

Spain’s government is taking drastic measures to slash a 26-billion-euro electricity deficit after years of paying subsidies to keep prices down.

– Betting the farm –

“It’s the government that encouraged us to invest our savings to generate solar energy,” said Miguel Angel Martinez-Roca, president of ANPIER, an association of small sun power producers.

“It then started to apply retroactive cuts by law once the solar plants were already built. They changed the rules half way through the game.”

UNEF, another solar energy association, estimates that since 2007 earnings by owners of solar panels have fallen by up to half in the worst cases, with losses varying according to the type of installation.

It estimated that the complex series of subsidy cuts would cost owners 920 million euros in 2014.

Meanwhile solar companies owe 22 billion euros to the banks, it says.

“It’s a frankly awful situation. Thousands of Spanish citizens are trapped,” lumbered with solar plants costly to maintain, weak revenues and loans, said Martinez-Roca.

David, who mortgaged his house for the solar investment, has received just 3,000 euros in aid in the past six months, six times less than he pays in maintenance and loan repayments.

Another local man, Manuel Alonso Caballero, 39, left his job in the airport sector to set up his own solar power plant.

He says he invested nearly 1.5 million euros and risks losing it all. His farmer parents have had to mortgage their house as his guarantors.

“I went into the solar business because I really believed what they were saying and I really believed in renewable energy, but I realise now that I was wrong,” he said.

“I’ve lost any trust I had and I wouldn’t invest another euro in Spain.”

ANPIER has lodged complaints in the courts against the state and vows to turn to the European Union authorities if its case in Spain fails.

Martinez-Roca said the group is calling a demonstration in Madrid on June 21 against the government.

“We are not prepared to let them ruin us, insult us and cheat us like this.”

The Windweasels KNOW they are Harming people, and wildlife…..They don’t care!!!

WIND FARMS SEVERELY HARMFUL TO WILDLIFE, NEW STUDY FINDS

HAWAII’S WIND TURBINES DEADLY TO BIRDS,…
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 195 birds and other flying animals have been killed by turbines at five of the largest wind farms on Maui and Oahu since Aug. 2007.

A new study from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, combining an impressive six hundred other studies, describes the severe effects wind turbines can have on wildlife. Not only are the disturbances and noise of the building of turbines an issue but also the sound of the windmills rotating and electromagnetic fields (EMF) caused by transferring the electricity produced to the mainland.

At the construction phase, for example, “extreme noise from pile-driving” is observed to cause “significant avoidance behaviour in marine mammals” and “highly likely to cause mortality and tissue damage in fish.”

On the noise of the blades there was “avoidance of the offshore wind farm (OWF) area by harbour porpoise, and possibly a habituation over time.”

EMF affects “cartilaginous fish, which use electromagnetic signals in detecting prey” and EMF could also disturb fish migration patterns.”

The OWF “may also alter local biodiversity patterns and lead to undesired effects.”

Onshore wind farms also have severe effects on animals and birds. A paper published in 2013 from Poland looked at domestic geese (Anser anser f domestica) bred 50m from a wind turbine against 500m for the control group.

After twelve weeks monitoring noise levels and the stress measuring cortisol levels the researchers concluded: “Lower activity and some disturbing changes in behavior of animals from group I (50m) were noted.

“Results of the study suggest a negative effect of the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine on the stress parameters of geese and their productivity.”

In Portugal a study also found that foals born near wind turbines developed Equine Flexural Limb Deformities.

Biologist Dr. Lynne Knuth, in a letter to the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin,testified: “The problems with animal reproduction reported in the wind farms in Wisconsin are lack of egg production, problems calving, spontaneous abortion (embryonic mortality), stillbirth, miscarriage and teratogenic effects:

In chickens: Crossed beaks, missing eyeballs, deformities of the skull (sunken eyes), joints of feet/legs bent at odd angles. In cattle: missing eyes and tails.”

While these effects seem to occur in the immediate vicinity of a wind turbine they are hugely important to humans. It has long been reported that those living near wind farmssuffer from ill health.  Sleep deprivation, headaches, tinnitus, balance problems, motivational difficulties and depression are just some of the alleged effects.

Wind farms continue to be a controversial subject both on and offshore. Not only is the power in need of government subsidies, the comparative cost of producing a Megawatt (MWh) of power ranges from £60 to £65 for coal and gas through to £90 to £150 respectively for onshore and offshore wind farms. Certainly in the UK there is increasing resistance from the population, being the proverbial blot on the landscape.

Many wind farm proponents point to psychogenesis and its subset psychsomaticism, where the person has the real symptoms but they are psychological induced, rather than physically induced. One has to say with animals it is highly unlikely.

When the West Country band The Wurzels release a new record bemoaning wind farms, resistance has to be taken seriously.

 

Donna Quixote Hits the Nail on the Head, with this one!

 

Michael Strickland — Guelph Mercury — May 10, 2014

There’s an episode of the Big Bang Theory where Dr. Sheldon Cooper, brilliant theoretical physicist at Caltech, explains to the gang why 73 is the best number in the world.

It is, he points out, “the 21st prime number. Its mirror, 37, is the 12th, and its mirror, 21, is the product of multiplying — hang on to your hats — seven and three.”

“Heh? Heh? Did I lie?”

Expressed in binary, he continues, 73 is also the palindrome 1001001.

His friend, astrophysicist Raj Koothrappali, then points out that the number 5,318,008 upside down in a calculator spells “BOOBIES.”

I think the best number in the world — at least in Ontario, as we prepare to go to the polls on June 12 — is one billion. As in $1 billion.

$1 billion and change is, of course, the amount the ruling Liberals thought we’d all appreciate having to pay in order to keep them in power in the last election. So they cancelled contentious gas plant contracts.

It’s been difficult to miss this story during Premier Kathleen Wynne’s tenure. The original estimate ballooned from a paltry $230 million and police launched an investigation into deleted emails in the premier’s office. Expect her critics to crack up the messaging on this billion-dollar talking point.

But did you know, $1 billion and change is also the amount the Liberals wasted on Ornge. That’s right, the government provided the scandal-plagued air ambulance service with $730 million over five years, and allowed Ornge to borrow another $300 million. The OPP are now conducting a criminal investigation, with the help of the RCMP, American authorities and, most recently, officials in Italy.  Continue reading here….

kathleen_wynne lpo

The Only ones who Gain, are the Rich Wind Pushers….the rest Lose, Big-time!

Dick Warburton: is the RET worth the Pain inflicted on Families & Business?

bread and water for dinner

As STT followers know, the RET Review Panel is headed up by Dick Warburton – a man who’s acutely aware of the pain being inflicted on Australian families and business by the mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

Since Dick was appointed to conduct the first thorough cost/benefit analysis of the mandatory RET ever undertaken, the wind industry and its parasites have been reduced to screaming “climate change denier” – as if that were some kind of immunising hex.

As pointed out previously, these boys are just working through the 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. From the hysterical ranting emanating from eco-fascist blogs – like the Climate Speculator, yes2ruining-us and ruin-economy – it appears they’ve got a lot more work to do before they finally come to grips with the demise of their beloved wind industry.

Adding to their grief is the fact that Dick Warburton is a hardened business-man, who couldn’t care less about the juvenile hectoring coming from the lunatic fringe of the hard-green-left. You know, the same sort of megaphone “diplomacy” seen on university campuses whenever the government proposes that the students might actually contribute a little more to their own education: same intellectually underdeveloped crowd, different ideological rant.

Here’s Dick being interviewed last Thursday on ABC Radio.

Wealthy can afford deficit tax levy: Dick Warburton
ABC Radio (AM)
Chris Uhlmann
8 May 2014

CHRIS UHLMANN: Treasurer Joe Hockey wanted a national conversation about the challenges facing the budget and he’s certainly got one. There’s been no end of the advice he’s received from interest groups and last week’s release of the Commission of Audit helped to pour rocket fuel on the debate.

Businessman Dick Warburton has advised governments from both sides and is currently heading the review of the Renewable Energy Target. Welcome to AM.

DICK WARBURTON: Oh thank you Chris, good to be here.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, Dick Warburton, is there a compelling need to reduce the size of government and to do it quickly?

DICK WARBURTON: I believe it is. I believe we’ve got not so much a crisis but the potential of a crisis if we don’t do something fairly quickly.

And one of the key areas that I would like to see is the reduction in the size of the government per se. Now that can be both federal and at state level. Admittedly this is a federal budget, I understand that, but nevertheless you need to start at both levels and there’s a lot of duplication between federal and state bureaucratic areas.

CHRIS UHLMANN: The footprint of government of course though is big and if you withdraw that money quickly from the economy you could crash it. Is that a risk?

DICK WARBURTON: Yes, it is a risk. Quickly clearly it’s a risk. It’s a matter of trying to do it as gently as possible without harming the growth as much as you can. You will harm growth, there’s no two ways about that, but not to crash the growth.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What do you think about having a deficit tax of 2 per cent levied on the those who pay the top tax bracket?

DICK WARBURTON: Look, I guess I’m one of those in that bracket and I’d have to say from a personal point of view, I don’t like to have an increase in tax. However, I do believe that is something that should be done. I believe this is a tax on some people who can afford to do it because the middle to the lower income people are likely to be hit with some of the cuts in some of their health and welfare and other social budget areas.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And you don’t buy the argument again that that’s taking money out of the economy which will affect demand?

DICK WARBURTON: I don’t think it will take that much money out of the economy because I think at that level it won’t have such a big impact as something in the smaller, lower to middle income areas would have. I don’t think it will have that much of an effect.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Now, of course you’ve got a background in manufacturing as well. Should the age of entitlement for business be over too? Should we see an end to many of the industry assistance programs that government provides?

DICK WARBURTON: I think we should be looking at all those. Now which ones you do or use again is a matter of how to balance the area between cutting expenditure and trying to make sure you maintain growth. Yes, I believe we should look at those but I don’t have any particular ones that I think you should focus on and say let’s cut those.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Look, as manufacturing declines everyone talks about the jobs of the future. Where do you think those jobs will come from? How will we manufacture the jobs of the future?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, in the past we’ve always seen, I mean – and always is the word I use – always seen how those jobs eventually get absorbed into the rest of the community.

I remember living in South Australia when Mitsubishi stopped in South Australia and it was an absolute case of doom and gloom. But within a space of one year to two years, those jobs were all repositioned throughout the rest of the economy. And I think that will be the case – and remember the number of jobs lost is quite traumatic to those who are affected by it, significantly affected, but in the totality of the working force, it’s actually a relatively small proportion.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What has been the thing that’s hammering the economy most recently? Is it the high Australian dollar? Is it something that really is out of the Government’s hand?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, the dollar, the exchange rate is definitely out of the, totally out of the Government’s hand. That is a monetary policy factor. But remember the exchange rate, there’s a good and bad thing. It depends what side of the fence you’re on. There are certain people who would love to see a higher exchange rate, it would affect, it would help them immensely. Other would like to see a lower one. So I’ve always seen the exchange rate as being something in the eye of the beholder.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And do you think that the monetary policy settings are right at the moment, 2.5 per cent? We’ve moved from an easing bias, if you like, with the Reserve Bank to one where it’s now neutral.

DICK WARBURTON: Yes, I think it’s exactly in the right position.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Now, you are reviewing the Renewable Energy Target at the moment; that is that Australia have 20 per cent of its energy sourced from renewables by 2020. That is driving up the cost of power, but is that a cost that is worth bearing because of the long-term environmental benefit?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, what we’ve got to look at in this review is not just the environmental benefits; we’re looking at the economic benefits, we’re looking at the social benefits. We have to take into account the effect on the electricity prices, which we’re doing, and we’re modelling to see just exactly what that is. And when we’ve completed all of those studies and the review of all the submissions that have come in and the modelling, then we’ll come up with a decision to give to the Government.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Is it your sense at the moment that the economic costs are too high because the cost of power is too high?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, it’s certainly having an effect, Chris. Whether it’s too high, we’ll find out as we get into the study.

CHRIS UHLMANN: What kind of effect is it having? Just give us a sense of the cost of power and how the renewable energy target has driven that up over time.

DICK WARBURTON: Well, we’re looking at emissions, we’ve got a target for an emission control of 5 per cent. That’s a bipartisan approach. And certainly renewables have their place in that particular equation.

I’d like to believe that we’ll look at this and say, now, is the cost of the RET worth the economic pain that you get by imposing it on the electricity consumers?

CHRIS UHLMANN: And there’s no doubt that there is economic pain because of that?

DICK WARBURTON: Yes there is, yes there is economic pain. It is one part of the equation. It is not the whole part of the equation.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Is the cost of energy doing damage to business in Australia?

DICK WARBURTON: Depends on the business, Chris. Some of the businesses that use relatively small bits of electricity, obviously it hasn’t got a great effect. But there are industries that use large quantities of electricity and in those places they’ve been telling us this is having a major impact on their cost side of the balance sheet.

CHRIS UHLMANN: Well, one of the areas where Australia always had a competitive advantage was that energy in the past here was relatively cheap and abundant. That equation has changed. Are you concerned about that?

DICK WARBURTON: Well, it is still cheap and abundant if you look at the black coal and the brown coal.

CHRIS UHLMANN: But we’re not looking at that though, are we? We’re looking at more renewables.

DICK WARBURTON: Well, no we’re not necessarily looking at all, we are looking at renewables in our study but we’re trying to look at the overall generation of electricity, what are the factors that affect the generation, and we’ll be looking at all types including renewables.

CHRIS UHLMANN: And when will your review report?

DICK WARBURTON: We’re due to report in July, Chris.

CHRIS UHLMANN: That is businessman Dick Warburton who is currently reviewing the Renewable Energy Target.
ABC

STT thinks that Dick was simply being politic, by faintly suggesting the economic pain being inflicted by the RET on families and business might (somehow) be worth it.

When the Panel met with miners, business groups and wind industry rent-seekers a few weeks back he was less circumspect – telling the audience that the review has nothing to do with “climate change” or CO2 emissions – and that it’s primarily “concerned with the cost impacts of renewable energy in the electricity sector” (see our post here).

The consultants, ACIL Allen have already found that the mandatory RET (set to expire in 2031 – unless scrapped beforehand) will involve a transfer of (at least) $53 billion from power consumers to wind power generators – in the form of RECs issued to them and added to all Australian power bills. That, in anybody’s books, is a whopping cost. And the cost of the REC Tax to power consumers is just the tip of the power-price-punishment iceberg (see our post here).

Wind power cannot and will never reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector – simply because 100% of its capacity is backed up 100% of the time by fossil fuel generation to account for the fact it disappears for hours every day – and for days on end – producing nothing more than hollow promises of “powering” millions of Australian homes (see our posts hereand here and here and here and here and here).

Thanks to the mandatory RET – in less than a decade – Australia has gone from having the lowest power prices in the world to the highest. And, despite wild claims from the wind industry about reducing CO2 emissions, it has failed to produce a shred of credible evidence to that effect: indeed, all the evidence points in the opposite direction (see this European paper here; this Irish paper here; this English paper here; and this Dutch study here).

And there is, of course, the renewables “pinup girl”, Germany as the perfect empirical (and disastrous) case study. The Germans have poured 100s of €billions into subsidising wind and solar over the last decade and, despite all that pain, Germany has seen its CO2 emissions increase not decrease (see our post here). A very costly “oops”.

The conclusion of any cost/benefit analysis of the mandatory RET – and its bastard child – wind power – can only be: ALL PAIN and NO GAIN.

Why not let the Panel know what you think (see our post here). Submissions close on 16 May.

all pain no gain

Wynne has the Unmitigated Gall to ask for MORE money? She has wasted enough!

Premier claims PM mocked her concerns about Canadians not saving for retirement. Really?

lorrie-goldstein

BY  ,TORONTO SUN

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, MAY 10, 2014 06:31 PM EDT

BUDGETPIC
Premier Kathleen Wynne applauds Finance Minister Charles Sousa as he announces the provincial budget at Queen’s Park on May 1 — a budget that increased spending, increased the deficit and outlines her proposal to establish a mandatory Ontario pension plan. Ernest Doroszuk/Toronto Sun

Premier Kathleen Wynne claims Prime Minister Stephen Harper “smirked” at her when she discussed with him the fact Canadians aren’t saving enough money for their retirement during a December meeting.

Of course, we have no way of verifying (a) if Harper “smirked” or (b) if he did, what he was smirking about.

For example, if Harper “smirked”, maybe he was smirking about the fact Wynne’s signature election promise of creating an “Ontario Retirement Pension Plan”, has about as much chance of ever actually happening as then Ontario Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty’s 2003 election promise not to raise our taxes.

Or maybe Harper “smirked” about the fact watching the Ontario Liberals run (uselessly) against federal Conservative governments in provincial election campaigns, is as old as the hills.

Then Liberal premier David Peterson did the same thing in the 1987 Ontario election, when he vowed he would not approve of Brian Mulroney’s free trade deal, unless it met Peterson’s “six conditions”, all of which have long since been consigned to the dust bin of history.

That said, Wynne does have the power — assuming she wins a majority government — to create a mandatory Ontario pension plan, so maybe Harper was smirking (as reported by the Toronto Star) over what a train wreck it will be if she does.

That’s because the immediate impact of creating such a plan will not be better pensions for millions of Ontario workers, but an average 1.9% hike in their payroll taxes, as well as to their employers’ cost of doing business.

According to Wynne, an Ontario worker now earning $45,000 a year will be hit with a new payroll tax of $788 annually.

If they earn $70,000 a year the new tax will be $1,263 annually and if they earn $90,000 a year, $1,643 annually.

Meanwhile, their employers will also be charged a new 1.9% payroll tax to match employee contributions, meaning there will eventually be fewer employees as employers lay off staff to meet this new cost of doing business.

Under Wynne’s plan, workers who manage to hang on to steady employment for 40 years (assuming they start work at age 25) will receive a pension valued at $6,410 a year in 2014 dollars if they retire at age 65, earning $45,000 annually; $9,970 a year if they earn $70,000 annually and $12,815 a year if they earn $90,000 annually.

Combined with the Canada Pension Plan, Wynne says, this will provide retirees with 30% to 40% of their pre-retirement income (up to a maximum of $90,000 annually), compared to the 70% experts claim is needed to maintain one’s pre-retirement standard of living.

Wynne also plans to include the self-employed in some sort of retirement saving scheme, but hasn’t explained how it will work.

In that context, perhaps Harper was smirking about the fact the same Ontario Liberal government that doubled the provincial debt in 11 years and is responsible for the eHealth, Ornge, Green Energy Act and cancelled gas plants billion-dollar fiascoes, is now promising to use that know how to create a new pension plan from scratch. Gee what could possibly go wrong?

Or perhaps Harper was smirking about the fact Wynne’s promise to create a new pension plan for the three million Ontario employees who don’t have one at work (translation, the vast majority of public sector workers, who do have them, will be exempt) is typical of Liberal nanny state thinking.

In other words, it would never occur to Wynne and the Liberals the reason people aren’t maxing out their RRSP contributions (the reason they gave for devising a mandatory Ontario pension plan) is not because they’re blowing all their extra cash on beer and popcorn, but because they barely have any disposable income left due to high taxes.

You know, things like the “health care premium” — the largest single tax grab in Ontario history — which McGuinty imposed following the 2003 election which brought him to power, after repeatedly promising during that election not to raise taxes.

Or the HST, which the Ontario Liberals introduced in 2010, which immediately raised the price of such necessities as electricity, home heating fuel and gasoline by 8%, along with many other goods and services.

Or because of skyrocketing hydro rates, which, under the Wynne Liberals, are now rising by 42% over five years.

Maybe that’s why Harper “smirked” at Wynne, if he smirked at all.

It’s certainly why I’m smirking.

 

Frauds, Crooks and Criminals

Demonstrating daily that diversity is not strength!

Family Hype

All Things Related To The Family

DeFrock

defrock.org's principal concern is the environmental and human damage of industrial wind turbines on rural communities

Gerold's Blog

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

Politisite

Breaking Political News, Election Results, Commentary and Analysis

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

stubbornlyme.

My thoughts...my life...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.

Wolsten

Wandering Words

Patti Kellar

WIND WARRIOR

John Coleman's Blog

Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem