unaffordable renewables

Wind Company buys home of people suffering from wind turbines!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment
Steven N Luann Therrien 7:11am Apr 17
4/15/2014 Wind Opponents Call The Nelsons Heroes, Predict More Buyouts Robin Smith Staff Writer

Wind opponents from across Vermont reacted to the settlement between Green Mountain Power and Don and Shirley Nelson of Lowell on Monday, calling them heroes.

They said they hope the buyout could spur more as the state begins to realize that industrial wind projects have an impact on human neighbors and they vowed to continue fighting them.

Luann Therrien of Sheffield, who also lives near industrial wind turbines, said she cried for joy when she heard the news that the Nelsons had struck a deal and would be paid for their property.

“We are so thrilled for them. We are so excited that they can get out and get healthy,” she said.

Her husband Steve said he had been to the Nelsons’ farm and understood their experience. “I wouldn’t have wanted to be there another day,” he said.

Therrien said he hoped that this settlement creates a pathway for others who are experiencing health impacts.

They have tried for years to get First Wind to purchase their property.

Steve Wright of Craftsbury, president of Ridge Protectors, said the Nelsons had the Vermont dream, until they were forced from their land by a foreign-owned corporation.

“Yes, they were paid for that property, but money runs a poor second to beauty, peace, quiet and a love for your land.

“Don and Shirley are heroes. They represent the long-held Vermont values that live on in the struggle for an energy policy we know is possible, one that doesn’t drive people from their homes, damage their health, and wither hope.

“The Nelsons are not the only ones forced off their land; already, at least three other families near the Lowell project have experienced a similar fate. More are expected,” Wright said.

Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment said her group supports the Nelsons’ decision to agree to a settlement.

“At the same time, we and many others in the community know that they have been damaged by Green Mountain Power far beyond what any monetary settlement could provide,” Smith stated.

“Any time a utility has to buy out a neighbor, it is not a ‘win’ for the corporation.”

“We expect this is just the beginning of litigation and settlements … ,” Smith stated.

“We at Energize Vermont are saddened that the Kingdom Community Wind tragedy has driven Don and Shirley Nelson from their home,” executive director Mark Whitworth of Newark said.

GMP’s settlement “represents just the latest in the series of unanticipated costs” from the wind project that will be passed on to consumers “who are weary of hearing about the cost-effectiveness of wind-generated electricity,” Whitworth stated.

Neighbors are being hurt, Wright said, even though industrial wind projects have “no effective climate change benefit.”

“Industrial wind technology does not work on the New England landscape and the Lowell Project, in spite of GMP’s claims, is clear proof,” he said.

“Complicit in this sad tale is the Shumlin administration, aided and abetted by the so-called ‘environmental’ community. Together, they continue to advance statewide energy policy that even the Public Service Board acknowledges worsens Vermont’s carbon footprint,” Wright stated.

“The negative impacts of the Lowell turbines are far greater than Green Mountain Power has disclosed and the benefits to society that they promised will never be realized,” Whitworth stated.

“The turbines will have no impact on global climate change. Their damage to the land is permanent,” Whitworth stated.

“Wind energy generation is simply inappropriate for Vermont,” Smith stated.

“It does not live up to the promises of ‘free fuel,’ but instead comes at tremendous and unaccounted-for costs. The harm done to the Nelson’s property which now has no value in the real estate market, to Don and Shirley’s health and quality of life which is degraded on a daily basis, and to the wildlife, water resources and landscape are evidence that big wind turbines have no place in Vermont,” Smith stated.

The Nelsons will remain “a symbol to the rest of Vermont” of the sacrifices demanded of those who are forced to live near wind turbines. “In the end, we believe the Lowell wind turbines must come down,” Smith said.

“The Nelsons are not the only Vermonters who have suffered ill health and financial damage because of industrial wind turbines,” Whitworth stated.

“We call upon Green Mountain Power, First Wind, and Georgia Mountain Community Wind to make reparations to the other Vermont victims of their industrial wind projects.

Steve Therrien said he has asked First Wind three times to buy them out.

They have tried to find an attorney who would work for free to help them sue the developer but have not been successful.

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Why I’m cheering for fossil fuels this Earth Day

John Stossel
“The heavens reek, the waters below are foul … we are in a crisis of survival.” That’s how Walter Cronkite and CBS hyped the first Earth Day, back in 1970. Somehow we’ve survived since then, and most of life got better, although I never hear that from the worrywarts. Of course, some things got better because of government: We passed environmental rules that got most of the filth out of the air and sewage out of lakes and rivers. Great — but now we’re told that we’re in big trouble because greenhouse gases cause global warming. I mean, climate change.

Time and again, environmentalists oppose the energy production most likely to make the world cleaner and safer. Instead, they persuade politicians to spend billions of your dollars on symbolism like “renewable” energy.

“Crop yields are down, deaths from heat are up,” says the Los Angeles Times. The “Worst Is Yet to Come,” warns The New York Times. This hype is not new. Alarmists always fool the gullible media. They once fooled me. A few years back, we were going to be killed by global cooling, overpopulation, pesticide residues, West Nile virus, bird flu, Y2K, cellphone radiation, mad cow disease, etc. Now it’s global warming. Reporters don’t make these scares up. The recent hype about global warming comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Most of its members are serious scientists. But reporters don’t realize that those scientists, like bird flu specialists, have every incentive to hype the risk. If their computer models (which so far have been wrong) predict disaster, they get attention and money. If they say, “I’m not sure,” they get nothing. Also, the IPCC is not just a panel of scientists. It’s an intergovernmental panel. It’s a bureaucracy controlled by the sort of people who once ran for student council and are “exhilarated by the prospect of putting the thumb of the federal government on the scale.” Actually, that wasn’t a quote from a global warming alarmist. It’s from anti-marijuana alarmist and former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joe Califano. But it’s the same crisis mindset. Scientists who disagree, who are reluctant to put their thumbs on the government scale, don’t feel welcome in the IPCC. It’s possible climate change may become a problem. But even if industrialization brings warming, we’ve got more important problems. On my TV show this week, statistician Bjorn Lomborg points out that “air pollution kills 4.3 million people each year … We need to get a sense of priority.” That deadly air pollution happens because, to keep warm, poor people burn dung in their huts. Yet, time and again, environmentalists oppose the energy production most likely to make the world cleaner and safer. Instead, they persuade politicians to spend billions of your dollars on symbolism like “renewable” energy. “The amazing number that most people haven’t heard is, if you take all the solar panels and all the wind turbines in the world,” says Lomborg, “they have (eliminated) less CO2 than what U.S. fracking (cracking rocks below ground to extract oil and natural gas) managed to do.” That progress occurred despite opposition from environmentalists — and even bans in places like my stupid state, New York, where activists worry fracking will cause earthquakes or poison the water. Do environmentalists even care about measuring costs instead of just assuming benefits? We spend $7 billion to subsidize electric cars. Even if America reached the president’s absurd 2015 goal of “a million electric cars on the road” (we won’t get close), how much would it delay warming of the Earth? “One hour,” says Lomborg. “This is a symbolic act.” Symbolic. Environmentalism is now more religion than science. It even comes with built-in doomsday stories to warn people about what will happen if they disobey — a bit like the movie “Noah” that’s in theaters now. While environmentalists lament that our time is running out, environmental indicators get better, technological improvements reduce carbon dioxide, water gets cleaner for millions, and human life expectancy goes up. This Earth Day, instead of attacking those who sell fossil fuels, I will applaud them for overcoming constant environmental hysteria — while providing affordable energy that will allow us to fight poverty, which is the real threat to the people of the world.   John Stossel joined Fox Business Network (FBN) in 2009. He is the host of “Stossel” (Thursdays at 9 PM/ET), a weekly program highlighting current consumer issues with a libertarian viewpoint. Stossel also appears regularly on Fox News Channel (FNC) providing signature analysis.

The people of Toronto have Wynne to thank for our lousy electricity system!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Getting off of coal, is not the problem….we could have easily replaced it with a combination of gas, nuclear, and hydro.  The problem is, the money which should have gone into updating our aging infrastructure, was wasted on unreliable, inefficient, unaffordable  faux-green energy.  They made this expenditure, complete with crippling 20 year contracts,  without even doing a cost/benefit analysis, to see if it was a worthwhile endeavor, and if it would be any improvement to our environment whatsoever.  They did not do the cost/benefit analysis, I am afraid, because they would not want the public to know the answer!    Shellie Correia

Ontario goes coal-free: Toronto suffers a blackout within 24 hours

Posted: April 16, 2014 by Rog Tallbloke in Carbon cycle, government, humour, Incompetence,Legal, Nuclear power, Politics, Robber Barons, wind

6

From the too not-funny to be as funny as it should be dept:

Thunder-Bay-OPG-Generating-StationOntario is now the first jurisdiction in North America to fully eliminate coal as a source of electricity generation. The Thunder Bay Generating Station, Ontario’s last remaining coal-fired facility, has burned its last supply of coal. Operated by Ontario Power Generation, Thunder Bay Generating Station was the oldest coal-fired station in the province. The plant is scheduled to be converted to burn advanced biomass, a renewable fuel source.

The province has replaced coal generation with a mix of emission-free electricity sources like nuclear, waterpower, wind and solar, along with lower-emission electricity sources like natural gas and biomass. The move to bio-mass rather than to natural gas has raised concerns in Thunder Bay. NOMA and Common Voice Northwest, and the City of Thunder Bay have all expressed concerns.
See more

But then…

TORONTO – A large swath of the city’s west end was left in the dark for a few hours Tuesday night as a blackout hit the area. The outage began around 9 p.m. and ended about 11:30, Toronto Hydro said. The area affected was bound by Yonge St. in the east, Mississauga in the west, Lawrence Ave. to the north and Dupont St. to the south.

The power utility said the outage was caused due to a Hydro One transmission issue.

Subway service was back up and running as of 11:05 p.m., the TTC said, after having been suspended between Jane and St. George Stations due to signal problems in relation to the outage.

                                                         from Rog Tallbloke….thanks Rog!

North Dakota too smart to pay inflated renewable charges from Minnesota!

/ 1957chev / Leave a comment

Border battle: ND refuses to pay millions in MN renewable energy bills

By   /   April 15, 2014  /   12 Comments

Call it this: No (renewable) electrification without representation.

A revolutionary settlement between the state of North Dakota and Xcel Energy’s Northern States Power unit will save North Dakota ratepayers nearly $6 million a year by exempting charges for higher-priced renewable energy from Minnesota.

“It is no secret that Minnesota rules, laws and policies are highly influenced by various environmental groups and ideas,” Mike Diller, director of economic regulation for the N.D. Public Service Commission said during a hearing in January. “… The environmental concerns of North Dakota are different from those of Minnesota, and the cost of compliance with the environmental and energy policies in Minnesota is becoming a burden to North Dakota ratepayers.”

North Dakota sets a voluntary goal of generating 10 percent of its power from renewable sources, ranking third on the American Wind Energy Association list of states in percentage of wind power. Across the border, Minnesota requires 31.5 percent of Xcel Energy’s power be generated by wind and other subsidized — often less competitive — renewable energy sources by 2020.

“This has not been the approach in North Dakota,” said Julie Fedorchak, a PSC commissioner. “Policy makers in our state believe it should be driven not by state mandates and government mandates, but more by the private sector and technological growth.”

ND COMMISSIONER: North Dakota ratepayers have been paying for MN’s aggressive renewable energy mandates for too long. ND PSC photo.

For years, Xcel has spread the cost of Minnesota’s renewable energy requirement to the utility’s customers in five neighboring states.

North Dakota officials grudgingly looked the other way as Minnesota regulators continued to approve more of what they viewed as inefficient renewable energy projects. Those projects increased the utility bills of Xcel’s 80,000 customers — from Fargo to Minot — by an estimated $5.7 million a year. The system wide cost for ratepayers is about $92 million.

“These policies come with a cost, and the costs under the system of Xcel Energy are shared across the border system wide in states like North Dakota and South Dakota,” said Fedorchak. “So over the years, we’ve effectively been paying for some of the policies being mandated by the state of Minnesota.”

The long-standing friction and frustration over the states’ opposing energy policies finally broke into the open during the hearings in Bismarck after Xcel Energy’s requested rate increase for North Dakota ratepayers. PSC regulators saw it as an opening to assert control over North Dakota’s energy independence and destiny. The final agreement includes a precedent-setting provision for Xcel to “re-stack” the mix of electric power allocated in North Dakota and reset rates based on least-cost conventional energy sources that match the state’s priorities.

“We are not aware of this same proposal being developed elsewhere,” said Dave Sederquist, a senior regulatory and financial consultant with Xcel Energy. “Method of allocating shared resources between jurisdictions can and do vary between states.”

It will take months to analyze the economics of about two dozen mostly smaller Minnesota community wind projects and biomass facilities, which North Dakota considers unnecessarily costly for its ratepayers to support.  If agreement cannot be reached by July 2015, North Dakota ratepayers would not be billed for the questionable Minnesota projects.

“This part of the settlement is a big risk to NSP as it will require Minnesota to begin paying for its own prescribed generation programs that North Dakota finds unacceptable,” said Diller in his hearing testimony. “If Minnesota refuses to pay for all of its programs, NSP will be stuck with stranded investment and not chance of full recovery.”

While reverse engineering renewable energy regulatory rates between states appears to be unprecedented, other states may be energized by the development.

“The costs of complying with resource mandates in any given state have traditionally been recovered in all of the states we serve,” said Sederquist of Xcel. “While we are not aware that regulators in other states in the NSP System are pursuing mechanisms to address any energy policy differences, we understand there may be some interest by those states to look at this issue as well.”

What about North Dakotans paying for their neighbor’s latest renewable energy mandate — solar?

“Solar’s coming in and I can tell you right now that our position in North Dakota will be we’re not interested in that 150 megawatts of solar power they’re building over there,” said Diller.