Archive for August, 2008

Wind, solar energy built on temporary tax breaks

August 31, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) – Congress is putting the short-term future of renewable energy companies in jeopardy even as the presidential candidates and most lawmakers hail windmills, solar panels and biofuels as long-term solutions to high gasoline prices and global warming.

Some $500 million in investment and production tax credits will expire Dec. 31 unless Congress renews them. Without that help, solar and wind power companies say they will reverse planned expansions and, in many cases, cut payrolls and capital investment.

Schott Solar has visions of quadrupling its operation in Albuquerque, N.M., to reach 1,500 jobs and $500 million in investment. But the investment tax credit, company spokesman Brian Lynch said, is what makes solar power cost-competitive. Without it, expansion plans must be reconsidered.

“We don’t want to build a giant factory that the market doesn’t need or want,” Lynch said.

The Solar Energy Industries Association says some 20 utility-scale solar power plants, many in California and together capable of producing power for a million homes, are at risk because of the uncertainty in Congress.

Proponents of wind power, a nascent industry that relies on skittish investors, are in a similar predicament. Greg Wetstone of the American Wind Energy Association says his group is predicting a loss of 76,000 jobs and $11.4 billion in investment if Congress allows its production tax credit to expire.

Full Story at Wind Watch News

The Green Agenda is Back

August 31, 2008

The Truth About and the Players Behind – the Global Warming Fraud and the New World Order.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …
All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”
Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

Meet Al Gore’s friends and learn about their motives and what they really have in mind for your future

Visit the Green Agenda

The £6 billion rip-off – Via Govt. and the Wind Industry

August 28, 2008

It doesn’t matter if you are in North America or Europe the same scam is taking place. Building wind farms in order to save us from the other scam.

Global Warming!

The UN is the enemy of freedom!

The £6 billion rip-off

In sleepy rural North Shrophire, a battle is being played out which represents the cutting edge of resistance to the growing insanity of this government’s energy policy.

As part of the EU’s plan to generate 20 percent of the UK’s electricity using renewables, seven giant 340 ft, 2MW wind turbines are being planned on a remote corner of the district, known as Lower Farm, Bearstone, attracting objections from 2,333 residents and businesses, six Parish Councils, two MPs and the neighbouring Borough Council.

Yet, despite only five letters in support of the wind turbines, being developed on behalf of Nuon Electricity, the local planning officer has recommended its approval, citing the over-riding need to meet national quotas for renewable energy.

What is particularly shocking about the whole affair, however, is that the local plan permits approval of developments only if they “make a positive contribution to the economic health of the community” yet, through the good offices of local MP Owen Paterson, it has emerged that this is anything but the case.

Not only will the local residents have to pay top dollar for the electricity produced, through the government’s incentive scheme to encourage building wind farms – known as the Renewable Obligations Certificate – they will have to pay twice over. The total sum amounts to a colossal £43 million over the life of the project.

This is worked out of the basis of ROCs being paid out at the rate of £53 per MWh of electricity produced, which is added to consumers’ electricity bills. The turbines will produce an estimated 32,377 MWh a year, producing a subsidy of £1,715,981 for each of the 25 years the permission to operate lasts, totalling just under the £43 million.

Why this should be a wake-up call for the rest of the nation is that this illustrates the huge scale of the hidden incentives involved. Energy companies are not so much building wind as subsidy farms, such is the bonanza to be grabbed.

By 2020, the government hopes to have 25 GW capacity in offshore wind farms – attracting 1.5 times the standard ROC, on top of 14 GW of onshore capacity. With ROCs paid out at a rate of £53 per MWh, the total annual sum for British electricity consumers will amount to a staggering £6 billion – a total of £155 billion paid to wind subsidy farmers over the expected life-times of the projects (equivalant to the cost of building over 50 nuclear power plants).

Given that the entire electricity market at 2008 prices is somewhat less that £24 billion, the effect of reaching the EU’s target on wind energy would be equivalent to adding 25 percent or more to the price of domestic electricity – on top of which consumers will also have to fund the building of power stations to produce electricity when the wind is not blowing, as well as an estimated £10 billion for extensions to the National Grid to enable the turbines to be connected.

Few people at the moment realise quite what is at stake, as the ROC “contribution” is not identified on consumer bills and is currently less than £400 million a year. But, as each mast is erected to disfigure the countryside, the costs will ratchet up until we are all paying this incredible sum of £6 billion a year for the privilege.

And, such is the grip of the greenie monster that is driving this insanity, even when people have expressed a clear rejection of a development, the officials plan to go ahead regardless. And to think we once lived in a democracy.

Visit the EU Referendum stie

Poor Advice Has Led To Noisy Wind Farms Sited Too Close To Houses

August 28, 2008

I’m not so sure it was poor advise – more like a collaboration between govt. and business interests that have allowed this to happen.

I say this because any and all attempts to inform the govt. of Ont. about the realities of the siting of wind turbines has been dismissed as Nimby-ism.

Many families have been negatively affected by the standards in Ont.

Every wind farm in Southern Ont. has caused problems for  people forced to live near the turbines.

If the govt. wasn’t in bed with industry you would expect some action by the govt. of behalf of those affected.

To date we have been met with wholesale denial of any problems, even though people suffer from health problems that did not exist before the arrival of the turbines. People don’t move out of their homes without reason.

How pervasive is the denial process?

I called Mr. Chris Munn, director of Grey-Bruce health services, in Owen Sound Ont. I told Mr. Munn  there was a cluster of families living in a wind farm, in his area, that were suffering medical problems.

I asked Mr. Munn to send a medical team to visit and document the health issues of these people. At the very least I asked that he send someone with a note pad and tape recorder to document the situation.

Mr. Munn then launched into what sounded like a commercial for the wind industry.

He told me that the problems the people said they were having were all in their minds. ( something you want to hear from the director of medical services)

When I questioned him about what he just said, he told be that he had been talking to Glen Estill, owner of Sky Power, and Glen told him that the turbines cause no problems – some people don’t like wind turbines.

Well Mr. Munn, I told you I would print what you said and I hope you read this. Maybe when you read what you said, it will make you pause to take a good look in the mirror.

I respectfully ask you, once again, to send someone down to the wind farm to assess the problems these people are suffering.

Barring that, you may want to consider resigning your post and consider taking a job with the wind industry.

Ripley Ont. Wind Farm

Ripley Ont. Wind Farm

Poor advice has led to noisy wind farms sited too close to houses

The reason why the United Kingdom has an inadequate health and safety standard for wind farms, which has resulted in people being made ill and even forced to abandon their homes because of noise, is now clear.

Staff from power firms have been working in Government departments, advising them on matters such as appropriate noise levels and the departments have accepted their advice (The Journal, August 28).

The result is ETSU-R-97, a document planners and the industry are obligated to follow. It allows residents of houses to be constantly subjected to in excess of 40db of noise (my door bell emits 80db) and has resulted in wind turbines being sited too close to houses.

Two questions come to mind. What gives politicians the right to inflict noise pollution on citizens of this country? And why are politicians and engineers deemed to be the correct persons to determine safe noise levels?

The French National Academy of Medicine has called for a halt to large scale wind developments within 1500m of houses, because the sounds emitted by the blades constitute a permanent risk for persons exposed to them.

However, reports of people being distressed by noise with separation distances greater than 1500m have been confirmed by research carried out by the University of Groningen in the Netherlands and the US National Wind Co-ordinating Committee.

More from National Wind Watch

Environmentalists' Wild Predictions and the 2008 US Election- Obama or McCain?

August 27, 2008

Is it possible, that people have been lied to and bullshitted for so long they wouldn’t recognize
reality if slapped them up the side of the head.

Two men, one of which will be the president of the USA – both trying to out green each other in an effort to get your vote.

Well folks, Global warming is a scam. That you can be sure of.

The question is – are you going to vote for a white or a black scam artist?

It’s about time the American people wake up!

From the Town Hall
Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Townhall.com Columnist

Environmentalists’ Wild Predictions

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “… somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there’s a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.

From the Town Hall

Todays Headlines From National Wind Watch

August 27, 2008

Read the news about wind farms that you won’t see on the main stream media. Find out whats going on in the wind industry any where in the world It’s all about politics. Wind  and politics – they go together.

Top ten today – Blowing our tax dollars on wind farms

August 26, 2008
Federal Green Party Candidate,Says – Sor
Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbi
The Problems With On-Grid Wind Power
Wind turbine noise affects health
Wind Turbine Noise Video – Suncor Wind F
The Dangers of Wind Power
Exploding VESTA Wind Turbine in Denmark
Before You Sign a Wind Turbine Contract
Al Gore: Global warming responsible for
Green Agenda

Bats are at risk from Wind Turbines – Lungs Explode!

August 26, 2008

From the BBC

Bats are at risk from wind turbines, researchers have found, because the rotating blades produce a change in air pressure that can kill the mammals.

Canadian scientists examined bats found dead at a wind farm, and concluded that most had internal injuries consistent with sudden loss of air pressure.

Bats use echo-location to avoid hitting the blades but cannot detect the sharp pressure changes around the turbine.

The scientists say wind farms are more of an issue for bats than for birds.

“An atmospheric pressure drop at wind turbine blades is an undetectable – and potentially unforseeable – hazard for bats, thus partially explaining the large number of bat fatalities at these specific structures,” said Erin Baerwald, who led the research team at the University of Calgary.

Route cause

Bat deaths around wind farms have been widely documented across Europe and North America.

Two years ago, EU nations formally agreed to make developers aware of the risks, and find ways of monitoring bat migration routes.

Earlier this year, a bid to build a wind farm near Bideford in north Devon was turned down because of the potential impact on the mammals.

Martin Hind)

Research is underway to find ways of scaring bats from wind farms

But among all this, understanding of how turbines affect bats has been lacking.

The Calgary team collected carcasses of hoary and silver-haired bats killed at a wind farm in south-western Alberta.

Examinations showed that fewer than half had external injuries that could have been caused by collision.

But about 90% had internal haemorrhaging, most notably in the chest cavity, a condition that puts pressure on the lung and can be fatal.

The idea is that the pressure around a rotating turbine blade is lower than in the surrounding air. A bat flying into the low-pressure zone finds its lungs suddenly expanding, bursting capillaries in the surrounding tissue which then becomes flooded with blood.

Full Story at BBC

The Problems With On-Grid Wind Power

August 26, 2008

From Maxedoutmama

Here is a paper for dullards like me who didn’t understand the implications of trying to hook highly variable wind power into a power grid. The bottom line is that effective usage is low and that actual replacement effect is even lower:

A power station takes days to start producing electricity from a cold start. Time is needed to boil the water, to superheat the steam, to warm all the components of the power station, and to spin the turbogenerators up to operating speed.

Each power station is designed to provide an output of electricity. It can only provide very little more or very little less than this output (i.e., a power station has a “low turndown ratio”).

The problem of matching electricity supply to varying demand is overcome by operating power stations in three modes called “base load,” “generation,” and “spinning standby.”

Some power stations operate all the time providing electricity to the grid, and they are said to provide “base load.”

Other power stations also operate all the time but do not provide electricity all the time. They burn (or fission) their fuel to boil water and superheat the resulting steam which is fed to the steam turbines that are thus kept hot and spinning all the time. Of course, they emit all the emissions from use of their fuel all the time. But some of this time they dump heat from their cooling towers instead of generating electricity, and they are then said to be operating “spinning standby.”

One or more power stations can be instantly switched from spinning standby to provide electricity to match an increase to demand for electricity. It is said to be operating “generation” when it is providing electricity. Power stations are switched between spinning standby and generation as demand for electricity changes.

Thus the grid operator manages the system to match supply with demand for electricity by switching power stations between “generation” and “spinning standby.”

So if you are installing a bunch of new coal power plants to handle load, you will really be running them all the time with very little savings of fossil fuels. You can control some of the grid surge by diverting the power production away from the grid when your wind kicks in, but that of course doesn’t change fuel consumption very much.

Read the full report here. Maxedoutmama

The Green Agenda – Will return on September 1st 2008

August 26, 2008

We all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. However, many aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about saving the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs and agenda of the influential leaders who are attempting to impose their vision of a New Green Order on the world. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:


In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …
All these dangers are caused by human intervention
and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”
Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

The Green Agenda web site will be back Sept. 1st. The site was featured on a radio show and it got so many hits that it exceeded it’s bandwidth.

You can listen to the radio show here. Alan Watt speaking about the Club of Rome

You can still access the site via Google or Yahoo cache’.

Cache’ links on my blog.

Read or listen.

It’s time to pay attention!