Archive for the ‘energy’ Category

Opec agrees record oil output cut

December 17, 2008

The oil producers’ cartel Opec has agreed to make a record cut in output, slashing 2.2 million barrels per day (bpd) from its current supply.

Opec has made two other cuts since September, meaning it has cut a total of 4.2 million bpd in four months.

However falling demand amid the economic downturn has meant prices have fallen sharply from highs seen in July.

Opec said that it hoped the record cut would boost prices but that it had no formal price target.

Continued at  BBC

No Oil Shortage – IEA Report

November 13, 2008

Editor: In 2006 the IEA stated that peak oil in 5 to 7 years. Nov. 2008 the same IEA says “there is enough of it to supply the world for more than 40 years at current rates of consumption”.

This is the same agency that pushed for bio-fuels and now says oops – bad idea. Burning food a bad idea?  Depopulation.

Another bright idea close the fossil fuel plants and try and run energy systems with wind. Duh!

When are we going to start looking after the interests of our own countries and forget about the UN.

The UN hates democracy – they love power. What do they want? New World Order, an end to democracy and the ruination of the industrialized world. The present financial crisis was planned just like the one in 1929. Look at the bail-out for what it is-robbery.

Peak oil was a scam and so is global warming as is wind energy. They create the crisis and then offer the solution. One scam after the other – slowly moving to a New World Order. They are making their final push right now. Are you ready to give up what’s left of your democracy?

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong

.

‘Energy Update’, November 2006 from the IEA

“The world is on a course that will lead it ‘from crisis to crisis’ unless governments act immediately to save energy and invest in nuclear and biofuels, the International Energy Agency warned on Tuesday. In an apocalyptic forecast, Claude Mandil, the agency’s executive director, said that our current path ‘may mean skyrocketing prices or more frequent blackouts; can mean more supply disruptions, more meteorological catastrophes – or all these at the same time’. The IEA said that the oilfields on which Europe and the US had come to depend to reduce their reliance on the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would peak in the next five to seven years. These include those in Russia, the US, Mexico and Norway.

Source

Energy body warns on oil prices

By Sarah Mukherjee
BBC News

Oil pump (file image)

The IEA says increased exploration costs will force oil prices higher

One of the world’s leading authorities on energy supply says the era of cheap oil is over and prices could soon be back up to $100 a barrel.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), in its World Energy Outlook for 2008, says prices could soar as high as $200 a barrel by 2030.

The immediate risk to supply, it says, is not one of a lack of global resources.

Instead, it points to a lack of investment where it is needed.

Rising costs

The world, the report’s authors conclude, is not running out of oil just yet – indeed, there is enough of it to supply the world for more than 40 years at current rates of consumption.

Source

Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?

November 7, 2008

Editor: I believe there’s a saying – new trends start in California. Lets hope this trend spreads far and wide and fast.

Green Initiatives Get Slaughtered in California, Will Media Notice?

By Noel Sheppard

Californians by very wide margins defeated two green initiatives that anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts in the media and in legislative houses across the fruited plain should take heed…but will they?

To begin with, Proposition 7 would have required utilities to generate 40 percent of their power from renewable energy by 2020 and 50 percent by 2025.

Proposition 10 would have created $5 billion in general obligation bonds to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

Much to the likely chagrin of Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his global warming sycophants in the media, these measures went down, and went down in flames:

Proposition 7 Renewable Energy Generation
Yes 3,294,158 35.1%
No 6,102,907 64.9%

Proposition 10 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Yes 3,742,997 40.1%
No 5,581,303 59.9%

Will global warming-obsessed media share this news with the citizenry? Shouldn’t this be HUGE news given President-elect Obama’s green sympathies and his desire to enact a carbon cap and trade scheme to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? We’ll see.

ICECAP

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam – A Lesson for Canada and the USA

October 26, 2008

Editor: The most important things people need to understand are

  1. The wind industry backed by govt. is a scam. (truth hurts)
  2. Our govt has handed the decision making for our power generation over to the e8 (internationalization of energy) a UN based agency.
  3. Any country that gives up it’s electrical system, has  given up it’s sovereignty. Electricity supply and cost are the most important part of any economy. Once control of the electrical system has been lost (or given away) the ability to make real economic decisions has been lost.
  4. You have now accepted rule by unelected officials.
  5. End of sovereignty.
  6. This is about a lot more than wind energy. It’s about the loss of your freedoms and your nation state.

The time has come for every thinking citizen to join in the fight against the wind industry and  treasonous govt. policy, that has been put in place to undermine both our democracy and sovereignty.

Gordon Brown puffs the great wind scam

Even in these dark times, it is still possible to be shocked when our Prime Minister personally endorses a flagrant perversion of the truth. Last year, for example, many of us felt outraged when Gordon Brown pretended that the Lisbon Treaty was somehow totally different from the EU Constitution, in order to wriggle out of his party’s manifesto promise of a referendum. Last week Mr Brown in effect did it again when he endorsed the deception at the heart of his Government’s wildly exaggerated claims about the benefits of using wind to make electricity.

In a video for the British Wind Energy Association, the industry’s chief lobby group, Mr Brown claimed: “We are now getting 3 gigawatts of our electricity capacity from wind power, enough to power more than 1.5 million homes.”

This deliberately perpetuates the central confidence trick practised by the wind industry, by confusing “capacity” with the actual amount of electricity wind produces. In fact, as the Government’s own figures show, wind turbines generate on average only 27 to 28 per cent, barely a quarter, of their “capacity”.

In other words, far from producing those “3 gigawatts”, the 2,000 turbines already built actually contributed – again on official figures – an average of only 694 megawatts (MW) last year, less than the output of a single medium-size conventional power station. Far from producing “enough to power more than 1.5 million homes”, it is enough to power barely a sixth of that number, representing only 1.3 per cent of all the electricity we use. Yet for this we have already blighted thousands of square miles of countryside, at a cost of billions of pounds.

Indeed, at the same BWEA-sponsored event, Mike O’Brien, energy minister, went on to perpetuate the second confidence trick practised by both Government and industry, which is to conceal the fact that all this is only made possible by the huge hidden subsidy given to wind energy through the Renewables Obligation. This compels electricity companies to pay way over the odds for the power generated by wind turbines, a burden passed on to us all in our electricity bills.

Mr O’Brien claimed that the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind turbines would drop by 8 per cent, failing to explain that it would then be raised by 50 per cent through the hidden subsidy. He then soared even further into make-believe by saying that he was “assessing plans” to build a further 25GW-worth of offshore turbines by 2020, “enough electricity for every home in the country”.

Mr O’Brien must know that there is not the remotest chance that we could build the 10,000 monster turbines needed to achieve this, at a rate of more than two a day, when it takes weeks to instal each vast machine. At present, of the giant barges needed for the work, there is only one in the world. Even if it were possible, the construction costs alone, on current figures, would be anything up to £100 billion – the price of 37 nuclear power stations, capable of producing nearly 10 times as much electricity – while the subsidies alone would add £6 billiion a year more, or 25 per cent, to our electricity bills.

Why do our ministers think they can get away with talking such nonsense?

What is humiliating is that they do it largely to appease the EU, which has set us the wholly impossible target of producing 32 per cent of our electricity from “renewables” by 2020. What is dangerous is that even contemplating such a mad waste of resources is diverting attention from the genuine need to build enough proper, grown-up power stations to keep our lights on. For that the time is fast running out, if it hasn’t done so already. It is on that Mr Brown should be concentrating, not on trying to pull the wool over our eyes with such infantile deceits.

By Christopher Booker

Telegraph

26 October 2008

You might ask – If the wind industry is such a scam why isn’t the media saying anything?

DAVID ROCKEFELLER THANKS MEDIA FOR ITS SILENCE

The Green Agenda

Windmills vs. NIMBYism – Toronto Star -Propagandist For the Wind Industry

October 20, 2008
Update: Response I received from the Toronto Star editorial board when I asked questions about one of their editorials. (found below)
If you live in rural Ontario you may want to consider canceling the Toronto Star. They’ll take your money but they won’t recognize you.

Response to my letter to the editorial board of the Toronto Star. If you live in the country you count for nothing.

Dear Mr. Stephens:
The “community” I am referring to is the Star’s community of readers.
Given that the Star is considered “the voice of the GTA” this would be
the community of readers in Toronto and the Greater Toronto area.
Certainly, many people in many communities would disagree with the views
put forward in this editorial opinion (as will any editorial). That is
their prerogative, as it is yours.
I will not be taking any further action on this editorial; nor will I be
providing you will “verification’ of the research done by the Star’s
editorial board as that is certainly not our practise.
I think the arguments put forward in the editorial speak for themselves
and it is beyond the scope of my role to question the conclusions drawn
in Star editorials.
As I told you, an editorial is an opinion based on the editorial board’s
interpretation of the facts at hand. While you may hold another opinion
I see no value in our debating these facts. I am not going to change
your mind about this issue and the Star’s editorial board is not likely
to reverse its position on this issue at this point in time.
Regards,
Kathy English

Kathy

I would like you to verify the research done and the content of the
research.

“This editorial view was arrived at after much research, thought and
debate by members of the Star’s editorial board, a group of six
journalists, under the direction of Editorial Page Editor Ian Urquhart,
who are charged with the responsibility of determining and expressing
the Star’s position on important matters affecting our community.
Because editorials represent the institutional voice of the newspaper,
they are never signed by the individuals who write them”.

I would also like someone to explain who’s community the article is
referring to.
I know many people, in many communities who would strongly disagree with
the position of the editorial board of the Toronto Star, including the
senior policy adviser for the Ministry of Energy and the ex-CEO of the
OPA.

I have invited the Provincial govt. to go through the information on my
site and point out any inaccuracies. To date, even though they are on my
site daily, they have never questioned or requested any changes.
I therefore request that your editorial staff go through my site as
well.

I want to know how they came to their conclusions.

The editorial board must be able to justify their position or it could
be considered propaganda.

Regards

Ron Stephens

Editor: The first casualty of war is TRUTH.
There is a war being waged against the rights of the citizens of Ontario by the environmental movement and the Toronto Star has become a propagandist for the movement.

1. a person involved in producing or spreading propaganda.
2. a member or agent of a propaganda.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)Cite This Source
I added the name of the writer to this article. Maybe the writer of this piece of propaganda didn’t want her name to be associated with such a piece of trash. I thought Tyler Hamilton (energy writer) could spew some garbage, but Ms. Gillespie has given Mr. Hamilton a new low to strive for.

SAVE THE PLANET-CUT LESS TREES-

CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION TODAY!

EDITORIAL TheStar.com | Opinion | Windmills vs. NIMBYism
Oct 20, 2008 04:30 AM – By Kerry Gillespie

After three years of effort, a $300 million wind farm that would have brought green power to Ontario has been cancelled. This is the latest casualty of a provincial planning process that just isn’t up to the task of ensuring that the best interests of all Ontarians prevail.

I guess the people forced from their homes and those living in misery because of wind turbines, don’t count in Ms. Gillespie’s Ontario.(added)


The province wants the clean energy that comes from projects like wind turbines. So much so that Energy Minister George Smitherman sent a $60 billion plan on how to meet the province’s electricity needs for the next two decades back to the drawing board to get more renewable energy and conservation into the mix.

According to the senior policy adviser I talked to – 10 billion spent on a real electrical system, would have provided Ontario with cost effective, clean, affordable electricity. He says we are dealing with politics. Try running your home or business on politics. At least 50 billion will be unnecessarily wasted ,causing your electric bill to skyrocket, and driving business from the province.(added)

Yet time and time again wind farms and other environmentally worthy projects run into the wall that is Ontario’s outdated, drawn-out planning process. Some manage to make it through. The wind farm planned for a township near Goderich didn’t.

The delays in getting through the process are difficult enough – often amounting to millions of wasted dollars – but the real problem comes when someone, and there’s always someone, wants to oppose the project. The NIMBYists are able to use the myriad planning steps – rezoning, official plan amendment, council approval, provincial environmental assessment and the spectre of an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board – as weapons in their fight.

As a spokesperson for the doomed Goderich wind farm said: “We’re a very conservative province, so it’s difficult to put anything anywhere.”

It’s not just wind farms the NIMBYists fight. They also oppose traditional generating stations. That forces Ontario to buy expensive – and often dirty – power from elsewhere.

And they fight urban “intensification” in the form of highrise buildings, which help curb sprawl.

In some European jurisdictions, municipalities are given the right to say where wind turbines can’t go. But they also have to say where they can go. In Ontario, it’s simply too easy to say no and hope to delay the project long enough that the developers give up and decide to give it a try in someone else’s backyard.

According to a  councilor involved in the Kingsbridge ll wind farm, he was told that any setback over 450 meters would not be tolerated. He was told to pass the setback or the township would be taken to the OMB and that the township would lose, costing the township $100,000. This, dispite the fact Kingsbridge l at 450 meters had already caused major problems for people living in the shadows of the turbines.(added)

The energy minister is right to call for more renewable energy. Now the provincial government must make sure its planning processes support that goal, even if it means someone may have to gaze upon a windmill from the living room window.

Because reality and truth no longer matter to the Toronto Star, I ask that you show your disapproval by boycotting the paper. Until they understand their duty to the public (seek and print the truth) they do not deserve your support.  I will be making a formal complaint to

Bureau of Accuracy/Public Editor

You can contact the Star’s Bureau of Accuracy and Public Editor by email at publiced@thestar.ca; by phone at 416-869-4949; or by fax at 416-869-4322

To cancel your subscription or to let the Star know how you feel –(added)Customer Service (including subscription inquiries, delivery issues, billing inquiries, vacation stops or other customer service inquiries or complaints)
Email: circmail@thestar.ca
Phone: 416-367-4500 or 1-800-268-9213

TheStar.com

Windmills vs. Nimbyism (another take on the article above)

Wind turbines cause health problems, residents say – CTV News

OPTIONS FOR COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS IN ONTARIO

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet

Is Nimby the new “N” Word

Green, not dumb – The Reality of Wind Energy

September 29, 2008

Editor:

It is quite unfortunate that a man like Mr. Carr, former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority, who has known for a long time, the problems with wind energy, declined to step forward until now.

Many families in the province have had their lives ruined while he and his colleagues remained silent.

That said, maybe his words will encourage others to step forward.

I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who refused, to shut up, lay down or go away. Be proud of the fight you have, and continue to wage. Truth and justice are always worth the effort.

May other citizens learn from your example.

Jan Carr, former OPA CEO, will now tell you exactly what we have been saying for years.

Thanks for coming forward Mr. Carr, and welcome aboard the truth train.

Mr. Carr’s letter to the Globe and Mail.

.

Green, not dumb

Toronto — My wife suggested Murray Campbell’s use of “old” in “dumb old utility guys” should be my basis for a complaint to a human rights tribunal (‘Dougs’ Take Warning: Curious George Is Keen On Green – Sept. 25), as the former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority.

Let the facts speak for themselves. The OECD’s International Energy Agency and the websites of the European utilities themselves say it all. In spite of hype about their innovation in renewable energy, both Germany and Denmark derive half of their electricity from coal-fired stations. As its nuclear generating stations reach the end of their design-lives, Germany will have to decide between building new coal-fired generation (it already has 10 times the amount that Ontario has) and abandoning its no-new-nuclear policy. With a quarter of its supply coming from renewables and more on the way, Ontario’s electricity is already considerably greener than Germany’s and soon will take league leadership from Denmark.

Then check electricity prices. Germans pay double and Danes triple what Ontarians do.

From the Globe and Mail

Today at noon, Ontario’s 672MW’s of wind were producing 32MW’s

BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING – A Warning for Canada and the USA

September 10, 2008

IF you live in North America you better pay attention! The renewable industry is a sham. It is designed to wreak havoc on you and the economy. This is not by mistake – it was planned and now the plan is in full swing. Without reliable energy, you and the economy are screwed.

Unless you want to move to China or India.

Read the

Green Agenda

Daily Express

BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING

Story Image

Power cuts ‘could spark disorder’

Sunday September 7,2008

By Jason Groves

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

This is the stark warning from the head of an energy think-tank who believes power cuts could be serious enough to spark civil disorder.

Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation  said: “It’s almost too late to do anything about it. Nothing will stop us having to pay very high prices for power in future.

“If we pull our finger out now we can limit blackouts but it’s going to be pretty grim whatever happens.”

Gordon Brown pledged last week to end Britain’s reliance on the “dictatorship of oil” but Mr Dunford believes the Prime Minister’s new interest in the security of energy supplies may have come too late.

Only last Thursday, National Grid issued an urgent call for power after a series of power station breakdowns. Suppliers were asked to bring all their available generating capacity online, including costly oil-fired stations.

In May, hundreds of thousands of people in Cleveland, Cheshire, Lincolnshire and London suffered blackouts when seven power stations were closed.

The electricity industry estimates it needs to spend £100billion on new stations to ensure supplies.

It criticises ministers for focusing too heavily on such untried renewable energy sources as wind and tide power, rather than making sure that secure new power generation was put in place.

The report concludes: “A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas.”

The REF warns that as many as nine million people could be plunged into fuel poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy bills.

Ministers are already under massive pressure to do more to help people trapped in fuel poverty this winter because of soaring prices. Up to six million families are expected to face a stark choice between heating and eating following the series of massive energy price rises that have made a mockery of Labour’s target to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016.

Mr Dunford said worse was to come: “Certainly we’re going to be heading to eight or nine million in fuel poverty.

“There’s a very real chance that power, will not even be there when you need it. That’s when you start worrying about social disorder.”

Ministers have launched a belated plan to plug Britain’s energy gap, including the construction of a string of nuclear power stations. power stations take up to a decade to build though and many experts believe the Government’s move has come too late.

Full story at Daily Express

Wind energy unreliable, says E.On

September 1, 2008

Editor

E.ON, based in Duesseldorf, Germany, is one of the world’s leading energy companies
They should know – they build wind farms. Germany is in the process of building over 20 new coal plants.

Source: Energy Digital

Wind energy is so unreliable that even if 13,000 turbines are built to meet EU renewable energy targets, they could be relied on to provide only seven percent of the country’s peak winter electricity demand, according to a leading power company E.On.

E.On has argued that so little wind blows during the coldest days of winter that 92 percent of installed wind capacity would have to be backed up by traditional power stations.

Full story at Source: Energy Digital

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

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.