Archive for the ‘industrial wind power’ Category

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

Press Release – Wind Farm Demonstration in Paris

October 6, 2008

Editor

If you are fighting wind farms in North America, you are not alone. You have probably been told how well wind is working in Europe (it’s not) and that we should do the same. Well we should do the same.

Stop the wind scourge now!

.

Saturday Oct 4th, in Paris, 2000 to 3000 people coming from France and
various European countries demonstrated peacefully against windfarms.
Antoine Waechter was among them. Green candidate in the 1988 French
presidential election, Mr Waechter subsequently split from the Greens to
found the Independent Ecological Movement. He is shown on the picture
reading my placard. To the right of the picture, the mayor of a village in
France whose inhabitants ALL decided to sell their houses when a windfarm
project was announced in the vicinity. If you wish to know more about the
Village for Sale, please advise.

We received  messages of support coming from all over the
world, including Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Puerto Rico,
Ecuador, South Africa, Japan and Slovenia. See :
http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

The demonstration and conference was backed by 176 associations and
federations : http://collectif.4.octobre.free.fr/

An international platform against windfarms was founded the same day, as
follows :

*Press release
*Paris, Saturday Oct. 4th 2008

*Founding of the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW). *
*
*In Paris today, on the occasion of the international demonstration against
wind farms, German, Belgian, Spanish and French federations and associations
have founded the European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW).

This project has received the support of colleagues from 16 countries
representing several hundred federations and associations.

The founding members of this platform have agreed to make the following
declaration :
*1) Ecological deception and financial scandal*.

It has now been proved that industrial windpower does not reduce CO2
emissions and therefore does not contribute
to the fight against global warming. This is principally due to the
intermittent and uncontrollable nature of wind, which makes it necessary to
rely on the back-up of polluting fossil-fuels power stations, 24 hours a
day.

Industrial windpower is subsidized by the taxpayer-consumer.
In France for example, if the national plan is realized ( 12,500 wind
turbines ! ) this burden will amount to 2.5 billion euros annually. In
Germany, it is already costing 4 billion euros a year.
At a time when Europe is facing a deep economic crisis, it is not acceptable
that the standard of living of Europeans be further reduced in favour of
businessmen whose objective seems to be maximizing profits whatever the
consequences.
Industrial windfarms are a threat to the environment.
Landscapes, the natural and cultural heritage, wildlife, quality of life,
the security and health of Europeans are in danger !

*2) The demands made by EPAW : an immediate moratorium and more
transparency.*
The platform demands an immediate moratorium with the suspension of all
windfarm projects, approved or not.

The platform demands that be assessed, under the control of an independent
body, the objective and undisputable effects of wind farms from an
energetical, ecological and social point of view – respectively.
The platform finally demands that the guaranteed pricing of wind-produced
electricity be made the object of both a public and a parliamentary debate,
at national and european levels.

Signed by :
European Associations and Federations participating in the reunion of
October 4th 2008
Spain : Iberica 2000
Belgica : Vent Contraire, Vent de Raison
France : FED : Fédération Environnement Durable (Fédération nationale),
France : FNASSEM – Fédération Nationale des Associations de Sauvegarde ses
Sites et Monuments
Germany : BLS (Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz – landscape protection,
federation of 800 local committees),
Germany : NAEB (Nationale Anti EEG Bewegung – against windfarms)

Contacts :
Kléber ROSSILLON (FNASSEM) : 06 07 21 88 64 kleber.rossilllon@wanadoo.fr
Emmanuel du BOULLAY (FED) : 06 13 54 49 07 emmanuel.du-boullay@laposte.net

Mark Duchamp + 34 679 12 99 97
INCONVENIENT VIDEOS : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729

The dark side of windfarms : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1228
Pictures of windfarm victims ( eagles etc. ), of turbines on fire, of
collapsed turbines, of soil & water contamination etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp

ESPAÑOL :
Videos inconvenientes : www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3729
La cara oscura de los parques eólicos:
www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1255
Fotos de víctimas de parques eólicos ( águilas etc. ), incendios de
aerogeneradores, contaminación de las aguas por sus lubricantes etc. :
http://spaces.msn.com/mark-duchamp



Ontario Wind Farms – Dalton McGuinty

April 26, 2008

Edtior:
Mr. McGuinty, you are allowing the UN to set our energy policy. Your wind farms have forced people from their homes, and threaten many more.

If you are stupid enough to think that wind will power this province – you are too stupid to be leader of this province. Health – Education – Agriculture and the manufacturing sector are all suffering. But then that’s the plan under Agenda 21.

Mr. McGuinty you are a Disgrace and a Traitor

Watch as Dalton powers his press conference with wind energy

.

Wind farm raises health concerns

March 28, 2008

Editor
research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms”.

Health Canada has never done a study of the health affects of wind turbines on the health of the people. I’ve asked, as have many others, both the Provincial and Federal Health Ministries why there hasn’t been a health study conducted. Now we know.

They already know industrial wind turbines are being placed too close to people and they know they have negative affects. Once you have been run off your property, the ill affects you experienced living next to a 400 ft. high wind turbine will disappear. Using their logic, there is no need for a health study.

d_entremont-point-pubnico.jpg
Daniel d’entremont and his family were forced from their home. The good news is their health is slowly returning to normal. They can’t live in their home any longer, but who cares about a home when you have your health.

Your government doesn’t give a damn, it’s that simple.

.

Wind farm raises health concerns; No long-term effect, says Kingston doctor

Posted By Jennifer Pritchett

Kingston’s public health department will lobby government for more research into the health effects of wind turbines.

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health, says there hasn’t been enough monitoring done to determine whether they’re harmful.

Gemmill made the declaration at a board of health meeting this week in response to residents who live near the proposed site of a wind farm to be built on Wolfe Island.

The citizens had asked public health to assess the health risks associated with the turbines, but based on the information that is available, Gemmill said, there is nothing to indicate that wind turbines have any long-term effect on people’s health.

“We haven’t got a lot of evidence to go on right now,” said Gemmill. Gemmill said that though there are concerns about low-level noise, appearance and stress caused by the turbines, research has suggested that those effects don’t cause long-term health impacts after people are no longer living near wind farms.

As well, much of the research that is available, he said, doesn’t appear to come from reputable sources.

“Our conclusion is that while there may be some short-term concerns, this will not have a long-term health effect,” said Gemmill.

Board member Vicki Schmolka told the board that she wasn’t sure that she agreed with Gemmill’s conclusion. She indicated that she felt there are health concerns associated with the turbines that the board should investigate further.

“Seems to me what we’re really saying is that this person needs to move away and they’ll be OK,” she said.

Schmolka, who is also a city councillor, asked Gemmill if he was comfortable saying that there were definitively no long-term health effects from wind turbines.

“I’m saying it’s reversible,” he responded. “I know that people are bothered by this, but the question here is when do we become involved.”

thewhigJennifer Pritchett

 The Studies are out there but the govt, refuses to acknowledge them.

Frey & Hadden, Wind turbines and health

Wind turbine noise affects health

Texas Power grid narrowly averted rolling blackouts

February 28, 2008

 Editor:
Never let reality get in the way. Dalton McGuinty our fearful leader in Ontario says

“Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow”.

But he won’t let reality get in his way. No sir, not Dalton

He wants to cover Ontario with wind farms regardless of the facts.

Power grid narrowly averted rolling blackouts

Operators of the state power grid scrambled Tuesday night to keep the lights on after a sudden drop in West Texas wind threatened to cause rolling blackouts, officials confirmed Wednesday.

At about 6:41 p.m. Tuesday, grid operators ordered a shutoff of power to so-called interruptible customers, which are industrial electric users who have agreed previously to forgo power in times of crisis. The move ensured continued stability of the grid after power dropped unexpectedly.

Dottie Roark, a spokeswoman for the power grid, said a sudden uptick in electricity use coupled with other factors and a sudden drop in wind power caused the unexpected dip. As a result, grid officials immediately went to the second stage of its emergency blackout prevention plan.

“This situation means that there is a heightened risk of … regular customers being dropped through rotating outages, but that would occur only if further contingencies occur, and only as a last resort to avoid the risk of a complete blackout,” the State Operations Center said in an e-mail notice to municipalities.

Known as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the quasi-governmental agency that manages the power grid must ensure that power generation and power use remain constantly in balance. Otherwise, the whole grid can go dark, and the result is a systemwide blackout.

According to ERCOT, those interruptible customers who lost power Tuesday night had it restored by 9:40 p.m.. The interruptible customers are generally industrial businesses that pay less for electricity in exchange for an agreement that they will let ERCOT cut their power during shortages.

Some wholesale energy prices also spiked Tuesday evening — especially in West Texas. ERCOT also reported that the drop in wind power led to constraints on the system between the north part of the state and the west.

Kent Saathoff, vice president for system operations at ERCOT, said Tuesday’s event illustrates the inherent challenges associated with using wind power. Because the wind sometimes stops blowing without a moment’s notice, engineers at ERCOT must remain nimble enough to respond to resulting instability on the grid, he said.

“There is a major workshop going on at our office right now to discuss these very issues,” Saathoff said.

Although he said the emergency event was rare, it is not unprecedented. On April 16, 2006, for instance, a much more serious shortage prompted rolling blackouts across much of Texas. ERCOT officials at that time also ordered power curtailments for the state’s interruptible customers.

That 2006 event was prompted largely by scorching heat coupled with a shutdown of several generators for spring maintenance. This time the shortage was prompted largely by a near-total loss of wind generation, as well as a failure of several energy providers to reach scheduled production and the spike in electricity usage.

ERCOT reported that wind power production plummeted Tuesday evening from about 1,700 megawatts to about 300 megawatts. A single megawatt is enough electricity to power 500 to 700 homes under normal conditions.

The emergency procedures Tuesday night added about 1,100 megawatts to the grid over a 10-minute period, according to ERCOT.

Some critics have said that wind power, although providing a source of clean energy, also brings with it plenty of hidden costs and technical challenges. Besides requiring the construction of expensive transmission lines, the fickle nature of wind also means that the state cannot depend on the turbines to replace other sorts of generators.

“This is a warning to all those who think that renewable energy is the sole answer [to the state’s power needs],” said Geoffrey Gay, an attorney representing Fort Worth and other North Texas municipalities in utility issues. “We can’t put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to any form of generation. We need to consider the cost and the reliability issues, in addition to the environmental impact.”

Susan Williams Sloan, a spokeswoman for the American Wind Energy Association, said those technical challenges are not insurmountable. She said part of the solution is to locate turbines in diverse areas of the state. “When the wind is not blowing somewhere, it’s always blowing somewhere else,” she said.

Sloan also said that technological advances will make it easier in the future to forecast wind energy.

About 4,356 megawatts of wind turbines are currently installed in Texas, she said.

By R.A. Dyer
Staff Writer

Star-Telegram

Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

February 6, 2008
Sound specialist offers expertise on industrial wind installations

[ News Watch Home ]

“Understanding Sound Associated with Industrial Wind Developments”, was the theme of the presentation by Rick Bolton, Engineer & Sound Specialist, and sponsored by Citizens for a Healthy Rural Neighborhood (CHRN), on Wednesday, January 30, at Perry’s Masonic Temple.

Though Wednesday’s inclement weather prohibited attendance by many from outlying areas, citizens and Town Board members from Perry, Gainesville, Leicester, and Orangeville were there. Mr. Bolton’s presentation was designed to convey a basic understanding of the complexities of sound, effects on humans, and flaws in current analysis standards being employed by wind developers in the U.S.

Mr. Bolton began by explaining that sound associated with wind turbines is an extremely complex issue, and one that needs thorough analysis. “Sounds are waves – just like light and water,” he said. These sound waves are measured in deci-Bels (dB, or dBA – A-weighted deci-Bels – most closely imitate the human ear).

“Human audibility is extremely sensitive,” he said. “In fact, far more sensitive than anything we can use to record sound electronically. While the human ear can detect to 0 dBA, the lowest range even the most expensive noise meters can measure is 14 dBA.”

Elaborating on the factors that can amplify sound, Bolton pointed out:

1.) Sound can propagate for over a mile, and even further over water;

2.) Sound gets worse in water (i.e. – ice, fog);

3.) Low frequencies can double sound by refraction off hard surfaces (hillsides, snow-pack);

4.) ‘Wave Coherence’, created by a number of turbines together, amplifies sound;

5.) When the wind is blowing, it can refract noise from the elevated source-point downward;

6.) Sounds below 30 Hz, termed ‘infrasound’, create serious health problems (turbines have been indicated as being a strong source of ‘infrasound’)

7.) Ice-loading on the front edge of turbine blade tips disturbs air flow around the blade, creating turbulence, and increasing sound.

8.) Modulation occurs when the blade compresses air as passing the mast of the turbine, and is worsened by large groups of turbines’ blades not operating in sync. (Bolton has never seen modulation addressed in any wind developer provided studies.)

Bolton explained the many ways wind developers methodology is flawed. Field measurements are not done correctly (i.e. – improper microphone placement, no justification for sampling sites, etc.); accurate samplings need to be done for a full year to account for seasonal variations, but aren’t; and computer prediction models wind developers rely on are inadequate because they don’t account for modulation, coherence, refraction, and icing.

Facts contained in Perry’s DEIS from the sound study done by Horizon for Perry were brought up that highlighted Bolton’s point that sound studies being done are totally inadequate: “5 monitoring locations; Survey was carried out over roughly a 3-week period; Unfortunately, 3 primary & 2 backup instruments were destroyed by water infiltration, so octave band data could not be collected for ALL positions for the entire 3-week survey; There were a number of periods of either inclement weather or low wind speeds – conditions that are not generally useful; General conditions of temperature, barometric pressure, & wind for the survey period are shown in plots below as observed at DANSVILLE, NY – some 20 miles southeast of the site.”

Illustrating and explaining his points with numerous charts and graphs that were part of his presentation, he also included examples and measurements from homes that had been abandoned by their owners due to the resulting life-altering health effects of living too close to turbines. Not surprisingly, these health problems have been linked to sleep disturbances.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that sound level should not exceed 30 dBA for a good night’s sleep. WHO also unanimously agrees that noise levels greater than 42 dBA create sleep disturbances, and that disturbed sleep has serious health effects.

Bolton explained that rural country settings currently enjoy extremely quiet night-time noise levels of 20 – 30 dBA. However, wind developers typically propose 50 dBA as acceptable noise levels at property lines of neighboring homes to their industrial wind installations. They do so despite the fact that the NYS DEC recommends no more than a 6 dBA increase over existing night-time ambient noise levels.

“Every 6 dBA is a perceived doubling of sound, or loudness,” Bolton said. When you understand this, you can begin to understand the problems that are occurring from siting these facilities far too close to people’s homes in rural areas. Bolton’s research suggests that 3,000′ – 5,000′ setbacks from the nearest property line should be the rule of thumb.

Neither citizens, nor the town officials being rushed through zoning, siting, and approval processes by wind developers truly understand the vast difference between 30 and 50 dBA until it is too late. Bolton stressed the importance of “getting it right” before allowing industrial wind facilities to be built, since mitigation after the fact is not available. He has yet to see wind developers do any follow-up studies for those now experiencing problems. They simply ignore them.

Bolton also explained that NY Townships are perpetuating flawed methods by accepting, and placing in their ordinances, the 50 dBA sound levels being submitted by wind developers, without demanding justifications – despite the fact that this is contrary to SEQR rules. NYS DEC’s Environmental Conservation Rules for SEQR state that the noise pollution potential must be evaluated at each affected “receptor”.

NYS DEC’s Program Policy, “Assessing & Mitigating Noise Impacts”, states: “When a sound level evaluation indicates that receptors may experience sound levels or characteristics that produce significant noise impacts, or impairment of property use, the Department is to require the permittee or applicant to employ necessary measures to either eliminate, or mitigate, adverse noise effects.”

If our townships fail to hold developers accountable to required standards, “we will lose the privilege, and precious asset, of having the peace and quiet of the country,” he said.

Mr. Bolton then took questions from the crowd. In response to questions asking what he thought of being “surrounded” by up to 23 turbines within 1.5 miles of their homes, he answered, “I would be VERY concerned if I were you.”

When asked if he has conducted any studies in the Perry area, Bolton replied that he had. Those who attended Perry’s Public Hearing October 16, 2006, will remember Mr. Bolton adding his comments, and handing in the study he did for Perry to the Board that evening. (Mr. Bolton’s comments on the Noise Issue can be found in the Comments to Perry’s DEIS under H-1, pages 1-24.)

By Mary Kay Barton

Batavia Daily News

Perception is Reality – Not

February 6, 2008

 Editor:
Read the article below, understand what it says, now think.  The wind industry, renewable energies and global warming are all based on perception, not reality. Got it.
This article written in 202 says that the idea of perception being reality is being toppled. Unfortunately we’re not there yet. The bull you are being fed by your govt., media and industry continues unabated. You, Joe public can change that. Give it a try.

Enron may be gone, but the players and the game that was Enron is alive and well.

You are being had big time 

 Published on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 by Common Dreams

Perception is Reality – Not

by Bill C. Davis
 
The expression that seized the modern consciousness – “Perception is reality” – is being toppled – it seems. I read a related and almost equally chilling quote recently about Enron during its heyday – “It’s not such a good company but it’s a great stock.” “Perception is reality” is a mantra that has seduced susceptible participants to abandon critical faculties and to disconnect from the three-dimensional universe. Those who are selling and those who are buying make a contract with the vapors. Some callous observers accuse Enron stockholders of being stupid or of simply being losers in the great capitalist game of musical chairs. I think they’re victims of a creeping and pervasive hypnosis. Instead of a pocket watch swinging in front of their trusting gaze the overt and subliminal message that perception is reality has snaked its way into every corridor of their reasoning – and ours. The collapse of Enron has said loud and clear that perception is not reality. A greater force has snapped its fingers and the trance is broken – the sleepwalker looks around and wonders why he is lying horizontally in the air. He crashes to the floor. The only things that have kept him afloat were the need to believe – the denial of facts – the evasion of truth and looking the other way. These were also the favors that the Bush administration gave Enron, which they were more than willing to give since they need the same things to survive. The Bush administration controls the stocks they are selling and we are in a lockdown – short of impeachment we can’t get out of this investment. We need to believe so we are asked to evade the truth, deny the facts and look the other way.

To build a company or a government on a weave of fabrications and hollow claims is to challenge universal laws. Those laws can be kept at bay for just so long. It makes perfect sense for people to make money from what they actually contribute to a vital society. No one should begrudge an honest and fertile profit. But a deceptive and inflated profit based on parlaying a perception is theft. Where is the California energy crisis that Bush and Cheney floated as reality while Enron cashed in? As the price of a mega watt hour in California went from thirty-one dollars to nine hundred dollars Bush did nothing. He claims his hands-off disposition was based on his philosophy of free market. But this free market seems to have had a price of its own paid to a government perceived to be by the people and for the people. The present administration, in reality, is neither.

One year ago there were massive protests at the inauguration of a president whom many did not accept as real. An election based on racism, purged voting lists, confusing ballots and nepotism is like Enron stock. A war on terrorism that kills thousands of civilians and claims to be eliminating evil in the world as it creates more of the same is also like Enron stock. However the war or the election is being sold, the fact it is being sold waves a red flag. If someone is working overtime to create a perception about anything then there is obviously a reality they are trying to hide which they are either scared or ashamed of or which they feel we, like children, are not equipped to handle.

Rove and Rice are very clear about perception being reality. They have whipped the media into shape much the same way Enron executives flew to New York to chide the Wall Street Journal for printing an editorial from a reporter who said Enron was in trouble. Didn’t the Journal know what kind of effect that could have on their stock? If we all just continue to pump up the perception it will be real and we will all benefit. The Wall Street Journal capitulated. They know better than most that perception is reality. Perceive the condition you want and then sell it as something real. Say it often enough and you might believe it yourself. But there is that weird unavoidable finality of universal truth. It’s like oxygen or water seeking its level – it is inevitable. The inevitability is less painful when it hits if we insist on perceiving reality instead of perceiving perception.

Although he is not officially a dictator George believes that things would be “a heck of a lot easier” if he were. A dictator is allowed to force his citizens to accept his perceptions as reality. It appears as though George has moved lock stock and barrel into the structure of his perceptions all based on “sound science” and he is legislating accordingly. And while he does we just have to hold on to our stock – and hope.

We can also dream and imagine and we can use elements of the real world to build things wonderful and true. The elements of the real world are more fantastic and remarkable and life-affirming than anything that thieves try to conjure for the sake of their stock – political or economic. To build an empire with the raw material of perception-management is to invite collapse.

The best we can do is to resist. Take this massive symptom of Enron that has unraveled before the eyes of a perplexed nation and expand its lessons to the global machinations that are trying to absorb our individuality and common sense. Before they can convince us of anything they have to convince us that perception is reality. Perception is not reality. We have to decline the invitations and manipulations of a corrupt and deluded board of directors and put our money and our essential energies into a solid foundation and an expanding legitimate reality.

Bill C. Davis is a playwright http://www.billcdavis.com/

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

January 14, 2008

Editor:
I would like to thank Lynne, for sending me the Hansard below. Just what is Premier, Dalton McGuinty up to.

pinn_mcguintyhr370.jpgAccording to our Premier, Dalton McGuinty
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“I think the member opposite knows that when it comes to natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming. Wind turbines: We are investing heavily in those, but again, those are an expensive form of electricity and they’re not reliable, because sometimes obviously the wind does not blow. When it comes to solar, those tend to be expensive as well.”

So Mr. Premiere, instead of building a cost effective reliable electrical system for Ont., you have decided to do the exact opposite. Why?

You say, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”.

Building thousands of megawatts of gas plants, will result in a significant, unnecessary cost, with little or no benefit to the environment. Installing the scrubbers on the coal plants would have brought down the emissions very close to that of the, to be built gas plants, at a fraction of the cost. In fact, by not installing the scrubbers on the coal plants you have put the health of the people of Ont. at risk.

You go on to say
Ontario Hansard – 19-April2006
“But we’re not just sitting on our hands as we weigh these important issues before us. Let me tell you about some of the exciting news that we have by way of creating new wind farms in Ontario. We’ve announced three new wind farms in the last month alone. At Erie Shores, there’s a new wind farm with 66 turbines producing 99 megawatts of power for 25,000 homes. The first phase of a new wind farm outside Goderich is now up. That’s 22 turbines producing enough power for 12,000 homes. And the first phase of a new wind farm is now up outside Shelburne, Ontario: 45 turbines producing 67.5 megawatts. That’s enough to power 18,000 homes”.

Your statement above sounds good, but it’s not exactly honest. According to the Independent Electricity System Operator — “For capacity planning purposes, wind generation has a dependable capacity contribution of 10% of the listed figures.”
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Monday 10 April 2006

According to you, the wind farms listed above, produce enough energy to power 55,000 homes, but the IESO says they have a real capacity to power only 5,500 homes.

How long would a auto company get away with advertising “our car gets 60 mpg”, when in reality it only gets 6 mpg. Not long. So why is the govt. allowed to misrepresent in such an overt manner?
You call wind energy, “expensive and not reliable”. Why are you building them?

A new report predicts that energy costs could rise as much as 70 per cent if natural gas generation replaces the four coal plants. But McGuinty said that’s the cost of cleaner air.

“The single greatest contributor to greenhouse gases in the province of Ontario is coal-fired generation so we’re going to do something about that,” he said.

You also said, “natural gas, prices there tend to be volatile, and it remains a significant contributor to global warming”

I had the opportunity to talk with one of your energy advisors about a year ago. He says that the gas plants are more dangerous to health than coal plants with scrubbers installed. Apparently the particulate from the gas plants is much finer and harder for the body to deal with. I was also told gas plants are great emitters of ground level ozone, which is very hard on people with asthma or other breathing problems.

Our manufacturers in Ont. are losing jobs because of the high dollar, while at the same time, Mr. McGuinty, you are doing everything in your power to drive up the cost of electricity. Any significant rise in the cost of power will drive industry out of Ont., and they won’t likely return.

Mr. McGuinty, you recently went to Ottawa looking for Federal Govt. aid to help the manufacturing sector in Ont., while at the same time you are building an electrical system that is sure to drive industry out of the Province or into bankruptcy.

Who are you working for anyway? The people of Ont. or the Maurice Strong agenda. So far, it looks like Strong has your attention. You are obviously not listening to your own energy advisors.

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Further reading material

T h e E 8 r e c o mm e n d a t i o n s

green-agrenda-quotes

Mr. McGuinty, you already know the devastating affect your “Green” polices are having on people and their property values, and you seem convinced, by your own words, that your energy polices are badly flawed, “expensive and unreliable”.

Yet, you continue down this path of destruction for the Ont. economy. Why?

County commissioners say no to wind farms

December 28, 2007

Editor:
Finally, wind farms are being turned down for reasons brought forward by those fighting the industry. Noise, loss of property value and loss of enjoyment of  property.

The court also acknowledged the efforts of members from the organization Save Our Scenic Hill Country who were on hand for the decision.
It’s refreshing to see the efforts of those working so hard to educate the public about the downside of Industrial Wind Farms being recognized. Most of the people fighting wind farms are “Greener ” than those promoting  their use.
We need to keep the pressure on and get other Govt. bodies to accept the findings of this and other similar decisions. Never forget. You elected these people to serve the people, not big business. What can they say at this point? They can’t plead ignorance any longer. The only defense they might have is that they are truly stupid. Stupid people should step aside. They have no right to be making decisions for you or anyone else.

County commissioners say no to wind farms

Applause filled the Gillespie County Commissioners’ Courtroom Thursday after commissioners passed a resolution opposing wind farms in Gillespie County.

Signed by Gillespie County Judge Mark Stroeher and all four commissioners, the document states the court’s opposition to “the construction and installation of industrial wind farms in Gillespie County and the surrounding Hill Country area.”

Stroeher said that the Llano City Council had recently passed a similar resolution to the one approved during the meeting, which had been moved up from its originally scheduled date on Christmas Eve.

The court’s action comes soon after a similar resolution of principle was adopted by the Fredericksburg City Council at their Dec. 3 meeting and the recent announcement by NRG Energy that they were no longer considering a wind turbine site in Gillespie County.

Commissioner Donnie Schuch said the decision must “consider private property rights of everyone” and take into account what was “best for the total, not for the few.”

A highlight of the resolution, read in open court by Stroeher, was the commissioners’ concern of the “negative impact” economically that the county would see if turbines were constructed in the area.

The document notes the belief of appraisers and realtors “that land values in the area in which industrial wind farms are situated will be substantially decreased.”

The two-page resolution also cites an Electric Reliability Council of Texas report that the area is ranked 20th out of 25 potential wind areas in the state.

In their findings, however, the commissioners did acknowledge “that potential income to participating property owners who sign options for leases for wind turbines to be located on their property could be beneficial to those landowners.”

Other concerns raised in the resolution include wind turbine construction negatively altering views from Enchanted Rock State Natural Area as well as wildlife and environmental impacts that the construction of wind farms would bring to the region.

The court also acknowledged the efforts of members from the organization Save Our Scenic Hill Country who were on hand for the decision.

“We do appreciate what you all are doing out there,” Stroeher said, emphasizing the group’s efforts to educate members of the community about the issue.

Senators cut renewable electricity rule from energy bill

December 11, 2007

From the Editor
This looks like what might turn out to be good news. Now the wind industry won’t be able to claim the 15% renewable requirement. I sure hope this passes.

Update: it Passed

Wind Companies tax credits dropped by H. JOSEF HEBERT AP

Tax breaks for a wide range of clean energy industries, including wind, solar, biomass and carbon capture from coal plants, were part of the tax package that was dropped. Senate Democrats earlier also abandoned a House-passed provision that would have required investor-owned utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind and other renewable sources.

(Click to read entire article)Democratic leaders in the Senate plan to bring an energy bill back to the floor on Thursday, after dropping a provision that would have required utilities to generate a portion of their electricity using renewable energy sources.

“We’re not going to be able to keep in the bill the renewable electricity standard,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said today. “That’s too bad.”

Senate leaders were still working on the tax provisions for the bill this afternoon, but Reid said the bill would cost about $21 billion, about the same as the House version.

Last week, the House passed an energy bill that included the renewable electricity language as well as a tax package that would hit the oil and gas companies up for more than $13 billion in higher taxes.

The renewable electricity provision would have required utilities to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, although 4 percentage points could be made up through greater energy efficiency.

However, utilities in the South had warned they would not be able to meet that standard and would be forced to pass along higher costs to their consumers. And the White House had threatened to veto the bill over that issue.

The bill’s crown jewel — a requirement the nation’s fleet of cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans achieve an average 35 miles per gallon by 2020 — has broad, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and particular enthusiasm in the Senate.

Proponents argue that requirement would save the nation 1.1 million barrels of oil a day in 2020, comparable to about half the oil the United States currently imports from the Persian Gulf.

The bill would propel development of technologies to tap sources of “cellulosic” ethanol made from switchgrass, cornstalks and other non-food crops by requiring the nation use 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022.

The legislation would set new energy efficiency standards for appliances such as dish washers and washing machines and phase out the current generation of energy-inefficient, incandescent light bulb.

By David Ivanovich

Houston Chronicle