Archive for the ‘Ontario Hydro’ 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

Advertisements

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

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

Energy Price Shock -Two Energy Firms to Raise Prices

August 21, 2008

Editor:
If you live in North America take a close look at what is coming. The Greens want to destroy the economies of
the industrialized world, via political pressure and the blocking of opening oil reserves and new nuclear power.
Expect massive increases in your electric bill in the very near future. Watch as more and more manufacturing flees North America and heads to China and other Asian countries.
While China and others continue to build coal plants – we will rely on expensive intermittent wind and solar for our power.
Why?
Read the Green Agenda – after which you should be rightfully pissed at your elected officials.

Energy firms E.On and Scottish and Southern Energy are to raise gas and electricity prices by up to 29%.

E.On said it would up its gas prices by 26% and electricity bills by 16% on 22 August for domestic customers.

Gas rings

The move comes shortly after British Gas announced a record rise in bills

Scottish and Southern followed a few hours later by announcing a 29.2%
increase in gas bills, with electricity tariffs up by 19.2% on 25
August.

This is E.On’s second price rise for domestic customers this year. In
February it put up gas bills by 15% and electricity tariffs by 9.7%.


We
are extremely concerned that the one in three pensioner households
likely to be living in fuel poverty by the end of the year will feel
forced to cut back on essential food or fuel

Gordon Lishman, Age Concern

Complete Article

In Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption'

August 18, 2008

Editor: I have been
writing and posting about the wind fraud for two years. It’s time for govt. of all stripes to come clean. What’s behind the wind industry?
Read the Green Agenda.

Corruption

Christinne Muschi for The New York Times

Kathy Laclair of Churubusco, N.Y., dislikes the noise from the wind turbine blades and says their shadows give her vertigo.
More Photos >

‘In Rural New York, Windmills Can Bring Whiff of Corruption’);

‘The wind industry has arrived in force in upstate New York, but some residents say the companies have brought with them an epidemic of corruption and intimidation.’);

Published: August 17, 2008

BURKE, N.Y. — Everywhere that Janet and Ken Tacy looked, the wind companies had been there first.



Christinne Muschi for The New York Times

To some upstate towns, wind power promises prosperity. Others fear noise, spoiled views and the corrupting of local officials.
More Photos »

Dozens of people in their
small town had already signed lease options that would allow wind
towers on their properties. Two Burke Town Board members had signed
private leases even as they negotiated with the companies to establish
a zoning law to permit the towers. A third board member, the Tacys
said, bragged about the commissions he would earn by selling concrete
to build tower bases. And, the Tacys said, when they showed up at a
Town Board meeting to complain, they were told to get lost.

“There were a couple of times when they told us to just shut up,”
recalled Mr. Tacy, sitting in his kitchen on a recent evening.

Lured
by state subsidies and buoyed by high oil prices, the wind industry has
arrived in force in upstate New York, promising to bring jobs, tax
revenue and cutting-edge energy to the long-struggling region. But in
town after town, some residents say, the companies have delivered
something else: an epidemic of corruption and intimidation, as they
rush to acquire enough land to make the wind farms a reality.

“It really is renewable energy gone wrong,” said the Franklin County
district attorney, Derek P. Champagne, who began a criminal inquiry
into the Burke Town Board last spring and was quickly inundated with
complaints from all over the state about the wind companies. Attorney
General Andrew M. Cuomo agreed this year to take over the investigation.

“It’s a modern-day gold rush,” Mr. Champagne said.

Mr.
Cuomo is investigating whether wind companies improperly influenced
local officials to get permission to build wind towers, as well as
whether different companies colluded to divide up territory and avoid
bidding against one another for the same land.

The industry
appears to be shying away from trying to erect the wind farms in more
affluent areas downstate, even where the wind is plentiful, like Long
Island.

But in the small towns near the Canadian border, families
and friendships have been riven by feuds over the lease options, which
can be worth tens of thousands of dollars a year in towns where the
median household income may hover around $30,000. Rumors circulate
about neighbors who can suddenly afford new tractors or trucks.
Opponents of the wind towers even say they have received threats; one
local activist said that on two occasions, she had found her windshield
bashed in.

Full Article from the NY Times

Beauty Corruption – Wind Turbine Protest Song by Becky Godlee

August 6, 2008

Becky Godlee, 17, wrote, sings and plays the keyboard in Beauty Corruption, which won the online voting category of the Hertfordshire Songwriters’ competition with more than 3,000 votes.

The piece opposes the plan of Andrew Bott, who wants to install three 390ft (119m) wind turbines in the Beane Valley.

Becky said: “I was just 16 when I wrote the song. I was a bit too young to get involved in all of the meetings and planning so I decided that the best thing I could do was to write a song about how wrong it all was.”

Wind Turbines Have a Negative Affect On Real Estate Value and Health

August 1, 2008

Premier McGuinty:

You are allowing wind turbines to be placed as close as 350 meters from homes.
This blatant disregard for people and their property must stop immediately.

No more excuses. Your office, and the office of the MOE, has all the information needed to fully  understand the negative impacts of placing wind turbines too close to people and their homes.

The guidelines for wind turbines in Ontario border on criminal. (knowingly putting health at risk and causing loss of equity)

Dr. Ian Gemmill, Kingston’s medical officer of health 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“. (If a person has to move to have good health – health risk
Who is going to purchase the property – loss of equity.
Dr. Gemmill
should have added stray voltage – a very real problem and health risk to both people and animals)italic added.

The reality is this.
Nowhere in the world has wind energy ever replaced, or caused the closure, of a fossil fuel plant.
Whether or not the coal plants in Ont. ever close, wind energy will not be the main contributing factor of any such closure.
Wind energy does not do a credible job of reducing emissions. If it did, the papers would be full of stories to that affect, they aren’t.
The main purpose of wind energy is to create carbon credits (e8).

Keeping the lights on and cutting emissions, is how wind energy is promoted in Ont. Neither is a credible statement.

At noon today the 472 MW’s of wind energy were producing – a not very
impressive 32 MW’s. I almost felt compelled to turn off my air conditioner. But then, it’s not my job to ensure we have power when needed, it’s yours, Mr. Premier. 8pm – 29 MWs

Premier McGuinty, if you think this post is harsh, it’s meant to be.

I visited with some more of your “wind farm” victims today.
They have been run out of their homes and had their lives turned upside down. WHY?
I also met with some of your “soon to be victims”.
How many more have to suffer Mr. McGuinty?

Poll Results- Is the Govt. being honest about wind energy (this blog)

  1. Yes – 148
  2. No – 632
  3. Don’t Know – 60

Mr. McGuinty, the citizens and industry in this province require and deserve, a cost effective, stable electrical system.

Build it, or call an election.

Premier McGuinty, if you believe your energy plan will stand up to public scrutiny, lets have a televised debate.
You bring your experts and I’ll bring mine.

I have a feeling the public will have a very different view of wind energy after a good healthy debate, or after reading the article below.

Premier McGuinty, give me a call and lets get on with the televised debate. It’s time the public understands the reality of wind energy in Ontario.

It’s also time they came to grips with the global warming scam. 50 years later – we’re still waiting.

Global Warming Video 1958

Yours

Ron Stephens

Independent
Huron-Bruce
519-396-1958

Note: I have invited the Ont. Govt., on several occasions, to check this blog for accuracy and to contact me if  they disagree with, or question, the information contained on this blog. Even though the  Ont. Govt. visits this site  often, “site tracker” and I send them information, I have never had the Govt. question or challenge any information concerning wind energy posted here.

Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

The judgement by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal said it was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwelling had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants’ quiet enjoyment of their property.

“The tribunal found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have an effect on the sale price of the appeal dwelling” said the judgement.

Now estate agents have acknowledged that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built in 2006, is now so severely blighted that no one is likely buy it.

Mr Lang said that the ruling is effectively an official admission that wind farms have a negative effect on house prices, and he said that the “victims” have had to rent a house five miles away where they go to sleep.

“It means many families in Scotland living in the shadow of giant turbines could see thousands wiped off the value of their homes as the Government pushes ahead with plans to build thousands more onshore wind turbines over the next decade to meet ambitious green targets.

“Jane Davis came up in September last year and gave a moving presentation in Auchtermuchty village hall on the subject of the intrusive, damaging and unpredictable noise from wind turbines.

“Since then she has been continuing in her own campaign and supporting others in the quest to have a safe buffer zone between wind turbines and dwellings.

“Scottish Planning Policy 6 sets out a distance of two kilometres from a village, but ignores the substantial number of dwellings that could be in that zone but not in a village.

“The effect on property prices is obvious and people should not be selectively economically disadvantaged in this way. There are about 30 properties within one kilometre of the EnergieKontor site near Ceres” said Mr Lang.

Gordon Berry

The Courier

full story at Turbine noise nuisance highlighted

Wind Turbines; Offensive industrialization of human space

July 30, 2008

Editor:

I want to personally thank all those who have fought the fight since the beginning. Without the dedication of  those people, against extreme odds, there would be no chance of stopping the degradation of rural Ontario, or any other rural area. Wind farms are all about power. Not electrical power – but the power of Govt. and Corporations over the population.

The wind industry is a typical example of what democracy, removed, looks like.

Never forget – Democracy is not a right. If you want to live in a democratic country you must demand and defend it.

The media as whole is closed to you and me. It has become a mere tool, used to push govt. and corporate agendas, with no regard for the public.

The time has come for every citizen to wake up and become a participant in their democracy.

You need to make demands on your govt. and the media. Change only comes from pressure.
It is time we all proved our worth as citizens and apply the pressure required. You, own your country.
It does not belong to the govt. or the corporations.
It belongs to you and your children. Take the opportunity to prove to yourself and your children that you intend to live in a true democracy.

What other choice do you really have. Roll up your democratic sleeves and get to work.

Write your govt. and demand changes. Even more important, write your local and national media outlets and tell them in no uncertain terms that you intend to boycott them until they start reporting the truth.

Every wind farm in Ontario has had negative affects on the people and their property.

The bastardization of Ontario must stop
NOW!

Canadian Free Press

The list of environmental costs imposed on wildlife and people are now being recognized

By Online Monday, July 28, 2008

By: Dr. Brian L. Horejsi, Dr. Barrie K. Gilbert, George Wuerthner

People are barking up the wrong tree by promoting, or succumbing to,
wind turbine construction regardless of where it is proposed and how
many there might be. Many North Americans are infected with tunnel
vision and erroneously appear to believe that turbine generated energy
is somehow linked to reversing the growth in and impact of Green House
Gas (GHG) emissions.

There exists NO evidence anywhere that Turbine energy is
substituting for or displacing fossil fuel dependence, nor is there any
evidence that it is in any material way slowing the rate of GHG
emission growth. Turbine energy is a non factor in the never ending
growth agenda of the fossil fuel industry, and it is not a factor in
the agenda of governments promoting growth in and dependence on oil and gas consumption. There can be no better example than North America of the failure of turbine energy to slow growth in anything.

People have been hoodwinked into promoting wind turbine energy as
some sort of Nirvana all while human population growth and per capita
energy consumption continue to spiral upward. Turbine energy generation
is fueling growth in human population and energy consumption and growth
in a false “economy”. It is NOT doing the opposite.

Matching the folly of the energy replacement misunderstanding is denial by governments and promoters of the ecological impacts and health effects of turbines; the ugly reality is that they are a serious addition to the industrialization of quiet rural landscapes that people have long valued for quality of life, retirement, and recreation.

The list of environmental costs imposed on wildlife and people are
now being recognized; they are far from meaningless, but they have been
trivialized by turbine promoters and politicians that have systematically tilted the deck sharply in the developers favor.
Environmental costs have been systematically ignored by a political and
regulatory system that has corrupted individual and societal freedom
and environmental integrity by relegating these values to some distant
offshoot of economic growth. These costs, and those who stand by them,
are treated with contempt; how dare they influence the decision to
grant some landowner a chance to make a buck by carving your backyard
and your space into fragments with giant chopping machines?

Wind turbines are an assault on human well being and act to degrade
the human “gestalt”. Promotion of wind turbine energy is a case of
serious misjudgment by those who fraudulently use green wash to promote
their commercial aspirations.

Buried deep within the human genome is an innate recognition and
suspicion of monsters – large objects – looming on the horizon. Wind
turbines are todays versions of a threatening monster, jammed down the
throats of neighbors and localities. 30% of the human cortex occupies
itself with processing visual information, far more than any other
sense, and nothing delivers a more intrusive and intense visual picture
than the tower and blades of wind turbines. Turbines erode freedom of
the human mind hour after hour, night after day, virtually forever,
like a cell phone ringing incessantly and yet no one is able to turn it
off. To many people this intrusion into their physical and physiological space is an insidious form of torment. The mental effect is analogous to the physical effects of a heavy smoker sitting next to you essentially for life!

We do not subscribe to the managerial / market approach to democracy
or conservation with its deeply entrenched bias against human values
such as an unadulterated horizon. This largely corporate view denigrates the value of freedom of the human spirit – the very pedestal upon which human dignity, character and strength are built.

In an honest and fair regulatory and political environment, local
citizens and communities would bury turbine projects long before they
get to the serious implementation stage. Once again, however, citizens
are being forced to try and employ the very tools that degrade our
quality of life and humiliate us as mere pawns of some corporate
created market economy. That being the case, it occurs to us that wind
turbines wearing eternally on the human psyche, constituting a “taking”
by corporate promoters and biased government collaborators; a taking
that damages the well being of all residents. We asked ourselves if
$1000 payment per person would compensate for the damages imposed on
the ever day life of hundreds and thousands of affected citizens? Not
even close. Perhaps then, $3000, or $8000? Would that kind of money
make up for the forced collapse of part of your quality of life, your
loss of right to space, loss of privacy, loss of political power, curbs
on your freedom, and the mental and physical costs imposed on you by
stress associated with constant angst, irritation and distraction? For
some, we suspect yes would be the answer. For others, like those who
have lost a child to negligent corporate behavior, been strangled
slowly by nicotine, or been poisoned by toxic emissions or effluent, no
amount of money can compensate for the deprivation and harm they have
and will suffer. Regardless of the compensatory damages you might place
on that part of your life lost because of turbine industrialization,
should you not be compensated for this taking?

The commercial private sector is forcing itself into your life, and
that constitutes a taking of your rights, benefits and well being. We
propose that each person impacted by a turbine receive, as a starting
point for negotiations, $3000 annually, to be paid by the developer for
the loss of private and citizen rights, a very large portion of which
includes peace and satisfaction, a critical part of your state of mind.
We all know that is a significant part of personal, social and democratic well being. The concept is simple; if the developer and some uncaring land owners want to destroy your rights and those of other citizens, inflicting on you suffering and mental distress, the good old “free” enterprise system developers and local governments love to hide behind, comes into play; they pay to destroy part of your life. There has to be pain and resistance in the system for those who knowingly exploit the public and individual vulnerability, a now institutionalized vulnerability which commercial and private sector interests worked hard to establish.

The recent proliferation of wind turbine farms is just one more case
of the serious aggression and destruction that reflects the continuing
expansion of an extremist private property and commercialism agenda.
This socially, legally and politically defective agenda and process is being exploited by corporations, some local residents, and local governments. Ladies and gentlemen, this is not freedom and it is not democracy; it is vandalism and oppression in the name of commercialism.
As citizens we have the right, and we say the obligation, and we must
marshal the courage, to reject wind turbine invasions as a corruption
of our well being that is cached “in our spirit rather than in our wallet”.

Dr. Brian L. Horejsi

Behavioral scientist and citizen advocate for democratic process

Box 84006, PO Market Mall

Calgary, Alberta, T3A 5C4

403-246-9328

And

Dr. Barrie K. Gilbert

Wildlife Ecologist and conservation activist

Box 252

Wolfe Island, Ontario KOH 2HO

613-385-2289

And

George Wuerthner,

Ecologist and writer.

POB 719, Richmond,

Vermont 05477

802-434-3948

28 July 2008

Canadian Free Press

The Wind Energy Scam- Compare the Numbers

July 11, 2008

Editor:

Let me start by saying, I’m no fan of Mr.Harper.

Both Harper and Dion are TRAITORS.

Dion wants Canada to be ruled by the unelected officials at the UN

and

Harper wants to integrate us with the US and Mexico.

Either way Canada will no longer call the shots concerning it’s future.

Dion and Suzuki keep screaming about “EVIL CO2″.

They, along with the wind industry keep telling us we should be more like Denmark and Germany.

Why? It’s not because of their low CO2 emissions.

Why is India Electricity – production by source:fossil fuel: 81.7%
hydro: 14.5%
nuclear: 3.4%
other: 0.3% (2001)
and China exempt form Kyoto. Their CO2 emissions are higher than ours.
Do some research.

Denmark
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 82.7%
hydro: 0.1%
nuclear: 0%
other: 17.3% (2001)
(They have been using wind since the 70’s)

Germany
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 61.8%
hydro: 4.2%
nuclear: 29.9%
other: 4.1% (2001)
(We are told that Germany has more wind energy than anyone,yet Germany is in the process of building 20+ new coal plants)

Canada
Electricity – production by source:
fossil fuel: 28%
hydro: 57.9%
nuclear: 12.9%
other: 1.3% (2001)

Looks to me that the rest of the world should be following Canada.

We are told we need to follow the examples of Denmark and Germany. Why?
Even if they managed to cut their emissions from fossil fuel by 50% they would still have higher emissions than us.

We need to recall our elected officials today and demand an explanation.

Ontario could have put the scrubbers on the coal plants and built a new nuke for about 10 billion- according to the senior policy adviser for the ministry of energy.
Instead we are spending between 60 and 70 billion on a faulty dream.

No money for health, education or agriculture.
There is no excuse for the massive fraud taking place in this country.

Read Agenda 21 and Cloak of Green both found here

Have some fun – Google Enron,Al Gore,Maurice Strong and Bill Clinton.

http://www.windfarms.wordpress.com.

Enjoy the day and the scam

Ron

Britain’s Climate Madness

July 3, 2008

Absurd and Costly

There is not the faintest chance that 7,000 wind turbines can be constructed in this time, given the construction capacity restrictions and tight timetable. But, even if the turbines

were built, this would not be the end of the matter. Britain would still require a considerable back-up of conventional electricity-generating capacity because the turbines would frequently produce no electricity at all, given the fluctuation in wind speeds. Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.ON UK, has said that this back-up capacity would have to amount to 90% of the capacity of the wind turbines, if supplies were to be reliable. This would be an absurd, and costly, misallocation of resources, with the extra costs falling on households and businesses. But, costs apart, there is yet another problem. And that is whether the necessary back-up capacity is likely to be available.

The current Government has woefully neglected Britain’s energy infrastructure, and much of Britain’s current electricity-generating capacity is due for closure over the next 10 to 15 years. Most of Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations are due to be decommissioned, and half of Britain’s coal-fired power stations are due to be retired because of the EU’s Large Combustion Power Directive (concerned with controlling emissions of, for example, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides). Under these circumstances, there is a very real risk that there will not be adequate conventional back-up capacity despite the Government’s welcome acceptance of the need for nuclear power (there will inevitably be delays in construction) and the operation of new gas-fired capacity (which, incidentally, makes Britain unduly dependent on imports, as our own supplies are dwindling fast).

The prospect of power cuts is, therefore, all too real. Brutally, the lights could go out, and business and the public services, now so dependent on computers, would suffer. The folly of putting so many eggs in the basket of wind power is the height of irresponsibility.

The EU’s Renewables Directive: Disproportionate Burden

The Government’s ‘dash for wind’ in order to develop a “low-carbon economy” is, of course, part of its climate-change policy of cutting carbon emissions in order to “combat global warming”. Any expansion of nuclear power would also curtail carbon emissions, and, indeed, if one believes that a low-carbon economy is a good idea (perhaps for security reasons as well as ‘saving the planet’), one might ask why not allocate far more resources to nuclear power and far fewer to renewables.

Alas, this would not be permitted under the EU’s 2008 Renewables Directive.(1) Under this Directive, the UK has agreed to meet 15% of its energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. Whilst renewables include biomass, solar power, wind, wave/tide, and hydroelectricity, nuclear power is excluded. Insofar as the Renewables Directive is part of the EU’s policy of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990, this is perverse to say the least.

Whilst the UK has a 15% renewables target for 2020, just 1.5% of energy consumption was met by permissible renewables in 2006.(2) The UK has committed itself, therefore, to increase its renewables share ten-fold by 2020. With the possible exceptions of Malta and Luxembourg, the UK is faced with by far the greatest challenge in reaching its 2020 target. In addition, the unit costs in the UK are relatively high because Britain lacks access to cheap biomass resources in the electricity and heat sectors, and is placing greater reliance on high cost, expensive electricity technologies, such as wind (mainly) and wave/tidal. By contrast several EU countries are well-placed, including Austria, Finland, and Sweden, as are many of the central and eastern European countries.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that the UK is likely to carry a disproportionate burden of the costs of meeting the EU’s 2020 renewables target. According to a study by Pöyry Energy Consulting, the UK could carry around 20-25% of the total EU costs.(3) Pöyry has estimated that the annual cost in 2020 could be around £150 to £200 per UK household, and the lifetime costs up to 2020 would be £1,800, even as high as £2,800, per UK household. These are significant sums, and they are likely to be under-estimates.

Given my earlier comment that the Government’s plans for 7,000 wind turbines will not be achieved by 2020, there is no chance that we will meet the renewables target. (And, in any case, 7,000 turbines, even if built, are apparently inadequate for Britain to meet the 15% target.) The Government is living in fantasy-land – but it seems hell-bent on pursuing an energy policy which will be costly, will dangerously distort energy policy, and will leave the country vulnerable to black-outs.

The Economic Effects

Even if the lights stay on, it is clear that the Government’s current strategy will lead to higher and less competitive energy prices in Britain, other things being equal. For households, especially low income and pensioner households, this will bite into general living standards. Businesses, especially energy intensive industries, will continue to lose competitiveness and will migrate overseas to, say, India or China. The Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG) estimates that various ‘green measures’ (the Renewables Obligation, the Climate Change Levy, and the costs of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme) already account for a quarter of total energy costs for their members. The situation will surely deteriorate. Britain’s chemicals, cement, and steel industries, to name but three, are likely to shrink, jobs will be lost, and the balance of payments will deteriorate.