“Since Siemens’ tax-sheltering market is drying up in Europe, their marketing efforts in the U.S. are clearly geared towards increasing income for its investors via wind’s tax sheltering schemes here. Taxpayers, consumers take note!”

If you watch much mainstream TV, you’ve probably seen Siemens’ recent  multi-million-dollar advertising blitz  to sell the American public on industrial wind.

As it turns out, the wind business abroad has taken a huge hit of late. European countries have begun slashing renewable mandates due to the ever-broadening realization that renewables cost far more than industrial wind proponents have led everyone to believe — not only economically, but environmentally, technically, and civilly as well.

As reported in the article Siemens onshore, offshore pain: “Siemens’ energy business took a €48m hit in the second quarter related to a bearings issue with onshore turbines and a €23m charge due to ongoing offshore grid issues in Germany.”

Since Siemens’ tax-sheltering market is drying up in Europe, their marketing efforts in the U.S. are clearly geared towards increasing income for its investors via wind’s tax sheltering schemes here. Taxpayers, ratepayers beware!

As a company who stands to profit handsomely by it, Siemens ad campaign is obviously part of an overall pitch to urge Congress to extend the very lucrative wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), or more accurately, the “Pork-To-Cronies” bill.

As Warren Buffett recently admitted, “We get tax credits if we build lots of windfarms.  That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”

read more : Master Resource,by Mary Kay Barton August 20, 2014

“Trees Not Turbines” has a new Web Site up and running, with all the information and poster art, etc. that people may need to run their local campaign!

There’s no question that over the past 2 decades, there’s been a heightened awareness for the environment. One of the more important areas is how we obtain electricity. One of the proposals has been in the form of Industrial wind turbines.

We feel there’s a better way to answer the question of how to retain a reasonable quality of life with a view to enhancing the environment that we could all mutually benefit. We feel trees are the answer and wherever you may reside, you can participate.

Here are some of the reasons trees are a superior way to enhance the environment over industrial wind turbines;

• Trees absorb CO2 and release O2. An acre ( .405 hectares) of trees will absorb enough CO2 to offset a city driven car for a year, while producing enough O2 for 18 people per day. IWT’s can do neither.
• IWT’s have a large initial carbon footprint before becoming operable. Trees start their work right away with no initial carbon footprint.
• IWT’s have within their components, many detrimental compounds detrimental to the environment. Turbine blades contain bisphenol A, a known carcinogen and the hubs contain gear oil that has high levels of mercury. Trees, of course, are without these issues.
• Trees are superior to IWT’s when it comes to preventing erosion, providing shade, providing habitat for birds and attracting many other forms of wildlife. IWT’s in fact enhance erosion, kill bats and birds and provide no attraction to wildlife.
• IWT’s are infinitely more costly than trees, trees require no electricity to operate and are for the most part, maintenance free. Trees have proven to enhance property values and provide years of enjoyment no matter if you live in a rural or urban environment.
• IWT’s require to work in tandem with other power generators. While we’ve essentially eliminated coal as a source of generation, gas plants have come on line to replace coal and to act to back-up wind generation. In order to do this, gas plants run in the most inefficient way possible and in the final tally don’t substantially reduce emissions at all. Trees of course require no gas plant backup and can help reduce heating and cooling costs.

We listed here just a few of the benefits of trees. We can replace IWT’s with trees and accomplish our goals for a better environment. This is the REAL green movement.

Trees Not Turbines.

How many of you have found your self in the exact same position as described at the beginning of this article?  There is no way to “casually” explain why wind is bad.

In a casual conversation, I was asked why wind energy is a bad idea. Once again, I realized that a one or two-word answer could not convey a readily understandable and accurate picture of wind energy.

This article will try to provide such an answer in a few hundred words, where one or two won’t suffice.

There are essentially four reasons why wind energy is a bad idea.

• It is unreliable
• It is very, very expensive
• It produces electricity when it isn’t needed
• It has environmental issues

Wind can only produce electricity when the wind is blowing at between 6 mph and 55 mph. Above 6 mph, it gradually increases its output until it reaches a maximum output at around 35 mph. Above 55 mph, the wind turbine is shut down to prevent damage to the turbine.

The wind can stop blowing abruptly, so backup power generation must be immediately available to replace the wind generated electricity, or the grid could collapse causing blackouts.

Typically, gas turbine generators are kept running 24/7 so they are available to be rapidly brought online.

A sufficient number of gas turbine generators must kept running at all times to be ready for when the wind stops blowing. This varies by region and on the reliability of day-ahead weather forecasts.

The electricity generated by wind has an intrinsic cost, based on leveled cost of electricity (LCOE) of around 11 cents per kWh. This compares with around 5 cents per kWh for natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants and around 6 cents for coal-fired power plants.

But there are other costs for wind energy that are seldom taken into consideration, and not included in LCOE calculations.

Continue reading here : Power for USA, Aug 12 2014,

More people across Scotland have come forward complaining of “wind turbine syndrome” after the health fears were exposed by the Sunday Express.

Last week we revealed the Scottish Government has commissioned a survey into the impact of wind farms on communities, including any potential noise and health problems.

Former army captain Andrew Vivers, from Glamis, Angus, has been suffering from insomnia, tinnitus and dizzy spells since turbines were erected near his home, and he blames low-frequency noise, known as infrasound, for his deteriorating health. Now a number of others have echoed his story saying they feel as if they are being “tortured” out of their own homes.

Teresa Glen, 55, developed ear problems and migraines shortly after the Little Raith wind farm, near her home in Lochgelly, Fife, was switched on about a year and a half ago.

The grandmother developed tinnitus which feels like “constant screaming” in her head, and last year a specialist diagnosed “substantial damage” to her inner ear and significant hearing loss. Ms Glen, an artist, said: “The damage was akin to something a person who has worked in an industrial setting – like a factory – or on roadworks would be expected to have.

“But I haven’t worked in either. The only explanation I have for this are the turbines.”

Ms Glen said she also struggles to sleep at night, and she feels the
presence of the wind farm constantly, yet Fife Council has turned down her request for a new home.

She added: ”I am not the only one feeling the impact. There are people here who have been examined for dental issues after they developed a strange pain going down their cheekbones to their jaw.

“I have the same and I know it’s nothing to do with teeth.

“Someone else here has epilepsy that has been under control but had a fit and fell down the stairs as a result.

“However, people are scared to speak out or they simply haven’t made the connection.”

Ms Glen’s son, James, who lives nearby, believes his own daughter,
six-year-old Amy, may also have been affected by the wind farm.

He said: “We noticed she started to speak really loudly and also that her pronunciation was suffering.

“There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with her hearing, and after seeing a speech therapist she was fine – but the symptoms are coming back.”

The nearest turbines to Ms Glen’s home are less than a mile away, but the wind farm, owned by Manchester-based Kennedy Renewables, has applied for an extension which would bring them within 900 metres.

Official guidance says turbines should be no closer than 2km – around 1.5 miles – to homes, and with Little Raith’s capacity set to rise up to 29MW, the distance should be at least 2.5km.

Ms Glen said: “It is bearable when it is a calm day, but when the wind’s howling for two or three days without a break it is just torture.

“However nobody wants to know. I feel so alone with this.”

Meanwhile, in Dumfries and Galloway a pensioner who is struggling to sleep, said she has no energy, feels tired and listless most of the time, and has developed higher blood pressure.

The 71 year old, who asked not to be named, added: “I have lived here for a good many years and had no problems until the turbines went up.

“It would be easy to put it down to old age, but I have lived with a railway line at the bottom of the garden before and with a major road next to me and never have I gone through anything like this.

“Captured soldiers were apparently tortured by the constant dripping of a tap, and that’s how I feel in many ways. With the march of the turbines I think Scotland will end up a nation of nervous wrecks.”

Linda Holt, of lobby group Scotland Against Spin, said more and more people are contacting them because they feel their health is being affected.

Ms Holt added: “This problem will only increase as turbines grow in height and number, and creep closer to communities.

“Teresa is at the end of her tether. The turbines have literally invaded
her home and her body, yet she is trapped because she lives in a council house and the council doesn’t want to know.

“The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. The Scottish
Government is manifestly failing in its duty towards people like Teresa.

“Instead it defends the interests of a largely non-Scottish wind industry.”

But Niall Stuart, chief executive of Scottish Renewables, the industry
trade body, said: “We are not aware of nay peer-reviewed, robust scientific evidence linking wind turbines with ill health.

“Moreover, developments will only get through the planning system if they meet strict international standards on noise.

“Once projects are up and running they are monitored to ensure that they are complying with their planning permission.”

Scotland Against Spin, Aug 18 2014

Earlier this month, Breitbart London reported that a Welsh government office was to scrap its £50,000 wind turbine after it generated just £5 of electricity per month. It now turns out that this is not the only place small-scale wind-turbine to have proved completely pointless.

Here is a list (courtesy of Not a Lot of People Know That) of 12 other local authorities wasting money on turbines that have proved to be next-to-useless.

1. Dover

A £90,000 wind turbine install outside council offices has generated just a tenth of the energy intended. The turbine was supposed to generate 45,000 kW hours per year, but has actually produced less than 4,500 kWhrs/year. This means that the turbine won’t pay for itself for 133 years, assuming there are no interest charges of maintenance costs.

2. Derby

As previously reported on Breitbart London, two turbines have yet to produce any power despite being ready since December, as they interfere with the radar at a nearby airport. They won’t be switched on until new radar equipment is installed, at great cost.

3. Milton Keynes

Three wind turbines built on the grounds of a school are being dismantled after allegedly generating just £3.67 worth of electricity in nine years. Milton Keynes council spent £170,000 for the turbines, but they were switched off for health and safety reasons shortly after the school opened in 2005. The company that made them has also gone into liquidation, meaning the council can’t claim compensation.

4. Hinckley

A £40,000 wind turbine at North Warwickshire and Hinckley College has been branded a “disaster” after it consumed more energy than it generated. It has also only turned eight percent of time during its three-year lifespan, and used up enough energy to power a household for two years.

5. Canada

Several rinks on Prince Edward Island are trying to get rid of their wind turbines after they never saw the savings they were promised. Tom Albrecht, vice-president of the South Shore Actiplex said: “We went into debt to purchase this windmill on the promise that it would make us money and it would help us with our power costs. The bottom line is buy us out and give us our money back.”

6. Whitfield

The local council in Whitfield, Kent have scrapped a turbine installed in 2007 after it developed a fault. The company that supplied the turbine has ceased trading, meaning that the council could not source supplies for repairs.

7. Huddersfield

Huddersfield council are to take two turbines down from the roof of the Civic Centre after just five years. The turbines cost £100,000 to install, but one has been broken for the past 16 months. In 2008, the turbines earned £2,078 for the council, but cost £6,431 to maintain.

8. Wotton

A school in the town of Wotton has been forced to remove its wind turbine after receiving a noise abatement notice. Stroud District Council’s environmental health officer said: “As soon as it was operational, it was giving out unacceptable levels of noise at quite a lot of dwellings nearby, as well as some quite far away.” After numerous physical changes to the turbine failed to make any difference, the school decided to take it down.

9. Exeter

Exeter City Council spent £5,000 putting three wind turbines on the roof of the civic centre, but it could take up to 50 years for the turbine to recoup the cost in savings, even though the average lifespan of a turbine is 20-25 years.

10. Greenock

Inverclyde Academy were reported in 2011 to be ready to scrap a wind turbine installed just three years previously. The turbine was supposed to generate 15 to 15 percent of the school’s power but hasn’t generated any energy for over a year. Like others across the country, it developed various faults and its manufacturer has not gone bust.

11. Portland

A £20,000 wind turbine installed at a school had to be turned off because it killed too many sea birds. In the space of a few months, the blades killed 14 birds, far more than the one-per-year predicted by the manufacturers.

12. Climping, West Sussex

A wind turbine had to be removed from a local school had to be removed after generating too little power. It was put up in 2005 as part of an experiment to see if local coastal winds would make it sustainable, but the experiment failed. Savings of £550 from April 2011 to March 2012 were not enough to cover maintenance costs.

via: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/29/Twelve-Useless-Wind-Turbines

Many came out for a Dinner of corn and sausage and to watch the documentary  “Down Wind”.

Just before introducing the movie to those who came out,  residents heard an update on our fight against the wind turbines for both the IPC and NRWC wind projects.

If you were not able to come join us this time, don’t fret.  Plans are being made to show Down Wind again this coming September.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If you’ve been following this story, you’ll know that the East Oxford Community Alliance has been protesting the fact that the wind power developer, Prowind (headquarters in Germany), achieved the status of having the project’s documentation “complete” when the fact was important studies and documents were incomplete or missing altogether.

The East Oxford group compiled 26 pages of errors and omissions, which were then sent to the MoE and the Ombudsman’s office.

The comment period for the documents (incomplete or not there at all) was extended by the Ministry of the Environment, but the documentation was still not complete —which means the public is commenting on documents that aren’t 100% accurate.

This is a letter from the group leader, Joan Morris, to protest the situation:

 

Dear Ms. Garcia-Wright,

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated August 6 indicating that the EBR comment period for the Gunn’s Hill wind project will end tomorrow, August 7, 2014, and that no extension will be granted to allow for proper public input on revised information relating to this project. While you state that this was a “30-day comment period”, you must know that is not truly the case, as most residents were not even aware of the posting until half way through this timeframe due to the proponent’s delay in notifying the public. In fact some residents (who were on the mailing list for previous notifications) have never been notified by the proponent regarding this most recent development, even as the comment period closes.

I am concerned that you have justified implementing a “30-day comment period” in this case by indicating the original comment period was 45 days, given that the information available during the previous 45 day comment period was incorrect and does not accurately reflect the project the proponent now proposes to construct. Surely it would be in the best interest of citizens to have the opportunity to adequately review and comment on ACCURATE information. In this case, the rights of citizens are not being respected and for this reason I have copied the offices of the Ombudsman, the Attorney General and Legal Counsel for East Oxford Community Alliance for further investigation of this file.

Your ministry is surely aware that the documents provided to the public and submitted to your office by Prowind Canada do not clearly describe the project it now proposes to build and the public has been denied the right to conduct an adequate review. The “iterative process” you have acknowledged occurs between the proponent and the Ministry, without public involvement is further evidence of the manner in which public input is stifled. This is contradictory to the “open and transparent” environment in which the Ministry and the current government purport to operate.

It is unfortunate that your office has chosen not to allow a proper comment period, as this has the appearance of expediting this project for the benefit of the proponent while trampling the rights of citizens.

Sincerely,

Joan Morris

Wind Concerns Ontario, Aug 12 2014

Setback issue to be argued Sept. 3

WEST LINCOLN — The case against the five industrial wind turbines already spinning in West Lincoln is “still partially alive.”

Anne Fairfield, who appealed the province’s approval of the HAF Wind Energy Project, appeared before the Environmental Review Tribunal for a preliminary hearing last week. All of the issues raised in her original appeal were quashed, meaning only those mentioned in her appeal to the province’s subsequent approval of an amendment to the project will be heard at a hearing next month.

“They knocked out everything not mentioned in the amendment,” said Fairfield. “All we’re left with are property lines and the withdrawing of post construction raptor monitoring.”

Project proponents Rankin Wind Energy and Vineland Power Inc

. had to submit an amendment to their application after it came to light that four of the five turbines were built closer to property lines than regulations allow.

According to the Green Energy Act, turbines must be located a minimum of a blade length from the nearest property — in this case, 95 metres.

The province approved the amended application June 20. Fairfield filed her appeal July 3.

Come Sept. 3 Fairfield will only be able to argue on the issue of property line setback infractions and post-construction raptor monitoring. The West Lincoln resident will no longer be able to present on issues of health, gas wells. hazardous waste and the impact on Charter rights — the issues Fairfield raised in her original appeal to the project’s approval.

Fairfield and members of the West Lincoln Glanbrook WInd Action Group met with Niagara West-Glanbrook MPP Tim Hudak Monday to discuss the upcoming tribunal.

Hudak was vocal in his opposition to the Green Energy Act in his time as PC Party Leader. He raised the issue several times at Queen’s Park on behalf of his constituents in West Lincoln and the province at large, calling for a complete moratorium on more than one occasion. He has called on the Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli, twice now to “do the right thing” in the case of the HAF project.

“If you had been caught speeding on Twenty Road, you wouldn’t get a redo,” said Hudak, speaking on the province’s approval of the amended application.

“It only makes sense for the government to follow its own laws.”

Hudak, fresh on the heels of his loss to Kathleen Wynne in the race to become premier, said he would do what he can to help his constituents but realizes his influence is not as strong as it could have been had the outcome had been different in June.

“My goal was to win the election and stop this thing in its tracks,” said Hudak. “I’ve met with Wynne and McGuinty, face to face like we are now, to say this is a bad idea for the province as a whole.”

Fairfield asked if the PC party would continue to push against the Liberal’s green agenda without Hudak at helm. Hudak said he appointed Lisa Thompson to the post of energy critic because her own riding of Huron-Bruce was home to several turbine projects. He was confident the party would continue to push against “one of the most destructive policy decisions in recent history.”

Hudak, like the half dozen residents gathered at Veldman’s house, did not have the same level of confidence the Environmental Review Tribunal would side with Fairfield.

“It’s an incredibly stacked deck,” said Hudak.

“ERTs don’t work,” said Fairfield, noting ultimately the decision will lie in either appeals court or in a judicial review, both of which she is prepared to more forward with.

“We don’t have a choice,” she said. “We have to stop these turbines. Not only here, but across the province.”

Grimsby Lincoln News By Amanda Moore, Aug 12 2014

The German authorities are now clear in that there is a very real issue with low frequency sound and recognise that they both need to update their regulations and complete more research.

Machbarkeitsstudie zu Wirkungen von Infraschall

Abstract

This feasibility study evaluated the state of knowledge about the effects of infrasound on human beings, the identification of infrasound sources and the potential concernments in Germany due to infrasound. Furthermore, a study design was developed for a noise impact study concerning infrasound immissions. Based on these findings, recommendations for the further development of regulations on immission control were made. The study led to the following conclusions:

•   The literature review does not present a coherent picture about the determination and assessment of low frequency sounds. Especially in Germany, there are just a few studies that deal with infrasound. A database was created for further research projects.
•  Survey tools that allow for an initial acoustic description and classification were developed for the acoustic identification and assessment of potential infrasound sources. 
•  The surveys of the immission control authorities of the Länder (German states) and the evaluation of Internet communication on infrasound show a somewhat higher level of noise pollution in Southern Germany. Above all, noise pollution from air-conditioning systems and biogas facilities were mentioned. In the official practice, the Technical Instructions on Noise Abatement and DIN 45680 generally apply in cases of conflicts concerning infrasound. 
• A study design was developed for an interdisciplinary field study and the essential survey contents and sources were defined. 
• The DIN 45680 Measurement and Assessment of Low Frequency Noise Immissions in the Neighbourhood can be used for the assessment of low frequency noise (<100 Hz). The international standard ISO 7196 Acoustics – Frequency-Weighting Characteristic for Infrasound Measurements was especially created for the measurement of infrasound immissions (<20 Hz). The research findings indicate that these standards have deficits with regards to the assessment of infrasound and should be further developed. The current revision of DIN 45680 shows a path for how inconsistencies in the area of low frequency sounds can be rectified.

On page 15 of the document, which is about the state of knowledge about the effects of infrasound on people, we get a really important conclusion:

• Wind energy plants are a frequently studied source of noise in connection with infrasound. The publications show that the measurement of emission and propagation of noise from wind energy plants is plagued by uncertainties that complicate a substantiated noise forecast. With an increasing height of the wind energy plants, the rotor blades cut through an even more varied wind profile. It is therefore questionable whether the emission and propagation models of smaller wind energy plants can be applied to more modern and larger wind farms. This is very unlikely given the theoretical observations of aeroacoustic scientists. Deeper knowledge of the above-mentioned processes would not only be a prerequisite of better immission forecasting, but the acquired knowledge could also provide information for an improved noise reduction of wind energy plants.

On Page 55 we have another important statement:

• The A-evaluation method is seen many times in the literature as unsuitable, in order to correctly assess the the impacts of low frequency sounds. 

The next page (P 56) states how with wind energy there are frequent discrepancies between measured results and those predicted by the models. This is also followed by a section, which explains as to why wind turbines have a more pronounced impact at night, due to the meteorological conditions. Page 110 talks about the harmonics in wind turbine noise found in the range 1 Hz to 8 Hz.

There seems to be quite a bit in this document, maybe one could criticise it for being a bit of a literature review rather than a new study.   However, the main thing is that the German authorities are now clear in that there is a very real issue with low frequency sound and recognise that they both need to update their regulations and complete more research. On the other hand here in Scotland and the UK we are in absolute denial that there is a problem with such low frequency noise.

Winds of Justice, Posted August 2, 2014