“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.