Time for Leadership, Mr. Cameron

Fracking is one million times better than wind energy. Wind is over-priced, intermittent, destroys the environment, makes neighbours sick, divides the community,takes away democratic rights, and does NOTHING to eliminate climate change.

Roger Helmer MEP

I get a bit worried when I find myself agreeing with Cameron, Osborne and Davey (Ed Davey, that is, the Lib-Dem “Energy Secretary”).  It doesn’t happen very often.  But it they seem to be right on shale gas.

The Tory Party, like other parties, has been somewhat taken aback by the concerns, indeed outright opposition of Middle England, as represented by the good people of Balcombe in Sussex, to a rather small scale drilling project adjacent to their village.  Taken aback, too, by the way that the “usual suspects” of opposition to almost any infrastructure development, the Swampies of this world, have descended on Balcombe, and have been welcomed (albeit with some understandable trepidation) by local residents.  This is doubly bizarre, since the particular well in Balcombe is for conventional oil, not fracking, and is no different from a number of similar wells that are operating in the county without…

View original post 720 more words

Angus “The Enforcer” Taylor – collars another pro-wind-power-punk

More proof of the futility of the windscam.


The adage that you can’t keep a good man down applies in spades to Angus “The Enforcer” Taylor.

The wind weasels have been running a campaign to undermine Angus – including laughable claims made in the Fin Review last week that he’d been privately “slapped down” by energy policy lightweights, Greg Hunt and Ian “Enron” Macfarlane. Nice try – boys.

The wind industry is also trying to slam Angus as “anti-renewable” – like it’s a “crime against humanity”.  No – Angus isn’t “anti-renewable” just “anti-intermittent, unreliable, heavily subsidised WIND POWER”.  On the contrary, here he is at the National Rally setting out how REAL base-load renewable generation runs through his veins :



And a greentard named Ferrara also tried taking a few pot shots at Angus, but clean missed his mark.  Oops….

Unfazed  – The Enforcer calmly drew his .44 Magnum and returned fire . *. *. *…

View original post 1,003 more words

Renewable’s Cost

August 13, 2013 – Colin Gibson – Scottland – Scotsman.com

 May I correct this shortcoming using data from my own studies, since all costs will have to be paid by customers?

Wind generation adds a number of extra costs for customers because of its geographical location in the north of Great Britain, and its intermittency.

The extra costs comprise additional transmission circuits, extra losses, costs of flexing and standby of thermal or hydro plant to accommodate intermittency, and capital costs of back-up gas turbines to contain the risk to security of supply.

Compared with an optimum plant mix of gas turbines and nuclear, the proposed 28GW of wind generation will cost the 25 million Great Britain households about £16 billion per annum extra, which will amount to £725 per annum per household.

If only two-thirds, say, of GB wind was connected to a Scottish system, and that part of the £16bn had to be shared between 2.5 million Scottish households the costs would be unbearable, and English and Welsh customers would be under no obligation to continue paying these large subsidies.

The suggestion of Scottish Renewables to add further to these costs by providing more pumped storage and interconnection capacity does not seem reasonable unless, of course, the wind companies are prepared to pick up the costs.

The turn-round efficiency of pumped storage (including transmission) would only be about 70 per cent; and interconnection would incur significant transmission and conversion losses.

The country needs to see the results of properly structured and supervised Total Power System Cost studies to provide transparency on these issues. It would appear that Sir Donald has good reason to express his concerns.

Colin Gibson

National Grid Group



See Article at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/renewables-cost-1-3041899

Comments by Ostrander Point ERT presenter / expert

CCSAGE Naturally Green

[Following is a comment (slightly edited) submitted to the Whig Standard recently by Ian Dubin, who was qualified as a presenter and expert witness in the Ostrander Point ERT appeal. He is a civil / geotechnical engineer with additional qualifications in law and environmental impact assessment, and with decades of experience in the field of environmental protection.]

I was very pleased to see the Ostrander Point Environmental Review Tribunal Appeal decision. I am especially happy that my small contribution apparently helped the ERT to determine that the proposed Industrial Wind Energy project will cause unacceptable harm to the natural environment, in particular the Provincially threatened Blanding’s Turtle. This is a milestone decision – and I can only hope it helps open the door to more successful appeals against Industrial Wind Energy in Ontario.

However, this is a very narrow victory and I was less pleased that appeal evidence of other…

View original post 1,107 more words

PPEC News: APPEC Appeals ERT Decision on Human Health

Fellow APPEC Members:

On August 2 APPEC filed a Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court of Ontario challenging the Environmental Review Tribunal’s decision on human health.  Due to the long weekend the board delayed issuing the news release below until today.

The grounds for appeal of all ERT decisions are perceived errors in law.  APPEC’s Notice (attached) states:  “ The Tribunal erred in law and/or acted unreasonably by failing to apply the appropriate standard of proof in assessing the Appellant’s evidence, and thereby misinterpreting and misapplying the criteria established under section 145.2.1(2)(a) of the EPA.”  Specifically, it erred in finding that that the evidence did not establish a causal link between wind turbines and either direct or indirect serious harm to human health at the 40 dBA limit or at 550-m setbacks.

Despite filing an appeal by the statutory deadline, the board continues to review the grounds because this is another expensive legal undertaking and carries with it the liability for costs.  Gilead Power, in its Notice of Appeal, is seeking costs from the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists.  The APPEC board therefore wants to be fairly certain of the potential for a positive outcome and especially of APPEC’s capability to oppose all wind development in the County.   Since an appeal on health applies to every Ontario wind project, it is part of APPEC’s strategy in fighting wpd.

The next stage of the appeal process requires APPEC to clarify its legal arguments within 30 days.  During this time the board will be consulting further with our lawyer as well as watching the progress of other relevant Ontario legal cases, two of which involve a Canadian Charter of Human Rights challenge.

In making a decision to proceed with the appeal the board would find it useful to hear from APPEC members.  Please reply with your own views this week so the board can gauge the extent of member support.


Henri Garand

Chair, APPEC


  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                          August 6, 2013



                   Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County appeals Environmental Tribunal Decision on health

Picton, Ontario/ The Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County (APPEC) announced today they have filed an Appeal to the Ontario Divisional Court of the recent Environmental Review Tribunal Decision (ERT) on serious harm posed to human health by a wind turbine development at Ostrander Point, in Prince Edward County.

According to APPEC legal counsel, Eric Gillespie, this Appeal is based on alleged errors in law found in the ERT July 3, 2013 Decision on APPEC’s Appeal of the Renewable Energy Approval issued to Gilead Power by the Ministry of the Environment.



For more information please contact:  Ian Hanna  (416) 988-4007


Wind Energy is Not Green, It’s Just Energy

May 28, 2013 – Paul Crowe

Wind energy presents a troubling issue for environmentalists. A true environmentalist is expected to support certain things, yet they are split on this issue. It’s what happens if you label something “green” instead of examining it carefully with serious and open questions. It also presents an opportunity for everyone to see you don’t have to think like a group, you can have a healthy concern for the environment without accepting some set list of beliefs that all environmentalists supposedly share. This may be the best thing that has happened for a very long time to advance clear thinking about the environment and it may open up a whole new set of ideas and solutions where people sometimes at odds can begin to agree. Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Wind Energy is Not Green, It’s Just Energy.

Google & Hangout on Wind Energy in America August 8th 3pm ET

“Join us Thursday, August 8, at 3 pm ET for a Google+ Hangout on wind energy in America. During the Hangout, you’ll have the opportunity to ask experts from across the industry anything you want about the wind industry — from the status of offshore wind projects to projections for industry growth to the logistics for setting up your own small turbine to power your home. For the first time ever, we’re also giving you the opportunity to join our Hangout on Air live and ask your wind energy questions directly to our panelists. 

For a chance to be featured during the live discussion, submit your questions by emailing newmedia@hq.doe.gov, posting a comment on the Energy Department’s Facebook or Google+ page, or tweeting @ENERGY using #AskEnergy.”


Wind Farms: Big polluters that produce little electricity : The Canadian National Newspaper

A recent study by Civitas, The Institute for the Study of Civil Society, points out that wind farms actually produces more CO2 and related pollutants than would be used, if wind turbines were left running on grid power at all times.

The necessity of constantly turning on wind turbines when the wind is favourable, and off when the velocity is too high, along with the grid power necessary to maintain them, actually causes the operation of wind farms to produce more pollution than if the turbines used the grid to operate constantly.

Each time the grid is used to start turbines on a wind farm, a surge of electricity is needed to power up the fossil fuel station where the power originates. Thus, more CO2 and pollution is released into the atmosphere than there would normally be if the wind turbines either operated fully on the grid or were removed from it altogether.

Ruth Lea, author of the Civitas report states that by having to constantly switch on and off power from the grid to operate and maintain wind turbines, drastically increases CO2 and pollution levels above that, which would be produced if the turbines were always on grid power. They go on to say wind turbines only produce energy around 30% of the time, in a small window when the wind is favorable for operation. Thus, the other 60% is being supplied by the grid. Continue reading at:

Wind Farms: Big polluters that produce little electricity : The Canadian National Newspaper.

Protecting our children from Industrial Wind Power Emissions is our first priority!

%d bloggers like this: