As STT followers are acutely aware, wind power is an economic and environmental fraud. Because wind power can only ever be delivered at crazy, random intervals – and, therefore, never “on-demand” – it will never be a substitute for those generation sources which are – ie hydro, nuclear, gas and coal (see our posts here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here).
Were it not for government mandates – backed by a constant and colossal stream of subsidies (see our post here) – wind power generators would never dispatch a single spark to the grid, as they would never find a customer that would accept power delivered 30% of the time (at best) on terms where the vendor can never tell customers just when that power might be delivered – if at all (see our post here).
Ultimately, it’ll be the inherently flawed economics of wind power that will bring the greatest*rort of all time to an end. The policies that created the wind industry are simply unsustainable and, inevitably, will either fail or be scrapped.
* Rort: a fraudulent or dishonest act or practice. “a tax rort”, a wild party. (Australian slang).
It has been a curious experience to watch the news about the “largest climate march in history” from Japan. There weren’t any marches here in Tokyo. Indeed, 350.org, the group that was a lead organizer of the march in New York City, doesn’t even appear to have a presence in Japan.
The energy-related headlines in the Asian newspapers over the past week or so haven’t been about climate change or the march in New York City. They have largely been about nuclear and coal. And therein lies the mismatch between the rhetoric of the marchers and organizers, and the hard realities of the global energy market.
Sure, some 300,000 people showed up in Manhattan to express their desire for action on carbon dioxide emissions. But if the marchers and the organizers behind the march are serious about addressing climate change, then they should be holding a march against coal use. Instead, according to a key observation on the march made by Ed Crooks, a reporter for the Financial Times, the marchers were overwhelmingly demonstrating against, wait for it . . . natural gas.
In a Twitter message, Crooks wrote, “Anti-fracking signs here outnumber anti-coal signs by more than 10:1.” In another Twitter message, Crooks noted that anti-fracking signs were “by far the most popular” and that there were “possibly even more” signs about hydraulic fracturing than there were about climate. Continue reading Climate Rhetoric vs. Reality→
Note from Webmaster: I received the following response by email from Senator Sherrod Brown on September 18th of this year. Less than two months later I found the Senator not quite up on his facts. At least not according to the American Wind Energy Association statistics. There are a number of other interesting figures this decidedly pro wind website has to offer and you can check them out here http://www.awea.org/Resources/state.aspx?ItemNumber=5395.
Their figures concerning jobs read more like this:
Total direct and indirect jobs supported in 2013: 2,001-3,000. State Rank: Ohio ranks 12th for number of wind-related jobs.
Some other little tidbits I also find interesting were the following:
Percentage of Ohio’s electricity provided by wind in 2013: 0.8 percent
Equivalent number of homes Ohio wind farms now power: over 100,000 average Ohioan homes
Wind power is capable of meeting more than 98 percent of the state’s current electricity needs. (at best this statement is delusional, at worst it is disingenuous!)
To think of the millions, yes, billions of dollars spent on wind energy in Ohio and the best we can do is wind’s paultry o.8 percent portion of total production? How did this even become a selling point? And so far as the seemingly impressive reference to 100,000 average Ohio homes being powered by wind farms, well that’s a bit of a misnomer and quite a bit dishonest. Why? Because if your were one of those homes powered by just wind farms (as the statistic seems to suggest), because of wind’s intermittent nature you would be definitely experiencing disruptions in service a.k.a. blackouts; brownouts! Continue reading Sherrod Brown’s Response To My Letter→
Congressman Gibbs has been very ambiguous and non-committed regarding any firm stance on subsidies and the general “out of control ” behavior of Big Wind Developers, especially in our area. I believe you will still see this same thread running through his response to Mrs. Ledet. In a meeting that I had attended in Norwalk, I asked him to comment on our situation and I remember his response having something to do about the “property rights” of land owners. Too bad that at that time I did not have an answer like the one Kevon Martis shared with us…” A man has every right to swing his arms any way he wants to until at some point he makes contact with my nose!” I also wrote to him a couple months back and received the same middle of the road political rhetoric. And, even though he too was invited ( by formal invitation and by me personally) to our informational gathering back in September, he nor anyone from his office was noticeably absent. I believe we should not take for granted that our interests are being served by Congressman Gibbs in the same manner as we have experienced from both State Representative Terry Boose and State Senator Gayle Manning. Please write to Congressman Gibbs and continue to voice your concerns.! Encourage him to just say no to special interests and truly represent us, his constituents. Continue reading Response from Congressman Bob Gibbs to letter written by Marcia Ledet→
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what ‘little evidence’ there is for rising global temperatures points to a ‘natural phenomenon’ within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: “The ocean is not rising significantly.
“The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
“Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
“I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.”
Mr Coleman said he based many of his views on the findings of the NIPCC, a non-governmental international body of scientists aimed at offering an ‘independent second opinion of the evidence reviewed by the IPCC.’He added: “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.”Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.
After Fukushima, Japan gets green boom — and glut
By YURI KAGEYAMA, AP Business Writer
Updated 12:19 am, Thursday, October 30, 2014
TOKYO (AP) — Like other Japanese who were banking on this country’s sweeping move toward clean energy, Junichi Oba is angry.
Oba, a consultant, had hoped to supplement his future retirement income in a guilt-free way and invested $200,000 in a 50 kilowatt solar-panel facility, set up earlier this year in a former rice paddy near his home in southwestern Japan.
But Kyushu Electric Power Co., the utility to which he must sell his electricity, has recently placed on hold all new applications for getting on its grid. Four other utilities have made the same announcement and two more announced partial restrictions.
The utilities say they can’t accommodate the flood of newcomers to the green energy business, throwing in doubt the future of Japan’s up-to-now aggressive strategy on renewable energy. Another challenge is that supplies of power from sources such as solar are not reliable enough or easily stored.
Gov. John Kasich and Senate President Keith Faber made clear in a press release this week that they support mandating renewable energy. Even though energy mandates are costing job creators and consumers.
The senate recently passed S.B. 310, which pauses an Ohio “green energy” mandate. Currently Ohio’s Renewable and Advanced Energy Portfolio Standard (RAEPS) requires electricity suppliers produce at least 2.5 percent of their output using so-called renewable energy.
Very simply, supply must be continuously matched to demand. There is no large-scale storage of electricity on the grid.
What is the difference between base and peak load?
Load is the amount of power in the electrical grid.
Base load is the level that it typically does not go below, that is, the basic amount of electricity that is always required.
Peak load is the daily fluctuation of electricity use. It is usually lowest in the wee hours of the morning and highest in the early evening. It also varies seasonally.
Are base and peak loads provided differently?
Base load is typically provided by large coal-fired and nuclear power stations. They may take days to fire up, and their output does not vary.
Peak load, the variable part of the electrical supply and demand, is provided by more responsive and smaller plants whose output can be quickly ramped up and down or that can even be quickly turned on and off.
How does wind power affect base load?
Wind power has no effect on base load. However, since base load providers can not be ramped down, if wind turbines produce power when there is no or little peak load, the extra electricity has to be dumped. Continue reading FAQ — The Grid→
2 Jun 2014
“Feeding the masses on unicorn ribs”. That was how Walter Russell Mead once poured scorn on Obama’s misbegotten attempts to revive the US economy by creating five million “green jobs.”
Mead was quite right, of course. And there was plenty of evidence to back him up, such as the 2009 report by a Madrid university professor Gabriel Calzada Alvarez that for every expensive “green job” created by government subsidy, 2.2 jobs were destroyed in the real economy.
The Obama administration responded as only the Obama administration knows how: by calling in its left-wing attack dogs. Friendly organisations including George Soros’s Center for American Progress and various well-funded wind industry lobbyists were recruited to monster this unhelpful evidence, which was dismissed for its “lack of rigor.”
It’s in this context we need to view the Environmental Protection Agency’s dispiriting announcement of its latest swingeing assault on US industry – disingenuously billed as a “commonsense plan to cut carbon pollution from power plants.”
The pain will be felt most acutely, of course, in the coal-producing states. But the damage will extend right across America for at least one very simple reason which was perfectly evident five years ago when Obama launched his “green jobs” scheme and is even clearer now: the expensive, unreliable, intermittent renewable energy which Obama and the EPA are trying to promote is no substitute for the cheap, abundant, reliable fossil fuel energy which Obama and the EPA are trying to kill.
The idea that climate science is settled is “misguided,” writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin.
“My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science,” say Koonin.
Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.)*
The crucial question isn’t whether the climate is changing, says Koonin. That is settled. “The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades.”
How long is the wind industry going to be carried on the backs of the American taxpayers?
The taxpayer pays federal taxes. The production tax credit is a tax write-off for big investors in the wind industry. One notable investor admits he uses the PTC to lower his taxes: “We get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them”
Do you think the production tax credit ended Dec. 31, 2013? Wrong. Our politicians loopholed an extension in before the policy ended to protect projects in the works. Still going on until Dec. 31, 2015.
The taxpayer pays state taxes. State taxes help to feed state incentives and tax credits and grants which help to encourage wind farms to build in the state.
Mike McCann, a property appraiser from Chicago, talked about the effects wind farms have on property values.
Mr. McCann is a Certified Real Estate Appraiser from Chicago, IL. He has 30 years of specialized experience in evaluating property damage claims. Since 2005, Mr. McCann has studied the impact of industrial wind farms on nearby property values, testifying as a qualified expert witness as to his findings in the market. Clicking on the link below will allow you to play the video of this event in your favorite media player.
But they deny home owners an easily understandable method to identify how their own homes will be impacted ! Upon closer look at maps provided by Windlab, there are some blatant discrepancies noted. Some of these discrepancies (while not limited to) are as follows:
Click on picture to enlarge
1. Properties that are in the impact area are not being shown 2. Wrong turbines are being listed as affecting house # 272 concerning flicker ( this being the case, how many other errors could there possibly be?). And how does the OPSB correctly assess the information presented to them seeing that none of the board members are from the area being reviewed? These questions are being raised from information contained in Exhibit P of the “Shadow Flicker Report” filed ( 01/24/13) with the OPSB case document section.
Also… see the “OPSB flicker” link below to see the letter sent by Chairman of Greenwich Neighbors United, Kevin Ledet to the Ohio Power Siting Board, as well as to the two non voting members Senators Bill Seitz and Michael Skindell, outlining theses issues. The letter will be opened in your default word processor.
Opposition to handouts for wind energy is growing at the grassroots level, and it appears that lawmakers on Capitol Hill are beginning to take note. Congressman Mike Pompeo recently released a “Dear Colleague letter” with the signatures of over 50 of his House Colleagues, calling on Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McCarthy to reject efforts to extend expired tax incentives for wind energy.
“We offer our full support of the current process undertaken by the House Committee on Ways and Means that will allow the most anti-competitive and economically harmful tax provisions, specifically the wind energy production tax credit (PTC), to expire,” this year’s letter reads.
A valuable resource for those of you interested in writing letters to the editor has just been added. You will find this resource above under the title “Contact Local Newspapers”. The list is covering the area surrounding us here in Greenwich. As always, remember to keep on “target” with 2 or 3 “talking points”. Most all newspapers have a word limit of 250-350 words. Phone numbers are included if you should want to call to verify specifics with that particular newspaper. Also, postal addresses are included if that is the way you would like to correspond.
We have labored to be accurate as of this writing but should you find any discrepancies, hit the “comment” button above this post (just under the title) and leave us a “heads up”. If you can think of any other publications that should be included here, again, hit the “comment”
button and let us know.
Last, but not least, your many voices being heard in our community will help keep the momentum of Greenwich Neighbors United message alive and will be an opportunity for each of us to take advantage of our first amendment rights!