· Home
· Advertising
· Contact Us
· FAQ
· Recommend Us
· Topics
· Links
| DONATIONS |
If you wish to support our efforts, please make an online payment to Rangitikei Guardians Inc., BNZ account number 02-0760-0008304-83
or send a cheque made out to Rangitikei Guardians Inc. to our secretary:
Gill Duncan, Hiwera, RD3,
Taihape 4793
| | |
Recommended Reading
Sound, Noise, Flicker and the Human Perception of Wind Farm Activity - Atkinson and Rapley.
The explosion of wind farms worldwide has brought with it a rising tide of resistance from residents near them. Complaints about noise and flicker, as well as health problems such as sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, anxiety and depression, are all strikingly similar. Developers are advised by experts that the noise levels are virtually undetectable and so low that sound cannot directly cause these symptoms and that these people are naturally anxious.
Why is there such a disparity between the perception of the issue from the two groups? Part of the problem is that the physics of sound and the human perception of noise are still not well understood by many. There is a great difference between being able to measure something and a person's perception of it and the variation between individuals is never well accounted for by a statistical mean. This can split communities into the affected and the unaffected, the latter group who, due to no fault of their own, cannot understand the views of those who complain. Yet, for those adversely affected by the wind farm placement, there is no doubt about the intrusion into their lives.
This Review brings together the many threads that are needed to explain these issues as a series of Papers from experts dealing with issues of human perception of wind farm noise and flicker. The intent is to make this material accessible to the layman, so many of the papers have extended introductions to the subject areas.
|
|
|
"Huge amounts of tax payers money for scant environmental and electrical benefit make them a scam.
Wind-farms are inefficient, destroy the landscape and far more could be achieved through energy efficiency. If you lagged the roofs of 500 homes it would have the effect of putting up one turbine.
They can only work 30% of the time at very best, in Denmark it is only 17%.
We have to keep other stations running, spinning in reserve, inefficiently pouring out carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide.
These turbines are 22 storeys high put on hills where everyone can see them.
They kill bats and birds and need 1,000 tonnes of concrete as well as a road infrastructure.
It beggars belief that some environmental groups can say they are 'green'."
__Professor David Bellamy
|
|
|
| |
| Best viewed with Firefox
|
|
With the right incentives, New Zealand could lead the world in microgeneration and self-sufficiency.
We could champion renewable schemes which do not depend on fickle Nature, but utilise dependable base-load resources.
We could retain the unspoiled landscapes as we know and admire them for generations ahead.
We could learn lessons from the ugly mistakes of other countries, not repeat them; and we should reclaim the energy industry as an essential service, like health and education, and dissolve the present subdivided, competitive format which has failed so spectacularly, to the detriment of all consumers.
|
|
|
| Wednesday, March 31 | | · | Mighty River rejects 35 decibel cap near turbines |
| Friday, March 19 | | · | Engineers worried at supply security with wind power |
| Friday, March 12 | | · | Nonsense on stilts |
| Friday, March 05 | | · | A Few More Inconvenient Truths |
| Wednesday, March 03 | | · | The brewing tempest over wind power |
| Friday, February 26 | | · | Danes admit : windpower is "a terribly expensive disaster" |
| Thursday, February 11 | | · | Grand-scale graffiti |
| Wednesday, December 09 | | · | WITH CLIMATEGATE, IS THE TIDE FINALLY TURNING IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA? |
| Tuesday, September 29 | | · | International protest march to save world-famous Mont-Saint-Michel from windfarm |
| Tuesday, September 01 | | · | Water, Water Everywhere But Not a Drop to Drink |
| Sunday, August 30 | | · | Just How Effective is a Wind Farm Really? |
| Wednesday, August 26 | | · | A Letter From the Greens |
| Friday, August 07 | | · | Yeah, right..... |
| Wednesday, August 05 | | · | W.H.O. WARNING: WIND TURBINE NOISE CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH |
| · | Makara and the Meridian "Noise Torture" |
| Monday, August 03 | | · | An Open Letter. |
| · | Oops..... |
| · | Death by turbine - killing off our only native mammal. |
| Monday, July 27 | | · | The Great Global Warming Swindle |
| · | The Kyoto Protocol – What every NZer should know |
| Friday, July 10 | | · | FINAL REPORT REGARDING VESTAS WIND TURBINE COLLAPSE – FEBRUARY 22 2008. |
| · | Wind Farms in NZ can kill Endangered Birds and Bats with Relative Impunity |
| Thursday, July 09 | | · | RESCUING CLIMATE POLICY FROM IMMINENT FAILURE |
| Wednesday, July 08 | | · | International expert urges new government to encourage green energy |
| Tuesday, July 07 | | · | THE SCAM OF EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEMES - THE REAL COST OF CO2 REDUCTION IN EUROPE |
| · | NZ on wrong track with energy strategy |
| Monday, July 06 | | · | Getting off the grid - how can you and why would you? |
| Saturday, July 04 | | · | Wind farm decision brings grief |
| Tuesday, June 30 | | · | MAUI GAS – DYING PREMATURELY AT 30 YEARS OF AGE – COULD HAVE LIVED FOR CENTURIES |
| Monday, June 29 | | · | SOLAR POWER VERSUS WIND POWER |
Older Articles
We have received
124021
page views since
21 June 2009
There are currently
3
visitors online. |
|
Incredibly, no mechanism was ever envisaged actually to measure emissions cuts: renewables suppliers receive financial rewards whether their technology increases or decreases emissions and whether or not targets are met. Aggressive marketing has since made "wind power" all but synonymous with "renewables".
There are serious doubts about its ability significantly to reduce emissions. Claims are often made that every megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity generated from the wind cuts the equivalent CO2 pollution created by generating a MWh from a coal– or gas-fired power station. This is a fallacy.
-- Sir Donald Miller, former Chairman of Scottish Power
|
|
|
Meridian refuses to conduct adequate pre-construction noise monitoring over every season and a range of times during the day, so that baseline noise is known. You can understand why not, particularly when in the hearing decision for Central Wind they acknowledge that profit, not the national interest, is driving this project.
|
|
Wind farms dont live up to the hype that they are an environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source, and the effects they can have on their neighbours are so serious it means they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. Their claims are fraudulent.
__ Peter McGauran, Australian Federal Agriculture Minister, former Minister for Science
|
|
With the right subsidies, wind could become a viable energy source. And, with the right subsidies, gasoline could be made free, and 2-carat diamonds could be given away in cereal boxes. How is it that wind, with a 4000-year head start, is such a small player in the energy scene? Could it be — just possibly — that the answer has something to do with physics instead of economics and politics?
__ Dr. Howard Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut
|
|
The dream of environmentally friendly energy has turned into highly subsidised destruction of the countryside.
__Germany magazine Der Spiegel
|
|
Wind farms are "environmentally damaging money wasters whose large scale use increases power demand. The New Age dream of a world operated by wind farms will remain a dream because the laws of physics do not allow it in an industrialised world. If wind power were economic then oil tankers would be sailing ships".
__Dr. Richard Courtney, internationally recognised expert on Energy and climate change
|
|
Comparing 425 ft. tall wind turbines to power line poles demonstrates the utter stupidity and arrogance of the speaker. I have never seen a power pole move. They just stand there. The turbines have blades that look like knives slashing at the sky (and at whatever hapless creature that may be in the air space). A video with several in motion in the same scene gives the impression of violent chaos. They are not like serene, graceful ballerinas. At the very least, your eye is naturally drawn to them by their motion that resembles something waving its arms to get your attention. We do not want to see them. We do not want to look at them; but it is impossible to ignore them.
__Joan Kalso
|
|
We are doing whatever we feel we can to stop development until such time as the medical concerns are (studied). We also have concerns with minimum distance separations-- we are aware some of the units could fail and cases where the blades turn so fast they hit the base of the tower and cause it to lose structural integrity. Weve also heard about ice chunks falling off the blades in winter. We didnt initially support the (not-in-my-backyard) people, but maybe theres a valid reason why they do not want it in their backyards.
__ John Van Dorp, President Oxford County Federation of Agriculture, Ontario Canada
|
|
Yesterday the Te Apiti wind farm had peak generation of approximately 30 MW. Installed wind turbine capacity at Te Apiti is 90 MW. Average wind generation for the whole day from Te Apiti was approximately 12 MW. Just when we need as much supply as possible to cover known outages and hence put pressure on spot prices, wind has been missing.
__Ralph Matthes, Executive Director of the Major Electricity Users Group (MEUG)
|
|
A single 555-megawatt gas-fired power plant in California generates more electricity in a year than do all 13,000 of the states wind turbines. The gas-fired plant sits atop a mere 15 acres. The 300-foot-tall windmills impact over a hundred thousand acres to provide expensive, intermittent, insufficient energy
__L. M. Schwartz
|
|
I have studied the debate, arguments and statistics and come to the personal conclusion that wind farms divide communities, ruin landscapes, affect tourism, make a minimal contribution to our energy needs and a negligible contribution towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The landowner and developer are enriched, while the consumer is impoverished by higher energy costs. Turbines are ugly, noisy and completely out of place in our beautiful, historic landscape.
-- Duke of Northumberland
|
|
If wind power is the answer, then the question must be "How can we do the most environmental damage, with the least results and for the most cost"?
-- Sheri Kimbrough
|
|
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell
|
|
The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one.
-- Adolf Hitler
|
|
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got til it's gone.
-- Joni Mitchell
|
|
|
|
|
INDUSTRIAL WIND ENERGY: WHAT A RACKET!
Rangitikei Guardians Inc - a group of concerned New Zealanders and residents of the North Island’s Central Plateau - has developed this website to inform and help educate the wider community about the impact of industrial wind schemes and the need to balance energy generation developments from renewable sources with NZ’s most valuable resource: landscape and natural beauty.
Through extensive research the fallacy of industrial wind generation being a carbon neutral renewable resource has become clearly evident. Our aim is to help protect further iconic rural landscapes of New Zealand from the despoilation of the countryside which we now face. The decision to allow a 52 x 135m turbine industrial wind complex on the Hihitahi Plateau, east of Taihape and Waiouru will see a 47 square kilometer industrial eyesore overlooking the dual World Heritage Tongariro National Park. It will be seen from the gateways to this important tourism and ecological area of New Zealand, as well as from Mt Ruapehu itself.
Meridian Energy Ltd, a state owned enterprise of the NZ Government had to get discretionary approval under the Resource Management Act to build Project Central Wind, because it’s consent applications did not meet the planning requirements of the two local authorities and the regional authority.
Part of the proposed wind project is in the Department of Conservation's Moawhango Ecological District. It is home to a number of endangered and threatened flora and fauna including the native falcon, which is nationally vulnerable and internationally acknowledged as being endangered. Kaka and native bats will also be under threat. Meridian's own bird experts admit that up to 30% of falcons' hunting flights within the wind farm site, will be amongst the rotor arcs of 156 turbine blades. It is also an area of national geological interest, containing the Moawhango Iti limestone karst. It is crisscrossed by ancient pre European track ways and contains sacred Urupa (Maori burial sites). Meridian seems to have chosen this site largely because it is close to the national electricity grid. It’s own engineering experts deemed that the site is not an ideal wind resource, due to the distance from the coast and the surface roughness of the surrounding area. It’s capacity factor is only 36%.
The Guardians as a society, submitted against the consent application along with individual members, other locals of the Taihape area, and others from afar.
Of all the submissions received 85% of local submitters opposed the application. Submitters from afar, mainly from dense urban areas submitted 85% in support! Typical of the responses from afar was that the project would be sited “not in the face of urban NZ.” In other words, not in my back yard, even though it is the urban areas that most need the electricity.
The Guardians are a relatively small group in a small rurally based community. Our appeal against the decision to to allow Project Central Wind in the NZ Environment Court, could never win against the legislative might and unlimited financial resources of the state and its agencies. Sadly we lost the initial objections of the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Defence and local Iwi (Maori tribes) because financial treating is allowed in New Zealand, and government organisations can buy off opposition to projects that their masters claim are in the "national interest". In some countries such treating would be considered a corrupt practice.
The New Zealand Government has recently changed the rules on those ‘renewable energy’ projects, which they decide are in "the national interest". The Minister for the Environment can now refer such projects directly to the Environment Court, with no local government hearing stage. Many new applications for wind generation projects will go ahead now without any opposition, because the cost is just too high for ordinary folk to fight them in the Environment Court. Lawyers and Barristers will be the biggest winners in this new scenario; Democracy and New Zealand's clean green image will be the biggest losers. The fact that humans are also part of the environment is overlooked in this draconian approach.
New Zealand households have amongst the highest use of electricity in the world. Despite this we have no integrated power policy. The government pays only lip service to energy efficiency and conservation. It has muzzled dissent on emissions trading schemes and climate change through its state owned media, and now has given itself the legislative power to develop four times more wind farms than we currently need, even without reducing our electricity use. And sadly, where local authorities in New Zealand have boldly asserted “no wind farms on our patch” they now know they cannot prevent the might of the state from overriding them, in the supposed “national interest”. Ratepayers in small financially struggling local bodies like ours simply cannot fight this scourge.
By closing down debate about facts surrounding Kyoto (an Enron initiative by Ken Lay, et al); supposed global warming (based on readings from only about 100 weather stations which show areas of warming); and the despoilation of New Zealand’s iconic landscapes (international tourists don’t come here to see wind farms), a misinformed New Zealand public believes what the State and other lazy media feeds it about renewable energy from wind. As you will find if you read more from Disturbines, the only renewable part of an industrial wind complex is the wind itself.
Our aim is to provide other sides to this story. Here you will find professional data and informed opinions about why wind is the most unreliable and expensive source of electricity; why industrial scale wind energy plants simply aren't green, and can be bad for your health; and what the real renewable alternatives are.
We are continuing our fight by investigating pre-construction noise testing – something that Meridian Energy and the other power companies refuse to undertake – giving them the upper hand when local residents subsequently complain about the noise pollution from wind generators. We still need your financial help with this. See the red panel on the left for how you can donate.
Thank you.
|
|
Allen Haas, a farmer the Town of Malone, Fond du Lac County filed these comments with the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, docket # 1-AC-231 24th August, 2010.
I have three wind turbines on my property and get $4,000 for each one. It`s been 2 years now with the turbines and everyone in the community is irritable and short, they snap back. The best of friends for 35 years, but everyone just snaps. People are not really mad directly at the wind turbines or even know what they are mad about, they`re just mad, aggressive.
The closest one to my house is 3,000 feet away - way too close. You don't get sleep at night because they roar like at an airport. I get shadow flicker in my house, but down in the village of Johnsburg where those are about another 1,500 feet away from the turbines - oh probably 4,500 feet total those blades are throwing shadows right over all the house roof tops in entire village .....that`s really bad. All of our tv's got knocked out too. I can only get local channels when the turbine is turned in a certain direction. 97% of the time, we got no reception. There is no mitigation either.
I go to the doctor and now I`m on a lot of different medications. I`ve been to the hospital a couple of times in the past two years with chest pains. And they just can't figure out what it is, but now we`re all being diagnosed with wind turbine syndrome. And I sure got it.. It definitely causes depression. Memory loss is the worse issue. I see it so bad in myself and especially my parents who are older. But they at the point where they just don`t care anymore because there`s nothing they can do anyhow. My dad is a totally different person since these things went up. He stays in bed all day now. Even if he does get up to eat, he just goes back to bed. There is no will anymore. I ask the doctor- how are they doing this to us? He just says he doesn't know..
WE energies called today and they are going to be spraying for weeds, so I asked if there were any more plans for windmills? They said, they don't know. I told em... "This area is completely destroyed, it would make more sense to just put a few up around here as opposed to destroying the rest of the state."
I got turbines and the money doesn't pay off in the end. I`ve gotta spend more on cutting around those things and all them cables. It has destroyed my farmland.
I feel really bad for the folks who don`t have contracts cause they`re still all stuck. Even if a realtor wants to sell a place, the first question a buyer asks is if there are windmills in the area. They just hang up.
They should be paying everyone around who is affected, that way - everyone who wants to move could get out and move. So many want to move and leave, but they can't sell their property. The developers deny devaluation, but it`s real... the ones without contracts lost half the value of their property and can't move because they have no money, still trying to pay off their homes. At least if you got contracts and enough windmills, you can move out.
It turned out to be a real shocker. This whole thing is not right, it should not be done in small communities, but you know, these are just simple country folk who do just don`t say anything. Even if it`s bad, they just go along with it cause what else are they supposed to do? If I could write out a check from all the money they gave me and give it back, wake up tomorrow morning and all the turbines be gone, that'd be the best thing that ever happened to me.
I affirm that these comments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
|
October 25, 2007
Summary:
This compelling message appeared in an advertisement run in the October 25, 2007 issue of the Times-Journal newspaper in Wisconsin. A .pdf copy of the ad can be accessed by clicking here. IWA has authenticated this ad. It was written by Don Bangart of Chilton, Wisconsin following a 2 hour interview with a landowner in Northeast Fond du Lac County. The landowner, who wishes to remain anonymous, approved the text for publication.
Now each morning when I awake, I pray and then ask myself, "What have I done?"
I am involved with the BlueSky/Greenfield wind turbine project in N.E. Fond du Lac County. I am also a successful farmer who cherishes his land. My father taught me how to farm, to be a steward of my fields, and by doing so, produce far better crop production. As I view this year's crops, my eyes feast on a most bountiful supply of corn and soybeans. And then my eyes focus again on the trenches and road scars leading to the turbine foundations. What have I done?
In 2003, the wind energy company made their first contacts with us. A $2000 "incentive" started the process of winning us over, a few of us at a time. The city salesman would throw out their nets, like fishermen trawling for fish. Their incentive "gift" lured some of us in at first. Then the salesmen would leave and let us talk with other farmers. When the corporate salesmen returned, there would be more of us ready to sign up; farmers had heard about the money to be made. Perhaps because we were successful farmers, we were the leaders and their best salesman. What have I done?
Sometime in 2004 or 2005, we signed $4000.00 turbine contracts allowing them to "lease" our land for their needs. Our leases favored the company, but what did we know back then? Nobody knew what we were doing. Nobody realized all the changes that would occur over which we would have no control. How often my friends and I have made that statement! What have I done?
I watched stakes being driven in the fields and men using GPS monitors to place markers here and there. When the cats and graders started tearing 22 foot wide roads into my fields, the physical changes started to impact not only me and my family, but unfortunately, my dear friends and neighbors. Later, a 4 foot deep by 2 foot wide trench started diagonally across my field. A field already divided by their road was now being divided again by the cables running to a substation. It was now making one large field into 4 smaller, irregularly shaped plots. Other turbine hosts also complained about their fields being subdivided or multi cable trenches requiring more lands. Roads were cut in using anywhere from 1000 feet to over a ½ mile of land to connect necessary locations. We soon realized that the company places roads and trenches where they will benefit the company most, not the land owner. One neighbor's access road is right next to some of his out buildings. Another right next to his fence line. What have I done?
At a wind company dinner presented for the farmers hosting the turbines, we were repeatedly told - nicely and indirectly - to stay away from the company work sites once they start. I watch as my friends faces showed the same concern as I had, but none of us spoke out. Months later, when I approached a crew putting in lines where they promised me they definitely would not go, a representative told me I could not be here. He insisted that I leave. The line went in. The company had the right. I had signed the lease. What have I done?
Grumbling started almost immediately after we agreed to a 2% yearly increase on our 30 year lease contracts. Some felt we should have held out for 10%. What farmer would lock in the price of corn over the next 5 years, yet alone lock one in at 2% yearly for 30 years? Then rumors leaked that other farmers had received higher yearly rates, so now contracts varied. The fast talking city sales folk had successfully delivered their plan. Without regard for our land, we were allowing them to come in and spoil it. All of the rocks we labored so hard to pick in our youth were replaced in a few hours by miles of roads packed hard with 10 inches of large breaker rock. Costly tiling we installed to improve drainage had now been cut into pieces by company trenching machines. What have I done?
Each night, a security team rides down our roads checking the foundation sites. They are checking for vandals and thieves. Once, when I had ventured with guests to show them foundation work, security stopped us and asked me, standing on my own property, what I was doing there. What have I done?
Now, at social functions, we can clearly see the huge division this has created among community members. Suddenly, there are strong-sided discussions and heated words between friends and, yes, between relatives about wind turbines. Perhaps this is a greater consequence than the harm caused to my land! Life is short and my friendships precious. What have I done?
I tried, as did some of the other farmers, to get out of our contracts, but we had signed a binding contract and a contract is a contract. If you are considering placing wind turbines on your property, I strongly recommend that you please reconsider. Study the issues. Think of all the harm versus benefits to your land and, in the future, to your children's land by allowing companies to lease your land for turbines.
WHAT HAVE I DONE?
PLEASE DO NOT DO WHAT I HAVE DONE!
Courtesy of Windaction.Org
|
|
Revisit noise standards - academics
|
By PAUL GORMAN - The Press
Last updated 05:00 18/08/2010
Noise standards paving the way for billion-dollar wind-farm developments across the country are biased and should be ripped up, academics say.
Critics have panned the latest New Zealand standard on wind-farm noise as a "fait accompli", written by a Standards New Zealand committee, dominated by industry members, that claimed to have reached consensus.
They say the code, partly funded by the New Zealand Wind Energy Association, fails to address claimed health effects from noise and vibration from wind turbines and does nothing to avert likely clashes between communities and the industry.
"The standard is industry-funded and I'm afraid it comes down to who pays the piper calls the tune," one academic said.
However, committee chairman Stephen Chiles , a Meridian Energy consultant, said there was no evidence of a link between wind turbines and health, and the "emotional side" of the debate was "not particularly relevant to the committee".
On Monday, the High Court gave Meridian hope that its planned Project Hayes wind farm in Central Otago, the largest in the southern hemisphere, may still go ahead by allowing its appeal against an Environment Court ruling throwing out its consents.
Massey University acoustics professor and committee member Philip Dickinson said the standard, and those elsewhere in the world, appeared to be based on "scientific nonsense".
"One can only come to the conclusion that the concept is mainly a business promotion and public relations exercise which has been devised to appear to be taking into consideration the health and welfare of local residents but is designed to get the most out of the investment for the cheapest outlay, without causing the community to take serious legal action against the developer and territorial authority," he said.
Dickinson voted against the new standard. In previously confidential voting papers released under the Official Information Act, he slammed it as "totally unacceptable" and said it contained "arrogant and misinformed" and "totally false" information.
"I believe the standard was a fait accompli. No attempt was made to obtain a compromise between the opposing views, as would be a prime consideration for any standards committee," he said.
AUT University public health senior lecturer Daniel Shepherd wants Standards New Zealand to start again and develop two wind-farm noise codes – one for turbine noise and the other for the potential health effects from the noise.
Health expertise had clearly been under-represented on the committee in favour of acoustics and industry members and consultants, he said.
Chiles said the group had been concerned about health effects and included a Ministry of Health representative.
"It's an evidence-based process, not a political process. The emotional side of it is not particularly relevant to the committee," he said.
|
|
Family displaced by wind turbine noise
|
From Paul, whose family has been displaced by wind turbine noise.
"Dr David Black speaking for the applicant, Motorimu Wind Farm Limited, at its hearing for consent to construct the Motorimu industrial project, arrogantly dismissed objections to wind farm noise. In effect he said that people who couldn't stand wind farm noise would move away and be replaced by those he could. He referred to this as a process of "extinction".
We unfortunately found that the block of land which we owned, and had to eventually sell at a give away price, was right under the proposed Turitea wind farm and close to Motorimu. The block, residential rural, was identified as basically unlivable. We eventually left Palmerston North and moved to Sydney.
This has caused us great financial hardship. We are still
involved in the Turitea fight and may one day move back to buy another small block. But the lives of other small block owners will also be in ruins if the Turitea disaster goes ahead. We are fairly confident though, that what we have done is enough to either stop it, or have it so modified that it is never built."
|
|
Vulture struck by wind turbine
|
Click the picture to watch the video in a new window.
|
|
Our life with DeKalb wind turbines
|
Published in Windaction.org
May 31, 2010 by David & Stephanie Hulthen
Location:
DeKalb County, Illinois is near Chicago. In fact, many people who live in DeKalb work in the City. In 2009, NextERA, formerly known as FPL Energy and one of the largest wind developers in the United States, pushed through approval of its 151-turbine facility spanning the counties of Lee and DeKalb. The residents of DeKalb fought the development; an appeal of the approval order was filed and still pending in the Courts. Nonetheless, NextERA proceeded to construct and commission the project. The fears of the residents have become reality. Below is a sample of what a family in DeKalb County is now experiencing -- and they are not alone.
Our home in rural DeKalb County, IL is where we wanted to stay for good.
We have put so much into our home to make it a place where we would love to live and raise our children, and unfortunately we are being forced to live differently.
We have been bullied by a large industrial wind company (NextEra Energy, a subsidiary of Florida Power and Light (FPL) and sold-out by the DeKalb County Board.
FPL told residents that these wind turbines only "sound like a refrigerator." Well, we have found that this is not the case.
Often times our yard sounds like an airport. We hear and feel the low frequency sound on our property as well as in our home. We are bothered by the noise, whistling, contant swirling movement, and shadow flicker.
Someone needs to speak up. These industrial wind turbines should not be built close to homes. They should be at least a mile away to avoid these issues. We have 13 within a mile. The closest 2 are 1,400 feet away.
Sound is horrible today (May 23, 2010):
It's Sunday afternoon, 89 degrees, winds SSW at 17mph.
The sound is horrible today and turbine number 30 is whistling again. We were outside on the front porch and had to come in because of the noise. Sitting at the computer now typing this out and can still hear the sound through the walls. It is so upsetting to our family that this is happening. We're going to have to move someday.
We are being forced to move from our dream home that we designed and built (with our own hands), the home we brought all our babies home from the hospital, the home that is close to our family/friends/and neighbors, the home where we have created such great family memories, the home that is close to a wonderful school where we volunteer and our children attend....HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY PUT A PRICE ON OUR HOME?
We wish the turbines could just be turned off. We could deal with what they look like, just turn them off. We reported this disturbance to the Next Era hotline and the planning and zoning office of DeKalb county. This is a noise that NO ONE should have to live with. It's heartbreaking that the wind industry misleads voting members in saying that turbines don't affect people.
We are proof that they do! Wind companies who are reading this, please tell the truth in your presentations to county board members, landowners, residents, etc... We agree, yes they can sound like a light swishing, babbling brooke, a refrigerator as you claim. But, the reality is that they don't always sound like that. Most of the time they sound like jet plane engines in your yard and in your home. The quality of sound and low frequency hum is a nuissance that no one should live with. As a side note....say they did sound like a refrigerator all the time (which they don't)....Who would want to sleep next to their refrigerator, bike and walk next to one, have a refrigerator running next to you as you push your child on the swingset, listen to a refrigerator as you sit on the front porch...and so on. That would be a nuissance....to ANYONE!
These turbines are way too close to homes.
We are calling for the wind companies to be honest in their presentations to county board members, planning and zoning committees, residents, landowners, etc. We heard 2 presentations last week from 2 different wind companies claiming the same thing...very minimal sound. Live with them for a month and you will know what we're talking about!
Editor's note: Windaction.org encourages you to visit the Hulthen's blog pages for more information.
Web link: http://lifewithdekalbturbines.blogspot.com/2010_04...
|
Posted July 28, 2010 on Windaction.org
Acciona Energy's Waubra wind farm, located in western Victoria, Australia is the largest operating wind facility in the southern hemisphere. The site's 128 turbines (192 megawatts installed) started generating electricity in Spring 2009 and were fully energized by that July.
Within weeks of the towers first being turned on, Noel Dean began suffering adverse health effects. Australian newspapers quoted Dean this way: "I was waking up two days in a row with headaches, I'd have to take Panadol but they'd be gone by dinner time. When the wind is blowing north I got a thumping headache, like someone belted me over the head with a plank of wood and I didn't know whether to go to the hospital or what to do. You couldn't really work." Other symptoms he and his wife experienced included general malaise, nausea, sleeplessness and general uneasiness.
By July, the Deans had packed up and left their farm.
Around the same time, an investigation of wind farm noise complaints was underway in New Zealand. Residents living near the towers in New Zealand were filing complaints of sleep disturbance, annoyance, anxiety and nausea. As more people in both Australia and New Zealand became comfortable in talking about their health concerns a picture began to emerge that researchers found unusual. There were compelling similarities between experiences in two totally different countries, totally different environments and totally different turbines.
Audible wind farm sound and consequential sleep disturbance, annoyance and anxiety responses were similar for people in both countries. These effects were also experienced even under situations of near inaudible wind turbine sound.
The concerns of the Deans and others living within 3500 meters of operational wind farms triggered more than twelve months of intensive study by a group of 4 qualified researchers.
The result is The Dean Report, a detailed peer-reviewed analysis of the sound levels near the Dean's properties and the potential adverse effects of wind farm activity on human health.
Dr. Robert Thorne PhD[1], who authored the report, based his findings and conclusions on extensive field work, personal investigations, case studies and the development of sound analysis methodologies. He told Windaction.org that "the Dean Report, in its various forms, has been placed in evidence subject to cross-examination before a Board of Inquiry and formal wind farm hearings for the purposes of peer-review and critique. A hypothesis as to cause and effect for adverse health effects from wind farm activity is presented."
In news reports today, wind farm operator, Acciona Energy, insisted "there is already enough existing credible evidence proving there are no health effects from wind farm noise."
We respectfully disagree. The Dean Report makes clear we are only just beginning to understand the problem.
[1] Dr. Thorne is a principal of Noise Measurement Services Pty Ltd in Australia. He holds a PhD in Health Science from Massey University, New Zealand. His professional background is the measurement of low background sound levels and the assessment of noise as it affects people.
|
|
Displaced families evidence enough to warrant halt to wind turbines
|
July 14, 2010 by Barbara Ashbee in The Manitoulin Expositor
There is more than enough evidence to warrant a complete halt to erecting any more industrial wind turbine installations. In Ontario alone, we have multiple families who can no longer live in their own homes due to noise, low-frequency vibration, and dirty electricity. This is documented and known throughout the industry and the government. These families were fine before the wind installations started up, they got sick after they started up, and they get better when they leave their homes. The health problems are the same around the world with family members of all ages suffering from sleep deprivation, tinnitus, stomach aches, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, heart palpitations, ear and chest pressure, body vibration, and the list goes on. While some will say that these symptoms can be found anywhere in the general population, it is important to understand that people who did not have any of these symptoms before are experiencing multiple symptoms post startup.
What we hear from the ministers and industry figures is their claim that they need to shut down coal plants because they are killing people, but we all know it is immoral to cause harm to one segment of the population in order to alleviate a perceived harm to another. The term "anti-wind" is often tossed about by proponents to label people who have valid concerns. Every person that I have talked to was not anti-wind and they welcomed the wind turbines into their community. I would suggest that "pro-health" is a more suitable term for those who are asking for caution.
In Ontario alone there are 115 known and documented reports of residents suffering adverse health effects from wind installations and there are less than 700 turbines in operation. Not very good odds are they? Add to this that problems are seriously underreported due to gag clause restrictions, fear of property devaluation when one speaks publicly, fear of loss of privacy if reporting, and fear of upsetting community harmony. Families are being torn apart physically and emotionally.
Note: As in Ontario, so it is in New Zealand, and the rest of the world...
|
|
What the Aussies are saying about our ETS
|
Andrew Bolt, writing for the Herald Sun, Melbourne
Friday, July 02, 2010 at 05:40am
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key had it right the first time, in 2005:
"I rise on behalf of the National Party to give the good news to the people of New Zealand—that is, the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party will not be supporting it, for very, very good reasons indeed…
Yet here we are down in New Zealand, a very little country with about 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions, putting a self-imposed straitjacket on our businesses, and waving a huge flag that says: “Foreign investment, don’t come anywhere near us. Australia is over there—the West Island. Go over there to pour your dollars in.” To the Chinese we are saying: “Come in and buy as much coal as you like from our West Coast. We’ll sell it to you and you can burn it without a carbon charge—but, by the way, to those back here in Aotearoa New Zealand we will be slapping on a carbon charge and you won’t be able to operate."…
This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem. Even if it is a problem, it will be delayed for about 6 years. Then it will hit the world in 2096 instead of 2102, or something like that. It will not work."
Five years later:
"The world’s second national carbon trading scheme ramps up from Thursday with the inclusion of sectors covering half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, but anger over the scheme could hurt the government.
Rising electricity prices and higher fuel costs have worried some voters, farmers and businesses, which fear the higher costs could hurt their competitiveness."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand’s impact on world greenhouse gas emissions: a mere 0.2 percent...
New Zealand’s sacrifice means it could cut global emissions by up to 0.04 per cent by 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments....
Who would have thought that an established Western nation like NZ (and us, and the rest of the Western world) could be so pathetically stupid as to fall for this UN sponsored wealth-redistribution scheme!
Imagine destroying your economy and killing the elderly from coldness and poverty just to feel morally superior at having cut a non-existent problem by 0.04%! The degree of stupidity is simply astounding!
I really hope this imbecilic gesture of throwing money at an unproven problem absolutely cripples the country (and our country too if we persist in such idiocy), because deeply stupid cultures deserve the suicide they so obviously crave.
And as the world heads into an almost certain thirty years of a cooling cycle - and don’t forget that even the CRU head says there has been no statistically significant cooling for the past 15 years - I hope they are exposed to all the world as the gullible PC fools they are.
Pathetic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly the ETS has nothing to do with the environment. Its purpose is:
1) Appease the latte left and uni students.
2) Redistribute wealth on a regressive basis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If all the passionate parishioners of Pastor Pachauri of the Church of Climatology are correct, and the imposition of huge taxes will indeed result in the world cooling by 2 degrees or more Celsius, couldn’t we seek to prove it in a pilot project?
In order not to kill all industry, perhaps we could run a pilot ‘Global Cooling Plan’ by imposing, say, a 90% tax on the income of all party politicians, Greenies, Conservationists, left wingers, Fat Al Bore, Goldman Sachs, the University of East Anglia and other such con artists and see how much that reduces global temperatures by over a five year period.
If it works, then by all means we should all progress back to cave-dwelling, but I suspect that the proponents of taxation as a means of global cooling, would have raised the white flag long before the trial had ended.
|
|
ETS could be a funny comedy theatre play if it wasn’t so serious!
|
The Prime Minister has now finally acknowledged that households will bear more than their fair share of increased energy costs when the next phase of the Emissions Trading Scheme took effect on Thursday last week.
Kiwi Party leader Larry Baldock said it makes no sense to impose additional costs on every household at a time when so many are still struggling to recover from the recession.
“By now stating the ETS imposes a 'disproportionate burden' on every family in NZ the PM is finally admitting that the ETS is in fact taxing household budgets heavily so he can make a pretence of addressing climate change on the world stage.
"If the Prime Minister would take a good look at that ‘world stage’ he would notice that most of the players have ended their major performances and can now be seen hanging about in the wings of the stage waiting for the curtain to come down on the greatest comedy act in recent history!
"There are still the usual 'King Canute-like' speeches and promises to stop global warming going beyond 2 deg C, but paragraph 23 of the G8 Muskoka Declaration Recovery and New Beginnings report reveal a definite shift away from the desperate action on reducing Greenhouse Gas (GG) emissions to save the planet.
"23. While remaining committed to fighting climate change, we discussed the importance of ensuring that economies are climate resilient. We agreed that more research was needed to identify impacts at the global, regional, national and sub-national levels, and the options for adaptation, including through infrastructural and technological innovation. We particularly recognize the situation of the poorest and most vulnerable countries. We will share our national experiences and plans for adaptation, including through a conference on climate change adaptation in Russia in 2011."
"The words, 'climate resilient', 'options for adaption', 'plans for adaption' and 'more research needed to identify impacts' should alert the reader to political speak for 'how do we dig ourselves out of this global warming hole!'
"After all if the climate is to get warmer by more than 2 deg C by the end of this century, as the doomsaying prophets have predicted, it is hard to explain why the Global Average Temperature (GAT) has not increased since its peak in 1998 while GG emissions have continued to dramatically rise, especially assisted by the recent Icelandic volcanic eruption. To achieve anything like a 2 degree increase by 2100 we should have seen the temparature increase by at least an average of 0.2 over the past decade and nothing like that has occured.
"Instead of being admired for leading the world, New Zealand may ultimately become the laughing stock of the world because we blindly went ahead while others were starting to discern between fiction and reality," said the Kiwi Party leader.
|
|
Sick residents claim wind farm 'torture'
|
From: AAP, May 27, 2010 6:16PM
A SMALL group of wind farm opponents has mounted a protest on the steps of the Victorian Parliament, complaining of health problems caused by turbines.
The Waubra residents say the 128-turbine wind farm in their community causes sleep deprivation, headaches, high blood pressure and heart palpitations.
They formed a small rally on the steps of Parliament a week after the opposition announced its election policy for greater controls of wind farms.
Donald Thomas, 51, lives on a farm at Evansford about 3.5km from the nearest turbine in Waubra.
"We welcomed the wind farm when it came, thought it was a great thing for the area," he said.
"Having lived there for 12 months I see them now as nothing more than instruments of torture."
Mr Thomas said he suffers headaches, heart palpitations and high blood pressure. His parents, who live within 1km of the turbines, have the same symptoms and also suffer from sleep deprivation.
Mr Thomas has neighbours who have moved out or go elsewhere to sleep. He wants the turbines turned off at night or shut down.
"When the turbines don't go the symptoms go away. Simple as that," he said.
Noel Dean left his Waubra farm on advice from three medical practitioners. He said the turbulence they emit creates havoc on the human body and his symptoms still persist.
Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu last week pledged to ban wind farms from being built within 2km of homes and in growth corridors, national parks and tourist zones.
The government and industry have rejected the policy, which they say will kill the wind energy industry in Victoria.
Mr Baillieu said the opposition supports wind farms and the policy is about restoring balance between wind farm proponents and local communities.
Poor siting of turbines had divided communities and destroyed lives, he said.
"Our general proposition has been for a number of years that wind farms shouldn't go in sensitive landscapes and they shouldn't go where communities don't want them."
|
|
Low-lying Pacific islands 'growing not sinking'
|
By Nick Bryant BBC News, Sydney
A new geological study has shown that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking.
The islands of Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, because of coral debris and sediment.
The study, published in the magazine the New Scientist, predicts that the islands will still be there in 100 years' time.
However it is still unsure whether many of them will be inhabitable.
Prognosis 'incorrect'
In recent times, the inhabitants of many low-lying Pacific islands have come to fear their homelands being wiped off the map because of rising sea levels.
But this study of 27 islands over the last 60 years suggests that most have remained stable, while some have actually grown.
Using historical photographs and satellite imaging, the geologists found that 80% of the islands had either remained the same or got larger - in some cases, dramatically so.
They say it is due to the build-up of coral debris and sediment, and to land reclamation.
Associate Professor Paul Kench of Auckland University, who took part in the study, says the islands are not in immediate danger of extinction.
"That rather gloomy prognosis for these nations is incorrect," he said.
"We have now got the evidence to suggest that the physical foundation of these countries will still be there in 100 years, so they perhaps do not need to flee their country."
But although these islands might not be submerged under the waves in the short-term, it does not mean they will be inhabitable in the long-term, and the scientists believe further rises in sea levels pose a significant danger to the livelihoods of people living in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia.
One scientist in Kiribati said that people should not be lulled into thinking that inundation and coastal erosion were not a major threat.
Web Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10222679.stm
|
|
The 4th International Conference on Climate Change - Chicago, Il., USA
|
Consensus? What consensus?
I'm writing this in the Marriott Hotel in Chicago, where I'm attending the Heartland Institute Climate Conference (and I've just done an interview with BBC Environment Correspondent Roger Harrabin).
Ahead of the interview, I thought I'd just check out the Conference Speaker's list. There are 80 scheduled speakers, including distinguished scientists (like Richard Lindzen of MIT), policy wonks (like my good friend Chris Horner of CEI), enthusiasts and campaigners (like Anthony Watts of the wattsupwiththat.com web-site), and journalists (including our own inimitable James Delingpole).
Of the 80 speakers, I noticed that fully forty-five were qualified scientists from relevant disciplines, and from respected universities around the world -- from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Norway, UK, Australia and New Zealand.
All of them have reservations about climate alarmism, ranging from concerns that we are making vastly expensive public policy decisions based on science that is, to say the least, open to question, through to outright rejection of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) model.
Several of these scientists are members or former members of the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But how do 45 sceptical scientists stack up, you may well ask, against the 2500 on the official IPCC panels? But of course there aren't 2500 relevant scientists on the IPCC panel. Many of them are not strictly scientists at all. Some are merely civil servants or environmental zealots. Some are economists -- important to the debate but not experts on the science. Others are scientists in unrelated disciplines. The Chairman of the IPCC Dr. Ravendra Pachuari, is a Railway Engineer.
And of the remaining minority who are indeed scientists in relevant subjects, some (like my good friend Prof Fred Singer) have explicitly rejected the IPCC's AGW theory. Whittle it down, and you end up with fifty or so true believers, most of whom are part of the “Hockey Team” behind the infamous Hockey Stick graph, perhaps the most discredited artefact in the history of science. This is a small and incestuous group of scientists (including those at the CRU at the University of East Anglia). They work closely together, jealously protecting their source data, and they peer-review each other's work. This is the “consensus” on which climate hysteria is based.
And there are scarcely more of them than are sceptical scientists at this Heartland Conference in Chicago, where I am blogging today. Never mind the dozens of other scientists here in Chicago, or the thousands who have signed petitions and written to governments opposing climate hysteria. Science is not decided by numbers, but if it were, there is the case to be made that the consensus is now on the sceptical side.
Roger Helmer MEP
Follow me on Twitter: rogerhelmerMEP
|
|
“Carbon Capture & Burial – all Carbon Cemeteries are already Full.”
|
Link: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/carbon-capture.pdf
The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the colossal waste of community resources and energy on research and development for “Carbon Capture and Burial”.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that billions of dollars are being wasted on sacrifices to the global warming god - endless bureaucracy, politicised research, piddling wind and solar schemes, roof insulation disasters, ethanol subsidies, carbon credit forests, carbon trading frauds and huge compliance costs.
“But perhaps the biggest waste of all is the futile quest to capture carbon dioxide from power stations, separate it, compress it, pump it long distances and force it down specially drilled bore holes, hoping it will never escape.
“The effect of CO2 on global temperature, if it exists, is so small that no one has been able to demonstrate or measure it. The touted effect exists solely in computer models whose forecasts to date have all failed. Therefore there is ZERO proven benefit for mankind in trying to capture harmless CO2 in order to bury it in carbon cemeteries. Worse, it is removing valuable plant food from the biosphere – a step towards global food suicide. Moreover, for every tonne of carbon buried, we bury 2.7 tonnes of the gas of life – oxygen.
“The quantities of gas to be handled just from power stations are enormous. For every tonne of coal burnt, about 11 tonnes of gases are exhausted – 7.5 tonnes of nitrogen, 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and one tonne of water vapour. These are all harmless and valuable natural recycled atmospheric gases. Life on earth would be impossible without them.
“Normally these harmless gases are vented to the atmosphere after filters take out nasties like soot and noxious fumes. To capture the CO2 would require additional energy to collect the 11 tonnes of gases and separate the 2.5 tonnes of CO2 for every tonne of coal burnt. Then even more energy would be required to compress this 2.5 tonnes of CO2 and pump it to the burial site.
“All of this is possible, but the capital and operating costs will be horrendous. It is estimated that 30% - 40% of the power currently generated will be used just on carbon capture, compression and pumping. More energy still is required to produce and erect the steel for all those pumps and pipes and to drill the disposal wells. All this will chew up more coal resources and produce yet more carbon dioxide, for no benefit.
“But the real problem starts at the burial site.
“There is no vacuum occurring naturally anywhere on earth – every bit of space is occupied by solids, liquids or gases. Thus to dispose of CO2 underground requires it to be pumped AGAINST the pressure of whatever is in the pore space of the rock formation now – either natural gases or liquids. These pressures can be substantial, especially after more gas is pumped in.
“The natural gases in rock formations are commonly air, CO2, methane or rotten egg gas. The liquids are commonly fresh or salty water or, very rarely, liquid hydrocarbons.
To find a place where you could drive out oil or natural gas in order to make space to bury CO2 would be like winning the Lottery – a profitable but very unlikely event. Pumping air out is costly, pumping CO2 out to make room for CO2 is pointless and releasing large quantities of salty water or rotten egg gas would create a real surface problem, unlike the imaginary threat from CO2.
“In normal times, pumping fresh water out would be seen as a boon for most locals, but these days it is probably prohibited. Naturally, some carbon dioxide will dissolve in groundwater and pressurise it, so that the next water driller in the area could get a real bonus – bubbling Perrier Water on tap, worth more than oil.
“Regulating carbon dioxide is best left to the oceans – they have been doing it for millions of years. It’s time for tax payers and shareholders to protest this gigantic waste of money, energy and coal resources on fantasies like carbon capture and burial.
“Because, no matter where we look for space for carbon dioxide burial, we will find signs saying:
“All carbon cemeteries are already full”.
Viv Forbes
10 May 2010
|
|
The wrong way to get to green
|
April 27, 2010 by Trevor Butterworth in Wall Street Journal
Al Gore has a dream, a dream increasingly shared, according to opinion surveys, by people all over the world. It is that the 19th century, the age of steam and iron and coal, will finally end and that, as Mr. Gore wrote in an article for the New York Times in 2008, the time will soon come for "21st-century technologies that use fuel that is free forever: the sun, the wind and the natural heat of the earth."
It might be better, and much more realistic, says Robert Bryce in "Power Hungry," to imagine our journey toward a "green" energy Arcadia in units of Saudi Arabia. "Over the past few years," he writes, "we have repeatedly been told that we should quit using hydrocarbons. Fine. Global daily hydrocarbon use is about 200 million barrels of oil equivalent, or about 23.5 Saudi Arabias per day. Thus, if the world's policy makers really want to quit using carbon-based fuels, then we will need to find the energy equivalent of 23.5 Saudi Arabias every day, and all of that energy must be carbon free."
"Power Hungry" unfolds as a brutal, brilliant exploration of this profoundly deluded quest, from fingers-in-the-ears "la-la-la-ing" at the mention of nuclear power to the illusion that we are rapidly running out of oil or that we can turn to biomass for salvation: Since it takes 10,000 tons of wood to produce one megawatt of electricity, for instance, the U.S. will be chopping down forests faster than it can grow them**.
Mr. Bryce also points to the link between cheap power and economic productivity and asks why we should expect much of the world to forgo the benefits of light bulbs and regular energy when we enjoy these privileges. But if "Power Hungry" sounds like a supercharged polemic, its shocks are delivered with forensic skill and narrative aplomb.
So you want to build a wind farm? OK, Mr. Bryce says, to start you'll need 45 times the land mass of a nuclear power station to produce a comparable amount of power; and because you are in the middle of nowhere you'll also need hundreds of miles of high-voltage lines to get the energy to your customers. This "energy sprawl" of giant turbines and pylons will require far greater amounts of concrete and steel than conventional power plants-figure on anywhere from 870 to 956 cubic feet of concrete per megawatt of electricity and 460 tons of steel (32 times more concrete and 139 times as much steel as a gas-fired plant).
Once you've carpeted your tract of wilderness with turbines and gotten over any guilt you might feel about the thousands of birds you're about to kill, prepare to be underwhelmed and underpowered. Look at Texas, Mr. Bryce says: It ranks sixth in the world in total wind-power production capacity, and it has been hailed as a model for renewable energy and green jobs by Republicans and Democrats alike. And yet, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which runs the state's electricity grid, just "8.7 percent of the installed wind capability can be counted on as dependable capacity during the peak demand period." The wind may blow in Texas, but, sadly, it doesn't blow much when it is most needed-in summer. The net result is that just 1% of the state's reliable energy needs comes from wind.
Note: ** This appears to be a misprint. The widely accepted figure for burning wood is approximately 1.6 tonnes per megawatt, which makes biomass an attractive proposition for power generation especially as it is (generally) carbon-neutral.
|
| |
|
Are wind farms compatible with agriculture?
|
The wind farm developers tell us that, once a wind farm is installed on agricultural land, the landowner will not only receive an annual rental of several thousand dollars per turbine, but that the land right up to the turbine tower can still be planted in crops or grazed by livestock. It's a win-win situation, right?
As with so much that the wind farm developers would have us believe, this would seem to be at best just another half-truth (weasel words).
Consider the enormous earthworks involved: the huge concrete foundations for the turbine towers, the extra-wide roads needed the get the turbine parts to the foundations and to get the gigantic cranes into place to not only assemble the turbines, but also periodically in the future to maintain them.
Consider the quality of the thin veneer of soil put back to cover the foundation. No longer the original topsoil, it is usually a poor-quality amalgam of clay, stones, peat, etc. Not much real goodness in it. Will it grow grass? Probably. Will it grow quality pasture or crops? Doubtful. But that's okay - nothing a quick bit of aerial topdressing won't fix.
Sorry - no longer an option.
Farmers with wind generators may lose the option of aerial application of farm protection products, seed, fertilizers, etc. on their farm ground. Possibly more significant is that their neighbor farmers, who have no wind generator(s) and consequently no income from them, stand to lose that option as well.
Some proponents of wind farms tend to dismiss this possibility out of hand, with the explanation that “those guys can fly around them with no problem,” or “just get a helicopter to do it.” Others say that ground application can still be effectively performed so the aerial option is insignificant. Unfortunately, it is just not that simple. Sometimes weather problems and/or timeliness of application dictate an application from the air.
The fact is, it is dangerous to fly within the confines of a wind generator farm. Windmills can cause vertigo sensations, create unstable wind conditions, and extend high enough to seriously affect the way an aircraft can work a field. That is why even a neighboring field without a wind generator may not be a candidate for aerial application: there’s no room to make a turn.
Dangerous even to fly within quite long distances (kilometers) downwind of a wind farm, thanks to the turbulence they create, so many farms in the vicinity may be impacted.
Another often-overlooked aspect of wind turbines is their effect on our only native mammal - the native bat.
For a 2.4 Megawatt wind turbine of say, 50% efficiency (Betz's law specifies that the maximum theoretical efficiency of a wind turbine is 59%) to reach it full output it needs 6,857 horsepower of wind. This enormous force is being 'chopped' every time a rotor blade passes the turbine tower resulting in a huge instantaneous change in air pressure - enough to rupture the lungs of any unfortunate bat that happens to be in the vicinity.
What are the bats doing there in the first place? Looking for dinner. The native bat is a natural biological control over moths, grubs, crickets and a host of pests that could otherwise be causing damage to pasture and crops.
That's okay - we'll just call in the choppers to spray them instead. Oops, I forgot, we can't.
The following is an excerpt from a resolution recently passed by the Illinois Agricultural Aviation Association:
"WHEREAS, wind turbine generator farms create uniquely hazardous and unacceptable dangers to pilots flying agricultural aircraft in a ground environment,
WE HEREBY RESOLVE that, in the interest of pilot safety, we will refuse to make an aerial application of any product inside a grouping of wind generators, or to farm land immediately adjacent to a grouping of wind generators, should that proximity be considered hazardous by the pilot of the agricultural aircraft.
Approved by unanimous vote of the Board of Directors of the Illinois Agricultural Aviation Association."
Read this account of one farmers' personal experience with wind turbines and ask yourself: "Is it really worth it for a paltry few thousand dollars per year?"
|
|
International Symposium on the health effects of industrial wind turbines.
|
The first International Symposium on the
adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines is to be held October
29-31, 2010 in Picton, Prince Edward County, Ontario, Canada.
The Society for Wind Vigilance with the support of the County
Coalition for Safe and Appropriate Green Energy, is presenting a
groundbreaking two day event featuring prominent expert speakers from
the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.
At the invitation of the Chair of The Society for Wind Vigilance
, Dr. Nina Pierpont, M.D., PhD, New
York, is the keynote speaker for the Symposium. Dr. Pierpont and
International experts from a number of disciplines will describe the
increased reports of and their assessments of the adverse health
impacts of industrial wind turbines.
In view of the increasing number of global reports on this subject The
Society encourages you to attend. However, if this is not possible The
Society would appreciate words of support which could be published
during the proceedings.
The Society for Wind Vigilance is an international federation of
physicians, engineers and other professionals formed in response to
the growing number of serious human health issues that appear when
industrial wind developments are located in close proximity to homes.
The Society advocates for a full clinical study into these health
problems, mitigation of existing problems and a moratorium on further
industrial wind development until these actions have been completed.
|
|
Rangitikei Guardians Annual Meeting
|
June 2010
Chairman’s Report
It is with sadness and a certain amount of frustration that this report must confirm that our primary goal of preventing Project Central Wind has failed.
Although Meridian has not begun construction of towers and turbines as yet, their presence in this environment in the near future is imminent.
The Environment Court hearing lasted three days in Taihape during September 2009 and the Decision was given on 26th January this year. The Rangitikei Guardians sought further advice as to launching an Appeal in the High Court, however this course of action was decided against.
I believe that the tone of the Decision indicated that the Rangitikei Guardians had little or no chance of success at any stage. This was certainly not the feeling on the day that the Hearing had closed.
We simply are too few, living too far from a significant population base.
The sheer size of a S.O.E like Meridian and the compulsion of commercial and energy interests in Wellington have negated any consideration of the physical impact on this rural landscape.
In line with these thoughts it also seems staggering that there was a process of Meridian paying an Auckland Landscape Architect a retainer of some thousands of dollars to NOT represent the Rangitikei Guardians.
As a group, it is still in our best interests to remain, at least for the next few years.
We have already been involved with representations in the Wairarapa and to the Rangitikei District Council, (special thanks to Rita and Gill).
The Environment Court recognises the Rangitikei Guardians and includes us in the Community Liaison Group.
The high point of the year was the spirit and sense of community enjoyed at the Buchanan’s Cairnmuir Lodge immediately after the Environment Court Hearings had finished.
The actual process of the Environment Court was a real experience and we must be appreciative to have had the opportunity to express ourselves at that level. To that end we can at least have comfort in the knowledge that we did our best.
Garage Sales, Stock Drives, personal donations and actions have all contributed to the special nature of this group, which leads me to extend a very special ‘thank you’ to all those people. Without all that energy and time we would not have been able to meet our financial obligations that I am pleased to say we have done.
Thank you.
Geoff Duncan
Chairperson Rangitikei Guardians Inc.
|
|
Wind turbines, flicker, and photosensitive epilepsy
|
Characterizing the flashing that may precipitate seizures
and optimizing guidelines to prevent them
∗Graham Harding, ∗Pamela Harding, and †Arnold Wilkins
∗Neurosciences Institute Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom; and †Department of Psychology,
University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom
SUMMARY
Wind turbines are known to produce shadow
flicker by interruption of sunlight by the turbine
blades. Known parameters of the seizure provoking
effect of flicker, i.e., contrast, frequency, markspace
ratio, retinal area stimulated and percentage
of visual cortex involved were applied to wind turbine
features. The proportion of patients affected
by viewing wind turbines expressed as distance in
multiples of the hub height of the turbine showed
that seizure risk does not decrease significantly until
the distance exceeds 100 times the hub height.
Since risk does not diminish with viewing distance,
flash frequency is therefore the critical factor and
should be kept to a maximum of three per second,
i.e., sixty revolutions perminute for a three-bladed
turbine. On wind farms the shadows cast by one
turbine on another should not be viewable by the
public if the cumulative flash rate exceeds three per
second. Turbine blades should not be reflective.
The provision of energy from renewable sources has
produced a proliferation of wind turbines. Environmental
impacts include safety, visual acceptability, electromagnetic
interference, noise nuisance and visual interference
or flicker. Wind turbines are large structures and can cast
long shadows. Rotating blades interrupt the sunlight producing
unavoidable flicker bright enough to pass through
closed eyelids, and moving shadows cast by the blades on
windows can affect illumination inside buildings.
Planning permission for wind farms often consider
flicker, but guidelines relate to annoyance and are based
on physical or engineering considerations rather than the
danger to people who may be photosensitive.
Read the full report
Note: COMMENT ON BLADE FLICKER FROM RANGITIKEI GUARDIANS
Dr David Black who regularly appears for the wind farm developers at hearings, has admitted he had not published any peer reviewed research concerning the effects of wind turbine sound on people.
Nor it appears does Dr Black know much about the detrimental effects of wind turbine blade flicker on human health. During the Environment Court appeal against Meridian’s Project Central Wind, Dr Black rebutted Rangitikei Guardians’evidence, which quoted the work above. Harding et al attest that “When several turbines are in line with the sun’s shadow, there is flicker from the combination of blades from different turbines, which can have a higher frequency than from a single turbine”.
In evidence accepted by the Environment Court, Dr Black rebutted the expertise of Harding et al as follows: “That [higher frequency flicker] could only occur if the turbines were synchronous”. Black stated that this particular Meridian project would have turbines which had variable speed machines, that would never be synchronized, and therefore people living in the vicinity should be reassured that such concerns were not valid.
This did not make sense, given that there would surely be more flashes from a line of the asynchronously frequencied turbines blades, than from synchronised blades. So we contacted Graham Harding, one of the lead authors of the research, and asked if asynchronous turbine flicker from turbines observed in a row – one behind the other - was in fact more dangerous than that from synchronised frequency turbines blades.
Professor Harding responded that we were right and Dr Black was “completely wrong”. Black had also stated “no cases of Epilepsy from Wind Turbine flicker have ever been confirmed or reported.” Again Professor Harding refuted this assertion – quoting his own research from the UK in 2007 and noting that Dr Black’s comments were “completely inexplicable."
EDITORS NOTE
This is the same Dr Black who stated that people who were affected by wind turbines were 'psychotic' and that people who couldn't stand the effects would move away and be replaced by others who could. This process he termed 'extinction'.
|
|
Sound, noise, flicker and the human perception of wind farm activity
|
July 8, 2010 by Atkinson and Rapley
Summary:
This book was recently released in New Zealand. The below introduction explains the premise behind the text. Visit the link below to view excerpts or for contact information of the authors.
The explosion of wind farms worldwide has brought with it a rising tide of resistance from residents near them. Complaints about noise and flicker, as well as health problems such as sleep disturbance, headaches, dizziness, anxiety and depression, are all strikingly similar. Developers are advised by experts that the noise levels are virtually undetectable and so low that sound cannot directly cause these symptoms and that these people are naturally anxious.
Why is there such a disparity between the perception of the issue from the two groups? Part of the problem is that the physics of sound and the human perception of noise are still not well understood by many. There is a great difference between being able to measure something and a person's perception of it and the variation between individuals is never well accounted for by a statistical mean. This can split communities into the affected and the unaffected, the latter group who, due to no fault of their own, cannot understand the views of those who complain. Yet, for those adversely affected by the wind farm placement, there is no doubt about the intrusion into their lives.
This Review brings together the many threads that are needed to explain these issues as a series of Papers from experts dealing with issues of human perception of wind farm noise and flicker. The intent is to make this material accessible to the layman, so many of the papers have extended introductions to the subject areas.
Web link: http://www.atkinsonrapley.co.nz/books.html
|
|
The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider
|
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.
“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”
[Click link below to read full article]
National Post
|
|
LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS TO REST
|
By Professor Bob Carter - Research Professor at James Cook University
(Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia).
Bob Carter is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental
scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds
degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of
Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the
University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville),
where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
Bob Carter has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the
U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and
N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a
meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science
witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.'s Secretary of
State for Education, the 2007 judgement from which identified nine major
scientific errors in Mr Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth".
Web Link
Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.
Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in
atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.
Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.
Fact 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.
Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees
more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes "hockey stick" curve and its computer extrapolation).
Fact 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.
Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.
Fact 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.
Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.
Fact 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.
Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.
Fact 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.
Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.
Fact 7 The sun's output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth's climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.
Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.
Fact 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.
Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.
Fact 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.
Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.
Fact 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.
Click here to view Bob Carters presentation: 5 Tests of CO2.
|
|
Turbines do more than produce power
|
05-07-2010 by Tim Fulton for Farmers Weekly.
At Tipapa woolshed on a Thursday evening last month wind turbine researcher Bruce Rapley painted a picture of a cavalier attitude by wind farm developers towards the health of people living within earshot and sight of the turbines.
Having examined the science for several years, Rapley no longer believes that critics of turbines can be dismissed as "environmental jandal-slappers".
While there would always be people adamantly for and against wind farms, he hoped his audience would be prepared to "learn and not to take sides".
"Tonight, we've been given such a small amount of time to talk to you, all we can do is open the door to research here and around the world," he told the Greta Valley meeting.
In fact, by the end of the night Rapley was confident enough to say: "Belief is not required ... don't believe me, I could be telling you any load of bollocks. Go and find out for yourself. Go and look at the internet."
Rapley's broad agenda was to explain the impact of wind farms on visual amenity and land values and to provide a sample of research on the effects of turbines on human health. Terms such as blade and shadow flicker dominated the evening, as the audience heard that turbines could potentially do more than blot the landscape or create incessant background noise.
Rapley, a published author on wind farms and a resident of Palmerston North, said the problems they create are either annoying or bad for your health.
However within the health spectrum there was also a "grey area" between that physiological and mental harm.
An example of a physical reaction to the effect of light passing through turbines' sequences was the risk of photo-sensitive epilepsy. While this was a risk only for "some" and was generally unlikely to cause an attack, it was possible if two or more turbines were in line.
"It's not a huge risk but the important thing is to know the risk. If I get on an aeroplane I want to know the risk. It's about being honest and telling people what the risks are ... you need to know where the hazards exist."
Shadow flicker could also be debilitating for some people living nearby, as was sunlight glint from turbine blades, which could cause migraines.
Drivers were also potentially at risk from glint, just as they would be from "target fixation", whereby people are helplessly drawn toward objects that catch their attention. (think of the dangerous distraction of a driver seeing an attractive man or woman, Rapley suggested).
He suggested "remedial action" such as ensuring that turbines were placed more than 5km from buildings or people, coating blades with low reflectivity paint and shrouding safety lights on the turbines to prevent a flashing effect.
Rapley accepted that some problems cited overseas such as shadow flicker may not cause the same trouble in New Zealand but turbine sound was likely to be similar, he said.
He was disturbed by the current NZ standards for measuring noise from turbines, which wrongly assumed, he said, that sound was a "smooth, progressive contour of receding noise". In reality, the distribution of such sound was more like a spiky hedge.
Based on the experience of residents at Makara, the site of a Meridian wind farm in the Wellington region, "the current acoustic modelling is really well out of date", Rapley said.
"The science is not settled" on NZ's sound modelling and noise standards, he added, saying humans can hear at very low frequencies which the current NZ turbine standards don't account for.
Rapley, a showman throughout his presentation, was keen to highlight information which he said was being deliberately overlooked or understated by wind farm developers, such as the degree to which turbine sites vibrate - and indicator of the energy they release.
"Wind farms, if you don't know, are simply tuning forks on a hill. They vibrate the ground. But they don't tell you that."
There were multiple paths for this energy release: Air (acoustic), ground (seismic) and building resonance (sound and vibration).
Some people affected by turbine noise talk about "pillow transmission", whereby a person with their head on a pillow can not only hear the sound transmission, they can also feel it. The effect could turn a house into a "low frequency loudspeaker".
Rapley acknowledged that as far as turbine sound was concerned, the type of noise reported varied from "having a tumble-dryer in your house" to a buzz or drumming.
However, cases of nausea and confusion related to turbine action had been documented world-wide.
Note: There is a DVD of this excellent and informative presentation. If you would like a copy, please Contact Us.
|
|
Meridian launches wind farm appeal.
|
Source: NZPA 22/6/2010
Meridian Energy today launched a High Court appeal seeking to overturn an Environment Court decision that scuttled plans for a $2 billion Central Otago windfarm.
Resource consent for the 176-turbine Project Hayes windfarm was granted to the power company in 2006 and 2007, but the Environment Court overturned the consent in November.
Meridian Spokesman Alan Seay said the appeal in the High Court at Dunedin would raise points of law in the Environment Court decision that needed to be examined.
"If that decision was allowed to stand we think it would place some major obstacles in the way of any major infrastructure development," he told NZPA.
"We didn't see that we had any alternative but appeal, not just from the point of view of Project Hayes, but from any big infrastructure project."
Project Hayes was important to ensure the security of energy supplies in the South Island, Seay said.
"There's been no major new electricity capacity built in the South Island since the Clyde project back in the '80s, and demand has increased quite considerably in the South Island since then," he said.
"We certainly see Project Hayes as making a significant contribution to security of supply in the South Island."
The 630MW windfarm on the Lammermoor Range was planned to be big enough to power every home in the South Island, but was opposed by local residents who wanted to protect the tussock-clad ranges from 160m-high turbines and 12m-wide access roads.
Several high-profile New Zealanders, including All Black Anton Oliver, artist Grahame Sydney and poet laureate Brian Turner, also spoke out against the proposed windfarm.
The appeal, before Justice John Fogarty, is set down for one week.
|
|
GLOBAL WARMING – THE SIGN OF A HEALTHY PLANET DOING WHAT IT HAS ALWAYS DONE!
|
As an ordinary member of Rangitikei Guardians, and an avid reader of pre-historical novels, I can thoroughly recommend my current choice, “People of the Nightland”. This book which is part of a series on North America’s ‘forgotten past’ is a saga of environmental catastrophe, set between 13,000 and 10,000 BC. The authors are Kathleen O’Neal Gear who is a former state historian and archaeologist for the US Department of the Interior, and W Michael Gear who has been a professional archaeologist since 1978.
It was published by Tor Books in 2007.
The afterword to the book is extremely informative on the current climate change debate. In the area where the book is set, three distinct cultures of Paleo-Indian hunters survived in one of the most inhospitable environments on earth. They found sheltered locations where big game animals still grazed, adjacent to the Pleistocene tundra. 13,000 years ago a period of global warming peaked [without the help of human CO2 emissions]. Glaciers collapsed and catastrophic flooding resulted, finally flooding out into the North Atlantic. The resulting trans-Polar Current sent warmer water into the Arctic Ocean, melting the sea ice.
As the glaciers melted, land previously weighted down by the ice sprang back in what is called isostatic rebound in the same way the Alps are lifting today. This was probably responsible for strong earthquakes that helped further destabilize the glaciers. Volcanic eruptions released huge amounts of dust and sulphuric acid into the atmosphere, resulting in decades of volcanic winters. Glacier melt released ground up rock as dust, which blew into loess deposits sixty to seventy feet thick. The dust storms caused the extinction of most of the big game in eastern North America.
The great floods, which many cultures remember in their oral histories, brought about a global climatic reversal rolling the Earth back into another Ice Age. The authors note that “for those who think the Pleistocene Ice Age ended ten thousand years ago, let us suggest that it may not have. This current warm episode, the Holocene, encompasses only about half a percent of the Quaternary Period. Which means today’s climate could be just another in a long line of brief warming periods.”
Far from heralding the end of civilization as we know it, the current episode of supposed global warming may indeed herald another ice age. Atmospheric CO2 levels have much more to do with long term natural processes of mother earth, than the paltry inputs by humans! Time to get over ourselves, folks, and prepare for the big chill!
This book, one of an excellent series of novels based on hard archaeological evidence, is available in the Rangitikei Public Libraries.
|
While we are contemplating the increased costs of electricity, fuel, food and other consumer items, due to the Emissions Trading Scam, and even before the October GST increase, consider this:
On 10 May , 2005, as part of the Parliamentary debate , Hansard recorded the following from opposition member, John Key:
“I rise on behalf of the National Party to give the good news to the people of New Zealand - that is, the Climate Change Response Amendment Bill is a load of rubbish and the National Party will not be supporting it, for very, very good reasons indeed.”…
During the same debate:
“Yet here we are down in New Zealand, a very little country with about 0. 2 percent of the world's emissions, putting a self-imposed straitjacket on our businesses, and waving a huge flag that says: Foreign investment, don't come anywhere near us.”
…And further more:
“This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol, even if one believes in global warming - and I am somewhat suspicious of it - is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing something that we are not even sure is a problem.”
He concluded that “The public are sick and tired of paying additional taxes for all sorts of crazy ideas.”
During the same debate Nick Smith stated:
“New Zealand's emissions amount to less than 0. 5 percent internationally, and per head of population our emissions are about half that of Australia's and the United States' emissions. So why are we going to impose costs, and impose controls, and impose red tape on New Zealanders when countries like China, India, Singapore, Australia, the United States, and Canada do not have restrictions on them?”
The biggest hoax, it seems, is the utterances of politicians while in opposition!
Perhaps our local MP could explain what changed their minds?
|
|
Referred to an Institute for Sleep Disorders because of wind turbine noise
|
May 8, 2010 by Peter Skeel Hjorth
People living near twelve gigantic wind turbines feel that their quality of life has been considerably impaired because of sleep disturbances, lack of sleep and other clear nuisances. This story describes the experiences of those living adjacent to wind turbines in Sweden. Windaction.org has confirmed the authenticity of this report.
"What we treasure most - the peace, the tranquility and the darkness - has been taken away from us. When I go out at night I see the strong red lights above the trees. Inside the house we also see the red light. Then there is the sound which is another problem. Depending on the direction of the wind we can hear the noise from the wind turbines from both inside and outside."
This is how midwife Britta Carlsson, 63, describes her problems being the neighbour of a new wind turbine park. Other people in the area near the Oxhult Park in the forests at Hishult in Laholms District Council in Southern Sweden also feel strongly affected by the 12 gigantic Vestas V90 wind turbines of a total height of 150 meters each put up by Arise Windpower. People here experience a noticeable deterioration of the quality of their lives.
"Wind turbines of that size cannot be near habitation. It is perfectly obvious. They are offensive to look at, the sounds are distressing, and so are the flickering shadows," says chief physician and senior consultant Torben Ishøy who among other things has worked for the Danish Red Cross in Afghanistan, has been commissioned to the UN in the Balkans and Rwanda after the genocide of the Tutsies. He has also participated in the Danish investigations of the so-called "Gulf War syndrome" after the first war against Iraq.
In September 2009 Torben Ishøy toured the Oxhult Park and saw it from many different angles. He had the opportunity to see and hear the wind turbines from both a long and a short distance. In November Torben Ishøy participated in the talks that this article is based on.
"I can understand how people feel strongly affected, and it is obvious that the health authorities must follow the development closely. This is a new area that can influence people's health. Long periods of sleep disturbances are not a laughing matter, and in the long term there can be other medical consequences that we have not yet seen emerging" Torben Ishøy pointed out.
Quality of Life in ruins
Sleep disturbance, lack of sleep and irritability. Distressed by the wind turbine noise, the rotating shadows and flashing warning lights. A feeling of having lost the values that motivated them to move and live in the countryside. Concern for the future. Fear of being tied to houses that cannot be sold and fear of getting even more disturbing giant wind turbines nearby.
Such conditions have totally upset life for people with a view of the wind turbine park that was inaugurated shortly after Easter 2009. Until then people enjoyed the surrounding peace, tranquility and darkness of the night. Before the twelve wind turbines were put up people were told that they would practically neither see nor hear them.
From her house assistant nurse Solveig Dalin, 55, can clearly see nine wind turbines that supposedly were not going to obstruct her view. At least that is what she was told. Most of the wind turbines could be seen on a photo montage, viewed from her house. Only four could not be seen as "the angle didn't allow for them". However, the photos for this photo montage were taken long after permission was given and the building just about to begin.
Reality proved very different. The enormous wind turbines can be heard strongly when the wind is in a certain direction even though there is 1000 meter to the nearest one.
Solveig Dalin appears transfixed as she is telling how her life has been affected. Torben Ishøy notes "a quiet cry for her present physical and mental situation as questions are asked about the lost sparkle in her eyes, quite apparent to all present".
About a month after the inauguration of the wind turbine park on 5th 2009 May Solveig Dalin was diagnosed with high blood pressure and is currently receiving treatment.
"I sleep with my window open. Now I experience sleep problems on and off which never happened before. I sleep, but wake up, sleep and wake up. At certain wind directions you cannot even go to the bathroom to get peace. Even there you can hear the noise from the wind turbines", says Solveig Dalin."
"In the beginning I wasn't concerned about the arrival of wind turbines. They are ugly to look at, but I'll get used to it, I thought. For that reason I didn't participate in the group of protesters either. I wasn't especially negative. But after the arrival of the wind turbines I am just not thriving as I used to."
Neither do the family's goats. The sheep show no reaction, but her goats are not well. Outside they have plenty access to all the food they want. But they don't eat, and they prefer to stay inside the stable. It is against the law to keep animals inside all year round. The goats have to be forced to stay outside, but they break through the fence and run back into the stable.
Solveig Dalin fears that the goats may die.
"Our outside dog is not doing very well either and has changed its behaviour," she says. "I am worried about the animals and I cannot relax and do not feel well. I am not as calm and secure as before. It is no longer relaxing to go for walks in the area because of the sound, the shadows and the red lights that you are drawn to. The red light attracts your eyes even when you sit by your computer inside the house.
My quality of life has been ruined. I do not thrive as I used to. I have always been calm and collected. Now I cannot relax and have become irritable. I no longer feel like meeting other people and having a normal social life."
Peace of mind disturbed
Britta Carlsson is the neighbour of Solveig Dalin and lives 1100 meters from the nearest giant wind turbine.
"If you go 25 meters away from the house you see all twelve. They were not supposed to be visible because of the trees, and certainly not to be heard, we were told when we talked to the council," relates Britta Carlsson who feels deceived by the council.
|
|
Europe's Carbon Mafia, And Ours
|
Posted 05/06/2010 07:18 PM ET
Corruption: The carbon trading system being pushed here has spawned crime and fraud across the pond. Cap-and-trade is not about saving the planet. It's about money and power, and absolute power corrupting absolutely.
All across Europe authorities have been conducting raids, rounding up individuals involved in a new version of Climate-gate. This time the data aren't corrupted. Europe's Emissions Trading System is. The system is so sick, it's turned out to be a scam built upon a scam.
Twenty-five people have been arrested in raids by British and German authorities as part of a pan-European crackdown on carbon credit VAT tax fraud.
U.K. officials announced raids on 81 offices and homes, nabbing 13 people in England and eight in Scotland. The operation involved 450 investigators from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs office.
German authorities raided 230 locations, including the headquarters of Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt and the offices of RWE, one of the largest energy firms in Europe. The German operation involved 1,000 investigators targeting 50 companies and 150 suspects.
The amount of money involved in carbon trading is huge and the temptations vast. While our Congress demagogues about banks and their "complex financial instruments," they are simple compared to cap-and-trade, which as we have noted involves essentially the buying and selling of air. Throw in an oppressive value-added tax and you have a recipe for corruption and fraud.
Last December, Europol, the European criminal intelligence agency, announced that Emissions Trading System fraud had resulted in about 5 billion euros in lost revenues as Europe's carbon traders schemed to avoid paying Europe's VAT and pocket the difference. In announcing the raids, the agency said that as much as 90% of Europe's carbon trades were the result of fraudulent activity.
"Carbon markets are highly susceptible to fraud, given their complexity and the fact that it's not always clear what is being traded," says Oscar Reyes of Carbon Trade Watch.
Climate change has been found to be a fraud. Now the system to fight it has been. Yet it's that system the administration and others want to establish here through cap-and-trade legislation such as Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer.
As we also have noted, the mechanism for such phantom carbon trading here has already been established in the form of the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Joyce Foundation in 2000 and 2001 provided the seed money to start CCX when Barack Obama sat on its board.
CCX founder Richard Sandor estimates the climate trading market could be "a $10 trillion dollar market." It is an invitation to fraud that would make Europe's ETS scandal seem like petty theft.
In 2000, according to Joyce Foundation records, $347,600 was allocated to Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor, "to design a Midwestern pilot program for the voluntary trading of carbon dioxide and other emissions that cause climate change."
Now President Obama would make such carbon trading mandatory, limit total emissions and make carbon as valuable a commodity as booze during Prohibition.
Note: Although written in the context of the USA, the same things will undoubtedly happen here.
Do we really need an Emissions Trading Scheme (And,isn't it interesting how, in US parlance, the word "scheme" means something corrupt, devious or generally underhand?)
|
|
Cooler Heads Coalition congressional briefing
|
Cooler Heads Coalition congressional briefing on the science and politics of the "Climategate" scandal.
Featuring presentations by George Mason University Distinguished Senior Fellow Pat Michaels and International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP) Executive Director Joseph D'Aleo.
Click here to view this video
This fascinating video lasts for about one hour. This is essential viewing if you have any doubts about the bad science and fraud behind so-called global warming.
|
|
Wind farm fix claims disputed
|
March 28, 2010 by Grant Miller in Manawatu Standard
Claims at the Turitea Wind Farm hearing in Palmerston North that noise problems at a Wellington wind farm have been fixed are being disputed by residents there.
Meridian has made a series of changes at its wind farm in Makara, Wellington, reducing a problem with tonal sound.
Makara Guardians president Steve Russell said Meridian had not solved noise issues, however.
He put down fewer complaints recently to "complaint fatigue" and different wind conditions to normal.
Mighty River Power, which wants to build turbines on up to 105 potential sites on the Tararua Range near Palmerston North, could use the same turbine manufacturer as at Makara - Siemens.
A board of inquiry hearing on Mighty River Power's proposed Turitea Wind Farm is due to wrap up this week. Noise and landscape evidence have been the most contentious issues at the hearing.
A wind energy conference is also being staged in Palmerston North this week.
A Wellington City Council review of noise issues at Makara found that Meridian complied with its resource consent, except at one property.
Further monitoring would be needed to make sure the wind farm now complied, according to the review.
At the Turitea hearing last week, Meridian technical manager Paul Botha described a series of changes to make the Makara wind farm less annoying for nearby residents.
A 50-hertz tone was treated by changing software and a 62Hz tone was dealt with by fitting absorbers to turbines.
A 119Hz tone was addressed by slowing the turbines.
Mr Botha said there were about 100 complaints a month until the end of January.
In February, there were 53 complaints and there were 33 complaints to mid-March.
Complaints came from people at 64 houses, but 80 per cent of complaints were from 20 houses, he said.
Mr Botha noted that residents were in email contact with each other and this was sometimes evident in the pattern of complaints.
Mr Russell said he lived 1 1/2 kilometres from the nearest turbine.
Noise modulation was "little different than that I heard in December" and a friend 6km away also heard the noise, he said. "My wife is now having disturbed sleep, when she wasn't before."
Web link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/3520...
|
|
|
|
Buy a book, CD or DVD from Fishpond and 10% of your purchase price goes to help our cause.
|
Recommended reading
Acclaimed author Ian Wishart asks in Air Con: 1. Is global warming actually happening? 2. Is it caused by human activities? 3. Is there really anything we can do to prevent it? 4. Are climate scientists and the United Nations telling the truth? 5. What is really behind the push for the Copenhagen Treaty? The answers to these questions may shock you. Air Con is a must-read for every New Zealander, and is the most up-to-date book on global warming available in the world. With chapters like, "What Cars Did The Dinosaurs Drive?", and "Fancy A Cold Bear?" , this is an easy to read title using everyday language to explain the growing evidence against human-caused global warming.
In this engagingly written report by
Nina Pierpont, a Johns Hopkins University School of
Medicine trained M.D. and Princeton Ph.D.,
we discover wind energy’s dirty
little secret.
|
|
Climate Change/ Global Warming
Disturbines News
Energy Related
Humour
Impact on Agriculture
Impact on Wildlife
Personal Experiences with Wind Turbines
Rangitikei Guardians
Turbine Health and Safety Aspects
Wind Turbine Accidents
|
|
|
|
