Perth Wellington Liberal candidate: turbines might not be so great

Liberal candidate Stewart Skinner, running in the riding of Perth-Wellington, currently held by Randy Pettapiece (a staunch opponent of inappropriately placed industrial wind turbines), has said publicly that maybe the huge structures aren’t such a great idea on prime agricultural land in Ontario, and further, that he has to listen to the community. His doesn’t want them.
Wind power generation projects will be an election issue in the next provincial and municipal elections.
The CTV interview is here.

Online petition for Ostrander Point: 1400 and counting!!

If you haven’t already, please take a moment and sign the online petition concerning Ostrander Point. As you know, this power project was halted after Prince Edward County and Ontario citizens donated their after-tax dollars to fight the Ministry of the Environment and the wind power developer to save this unique environment. Now, our own government is appealing the decision, with the developer, and Ostrander Point—a rare alvar environment and the locale for hundreds of thousands of migratory birds–is in danger again.
Sign the petition.
Send a message to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne.
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_Ostrander_Point_In_Prince_Edward_County/?erlqsfb

“He’s a complete phoney”: Aussie columnist on Suzuki

More from Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun, this time exclusively on David Suzuki (previously branded as an eco-extremist by Bolt) who appeared on an Australian news magazine show. “He is a complete phoney,” says Bolt.
 

Suzuki revealed as a complete know-nothing

 Oh. My. God.

David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.
Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.
His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS – four of the most basic measurement systems of global temperature.
Suzuki asks what they are.
Anyone interested in global warming should know right there that Suzuki has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about.
In my opinion he is a phoney.

The horror for us in Ontario is that Mr Suzuki has actually influenced policy in Ontario, and played on his image as an environmentalist (he is a media personality) to sway the general public into believing that invasive, unreliable, high-impact wind power is a good thing to do, no matter what the consequences.

Read the entire article here.

Forbes Magazine: wind gets away with murder

Wind Energy Gets Away With Murder

The variable radial speed of wind turbines, up to 170 miles per hour can be lethal to birds and bats, especially our iconic bald eagle, seen here. Photo credit: John & Karen Hollingsworth, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

I’m not sure what all the fuss is about. So Wind Farms kill eagles. It’s not like we don’t kill beautiful endangered animals all the time. True, these are federally-protected and they’re an iconic symbol of our democracy. But hey, who minds using taxpayer dollars to kill a few icons?
I guess it’s the hypocrisy that galls. Under both the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Acts and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the death of a single eagle is a felony, and the Administration has prosecuted oil companies when birds drown in their oily facilities, and fined utilities when birds are electrocuted by their power lines.

But, come on, everyone hates oil companies. And who even knows what a utility is.
So the Interior Department can be forgiven for never fining or prosecuting a wind-energy company that repeatedly kills eagles. And we taxpayers can be forgiven for subsidizing them to the tune of a billion dollars a year.
According to an estimate published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin in March almost 600,000 birds are killed by wind farms in America each year, including over 80,000 raptors such as hawks and falcons and eagles (Wildlife Society). Even more bats die as their lungs are inverted by the negative pressures generated behind the 170 mile-per-hour spinning blades.

Read entire article here.http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml

Australia’s chief climate commissioner fired: who’s next

News from Australia. We especially love the characterization of Canada’s (embarrassment) David Suzuki as an “eco-extremist.”

TIM Flannery has been sacked. But why haven’t journalists who promoted such scaremongers been sacked, too? 
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, September 23 
 
When will they pay the price for the most shameful collective failure of journalism in decades?
Flannery’s astonishing record of dud predictions, such as his 2007 warning that we’d never again get dam-filling rains, finally caught up with the Chief Climate Commissioner this week.
The Abbott Government sacked him on just its second day, ostensibly to cut costs, and few journalists are defending the global warming alarmist they once hailed as our 2007 Australian of the Year. Damaged goods.
But it’s too easy to merely give Flannery the flick now his warming faith is finally crumbling. It’s too easy to make him the sole scapegoat after 15 years of no significant rise in global temperature – a hiatus to which the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will on Friday reluctantly admit in its latest report.
More important is to demand accountability from the countless journalists who made heroes of his sort and terrified the public with preposterous scares about a warming that hasn’t come.
For years, most in the mainstream media didn’t just refuse to question the great global warming scare, but howled down the few who dared to.
Journalists became propagandists, even witch-hunters. And the biggest cabal of them gathered in the ABC.
Four years ago,for instance, I was a panellist on the ABC’s Insiders program and mentioned the warming pause.
Fellow panellist David Marr asked me not to refer to it again and then ostentatiously buried his head in a newspaper. La la la la, not listening.
Marr, of course, was a former host of the ABC’s Media Watch, which for years, under various hosts, hounded warming sceptics and gave the Flannerys a free pass.
The other panellist was ­Annabel Crabb, now an ABC host. She, too, demanded we talk about something else, and on another Insiders show, mocked my quoting of scores of studies which showed the warming theory wasn’t working out as the likes of Flannery claimed.
“You put a million posts on your blog about some new study from the University of East Bumcrack,” she scoffed.
In a debate on the ABC’s The Science Show, I faced the same fierce denialism from the ABC’s chief science presenter, Robyn Williams, who absurdly insisted we faced sea level rises this century of up to 100m – or about 99.5m more than even most warmist scientists say is likely.
Williams later led a staff revolt to stop the ABC from screening the Great Global Warming Swindle, the only documentary or current affairs show it has ever aired that questioned the warming scare.
Showing such stuff, was “verging on the irresponsible”, protested Williams.
Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, another ABC science presenter, was this year still insisting Britain’s influential Met Office had detected 0.3C of warming since 1997, even after the Met Office itself announced the real figure was just 0.05C.
Former ABC chairman Maurice Newman was right: “There are signs that a small but powerful group has captured the corporation, at least on climate change.”
The ABC is not alone, of course. The Age has been even more vindictive. It imposed a near total ban on articles by sceptics and has vilified the most prominent of them.
Most shamefully, it mocked well-known sceptic Christopher Monckton by publishing a close-up picture of the mathematician’s protuberant eyes – a symptom of his Graves’ disease – under the headline: “Moncky business”.
But now the warming pause is so undeniable that even The Age, after 15 years, on Saturday was forced to acknowledge it.
True, its front-page story still had the deceptively scary headline “Warming in danger zone”, and started with a warning that humans had emitted so much carbon dioxide that temperatures could rise to “dangerous levels”. Panic!
But deep in the article came the critical admission. A leaked draft of the report to be released on Friday by the IPCC, the UN body given a Nobel Prize for its climate alarmism, now admits temperatures have, in fact, all but stopped rising.

Read entire article here

Looking into the crystal ball: the dark future for power in Ontario

Here from the U.K., news of what is happening because of the government’s foray into expensive, unreliable power produced from wind, which is generated out of phase with demand. Mothballed power plants, millions in costs to consumers.
Stop now, Ontario.

Consumers face bill for power stations to be mothballed amid blackout fears

Energy companies are to be paid ten of millions of pounds to keep old power stations on standby amid mounting fears of blackouts.

The Rampside gas terminal in Barrow in Furness, Cumbria
The Rampside gas terminal in Barrow in Furness, Cumbria Photo: Alamy
9:00PM BST 21 Sep 2013
They will be paid to mothball, rather than demolish, power stations taken out of service.
The plans come as oil and coal plants are being closed due to European Union directives, which have been introduced to cut emissions that scientists have said lead to climate change.
The move is being planned after Ofgem, the energy regulator, warned of electricity shortages within the next three years.
Ofgem said the measure was needed because new wind farms and nuclear plants have not been built in time to replace the oil and coal power stations being phased out.
Critics of wind power said turbines were flawed because they do not generate electricity when there is little wind, while plans for nuclear power stations have yet to reach the construction stage.

Documents submitted to Ofgem’s consultation on the plans reveal that energy firms are expecting to receive as much as £120 million under the scheme, which would ultimately be added to consumer bills.
It is one of a series of schemes that National Grid believes will help keep the electricity system stable as Britain adopts more forms of renewable energy.
Under another scheme, companies are building diesel power stations to provide a reserve of energy in case of short-term drops in electricity.
National Grid has also published plans to pay factories and large businesses to switch off their power if electricity demand comes close to outstripping supply.
Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, said the proposals to make use of mothballed plants were a “cost-effective” way to ensure Britain can “keep the lights on”.
National Grid, the body responsible for the electricity transmission network, said the plants would be used as a “last resort”. Energy firms would be paid annual rates to keep the plants on standby, in addition to any fees for generating electricity in the event that they are needed.
The proposals were set out by National Grid following talks with Ofgem and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), aimed at ensuring a sufficient supply of electricity in the middle of the decade.
Six oil and coal power stations have been closed in the past five years, with a further three plants due to shut down by the end of 2015.
In June, Ofgem warned that the risk of blackouts in 2015 had risen to one in four, if energy demand continued at its current level.
Uncertainty around the amount of available electricity in 2015 and 2016 meant that it was “prudent” to consider keeping mothballed plants in reserve, it said.
GDF Suez, the energy company that has mothballed its Teesside gas power station, has estimated that keeping plants on standby could cost between £90 million and £120 million per year.
Responding to Ofgem’s consultation, it criticised the proposal for encouraging existing gas-fired plants to remain in reserve instead of producing power. GDF Suez was also among the energy companies, including SSE, to express concerns about the potential cost of the scheme.
SSE said it had not been shown that the scheme would provide better value for money than bringing forward the “capacity market”; a more permanent mechanism by the Government to pay gas-fired plants to be available when needed. It is not expected to take effect until 2018.
A spokesman for National Grid indicated the costs of the scheme would be in the “low tens of millions a year” and possibly less.
“The competition to provide this service, and a large uptake of our demand side product, could mean the cost could be far less. Because we are still consulting on these products, it’s too early to say for sure,” he said.
“In terms of what this cost would be for consumers, we’re talking less than 50p on their annual bills.”
According to figures published by National Grid in July, there are four large, mothballed power stations.
All of these plants are gas-fired and have stopped operating as a result of low profits for gas generation.
The stations – Keadby in North Lincs; Teesside, near Middlesbrough; Roosecote in Cumbria; and Barking in east London – could generate more than three gigawatts of electricity, which is enough to power about 2.4 million homes on average.
However, GDF Suez has indicated that Teesside is unlikely to take part in the scheme.
A spokesman for the DECC said: “The measures consulted on by National Grid and Ofgem would – if used – enable the procurement of the amount of capacity needed to ensure security of supply, allowing them to respond accordingly.
“National Grid’s proposals will also be designed to allow existing mothballed generation which meets environmental requirements to provide capacity.
“Bids would be assessed to ensure this is done at a cost that represents value for money for consumers.”
Separately, it has been suggested that several companies are building diesel generator plants to provide a backup for National Grid because of the unreliability of wind turbines.

Read the entire article here.

Mothers voice fears about wind turbines to Minister Chiarelli

Moms speak out about turbines

Mothers group takes message to energy minister

Moms speak out about turbines 

 

Submitted photo

Mothers Against Wind Turbines took their message to Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli Monday. Pictured with the minister are Linda Rogers,  Anita Thornton, Xander Kidd, Marianne Kidd and Lauren Kidd.

Grimsby Lincoln News

A group of mothers from the West Lincoln and Glanbrook took their concerns about wind turbines proposed for their communities to the minister of energy.
After learning that Bob Chiarelli would be at the Babcock and Wilcox nuclear facility in Chatham on Monday, Mothers Against Wind Turbines decided to try their luck at a one-on-one conversation with the minister. After some back and forth with the minister’s assistant, they were told they could have five minutes with Chiarelli after the facility tour.
“We started off with questions related to the ongoing projects in the MOE queue and explaining our position on why existing projects needed to be cancelled moving forward,” said Marianne Kidd, a member of the group. “After he explained that they didn’t want to cancel those projects due to the legal ramifications while addressing history related to the gas plant scandals, we tried to sway him to our side expressing that millions more would be wasted if the projects were approved … especially looking at the next 20 years.”
The mothers discussed how these green energy projects were creating “energy poverty” by driving up electricity costs for the average customer.
The mothers also discussed health concerns.
“You are ruining our province,” Anita Thornton told the minister, after discussing how turbine placement does not take into consideration children with autism and other special needs.
Kidd explained her home will be surrounded by eight turbines within two kilometres from her home. Linda Rogers from Haldimand will have 16 within that same distance.
Chiarelli directed the mothers to log their concerns onto the Environmental Registry — which most have already done.
“After explaining to him that we were fully aware of  the process  and have been writing to the MOE repeatedly, we expressed  that once  our projects were approved … we will fight it with an [Environmental Review Tribunal] using money raised from garage sales  and spaghetti dinners.”
In the end, the mothers pleaded with the minister to work with his colleagues to find technicalities in existing projects so they do not get approved.
Ontario does not need the energy and already has eliminated coal. 
“We are not sure if Minister Chiarelli was listening or if it  will lead anywhere … but we did appreciate the minister’s time  and willingness to meet  with us.”
The mothers will next take their concerns to regional council to talk about declaring Niagara “not a willing host” to wind turbines.
 

Ross McKitrick:gap between climate change models and reality widens

From the Financial Post, a special article by economic professor Ross McKitrick on the models being used to predict and report on climate change, and whether they have any basis in reality. Recent reports are that climate change models have been significantly overestimated.

IPCC models getting mushy

Ross McKitrick, Special to The Financial Post

In the next five years, the global warming paradigm may fall apart if the models prove worthless
There has been a lot of talk lately about the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and whether it will take into account the lack of warming since the 1990s. Everything you need to know about the dilemma the IPCC faces is summed up in one remarkable graph.

Read more  here.