BigWind ‘Spinning’ the TRUTH

screen shot 2019-01-14 at 7.54.39 am

The New Year is staring off with gusto!  A must watch video has been produced by the Seneca Anti-Wind Union coalition.  Everyone – we mean everyone should watch this video, share it on your social media, send it to your friends and think about ways your community can activate your neighbors.   Watch https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=pzg8qPOgI7s.

Next, educate yourselves about a memorandum filed with the PUCO by the Staff of the Ohio Power Siting Board in connection with Republic Wind in Seneca and Sandusky County.  Last February Apex filed an application for Republic Wind.  In May, the OPSB declared the application complete and ready for review.  In December, Apex filed a motion to change the turbine models and alter the array resulting in all proposed turbines being put in new locations causing changes to access roads and collector lines.  They also requested that the OPSB commence a hearing on the revised application in March, 90 days after submitting practically a whole new application.  The OPSB staff rejected the request citing the customary 60-day window to determine whether the amended application is complete.

Staff sees no need to rush the process.  Apex will ask the PUCO to overrule the OPSB staff. 

If one visits the Apex Republic Wind website, https://www.republicwindenergy.com/ , this is how Apex characterizes it’s amended application and the push to cut short the time period for careful evaluation:

‘“Great news! After months of diligent work to gather feedback from the community, we have found a few opportunities to amend our proposed turbine layout for Republic Wind. We have been working with OPSB to update our permit application for the project with this new layout, which we believe will be even more amenable to the members of the Seneca County community as a whole. We are glad to report that we do not anticipate this shift to delay our project, even with our request to extend the OPSB review process. We want to thank everyone who provided feedback for helping us create an even stronger Republic Wind project.”

Pure spin!  They call this significant amendment, an “update” and does their statement that they do not anticipate a delay mean they do not anticipate the PUCO will support the OPSB?  Something to watch!

Next up is Invenergy’s Hardin Wind project.  This project has not received opposition from the community.  It was approved in 2010 under the old setback rules measured from the neighbor’s house and has been  amended multiple times although it does not appear the OPSB ever required Invenergy to adhere to the new setbacks.  According to the docket in the case, construction started in 2016.   In order for Hardin Wind to secure 100% of the PTC, they would have to place the project in service within four years of commencing construction (2020).  In 2017, the media reported that AEP would purchase the power from Hardin Wind for its subsidiary, Appalachian Power serving West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. But unbeknownst to us, the West Virginia Public Service Commission denied the AEP’s request to buy the output of Hardin Wind last April.  The WV PSC said the cost of the power would impose an unnecessary increase in power bills and be a burden on taxpayers.  WOW!

“Appalachian Power’s push into renewables suffered a setback in April when the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) denied the company’s proposed purchase of two wind farms, one in Greenbrier County and another in Ohio. The PSC ruling stated that construction costs would cause an unneeded increase in power bills and a burden on taxpayers. The PSC decision followed a similar decision made by Virginia regulators in April.

The company had proposed to buy the Beech Ridge II Wind Facility in Greenbrier County and the Hardin Wind Facility in Ohio for more than $86 million.

Appalachianarticlelink 

We are not certain if much construction has actually occurred in the Hardin Wind project and we wonder if it will go forward without a contracted entity that will buy the expensive power. Notwithstanding, it is interesting to look back to 2017 when AEP announced it would purchase the power from Hardin Wind, At the time, Invenergy spun the project this way:  “Wind power’s declining costs and the extension of a federal tax credit “make the purchase of these wind facilities beneficial for customers, improve Appalachian’s fuel diversity, and increase the company’s flexibility to develop and offer renewable products for its customers,” Appalachian Power said in a statement.”  Guess not…..

Elsewhere:

Trouble in Paradise China.  “China has said it will not approve wind and solar power projects unless they can compete with coal power prices.

China says NO to BigWind- Link

It has now been determined that the US emitted more CO2 in 2018 despite less coal and more renewables.  This is a very interesting article which shows that U.S. emissions reductions since 2007 were principally the result of the recession and lower energy use.  As the economy recovers and industry expands, renewables cannot contribute to CO2 emission reductions.  As increases in energy demand continue, more renewables are not the way to address emissions reduction…..

Recharge 

US 2018 CO2 emissions up despite less coal, more renewables

Research firm Rhodium Group reports the 3.4% increase was aided by the power sector with natural gas the main replacement for coal as electricity demand grew

By Richard A. Kessler in Fort Worth 09 January 2019Updated 09 January 2019

US CO2 emissions rose 3.4% in 2018, the largest increase in eight years, despite near-record coal plant closures and the addition of 7.9GW of wind and solar capacity through October, according to a preliminary estimate by research company Rhodium Group.

This compares with declines of 0.8% in 2017, 1.7% the prior year and 2.7% in 2015…

Total US emissions have generally declined since the Great Recession that began in 2007-08, in part because of lower electricity usage in the ensuing years but also from reduced carbon intensity of US energy supply as utilities switched from coal to natural gas and renewables…

Even though 14.3GW of coal capacity likely closed last year, the most since 14.7GW in 2015, additions of renewables fell far short of making up this shortfall as US electric power consumption surged year-on-year in a robust economy.

That raises questions about to what extent renewables can replace coal generation next decade and by extension, contribute to CO2 emission reductions…

 

Advertisements

Is BigWind using group to ‘investigate’ Gov.Kasich for signing SB310?

Screen Shot 2014-07-23 at 9.51.06 AM

 

 

BigWind just won’t let this decision go and they are working every angle possible to change the outcome of Gov. Kasich’s energy bills. The comment, below, makes us believe that Mr. Tom Stacy is Ohio’s Superman. Let’s keep the Kryptonite away from him!

Gov. John Kasich has signed a measure that freezes Ohio’s popular renewable-energy standards. Although the freeze attracted most of the attention, the new law also calls for a two-year study of the standards impact on the state.

While the General Assembly conducts this review, the process that led Gov. Kasich to suspend the standards deserves scrutiny as well. That’s why I have filed a request for information about communication Mr. Kasich and his senior staff may have had with fossil-fuel interests before he decided to repeal clean-energy expansion in Ohio.

My organization, a government watchdog group called the Checks and Balances Project, seeks documentation of written and email communications from the governor and his staff to representatives of Koch Industries Inc., and the lobbying organizations they are known to support financially, as well as communicatons between the governor’s office and Ohio’s investor-owned utilities…

 

Comment from Tom Stacy, an Ohioan for affordable electricity:

The author states: “Ohioans deserve and honest accounting of what freezing the clean-energy and energy-efficiancy standards will mean to the state.” This is one statement where we agree. And this is why the members of the study committee that SB310 creates will be inundated with tons of information from all sides.

Unfortunately, much of that information will come from parties with a vested interest in skewing the reality by providing only some of the facts.  That is not where I and those I work with are coming from.  We are neither utility-centric, perfect-planet centric nor politically motivated.  Like the author’s group claims to be, we are seeking openness and truth and a complete picture that the American and Ohio public (taxpayers, electricity ratepayers, air breathers and water drinkers) can rely on.  But unlike the “Checks and Balances Project” (nice official sounding name, by the way), we do not try to magnify the trivial in the minds of the public by claiming things like a $12,000 political donation from David Koch could change the law.

We concentrate on the meaningful things like the cost per unit of net environmental improvement differnt electricity choices offer, how intermittent generators cause the utilization rates and patterns of dependable generators to become less efficient, and teaching the public that if we don’t use the power plants we have already built for as long as possible, higher electricity costs will drive jobs and manufacturing offshore to places where electricity is cheaper and dirtier.  There is no legislating around that, and since we already have a cleaner electricity system than other growing manufacturing economies like China and India, we are all better off keeping electricity costs as low as possible here.  It’s cleaner than leaking electricity use to dirtier nations, and better for our economy by reducing unemployment, increasing tax revenues, lowering national debt, improving our trade balance, etc.

Don’t be fooled by the political rants of Peterson and others.  Stick to those who analyze complex situations without the political baggage.  But if a FOIA needs to be brought to your attention to shed light on why certain people tell certain frantic stories like the one in the op-ed above, perhaps you should ask Mr. Peterson if his group has received donations anyone affiliated with the wind energy industry.

via: ToledoBlade.com 7/23/14 ‘On Energy Bill, Kasich owes Ohioans an explanation’ by Scott Peterson (sorry, problems providing you with the link)

 

How can ‘green’ = poverty?

specc.ie/1i49AHW

How can ‘green’ = poverty? The wind is free! The sun is free! True, those ‘fuels’ are free, but their conversion into electricity is extremely expensive- and, ironically, requires the use of fossil fuels for manufacturing. Changes in the world’s carbon emissions are negligible, yet, the world economies have spent HUNDREDS of BILLIONS installing wind turbines all over the planet. If you believe we can ‘save the planet’ with renewable energy, how can you justify the results on humans? This is not the 1st article covering the poverty caused by renewable subsidies. Last year, “To eat or heat” was a study about rising costs in Germany. Everywhere there are thousands of subsidized turbines, you have higher electricity rates. At some point, you need to ask some questions: What does this do to an average family’s budget? What impact could it have on their eating habits? What impact could it have on their health? How will this impact the business that employs average families? Will these businesses be able to support their employees with same wages or reduced? How will it impact their growth potential? How will it impact their cost to produce? The list goes on….and the answers aren’t good.

Britain’s environmentalists proudly announce that households have reduced their electricity consumption by almost 10 per cent since 2005.They seldom mention that this is helped by a 50 per cent increase in electricity prices, in part to pay for Britain increasing its share of renewables from 1.8 per cent to 4.6 per cent. Such a price increase of course hits the poorest hardest. As with many green taxes, it does so because it taxes a basic necessity that makes up a larger proportion of a small budget. Not surprisingly, higher energy prices mean the poor are forced to reduce their electricity consumption far more than the richest, who haven’t reduced their electricity consumption at all.

Over the past five years, heating a home in the UK has become 63 per cent more expensive, while real wages have declined. Unsurprisingly, a greater number of poor households must spend more than 10 per cent of their income on energy, becoming what is known as energy poor. This category now covers some 17 per cent of all British households. Worse, because the elderly are typically poorer, energy poverty affects about a quarter of all households whose inhabitants are over 60. Deprived pensioners are spending their days riding heated buses to keep warm, while a third are leaving part of their homes cold….

But things could be worse. In Germany green subsidies will cost €23.6 billion this year. Real household electricity prices have increased by 80 per cent since 2000, contributing to almost seven million households now living in energy poverty. Wealthy homeowners in Bavaria might feel good about installing inefficient solar panels on their roofs, but their lavish subsidies are essentially financed by poor tenants in the Ruhr paying higher electricity costs….

The rich world generates just 0.8 per cent of its energy from solar and wind, far from meeting even minimal demand. In fact, Germany will build ten new coal-fired power plants over the next two years to keep its own lights on.

Africa is the renewable utopia, getting 50 per cent of its energy from renewables — though nobody wants to emulate it. In 1971, China derived 40 per cent of its energy from renewables. Since then, it has powered its incredible growth almost exclusively on heavily polluting coal, lifting a historic 680 million people out of poverty. Today, China gets a trifling 0.23 per cent of its energy from unreliable wind and solar….

via How green policies hurt the poor » The Spectator.

What is China doing to fix its energy shortage? Not BigWind, but THORIUM

China

Thorium is probably something many of you have never heard of. Please visit the link at the bottom of this page, or along the right hand side of our home page for more information about this truly ‘green’ energy source. Ohio State University supports Thorium!…

The South China Post reported on March 18th that the Chinese government has greatly accelerated its plans to produce a commercialized LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor), which is a type of MSR Molten Salt Reactor. The previous goal set for the development of this reactor was within 25 years and that goal has now been reduced to just 10 years.

In the past, the development of a LFTR by China was due to a massive energy shortage in China. China’s energy shortage is the result of millions of Chinese living in the third world that are dreaming and reaching for a first world lifestyle (that a majority of many Americans and Europeans today enjoy).  The adoption of a very shrewd brand of American capitalism by the China government has allowed China the prosperity and wherewithal to pursue scientific endeavors such as the LFTR. These types of projects were previously reserved to capitalist countries like the United States, France, and Canada….

The reason given for the acceleration of the LFTR program by the China government is due to smog and air pollution brought on by the massive amount of manufacturing that has left America’s shores and other countries to set up business in China. Many out of work Americans in our struggling economy would like to have that problem. While China is exploiting its natural resources to produce prosperity for its citizens, America has adopted a policy of putting many of its natural resources off limits to protect the environment.

What is particularly ironic is that MSR technology was invented by America and Americans conceived the LFTR, but the same regulatory environment in America that has pushed American jobs overseas also prevents American companies from commercializing its own conceptual technology. A technology that could make many dirtier forms of energy naturally obsolete in a free market economy and give America a competitive edge.

China’s commercialization of LFTR would be a game changer that would allow an already very competitive China to have much more affordable energy and have a pollution free environment.

America’s energy policy is currently largely focused upon the development of renewables, and in particular, those renewable technologies that are not concentrated, base-load, or are power upon demand. Arguably, this means America has set its energy policy upon developing the most inefficient forms of renewable energy (wind and solar as compared to hydro or geothermal), which to economist (that are not scientifically biased and believe in the free-market system), means America is building energy expense and inefficiency into the foundation of its already struggling and un-competetive manufacturing arsenal.

China produces many of the solar panels and wind turbine generators (due to China’s near monopoly of rare earth elements used in their construction) used in America’s fleet of renewables, while China itself has gambled its present day prosperity and its future upon the development of nuclear technologies to provide safe, reliable, and clean energy.

Wind and solar in America struggle just to compete with coal and natural gas, LFTR is predicted to produce electricity at half that of natural gas and coal (and do so with less environmental harm to the planet than the large footprint of wind and solar) while producing no long-lived waste. Many Americans are used to living with Washington making bad energy policy decisions but, many cannot understand why we are aiding the Chinese in the development of commercializing MSR technology. To the layperson and even many experts this seems to be akin to shooting ourselves in our own foot. While America struggles to climb the ladder out of economic recession our legislators have adopted a policy of pursuing clean energy at any cost and a policy of assisting China at pursuing the development of clean and safe energy at an affordably competetive cost.

Shouldn’t we be pursuing clean, efficient, safe, and affordable energy?

Who are the winners in this current strategy?

via The Energy From Thorium Foundation The Molten Salt Reactor Race: Will America Join the Race.