Will Batteries be the savior for BigWind? No and they are NOT green

Screen Shot 2019-03-12 at 11.32.49 AM

So, why not just use batteries to store BigWind energy? Battery storage is simply not dense enough. Read below and you will see the limitations. It does not make sense. We need energy DENSE sources that are efficient, dispatchable and inexpensive (nuclear/gas/coal/hydro) for our homes and businesses. Batteries, though rechargeable, are not green. Visit a lithium mine in northern Chile(pic above). Texas would not permit such a facility, and consider trying to open one in California or Massachusetts. And keep in mind, that lithium, like lead and cadmium, also popular for batteries, is a poisonous heavy metal. This is another aspect of the fake news about new renewables. And consumers need a lot of mines and batteries. A new battery for a full-size car stores 1 kWh. Running New York City for two cloudy, windless days would require about 530 million such batteries, about 62 per person….Read through the article(s) below and you will see that just 1 Tesla car battery uses 63 kg of lithium= more than the amount in 10,000 cell phones….

The Battery Series - Part 1The Battery Series - Part 2The Battery Series - Part 3The Battery Series - Part 4The Battery Series - Part 5
The Battery Series: Our Energy Problem: Putting the Battery in Context

What do we do with Toxic BigWind trash??

Screen Shot 2018-07-17 at 4.22.56 PM

More than 10,000 of the existing 28,000 turbines need to be decommissioned!! Can you imagine multiple industrial wind energy sites like this? When each one consumes tens of thousands of acres? What are we doing to our landscape, our neighbors, our countryside. Oh, but wait, we forgot, BigWind claims THEY will decommission and take care of their machines- HAHAHA.  And, how, my goodness, HOW is this environmentally friendly? It’s NOT! It’s time to change the discussion and highlight the truth about these industrial sites. There is nothing green about industrial wind energy turbines….except the green $$$ the taxpayer gives to them…

Germany has more than 28,000 wind turbines — but many are old and by 2023 more than a third must be decommissioned. Disposing of them is a huge environmental problem. Expert Jan Tessmer tells DW he’s optimistic.

DW: Dr Tessmer, disposing of wind turbines is extremely difficult.  Their concrete bases go as deep as 30 meters into the ground, and are hard to fully remove, while the rotor blades contain glass and carbon fibers — they give off dust and toxic gases so burning them isn’t an option. Some environmentalists say this problem is being swept under the carpet, what do you think?…

Jan Tessmer: I actually think everything is relative. Of course it is an issue and of course you don’t get anything for free, but you always have to see it in relation, what are the values you get out of the wind turbine and I think yes, some efforts have to be made to efficiently, and also without environmental  damage, get turbines recycled or out of the ground.

There are huge concrete foundations that have to be gotten out but I don’t see there being any principal problem  that could not be overcome. It will probably be a challenge for technology. It will really be an issue over the next years and decades probably to get old turbines off the field, so I expect industry will find technologies to cope with it.

Is the difficulty in disposing of wind turbines hurting wind energy’s reputation as a green power source?

Yes, sure…DW eco@africa - wind turbines in Germany (picture-alliance/dpa/P. Pleul)

Wind turbines pose a big environmental problem when it comes to disposing of them…

Do you think that environmentalists are still mostly pro wind energy or do you think there’s been a pushback regarding the difficulties in disposing of wind turbines?

I think we have more and more problems with the issue of acceptance. I wouldn’t say it’s because of the disposal issue, I think it’s more on issues like noise or the lightning effects during the night, that people feel disturbed. I don’t think people think so much about the disposal issue, although it might be important and I also think that we have to address this issue.

Ohio media still wearing Halloween mask supporting BigWind

Whew! What a week! As the election nears, “conspiracy theories” don’t look so conspiratorial anymore. They look like the real thing. With this in mind, we thought we might share a few “conspiracy theories” that have been raised in connection with industrial wind.

Rigged! Let’s start with “media bias”. On Friday, Senator Bill Seitz decided to call out the media on their biased reporting. In one example sent to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Seitz charges(a similar article from Columbus is referenced, below):

“Today’s Plain Dealer contains two articles by you, one on the “nine major companies” who want green power rules restored and one on the Greenlink group report. To their credit, the Nature Conservancy and EDF shared the Greenlink report with me last week and I am in the process of reviewing it to provide a response.

What is frustrating to me is that you cover all such pro-mandate reports and press releases, but never seem to get around to covering the other side of the story. I sent you the Ohio Business Roundtable (OBR) report a few weeks ago, whose conclusion was to end mandates altogether. OBR surely represents a wider swath of “major companies” than do the nine whose press release you devoted several column inches to today. Where’s the balance?

I now enclose a report I received just last week from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the ultimate representative of “major companies”. That report shows a multibillion dollar drag on Ohio’s economy if Ohio pursues European Union style green energy policies as advocated by Clinton, Sanders, and their allies. Specifically, Ohioans could stand to lose 187,000 jobs, and see an annual rate increase of $5,000 per household. This is on top of the nearly $14.8 billion in total GDP Ohio’s economy stands to lose. How about some coverage on that?

And I also shared with you the Canadian news story about the utter failure of Ontario’s rush to renewables. We needn’t go so far as Europe to see the fiscal consequences of these policies when Ontario is only one narrow lake away from Ohio. Why no coverage of that?

I am all for intense coverage of this vitally important issue on which there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides, but you do your readers no favors by failing to covering one side so thoroughly and making it appear as though “major companies” support what the clear majority of them vigorously oppose.”

Rigged! Environmental Lobby & Public Opinion Polls Funded by Billionaires and Russian Oligarchs! Take a look at the well-oiled machine behind wind and solar as they pull the strings of gullible policy makers at both the state and local level. We recommend you read the article from Paul Dreissen of CFACT entitled “Billionaire crony corporatist schemes: Financing “green” companies and pressure groups, to get richer off taxpayers and consumers.” And we wish you a Happy Halloween, too. An excerpt from Dreissen’s column:

“As the investigators reveal, the billionaires’ green network transfers millions of dollars from individual, corporate and “charitable foundation” donors … through tax-exempt “educational” nonprofits that do not have to disclose donor names … to activist and pressure groups that work to influence elections, legislation, regulations, legal actions and public perceptions on energy and environmental issues. A lot of money originates with Russian and other foreign interests that want to protect their monopoly revenues.

Many wealthy donors and foundations that bankroll these operations also have venture capital firms that invest in “green” energy companies which benefit from the laws, policies, regulations and lawsuits – and from government contracts, grants, guaranteed loans, subsidies, feed-in tariffs, and mandates for energy systems, ethanol blends or wind and solar electricity. In turn, US money can end up in the coffers of radical Australian groups that block coal exports to India, thereby keeping its people mired in poverty.

Coal billionaire/climate activist Tom Steyer and other club members invest in for-profit prisons where inmates make ultra-low-cost solar panels. Warren Buffett funneled millions through his family foundation to the secretive Tides Foundation to pressure groups campaigning against the Keystone and Sandpiper Pipelines, thereby benefitting his railroad and tank car companies that haul oil. Others support North Dakota pipeline protesters who destroyed equipment, mutilated cattle and harassed local residents.

One of the most clandestine, devious arrangements involves firms owned or controlled by Nathaniel Simons and Laura Baxter-Simons. Tax records reveal that their Sea Change Foundation gives tens of millions a year to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, US Climate Action Network, League of Conservation Voters, Center for American Progress, White House counselor John Podesta’s Progressive Policy Institute – and Sierra Club, which received millions from Sea Change for its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign, to battle drilling, fracking, pipelines and hydrocarbon use. “

Is Trick or Treat over?….

Some of the world’s largest corporations employing more than 25,000 in Ohio oppose plans by state GOP lawmakers to get rid of state standards requiring utilities to sell increasing percentages of power generated by wind, solar and other renewables.

Nine corporations, including manufacturers Whirlpool and Owens Corning and food giants Nestle and Campbell Soup, released statements Tuesday urging state lawmakers to bring back rules requiring power companies to provide annually increasing amounts of electricity generated by wind, solar and other renewable technologies.

The nine, many of which have also worked with the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association to oppose changes in Ohio’s renewable energy standards, this time organized with Ceres, a non-profit group that works with global corporations and investors around the world to encourage corporate sustainability….

Source: Corporate leaders urge GOP to reinstate renewable energy

‘Green Energy’ States have HIGHER electricity rates

Yet, another, study showing this truth. The wind may be free, but converting it to energy is anything BUT free. Please see our tabs, at the top of the page, for other examples. Hover over the tab, for links to other articles that confirm this truth…

States which offered substantial taxpayer support for green energy pay a lot more for electricity….

Statistical analysis run by the DCNF found a positive and statistically significant correlation existed between high electricity bills and states with numberous policies supporting green energy.  States which offered rebates, buy-back programs, tax exemptions and direct cash subsidies to green energy were 64 percent more likely to have higher than average electric bills…

Most analysts agree rising residential electricity prices are also harmful to American households.  Pricey power disproportionately hurts pooreer families and other lower-income groups as the poor tend to spend a higher proportion of their incomes on ‘basic needs’ like power…

As essential goods like electricity becomes more expensive, the cost of producing goods and services that use electricity increases, effectively raising the price of almost everything….

Source: Map: States Supporting Green Energy Have High Electric Bills | The Daily Caller

BigWind is subsidized >52x more than fossil fuels. Fair????

The next time someone tells you they support BigWind subsidies because fossil fuels receive them, too, remember this information. BigWind loves to tell the public that they only want what is fair- an equal opportunity. Is BigWind really being treated, equally? Is it fair when BigWind is being subsidized over 52 times more than the more conventional fossil fuels on a unit of production basis? It seems to us, that our tax dollars are subsidizing failure, not success, since BigWind produces less than 5% of our nation’s electricity…

At the request of Congress, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, evaluated the amount of subsidies that the federal government provides energy producers for fiscal year 2013, updating a study that it did for fiscal year 2010.[i] Over a 3-year period, from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013, total federal electricity-related subsidies increased from $11.7 billion to $16.1 billion, an increase of 38 percent over the 3-year period. The largest increases in federal energy subsidies were in electricity-related renewable energy, which increased 54 percent over the 3-year period, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion. Fossil fuel subsidies declined by 15 percent, from $4.0 billion to $3.4 billion. Total federal energy subsidies declined 23 percent, from $38 billion to $29 billion due to the expiration of tax incentives for biofuels, the depletion of stimulus funds, and a decrease in energy assistance funds

On a per dollar basis, government policies have led to solar generation being subsidized by over 345 times more than coal and oil and natural gas electricity production, and wind is being subsidized over 52 times more than the more conventional fossil fuels on a unit of production basis.

Over the 3-year period, electricity-related renewable subsidies increased, while conservation, end-use, and biofuels subsidies declined:

  • Renewable electricity-related subsidies increased by 54 percent from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion. Electricity-related renewables saw the largest increase in federal benefits. Of the $13.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, $8.6 billion (65 percent) was related to the Obama administration’s economic stimulus law.
  • Solar led the various renewables with almost a 5-fold increase in subsidy (both electricity-related and non-electricity related) from $1.1 billion to $5.3 billion and led electricity sector subsidies on a unit of production basis.
  • Wind subsidies increased by 9 percent from $5.4 billion to $5.9 billion
  • Subsidies for biofuels declined by 74 percent, from $7 billion to $1.8 billion.
  • Conservation and end-use subsidies declined by half from $15.6 billion to $7.9 billion. Conservation subsidies declined from $7.1 billion to just under $2 billion (72 percent). End-use subsidies declined from $8.5 billion to just under $6 billion (30 percent).

Over the 3-year period, fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies declined:

  • Federal subsidies for coal declined by almost 3 percent from $1,116 million to $1,085 million.
  • Federal subsidies for oil and natural gas declined 20 percent from $2,918 million to $2,346 million.
  • Federal subsidies for nuclear energy declined 12 percent from $1,893 million to $1,660 million….

EIA Report: Subsidies Continue to Roll In For Wind and Solar – IER.

Ohio governor Kasich defends record on green issues

It was gratifying to read that while Governor Kasich is out and about during this campaign season, he is defending the new property line setbacks which will become effective September 14th.  The Columbus Dispatch reports the Governor “defended the increased setback restrictions on wind turbines by saying, “Private property rights are important. People choose to live somewhere. You just don’t go in there and disrupt their life.” The Dispatch goes on to note that “Energy has emerged as a key difference between Kasich and Democratic challenger Ed FitzGerald.”  Remember, we have blogged, before, about this setback still being weaker than many other places, worldwide!

Defense of safe setbacks that respect property lines comes at a time when fire hazards are being studied.  The Financial Times reports that “Wind farms have long been blamed for blighting views and killing birds but now it is claimed they are also a bigger fire hazard than commonly thought. About one wind turbine fire a month is reported publicly around the world but that is “just the tip of the iceberg”, according to Guillermo Rein of London’s Imperial College, co-author of research estimating that the actual number of blazes could be 10 times higher.”…“The results surprised us a lot,” Mr. Rein said, explaining that he and colleagues found information about the extent of turbine fires was often incomplete or not publicly available.”   During the Buckeye Wind Phase II case, the Ohio Power Siting Board sided with Everpower’s attorneys when they  objected to UNU’s efforts to enter accident and fire information into the case record. We still call for this board to be renamed SYBW Say YES to BigWind! as they have never rejected a wind application…. 

BELLVILLE, Ohio — Despite the fire he took for at least temporarily halting Ohio’s standards on renewable energy and for adding restrictions to wind energy, Gov. John Kasich says he is as committed to “green” energy as ever.

He said yesterday that he had fended off even more draconian energy proposals from his fellow Republicans in the legislature, including a veto threat. That was before they passed Senate Bill 310, a two-year freeze on annual increases in standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and new setback restrictions on wind turbines contained in a separate budget bill….

via Kasich defends record on green issues | The Columbus Dispatch.

How ‘green’ is BigWind’s 45 tons of concrete and 630 yards of concrete PER turbine?

We invite you to look at the photos at http://www.cashton.com/North_Wind_Turbine_Const-DM-CS-SB-2-reduced-in-size.pdf .

These pictures are wonderful views of wind “farmers” planting 45 tons of rebar and 630 yards of concrete to grow one wind turbine.  How ‘green’ is this? It is certain nothing else will ever “grow” in this field. Can you imagine the quality of the field and drainage tiles after this construction? Remember, there will be maintenance with the crane, again, at approximately 5 years – if the developer changes the (approximate) 200 gallons of oil in the nacelle. Don’t forget to check our out FARMER tab on our website. It has links to problems that wind ‘farmers’ can experience….