Ohio testifies against (HB 114) BigWind in a BigWay

Screen Shot 2018-06-22 at 7.59.02 AM

Yesterday was a huuuuggge day at the Statehouse where rural landowners from
Champaign, Van Wert, Seneca, Huron, Richland, Allen, Hardin and Logan
Counties assembled to provide opponent testimony against the proposed
setbacks in Sub. H.B.  114.   Fifty-three separate testimonies were
submitted for the record and twenty of them were presented verbally by a
great group of people including a Van Wert County Commissioner. All
testimony can be downloaded or viewed on the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee website at
http://www.ohiosenate.gov/committees/energy-and-natural-resources/document-a
rchive .   The room was packed and those who made the long trip to Columbus
left quite an impression on anyone who saw us fill the main floor and the
balcony. We spent 3 1/2 hours stating our concerns and Chairman Balderson was kind enough to let everyone say what they came to say without time constraints.

We rebutted the notion that Ohio’s setbacks were the most restrictive in
the nation by showing that the universe of states to which we can be
compared is just four states.  If H.B. 114 is passed with 1.2x turbine
height setbacks, Ohio will have the third least protective setbacks in the
nation with South Dakota (46th in population rank) and Wisconsin being worse
than Ohio.  Wisconsin measures 1.1x turbine height to the property line and
1,125′ to the residence.  The Wisconsin Town Association adopted a
Resolution a few years ago calling for a Moratorium on further wind
development and the Brown County Board of Health deemed them to be a human
health hazard.

We presented a powerful testimony documenting the property losses
experienced inside the Blue Creek Wind project.   We uniformly presented
opposition to measurement from anything but the property line and opposition
to any reduction in current setbacks.  We all demanded that people inside a
project footprint have a vote in whether or not a project should be
approved.  One opponent actually lives inside Blue Creek.  She described
the awful nuisance effects and said there were times she had to leave the
area.

Senator Dolan was ready with questions we suspect were prepared for him by
the wind lobby.  He was essentially the only one speaking on behalf of wind.

*       Sen. Dolan said OPSB siting was unique in the US and makes Ohio’s
wind siting the most professional, responsive and protective in the nation.
He said no other state has what we have. But OPSB’s siting decisions
routinely wind up in the Ohio Supreme Court because they are flawed. Both
county and township governments have been intervenors and their concerns,
like the citizens,  have been disregarded.  OPSB has not adopted all the
siting rules they were required by law to adopt; they have no standard for
Low Frequency Noise; they do not enforce the law requiring property line
setbacks for amended certificates; they deny requests for safety manuals and
on and on.   One Supreme Court  Justice once opined that   “Where there is
no rule, there can be no violation, and there will be no need for an
amendment.”  That seems to us like the OPSB philosophy.

*       One point in our testimony that should be reinforced is that, in
almost every other state, the setback is established via local zoning
ordinance.  In 27 states, there are numerous issues that state Public
Utility or Public Service Commissions evaluate when processing an
application for a wind project certificate but setbacks are not one of them.
(In some instances, the developer can appeal to the state Public Utilities
Commission if they object to the local zoning.)  When other state
governments issue a certificate, they simply verify the application complies
with the local setback and that  a local zoning permit has been issued. That
is what the National Conference of State Legislatures’ survey reveals.
Moreover, it reveals that almost every local zoning ordinance measures
setbacks from the property line irrespective of differences in distance.
Even AWEA’s setback  chart confirms this.

*       Sen. Dolan continues to assert that granting PILOT constitutes local
control even after testimony that EverPower’s representative told the family
of a witness they intended to build without PILOT. Dolan
attacked the witness saying she was spreading “hearsay” that was not
credible.  Dolan tried to get Julie to agree that there was no longer a
project in Champaign County because EverPower had been denied PILOT.  She
said she did not know that to be true.    Another thing to consider is that
an increasing number of developers are building the wind facilities and
selling them – to corporations; to other wind companies and to utilities.
These developers will not have to pay the tax because they won’t own the
project anymore.  Any company with a deep pocket and desire to appear green
(think Amazon or AEP) can afford to pay.

*       Sen. Dolan continues to assert the “two-pronged” setback – from the
property line and the residence addresses our concerns.  This is absolutely
laughable but it continues to have some kind of traction with legislators.
The only thing that matters is the distance from the property line. Anything
beyond that is irrelevant. The nuisance effects cross the line onto the
property on which these people pay taxes.  Although we continue to  say it
is trespass zoning and that the participating property-owner is given an
easement and compensated while the non-participating property owner carries
the burden, risks loss of property value and becomes a prisoner inside his
own house.

*       Sen. Dolan asked a witness if she would be willing to have the County Commissioners make the decision on approving a wind farm.
She said “no”.  She said some Commissioners are leaseholders.  (They also
have a conflict of interest in accepting the discretionary money which is
part of the PILOT and which can fund their own salary increases.) She
asserted the only acceptable thing would  be a vote of the affected people
inside the footprint.  It came through pretty clearly that local voters need
a voice.  A Van Wert County Commissioner stated that, even if the
people in the affected area do not have an opportunity to vote, the
Commissioners would take a straw poll anyway and that would guide them.
He also made the important point that giving local control to the
voters forces the wind companies to negotiate.  Right now they have no
incentive to negotiate and they ignore the concerns of the local community.
Related to that, he said in Paulding County the wind developer provided
a $5,000 bond to dismantle the Timber Road project.  That exposes the county
to a future liability that they probably will never be able to afford to
address.

*       Sen. Dolan asked us to acknowledge that the 2,300′ property line
setbacks adopted in Rush County, Indiana meant that a wind project could not
be built.  We said that was the choice of that community.  Further noted, Allen County, where Fort Wayne is located, voted to ban wind turbines. Noted, too, was the manager of the Blue Creek Wind Farm chose to live in Fort Wayne where he and his family would not be exposed to wind turbines. One size does not fit all.  Why
should it matter that a wind project would need to go elsewhere where they
can be accommodated?   It should be obvious to everyone that it is wrong to
facilitate a hostile takeover of a community.

*       We understand part of the reluctance to permit local zoning comes
from the Farm Bureau who thinks regulation in a rural area is the camel’s
nose under the tent and will legitimize future rural regulation such as for
hog farms.  That issue was squarely addressed in the testimony of our witness
 who said anyone who chooses to live in the country accepts that there might be pests and unpleasant odors from animal farm operations. But NO ONE expects to live inside an industrial power plant.  The farm lobby should not get away with conflating hog farms and industrial wind despite their continuing to call them “farms”.

If HB 114 were to pass in its present form, Ohio would become the dumping
ground for developers who want to site turbines ‘on the cheap’ near
transmission, rather than in more remote locations that have higher
transmission costs but fewer people.

As all of the debate continues, we are seeing more courts upholding
challenges from people who anticipate problems with proposed wind
developments.  There is recent court-related activity from Indiana, West
Virginia, Minnesota, Kansas and New York.

As noted above, Ohio does not have a standard for low frequency noise which
is below the threshold of hearing but can harm you.  We cannot see x-rays or
ultraviolet rays yet we understand exposure to them can harm us.  LFN is
harmful even though we cannot see it.  One opponent submitted written
testimony on this issue and we also recommend a good video to watch for a
better understanding of LFN at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=194&v=ZXCZ3OyklrE .

Thank you to all who traveled and submitted testimony! veryone should feel proud to Every single person mattered —democracy in action!!

Advertisements

Apex Clean Energy handed big ‘blow’ in Van Wert, Ohio

 

Screen Shot 2018-05-09 at 7.19.32 AM

The Van Wert county overwhelmingly said NO to a county commissioner who strongly supported  Apex Clean Energy!  The same occurred, across the border, in Cass County, IN…

The TRUTH is hard to hide and it is out. BigWind is a bully across America. It divides families and communities and damages our energy security b/c it is an intermittent energy source that must be backed up 100% of the time. People are becoming educated….

Do you think our legislators are paying attention???? Columbus should be, particularly before they sign a new law that shortens our setbacks!!!

Is Apex Clean Energy trying to influence Van Wert, OH commissioner election????

Screen Shot 2018-05-04 at 11.05.24 AM

The facts speak for themselves.  The Moser family and close friend have contributed $3610 to the Vicky Profit campaign for Van Wert, Ohio county commissioner.  This information is public record and listed on the Jon Husted Statement of Contributions Received at the elections office. Connections to Apex Clean Energy represent 84% of the funds raised for Mrs. Profit for county commissioner.  If this doesn’t represent collusion, what does?  Currently, the Van Wert county commissioners have told Apex NO to a PILOT agreement. They have told Apex it will pay full taxes to the Van Wert county residents, not the pocket change of the current PILOT agreement (approximately 16% of full taxation valuation). Apex ‘appears’ to be making a grand effort to change this. If you are dealing with BigWind in your area, its imperative that you stay vigilant and be aware of their tactics…. 

Ohio BigWind contracts acknowledge turbine problems

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 8.28.39 AM.png

Didn’t BigWind, recently, DENY that these contracts act as any sort of gag clause? YES, companies have told the public that they welcome and encourage feedback about issues related to their projects…except that they don’t.  In NW Ohio, one company has even promoted the fact that there are virtually no complaints associated with their project.  Gee, we now know why!  Unfortunately, our legislators are unaware of this reality and think everything is ‘rosy’ if constituents reside in an industrial wind park.  Also, important to note is the SETBACK WAIVER component of this agreement.  Legislators take note!! We applaud these individuals and pray their concerns are shared amongst many…..

As adjacent landowners to a proposed wind turbine site, we have been given a 13-page good neighbor contract that is titled “Wind Farm Neighbor Easement And Setback Waiver Agreement” that is intended to serve as an incentive to be cooperative with the Seneca Wind farm project. If we sign it, we get a whopping $500 signing bonus and $500 per year, but we have to waive our right to file a claim for damages related to any of the stated “effects,” which in the contract is worded as an “effect easement.” If we sign the contract, we also agree to a “setback easement” which states that the turbine can be located anywhere on the adjacent property, even closer than what the current state setback rule specifies.

The contract also includes a confidentiality clause where we cannot disclose the terms of the agreement to anyone. What is there to hide?

The defined “effects” using Seneca Wind’s own terms include “audio, visual, view, light, shadow flicker, vibration, air turbulence, wake, electromagnetic, ice, or other weather created hazards or other effects of any kind. …” This sure seems like a self-admission that these negative side effects do in fact exist…..

 

http://www.advertiser-tribune.com/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/2018/05/good-neighbor-contract/

Why is rural Ohio fighting against BigWind?

There are many reasons why rural communities are fighting back against wind development. This isn’t some crusade against a cleaner source of energy, that would be silly to think that people agains living in a wind turbine project want dirty air and water. What this boils down to is property rights guaranteed by the constitution, and the safety, health, and welfare of all citizens in the rural community.

First on the property rights issue. The rural communities are zoned agricultural/residential. Nothing about industrial wind turbines are either of those. The fact is, wind turbines are industrial electric generators. It is an oxymoron to call them wind “farms.” That is a fancy spin that pushes the idea of it being agricultural. And why do they push that? Because the wind industry expects a special land use exception to site wind turbines like they are agricultural.

I ask a simple question to the readers. Can anyone name one example of zoning regulation that measures someone’s industrial structure to the foundation of another person’s house? You can try to find it but it doesn’t exist. This is largely the language in wind ordinances that wind developers look for when attacking a rural community in the cloak of darkness. They want the public to think this is a farming operation so they can justify measuring these things to a house and not a property line. They want this to look like a confined feeding operation like that of a hog barn which can be measured to a house. Then you get into the argument that “I would rather have a wind turbine than a hog barn.”

Which leads to another question: When you build or choose to live in the rural community that is zoned for agriculture is it unreasonable to think you may experience agricultural nuisances? You know that comes with living rurally. A follow up to that, when you build or choose to live in the rural community that is zoned agricultural is it unreasonable to think you will be dealing with something industrial? Yes, that is unreasonable. It goes against the very essence of why people choose to live in the rural community.

Turbine manufacturers have recommended safety distances in their operations manual that is mainly established by Gcube insurance, the main insurer for liability of industrial wind turbines. The setbacks in these manuals are largely kept from the public for proprietary reasons. Shouldn’t the public have a right to know just how dangerous the wind industry’s own insurers define as what is safe? Setbacks all over the Midwest can easily be proven inadequate by many resources. If you want some specific information about proper setbacks please read some of the following links. Here is a study that proves that a 300′ turbine can sling debris over 1700′ from a physicist. Other recommendations based on safe setbacks can be found in many other places too (1, 2, and 3). As a final follow up to this section, ask any wind developer to produce a scientific, peer-reviewed, independent study that proves the setbacks they advocate for and claim are safe. They will duck and dodge. A developer recently turned that question around on me and I produced the study listed above along with two others studies. Then all I heard was silence.

This is about conflicting land uses and equitable zoning over all else. The language in leasing agreements plainly states there is a “no build” zone that extends out from a turbine. Measuring a turbine to someone’s house can deny them the right to develop their land as they see fit in the future. That is theft, it is referred to as trespass zoning. If developers want to site wind turbines, the zoning must be to a neighboring landowners property line unless they sign a “good neighbor agreement” also known as a setback waiver.

This is perfectly legal right now. But wind developers do not want to negotiate the property rights of all landowners in a footprint. They expect zoning law to allow them to steal uncompensated easements from all non-participating landowners as a part of their robbery scheme. That is unconstitutional. This is the source of the main opposition for people in the rural community.

Next, it is a quality of life issue. Wind developers constantly say there is no scientific evidence that wind turbines affect people’s health. Which poses another question. If that is true, then why does every leasing agreement offered admit all the health effects they so adamantly discredit actually do exist? I have copies of lease agreements and all the health effects are in every contract. And here is the bigger point, when you sign an agreement, you have been essentially “gagged” into speaking negatively about wind turbines to the public. There is a gag order in the agreement. Why are those terms necessary if the wind industry is so right about discrediting the health effects? Independent studies show wind turbines do affect people’s health and you can read that in many places (1, 2, and 3).

Thirdly, wind developers insist wind turbines do not have an adverse effect on home values. That can also be soundly refuted. They constantly cite a study done by the Lawrence Berkley Laboratory. That study is flawed. The Berkley study can be refuted in multiple sources (1 and 2). There is plenty of evidence that says wind turbines absolutely affect home values. Information about property value depreciation can be easily found (1, 2, 3, and 4.). If these reports are so wrong about property values and the wind industry is so right, then why do wind developers fight against offering the citizens a property value guarantee? Doesn’t that seem appropriate given the lengths they go to try to prove that wind turbines do not result in property depreciation?

Finally, some specific refutations of the pro-wind crowd from Van Wert County that was interviewed in your recent series. The Chamber of Commerce president said that the Blue Creek Project is the “number one tourist attraction” in Van Wert County. Where is the proof of that? I and many other residents have not once heard people visiting our community for the wind turbines. That is pure speculation and opinion. Secondly, she calls the turbine money a “game changer” for our schools. The two school districts that receive wind money have been on sound financial footing for multiple decades because their taxpayers have routinely supported ballot issues. It has nothing to do with wind payments. The annual payments are fractions of the annual operating expenses of these districts. School funding can easily be found online to prove it.

The only district in the county that doesn’t receive wind payments has far more academic opportunities than the other districts that do. The Van Wert City School district has fully implemented project-based learning through the New Tech Network, have two programs in the PTLW (project lead the way) methodology in Biomedical Science and Engineering, have a fully functional mass media television production studio on campus, a state respected robotics club, and a more diverse offering of courses. All of these without the addition of wind payments. So it’s a false narrative that wind payments are “game changers”; the truth is they help schools at a fraction of what is claimed.

It is also necessary to disclose some information regarding the pro-wind farmer interviewed in your piece. This farmer, admittedly, is compensated by hosting wind turbines. At a tune of $20,000 or so per year, this farmer has already received over $100,000 in payments and will garner over $400,000 by the end of the terms of the contract. Would that not be enough to say a wind turbine’s noise is “minimal?” Would that allow one to make no distinction between industrial wind turbines and a highway a mile away? If one believes so much in the cause, why would they not just donate their property for the cause? This comes down to money. Money for a minority of landowners at all of their neighbor’s expense.

In conclusion, folks fighting for their quality of life are not against better means to serve our complicated energy needs. We are fighting for our property rights, our health, our guaranteed safety, and energy policy that makes sense. I haven’t even touched on the false narrative perpetuated by the wind industry and how it’s saving the Earth. I have plenty of science that proves that is plainly false.

I also haven’t touched on the complicated economic picture that proves this technology firmly relies on tax and ratepayer support to produce a highly expensive, low-value product that negatively impacts all our bank accounts. Those are arguments that simply do not resonate with the average citizen. The complexities and dynamics are very difficult to comprehend. Lastly, the large amount of people who support wind technologies will never live near any wind installation, thus making it easy to push it on the rest of us.

— Jeremy Kitson, Citizens for Clear Skies, from Van Wert County, Ohio

Letter was referenced from this website, but author has given permission to use in its entirety. Bravo Jeremy!!

Letter

Rep Seitz ‘fights’ for Ohioans against BigWind

Screen Shot 2018-03-26 at 8.26.59 AM

There has been ongoing work behind the scenes in the Ohio General Assembly with regards to BigWind.  There had been speculation last year that HB 114 (repealing renewable mandates) and SB 238 (shortening setbacks) might be combined into a substitute Senate bill.   We believe the “McColley Compromise” (BigWind is being promoted by Sen Balderson and Beagle, too) is included in these discussions.   Speculation is that focused effort will resume after the Easter break…

The flurry of recent attacks on Rep. Seitz and current property line setbacks is not letting up.  This may be an indicator of panic on the part of the wind industry eager to get relief from protective setbacks while the Production Tax Credit is still available.  Recently, Rep. Seitz circulated a peer reviewed study of the distances ice or blade fragments could be thrown from a wind turbine.   In his email, Seitz noted “The study demonstrates that blade shear fragments can travel 700 meters to 2 kilometers, and ice throw distances range from 100-600 meters. Also of interest is table 1, showing setback distances around the world, the vast majority of which exceed current Ohio law and vastly exceed those proposed by SB 238. I highly recommend that OPSB staff undergo a careful review of this study as their history demonstrates scant attention to these objects of wind farm development.”

In response to Rep. Seitz’s effort to educate his colleagues, environmental activist/journalist,  Kathiann M. Kowalski, wrote a rebuttal of sorts attempting to discredit or marginalize the ice/fragment throw study by claiming that just because it is possiblefor a fragment to be thrown a certain distance, does not mean it is probable.   Wind News readers should be wary of any attempt by the wind industry to assert safety protections based on probabilities.   It is customary to evaluate safety on a basis of a “deterministic” study not a “probability” study.   We include in today’s issue an article by Lisa Linowes from a 2014 in Master Resource that speaks to this distinction:

 

“In assessing risk to the public, the wind industry typically assumes a probabilistic perspective where they examine the probability of failure and the chances of an individual being present at the time of the event. If the probabilistic assessment assumes that people are infrequently present when a blade might be thrown, for example, then it’s not surprising that the industry reports a low risk of harm even at close range.

 

According to William Palmer, a utility reliability engineer responsible for analyzing the impact on public safety at a nuclear facility in Ontario Canada, deterministic risk assessments provide a more accurate understanding of risk and necessary mitigation measures. Deterministic risk assessments require analysts to assume that a person is permanently standing at the limit of risk (edge of the safety zone), and are considered to be there during the accident. If people are nearby all the time, their risk of being hurt is high.”

 

Also, important to note this week are the publication of proposed rules for wind issued by the Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB).   They will be scheduled for review by the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (JCARR).  Given the above discussion, it is important to see how the OPSB deals with safety in the proposed rules:

 

“(3) In addition to the use of the safety measures enumerated in paragraph (E)(2) of this rule, the potential impact from ice throw shall be presumptively deemed to satisfy safety considerations if the probability of one kilogram of ice landing beyond the statutory property line setback for each turbine location is less than one per cent per year.” 

 

Ohio’s current minimum fixed setback distance (1,125 feet) is often less than the minimum safe distance specification contained in safety manuals issued by manufacturers of wind turbines.  In the Greenwich Windpark case from Huron County, a safety manual for the GE 2.3-116 model was filed with the OPSB during the certificate application process.   The safety manual states:

 

11.1 Approaching and Entering Frosted Turbine Generator Systems

 

Before parking near the turbine, stop approx. 350 m [1,148 feet] from the turbine and check the rotor blades for ice by means of binoculars and the sound of the rotation of the blades.  If the turbine is running and ice is present, call for a remote stop.

 

Leave the immediate vicinity of the WTG after completing your work.  Watch out for falling ice.  Get into your vehicle.  Do not call for a remote re-activation of the yaw drive and restart of the turbine until you are approximately 350 m [1,148 feet] away from the WTG.

 

Is there a double standard for employees versus residents living nearby?   WHO, exactly, is the OPSB protecting with THEIR rules??? What assumptions are made in the OPSB “probability model”?  Do they even have their own model? In other cases, the OPSB has indicated they do not have the expertise to make such calculations and they rely upon the wind developer.  We recall a dissenting opinion from Justice Stratton in the Ohio Supreme Court where she opined that, the OPSB simply required the developer to provide OPSB staff, and no one else, with the “formula” used to calculate the distance a blade could be thrown. “Since this same staff had lacked the competence to even attempt such a calculation in the first place, it is open to question what good providing such a formula would do.” And the OPSB did not require the developer or staff to share the formula with other parties, to file it in the public record, or otherwise to resubmit the issue for review, so no one else would ever be entitled to scrutinize the developer’s calculations.    This should be troubling to lawmakers and communities, alike….

 

 

Seitz letter

How many cargo ships deliver with sails? BigWind FRAUD uncovered

BigWind is utilizing Ohio Senator Cliff Hite to attack our property rights by inserting an amendment to SHORTEN the protective setback between a wind turbine and an adjacent property. We have coined this ‘Hite-way robbery’.  The majority of Ohio Senators are persuaded by their lobbying efforts (YES, BigWind has hired a big lobbying firm to ensure the success of this assault).  Our last 2 blogs asked our readers to call Ohio Senators in order to tell them to vote NO on such an amendment.  Will you take a few minutes to help? Please see the very bottom of this page and make some calls for us. Thank you…

The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

You may have the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any New York Times story, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today.

You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.  Even after 30 years of huge subsidies, wind power provides only slightly more than zero energy to the world.

Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand.

From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity…

Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the Unreliables Lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar.

In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood)…

Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years…

If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring taxpayer money into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area half the size of the British Isles, including Ireland (61,000 sq mi). Every year.

If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area half the size of Russia with wind farms (3.05 million sq mi).

Remember, this would be just to fulfill the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

Further, the Unreliables Lobby cannot take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it…

As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.  How much global cargo is shipped by sailing ships these days?

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough.

But out of sight and mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and greenie politicians should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse.

Wind turbines, apart from the fiberglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 metric tons, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a ton of coal to make a ton of steel. Add another 25 tons of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 metric tons of coal per turbine.

Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million metric tons of coal a year more than being mined now. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet…

The truth is, if you want to power civilization with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be.

It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase.

And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future.

Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the taxpayer-subsidized crony-rich even richer.

— Matt Ridley is the author of The Rational Optimist, and as 5th Viscount Ridley is a Member of the British House of Lords. The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power originally appeared at To The Point News.

Source: The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power | EPAW – European Platform Against Windfarms

All readers are asked to call their House Representatives and Senators THIS WEEK to object to any amendment reducing property line setbacks.   IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU CALL THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND SENATE PRESIIDENT.   CALL THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: 

Senator Matt Huffman (614) 466-7584

Senate President Larry  Obhoff (614) 466-7505

Senate Finance Committee Chair Scott Oelslager (614) 466-0626

Senate Finance Vice Chair Gayle Manning  (614) 644-7613

Senator Troy Balderson (614) 466-8076

Senator Bill Beagle (614) 466-6247

 

You should state that  “I oppose any budget bill amendment to allow a wind developer to take my land.  Zoning begins at my property line not my front door.   Giving wind developers the right to trespass on my land strips away my property rights and will burden my family for generations.  THIS IS ‘HITE-WAY’ ROBBERY!”