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!!!

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!”