A Full Load of Hot Air

May 15, 2013

By Sherri Lange, CEO Founding Director, Toronto Wind Action Executive Director, Canada, Great Lakes Wind Truth VP Canada, Save the Eagles International The word is in: wind is out. Even the CEO of Vestas recently admitted that the wind industry currently is suffering from “credibility issues.” But the new “kid” on the block, Bluffs Advocate and it’s G.M. Robert Spencer, is still a wind pusher it seems… The Advocate’s second edition has caused a few raised eyebrows and curled a few tongues with a feature article: “Windpower and Nuclear Power Compete for Our Energy Future.” Distributed to Bluffs and Beaches, this is especially quixotic and whimsical, given the hard won offshore moratorium, and the obvious furor of shore line folks who lined up at meetings and went door to door with flyers, and generally shared their knowledge about wind power in the Lakes, successfully. (This article is a bit like visiting your grandma’s house, when she’s been gone a year already.) The mere puff of the idea that wind can compete with any baseload power such as nuclear, coal, gas, or hydro, is simply grandstanding of a true wind pusher who has not been reading the papers lately. How valid are the environmental claims against wind in the Great Lakes, this author asks? Jane Rogers has done hundreds of hours of research and once reading her material, you would never again even think of the ridiculousness of industrializing the Lakes, 20% of the world’s remaining fresh water reserves. Her points: don’t disturb the heavily contaminated lakebed; migration routes, and some anseriformes nesting during winter 3-4 km out; habitat fragmentation; shipping lanes; infrasound and LFN that hits the jet stream and bounces off the water attenuated about 1% over a mile….hence virtually not at all; mechanical failure and chemical discharges; mixing of contaminants (92 billion tons of raw sewage still find their way into the Lakes each year); and every chemical known to man continues to plague the health of the Lakes, i.e., don’t stir this up on the lakebed; “Adverse effects on embryo development due to electro-magnetic changes, air pressure changes and general ‘soundscape’ or infrasound level changes for both ‘animals’ and ‘humans’ (Pierpont, 2009) (that) has only recently become known or studied. Due diligence is extremely necessary in further study in this important animal/human, health-related areas. Electro-magnetic changes within surrounding waters could also affect the overall ‘micro health’ of the surrounding water near offshore IWTs”; but most importantly, the Great Lakes is not a massive resource grab. The author goes on to cite cancer rates, purportedly, near nuclear stations. (In fairness, he does mention that these clusters of cancers do not appear to be necessarily related to nuclear stations.) We must assume he believes that this argument has some validity in his comparison with wind power. We assume he understands that one of these power sources works, and the other doesn’t. He must know that nuclear continues to provide baseload power, while wind turbines provide intermittent and ultimately useless power, and that many countries have to export excess power during the peaks when wind IS performing a wee bit, only to have other neighboring countries building energy damns to protect from power disruptions and unenviable surges. He must know that Germany is now building 26 more coal fired plants, because wind and solar didn’t cut the mustard. WHAT IS UP IN FRANCE WITH 4,500 TURBINES? A note from France yesterday: news release from EPAW (European Platform Against Wind Power): At noon yesterday, May 7th, France with 4,500 wind turbines, produced .5% of its power. The cost to build and maintain and subsidize those turbines, 11 BILLION EUROS. The author went on to explain that in order for wind to provide meaningful power to France yesterday at noon, it would be requiring 900,000 wind turbines. This is the lunacy we are presenting when we promote wind power.. WIND POWER CANNOT COMPETE WHATSOEVER WHENEVER: In the long run, the main theme of the article in the Advocate, a lovely leftie rag masquerading as reasonableness, is that wind power can compete with baseload power: we assure you, it cannot, it will not, and it never will. Not in this generation, nor the next few. Much like pushing buggy whips for the modern age. Yes, buggy whip or two to compete with baseload power. The problem with all this industrial junk that doesn’t do anything meaningful is it takes up our useful resources, clogs our garbage dumps, and inhibits meaningful conservation and enjoyment. Just try to get rid of those rare earth elements from China and the carbon fibre blades that can’t be recycled. Premier McWynnty promises now to be more collegial with Ontario and let us choose where we want those nasty turbines that make people ill, destroy prime farm land, wetlands, recreation areas, important bird areas, and reduce property values to nilch…new word. Over 92 communities have told the Premier in no uncertain terms that they are NOT willing hosts. I wonder where she will put the new ones then. There’s a new phrase now: Community consultation and Community vibrancy funds. That means that they will make the paper work look like they are listening, and then offer you a new baseball diamond, or $25,000 per year for community projects that are bribes, and decided upon by a small group, who will control the funds. My bet: if you don’t like turbines, you are not getting that vibrancy thing! Once more for those who missed it: DENMARK: PROTOTYPE FOR NATURAL DESTRUCTION Here’s a little thought for you: fresh from today’s world news: this time from Denmark: home to Vestas, and your favorite turbine builder. Remember how they sold us the bill of goods? Turns out Denmark has 186 anti-wind groups and one hell of a corrupt mess, too. 1 Wind power doesn’t work. With 140,000 turbines worldwide, we only receive less than ½ of one percent, net zero of our power. 2 Wind power is not green. It is comprised of hundreds of moving parts, up to and more than 1,000 gallons of oil and lubricants, which leak, and must be replaced, is transported using oil and gas, again, and mired in tons of cement. It also contains rare earth elements from China in the magnets, and uses massive amounts of water in the mining. 3 Wind turbines do not translate to jobs. Most jobs are overseas, and a few job teams during construction, preferred workers, are temporarily employed; for every so called green job, jobs are lost due to the high cost of power. Spain has lost 2.2 jobs, UK FOUR. 4 Turbines do not contribute to saving the planet. The hockey stick graph got us all confused for a bit, but we are over that now. Clearly debunked. And CO2 actually increases with turbines because of the life cycle costs and strains on the environment (if this is your measure). 5 Turbines are devastating for birds, bats and wildlife: there are massive cover-ups about the actual numbers, but we know that some species will, WILL become extinct. Habitat fragmentation also ensures that species have trouble finding homes, mating, and otherwise surviving. BIG PROBLEM. For every turbine, six acres of land are cleared, and another 35- 40 are cleared, consumed if you will, for transmission, and substations. A network of destruction: energy sprawl.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: