NPR (National Propagandist Radio) Attacks Wind Warriors
Climate
Misinformation is derailing renewable energy projects across the United States
March 28, 20225:00 AM ET
Julia Simon
On a winter night in early 2016, Jeremy Kitson gathered in his buddy's large shed with some neighbors to plan their fight against a proposed wind farm in rural Van Wert County, Ohio. The project would be about a mile from his home.
From the beginning, Kitson — who teaches physics and chemistry at the local high school — knew he didn't want the turbines anywhere near him. He had heard from folks who lived near another wind project about 10 miles away that the turbines were noisy and that they couldn't sleep.
"There were so many people saying that it's horrible, you do not want to live under these things,'" Kitson says.
He and his neighbors went on the offensive. "I was just like, there's got to be a way to beat 'em," he says of the developer, Apex Clean Energy. "You got to outsmart them. You got to figure out the science. You got to figure out the economic arguments. You got to figure out what they're going to say and figure out how to counter it."
At the shed, according to Kitson, they agreed that part of their outreach would involve posting information on a Facebook community page called "Citizens for Clear Skies," which ultimately grew to more than 770 followers.
In between posts selling anti-wind yard signs and posts about public meetings opposing local wind projects, there were posts that spread false, misleading and questionable information about wind energy. Links to stories about wind turbine noise causing birth defects in Portuguese horses. Posts about the health effects of low frequency infrasound, also called wind turbine syndrome. Posts about wind energy not actually reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Photos of wind turbines breaking, burning and falling — some in nearby counties and states, but some in Germany and New Zealand. According to 2014 data from the Department of Energy, the most recent available, out of the then-40,000 turbines in the U.S., there had been fewer than 40 incidents.
Kitson, the administrator of the Facebook page, says he knows that these accidents aren't typical. "Those events are not likely. We know that," Kitson says. But Kitson has seen a broken piece of a fallen turbine blade himself, which got him worrying about how the fiberglass might affect the integrity of the soil and the crops. So he posts the photos and articles, many of which he receives from an anti-wind email list. "I do that just to try to show people what's possible."
Kitson's group is one of dozens in the United States and abroad that oppose utility-scale wind and solar projects. Researchers say that in many groups, misinformation is raising doubts about renewable energy and slowing or derailing projects.
The opposition comes at a time when climate scientists say the world must shift quickly away from fossil fuels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But 60% of U.S. electricity still comes from carbon-based fuels.
For the Biden administration to hit its target of an electricity sector free of fossil fuels by 2035, the country has to double or triple the wind and solar power capacity it installs over the next few years and maintain that higher level of deployments for about a decade, says Kelly Speakes-Backman, who leads the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Yet every single rural utility-scale wind and solar project needs local or state approval to get built, says Sarah Mills, who researches rural renewable energy at the University of Michigan. And she says it's in those often-fractious discussions about approval that misinformation is sometimes halting and stalling the installation of the renewables the climate needs. "At the end of the day, if local governments are not setting rules that allow for the infrastructure to be sited, those policies cannot be achieved," Mills says.
Misinformation gets mixed up in decisions over renewable projects
Last year, a Department of Energy study found that setback regulations now represent the single-greatest barrier to securing locations for wind projects in the U.S. Setbacks limit how close wind projects can be to buildings, and Mills says they often make sense to reduce things such as noise and "shadow flicker," the moving shadows and strobing sunlight that turbines can cast onto buildings. But she says misinformation can fuel setbacks that are more stringent than needed and sometimes act as outright bans on renewable energy.
In Ohio, setbacks and other rules associated with renewable projects have historically been set at the state level. But in October, a new law, SB 52, went into effect giving counties the ability to make exclusion zones with no utility-scale wind and solar projects.
Kitson, the science teacher, testified in support of the zones, arguing that turbines negatively affect property values. He pointed to his group's analysis comparing the lower property values in the one local township that has wind turbines to the higher average property values in the greater county.
But Ben Hoen, a researcher at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, says his more than 15 years of research has shown that wind turbines have little to no impact on nearby property values. Hoen says, "We have not found evidence of property value impacts despite studying it over multiple periods of time."
Hoen does say that studies in the Netherlands and United Kingdom have found some effects on property values, but they were far smaller than Kitson's reference to studies showing a 20%-40% depreciation.
In about half of states, regulations around how and whether to build rural utility-scale solar and wind are determined on the local level, Mills says. "These local officials are not necessarily experts in energy," she says. "And so when you have people coming and stating things as facts, especially if there's nobody fact-checking everything, right, it's difficult. They're certainly making decisions based on what they're hearing."
Facebook groups spread misleading content
In recent years, some of the misinformation about renewable energy has come from former President Donald Trump, who frequently makes misleading and false anti-wind claims at his rallies and media appearances, including the untrue idea that wind turbine noise causes cancer. Earlier this month, when asked about the unfolding Ukraine crisis on a podcast, Trump immediately responded by listing untrue ideas about wind energy.
Other misleading ideas about renewable energy come from groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry, like the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The foundation recently released a film trailer for an anti-offshore wind group in Massachusetts that features multiple falsehoods, including the untrue statement that the proposed project didn't do any environmental impact assessments and the incorrect idea that offshore wind projects "haven't worked anywhere in the world." The Texas Public Policy Foundation did not respond to a request for comment.
But Facebook is one of the biggest drivers of misleading content about renewable energy, says Josh Fergen, a researcher at the University of Minnesota Duluth. Last fall, Fergen and his colleagues published a paper looking at the Facebook posts of Kitson's group and another large wind opposition group, about 90 kilometers east, fighting the Republic Wind Farm.
Fergen's paper concluded that posts in the two Facebook pages were "increasing perceptions of human health and public safety risks related to wind by sharing news of disasters and misinformation over health assessment risks." In June, the Ohio Power Siting Board, whose approval was needed for the site, rejected the Republic Wind Farm proposal citing geological concerns and the local opposition.
NPR reviewed dozens of posts from anti-wind and anti-solar groups. While some posts about climate change denial, lithium mining, and a quote misattributed to Winston Churchill were marked as inaccurate, there were dozens of posts with misleading information about renewable energy that were not tagged.
NPR sent Facebook a sampling of the posts from anti-renewable community pages. Facebook spokesman Kevin McAlister said in an emailed statement, "We take action against content that our fact-checking partners rate false as part of our comprehensive strategy to keep viral, provably false claims from spreading on our apps. The examples shared with us don't appear to meet that threshold as they have only even been shared a handful of times over a period of several years."
But Fergen says that these same types of misleading and false posts about wind and solar energy pop up in a network of Facebook groups around the country, feeding a conflict between rural communities and energy developers.
Leah Stokes, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says as resistance to wind and solar projects spreads on social media, the dangers of misinformation from these anti-renewable Facebook groups is growing.
"It can really slow down the clean energy transition, and that has just as dire life and death consequences, not just in terms of climate change, but also in terms of air pollution, which overwhelmingly hits communities of color."
"It's about who you trust"
Speakes-Backman says the Department of Energy is trying to do more outreach to local communities about inaccurate ideas surrounding utility-scale solar and wind, especially around land use and environmental effects. "We want to make sure that we are counteracting the misinformation that may be out there," she says.
But Dahvi Wilson, vice president of public affairs for Apex Clean Energy, says her company is finding that across the country, local engagement is becoming increasingly difficult given community suspicions of renewable energy.
"I think for a long time, and maybe still in some places, developers thought, 'Well, we just need to give better information. We just need to give more information.' And it's like, 'it's so not about that at all!'" Wilson says. "It's about who you trust and if anybody's going to believe you if you're a company."
Hoen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory says the perception of the community engagement process regarding renewables has real implications — even on human health. He gives the example of shadow flicker, the moving shadows from turbines, which opposition groups often cite when critiquing wind. A few states and several counties have regulations limiting shadow flicker on habited structures, commonly to about 30 hours per year, but most do not, and wind opposition groups argue that the strobing shadows can cause agitation, headaches, or even seizures in some individuals.
Hoen says to date they have not found any evidence of shadow flicker causing seizures in research they've reviewed, but they have found its relation to annoyance and stress. So Hoen's group did a study asking: "As the number of shadow flicker hours decrease, is there less annoyance? Are people less bothered by it?"
"What we found, interestingly, is that the individuals that were annoyed by shadow flicker did not necessarily have a higher level of shadow flicker at their home than those that weren't annoyed," Hoen says. Another study found stress symptoms were correlated with how people felt about the fairness of the project's roll-out. "And, in fact, what led to that annoyance, it appears, is their perception of the planning process, how they felt like that development got rolled out in their community."
Given the importance of community engagement in the process of locating wind and solar, Mills says renewable proponents need to be careful that they aren't romanticizing the projects or providing misleading information themselves, for example, by saying that a wind or solar plant will bring lots of jobs to an area.
"There are a lot of jobs in renewable energy. Many, many of the jobs in renewable energy are in construction trades. And so once the project is built, there's not tons of jobs associated with the project," Mills says. "I think in all of this, it's important to not sugarcoat."
Anti-renewable groups have internal disputes over use of misinformation
In the last few months, more states — Washington, Iowa and Kansas — have proposed bills to restrict rural utility-scale wind and solar. In Kansas, these bills were proposed by state Sen. Mike Thompson, who also introduced a bill to shut down existing renewable projects.
Thompson, a former meteorologist, is a longtime critic of renewable energy. One of his anti-wind videos even popped up on Kitson's anti-wind Facebook group.
In one video on the anti-solar group's YouTube channel, Thompson calls climate change "one of the biggest scams out there" and says "carbon dioxide has no correlation with the temperature on this planet whatsoever." That statement is false: The vast majority of scientists agree that the climate crisis stems from greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity. Thompson did not respond to requests for comment.
YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez said in an emailed statement, "In general, we don't recommend or prominently surface content that includes climate change misinformation. Our systems are trained to raise videos from authoritative sources, like news outlets and experts, in search results for certain queries related to climate change and renewable energy."
Barbara Kerr is a professor of psychology at the University of Kansas and she's a founding member of that anti-solar group in Kansas, which opposes NextEra Energy's proposed utility-scale solar plant in Douglas and Johnson counties. Kerr says she knows the videos that have been featured by the group she co-founded have misinformation.
"Just horrible," Kerr says of the videos. "They are just counterfactual and not something we should have on the website."
But despite Kerr's objections, her group decided in January to keep the videos online. "It is important to not judge, and censor utility-scale solar content/opinions contributed by citizens. If we become judge and jury, we are headed down the wrong path," the group said in an emailed statement.
Kerr says that while she disagrees with the misinformation used by some in her group, she says the anti-solar coalition makes for "strange bedfellows." "Sometimes you have to compromise," she says. "I don't want to alienate these people. They go to the meetings in Douglas County and Johnson County."
But Dan Reuman, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Kansas, says he worries about the role misinformation could play in the decision-making over the solar project, which he supports. He says that while he is sympathetic to those in his county who don't want to live near a large-scale solar plant, he also thinks their concerns need to be weighed against the need to mitigate climate change.
"I just find it upsetting," Reuman says. "I hope that the government doesn't make a compromise between a scientifically based position and a misinformation-based position. Because if you're compromising with misinformation, then there's sort of no limit to that, right?"
Video at:
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1086790531/renewable-energy-projects...
-----------------------------------------------
FARM Act would halt subsidies for sacrificing farmland to the ‘green energy’ industry
The conflict in Ukraine is reminding the Western world about the importance of energy independence and food security. World leaders, including the Biden administration, argue we must increase wind and solar energy production to reduce dependence on Russian energy. But as Russia’s invasion has demonstrated, this strategy already failed and, in fact, helped bring this war about in the first place.
By strangling U.S. energy producers, the White House has fueled skyrocketing oil prices and enriched Russia’s rulers. An added consequence: Americans are now grappling with the highest gas prices ever recorded. And the pain doesn’t stop at the pump. Food prices, in particular wheat, have soared to record-breaking levels as well.
That’s why our response to Moscow’s aggression must be to maximize our ability to produce the energy and food the world desperately needs right here at home. That starts with preserving farmland for future generations.
Thanks to the dizzying array of renewable energy carve-outs that litter our tax code, taxpayers are forced to underwrite generous “green energy” giveaways, allowing power companies to effectively tap the public treasury to subsidize unreliable wind and solar farms. As a result, prime agricultural land is often taken out of production, posing a long-term threat to America’s ability to feed the world.
Industrial solar and wind facilities are land-hungry ways to generate electricity that often fail to show up when we need them most. It takes approximately 8 acres of land per megawatt of installed solar capacity and an average of 106 acres per megawatt of wind energy. While it is possible to “farm around” wind turbines, this is not possible with solar panels.
This means increasing our reliance on unreliable wind and solar energy will consume enormous quantities of land while paradoxically making us more reliant on foreign countries for the power we need to heat our homes and run our factories. In fact, the amount of land needed to deploy intermittent wind and solar resources is even more considerable when one accounts for the low productivity relative to other energy sources.
Please continue reading at:
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2022/03/29/farm-act-would-halt-subs...
*************************************
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views: 248
Comment
-
Comment by Thinklike A. Mountain on March 31, 2022 at 7:53pm
-
Who pays to clean up a storm battered solar installation? Particularly insane to use up land for this extreme low density, non-dispatchable and non-storable (grid-scale) electricity source given the likely coming food shortages. Reckless. Irresponsible. Lemmingesque. Pick your adjective.
-
Comment by Stephen Littlefield on March 31, 2022 at 6:12pm
-
Interesting article, very one sided and loaded with propaganda! Seems by this article these solar and wind units just appear out of nowhere, not created by child slave labor in mines and massive amounts of coal powered electricity in a country that is far from being our ally. With wind it takes more power to build them than they will ever produce it does nothing for the supposed climate! And solar is just as bad. The one thing they never mention is the time for deconstruction, none of these companies will bond for deconstruction. These eyesores will have to be taken down by land owners, towns and counties at their expense! A deal to good to believe is a bad deal!
-
-
HEAT PUMPS ARE MONEY LOSERS IN MY VERMONT HOUSE, AS THEY ARE IN ALMOST ALL NEW ENGLAND HOUSES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/heat-pumps-are-money-l...
Vermont “Electrify-Everything” Goals Will Cost $Billions and Will Reduce Little CO2
The Vermont state government wants to electrify-everything (heat pumps, electric cars, and transit and school buses, no matter the:
1) Very high turnkey capital cost,
2) Very meager energy cost savings
3) Very meager CO2 reductions, on an A-to-Z, lifetime basis.
VT-DPS Survey of Vermont Heat Pumps
VT-DPS commissioned CADMUS to perform a survey of Vermont heat pumps, after numerous complaints from HP users regarding: 1) high electric bills and 2) minimal annual savings
The average energy cost savings regarding HPs was about $200/HP, as proven by the CADMUS survey report of operating data of 77 existing HP installations.
Those meager energy savings would be more than offset by the annual amortizing cost of $4,500/HP at 3.5%/y for 15 years, plus any annual maintenance costs, and parts and labor costs. HPs are money losers for Vermonters. See URLs
The result of Vermont’s HP saga been:
1) Lucrative benefits to the Efficiency-Vermont-Approved HP installers
2) Lucrative benefits to Canadian-owned GMP, which sells oodles more high-priced electricity.
3) Everyone else getting royally screwed; an example of “fighting” climate change, a la Don-Quixote tilting at wind mills.
My Experience with Heat Pumps in my Well-Insulated, Well-Sealed House
I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.
The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.
The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000. GMP, the electric utility, provided a $2,400 subsidy.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...
My house has a wall-hung, efficient, propane furnace to provide: 1) space heating, and 2) domestic hot water, year-round.
The basement has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab; the thermal storage of the concrete acts as a temperature stabilizer, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over 35 years.
Winter Operation: Downstairs heads are used for space heating during winter. Upstairs heads are always off during winter.
If the sun is shining, my south-facing house warms up, and the HPs can be turned off by about 10 AM. They are turned on again around 4 to 5 PM
The basement has two small propane heaters to provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement during winter; that heat rises to warm up the first floor. The heaters require no electricity, which is beneficial during a power outage.
Summer Operation: The downstairs and upstairs heads are used for space cooling during hot days in summer
Hourly Operating Cost of HPs Versus Efficient Propane Furnaces
Cold Weather Test: On 22 January, 2022, the temperature was -20F at my house. As a test, I operated my kitchen heat pump. After about 15 minutes, there was lukewarm air coming from the wall-mounted unit, but it was much less warm, than it would be at, say 15F. That lukewarm air did not heat my kitchen from 6 AM to 9 AM, so I turned off the HP and turned on my wall-hung, propane heater.
Conclusion: 1) The name cold-climate HP is merely an advertising gimmick, and 2) HPs are economic:
1) Down to about 15F to 20F in my well-sealed, well-insulated house, depending on wind and sun conditions
2) Down to about 28F to 35F in average Vermont houses, which are energy hogs, by modern standards
-
-
BIDEN 30,000 MW OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEMS BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up to seven offshore wind systems (never call them farms) on the US East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico; a total of about 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030.
Biden's offshore wind systems would have an adverse, long-term impact on US electricity wholesale prices, and the prices of all other goods and services, because their expensive electricity would permeate into all economic activities.
The wind turbines would be at least 800-ft-tall, which would need to be located at least 30 miles from shores, to ensure minimal disturbance from night-time strobe lights.
Any commercial fishing areas would be significantly impacted by below-water infrastructures and cables. The low-frequency noise (less than 20 cycles per second, aka infrasound) of the wind turbines would adversely affect marine life, and productivity of fishing areas.
Production: Annual production would be about 30,000 x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh of variable, intermittent, wind/weather/season-dependent electricity.
The additional wind production would be about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
That US load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.
This would require a large capacity of combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, to cost-effectively:
1) Counteract the wind output variations, MW, aka grid balancing
2) Fill-in wind production shortfalls, MWh, during any wind lulls
Such lulls occur at random throughout the year, and may last 5 to 7 days in the New England area.
These URLs provide examples of similar wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lu...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-st...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulet...
High Costs of Balancing the Grid with Increased Wind and Solar
The ANNUAL grid balancing costs are entirely due to the variations and intermittencies of wind and solar, because the OTHER power plants have to operate far from their efficient modes of operation, 24/7/365. They experience:
1) More up/down production at lower efficiencies, which have more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh
2) More equipment wear-and-tear cost/kWh, due to up/down production
3) More-frequent plant starts/stops, which have high Btu/kWh, high CO2/kWh
Increased wind and solar also requires:
- Increased hot, synchronous (3,600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to immediately provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.
- Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.
When wind and solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those balancing costs were minimal, sort of “lost in the data fog”
When wind and solar became a large percent, those balancing costs in the UK became 1.3 BILLION U.K. pounds in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, etc.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-s...
Those balancing costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems, but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those balancing costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Now you all are finally beginning to see just how wonderful wind and solar have been, and will be, for your pocketbook.
Energy systems analysts, with decades of experience, saw this mess coming about 20 years ago, but all-knowing legislators and bureaucrats ignored them, because they were pressured into aiding and abetting the harvesting of federal and state subsidies for RE businesses.
Turnkey Capital Cost: The turnkey capital cost for wind systems, plus offshore/onshore grid extension/augmentation would be about 30,000 MW x $5,000,000/MW = $150 BILLION, excluding financing costs. Biden’s excessive inflation rates, about 7% at present, surely would increase that cost.
Area Requirements: The 8-MW wind turbines would be arranged on a grid, spaced at least one mile apart (8 rotor diameters), about 1 sq mile per wind turbine. The minimum sea area requirement for 30,000/8 = 3,750 wind turbines would be 3,750 sq miles, or 2,400,000 acres
Electricity Cost/kWh: Based on the real-world European, mostly UK and German, operating experience in the North Sea and Baltic, such highly subsidized wind turbine systems:
1) Last about 20 years
2) Have high maintenance and operating costs, due to the adverse marine environment
3) Produce electricity at an “al-in” cost of about 2.25 times NE wholesale prices. See Appendix
The “all-in” wholesale prices of the offshore electricity of new systems are calculated at about 17 c/kWh, without cost shifting and subsidies, and about 9 c/kWh, with cost shifting and subsidies. The shifted costs and subsidies would result in:
1) Increased tax burdens on taxpayers
2) Increased household electric rates on ratepayers
3) Additions to federal and state government debts.
4) Additional burdens on the owners of traditional generators, because their power plants have to counteract the wind output variations, 24/7/365; the more wind (and solar), the greater the electricity quantities involved in the counteracting, plus their plants have to spend more time on standby, and are required to have more-frequent start/stops. See URLs and Appendix
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-s...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...
NOTE: These rates compare with the average New England wholesale price of 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
1) Abundant, domestic, natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, that have: 1) low-cost/kWh, low-CO2/kWh, extremely-low particulate/kWh
2) Domestic, uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh
3) Long-lasting hydro plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero-CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh
NOTE: Cost shifting and subsidies have not yet affected NE wholesale prices, because the percent of new RE (mostly wind and solar) on the NE grid is very small, after 20 years of subsidies.
The image shows the negligeable “contribution” of wind + solar to the NE grid load, during 2021, after 20 years of subsidies!!
Wind and solar became significant in Germany and Denmark after more than 20 years of subsidies, resulting in:
- Politicians excessively allocating RE costs to households, thereby greatly increasing household electric rates.
- Politicians keeping industrial rates artificially low for international competitiveness reasons (a hidden trade subsidy). See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-household-elect...
-
-
THE UKRAINE PLOT IS THICKENING WITH GERMANY AND FRANCE BARELY IN LOCKSTEP WITH US/UK-LED NATO
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-plot-is-thickening...
I do not approve of any wars anywhere, including in Korea, Vietnam, NATO bombing Serbia, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Libya and Ukraine
US-led Color Revolution/Coup d’Etat of Ukraine: I wrote this article, because Russia-hating, extremists in the US State Department and US Congress have been using NATO to pressure first the USSR, then Russia.
They have been deluding impoverished, corrupt Ukraine with future membership in the EU and NATO, since 1990
They have been weaponizing Ukraine against Russia ever since the US-instigated color revolution/coup d’etat in 2014
Here is:
1) A 2014-transcript of the conversations between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt, including, by Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
2) A U-tube video with viewer’s comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM#t=89
There has been no real “government” in Kiev since 2014; the US ambassador is in charge, because he dispenses $billions to impoverished, aid-dependent Ukraine.
An anti-Russia doctrine has been hatched in Washington to foment war in Europe. As part of the doctrine, the US pressured Ukraine not to implement the Minsk 2 agreements, to keep the anti-Russian pot boiling. The EU countries are arm-twisted to be aiders and abettors, because they do not want to harm their huge, profitable trade surpluses with to the US, even though it means forfeiting their profitable trade with Russia.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/escobar-how-russia-will-coun...
The US/UK-supplied defensive and offensive weapons, plus military training personnel to Ukraine, so it could “defend itself”
At the urging of the US, Ukraine “floated” the idea of Ukraine having an “Iron Dome” similar to Israel, and reacquiring nuclear weapons.
Separatists in East Ukraine: In 2014, millions of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, mostly in East Ukraine, decided not to support the US-installed, puppet Kiev government.
Predicted Russian Reactions: Russia made certain demands regarding:
1) NATO encroachments beyond East Germany starting in 1999, which took place after the US/UK/German promise to Gorbachev in 1990 not to expand beyond East Germany.
2) The indivisibility of Russian and European security; i.e., not increase your own security at the expense of someone else’s.
The US/UK-led NATO rejected the demands, and offered, likely as a diversionary tactic, to talk about side issues, that had originally been raised by Russia, but ignored.
Russia demanded the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, and invaded Ukraine to make it happen.
Promises of the West to Russia: US Secretary of State Baker, and German Chancellor Genschler, and USSR President Gorbachev agreed East Germany would be reunited with West Germany and all of Germany would be in NATO (so it would not ever be a threat to Russia), and NATO would not expand (“not one inch”, per Baker) beyond East Germany.
NATO did expand to Russian borders, starting in 1999 to the present, for “defensive purposes”.
https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/promises-made-promises-broken-wha...
Some people say: 1) the Heads of State and Secretaries of State making the promises were not “authorized”, or 2) nothing was officially written down in agreement documents, which, de facto, implies:
1) The verbal promises of US/UK/EU/NATO-combo mean nothing
2) “The West” would determine the security of the East Europe, etc., regardless of Russia’s security; might makes right!
Here is an excellent history of NATO expansion by a Canadian, who thinks NATO is a problem, not a solution
https://yvesengler.com/2022/03/21/nato-is-a-problem-not-the-solution/
Here is an excellent interview regarding the post-Cold-War order being replaced by a multi-Polar order, by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the son of a Russian Ambassador stationed in Ireland.
https://www.rt.com/russia/552745-medvedev-west-relations-rt-interview/
The EU Conundrum: The EU is partially at fault, as it did not assert itself regarding the Kiev coup d’etat in 2014
The EU decided to become an aider and abettor of US policy goals regarding Ukraine in 2014, and onwards
The EU present predicament is significantly at variance with its vital interests.
How Ukraine Fits into The Global Jigsaw
This article explains in great detail the ongoing control of the Euro/Asian land mass. It should be read before this article
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-ukraine-fits-global-jigsaw
EU Goals
European countries have had trade relations with Russia for more than 1000 years
France, Germany, and Russia are trying to find common ground and avoid the outbreak of hostilities.
France and Germany are aiming to deescalate the crisis atmosphere the US/UK is creating and hyping
France and Germany understand ignoring Moscow’s security interests and concerns is not realistic, if order, stability and peace is to be maintained in Europe
France and Germany are dependent on Russian energy supplies. They do not want to enforce the harsh restrictions the US/UK-combo demands.
Germany is unwilling to sacrifice its energy and industrial needs, and ENERGIEWENDE to facilitate Washington’s hostile anti-Russia policies.
France, by not acceding to the US/UK demands for extreme sanctions, aims to weaken US/UK unwanted hold over European affairs.
France and Germany are ignoring the incessant complaints from Poland and the Baltic states, and now also Ukraine; all of them are acting as US/UK lapdogs to: 1) facilitate NATO expansions and 2) receive weapon systems at deep discounts
The EU vows to respond to any Russian invasion of Ukraine to show “unity” with the US
US/UK Goals
In 2018, a US/UK expeditionary army of about 20,000 was fighting with the Tsarist White Army against the Communist Red Army.
That fight “against Communism” is still going by the extremists in the US State Department and by some Members in the US Congress
In 2022, the US/UK are continuing to pursue their uncompromising, warmongering, hate-Russia agenda; there would be no bloodshed and damage within their own territories.
The US/UK-combo goals are to pressure, contain, threaten, intimidate, and diminish the viability of Russia
The US energy sector has a further aim to make Europe dependent on US LNG, instead of 25 to 30 percent less-costly Russian pipeline gas, as part of wiping out a competitor. Much to its frustration, Russia has allied with China and India, who are eager buyers of low-cost Russian oil, gas and coal.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/there-will-be-no-winners-latest-e...
NATO, a US/UK Handmaiden to Pressure, Contain, Diminish Russia
The US/UK combo has used NATO to advance US/UK policy goals to pressure, contain, diminish, demonize, first the USSR, then Russia, which is unlike the USSR, but has been demonized just the same.
The US/UK policies do not serve the policy interests of the EU, which aim to gain power/influence by means of profitable international trade, instead of military muscle-flexing.
As a result, only a few NATO members fulfill their promise to spend at least 2% of GDP on their military defense.
The US/UK has almost no trade relations with Russia
France, Germany, Italy, etc., have major trade relations with Russia that are very profitable
Sanctions on Russia, eagerly imposed by the US/UK, and reluctantly imposed by the EU, have had little adverse impact on the US/UK, but major adverse impacts on the EU.
Russia’s response to sanctions has been countersanctions, and adaptations to minimize adverse effects of sanctions, including closer military and commercial alliances with China and India.
The adaptations have improved the diversity, independence and efficiency of the Russian economy.
NATO’s military infrastructure expansions into east Europe and the Caucasus since 1999 may have increased European security, but certainly diminished Russian security, in violation of the principle of indivisibility of security, per the Helsinki Agreements and the Russia-NATO Founding Act
NATO has a convenient policy, which states each sovereign country has a right to make its own security arrangements.
Russia is surrounded by sovereign countries, such as Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.
Does that mean all these countries are fair game for US/UK-color-revolution-style regime change, so US/UK-led NATO can move its infrastructures even closer to Russian borders?
Failed Color Revolutions in Belarus and Kazakhstan
In 2021, Belarus had a color revolution, supported by Western-financed/influenced NGOs, fanning the flames of dissatisfaction, etc.
In 2022, Kazakhstan suddenly had a color revolution, after the government raised energy prices.
Those price increases may have been on purpose, to rouse the population, so organized groups could take over Kazakhstan’s government. Some government leaders were arrested on spying and treason charges, after the failed coup d’etat.
Russia had been monitoring Kazakhstan’s dealing with the West for years.
Here is Joe and Hunter Biden wheeling and dealing in Kazakhstan
https://nypost.com/2020/10/20/photo-biden-meets-hunters-alleged-par...
Russia had prepared what was needed to send up to 3,000 troops into Kazakhstan within about 2 to 3 days.
The Kazakhstan President invited Russia to help end the color revolution.
Blinken, et al., said he was surprised by Russia’s quick response, but “we will not give up on Kazakhstan.”
It is on China's trade route
There is a DOD bio laboratory in Almaty. Such DOD laboratories exist in other countries, including Ukraine
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10384151/Kazakhstan-denies...
https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/pe...
Russia Recognized Luhansk and Donetsk as Independent Republics (not just the areas held by separatists)
https://nypost.com/2022/02/21/putin-mulls-recognizing-breakaway-ukr...
Putin addressed the security guarantees that he demanded of the US and NATO in December, arguing if Ukraine is allowed to join NATO, “then the threats to our country will increase many times.”
He raised the issue again in his speech Monday, Feb 21, 2022, arguing to his fellow Russians that “if Ukraine was to join NATO, it would serve as a direct threat to the security of Russia.”
“In NATO documents, our country is officially and directly declared the main threat to North Atlantic security,” Putin added. “And Ukraine will serve as a forward springboard for the strike. If our ancestors had heard about it, they probably would simply not have believed it. And today we don’t want to believe it, but it’s true.”
NATO Expansions Starting in 1999
The “unprovoked, unjustified” descriptor of the Ukraine War obscures a long history of provocative actions by the US regarding Ukraine. This history is important to understand: 1) how we got here, and 2) what responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.
https://fair.org/home/calling-russias-attack-unprovoked-lets-us-off...
Unprovoked?
- The US/UK used NATO to expand military personnel and infrastructures beyond East Germany to Russian borders, after the US/German 1990-promise to Gorbachev not to expand beyond East Germany.
- NATO claims innocence, because each country has a right to make its own security arrangements, which is OK, except it should not be dome at the expense of the security of other countries.
- NATO has no right to claim innocence, because it promised not to expand beyond East Germany in 1990
Unjustified?
- NATO would have 100% US-owned and 100% US-staffed AEGIS systems, with hypersonic missiles, in Poland, Ukraine and Romania, that would have the potential, if equipped with nuclear bombs, to destroy all of Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and all of west Russia, within minutes.
- Russia could have comparable missile systems, but Russia would have to place them on Cuba and in Mexico and Canada, which would arouse major panic in the US.
-
-
COST SHIFTING IS THE NAME OF THE GAME REGARDING WIND AND SOLAR
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...
Regarding wind and solar, cost shifting is rarely mentioned, identified or quantified. Those costs, as c/kWh, could be quantified, but it is politically expedient, using various, often far-fetched reasons, to charge them to:
- Directly to ratepayers, via electric rate schedules, and/or added taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills
- Directly to taxpayers, such as carbon taxes, user fees and surcharges.
- Directly to federal and state budgets and debts
Per Economics 101, no cost ever disappears.
Eventually, the various shifted wind and solar costs, plus direct and indirect wind and solar subsidies, would increase the prices of energy and of other goods and services.
Efficiency and productivity improvements elsewhere in the energy sector, and other sectors of the economy, may partially, or completely, offset such increases.
However, wind and solar subsidies would divert capital from other sectors of the economy, which likely would result in fewer improvements in efficiency and productivity in these sectors.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-demand-and-low-win...
LIFECYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND NE ELECTRICITY SOURCES
This report uses publicly available data to estimate the average levelized cost of electricity from existing generation resources (LCOE-Existing), as compared to the levelized cost of electricity from new generation resources (LCOE-New) that might replace them.
The additional information provided by LCOE-Existing presents a more complete picture of the generation choices available to the electric utility industry, policymakers, regulators and consumers.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
Existing coal-fired power plants can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $41 per megawatt-hour, whereas the LCOE of a new coal plant, operating at a similar duty cycle, would be $71 per MWh.
Similarly, existing combined-cycle gas power plants (CCGTs) can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $36 per MWh, whereas the LCOE of a new CCGT gas plant would be $50 per MWh.
Non-dispatchable wind and solar impose a cost on the dispatchable generators which are required to remain in service for peaking, filling in and balancing, 24/7/365, to ensure reliable electricity service.
Non-dispatchable means the output of wind and solar depends on factors beyond our control (the wind blowing and the sun shining) and cannot be relied upon for peaking, filling in and balancing.
Wind and solar increase the LCOE of dispatchable resources by reducing their utilization rates without reducing their fixed costs, resulting in a levelized fixed cost increase, i.e., higher c/kWh.
This report estimates the “imposed cost” of wind generation at about $24 per MWh, or 2.4 c/kWh, if CCGT gas generation performs the peaking, filling in and balancing.
The CCGT plants compensate for the erratic outputs of wind and solar by inefficiently ramping up and down their outputs at part load, and inefficiently making more frequent starts and stops.
All that decreases annual production of CCGT plants, adversely affects their economic viability, increases Btu/kWh and CO2/kWh, and increases wear and tear, all at no cost to the wind and solar multi-millionaires.
This report estimates the “imposed cost” of wind generation at about $24 per MWh, or 2.4 c/kWh, if CCGT gas generation performs the peaking, filling in and balancing.
This report estimates the “imposed cost” of solar generation at about $21 per MWh, or 2.1 c/kWh, if CCGT gas generation performs the peaking, filling in and balancing.
As a result, existing coal ($41), CCGT gas ($36), nuclear ($33) and hydro ($38) are less than half the cost of new wind ($90) or new PV solar ($88.7), if imposed costs were included.
NOTE: The imposed cost on ratepayers and taxpayers of various direct and indirect wind and solar subsidies are an entirely separate issue.
COST SHIFTING ONTO RATEPAYERS, TAXPAYERS AND DEBT
Clever multi-millionaires have known about wind and solar being much more expensive compared with existing generation (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.) for at least 25 years.
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/...
By beating the drums of climate change and global warming, and using clever lobbyists in the halls of Congress and State legislatures, they were able to get all sorts of goodies, such as upfront cash grants, upfront tax credits, low-cost loans, generous, above-market, feed-in tariffs, production tax credits, and loan interest and asset depreciation write-offs to avoid paying income taxes.
All that enables them, and others to claim wind and solar is equivalent and competitive with other workers. What more could these millionaires ask for?
Cost Shifting: Here is a partial list of the costs that were shifted, i.e., not charged to wind and solar plant owners, to make wind and solar appear less costly than in reality to the lay public and legislators.
1) The various forms of grid-stabilizing inertia (presently provided by synchronous gas, coal, oil, nuclear, bio and hydro plants).
2) The filling-in, peaking and balancing by traditional generators (mostly gas turbines in New England), due to wind and solar variability and intermittency, 24/7/365. Their random outputs require the other generators to inefficiently ramp up and down their outputs at part load, and to inefficiently make more frequent starts and stops, which also causes more wear and tear, all at no cost to wind and solar owners.
The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the required up and down ramping of the gas turbines, which imparts added costs to owners for which they likely would not be paid: And the wind and solar erratic output is coddled by government programs and subsidies!!
Owners of traditional generators:
- Have less annual production to cover power plant costs, which jeopardizes the economic viability of their plants.
- Are left with inefficient remaining production (more fuel/kWh, more CO2/kWh), due to up and down ramping at part load, and due to more frequent starts and stops, which leads to less fuel and CO2 reduction than claimed, and increased costs for owners. See URL
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions...
- Have more wear and tear of their gas turbine plants, which further adds to owner costs
NOTE: All of this is quite similar to a car efficiently operating at a steady 55 mph, versus a car inefficiently operating at continuously varying speeds between 45 mph to 65 mph, and accelerating for frequent starts and decelerating for frequent stops.
3) Any battery systems to stabilize distribution grid with many solar systems. They would quickly offset downward spikes due to variable cloud cover. See URL.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plant...
4) Any measures to deal with DUCK curves, such as a) daily gas turbine plant down and up ramping, b) utility-scale storage and c) demand management.
NOTE: GMP in Vermont, has determined 70 of its 150 substations will eventually need upgrades to avoid “transmission ground fault overvoltage,” (TGFOV), if more solar is added per requirements of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan. This is nothing new, as utilities in southern Germany have been dealing with these issues for over ten years, which has contributed to German households having the highest electric rates (about 30 eurocent/kWh) in Europe.
5) Grid-related costs, such as grid extensions and augmentations to connect the remotely distributed wind and solar, and to deal with variable and intermittent wind and solar on the grid. Those grid items usually are utilized at the low capacity factors of wind and solar, i.e., a lot of hardware doing little work.
6) Utility-scale electricity storage (presently provided by the world’s traditional fuel supply system).
https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Sola...
The above 6 items are entirely separate from the high levels of direct and indirectsubsidies. They serve to make wind and solar appear to be much less costly than in reality. See sections 1 and 2 and Appendix.
All that enables wind and solar proponents to endlessly proclaim: “Wind and solar are competitive with fossil and nuclear”.
Example of Cost Shifting: For example, to bring wind electricity from the Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, about 1000 miles of transmission was built at a capital cost of $7 billion. The entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., it appeared as a surcharge on residential electric bills. Wind in Texas would have been much more expensive, if the owning and operating cost, c/kWh, of those transmission lines were added to the cost of wind.
Example of Cost Shifting: Often the expensive grid connection of offshore wind plants, say from 20 miles south of Martha's Vineyard, across the island, then about 7 additional miles under water, and then to the reinforced mainland grid, is not separately stated in the capital cost estimates, i.e., all or part of it is provided by the utilities that buy the electricity under PPAs to make PPA-pricing appear smaller than in reality. That cost would be “socialized”, i.e., it appears as a surcharge on residential electric bills, or is added to the rate base.
Wind and Solar Wholesale Prices in NE: Here are some wholesale prices of wind electricity RE folks in New England, especially in Maine, do not want to talk about. They would rather dream RE fantasies, obfuscate/fudge the numbers, and aim to convert others to their dream scenarios, somewhat like religious missionaries.
EXHORBITANT REAL COST OF WIND AND SOLAR ELECTRICITY
“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...
Pro RE folks point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:
1) Above-market-price paid to Owners
2) Subsidies paid to Owners
3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y
4) Grid extension/augmentation
5) Grid support services
6) Future battery systems
Comments on table 5
- Vermont legacy Standard Offer solar systems had greater subsidies paid to owner, than newer systems
- Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.
- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems
- "Added to rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.
- “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base
- “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh
for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.
- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
NOTES:
1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.
https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/
https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf
2) There are Owning costs, and Operating and Maintenance costs, of the NE gridISO-NE charges these costs to utilities at about 1.6 c/kWh. The ISO-NE charges include:
Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a monthForward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.
Table 5/VT & NE sources
Paid to
Subsidy
Grid
GMP
Added
ISO-NE
Total
NE
Times
paid to
support
to rate
RNS+
utility
owner
towner
cost
adder
base
FCM
cost
cost
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
c/kWh
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new
17.4
5.2
2.1
3.5
20.9
1.6
29.8
7.6
3.92
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy
18.2
5.4
2.1
3.5
21.7
1.6
30.8
7.6
4.05
Solar, standard offer, combo
11.0
6.74
2.1
11.0
1.6
21.44
7.6
2.82
Solar, standard offer, legacy
21.7
10.5
2.1
21.7
1.6
35.9
7.6
4.72
Wind, ridge line, new
8.5
3.9
2.4
8.5
1.6
16.4
7.6
2.15
Wind, offshore, new
9.0
4.1
2.4
9.0
1.6
17.1
7.6
2.25
Sample calculation; NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh
Sample calculation; added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh
Sample calculation; total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh
Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems
Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems
Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...
“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.
“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.
Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE
New England has average winds, has highest on-shore turnkey costs ($2,400/kW in 2020), has highest PPA c/kWh
See page 39 of URL
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/Land-Based%20Win...
-
-
The Biden Crime Family Has Been Exposed: What Is To Be Done?
The mentally incompetent husk of a crooked old pol is owned by every foreign interest in his decaying orbit and owned as well by the foul and perfidious “intel” mafia lodged like a cancerous mass eating away at what used to be known as the American government. Face it: this false “president,” installed by malignant forces allied with his Party of Chaos, is a menace to our nation.
https://thebluestateconservative.com/2022/03/30/the-biden-crime-fam...
Wake up America. The media lie. Presstitution has to be prosecuted.
CNN Admits Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Authentic 532 Days After Initial Reporting
“There are a lot of issues that the Justice Department are looking into, including, of course, this laptop – on the right-wing – has featured a lot of stories about Hunter Biden,” CNN’s Evan Perez acknowledged. “We know the FBI has possession of it and that they believe it is his laptop.”“The contents are his [Hunter’s],” he said, noting Hunter’s “very, very bad” looking corruption in Ukraine when Joe Biden was vice president.'
CNN only admitted Hunter’s laptop is authentic after the New York Times acknowledged two weeks ago it was, indeed, Hunter’s. It took the Times nearly two years to acknowledge what was authenticated in 2020 by New York Post’s Emma-Jo Morris, who is now Breitbart News’s political editor.Many at CNN, including Brian Stelter, suggested the laptop was “Russian disinformation” to likely protect Joe Biden from losing the 2020 election.
CNN former president Jeff Zucker also labeled Hunter’s laptop story as a “Breitbart… rabbit hole” and unworthy of coverage.
Multiple times, Joe Biden refused to acknowledge that Hunter’s laptop contained damaging evidence, which could have sunk his campaign.Instead, Joe Biden claimed the incriminating emails on Hunter’s laptop were instead just “a smear campaign” and “a bunch of garbage,” citing a Politico story written by Natasha Bertrand that claimed 51 former intel officials said the laptop was Russian disinformation. CNN has since hired Natasha Bertrand as a White House reporter.
Weblink for the entire piece:
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2022/03/30/cnn-admits-hunter-bi...
-
-
RINO Susan Collins Flips — Will Vote for Radical Judge Ketanji Jackson Despite Her Leniency of Child Porn Traffickers
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/03/rino-susan-collins-flips-w...
-
Comment by Jim Wiegand on March 30, 2022 at 2:47pm
-
This is an industry scripted article and as they put it........"It's about who you trust."Exactly how I feel and why would anyone trust an industry built on a massive foundation of FRAUD. Stories like this below are 100 % disinformation and deflection from this industry's underhanded tactics. All their data is taken from "their" studies, using "their" contrived methodologies and "their"data filtering. It's fraud.They got away with their lies for years, but now social media is killing these fraudsters with the truth. Article doesn't have a shred of science in it and as to be expected, the author never interviewed me. They did however quote Leah Stokes, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, but his opinion means nothing because his profession has nothing to do with science.This Stoke character also did not disclose how many millions each year the green fraudsters are pumping in the University of California.Lastly, be aware of what they are doing because in this era it's a very common tactic being used from deceitful dirtbags. They're blaming the good guys for exactly what they are doing to us.The truth, wind projects are a criminal industry. These projects are being shut down because "their" calculated lies about energy production and hidden impacts are being exposed.
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine