Big Green Money And Corruption Vs. The Environment

Golden-eagle-430

The US Park Service says that there are twenty thousand Golden Eagles in the western US

The most recent survey of Golden Eagles  across four large Bird Conservation  Regions (BCRs) in the West (80 percent  of the species’ range in the lower 48  states is in these BCRs) provided an  estimate of 20,722 Golden Eagles of all  ages across the survey area.

www.fws.gov/windenergy/docs/Golden_Eagle_Status_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The Altamont Pass wind farm kills one Golden Eagle every three days, which means they have killed more than 10% of the population.

Dr. Shawn Smallwood’s 2004 study, spanning four years, estimated that California’s Altamont Pass wind “farm” killed an average of 116 Golden Eagles annually (2). This adds up to 2,900 dead “goldies” since it was built 25 years ago.

US windfarms kill 10-20 times more than previously thought | Save the Eagles International

Greens want to put these impenetrable death traps up all over the country, causing the extinction of all large bird species – which have essentially no chance of flying through a wind farm safely.

2764

Turbine blades are as long as a football field, and travel more than 100 miles per hour. They create low pressure in their wake, which sucks flying creatures in and then decapitates them, like ISIS terrorists.

eagle, dead at wind turbine_0

GOLDEN EAGLES FACE EXTINCTION IN U.S. AS NUMBERS PLUMMET, NEW STUDIES REVEAL

By Miriam Raftery

January 6, 2012 (San Diego’s East County) – San Diego County’s 48 pairs of nesting golden eagles and even rarer bald eagles could be in peril if proposed industrial-scale wind farms are built.  In a press release issued today,  Save the Eagles International (STEI) issued a dire warning, providing detailed documentation proving  that golden eagles and their nests are disappearing rapidly near wind farms across the U.S.

The group also blasted the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for changing its mission from protecting wildlife to “catering to the interests of an industry” that is a “ruinous one to boot.”

Although the studies focused on golden eagles, if no major action is taken, wind turbines’ razor-sharp blades will also threaten the existence of other species, STEI predicts.

The international group “solemnly warns the Western States that the biologically-blind policies will cause the extinction of the Golden Eagle, the California Condor, and other species of raptors.” Also at risk are species in Eastern and Central states, such as the Whooping Crane.

GOLDEN EAGLES FACE EXTINCTION IN U.S. AS NUMBERS PLUMMET, NEW STUDIES REVEAL | East County Magazine

President Obama has put in place a policy which guarantees the extinction of these birds, if he is not stopped. Green groups applaud him, because they are being paid millions of dollars by big green energy interests to remain silent about this environmental disaster.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

95 Responses to Big Green Money And Corruption Vs. The Environment

  1. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    They don’t even have to be hit by the blades: the barometric pressure swings of the passing blades burst their lungs – at least for bats it does. Birds probably too.

    Growing “Swept Area” Of Annihilation…Study Points To Wind Turbines’ Barotraumatic Mayhem Of Bats

    I’m using my WordPress account for the obvious reason. If you click on my gravatar you should be able to see some of the wild birds I get coming to my house. It is a terrible thing that the environmental movement which used to save such creatures now kills millions of them.

    • Truthseeker says:

      Bruce,

      Can I suggest that you do a guest article for Jo Nova and even WUWT? This really needs to get out there.

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        Seeker – Pierre Gosselin’s NTZ is well followed. Jo has done posts on the general issue, if not on barotrauma mortality. WUWT had a piece on the latest solar thermal plant bird kills on the same day as the NTZ article.

        Unfortunately there is a reason why I don’t want to do a guest blog article, to do with something I wrote under my real name.

  2. inMAGICn says:

    Sorry:

    An “estimate” of 20,722? Hunh?

    • gator69 says:

      The real number is closer to 20,722.85637

      • Menicholas says:

        Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but for a second I thought you had stats saying that there were over 20 million of these.
        But I see that you were just counting the sliced and diced remains found near the wind farms.
        sarc/

  3. Fran moregan says:

    Go by a wind farm and see the lubricating fluids being flung all over by the propellars a real waste of money.

  4. Menicholas says:

    This article and the linked articles, and the story revealed therein, freaks me out.
    I mean way out.
    I find these statistics, and the brutal fact of this slaughter, to be physically sickening, and unforgivable.

  5. nielszoo says:

    Words cannot possible express my disgust. These animals are dying for NO GOOD REASON.

  6. Anto says:

    That’s what you get when you want to go back to Middle Ages technology. There was a reason we abandoned it when we came up with something better.

  7. sully says:

    Less birds of prey mean more rats and other pests. Shameful that these great birds have made remarkable come backs only to be sacrificed at the Green Alter.

    • The raptors are the ones who get reported. Each turbine kills about 200 birds a year of all different species, and about 400 bats. There are over 200,000 turbines in operation around the world. If you can multiply A by B you can get a feel for how many birds and bats are exterminated by these horrible machines.

      Btw I took this photo this morning about 4 hours ago. He’s a currawong and that is my thumb on one side and my front doormat on the other.

  8. chili palmer says:

    The National Park Service sponsors Inglis/Rockefeller/Steyer green group 4C at George Mason University. National Park Service has exquisitely detailed report on how to persuade people to believe in the $2 billion a day CO2 danger industry.

  9. visionar2013 says:

    The Question we need to ask is why we are industrializing nature with 1/5 Millionth energy dense Wind vs 4th gen nuclear. Build Molten Salt Reactor http://www.energyfromthorium.com

    • Menicholas says:

      Chalk it up to an irrational fear of radioactivity.
      Such fear makes little sense to me, especially when one considers that we live on a planet which is continually being irradiated by a million mile wide, continuously exploding thermonuclear bomb.
      The radiation from this bomb is so dangerous that a ball of molten rock became a green oasis of life while being simultaneously fried, scorched, zapped, toasted and baked by this radiation.
      Fukushima did not help, that is for sure. Even though that disaster was caused by a series of bad decisions while building and subsequently upgrading the safety systems on that half century old facility. I mean, putting the back up generators and pumps in the basement of a water cooled nuclear plant, built right next to the ocean on the island that has so many tsunamis that the people who live there are the ones who gave tsunamis a name…it would be laughably stupid if it was not so sad and awful what happened there.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Even so Fukushima was not a really bad disaster considering.

        http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Safety-of-Plants/Fukushima-Accident/

        Fukushima Accident

        (Updated February 2015)

        Following a major earthquake, a 15-metre tsunami disabled the power supply and cooling of three Fukushima Daiichi reactors, causing a nuclear accident on 11 March 2011. All three cores largely melted in the first three days.

        The accident was rated 7 on the INES scale, due to high radioactive releases over days 4 to 6, eventually a total of some 940 PBq (I-131 eq).

        Four reactors were written off due to damage in the accident – 2719 MWe net.

        After two weeks, the three reactors (units 1-3) were stable with water addition and by July they were being cooled with recycled water from the new treatment plant. Official ‘cold shutdown condition’ was announced in mid-December.

        Apart from cooling, the basic ongoing task was to prevent release of radioactive materials, particularly in contaminated water leaked from the three units. This task became newsworthy in August 2013.

        There have been no deaths or cases of radiation sickness from the nuclear accident, but over 100,000 people had to be evacuated from their homes to ensure this. Government nervousness delays their return.

        Official figures show that there have been well over 1000 deaths from maintaining the evacuation, in contrast to little risk from radiation if early return had been allowed.….

      • visionar2013 says:

        A Molten Salt Reactor would not have been impacted by the Tsunami, it would have shut down with out power and have been restarted once the area was repaired. Very dumb not building a high enough sea wall in a well known flood zone.

  10. DakotaKid says:

    Tony, we used to call what you are a conservationist. That is a person who believes there is room for mankind and natural habitat, in fact the combination enhances both. These greens are nothing but the old reds in a different suit

  11. An Inquirer says:

    There is another environmental devastation due to windmills — one that gets little attention. The most efficient windmills use technology relying are rare earths. These rare earth minerals are mined and produced with China with processes that destroy huge swaths of land — with devastation exceeding anything coal mining did in the Appalachia.

  12. sully says:

    All these so called green energy devices are totally dependent on fossil fuels. One fact that the communists are doing their best to conceal. Thankfully nature is not on side with these green jihadists as satellites are proving them wrong daily.

  13. Chris Barron says:

    116 eagles divided by 4930 turbines (on that site) is…. 0.024 raptors per turbine, annually (using the source’s figures)

    It is generally accepted that this one farm is perhaps the worst for death rates to raptors and this rate is not likely to be seen at many of the thousands of other wind farms

    It certainly puts Gail Comb’s ‘estimate’ of a few raptors per week per turbine into perspective !

    • Chris Barron says:

      Correction to the above…. 0.024 eagles per year. or 10% of the golden eagle population in 25 years of the farm’s history (assumes all turbines were operational from day one)

      The number of raptors killed (including those eagles) is 1300 per year – or about 0.25 raptors per turbine per year.

      in total, 4700 birds are killed annually (at the site being discussed) …roughly 1 bird per turbine per year

      300 million birds were killed due to glass collisions in the same period

      • gator69 says:

        I see Chris is still trying to convince himself with industry talking points and conflations.

      • gator69 says:

        A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.
        The disclosure is potentially embarrassing for the wind industry, which claims it is an economically dynamic sector that creates jobs. It was described by critics as proof the sector was not economically viable, with one calling it evidence of “soft jobs” that depended on the taxpayer.
        The subsidy was disclosed in a new analysis of official figures, which showed that:
        • The level of support from subsidies in some cases is so high that jobs are effectively supported to the extent of £1.3million each;
        • In Scotland, which has 203 onshore wind farms — more than anywhere else in the UK — just 2,235 people are directly employed to work on them despite an annual subsidy of £344million. That works out at £154,000 per job
        • Even if the maximum number of jobs that have been forecast are created, by 2020 the effective subsidy on them would be £80,000 a year.
        One source, who owns several wind farms, and did not wish to be named, said: “Anybody trying to justify subsidies on the basis of jobs created is talking nonsense. Wind farms are not labour intensive.”

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html

        • Chris Barron says:

          Fine information Gator….not unexpected either, considering the requirements of the business

          At the moment, loss making coal mines receive huge subsidies. Spain has seen some terrible rioting recently due to this announcement
          http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/energy-coal.7kt

          “But the European Commission says the mines are no longer profitable and should no longer receive government aid, which should instead be channelled towards clean and renewable energy.”

          I absolutely agree, nobody likes paying people to do something which isn’t financially viable do they……

        • Chris Barron says:

          “It received £129million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it receivered for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3million for every member of staff.

          Where else can we find whinging about the subsidy received per head of the workforce….surely not the coal industry ? Heavily subsidised,

          It’s time to lean it out so we can get the true cost of fossil fuel production out in the open. and then perhaps short term wind farm subsidies which last less time than coal subsidies will seem a bit better than how they do at the moment

        • gator69 says:

          Quit lying Chris, fossil fuels do not receive subsidies, they actually pay taxes.

          You are not even fooling yourself. But keep trying! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Officially…
          “Federal coal subsidies are forms of financial assistance paid by federal taxpayers to the coal and power industry. Such subsidies include direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, grants, lost government revenue such as discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to the negative effects of coal use. External costs of coal include the loss or degradation of valuable ecosystems and community health.”

          No need to call someone a liar before you know all the facts Gator….just ask questions and life is much simpler for you

      • gator69 says:

        Among the examples of extremely high subsidies effectively for job creation is Greater Gabbard, a scheme of 140 turbines 12 miles off the Suffolk coast.
        It received £129million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it received for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3million for every member of staff.
        Iwan Tukalo, general manager of Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind Limited, which is co-owned by SSE and RWE, said building the farm was a £1.5billion investment in British infrastructure.
        He added that “as well as supporting significant local employment during the four-year construction period”, 95 per cent of its permanent employees were local people.
        The London Array, Britain’s biggest wind farm, with 175 turbines, employs 90 people at its base in Ramsgate, Kent. The array, which is 12 miles offshore, became fully operational in the spring. The foundation predicts its Renewables Obligation subsidy in its first year of full operation will be £160million — effectively £1.77million per job.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html

      • gator69 says:

        Dr John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation, said: “Subsidies can create some soft jobs in the wind power industry but will destroy real jobs and reduce wages in other sectors, in the UK’s case because the subsidies cause higher electricity prices for industrial and commercial consumers. The extravagant subsidy cost per wind power job is an indication of the scale of that problem.”
        He added: “Truly productive energy industries — gas, coal, oil, for example — create jobs indirectly by providing cheap energy that allows other businesses to prosper, but the subsidy-dependent renewables sector is a long way from this goal; it’s still much too expensive.”

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10122850/True-cost-of-Britains-wind-farm-industry-revealed.html

  14. Chris Barron says:

    ” if no major action is taken, wind turbines’ razor-sharp blades will also threaten the existence of other species, STEI predicts.”

    The worst possible shape for the leading edge of a turbine blade would be a razor’s edge. They are blunt, for good engineering reasons.

    There’s too much hyperbole in the article to reflect an honest attempt to write a balanced opinion

    • gator69 says:

      At least they do not conflate all birds with raptors. They are honest.

      • Gail Combs says:

        That is how you can tell they are lying. Also while you can get a reasonable count of RAPTORS killed by wind turbines, the counts for kills by cats, cars and buildings are just like temperature measurements. Pulled out of someones pants.

      • Chris Barron says:

        If I hadn’t of honestly corrected myself you almost certainly wouldn’t have noticed the error, probably because there was a lack of hyperbole of the sort you seem attracted to

  15. Chris Barron says:

    http://www.rtcc.org/2014/10/13/europe-spends-e10bn-a-year-on-coal-subsidies/

    10 billion ? If it carries on like this and if the industry experts who say ‘there is no more easy oil or easy gas, or coal’ are to be believed, if we don’t stop subsidising the coalmines they will certainly cost more than renewables, in due course

    • gator69 says:

      Still lying about fossil fuel subsidies I see.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Federal coal subsidies are forms of financial assistance paid by federal taxpayers to the coal and power industry. Such subsidies include direct spending, tax breaks and exemptions, low-interest loans, loan guarantees, loan forgiveness, grants, lost government revenue such as discounted royalty fees to mine federal lands, and federally-subsidized external costs, such as health care expenses and environmental clean-up due to the negative effects of coal use. External costs of coal include the loss or degradation of valuable ecosystems and community health.

        Still got your head in the sand Gator ?

    • gator69 says:

      How much taxes do wind power facilities pay to communities?

      The usual arrangement is arranging “payment in lieu of taxes” (PILOT), so that the wind power company controls what it pays. When they are forced to pay their fair share in taxes, they typically contest it, forcing communities to spend lots of money in legal fees.
      In many cases if a community does get a “windfall” from the company, the state adjusts its payments to the town so that the financial gain is largely canceled.
      In addition, the presence of a wind power facility is likely to drive down the value of surrounding properties, thus causing a loss of tax revenue that cuts into the possible gain.

      http://www.wind-watch.org/faq-economics.php

      • Chris Barron says:

        Thats what we call even stevens then because they’re all about the same….but why should that be a surprise, we try to be fair to all businesses, don’t we ?

        • gator69 says:

          Still too stupid to differentiate between a tax break and a subsidy, I see.

          And here I thought English was your primary language. 😆

        • gator69 says:

          Put your money where your loud mouth is and cough up effectively £1.77million per job.

          It is your idea after all!

          Get out your check book and I will gladly take your money. 😆

      • Chris Barron says:

        Woohoo, from Wind watch’s site that you linked to ….

        “How much does it cost to build a wind power facility?
        Construction of a wind power facility costs between $1 million and $2 million per megawatt of capacity.”

        That’s far less than the figures I used earlier (the ones you couldn’t dispute)

        • gator69 says:

          Put your money where your loud mouth is and cough up effectively £1.77million per job.

          It is your idea after all!

          Get out your check book and I will gladly take your money. Do it, or STFU.

        • gator69 says:

          Who funds you?
          National Wind Watch welcomes donations from anyone concerned about industrial wind development who wishes to support the organization’s work. However, NWW will not accept any donation that is intended to influence the actions or policies of the organization or the contents of NWW’s web site. Decisions about NWW policy are made by the Board of Directors, who are unpaid volunteers with no affiliations to fossil fuel or nuclear energy industries or any similar outside interests. National Wind Watch has an official conflict of interest policy which all directors are required to affirm in writing on an annual basis.

          Come on Chris! Put your money where your loud mouth is.

          The foundation predicts its Renewables Obligation subsidy in its first year of full operation will be £160million — effectively £1.77million per job.</B.

          I’ll even cut you a deal, if you act now, I’ll do it for half that price! 😆

        • Chris Barron says:

          Or else ?

          Coal mines are having to close due to many of them not being financially viable (without subsidies) …..uranium is so cheap that it is only financially profitable to get it at the moment using old fashioned African slave wages and ‘we don’t care if you die in there’ management methods. (check them out before you question them, they’re true facts)

          And, I am supposed to listen to you say ‘there there, everything will be alright, just complain about wind anyway’

          I accept that some things are going to cost more than others….this isn’t communism after all

        • And, I am supposed to listen to you say ‘there there, everything will be alright, just complain about wind anyway’

          You have a source for that quote, or are you lying, as usual?

        • Chris Barron says:

          £160 million ?

          Dry your eyes fella. the London olympics set us back £10 billion…..

        • gator69 says:

          Just lick your wounds and slink off Chris.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Yes Dick, you just quoted the source, Dick

        • gator69 says:

          Another strawman from the original strawmman…

          😆

        • So lying it is. Gotcha, wanker.

        • Chris Barron says:

          Still no engineers around with calculators I see…. oh go on, you know you want to (probably already have and are too ashamed )

        • Chris sure is happy when it’s other people’s money he’s spending. Sounds like socialism to me.

        • Chris Barron says:

          lol…not a bit of maths anywhere.

          Science requires facts, usually derived by numerical calculation.

        • gator69 says:

          Still haven’t received my check. What up B?

          Put your money where your loud mouth is and cough up effectively £1.77million per job.

          It is your idea after all!

          Get out your check book and I will gladly take your money. Do it, or STFU.

  16. Chris Barron says:

    The energy ROI of each major electricity source..

    The EROI for wind turbines compares favorably with other power generation systems (Figure 3). Baseload coal-fired power generation has an EROI between 5 and 10:1. Nuclear power is probably no greater than 5:1, although there is considerable debate regarding how to calculate its EROI. The EROI for hydropower probably exceed 10, but in most places in the world the most favorable sites have been developed.

    • gator69 says:

      Then write the check!

      Put your money where your loud mouth is and cough up effectively £1.77million per job.

      It is your idea after all!

      Get out your check book and I will gladly take your money. Do it, or STFU.

      • Chris Barron says:

        Do it, or STFU.

        It really doesn’t travel, hard man…

        £1.77 million, reducing proportionately over time to produce a long lived profitable electricity source….whats the problem with that ?

        The only problem is you need some new batteries in that calculator

    • Chris Barron says:

      Come on Gator, get your head into that Barclay Brothers newsrag and throw out some more unsubstantiated politically biased science averse ‘facts’

      • gator69 says:

        Still wanting to take my money at the point of a gun. What conviction! 😆

        Put your money where your loud mouth is and cough up effectively £1.77million per job.

        It is your idea after all!

        Get out your check book and I will gladly take your money. Do it, or STFU.

      • gator69 says:

        Who funds you?
        National Wind Watch welcomes donations from anyone concerned about industrial wind development who wishes to support the organization’s work. However, NWW will not accept any donation that is intended to influence the actions or policies of the organization or the contents of NWW’s web site. Decisions about NWW policy are made by the Board of Directors, who are unpaid volunteers with no affiliations to fossil fuel or nuclear energy industries or any similar outside interests. National Wind Watch has an official conflict of interest policy which all directors are required to affirm in writing on an annual basis.

        Come on Chris! Put your money where your loud mouth is.

        The foundation predicts its Renewables Obligation subsidy in its first year of full operation will be £160million — effectively £1.77million per job.</B.

        I’ll even cut you a deal, if you act now, I’ll do it for half that price! Hurry! 😆

    • gator69 says:

      Why do you lie so much Chris, your image link is…

      http://www.eoearth.org/files/143901_144000/143973/eroi_electric_power.

      And here is a statement from them…

      Wintertime droughts are increasingly common in the Mediterranean region, and human-caused climate change is partly responsible, according to a new analysis by NOAA scientists and colleagues at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). In the last 20 years, 10 of the driest 12 winters have taken place in the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea.

      http://www.eoearth.org/view/news/51cbf23c7896bb431f6a85cb/?topic=51cbfc78f702fc2ba8129e7b

      • Chris Barron says:

        Ad hom…how many times does this man need to tell you that i don’t believe CO2 is a problem and that man does not affect climate I’ve told you several times and the words did appear on your computer screen….hopefully located close to a calculator which you never appear to use.

        Your government announced it’s intention to go to a climate summit, did you appeal to stop them ?
        They agreed certain limits and constructed a plan to increase the amount of renewables….did you appeal against that ?

        They demanded the energy companies provide renewable energy and the energy companies said ‘fuck you’.

        At about this point most of the media were laughing at the energy companies saying “You have had it too good for so long”…who did you side with then ?

        The government threatened to pass a law, the energy companies agreed to a plan which suited their business model.

        The government said it wasn’t good enough, passed a law (with the public’s consent) and the energy companies sought legal help.

        Negotiations began because the energy companies had no contingency funds to start building new renewable plants and demanded assistance along the lines of that which they already received for coal oil and gas. Did you complain then ?

        Subsidies were agreed and the plan rolled out.

        And here, it is only now that you are complaining ?

        I’ld say you have had enough chances to take your concerns to the government already.

        Give me a shout when you need to know how to use a calculator

  17. David A says:

    Chris here is your calculator.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/21/renewable-energy-solar-and-wind-power-capital-costs-and-effectiveness-compared/
    You need at least a week on that post alone.
    more for you
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
    Please tell Google to stop asking for the Fed govt to throw good money after bad regarding the pay back of the building costs of the Ivanpah Solar facility. (I never found clarity regarding if this was a government loan, or a government loan guarantee, but the tax payer is being asked to foot the bill for the poor wag, since electrical output is 1/2 of predicted (about like warming, models vs. reality)

    I also recall a whole bunch of rich green folk contributed to Obama’s campaign and received government loans that were not paid back, (Solyndra plus a host of other failed investments.)

    Of course the greens will argue and show bogus statistics of how much conventional producers and oil is subsidized. They will assert, “big oil gets ten to 20 times the subsidies of wind and solar}
    (They get the same tax write offs, applied to PROFITS any international company gets) Wind and solar is massively subsidized, top to bottom.

    Chris, how much tax did wind and solar paid vs. conventional?
    Not only is “Big Oil” and conventional power production not subsidized, it pays about between 200 to 400 billion every year in taxes, AFTER tax write offs. (What greens call subsidies) Do not forget all the ADDITIONAL individual tax paid by all the workers, and all the companies that work for big Oil, that manufacture well heads, ship the product etc…

    Now consider the tax revenue that all the subsidized green is NOT generating, plus the Government imposed inefficiencies on regulating conventional power to the back seat, thus raising the cost of power on every poor slob with a utility bill, or who buys ANY product made with something we call ENERGY, the life blood of EVERY economy.

  18. Gail Combs says:

    Chris Barron says:

    …Your government announced it’s intention to go to a climate summit, did you appeal to stop them ?
    They agreed certain limits and constructed a plan to increase the amount of renewables….did you appeal against that ?…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Since When have American citizens had any say over what our government wants to do?

    Neither the rank and file left (Occupy Wall Street) or the rank and file right (the TEA Party) wanted the Bankster Bailouts. They were initiated by the Shrub (R) and carried out under Obummer (D). All our screaming and yelling and protests did not stop the US government from transferring Tax Payer Money (IOUs) to the Bankers who then used it to bailout the EU. Hell we were not even ALLOWED to know where the money actually went until Ron Paul raised a fuss and Congress passed a law. FINALLY years after the fact some information was dribbled to the public.

    Our politics are a complete charade.

    Thanks to the new Anti-Occupy law we now are not even ALLOWED to Protest except in a muddy field well away from anyone else.

    1. The MSM is OWNED by the Bankers and feed the public propaganda not news. link

    2. Diebold Voting Machine FRAUD — The Evidence: TECHNOLOGY & ELECTION FRAUD RESEARCH

    3. IRS targets True the Vote — True Scandal: A tea-party group targeted by Democrats gets attention from the IRS—and the FBI, OSHA, and the ATF “Working as an alternate judge at the polls in 2009 in Fort Bend County, Texas, Catherine says, she was appalled and dismayed to witness everything from administrative snafus to outright voter fraud.” She also gave Congressional testimony to the IRS targeting. However recently the courts have denied her the right of a law suit against the IRS. The IRS and other agencies DENIED the Tea Party and other grass root conservative groups the RIGHT to participate in the elections.

    4. The Bankers CONTROL big business who donates most of the election money: ..a comprehensive study entitled, “The Network of Global Corporate Control” which demonstrates how this relatively small consortium of corporations, and overwhelmingly dominated by mainly banks, actually run the world’s corporate daisy chain. Listing of the corporations (Has link to peer-reviewed paper): https://publicintelligence.net/global-network-of-corporate-control/

    CONTINUED….

    • Gail Combs says:

      To understand what the following is all about read: 2010 – America’s Ruling Class — …The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party

      So America’s Ruling Class is fighting back.

      A super PAC, called Defending Main Street has emerged. By now most of us have figured out the America’s Ruling Class always picks a name that is the opposit of the their ture intentions. So Defending Main Street should be all about suppressing Main Street and what do you know? The Republican Main Street Partnership has emerged as an outspoken, deep-pocketed player in pro-business GOP plans to beat back tea-party challengers next year. But the group’s new super PAC has an unexpected source for its seed money: labor unions.

      ” …the Main Street group has been publicly declaring its intent to crush tea-party challengers in Republican primaries, going head to head with conservative bankrollers such as the anti-tax Club for Growth.

      “Hopefully, we’ll go into eight to 10 races and beat the snot out of them,” Main Street President Steven LaTourette told National Journal in October…

      Certainly, labor is not alone in funding Main Street. The group’s money is “coming from business folks, from private donors,” said spokesman Chris Barron. [Is that YOU Chris?] “It has a wide range of folks who are interested in supporting the governing wing of the Republican Party.”

      Translation: The governing wing of the Republican Party isn’t interested in what the republican voters want only what the Big Dogs [aka Banksters] want.

      Both the Operating Engineers and the Laborers’ Union have given millions of dollars to Democratic candidates and millions more to the party’s quasi-official House and Senate super PACs over the last few years. Only one other PAC gave more to Democratic candidates than the Operating Engineers’ in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

      But both unions have also consistently invested in the campaigns of friendly Republicans, including LaTourette’s (when he was in Congress). Earlier this year, LIUNA endorsed New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie for reelection, and its PAC gave $300,000 to the Republican Governors Association, which ran pro-Christie advertising in the Garden State.

      The Operating Engineers’ PAC has given 23 percent of its donations to federal candidates to Republicans this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and it supported a super PAC called “Lunch Pail Republicans” last year. At the AFL-CIO’s national convention in September, the Operating Engineers and another group offered a successful resolution urging “that the AFL-CIO take practical steps … to cultivate and nurture relationships with members of all parties” and “encourage moderate candidates” in Republican-leaning congressional districts as part of a “pragmatic, bipartisan approach” to its political giving and advocacy….

      In other words left wing Labor Unions support RINOs – Republicans In Name Only, like Mitt Romney. Remember the UNIONS are not doing what the members want they are doing what the leaders want. So no real Main Street representation in the whole damn mess.

  19. gator69 says:

    Chris Barron says:
    March 17, 2015 at 8:48 am
    Ad hom…

    Proving you lied is not an Ad Hom, it is yet another victory. I’d loan you my dictionary as well as a functioning calculator, if I thought you were honest (now that’s an Ad Hom!).

    Chris, you are parroting the same industry lies that I once very briefly believed, but unlike you, I honestly looked at both sides of the argument and then considered why bird shredders need massive OP money to even make a single revolution.

    My offer still stands. If you really believe what you say, break out that checkbook and I will be on the next flight over with my tool belt.

    But you are not serious, you just want my money.

    • Chris Barron says:

      Chris Barron says:
      March 17, 2015 at 8:48 am
      Ad hom…

      Gator said – Proving you lied is not an Ad Hom, it is yet another victory.

      I have never lied about my stance that CO2 does not cause global warming…which is the point you aimed at me…..and that fact remains the same.

      You have never once managed to disprove that wind is uneconomical when i laid out the 60 year figures in front of you….you couldn’t find even the smallest mistake….you are either not qualified to do it or you are in agreement with me that there is some profit in wind power – so which one is it ?

      • Chris Barron says:

        Actually if you think neither is true, then show the financial loss of a wind turbine location over 60 years….and if you want to use a bad case for turbine lifetime of 10 years go ahead and use that…..

        For the sake of those wondering….at 10 years a replacement nacelle can be fitted to a tower when the original nacelle (turbine and rotor) reaches the end of it’s life. The initial installation costs of land purchase, grid connection and tower installation form the bulk of any new turbine installation, but thereafter it is much cheaper each time to simply replace the nacelle.

        Usual figures quote that ‘turbines are not economical’ because they never consider the situation where the normal service life of a nacelle is reached and another is switched in….a process called ‘repowering’.

        Over 60 years, and even if each nacelle is replaced at merely 10 year intervals, the cost per unit of electricity generated, distributed through the cost of the first expensive turbine and the subsequent 5 much cheaper installations shows the potential for a lot of profit to be made.

        Why are subsidies given ? because the money has to come from somewhere – an energy company could get more for it’s investment if it banked it’s money for 8 years than if it installed turbines for 8 years (payback on the first turbine is 10-15 years away), so in order to meet the government’s insistance that they MUST install wind and other renewables, the energy companies demanded assistance, or else they would be forced to lose money in the relative short term.

        I don’t work for any energy company…I’m just an engineer who knows for sure that a site where the wind is likely to be blowing well today is likely to continue being a good site for a turbine for centuries to come

        Gator mindlessly says it’s all lies. And yet Gator cannot find fault in the facts…but Gator has an ego problem too.

        • gator69 says:

          😆 😆 😆

          An engineer who thinks the underside of his cars’s bonnet never exceeds 85F! 😆

          But Chris must also teh be a Bible scholar, as well as an expert on the Koran! 😆

          The village idiot just keeps burnishing his credentials! 😆

          stoning to death by christianity, as spelled out in the bible

          That is what intelligent people call ‘The Old Testament’, and existed before Christ, you moron.

          When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
          -John 8:7

          Come on Chris! Show us your vast knowledge! 😆

          Do I need to repeat that you were wrong, again? Yep!

          Chris the village idiot spews:

          “Islamic Law”…Nobody fears it. It doesn’t actually exist

          Why do you feel it necessary to keep proving that you are an idiot? We know already! 😆

          To Arabic-speaking people, sharia (/ʃɑːˈriːɑː/;[1] also shari’a, sharīʿah; Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], “legislation”) means the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion.[2][3][4] The term “sharia” has been largely identified with Islam in English usage.[5]

          Sharia (Islamic law) deals with several topics including: crime, politics, and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, everyday etiquette and fasting..

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

          Find somebody else who does not yet know you are a fool, and enlighten them for a change. 😆

        • gator69 says:

          Wind power is too variable and too unpredictable to provide a serious alternative to fossil fuels, a new study by the Scientific Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute has confirmed. The researchers concluded that, although it is true that the wind is always blowing somewhere, the base line is only around 2 percent of capacity, assuming a network capacity of 10GW.

          The majority of the time, wind will only deliver 8 percent of total capacity in the system, whilst the chances of the wind network running at full capacity is “vanishingly small”. As a consequence, fossil fuel plants capable of delivering the same amount of energy will always be required as backup.
          The report was undertaken by the Scientific Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute. Using data on wind speed and direction gathered hourly from 22 sites around the UK over the last nine years, the researchers were able to build a comprehensive picture of how much the wind blows in the UK, where it blows, and how variable it is.
          They found that, contrary to popular opinion, variability was a significant factor as “swings of around 10 percent are normal” across the whole system within 30 – 90 minute timeframes. “This observation contradicts the claim that a widespread wind fleet installation will smooth variability,” the authors write.
          Likewise, and again contrary to popular assumptions, wind does not follow daily or even seasonal outputs. There were long periods in which the wind was not blowing even in winter, making it difficult to match generation of wind power to demand. The report concludes that covering these low periods would either need 15 storage plants the size of Dinorwig (a pumped storage hydroelectric power station in Wales with a 1.7GW capacity), or preserving and renewing our fossil plants as a reserve.
          Most significantly, it found that the system would be only running at 90 percent of capacity or higher for 17 hours a year, and at 80 percent or higher for less than one week a year; conversely, total output was at less than 20 percent of capacity for 20 weeks of the year, and below 10 percent during nine weeks a year. “The most common power output of this 10GW model wind fleet is approximately 800MW. The probability that the wind fleet will produce full output is vanishingly small,” the authors note. The consequence is that many more wind turbines will have to be built than is often assumed, as the capacity of the fleet can’t be assumed to be synonymous with actual output.
          The findings will deliver a body blow to governmental claims that their current target of generating 27 percent of energy from renewable sources – mostly wind and solar – by 2030 is credible.
          “If there were no arbitrary renewable energy target, governments would be free to focus on what most voters expect: providing a framework in which a secure and affordable energy supply can be delivered,” commented Martin Livermore, director of the Scientific Alliance.
          “If emissions are also to be reduced, the most effective measures currently would be a move from coal to gas and a programme of nuclear new build. In the meantime, the renewables industry continues to grow on a diet of subsidies, and we all pick up the tab. Getting out of this hole is not going to be easy, but it’s time the government started the process rather than continuing to dig deeper.”
          According to the 2013 Renewable Energy Roadmap (the most recent to date), offshore wind capacity reached 3.5GW by June 2013, and onshore capacity reached 7GW in the same month. Governmental modelling suggests that offshore wind capacity will hit 16GW by 2020, and 39GW by 2030.
          In the introduction to the Roadmap, the ministerial team headed by Ed Davey, secretary of state for energy and climate change wrote “The Government’s commitment to cost effective renewable energy as part of a diverse, low-carbon and secure energy mix, is as strong as ever. Alongside gas and low-carbon transport fuels, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage, renewable energy provides energy security, helps us meet our decarbonisation objectives and brings green growth to all parts of the UK.”
          Report here…

          http://www.adamsmith.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Assessment7.pdf

        • gator69 says:

          Another idiotic sermon from Cris in 3,2,1…

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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