Judge's ruling against Minnesota wind farm causes alarm for advocates: They say judge's opposition to proposal could threaten future of the industry

A judge’s recommendation that a proposed Minnesota wind farm be nixed over turbine noise has drawn a flurry of opposition from the wind-power industry, which fears a chilling effect on development.

In a rare move, Administrative Law Judge LauraSue Schlatter last month recommended that the Freeborn Wind farm be denied an operating permit, saying the southern Minnesota project failed to show it can meet state noise standards.

Freeborn Wind’s developer, Invenergy, has objected, saying Schlatter’s interpretation of state noise rules would be “impossible” to meet. Last week, two wind-industry trade groups and three of Invenergy’s competitors also filed objections to Schlatter’s recommendation, as did four clean-energy and environmental groups.

The judge’s “interpretation of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) noise standards would have a detrimental impact on other current and future wind-energy projects throughout the state,” the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy wrote in its objection.

Administrative law judges like Schlatter are appointed to contested cases before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, which will eventually vote whether to approve the project. The proposed Freeborn Wind farm is the first contested PUC case involving a wind farm. The project southeast of Albert Lea has drawn opposition from some local residents over fears of excessive noise and other quality-of-life issues.

The $300 million Freeborn Wind project would include 42 turbines in Freeborn County and another 82 turbines across the state border in Worth County, Iowa. The project was initially supposed to be solely in Minnesota, but Chicago-based Invenergy moved a big chunk of it due to opposition from the Association of Freeborn County Landowners.

There’s no specific Minnesota rule for wind-farm noise, though there are general MPCA noise standards. Schlatter concluded the MPCA standard applies to total noise: background noise — like roadway traffic — combined with any wind-turbine sounds. Invenergy and the wind industry contend that the MPCA standard applies to wind-turbine sounds alone and say that’s how the PUC has historically viewed the issue.

“If the (PUC) adopted a ‘total noise’ standard, such an interpretation would effectively ban future wind development in Minnesota, and potentially provide anti-wind activists a tool to attempt to adversely affect the operation of existing projects,” the American Wind Energy Association wrote.

But the Association of Freeborn County Landowners said in a filing that “there is no evidence that profitable wind projects” can’t be sited in Minnesota with existing standards. “Wind developers are up in arms, wringing their hands, and quaking, arguing for continuance of prior lax rule interpretations, improper siting procedures and ineffective regulatory oversight.”

The Minnesota Department of Commerce, which represents the public interest before the PUC, said in a recent filing that it’s trying to stake out a “middle ground,” recommending that the PUC “limit a wind project’s total turbine-only noise” to a certain decibel level.

Still, the commerce department concluded that “interpreting the [state’s] noise standard as a limit on total noise that applies to all sources is not an impractical or novel regulatory scheme.”

Other parties that have filed PUC briefs opposing Schlatter’s decision include: wind-energy developers Apex Clean Energy, RES Group and EDF Renewables; wind-turbine manufacturer and Freeborn Wind supplier Vestas; the Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum; and Wind on the Wires, a Minnesota nonprofit that represents wind and solar developers as well as clean-energy advocacy groups

SOURCE 





Billions in U.S. solar projects shelved after Trump panel tariff

President Donald Trump’s tariff on imported solar panels has led U.S. renewable energy companies to cancel or freeze investments of more than $2.5 billion in large installation projects, along with thousands of jobs, the developers told Reuters.

That's more than double the about $1 billion in new spending plans announced by firms building or expanding U.S. solar panel factories to take advantage of the tax on imports.

The tariff’s bifurcated impact on the solar industry underscores how protectionist trade measures almost invariably hurt one or more domestic industries for every one they shield from foreign competition. Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, for instance, have hurt manufacturers of U.S. farm equipment made with steel, such as tractors and grain bins, along with the farmers buying them at higher prices.

White House officials did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump announced the tariff in January over protests from most of the solar industry that the move would chill one of America's fastest-growing sectors.

Solar developers completed utility-scale installations costing a total of $6.8 billion last year, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. Those investments were driven by U.S. tax incentives and the falling costs of imported panels, mostly from China, which together made solar power competitive with natural gas and coal.

The U.S. solar industry employs more than 250,000 people - about three times more than the coal industry - with about 40 percent of those people in installation and 20 percent in manufacturing, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

"Solar was really on the cusp of being able to completely take off," said Zoe Hanes, chief executive of Charlotte, North Carolina solar developer Pine Gate Renewables.

GTM Research, a clean energy research firm, recently lowered its 2019 and 2020 utility-scale solar installation forecasts in the United States by 20 percent and 17 percent, respectively, citing the levies.

Officials at Suniva - a Chinese-owned, U.S.-based solar panel manufacturer whose bankruptcy prompted the Trump administration to consider a tariff - did not respond to requests for comment.

Companies with domestic panel factories are divided on the policy. Solar giant SunPower Corp (SPWR.O) opposes the tariff that will help its U.S. panel factories because it will also hurt its domestic installation and development business, along with its overseas manufacturing operations.

"There could be substantially more employment without a tariff," said Chief Executive Tom Werner.

LOST PROFITS, JOBS

The 30 percent tariff is scheduled to last four years, decreasing by 5 percent per year during that time. Solar developers say the levy will initially raise the cost of major installations by 10 percent.

Leading utility-scale developer Cypress Creek Renewables LLC said it had been forced to cancel or freeze $1.5 billion in projects - mostly in the Carolinas, Texas and Colorado - because the tariff raised costs beyond the level where it could compete, spokesman Jeff McKay said.

That amounted to about 150 projects at various stages of development that would have employed three thousand or more workers during installation, he said. The projects accounted for a fifth of the company's overall pipeline.

Developer Southern Current has made similar decisions on about $1 billion of projects, mainly in South Carolina, said Bret Sowers, the company’s vice president of development and strategy.

"Either you make the decision to default or you bite the bullet and you make less money," Sowers said.

Neither Cypress Creek nor Southern Current would disclose exactly which projects they intend to cancel. They said those details could help their competitors and make it harder to pursue those projects if they become financially viable later.

Both are among a group of solar developers that have asked trade officials to exclude panels used in their utility-scale projects from the tariffs. The office of the U.S. Trade Representative said it is still evaluating the requests.

Other companies are having similar problems.

Scott Canada, senior vice president of renewable energy at solar project builder McCarthy Building Companies, said his company had planned to employ about 1,200 people on solar projects this year but slashed that number by half because of the tariff.

Pine Gate, meanwhile, will complete about half of the 400 megawatts of solar installations it had planned this year and has ditched plans to hire 30 permanent employees, Hanes said.

The company also withdrew an 80-megawatt project that would have cost up to $150 million from consideration in a bidding process held by Southern Co (SO.N) utility Georgia Power. It pulled the proposal late last year when it learned the Trump administration was contemplating the tariff.

For some developers, the tariff has meant abandoning nascent markets in the American heartland that last year posted the strongest growth in installations. That growth was concentrated in states where voters supported Trump in the 2016 presidential election.

South Bend, Indiana-based developer Inovateus Solar LLC, for example, had decided three years ago to focus on emerging Midwest solar markets such as Indiana and Michigan. But the tariff sparked a shift to Massachusetts, where state renewable energy incentives make it more profitable, chairman T.J. Kanczuzewski said.

Other developers are forging ahead, keen to take advantage of the remaining years of a 30-percent federal tax credit for solar installation that is scheduled to start phasing out in 2020.

Some firms saw the tariff coming and stockpiled panels before Trump’s announcement. 174 Power Global, the development arm of Korea's Hanwha warehoused 190 megawatts of solar panels at the end of last year for a Texas project that broke ground in January.

The company is paying more for panels for two Nevada projects that start operating this year and next, but is moving forward on construction, according to Larry Greene, who heads the firm's development in the U.S. West.

Intersect Power, a developer that cut a deal last year with Austin Energy to provide low-cost power to the Texas capital city, is also pushing ahead, said CEO Sheldon Kimber. But the tariff is forcing delays in buying solar panels.

The 150-megawatt project is due to start producing power in 2020. Waiting until the last minute to purchase modules will allow the company to take advantage of the tariff’s 5-percent annual reductions, he said.

Trump’s tariff has boosted the domestic manufacturing sector as intended, which over time could significantly raise U.S. panel production and reduce prices.

Panel manufacturers First Solar (FSLR.O) and JinkoSolar (JKS.N), for example, have announced plans to spend $800 million on projects to increase panel construction in the United States since the tariff, creating about 700 new jobs in Ohio and Florida. Just last week, Korea’s Hanwha Q CELLS (HQCL.O) joined them, saying it will open a solar module factory in Georgia next year, though it did not detail job creation.

SunPower Corp, meanwhile, purchased U.S. manufacturer SolarWorld's Oregon factory after the tariff was announced, saving that facility’s 280 jobs. The company said it plans to hire more people at the plant to expand operations, without specifying how many.

But SunPower has also said it must cut up to 250 jobs in other parts of its organization because of the tariffs.

Jobs in panel manufacturing are also limited due to increasing automation, industry experts said.

Heliene - a Canadian company in the process of opening a U.S. facility capable of producing 150 megawatts worth of panels per year - said it will employ between 130 and 140 workers in Minnesota.

"The factories are highly automated," said Martin Pochtaruk, president of Heliene. "You don't employ too many humans. There are a lot of robots."


SOURCE 





Effort to turn weathermen into climate activists fraught with bad science

By: Marc Morano

NBC News is hyping a report that claims meteorologists are supporting the George Mason and Climate Central effort to promote climate change fears on your nightly weather forecast. See: ‘Global warming,’ now brought to you by local TV weathercaster

The climate information being promoted by the activist meteorologists is highly suspect and the groups behind the effort have supported shutting down any scientific debate by supporting RICO statures against skeptics and they have benefited greatly from federal funding of their efforts.

The information the meteorologists are peddling is pure propaganda, as the video accompanying the article shows a montage of weather forecasters using a 1970 start date to claim warming temperatures. Ever wonder why they chose 1970 as the start date?

Here is why:

Cheating For Dollars At Climate Central: ‘The 1970 cherry picking scam has become a centerpiece of the global warming fraud. The 1970s was one of the coldest decades in US history’ – By Tony Heller – ‘By starting in 1970, Climate Central is intentionally defrauding their readers. Had they started in 1950, there would be almost no warming shown Also important to remember that all recent temperatures are jacked up by 0.5F Bottom line is there has been little or no long term warming in the US’

But just who is behind this effort to turn your local TV weatherman into an Al Gore spouting climate fear promoter?

Climate Depot and the new book ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,’ reveal the answers to these questions.

NBC News describes thusly the effort to turn your local weatherman into a mini Al Gore: “Key to the shift has been Climate Central, the nonprofit that helped school LaPointe. The Princeton, New Jersey-based organization sponsors classes and webinars for meteorologists and also shares real-time data and graphics with TV stations. The group has reached more than 500 local TV weathercasters — about a quarter of those working in the U.S. — since it started its “Climate Matters” education program in 2012, and it is expanding this week to a wider group of journalists.”

Who is Climate Central? A climate activist group funded by the federal tax dollars that helps promote climate fears.

‘There is evidently heavy funding as well from Federal organizations. So taxpayers are having to pay Climate Central to produce what is often grossly inaccurate and misleading propaganda, which in turn supports the Federal Government’s agenda.’

NBC News touts George Mason professor Ed Maibach as “the climate change center’s director” at the University. Who is Ed Maibach and just who is behind the effort to turn your weather forecast into nightly climate propaganda?

Excerpt: “Maibach, you may be surprised to learn, is no climate scientist but has a BA in social psychology from University of California, and a PhD in communication research from Stanford University.” According to the Centre’s blurb: “Ed joined the George Mason University faculty in 2007 to create the Center for Climate Change Communication. Trained in public health and communication…”

Maibach was also a signatory of the infamous letter to President Obama urging the use of RICO statutes against climate skeptics.

"Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth, & George Mason’s Ed Maibach, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama – Via Politico: ‘Twenty climate scientists called for RICO investigation in a letter to Obama and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch.”

Maibach’s funding also raises questions:

Excerpt: “This is one hell of a high powered effort to push out global warming propaganda, and heaven knows what it all costs. Amongst its providers of major funding are listed NASA, the National Science Foundation and private foundations such as Grantham Foundation and Rockefeller Family Fund. It could hardly be a more incestuous relationship. NASA pumps funding into the Center in order to persuade the public of the terrors of global warming, which in turn will help to maintain their own funding, which can then be used to further ramp up the scare. It is no wonder Mr Maibach is so keen to sign the (RICO) letter, and silence skeptics”

Maibach has a long history of climate propaganda.

See: Climate spin: Behind-the-scenes emails show warmist prof Ed Maibach evading questions – By Maxim Lott – June 01, 2016 – FoxNews.com – Newly released internal e-mails show George Mason University climate professors plotting a petition calling on the government to prosecute skeptics of global warming using RICO laws designed to go after the mob. They got 20 scientists to sign their petition and sent it to government officials before withdrawing in the face of controversy. The new emails show GMU professors Jagadish Shukla and Edward Maibach discussing everything from how to craft their petition to appeal to conservatives, to getting warnings from others that the petition would go over poorly, to evading media questions.

In the emails, the professors decided to ignore questions from FoxNews.com about why the lead petition author, Jagadish Shukla, used government grants to give himself and his family some $500,000 in salary and benefits in 2014 — which FoxNews.com reported in October. The professors decided to reach out to the Washington Post instead. “They were running a well-used page in their playbook … get the legacy media to play defense for them,” Chris Horner, who forced the public release of the emails by filing a “Freedom of Information Act” request, told FoxNews.com.

SOURCE 






Magical Wind Power: Illusions versus Reality

The number-one challenge of our times is to separate the wheat from the chaff.  To assist in this task, we are blessed with more information than ever before – but we are also simultaneously burdened with more misinformation than any prior generation has ever had to deal with.

We look back and wonder how trusting citizens were so easily victimized by snake oil salesmen, but today, in the golden age of cons, we are being duped on a daily basis.

As a representative matter (and a national issue of great significance), let’s look at what’s happening with industrial wind energy.

The primary reason why wind energy has been a success has nothing to do with wind energy!  Instead, its success is 100% due to the fact that wind energy proponents are masterful lobbyists.

If one reads The Business of America Is Lobbying, it’s apparent that the wind industry has used every trick in the book, and then written some of its own.

For example: Wind lobbyists have successfully infiltrated our language with totally inaccurate and misleading terminology, such as “wind farms” and “clean energy.”  Neither exists.

For example: Wind marketers have successfully portrayed their product as “Free, Clean, and Green” – despite it being none of those.  The reason they have coined these malapropisms is simple: those who control the words control the narrative.

For example: Wind salespeople have successfully convinced financially distressed communities that hosting a wind project will be an economic windfall – even though numerous studies from independent experts indicate that the net local economic impact could well be negative.

For example: Wind-peddlers have successfully sold technically challenged local representatives that the wind-developer is their friend and business partner – even though these sophisticated and aggressive entrepreneurs typically look at these rural people as rubes and marks, and their number-one focus is to make as much money as possible, at the rubes’ expense.

For example: Wind developers have successfully persuaded much of the public that wind energy is an inevitable matter, so fighting it is a lost cause.  The reality is that in many cases, local communities can effectively defend themselves by simply passing a proper wind ordinance.

For example: Wind-supporters have successfully imparted the belief that a certain wind project will power 20,000 homes – even though that project will not actually power a single home 24/7/365.

For example: Wind advocates employ a sleight-of-hand tactic to dismiss noise complaints by claiming that “wind turbines don’t make any more noise than a refrigerator.”  The fact is that the main acoustical concern with wind turbines is the infrasound generated (which is below our level of hearing).  So discussing the audible part of turbine noise purposefully distracts from the serious inaudible (but still very much experienced) noise issue.

For example: Wind propagandists say that wind energy is saving the environment – even though the evidence indicates that it is environmentally destructive on multiple fronts.

For example: Wind promoters have successfully conveyed the idea that wind energy is a low-cost option of electricity – even though when all its costs are fully accounted for, wind energy can be three to five times as expensive as traditional electricity sources.

For example: Wind advocates have successfully communicated the notion that using more wind will directly result in the closure of coal plants – even though 10,000 wind turbines could never equal the performance of even a single coal facility.

For example: Wind-boosters have successfully disseminated the impression that wind is a major and essential contributor to preventing climate change – even though there is no empirical scientific proof that wind energy saves any consequential CO2.

For example: Wind champions have successfully relayed the conviction that the DoD Clearinghouse assures us that wind projects will not adversely affect the mission or operational readiness of our military or our national security – even though the DoD Clearinghouse was set up to accommodate wind energy (not the military), and the actual process is much more about promoting political correctness than protecting our national defense.

I could go on and on, as the list of wind lobbyists’ deceptions is distressingly long.  That said, there is an additional major falsehood that needs to be exposed: that there is such a thing as wind energy by itself.  This seemingly innocuous deceit is actually extraordinarily important.

The fact is that there is no such animal on the grid as wind energy by itself.  What actually typically exists is a “Wind+Gas” package.  This is mandated by the inescapable reality of wind energy’s unrelentingly unpredictable and uncontrollable output.  No conventional source of electrical energy has these characteristics, so none need this special augmentation.

The importance of understanding this reality is that when we are talking about wind energy economics or environmental consequences, the only truthful analysis is objectively and comprehensively looking at the results of the Wind+Gas package.*

For example, it should be apparent that wind energy (i.e., the Wind+Gas package) is not a CO2 zero-emitter.  In fact, due to other technicalities (never acknowledged by wind lobbyists), some studies have concluded that gas (combined cycle) by itself produces less CO2 than the Wind+Gas package.

Let me restate that extraordinary finding: gas can produce less CO2 than wind energy does!

Is the success of wind energy due to the sophistication of the con artists they’ve engaged or to our gullibility?  In either case, the takeaway is that lobbyists are not reliable sources of information, especially when it involves significant money, our health, or our national security.  The bottom line is that wind energy is palliative pabulum, not suitable for prime time.

SOURCE 





Former PM steps up attack on Australian climate plan

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has told Liberal and Nationals MPs that Australia must do its part to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as his predecessor Tony Abbott led another attack on the issue in the Coalition party room.

Mr Turnbull held the line on the government’s pledge to cut emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 under the National Energy Guarantee, against vocal concerns from six Liberal MPs, including Mr Abbott.

At one point Mr Abbott claimed he was “misled by bureaucrats” over the cost of the emissions cut he helped decide as Prime Minister in 2015, which was taken to the United Nations climate talks in Paris that year.

The skirmish is another stage in the federal government’s painful internal debate on energy and climate change, in the face of objections from conservative MPs including Mr Abbott, backbencher Craig Kelly and former ministers Eric Abetz and Ian Macdonald.

Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg defended the National Energy Guarantee against the criticisms and cited support from industry executives to assure backbenchers the plan would succeed.

Labor is attacking the guarantee for cementing cuts that it regards as too weak while Mr Abbott and his colleagues argue the targets are too ambitious, adding to the obstacles to an agreement in Federal Parliament.

Mr Abbott challenged Mr Frydenberg to address concerns aired by Tomago Aluminium chief Matt Howell about the unreliability of renewable energy sources and the fact that its battery system would only last minutes when the smelter in NSW needed power for hours.

Mr Frydenberg replied by telling the meeting he had spoken to Mr Howell before the Coalition party room meeting and could assure MPs the Tomago chief supported the guarantee.

Mr Frydenberg also cited support for the guarantee from steelmaker BlueScope and mining giant BHP Billiton, according to government MPs in the room.

In a revival of earlier disputes within the Coalition, Mr Abbott expressed concern about the 26 per cent target despite the fact his government signed off on the commitment in 2015 in a decision cleared with the Coalition party room at the time.

Mr Abbott argued in the meeting that the target was “aspirational” but Mr Frydenberg said this was not the case, quoting the former prime minister’s own words from three years ago.

In September 2015, Mr Abbott said: “Unlike some other countries which make these pledges and don’t deliver, Australia does deliver when we make a pledge.”

Fairfax Media was told that Mr Abbott warned about the cost of meeting the target and said he may have been “misled by the bureaucracy” about the full implications of the Paris commitment.

When Senator Macdonald questioned why Australia had to reduce any emissions, Mr Turnbull responded by emphasising the need to ensure the guarantee delivered on the targets agreed in 2015.

Mr Turnbull told the meeting that Australia had to “do our bit” to reach the target.

SOURCE 


***************************************

For more postings from me, see  DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC and AUSTRALIAN POLITICS. Home Pages are   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  

Preserving the graphics:  Most graphics on this site are hotlinked from elsewhere.  But hotlinked graphics sometimes have only a short life -- as little as a week in some cases.  After that they no longer come up.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here or here

*****************************************