Editor: First I wish to thank a reader – Norma, from South Africa for sending me this information.
Since 2006 I have been educating people on wind farms and the scam of MMGW. Unfortunately ever time I brought up the fact that wind farms are a fraud as is MMGW, I ended up being shunned by others fighting wind farms. They never wanted to deal with the fraud of MMGW even though without MMGW there was no case to build wind farms.
While I have fought to bring truth to the table, the vast majority fighting wind farms have remained under the delusion that “we need to embrace renewable energy” and “we just want the turbines sited farther from our homes”
Had those fighting wind farms pushed the “real truth” to the forefront the threat of wind farms would have be crushed long ago.
From my earliest posts I have always put the truth forward, concerning Wind Farms, MMGW and the people connected to these scams which threaten both the people of this country and the world.
Fighting the industry, govt. and the “wind fighters” has been a long and draining experience but hopefully this article from New Zealand will give those in Ont., Canada and the World the strength they need to beat back both the fraud of Wind Farms and MMGW.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – WIND FARM DECISION
The New Zealand
Climate Science Coalition Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE, 14A Bayview Road, Hauraki, North
Shore City 0622
Phone (09) 486 3859 – Mobile 0274 836688 – Email –
13 November 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Huge wind farm in New Zealand canned on environmental, economic and
“climate change” grounds
Project Hayes was a 630 MW wind farm proposed for an upland plateau in
Central Otago in the South Island of New Zealand. An appeal to the
Environment Court has resulted in a judgement revoking the consent
granted about two years ago under New Zealand’s Resource Management Act.Several groups of local residents appealed the original consent on the
grounds that it would destroy an area of outstanding natural beauty. A
businessman from Auckland with property in Central Otago appealed on the
grounds that it was seriously uneconomic compared to alternative
generation and that, because fears of dangerous man-made global warming
were not supported by the evidence, there was no grounds to build it to
“fight climate change”. As expert witnesses, he engaged Professor Bob
Carter, Professor Chris de Freitas and Dr Kesten Green to put the case
that there were no grounds for believing in dangerous man-made global
warming and Bryan Leyland, a very experienced power systems engineer, to
demonstrate that wind power was expensive and an “uneconomic use of
resources”The hearing was held before four Commissioners at the Environment Court
where expert witnesses from both sides presented evidence and argued the
costs and benefits both for and against the wind farm over a period of
nearly two years.
In consideration of climate change matters under Section 7 of the Act,
the court listened carefully to arguments countering the IPCC
“projections” of impending dangerous man-made global warming put forward
by Carter, De Freitas and Green. However, their conclusion was that the
government had decreed that it believed in dangerous man- made global
warming, so they had to accept this decree. But the decision leaves open
the possibility that, as a result of the evidence presented, they gave
less weight to Meridian’s claimed climate change benefits than they
would otherwise have done.Bryan Leyland presented evidence on the cost of wind farms worldwide and
presented a detailed economic analysis that showed that the cost to the
consumer of the power generated was about twice the cost of alternatives
like hydropower, geothermal or coal. When cross questioned on the
economics of the project he finally said: “If it cost half as much and
the wind blew strongest in the autumn instead of springtime, I would be
all for it.”
The 350 page judgement was delivered after nine months of deliberation
by the Court. The judgement acknowledged the outstanding value of the
landscape and loss of this value if the wind farm was built. The other
major component of the decision revolved around the magnitude of the
economic benefit to people and communities from building this wind farm
compared to alternatives. The court was very critical of the lack of
economic analysis undertaken by Meridian Energy, the promoters of the
project, and commented that “We find it extraordinary that in a $2
billion project more effort was not made by Meridian to value more of
the costs and benefits much more thoroughly. It is even more remarkable
that two governments endorsed the proposal without insisting that
Meridian carried out a cost benefit analysis, or requesting Treasury to
The judgement of the Commissioners was three to one against the project.
The fourth commissioner, in a supplementary statement, said that “I come
down on the side of the Meridian’s proposal, albeit by a small margin”.
For New Zealand, this decision raises the bar for all other wind farm
proposals and implies that without a comprehensive and detailed economic
analysis on national terms, they will not be approved. As Bryan Leyland
demonstrated, such an economic analysis will show that wind farms in New
Zealand cannot compete with alternative forms of generation even if a
reasonable allowance is made for a carbon tax in one form or another.
For wind energy globally, the judgement drives home the fact that wind
farms embedded in major power systems are seriously uneconomic because
of high costs, an even lower capacity factor than is achieved in New
Zealand, the need for backup generation and for additional transmission
lines. All these wind farms are uneconomic and are commercially viable
because of only massive consumer funded subsidies. It also demonstrates
that if a wind farm is opposed on well supported environmental, economic
and climate change grounds, success is more likely.