The land down under emerges from the toxic fog of the “unreliables” scam with a cleansed political mind.
“The lack of reliable and demonstrably independent evidence on the subject of wind farms both adds to those concerns and allows vested interests on either side of the debate to promulgate questionable information to support their respective cases.
“We will implement a program to establish real-time monitoring of wind farm noise emissions to be made publicly available on the internet.” http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/coalition-energy-document-focuses-almost-entirely-on-fossil-fuels
Note the similarly manipulative designer survey mentioned by commenter George Papadopoulos who says:
We were told by the wind industry commissioned surveys that 70% of Australians were in favour of wind energy. Meanwhile the wind industry systematically attempted to brain wash rural Australia that wind turbines are good for local development and jobs.
Yet despite all these propaganda flashcards that have torn down and divided communities, in the electorate of Hume, the main losers were the Labour and Green candidates. The swing went in favour of the already very popular Angus Taylor and the large number of other “anti-wind” candidates. Where did the 70% pro-wind votes go?
I hope this holds some clear lessons to any political folk: next time some flashy business marketing twit rolls down your way, use your brain first and then consider their survey figures, especially so if their survey questions were designed to elicit the ideal answers…
On the German front:
Paying Big for Nothing
For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.
Still fighting on the Ontario front:
Scott Luft and Parker Gallant collaborated on this article about how the Global Adjustment has climbed by $400 million over the last three months while consumption has fallen. We estimate what it will do to the cost of electricity. Expect to see its effect when the OEB make their announcement in October.
You can find it here: http://www.freewco.blogspot.ca/2013/08/coming-soon-to-your-electricity-billoeb.html
“…one wonders about the promises made for those smart meters. At $700.54 cents per meter the cost of replacing the old analog meter at our place is now $1,400.00; the Hydro One 2012 Annual Report indicates they are charging $1.52 per month as a recovery cost. At that rate, it will take them 76 years to recover their costs. Will Hydro One be spending hundreds of millions each year on “smart meters” instead of upgrading the important infrastructure such as transmission lines, transformers, etc.?
An interesting story recently came out of Germany: the German Federal Ministry of Economics published a study by Ernst & Young which basically concluded, no rollout for smart meters.
Ernst & Young did a cost/benefit study and concluded:
“The study comes to the conclusion that smart meters in particular for small consumers are not cost-efficient, as the potential savings would be well below actual costs of smart meters and their operation.”
Cost-benefit analysis and other studies: not necessary for decisions by the Ontario government”
Indeed, the ongoing lack of a cost-benefit analysis and other studies merely proves there is no rational basis for the Government’s policies, merely ideology that willfully seeks to ignore reality.