Posts Tagged ‘Robert Bryce’

Power Hungry author Robert Bryce has remarked in the past that, besides being inefficient, expensive and unreliable, industrial-scale wind power was a waste of resources because it takes up so much land that could otherwise be used for food. “Wind power is energy sprawl,” he told the audience when he was a luncheon speaker at the International Symposium on the Global Wind Industry in Picton, Ontario, in 2010.

Now Bryce has expanded his thoughts on that issue and added some very interesting statistics, in this excellent article in City Journal. http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_environmentalism.html

Not included in this article but a fact in Ontario, when wind power developers counter the claims that property values are going down near wind power projects by saying that farm prices are going up, they’re not quite telling the truth (Mr Segal of Prowind, you’re included). The rise in some farm property values is because of the price of corn.

The developers’ claims that only an acre or two is taken out of agricultural production due to wind turbines is also not quite true: land is taken for access roads, transformers and other equipment.

News daily at http://www.windconcernsontario.ca and regularly here.

PC Energy Critic Vic Fedeli, former mayor of North Bay, is beginning his energy tour of Ontario and is in Strathroy tonight; he’ll be in Ottawa March 22nd for a pub night at the Swan on the Rideau, and doing a news conference with the North Gower Wind Action Group and Wind Concerns Ontario March 23rd. Details to follow.

To join our list of followers for updates by email contact us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Read Full Post »

Results of a new study on wind power generation from the U.S., summarized by author Robert Bryce in Forbes. Neat summary of the truth about wind power generation and its supposed effect on the environment: total fiction…or worse, a giant financial scam.

Here is the article.


A New Study Takes The Wind Out Of Wind Energy

Robert Bryce, 07.19.11, 05:00 PM EDT

Reality has overtaken green hope.


Facts are pesky things. And they’re particularly pesky when it comes to the myths about the wind energy business.

For years, it’s been an article of faith among advocates of renewables that increased use of wind energy can provide a cost-effective method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The reality: wind energy’s carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are vastly overstated. Furthermore, if wind energy does help reduce carbon emissions, those reductions are too expensive to be used on any kind of scale.

Those are the findings of an exhaustive new study, released today, by Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based energy analytics firm. Rather than rely on computer models that use theoretical emissions data, the authors of the study, Porter Bennett and Brannin McBee, analyzed actual emissions data from electric generation plants located in four regions: the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Bonneville Power Administration, California Independent System Operator, and the Midwest Independent System Operator. Those four system operators serve about 110 million customers, or about one-third of the U.S. population.

Bennett and McBee looked at more than 300,000 hourly records from 2007 through 2009. Their results show that the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and other wind boosters have vastly overstated wind’s ability to cut sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide.

Indeed, the study found that in some regions of the country, like California, using wind energy doesn’t reduce sulfur dioxide emissions at all. But the most important conclusion from the study is that wind energy is not “a cost-effective solution for reducing carbon dioxide if carbon is valued at less than $33 per ton.” With the U.S. economy still in recession and unemployment numbers near record levels, Congress cannot, will not, attempt to impose a carbon tax, no matter how small.

AWEA claims that every megawatt-hour of electricity produced by wind turbines cuts carbon dioxide emissions by 0.8 tons. But the Bentek study shows that in California, a state that relies heavily on natural gas-fired generation, the carbon dioxide reduction from wind energy was just 0.3 tons of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour. Further, the study found that in the area served by the Bonneville Power Administration, which uses a large amount of hydropower, the carbon dioxde reduction was just 0.1 ton of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.

The wind industry’s prospects are so bad that T. Boone Pickens, long one of the sector’s loudest advocates, has given up on the U.S. market. Pickens, the billionaire self-promoter who famously placed an order for some $2 billion worth of wind turbines back in 2008, is now trying to find a home for those turbines in Canada.

In addition, the wind industry faces increasingly vocal opposition in numerous countries around the world. The European Platform Against Windfarms now has 485 signatory organizations from 22 European countries. In the UK, where fights are raging against industrial wind projects in Wales, Scotland, and elsewhere, some 250 anti-wind groups have been formed. In Canada, the province of Ontario alone has more than 50 anti-wind groups. The U.S. has about 170 anti-wind groups.

While many factors are hurting the wind industry, the Bentek report, which was released today, undercuts the sector’s primary reason for existing. The Global Wind Energy Council, one of the industry’s main lobby groups, claims that reducing the amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere “is the most important environmental benefit from wind power generation.” For its part, the American Wind Energy Association insists that the wind business “could avoid 825 million tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2030.”

But if wind energy doesn’t significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then critics can easily challenge the industry’s hefty subsidies, which include the federal production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. That amounts to a subsidy of $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. For comparison, in 2008, the Energy Information Administration reported that subsidies to the oil and gas sector totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. In other words, subsidies to the wind sector are more than 200 times as great as those given to the oil and gas sector on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced.

If those fat subsidies go away, then the U.S. wind sector will be stopped dead in its tracks. And for consumers, that should be welcome news.

The wind energy business is the electric sector’s equivalent of the corn ethanol scam: it’s an over-subsidized industry that depends wholly on taxpayer dollars to remain solvent while providing an inferior product to consumers that does little, if anything, to reduce our need for hydrocarbons or cut carbon dioxide emissions. The latest Bentek study should be required reading for policymakers. It’s a much-needed reminder of how the pesky facts about wind energy have been obscured by the tsunami of hype about green energy.


Note that the environmental claims put forward for wind power generation are not proving to be true. Note the increasing number of people around the world who are opposed to industrial wind power projects. Why? Not because they are “climate change deniers” but because WIND DOESN”T WORK. And, it industrializes communities, causes health problems and negatively affects property values.  The argument put forward by so-called environmental groups is that these costs are necessary to effect climate change. Small-scale community projects, yes. Huge industrial projects, no.


E-mail us at northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

The North Gower Wind Action Group believes in the responsible siting of industrial wind power development projects; we do NOT believe it is environmental or fair to locate these projects near homes and schools.


Read Full Post »

“Power Hungry” author and journalist Robert Bryce, who recently was the special luncheon speaker at the international Symposium on the Global Wind Industry and Health Effects, appeared on the Lang O’Leary Exchange program on CBC’s New Now network, last evening.

In his calm, matter-of-fact way, Bryce outlined all the reasons why developing power from wind energy makes no sense. It’s “low density” he says, meaning it takes up too many resources, particularly land, for the minimal power it produces. Plus, he says, it doesn’t do ANY of the things wind energy proponents say it does: it doesn’t reduce greenhouse gases (industrial scale wind turbines actually require fossil fuel back up) and it certainly doesn’t help the environment. (Consultants for the David Suzuki Foundation noted in 2002 that industrial-scale wind is LAST on a list of energy solutions because it is high environmental impact for low return.)

Industrial scale wind turbine developments are “energy sprawl” Bryce says. Plus, there ARE health effects. The Texas-based journalist has spoken with people all around the world who are exposed to wind turbines, and the symptoms they report are identical.

In closing, Amanda Lang asked Bryce if he was associated with any group or had any particular agenda or “spin” in criticizing wind energy development. “My book is based on math and physics,” he said. “It’s not about ideology.”

“Power Hungry: the Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future” is on sale currently at Chapters for $23.43, less if you are an iRewards member.

To contact the North Gower Wind Action Group, email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future

Read Full Post »

While we are counting the moments until the big march begins at Queen’s Park today, we must consider what we are up against in terms of the wind industry and their claims about the environment. Why is a struggle for health meeting such resistance from our government that is supposed to protect us?

A review appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday on the new book Power Hungry and may contain some answers: wind turbine developments, author Bryce says, use 45 times as much land as a nuclear power plant to produce as much energy. Efficient? No: wind energy is an instant snack when it’s working and akin to “famine” when it’s not. Factor in the amount of resources used for construction, the potential for damage to the environment and wildlife, and the last thing wind development is is “green”.

“People are dying from coal”? Not hardly: we know that isn’t true in Ontario, where over 90% of the emissions come from south of the border and much of the rest from cars.

We have to look at “the big picture” in terms of saving the environment? Well, wind turbine development is a pretty sad big picture.

So WHY does the wind industry keep coming up with these statements which are patently untrue?


Dr John Harrison said that each industrial wind turbine represents about $500,000 a year in revenue to the developer. We did the math for North Gower-Richmond and he’s about right, just over $400,000 a year. Per turbine. (The landowners, who have sacrificed their community and relationships with friends and neighbours for money, typically get $7,500 to $10,000 a year, per turbine. Is it worth it?)

So that lets you know what we’re up against: big money. Very big money.

Forget the talk of “community involvement” and “saving farm life” and saving the environment.

What happens at Queen’s Park today will show the Ontario government how people living in rural communities feel about what’s happening to our lives, in the name of money.

To get in touch with us, email northgowerwindactiongroup@yahoo.ca

Donations to help with our awareness program and our legal assistance are gratefully received. Mail us at PO Box 485, North Gower, ON   K0A 2T0

Read Full Post »