A Free-Market Energy Blog

New York Wind Wars: Hiding the Facts (PTC allows Invenergy to desecrate)

By Mary Kay Barton -- September 12, 2013

“New York State’s installed wind factories averaged a pathetic 23.5% Capacity Factor in 2012….  It’s no wonder New York has earned the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in the continental United States – 17.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – a whopping 53% above the national average.”

The last minute extension of the Production Tax Credit (PTC – aka: “Pork To Cronies”) within the December 31, 2012 fiscal cliff deal was good news for Big Wind corporate welfare profiteers, like Michael Polsky’s Invenergy. It was very bad news for rural/residential Towns being targeted by industrial wind developers here in New York State, and across the nation.

Despite the fact that the Wyoming County, NY Town of Orangeville’s conflicted Town Board approved Invenergy’s “Stony Creek” project in the Fall of 2012, Invenergy admitted they would not be going ahead with the project unless the PTC was extended – highlighting the fact that the only thing Invenergy is interested in ‘harvesting’ is taxpayers’ money.

Once Crony-Corruptocrats in DC extended the PTC in that midnight fiscal cliff deal, the once-beautiful rolling hills of the Town of Orangeville were doomed. As Michael Polsky enjoys his new mansion, many Orangeville residents are helplessly looking on in disgust as Invenergy turns their entire Town into a sprawling industrial wind factory — rendering their homes virtually worthless — all thanks to the legalized thievery of their own tax dollars for The Wind Farm Scam.

As Big Wind CEO, Patrick Jenevein candidly pointed out in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Wind power subsidies? No Thanks” and follow-up TV interview, “Wind farms are increasingly being built in less-windy locations” because the wind industry is focused on reaping the lucrative taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies, rather than on providing an efficient, affordable product.

Nowhere is this proving to be more true than right here in New York State. Orangeville borders the Town of Attica here in Western New York State – a town that ‘First Wind LLC’ pulled out of a number of years ago after admitting that the Attica area “was not a good wind area.” Seems Jenevein knew exactly what he was talking about.

Economics 101

According to NYISO’s Goldbook, New York State’s installed wind factories averaged a pathetic 23.5% Capacity Factor in 2012. New York State wind factories are not generating enough electricity to even pay for themselves over their short life spans.

Renowned energy analyst, Glenn Schleede, examined the data on New York State’s wind factories, and found that ONE 450 MW Combined Cycle Generating Unit located at New York City (where the power is needed in New York State), would provide more power than all of New York State’s wind farms combined, at 1/4 of the capital costs — and would have significantly reduced CO2 emissions and created far more jobs than all those wind farms – without the added costs of all the transmission lines to New York City.

It’s no wonder New York has earned the dubious distinction of having the highest electricity rates in the continental United States – 17.69 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – a whopping 53% above the national average. A New York resident using 6,500 kWh of electricity annually will pay about $400 per year more per year for his or her electricity than if New York’s electricity prices were at the national average.

Despite making absolutely no economic sense at all, and the utter civil discord embroiling Towns across New York State for over a decade now, New York State continues to aggressively pursue further industrial wind development – with no effort at all to protect the well-being, and the pocketbooks of New York State citizens.

Governor Cuomo and Article X

In his time as Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo did nothing to protect New York State citizens from the predatory practices and collusion evident amongst Big Wind developers. Once Cuomo became Governor of New York, he actively began aiding and abetting Big Wind’s efforts to trample rural communities’ Constitutional private property rights in his pursuit of all things ‘green’ (aka: Agenda 21), by signing into law the new “Article X (10)” – contained within his 2011 “Power NY Act.”

Cuomo’s new ‘Article X’ put in place an ‘Energy Siting Board’ comprised of five Albany bureaucrats who will now have the final say regarding the siting of “power-generating facilities” in NY – redefined to be anything generating 25 MW or more. Cuomo’s intentions to clear the way for Big Wind developers could not have been any more obvious had he rolled out a red carpet.

‘Article X’ proceedings are already being pursued by British Petroleum (BP) in the Town of Cape Vincent, NY, and by Iberdrola in the Town of Clayton, NY, in attempts to turn the beautiful Thousands Islands, St. Lawrence Seaway area of New York State into sprawling industrial wind factories. Devastating some of the most scenic, historic areas in the nation in pursuit of the ‘green’ energy boondoggle of wind should have all Americans incensed – especially since they are paying for it!

In Lichtfield, NY, another Big Wind LLC was seeking to over-ride the Town’s restrictive zoning laws using Cuomo’s “Article X,” so that they could put 490-foot-tall turbines there. Lucky for Litchfield residents, the FAA struck down Big Wind’s plans there.

Robert Bryce, Senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute, reported on the lawsuit going on in Herkimer County, NY due to the intolerable noise problems associated with industrial wind factories, in his article, “Backlash Against Big Wind Continues.”

Other wind factories are in the works in New York, with unsuspecting Towns yet to realize the fate that is awaiting them.

Considering the growing list of problems associated with industrial wind factories in New York State (and worldwide), Governor Cuomo has displayed criminal negligence of his position as a duly-elected “public servant” by not demanding health studies in order to protect those he was elected to serve.

Location, Location, Location…

Adding insult to injury, Ben Hoen and his pals at the NRLB just came out with anotherreport” claiming industrial wind factories do not hurt property values. They can’t really be serious – can they?!? Do these people actually think everyone in the world is that stupid?

Real Estate 101: “LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!” Any realtor who is not in bed with the wind industry, will tell you – Location is the most important factor when considering a home’s worth and value.

If you industrialize a neighborhood (in the case of industrial wind energy – entire Towns, and those neighboring it), you are going to devalue it. Pretty much a no-brainer, right?!? Not according to Ben Hoen, and wind enthusiasts like Mike Barnard.

Pro-Wind Media Controlling the Message

After reading Mike Barnard’s blog post perpetuating the “no depreciation of property values” myth in Hoen’s ‘new’ report, I attempted to post a comment. Barnard, like many other pro-wind blogs and media outlets I’ve encountered over the years, refused to post my comments on one of his previous blog posts – but I thought I’d try again since the ‘no property value loss’ assertion is so absurd.

Mr. Barnard finally did post my first comment – after I edited it a few times. However, he refused to post the facts contained within my follow-up comment and question, claiming they were not “relevant” to the discussion about property values.

If wind lobbyists and their benefactors actually believe all that they claim about the supposed ‘wonders of wind,’ then why do they need to control the message the way they do? The answer is evident. They are either so ideologically-driven that facts are not “relevant” to them – or, they are getting so rich via the wind scam, they must work to squelch factual information as much as possibleso the “Emperor with No Clothes” doesn’t end up being exposed for what it is – a charlatan swindling taxpayers and ratepayers out of $Billions in the name of being ‘green.’

I thank Master Resource for allowing me the opportunity to post my comment to Mr. Barnard here, where readers can decide for themselves whether it is “relevant” information or not.

Comment to ‘Barnard on Wind’… “Relevant”? You decide.

Dear Mr. Barnard,

I am “mildly amused” that you consider eye-witness accounts of what is actually going on in rural/residential areas where these sprawling industrial wind factories are being installed to be “anecdotal arguments.”

So let me pose the same question to you Mr. Barnard — Would you buy and move your family into a home that is now surrounded by 45-story machines – with their 7-ton blades spinning overhead, only hundreds of feet from your home?

I have yet to meet any pro-wind enthusiast who would.

 Health issues associated with industrial wind factories are a major contributor to the loss of property values that is occurring around wind factories. There are thousands of valid complaints that continue to surface world-wide, and there is a growing body of video testimonies on the subject.

The Documentary “Windfall” was filmed in Upstate New York. (See the entire Documentary at NetFlix.)

Fairhaven, Massachusetts residents who are being negatively impacted by just TWO (2) industrial wind turbines sited “Too Close” to their homes have documented the negative effects they are living with in a YouTube video.

 The article, Rural Backlash Against Big Wind Continues, discusses some of the lawsuits going on because of wind in New York State.

As a NYS-certified health educator myself, I was taught that the World Health Organization (WHO) is the ‘Gold Standard’ when it comes to health recommendations. WHO recommends night-time ambient noise levels no higher than 42 dbA for a good night’s sleep. The sound being emitted by industrial wind factories is much higher than that. As I told you, a friend of mine had the sound measured INSIDE his home to be above 70dbA.

At a NYSERDA Environmental Stakeholder’s Group Meeting specific to wind power that I attended in Albany, NY in June of 2009, Dr. Dan Driscoll – the former Noise Control Engineer for the PSC, explained the problems associated with the noise emitted from industrial wind turbines. Dr. Driscoll said that “infrasound” (sounds below 20 Hz) are the “sounds you can’t hear, but you can feel.” He said that “infrasound” is NOT blocked by walls of residences, and can very negatively affect the human body – especially after prolonged, continuous exposure. He said symptoms include headache, nausea, sleeplessness, etc. Dr. Driscoll recommended that setbacks be a minimum of approximately 3500 feet.

At the same meeting, NYS Dept. of Health official, Dr. Jan Storm, testified that though they were aware of the many problems associated with infrasound from wind turbines worldwide, New York State still had not embarked on any studies – despite having received $10 Million Dollars of Stimulus money intended for grants, and the National Institute of Health having a call out for submittals. Sadly, New York State officials still have NOT embarked on any health studies to assure the protection of New York State citizens from industrial wind turbines which are wrongfully being sited too close to where people live – despite the growing body of evidence of problems worldwide.

Frankly, Mr. Barnard, I consider this to be criminal neglect of elected officials #1 priority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.

 There are many more Doctors, sound specialists, and engineers worldwide who have testified on the problems associated with the infrasound and stray voltage associated with industrial wind turbines. Just a few more examples include: 

Sound Specialist Offers Expertise on Industrial Wind Installations

Residents near wind project attest to health woes

Wind Turbines Can Be Hazardous to Human Health,” by Dr. Alec Salt

Epidemiologist Dr. Samuel Milham, adjunct professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, reports that the turbines produce enough dirty energy to sufficiently increase the risk of many diseases in his book, Dirty Electricity.

 Furthermore Mr. Barnard, your claim that energy density is a “myth,” and “not relevant” to the discussion about property values is just plain wrong.

 As William Tucker’s essay, Understanding E = mc2 explains, the standard candle for an electricity generating facility is 1000 MW. Since contemporary 50-story windmills typically generate 1- 1/2 MW apiece, it would take 660 windmills to get 1000 MW. They must be spaced about half a mile apart, so a 1000-MW wind farm would occupy 125 square miles. Unfortunately, the best windmills generate electricity only 30% of the time [Here in NY they averaged a pathetic 23% in 2012], so 1000 MW really means covering more than 375 square miles at widely dispersed locations. 

Even after carpeting over 375 sq miles with industrial wind turbines in a futile attempt to equal just ONE reliable generating facility, those wind turbines still would not work at all much of the time – highlighting Big Wind’s inability to successfully replace our reliable, dispatchable power generators.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a realtor) to figure out the fact that industrializing 375 sq miles — to try and equal what just ONE RELIABLE, conventional generating facility could provide (in a fraction of the space) IS going to devalue that 375+ sq miles.

 Wind’s lack of energy density greatly increases property value impacts.

Since I understand that you are originally from Toronto, while now living in Singapore in your position with IBM, I believe you will find this older article still very relevant to the discussion: The New Civil War – Rural versus Urban.

It is quite sad that so many elected representatives, bureaucrats, media and misinformed green enthusiasts who are not being directly impacted by the installation of industrial wind factories — like Ben Hoen and you, Mr. Barnard — are so willing to dismiss the countless reports of problems to fellow human beings from inappropriately-sited industrial wind factories. Seemingly, the ‘Golden Rule’ to treat others as you would want to be treated, isn’t something that much matters to you.

When you and Mr. Hoen actually put your money where your mouths are, Mr. Barnard, and buy and live in a home within the sprawling footprint of an industrial wind factory, then perhaps your opinions on the subject might actually be deemed credible. Until then, as the Bible puts it, “If you have not love, you are but a sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.” 1 Corinthians 13: 1-3

Wishing you and your family the best of health,  

Mary Kay Barton


  1. Laura Griffin  

    Well done Mary Kay. Mike Barnard — although he professes to making no money off of the wind industry — clearly has some sort of vested interest in it. Otherwise, he would not spend so much time and energy scouting the internet to impose his diatribes into every discussion on this topic. A more despicable uncaring human being I don’t think I’ve ever run across. He’s definitely made a deal with the devil.


  2. rbradley  

    Mr. Barnard might simply attend wind events gratis (AWEA annual confab had Leno several years ago) and fetted behind the scenes some way. He might feel that he is in a noble cause bigger than himself.

    He might answer the question himself as a comment here at MasterResource if someone can invite him.


  3. Mike Barnard  

    Ms. Barton fails to mention a few things, unsurprisingly.

    My moderation policy is spelled out on the landing page of the blog. It’s clear and prescriptive. Ms. Barton missed it in her haste to comment apparently, so I provided both the full text of the moderation policy and her full comment via email as a courtesy with pointers on how she could abide by it and posts where some of her irrelevant-to-property-values information might be relevant.

    That it took Ms. Barton four attempts on her first comment to adhere to the moderation policy despite direct and polite coaching is not something I will bother to comment on further.

    Her second comment showed that she hadn’t learned anything from the first interaction, or perhaps was choosing to ignore it. Rather than spend more time trying to coach her, I merely shortened it to the relevant section, pointed out that substantial material had been excluded as it didn’t meet moderation policy and responded to the relevant section.

    Her third comment, which drew me here to comment, was included in its entirety this morning.

    My moderation policy boils down to be nice, be respectful, be relevant. There is a clear requirement to provide references to credible sources. Barnardonwind is specifically not a venue for people to argue irrelevancies or promote their particular inaccurate perspectives at length. There are many venues on the internet, including apparently masterresource for that.

    Ms. Barton adds much of the same material in comment boards around the internet. It’s hard to believe that anyone would take her seriously about being shut down when a particular, relatively serious and fairly low traffic blog chooses not to allow her a pulpit. A little Googling will point out how widely spread she spreads her messages.

    As for my motivations, background and connections, I’ll point interested people to the page I maintain which clearly spells out who I am, why I do this and what I get out of it. Ms. Griffin won’t believe it and I doubt Ms. Barton does either, but I have zero vested interest. This is my volunteer giveback as my work travel does not permit me the luxury of local volunteering.

    I think it’s interesting that Ms. Barton, Ms. Griffins and many others who appear to me to be investing lots of time fighting wind energy all over the internet and in person find it odd that there might be someone who would spend time fighting for wind energy for as little compensation. To Mr. Bradley’s comment, no I haven’t attended any wind industry events gratis or otherwise, but I do feel that countering health-stress causing disinformation regarding wind energy and assisting in a minor way with social license for wind energy that combats global warming is a noble cause. Wind energy has tremendous merits and some drawbacks; clarity and accuracy about both is important to have a useful discussion about where it is viable and where it isn’t; I do a bit to spread clarity. Please read more about my background here: http://barnardonwind.com/about/

    For those who might be tempted to comment on barnardonwind.com, please do read the moderation policy carefully first. It’s published on the landing page for the blog: just scroll down a bit.



  4. Mary Kay Barton  

    Mr Barnard,

    The moderator of Master Resource is much more courteous to you, than you are to to anyone trying to comment on your pro-wind blog.

    Since ALL of my SECOND response is posted here on Master Resource (instead of the one sentence of it that you posted) – people can decide for themselves if the information provided within it is credible and “relevant” to the discussion — instead of having you pick and choose what you feel is “relevant” to the discussion, and eliminating anything that disagrees with your opinion. It’s called critical thinking.

    Since you deemed any articles that had a link from Master Resource, National Wind Watch, Industrial Wind Action as not acceptable as credible sources on your blog, was the reason I had to edit my attempt to comment so many times.

    The first time I tried to comment on one of your blog posts several months ago, my comments were not accepted at all for the same reason. You also refused to publish any part of what I said at that time, saying that personal testimonies from those living in areas where they are installing all these wind factories was not “relevant.”

    I beg to differ sir. WE are the ones witnessing the corruption, collusion, towns torn apart by greed, former friends that hate one another, machines constantly in a state of disrepair, machines inappropriately sited only hundreds of feet from the foundations of peoples homes, people who can’t sleep in their own homes any more because of the noise, massive Habitat Fragmentation, old Bethlehem Steel brownfield slag used as fill on access roads amidst croplands, etc, etc, etc.

    The fact that you and Ben Hoen, have never answered my question — Would you buy and move your family into a home that is now surrounded by these 45-story machines, with their 7-ton blades spinning overhead, only hundreds of feet from your home? — says it all, Mr. Barnard.

    Considering your complete lack of regard for the people whose lives are being ruined by this ‘green’ energy boondoggle sir, and your subtle attempts to berate me or anyone else who disagrees with your misinformed opinions, I have been more respectful to you than you deserve.


  5. Michael McCann  

    Here is a relevant fact: The Aug 2013 LBNL report, Table 7, reveals that all home sales in that study within 1 mile of turbines sold on average for 28% less than homes in the 3-10 mile range. Despite this fact, the LBNL authors state that their analysis assumes a maximum impact of 3% to 4%.

    Opinion: The assumed value of other variables must have absorbed the balance of 24% to 25%, which logically implies either that the average home in 67 projects in 9 states are uniformly inferior in and near the turbine project footprints….. Or that the number crunching is not reliable.


  6. Kevon Martis  

    Mike Barnard of IBM’s Global Business Services in Singapore operates an internet blog site http://www.barnardonwind.com where he posts his opinions on industrial wind energy.
    Like many people who opine on this topic, Mr. Barnard has very strong opinions.
    But when the passions that drive those strong opinions lead people to use their global electronic megaphone to threaten people with ridicule and embarrassment, a line is crossed. This is commonly called cyber bullying.
    Mr. Barnard’s employer recognizes this phenomena and, like all responsible global corporations, is rightly concerned that the private behavior of their employees can harm the value of their brand.
    Quoting from IBM’s Social Computing Guidelines: “IBM’s brand is best represented by its people and everything you publish online reflects upon it.”
    Further: “Respect your audience. Don’t use … personal insults, obscenity, or engage in any similar conduct that would not be appropriate or acceptable in IBM’s workplace.”
    IBM partners with pacer.org to help combat bullying. Pacer defines bullying as behavior that “…is intentional, meaning the act is done willfully, knowingly, and with deliberation to hurt or harm…” http://www.pacer.org
    Recently Mr. Barnard blogged about Dr. Nina Pierpont and her husband Dr. Calvin Martin and their work regarding health impacts from industrial wind turbines. Pierpont and Martin informed Mr. Barnard that a recent post made false statements about Dr. Pierpont’s credentials that they felt were libelous.
    Mr. Barnard responded to their complaint by email. He said in part: “ And of course you should realize that I am laughing at the thought of you attempting to find jurisdiction for any court action as I am a Canadian living in Singapore and using free blogging software based in the Cloud somewhere; you might have wanted to actually speak to your lawyer before writing this. Given the nature of this email I’m sure that you realize that I am going to share it publicly and others will join in the laughter at your expense. [emphasis added]“
    He then published this blog post: http://barnardonwind.com/2013/07/07/first-barnardonwind-libel-threat-toothless-and-on-an-irrelevancy/
    This is not an isolated incident.
    Again: Pacer defines bullying as behavior that “…is intentional, meaning the act is done willfully, knowingly, and with deliberation to hurt or harm…”
    Mr. Barnard’s online behavior is consistent with cyber bullying and wholly inconsistent with IBM’s published employee guidelines.
    No one minds a vigorous and passionate debate.
    But electronic humiliation of respected and credentialed individuals-by an uncredentialed

    individual- as a game of sport is uncivil and reflects poorly on IBM.
    If you can document cyber bullying by Mike Barnard please contact IBM:


  7. David Norman  

    Congratulations Mike! It will be interesting to see how this fortuitous invitation to display your rhetoric on Master resource plays out. I noted that you were quick to create a response to Mary Kay Barton’s reference to “Windfall”, even before allowing her comment to meet your personal moderation standards. I suggest that you might have considered introducing this after allowing publication of her edited comment despite the likelihood that readers would note the publication time reference. This rhetorical exchange and the subsequent references will no doubt provide valuable illustrations for your contributions to the strategic considerations for sales of IBM’s digital monitoring and cloud computing technologies.


  8. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E.  

    I offer a few additional thoughts to a fine article.
    Wind generators make noise, essentially for the same reason that jet engines make “industrial” noise. Both can improve the noise emission but can not stop it. Wind generators also create flicker, a constant unnatural passing shadow, which can be most irritating to light sensitive people, in their home. Off property noise and light are two most common zoning issues.
    As known for a generation, well sited wind generators slaughter birds, who through millions of years have evolved to sail the wind. Wind generators could not survive the regulations on bird killing, common to other industries.
    Wind generators are heavily subsidized, could not survive without funding by taxpayers. This argument instantly snaps to rebuttals for other corporate subsidies, which simply reveals the corruptness of the US tax code.
    The NY experience on wind generation is not a “pathetic 23.5% Capacity Factor” (the amount of time at full power). This is typical: some places are lower.
    And finally, it is a myth that green energy is controlled by Peter Pan. Electric power generation is one of the most capital intensive industries on earth, and is run by money grubbing capitalists who are eternally lobbying “our” politicians. After engineering a score of nukes, two score fossil power plants, and decades assessing advance technologies, my advise is to grab your wallet when smoothies talk. Look at your electric bill, vote for cheap energy, and ignore those who predict the end of the world, if you do not give them your life savings.


  9. Michael McCann  

    Just the facts. I leave the spin to industry spokesmen.


  10. Nadia Nichols  

    How many conventional power plants have these wind “farms” shut down? Point being, they aren’t being built to power the country. That’s not their purpose. Mike Bond’s novel, “Saving Paradise” is a must read for anyone who still thinks industrial wind power is environmentally “green”. It’s “green” all right, if you’re talking green backs, but then, the wind developers and the politicians had that figured out many years ago.


  11. The New York wind farm scam  

    […] controlling the message is documented in more detail in the longer version of this article at: http://www.masterresource.org/2013/09/new-york-wind-wars/. CategoriesCFACT InsightsTagscrony […]


  12. The New York Wind Farm Scam | PA Pundits - International  

    […] controlling the message is documented in more detail in the longer version of this article at: http://www.masterresource.org/2013/09/new-york-wind-wars/ – See more at: […]


  13. Mary Kay Barton  

    HIDING THE FACTS CONTINUES — 2/25/14 Update to “New York Wind Wars – Hiding the Facts”:

    Another piece by Mike Barnard, “Calling Anti-Renewables Campaigners NIMBYs Is Often Inaccurate And Always Unproductive,” just appeared on on CleanTechnica yesterday – February 24, 2014.

    When I tried to post the comment below, I was alerted that CleanTechnica has blacklisted me from posting any comments there. Funny thing is – I don’t remember ever posting any comments on their site before?!?!

    Apparently, when they don’t want to answer the questions people pose – because they can’t do so honestly (as those I posed to Mr. Barnard within this article – NY Wind Wars), they just block you from the conversation.

    Here is the comment that CleanTechnica refused to post (I did try posting without the links just to make sure that wasn’t the reason they were blocking me.)

    My comment to Mr. Barnard’s “Calling Anti-Renewables Campaigners NIMBYs Is Often Inaccurate And Always Unproductive” – Too offensive to post??? You decide:

    Mr. Barnard, you forgot a category:

    #10.) Those who advocate for scientifically, economically, and environmentally sound energy policies.

    Wind does NOT make the cut.

    Folks can read more and decide for themselves:

    New York Wind Wars – Hiding the Facts:

    Industrial Wind – The BIG Swindle: Not Clean, Not ‘Green’, Not Free:


  14. blues  

    I found out in 2012 that Invenergy pays out compensation to landowners within 1/2 mile of the Grand Ridge Wind farm located in Southeast LaSalle county. I Emailed Invenergy around this time and asked if I was eligible for compensation. They replied with a yes, but forwared a different agreement than the original one sent out in 2008. I didn’t send in the 2012 agreement, but instead focused on finding the 2008 agreement. I found this agreement and have submitted it on 01/21/14. I getting the impression they don’t want to “Make good” on this agreement. I have roughly 5 wind turbines within a 1/2 mile of My home, one being only around 1/8 mile from My home.

    I strongly feel, based on the wording of the agreement and the fact that I have had to deal with any negative impacts from this project, that they owe me what has been paid out to My neighbors over the course of 5 to 6 years.


  15. Industrial Wind: The Great American S-WIND-LE: Not Clean, Not Green, Not Free! | citizenpoweralliance  

    […] The average output of many wind factories is less than 25% – many days, providing nothing at […]


Leave a Reply