“I therefore suspect that the most likely reason for this missing information concerning eagle mortality at wind farm facilities was due to editing from the upper level positions within the ranks of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. These are same people responsible for the wind industry’s voluntary regulations.”
“So here is the rest of the story. Due to the lack of accountability and monitoring, a single permit could actually result in the death of a hundred of any species a permit is issued for. So much for ‘green’ energy and the public’s sacrifice for paying more for electricity.”
A few weeks ago, an article was published in The Journal of Raptor Research, “Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Mortalities at Wind Energy Facilities in the Contiguous United States.”…
Continue Reading“Businesses that are planning to provide equipment or services to the wind industry especially need objective information about wind energy.… Participating in industries that are dependent on federal tax breaks and subsidies can be dangerous, particularly at a time of massive federal deficits and a national debt of about $17 trillion.”
A highly misleading article, “Winds of change blow across Ohio,” by the CEO of the Van Wert (OH) Area Chamber of Commerce, Susan Munroe, was published by the Fort Wayne (IN) Journal Gazette on October 7, 2013. Such reflects a new battlefront in the politics of wind with local chambers of commerce arguing for wind projects in their areas.
Ms. Munroe claims that the 304 Megawatt (MW) Blue Creek Wind Farm, built in Northwestern Ohio by a subsidiary of Spain-based Iberdrola, provides substantial energy and economic benefits.…
Continue Reading“The IPCC seems more intent on trying to maintain the now-dying consensus than in following climate science to its logical conclusion—a conclusion that increasingly suggests that human greenhouse gas emissions are less important in driving climate change than commonly held.”
Several weeks ago, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the climate science portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The AR5 is so burdened by fundamental flaws that it is worthless, or worse, misleading, as a resource to ground policy decisions regarding energy choices.
The IPCC seems to favor the output of computer climate models over that of hard observational science—science which indicates that computer models warm the earth’s temperature too fast for a given input of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Using climate models which are too sensitive to greenhouse gases leads to projections of future warming and all its resultant impacts—the meat of the IPCC report—which are too high.…
Continue Reading