Governor Inslee's Battle with Climate Change - Net Zero Will Affect You and Your Family Part 2

Part 2

By David Boleneus

Our State Colliding with Climate Insanity? - Statement for CAPR[1]

The CLIMATE CHANGE Community, urged on by the political enterprise known as United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, promotes ending coal, natural gas, gasoline etc. and favors instead, to adopt renewable sources of electricity. These source are untested, purposely. So what unseen dangers lurk behind the promotions, the change, with renewables, and how strong is the evidence to: (1) limit carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane, (2) to abandon fossil fuels, or (3) adopt renewables. The greatest threat remains is: Where is success, and any proof? If no country has exceeded 25% renewable, then how far is 100% that governments require?

1.0  U.N. VOICES DO NOT REPRESENT UNITED STATES' INTEREST (RULE 1).

The following will explore what scientists say about climate, the horrible costs to address climate or modify it and the little benefit to expect. Also addressed are the costs to Washington citizens from the climate promoters and the expectations of green energy. To begin Richard Courtney first comments on the work of the IPCC in a letter responding to several questions from Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma[i] (Dr Ken Haapala follows). Richard's full length version is recommended.

Richard S Courtney BA ABSW FRSA ESEF: Reports published by the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are biased and misleading polemic and, therefore, any decisions based on them are likely to be very flawed. The IPCC’s Reports are political tracts that promote a political policy, and they are given the appearance of scientific documents by presenting selected scientific information and misrepresentation of scientific data together with a sham that the contents of the reports have been subjected to scientific peer review.  There is plenty of cold weather and snow in the world. Endless prediction of catastrophic man-made global warming, now renamed climate change are political tools couched in sinister political objectives.

Scientists' View of IPCC. The UN IPCC continues to experience severe difficulties to attribute global warming / climate change to greenhouse gases. This problem, a critical deficiency, underlies the work of IPCC followers including the US National Climate Assessments and the 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding that increasing greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, endanger public health and welfare. Very unfortunately, and very critically important, is that the IPCC cannot present any clear scientific facts that such gases actually produce the warming causing climate change. The IPCC cannot rationalize their draconian predicted impacts of climate change based on anything except highly suspect climate models, which are so flawed that they cannot produce any predictions that match existing factual results, or warming predictions. These deficiencies stem from fundamentally faulty mathematics and are illustrated by the recent efforts of the UN IPCC to change their global climate modeling, thus undermining all of their own earlier work, reports and predictions of two decades. This creates a situation where nothing the IPCC project is credible anymore[ii].

The Biden administration is persistently digging an economic grave for Americans By Vijay Jayaraj – April 6, 2022[iii].  It looks to import oil and alternative technologies rather than developing domestic sources to restore energy independence. Having banned Russian oil in reaction to Putin’s attack on Ukraine, the administration reportedly is seeking substitute supplies from Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia rather than from Texas, North Dakota or Canada. Biden views imports only temporary and has said his long-term plan is for green energy sources to dominate. If the administration’s energy savants can get past the reality that wind and solar cannot reliably supply baseload power to large populations, they will be relying on the mineral and material imports from a hostile China or Russia. A majority of raw materials for renewable technologies originate in China and Russia (Ukraine has a store of rare earth deposits), which helps to explain why most U.S, solar panels come from China. The U.S. relies on China for supply of 30 minerals and Russia supplies another 10 minerals to build high technology, weapons, wind turbines, solar PV, battery storage and electric cars. Without neodymium, an iPhone cannot vibrate, air pods and wind would not work since each turbine needs two tons of it.  If moving to green energy, the U.S. is not freeing itself from energy insecurity, but less secure and shifting to unreliable China and Russia.

1.1  NON-FUELS CANNOT REPLACE FUELS  (RULE 2).

Certainly no country has fully replaced fossil fuels with renewables, a change that may not come, because renewables are not FUEL or Energy. Rather, the Sun is energy, the Earth is energy, as geothermal steam, and its Minerals, as Fossil fuels of coal, oil, nuclear fuels are energy stored. Certainly renewables-wind turbines or solar panels are not FUEL, as they are not energy stores.

A NON-FUEL cannot replace a FUEL. This paper argues against change for the simple reason that no compelling evidence exists for change.  Evidence shows that any move away from fossil fuels is fraught with uncertainty, even dangers. The News telling this story is not favored News outlet.

Grasping the fact carbon dioxide is not responsible for or related to climate or temperature frees one to understand that fuels, gasoline, diesel, coal pose no threat but greatly contribute to every human need. In fact the carbon dioxide emitted is instead a boon, a fertilizer, a food required for plants and secret to grow food to feed animals and humans and your families.

Certainly climate makes headlines, but no proof exists that ending use of stored fuels will help climate. The two factors are unrelated. The most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, whose effect on weather is 2,000 to 5,000 times greater than effect from carbon dioxide emitted by humans or industrialization, according to the U.N.'s IPCC. And greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide exceeds that of methane by 100 times.

2.0 DO RENEWABLES PERFORM?

2.1 Trading Wind, Water, Sun for Oil? Talented engineers show that renewables cannot provide the energy we need to live or to thrive. Tim Maloney's analysis shows convincingly that no renewable option, wind, solar, hydrogen, or water (hydro) can replace coal, natural gas and oil.[iv] He addresses utility, commercial and residential solar PV, onshore and offshore wind, concentrated solar and pumped hydro. The best scenario for wind shows it can satisfy only 15% of our current need. Nuclear is the only alternative to fill the burgeoning need in the future. Univ. of Connecticut Emeritus Physics professor Howard Hayden shows that renewables are a dead end[v] explaining also that solar and batteries are pure fraud[vi]. The website Stopthesethings over the recent decade reveals how the wind renewable is ruinous and a fraud energy. Ron Stein, a professional engineer and energy analyst Todd Royal explains in two books what energy is about but disqualify renewables as reliable sources of energy[vii]. Dr David MacKay, in a TED Ed Talk reveals how little energy is produced from renewables and silliness to power the planet[viii].

Have you considered: Is News about the world, about climate "filtered" and "repackaged" before presenting to the public? Does anyone look beyond the News for truth or verify it?

2.2 Several messaging platforms worldwide have formed, to object to the current renewable messages: At least 2,271: anti-wind websites exist worldwide, www.epaw.org European Platform against Windfarms; www.ontario-wind-resistance; wind concerns ontario, www.stopthesethings.com; www.quixoteslaststand.com; www.aweo,org; www.joannova.com  (Australia); www.masterresource.com; Energy Matters www.euanmearns.com; www.heartland.org; www.notrickszone.com; wiseenergy.org, science and public policy institute, SPPI.org, science and environmental policy project, http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm

2.3 Renewable Land Requirement & Performance. As a source of electricity wind is seriously handicapped by several disadvantages, land area requirement, dilution, intermittence, and lack of performance, as measured by power density, to show quantity of energy it can deliver per pound, per gallon or area, as square foot, explains Vaclav Smil.[ix] Measured by power density, coal or natural gas plants perform 1,000 to 5,000 times better than biomass, wood, wind, solar or hydro. The land area requirements seriously impedes deploying wind or solar, so renewables are dilute. One wind turbine, considering its efficiency requires 200 to 250 acres to delivery one megawatt (1,000 kilowatt-hours), the amount of energy needed each month for one household. An intermittent operating turbine may need 600 acres to make one megawatt. The EnergySkeptic provides 59 reasons why wind turbines cannot replace fossil fuels.[x]  A Seattle size city needs four to six power plants, fueled by nuclear, gas or coal that together occupying less than one square mile to supply needed electricity. Using wind to provide the same electric requires 100,000 turbines the number necessary without a reserve. Coal or natural gas plants provide a 150%-250% reserve beyond loads, a minimum because each if full time power. But dilute, intermittent, low performing turbines, up to 300,000 may be required. Deploying 300,000 turbines would span across three counties from Puget Sound to the Cascades crest—the area from Glacier Peak to Mt Rainier to Everett to Olympia, or 4,100 square miles with Space Needle high 600-ft tall turbines on an 8 house x 8-house grid spacing. The reason: power density, dilution, intermittent. The coming Seattle skyline dwarfs the Space Needle[xi].

 "In the video - https://youtu.be/gJtv7gkuh1s- electrical engineer, Andrew Dodson explains – in somewhat technical terms – the lunacy of trying to distribute wind power via a grid deliberately designed around on-demand generation sources . It's for anyone with an interest in how our electrical grid works. At the simplest level, think of our distribution grid as a mains in a water distribution system. In order to function, the pipes in such a system need to be filled at all times with a volume of water equal to their capacity and, in order to flow in the direction of a user, the water within the pipes needs to remain at a constant pressure with a constant supply always pushing. Where a household turns on a tap, water flows out of the tap (in electrical terms “the load”); at the other end an equal volume of water is fed into the system and pumps maintain the pressure within it (although gravity often does the work). In a similar fashion, an electricity grid can only function with the required volume of electricity within it; maintained at a constant pressure (voltage) and frequency (hertz) – all of which fluctuate, depending on the load and the input. What Andrew Dodson makes crystal clear is that these certainties are essential to maintaining a stable and functioning electricity grid. But wind power and solar have upended these essentials by their sort of chaos by ignoring the essentials. What Andrew has to say about wind power, in general, has special pertinence to places considering more of this lunacy".

Silliness on parade: Car makers are considering hydrogen fuel made from algae or leftover wind power. See note[xii].

An important topic is the failure of the cap and trade bill in the US Senate in 2009 for concern of its high cost. Reports covering this topic are here[xiii]

2.4 End of Wind Turbines What follows directly addresses wind turbines as a source of electricity, their huge disadvantages in several sub-topics, the reason they must stop.  The remaining text explains the extraordinary cost and little electricity delivered by a wind turbine. The reason is clear: Trading renewables for fossil fuels is a Faustian bargain because the "new energy" economy like the Green New Deal is a NoEnergyEconomy that relies on magic[xiv] or Alice in Wonderland fantasy[xv]. Robinson Meyer, Michael Greenstone and Ishan Nath ask very important question: Do renewable standards work?[xvi] Why ask? Because several sources show renewable standards a scam[xvii][xviii]. University of Chicago says RPS work but at excessive cost.[xix]  Twelve years after adopting RPS, the renewables share increased just 4.2% while electricity increased 17%, an amount that significantly exceeds the operating costs that renewables impose on other forms of generation. Renewables also add great disadvantages of intermittency and higher transmission costs while the cost of CO2 that renewable abates is $115 to $530 per tonne or several times more expensive than social cost of carbon estimates.

Natural Resources Economics at the University of Wyoming[xx] closely investigated the details of several factors of RPS in 12 states. Considering all factors, RPS in all states got negative ratings. For example, cumulative net impact to 2040 in Oregon on employment was loss of 21,600 jobs, the economic impact value was negative $2,636,000,000, the cost of CO2 reduction was $46.51 per ton emissions, the impact on retail electricity projects costs increasing by 18.1%, and costs of wind tax credits grew to $58.87 per megawatt. There were no benefits in any state and costs grew faster than the consumer price index.   

Famed Time magazine "Hero of the Environment" Michael Shellenberger admits reality speaking at TED talk warns renewables will destroy the environment[xxi][xxii]. New laws passed by legislatures require the public submit by giving up what works best[xxiii]. A closer look shows the Green New Deal will be an economic disaster[xxiv]. The main problem is the excessive land required to use wind or solar, more than 500,000 square miles, or more than the area of states of Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon and most of West Virginia, combined. The wind turbines would kill more than 10 million birds per year while providing just 6% of the US electricity needs. In the Mohave desert where proponents hope to locate vast swathes of solar is habitat that protects the endangered desert tortoise. Solar transforms land to industrial sites obliterating all other life and eliminating other use. Manufacturing of solar panels includes poisons of cadmium, hexaflourethane and flouride that pose massive health hazards. The amount of concrete required by wind turbines far exceeds what is produced today. The cost for renewables is too high.

2.5 Wind is a Non-performer, Vacationng, Regularly. Washington Policy Center first revealed the condition in 2019 when all the BPA wind turbines in Washington produced just one-third of 1% of capable electric generation during 8 days beginning at Halloween 2019[xxv]. Investigation of BPA wind record by this author for the two weeks Nov. 7 – Nov. 19 2019 shows again that wind was still for 5 days when wind generated electricity was less than 1%. The total wind power outage lasted 104 hours during the two weeks. Then again in January 2022 Spokane set a new 20 day record widely advertised by area weather people for longest period of overcast, cold days with absolute still wind conditions. Such is not an isolated condition in Washington but happened in the cold shock in Texas in 2021 when wind turbines remained stalled with the ERCOT failure to provide sufficient natural gas. California experienced a power shock early in 2021.

2.6 The 2019 grid failure event in States of Victoria & South Australia is just another repeat of summertime events of the past. During 24 Jan-28 Jan 2019, after Victoria closed all coal plants, the summertime lull caused wind generation to fall to 3.8% 76MWs by 8pm on Jan 24, coinciding with solar falling to zero at 8:27pm with darkness. Prices of electricity if available spiked to $14,400/MWhr as 200,000 homes went dark at 8:30pm. The Tesla 100 MW $150 M battery at Hornsdale connected to the now still Hornsdale 100 MW wind farm discharged in three hours by 9pm showing the world's biggest battery a complete dud. Australia's Energy operator AEMO ordered Alcoa Aluminum, Whyalla Steelworks to shut including all private solar as private systems for fear of initiated grid frequency instability to damage the entire system. Vic and SA sweltered for three more days at 118^oF until late Sunday Jan. 28 when AEMO remembered to turn on the diesel generators[xxvi].

2.7 Big Unanswered Questions Bigger than US. Wind turbines pose as "giant" power machines, majestic monsters just there, whirligigs, doing something. But can they perform, replace traditional electricity generation? How much? How many of them must we endure? Where? Are there dangers? Is there enough space for turbines and people, our homes, farms, views and vistas? The emphasis is intentional. Wind turbines remain an opportunity for growth in power generation but with high cost. There can never be a sufficient number of turbines because their number continues to expand while failing to satisfy the need for more energy. It is for these reasons, including a myriad of significant disadvantages that every effort should be expended to STOP expansion and building of wind turbines.

How do Washington's green energy laws, CETA, Clean Energy Transformation Act, Climate Commitment Act and Renewable Portfolio Standards compel to occur what appears impossible?

2.8 A View of electricity in Washington (chart), shows that the CETA law has outlawed natural gas (19%) in 2030 and coal (8%) by 2025 or 27% of our supply. An effort is ongoing to remove the four dams on the Snake River.  Avista ended a 4% supply of its coal-generated electricity two years ago. 

Consider the parallel but strong effort (Inslee, Murray, Tribes) to destroy the 4 hydroelectric dams on the Snake River. Could this be a 2030 event? Is consideration of closing the dams planned to coincide with the outlaw of reliable energy elsewhere in Washington? If the dams vs. wind turbines duel on the Snake River is lost, hydroelectric will be reduced from 57% to 46% of supply. Wind turbines provide about 6% of supply that has grown slowly over a considerable (~20 year) history in the state. So what is the likelihood that wind can fill the deficit of 38% in 8 years, or by 2030 when the CETA's full impact comes due with loss of more than one third of electric supply? The deficit of 38% is the giant energy hole that remains following the loss of coal, natural gas along with uncertainty of Snake River hydro. Nuclear is also under pressure in some states. Diablo Canyon in California is closing. The challenge of this shortage does not include several other factors so far ignored. There will be very large new and unforeseen electric demand that could more than double the deficit from three  directions including: (1) 1.5% per year electric customer growth, (2) electric transport  mandated by 2030 (forbid sales of internal combustion engines) with every 3 miles driven requiring 1 kilowatt-hour of electricit, and (3) the phase-down and move from natural gas for residential and industrial heat and power needs to electricity.

Are these events converging on or about 2030 planned or coincidence? Is there a plan to shut or paralyze Washington's electric grid by clean electricity promotions?

3.0 Infrasound Risks Human and Animal Health. 

Infrasound and low-frequency noise (ILFN) generated by wind turbines poses a serious threat to human and animals. A number of human and animal health problems identified with ILFN as the cause have been well-documented (see this small sample of studies^[i]).

Bio-medical engineer Dr. M.A. Pereira explains ILFN--the sound our ears cannot hear--inflicts humans, livestock or all animals living near wind turbines. ILFN places animals at risk of serious health impact because the sound cannot be blocked due to the low frequency and is constant thump made as the blades pass the support tower. Long term exposure, more than 10 days, invites symptoms beginning with sleeplessness, irritability, nausea and leading to vibroacoustic disease VAD including damage to vital organs, brain and cardiac tissues.[ii]  Dr. Pereira says current legislation for control is inadequate and provides post-mortem evidence of death following long exposure and evidence of still-borne and deformed livestock in weeks-long periods, including prize show horses. Dr. Riina Bray MD, Medical Director Women's  Hospital College and Professor, Univ. Toronto says noise contributes to depression, irritability, aggressiveness, cognitive dysfunction, sleep disorder, nausea, chest pain, sleeplessness, headaches, joint pain stress, heart palpitations and the overall ill-health of residents nearby[iii]. The World Health Organization[iv][v] and Max Planck Institute agree. Dr Bray cites U.S. military weapons research (John Alexander, Colonel) demonstrating that acoustic infrasound can have dramatic and serious effects on human physiology[vi]. The Finnish Environmental Health Dept. assessed the health of 50 families (200 persons) living near (within 10 miles of) wind turbines in Finland found 11% of subjects experienced serious health conditions, 12% suffered reduced abilities at work and another 22% exhibited adverse symptoms from the noise[vii].

GermanAllgemeine Zeitung reports that researchers have determined that low-frequency infrasound from wind turbines indeed does have a negative impact on the human heart[viii]. Wind turbines convert 40 percent of the wind’s energy into power and 60 percent into infrasound, thus making them a real potential threat to human health. The problem with wind turbines is that the infrasound exposure is long-term and can travel great distances.

Infrasound from wind turbines can affect heart health, new findings show. Image: DrJanaOfficial – CC BY-SA 4.0

Research by E. Zou documents impact of wind farms on suicide of residents living nearby[ix]. Cary and Karen Shineldecker are an example commonly experienced of residents living near wind plants. Shineldecker's were forced to abandon their 1995 built home in rural Mason County Michigan because the husband could no longer sleep, could not function at his job and so were forced to sell property at a 41% loss ($121,000) in 2012 after Invenergy built 56, 476-ft high wind turbines near them[x].

Noise Consultant Rand Acoustics Shows Developers Lying in an Environmental Impact Statement about level of noise emitted from a proposed wind project in Wyoming[xi]. Wind developer Rail Tie Wind predicted the turbine noise at 35.7 dBA while the normal noise level 2/3 mile from the turbine is nearly 55 dBA. Rand says developers grossly underestimate maximum noise.

Robert Bryce, host at PowerHungry reports that it took only 30 seconds for Ohio Power Siting Board regulators to cancel a $92 million 50-turbine Apex Clean Energy wind project.[xii]

The obvious question to ask: what is the effect on residents in populated areas of the 46 wind farms overseen by Bonneville Power Administration of more than 4,700 MWs (approximately 1,800 turbines) or the effect of turbines near Vantage and Ellensburg operated by Puget Power or the two farms that supply Avista at the 90 turbine Rattlesnake Flat wind farm near Lind, WA or 104-MW wind farm near Rosalia.  Is there evidence on heath impacts or other impacts available but gathering it has not begun?

IN THE SHADOW OF WIND FARMS ….[xiii]

3.1 But what about ILFN and cancers? The medical term genotoxins^[xiv] is separated into three main groups: carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens (i.e. toxins that cause cancer, genetic mutations, or birth defects)… Studies have concluded that prolonged exposure to LFN can cause all three. ILFN has been identified as a genotoxic agent of disease, capable of inducing blood vessel wall thickening as seen in autopsy[xv]. Long exposure induces an increased frequency of sister chromatid exchanges in both human and animal models.” Again, to decode, LFN disrupts the normal cellular operations of both human and animals at its most basic level –the genetic level. That is why its effects are considered a whole body, systemic pathology[xvi].  Vibroacoustic disease is a whole-body, systemic pathology, characterized by the abnormal proliferation of extra-cellular matrices, and caused by excessive exposure to low frequency noise (LFN)… In 1987, the first autopsy of a deceased VAD patient performed found the extent of ILFN induced damage overwhelming, and the information obtained is, still today, guiding many of the associated and ongoing research projects[xvii]. From Testimony by Dr. Lynn Knuth, regarding a Wisconsin wind project, exposure to more than one of these agents at a time, as occurs in wind farms, may result in especially detrimental health effects. From the research literature it appears that the combination of both whole body vibration and low frequency noise is particularly dangerous.[xviii]  The common size 5-megawatt wind turbine over 600-ft high installed today to replace older 1.0-1.7 MW units can generate infrasound detectable to a distance up to 20 kilometers (12.4 miles). Prof. Alec Salt in Germany said the ear reacts to the 5 hertz infrasound range and although the inner ear cannot sense the sound yet it still impacts the ear by its low frequency vibration. Prof. Christian-Friedrich Vahl Univ. Medical Center Gutenburg, Manz in heart laboratory investigation of ILFN says more than 30% of people are affected. He found a clear reduction in heart muscle strength and says that the inability to hear the sound in the low frequency makes it far more dangerous because the body cannot sense a warning[xix]. Dr Vahl: The researchers conclude: “We are at the very beginning. The silent noise of infrasound acts like a heart jammer.”[xx] Wind turbines are silent menace: What you can't hear can hurt you (three parts[xxi][xxii][xxiii]). There has long been anecdotal evidence that wind turbines are injurious to human health.

Read Part 3 https://proprights.org/blog/governor-inslees-battle-climate-change-net-zero-will-affect-you-and-your-family-part-3