The Wind Power Pipe Dream

When you take into consideration the miserable record of efficiency, the need for 100% backup, the periods of no wind, the extremely high maintenance costs, the lack of maintenance performed at ANY price, the health hazards to animals and people alike, the blight on America's landscape and the fact that this industry cannot survive without tax-payer subsidies; wind power needs to blow away.

As this article states:

"An expert on the detrimental aspects of wind power, John Droz, Jr., has created a website for those interested in the facts. Droz notes that “wind energy was abandoned well over a hundred years ago as it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning, more modern needs of power, even in the late 1800s.” It is an outmoded source of power comparable to plowing farmland using oxen."

From www.canadafreepress.com

Imagine if you will America’s mountain ranges topped by row upon row of wind turbines and America’s deserts and plains covered by solar panels. How ugly is that?

A recent Wall Street Journal article, “Wildlife Slows Wind Power”, took note of the slaughter of birds and bats by these Cuisinarts of the countryside. The problem has reached such proportions that “New federal rules on how wind-power operators must manage threats to wildlife could create another challenge for the fast-growing industry as it seeks more footholds in the U.S. energy landscape.”

The wind-power industry is heavily subsidized by loan guarantees and mandates, and like solar power is turning out to be a vast pit of wasted funding that also raises the cost of electricity to communities whose utilities have been required to purchase its output.

It is another environmental pipe dream and one intended to enrich those who go into this dubious business. Read more at www.canadafreepress.com

Idaho wetlands case before the Supreme Court

And of course the 9th circuit court was involved...

From www.cfact.org

October 4, 2011 by Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

In one of the most closely watched wetlands cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in decades, Mike and Chantell Sackett are facing off against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over whether the couple has been denied due process by the agency. The Sacketts’ efforts to build a home in a residential neighborhood near Bonners Ferry, Idaho have been thwarted by EPA, which demands the couple apply for a federal wetlands-development permit under the Clean Water Act (CWA).The half-acre lot the Sacketts purchased for their home in 2007 is located near, but not adjacent to, picturesque Priest Lake in northern Idaho. The couple obtained all local permits before they began clearing their land in preparation for constructing their home. Even though nothing on the property can be described as being wet – the lot contains no ponds, streams or marshes --, EPA contends the parcel is a federally designated wetland and subject to the expensive and time-consuming CWA wetlands permitting process. EPA ordered the couple to cease grading on the property in 2007.

In the belief the whole thing was some kind of bureaucratic misunderstanding, the Sacketts sought a hearing with EPA officials to clear up the matter. Among other things, they wanted to point out that the neighborhood in question is zoned residential and that their parcel is sandwiched between two other houses. With characteristic arrogance, EPA refused to grant the couple, whose federal taxes help support the agency, a hearing. Read more at www.cfact.org

EPA hypocracy over Mercury - Steve Milloy, GreenHell Blog

From greenhellblog.com

EPA’s Mercurial Hypocrisy

How cynical is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about the potential mercury hazard of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)?

Last week the EPA issued new guidance for the clean-up of mercury-containing CFLs

Atypically minimizing any potential health risks and arrogantly assuming that people patronize the agency’s web site, the EPA’s media release states,

CFLs contain a small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing. When a CFL breaks, some of the mercury is released as vapor and may pose potential health risks. The guidance and brochure will provide simple, user friendly directions to help prevent and reduce exposure to people from mercury pollution. [Emphasis added]

But consider that EPA’s “Mercury and Hazardous Chemicals in Schools: A Manual for Students in Southeast Asia” (April 2008) states that:

Just as there are no safe uses of mercury and mercury-containing equipment in schools, there are no safe uses for these products in homes, either. Tell your parents about the toxic effects of mercury, and encourage them to remove all mercury products from your home.

Also consider that EPA says that eating the mercury from a broken thermometer is safer than inhaling mercury vapor (i.e., how you would be exposed to mercury from a broken CFL)

It is not uncommon for children to break fever thermometers in their mouths. Mercury that is swallowed in such cases poses low risk comparison [sic] to the risk of breathing mercury vapor.

Consider what Brown University researchers had to say in an August 2008 study of CFL breakage published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology:

Some [CFL] lamps are inevitably broken accidentally during shipping, retail sales, consumer use, and recycling and release a portion of their mercury inventory as volatile vapor, which is the dominant mercury form in the early stages of lamp life. Inhalation exposure is a concern because 80% of inhaled [mercury] is physiologically absorbed. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) occupational exposure limit (8 h, 5-day week time average) is 100 [micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3)]. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommended exposure limit is 50 μg/m3, while American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists recommends 25 μg/m3 under the same conditions. Because children are more susceptible, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) recommends 0.2 μg/m3 level as a safe continual exposure limit for children. As an illustration of the effects of CFL breakage, the release of only 1 mg of [mercury] vapor (~20% of the Hg inventory in a single CFL) into a 500 m3 room (10 × 10 × 5m) yields 2.0 μg/m3 or ten times the ATSDR-recommended level of 0.2 μg/m3 in the absence of ventilation. [Footnotes omitted, and bullets and emphasis added.

Would you rather be exposed to possibly thousands of more times mercury than the EPA says is safe or....

... or would you rather have your power plant emit an extra ounce or so of carbon dioxide per hour of bulb use? Read more at greenhellblog.com

GOP vs EPA? Let's hope so...

The EPA is the quintessential government agency gone rampant.. In fact, it is arguably the most rampant of government agencies. I don't think any other agency, to date, has created more control over our daily lives...

From www.humanevents.com

Memo to House GOP: Get a grip on the EPA

Getting a grip on the Environmental Protection Agency must be at the top of the upcoming Republican-controlled House’s “To Do” list. Of immediate concern are the EPA rules for regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Unless stopped by a federal court, the Obama EPA will implement on Jan. 2 a flagrantly illegal scheme to regulate emissions from power plants and other large emitters. This enactment will kill jobs and raise the prices of energy, and thus of all good and services. The Obama administration originally designed the scheme as a regulatory sword of Damocles to pressure Congress and industry into agreeing on a cap-and-trade framework.

But cap-and-trade reached its high-water mark in June 2009 when the House barely passed the controversial Waxman-Markey bill. Cap-and-trade’s prospects then deteriorated quite rapidly, placing the Obama administration in the position of having to make good on its threat to unleash the EPA’s carbon dogs on America.

Already on shaky legal ground, the EPA ventured clearly into law-breaking territory with its June 2010 “tailoring rule.” Under the Clean Air Act, if the EPA regulates a “pollutant,” it must regulate all sources that emit as little as 100 tons per year. Implementing this requirement for GHGs would put the EPA in the impossible position of having to regulate virtually every small business and multi-family residential complex—a total of more than 6.1 million sources nationwide. The EPA estimated it would require 1.4 billion work hours costing $63 billion over three years to accomplish that task. Rather than comply with the law, the habitually rogue EPA went totally outlaw in unilaterally deciding to raise the permitting threshold to sources emitting 75,000 tons per year, cutting the number of regulated sources to a more manageable 20,000. Congressional Democrats have so far blocked efforts to rein in the EPA. Last June, Senate Democrats narrowly defeated the so-called Murkowski resolution to block the EPA from regulating GHGs. Though Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D–WV) proposed to delay EPA regulation for two years, there is no indication his effort will advance during the lame duck session.

Read more at www.humanevents.com

Is Michael Mann a witch?

From greenhellblog.com

If Ken Cuccinelli is on a witch hunt then… October 6, 2010 … Michael Mann is a witch. The Washington Post today editorialized that the Virginia attorney general is on a witch hunt. But even the Post is not too thrillled with Mann’s work, labeling it “not unacceptably poor.” At least now we’re all only debating how “poor” Mann’s hockey stick is. The Post tries to exonerate Mann by claiming that he was exonerated by the National Academy of Sciences and his employer, Penn State. Neither claim is true. First, while the post refers to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, it was actually a panel of the non-prestigious, for-hire National Research Council that actually reviewed Mann’s work. Below is the NRC’s conclusion about the hockey stick:

No part of that conclusion, of course, exonerates Mann or his hockey stick. Where in that conclusion, for example, does it say that the hockey stick appropriately deleted the Medieval Optimum or the Little Ice Age? Where in that conclusion does it say that Mann appropriately grafted late-20th century thermometer data onto the tree ring data (while deleting tree ring data not favorable to his case for warming) to give the impression of dramatic, manmade warming during the 20th century? For more on Mann and his hockey stick, check out JunkScience.com’s “Michael Mann: Defamed or defined by ‘Hide the decline’?“

As to Penn State’s “investigation” into Mann’s hijinks, click here to read about that whitewash. Read more at greenhellblog.com

Prius Bad For The Environment?

Bigger carbon footprint and less gas mileage, depending on how you drive...