Mill Pond = Mill Stone?

Mill Pond=Mill Stone?

John Droz, jr.Physicist & Environmental Advocate

Newport, North Carolina11/26/13 [rev 12/16/13]

Make SURE to View This Presentationin the FULL SCREEN Mode!

Click the “FULL” iconin the lower right hand corner.

NOTE: SlideShare has had some issues with translatingpresentations properly. Hopefully they are temporary.

If some slides are hard to read, or are missing graphics,please download the PDF version, which is much better quality.

(To do that click the “Save” button above the window:it’s only a 14± MB file.)

(Otherwise, use your keyboard arrow keys to navigate.This will allow you to proceed at your own pace.)

Mill Pond = Mill Stone?This is a presentation given at a public forum meeting in Newport, NC November 26, 2013, to 100+ attendees.

This is an overview discussion about various key aspects of a proposed nearby industrial wind project (Mill Pond). It also touches on the US electricity grid, and the electrical power source choices we have. This is a complicated matter, so I have tried to strike a balance between being too technical and too simplified. The more information about our electricity options, see EnergyPresentation.Info.

The underlying message is that our energy decisions should be made on the basis of sound SCIENCE — not on what special-interest lobbyists say.

Hopefully you have already been to my website: WiseEnergy.org which has hundreds of economic and environmental studies regarding industrial wind energy. WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-Wind is a page on that site that has other useful supporting information specifically about the Mill Pond project.

My expectation is that after legislators get more informed — and do some Critical Thinking — that they will be in a much better position to execute informed cost-beneficial energy and environmental policies.

In my live presentation there was commentary that accompanied each slide, and that is not included here.

If there are questions about this material after you carefully go through this and the referenced links, I will be glad to personally respond to any emails you send me: “[email protected]”.

Please see References and Credits, my brief “resume,” the copyright notice, disclaimer, contact information: all at the end of EnergyPresentation.Info. [Note that I will indicate updates on the material by a revision date on the first slide.] If you like what you see, please pass it on to other open-minded people, plus your federal, state, and local representatives.

— ENJOY!

john droz, jr.

A Lot More About WhatYou’ll See Tonight,

is Online at:WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-wind

This is: “WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-wind”

The Soundbite:Wind Energy = High Cost, Low Benefits

What would you think if the government said:

“We think that Windy’s fast food is healthy,so to encourage more people to eat it we will —

1 - Give W’s a 30% cash rebate of the cost of any store, and 2 - Pay W’s an extra 50¢ for every hamburg they sell, and 3 - Allow W’s to charge an inflated price for their food, and 4 - Give W’s preferential treatment over their competitors, and 5 - Ignore environmental or health regulations W’s violates, and 6 - Mandate that all citizens buy 10% of their meals at W’s.”

— Food For Thought —

Using “back of the envelope” calculationsit works out that the Mill Pond developerswill be making a profit of something like:

$50 Million a year!

Who Am I?

Brief History

Several Problems

Some Solutions

Questions & Answers

Part 1:Who Am I?

There are two things that are more difficult than making a public speech: climbing a wall which is leaning toward you, andkissing a girl who is leaning away from you.

— Winston Churchill

My Three Hats Here:

#1 - Physicist

#2 - Economist

#3 - Environmentalist

My basic position is that —

1) we do have environmental and energy issues, and

2) these matters should be solved scientifically.

It’s Lobbyists vs Science—and Science is Losing

What Is

CriticalThinking?

A thorough, open-minded, logical effortto examine a claim,

in the light of applicable evidence.

One of the key ingredients of true science — and critical thinking — is

SKEPTICISM

“Shut up, you moron! Do as you’ve been told.It’s for your own good!”

Wait a minute — something feels wrong

here!

See much more at

WiseEnergy.org

All of the Above

All of the Sensible

An intelligent, Science-based energy policy slogan:

Written by a Utility Company CEO —available online.

Part 2:a) Some NC Energy History

Self-serving LobbyistsSetting State Policies

In the Beginning, there were:

— A Story of Biblical Proportions —

Senate Bill 3And the Lobbyists Begot:

Various %’s of renewable energyby certain dates

And Senate Bill 3 Mandated:

And Senate Bill 3’s Justifications:

False Testaments(written by lobbyists)

And Senate Bill 3’s Justifications were:

Most of this pestilence will be wind energy.100% of this will be inflicted on the coast.

And Senate Bill 3’s Consequences were:

1) buy out-of-state renewable energy 2) buy RECs

NC Utilities have other options for redemption:

H298 (Affordable Energy Act)was introduced in early 2013

Prophets spoke out against this evil:

They condemned and vilified H298

The special interest lobbyists were angered:

Other voices were raised against this corruption:

H484 (Wind Permitting Rules)was introduced in early 2013

They saw to it that H484 was diluted

The special interest lobbyists were incensed:

But among citizens there was weeping and a gnashing of teeth.

The special interest lobbyists are celebrating these victories!

(Here is where we are today.)

Finally the subjects had had enough:

They cast out the lobbyists,— and their enablers —

from the kingdom.

(Here is where we hope to be soon…)

Inhabitants reclaimed their rightful ownership of their property,

their health & safety,their environment,

and their military brethren.

There was rejoicing throughout the land:


Citizen-oriented leaders were installed, and:

Peace and Prosperity followed.


Amen!

Part 2:b) Some Marketing History

The basicobjective

of any con.

How were snake oil salesmenable to take advantage of good people?

1 - By telling them what they wanted to hear, and 2 - By counting on the fact that few people take the time to properly check things out!

We look back and sayhow could these people be so gullible?

But is it any different today?

Yes —It’s Worse!

There isno penalty for making unscientific

claims.

“Houston-based company, Torch RenewableEnergy LLC, expects its proposed wind andsolar energy facility to bring lots of benefits

to both Newport and Carteret County,without any negative impacts.”

— CNT 11/15/13

chutz·pah noun \ˈhu̇t-spə, ˈk ̱u̇t-, -(ˌ)spä\Shameless AudacityExample of CHUTZPAH-------------------

So we’ve come full circle.

The solution to almost any con is simple:

1 - don’t believe everything you hear from sales people, and

2 - thoroughly check things out!

Part 3:Several Problems —

a) Quick Background

Twelve Turbines in a Rural Community

© john droz, jr.

By this I mean that:

1) wind energy is not a technically sound solution to provide us power, or to meaningfully reduce global warming, and

Wind Power Fails to Deliver the Goods

2) wind energy is not an economically viable source of energy on its own, and

3) wind energy is not environmentally responsible.

Science is a PROCESS that Works Like This:

When a new idea is proposed as a potential solution to a problem,it is up to the advocates to PROVE its efficacy (not the other way around).

In the case of Wind Energy,this has never been done!

The Process involves a:

1) comprehensive, 2) objective, 3) transparent, and 4) empirical based analysis.

TECHNICAL(e.g. reliability,dispatchability,transmission,

other Gridlimitations)

ECONOMIC(e.g. taxpayer cost,

ratepayer costs,agricultural impact,

property values, net jobs, etc.)

ENVIRONMENTAL(e.g. CO2 savings,

noise, flicker,birds & bats,

other health effects,raw material extraction

and processing, etc.)

Sound Scientific Solutions —a comprehensive assessment that covers

ALL important concerns:

Part 3:Some Problems —

b) A Teensie Technical Tidbit

There is NO SUCH THINGas wind energy by itself!

Wind Energy MUST HAVEa fast-responding, augmenting

source of power available 24/7/365.

NO other conventional source of electricity has this requirement!

For a variety oftechnical and economic reasons,this fast-responding, augmenting

source of power is usually gas.

So, ALL statements about the consequences of this wind project

(calculations of cost,impact on air quality, etc.)

MUST address theWIND + GAS Package.

The developer’s Presentationdoes NOT do this —

which is a serious misrepresentation.

“Integrating the variable capacity of wind energy

undermines the time-tested, science driven

technology plan required of all utilities.

And that just isn’t right.”

Another technical issue with Wind Energy

“Families would have to get used to only using power

when it was available, rather than constantly.”

When National Grid’s CEO was challenged about integrating wind energy, he said:

An even moredisturbing assessment

from autility executive.

The Developer’s omissionof these (and other) technical realitiesis a misrepresentation of the situation.


c)Eying Environmental Effects

Some citizens say that they supportsimilar wind projects because they are “Green.”

Is Wind Energy Really Green?

Let’s take a quick look atjust one part of a turbine...

Many WindTurbines use2000± Poundsof Rare Earth

Elementsper rated MW.

So what?

The processing ofRare Earth Elements

involves dozens of steps,of caustic chemical baths,

or blast furnace separations.

Each of these resultsin a waste stream

of severely pollutedair, water, and residue.

Read for Yourself...

The processing of theRare Earth Elements,

for just one 100 MW wind project will...

1) destroy 20,000± square meters of vegetation,

2) create 1,200,000± pounds of CO2,

4) poison 29,000,000± gallons of wastewater,

5) produce 600,000,000± pounds of contaminated tailing sands, &

6) result in 280,000± pounds of radioactive waste.

3) generate 6,000,000± cubic meters of highly toxic air pollution,

Yes, that’s right:processing the REEs

used by just one 100 MW wind project’s turbines

result in 280,000± pounds of radioactive waste!

Remember, the REE environmental impactis just ONE component

of these turbines.

There are otheradverse environmental consequences as well.

LIKE THIS

November 23, 2013

Health Effects of Low Frequency Noise Can Cause Death

So, is Wind Energy Really Green?

An objective look says NO!

After carefully looking intojust this ONE turbine component,

reconsider the following marketing claims:

1 - Is Wind Energy really “renewable”?

2 - Is Wind Energy really “sustainable”?

3 - Does Wind Energy really give us energy “independence”?

The inescapable answer is NO!

“Industrial wind projects don’t work. They produce a trickle of electricity at a vast cost to the consumer. They desecrate the

landscape and make people’s lives a misery. And they don’t even cut carbon emissions. They are literally a waste of space…”

As time goes on, more environmentalists are speaking out —

Struan Stevenson: Chairman of the European Parliament’sClimate Change, Biodiversity & Sustainable Development Intergroup (11/11/11)


d) Economics Explained

What Wind Energy Is Really All About

E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-Gabout the economics here

is problematic!

Does wind energy provide economical electricity ?NO, not compared to conventional sources.

Look at the real economics from three perspectives — a) Total Costs = higher than conventional sources. b) Ratepayer Costs = higher than conventional sources. c) Taxpayer Subsidies = higher than all conventional sources, combined!

Financial Comparison “a”

Total Costs(Capital + Operation

+ Fuel + Transmission)

Power Sources Total Costs

Nuclear Geothermal Gas w CCS Coal w CSS Onshore Wind Offshore Wind

Capital Operation Fuel Transmission

EIA — Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2016

{Wind costs do NOT take into accountany costs: for backup generation,

OR for extra transmission lines needed,OR for other ancillary requirements,

OR for decommissioning.}

Financial Comparison “b”

Utility Ratepayer Costs

More real world evidencefrom NC utility experts,about the real cost of

wind energy:onshore = 2-3 times moreoffshore = 4-5 times more

Germany

Spain

US

Canada

Denmark

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bad Renewables %¢/KWH (2007 Data)

What’s the Correlation withHigher Wind Energy Usage

and Residential Electricity Rates?

Financial Comparison “c”

Taxpayer Costs

$1,189 M $2,234 M $654 M $215 M$4,981 M

Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind

Annual Federal TAXPAYER Subsidies of Electrical Energy Sources: Totals

2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011[Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support]

$4,981 M

Note that the total 2010 subsidies for wind energy

exceed the totals for all the other conventional sources

COMBINED!

$0.64 $2.78 $0.63 $0.84$52.43

Coal Nuclear Nat Gas Hydro Wind

Some Annual Federal Subsidies of Electrical Energy Sources: per MWH2010 US Energy Information Administration Subsidy Report: July 2011

[Direct + Tax + R&D +Electricity Support]

$52.43

In ADDITION to the generous Federal subsidies,many states offer financial incentives for wind power, like:

1. Personal Tax Incentives 2. Corporate Tax Incentives 3. Sales Tax Incentives 4. Property Tax Incentives 5. Rebates 6. Grants 7. Loans 8. Industry Support 9. Bonds, and 10. Production Incentives.

On top of these financial incentives, state and local governments have established rules,regulations and policies (like RPS), with the purpose of encouraging or mandating the

development and increased sale and consumption of energy from renewable sources.

“In the simplest of terms, special interest groups

and wind developers are asking you to pay more

for a less reliable product. And that just isn’t right.”

Some utilities are now starting to speak out.Here is a statewide ad run by Idaho Power:

“It doesn’t matter how clean it is,if it’s not affordable or reliable.”

President & COO of Duke’s US Electric business, says:

But what about local economics?

Remember What Your Dad Said:

There’s No Free Lunch!

To begin with,

all “enticements” are with your own money!

To ACCURATELY know local economics,we need to get valid answers to three questions:

Question #1: Exactly how much of the developer’s job and economic claims are guaranteed?

Answer: None.

Answer: We have no idea. Most initial jobs will be to imported specialists.

Question #2: Specifically how much of the guaranteed jobs and economic benefits will go to North Carolina citizens?

Question #3: What are the NET jobs and economic benefits to North Carolina?

Answer: There will be job and economic losses. See next slides!

Local Job Impact

Here is a comprehensive study about how wind development affects Tourism...

Here are the study’s conclusions about how wind development affects Tourism...

Here are the latest Carteret County Tourism Jobs data...

2930 jobs x 4% = 120± jobs lost /year

Over the 20± year lifeof the wind project:

= 2400 job years lost(just related to tourism,

in Carteret County)

Some Carteret County Annual Job Impact Due To Mill Pond

This does NOT include additional job losses due to: — the higher cost of electricity, — military impacts due to mission disruptions, etc.

Local Economic Consequences

Here are the latest Carteret County Tourism Income data...

$282 million x 4% = $11+ million lost / year.

Over the 20± year lifeof the wind project:

= $225± million lost(just related to tourism,

in Carteret County)

Here is a government study about one financial impact from wind development...

Here are their conclusions of the crop loss due to killed bats to Carteret County...

The bat costs do not take into account other

consequences of losing bats —

like more human health problems

due to an increase of mosquitoes...

Carteret County Annual Economic Impact Due To Mill Pond

This does NOT include additional financial losses due to: — Tax reductions from nearby property devaluations, — Health effects from turbines, — Health effects from insect proliferation, — Higher cost of electricity, etc.

= a $266± millionloss over the

20 yr project life!

Carteret County Mill Pond Impact

Net Annual Job Loss = 110±

Net Annual Economic Loss = $13± Million

Net Economic Assessment


e) Military Interference

NC Energy Policyand the

NC MILITARY:

on aCollision

Course

Military Issue #1:

Physical Obstruction

Military Issue #1:

Physical Obstruction

Military Issue #2:

Radar Interference

Military Issue #2:

Radar Interference

Military Issue #2:

Radar Interference

“A wind facility will create areas where we can not

reliably observe or control military/civilian air traffic.”

Military Issue #2:

Radar Interference

There are other military issues with industrial wind turbinesthat the general public will not be aware of — for example:

Military Issue #3:

Misc Interference

Some Facts about NC Military & Wind Energy

1 - The DC DOD Clearinghouse has assumed all authority for approving wind installations.

2 - Because of this political directive, ALL NC military personnel have been commanded to stand down regarding any NC wind projects.

3 - Internal figures we have seen are that DOD has been submitted some 4000 applications, and zero have been rejected.

Our Best Solutionto Protect NC Military Bases

1 - Realize that due to the current DC political policies being propagated, active military can not publicize the issues resulting from any particular proposed industrial wind project (e.g. Mill Pond).

2 - Retired military should step up to be the voice for active personnel.

3 - A worthwhile set of human health standards and environmental rules provides more NC military protection than the current DOD process.

Combining retired military, with proper environmental rules and health standards will provide the optimum defense of NC bases.


f) A Visual Perspective

1

2

3

4

5

From AcrossNewport River



Crystal Coast PlazaHighway 70



Newport Flea Market(Highway 70)



Babe RuthBaseball Field



Mill Creek RdHome

Mill Creek Rd Home

Mill Creek Rd Home

So a More Objective Assessmentof Industrial Wind Energy Concludes that:

Technically — it’s a net loserEnvironmentally — it’s a net loserEconomics — it’s a net loserEmployment — it’s a net loserMilitarily — it’s a net loser

Part 4:Some Solutions

What is our Objective?

To Have The Strictest Law? - No

To Regulate Wind Energy Out? - No

Our Objective is to provide optimum protections for Citizens, the Environment, and the Military

What are some Areas of Concern? 1. Aesthetic / Quality of Life Impact 2. Backup Power Issues 3. Construction Disruption 4. Seismic Effects 5. Electronic & Electromagnetic Interference 6. Fire Risk & Fire Department Needs 7. Ground Water Impact 8. Hazards to Aviation 9. High Wind Failure & Other Breakdowns10. Ice Throw11. Lighting12. Lightning Protection

— continued —

What are some Areas of Concern?13. Monitoring14. Noise, Including Infrasonic15. Road Upkeep & Repair16. Security (Vandalism / Terrorism)17. Shadow & Flicker Effects18. Siting & Placement Issues19. Storm Water Runoff, Erosion & Sedimentation20. Stray Voltage (aka Ground Current)21. Military Mission Impact22. Wildlife Effects

23. Decommissioning 24. Independent Oversight — continued —

What are some Areas of Concern? 25. Landowner Contract Control 26. Legal Views from the state capital 27. Potential Lawsuits 28. Wind Rights 29. Setbacks 30. Zoning 31. Agricultural Impact 32. Effect on Property Values 33. Employment Issues 34. Lack of Competition 35. Loss of Property Use 36. Operating Permits

— continued —

What are the Most Important Matters to Properly Address?

1 - Property Value Guarantee2 - Setbacks3 - Acoustical Limit and Conditions4 - Environmental5 - Decommissioning-----------------------------------------------------An Escrow Account is also recommended

1 - A person’s home is typically their most valuable asset

2 - Legally this is called an “Involuntary Taking”

3 - Dozens of studies by independent experts have concluded that there will be a loss —as much as 40%

4 - Wind industry shills dispute that by issuing rigged reports

5 - If the wind industry is right, it will cost them nothing to provide this protection.

Why Protect Properties from Value Loss?

1 - One mile is recommended by independent experts

2 - Distance would be from turbine to property line

3 - This provides a series of health benefits, e.g.: a) from turbine fires, b) from ice and mechanical breakage throws, c) from flicker, d) from noise, etc.

4 - Numerous studies and other laws concur with this...

What About Setbacks?

Some Locations, Sources, and/or Reports that have (are recommending,or are considering) 1± Mile (1500± m) Setbacks from Wind Turbines

1. 10,000 m exclusion zone recommended by this Scottish report

2. 10,000 m called for by a prominent physician (with many references)

3. 5,000 m (3.1 miles). This study concluded “wind turbines must not be sited less

than 5 km from all habitation, because of the risks produced by infrasound.”

4. 3,219 m (2 miles) to a rural home – Umatilla County, Oregon

5. 3,219 m (2 miles) from a residential development - Riverside, California

6. 3,000 m for turbines greater than 150 meters – Wiltshire, UK

7. 2,414 m from property lines – Catarunk, Maine

8. 2,414 m from property lines – Moscow, Maine

9. 2,253 m (1.4 miles) Wind farms should not be less than 1.4 miles from people’s

homes (UK) planning minister GWEI Tel

10. 2,253 m from “a residential property” Lincolnshire, UK QLS Tel

11. 2,100 m for 3MW recommended in Denmark

12. 2,010 m (1.25 miles) recommended by this European Human Rights study

— continued —

13. 2,010 m new rules would require setbacks of 1.25 miles to non-participating property lines – Woodstock, Maine14. 2,000 m from the nearest residence – Haut-Richelieu, Quebec15. 2,000 m from a home a in the Haut-Saint-Laurent, in the Montérégie, Quebec16. 2,000 m to habitations, and 5,000 m from 21 named agglomerations – Victorian Government, Australia17. 2,000 m – Queensland, Australia18. 2,000 m restriction: Cambridgeshire, UK19. 2,000 m to 2.5km (1.6 miles): examining increasing the recommended distance between wind farms and the nearest town or village: Scotland20. 2,000 m away from housing in Scotland under plans to be unveiled by the Conservatives today (2013)21. 2,000 turbine setback bill debated by British House of Lords22. 2,000 m from existing homes proposed in New South Wales, Australia23. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Montville Maine24. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Buckfield Maine

— continued —


25. 1900 m was the distance that this scientific study found that residents still “expressed annoyance.”26. 1,770 m Fayette County PA27. 1,609 m (1 mile) from inhabited structures Trempealeau County, Wisconsin 28. 1,609 m from non-participating property lines – Frankfort Maine29. 1,609 m buffer zone to homes – Hillsdale County, Michigan30. 1,609 m (1 to 1.5 mile) – UK Noise Association31. 1,500 m in an environment characterized by a 35 DB ambient noise level Germany32. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x height) – The isle of Anglesey in the UK33. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x H) from rural residences – Ellis County, Kansas34. 1,500 m Acoustical Ecology Institute Special Report on Wind Energy Noise Impacts35. 1,500 m recommended by French National Academy of Medicine36. 1,500 m recommended by State Heath Director – North Carolina37. 1,500 m recommended in Wales – depending on topography and ambient noise38. 1,500 m recommended in England by Dr Hanning WCO TBN


For links see WiseEnergy.org/Carteret-Wind

1 - Turbines generate two types of Sounds: a) those that can be heard, and b) those that can not be heard (infrasound)

2 - The audible is more annoying, esp 5dBA > ambient

3 - Infrasound is the more dangerous: a) this is the position of the WHO b) the military uses infrasound as a weapon

4 - It’s hard to accurately measure infrasound, so 35 dBA is recommended as a simple, inexpensive proxy

5 - Numerous independent experts concur with this

What About Acoustics?

§ 163.21 (G) says: The noise of a large wind energy system shall not exceed five (5) dBA

above the existing average noise level on adjacent properties;

Ashe County NC (2007)

The World Health Organization says:The Health effects due to low frequency components in noise

are estimated to be more severe than for community noise in general.

The Military Aspect of Infrasound:”Experiments by the US military indicate that infrasound can have profound psychological and physical effects on humans. Humans

exposed to various frequencies of infrasound have reported disorientation, nausea, fear, panic, sorrow, loss of bowels, drowsiness,

visual hallucinations, chills, high blood pressure, increased blood flow, internal respiratory problems, and even organ damage. It is a matter of history that there has been research into sonic weapons.”

Recommended Limit (35)

Current Carteret & Newport Limit (45)

5 dBAIncrease

Recommended Limit (35)

Why

35

dBA?

Citizen/Environment/Military Protection Rating

* In each of these cases the County or Town law is given credit for what is specified in the state law, which is underlying. Newport’s Escrow is Pending.

The scale for each item is that a 10 equals optimum protections. An Optimum Law would have a rating of 100% (with a Total score of 70).

1 - There were no energy experts in the creation team

2 - Wind lobbyists then heavily influenced the law

3 - Belief by some that wind energy is a net good thing

4 - Objective was to pass something vs a quality law

5 - Up to DENR to adhere to their mission statement

Why Isn’t the State Law Better?

Why Isn’t the County Law Better?

1 - We’ve learned a lot since the law was written in 2008

2 - County wasn’t given very much advance notice

3 - Belief by some that wind energy is a net good thing

4 - Some concern about a developer lawsuit

Why Isn’t the Town Law Better?

1 - The Town wasn’t given very much advance notice

2 - They first thought that the H484 would be adequate

3 - They copied some of the outdated County law

4 - Some concern about a developer lawsuit

1 - Should fear of a lawsuit intimidate legislators so that they abandon or dilute protections for: — citizens’ health, safety, and economic welfare? — existing businesses’ economic well-being? — the community’s environment? — the mission of nearby military bases?

2 - If lawsuit avoidance is a primary concern, they should be aware that citizens have powerful legal options to sue their representatives for not acting responsibly.

What About a Lawsuit?

1 - The objective of a Tall Structure Ordinance is NOT to exclude industrial wind energy — rather it is to provide optimum protections for local citizens, local businesses, the environment, and the military.

2 - Industrial wind energy has no legal entitlement to make a profit at the expense of harming our citizens, our economy, our environment, or our military.

3 - If an industrial wind energy business can not operate in our community without consequentially harming our citizens, our economy, our environment, or our military — then they should not be given a permit to operate!

The Big Picture

Plan of Action1 - Encourage Carteret commissioners (e.g. at their Dec. caucus) to make the good protections in their law, better.

2 - Encourage Newport representatives (e.g. at the 1/9/14 public hearing) to improve their good law’s protections.

3 - Contact NCUC (prior to Dec 23), asking that they follow their statutory requirements in reviewing Mill Pond. (Note: speaking in person is better than writing.)

4 - Contact the NCUC Public Staff to aggressively do their job as consumer advocates before the NCUC.

5 - Encourage DENR to abide by their Mission Statement.

6 - Fix SB3 & H484 in the next NC legislative session.

This is the point where we are now.Making the wrong choice will cost us for 20+ years.

The Wind Project Developer has ONE Objective:to squeeze the State, County & Town

for EVERYTHING they can get out of them.

We can chosethe path thru the

dark green forest.

After all,the marketeers

assured usthat it would be

an easy shortcutto get some

“found money.”

The salesmen promised us that

the trip will be pleasant and successful.

Any animalsalong the way

will be our friend!

Of course there were no

guarantees.

Once we go down this path, we are

on our own.

Don’t Take The Bait

for Giving This MatterSome Critical Thought!

THANK YOU

Email Me Any Questions You Have ([email protected])!

Following the Presentation there was a lengthy Q&A.

The following slides were prepared for that discussion.

To Get a Better Understandingof the Energy Situation, see:EnergyPresentation.info

Some Misconceptions about Wind Energy

1 - Wind energy is less expensive than conventional electricity sources

2 - Wind energy gets less subsidies than conventional electricity source

3 - Wind energy will be cost competitive in the near future

4 - Wind energy is environmentally benign

5 - Wind energy will consequentially reduce CO2

6 - Wind energy will meaningfully help us reduce coal use

Each of these beliefs is provably FALSE.For more info see EnergyPresentation.info & WiseEnergy.org.

— Senate Bill 3 Mandate —

Year REPS Requirement2012 3% of 2011 North Carolina retail sales2015 6% of 2014 North Carolina retail sales2018 10% of 2017 North Carolina retail sales2021+ 12.5% of 2020 North Carolina retail sales

Mill Pond

This wind industry report shows that

99.9% (!)of NC acreage has unsuitable winds.

[Compare this to Kansas (10.5%), Nebraska (8.4%),Texas (44.5%)…]

The only targeted places will be on

the NC coast.

Minimum Wind Speeds Needed

Some studies since 2007 that have

concluded that an RPS is a bad idea

If the Objective is to get rid of Fossil Fuels,Let’s Mandate that 12.5% of all NC vehicles

Revert to Being Horse Drawn by 2021

[Note: when making a submission to the NCUC, a key point to be made is how well they are following their statutory obligations when reviewing any proposed wind project.]

[Note: these are the standards that DENR should be using when interpreting and enforcing H484. There is nothing about promoting any business.]

0

25

50

75

100

Renewables Generation Transmission Nuclear Power

Worldwide Contribution to CO2 ReductionsSince 1973

[For those who believe that Global Warming is our most pressing matter, the evidence says that

using Nuclear Power is our best option.]

Consider This...

Wind is 13 times the cost of Nuclear!

A prime justificationfor promoting wind energy,

is JOBS.

So Carefully Consider the Following...

No Jobs (or economic development) claim has any meritunless it accurately considers the NET impact.

There is zero evidence in the developerhas burdened themselves with this obligation.

Wind Jobs Fact #1

There is nothing — no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime —that does not create jobs. For example, tsunamis,

computer viruses and robbing convenience store clerksall create jobs.

So since that claim applies to allit is an argument in favor of none.

Instead of providing evidence of the merits of an enterprise, a jobs claim is

a de facto admission that one has a specious case.— energy attorney Chris Horner

Wind Jobs Fact #2

The US has lost most of its jobs to other countries primarily due to economics:

low cost labor.

Our businesses have one major economic benefit left to counter more job loss: low cost electricity.

Why would we voluntarily give this upby reverting to more expensive electricity sources???

Wind Jobs Fact #3

Are there other resulting benefits or liabilities from such a project?

Yes, there are other substantial liabilities. For example, the many millions of dollars being given to this developer (e.g. through tax credits): a) increase our country’s indebtedness, and b) is mostly money borrowed from China.

Are either of these in our interest to support?

North Carolina can be a National Leader in:

1) Eighteenth century ideas like horse transportation and wind energy(buggy whip manufacturing, blacksmith and windmill jobs)

OR

2) State-of-the art, Scientifically Sound energy solutions (like geothermal energy or Small Modular Reactors)

Technology

Mill Pond = Mill Stone?