Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Mike Barnard doesn't know much about wind

Today I received a comment on one of my older old post's ~ Nina Pierpont's letter to Mike Crawley President International Power Canada .
Mike Barnard said...
Over two years later, Ms. Pierpont continues not to e published in any peer-reviewed journal anywhere.

  Curious about Mr. Barnard, I googled his name with  the letters AWEA and this is one of the things that came up.


Sunday, June 17, 2012
Mike Barnard doesn't know much about wind
Comments to a pair of editorials in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution by AWEA CEO Denise Bode and Wind Watch President Eric Rosenbloom have apparently been closed, so here is a late reply to the most substantial one. It is notable that all of the comments attacked Rosenbloom's piece (despite most commenters obviously not having read it), with unquestioning acceptance of Bode's inane sales pitch. It looks like the "New South" is still easy prey to carpetbaggers.

Mike Barnard (June 13, 1:10 pm) appears to be a one-man propaganda machine on behalf of the big energy companies hiding behind wind. He misrepresents not only his own apologias but also Rosenbloom's arguments.

For example, at aweo.org (not com), Rosenbloom notes that wind turbines on the grid consume a significant amount of energy. One of the sources is the Danish Wind Energy Association. He admits that the exact amount can only be speculated, however, because, as he also notes, it is not measured, as reported by the Electric Power Research Institute. This is an example of questions we should be asking but that the industry refuses to answer.

To some of Barnard's other points:

1. Intermittency. There's a big difference between predictable intermittency and knowing exactly how that intermittency will shape up. And there's a big difference between continuous minute-to-minute variability and the occasional loss of a single coal or nuclear plant. In fact, the grid is overbuilt precisely to handle such an event. Building wind requires using that excess capacity to balance wind's variability (as Rosenbloom says in this piece). And, as Germany has discovered, when that excess capacity is tied up with the wind, the loss of a coal or nuclear plant would be catastrophic.

2. Subsidies. It is a strange argument to say that money has long been wasted on other sources so it is only fair to waste more on wind. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, wind received 42% of all federal subsidies for electricity production while producing 2.3% of the electricity generated. Wind is clearly benefiting from a very unlevel playing field already.

3. Wind "farms" are usually built, with their roads, platforms, substations, and transmission lines, in previously undeveloped, even wild, places. The impacts of such massive and sprawling constructions are obvious.

4. There has actually been no "peer-reviewed" study showing no connection between giant wind turbines and health problems. The "reviews" that Barnard cites are essentially echos of each other that carefully avoid the every-growing reports of health problems that begin when the turbines start turning and that disappear when the person leaves the area. It can only be called sociopathic to reverse the cause and effect, as Barnard does by blaming the doctors and acousticians who report findings of harm. In contrast, an editorial in the preeminent British Medical Journal (BMJ, 8 Mar 2012) recognizes the health effects of large-scale wind energy facilities and calls for serious study to provide the basis for adequate regulation to protect the public.

5. The science of biological effects of low-frequency noise and infrasound (LFN/IS) is young. In fact, LFN/IS is rarely measured as part of noise control regulations. But it is known (as reported in "peer-reviewed" journals) to have serious physiological effects and that large wind turbines produce it.

6. While I was composing this reply, wind was generating less than 4% of Ontario's electricity, according to the Independent Electricity System Operator. And the province was exporting about the same amount. To say that wind, even in part, allowed switching off coal clearly ignores the facts. In fact, Ontario has replaced coal with more nuclear and natural gas.

Link here to original ~ Kirby Mountian

5 comments:

Dan Wrightman said...

How will Mike Barnard benefit from wind energy transmission hookups?

His comment on Tyler Hamilton's Clean Break blog (link below) gives a hint. The prohibitively expensive upgrades called the "smart grid" are needed just so our system can accomadate intemittant and unreliable wind energy. Guess what Mike Banard''s field of expertise is? http://www.cleanbreak.ca/2012/03/22/my-quick-review-of-ontarios-much-anticipated-fit-review/

Anonymous said...

Mike Barnard should read this before he attempts to trash Dr. Pierpont for not publishing in a peer reviewed journal:

Carl V. Phillips, “Properly interpreting the epidemiologic evidence about the health effects of industrial wind turbines on nearby residents,” Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, vol. 31, no. 4 (August 2011), pp. 303-315.

Kathryn Muschell said...

The following comment has been posted by Mike Barnard on the original post Re; Dr. Pierpont's letter to Mike Crawley President International Power Canada . http://pandorasboxofrocks.blogspot.com/2012/03/nina-pierponts-letter-to-mike-crawley.html
~~~~~
Mike Barnard has left a new comment on your post "Nina Pierpont's letter to letter to Mike Crawley President International Power Canada .
Mike Barnard said...
Anonymous points to an article by Carl V. Phillips in a non-indexed journal as somehow mitigating the fact that Dr. Pierpont's work was rejected by a credible, peer-published journal despite her 2010 promotion of this publication in many forums.

I'll let the words of Professor Simon Chapman speak about Mr. Philips and the Bulletin from his BMJ response to a Hanning anti-wind guest editorial: http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1527/rr/572780
-------
In their editorial [1] Hanning and Evans cite three papers from a non-indexed journal, the Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society which in August 2011 published an issue dedicated to papers opposed to wind farms. The journal was indexed between 1981-1995 by the Web of Science, but after 1995 indexing ceased, generally a sign that indexing services regard a journal as having fallen below an acceptable scientific standard.

The eight papers in the special Bulletin issue were written by 12 authors. Of these, 7 had given papers at the “First International Symposium: The Global Wind Industry and Adverse Health Effects: Loss of Social Justice?” The conference was an overtly anti-wind farm meeting.
A paper by Krough [6] provides an indication of the abject quality of the papers in that issue. The paper contains no methods section, so fails to conform to the most basic requirement of scientific reporting: that it contain details of how the research reported was undertaken. Instead, the author says that she “began investigating reports of adverse health effects made by individuals living in the environs” of wind turbines in Ontario, Canada for “more than two years”. Instead of describing any research, the author has written a paper which mixes up statements somehow apparently made to her by informants about negative effects of exposure to turbines with similar examples from other parts of the world, from websites and submission to enquiries. We are told nothing about the process by which her informants were interviewed, how they were selected and whether her “study” was approved by any institutional research ethics committee. There is not a single example of any informant reporting anything but adverse effects of exposure to windfarms, when it is widely acknowledged that a large majority of those so exposed report no adverse effects nor complain about turbines.

Hanning and Evans refer to Carl V Philips as an expert epidemiologist. Web of Science shows Philips has published just 10 cited papers (total cites 251). Philips today runs a private “Institute”, the Populi Health Institute, apparently consisting only of him. He testifies on behalf of complainants about wind farms.
July 5, 2012 11:17 AM

Mike Barnard said...

I completely understand why you wouldn't post my remarks not Eric Rosenbloom's material. They completely destroy his arguments with credible, referenced, peer-reviewed arguments.

Unlike yours. Enjoy your echo chamber, and selective posting.

Kathryn Muschell said...

Mr. Barnard,
I am not sure what you are talking about. I have posted every comment that you have made to my blog.