This is a project by WISE and MRSG.
Woodend Integrated Sustainable Energy (WISE) is a not for profit association registered for assisting communities to take responsibility for their energy and carbon future.
Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group. Our Purpose: To create and nurture a sustainable future in the Macedon Ranges. To initiate and promote: opportunities to learn; the sharing of skills and experience; advocacy in support of environmental sustainability and social equity; together with activities that bring revenue into the community and increase employment.
Progress on Community Wind Farm for Macedon Ranges
- Renewable energy is central to addressing climate change and presents a great local opportunity for the Macedon Ranges.
- The Victorian Wind Atlas shows that the Macedon Ranges has excellent wind resources. Other developers have already staked out potential sites for wind in the area but, inspired by HepburnWind, the Macedon Ranges Sustainability Group (MRSG) has been investigating the prospect of a small wind park part-owned by the local community.
- The benefits of a community-owned wind park include:
o retention of income from energy sales within the shire
o a potential source of income for local residents and local sustainability projects
o a local source of energy, providing energy security for the region
o immediate access to clean energy as electricity generated would be fed to local homes via the grid
o avoidance of transmission losses (up to 30%) from energy currently supplied from the Latrobe Valley.
o enhancing the reputation of the Shire as a progressive and active community on climate change
o further inspiration to community groups elsewhere seeking to secure their clean energy future.
- A Leader Newspapers poll has identified the Macedon Ranges as one of the most environmentally-conscious shires in the state. Our celebrated gardens, vistas and natural attractions are evidence of this.
- With this in mind, WISE (the energy project group of MRSG) has worked with industry professionals and local stakeholders for two years to research the most appropriate renewable energy generation facility for the Macedon Ranges.
- We have identified a site with many attractive features, including:
o very high modelled wind speeds
o excellent road access and grid connectivity – reducing project establishment costs
o negligible native flora and fauna issues
o negligible visual amenity impact
- The site offers a low impact, commercially viable, locally-owned, sensitively located, renewable energy asset for the region.
- There is still considerable work to be done. The next step is to erect an anemometer, or wind monitoring mast to accurately measure the site’s potential. We are confident that the project will prove commercially viable and deliver many local benefits.
Questions and Answers
Q. Where is the community wind farm likely to be located?
A. 5-7 kms south of Woodend in the pine forest.
Q What is the fire risk?
A. Extensive research shows no link between wind turbines and fire incidents and the CFA rate wind turbines as “inherently low risk.”
Q. How many turbines are being proposed?
A. Following the Hepburn Model, WISE (and MRSG) wishes to install between two and six 2 MW turbines. Two turbines will generate energy equivalent to that consumed by 2,500 households – roughly equivalent to the townships of Woodend Macedon and Mt Macedon. The site can accommodate up to half a dozen turbines.
Q. Will you be able to see the turbines?
A. From most vantage points the anemometer and, assuming the project proceeds, the turbines cannot be seen. Preliminary modelling suggests that the turbines may be visible from the Calder Freeway.
Q. How much will it cost?
A. The HepburnWind project has cost approximately $12 million for 2 X 2MW turbines. The proximity to the grid and excellent access roads should mean that the cost of the WISEwind project should not exceed this cost. The cost of erecting an anemometer is anticipated to be $70,000.
Q. How will it be paid for?
A. HepburnWind have funded their project from local and individual investors and government grants. WISE are looking at a range of financing options, which enable community ownership while keeping up front capital expenditure and other hurdles to a minimum. A Climate Communities Grant has been secured to help fund the anemometer.
Q. What is the time frame?
A. We intend to erect an anemometer in the next few months to then gather 12 months of real data. If modelling is confirmed by measurement the project would then require a range of impact assessments and planning permits before commencement of works.
Q. What is the threat to local fauna and birds?
A. State and international research suggests that the risk to birdlife is very low. By locating the wind park in a pine forest reduces this risk even further.
Q. Who has to approve the project?
A. WISE has been talking with the state government and the pine forest operator. The erection of an anemometer does not require a permit because it is on crown land. We are however keen to get community support and will be actively engaging with the local community over the next few months.
Bill
March 12, 2011
Great work guys. Best of luck.
One question: One of the reasons that most wind turbines are located in open county is that trees create turbulence. Wind turbines like a smooth air flow. How about your pine trees and air flow?
Barry Mann
March 23, 2011
Hi Bill
The site is located along the Great Divide, and sits above the majority of the pine plantation.
In general, to avoid turbulence, the hub height needs to be around 2.5 times higher than the
surrounding obstacles – the pines are mature and around 30 m in height, so a hub height of 80 m should minimise the problem. Also, the pines are due to be harvested in around 3 years time, and will take another 30 yers to reach maturity. The only reason we havent got an anemometer up there right now is because of the election result and that Hancock Plantations have a very sensitive relationship with the State Govt, and are understandably reluctant to let us in there without some indication of govt support, which we currently trying to get, but it isnt easy! We have a few hundred signatures on a petition, and agreement from most of the residents within 2 km, and we arent giving up until someone with the power to do so says its dead!
regards
Barry Mann
Technical Director, WISE
Gerard
April 22, 2011
Barry you must be joking. I just hope you have very good public liability insurance. To locate a potential fire hazrd withing a pine forest in one of the most bushfire prone areas on earth is just silly. Don’t give me that nonsense about low risk there have been 2 fires in turbines in SA in the last 3 years (unknown cause) to be south of the mount when the sou-wester hits after a 40 degree day is foolhardy!
Cam Walker
April 22, 2011
Thanks, Gerard, for this classic BANANA argument.
Yes, fire risk is a problem in Victoria. So, based on fire statistics, should we ban people from harvesting crops, logging, doing fuel reduction burns, and going camping or using any form of electrical or heavy machinary outside on hot days? There are many reasons we have so many fires, and then theres powerlines, lightening strike, arsonists…
Instead of latching on to the old fire risk argument, it might be wise to look at what actually starts fires.
Of course any wind project needs a fire plan. But any form of energy production has risks associated with them – look at that massive landslip around the open cut in the Latrobe Valley as one current obvious example. Its about assessing risks and managing them, not throwing up our hands and giving up because its all a bit hard.
Simon Holmes a Court
April 23, 2011
Cam, you make a great point referring to crop harvesting. Harvest of cereal crops is generally on the hottest days of the year when the crops represent their highest fuel value. It’s a risk that we manage well, because it is worth managing.
Wind turbines are designed to provide a safe path to ground for lightning. If Gerard No-name really wanted to evaluate fire risk he’d take into account the fact that the proposed turbines will prevent lightning from hitting trees for several kilometres around.
Gerard
April 24, 2011
Simon and Cam you should not increase the risk of fire by placing a turbine in the middle of a pine forest. However I guess the real point is that turbines are next to useless as an energy producer because of their intermittency. I know, I know you will say that the two turbines at Leonards will provide enough electricity for Hepburn and Daylesford, this may be true when the wind blows exactly the right speed, not to hard and not to light – this may be at 3 in the morning when nobody is using it. Cut yourself from the grid and see what the people of Daylsford think then when they get electricity only 23% of the time and who knows at what hour. IF WISE want to erect turnines let them do it at Leonards Hill after it is the same grid.
Gerard
April 24, 2011
I am not refering to ligthting strike I am refering to mechanical failure. You will noitice in the story in the link the fire was noticed at 1am in the morning (by a passing ship) this is potentially disastrous for a location like Macedon Ranges. The fire plan for turbine fires is let them burn out because there is no way to reach it at hub height. Much damage could be done while we wait for the fire burns out spoting molten fibreglass upto 500m and dripping flaming oil on to the ground. Helicopters cannot be used and firefighters will not risked closer than a kilometre to the turbine! The Cathedral Rock fire was preceded by a fire at Lake Bonney and a fire that also occured at the Starfish Hill after. All without explanation – not one caused by lightning strike.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/burning-wind-turbine-starts-fires/story-e6freol3-1111118739534
Gerard
April 29, 2011
This was posted on a website where they were discussing wind turbines by racookpe1978 and I could not make a better argument myself regarding the uselessness of wind a s a power source!
Windmills do NOT add up to anything except a loss – UNLESS (big “unless” there!) – you add in government tax-money subsidies. Without constant government money from the rest of the taxpayers to the green lobby, no windmill makes money.
Wind turbines- on average worldwide – only deliver 21% – 23% of their RATED output. So, to get the “nameplate” rating of ONE windmill, you need to build 5 windmills.
Worse, winds are notoriously random – but the local winds in one area are going to be essentially identical for that region (winds in any 100 km x 100 km square are going to be the same since weather does not vary), so to get even your 5 windmills running even part of the time, you must build them spread out over several tens of thousands of square kilometers, repeating your 5 windmills every 60 km.
So now you must build not 1 windmill, not 5 windmills and a local distribution center and transformer grid, but 10 groups of 5 windmills and 10 distribution centers.
All of this to get the (unreliable) nameplate power of one windmill – part of the time.
Cam Walker
April 29, 2011
Of course, we all pay for our current relience on coal – through, as Gerard puts it, ‘government tax-money subsidies’, but also climate change and ill health and early death in coal communities across the country. Not to mention the handouts to the coal companies (HRL will get $150 million of public funds for their new coal-fired power station).
Strange how you never hear the ‘antis’ getting upset about that.
What about the 150,000 people that the World Health Organisation says already die from climate change each year? Don’t they matter?
Obviously not.
And what about those massive coal mine open cuts, that chew up landscapes for ever? Same story. Relentless silence. At least you can keep farming around a turbine. Try doing that in an open cut.
Antis are so boring.
Gerard
April 29, 2011
The faith inner greens have in useless symbols that have no impact on greenhouse emissions is astounding. If you boring green zealots keep pushing the wind farm line, we will end up with the only alternative base load power source available that is nuclear power and I would rather have a coal fired power station than a nuke. It will down to the FOE and fellow travellers when this occurs. Please don’t exagerate the deaths (which is nonsense by the way) from climate change or global warming or climate disruption or whatever you are calling it this month to bolster your argument,
Cam Walker
April 29, 2011
Gerard, we have never suggested that wind farms are the solution, but they are a necessary part of it (along with PV, solar thermal, geothermal, wave energy and obviously better use of energy, etc) … Its not a simple case of only having wind or something nastier.
And i’m not ‘exagerating’ deaths due to global warming, just quoting the World Health Organisation. But i suppose you don’t trust them either, given the great green/ wind conspiracy you must believe in, if you reckon deaths from climate change are ‘nonsense’.
Cam Walker
April 29, 2011
(and as they say ‘scratch an anti, find a skeptic’. Gerard proves the adage right yet again … it normally only takes 3 or 4 posts before they show their true flat earth colours).
Gerard
April 29, 2011
It does not take long for an inner urban green to start hurling abuse such as flat earther around. As a scientist I totally believe in climate change I even believe that there is some anthropogenic component (although minor). However I repeat wind farms are not and will never be more than a symbolic gesture as they require 100% back up from base load electricity generation whether that be coal or nuclear. Wind turbines make you feel good but do nothing for the environment. The only place turbines can have an impact is in grid isolated communities where they replace diesel generators when the wind blows King Island for example. Operating at best at 23% capacity intermitently makes them useless as a source of reliable electricity.
GerardMickSammyBruce
April 29, 2011
The great thing about this new identity I have just assumed is that I can make stuff up, repeat lies, defame others and impose my myopic and dangerous world view upon you all with no accountability whatsoever.
Cam Walker
April 29, 2011
Gerard, we have this wonderful thing called the energy grid. You might have heard of it? This means we can input energy from various different locations and sources, rather than only be reliant on wind power when the wind blows. The old ‘reliability’ argument kind of misses that point.
And i know you don’t want facts to get in the way of a good story, but i live in Central Vic. Where do you live?
Gerard
April 30, 2011
Cam, you are typical of those of the wind farm faith, you attack the man rather than stick to the facts. Wind turbine facts are that at best they provide additional electricity not replacement electricity because coal fired base load electricty gets continually produced whether the turbine is turning or not (which it isn’t approxiamtely 77% of the time). This means that greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced at all. Does it occur to you that electricity does not get stored in the grid? So for the 23% of the time when the turbines are producing power it is on top of the coal fired base load electricity which can’t be feathered back for what might be an hour or ten minutes or even for 24 hours when a turbine actually works. It would work out OK if you knew when that 23% of the time is but wind is fickle and intermittent. I am always amazed that so called Friends of the Earth are happy to destroy landscapes with 150m tall rotating turbines that have have no impact on fossil fuel use.
Cam Walker
April 30, 2011
Gerard,
might be time to do a web search: ‘the base load myth’ or ‘renewables base load myth’.
Its time to move on …
Happy reading
Gerard
April 30, 2011
I have read much about base load and renewables over the years and while in theory it sounds possible no where in the world is it happening because there is a vast difference between reality and theory. If you truly want to reduce emissions forget useless unreliable and obtrusive turbines and focus on solar or heat pump technology for hot water supply, I know they are not symbolic enough for you and your fellow green disciples but they actually do reduce emissions by reducing consumption.
Cam Walker
May 1, 2011
Gerard,
i’m a big fan of solar and heat pump technology for hot water supply. But thats hardly going to keep the lights on …
We take the approach that we should seek to minimise energy use first (conservation/ efficiency) then look for the best mix of ‘clean’ technology to meet energy needs.
So, solar hot water and heat pumps are part of this mix – like wind is.
Wind farms are not about symbolism. We are primarily active in the wind space at present because of the need to oppose the small but very noisy ‘antis’, who are doing their best to destroy this valuable, job rich industry.
I note you continue to refuse to say where you live. Here in Victoria we have major water stress issues and coal is a massive consumer of water. Wind comes up well on that front as well. Add to it income to land owners, activity for local businesses and income for local Councils and it keeps coming out better than coal or anything nastier, like nukes. We prefer community owned wind and solar projects, but the antis are trying to kill off any chance for further community owned projects here in Vic because of their opposition to wind in populated areas.
Gerard
May 1, 2011
It is true Cam that the wind industry has been its own worst enemy with unscrupulous cowboys proposing wind farms in inappropriate areas. I have always believed that it is a planning issue so I am very supportive of the 2km buffer from homes unless the owner agrees. However the more you investigate wind as an energy source the more you will come to understand that it is not the answer unless in a grid isolated situation or some coastal situations. Port Phillip Bay for example – it has constant gentle winds it is a shallow inlet, the turbines could provide new marine reef habitat and it is surrounded by 3.5 million people so minimal grid losses. But we know that the locals and even your greenie mates of Melbourne would become NIMBYs and oppose any such proposal. Wind will only ever a provide a miniscule and unreliable source of energy. As for the small and noisy ‘antis’ they certainly grow wherever a wind farm is proposed, see everybody thinks a wind farm is great as long as it is not near them. Try proposing 20 or 30 turbines off Port Melbourne (even with a 2km buffer from shore and listen to the roar of protest from the Latte sipping Cafe` set (Green supporters). I do not refuse to say where I live it just seems irrelevant to topic. The water stress we suffer in Victoria is down to poor planning by successive state governmnts and pressure from the Green Lobby against new reservoirs and increasing population. Again to solve the problem we need to think a little more laterally and look at drinking recycled water in Melbourne as most of the people who live in the Murray Darling Basin already do and the people already do without knowing it ( from Sugarloaf Reservoir) Cam you need to walk a mile in the shoes of someone who is threatened by a turbine 600m from their back door before you become high and mighty with your witicisms and criticisms.
Cam Walker
May 1, 2011
I love the idea of wind farms in Port Phillip Bay … i know of at least one on-shore wind project being discussed which would be onshore on the east side of the Bay as well – & i fully support that one. Seems like you’re making a bunch of assumptions about people. And i’m fully with you on the need to better use water (its a crime that we pump 150GL out to sea at Gunnamatta each year).
Unlike the antis, we take a broad approach to enviro issues. Rather than just opposing a particular technology and doing nothing else – as is the case with the landscape guardians – we embrace a range of technologies and economic and political options. No one option will meet all our energy needs … but please look for solutions, instead of just whingeing/ critiquing. So far you’ve said coals better than nukes and we could have some solar powered hot water. What’s the rest of your plan?
Simon Holmes a Court
May 1, 2011
Middelgrunden, possibly the largest community wind farms in the world, is just off-shore in the bay of Copenhagen. It’d be great to have a similar project in Port Philip, however it’d only make sense if the wind resource was exceptional — it costs roughly twice as much to build off-shore. If it made sense, I’d support such a proposal.
Simon Holmes a Court
May 1, 2011
Gerard (presumably not his real name), has made many comments implying that wind is unpredictable. While this might sound reasonable to an armchair philosopher, anyone under the impression that wind variability is unpredictable would do well to educate themselves about the Australian Wind Energy Forecasting System — see http://www.aemo.com.au/electricityops/0260-0007.pdf Page 15 shows that the forecasting system is able to predict wind energy an hour ahead with 99% accuracy, 24 hours ahead with greater than 93% accuracy, and six days ahead with greater than 80% accuracy.
Electricity demand, and therefore supply, varies massively — e.g. it went up by 2 GW this morning in just 2 hours. The NEM is one of the world’s most efficient energy markets and the market’s participants necessarily understand and manage enormous variability in both supply (generation) and demand (consumption).
Most of Gerard’s confused comments on capacity factors, the value of wind energy and baseload power show an embarrasing lack of understanding of the reality of our energy system and are based on debunked theoretical models. Is it any wonder that he is unwilling to reveal his identity?
Gerard
May 1, 2011
Simon your presumptions are incorrect and not relevant to the debate and my understanding of wind energy and its failings are well researched but I would not expect someone that has hung their hat on certain technology to think any differently. You will find out soon enough when Hepburn does not live up to your expectations or projected outputs. I reiterate wind is next to useless for reducing greenhouse gas emissions unless it is in a grid isolated system where it can replace fossil fuel (diesel) generated electricity. I also can assure you that you would lose many supporters if you suggested wind farms in Port Phillip Bay and I can assure you that the wind resource in the Bay is perfect for wind turbines. Bracks and Brumby were very much against any turbines in the Bay as there were to many votes to lose which is the reason they supported wind farms in rural areas remote from the grid with less reliable wind resource because there were less votes to lose and it attractive the inner urban green vote they were at risk of losing to the Greens. Wind Turbines symbolic gestures to inner urban NIMBYs.
Cam Walker
May 1, 2011
There are so many things to respond to in Gerards recent posts, but i will pick just one.
He says that Brumby “supported wind farms in rural areas remote from the grid with less reliable wind resource because there were less votes to lose and it attractive the inner urban green vote they were at risk of losing to the Greens. Wind Turbines symbolic gestures to inner urban NIMBYs.”
If this is the case, then how do you explain the fact that, despite a state wide swing against them (which had nothing to do with wind farms or climate change) the ALP held seats like Rippon – which was the epicentre of the ‘antis’ anti-wind campaign. If wind is just a tonic to the ” inner urban NIMBYs” then how did Joe Helper get back in? The anti wind campaign – which had a lot of noise, heat and angst – was an absolute non event in electoral terms. In fact, astonishingly so.
I often hear the ideological antis say that wind is just a ‘sop’ to get green votes. But in the one place where wind was actually an electoral issue in the November election, in seats like Rippon – the people voted for the party that was facilitating the development of wind energy. How do you explain that one, Gerard?
Gerard
May 1, 2011
Macedon which was also is wind farm hot spot particularly with the announcement just before the election of proposal for Gisborne South had an 8.2% swing against the ALP while the incumbent retained her seat she has seen the writing on the wall and has requested Matthew Guy to apply his 2km buffer to the residents of Hume surrounding the proposal. I guess Joe is also on notice with a 4.2% swing.
Gerard
May 1, 2011
PS I would give up on the term ‘antis’ it makes you sound intolerant! The terms ‘antis’ and ‘pros’ is just silly we are talking about a serious issue that is really just an issue of planning.
Cam Walker
May 1, 2011
“green zealots. Latte sipping Cafe set . Urban NIMBYs”.
These are all your words Gerard. Maybe you should practise what you preach, would hate it for you to sound intolerant.
Gerard
May 1, 2011
They were only in response to flat earth remarks. I think the remarks are fairly accurate unlike your accusation which is fairly derogoratory as well as inaccurate.
Simon Holmes a Court
May 1, 2011
Gerard, what is your prediction for Hepburn Wind’s capacity factor? And while we are on the topic, what capacity factor are you predicting from turbines in Port Phillip?
Gerard
May 1, 2011
I predict that the turbines will operate in the range of 16-23% of its nameplate capacity. Port Phillip Bay Turbines would operate at around 30% with minimal grid loss.
Leeroy
May 2, 2011
I would love to see turbines in the bay for it would improve my view of the Westgate Bridge, Newport Power Station, Williamstown’s Oil Storage Tanks, the Naval Dockyards and Coode Island.
I would also like to look down on a few wind turbines from the top of Mt Macedon or Hanging Rock than see the continued explosion of hobby farms and MacMansions.
Gerard
May 2, 2011
Leeroy there may be some point if only they worked and of course if they were placed 2km from the nearest home!
sammy davidson
May 2, 2011
If Hepburn wind would publish the wind speed data we would have a much better idea simon!
steve buckle
May 2, 2011
the idea of anyone signing up to dodgy wind turbine contracts is a joke, just visit spacountryguardians.org.au to see such dodgy contracts that leave landholders in a hole. holes a court I hope mummy has left you a large monthly allowance to cover legal actions
ryan mason
May 2, 2011
its a sad day to think people believe its fine to wreck small rural communities which such out dated junk like wind turbines
Cam Walker
May 2, 2011
I am a big fan of political organising, so full marks to the antis for actually organising a few people to write some negative posts tonight.
Its a shame that its narrow minded fear that drives it all …
Cam Walker
May 2, 2011
oh, what an embarrassing sham!
As i was approving those posts from the last few hours seemingly written by a range of people opposed to wind energy, i realised they all come from the same IP address (even though the email addresses are all different). So, we have to assume that Steve Buckle, Austin McCrabb, Garth Thames, Joanne Higgins, Pete Babcock, ryan mason are all the one person.
I have been badgering Gerard, Sammy and others to say who they are/ where they are from/ what their affiliations are for some time now. They all refuse to do so. Its interesting to note that all of a sudden the 6 people who have started to post this evening within an hour of each other all have surnames (seems like whoever was behind this was feeling a little bit vulnerable on the issue of being anonymous?).
Given the focus on Hepburn and Tuki wind farms, its starting to suggest a few likely candidates behind this scam.
Unless these people – plus Gerard, Sammy and Mick fess up to who they are, future posts from them will not be approved. We have never refused to approve a post (except for some outright libelous and violent ones). But to engage on this site does require a basic sense of honesty. If a few people aren’t prepared to show that respect, their posts will not be approved in future.
As ‘Joanne’ says in ‘her’ post: “what a poor lot you really are!” (or as my kids say ‘sprung bad!’).
Gerard
May 2, 2011
No one likes to be scammed Cam and I can understand your hurt feelings. But I would think that anybody who knows the history of wind farms in Victoria would know the name of Steve Buckle. He is the founder of WindPower Australia and worked with David Shapero so he would be unlikely to be a so called ‘anti’. If as you say you can see the email addresses of correspondents you already have all of my details you need. I guess you are not really interested in debate or somebody questioning your total faith.
cheers Gerard
Alex Grew
May 2, 2011
OK, so this is the mentality behind the new Victorian wind farm policy! Has anyone ever met a rational, open minded and educated anti-wind campaigner? What’s their name?
Cam Walker
May 3, 2011
There have been a few more posts this morning, supposedly from more than one person, but from the same IP Address so i won’t be approving those ones.
How tragic that someone has to make up imaginary friends to try and prove a point …
Peter Johnson
May 3, 2011
It is unfortunate that people need to fake posts when the failure of wind farms as an energy source is plain for all to see. Come on guys the facts are there. It would not surprise me if a pro wind farm person is trying to shut down comment.
Cam Walker
May 3, 2011
“It would not surprise me if a pro wind farm person is trying to shut down comment”.
We are happy to announce that the winner of todays’ Bizarre Conspiracy Theory award goes to Peter Johnson.
Congratulations Peter. Yes, i’m sure that pro wind campaigners are setting up lots of imaginary email accounts and posing as anti-wind campaigners on this website, in order to appear greatly mis informed so as to make anti-wind campaigners look bad, and hence ‘shut down’ comment. Gee, i wish we had thought of that one.
You may be interested to know that we have just discovered that a UFO landed at Leonard’s Hill and that Hepburn Wind is actually entirely financed by aliens.
David Clarke
May 3, 2011
You have proven a suspicion I’ve had for quite a while Cam. There’s a link between those people who believe they have been abducted by aliens (your Leonards Hill UFO) and all the people who believe they have been made ill by wind turbines. Why else whould the aliens finance Hepburn Wind?
Peter Johnson
May 3, 2011
There are three answers David: The aliens were financed by the AMA, they want to see how foolish we earthlings are to think that greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by wind turbines and they want wreck our landscape.