Huge wind farm in New Zealand canned

Editor:  First I wish to thank a reader – Norma,  from South Africa for sending me this information.

Since 2006 I have been educating people on wind farms and the scam of MMGW. Unfortunately ever time I brought up the fact that wind farms are a fraud as is MMGW, I ended up being shunned by others fighting wind farms. They never wanted to deal with the fraud of MMGW even though without MMGW there was no case to build wind farms.

While I have fought to bring truth to the table, the vast majority fighting wind farms have remained under the delusion that “we need to embrace renewable energy” and “we just want the turbines sited farther from our homes”

Had those fighting wind farms pushed the “real truth” to the forefront the threat of wind farms would have be crushed  long ago.

From my earliest posts I have always put the truth forward, concerning Wind Farms, MMGW and the people connected to these scams which threaten both  the people of this country and the world.

Fighting  the industry, govt. and the “wind fighters” has been a long and draining experience but hopefully this article from New Zealand will give those in Ont., Canada and the World the strength they need to beat back both the fraud of Wind Farms and MMGW.


The New Zealand
Climate Science Coalition
Hon Secretary, Terry Dunleavy MBE, 14A Bayview Road, Hauraki, North
Shore City 0622
Phone (09) 486 3859 – Mobile 0274 836688 – Email –

13 November 2009   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Huge wind farm in New Zealand canned on environmental, economic and
“climate change” grounds

Project Hayes was a 630 MW wind farm proposed for an upland plateau in

Central Otago in the South Island of New Zealand. An appeal to the

Environment Court has resulted in a judgement revoking the consent

granted about two years ago under New Zealand’s Resource Management Act.Several groups of local residents appealed the original consent on the

grounds that it would destroy an area of outstanding natural beauty. A

businessman from Auckland with property in Central Otago appealed on the

grounds that it was seriously uneconomic compared to alternative

generation and that, because fears of dangerous man-made global warming

were not supported by the evidence, there was no grounds to build it to

“fight climate change”. As expert witnesses, he engaged Professor Bob

Carter, Professor Chris de Freitas and Dr Kesten Green to put the case

that there were no grounds for believing in dangerous man-made global

warming and Bryan Leyland, a very experienced power systems engineer, to

demonstrate that wind power was expensive and an “uneconomic use of

resources”The hearing was held before four Commissioners at the Environment Court

where expert witnesses from both sides presented evidence and argued the

costs and benefits both for and against the wind farm over a period of

nearly two years.

In consideration of climate change matters under Section 7 of the Act,
the court listened carefully to arguments countering the IPCC
“projections” of impending dangerous man-made global warming put forward
by Carter, De Freitas and Green. However, their conclusion was that the
government had decreed that it believed in dangerous man- made global
warming, so they had to accept this decree. But the decision leaves open
the possibility that, as a result of the evidence presented, they gave
less weight to Meridian’s claimed climate change benefits than they
would otherwise have done.


Bryan Leyland presented evidence on the cost of wind farms worldwide and
presented a detailed economic analysis that showed that the cost to the
consumer of the power generated was about twice the cost of alternatives
like hydropower, geothermal or coal. When cross questioned on the
economics of the project he finally said: “If it cost half as much and
the wind blew strongest in the autumn instead of springtime, I would be
all for it.”

The 350 page judgement was delivered after nine months of deliberation
by the Court. The judgement acknowledged the outstanding value of the
landscape and loss of this value if the wind farm was built. The other
major component of the decision revolved around the magnitude of the
economic benefit to people and communities from building this wind farm
compared to alternatives. The court was very critical of the lack of
economic analysis undertaken by Meridian Energy, the promoters of the
project, and commented that “We find it extraordinary that in a $2
billion project more effort was not made by Meridian to value more of
the costs and benefits much more thoroughly. It is even more remarkable
that two governments endorsed the proposal without insisting that
Meridian carried out a cost benefit analysis, or requesting Treasury to
do so.”

The judgement of the Commissioners was three to one against the project.
The fourth commissioner, in a supplementary statement, said that “I come
down on the side of the Meridian’s proposal, albeit by a small margin”.

For New Zealand, this decision raises the bar for all other wind farm
proposals and implies that without a comprehensive and detailed economic
analysis on national terms, they will not be approved. As Bryan Leyland
demonstrated, such an economic analysis will show that wind farms in New
Zealand cannot compete with alternative forms of generation even if a
reasonable allowance is made for a carbon tax in one form or another.

For wind energy globally, the judgement drives home the fact that wind
farms embedded in major power systems are seriously uneconomic because
of high costs, an even lower capacity factor than is achieved in New
Zealand, the need for backup generation and for additional transmission
lines. All these wind farms are uneconomic and are commercially viable
because of only massive consumer funded subsidies. It also demonstrates
that if a wind farm is opposed on well supported environmental, economic
and climate change grounds, success is more likely.


Enbridge wind farm Kincardine




3 thoughts on “Huge wind farm in New Zealand canned

  1. I cant believe the government decreed there was dangerous mmgw and that the commission accepted this as evidence of mmgw how stupid is that havnt they minds of their own

  2. The only rational motivation for the development of ‘alternative’ energy systems it to offset the inevitable decline in availability of fossil resources.

    In the very broadest sense, it would constitute a preemptive attempt to sustain the benefits of our modern industrial civilization in the absence of it’s primary resource base, i.e. fossil energy, which gave rise to such an industry of mass scale in the first place.

    These attempts are clearly based upon false premises, as any ‘viable’ alternative energy system remains dependant upon the very fossil based infrastructure it is purportedly designed to eliminate.

    There is no pilot project anywhere on the planet where an urban settlement of any substantial size is sustained by renewable sources, yet this remains the ‘vision’ of the future which the clean air
    proponents insist we buy into, with both our faith and our tax dollars.
    There is even talk of an entire country (in this case, Germany) being ‘100% renewable’ by such and such a date.
    These people are out of their (green) tree, and fail to understand that whatever has been achieved has been at massive subsidiary expense, both in terms of tax DM’s and indirect fossil inputs.
    Windmills and solar panels do not have an unlimited service life, the entire energy system must be rebuilt every 25 years or so, and if such cannot be achieved solely with a portion of the output of such a system, it renders the much vaunted ‘sustainability’ of renewables meaningless.

    The issue of AGW, or MMGW is irrelevant, as no country with significant and remotely accessible fossil reserves is going to leave the stuff in the ground.
    Wherever it is to be found, is going to get drilled for, pumped (or crushed) and the distillate burned regardless of whatever politicians decide.
    The only difference will be how much it is going to cost and who is going to pocket the money, i.e. a
    100% political issue unrelated to either the environment or science.

    Often neglected is that the fossil condensate forms the basis of petrochemicals, which account for the very existence of much of modern technology.
    This technology will gradually disappear from mass application, and eventually altogether.
    The very polymers used in the manufacture windmill blades and solar panels depend not only upon petrochemical feedstock but an underlying fossil dependant infrastructure.

    If windfarm construction cannot be justified by sustainability, environmental or otherwise, then it must lie with cost/benefit alone, which is clearly not valid.

    Long term, these monstrosities, like the statues of Easter Island, will remain as a testament to human folly as they stare out to sea in blind silence.
    The inhabitants will conceivably have neither means nor motivation to move them as they slowly corrode and tumble into the sea and into history.

  3. It is amazing how far people will go to believe in the green movement. I still maintain that once the initial 5-6 year period of the windfall in the money is over and the government subsidies stop, the fields of windmills will be abandend an we the people left with the shards. I have yet to read an articlefrom the government or the contracters that are building these things on the feasability of the long term maintenace program and how they are going to sustain the long term costs. Our tax dollar is paying dearly for a reletively short term use of the alternative energy. As a people we will not learn to use wisely what GOD has given us , in knowledge and in resources. Will we ever learn?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s