- Changes to our website.
- Faulty Solar Panels Are Burning Buildings
- Solar Farm Fire Burns 1,127 Acres
- Renewable Energy Storage Systems Literally Setting The World On Fire
- After 30 years of failed Climate Politics, let’s try Science!
- Wind and Solar Potentially Aren't Climate Cure-Alls
- Food vs Fuel
- Moreau, NY, Planning Board wants farmland protected from solar panels
- North Carolina Lawmakers Warn of Solar Farm Cleanup Costs
- The Real Reason You Don't Hear Neighbors Complain About Solar Farms
Have you ever wondered why it is so hard to find neighbors from complaining about having solar farms being built next to their property.
Well, in many cases, just follow the money. It turns out that solar companies are paying neighbors off, to keep them from complaining. There are even cases where Solar Companies have bought neighbors property for top dollars, in order to stop a lawsuit from shedding light on the problems and complaints.
So, the question many of us should be asking is WHY are solar companies so determined to spend such large amounts of money around, just to keep citizens from complaining about having an Industrial Solar Plant next door?
If you are not familiar with the term “Industrial Solar Project” vs a “Solar Farm”, let me explain. There is no difference. Many people will refer to them as a Solar Farm, however, they are not farming, or growing crops. When you take from 1,000 acres to over 10,000 acres of good farm land or forests and use dozers to convert it over to land that you can use to install tens of thousands or even millions of solar panels, you are not GROWING anything and the only thing you are RAISING will be the electrical rates for every home in our country.
Now, as to an example of how solar companies keep neighbors quiet about how devastating these Industrial Solar Plants are, we are including a portion of a Good Neighbor Agreement that is currently being used.
Solar Farm Good Neighbor Agreements
These are legal gag orders, paying off neighbors and preventing them from making any complaints about solar farms or industrial solar plants.
Below is the partial text of an actual Neighbor Agreement that was offered by a solar farm developer.
D. The Owner is eligible for this Agreement because *** has determined that the Project Property is located on *** or more sides of the Owner`s residential Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
Owner shall fully support and cooperate with ***`s development, construction, and operation of the Project, including in ***`s efforts to obtain from any governmental authority or any other person or entity any environmental impact review, permit, entitlement, approval, authorization, or other rights necessary or convenient in connection with the Project. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in connection with any application by *** for a governmental permit, approval, authorization, entitlement or other consent related to the Project, Owner agrees not to oppose, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, any such application or approval at any administrative, judicial, or legislative level.
All terms in this Section 2 shall be subject to Owner complying with this Agreement. *** shall pay Owner a signing payment of Two Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($2,000.00) within 45 days after the Effective Date. Within 45 days of the date when *** begins construction of vertical improvements for the Project and is diligently pursuing construction of the Project (such date being the "Construction Commencement Date"), *** shall pay Owner a one-time additional payment of Fifteen Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($15,000.00).
Owner shall hold in confidence all information related to this Agreement and the Project (collectively, the "Confidential Information"). Owner shall not use any such Confidential Information for its own benefit, publish or otherwise disclose such Confidential Information to others, or permit the use of such Confidential Information by others for their benefit or to the detriment of ***. Owner may disclose Confidential Information to brokers, accountants and attorneys so long as such parties agree to not disclose the Confidential Information.
8. Successors and Assigns.
All provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of *** and Owner, and their respective successors, assigns, heirs, and personal representatives. *** may freely assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without Owner`s prior written consent; provided, however, that any such assignee is an owner or operator of the Project.
If you would like to see the complete document, please click on the link below.
All names have been removed in order to protect the citizens involved in disclosing this information.
However we intentionally left the dollar amount in, so that any Judas that is willing to sell out their neighbors and community for 30 pieces of silver, as least knows they can get more then 10 or 20 pieces of silver.
Personally, I can not imagine taking cash in return for selling out my children’s and grandchildren’s right to complain or voice their opposition to any dangers or problems that may occur as a result of having a solar farm next to their home for the next 30 or 50 years.
We will be posting this on multiple websites and social media platforms so that other elected officials may learn how to support the voters instead of big corporate donors.
Senator says Solar Project Warrants Investigation
From Pennsylvania Senator Doug Mastriano
I have become increasingly alarmed about the lack of transparency regarding the proposed solar panel project in Mount Joy Township, Adams County.
Citizens are frustrated because they feel their voices are not being heard at the local level.
As a state lawmaker, it is important to understand that state officials do not get involved in local land-use matters. However, transparency is paramount – and we need some sunshine in Mount Joy Township.
If approved, a proposed massive industrial solar power plant will cover 1000 acres of prime farmland with 21 miles of eight-foot high barb wire fencing. Additionally, there will be more than 300,000 12-foot high rotating hazardous solar panels. These solar panels will have to be cleaned on a regular basis with well water. As a staunch environmental advocate, this could be devastating, as the project has the possibility of contaminating thousands of private homeowners’ water for the next 35 years.
This can have devastating consequences on local residents by unleashing cancer and toxins into the environment.
It is my understanding that state agencies are aware of the concerns that have been raised by township citizens, and those departments are investigating the project.
Hopefully, the investigation will be swift and thorough.
Answers are necessary.
https://senatormastriano.com/2020/11/19 ... euR10mwagY
Not all houses are homes.
By David H.
Since some people that choose to live in a condo or apartment do not seem to understand why certain individuals living in the country might be against having a solar farm next door to them, I thought I would take a few moments to share my personal perspective.
Like many young people of today, I was raised by a single parent. As such, my mother did not have enough money to buy a house, so we lived in rented apartments and houses.
Like most rental places, the ones I grew up living in were located “in cities.” The towns and cities I lived in as a child were located in the northeastern part of the U.S.A. and many of the buildings around us were so close together that a person could literally reach out the window and touch hands with a neighbor that was also reaching out their window.
Due to many of the experiences life throws at a person, once I became old enough to drive, I knew that I wanted to get out of the city and experience a more peaceful and quiet type of existence. However, I also knew that would take a certain amount of money, so I ended up getting a job driving a semi-truck from coast to coast.
That job allowed me to be alone, earn a descent wage, have a safe bed to sleep in every night and allow me to see and experience the entire country, all wrapped up in one package.
After spending years living out of a truck and saving my money, I finally found what I “thought” would be the perfect location to “BUILD” my own home.
The location was perfect for my wants and needs. I can lay outside at night and enjoy the silence as I would gaze up at the stars, without any city lights or other distractions taking away the beauty of the night time light shows.
The morning view is also breathtaking as I can look out the window of my sunroom and see nothing but the beauty of nature with it’s grasses waving in the breeze and the trees off in the distance that have become my calendar to show me what season it is by the color and size of their leaves.
I am a lucky man, because I am able to enjoy the fruits of my labor. I don’t just live in a building. I CREATED a home. I designed it. I picked out the materials I wanted to use in it’s creation. I paid for it.
I even worked the land by building multiple ponds and stocked them with various types of game fish, as well as planting fruit trees, a garden for vegetables and even flower beds.
In creating those ponds, I also created watering holes for ducks and geese as they fly over my property each year, as well as attracting deer, turkeys, turtles, heron and other types of wildlife on a regular basis, that put on a great show and education for me as well as my wife, children and grandchildren.
This is not just a home. It is a creation. It is a dream come true. It is my baby and a major part of my life. But my dream home and my lifelong creation is about to come to an end.
Over the decades, other homes have also been built within the view of my property and I appreciate having neighbors and the added security, but now I am faced with a new neighbor that I am not real happy about.
When corrupt or uninformed politicians allow greedy industrial solar developers to come into what is zoned as a farming and residential neighborhoods and destroy our property values, cause erosion that will flood my property and kill my fish, install products that have a history of creating fires and contain toxic hazardous chemicals that can be contaminate the ground water, fence off my property on all four sides, thus blocking off wildlife from my watering holes, install security lights all the way around my home, cause me to pay for these fake green energy projects that cause more contamination then other energy sources by using my tax money and raising my electric rates to help pay for the new high transmission lines, I would say that in my mind, I have every right to be upset by the betrayal of my elected officials on a local, state and federal level.
Click the image above to open it larger in a new tab.
It discusses “ There are THREE main areas involved in returning solar facilities back to productive agricultural activities.
First there is the cost of the removal of equipment including the solar panels, the support structure, wiring, concrete stands, inverters, poles, fencing and buffer vegetation.
Second is mitigation of any heavy meal or herbicide residues.
Finally, there are the coast of restoring the soil properties that are essential to supporting crop productivity.
Each of these area involves the expenditure of time and money in order to restore the site to farmland.
Written by Dean Cervenka
ACTION REQUESTED for all Pulaski County residents, homeowners, and land owners. Solar developers are locking up farm land throughout the county for solar panel installations.
This is done very discretely and the landowner, once signing up their land for 30 years, is also signing a non-disclosure contract. So you may not have been aware of the scope of the project until recently, like I was.
The developer also can extend the contract for 30 year increments, effectively removing the ground from agricultural production forever and the land owner has little control of the ground. Our farm declined these offers.
However, do not assume the farmland out your window or next to your property will stay the same. If you are contemplating buying a home, farm ground, or land in Pulaski County you should also do the research to make sure you will not be surrounded by solar panels in the next couple years. Declining property values already are a concern just based on the recent knowledge that Pulaski County is being converted to a large solar energy plant. Why invest in Pulaski Counties rural ground, homes, small business and the community when solar panels may change the rural landscape that is so hard to find?
Solar panels, invertors, and substations will be on 4,500 acres if the county BZA approves this first project and there is more farm ground being signed up and rumored to be up to 12,000 acres already.
The developer states the plant will produce and export 500MW (up to 1000MW) of power and of course this energy is not for Pulaski County. Land owners are selling out their ground for leases ranging from $1000-$1500 per acre per year with no regard for the long term effect on their neighbors, community, and their own farm ground. The money driving them is a significant lure.
Ag zoning was in place to protect agricultural ground, however, the county planning board, BZA and commissioners are driving through this exception. The Pulaski County ordinances, as written and reviewed, are not strong enough to protect the community and the land. That is one primary reason why Pulaski County is a prime target for these Solar Energy developers.
Go out and contact all of your surrounding neighbors and county officials, and ask if they have signed up their farmland to these solar plants.
If this concerns you… and it should… then attend the Pulaski County BZA meeting on this Monday, August 24th in the Winamac Highway Garage and ask the BZA to decline this exception to turn over 4,500 acres of tillable ground to an unproven solar developer.
This is in your hometown and backyard and will effect the community for generations by loss of prime farm ground, small business, and agricultural jobs. Get involved now as this may be your last chance!
See research at Pulaski County Against Solar Facebook site.
Another real concern is the vast increase in the use of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) in the construction of solar panels – up 1,057 percent over the past 25 years. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change deems NF3 to be 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas – meaning that even relatively minor quantities can have major impacts."
Another site States:
Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of electricity generated than nuclear power plants, according to a Thursday report from the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress (EP).
“There are two types of waste from solar. Waste from the manufacturing scene and waste from the solar panel after it has gone through its useful life. There are materials in those that if they leached out, it wouldn’t be good.”
A Third Site claims:
1. Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.
2. If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the waste is stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).
3. In countries like China, India, and Ghana, communities living near e-waste dumps often burn the waste in order to salvage the valuable copper wires for resale. Since this process requires burning off the plastic, the resulting smoke contains toxic fumes that are carcinogenic and teratogenic (birth defect-causing) when inhaled
On April 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit against a Solar Farm Developer alleging “irreparable harm” caused by the polluting of a River and damage to protected wetlands.
The lawsuit claims the solar developer violated Federal and State water protection laws during the construction of an 18.5 acre solar farm.
Stormwater pollution is regulated under a variety of federal Clean Water Act permits and is recognized as the largest threat to water quality. By not having the legally required storm-water controls, the construction caused “sediment-laden storm-water to erode the hillside, effecting perennial and intermittent streams, uprooting trees and covering more then an acre of new sediment pollution in the river, thus causing irreparable damage to the river.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, sediment pollution is the “MOST” significant way water quality in streams and rivers is degraded and this lawsuit claims the food chain for various fish has been damaged by killing organisms on which certain fish depend on.
The director of the project development, told town officials that the soil was good for avoiding runoff and that no trees would have to be cut to make way for the solar arrays.
However, some time later, once the construction had already started, minutes from a local Conservation Commission meeting acknowledged the area for the solar project needed to be graded. At that point, an engineering plan for a terraced approach was proposed.
Around 6 months later, a local resident presented a photo to the Conservation Commission, showing some of the damage caused by the storm drainwater and informed the commission that some of the ditches had reached a depth of 20 feet and contained full grown trees.
This is another example of individuals, companies and even “some” elected officials, seem to care more about the money they can make by supporting the “Green energy movement” then actually protecting the land, water, homes, nature and wildlife they are destroying.
For more information, click HERE and/or HERE
Here is another reason NOT to install Solar Farms near residential neighborhoods.
In May of 2019 the First US Cyber Attack Against a Solar and Wind Energy Company took place in Utah.
It turns out that some components used to monitor and control the systems, including converting the electricity over from DC voltage to AC voltage, can be controlled via the Internet.
In this day and age, all of us know about computer viruses and some of us even have a bit of knowledge concerning hacking and Botnets.
Well, it turns out that in California, there have been solar panels installed that contained “open WIFI access points” found on the Management Units (MMU), allowing anyone within range to connect to the network.
Other problems that were discovered involved access that would allow individuals to “ make configuration changes that would alter maximum tolerances and limits, or even shut down systems.
Could some of those changes potentially cause the system to overheat and cause a short and even a fire?
In another case, a researcher from Germany found 21 security flaws in solar power systems. Some of them were within the power inverters that feed the local energy into the national grid. These flaws could also be exploited by accessing an internet facing inverter from the other side of the world allowing someone to control the amount of energy going through an electric grid and even shutting it down.
In 2006, a 5 gigawatt shortage in Germany caused left then 10 million people in the dark across Europe, including Paris and Madrid having to spend hours without power.
These current security flaws could cause a 17 gigawatt shortage if hackers take controal of a large number of inverters and switch them off simultaneously.
If you have any information relating to other solar or wind sites discovering security flaws, please share that information with our group.
A former leading green campaigner, Michael Shellenberger, previously one of Time magazine’s ‘Heroes of the Environment’ says he “cried wolf” on climate change, and wants to apologise for how environmentalists “misled the public”.
Michael Shellenberger is an American author, environmental policy writer, cofounder of Breakthrough Institute and founder of Environmental Progress. He was named a Time magazine Heroes of the Environment, winner of the 2008 Green Book Award
Writing in The Australian, Michael Shellenberger said that “on behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.”
He points out that he has been a climate activist for twenty years, and an environmentalist for 30. But now, in a blunt and hard-hitting article he tackles some of the most hallowed tenets of the climate movement.
Shellenberger claims that humans are “not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction'”, the world is producing 25% more food than we need, carbon emissions are in decline, and that fires have “declined 25% around the world since 2003”. ]
He argues that this will sound like “climate denialism” to many people – but says “that just shows the power of climate alarmism”.
“In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and other leading scientific bodies,” he writes in The Australian.
He is at pains to point out that he is no “right-wing anti-environmentalist”, saying he first became an environmentalist at 16 and has worked to protect the planet and indiginous people for decades.
“But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilisation, and called it a ‘crisis’,” he wrote.
“But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”
He writes that he watched “people in the White House and many in the media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke Jr, a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favour of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.”
Here is additional information from Michael Shellenberger's Statement.
Sorry But I Cried Wolf On Climate Change
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.
But as an energy expert asked by the US congress to provide objective testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to serve as a reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.
Here are some facts few people know:
• Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
• The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
• Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003
• The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
• The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
• Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s
• The Netherlands became rich, not poor, while adapting to life below sea level
• We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
• Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
• Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels, and
• Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, “industrial” agriculture.
I know the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and other leading scientific bodies.
Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s co-operatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.
I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $US90bn into them. Over the past few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.
But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilisation, and called it a “crisis”.
But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.
I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke Jr, a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favour of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse. But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “climate change kills children”.
The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilisations”. Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world”, and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.
As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.
Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.
I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence. And so my formal apology for our fearmongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s.
It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialisation, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.
Some highlights from the book:
• Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
• The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
• The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium
• 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent
• We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
• Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent
• Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
• “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions
• Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon, and
• The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.
Why were we all so misled? In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable”. And status anxiety, depression and hostility to modern civilisation are behind much of the alarmism.
Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavoury motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it. The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop. The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.
But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.
A real crisis
The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.
Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicisation of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform. Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.
Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.
The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilisation is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilisation that climate alarmists would return us to.
The invitations from IPCC and congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science, Tom Wigley.
“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love’: a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”
That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist and progressive felt the need to speak out against the alarmism. I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.
According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the volume of solar projects is expected to fall 30 percent or more in 2020. With more than $100 billion spent already, less than 10 percent of our energy comes from the wind and the sun.
Read more at:*" target="_blank">https://issuesinsights.com/2020/05/27/note-to-congress-do-not-try-to-rescue-the-solar-industry/?utm_source=whatfinger]*[/link] https://issuesinsights.com/2020/05/27/note-to-congress-do-not-try-to-rescue-the-solar-industry/?utm_source=whatfinger
A LLC is used to protect the person or people behind it so their personal assets can not at risk. However in recent years some attorneys are now using the Alter Ego premise in order to pierce the corporation veil.
The goal of piercing the corporation veil is to go after the person or people BEHIND the company personally. In other words, if the individuals behind the solar companies, discover their personal assets are in danger, they are more apt to settle a lawsuit.
The following idea can be beneficial when going after smaller, privately held companies rather then major corporations that have tons of attorneys.
A rational for piercing the corporation veil is based on what is known as alter ego liability. What this means is that when an individual and a company are so closely linked that they should not be viewed as separate entities for legal purposes, the shield against personal liability will not be applied.
Over the years, courts have enumerated dozens of factors that should be considered in making this determination. Some of those examples mentioned frequently in the cases include: (1) commingling of funds and other assets, (2) the treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation as his own, (3) the failure to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records, (4) the use of the same office or business location, employment of the same employees and/or attorney, (5) the failure to adequately capitalize a corporation, and (6) the use of a corporation for a single venture.
The key points here are (4) the use of the same office or business location, employment of the same employees and/or attorney, and (6) the use of a corporation for a single venture.
One case in point is a Solar Company that we are currently investigating. The owner and founder of the primary company has a large ego and he likes publicity.
That is a big mistake, because it was easy to find his name listed as an executive, CEO, Founder or Member of at least 12 other companies all using the same address.
Plus, every time he “proposes” a new project, he opens a new LLC specifically for that new town or area.
By using the same “office address”, “board members”, attorney and employees in multiple LLC’s, the board members, have all opened themselves up to risking their personal assets, in the event of a lawsuit.
That gives many individual groups trying to stop solar farms from being built, leverage against certain board members and once the board members personal assets are at risk, they are much more likely to settle any lawsuit and decide to NOT build a solar farm in a particular neighborhood.
Two other ideas that may help local groups fight the big money.
One idea is to find a written example of a lawsuit filed in an attempt to stop a solar farm from being built, then have everyone in your group copy the basics file their own individual lawsuit. By filing the lawsuit yourself, you do not have to pay an attorney and the idea is that if a company gets 30, 50 or 100 separate lawsuits, they just may want to avoid the bad publicity and give up trying to build a solar farm in your area.
The second idea is to link up with other groups, anywhere in the world and gather names of other protesters, in order to start filing class action lawsuits against solar companies, even AFTER they have built the solar farms. If enough large class action lawsuits are filed and won, other solar companies will look harder to find locations that are not close to residential neighborhoods.
This fight against solar farms is going to last for decades. Many people have given up their fight and that just makes it harder for those individuals that are still facing the prospect or will face the prospect of loosing their neighborhood farms to the ugly solar or wind farms.
So, keep fighting. If not for yourself, do it for your children, grandchildren and future generations.
For more information on Piercing The Veil Click HERE
According to the company, around two thirds of the energy created by one of their large sites is lost when it is transported.
A Television station in the UK interviewed Tim Dobson from Switch 2 Renewable, a solar company and he claimed, the networks can’t rely on renewable energy that goes up and down.
He also claimed that between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock, when they really need capacity, they rely on other sources.
So, if a major portion of the solar energy is lost when it is transported and it is not reliable during peak times, this raises the question as to WHY so many governments are spending tax payer money supporting grants and giving money to solar developers.
Keep in mind, it is the developer that gets the money from the Government, then many times they will sell the solar farms to another company and many times that will be a company from China.
Since no business can sustain operating at a financial loss for an extended period of time, someone needs to find out WHY these farms are being built, if they will not last for an extended time, if it cost more to build them then they are worth and who is really profiting from having them built all over the world?
Is having solar energy really more important then having food? I ask this because it is impossible to have food and solar power plants on the same area of land. We know we need food, but there are alternatives to throwing money away on solar farms.
Cows are being killed by electricity travelling through the ground, farmers claim
French farmer says hundreds of cows being killed by solar panels and wind turbines
Cattle in Brittany began losing weight and eventually died so land was tested
Electrical current was said to be found coming thought the earth and the water
Read the entire story at: Hundreds of Dead Cows
It’s about time that Americans, as well as the citizens of other countries start organizing, in order to fight back against the multi-million dollar corporations and free government subsidies that are destroying crop land and the woodland homes of various types of wildlife.
Beside the dangers of placing thousands of solar panels in areas where they can blind the drivers of vehicles driving down the roads, fence off farmlands and woodlands that was once a food source for all type of wildlife, create fire hazards that can release toxic chemicals, cause erosion and possibly even the death of certain animals such as cattle, they are a blight on the countryside that was once a source of natural beauty containing the vibrant beauty of a wide mixture of living creations.
If you know of any other organizations or websites that are dedicated to helping the citizens of other towns, states or countries protect their farmland, woodlands or neighborhoods from commercial solar farms, please share that information with us.
In the meantime, if you would like to check out the nonprofit group from Virginia, according to their website, they claim, “they are group of concerned citizens, recently organized as a 501(c)(4)-status pending IRS approval, is a grassroots movement that grew out of what we saw was the destruction of the rural Virginia landscape. Our goal is to educate the public on the negative impact of utility-scale solar on farmlands, woodlands, and the surrounding communities.”
You can check them out at: Citizens For Responsible Solar
Recently, media outlets from Japan to Norway have raised questions around fire safety and solar panels. Even when fires occur for reasons unrelated to solar panels, these modules can in fact play a role in both the intensity and speed of a spreading blaze.
A 2018 UK government report, which investigated 80 solar panel fires, found that 58 instances were caused by the photovoltaic system itself. The study notes that some of these fires took place in buildings, while others occurred on solar farms.
These incidents resulted in over a dozen injuries and three fatalities.
The report concluded that 38 instances escalated to ‘serious fires’ however only 22 of these were directly caused by the solar panels.
Furthermore, the majority of these fires originated in DC isolators with “the most likely cause of fire as electrical arcing”. Electrical arcing is the electrical breakdown of a gas that produces a prolonged electrical discharge leading to combustion. Effectively, the fire will start by a live wire sending electricity into the air. The temperature of an arc flash can reach several thousands of degrees Celsius.
All mechanical equipment deteriorates over time, which means there is an increased fire risk in older panels.
Digital solutions, both in private smart homes or in industrial scale properties also raise some questions. For example, cyber risks include several barriers that must be protected to ensure that these systems are functioning in a reliable and secure way. When extinguishing systems are dependent on sensor technology, the connection between these systems are key components of the smart home or office.
There is a risk that these can be hacked or malfunction due to software errors.
In May 2019, the Research Institute of Sweden (RISE) released the results of two studies relating to fire safety challenges with solar cells and photovoltaic technology.
Some of the most important findings were on the ignition, spread and fighting of fires.
These included for example the age and condition of installed solar panels and the possibilities of malfunctioning as a cause of fire.
The studies include recommendations to minimise the use of combustible materials beneath solar panels to stop the spread of a fire.
Also, firefighters need to be equipped with the correct training when battling a fire that involves photovoltaic systems.
The report also found that there must be adequate distance between the solar panels, in order to have access to fight a fire and the obvious issue is with using water to extinguish electrically charged panels.
The faulty parts in question were connectors and optimizers.
These parts are supposed to regulate the flow of energy and heat to a solar panel, ensuring that as much power goes through the part as possible without overheating. Overheating can lead to a fire.
"A portion of modules and optimizers from various manufacturers were made with connectors from Amphenol, a part that was commonly used across the industry at the time."
These parts were "quarantined" as part of Project Titan and were either reworked and put back on roofs or scrapped.
One document viewed by Business Insider put the number of parts that needed to be quarantined sitting in warehouses and distribution centers at over 120,000 as of last September. A Tesla representative said this number was not accurate.
SunPower Corp., one of America’s largest solar-panel makers, is giving up its manufacturing business to focus on installing rooftop solar systems.
The company is spinning off its panel production operations into a new company, Maxeon Solar, that will be based in Singapore with factories in France, Malaysia, Mexico and the Philippines
Delta Electronics has recalled solar inverters due to fire and impact hazards.
The recall date is: February 7, 2019
Delta Electronics has received reports of the capacitors failing and allowing heat buildup, including reports of the cover forcibly ejecting off the inverter units.
Products Were Sold t
Product was MADE IN CHINA