Green energy fraud

Is industrial society destroying the planet, or are Climate Change laws merely a plot to seize political power and redistribute wealth?
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Green energy fraud

Post by Firestarter » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:33 pm

We’ve been fooled into believing that electricity produced by wind is better for the environment than conventional energy sources.

For nearly the last 40 years, world energy demand has grown at about 2% a year.
Since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per year, we would need to built an additional 350,000 per year, just to supply the growth in energy consumption. That’s 150% of the amount that was built in the world since the early 2000s!

That many turbines would require a land area half the size of the British Isles, including Ireland (61,000 sq mi) – to be build every single year.
In 50 years this would amount to a land area about half the size of Russia covered with wind farms (3.05 million sq mi).
Please note that this would only cover the increase in energy consumption!

In reality the vast majority of generated energy in the third world is from burning “traditional biomass”: sticks, logs, charcoal and dung burned for cooking food.
Even in rich countries with subsidised wind and solar energy, most of the “renewable energy” in fact comes from wood and hydro.

It takes a lot of energy to build wind turbines, which apart from the fiberglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. Coal is needed to make the steel and cement.
A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 metric tons, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. They need about half a ton of coal to make a ton of steel. Add another 25 tons of coal for the cement and you’re talking about 150 metric tons of coal per wind turbine.

If they would build 350,000 wind turbines a year (just to keep up with increasing energy demand), they would need 50 million metric tons of coal a year more than being mined now. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

If you look at these numbers, you can only conclude that it is utterly futile to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone reduce emissions, without destroying the planet (that´s besides the huge number of birds being chopped up in the blades of the turbines): ... ind-power/
(archived here:

Then there´s the cost...
Offshore wind is very expensive. In 2017, the first U.S. offshore wind farm on Rhode Island cost a whopping $150,000 per household powered!

In 2018, Virginia politicians approved an offshore wind project at an estimated cost of $300 million.
Virginians will first pay 25 times the U.S. market price for the turbines and then pay 78 cents/kilowatt-hour for their intermittent electricity. That’s 26 times the 3 cents per kWh wholesale price for coal, gas, hydroelectric or nuclear electricity in the Commonwealth!

Because turbines age, onshore wind electricity output declines by 16% per decade of operation.
Natural gas plants have 30-40 year lifetimes, while wind turbines last only 15-20 years, or even less for offshore wind farms (due to the weather conditions).

Removing (decommissioning) wind turbines is also very expensive.
Virginia’s turbines will be 27 miles from the coast (which is even more expensive to remove). Removing an industrial-scale “wind farm” could cost billions, and could double the cost of wind power.
One study estimates that it will cost $565,000 per megawatt to remove Europe’s offshore turbines — or about $3.4 million for each new generation 6-MW turbine.

Because wind varies from second to second, day to day, year to year, you can´t rely on wind power when it´s needed most.
Industrial wind promoters claim turbines generate electricity about a third of the time. Energy experts put that output at 20-30% or even lower, depending on location.

From an economic, environmental and energy perspective, wind energy is unsustainable: ... -about-to/
(archived here:

I think I´m gonna read about the heroics of Don Quixote for inspiration:

EDIT - I've decided to broaden the scope of this thread, so changed its name.
Last edited by Firestarter on Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Wind power fraud

Post by Firestarter » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:12 pm

It shouldn´t surprise anybody that none other than Queen Elizabeth II profits from the wind energy fraud.
The Crown Estate holds “ancient” exclusive rights to the seabed around the British Isles for wind and wave power.
In 2018, the U.K.’s world-leading investment in offshore wind farms contributed toward a record Sovereign grant to the Royal Family - $137 million.

The payment is currently 25% of the profits of the Crown Estate. The rate has been increased from 15% for 10 years (until 2027) under the guise of refurbishing Buckingham Palace.
In 2018, the Crown’s seabed generated 7.7 gigawatts (0.2 GW more than in 2017).
The Sovereign Grant will continue to rise as more offshore wind farms are build.

The Queen’s seabeds reportedly generate 8% of Britain’s electricity, but the British government has recently decided that even more money must be wasted on wind power:
We’ve set out that by 2030, offshore wind is going to be providing at least a third of the UK’s entire power needs. ... al-budget/
(archived here:

Then the “reputable” Guardian announed in the headlines that the “Crown backs down and ‘refines’ plans for offshore wind auction”...

But the millions flowing to the Crown Estate wasn’t lowered, but instead they made the tender offering more transparent.
For some reason, the British government planned to make the taxpayer loose even more money in a “sealed envelope bid”...

According to the Guardian, the Crown Estate collected (only) £41m in 2018 (instead of $137 million): ... nd-auction
User avatar
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Burning garbage, green energy hoax

Post by Firestarter » Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:51 pm

In the not so good old swinging 60s, my home town of Amsterdam was dumping and burning toxic waste at the Volgermeerpolder and Diemerzeedijk which has severely damaged the health caused amongst others by dioxin: viewtopic.php?t=1355#p5454

It looks like nothing has changed, only these days importing garbage and burning this in Amsterdam is called “green energy”!
The incinerators are placed where the poor survive, so never mind those health effects!

Around a quarter of the waste burned in the Netherlands is imported. This has been going on for 8 years. Most of it comes from England and Wales, some 25,000 tonnes of British rubbish every week.
Recently it was reported that new waste imports are limited because 4 of the 6 incinerators of Amsterdam’s AEB are out of order: ... -problems/

Of course burning garbage produces carbon dioxide, besides toxic emissions.
The 3 largest garbage incinerators of the 12 in the Netherlands are in the top 10 of Dutch companies emitting most carbon dioxide: Attero, AVR and HVC emit about 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
About 80% of the imported waste in the Netherlands comes from Great Britain (in Dutch): ... erbranding

In 2017, 2018, the UK exported a total of 611,000 tonnes of plastic waste to other countries in 12 months (down from 683,000 tonnes in 2016, 2017).
In this period, China almost stopped reprocessing plastic from the UK (the amount dropped by 94%).
Malaysia, Turkey, Poland, the Netherlands and Indonesia import most UK plastic:

Waste-to-energy plants are expensive, so they generally charge more to accept trash than landfills.
Transporting the garbage across the globe of course also costs energy (but I doubt if any “scientist” takes that into account in their politically correct calculations on “green energy”).

Waste to energy has become a preferred method of rubbish disposal in the EU. In 2013, there were 420 plants in Europe to provide heat and electricity to more than 20 million people.
The European countries that import most garbage are Germany, Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands (even more than Norway).

From October 2012 to April 2013, the UK paid to send 45,000 tonnes of household waste from Bristol and Leeds to Norway. Because it’s called climate friendly, Norway – like the Netherlands - accepts rubbish to keep the incinerators burning.
Incinerators in Norway make about half of their profit from the fee paid to take the waste and the rest from the sale of energy: ... ste-energy

Great Britain is already building more incinerators, but it is also a concern involving the Brexit hysteria.

Sweden is already thinking on new ways of importing garbage from the UK, as now most of their imported waste comes from Norway that isn´t part of the EU either: ... t-solution

According to our wonderful media, burning garbage in the developed world is environmentally friendly, but in the Third World it’s pollutive. Never mind that on average those poor countries produce a lot less garbage than us in the developed countries...

Some 1.1 billion tonnes of waste, more than 40% of the world’s garbage, is burned in open piles. While carbon dioxide is the major gas emitted by trash burning, this reportedly amounts to “only” 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions.
There are however some other emissions that should be important health concerns (besides polluting the environment).

About 29% of global emissions of tiny solid particles and liquid droplets from dust to metals that can penetrate deep into the lungs come from trash fires.
About 10% percent of mercury emissions and 40% percent of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) come from open burning.

This pollution can cause lung, neurological diseases, heart attacks and cancer: ... blem-17973
User avatar
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Green energy fraud

Post by Firestarter » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:47 pm

I guess that many people won´t even be surprised that we´ve been lied to about so-called clean, green energy.
But many people will probably think that I go too far in this post, claiming nothing less than that “green energy” subsidies causes global warming and deforestation!

While it´s doubtful that carbondioxide causes global warming, nobody claims that it´s highly toxic. Because of “green energy”, the most powerful greenhouse gas known to man has been leaking into the Earth's atmosphere - Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6.
Sulphur hexafluoride is widely used in the “green energy” industry - wind, solar and gas. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2), and just one kilogram warms the Earth as much as 24 people flying London to New York return.

Emission of Sulphur hexafluoride is increasing by 30-40 tonnes per year.
Total SF6 emissions from the 28 EU member states in 2017 were the equivalent to 6.73 million tonnes of CO2, roughly the emissions from 1.3 million extra cars on the road for a year.

The global installed base of SF6 is expected to grow with another 75% by 2030.
Electrical company Eaton, claims that as much as 15% of SF6 is leaked in manufacturing switchgear.
Another concern is that SF6 is a toxic synthetic gas that can't be destroyed naturally (so another ecological disaster under the name of “clean energy”):

We´ve been told that human overpopulation causes deforestation...
I could argue of course that all of these wind turbines that hardly generate energy take up space where trees could grow. But it´s even worse!
We all know that it´s horrible that Brazil´s Zionist president Bolsonaro threatens to sell the “lungs of the earth” Amazon (I´ve even seen “conspiracy theories” that Bolsonaro had fires started in the Amazon). The European Union is actually calling for cutting and burning trees, subsidised, under the name of “renewable energy”!

The EU is expanding “renewable energy”, with wood about two thirds of Europe's biofuel. The EU cuts and burns almost a gigantic cube of 440 million cubic meters of wood and wood waste every year to generate heat and electricity. Trees aren´t only felled in Europe: the EU's hunger for biofuel is so great that they´re importing wood pellet.
While burning wood is widely praised as “carbon neutral”, in reality burning wood emits more carbon dioxide than coal per unit energy.

You don’t need a PhD to understand that cutting and burning a forest emits carbon dioxide quickly, re-growing forests takes forever (and never when trees continue to be cut down).
Thousands of firewood and wood pellet companies in the EU are hollowing out forests. This subsidised wood burning is destroying forest ecosystems that will never recover in our lifetime — all in the name of climate change mitigation.

Many countries, including the US and EU member states, also subsidise wood heating, which constitutes more than half the wood burned in the EU.
It´s the billions in subsidies that caused the last 10 years of exponential growth in the wood pellet industry. The US-based Enviva, which exports millions of tons of wood pellets to the UK, EU, and Asia, saw its share prices increase substantially: ... ommentary/
User avatar
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

British crown, Pentagon and the environment

Post by Firestarter » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:31 pm

It is expected that by 2030, Queen Elizabeth will earn more than £100 million annually from windfarms alone. According to the Daily Mail, last year the Crown Estate collected £41 million from windfarms.

Between 2001 and 2010, the old Civil List for the British Royals was £7.9 million annually (that’s besides most if not all of their expenses are paid). In 2011, it grew to £13.7 million.
In 2012, when the Civil List was replaced by the Sovereign Grant, initially set at 15% but further increased to 25% of the profits from the Crown Estate, financial support to the Royals immediately more than doubled to £31 million. This has continued to rise, to a staggering £82.8 million last year.

Queen Elizabeth is also one of the top recipients of EU money, receiving £557,707 in 2016 for her Sandringham farmland alone.
Profits from valuable London sites owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, which has net assets of more than £1 billion, go to Prince Charles. Profits for Charles, have grown from £12.9 million in 2012 to more than £21 million in 2018.

Several Royal buildings were bought with public funds, maintenance is supported with taxpayer´s money, but remain Elizabeth´s private property.
In total, the British taxpayer pays for more than 100 Royal buildings.

A conservative estimate for Elizabeth´s wealth in 2001 was £1.15 billion, that´s excluding what´s held in trust by the Crown. Elizabeth´s investment portfolio alone is valued at £500 million and her stamp collection is worth £100 million.
Exact figures are hard to come by, though, because of the state-supported secrecy.

In 1910, Queen Mary had the power to seal wills introduced.
The Queen Mother reportedly had £70 million when she died. In 1942, she was left expensive jewels by an heiress to the McEwan brewing fortune.
The sister of Elizabeth, Princess Margaret’s will has remain inaccessible, it has been estimated that she left an estate of some £7.6 million, having previously disposed of £12 million of assets to her family. Where did she get all of this money?!?

These Royal degenerates are exempt from inheritance tax from a king or queen to their heir. Supposedly Elizabeth voluntarily pays taxes, so why would she have hundreds of millions stashed away in British offshore tax havens?
Because of the all-encompassing secrecy, we simply have to believe that she pays taxes: ... amily.html

What frustrates me in all of these politically correct, environment catastrophe stories, the war machine is somewhat ignored. There are few activities on Earth as environmentally catastrophic as war.
Reductions to the Pentagon’s budget would bring a huge drop in pollution and carbon dioxide emission. The CO2 emissions are enormous, especially when mercenaries, bombs and planes are transported half way over the globe in container ships, trucks and cargo planes.
The Pentagon also spends fuel on lighting, heating and cooling more than 560,000 buildings around the world.
Mass migration is fueled by wars, which in turn causes an increase in CO2 emission, especially with the migrants returning “home” for the holidays every year.

In 2017, the US Air Force purchased $4.9 billion worth of fuel, the navy $2.8 billion, the army $947 million and the Marines $36 million. In 2017, the US military consumed about 269,230 barrels of oil a day, which emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide.
If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, greater than entire nations like Sweden, Norway, Finland or Peru and just below Portugal.

The USA was exempted from military emissions in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. This loophole was closed by the Paris Accord, but to no avail, as the Trump administration will withdraw in 2020.

That´s besides bombs are regulary enriched with toxics, see for example Vietnam that was bombed with Agent Orange, or more recently the depleted Uranium filled dirty bombs on Iraq.
In Iraq, children living near US bases have an increased risk of heart disease, spinal deformities, cancer, cleft lip and missing or malformed and paralyzed limbs.

US military bases despoil the landscape, pollute the soil, and contaminate the drinking water.
At the Kadena Base in Okinawa, the US Air Force polluted land and water with toxic chemicals, including arsenic, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos and dioxin.

If the Pentagon’s budget is cut in half, the US would still have a bigger military budget than China, Russia, Iran and North Korea combined!
The $350 billion savings could then be used to save the environment: ... tertwined/

Since the “war on terror” began in 2001, US wars are increasingly being fought by hired mercenaries instead of “normal” army soldiers.
For example, there are over 150,000 Pentagon-financed private contractors in Afghanistan today (75% of the western military personnel in Afghanistan).

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, of the $87 billion earmarked for the first year, $30 billion (34%) was budgeted for private contractors.
Over the 8-year US occupation of Iraq, the largest private recipient of Pentagon contracts was the subsidiary of Cheney’s and Bush’s Halliburton, Kellogg Brown and Root, which grossed $40.6 billion.

The Pentagon now spends over $300 billion annually on private contracts. That’s 8% of all US federal expenditure. Because the Pentagon isn’t properly audited, we can’t be sure how much is properly spent.
In 2011, the Commission on Wartime Contracting estimated that at least $60 billion of the tax money the Pentagon spent in Iraq and Afghanistan on private contractors from 2001 to 2011, should be classified as “fraud” or “waste”, $12 million per day:
( ... us/5691670)

We can rest assured that the tax dollars are well spent by the Pentagon and their mercenaries!
Post Reply