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
Firestarter
Posts: 1196
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): http://rodmartin.org/utter-complete-tot ... ind-power/
(archived here: http://archive.is/PRoXo)


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: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... -about-to/
(archived here: http://archive.is/A5TwX)


I think I´m gonna read about the heroics of Don Quixote for inspiration: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/996
Image

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
Firestarter
Posts: 1196
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.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5443959/offs ... al-budget/
(archived here: http://archive.is/FQvDz)


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): https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... nd-auction
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1196
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: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2019/09/b ... -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): https://wisenederland.nl/groene-stroom/ ... 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: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46566795
(http://archive.is/qKs2w)
Image


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: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... 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: https://www.thelocal.se/20181112/sweden ... 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: https://www.climatecentral.org/news/whe ... blem-17973
(http://archive.is/ylPbJ)
Post Reply