DEVASTATING read exposing the blatant fraud and utter uselessness of weather AND fossil-fuel dependent wind ‘power’….
* There has been zero scientific empirical proof provided by the wind industry to support their claims of consequential CO2 reduction.
* The claim that wind energy is “green” or “environmentally friendly” is laugh-out-loud hilarious – except for the fact that the reality is not funny at all. Consider just one part of a turbine, the generator, which uses considerable rare earth elements (2000± pounds per MW).
* The mining and processing of these metals has horrific environmental consequences that are unacknowledged and ignored by the wind industry and its environmental surrogates. For instance, just the rare earths of a typical 100 MW wind project would generate approximately:
1. 20,000 square meters of destroyed vegetation,
2. 2 million pounds of CO2,
3. 6 million cubic meters of toxic air pollution,
4. 29 million gallons of poisoned water,
5. 600 million pounds of highly contaminated tailing sands, and
6. 280,000 pounds of radioactive waste. (See this, and this, and this.)
It doesn’t take a genius to work out that wind power is the greatest economic and environmental fraud of all time. All it takes is a little cognitive power and a sense of inquiry.
Once people work out that they’ve been conned, they never turn back.
In our travels we’ve met plenty who’ve started out in favour of wind power and turned against it; we’ve never found an example of the reverse.
STT dishes up the facts on a daily basis, much to the annoyance of the wind cult. Anyone looking for a solid set of reasons as to why wind power can never work, need look no further than this cracking little list put together by John Droz.
Twenty-One Bad Things About Wind Energy — and Three Reasons Why
22 March 2018
Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like…
View original post 3,317 more words
“We’re told “clean” energy is a viable and cost effective. But cut the government subsidies, and 97 percent of investors vanish…!”
UNRELIABLES, the great scam within the scam crumbling under the weight of its own BS.
(Do feel for the 80,000 now unemployed – sucked in by the lies and blatant falsehoods spread by climate change zealots – politicians, ‘green’ lobby groups and sycophant lamestream, fake news media)
Remember all those stories about the wind & solar industries providing millions of groovy, well-paid ‘green’ jobs – as secure as Fort Knox? No?
Sure, you’ll hear those pitching RE promise loads of ‘sustainable’ jobs, as they wail about dreaded ‘uncertainty’ – causing bankers to baulk and investors to flee; and as they demand (with menaces) that governments maintain essential, massive and endless subsidies until the end of time.
But, this is the same crowd who tell us that the ‘transition’ to nature’s wonder fuels is ‘inevitable’ and that they’re not really getting any subsidies at all.
There are a few inescapable truths: cut subsidies to wind and solar power and the jobs those ‘industries’ have ‘created’ evaporate like snow in Summer. Funny about that!
Bloodbath in the German solar “industry” — without subsidies 80,000 solar jobs are gone
Jo Nova Blog
View original post 438 more words
ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the demonisation of essential trace gas and plant fertiliser, carbon dioxide. A by-product of hydrocarbon energy production that “has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality” and remains the grand patsy and key driver of the climate crisis industry…
“For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
FOR years, unreliable-energy advocates have repeatedly claimed that wind turbines and solar panels are essential to the fight against carbon dioxide emissions and catastrophic climate change. Here’s the reality: Wind turbines and solar panels are nothing more than token gestures to the folly of green madness.
THE proliferation of
renewables unreliables over the past decade has not, and will not, result in statistically significant reductions in global carbon dioxide emissions. That point can easily be proven by analysis of the country that has poured more money into ‘green’ energy than any other – Germany…
Germany Proves That Burning Money On Green Energies Does Not Reduce CO2 Emissions … “Bitter Result”
As we have been hearing recently, global CO2 emissions continue their steady climb, despite the trillions of dollars committed to green energy sources worldwide and efforts to curb CO2 emissions.
Looking at countries individually, Germany, a self-designated “leader” for carbon free energies, saw its equivalent CO2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 fall only a measly half a percent. Read the rest of this entry »
INFORMATIVE piece written not by a climate change “denier” but by energy and environment expert Michael Shellenberger – a democrat and climate change activist, no less.
ALWAYS refreshing reading Shellenberger’s work and commentary on twitter. Like Bjorn Lomborg, the other well-known ‘warmist’, they both provide reasoned analysis of environmental issues, focusing on costs and outcomes of climate and energy policy, rather than blind ideology so common in mainstream media environmental reporting that only poisons and polarises the debate leading to unnecessary alarmism resulting in overarching climate policy and misguided allocation of public money.
This is a problem of bias, not just energy illiteracy. Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn’t because they don’t know how to report critically on energy — they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources — but rather because they don’t want to.
That could — and should — change. Reporters have an obligation to report accurately and fairly on all issues they cover, especially ones as important as energy and the environment.
A good start would be for them to investigate why, if solar and wind are so cheap, they are making electricity so expensive.
Read on here…
If Solar And Wind Are So Cheap, Why Are They Making Electricity So Expensive?
“In order to ‘encourage’ SA’s fossil fuel fleet into action, the grid manager was forced to pay a spot price of $5,077 per MWh…”
IT’S no wonder wind ‘powered’ South Australia has, officially, the highest power prices in-the-world! 🤦♂️
Wind power outfits often claim that their particular operation ‘powers’ 30,000 homes; RE zealots even claim that South Australians get 50% of their power from the sun and wind.
Whacked with the obvious retort of ‘when?’, the wind cultist changes tack and starts mumbling about mega-batteries (non-existent and insanely costly), pumped hydro (non-existent and costly) and then starts ranting about an evil fossil fuel conspiracy.
South Australia is the shining example of the true cost and absolute chaos that comes with attempting to run on sunshine and breezes.
Set out above, courtesy of Aneroid Energy, is the output from every wind turbine in SA during the merry month of March (with a notional capacity of 1,810 MW).
Even if you add in the piddling 100 MW capacity of its $150,000,000 Elon Musk special, it’s pretty clear that collapses in the order of 700 to 1,200 MW (which occur…
View original post 1,228 more words
“HOWEVER, it turns out that Reneweconomy, in its zeal to promote new power sources, shifted the goalposts so that the battery output was exaggerated over one hundred fold. The correct measure is as follows with the battery contribution comprising the almost invisible yellow at the bottom of the following chart.
A mixture of mainly fossil fuel stations expanded output and filled the gap within one minute.
Morals of the story: (i) batteries may have a role but they are dear; (ii) always seek verification of assertions made by propagandists!”
A must read post by Alan Moran and STT…
With Australia’s renewable energy crisis running totally out of control, whenever you hear the word ‘battery’ you know you’re being conned.
Pumping power into and then taking it out of a battery results in inevitable exchange losses, power gets chewed up during that process and is dissipated as heat energy. And then there’s the enormous capital cost of the battery: SA’s 100 MW tiddler cost taxpayers $150 million. Even if renewable electricity delivered from batteries were available, retailers would be paying north of $600 per MWh to get it.
And so do the wind and sun worshippers over at Ruin-economy. Here’s Alan Moran unplugging some of their more exuberant hype.
View original post 1,997 more words
“Energiewende – CO2 emissions are rising, not falling as promised and predicted.
If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then German energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.”
Germany has long been held up as the poster child for wind and solar power, but the picture is now more tragedy, than triumph.
In Germany, around €130 billion has already been burnt on renewable subsidies; currently the green energy levy costs power consumers €56 million every day. And, the level of subsidy for wind and solar sees Germans paying €20 billion a year for power that gets sold on the power exchange for around €2 billion.
Squandering €18 billion a year on power – which Germans have in abundance from meaningful sources – has them asking the fair and reasonable question: just how much power are they getting for the €billions that they’ve thrown – and continue to throw at wind and solar? The answer – at a piddling 3.3% – is: NOT MUCH.
For Germans, that would all be miserable…
View original post 869 more words