Page 2 of 2

Re: Green energy fraud

Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:15 pm
by Firestarter
I’ve earlier posted on how with the help of the World Wildlife Fund, rainforest is destroyed to make room for palm oil plantations which threaten the habitat of the orang-utan in Indonesia: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1191#p69098

The palm oil demand has been rising very fast since the 1980s.

To add injury to insult, palm oil has also been promoted as green “renewable energy”, which of course will cause even more rainforests to be destroyed.
While the European Union has threatened to phase out palm oil as biofuel by 2030, cynically continuing to subsidise this until then, the Brexitted UK seems set to buy palm oil biofuel at discount prices...

According to the following palm oil energy is even more damaging in terms of CO2 emissions than those “terrible” fossil fuels...
The use of palm oil for biodiesel increased five-fold following the introduction of the target to source 10% of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020. Scientific evidence shows that burning biofuels, including palm oil, can actually release more greenhouse gases than burning fossil fuels. ... -campaign/

Major consumer brands like Nestlé, Unilever, Mondelēz International, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, and the Hershey Company have been buying palm oil from an illegal plantation inside the protected Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve in Indonesia’s Aceh province.
Rawa Singkil holds the highest density of critically endangered orang-utans in the world...

This “illegal” palm fruit is sold by brokers to processing mills just outside the protected reserve.
The palm oil is then sold to global traders, the Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) and Indonesia’s Musim Mas Group. These companies then sell the (illegally produced) palm oil, directly or indirectly, to the household consumer brands mentioned above.

Major banks, including Japan’s Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, ABN Amro Bank from the Netherlands and Singapore’s OCBC, continue to finance the GAR: ... n-enclave/

How wonderful is that? We have to be terrified of global warming and then “renewable” energy must be used that is more expensive and doesn’t even lower carbon dioxide emission and...
destroys nature!

The following “scientific” paper was published earlier this year, but can only be read after payment...
Jose Rehbein et al. – Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas (2020): ... /gcb.15067

The conclusion of the paper is that 2,206 of the 12,600 “renewable energy” facilities (sun, wind and hydro) are in important biodiversity areas, where they damage nature...
According to lead author José Rehbein:
Energy facilities and the infrastructure around them such as roads and increased human activity can be incredibly damaging to the natural environment. Many of these developments, when not well planned for, are not compatible with biodiversity conservation.

The majority of these 2,206 “renewable energy” facilities in important biodiversity areas, are now located in western Europe and developed nations elsewhere.
The new 922 “renewable energy” facilities are planned in important biodiversity areas in Asia and Africa, which hold much of the world’s biodiversity: ... areas.html

Not only palm oil plantations in Indonesia threaten the habitat of endangered orang-utans.
The Batang Toru hydropower project in North Sumatra, threatens the only habitat of the critically endangered Tapanuli orang-utan (of which there are only 800 left in the world).

India plans 175 gigawatts of renewable energy capacity by 2022. This will require some 12.5 million hectares of land (an area the size of Austria). This could threaten more than 10,000 square kilometres of forest and 2,500 sq km of important bird habitats by building wind farms.
India’s Rajasthan desert region will be a major area for wind and solar power expansion. It is right here where the last viable population of one of the world’s most threatened birds, the Great Indian Bustard, is surviving: ... sia-india/
( ... sia-india/)

Re: Green energy fraud

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2020 3:57 pm
by Firestarter
There are some climate “models” that get lots of publicity and others that are completely ignored by our wonderful media.

In 2018, some “scientists” concluded that a high amount of wind power causes global warming!
If hypothetically speaking (not possible in reality) the USA would let all its electricity demands be generated by wind power, it would warm the United States by 0.24 ˚C.
That is higher compared to “decarbonising” the USA’s electricity sector this century, which would cause the US to warm “only” 0.1 ˚C.

The model used based the warming effect of wind power on the theory that wind turbines generate electricity by slowing down wind and altering “the exchange of heat, moisture, and momentum between the surface and the atmosphere”.
This effect causes warming of the atmosphere.

According to John Dabiri of Stanford this type of modelling is very poor and that a “more realistic” simulation found “little temperature change near the surface”:

We can argue about models all we want, but the following is no hypothesis, and happening as we speak...

About 85% of turbine components can be recycled or reused, but most of the tens of thousands of fibreglass blades (some as long as a football field) have nowhere to go but landfills.
In the US alone, some 8,000 fibreglass blades have to be disposed of in the next 4 years. Europe even has to get rid of 3,800 annually through at least 2022.

And because the wind energy is booming business, it’s only getting worse!
According to Bob Cappadona, “The wind turbine blade will be there, ultimately, forever”.

See the Casper Regional Landfill in Casper, Wyoming, where 870 blades are buried “forever”.

In the European Union, some blades are burned but this doesn’t generate much energy and the burning fibreglass emits pollutants.
Some say that waste from some other energy sources is even more polluting than the relatively “clean” wind turbine blades.

Michael Bratvold responded to the adverse publicity:
The backlash was instant and uninformed. Critics said they thought wind turbines were supposed to be good for the environment and how can it be sustainable if it ends up in a landfill?

Re: Green energy fraud

Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2020 4:10 pm
by Firestarter
One of the most interesting climate calamity activists is banker Mark Carney.
The Canadian Carney was Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to March 2020.

Carney started his career at Goldman Sachs before he joined the Bank of Canada, where he (also) was Governor since 2007.
It was at about this time that Carney joined the Rockefeller Foundation’s Group of 30.
Carney also became a board member of the World Economic Forum.

Carney was a participant at the 2011 and 2012 Bilderberg conferences.
Before being selected to lead the Bank of England, he was Chairman of the Bank for International Settlements' Committee on the Global Financial System from July 2010 until January 2012.

Carney will continue his career pushing the environmental agenda in combination with the corona lockdown.
In January 2020, Queen Elizabeth II chose Carney as finance advisor for the UK presidency of the COP26 United Nations Climate Change conference (that has since been postponed to November 2021).

In March 2020, Carney was selected as United Nations special envoy for climate action and finance.
Carney will lead the “Canadian Pandemic Recovery Plan” task force to make British colony ready for “renewable, green” energy in the midst of the COVID-19 “pandemic”:

Following are some excerpts from the best article I found on this Mark Carney.
New plans to overthrow market-driven investment systems are a constant feature of today’s global financial scene. The recent appointment of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as the UN’s special envoy for climate action and finance signals a renewed international effort to turn the world’s energy investors into pawns of state climate activists and agitators for market-distorting policies.
British energy commentator John Constable suggests it is Carney and other green energy advocates who lack a realistic plan. Global energy use over the past 30 years suggests fossil fuels have been expanding as stable and risk-free investments while renewables have failed to gain ground.
In a November report on that country’s energy transition to a greener and more sustainable regime, McKinsey & Company essentially concluded that Germany’s two-decade orchestrated green energy revolution has been a disastrous failure. The results have been dismal. Germany will fail to meet its greenhouse targets by a wide margin, the country’s power grid is in trouble, electricity may have to be imported, and electricity prices are 45 per cent higher than in other European countries. ... rgy-crisis

The following graph from the International Energy Agency shows that most of the growth in global energy consumption is accounted for by growth in fossil fuel energy. Despite the massive amounts of taxpayer’s money pumped into “green” energy.
From 1990 to 2014, “green energy” increased from 13% to (only) 14% of total energy consumption.

Mark Carney has promised that COVID-19 will move the global energy transition “more to centre-stage” for investors.
Government bail-outs for carbon-emitting will increasingly carry a “quid pro quo” to demand that the firms will join the path to “net zero carbon emissions”: ... tre-stage/

Re: Green energy fraud

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2020 4:02 pm
by Firestarter
I’ve earlier written in this thread about wind energy that generates so little energy (compared to the energy needed to build and dismantle them and the financial costs) that they are no real alternative to “conventional” energy...
I’ve also posted in this thread that because of the batteries, electric cars are even more polluting than diesel cars.

Even our wonderful media admit that it’s a problem that wind and solar energy (only) generates enough energy at peak moments, while at other moments it doesn’t generate enough electricity.
Now the “solution” for this minor technicality is to start gigantic battery parks, which according to Bloomberg has already made the costs for solar and wind power generated electricity drop by 9% “in the last six months” (to $44/MWh for wind and $50/MWh for solar energy).
Image ... rgy-costs/

For some reason they forgot to compare the price to “conventional” energy. They also “forgot” to take into account the enormous environmental “costs” of these highly toxic batteries, let alone the massive amounts of energy needed to produce them!
They forgot the environmental results of the space these “parks” consume, where forests could grow.
They even forgot to take the financial “costs” to produce these battery parks into account...

But please don’t think for yourself, or you’ll see the environmental, green energy agenda for the fraud it is.

There is another problem with these battery parks, where the electricity is stored in lithium-ion batteries. Lithium batteries have a habit of “spontaneous” ignition. Of course producing more pollution and greenhouse gasses!
See an example of such an explosion in South Korea.

There have been so many lithium-ion battery fires in South Korea that in 2019 the government stopped installing more battery parks.

In the USA there have been some concerns over battery parks since April 2019 when an explosion at Arizona Public Service’s McMicken battery facility near Phoenix sent several fire-fighters to the hospital. Arizona regulators subsequently learned that a fire in 2014 also destroyed APS’s Mt. Elden battery storage system.

There have been more explosions of wind power storage batteries, for example at a power station located near Brussels, Belgium: ... d-on-fire/
( ... d-on-fire/)

Of course mining for lithium and cobalt (also needed for these very polluting batteries) is associated with human rights violations (like child labour in the Congo) and pollution.
Like for example in China (where Lithium is mined): ... scale.html

Australia, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia, dominate more than 80% of world lithium production.
Congo is the top producer of cobalt.

Another minor technicality is that because of the high demand and prices, “direct-shipping ore” from mining sites to China has become common practice.

Because raw material is sent out before it is concentrated, more mass has to be shipped, which “means that your energy consumption for transportation is much higher -- roughly three times higher”.
This of course results in these batteries needing even more energy to be produced. Thankfully our wonderful media forgot to connect these dots, or maybe, possibly even the environmental crazies will lose faith in “green energy”: ... -what-cost