Wind Energy - "green energy" scam?


I think that the problem is not in green energy or "standard" energy sources but in our way of thinking. When I was on university on micro and nanotechnology specialisation we learned a lot about new materials specialy based on carbon: nanotubes, graphen etc. If people would like to, we could develop and build more optimal energy infrastructure with less losses, key is in new wire and battery technology. I think that lot of companies didn't want to develop new technology in batteries because it could make waste for their current factories (they should build new ones) and building new energy infrastructure would cost a lot. With old infrastructures and energy storage technologies we couldn't build "green" energy sources e.g. solar sources in places where it could give most optimal effect. I think that we should still use gas sources, and we should develop more optimal ways of using it e.g. for our cars. There are a lot of food industry waste (also in our homes) from which we could make gas for energy use. In the future when we could develop methods to destroy harmful radioactive waste (I readed somewhere that even now there could be biological organisms that eat this waste) or find new better energy sources we could make our vehicels on air in the place of vehicles on gas (in fact, now there are companies that produce cars on compressed air, it's not optimal because of a lot of energy waste to generate those air but if we could in the future make it more optimal in energy produce and compressed air produce then, we could have car's that didn't waste any of "materials" in our word). Even now every one of us which live in the place where temperatures are higher than 21 C could buy his own little biogas factory from waste (or build one):
In my opinion, in time of two generations we could build a society where energy and food are almost for free (there always would be cost of repair of new infrastructure) but it would be needed for people to cooperate with each other and know what to do in right way. Instead of this we have now not optimal technology with good advertisment to buy it and waste our money and health with people who didn't know things about those technologies.


FOTCM Member
Also, note that "self-generation" by large industries is not included in these charts. I don't know the numbers, but I bet that there are many large industries who use their own power generation systems, not least because of the insane cost of energy in Germany... thanks to renewables.

Have never looked into this deeply and yet in many places in Canada there are large industries, in some sectors, that do indeed use hog-fuel to generate 24/7 boiler power, and some over-generate, which is feedback into the grid for customer use. Other industries are directly feed off of hydro systems (locating relatively adjacent), or they have their own hydro systems from established water use permits. Natural gas boiler generating systems, also. Solar and wind is akin to :whistle: dixie - yet the sky is the limit for investing, building and replacing viable traditional fuel systems.

There is also a trend to send wood waste pellets to some Scandinavian countries from Canada (EU also), and have read about chain of custody processes for wood fiber i.e. by certification groups (this was after 'negotiating' a zero C02 assigned footprint, based on fuzzy agreed upon accounting, that is). However, the end use of these fuels may not be just for home heating, it may also facilitate industrial boiler power generation in Scandinavia = a long way to ship BTU fuels.

As you pointed out by the graphs, green sales pitches are vigorously massaged, illustrated, publicized and then sold to the public in staggering volumes - and their numbers never work out, other than the taxpayer grants to producers (never converted into the cost of the actual power produced) that takes it all live. Even with Bio-fuels, the spin is to replace coal and oil with something green and new, but it is not new based on the old hog boilers that exist, and if there is self-generated hog-fuel availability, then that power is cheap.

Notice in the most recent rollout by our provincial hyper-socialist/green 'Honorable' premiere, Horgan, for the proposed climb out from under this Covid-darwinian mess they helped create, provides a central control message of their Green Agenda that will remain front and center for the 'back to work' recovery. It was nice song and dance.

In the film, was sorry to see RFKjr. schilling for green-eng knowing what he does with helping people wade through the toxin issues of vaccine/pharma control. However, the history of 'green' in terms of people like ex Greenpeace Patrick Moore, may hold some movement for RFKjr. and others who are now backpedaling away from the 'Gore' conception of green.

In the 'special thanks' section of the film (and have not looked at all), noted that Robert Fripp is given mention - he was also recently brought up in the MindMatters interview with Joseph Azize regarding Gurdjieff, and noticed also Carl Palmer was alongside Fripp, of Emerson, Lake and Palmer fame (if the same Palmer).

It's heartbreaking. As someone who is affected by this, I couldn't bring myself to watch it till the end. The amount of evilness and corruption that needs to be present in a society for something so destructive to be thrown at good, normal people just makes me dizzy.

Had watched this again (yes it was hard), and realize so many of you are likely directly affected, as said yourself, luc, while having them in or near the back yard. Very sad...


FOTCM Member
And what is interesting is that not only that you have these big drops in production, but you will also have a big spikes in consumption, once the Germans start to massively buy electric cars. CHAdeMO 3.0 will support up to 500 kilowatts. CCS 2.0 supports up to 350 kilowatts. Tesla V3 superchargers support up to 250 kilowatts. That's gonna be a huge fluctuation between production and consumption.

Was reading some conversion data from the Climate Conversation Group (NZ) in an article by Dr Michael Kelly. It has mathematical/energy use calculations, so posting it here in full.

Note: Although Kelly is a "Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation," he is offering up a bit of an electric reality warning if interested in reading:

The NZ ambition to replace internal-combustion engines with electric cars
May 8, 2020 12:16 am \ 16 Comments \ by Michael Kelly

Ever wondered what’s inside the famous Tesla battery? More batteries. Thousands.
— by Dr Michael Kelly,
University of Cambridge, UK.
May, 2020.

Next time you stand for 90 seconds filling your petrol tank, you might think of the enormous energy flow. Chemical energy is entering your tank at typically 17 million joules per second, or a gigantic 17 megawatts.

That’s equivalent to the energy given off by 17,000 one-bar electric heaters (imagine 6 tennis courts covered in them) or 24 hours of average power consumption (24 kWh) for 700 New Zealand households. A full tank (about 1,500 megawatts) would run those 700 houses for three full months.

Optimistic champions of green obsession

It’s a lot of energy and causes many difficulties that are glossed over by optimistic champions of the green obsession with all-electric cars.

In making personal mobility all-electric, two important considerations must be weighed. The first is that electric motors convert electricity to motion three times more efficiently, in energy terms, than the internal-combustion engine does with petrol. The second is that we do not recharge an electric battery in 90 seconds. The numbers are slightly different for diesel vehicles, but the main conclusions are the same as for petrol.

When electronics first became portable in the early 1970s, the battery was a carbon-zinc type. All the global research in the fifty years since then has produced a lithium-ion battery, which has six times the density of energy storage; but the energy stored in petrol is still more than forty times denser than this.

For direct comparability in performance, the car battery has to be forty times bigger in volume than the petrol tank. A Tesla car weighs 2.2 tonnes and its battery 540kg and occupies 400 litres: for a high range of 600km, you would need 48 litres of petrol weighing 36kg.

Benmore could charge all our cars every 35 days

Consider Benmore Power Station, the second biggest in New Zealand, with a maximum generation capability of 540 megawatts. At full power, it could refill the batteries of 32 cars if they were to be charged in 90 seconds. Now that electric engines are three times as efficient at using electrical energy compared with cars using petrol, the energy from Benmore could actually charge 96 (say 100) electric cars in 90 seconds. Suppose instead we charge them over a period of 90 minutes, i.e., sixty times slower, which is more realistic but still very fast, we could then charge 6000 cars at once, or about 100,000 in a day. There are about 3.5 million cars and light vans in New Zealand, so Benmore could recharge the NZ light fleet every 35 days!

New Zealand uses ~37% of all its energy[1] on the transport sector, and the current total electricity capacity provides New Zealand with ~24% of its energy requirement[2]. If that transport energy was electricity rather than fossil fuels, the energy figure is divided by three to account for the extra efficiency of electric motors. For New Zealand to transition to an all-electric fleet for transport, we would have to use 50% of the existing electricity grid for transport, or enhance the existing generating capacity by 50% to cope with transport on top of every other demand.

We need 50% more power and grid capacity must more than double

Little of this extra electricity will be generated by hydropower as there is much resistance to more damming of New Zealand rivers. Any wind and solar used for transport will have to be produced and stored so that vehicles can be recharged on demand. I will say something more on large-scale batteries below. If there is an additional requirement to electrify heating and cooling of buildings the present grid would have to double in capability to handle both heat and transport. It is worse than that, as heat demand peaks in winter requiring as much as 6-8 times the dedicated electricity as used for cooling in summer.

In addition to extra generation and transmission capabilities of the grid, all the distribution from local substations will have to be upgraded. A typical NZ house uses about 24 kWh of electricity per day, averaged over the year, for an average usage of 1 kW peaking at 3-5kW at times of high demand. A typical electric battery charger draws 7 kW for slow charging over 12 hours or 15 kW for faster charging over 6 hours. So each household’s usage would surge by 7 or 15 times the long-term average when charging a car, up to 30 or 45 times normal for two or three cars.

This represents a significant fluctuation in electricity use. The local substations are guaranteed to fail at some point under this level of demand. Unless individuals are told when and where they can recharge their car batteries, there will be regular brownouts. In the UK if a supermarket wants to install say 4-6 charging points it must contribute NZ$0.5M to upgrade the local substation. The electrification of domestic heating would add further to this burden on the local grid.

The Elon Musk backup battery wouldn’t last a day

The further nail in the coffin of an all-electric transport system in New Zealand is the use of battery technology to handle intermittent renewable energy storage at the scale needed for cities. This is most easily seen with reference to the battery that Elon Musk installed outside Adelaide two years ago, at a cost of NZ$100M. Its capacity is encapsulated by two numbers, the energy stored, i.e., 130 MWh, and the maximum rate at which electricity can be drawn, i.e., 100 MW. In practice one does not fully discharge, or indeed fully charge a battery, and typical usage involves an 80% to 20% discharge of stored electricity.

To compare this, consider the energy back-up provided by gas and diesel generators for (say) Wellington Hospital: if its peak electrical demand is of order 5 MW (private communication), the Musk battery would last for about 16 hours at full power on that 80% to 20% discharge. After that we would need a new charged battery on the back of a dozen articulated lorries.

The diesel and gas generation would continue so long as there is fuel: the generators together would cost of order NZ$0.8M. One needs back-up of order a week to cover a modern equivalent of the 1998 blackouts in Auckland. The cost and performance differentials are very high (125:1 and 7-10:1 respectively), and will not be bridged by 2050 on current progress, let alone 2025 when Extinction Rebellion insist all will be in place. These differentials apply across the whole economy.

In the short term, doomed to failure

There is another battery issue regarding electric vehicle concerns. If we replace just the whole UK traffic fleet of today with electric vehicles (assuming they use the most resource-frugal next-generation batteries), it would make the following materials demands[3]:
  • 207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice annual world production.
  • 264,600 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) – three quarters of world production.
  • at least 7,200 tonnes of neodymium and dysprosium – nearly the entire world production of neodymium.
  • 2,362,500 tonnes of copper – more than half the world production in 2018.
The New Zealand requirements would be about a tenth of this. Indeed, it is estimated that the current electric vehicle battery manufacturing capacity would have to increase by 700-fold for all the world to be transported in electric vehicles, with vast increases in the supply of materials described above: way beyond known reserves. If there are shortages of batteries, cars will be idled and internal combustion engines taken out of mothballs on a large scale.

Put simply: the infrastructural engineering capability required to provide for electric cars and electric heating by 2050 is a massive and probably unachievable ambition. To attempt to accelerate it, to 2025, is madness. The rest of the world can look at New Zealand and choose whether to laugh or weep. One thing it shouldn’t do is emulate NZ. Elsewhere I have done the equivalent analysis for the UK[4].

Enthusiasts talk about their individual electric car, but never consider what infrastructure is needed when everyone else’s car is also electric.
Dr Michael Kelly is Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of Technology in the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, Fellow of the Royal Society, former chief scientific advisor to the Department for Communities and Local Government, and Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
[1] New Zealand's Consumption
[2] From Wikipedia sites, New Zealanders use about 8 MWh of energy per person per year, and the total electricity generated per year is 40,000 GWh, hence the figure just quoted.
[3] We need more scarce metals and elements reach the UK's greenhouse gas goals
[4] Electric Motors Versus Internal Combustion Engines


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Yeah, and even if we exclude all the problems with the energy production and storage, the extreme vulnerability to fluctuations in production/consumption is a very strong weak point in our electric grid. My country just started using the Microsoft's AI to solve this big problem:

The error margin that hovered between 5 percent to 15 percent shrunk to 1.7 percent. “Reduced error deviation means reduced costs to cover it. We save up to EUR600,000 per year for the balancing market alone,” explains Komatina. “As we also trade better; we predict we’ll be making another EUR300,000 of profits per year,” adds Vlaisavljević. “We don’t have to start and stop our generators as often, so there are fewer malfunctions, reducing repair costs and downtime periods. Ultimately, we now produce more electricity, sell more, and buy less,” summarizes Komatina.

But the combination of electric cars and wind/solar energy is gonna create a chaos. AI can help but it cannot solve this fundamental problem.


The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Germany orders all fuel stations to provide electric charging points

Germany is not just boosting subsidies to improve public interest in electric vehicles, it’s also pushing infrastructure improvements too.

Last night, Reuters reports that the German government has asked all petrol and diesel filling stations to also offer electric vehicle charging. The move comes as part of the country’s €130 billion ($146 billion) economics recovery plan.

According to BDEW, Germany’s association for the energy and water industry, the country had more than 27,700 EV charging points as of March.

However, for electric vehicles to be a viable option in the European nation, Germany needs to install at least 70,000 regular charging stations and over 7,000 fast-charging points.

As of 2018, there were less than 21,000 filling stations in the country. With that in mind, Germany won’t be able to rely on converting petrol stations to meet the demands of EV charging. The Reuters report doesn’t mention how many charging points each station will need to offer, but it’s clear Germany needs to build many more dedicated locations too.

Just yesterday, the German government announced that it was doubling its battery EV buyer subsidy from €3,000 ($3,360) to €6,000 ($6,700). Including manufacturer subsidies, new EV buyers can now receive up to €9,000 ($10,000) in financial support toward their car purchase.

With initiatives like these, Germany is becoming increasingly supportive of ultra low emission vehicles.


Tuatha de Danaan

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Germany orders all fuel stations to provide electric charging points

Well with fuel vapour hugging the ground as it does and not readily dispersing into the air, having electric points near forecourts will prove very interesting. I wouldn't want to work anywhere near there.


FOTCM Member
Persej said:

Just yesterday, the German government announced that it was doubling its battery EV buyer subsidy from €3,000 ($3,360) to €6,000 ($6,700). Including manufacturer subsidies, new EV buyers can now receive up to €9,000 ($10,000) in financial support toward their car purchase.

Green buyers can now feel really good, another taxpayer subsidy that helps them directly with a spinoff for the mining interests in the Congo, too (not to mention the folks at Korea's LG Chem et cetera and others named in this lawsuit). Wonderful. :ohboy: Thus, it's going to get even more busy in the Congo's mining sector.

After reading for a few hours over on the BLM thread, apparently in the Congo many black kids lives really don't seem to matter. However, don't tell these top ten green companies and the NGO's behind them.

snip said:
Behind the 'clean' wheel of the electric cars, there is a dark secret. The main element used to produce the batteries that power electric cars is cobalt - a toxic and hazardous element. Cobalt mining, which is a dangerous task, takes place in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) which is home to 70% of the world's cobalt supply. The mining of cobalt is unregulated and involves child labour, exploitation, human rights abuses and environmental risks to those who work on the mines.
Child labour is also prevalent with 28% of the workforce, or 19,000-30,000 miners are under the age of 15. A majority of the children are often exploited orphans or street children. Children work approximately 12 hours in the mines for the opportunity to earn money and afford school fees.

Furthermore, the living conditions are dreadful. Cobalt particles in the soil make it dangerous for vegetables and consumption of these cause vomiting, diarrhoea, and fatal lung diseases including pneumonia. Diseases are rampant in the miners' camps due to lack of sanitation and hygiene.

Women are subject to sexual harassment, abuse and rape and some are forced into prostitution. Girls, as young as ten, are subject to sexual attacks and many become pregnant. According to the United Nations, approximately 80 children die every year in the cobalt mines, although more deaths go unreported with bodies buried in the rubble of collapsed tunnels. Reading this makes us question whether the exploitation and inhumane treatment of children and adults is necessary for 15kg of cobalt to make one single electric car?

From within an above post, Dr. Michael Kelly reminds:

A Tesla car weighs 2.2 tonnes and its battery 540kg and occupies 400 litres: for a high range of 600km, you would need 48 litres of petrol weighing 36kg.
{and to replace gas powered vehicles with one battery weighing between 14 kg to 22 kg, spiraling Cobalt requirements will exponentially grow to meet the these new needs (to start) with:}
207,900 tonnes of cobalt – just under twice annual world production
{I'm guessing this number is off for some reason, and then factor in solar energy battery requirements, to name another need}

Go Green, they say, save the planet...


FOTCM Member
The following talk/presentation was on Watts Up With That? with a focus on the German energy 'soft' power schemes featured in this thread above; not just Germany.

Climate, Coal, and Covid
Charles Rotter / June 12, 2020
A 20 minute, quite comprehensive, presentation.

The presentation is by Dr. Lars Schernikau, who also sits on the C02 Coalition Bord with other notables, such as Dr. Patrick Moore et cetera.

Nothing revolutionary to readers here, although Lars notes conditions, such as geographical wind charts against the misleading energy output/costs of the greeny-global-power dictates.

In brief:

  • Discusses 'Integration Costs' (cost of backup, grid costs, balancing costs)
  • 'Energy Cost' (i.e. a windmill cost is a 10 yr development cost return), recycling costs (very expensive)
  • Green 'Mineral Cost' is exponential over others (have a look at the metrics) - mining et al.

"Wind & Solar account for 2% of primary energy
Their costs will always increase the more we use them"



Jedi Master
For those who are unaware of the scope of this - look at these pictures from Germany. And know that Germany is the role model for the world when it comes to the Green Utopia - so watch out, soon to come to your place:
Well that´s sinister looking.... When we drive on the highway, I always have a feeling that those wings will cut trough the car....

They shape was always interesting to me and puzzled me; when you remember those old mills that power by air, they are not shaped like this.
They have wider wings, to catch the air.

I´m no scientist in air dynamics but this thin and heavy wings on modern wind turbines look wrong to me. 🤷‍♀️

This modern wind turbines actually remind me of Mercedes Benz logo.
... Over time, the color of the Three-Pointed Star changed from gold to white to silver, but it always carried one meaning: the dominance of Daimler engines on land, sea, and in the air.

Some compare Mercedes Benz logo to Triquetra (or Trinity knot) (see here here and here).

An ancient Celtic symbol, the triquetra is considered one of the oldest; dating back to as early as 500 BC when it was used to symbolize the triple goddess (maiden-mother-crone). Over the centuries it has become the symbol for the Holy Trinity among Christians in Ireland. The symbol is often used to represent the 3 fundamental elements – air, water, and earth or the infinite cycle of life.

Apparently there is also distorted/occult meaning to Triquetra; that this symbol represents three inter-woven "6"s or - interlocked "666".

So reading this thread, about no use of this wind turbines in green energy whatsoever and that they actually damage our body, one can only conclude that their entire point is to stamp the land with occult markings, lower the energy vibration and to make us sick.

I dunno.... 🤔
Top Bottom