Tag: Green Energy

  • Dirty Green Money

    Dirty Green Money

    Dirty Green Money

    The UN’s latest global warming conference may be one of its last.

    December 3, 2024 by Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage Magazine

    “I’m also listening to ‘Bitch Better Have My Money’ by Rihanna nonstop,” Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, the vice chair for the implementation of the UN Climate Convention, told reporters.

    The 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Baku was all about money.

    It wasn’t the planet, but the scent of money that had drawn everyone from Gomez, the negotiator for Panama, one of the most corrupt countries in the world, to the Taliban, to the UN climate conference in Azerbaijan, a post-Soviet Muslim oil and gas country.

    Officially everyone was in a country whose only real export was oil and gas to save the planet, but as the favorite song of the UN Climate Convention vice chair says, “Hold up, My money, Yo, my money.” Everyone in Baku wanted to save the planet. But only for the right price.

    Even the Taliban who came asking for money to fix Afghanistan’s ‘climate change’ problems.

    President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan kicked off the UN conference to end oil and gas by praising them as a “gift from Allah” and blamed America for polluting the world with ‘carbon emissions’.

    Aliyev’s speech was representative of third world countries which had only shown up to trade votes for cash. UN climate conferences require a consensus. And that means bribing every third world dictatorship to get on board with whatever fictional climate target is being discussed now.

    In accordance with demands from Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia and other Muslim oil states, COP29, as the UN conference is known, didn’t actually agree to move away from oil and gas.

    It did however agree to give third world countries a whole lot of money.

    The Biden-Harris administration had started out by offering $200 billion to third world kleptocracies. Azerbaijan demanded $250 billion. The Saudis called for a $500 billion payout. Eventually a deal was set at $300 billion: far short of the $1.3 trillion the third worlders wanted.

    Young blond activists wearing PLO terrorist flags,who had flown thousands of miles and burned up enormous amounts of fuel, showed up chanting “pay up”. No one paid attention to them.

    Environmentalist groups and third world countries clamored that this small sum was a “betrayal”.

    Much like Rihanna’s career, it’s an artificially manufactured facade that means nothing. Even the money is as fictitious as the fake crisis that has inflicted 29 of these conferences on the world.  UN global warming conferences are a corrupt scheme for global governance that is falling apart.

    That’s why most world leaders, with the exception of the UK’s disgraced Prime Minister Keir Starmer, whose popularity crashed after he announced he was going to freeze British pensioners to save the planet, stayed away from the farce in heavily polluted Azerbaijan.

    The Club of Rome issued an angry letter signed by its founder, as well as Belgium’s Princess Marie-Esmeralda, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Ireland’s Mary Robinson and Sandinista dictator and former terrorist Daniel Ortega, demanding global climate tyranny.

    The letter called for an “urgent energy transition”, the elimination of countries that don’t support the Paris Agreement from the process (a list soon to include Trump’s America) and a focus on implementing the elimination of actual reliable energy sources in favor of empty green promises.

    The infighting between wings of the globalist movement and the refusal of world leaders to show up in Baku threatens to tear apart what had become the key tool for global governance. Green globalism is trapped between third world greed and first world fantasies. Like the rest of the UN, it’s an impotent globalist vision kneecapped by third world corruption. Western nations urge everyone to come together under one system while third worlders shout “Yo, my money.”

    In 2025, COP30 will head to Belem, the gateway to Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, where countless jet planes will descend and convoys of cars will pollute the air near the rainforest to save the planet. By then, America may no longer be part of the green circus and its corrupt deals.

    And it may not be alone.

    World leaders stayed away from COP29 and they may be no fonder of flying off to Brazil than they were of visiting Azerbaijan. With America out of the Paris Accords and unlikely to agree to next year’s $500 billion deal to keep third world corruptocrats on board with the agenda, the grand global era of international planet-saving conferences may be approaching its end.

    COP29 has demonstrated that the only purpose of the UN climate conferences is wealth redistribution from the first world to the third. And the price tags are rapidly reaching unsustainable amounts. COP28 had committed to $100 billion in climate financing. That shot up to $300 billion in 2024 and $500 billion is an entirely plausible figure for 2025.

    And the third world kleptocracies keep demanding more money, $1.3 trillion this year, until the entire GDP of the first world would not suffice. Activists are already complaining that the amounts must be pegged to inflation in which case we would soon be dealing with trillions.

    But worst of all, global warming has grown stale and boring. The global community is occupied by the war in Ukraine and the activists have moved on to protesting for Hamas. Even Greta Thunberg, who became an icon for refusing to go to school until all the oil went away, now spends most of her time furiously denouncing the Jews. And when you’ve lost Greta, it’s over.

    The only people who still care about global warming are being paid. And they want a raise.

    Two decades before Rihanna was born, a bunch of English lads sang, “I’ll give you all I’ve got to give, If you say you love me too, I may not have a lot to give, But what I got I’ll give to you.”

    The oceans aren’t rising and the climate isn’t changing, at least no more than it usually does, but we are starting to run out of money. And no matter how much money we give the third world, it never seems to buy us love. Come 2025 and the land of Rihanna (and more importantly, the adopted home of John, Ringo and George) will be telling Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez that no more bribe money is coming for the third world.

    The dirty green business of global warming is over.

  • Reliable Green Energy?

    Reliable Green Energy?

    This is the ‘green energy’ they want us to transition to.  


    A wind turbine in Texas met an untimely end over the weekend when a reported lightning strike hit caused the structure to catch fire and then essentially implode while spinning itself into oblivion. 

    For those who may not remember, Texas residents endured severe winter Energy issues due to wind turbines freezing. 

    They would rather support unreliable energy than the use of fossil fuel. 

  • Science Sunday – Windmill Facts 

    Science Sunday – Windmill Facts 

    I return with another piece on energy sources for the ’green energy’ agenda. Again, there is no link; however, does provide an author name for you to seek additional information should you wish to do so. Also, the first sentence references a picture. said picture did not transmit with the document.

    That little yellow thing at the top of the picture is a CAT-9 bulldozer. It is burying acres and acres of windmill blades used for “Green Energy.” Why?

    Because these blades need to be disposed of, and there is presently no way to recycle them. That’s how green energy works! Who knew? Maybe the people that make them knew. Why would they let that cat out of the bag? After all, they are government-subsidized with tax-payer money (just like every electric car). Also, politicians do not want those huge eyesores in their backyard.

    Right now, the average wind farm contains about 150 turbines. Each wind turbine needs 80 gallons of oil as a lubricant, and we’re not talking about vegetable oil, this is a PAO synthetic oil based on crude. 12,000 gallons of it for 150 turbines, and that oil needs to be replaced once a year. It is estimated that a little over 3,800 turbines would be needed to power a city the size of New York… That’s 304,000 gallons of refined oil per year for just one city. That’s 25+ wind farms.

    Now, you have to calculate every city across the nation, large and small, to find the grand total of yearly oil consumption from “clean” energy. Where do you think all that oil is going to come from? Well, since January 2021, it comes from our enemies in the Mideast. Not to mention the fact that the large equipment needed to build these wind farms runs on petroleum. As well as the equipment required for installation, service, maintenance, and eventual removal. And just exactly how eco-friendly is wind energy anyway?

    Each turbine requires a footprint of 1.5 acres, so a wind farm of 150 turbines needs 225 acres. To power a city the size of NYC, you’d need 57,000 acres; and who knows the astronomical amount of land you would need to power the entire US. All of which would have to be clear-cut land because trees create a barrier and turbulence that interferes with the 20mph sustained wind velocity necessary for the turbine to work properly. Also, keep in mind that not all states are suitable for such sustained winds. Boy, cutting down all those trees is gonna upset a lot of green-loving tree-huggers.

    Let’s now talk about disposal.

    The lifespan of a modern, top-quality, highly efficient wind turbine is 20 years. After that, what happens to those gigantic fiber composite blades? They cannot be economically reused, refurbished, reduced, repurposed, or recycled. So, it’s off to special landfills they go. And, they’re already running out of these special landfill spaces for the used blades that have already exceeded their usefulness. Those blades are anywhere from 120 ft. to over 200 ft. long, and there are 3 per turbine. And that’s with only 3% to 7% of the nation currently being supplied with (intermittent, i.e., unreliable) wind energy. Just imagine if we had the other 93% of the nation on the wind grid… 20 years from now you’d have all those unusable blades with no place to put them… Then 20 years after that, and 20 years after that, and so on. “Green energy?”

    Also, about 500,000 birds are killed each year from wind turbine blade collisions, many of which are endangered hawks, falcons, owls, geese, ducks, and eagles. Apparently, smaller birds are more agile and able to dart and dodge out of the way of the spinning blades, whereas the larger soaring birds aren’t so lucky.

    Here’s another problem with windmills. The generator and switching equipment operate at high power and voltage. Everything in the windmill nacelle (look it up) is compact due to limited space, so there’s a danger of arcs and electrical fires. This is prevented by putting all the electrical equipment in a pressure vessel filled with sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), a synthetic gas that has dielectric properties which suppress arcs and fires. However, windmills leak this gas, something around a pound each per year. SF6 has an atmospheric lifetime of 3,200 years and is 22,800 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than carbon.

    THIS IS ANOTHER ITEM THAT FALLS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF, “GEE WHIZ, I GUESS WE DIDN’T THINK THIS THROUGH”(!!!)

  • Science Sunday – What Is A Battery

    Science Sunday – What Is A Battery

    First things first. I am not a science person; however, I often receive science type articles. Often, they do not have links. I am providing them as a ’public service’ in hopes you find something of interest.

    What is a battery?’ I think Tesla said it best when they called it an Energy Storage System. That’s important.

     They do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators.  So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid.

     Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?

     Einstein’s formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car.

     There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals.

     Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them.

     All batteries are self-discharging.  That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery’s metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill.

     In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly.

    But that is not half of it.  For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive embedded costs.

     Everything manufactured has two costs associated with it, embedded costs and operating costs. I will explain embedded costs using a can of baked beans as my subject.

     In this scenario, baked beans are on sale, so you jump in your car and head for the grocery store. Sure enough, there they are on the shelf for $1.75 a can. As you head to the checkout, you begin to think about the embedded costs in the can of beans.

     The first cost is the diesel fuel the farmer used to plow the field, till the ground, harvest the beans, and transport them to the food processor. Not only is his diesel fuel an embedded cost, so are the costs to build the tractors, combines, and trucks. In addition, the farmer might use a nitrogen fertilizer made from natural gas.

    Next is the energy costs of cooking the beans, heating the building, transporting the workers, and paying for the vast amounts of electricity used to run the plant. The steel can holding the beans is also an embedded cost. Making the steel can requires mining taconite, shipping it by boat, extracting the iron, placing it in a coal-fired blast furnace, and adding carbon. Then it’s back on another truck to take the beans to the grocery store. Finally, add in the cost of the gasoline for your car.

     A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk.  It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells.

     It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth’s crust for just  one  battery.”

     Sixty-eight percent of the world’s cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material.

    Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?”

     I’d like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being ‘green,’ but it is not! This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why.

     The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic.

    Silicone dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled.

     Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. Sadly, both solar arrays and windmills kill birds, bats, sea life, and migratory insects.

     There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. I predict EVs and windmills will be abandoned once the embedded environmental costs of making and replacing them become apparent.  “Going Green” may sound like the Utopian ideal and are easily espoused, catchy buzzwords, but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth’s environment than meets the eye, for sure.

  • Malarkey-Green Energy

    Malarkey-Green Energy

    Had By Vlad

    Actual Russian Disinformation
    FOX headline: “Russia duped Europe into energy dependence by funding ‘rabid environmental groups’: experts”
     
    “For years, world leaders have accused Russia of funding environmental groups in Europe to steer nations away from energy independence and strengthen Russia’s iron grip over the continent. As nations across the globe begin shunning Russian oil in response to the country’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. leaders are also questioning how deep Russia’s ties go in the environmental community.” 
     
    “‘The Russians actually fund some of the most rabid environmental groups in Europe because they sic them on the energy projects that aren’t Russian,’ James Carafano, vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital in a recent phone interview. 
     
    “Back in June 2014, just months after Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, European leaders sounded off that Russia was using disinformation operations with environmental groups to steer countries away from fracking in favor of Russian oil. 
     
    “‘I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations — environmental organisations working against shale gas — to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas,’ Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former prime minister of Denmark and then-secretary-general of NATO, said, according to the Guardian. 
     
    “NATO’s press office passed the remarks off as Rasmussen’s personal views, but one NATO official sounded the alarm that Russia’s grip on Europe was tightening. 
     
    “‘We don’t go into the details of discussions among allied leaders, but Russia has been using a mix of hard and soft power in its attempt to recreate a sphere of influence, including through a campaign of disinformation on many issues, including energy. In general, the potential for Russia using energy supplies as a means of putting pressure on European nations is a matter of concern. No country should use supply and pricing terms as tools of coercion,’ the NATO official told the Guardian in 2014.” 
     
    “In the U.S., Republican Reps. Lamar Smith and Randy Weber sent a letter to then-Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin in 2017 arguing that Russia’s goal is to ‘suppress the widespread adoption of fracking in Europe and the U.S.’ by funding such environmental groups. 
     
    “The two Republicans even cited former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who complained during a private 2014 speech about ‘phony environmental groups’ pushing an anti-fracking agenda. 
     
    “‘We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I’m a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, ‘Oh that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,’ and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia,’ Clinton said, according to excerpts leaked by WikiLeaks in 2016.”  
     
    Matt Whitlock: “This is very interesting. Russian money has been funding liberal environmental groups’ anti-fossil fuel push. One of the top recipients was ⁦@NRDC⁩, who gave millions to Biden before their leader ⁦@ginamccarthy46⁩ became Biden’s Climate Czar.” 
     
    House Energy & Commerce Committee GOP: “Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee are now holding three environmental groups’ feet to the fire. We’re pushing for answers and look forward to responses from @LCVoters, @SierraClub, and @NRDC by March 25.”
     
    Tom Elliott vid link: “@RepDanCrenshaw explains how Russia funds U.S. anti-fracking eco groups: ‘There’s a shell corporation in Bermuda called Klein Ltd., which primarily funds an org in San Fran called Sea Change, which then turns around & funds a lot of groups that you would know, like Sierra Club’”

    Decade after decade the predictions made by the environmentalist have not happened. Obviously, the powers that be chose to ignore this and lead their countries to energy dependence on Russia.