Australia signatory to Agenda 21 since 1992
No power for 2 million California residents
In NSW, 23,500 customers had power cut off last year, unable to pay bills
by Alex Bruce
It’s funny how so many topics once deemed to be “Tinfoil Hat conspiracy theories” keep getting proven to be worthy of serious attention. Agenda 21, the United Nations’ 1992 plan for Sustainable Development is an example.
Rosa Koire has been doing an excellent job of raising awareness about Agenda 21 for many years. She describes how it is being rolled-out – never by name. This is carefully avoided. Hence, we’re propagandized about Climate Change and the Green New Deal. She says Agenda 21 programs can be identified by their so-called “communitarian” ethos that is imposed from without by NGOs, circumventing the will of communities and the individuals within.
Agenda 21 has been getting pushed hard lately in the agitprop of Greta Thunberg and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Among its unrealistic goals, the Green New Deal aims to restructure the entire global energy economy within 10 years by completely “transitioning” the US out of fossil fuels and nuclear energy and into renewables, like wind and solar power.
What none of its proponents will admit is that this plan requires genocide. As shown by the collapse of Rome and demonstrated repeatedly by successive societies, the halving of energy consumption leads directly to the collapse of human populations.
As a Bay Area forensic commercial real estate appraiser and expert witness, Rosa Koire observed how property owners in Northern California have been barred from using their own properties, thus making these cheap when the Government wants to acquire them for Eminent Domain.
While investigating this, Koire ran into Agenda 21 – or as she calls it, “The biggest public relations scam in the history of the world,” and how this global plan aims to break down economies and to depopulate areas considered to be rural or suburban, concentrating populations into larger cities.
“This is the plan. It’s the loss of our industry, our agriculture, our food independence. Ultimately, it’s the loss of our sovereignty, as a free nation…It’s social engineering…it’s the acceptance of what I call the ‘new poverty’.”
Over two million people in California were left without power this week and several hundred thousand remain without power during a preventive blackout by PG&E lasting several days. The energy company’s promise to make a massive outage like this the new normal will likely drive many people away from the rural areas and thus fulfill the plan of Agenda 21.
by Viv Forbes, Science Writer
Every day some green energy promoter or a battery salesman tells us how green energy with battery backup will supply Australia’s future electricity needs.
A battery stores energy. Energy can be stored using lead-acid, nickel/cadmium, lithium, molten salt, pumped hydro, hydrogen, flywheels, compressed air or some other smart gizmo. But NOT ONE battery produces new energy – they simply store and discharge energy produced by other means. They all deliver less energy than they consume. Moreover, to manufacture, charge, use and dispose of batteries consumes energy and resources.
The idea of producing reliable grid power from intermittent green energy backed up by batteries looks possible in green doodle-diagrams, but would be absurdly inefficient and expensive.
Solar works a Six hour day
Consider a solar panel which is rated to collect say 100 units of energy per day at full capacity, in full mid-day sunlight, with a clean panel, properly aligned to face the sun.
No solar energy arrives overnight and only minimal amounts arrive during the three hours after dawn or before dusk. That means that solar energy can only be collected for about 6 hours per day, providing it is not cloudy, raining or snowing. No amount of research or regulation will change this – the solar energy union only works a six-hour day and takes quite a few sickies. So instead of feeding 100 units of energy per day into the grid, at best, the panel supplies just 25 units.
Can the addition of batteries give us 24/7 power from solar?
To deliver 100 units of energy in 24 hours will require an extra 75 units of energy to be collected, stored and delivered by the batteries every sunny day. This will require another three solar units devoted solely to re-charging batteries in just 6 sunny hours.
Cloudy/wet days are what really expose the problems of solar plus batteries. (This is why isolated green power systems must have a diesel generator in the shed.)
To insure against, say, 7 days of cloudy weather would require a solar/battery system capable of collecting and storing 700 units of energy while still delivering 100 units to consumers every day. However if several consecutive weeks of sunny weather then occur, this bloated system is capable of delivering 7 times more power than needed, causing power prices to plunge, driving reliable generators out of business and wasting the life of solar panels producing unwanted electricity.
Solar energy obviously does best in sunny equatorial deserts, but that is not where most people live. And the huge Desertec Solar Power Dream for the northern Sahara has failed.
The report card on wind energy is different, but equally depressing.
When Australia had reliable, predictable coal-gas-hydro power in every state, the need for heavy interstate transmission was minimal. But green power will require robust and costly interstate transmission facilities to send large amounts of power at short notice from sunny coal-rich Queensland to cloudy Victoria, windless South Australia or droughted Tasmania.
Playing Snakes and Ladders with Australia’s Electricity Supply.
We are told that wind/solar plus pumped water storage will provide adequate grid power. Unfortunately those huge hydro-pumps need steady continuous power – something not provided by intermittent green energy. So are politicians planning to install huge chemical batteries or diesel motors to steadily re-charge the elevated water storages in order to get back less energy than was consumed by the pumps?
Both wind and solar are unpredictable, unreliable, intermittent and weather-dependent energy sources. They require large collection areas with a cob-web of access roads and transmission lines. Their output can change suddenly and cannot be managed easily to meet demand fluctuations. They need flexible backup power able to swing in quickly to maintain stability and supply.
Gas provides the easiest back-up for green energy, but gas exploration is banned in many areas of NSW, South Aust and the whole of gas-rich Victoria. Canny residents of the green states are now investing in diesel generators.
The Perfect Solar Battery
God has already given us the perfect solar battery for long-term storage of energy: it is called “Coal”. Solar power from sunlight is converted by photosynthesis into wood, and thence into coal for high-density long-term solar energy storage. The downside to this system is that it has tied up large quantities of carbon that is therefore unavailable to the natural world. The upside is that releasing the energy from coal also releases life-giving CO2 back into the biosphere, where it belongs.
Our growing energy crisis was caused by political interference – Australian politicians have not learned last century’s lessons of central planning in the comrade societies.
Robert Gottliebsen writing in “The Australian” 21/3/2017 puts it succinctly:
“The looming crisis is much worse than I expected. Three state governments, Victoria, NSW and South Australia, have vandalised our total energy system. The Premiers of each state clearly had no idea what they were doing. . .”
He also wrote: “My information from the best possible sources is that if Victoria’s Hazelwood power station is shut on April 2, there is a 75% chance of blackouts in NSW and Victoria next summer.”
The best solution would be to cease all government force-feeding of intermittent green energy, get politicians out of the energy business and allow the construction of any gas/coal/nuclear or hydro plants that stack up for energy companies, investors and consumers. This will eliminate all the land-loss, materials and labour involved in building, running and maintaining an unreliable, unpredictable, uneconomic, intermittent and absurdly expensive solar/wind/battery/hydro/diesel monstrosity?”
Intermittent energy with batteries or back-up should be used and paid for by those who find them useful. They should not be subsidised or forced onto power grids or reluctant consumers.
Society has better things to do with community cash than squandering it on massive green energy toys and battery baloney.
Viv Forbes has formal qualifications in Applied Science and Investment Analysis and long experience at analysing industries and projects.
To view or print the whole article with image click: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/snakes-and-ladders.pdf
Solar Power Realities: http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/solar-realities.pdf
The 53 year old Hazelwood Coal-fired power station makes more electricity than Australia’s entire wind industry: http://joannenova.com.au/2017/03/hazelwood-countdown-53-years-old-and-making-more-electricity-than-australias-entire-wind-industry/
Hazelwood is vital to Australia’s power supply: http://www.newsweekly.com.au/article.php?id=57624
Australia must Keep Hazelwood Power station open: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/24/emergency-intervention-urged-to-keep-open-hazelwood-power-plant
Lifetime audit: offshore wind generation remains uncompetitive with gas and coal which are half the cost: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/22/by-the-numbers-lifetime-performance-of-worlds-first-offshore-wind-farm/
Desertec Sahara Solar Project Fails: http://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2015.4
Study finds that trying to store green energy in a battery does more environmental harm than good: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Study-storing-solar-power-is-a-bad-idea-10900007.php
Britain needs to come clean on the costs of renewable energy: http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=53b44af288&e=e1638e04a2
Wind power depends on coal
by Viv Forbes, science writer
June 15th was declared by wind energy rent-takers as “Global Wind Day”. This is just another orchestrated media event designed to distract taxpayers, electricity consumers and wind turbine victims from the follies of wind energy. The only people celebrating will be turbine owners getting subsidies, propped-up prices and guaranteed markets; lucky landowners getting rich on compensation; and green zealots promoting a UN Agenda. But neighbours of turbines driven mad by the noise of the thumping blades are not celebrating; neither are the birds and bats being sliced by the spinning sickles; nor nearby property owners who see their property values slashed; nor true environmentalists concerned to see the destruction and uglification of their landscapes and hilltops with a spider-web of turbines, transmission lines and access roads; nor electricity consumers facing expensive and increasingly unreliable power supplies. Future generations will look back in wonder at a whole generation of westerners whose misdirected religious green zeal wasted billions of dollars to create industrial and environmental destruction, while insisting (without evidence) that it would create a cooler climate, and that everyone wants a cooler climate. Those who sow the wind will reap the whirl-wind.
Further Reading: Why Wind Won’t Work: http://carbon-sense.com/2011/02/08/why-wind-wont-work/
Green Energy Steals from the Biosphere Earth has only three significant sources of energy.
First is geothermal energy from Earth’s molten core and decaying radioactive minerals in Earth’s crust. This energy moves continents, powers volcanoes and its heat migrates towards the crust, warming the lithosphere and the deep oceans. It can be harvested successfully in favourable locations, and radioactive minerals can be extracted to provide large amounts of reliable heat for power generation.
Second is energy stored in combustible hydrocarbon minerals such as coal, oil, gas, tar sands and oil shale. These all store solar and geothermal energy collected eons ago and they are the primary energy sources supporting the modern world and its large and growing populations.
Third are radiation and gravitational energies from the Sun and Moon which are captured by the biosphere as heat, winds, tides, rain, rivers and in biomass such as forests, crops and animals. These are the natural “Green” energies that support all processes of life and still support a peasant existence for some peoples. Green zealots believe that we can and should run modern societies exclusively on “Green” energies, and they have embarked on a war on hydrocarbons. They need to be told that their green energy favourites are just stealing from the biosphere – they are not as green as they claim. The most obvious example is the ethanol industry which takes food crops like corn, sugar and palm oil and uses heaps of water and a lot of hydrocarbon energy to convert them to ethanol alcohol which will burn in internal combustion engines, but has less energy density than petrol.
See: The Water and Corn costs to produce Ethanol: http://gazette.Com/the-water-and-corn-cost-for-a-gallon-of-ethanol/article/1506579 This process is replacing natural grasslands and forests with artificial monocultures. The latest stupid ethanol suggestion is to power Obama’s “wanna-be-green” US Pacific Fleet using Queensland food crops. Feeding ethanol to the engines of the US Navy would consume far more food than was used feeding hay and grain to the thousands of horses used to move our artillery and Light Horse Brigades in the Great War. Sailors in the British Navy got much of their energy from Jamaican Rum, but the American navy will not run on Queensland ethanol whiskey.
More: World turning against Biofuels: http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/02/a-world-turning-against-biofuels/
Biomass is a fancy name for plant material and vegetable trash which, if maintained in/on the soil, will provide the fertility for the next crop. Burning it reduces the humus that maintains fertile soil. The ultimate biomass stupidity is to harvest American forests, pelletise them, dry them and ship them across the Atlantic (all using hydrocarbon fuels) to burn in a UK power station. Burning biomass produces the same emission gases as coal. Most plants will not grow without energy from the sun. Solar arrays steal energy directly from the biosphere. Some incoming solar energy is reflected to space by the panels, some is converted to waste heat on the panels, and some is converted to electricity – much of which ends up as waste heat. Solar radiation that could have given energy to growing plants is largely returned to the atmosphere as waste heat and much is then lost to space. Some solar farms are built over land that is already a desert – the rest create their own deserts in their shadow. Because solar energy is very dilute, very large areas of land must be shaded and sterilised by the panels in order to collect significant energy. Solar radiation also evaporates water from the oceans and provides the energy for rain, winds and storms. Much of this moisture falls as useful rain when the winds penetrate land masses. Wind turbines create artificial obstacles to the wind, reducing its velocity and thus tending to create more rain near the coast and rain shadows behind the turbine walls. And they chop up many birds and bats. Again, green energy harms the biosphere. More: The Windfarm Delusion:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/7684233/the-winds-of-change/ Hydro power is one of the few green energy sources that is “grid ready” and can supply economical reliable energy. So, naturally, many greens are opposed to it. However, in most places there is competition for fresh water for domestic uses, irrigation, industry and environmental flow. Hydro power is just one more competitor for this valuable green resource. So… Green energy is not so green after all. It reduces the supply of food, water and energy available to all life on earth, and it often consumes large amounts of hydrocarbon energy for its manufacture, construction, maintenance and backup. Green advocates are enemies of the poor. They want to burn their food, waste their water and deny them access to cheap reliable energy. Hydrocarbon fuels are the true green energy sources. They disturb less land per unit of energy produced, they do not murder wildlife, and their combustion produces new supplies of water and carbon dioxide for the atmosphere. More carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere enables plants to grow faster, bigger and more able to cope with heat or drought. It was coal, and later oil, which created and still largely supports the populations, prosperity and industry of developed nations. With a backdrop of freedom under the law, they can do the same for the whole world. Those professing concern for the poor need to realise that Green Energy steals from the biosphere and that hydrocarbons are the real friends of the poor. Finally, those who have swallowed the carbon dioxide scare should be told that nuclear energy is the most reliable and least damaging “low carbon” option.
Further Reading: Corn Ethanol Destroying the Prairies: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/16/corn-ethanol.aspx
Ethanol Mandate fuels Habitat Loss: http://www.cfact.org/2013/12/24/ethanol-mandate-fueling-habitat-loss/ The Biofuel Curse: http://canadafreepress.com/print-friendly/64405
by Viv Forbes
There is an incessant chorus from the green gospellers glorifying “renewable” energy and warning disbelievers that continued use of carbon fuels will damn the world to eternal fires of global warming.
Their ire is focussed on carbon dioxide, one very minor but beneficial atmospheric gas which is accused of causing more of everything bad: pollution and extreme weather, droughts and floods, snowstorms and hurricanes, malaria and mosquitos, icebergs and glacier retreat, heat waves and blizzards, declining polar bears and multiplying cane toads.
We are told that using “renewable” energy will prevent all these disasters and produce cheap “clean” electricity. Four points are relevant:
First, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, gas, diesel, petrol or wood is not a pollutant in the atmosphere, not the key driver of global warming or climate change, but a boon to all plants (and thus all life). It is clean and green. There is thus no environmental or climate justification for punitive taxes on carbon dioxide, or for really silly stuff like emissions trading or carbon capture and burial.
Second, wind and solar power have a role in remote or mobile applications and in domestic hot water generation, but are an unreliable and high cost addition to grid power. Because of their intermittent and unpredictable supply characteristics, the large areas of land required to collect significant energy, and their need for back-up generators or huge batteries, they can seldom compete in a fair market with coal, gas, nuclear or hydro power. Nothing anyone can do will change these natural characteristics.
Third, those who wish to use “renewable” energy or to become independent of the grid are free to do so, and this should continue. But green energy should not be molly-coddled with subsidies from taxpayers or other users, nor protected by extra taxes on carbon energy, taxpayer loans, mandated market shares or propped up prices.
Finally, there is one killer point that has recently emerged.
Google has long supported green energy and had a dream to power all of their energy-hungry computers and air-conditioned data centres with “renewables”. It was revealed recently by their own technical advisers that this dream is a delusion. The fatal flaw discovered is that wind/solar energy may not reduce life-time emissions of carbon dioxide and is unlikely to ever be cheaper than coal. The data collected shows that renewables will barely generate sufficient energy over the life of the facilities to recover the energy used to manufacture, construct and maintain those facilities.
Most so called “renewable” energy relies on the sun, and is better referred to as “in-exhaustible”. But at any point on Earth, wind/solar is more accurately called “intermittent energy”. And to build plants to extract electricity from the sun using wind or solar collectors is a zero-sum game or worse – they may not produce enough energy to recoup the energy cost of
replacing those facilities.
Wind/solar energy thus fails its central justification – it is not renewable.
For those who would like to read more:
Google Green tried hard to make green energy work:
But Google Engineers now say renewable energy won’t work:
Troubles at world’s largest solar plant: production down, gas usage up:
The Catch22 of Energy Storage: