+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

  1. Link to Post #1
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,039 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Canadian report reluctantly admits that 'green' energy is a disastrous flop

    Peter Foster Financial Post
    Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:40 UTC


    © David McNew/AFP/Getty Images

    The report confirms what should have been obvious from the start: the more “variable” wind and solar are introduced into any electricity system, the more they make it both more expensive and less reliable.

    Amid hundreds of graphs, charts and tables in the latest World Energy Outlook (WEO) released last week by the International Energy Agency, there is one fundamental piece of information that you have to work out for yourself: the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar. The answer is 1.1 per cent. The policy mountains have laboured and brought forth not just a mouse, but - as the report reluctantly acknowledges - an enormously disruptive mouse.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA) has in recent years become an increasingly schizophrenic organization. As both a source of energy information and a shill for the UN's climate-focused sustainable development agenda, it has to talk up the "transition to a low-carbon future" while simultaneously reporting that it's not happening. But it will!

    This report should be profoundly embarrassing to the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau, which has virtue-signalled itself to the front of a parade that is going nowhere, although it can certainly claim genuine leadership in the more forceful route to transition: killing the fossil fuel industry by edict.

    The WEO report, yet again, projects that global fossil fuel use - and related emissions - will grow out to 2040, as oil, gas and coal continue to dominate the energy picture. But it also struggles to put a positive spin on wind and solar. Solar had a "record-setting" year in 2017. The Chinese solar business is "booming." New wind and solar additions "outpaced those of fossil fuels in 2017, driven by policy support and declining costs.

    "Policy support" means subsidies worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As for declining costs, solar is at least twice as expensive a generator as coal and almost twice as expensive as gas.

    Finally, and most significantly, the report confirms what should have been obvious from the start:
    the more "variable" wind and solar are introduced into any electricity system, the more they make it both more expensive and less reliable.
    The term Variable Renewable Energy, VRE, could more accurately be described as Unreliable Renewable Energy, URE, due to the terribly obvious fact that the sun doesn't shine at night, and sometimes not during the day either, while the wind doesn't always blow. Thus the more that wind and solar are part of your system, the more technical contortions they demand from backup power and the structure of the grid. The efficient part of the system has to twist itself into a technical pretzel to accommodate the inefficient part. Accommodating unreliability has led to outright perversity. The widespread adoption of wind and solar under Germany's Energiewende ("energy transition") has resulted in rising overall emissions, mainly from coal-fired backup facilities. Meanwhile the green Godot is battery storage, which is always on the point of turning up, but never quite does. Still, the IEA has a scenario for that: "What if battery storage becomes really cheap?"

    Supply isn't the only area where expensive and unreliable wind and solar need to be accommodated. There is also "demand flexibility." This includes having solar panels installed on your roof, or adopting - or being forced to adopt - "smart meters," which can monitor a household's electricity usage in minute-by-minute detail. According to the report, "The spreading of rooftop solar PV (photovoltaics) and the falling costs of digital technologies, combined with affordable wind and solar power options, are creating a host of new opportunities that enable consumers to take a more active role in meeting their own energy needs."

    But wind and solar are not "affordable," and few people want to take a "more active role" in meeting their energy needs (That is, unless they are being heavily "policy supported" to stick solar panels on their roofs). They just want to flip a switch.

    As for smart meters, the IEA notes that many countries "have successfully rolled out smart meters on a large scale, such as Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, Spain and Sweden." Would such success be like the smart meter program in Ontario, which was panned by provincial auditor Bonnie Lysyk for costing an extra billion dollars and not working as advertised, while several thousand meters were found to represent a fire hazard?

    Although it mentions nothing of the absurdities attached to Ontario's Green Energy Act, the WEO report confirms that Canada has the most stringent emissions pricing program in the world, at least out to 2025, at $35 a tonne (in 2017 U.S. dollars), thus cementing its competitive disadvantage. Others, such as the EU and Korea, are prepared to make marginally more self-damaging commitments out to 2040 (at US$43 and US$44 respectively), but these levels nowhere near approach that allegedly required by the beyond-fantasy "Sustainable Development Scenario," which, for developed countries, is US$63 in 2025 and US$140 in 2040. In fact, those figures, like most of the IEA's projections, are not worth a solar fig.

    The Sustainable Development Scenario not only solves the climate issue, but also takes care of universal access to modern energy and air pollution, too. Even more amazing, it achieves all this via imposing swathes of expensive and unreliable energy, but without the slightest impact on economic growth. How? By simply assuming so.

    The report's solution to policy mayhem is inevitably to call for more - and more complex - policy. "Can an integrated approach spur faster action?" it asks. Since governments have screwed up so badly, might they screw up less if they try to do much more?

    At least they are assured of firm support from the IEA.

    Related:
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 33 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Alan (25th November 2018), Andre (14th February 2019), avid (24th November 2018), Baby Steps (15th February 2019), Bill Ryan (23rd November 2018), Chip (21st December 2018), christian (23rd November 2018), Deux Corbeaux (23rd November 2018), drneglector (25th November 2018), enigma3 (23rd November 2018), Franny (23rd November 2018), happyuk (23rd November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), jjjones (23rd November 2018), justntime2learn (24th November 2018), meeradas (26th November 2018), Melinda (23rd November 2018), Nasu (24th November 2018), Ol' Roy (23rd November 2018), peterpam (27th November 2018), Reinhard (18th January 2019), Rosco1 (2nd June 2019), Sammy (28th September 2019), seko (24th November 2018), Sophocles (23rd November 2018), toppy (24th November 2018), Tree Of Life (27th November 2018), TrumanCash (13th February 2019), Valerie Villars (23rd November 2018), Watching from Cyprus (18th January 2019), we-R-one (13th February 2019)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Bhutan Avalon Member enigma3's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st July 2016
    Posts
    372
    Thanks
    3,298
    Thanked 2,369 times in 359 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    With the article appearing in the Financial Post, I suspect a bit of pro fossil fuel bias here. Who is behind the WEO? I saw an article last year that showed more new energy plants coming online are fueled by renewable energy. The tide has shown a steady increase toward renewables.
    We must remember that the Rothschild/Rockefeller/Koch Bros bunch are heavily invested in fossil fuels and are not about to give up on them as they bring more profit.
    Also, what ever happened to harnessing the tides for energy? That would be a very steady flow of energy. I suspect the big boys have done all they can to squash that technology.

  4. The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to enigma3 For This Post:

    avid (23rd November 2018), Bill Ryan (25th November 2018), Bruno (23rd November 2018), Deux Corbeaux (23rd November 2018), drneglector (25th November 2018), Hervé (23rd November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), ichingcarpenter (23rd November 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), jjjones (23rd November 2018), justntime2learn (24th November 2018), Melinda (23rd November 2018), Nasu (24th November 2018), Ol' Roy (23rd November 2018), peterpam (27th November 2018), Reinhard (24th December 2018), Rosco1 (2nd June 2019), seko (24th November 2018), silvanelf (6th October 2019), Tam (30th January 2019)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Wales Avalon Member
    Join Date
    8th October 2012
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Age
    51
    Posts
    451
    Thanks
    2,142
    Thanked 2,231 times in 414 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Excellent topic for discussion Hervé.

    Though many believe the oil industry is behind much anti-renewable sentiment, I feel there is no less a forceful agenda behind the renewables industry too. I am in no doubt that this is being applied as a useful fear-mongering tool to keep the masses in their places with a kind of deprivation consciousness. Certain factions I think are responsible for promoting the misconception that somehow resources are disappearing.

    Case in point: the whole thing about so-called "peak oil". How do we really know that it has peaked, given that there are known to be many places with large amounts of natural resources which never have been touched?

    It is generally accepted that oil is a fossil fuel but I would question this. There are an increasing number of theories which propose that rather than by the decomposition of organisms ("biogenic" ie plants and fauna), much if not all petroleum and natural gas is actually formed mainly by inorganic means ("abiogenic"). Though this idea may seem far-fetched, it is supported by a growing body of evidence.

  6. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to happyuk For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), avid (24th November 2018), Bill Ryan (25th November 2018), enigma3 (24th November 2018), Hervé (24th November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), Nasu (24th November 2018), peterpam (27th November 2018), Reinhard (18th January 2019), Satori (26th November 2018), Tree Of Life (27th November 2018)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member Builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd June 2015
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    244
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 1,165 times in 227 posts

    Question Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Can a non renewable, toxic substance pumped up from the ground and burned into toxic gases ever be a sustainable future for human energy needs?

    If not, what is the right direction to take? Should we not take that direction just because the first technical iterations are not perfect yet?

    Do we have a balanced, long term view of the pros and cons? Who profits from us not having a balanced, long term view?
    Last edited by Builder; 24th November 2018 at 07:48.
    To connect humankind with itself and the Cosmos!

  8. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Builder For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (25th November 2018), Hervé (24th November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), Intranuclear (23rd June 2019), justntime2learn (24th November 2018), peterpam (27th November 2018), Reinhard (18th January 2019), Satori (26th November 2018), Tree Of Life (27th November 2018), wnlight (Yesterday)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Great Britain Avalon Member Baby Steps's Avatar
    Join Date
    29th August 2014
    Age
    52
    Posts
    1,400
    Thanks
    14,917
    Thanked 6,358 times in 1,255 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Power grids have been designed to provide a constant base load to consumers, and some flexibility is built in, to meet spikes.

    I remember visiting Dinorwig, which was a hollowed out mountain, hydro power storage facility, built to cater for people who switched on their kettles during the ad break,from a popular soap opera.

    So although they can offer variable loads, they cope badly with variable supply from renewable sources. The situation is so bad, that, for example, in Germany they have to keep old coal stations fired up to plug gaps if the sun and wind do not deliver.

    This is very costly, and a hidden cost, in that the advocates for renewables will not be factoring in such stand-bys into their figures when evaluating renewables.

    All developed countries are saddling their customers with this huge cost. But what else can we do if we want to cut out the carbon?

    Are there novel ways to bring in more flexibility to the grid, so it can handle renewables more efficiently?

    Batteries could be located at the renewable generation sites. Domestic and car batteries could operate smartly, like mini energy brokers, once the grid gets smarter.

    In California, gas turbines can fill gaps with rapid reaction times.

    However this is all very costly. In the future hydrogen storage might be an option. So produce a huge tank of h2, using solar, and release it as needed.

    Small molten salt reactors can respond much more quickly to demand , they should be part of the mix. Overall, cost is the problem.


    Germany takes steps to roll back renewable energy revolution


    Germany is cutting back its renewable energy subsidies to stabilise its electric grid
    Last edited by Baby Steps; 24th November 2018 at 10:06.
    we have subcontracted the business of healing people to Companies who profit from sickness.

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Baby Steps For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (25th November 2018), Hervé (24th November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), Intranuclear (23rd June 2019), peterpam (27th November 2018), Reinhard (18th January 2019), Satori (26th November 2018), Tree Of Life (27th November 2018)

  11. Link to Post #6
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,039 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    ...

    Here is something to listen to:

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Fantastic answer to climate-change question – Video

    November 23, 2018 by Robert

    You gotta watch this video. It pretty much demolishes the climate-change ideology in just over six minutes.
    ________________

    Event took place on November 2, 2018.

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  12. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Baby Steps (25th November 2018), Bhusunda (5th October 2019), Bill Ryan (25th November 2018), Deux Corbeaux (26th November 2018), happyuk (1st December 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), Ivanhoe (13th February 2019), James (26th November 2018), meeradas (26th November 2018), Melinda (28th November 2018), peterpam (27th November 2018), Reinhard (24th December 2018), Valerie Villars (25th November 2018)

  13. Link to Post #7
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,039 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    ...

    It's so , it burns!

    Scientists plan to fight global warming by dimming the sun

    RT
    Sat, 24 Nov 2018 08:05 UTC


    © Reuters / Rick Wilking

    Scientists have come up with a new and ingenious way of fighting global warming: use chemicals to blot out the sun. Whether we'll then have to fight (and do everything else) in the shade, the research doesn't quite spell out.

    Since the world can't seem to agree on reducing CO2 emissions, why not tackle the problem from the other end, scientists from Harvard and Yale have surmised. The researchers recently published a study which says that spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere in order to literally dim out the sun could cut the effects of global climate change in half, and it might even be cheap!

    With all the excitement over the "hypothetical" and "highly uncertain and ambitious" plan, there are no guarantees that it will not actually make things worse in a catastrophic sort of way. There is a suspicious lack of information about what 'dimming the sun' could possibly do to those of us who rely on it for basic things - like growing food, or not freezing to death.

    Instead, the study published in Environmental Research Letters discusses the potential costs and necessary technology to realize the ambitious, if not hubristic, plan. The researchers discuss a variety of potential ways to accomplish the large-scale 'geoengineering' project: planes, balloons, or even just shooting chemicals in the air with large guns.

    Even apart from that, there's a fairly serious problem with the proposal: no aircraft currently exists that could actually deliver the payload. Adapting an existing version of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket has been ruled out, citing the cost.

    The proposal suggests a launch could be accomplished within 15 years, with an initial cost of around $3.5 billion, followed by another 15-year running period costing an additional $2.5 billion - a relatively low price given the scale and significance of the project, they argue. An initial fleet of eight ships would initially expand to nearly 100 in order to deploy the necessary amount of chemicals around the world.

    There are other less technical drawbacks to the proposal as well. Among the most obvious is that the plan would require international coordination between numerous countries, including the United States - whose president, Donald Trump, regularly expresses doubt about climate change in general.

    Quote
    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

    Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?

    4:23 PM - 21 Nov 2018
    91,361 replies 28,335 retweets 112,544 likes
    Dr Phil Williamson, an Honorary Reader at University of East Anglia, critiqued the proposal, saying that nations which "continued to experience extreme climate events" might then "consider that solar geoengineering had been responsible" and would need to be compensated. In other words, cutting the earth off from the heavens might be a real liability issue.

    Others have critiqued the strategy for being a band-aid response that ignores the actual causes of the problem.
    SOTT Comment: Or how about the critique that it is simply insane. If these researchers had been paying any attention, the sun is entering a grand solar minimum phase and along with it the start of another ice age. In other words, they're too late - the sun will be 'dimmed' all on its own. Of course, that still won't stop them from saying the ice age is because of global warming. See also:
    Related:
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1261038

    Dust Particles Influence On The Weather AND Earth's Climate
    Last edited by Hervé; 26th November 2018 at 12:14.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Baby Steps (27th November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), Reinhard (18th January 2019), Tree Of Life (27th November 2018)

  15. Link to Post #8
    UK Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th December 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    195
    Thanks
    188
    Thanked 655 times in 163 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    http://vizivtechnologies.com/ looks like an interesting technology

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Honesty For This Post:

    Bhusunda (5th October 2019), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Avalon Member Tree Of Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th November 2018
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    52
    Thanked 116 times in 17 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    I agree with you that much of the "green energy" movement was a boondoggle, but with several exceptions regarding solar power.

    Our modern lifestyle is perhaps what makes alt energy sources a bad fit. If you begin living off-grid for real, you become your own electric company, and monitor your system so that you only use what it produces. This is a good lesson in what modern life has done to Humans, and there is a lot of waste in living on the grid... things you just don't need, and are purely convenience. Convenience will never replace self-sufficiency, and the feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction that comes with it.

    My biggest concern with on grid living is how far we have traveled from the old ways that sustained families for centuries. We, as a culture, have lost much of the knowledge our grandparents lived by. It will be a sad day if the grid goes down, and the connection with comfortably surviving without power has been cut forever.

    That is the real failure, not green energy per se. People think their lives are better with all the modern gadgets and 'time-savers'... but are they really? What have we replaced them with? Social media? TV? I think we are better off without much of the modern ways, as our personal discoveries get put by the wayside, and we move as a programmed flock, responding to the newest trends which don't add anything to our lives in the big picture.

    I enjoy an off grid lifestyle, but it is not for everyone. Not throwing stones at anyone here, but just be sure our modern world doesn't steal your soul, and leave a big, empty hole where it is supposed to be!

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Tree Of Life For This Post:

    Hervé (27th November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), Ivanhoe (13th February 2019), Orph (27th November 2018), Valerie Villars (21st December 2018)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Philippines Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2013
    Age
    53
    Posts
    2,473
    Thanks
    4,148
    Thanked 9,070 times in 2,143 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    "The researchers recently published a study which says that spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere in order to literally dim out the sun could cut the effects of global climate change in half, and it might even be cheap!"

    what a very stupid idea. anyway from their point of view its an smart move because they are merely finding reason to spray us more chemicals. Earth is a live entity and is self regulating. As is in the human body water regulates the temp. More heat on earths surface more water evaporating more clouds covering the sun then cooling of earths surface which will result in less clouds forming then again more heat reaching the surface and then more clouds again. see its self regulating

    regarding the green energy flop you have to remember that the first car runs only around 20 km per hour and is very fuel inefficient. see everything goes through stage of learning and improving. green energy is new there is a huge room for improvement.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Bubu For This Post:

    Hervé (28th November 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Innocent Warrior (28th November 2018), Tree Of Life (27th November 2018), Valerie Villars (21st December 2018)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Wales Avalon Member
    Join Date
    8th October 2012
    Location
    Wales, UK
    Age
    51
    Posts
    451
    Thanks
    2,142
    Thanked 2,231 times in 414 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    ...

    Here is something to listen to:

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Fantastic answer to climate-change question – Video

    November 23, 2018 by Robert

    You gotta watch this video. It pretty much demolishes the climate-change ideology in just over six minutes.
    ________________

    Event took place on November 2, 2018.

    Peterson in my view makes a brilliant point about improving child nutrition as being a far more important and better objective than some vague, deeply-unrealistic "plan" of controlling the temperature of the planet. I mean, what in hell is the optimal temperature of the planet meant to be be anyway? And why? We try to do this already with the use of reflectants in chemtrails, but the long term consequences are unknown and I do not think reducing the amount of the sun's life-giving rays is in any way beneficial.

    Peterson's argument of having better fed children as means of improving the world's brain power, and thereby increasing the likelihood of humanity being able to solve its big problems is unassailable, in my humble opinion
    Last edited by happyuk; 1st December 2018 at 10:18.

  22. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to happyuk For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Deux Corbeaux (5th June 2019), Elixir (21st December 2018), Hervé (1st December 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Ivanhoe (13th February 2019), Tree Of Life (2nd December 2018), Valerie Villars (21st December 2018)

  23. Link to Post #12
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,039 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Germany’s green transition has hit a brick wall

    by Robert December 20, 2018
    "Even worse, its growing problems - with wind and solar - spell trouble all over the globe."
    ___________
    “By now, most of the world has heard about Germany’s “Energiewende” – its “energy transition, its grand plan to create a society based entirely on “green, renewable, sustainable” energy,” says Paul Driessen.

    “Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, the country has spent many kings’ ransom on the effort. Indeed, it has been estimated that Germany has already spent well over $550 billion on wind, solar and biofuel programs, and that legal commitments to support renewable energy will raise the total to $775 billion by 2022.”

    “What can this “climate and energy leader” show for its Herculean efforts? Not much, say Norwegian engineer Oddvar Lundseng and his colleagues. In fact, the entire plan has hit a brick wall. On many days, wind and solar generate a couple percent of the electricity the country needs, while on other days the turbines and panels produce so much power that the electricity must be exported at a loss to neighboring countries that don’t even want it. Meanwhile, Germany is still burning enormous amounts of coal every year – and Asia and Africa are burning millions of tons more each year, to bring electricity and better living standards to 1.3 billion people who still don’t have lights, refrigerators or other modern technologies.”
    _______________


    Germany’s green transition has hit a brick wall

    Even worse, its growing problems - with wind and solar - spell trouble all over the globe


    By Oddvar Lundseng, Hans Johnsen and Stein Bergsmark

    More people are finally beginning to realize that supplying the world with sufficient, stable energy solely from sun and wind power will be impossible.

    Germany took on that challenge, to show the world how to build a society based entirely on “green, renewable” energy. It has now hit a brick wall. Despite huge investments in wind, solar and biofuel energy production capacity, Germany has not reduced CO2 emissions over the last ten years. However, during the same period, its electricity prices have risen dramatically, significantly impacting factories, employment and poor families.

    Germany has installed solar and wind power to such an extent that it should theoretically be able to satisfy the power requirement on any day that provides sufficient sunshine and wind. However, since sun and wind are often lacking – in Germany even more so than in other countries like Italy or Greece – the country only manages to produce around 27% of its annual power needs from these sources.

    Equally problematical, when solar and wind production are at their maximum, the wind turbines and solar panels often overproduce – that is, they generate more electricity than Germany needs at that time – creating major problems in equalizing production and consumption. If the electric power system’s frequency is to be kept close to 50Hz (50 cycles per second), it is no longer possible to increase the amount of solar and wind production in Germany without additional, costly measures.

    Production is often too high to keep the network frequency stable without disconnecting some solar and wind facilities. This leads to major energy losses and forced power exports to neighboring countries (“load shedding”) at negative electricity prices, below the cost of generating the power.

    In 2017 about half of Germany’s wind-based electricity production was exported. Neighboring countries typically do not want this often unexpected power, and the German power companies must therefore pay them to get rid of the excess. German customers have to pick up the bill.

    If solar and wind power plants are disconnected from actual need in this manner, wind and solar facility owners are paid as if they had produced 90% of rated output. The bill is also sent to customers.

    When wind and solar generation declines, and there is insufficient electricity for everyone who needs it, Germany’s utility companies also have to disconnect large power consumers – who then want to be compensated for having to shut down operations. That bill also goes to customers all over the nation.

    Power production from the sun and wind is often quite low and sometimes totally absent. This might take place over periods from one day to ten days, especially during the winter months. Conventional power plants (coal, natural gas and nuclear) must then step in and deliver according to customer needs. Hydroelectric and biofuel power can also help, but they are only able to deliver about 10% of the often very high demand, especially if it is really cold.

    Alternatively, Germany may import nuclear power from France, oil-fired power from Austria or coal power from Poland.

    In practice, this means Germany can never shut down the conventional power plants, as planned. These power plants must be ready and able to meet the total power requirements at any time; without them, a stable network frequency is unobtainable. The same is true for French, Austrian and Polish power plants.

    Furthermore, if the AC frequency is allowed to drift too high or too low, the risk of extensive blackouts becomes significant. That was clearly demonstrated by South Australia, which also relies heavily on solar and wind power, and suffered extensive blackouts that shut down factories and cost the state billions of dollars.

    The dream of supplying Germany with mainly green energy from sunshine and wind turns out to be nothing but a fading illusion. Solar and wind power today covers only 27% of electricity consumption and only 5% of Germany’s total energy needs, while impairing reliability and raising electricity prices to among the highest in the world.

    However, the Germans are not yet planning to end this quest for utopian energy. They want to change the entire energy system and include electricity, heat and transportation sectors in their plans. This will require a dramatic increase in electrical energy and much more renewable energy, primarily wind.

    To fulfill the German target of getting 60% of their total energy consumption from renewables by 2050, they must multiply the current power production from solar and wind by a factor of 15. They must also expand their output from conventional power plants by an equal amount, to balance and backup the intermittent renewable energy. Germany might import some of this balancing power, but even then the scale of this endeavor is enormous.

    Perhaps more important, the amount of land, concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals, lithium, cadmium, hydrocarbon-based composites and other raw materials required to do this is astronomical. None of those materials is renewable, and none can be extracted, processed and manufactured into wind, solar or fossil power plants without fossil fuels. This is simply not sustainable or ecological.

    Construction of solar and wind “farms” has already caused massive devastation to Germany’s wildlife habitats, farmlands, ancient forests and historic villages. Even today, the northern part of Germany looks like a single enormous wind farm. Multiplying today’s wind power capacity by a factor 10 or 15 means a 200 meter high (650 foot tall) turbine must be installed every 1.5 km (every mile) across the entire country, within cities, on land, on mountains and in water.

    In reality, it is virtually impossible to increase production by a factor of 15, as promised by the plans.

    The cost of Germany’s “Energiewende” (energy transition) is enormous: some 200 billion euros by 2015 – and yet with minimal reduction in CO2 emission. In fact, coal consumption and CO2 emissions have been stable or risen slightly the last seven to ten years. In the absence of a miracle, Germany will not be able to fulfill its self-imposed climate commitments, not by 2020, nor by 2030.

    What applies to Germany also applies to other countries that now produce their electricity primarily with fossil or nuclear power plants. To reach development comparable to Germany’s, such countries will be able to replace only about one quarter of their fossil and nuclear power, because these power plants must remain in operation to ensure frequency regulation, balance and back-up power.

    Back-up power plants will have to run idle (on “spinning reserve”) during periods of high output of renewable energy, while still consuming fuel almost like during normal operation. They always have to be able to step up to full power, because over the next few hours or days solar or wind power might fail. So they power up and down many times per day and week.

    The prospects for reductions in CO2 emissions are thus nearly non-existent! Indeed, the backup coal or gas plants must operate so inefficiently in this up-and-down mode that they often consume more fuel and emit more (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide than if they were simply operating at full power all the time, and there were no wind or solar installations.

    There is no indication that world consumption of coal will decline in the next decades. Large countries in Asia and Africa continue to build coal-fired power plants, and more than 1,500 coal-fired power plants are in planning or under construction.

    This will provide affordable electricity 24/7/365 to 1.3 billion people who still do not have access to electricity today. Electricity is essential for the improved health, living standards and life spans that these people expect and are entitled to. To tell them fears of climate change are a more pressing matter is a violation of their most basic human rights.
    ____________
    Oddvar Lundseng is a senior engineer with 43 years of experience in the energy business. Hans Konrad Johnsen, PhD is a former R&D manager with Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA. Stein Storlie Bergsmark has a degree in physics and is a former senior energy researcher and former manager of renewable energy education at the University of Agder.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  24. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), avid (21st December 2018), Chip (21st December 2018), Hym (21st December 2018), Ivanhoe (13th February 2019), peterpam (21st December 2018), Reinhard (18th January 2019), Valerie Villars (21st December 2018)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Spain Deactivated
    Join Date
    8th August 2018
    Location
    Canary Islands overlooking a beach with forest covered mountains behind.
    Age
    70
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 885 times in 168 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Yes, I've been trying to tell people for five years that there's no global warming and that for most of history it's been warmer than now. Of course, carbon dioxide is not too high, either.

    MSN only reports hot weather, here's a website that redresses the balance by reporting on record cold https://www.iceagenow.info/

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to 5th For This Post:

    avid (21st December 2018), Hym (21st December 2018)

  27. Link to Post #14
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,039 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Disastrous socialist “Green New Deal” – Video

    by Robert January 18, 2019

    Watch Heartland’s Justin Haskins talk about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her disastrous socialist “Green New Deal” on Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler on the One America News Network.

    Forget the looming ice age. This insane idea alone could totally destroy the United States economy and be responsible for millions upon millions of deaths. And I suspect that this woman, who appears to be several bricks short of a load, would enjoy watching it happen.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Ivanhoe (13th February 2019)

  29. Link to Post #15
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,039 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    If the science is settled

    by Robert January 17, 2019
    “Many people in the American govt today do not realize they are being duped into supporting globalist ideology.”
    – Wm Craig Barnard
    ____________
    IF THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED

    Wm. Craig Barnard
    If the science is settled, why are so many scientists now coming forward with contrarian views that support climate change that leans to the cold extreme rather than the warm?

    Too many scientists are speaking up and the proof is in the sky’s. We see stronger earthquakes, more frequent volcanic eruptions and the longer-term scientific material like many of the great graphs shown in this web site (iceagenow.info) are blowing the lid off their fallacy.

    Lets think about something that isn’t widely discussed. Why are governments so hell bent on pushing global warming as climate change? If they had a true interest in helping their citizens prepare for these devastating events wouldn’t it be far better to inform us that cold is coming and they need money from us to help us prepare? Forty eight years ago when 30 scientists went to the UN and asked to make a presentation with a warning that a severe cold period that had the potential to be for en extended period of time was to start in 50 years, why didn’t they let them make the announcement to the world community?

    Could it be that the world community, more specifically those who promote globalism and population decreases do not want us to be prepared?

    Here is a bit of fact many may not be aware of, The UN granted the presentation 2 or 3 years later, but only after another theory was ready to be presented. That theory was a global warming theory and it was supported by some organization that was then identified by letters. It was reported it had very deep pockets and it’s core mission was to depopulate the globe. The two are not mutually exclusive. They are united.

    The information I just typed is from my own memory. I was in school at the time and our science professor was very interested in this information and kept us informed. He showed us many articles with pro’s and con’s to the information including many articles with comic like images of the world covered in ice.

    There was a full blown effort by those who wanted to misdirect the worlds population from the truth. Many people in the American govt today do not realize they are being duped into supporting globalist ideology. They are very dangerous to our family’s future as well as our Republics.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Franny (9th April 2019), onawah (13th February 2019), Tree Of Life (14th February 2019)

  31. Link to Post #16
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,144
    Thanks
    27,081
    Thanked 47,676 times in 9,714 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Top 6 Reasons to Support Regenerative Agriculture
    January 29, 2019
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=531582921
    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    Most growing environmental and health problems can be traced back to modern food production, including malnutrition, promotion of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant bacterial infections, diminishing water supplies, and air, soil and water pollution
    The answer to all of these problems hinges on the widespread implementation of regenerative agriculture and biodynamic farming
    Reasons to support regenerative agriculture include the fact that it promotes optimal nutrition and health, rebuilds topsoil, protects water sources and minimizes irrigation, prevents environmental pollution and restores damaged ecosystems
    Food from animals raised on regenerative farms also minimize the risks of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant diseases
    Certifications to look for, denoting the highest quality foods grown according to regenerative principles, include Demeter (biodynamic certification) and the American Grassfed Association (AGA) certification

    It's easy to forget that at one point, not so long ago, all food was organically grown in a way that supported the ecosystem and environment. This all changed in the 1940s when the Green Revolution took hold and industrial, chemical-dependent farming techniques spread and quickly became the norm.

    Unfortunately, industrial farming has created a series of unsustainable situations in less than 70 years, and evidence suggests we will not make it until the end of the century if we continue along the path of degenerative food and farming. Virtually every growing environmental and health problem can be traced back to modern food production. This includes but is not limited to:

    Food insecurity and malnutrition amid mounting food waste

    Promotion of foodborne illnesses and drug-resistant bacterial infections

    Rising obesity and chronic disease rates despite growing health care outlays

    Rapidly dwindling fresh water supplies

    Toxic agricultural chemicals polluting air, soil and waterways, thereby threatening the entire food chain from top to bottom

    Disruption of normal climate and rainfall patterns due to the destruction of ecosystems by pollution

    The good news is there's a viable answer to all of these problems that does not merely scratch at the surface, and the answer hinges on the widespread implementation of regenerative agriculture and biodynamic farming. This is why I support the Organic Consumers Association and Regeneration International.

    By learning from each other and educating consumers to affect change through your shopping habits, there's hope we may avoid a complete breakdown of our ecosystem and food production. One thing's for sure: We cannot wait for regulations to drive this change. We must push for it ourselves, and we do so by voting with our pocketbooks every time we shop for food.

    While this is a very broad topic with many interlacing components that could cover several books, here, I summarize half a dozen of the top reasons to support regenerative and biodynamic farming, and provide resources where you can further your own education.

    Reason No. 1: Regenerative Farming Rebuilds Topsoil
    Topsoil destruction, erosion and desertification are exacerbated by tilling, monocropping and not using cover crops. Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has warned that at the current rate of topsoil degradation, all the world's topsoil will be gone in less than 60 years,1 at which point growing of food will become next to impossible.

    Closely related problems are the loss of soil fertility and biodiversity, which is directly related to the loss of natural carbon in the soil. An estimated 80 percent of soil carbon in heavily farmed areas has already been lost,2 due to destructive plowing, overgrazing and the use of soil-destructive, carbon-depleting chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

    Carbon management — pulling carbon out of the air and sequestering it into the soil — is a critical aspect of environmental health and the growing of food. A key strategy to sequester carbon in soil is to use cover crops. In other words, soil should never be left exposed, as without root systems holding the soil in place, soil erosion speeds up.

    Mixed grasses also nourish the soil microbiome, which need the plant interaction. Nature abhors monoculture. In 1 square foot of pristine prairie land, you'll find about 140 different plants, and this is the type of natural biodiversity regenerative farmers aim to mimic. Regenerative farmers also understand the necessity of livestock.

    An article by Pure Advantage notes how "there is no current or envisioned technology that can simultaneously sequester carbon, restore biodiversity and feed people. But livestock can …" Indeed, Gabe Brown, a regenerative land management pioneer, discussed this in-depth in our 2014 interview, covered in "How to Regenerate Soil Using Cover Crops and Regenerative Land Management." https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...anagement.aspx

    The success of Will Harris' grass fed ranching operation in Georgia (detailed in my July 2016 interview with him), https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...riculture.aspx
    and thousands of other ranches across the U.S. and the world, also testify to the regenerative power of grazing animals. The percentage of organic matter in soil is a good indicator of quality, and Harris has been able to increase organic matter in his soil from less than 0.5 percent to as much as 5 percent in a 20-year period.

    Reason No. 2: Regenerative Farming Protects Water Sources and Diminishes Water Demands
    Industrial agriculture also promotes water waste through use of flood irrigation, destruction of soil quality and poor crop choices. As a result, one-third of the largest groundwater aquifers are already nearing depletion,4 as we're extracting water at a far faster pace than the aquifers can refill.

    According to James Famiglietti, a senior water scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the majority of our global groundwaters "are past sustainability tipping points,"5 which means it's only a matter of time until we run out of fresh water. About 80 percent of U.S. consumptive water (and more than 90 percent in many Western states) is used for agricultural purposes.6

    Large-scale monocrop farms and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are also a primary source of water pollution. According to a report8 by Environment America, corporate agribusiness is "one of the biggest threats to America's waterways."

    Tyson Foods Inc. was deemed among the worst. Researchers have warned that many lakes around the world are now at grave risk from fertilizer runoff that feeds harmful blue-green algae (cyanobacteria)9,10 and, once established, it's far more difficult to get rid of than previously thought.

    Regenerative farming addresses both water waste and water pollution. Not only are synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides not needed when you grow crops and raise animals in a symbiotic fashion that supports the health and balance of the environment, but the more organic matter there is in the soil, the more moisture it can hold.

    For each 1 percent increase in organic matter, each acre of soil can retain another 20,000 gallons of water, thereby reducing the need for irrigation with precious groundwater.11

    Reason No. 3: Regenerative Farming Promotes Optimal Nutrition and Health
    The industrialization and centralization of food production was done to increase farmers' capacity to grow more food at a lower cost. Unfortunately, a core principle was lost in this efficiency equation — that of food quality and nutrient density.

    Tests reveal the nutrient content of foods has dramatically declined since the introduction of mechanized farming in 1925. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...il-health.aspx
    As just one example, research by August Dunning, chief science officer and co-owner of Eco Organics, reveals that to receive the amount of iron you used to get from one apple in 1950, by 1998 you had to eat 26 apples; today you have to eat 36, and this is a direct consequence of industrial farming techniques and use of chemicals that destroy soil quality by killing essential microbes.

    We now know that, just as the human gut microbiome plays integral roles in human health, so the soil microbiome influences nutrient uptake and plant health. Soil microbes even help regulate the invasion of pests.

    It's not surprising then that as nutrient density declined and toxic exposures via food increased, obesity and chronic disease rates have dramatically risen — so much so that obesity now threatens to overtake hunger as the No. 1 global health concern.12

    Many choose organic because of what you don't get — the pesticides, genetically modified organisms and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for instance — but the benefits also extend to basic nutrition. For example:

    When cows are allowed plenty of access to forage, organic milk contains about 25 percent less omega-6 fats and 62 percent more omega-3 fats than conventional milk, along with more vitamin E, beta-carotene and beneficial conjugated linoleic acid.13
    Organically grown foods contain significantly higher levels of antioxidants than conventionally grown varieties,14 including beneficial compounds linked to a reduced risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases and certain cancers.15
    Reason No. 4: Food From Animals Raised on Regenerative Farms Minimize Risks of Foodborne Illness and Drug-Resistant Disease
    While health agencies insist raw and unsterilized foods such as raw organic milk are hazardous to human health, statistics tell a very different story. In reality, the foods associated with the greatest number of foodborne illnesses are all factory farmed, with CAFO chicken leading the pack.

    Between 2009 and 2015 there were 5,760 reported foodborne outbreaks in the U.S.,16 resulting in 100,939 illnesses, 5,699 hospitalizations and 145 deaths. Of these, chicken was responsible for 12 percent of all illnesses, followed by pork and seeded vegetables, each of which was responsible for 10 percent of illnesses.

    Indeed, raw CAFO chicken has become a notorious carrier of Salmonella, Campylobacter, Clostridium perfringens and Listeria bacteria.17 In New Zealand, Michael Baker, a public health researcher and professor at University of Otago, has suggested the implementation of a "tobacco-style" warning label on all raw chicken items to inform shoppers about the health risks involved.18

    Testing reveals a majority of CAFO beef is also contaminated with risky pathogens.19,20 A 2017 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) revealed 22 percent of antibiotic-resistant illness in humans is linked to consumption of contaminated foods, and tests have shown ground beef from animals raised in CAFOs is three times more likely to contain antibiotic-resistant bacteria than organic grass fed beef.21

    The reason contamination with drug-resistant microbes is par for the course in CAFOs is due to the overuse of antibiotics in CAFO livestock. Organic grass fed standards, on the other hand, do not permit the use of antibiotics,22 which is why grass fed beef is less likely to be contaminated with drug-resistant bacteria.

    Reason No. 5: Regenerative Agriculture Prevents Environmental Pollution and Restores Damaged Ecosystems
    Our water supplies are not the only resource being decimated by pollution from CAFOs and monocrop industrial farms. They're also responsible for a significant amount of land and air pollution, and in a variety of different ways, including:

    • Greenhouse gas emissions — CAFO meat and dairy operations are among the world's top polluters, outpacing even multinational oil and gas corporations in greenhouse gas emissions annually. According to a report23 by international nonprofit GRAIN and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the world's five largest meat and dairy corporations alone create more greenhouse gas emissions than Exxon, Shell or BP each year.

    • Particulate matter air pollution — Research24 also shows that particulate matter air pollution from factory farms far outweighs other sources. The primary culprit here is nitrogen fertilizer. As it breaks down into its component parts, ammonia is released into the air. When the ammonia in the atmosphere reaches industrial areas, it combines with pollution from diesel and petroleum combustion, creating microparticles.

    • CAFO waste — Urine and feces from CAFO animals are collected in large open-air lagoons, and whether sprayed on fields as fertilizer or spilled due to flooding during storms, the result is much the same. Use of CAFO waste as fertilizer is the primary reason why produce has become such a frequent source of foodborne illness.

    CAFO fumes are also toxic to anyone unfortunate enough to live or work nearby, and studies show people who live near CAFOs have higher rates of respiratory problems, headaches, diarrhea, depression and other health problems.25,26,27,28

    • Herbicide drift — Dicamba is perhaps one of the most serious threats in this regard. The toxic weedkiller, which is used along with genetically engineered dicamba-tolerant crops, damaged 3.6 million acres of American cropland in 201729 and another 1.1 million acres as of July 2018 (after which no new data are available).30 Dicamba drift has also damaged homeowners' yards, resorts, state parks and organic farms.

    Regenerative agriculture is a return to what organic was originally all about — the protection and rebuilding of topsoil and ecological biodiversity and health. Biodynamic farming is the real gold standard here, as it's both organic and regenerative, and then some.

    Not only does biodynamic farming provide superior crops both in volume and increased density of nutrients, but biodynamic farms are also completely self-sustaining — something that cannot be said even for most organic farms. For example, biodynamic standards do not simply require farmers to use organic animal feed. Most of the feed must actually originate from the farm itself.

    And, while an organic farmer can section off as little as 10 percent of the farm for the growing of certified organic goods, to be certified as a biodynamic, 100 percent of your farm must be in compliance. In addition to that, 10 percent of the land must be dedicated to increasing biodiversity. This could take the form of forest land, wetland or insectary, for example.

    Biodynamic farming also has all of the features associated with regenerative agriculture, such as crop rotation, the use of cover crops and so on. Having animals integrated on the farm, with a focus on animal welfare, is another core principle of biodynamic farming. In short, the farm is viewed as a living organism — a living, self-sustainable whole — and biodiversity of both plants and animals are viewed as integral.

    This is really as good as it gets, and buying foods produced by farms certified as biodynamic through Demeter offers the greatest assurance of food quality and environmental sustainability.

    Reason No. 6: Regenerative Agriculture Benefits Farmers and Builds Sustainable Local Economies
    While profitability is commonly cited as a determining factor for why farmers "cannot" farm organically anymore, research refutes such scaremongering. One such study31,32 found organic farmers actually earn 22 to 35 percent more than their industrial counterparts.

    What's more, regenerative agriculture can also help create regenerative economies based on values and principles that go far beyond merely making money,33 thereby benefiting society in practical ways beside a cleaner, healthier environment and more nutritious, less toxic food.

    In a 2015 article, John Fullerton, founder and president of Capital Institute, presented the organization's views on regenerative capitalism, which is built on universal principles of health and wholeness. "We have identified eight key, interconnected principles that underlie systemic health," he writes. These eight principles, which he proposes be part of a regenerative economic system, include:

    Right relationship — Economy based on the understanding that damage to any single part ripples outward to damage every other part of the system

    Holistic wealth — The understanding that true wealth is more than just money. It can also be measured in well-being of the whole and broadly shared prosperity

    Seeking balance — "A regenerative economy seeks to balance: efficiency and resilience; collaboration and competition; diversity and coherence; and small, medium and large organizations and needs. It runs directly against the (short term) "optimize" ideology that is at the root of modern financial logic"

    "Edge effect" abundance — "Creativity and abundance flourish synergistically at the 'edges' of systems … For example, there is an abundance of interdependent life in salt marshes where a river meets the ocean … At those edges the opportunities for innovation and cross-fertilization are the greatest"

    Robust circulatory flow of money, information, resources, goods and services

    Innovation, adaptation and responsiveness

    Empowered participation

    Honoring community and place — "A regenerative economy nurtures healthy and resilient communities and regions, each one uniquely informed by the essence of its individual history and place"

    Educate Yourself on the Benefits of Regenerative and Biodynamic Agriculture
    I've made it a mission to educate myself and others about the truly global benefits of regenerative and biodynamic farming. In doing so, I've traveled around the country, visiting a number of different thought leaders and experts to see their farm operations firsthand, and I've written extensively about this topic over the past several years.

    Following is a list of some of the many experts I've interviewed with links to their interviews. You can also learn more about regenerative food, farming and land use on Regeneration International's website.
    https://regenerationinternational.org/

    Ray Archuleta, aka, "the Soil Guy," is a soil scientist and conservation agronomist at the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service at the East National Technology Support Center in Greensboro, North Carolina. In his interview, he explains how the health of the soil in which our food is grown is intimately connected to our health and the environment as a whole.

    Judith Schwartz, freelance writer and author of the book "Cows Save the Planet And Other Improbable Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth,"34 discusses the importance of holistic herd management for the sequestration of carbon.

    Regenerative farming pioneer Will Harris runs White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia, which produces high-quality grass fed products. While beef and other animal products are the commodities being sold to the public, what Harris is really producing is healthy soil, and the success of his farm is a great demonstration of how you can accomplish the conversion from conventional to regenerative agriculture.

    Joel Salatin, owner of Polyface farm in Virginia, is another pioneer in sustainable agriculture, whose farm is a real-world demonstration of how regenerative farming benefits the environment and humanity as a whole.

    Gabe Brown, a pioneer in regenerative land management has a farm in Bismarck, North Dakota, and travels widely, teaching people the principles of building topsoil, without which you cannot grow nutrient-dense food.

    Kristin Ohlson, author of "The Soil Will Save Us," discusses the complex relationship between the soil and the food we eat in her interview; the importance of increasing the carbon content of our soils, and the integral role played by soil microbes in the ecosystem.

    Reginaldo Haslett-Marroquin, an innovator in the field of regenerative agriculture, has developed an ingenious system that has the potential to transform the way food is grown. In his interview, he reveals how raising chickens naturally, without the use of cages, could lead to a food revolution, regenerating ecology, economy and social conditions all at the same time.

    Dr. Allen Williams, a sixth-generation farmer in South Carolina and cofounder of The Grassfed Exchange, discusses how regenerative land management practices can reverse much of the negative impacts done by the conventional model.

    Hendrikus Schraven, founder of Hendrikus Organics, is an expert at restoring contaminated soils by improving the quality of the microbiome in the soil.

    Elizabeth Candelario, managing director for Demeter, a global Biodynamic certification agency, discusses the history of biodynamic farming and why biodynamic certification is the mark of superior food.

    Paul Gautschi, whose private organic garden is a testament to the fact that growing large amounts of healthy food can be very simple, and doesn't require a lot of time.

    How to Affect Change Seven Days a Week
    A growing number of homeowners have responded to the call for cleaner, healthier foods by converting their yards into edible landscaping using organic and regenerative methods. But even if you're not growing your own food, you can still help steer the agricultural industry toward safer, more regenerative systems by choosing fresh, organic produce from local growers.

    Remember to choose organic, grass fed beef, poultry and dairy, in addition to organic produce, as CAFOs are among the worst polluters. CAFO meats (including poultry, beef and pork) are also far more prone to be contaminated with pathogens that can trigger illness, including drug-resistant bacteria.

    Certifications to look for, denoting the highest quality foods, grown according to regenerative principles, include Demeter (biodynamic certification) and the American Grassfed Association (AGA) certification."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (29th January 2019), Franny (9th April 2019), Hervé (29th January 2019), Hym (13th February 2019), Ivanhoe (13th February 2019), Orph (29th January 2019), PurpleLama (29th January 2019)

  33. Link to Post #17
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,316
    Thanked 95,039 times in 15,475 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Republican senator Tom Cotton: Media was 'Stalin-like' in Ocasio-Cortez Green Deal cover up

    Lukas Mikelionis Fox News
    Wed, 13 Feb 2019 17:18 UTC


    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton unloaded on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal and said the media were "complicit" in burying the most radical parts of the deal.

    Cotton, a staunch Republican, appeared on The Hugh Hewitt Show on Tuesday and discussed the widely ridiculed Green New Deal that aims to implement sweeping changes across the nation.

    But what particularly caught Cotton's eye was how the media became complicit in hiding the now-infamous FAQ document circulated by the Ocasio-Cortez office, which included lines such as promising a job to "all people of the United States" - including those "unwilling to work" - and making air travel industry obsolete.
    "I understand the Democrats that proposed this immediately tried to retract that white paper that went along with their resolution," Cotton added.

    "And too many people in the media have been complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole."
    Hewitt asked whether the Democrats who immediately jumped to endorse the radical package have actually read what's inside it.
    "Sure. I mean, Hugh, it's pretty remarkable that when these Democrats put out the Green New Deal last week that you had many Democrats running for president leap onto a proposal that was going to confiscate every privately owned vehicle in America within a decade and ban air travel so we could all drive or ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears, yes," Cotton said.
    Multiple Democratic 2020 candidates such as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand have endorsed the deal.

    Cotton finished the interview segment saying the Green New Deal, in essence, is what Democrats believe in and want for the U.S.
    "But this is where their heart lies," he said.

    "They believe that Americans driving around in trucks on farms, or commuting from the suburbs where they can have a decent home into the city to work are a fundamental threat to the world, and they have to have the power and the control of those Americans' lives to implement their radical vision for humanity."
    ===========================================

    ... belongs in "The Stupid! It Burns!" category...
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  34. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Franny (9th April 2019), Hym (13th February 2019), Ivanhoe (13th February 2019), onawah (13th February 2019), Tree Of Life (14th February 2019), Valerie Villars (13th February 2019)

  35. Link to Post #18
    United States Avalon Member Valerie Villars's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th November 2017
    Age
    57
    Posts
    2,724
    Thanks
    28,136
    Thanked 18,197 times in 2,682 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    I have a hard time understanding how anyone in their right mind could buy into this crap and even pretend like they (the Green Deal people) could deliver. It's sheer insanity.
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone when we are uncool." From the movie "Almost Famous""l "Let yourself stand cool and composed before a million universes." Walt Whitman

  36. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Valerie Villars For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Deux Corbeaux (5th June 2019), Franny (9th April 2019), Hervé (13th February 2019)

  37. Link to Post #19
    Avalon Member Hym's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th June 2011
    Location
    Eastern Pacific
    Posts
    550
    Thanks
    7,946
    Thanked 3,318 times in 526 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    Quote Posted by Valerie Villars (here)
    I have a hard time understanding how anyone in their right mind could buy into this crap and even pretend like they (the Green Deal people) could deliver. It's sheer insanity.
    Valerie, me too. Especially having had spent 6 straight semesters, from 2010 to 2012, going back to college studying this same subject, my son and I almost living off of the pell grant, me honoring the gift with excellent grades, volunteering, even teaching it for a short while*. The very little consolation was waking up some teachers, even a department head, to the manipulation of the so-called green movement.

    Though not enough to make a revealing and honest change in the structure of college and university curriculum, regarding the suppression of both simple and complex/advanced solutions to the fields of energy production and preservation of bio-diversity, how could I, this single individual, expect anything but what I got out of it all? The american educational system too is a vital part in the disinformation fed to the student populations of most universities and colleges, high schools, middle and elementary schools. I would suggest reading Wade Frazier's threads to begin to get a grasp on just how deeply this goes.

    *One week before graduation from the 2nd college the registrar arbitrarily took credits away in order for the college to suck the pell grant dry. The dept. head, now the president of the college, offered me two degrees if I stayed at the college another year. Two Assoc.of Science degrees for 8 semesters with an A average grade? I asked how would the college do that?

    The counselor said they would give me back the 15 credits, they "removed" (stole) just the day before and add another 15 from the 84 I earned at the 1st college. In the following 4 yrs., with no relevant degree in hand to take up the job offers I had been offered, even with 2 agreements from the counselor and the dept. head at the beginning of the year, not one state or national rep. in our area, not one lawyer, would support me just getting my well earned degree. I moved on a long time ago, albeit with a cautionary tale to tell anyone going into a "higher" learning school in the states.

    The interesting thing about the injustice of it was that I took all of the real teaching and the hands on learning, the involved teachers and my friends with a lot of appreciation. I did enjoy my time, though I doubt that the inventors of the pell grant would have allowed me to go without the degrees and the subsequent careers, likely Doctoral-earned by now, in the renewable energy, sustainable tech fields. Either way I'm making it on my own, with a little help from my friends.
    Last edited by Hym; 13th February 2019 at 21:46.

  38. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Hym For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Constance (13th February 2019), Franny (9th April 2019), Hervé (13th February 2019), Orph (13th February 2019), Tree Of Life (14th February 2019)

  39. Link to Post #20
    Avalon Member TrumanCash's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th April 2012
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,029
    Thanks
    2,591
    Thanked 8,396 times in 1,002 posts

    Default Re: Agenda 21, The Disastrous Flop of "Green" Energy and the "Green New Deal"

    I went to an Electro Hypersensitivity Meeting (EHS) this weekend and listened to two people who became so hypersensitive to EMF that they had to move out to the country and live off the grid. These two people had never met before this weekend but had similar stories to tell.

    They both had put up solar panels to furnish their electric needs and found that the electricity was too "dirty" to use because of the inverters.

    Want some low tech "green" energy?--How about putting another log on the fire? (But just make sure the log isn't "green".)

  40. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TrumanCash For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (23rd June 2019), Hervé (14th February 2019), Hym (13th February 2019), Tree Of Life (14th February 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts