NewsAgenda 21- Agenda 2030Climate ChangeGreen EconomyGreen EnergyScientific/Medical StudiesSustainabilityVaccine Injury-death

“Green” Energy Is a SCAM. It Isn’t Meant to Work.

(by James Corbett | Substack) – Good news, everybody! A new report from the eggheads at Oxford University assures us that switching to renewables will actually save us trillions of dollars!

You heard that right. It won’t cost us trillions of dollars to build out a completely new global energy grid infrastructure based on technology that is still under development and then switch the entire global economy onto it. No, don’t be silly! It’s going to save us trillions of dollars. TRILLIONS, I tell you!

Now, I know what some of you skeptical Corbett Reporteers out there are thinking: how can that be? After all, as The Manhattan Contrarian blog points out in a recent post on the “Cost of the Green Energy Transition,” the disruption to the European gas supply caused by the Ukraine kerfuffle is already wreaking havoc on Europe’s economy, with Germans bracing for a 13% rise in their regulated consumer gas bills this year and UK residents facing a near tripling of their own energy bills. And that’s before the Great Resetters start shutting off the pipes for real and forcing the hoi polloi on to the wind/solar/unicorn fart “green” energy grid.

But why believe the actual economic pain you’re experiencing (heating your own home this winter) when your Oxfordian overlords have big, fat reports (that no one will read) telling you how much money will be saved by switching over to a green energy grid? After all, the BBC and MSN and Nature World News are tripping all over themselves to repeat these findings unquestioningly, so who are you to bring up any of the pesky “facts” that contradict this comforting fairy tale?

Oh, OK, I’ll drop the act. The latest Oxford study—along with the many similar pronouncements made in recent years that the transition onto the green energy grid will be painless (or even profitable)—is easily debunkable propaganda. But it is pernicious propaganda. It’s designed to get the plebes to actively embrace their own enslavement in the name of saving Mother Earth, and—up to this point—it has been remarkably effective in that goal.

In truth, the green energy sustainable enslavement grid is a scam from top to bottom. But it is not simply a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream being sold to a gullible and ignorant public. It’s worse than that. It is a carefully crafted lie that is designed to lead us into our new role as serfs on the neofeudal plantation in the coming green dystopia.

Want to know the details? Let’s dig in.

The Green Energy Myth

I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention these last few decades, but the usual cadre of crimatologists, “activists,” sustainable enslavement-pushing banksters and corrupt politicians are desperately trying to sell the public on the idea that windmills, solar panels and unicorn farts are a magical pixie dust capable of transforming the human population from greedy, fat-cat crapitalists raping the planet for fun and profit into peace-loving, Kumbaya communists living in perfect harmony with nature.

Believe it or not, they’re lying!

Take the latest Oxford study I referred to above, for instance. Bearing the title “Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition,” it starts by simply assuming the truth of the fundamental lie that the entire green myth is constructed upon: “Rapidly decarbonizing the global energy system is critical for addressing climate change.”

This is, of course, not true, as I have demonstrated time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. (And again and again and again and again.)

But, after simply stating this bald-faced lie as fact, the Oxfordian boffins then have the gall to urinate on your face and tell you it’s raining: “Compared to continuing with a fossil fuel-based system, a rapid green energy transition will likely result in overall net savings of many trillions of dollars—even without accounting for climate damages or co-benefits of climate policy.”

As always, I encourage you to read the report for yourself to see how they fabricate the so-called “evidence” for this surprising “conclusion”—though I’m sure you can imagine most of their tricks before you even open the link. First, they abuse blatantly bias-prone models to “estimate” (read: make up) future energy system costs, which, they freely admit, “will change with time due to innovation, competition, public policy, concerns about climate change, and other factors.”

Then, after gazing into their magical crystal ball and seeing whatever they want to see with regard to future costs, they use “probabilistic methods” to “view energy pathways through the lens of placing bets on technologies.” I kid you not, this “empirically grounded” and totally “scientific” study tells us, in effect, that if we’re betting men we should put all our chips on green . . . “green” energy, that is. Go on, read it for yourself.

But here’s the rub: these types of “scientific” studies only come off as believable to the most credulous Joe Sixpacks and Jane Soccermoms out there, the type who get their news from CNN and believe everything Al Gore tells them. These pithy platitudes promising perfectly painless energy transitions—even when they are dressed up in the language of empiricism and bear the imprimatur of Oxford University—are not credible in the least to anyone with a technical background in these areas.

Indeed, the Oxford study and similar utopian predictions of green energy transitions rely on a stream of untenable assumptions and faulty logic. For example, as Manhattan Contrarian points out in his blog post on “Cost of the Green Energy Transition,” the Oxford researchers take the downward price trend of lithium-ion (li-ion) batteries over the past two decades and extrapolate those figures out based on the assumption that they will continue falling indefinitely without limit. As the study even explicitly says, “We know of no empirical evidence supporting floor costs [on green technology deployment] and do not impose them.”

This is so certifiably insane it’s difficult to know where to begin. First, let’s interrogate the actual economic argument here, shall we?

The researchers tip their hand when they show the current (2020) price of li-ion batteries as being about $100/kWh and “forecast” that it will drop to about $20/kWh by 2050. In actuality, the 2020 price for such batteries is (according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) about $350/kWh (see Figure ES-2), and those prices are predicted to drop to about $150/kWh by 2050. If that forecast is accurate, the actual 2050 price for li-ion batteries would still be 50% higher than the “current” price used in the Oxford study model.

The discrepancy between these figures, Manhattan Contrarian points out, “appears to lie mainly in elements of a real-world battery installation other than the core battery itself, like a building to house it, devices to convert AC to DC and back, grid connections, ‘balance of plant,’ and so forth.” In other words, the study’s authors didn’t look in any way at the real-world cost of actually installingconnectingusing and maintaining these batteries; they simply looked at the raw cost of the battery itself and ignored the rest.

This methodology becomes even more problematic when you learn that Energy & Environmental Science actually published a study in 2018 estimating the real-world cost of installing and running a lithium-ion battery storage system capable of handling a US energy grid that ran on 80% wind and solar. Their conclusion? It would cost a staggering $2.5 trillion to get such a system up and running! Oddly, the Oxford study doesn’t take these costs into account at all. They just tell you that the battery price will fall to $20/kWh and leave it at that. Read Full Article >

You may also like

Leave a Comment