The Truth About Green Energy - This May Shock Some

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • Wow just wow..........what a complete scam, all of it. Who knew that to make solar panel it requires Coal and Quartz heated together in a combustion chamber to make the panel. Electric more often than not has to be plugged into the traditional mains or have diesel backups because of the lack of reliability. The building of wind turbines and the products they use are more damaging to the environment than not using them to begin with and sticking with traditional coal, Hydrogen requires natural gas as the supply so what's the point. But worst of all is the so called bio-fuels....wood pellets and other crap including the burning of tyres and PCP to produce them, not to mention the deforestation and the affects that has. The list is endless.

    Watch the following very well made and factual documentary if you want to dive into the truth of green energy.

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Keep an eye out for the split second clip of live cows thrown in the crushing machine. Some may find that disturbing. LOL

    What I do not understand is the mindset of someone (unless an alien disguised as human ;)) who would prefer bars of Gold over living because they are literally committing suicide and taking everyone else including other species and the planet out with them. What use is their gold then.

  • That documentary has been criticised for “selling far-right climate-denier myths from nearly a decade ago to left-wing environmentalists in the 2020s.”

    Apparently, it is fundamentally flawed because “it concentrates almost exclusively on the imperfections of technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, biomass, and electric cars without considering their ability to reduce carbon and other pollutants”.

    Ah, well, two sides to every story!

  • If you want to know the truth about green energy, ask scientists, not agenda-driven politically biased loudmouths.

    Demonizing oil companies is very blinkered - vast amounts of the research into new green energy and investment into existing green energy is being funded by oil companies.

    ..because guess what, they know oil is running out and are not planning to just fold up and fade away when it does - they want to be the ones selling the batteries or hydrogen for your car, and buying the assets to supply your wind and solar power.

  • Exactly!!! but the point being 'so called' green energy is not as environmentally friendly as it's made out to be. It's basically the oil companies rebranding themselves. Green energy is the new oil. I would not always trust listening to financially driven scientific loudmouths who's agenda is getting funding. One has to research both sides of an argument rather blindly listening to only one.

  • Exactly!!! but the point being 'so called' green energy is not as environmentally friendly as it's made out to be. It's basically the oil companies rebranding themselves. Green energy is the new oil. I would not always trust listening to financially driven scientific loudmouths who's agenda is getting funding. One has to research both sides of an argument rather blindly listening to only one.

    Pls be careful with that...

    '...financially driven scientific loudmouths who's agenda is getting funding...'

    It's a poisonous little thing with no real basis in truth that scientists are 'paid to come up with results their dubious employers want'. Nor are they pressured to come up with certain results to 'get funding'.

    Although there ARE indeed some corrupt organizations that bootstrap their preferred results from their own pet scientists, plus many agenda-driven organizations who quote that 'scientists say XYZ...' to prove their point when in fact the scientists they cite are quoting theories rejected by scientific CONSENSUS (e.g. climate change denier scientists exist, but they are a small minority not the consensus).

    Real scientific work is bolstered by peer reviews - anything they hope to be published in any reputable journal is reviewed by other experts in that field from other institutions, and even then is subject to question and query by other experts. It's not like publishing in a newspaper.

    It's easy to spot real science because it is meticulous, self-critical, and considers other theories, whereas bad science tends to be totalitarian and blindly claim it is fact even in the face of valid criticism.

  • Exactly!!! but the point being 'so called' green energy is not as environmentally friendly as it's made out to be. It's basically the oil companies rebranding themselves. Green energy is the new oil. I would not always trust listening to financially driven scientific loudmouths who's agenda is getting funding. One has to research both sides of an argument rather blindly listening to only one.

    Unless one is determined to hate oil or the oil companies for {insert reason here}, it is not a bad thing that they are investing in greener technology, funding green energy research and planning for a green energy future.

    Quite so that green energy is not completely environmentally friendly, but the only truly environmentally friendly path is to wipe ourselves out so that we completely stop using the planet's resources. We're search for a sustainable future for ourselves and the planet, not green totalitarianism.

  • Well we do need to wipe a big chunk of the world population out. There's no point trying to cure a problem when the cause of the problem still exists. We don't need to go extreme Hitler style or anything as nature will take it's course and overpopulation will cause disease and wars to reduce the population if not global warming itself. It's only a matter of time.

    I'm sorry but I have lost faith in many forms of science in this day and age. Just look at the crap created during COVID to convince and control people. Scientists also need to stop relying so much on computers and data as data being fed into the computers can be manipulated or deliberately excluded. I'm sure there are the odd scientists out there working independently and doing some good research and studies but they are few and far between in this corporate controlled world. Those rare scientists are more likely to be skint and more like a recluse artist working independently and dedicated to the love of their work.

    I'm more a philosopher than a scientist but like a scientist I question everything and may say one thing at some time and then change my mind later based on new evidence or thoughts, possibly influenced by others. Saying that I have strong stubborn opinionated views and don't take what others say with ease and go back to a philosophical and logical way of thinking.

    So how do you feel about the oil companies dredging the oceans to feed the green energy? Or maybe we could go more extreme and mine the moon. What impact do you think that will have over time on things like the tides.

  • This is what we face...

    Climate Denier radicals on one side.

    Climate Evangelists on the other side.

    The former are partially tied up with Far Right political agendas.

    The latter are partially tied up with Far Left political agendas.

    Both are obsessed with 'winning' far more than they care about either the planet or the welfare of those living on it.

    In doing so, both are one of the most dangerous agents driving the shockingly large and growing divisions in politics.

    Politics SHOULD be about sharing different points of view and finding a path of greatest mutual benefit. Instead it is becoming tribal warfare with zero discussion, only radicalism.

    Meanwhile, the truth about climate change is that both of the radical camps are full of outright lies and distorted facts taken out of context.

    The truth if you listen to a scientist sounds NOTHING LIKE that bilge that spews out from radicals.

    I'll find and post a short article I saw recently that starkly proves this..

  • Bomb it, bad enough that they're radicals but camp as well 😱😱😱 better use a small nuke just to ensure you get them all 🙆‍♂️🙆‍♂️🙆‍♂️

    Please Sir, I want some more. MORE you greedy little socialist.

  • That documentary has been criticised for “selling far-right climate-denier myths from nearly a decade ago to left-wing environmentalists in the 2020s.”

    Apparently, it is fundamentally flawed because “it concentrates almost exclusively on the imperfections of technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, biomass, and electric cars without considering their ability to reduce carbon and other pollutants”.

    Ah, well, two sides to every story!

    The world is getting warmer , only far nut jobs deny this

    The next question why ?

    We know that temperatures have historically risen & fallen over millennia

    We also know that in the last 300 years humanity has burned billions of tons of fossil fuels & the human population

    Has grown from an estimated 610,000,000 in 1700 to over 8 billion today

    In my mind it is not conceivable that there is not a connection.

    So the the really big question is what do we do about it ?

    Electric cars , hydrogen engines, wood pulp all these options have good & bad points.

    The real problem is political.

    Once a government has hung its hat on a particular solution it’s very difficult politically to change tack

    Drax power station near Selby was built to burn coal which extracted from the local coal field

    Now is runs on wood pulp imported from the USA .

    I don’t know how much fuel oil the ship’s delivery burn but it’s picked from the docks on the Humber by trains that run day & night

    It certainly doesn’t look like a green option but what now is the alternative?

  • I will jump in here with what may seem like daft suggestions to some.

    If we really were that worried as PM I would be trying to pass legislation that new homes had ALL of the following.

    1, solar panels

    2, heat pumps

    3, increased insulation

    Of course there is a cost involved but what hasn't.

    Make recycling more rules based, make collection of rubbish more sensible in times (green bin weekly). Ensure public bins are emptied more regularly, alot of stuff blowing around is due to overflowing rarely emptied full bins.

    Make penalties for littering and fly tipping exorbitant, I.e proper deterrents.

    Ignore the moaners and get on with it and ensure it's done.

    Please Sir, I want some more. MORE you greedy little socialist.

  • All good ideas , ground source heat pumps seem the way forward.

    They can expensive to install in existing properties but with a new estate a team could bore holes for each property before construction, perhaps bore holes could be shared too

  • Heat pumps are notoriously ineffective at heating homes and only at its ineffective best when the home is well insulated.

    Apparently, there is a new generation of heat pumps that are much better. I certainly hope so, but I’ll let others try it first!

  • Heat pumps are notoriously ineffective at heating homes and only at its ineffective best when the home is well insulated.

    Apparently, there is a new generation of heat pumps that are much better. I certainly hope so, but I’ll let others try it first!

    Most people opt for air source heat pumps because they are easy to install but as you say they can struggle when the weather is really cold

    It’s my understanding that ground source heat pumps are more effective but they are a lot more expensive to install because they require either a network of pipes in your garden or a bore hole

  • There’s not much denial these days that an increase in global temperatures is occurring. We can all see that in the shrinking Arctic and Antarctic ice, the recent record breaking temperatures and the resultant wildfires, for example.

    But I disagree that there is a definite connection between carbon in the atmosphere and temperature. It’s the line that scientists are plugging for all its worth, but it may not be that. Ask yourself - is it really conceivable that the 0.04% of carbon absorbed into the atmosphere is leading to global warming?

    Maybe, but I’m uncomfortable with it. So are some of our scientists, and I am even more suspicious seeing that the dissenters are being hushed up, with careers being threatened.

    There are other possible explanations. For example, it is surely possible that the solar maximus may be the culprit.

    There have been major lurches in global climate before. Colder conditions led to the human race being almost eliminated twice before in our long history on this Earth.

    Having said that, I think the recent determination to clean up the planet is a good thing, so ridding ourselves of air pollution is OK in my book.

    It might not bring the temperatures down, though. The Covid lockdown didn’t seem to have an impact on temperatures, despite the sharp reduction in emissions that occurred at that time.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!