Climate or Environment?

New seven minute video by Jan Smelik

Worth a watch.

The black side of so called green energy is somewhat underexposed. In this video I try to shed some light on that dark side.

55 thoughts on “Climate or Environment?

  1. Good video review of the dark side of the “renewable energy” nonsense. As someone who has walked underneath a row of giant wind turbines and was stunned at the amount of dead and mangled birds I encourage anyone, no matter what side you are on, to take a similar walk, and decide for yourself if this is the right thing to do.

    • Oh no Ron! I’m sure griff will ‘splain it to you. Those birds are all k!lled by cats. Or cats all k!ll trillions of birds so it doesn’t matter if windmills off a few million more. Or … something (we’re certain about this)

      • Oh my! I used the k-word again !!

        I don’t doubt that there is a problem with birds but this claim is not valid of all turbines at all locations. As with all this mess I’m sure whoever is making a particular claim is cherry picking their sites or pretending that one observation can be extrapolated to the entire worldwide installation of wind power.

        I doubt the claims of -50% of seabirds in the clip is attributable to the off shore installation. That sounds as credible as most of the climate doom we hear.

        My single observation is a local site of medium sized towers in south of France. I managed to access the foot of one tower by ignoring lots of signs and doing some cross country on my cicle.

        I did not file the pile of carrion I expected to see. In fact I could not find a single feather.

        Maybe I’m too late and the entire avian population has been ki11ed and carefully swept up by embarrassed enviros.

        The more likely conclusion is that not all turbines are as dangerous as some would make out and some locations present a lot less of a risk than the wind farms irresponsibly sited in eagle country or on the migratory path of wild geese.

        As always it’s polarised and no gives a hoot about being objective.

        • Greg, my place of reference was NE of Casper, Wyoming, where a long (3 miles?) line of turbines (maybe 30 of them?) were placed along the crest of a hill that rose about 300 meters above the gently rolling terrain. The vegetation was prairie grasses and many patches of bushes. I went onto the site early Monday morning, around 6:00 AM, and observed underneath 3 turbines, about 2 golden eagles, 3 vultures, 20 blackbirds, 10 or so meadowlarks, about 20 sparrows, 2 red-tailed hawks, and 1 falcon. As i walked along and took photos of them around 7:30 a pickup arrived behind and two workers started throwing the dead birds into the back of the pickup. That’s my experience, for what it is worth. I am tempted to speculate that the birds died from Friday afternoon, through the weekend, and then early Monday morning. I also observed eagles and hawks riding the wind wave crest, adn the prevailing westerly winds rose up over the terrain, and looking below, so this was maybe an optimum (for wind turbines, not for birds) location.

    • I don’t doubt that there is a problem with birds but this claim is not valid of all turbines at all locations. As with all this mess I’m sure whoever is making a particular claim is cherry picking their sites or pretending that one observation can be extrapolated to the entire worldwide installation of wind power.

      I doubt the claims of -50% of seabirds in the clip is attributable to the off shore installation. That sounds as credible as most of the climate doom we hear.

      My single observation is a local site of medium sized towers in south of France. I managed to access the foot of one tower by ignoring lots of signs and doing some cross country on my cicle.

      I did not file the pile of carrion I expected to see. In fact I could not find a single feather.

      Maybe I’m too late and the entire avian population has been killed and carefully swept up by embarrassed enviros.

      The more likely conclusion is that not all turbines are as dangerous as some would make out and some locations present a lot less of a risk than the wind farms irresponsibly sited in eagle country or on the migratory path of wild geese.

      As always it’s polarised and no gives a hoot about being objective.

  2. I guess we have to destroy the environment in order to save it.

    Sure, makes perfect sense. I weep for our children who will inherit this mess.

  3. Last week I watched loads of mashed up maize, probably 10+ tonnes at a time going past my house on their way to a, yet to be Built, gasification plant to be converted into methane. The field it came from was once a number of fields delineated by hedges and trees now gone and home to sheep and cows. As each one went past I wondered what had been gained.
    Each load represented a winters worth of food for a cow sized animal, which produces food at the end, a natural fertiliser and of course some methane.
    I’m still trying to work out the rational.

    • Natural gas is gradually being banned in in the U.S. and you live someplace where methane is being manufactured rather than pump it out of the ground. Environmentalism makes no sense.

  4. “We’ll throw the baby out with the bath water.” Yep. What I find on the left these days is a complete lack of wisdom. They are also hypocrites.

    The good thing about our beloved Greta is that she demands unswerving compliance with the stated ‘greenie’ agenda. That should scare the crap out of the ‘greenies’ who are used to saying one thing while doing another. Very few of them are willing to cut back their consumption to the extent they say the rest of us should.

  5. Thank you, Jan!
    I have a feeling you could have gone on quite a bit longer, but decided to keep it short and simple! That makes it easier for hare-brained alarmists to understand! Bravo!
    The biggest problem to me that you omitted is the increasingly obvious racism and classism so widespread in GangGreen! You mentioned the mining being done in the Congo while it is banned in the US, but what about the number of poor Africans without reliable energy who are forced by Green NGOs to use solar while their nations are prevented from using local coal to provide energy!
    Solar is fine in some situations but if you are trying to grow out of poverty it is counterproductive! Even a wealthy state like Calizuela is discovering that solar is too expensive and destabilizing to the power grid!
    GangGreen, being mostly upper and upper-middle class, doesn’t see or seem care about the effects their policies have on the working class and poor! I can only attribute this to the growing disdain shown to anyone who doesn’t believe the right thoughts or attend the right schools; smelly WalMart shoppers and deplorables come to mind! But it is really more like a religious view of the heretics and nonbelievers being evil and less than human!

  6. Most of the video was accurate, with one exception IMO.
    Subsonic/Infrasonic acoustic energy is certainly generated by large wind turbines. But the effects of infrasonics on wildlife and humans is debatable on land, but distancing of habitations can be managed. The blades and air disruption certainly cause much death to birds and bats, that’s not debatable, just the scale. Where I think the problem arises is the claims here of injury/death to whales and dolphins from off-shore wind turbine infrasonics is on shaky ground with regards to actual evidence. Simply showing a dead whale on a beach is not evidence of infrasonic injury, it’s only meant to evoke an emotional reaction. The infrasonics claims in this vid are probably the weakest point from an evidence standpoint. There is more than enough environmental damage evidence against wind turubines and solar PV farms tp question their “Green-ness”without having to generate new claims of subsonic/infrasonics without evidence.

    • And what effect did the infrasound have?
      At this point in time, it can be safely said that under the measurement conditions, infrasound reduces the force developed by the isolated heart muscle; under certain conditions, up to 20 percent is lost. The fundamental question of whether infrasound can have an effect on the heart muscle has thus been answered.
      a href=”https://www.allgemeine-zeitung.de/lokales/mainz/nachrichten-mainz/windkraft-storsender-furs-herz-mainzer-forscher-untersuchen-folgen-des-infraschalls_18566513″>Wind power – jamming transmitters for the heart: Mainz researchers investigate the consequences of infrasound
      German source about research at University of Mayence.

        • There is research that finds particular, observable damage to various organs from infrasound exposure. The tissue changes can be observed. They can be consistent produced in controlled experiments. The changes occur over time with repeated or continuing exposure, they are not immediate.There are debilitating consequences of these tissue changes.

          This is hard science. It either happens or does not happen. I have yet to see even a suggestion that anyone has falsified these claims. All current investigation seems to be either touchy-feely (how do you FEEL about living near wind turbines?) or oriented towards immediate physical responses such as heart rate or blood pressure changes with exposure on vs exposure off. It seems as though the tissue change possibility is a forbidden topic, implicitly acknowledged by almost everyone, for or against wind turbines, even in blogs such as this one.

          >>>>>> Infrasound is the frequencies of sound at or below the range of human hearing. The cutoff is normally considered to be 20 Hz but the problems may extend somewhat above 20 Hz. That infrasound can cause damage to internal organs has been know to some degree since early research in the 1960s.

          That frequent infrasound exposure causes unusual tissue growth in certain common protein structures common to many tissues in the body, observable, verifiable, and repeatable, has been know for perhaps more than two decades. First discovered in autopsies, then biopsies, diagnosis eventually became possible by several less intrusive means in living humans and animals.

          These tissue changes occur in many parts of the body, including heart, lungs, trachea, inner ears, and brain. They modify how the organs work. Most are debilitating and often eventually fatal. The cause is not widely recognized because there are no unique symptoms; the tissue changes are not obvious without particular attention to fine structure. As with hearing loss from overly high sound levels, deterioration is gradual and often permanent if exposure goes on long enough.

          The tissue changes are consistently reproducible under laboratory conditions (animal experiments, obviously). They occur under 8 hour days, five days per week, (i.e. intermittent) exposure corresponding to normal factory work schedules. They progress faster under more frequent exposure. Infrasound can not be protected against with earplugs or stone walls. Infrasound from an outside source is often considerably more intense inside buildings than immediately outside because of structural resonances (which is sometimes also true of audible low frequency sounds).

          Birth defects and still births are common in some animals, uncertain but indicated in humans. Overall, this seems to be hard, repeatable science. I have come across no information, or even hints that any scientist has found conflicting results, yet most investigations of possible problems seem to be done in complete ignorance of published studies, concentrating on more touchy-feely aspects (how do you FEEL about living near wind turbines?) rather than the induced physical changes. Essentially all legal standards for determining sound pollution or noise disturbances are based on the Fletcher-Munson hearing curves developed a century ago and do not even detect the presence of the low frequencies that do the damage.

          Wind turbines came under investigation from this aspect only recently. Previous work on the medical results of infrasound exposure was from studies of other industrial infrasound sources. The wind turbine results are alarming considering how common wind farms are becoming in some areas and how near to dwellings they are often being built. Some of the relevant parameters have been roughed out but there is much that needs to be determined about the extent of the wind turbine problem. The particular infrasound signature of wind turbines has been measured as much as 20 Km from the source but at just what intensity level the problem may become insignificant has not been determined, as far as I know.

          earlier work on infrasound
          https://www.intechopen.com/books/acoustics-of-materials/acoustics-and-biological-structures

          wind turbines infrasound

        • This could be a legal cause: For decades, Green knew, but did not disclose, environmental and ecological hazards of nominally green technology.

    • I think it is something similar to an inverse square law, where if your house is within 1/4 mile of a large wind turbine, that the subsonic infrasonic effect is 8 times greater than the same effect at a 1/2 mile. Distance is everything, but I don’t now how that translates to undersea conditions.

      I suppose similar to the formulae for calculating the energy in a swept area of a wind blade rotor that that as the wind speed doubles the energy in the wind is not linear. Double the wind speed and the energy increases not by double but by a factor of 8. As speed increases the power is increased by a cube factor.

      A court case examining these issues brought up the technical aspects of this infrasound disturbance and what/how any sickness might be produced and/or reduced which reduced quickly at distance. I suppose after several months of hearing/feeling the same effect, even if minimal, becomes like the Chinese water torture. Drip, drip, drip…especially if you hate Big Wind and had your rights trampled on. Maybe the farmer who gets the land lease payment for the sited turbine on his land, it is music to his ears. Ka-ching, ka-ching…

  7. Good luck trying to get anyone on the left to listen to the message of this video. Lefties are so thoroughly indoctrinated they will never believe these truths; they will simply call it “fake news” and believe it to be a bunch of lies made up by “climate deniers”. Look at how quickly they turned on Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs when they tried to expose the hypocrisy of “renewable” energy in the film “Planet Of The Humans”. A lefty only becomes disillusioned when green lies adversely affect them personally; even then, there is no guarantee they will start to question their indoctrination. Many prefer to retreat into the “safe space” of cognitive dissonance.

    I know this from first hand experience of dealing with my siblings; the truth never makes a dent in their delusions.

    • well if you state your opinions are the “truth” and theirs are delusions, they probably do the same and that’s why we are where we are today.

      • But they are delusional 😉

        All I know is that global warming…climate change…climate extinction is a religion now and it’s big business. Climate shakedown.

      • The only truth extremists believe in is the power to shove their opinions down other people’s throats, everything else is just an illusion (the lies they tell other people) or a delusion (the lies they tell themselves). In 2020, this should be abundantly clear to anyone who can be honest with themselves.

    • Frankly, I do not think they will listen unless there is a power outage that does not get fixed, a complete loss of communications for them, and the absence of food (which they take for granted) at any and all food locations like grocery stores.

      That will only happen if/when there is a real, verifiable disaster that they can’t escape. And they’d better not show up at my house. 🙂

      Seriously, I think they drift through life believing that everything is just wonderful and always will be that way.

  8. The Left/Marxists/Greenies are the parties of unintended consequences that they refuse to acknowledge much less do anything to correct. Their goal is wealth redistribution at any cost be it economical, health, or environmental.

  9. Green energy ain’t so green, as some are beginning to realize. Some is better than others, such as solar thermal for basic hot water in a tropical location, as compared to Solar PV at 53 degrees north latitude where there is not much practical energy for 4-5 months of the year. And why would you do solar PV in a poor location for basic electric space heating and/or heating water? That is nuts. Inexpensive passive solar might make sense though and be even more efficient than roof top solar for much of the year. Rooftop solar though, is usually not sited precisely enough to be efficient and only produces useful energy for 5-6 hours of the day, so why bother? I do some off grid solar in a few locations, but only because it is cheaper than diesel.

    My bank put up 50 solar panels, on a vertical east wall, that gets 2-3 hours of suitable sunshine per day on an average yearly basis. When I asked for a summary of annual kW/hr production, they said it was all confidential information. Obviously. A lot of this is empty virtue signalling, and most people don’t know better anyway.

    There is a place for some of it, especially off grid where grid scale energy will never be available and it can replace some diesel dependance. Getting rid of millions of tons of forestry waste makes sense, since it has to be dealt with and is base load spinning reserve electricity and the steam plant lasts as long as a nat gas plant. But it shouldn’t be expected to be a replacement for grid scale electricity replacement. Take the subsidy away, and a true value market conditions will materialize for which technology and sites make most sense. The sooner we honestly sort this out and let free markets decide the technological winners, the better the end result will be. Plus, end of life recycling and/or disposal has to be accounted for in a real analysis. The refusal to do this shows that most of this technology is not adequate to even supply new growth demand without serious consequences to the price of the electricity, or to the resilience of a properly functioning grid. And cleaning up the mess 20 years later.

  10. Interested Observer finished the comment with: “I know this from first hand experience of dealing with my siblings; the truth never makes a dent in their delusions.”

    At all epochs you have an issue with 50% of your teenage children. For them you are not an authoritative person, the streamlined teachers, television and FB are the ones so rely on.
    I was precisely as bad when I was a teen. I was trying to convince my father of all sorts of popular environmental baseless fearmongering, despite my father having first hand actual knowledge.

    PS: I was not as bad as Greta though, but it took me ten years after the teens, before I learned to moderate myself, listen to others and think somewhat analytically.

    • Carl, I don’t know if English is your first or second (or even third) language but, siblings are brothers and sisters – not offspring.

      My siblings are all older than I am. However, they have all accepted and adopted the leftist viewpoint. They get all their “information” from The Age newspaper and the ABC TV station, which are both very left-wing organisations. They never compare what these “sources” are saying with any other outlet and never question their authority regarding the chosen viewpoints. When I try to discuss any topic with them, all they do is parrot the same tired old talking points they’ve been spoon-fed by these two sources for decades. They don’t want to do any of their own research or even listen to what any other source might be saying that contradicts the official narrative. These days when they talk about anything even remotely political, all I hear is “Who’s a pretty Polly” (Socialism works) and “Polly want a cracker” (Let’s destroy our country to “save” it).

      At least with children, one can hope that they’ll outgrow their naivete someday. With the members of one’s own generation, there is no such hope.

  11. It is absolutely false that forest s are being felled for energy. Some wood from logging goes to biomass burners or to produce pellets. But that is a by product of forestry. Most of the wood goes to sawmills. Of course woody biomass isn’t going to solve the world wide need for energy- nobody said it would- but it’s a contribution of NON fossil fuel energy. Fossil fuels add to the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. Energy from wood doesn’t. And, much of the wood for biomass/pellets comes from logging that IS NOT CLEAR CUTTING. I only wish people would WAKE up and understand this. Here in New England we harvest trees with no other value than for energy to send to biomass burners and/or pellets. If we don’t harvest t hose diseased/damaged trees of species that there is no market for- the woods will be left with such trees so we can no longer grow high value species like red oak, sugar maple, black cherry and others. In the Michael Moore film- he blasted woody biomass. He filmed Josh Shloshberg standing outside a biomass facility in VT. I’ve argued with Josh for years. He has his own anti biomass web site where he ONLY shows photos of huge clearcuts in southern swamps and claims all the wood went to chips for Drax- which is a *&^%$% lie. I asked why he won’t show nice thinning, like here in New England where SOME of the wood goes to biomass. After I posted some comments on HIS web site explaining the reality of woody biomass- he called me. I asked why he doesn’t explain the way it really is. His reply, “I’m an activist- I don’t have to explain YOUR side”.

    • Reminds me of some of the pictures I took about clear-cut logging in the early 80’s that Greenpeace wound up using to this day about the evils of clear cut logging. If you go back to these same sites, the trees are now 70-80 feet tall, and will be ready for another harvest within 10-15 years. The misinformation spread about cutting down pristine old growth forests for biomass and pellets is exactly the same propaganda. Sometimes the forest is so rotten and decadent, the only thing that can be made out of it is pulp, if you are lucky, or thermal biomass or pellets. At least you can get some useful base load spinning reserve electricity, and a new fresh forest, hopefully planted to a commercial forest that will make a multitude of useful products some day. Including about a 1/3 of all that which is forestry waste that has to be dealt with. It’s a small part of the energy mix, but some people have to lie about it, usually because they are already brainwashed, or is their world view that cutting down a mature tree is evil. Converting prime jungle habitat to Palm plantations is a whole different argument, and is very bad IMHO. Everything on on its own merits.

      • From the biomass industry: https://www.usabiomass.org/
        Of course it’s in their interest to preach how good it is- but that’s the way it really is.

        A good paper by the New England Chapter of the Society of American Foresters: “Forest Management, Carbon, and Climate Change” : https://www.eforester.org/Main/Issues_and_Advocacy/Statements/Forest_Management_and_Climate_Change.aspx

        The world’s most ferocious forestry (especially biomass) hater: Mary Booth: http://www.pfpi.net/

        She’s also in central Mass. so I and her battle on a regular basis. She’s always preaching that biomass is “worse than coal”. She’s sued the EU- but lost- always suing somebody. One of her associates in this hatred of forestry is Professor Bill Moomaw (who taught at Tufts). He was on the IPCC and wrote some of the key documents. He hates forestry but lives in a house that is well over 4,000 sq. ft. in tony Williamstown, MA. I could go on all day about my battles with forestry/biomass haters in the northeast. I should write a book.

          • Yes, I did. He said “forests are being cut down for energy production”. That’s false. Some forests are thinned or clearcut as part of long term mgt.- and SOME of that wood MIGHT go to biomass if a MARKET for it exists- in many parts of the world there is no such market. Also, some forests are clearcut to convert to agriculture- the video says that- but in that case, they’re not “being cut down for energy production”. I’m not aware of ANY forests being down for energy production. Also, the use of the term “cut down” sounds derogatory as if they are being destroyed- when in fact it’s part of long term mgt. Of course some forests are destroyed- UTTERLY- for such things as urban sprawl, agriculture and solar “farms”.

  12. Meanwhile, the governmental destruction continues.
    Here in US, we having Green New Deal promoted by a major
    political party. And the death door corporate news media supporting it.

    And wildfires still burning in California {and entire Lefty west coast}.
    Instead wind mills, I think need a lot more water tankers.
    We need lot more water tanker because government can’t properly
    manage forests. Perhaps we need serious people rather than lazy, crazy, hopeless ignorant bureaucrats managing public lands?
    Though one could argue such bureaucrats can’t manage any water tankers, either.

  13. We need reliable and affordable 24/7/365 produced base load electricity. The space needed to build a power plant is much less than the land needed to put up the same amount of unreliable MW of renewable energy.
    The Time of Clean Coal Is Now Here, and a coal power plant can now be operated and emit less CO2 than a natural gas fired power plant. Natural Gas can be consumed much more efficiently, and the waste heat energy in the exhaust can be used for other purposes. Nuclear has no emissions.
    Renewables need to be put on their own power grid and be used to provide electricity for the growing EV market. When the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing and the batteries run out of juice, it’s time to park and wait for tomorrow to be recharged. No harm done.
    America needs to be Energy Wise.

  14. I came across an old book that talked of making energy from coal and oil? Not sure what that is, but it seems people used to generate huge amounts of power from this stuff and it meant people had cheap energy when they needed it. Sounds like a made up story. Cheap energy? Whenever you need it? Next thing someone will say they stopped using it to save the planet! LOL.

  15. COVID Induced Globull Warming in Massachusetts…

    School started today and the kids here are divided in half. 2 days a week (mon-tue) in class room for group 1, the rest of week online. Wed they clean the schools and thu-fri group 2 in class room and the rest is online. The schools have to leave the windows open for all sessions now and THROUGHOUT THE WINTER.

    I hope they consider teaching how much CO^2 that’ll emit during science class and let the local taxpayers know how much the new heating bills are…

    Also the school bus windows are to remain open as well while transporting students. Gonna be cold…

  16. In a decade or so the world will be asking of the renewables scam, WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING TO CAUSE SO MUCH DESTRUCTION TO THE ENVIRONMENT. Then consider what it has done, reduced the warming NO, reduced CO2 NO, saved any species NO, but has caused the loss of billions of animals and their habitat, destroyed the capitalist western culture and wasted Trillions of dollars and implimented a one world communist government thereby sending us back to the stone age, OH! HELL YES, because that was the plan all along. WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING!!!

  17. Actually the tree aspects looks quite promising on the numbers given. If global energy use only requires 5% of forests burnt each year then that is getting close to sustainable.

    Add in the increasing forest productivity from increasing CO2 and subtract the annual losses if wild fires plus the cost of fighting wild fires the situation starts to offer some promise.

    Throw in some nuclear for base generation, rooftop solar and hydroelectric then the picture does not look so grim. Should give a few centuries to burn up existing fossil fuels while nuclear fusion gets sorted.

  18. No, we dont ‘desperately need land for other things’.

    We have as much forestry in the UK as in 1340, Holland is the worlds second biggest agricultural exporter. They make chickens so cheap they can fly them to Nigeria and sell them cheaper than the locals can.

    We are using less and less land to grow our food, we dont ‘desperately’ need it for anything. (And a heck of a lot of land is semi desert and useless anyway, like much of Spain, the US, and any desert zone.

    CAGW is a crock, but this kind of pathetic attempt to denigrate solar farms weakens the argument. Stick to the hard, cold facts, and STOP THE BULLSHIT! We all need to do that, on BOTH sides of the debate.

  19. The green madness permeates everywhere. My local council has, after analysing our rubbish/trash, has introduced food waste bins. A large one in the main refuse area and smaller ones for each apartment/unit. We are supposed to put food waste items like vegetable peelings and the. In the smaller bins were freezer bags. We are supposed to put meat/fish waste items in these bags and place them in the freezer until collection day. One of the primary reasons for doing this was to use the waste to make renewable energy, I kid you not! So the energy used to make the bins and bags, the energy consumed in keeping the waste frozen, collecting and transporting the waste was never factored in. The energy from the waste would never compensate for the energy consumed.

Comments are closed.