The renewable energy scam – Counterpoints

The views expressed in opinion pieces are strictly those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the editorial staff.

Posted on September 15, 2022


By Michel Lebrun and Michel Gay.

A disastrous scientific scam took place in the former USSR when the agronomist Lyssenko succeeded in convincing the Central Committee of the Communist Party, Stalin at the head, that his methods would make it possible to multiply by three, even four, agricultural production. The Soviet scientists who dared to criticize Lyssenko had the choice between recanting or going to the gulag!

Conclusion: abominable famines took place in the USSR and Lyssenko died a beautiful death in 1964!

Today, French society has embarked on the path of so-called renewable energies, but above all fatal and intermittent (EnRI), in particular wind turbines and photovoltaic panels, leading to even more monstrous scandals.

The unconditional support of political leaders for these “new energies” (in reality old and already abandoned) is a type of Lyssenko-style scientific fraud that hides a spoliation of peoples.

Admittedly, there is no longer a gulag, but the suppression of the media and the suppression of research credits are hampering criticism and stifling the challenge of scientists opposing the new ecological religion.

An abundant literature on this subject (Marc Halévy in Eenergy and ecologyFabien Bougle The dark side of the ecological transitionMichel Gay To hell with renewable energy,…) highlights this monstrous fraud too little highlighted by the mainstream media.

energy and ecology

Energy is the heart of the development of societies. It is the engine of the economy as shown by the increase in GDP in parallel with energy consumption.

Energy is not created (it is not decreed either), it is transformed.

But its presence in nature is rarely in a directly useful form. It is therefore necessary to find techniques to ensure these transformations, which themselves consume energy.

There is a ratio called Energy Return Rate (TRE) or Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROI) which simply expresses the idea: How much useful energy will I recover compared to the energy I will expend to obtain it? »

The ERR (always greater than one, otherwise it is not an energy source, but a sink) takes into account all the energy spent during the life cycle of a product (production, extraction, manufacturing transformation, transport, implementation, recycling etc.).

An ERR equal to one expresses that the quantity of useful energy during the lifetime of a facility will be equal to the quantity of energy expended to build, operate and dismantle this facility.

In reality, the ERR only takes into account part of the energy expended because it is too difficult to establish the entire energy balance necessary for the development of gray energy.

Thus, the International Energy Agency considers that an energy transformation is only profitable if its ERR is greater than 6, which is not the case for wind power or photovoltaics, as shown by the table below extracted from the work of Marc Halévy:

Transforming sparse energies, such as wind, requires colossal installations which themselves consume energy, drastically reducing their ERR. There is certainly more wind at high altitude or at sea, but to get this wind requires even more energy, making the global system unacceptable.

The wind is free » (like the oil that springs from the ground…), but not its transformation into electricity!

The disinformation of a population ill-prepared to understand the vast energy problem opens a highway to impose the idea that the wind and the sun are free.

The randomly variable and even intermittent technologies of wind and sun are prohibitive, especially when adding in parallel the means of storage (batteries, hydrogen, etc.) and production (gas, coal, etc.) to accommodate their productions that do not correspond necessarily as needed. Wanting to impose this technology is fundamentally anti-ecological because it consumes too much energy compared to its production over its life cycle.

How could such a sophism prevail?

In the history of humanity, Man has evolved towards the use of increasingly dense energies: animal energy, the use of wind for mills or boats, the motive power of water then heat (thermal machines), then the use of the energy of the atom.

This throwback to the wind and the sun that constitute EnRI questions the real motivations.

Environmentalists have embarked on a new religion denying the laws of physics. Many of them carry a hatred of the world described by the philosopher Chantal Delsol (The hatred of the world). For this category of individuals, man is bad for nature. He must stand before the redeemer (Mother Nature?) whom these radical “ecologists” think they represent.

Moreover, political and financial opportunists have guessed all the benefit they could derive from this new religion imposed on the people by fear, dread and terror.

Finally, the conquest of world power is still relevant. The movement for peace and globalization serves as a pretext for the elimination of nations, considered by some idealists as a source of conflict.

Even within Europe, the conquest of power brings up conflicts that our national politicians have underestimated.

The imposition of wind turbines by Germany and the destruction of the French nuclear fleet is part of an economic war that will be lost by France without a quick start.

A wind turbine is a technology mainly imported from Germany, Denmark and Spain. It does not only constitute a loss of sovereignty, it also harms French excellence in nuclear energy, which still exceeds all European nations in this field.

When France loses a point, our “friends”, and nevertheless commercial adversaries, gain one!

Leave a Comment