Environment The Hypocrisy of Green Energy

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Is this really saving the planet?

 

[Chief]

What are we looking at?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

What are we looking at?

The three images show the transformation of Herdade da Torre Bela, a once green and biodiverse area, into a solar farm between December 2020 and October 2024. This raises a critical question: Is destroying natural ecosystems to build solar farms really “green energy”?

1. The Hypocrisy of “Green” Energy Projects

Before (2020): Lush greenery, forests, and natural biodiversity. After (2024): Completely deforested land, replaced with solar panels.

• Environmental activists claim that solar power is a solution to climate change, yet projects like this destroy natural habitats.
• The irony is that deforestation contributes to carbon emissions, negating much of the benefit that solar panels provide.
• Instead of using already degraded land, solar companies often target untouched nature for massive installations.

1. Destroying Wildlife and Biodiversity for “Clean Energy”

• This land was once home to forests, rivers, and diverse wildlife.
• Now, it’s a barren wasteland covered in industrial-scale solar panels.
• The destruction of forests means less CO₂ absorption, leading to more environmental damage than improvement.

Real environmentalism should focus on protecting ecosystems, not replacing them with industrial projects.

3. The “Green Energy” Scam: Who Really Benefits?

• Many large-scale solar and wind projects are funded by corporate and government interests, not environmentalists.
• These projects receive billions in subsidies, yet often harm local environments instead of helping them.
• The people behind these projects profit from “climate initiatives” while ignoring the damage they cause.

Example: The destruction of forests in Germany and the U.S. to make way for wind turbines and solar farms, all in the name of “green energy.”

4. What Could Have Been Done Differently?

Instead of destroying forests, governments and companies could: Use brownfields (abandoned industrial land) for solar projects. Install solar panels on rooftops instead of wiping out nature. Develop decentralized solar power to avoid massive land clearing.

Current Reality: Green energy is being pushed with no real concern for environmental impact, creating a new kind of industrial destruction.

Conclusion: Environmentalism Must Be Logical, Not Performative

Destroying forests for solar panels is not green energy—it’s corporate exploitation. Biodiversity loss from these projects makes them counterproductive. Real climate solutions should focus on balance, not extreme industrialization.

If the goal is to protect nature, cutting down forests for solar farms is NOT the solution.

 

[Chief]

So this is about the hypocrisy of one solar farm project?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

So this is about the hypocrisy of one solar farm project?

No. Otherwise I would have entitled it 'The Hypocrisy of Solar Energy - a case example'. I've called it 'The Hypocrisy of Green Energy' instead because I'm hoping others will contribute other examples e.g. wind farms, geothermal projects, biomass etc.

 

[Chief]

No. Otherwise I would have entitled it 'The Hypocrisy of Solar Energy - a case example'. I've called it 'The Hypocrisy of Green Energy' instead because I'm hoping others will contribute other examples e.g. wind farms, geothermal projects, biomass etc.

But you don’t want examples of ones that work well?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

But you don’t want examples of ones that work well?

No, good projects would be interesting to discuss also.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Three Years Later, the French Solar Road Is a Total Flop

It's too noisy, falling apart, and doesn't even collect enough solar energy.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[Chief]

Look at the UK's projects that their government kept giving money to despite the company in charge seemingly doing nothing to complete. Might have been tidal power off the coast of Wales.

Edit -

Page 94: Lagoons and Lawsuits

Sarah Shannon talks us through the travails of a doomed tidal energy project, and Francis Wheen tells the rollicking tale of Telegraph-owning twins the Barclay brothers and their attempts to bang up a blogger. Free speech with every download!

www.private-eye.co.uk

 

[the_interloper]

So this is about the hypocrisy of one solar farm project?

No it's about Elon Musk the real president!

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Biomass is bad.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/26/biomass-carbon-climate-politics-477620

 

[deck]

Latrobe Uni did this with the solar panels they set up. But the plan is to to replant trees 3:1 in a different area.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Latrobe Uni did this with the solar panels they set up. But the plan is to to replant trees 3:1 in a different area.

Great idea. Hopefully they can do this with the Herdade da Torre Bela project but I haven't seen any evidence yet suggesting they have.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Our only Geothermal power plant is a dud.

Failed geothermal power plant will cost $1.1m to fix, outback council claims

The $4-million plant was touted as the beginning of a renewable energy windfall for outback Queensland, but it never produced any power. Winton Shire Council is suing the project manager in the Supreme Court.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Power Raid]

There is lots of hypocrisy in renewables be it the rare earth processing waste, the hydrofluoric dump or killing workers, the PFAS (forever chemicals related to cancer, diabetes and foetal mortality - to think people are worried about micro plastic but PFAS is OK).

It isn't that renewables are bad but rather not holding renewables to account has resulted in us getting what we deserve. To think we are 34 years into a energy transition but we still don't have a single successful jurisdiction with a renewable energy strategy without relying upon hydro and nuclear.

Thus we are getting all the cost (high cost and increased environmental negative outcomes) without the benefit promised. What this says to me is, we need engineers not politicians resolving the gap between what is promised or even what is possible versus the snake oil sales pitch.

 

[Gough]

The alternative is we destroy our planet by burning fossil fuels.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

The alternative is we destroy our planet by burning fossil fuels.

Surely there is a middle ground. Sometimes policies aimed at tackling climate change can lead to greater emissions than there would have been had those policies not been implemented. Just look at the recent CA fires for instance.

 

[Gough]

Surely there is a middle ground. Sometimes policies aimed at tackling climate change can lead to greater emissions than there would have been had those policies not been implemented. Just look at the recent CA fires for instance.

There was middle ground thirty years ago when all the people looking for a gradual transition now argued climate change didn't even exist.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

There was middle ground thirty years ago when all the people looking for a gradual transition now argued climate change didn't even exist.

Had the name changed to Climate Change by then? Wasn't it still called global warming?

 

[Power Raid]

The alternative is we destroy our planet by burning fossil fuels.

just two possible outcomes?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

I love the concept of solar power and wind power but let's not kid ourselves. Despite being relatively carbon neutral in the power generation stage, the manufacturing, installation and transportation of renewable energy equipment is quite a different story. There's also plenty of waste products to dispose of in the manufacturing stage and turbine blades/solar panels when these become unserviceable.

 

[Chief]

Sometimes policies aimed at tackling climate change can lead to greater emissions than there would have been had those policies not been implemented. Just look at the recent CA fires for instance.

Which policies aimed at tackling climate change caused the fires, in your opinion?

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Which policies aimed at tackling climate change caused the fires, in your opinion?

I'm not arguing that any of these in isolation caused the fires but they certainly exacerbated the situation.

[1] Over regulation of logging industries.

[2] Halting and lessening of controlled burns.

Several other policies not specifically aimed at climate change were also a factor. For example water policies designed to save the smelt, not raking forests & bush areas, budget cuts to fire departments, an empty reservoir next to the Palisades fire - which was out of action to repair a hole in it's cover and the utility of the cover in the first place.

 

[Nothing]

I love the concept of solar power and wind power but let's not kid ourselves. Despite being relatively carbon neutral in the power generation stage, the manufacturing, installation and transportation of renewable energy equipment is quite a different story. There's also plenty of waste products to dispose of in the manufacturing stage and turbine blades/solar panels when these become unserviceable.

Ever considered the waste of an LNG train when they do a shut-down and replace everything? That's about every 5-10 years

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Ever considered the waste of an LNG train when they do a shut-down and replace everything? That's about every 5-10 years

They don't replace everything and they try to avoid complete shutdowns as much as possible now utilising inlet filtration systems to protect the turbines.