Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Abstract

This post is aligned to the proofs presented about wind turbines (bird choppers) and electric vehicles (lithium batteries), namely their non-green, costly and destructive realities. The unHoly Trinity of eco-energy fanaticism includes solar farms of course. As with the wind turbines and EVs, very little of the industry’s propaganda matches reality. You cannot power a modern economy on this trinity of destructive and financially ruinous set of technologies, not now, not ever.

The Scientism markets a grotesque falsity as a truism, namely that industrialised nations should de-industrialise and focus the energy needs of a modern economy on unreliable solar and wind power, which of course, provide very poor value in output for the roughly US$500 million to $1 Trillion, per annum investments which feed the ‘climate change’ industry. 

The claim that digging up tonnes of Earth to find materials for solar panels (eg copper, cadmium), and the related manufacturing, shipping and distribution of said panels, is ‘green’, better for Gaia, or at a lower cost and price than coal, natural gas or nuclear (more below) is a howling mendacity. These lies offered as ‘science’ are disrobed when you analyse in the naked light, how solar panels are made, their materials, the land usage, the outrageous real costs in their output, and their eco-destructive nature.

It must be emphasised that anthropogenic, human plant food created ‘climate change’ is a fraud and simply a political program to reduce civilisation and our standard of living and usher in a Federated-Global government.

1. The materials and weight

Solar panels contain a wide variety of materials. They are hefty, cumbersome, operationally intensive with a life span of less than 10 years. Replacement costs and maintenance are usually left out of the ‘green’ calculations. They are complex to source and make as given below.

Main components

·       Silicon: Sand is the primary material used to manufacture photovoltaic cells. Sand is supposedly the second most abundant element on the planet after water, and is widely as silicon wafers

·       Silver: Used in the electrical contacts on solar cells (not limited but difficult to mine and extract, and reliant on hydrocarbon processes and technologies)

·       Aluminium: Used for the frames of solar panels (this is a manufacturing process using hydrocarbon energy)

·       Copper: Used in the wiring and conductive elements of solar cells (difficult to mine and extract, you need hydrocarbon-based energy systems and vehicles to do large scale mining)

·       Cadmium: Materials used in some types of thin-film solar cells, such as cadmium telluride (CdTe) cells (extracted from lead and zinc ores)

All of the above core materials rely on hydrocarbon energy to mine, extract, process, manufacture and distribute. There is plenty of plastic and polymers in a solar panel as well with the attendant costs of pollution and eco-damage. Yet you won’t find these ‘carbon costs’ in the ‘green calculations’ for solar panels. An example is the cost of cadmium management.

Critical cadmium

Cadmium is a heavy metal and a toxin. Producing cadmium from zinc ores is hydro-carbon intensive and has deleterious effects on the environment, food and water supplies. Costly processes around management, sequestring, recycling and destruction must be implemented and these are never accounted for in solar ‘accounting’.

Global cadmium reserves total some 500.000 tonnes with 25.000 tonnes being consumed annually, meaning that we have a 20 year known supply. Cadmium supply is thus a signficant restraint on future solar farm deployments. To develop further supplies will necessitate complex mining, zinc ore transformation, refining, processing and distribution. These costs will also never find their way into solar ‘accounting’ calculations.

The size and weight

Solars farms can be massive (200.000 or more panels). They must be sourced, created, brought to the site and emplaced. They also contain a tonne of material. None of this is easy to create or deploy and will have an effect on the environment.

The per MW acreage consumption by a solar farm, is about 10 acres or 40.000 square metres. For every square metre a solar farm will have at least 500 pounds of materials. For an average size solar farm, with 30 MW output, this means that over 1500 pounds or a tonne of material has been deployed on top of largely flat, arable land. This is an incredible concentration of minerals and materials in a condensed area which must be operated and replenished over a life cycle of usage.

• Solar Panels: On average, traditional silicon-based solar panels weigh around 15-20 kilograms (33-44 pounds) per square meter.

• Mounting Structures: The mounting structures, including frames and support systems, add additional weight. This can range from 5 to 15 kilograms (11 to 33 pounds) per square meter, depending on the design and materials used.

• Inverters: Inverters are used to convert the direct current (DC) generated by the solar panels into alternating current (AC) for use in the electrical grid. The weight of inverters varies based on their capacity and type, but usually constitute several hundred kilograms (500 pounds).

• Cabling and Wiring: Copper wiring, commonly used in solar installations, has a weight of about 8.9 kilograms (approximately 20 pounds) per meter for a 10 AWG wire.

• Transformers and Other Electrical Components: Transformer size varies but the weight would not be less than that of inverters.

• Racking and Foundations: The weight of racking systems and foundations for ground-mounted solar farms do vary based on the design and the soil conditions at the site, and run to about 50 pounds per square meter.

How is the above emplacement of a tonne of material ‘better’ for Gaia than farmland, meadows or forests? Natural flora is a ‘carbon sink’ recycling the trace chemical plant food and enhancing the eco-system whilst producing oxygen. Not only is the ‘landing zone’ for solar farms pillaged and disfigured, Gaia must be ripped open and gigatonnes of Earth displaced to provide the materials necessary for the solar farm estate. This is apparently ‘green friendly’ and ‘greener’ than just leaving the land fallow or natural.

2. Solar Farm costs

(Australia, world’s largest solar array, must be eco-friendly eh?)

Setting up a Solar Farm costs roughly U$115.000 per 5 MW of produced energy.  That is just the setup.  The total costs are in the region of $1 million per 1 MW of produced energy including operations, replacement costs and upgrades.  1 MW of energy supports 500-1000 households. 

To produce 1 MW of energy these solar farms will consist of roughly 72 solar cells linked over 6-10 acres, comprising some 1000 or more panels.  The total costs do not include soil degradation, ecological devastation, or the loss of farmland or other productive uses, which is called an ‘opportunity cost’ in accounting.  You will never see ‘opportunity costs’ included in the total cost of solar farm deployments.  Just as rare are the calculated costs for on-going maintenance, both material and human.

By contrast a single coal plant costs less than US$ 1 billion to setup with maintenance costs of about $100 million per annum and produces 4.000 MW of energy. Coal stations provide 40% of the world’s electricity and are far more efficient than solar.  We can do a simple comparison of coal versus solar energy. 

 

• Total costs over 10 years for a coal plant:  U$ 2 billion.
• Energy produced over 10 years from a coal plant:  40.000 MW
• Cost per MW produced over 10 years:  U$50.000
• Total costs of a solar farm, over 6-10 acres, for 10 years:  U$ 10 million
• Energy produced over 10 years: 10 MW
• Cost per MW produced: U$ 1 million

So in reality, coal plants are 20 times more efficient per MW than a solar farm.

There is no possiblity that solar, wind and EVs are ‘better’, cheaper, more eco-friendly, or less costly than clean burning, renewable and abiotic hydrocarbon energy.

Example, the disUnited States of Biden

David Craig wrote a very good book There is No Climate Crisis.  In the Daily Sceptic he takes the latest solar propaganda to the woodshed: “New Wind and Solar Are Cheaper Than the Costs to Operate All But One Coal-Fired Power Plant in the United States.“

Craig notes the massive government subsidies which are omitted from the costs of the beloved solar panels. Solar energy subsidies equal the total spend of Americans on their energy bills. No one hears much about this.

 

“Here’s a U.S. Treasury ‘Factsheet‘ about the Inflation Reduction Act. In it we read that: The U.S. Department of the Treasury will be at the forefront of implementation, delivering $270 billion in tax incentives as part of the $369 billion the Inflation Reduction Act dedicates to combating climate change.”  U.S. consumers spend about $1 trillion on energy each year including transport. I did a quick ‘back-of-a-fag-packet’ calculation. If the USA’s 123 million or so households spend around $4,000 a year each on energy (excluding transport) then that’s about $400 billion. Yet the inflation Reduction Act is spending a massive $369 billion subsidising supposed ‘renewables’, which are just a minor part of the USA’s energy use. In fact, wind and solar make up only about 3% of USA energy use:

 

Yet these almost negligible energy sources are getting $369 billion in subsidies –that’s almost as much as the $400 billion U.S. households pay for in total for energy each year.”

There is no logical financial case in promoting solar panel farms. They are economic losers with unreliable, variable output using technology that is not recycled.

3. Land usage

Solar panels are land and material intensive. The size of the solar farm depends on its output capacity. A ‘Utility-Scale Solar Farm’ or one that is ‘Ground-Mounted’ can range in size from several megawatts (MW) to hundreds of MW. On average, a utility-scale solar farm might have around 1,000 to 2,000 solar panels per megawatt. A single MW of output needs about 10 acres. Therefore, a 100 MW solar farm might have roughly 100,000 to 200,000 solar panels and consume 1000 acres or 1.5 square miles.

In most northern climes you might be lucky to get 50% capacity with a solar farm based on the number of sun filled hours and days. Storage batteries are nowhere good enough to capture ‘excess’ sunlight for later usage. Solar farming is thereby an inefficient and unreliable exercise.

The disUnited Kingdom and land hunger

Many states like the UK are land poor and densely populated. There are 75 millions in the UK mostly residing on about 1/3 of the land space of 90.000 square miles, with about 25 million or 1/3 in the ‘south’ of the country. Given that 1/3 of the country is off limits to development and reserved as parkland or greenland, and given that about 20% is simply uninhabitable as well as being inhospitable to solar farm deployments, there is a land scarcity at work which is always ignored.

The UK produces about 200 GW of electricity generation, each year.  Solar panels contribute a tepid and meagre 16-18 GW in total, or 8% of what the UK consumes. You will never satisfy UK electricity demand from solar farms or wind turbines.  This tawdry solar output is after almost £ 60 billion in funding by government, during the past 13 years. These costs are never included in the solar ‘accounting’.

Then there is the massive increase in electricity and utility bills for consumers. In the past 20 years electricity prices in most modern states has doubled - a cost borne by the taxpayer. We the taxpayers are thereby burdened by a very poor return on investment technology, expressed in massive increases in our energy and utility costs. Higher electricity costs are never calculated in solar ‘accounting’ with industry paid studies saying the solar farms pay back within 10 years. These false studies don’t count the subsidies nor the higher costs borne by consumers due to the installation of solar farms and other non-green technology.

Carpeting the land

In the UK there exists 500-600 industrial-size solar farms in the country producing an installed capacity (not the real output capacity) of roughly 16 GW or 16.000 MW. This gives us roughly, a 30 MW size per solar farm or roughly 300 acres per solar farm. In total, the UK has committed some 160.000 acreas or 250 square miles to solar farming or almost half of one southern county, West Sussex.

Real solar output is dependent of course on hours of sunshine and in the UK this varies between 30-50% of total daytime hours available. Why does anyone belive it is a good idea to efface natural land areas with solar farms in a country, where sunny daylight hours is a rarity for much of the year?

Basic maths tell us that if solar output targets of total energy production were say trebled (which is the plan), the UK would need to allocate another 750 square miles for solar farms or completely cover the county of West Sussex with solar farms. To satisfy the entire hydroelectric needs of the UK (some 200 GW), you would need to put at least 4000 square miles under solar farming, or 2.6 million acres, equivalent to the entire south-east of the country stretching from Kent to the Devon border. Given the real capacity utilisation rates of 50%, the UK would need to allocate 5 million acres to solar farming, or most of the southern area of the country.

Many eco-fantatics would be more than happy to displace 10-25 million people and put verdant, arable and productive land under solar farming creating an ecological and social catastrophe. Given the population and infrastucture density of nations like the UK, the only land truly available for solar farming is farmland, woodland and national parks. In other words the solar fanatics will need to destroy Gaia to save her.

4. Eco-Devastation

Not only are governments subsiding solar panels far above their productive output capacity and role within a well-balanced energy grid, the costs of ecological destruction are never accounted for. 

Harvard Business Review and the dark side of solar panels

The industry’s current circular capacity is woefully unprepared for the deluge of waste that is likely to come. The financial incentive to invest in recycling has never been very strong in solar. While panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material. The long life span of solar panels also serves to disincentivize innovation in this area.

IEEE, solar is not as green as you think

This report cites huge energy usage in panel manufacture, vast consumption of water, a lack of recycling and toxic waste issues as serious matters of concern which debase the ‘green’ image of the industry.

 

Solar panel farms change regional weather conditions

The model revealed that when the size of the solar farm reaches 20% of the total area of the Sahara, it triggers a feedback loop. Heat emitted by the darker solar panels (compared to the highly reflective desert soil) creates a steep temperature difference between the land and the surrounding oceans that ultimately lowers surface air pressure and causes moist air to rise and condense into raindrops. With more monsoon rainfall, plants grow and the desert reflects less of the sun’s energy, since vegetation absorbs light better than sand and soil. With more plants present, more water is evaporated, creating a more humid environment that causes vegetation to spread.

 

Many solar farms violate national and local laws

This report states that a more environmentally conscious process is needed from start to finish. Sand should be legally and ethically mined….. Developers also need to consider how to build sustainable  solar arrays that minimize the impacts on the local habitat. Better recycling plans should be in place for the solar panels once they reach the end of their lives. And like with any other major construction project, renewable energy companies should take heed of state and federal environmental regulations.

Solar panels affect local widlife, conservation areas, and interrupt and often destroy local eco-systems including those that thrive in meadows (BBC Report). They eat up prime farmland and reduce food output. Yet these real environmental costs are never assessed within solar ‘accounting’ Neither is the opportunity cost of building a solar farm, in lieu of other more productive use cases such as farming, conservation or meadow restoration.

Bottom Line

There is too much hypocrisy and fake ‘science’ with solar panels. The numbers simply don’t add up no matter how you slice them. Neither does the Gaia piety hold up to analysis. The solar ‘accounting’ dismisses the life cycle costs of solar power, its waste, its toxicity, its rape of Gaia, its ‘carbon footprint’ during its life cycle from sourcing to landfilling, and the massive increase in prices for consumers and state subsidies.

As with any other inane idea pushed by corrupt governments, we the peasantry are thus millstoned with a technology that has a ridiculously low level of output and productivity when compared to coal or natural gas and does nothing to help support a modern economy. The eco destruction wrought by solar farming is just as great as any process sourcing renewable hydrocarbons and the impact on land usage and patterns within a country and region is enormous and never assessed nor quantified.

Solar farms may play a very minor role in energy production, but that role should be defined, limited and scaled back to reduce the destructive consquences on society and ecology by putting too much unwarranted faith in an immature and largely invalidated technology.

As with all Scientisms the rush to solar energy is about money - vast oceans of it which can buy anyone and anything. Follow the money to find ‘the science’ including the money used in bribes, payoffs, and graft - another ‘cost’ never ‘accounted’ for by the solar zealots.