Green Energy Circus in Germany

Germany has 46% of its energy coming from green sources. Friends, believe this as much as the Turkish inflation statistics. The greeners in Germany, like Denmark, intentionally make this estimate incorrect. If green energy suddenly accounts for 50%, the remaining 50% of coal’s carbon is not disclosed. The rationale is ideological and perception management, as they squandered government dollars on initiatives that were not viable. They’re plainly lying. Ordinary folks are duped because they do not know how to interpret data. Let me also tell out that many of you believe green energy is a wonderful thing due to years of propaganda.

Do not think of myself as a global warming denial. Global warming is real; but, it will not render everything dry, as you may have heard. You’ll be astonished to learn that global warming isn’t tied to temperature, right? It has to do with humidity. Some locations will get drier, while others may receive more rain. Let me clarify quickly: only two types of wind transport adequate marginal moisture, often known as rain. Perhaps I’ll look at his theory another day. For example, these two types of wind do not exist in the United States, California, or Seattle. They only get wind from the Pacific, not the Gulf of Mexico. This is why wildfires are becoming more common in California. The more stable the climate zone, closer to the humid temperate zone, the higher the temperature shock necessary to aridify it. The farther you are from the temperate humid zone, the more likely you are to face severe drought. Another example is a desert location at high altitude, which always has low humidity. The majority of the world’s population lives in rather humid regions, such as India and Southern China. But there is a problem: according to the data, they buy the majority of their food from various places. Where do they get this? Let me refresh your memory with three big examples: the Russian wheat belt, Western Australia, and Southern Brazil. I’m sure you pay as close attention to the wind kinds, altitudes, and precipitation trends around here as I do. In conclusion, whereas humans live in naturally humid locations, food supply areas do not. As a result, most people will not see climate change as a decrease in food output. While they mock global warming since the weather is cool, they will confront food inflation and eventually famine. At the same time, with the end of globalization, as previously mentioned, fertilizer production fell by over 40% globally. In other words, contrary to common assumption, the climate refugee crisis will become less visible. People will be unable to procure food, resulting in a global famine that will disproportionately affect poor countries.

You do not have the resources to study 12 climate books, open a map, and purchase agricultural property that will receive greater rainfall as a result of wind analysis and climate change, as I do. You may call this the century’s land investment, as fertilizer production and other drought-prone agricultural regions would go. Don’t expect a tip if you ask where these places are, just as I wouldn’t tell you my bank password.

Let us move to green energy. Now let us begin with a comparison. In a standard automobile, for example, there is around 1 kilogram of copper and 3 kilograms of nickel. In the average electric vehicle? We’ll need 65 kilograms of each, as well as elements that we don’t usually put on top. These commodities have a global supply chain. Again, you do not need to perform logistical XYZ analysis like me. Many of these are situated in extremely unpleasant situations. Sixty percent of cobalt originates from a single source, the second largest of which is decommissioned in Russia. So we can’t get it inexpensively. Europe can supply oil even without the Russians. When it comes to other raw materials, the switch to renewable energy would not have been possible without the Russians. Things are improving in the Western Hemisphere. Because the majority of these basic resources come from America and possibly Australia. Unfortunately, it is negative in both Europe and Africa.

Let’s say you have a solar system of about 6 kW, which is big enough to install in most homes, it will take three days to charge your Tesla, assuming you don’t use the power for anything else. This is much worse in Germany. And what if you live in an apartment, that is, share the roof? What about Wind? It only partially makes sense offshore, but it has serious limitations. In summary, solar and wind energy are interesting technologies, but they are not yet applicable in most places. The USA is the 1st World country most suitable for green energy. Green energy is only possible for 10% of its population, not the rest.

Unless you suffocate your rational thought with ideology like the greeners in Germany, I believe nuclear will be a larger part of the future than many people realize. The supply chain is simpler than nuclear nonproliferation concerns or solar panels. Nuclear energy waste can be recycled and reused if it is “spin”. France does this. The issue here is that “weapons grade” plutonium is created as an extra material, i.e., material for the production of nuclear bombs.

Australia, the United States, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Argentina, and Chile—assuming they can get their heads out of their socialist asses. These are the few countries in the world with a green solar and wind profile that allows them to hypothetically generate 50% more electricity. Of course, be wary of measurement tactics, as shown in Germany, but the data is actually quite apparent to those who understand. Denmark, for example, has many wind turbines, but it still gets the majority of its electricity from the European grid and does not calculate carbon emissions.

Net Zero is not feasible with current technology until we find a low-cost bulk electricity storage method. In Germany, peak energy demand comes at night in the winter. Not in July throughout the summer. This means storing electricity for four months rather than just four hours. Until that storage technology is developed, the Net Zero arguments are pointless. It is economically lethal, but environmentally, there aren’t enough lithium deposits on Earth to create it. There was a new lithium finding announcement in Iran this week; I have seen the stories; I will not go into detail; I simply advise you not to get too excited.

But if you claim there is hydrogen, I can simply state that this is rubbish. You cannot achieve 30% efficiency with hydrogen. That is why I am not saying that you cannot make your system environmentally friendly; I am simply stating that reaching Net Zero today is not possible, even in a geography with excellent potential such as Texas, and that investments made by countries such as Germany, which are not in the Solar Wind belt, are Net Loss, not Zero.

If you try to accomplish this by shutting down nuclear power reactors, as Germany has done, you’ll have to lie about your numbers. Unfortunately, many have bought into the ideology; nevertheless, when we look under the hood, we are not yet there. So, is Europe simply a waste in this regard? What good has it done?

Europe has provided us with a good example of what not to do during the past 40 years. They engaged in economically and environmentally suicidal behavior. They contacted the person who said the math didn’t work, a defunct Greta. So, folks, green energy does not exist everywhere.

It is tough to complete your task if you do not keep potassium fertilizer stored. Phosphate fertilizer from Russia and Belarus is also becoming less popular. We have already begun to lose nitrogen fertilizer manufactured from natural gas globally, primarily from Europe and China. Are you aware that both drought and fertilizer are running out in the global agricultural sector? Fertilizer output has expanded as a result of globalization, but transportation has become problematic due to its depletion.

Europe will not starve, they will just change their government, because of high food inflation. If Turkey makes the right moves after 2035, it will not be hungry in 2050. I’m sorry I can’t share those right moves with anyone, but when the time comes, you will vote correctly or lose a lot of weight.

Germany shut down nuclear power reactors due to an energy crisis. What’s funnier is that they said they were doing it for the environment. I informed them that they were lying in the data. Carbon emissions have reached 632. What concerns me is that we are going so swiftly to achieve goals that I anticipate will take 2-3 years, and that the storm will break even sooner. When the boil appears, the enraged public may hold individuals in charge of Germany’s energy strategy during the last two decades accountable by scrutinizing their network of connections with certain lobbies. This demonstrates how serious it is. You can explain Germany’s stance toward Russia, which ignores geopolitical realities, with dumb bureaucrats. What remains unexplained is the “Green Energy” policy.


-Makes sense for economy and nature in red (>2500 kWh) areas
-The economy doesn’t work in Orange, but it still makes sense for nature.
-There’s no meaning in yellow
-Direct stupidity in light-colored places causes more emissions.

Investing in renewable energy in Germany is a waste of money, with the exception of wind energy, which is quite limited. Germany boasts a Green Gang. Over the course of 20 years, taxpayers spent 2 trillion euros. Not only did their energy become more expensive, but their actual emissions decreased by only 7%. There was three times more money spent than in California. However, they can generate 10% green electricity. And what would happen? Can’t see the map above? Turkey lacks the projected potential. Wind energy is fine in the Aegean, but as you know, the coffers are empty.

Are the environmentalists upbeat now that nuclear power plants have been closed? In the first hours after renouncing nuclear electricity, EON raised grid costs by 45% in NRW. On the first night, Germany made up for its shortage of renewable energy by importing electricity from France’s nuclear power reactors. Now they’ll try to narrow the gap with coal. This is a tragicomic situation. German coal is actually “lignite,” or brown coal. So there is a lot of water in it. A low-quality fuel with a caloric heat output that is significantly lower than its carbon emissions.

We’ll discuss again after global trade problems make energy imports problematic. Because the Germans will rely significantly on coal because their green energy expenditures, despite costing trillions, provide no output.

Take the judgment I mentioned above seriously. Whenever Germans have felt economic difficulties in history, things have changed very quickly. Do not think that this abnormal period of the last 80 years is like 2000 years of history, it was not. They are not like Turks or Russians. The wet burns alongside the dry.