Gutting the agricultural industry via nitrogen bans isn’t the only bad idea washing around Europe’s climate elite. Four ‘virtuous’ nations have hatched a plan to turn the North Sea into a slasher film for birds.
Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands – all members of the North Seas Energy Cooperation (NSEC) – have jointly signed the Esbjerg Declaration. Their plan is to transform the North Sea, which contains the 1.5 billion barrels of oil required to re-stabilise Europe against Russian aggression, into a useless ‘Green Hub’.
A mock-up has been provided to help everyone visualise the worst possible energy solution.
The enormous turbines are expected to be set a kilometre apart in a grid, driven into the seabed with concrete and steel platforms that weigh approximately 1,000 tons. Those in deep water include 60m structures with 3-4 anchor points. Even floating versions contain huge quantities of additional material, all of which require fossil fuels to create and maintain, the cost of which increases as governments constrict the industry.
According to the press release, the purpose of the project is to quadruple wind output by 2030, bringing the total to 65 GW. The end goal is the production of 150 GW by 2050.
The final figure is estimated to be half the required energy capacity for the EU’s climate neutrality plan as stated in the European Commission’s Strategy on Offshore Renewable Energy – which, as far as anyone can tell – was written with the bones of dismembered seabirds attempting to navigate the white pillars of death that can reach 270m in height with blades over 100m. When it comes to the other half of the required energy output, the climate luvvies will have to find another sea.
During the public unveiling, no one bothered to ask if the cost of re-building the first half of the project had been factored in, given the lifespan of wind turbines means that those constructed for the 2030 deadline would have to be replaced by the time 2050 rolls around. 14,000 blades are estimated for decommission by 2023, with that figure increasing exponentially year-on-year.
In order to achieve this Net Zero (going to need a fact-check on that) dream, artificial islands, referred to as ‘energy islands’, will have to be built. These are required to facilitate transmission between the wind farms and neighbouring nations. Belgium, the nation leading the energy islands section of the project, has also considered floating solar panels – which should be fun to watch the next time a proper storm rolls around.
Denmark estimates the price tag for the investment to be DKK 210 billion, with each energy island costing DKK 10 billion. The project is being built by Ørsted, who are listed as a World Economic Forum partner determined to see a world run ‘entirely on green energy’. Although they may need coal, oil, and gas for the steel, mining, and concrete that goes into their monster-sized ‘renewable’ operations.
— World Economic Forum (@wef) January 2, 2022
This project is being pushed ahead despite obvious threats to the natural environment. The reason for this urgency? An artificial policy problem was created when Denmark issued a 2050 expiration date on all oil and gas mining in the North Sea. After 2050, the government will refuse licenses thus ensuring that the wind farm project will have no genuine market competition to assess its cost-effectiveness. It will simply exist regardless of quality.
The push for wind power is coming primarily from politicians, far-left socialist parties, energy companies, and bureaucrats. Danish citizens have been less keen, with opposition to wind expansion growing. One of the reasons this new project is pursuing offshore wind in an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach is to make sure the turbines are not visible from land. Onshore wind farms have been causing a vicious backlash from land owners and residents who find the turbines ugly, noisy, and dangerous for wildlife.
This is not to say that offshore wind farms are good for the environment. Even environmental studies admit that they create a net negative impact, particularly during their construction.
None of this solves the problem for wind farms already built in communities. Denmark’s Minister for Housing and the Interior, Christian Rabjerg Madsen, has offered additional compensation for those living around wind and solar facilities. If these technologies are so great and green, why do human being hate living near them?
Churches in Denmark, who occupy a special legal niche allowing them to veto projects that interfere with the view from their parishes, were stopping wind farms in country areas. This upset Dansk Energi, whose managing director of Renewable Energy, Kristine van het Erve Grunnet, was quoted as saying, ‘In light of the climate challenges we face, the church’s veto against wind farms needs to be removed.’
Imagine if the coal sector had said this.
Germany has the most wind turbines in the European Union, and their industry is drowning in legal challenges, predominately brought in the interests of protecting the local wildlife. The more wind turbines that are built, the more people hate them.
‘You have to have a grown-up conversation with citizens and treat them as adults and say, “Listen, the status quo has changed, we’re in a climate emergency, we have to make radical and fast changes to our systems,”’ said Patrick Devine-Wright, a social scientist and adviser to the IPCC.
And there it is. By declaring, without sufficient evidence, that there is a ‘climate emergency’, the norms of law, land ownership, and citizen rights are routinely swept away.
If you turn the conversation around on this argument and point out that solar and wind have enormous carbon footprints and cause wider environmental carnage with both their creation and swift decline, those pushing wind and solar become violently pale. If you follow up with the suggestion of nuclear power, they start gluing themselves to random bits of tarmac.
Why? Because nuclear is a quick and permanent solution. Instead of costing trillions in public money, the world’s energy can be secured with an accompanying rapid decline in mining.
‘Oh, but it’s expensive!’
What happened to ‘nothing else matters because this is a climate emergency’?
If we are in an emergency, then nuclear is the logical, scientific solution. If this is not an emergency, then it must be about money – an absolute truckload of it. Each skyscraper-sized spinning blade sticks out of the water as a white elephant, built on public cash, fear-mongering hashtags, the misguided tears of brainwashed children, and the vanity of politicians seeking public virtue in the absence of character.
As for the birds, the seas are set to become a nightmare of blood and feathers.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.