July 23, 2016

What’s the REAL reason Greenpeace is bringing solar panels to a village north of the Arctic Circle?

Rebel Staff
 

First Greenpeace helped wipe out the First Nations fur trapping industry. Then they campaigned against logging; who do you think that hurt the most? Now they're bringing solar power to an Inuit village that relies on fossil fuels to survive. What's motivating Greenpeace to go after aboriginal Canadians?


WATCH the rest of my show when you become a Premium Member of TheRebel.media. It's fast and easy to join — just CLICK HERE and get instant, exclusive access to news, analysis and interviews the mainstream media won't show you!

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-07-25 08:46:05 -0400
They’re like an embodiment of the anti Christ. They’re so obsessed with pushing their own narcissistic narrative, they have no problem martyring good people to prove how good they are.
Not all crazy people are evil. These ones are.
commented 2016-07-24 23:13:40 -0400
I worked in the Arctic for years , from Inuvik in the West to Baffin Island in the East and many places in between . The one constant that I kept running into was southern dickheads , academics, activists, government twits. They all came up for 6-8 weeks in the summer and then left when it started getting cold and dark. The academic twats would go back to their universities and write up their findings to show why they needed to be funded for another year the following summer. They went back with the air of being someone who was an expert in all things Arctic. The same with government knobs and activists. The Inuit would have a great time with them bullsh*tting them and watching them record the BS.
Greenpeace is in the same crowd. When I was young and worked on the coast in a logging operation ,Greenpeace was coming out and would set up a tent. It often rained for days and we worked every day in the rain but the Green idiots would stay in their tent for days , smoke dope and wait for the rain to go away.
When it dried out the best way to get Greenpeace to leave was to wait for a forest fire. Back then the Fire Wardens had the power to commandeer men to go fight fires . They’d roust guys out of bars if needed. As soon as the Greenpeace twats heard there was a forest fire they f-offed back to the city so fast their feet probably didn’t touch the ground more than once every 2 yards. Loggers always put down their tools and fought the fires.
Greenpeace would spew nonsense to the media about preserving the forest but every single one of them took off every time there was word of a forest fire- as always – f**king hypocrites.
commented 2016-07-24 17:22:04 -0400
Most of these “ngo’s” are communistic, so why are any Canadians taking anything they say seriously? They want our ENERGY, the “environment” is the excuse. Notice Russia has been building enough pipelines to circle the earth 6 Times. The “approval process” went well I suspect( extreme sarc.). And not an ngo in sight, I wonder why?…more sarc. “Environmentalists” are just plain commies. Tell them, When Russia, China, India, Islam, OPEC, etc., stop using Petroleum, we will. Not until then. Go Oilsands, Go!! 12 century wind? Roman period solar? That is not “Forward”. We need petroleum until mankind masters the atom, and not a moment less in this horribly dangerous world. Petroleum is power, in more ways than one. And the commie ngo’s know it.
commented 2016-07-24 17:22:04 -0400
Most of these “ngo’s” are communistic, so why are any Canadians taking anything they say seriously? They want our ENERGY, the “environment” is the excuse. Notice Russia has been building enough pipelines to circle the earth 6 Times. The “approval process” went well I suspect( extreme sarc.). And not an ngo in sight, I wonder why?…more sarc. “Environmentalists” are just plain commies. Tell them, When Russia, China, India, Islam, OPEC, etc., stop using Petroleum, we will. Not until then. Go Oilsands, Go!! 12 century wind? Roman period solar? That is not “Forward”. We need petroleum until mankind masters the atom, and not a moment less in this horribly dangerous world. Petroleum is power, in more ways than one. And the commie ngo’s know it.
commented 2016-07-24 13:38:40 -0400
Bravo Zulu I sell solar pumping systems for agriculture and can tell you that you are 100% correct, Most who brag about solar have no clue, have never set up a system or even know what it takes to run one let alone how much power they produce, Nothing wrong with solar but it does not power cities likely never will, same goes for wind turbines.
commented 2016-07-24 12:49:54 -0400
@andrew . . . “Dark in winter? Sure, but from March to September, they get more sun than anywhere in the South” ? ? ?
If they get so much more Sun than the South . . . it should be friggin Miami on the Arctic Coast in Summer.
It is NOT . . . why do you suppose that is?
The ANGLE of the Solar radiation in the Arctic makes solar panels quite ineffective.
The reality is neither Solar or Wind will ever power a modern industrial city . . . they run on Govt Subsidies . . . and when the Subsidies run out your community looks like Barstow California, littered with abandoned useless garbage windmills . . . that the Taxpayer will likely have to pay to have removed.
commented 2016-07-24 07:48:32 -0400
@ Andrew Stephenson commented 12 hours ago
“Well,I lived in Resolute and Alert – nice to have sun but those solar panels are a waste for more than 8 months of the year”

Let’s use your numbers. Let’s say roughly 50% of power over 1/3 the year, or a 20% utilization cycle, about half what you get in the South.

Diesel power costs 61c/kwh.
Solar costs, at that reduced duty cycle, about 40 (about twice present southern sosts)

So, option a), pure diesel, costs 61 cents per kwh
Option b, use solar whenever possible, yields (61*0.8) + (40*0.2) = 56 cents, a 5 cent savings, which is noticeable, and worth the effort.
_______________________________________________________
Andrew – you might be a nice guy but you are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

Oh, while I will not get into it here – I am a solar power producer – and a fairly large one. In fact one of the largest in the region.

The only reason I do it is because I make a 14% return on my investment – it is a scam through and through – and by the way – thanks for paying your taxes – because that is where most of my free seed money came from. And that money even pays most of the people who do the maintenance – I just rake it all in.

Not the panacea you think it is – so go and spit out that ball of schitte quick. You ignorance on pricing, regional and arctic as well as your comments or lack thereof on sunlight, grazing angles and finally – utilization times as well as weather factors show a very typical greenie attitude.

While it might be worthwhile in the future I can tell you the expense today of construction and installation will make it prohibitive – right down to the concrete to mount the rigs in the first place – all on permafrost – which I suspect you have never walked on.

I will not get into this any more as you then become a time waster – but – I admit the future might be interesting – however right now – any success – no matter how minor will be trumpeted as huge by those with the advertising dollars – and for the most part at the expense of those living up there.

And most down here will not give a shit about the people – it will be the IDEA that makes everyone happy.

And you might just be one of those – making you potentially an evil bastard as well.

I will wait and see – for now.
commented 2016-07-23 20:54:39 -0400
I don’t know much about solar panels except to say that where ever I see them they are expensive and useless for the taxpayer. My question is… If solar panels are worth the money in the frigging Arctic then why are they not a Godsend to everybody in a Tropical climate ?
commented 2016-07-23 19:33:36 -0400
“Well,I lived in Resolute and Alert – nice to have sun but those solar panels are a waste for more than 8 months of the year”

Let’s use your numbers. Let’s say roughly 50% of power over 1/3 the year, or a 20% utilization cycle, about half what you get in the South.

Diesel power costs 61c/kwh.
Solar costs, at that reduced duty cycle, about 40 (about twice present southern sosts)

So, option a), pure diesel, costs 61 cents per kwh
Option b, use solar whenever possible, yields (61*0.8) + (40*0.2) = 56 cents, a 5 cent savings, which is noticeable, and worth the effort.
commented 2016-07-23 19:29:53 -0400
Greenpeace is a criminal neo-Marxist terrorist organization. It should be banned. Those who partake in its egregiously destructive activities should be arrested and jailed.
commented 2016-07-23 17:45:46 -0400
@ Andrew Stephenson commented 3 hours ago
“Bravo Zulu commented 4 mins ago
Sun does not shine long enough in the arctic to make a difference.

In fact there are months that it does not even rise about the horizon."

And there are months where it never sets. As it is everywhere, day length is 12 hours on the equinoxes, but in the summer, the days are longer in the arctic than they are at any point further south. Total insolation is lower, because of the high latitude meaning the angle sunlight enters is lower, (though you position solar panels perpendicular to the sun anyway), but total daylight availability is not.
______________________________________________________

Well,I lived in Resolute and Alert – nice to have sun but those solar panels are a waste for more than 8 months of the year – be that as it may some greenie will enjoy telling the world the sun is powering a can opener for 4 months of the year.

Hope they brought batteries along or those panels are even more useless

Cheers
commented 2016-07-23 15:58:09 -0400
Hi REBELS

From time to time I will post some questions just for the fun of it

Names of things you probably never knew had names.
here they are, see if how many you know.

1…AGLET
2…BOLSTER
3…BOW
4…CHUCK
5…COUNTER
6…FLAN
7…KERF
8…KICKSPACE
9…MOON
10..PLATEN
11..PLUNGER
12..RICTUS
13..SERIFS
14…TANG
see how many you know
I’ll post the answers at the end of Ezra’s show on Monday
Just another reason to watch THE REBEL only $8 bucks a month or $80 bucks a year
the only voice that shines a light on the news or lack of news just think of all the comments you leave FREEDOM OF SPEECH….use it or loose it
commented 2016-07-23 15:35:29 -0400
they are sending those panels to the Arctic cause they are listening to me.
I told them to stick them where the sun don’t shine.
commented 2016-07-23 14:18:28 -0400
Conversely the arctic circle stays in full sunlight all day long throughout the entire summer (unless there are clouds), and this is the reason that the Arctic is called the land of the “Midnight Sun”. After the Summer Solstice, the sun starts to sink towards the horizon. Great time for solar.

Again in this situation Solar tech like wind tech, makes abundant power at times it is least needed – the only thing to alleviate this gross defect of the green tech energy is a means to store the low use time energy for use when the solar/wind is down – and we are not therewith a practical solution yet, which renders green energy as an invalid solution at this point.
commented 2016-07-23 14:12:58 -0400
“Bravo Zulu commented 4 mins ago
Sun does not shine long enough in the arctic to make a difference.

In fact there are months that it does not even rise about the horizon."

And there are months where it never sets. As it is everywhere, day length is 12 hours on the equinoxes, but in the summer, the days are longer in the arctic than they are at any point further south. Total insolation is lower, because of the high latitude meaning the angle sunlight enters is lower, (though you position solar panels perpendicular to the sun anyway), but total daylight availability is not.
commented 2016-07-23 14:03:40 -0400
Sun does not shine long enough in the arctic to make a difference.

In fact there are months that it does not even rise about the horizon.

Snow load is not an issue – not enough snow fall to worry about.

I run a FIT program on the farm – huge scam – but those who pay their taxes pay me.
commented 2016-07-23 13:35:39 -0400
“I wonder how much snow load solar panels can take without damage. How much extra wiring and converters are needed to tie the AC and DC circuits together? How much local expertise will need to be trained up to maintain the system? How long the system will last without maintenance, or with requiring maintenance folks to be flown in from the far south? Whether the risks of how to work with the system (ie lock-outs and required level to care to cut the circuit around a solar panel in direct sunlight) will lead to many deaths by electrocution”

Don’t forget that the current generation has many of the same impediments with voltage regulation, maintenance, etc (they’re basically construction generators – they have to fit in the back of an airplane – and we are indeed talking the Ice Pilots DC3s, generator hauls featured on that program a couple times). Snow load isn’t that big a concern, they actually get less snow up there than southern Ontario and the optimal angle of the panels that far north is steep enough to shed it.

“There is another issue that everyone is forgetting. There is great amounts of natural gas in the area. Why? And I mean why? Isn’t the federal government allowing them to tie into the pipelines that are running through their area. "

They’ve tried it in Inuvik, which is in the Mackenzie valley where there are indeed large quantities of “stranded natural gas”. NPCC says it’s about 10% cheaper. That 10% savings is more than most of us pay for power, period, but it’s still not cheap in absolute terms.

“We have all the solar panel companies from all over the world, that are failing in record time. But only after all the government coppers are slowed down. Some of these companies / government funded failures are in areas of the planet that get sun light almost every day. Even they can’t make enough energy to run a small town with out the back up of fossel fuels. But hey, it is green and costs the tax payers a fortune” “Failing in record time” is actually an artifact of rapid rollout. Even the most robust technology will note an increasing failure rate when the fleet grows by 30% a year.

Diesel generation costs the taxpayers a fortune (NPCC, mentioned above, subsidizes it by ~40 cents a kwh). The economics in the far north are far different than those in the south; the “backups” are there anyway and if you’re running 30% solar, 70% diesel it’s still cheaper than 100% diesel (again, they’re basically construction generators). Ontario’s outrageous solar subsidies paid out 45 cents per kwh five years ago, and about half that now. Diesel costs considerably more than even the inflated initial rate.
commented 2016-07-23 13:29:16 -0400
Greenpeace wants them to rely on things that will eventually fail. In this way there are less people on the planet. That’s the real reason for Greenpeace.
commented 2016-07-23 13:22:32 -0400
Greenpeace – another pawn played by those who are in their endless war on wealth transfer.

When Europe and China collapse financially and George Soros dies, this stupid trash narrative and Green-shit will die with it.
commented 2016-07-23 13:13:05 -0400
Charles – good points. On wind generation, it would fare worse than solar in these surroundings.

The main engineering difficulty is the bearings needed to mount the blade structure. The load must be balanced between the arms or your bearing life is shortened. Ice loads would increase the load, and ice shedding would result in unbalanced loads. And shards of ice flying potentially half a kilometer from the turbine. I’ll let you ponder the difficulties of a manual shutdown in mid-winter: climbing up to the housing on an icy metal ladder in the dark. Wind power is already the deadliest form per kilowatt-hour produced.

You raised a good point about the bird and bat kills caused by windmills. The affect of a windmill farm in the high arctic upon migrating birds could be catastrophic for the flock.
commented 2016-07-23 13:03:17 -0400
I wonder how much snow load solar panels can take without damage. How much extra wiring and converters are needed to tie the AC and DC circuits together? How much local expertise will need to be trained up to maintain the system? How long the system will last without maintenance, or with requiring maintenance folks to be flown in from the far south? Whether the risks of how to work with the system (ie lock-outs and required level to care to cut the circuit around a solar panel in direct sunlight) will lead to many deaths by electrocution?

Running refrigerators in the summer off of a self-replenishing system would be a plus, but needlessly complicating a system that is already known to work is a bad idea.
commented 2016-07-23 13:02:05 -0400
Okay Andrew,

I agree with some of your post,(I know! I know I must have a screw loose).

There is another issue that everyone is forgetting. There is great amounts of natural gas in the area. Why? And I mean why? Isn’t the federal government allowing them to tie into the pipelines that are running through their area.

If they were able to tie into the natural gas lines, they would drop their costs even more then solar and wind.

The reason they won’t allow it is because of people like you. You are so against the oil industry, you would prefer to watch them loose their shirts on all the other technologies that just don’t work.

We have wind power that now causes hearing damage, people are now complaining to the governments about it. I mean even the local CBC (the leftist channel), is talking about it. Here is a technology that is completely flawed. Almost every wind mill in southern Alberta isn’t running. They can’t fix them fast enough. As soon as one is repaired three more break down. Talk about a make work project with government funded money. Then let’s not even start to discuss the dead bird and bat problems by each of these saws in the skies.

Now let’s discuss solar panels shall we.
We have all the solar panel companies from all over the world, that are failing in record time. But only after all the government coppers are slowed down. Some of these companies / government funded failures are in areas of the planet that get sun light almost every day. Even they can’t make enough energy to run a small town with out the back up of fossel fuels. But hey, it is green and costs the tax payers a fortune. So it must be fine. I find these green companies are running (great) when they have government money to spend. But as soon as some government agency looks to save money. This is the first place they look. Then they cancel the funding because the books said they were doing good. Then right after the funding is gone, that so called greener pastures company has their hand out again.

If the greener pasture people like you, want to expand the greener energy. Do it with your own money. Stop forcing us tax payers to keep funding a technology that just doesn’t work…
commented 2016-07-23 12:38:26 -0400
I recalled a time they (greenpeace) came to the Nfld. sealing grounds with a ship load of green paint – they docked at an Newfie outport and left the ship for a week to get repair parts in Maine, when they returned every wood framed building in town had a fresh coat of green paint. ;-)
commented 2016-07-23 12:20:53 -0400
The reason is purely economic. The diesel generation they rely on is outrageously expensive, somewhere between 80 cents and a dollar a kilowatt hour. At 30-40 cents a kwh, every kilowatt hour they displace saves the community fifty plus cents. That’s enormous for a community with limited economic means; every dollar you save not having to import diesel fuel is a dime the community doesn’t have to scrape together.

Dark in winter? Sure, but from March to September, they get more sun than anywhere in the South, and for those six months there is an enormous potential benefit. (although it doesn’t help in winter, it doesn’t make it worse, either). Once wind turbines improve to the point they can handle the winters, then we could potentially remove the need for diesel generation for all but emergency purposes, which would dramatically improve the economic sustainability of these remote communities, returning them to a state of living on locally available resources rather than relying on imports.