Update July 2021: To emphasize one particular point from below, one aim of 'green energy' such as wind farms and solar panels in massive arrays, is to act as an explanation for the masses, as to where all the energy they are using is coming from. In the western countries, a great number of previously 'model & mainly for show' coal powerstations have been shut down in recent years, even while power use by the population increases at a dramatic rate. Imo, the majority of power has come from 'the grid' itself for many decades and nothing is going to change in this regard - only that TPTB have decided it's time to shut down the expensive 'model & mainly for show' coal powerstations given the general technical/engineering level of insight appears to have decreased in recent years within western populations. The intended phasing out of mains gas (for cooking and heating) along with petrol, will further massively increase the demand for electricity - yet there is of course absolutly no way wind or solar can make up for such demand... However they won't need to as more can be drawn from 'the grid collection system' although because the energy has supposidly now become 'green' (i.e. from wind and solar farms), far more can be charged for it. Transitioning populations to mains electricity also provides greater tracking and control possibilities. [Also, just to note that the Drax powerstation discussed below, now running off wood pellets, is an abomination. Recently I came across an article confirming the below level of figures, except that it was expressed as Drax consuming 25 million tree a year! Yet because such utter wanton vandelism and destruction is counted as 'generating clean electricity from green biomass', the owner receives approx 725 million pounds tax rebate from the UK gov. Why there is a seeming rush to destroy such vast tracts of forests is unfathomable to me, though presumably there is a reason why TPTB are doing it. For example see here about the destruction of forests in Canada.]

To note, this is not the 'strongest' matrix insight provided on this site, as is far more difficult to evidence. However, I still feel intuitively sure that it is on the right track.

TD;LR The larger percentage of electrical power is most likely 'generated' via the actual 'massive' electrical grid structure of earth insulated wires itself, rather than electrical power plants. That is, electrical current is most likely 'created' in the country wide network of electrical grid cables suspended from pylons (in conjunction with various transformers and capacitors and insulators) - via the passing of electromagnetic plasma/ether over the cables. A certain number of very large electrical plant buildings (or otherwise disguised) likely house extremely large storage batteries, so as to cope with peak demand surges. The power demands of many western countries are utterly ginormous and their supposed power generating capabilities require quite a 'leap of faith' (in terms of generating sufficient electricity to meet acknowledged power needs/being charged for). New green power technologies (wind/solar/hydro) have supposedly been contributing a huge amount of power in the last 10-15 years - however the figures given re power being generated by them are highly questionable and most likely fraudulent imo. Further, most existing power plants with cooling towers (i.e. emitting vast amounts of steam into the atmosphere - a process which makes no logical sense whatsoever for a power plant which is based on turning heat energy into electrical energy) are more likely for purposes of weather and cloud creation/manipulation.  It is documented (from 'satallite imaging') that 'synthetic' clouds eminating from such towers tend to act as 'seeds' in the building of weather systems. 

Obviously there's no question that electrical energy can be produced via a generator (using a spinning wire coil inside of magnets), rather the question is the scale of what is possible with such 'conventional' generator technology. For reference, the top right image is a 1 MW diesel generator - with the generator on the left side and the diesel engine on the right. That is, it takes this size of engine and generator (running at peak output/speed) to produce a constant supply of 1 MW (i.e. 9090 amps at 110 volts).

In doing some extra background researching of this subject I scanned through the DUKES 2019 report (Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 201) which is a quite amazing yearly compilation - gathering together all the known UK sources of electrical supply, so as to provide a complete picture of UK power consumption and supply (in all respects). I followed up quite a few references in the DUKES report, to do with listed large scale electrical power producers on this list, just to get more of a feel as to the buildings and what they look like, the size of the turbines and generators - and many other things to do with electrical power generation. I have to admit, I learned about all sorts of interesting things!

The following is a particularly interesting page to begin with as (like the above top right generator image) it is something which we can be sure is true, in terms of equipment and the amount of power it can produce - up to approx 3 MW continuous (running at peak speed/output/load that is): https://www.generatorsource.com/Used-Generators.

The generator shown below however, is a (claimed) 680 MW generator from the Drax powerstation, which has six of these in total, providing (a claimed) 4080 MW, which is 4.08 GW (gigawatts). Drax is the largest UK power plant. It shows what is possible and what it takes to produce electricity via a magneto generator (rather than some other 'undisclosed' form of power production).

The fuel requirements for the Drax power station are incredible to contemplate, and give greater insight into how much power it takes to create such an amount of electricity. Drax is useful because we can maybe more easily relate to the 'burning' of fuel to create heat. Like we know from experience, for example, how much gas flame (size/intensity and time) is required to heat a saucepan of water to boiling temperature - and it is the resulting steam from such heating of water which is used to 'spin'/turn the generator..

[Presumably of combined fuels] on average, there are 35 deliveries a day, 6 days a week.[49]

The station has a maximum potential consumption of 36,000 tonnes of coal a day.[51]

In September 2012 Drax Group announced the conversion to full firing with biomass [i.e. wood pellets] of three of its six units. {...} Each unit will consume about 2.3 million tonnes of biomass yearly, requiring an estimated annual total of 7.5 million tonnes in 2017. This is equivalent to two-thirds of Europe's entire energy biomass consumption in 2010, and requires 1,200,000 ha (4,600 sq mi; 12,000 km2) of forest to supply on a continuous basis.[74][75] North America was expected to be the source of the vast majority of the biomass, although some would be domestically sourced willow and elephant grass.[76] (source)

These are vast amounts of fuel required, yet the supply at 4.08 gigawatts is only 11.9% of the UK's total electrical supply for 2018 of 34.25 GW constant (i.e. 300 TWh/300000 GWh as given in the above DUKES publication page 80).

Moving on, DUKES cites the following for wind and solar and hydro:

• Total wind generation increased by 15 per cent to 57 TWh in 2018
• Solar photovoltaic generation grew by 12 per cent to a record 12.9 TWh in 2018.
• Generation from hydro decreased by 7.0 per cent in 2018 to 5.5 TWh.

This comes to a total of 75.4 TWh for wind and solar and hydro technologies (which is an average constant of 8607.3 MW. So this is 12.66x the amount of electricity of Drax running on full power (with all its vast fuel requirements)!!!

Having lived off-grid for several years and experienced first-hand what is viable with solar and wind power - I am extremely skeptical of the figures detailed in DUKES for wind and solar and hydro. Plus such power sources are not reliable in terms of the conditions required to generate on a continual and/or predictable basis.

I therefore look at things like this: It used to be that the large 'power stations' were the main 'fronts' for all of the electrical supply (gas, coal and nuclear), but this likely became an over-expensive show/illusion to continue. Far better to run supposedly 'less destructive' and less costly systems for show and 'nominal' power generation - all the while continuing to 'harvest' the bulk of the power from the grid itself. [Wind power is likely particularly useful in that the electrical current only has to be reversed, so as to create 100's (if not 1000's) of 'huge directional fans' for weather modification support purposes.] However, to maintain the illusion of where all our power is coming from, the figures for wind, solar and hydro have to be highly exaggerated - particularly given so many large conventional power plants are being closed down (usually coal fired ones). Plus to note, in recent decades, electrical power requirements have rocketed because of the vast cloud computing infrastructure which has been built, along with greater use of electrical powered technology by the public. Not withstanding these facts, western govs are stating that all new cars are to be electrically powered within a decade or so (so another huge consumer of electrical power).

Nuclear is possibly the most useful 'power generator' of all, because it might not even produce anything beyond a nominal quantity of electricity (for show) and given all the security, who would really realize/know anyway. Plus some party also additionally receives the massive funds for 'spent fuel reprocessing'???

[Since writing the above statement about nuclear power, I have since been semi-convinced that nuclear power is actually a 'thing' although in a far more limited way than publicly claimed. It would seem that purified uranium packed in metal rods, when subjected to neutron bombardment, does generate heat (which is then used to heat water), for a lifetime of approx 6 years per rod. However, it would seem that it is not a runaway cascade/avalanche reaction which can't be stopped - but rather than continual bombardment by neutrons is required (over the lifetime of the uranium rod, rather than just once off bombardment to start the reaction). Thus the total generated power equation is: power generated by a steam turbine, minus the 'power in' for the neutron gun plus the 'power in' needed to produce the purified uranium. I don't know what the result of the equation is, however I suspect it is not a particularly efficient/viable form of power generation and is thus still a form of camouflaging the real source of grid harvested ether electricity.]

There was a comedy skit by Rowen Atkinson, which was a sort of 'all bells and whistles' advert for a nuclear power plant, etc - and then the 'punchline' was suddenly switching to Atkinson peddling furiously on an exercise bike under a big vast and empty dome.

And like with the supposed Japanese nuclear disaster (as a result of the alleged 'tsunami') - or the explosion of the 'reactor' in the Ukraine, behind all the shocking and frightening headlines, and dramatic state actions, things appear to quite different, with little to no cause for concern as regards radiation poisoning, etc. The concept of nuclear power relies on a lot of beliefs indeed. And nuclear plants always seem to take decades to build, and end up costing 3 or 4 times the original quoted amount. Proponents will claim it is because they are so complex and therefore numerous complex safety systems have to be built into them...

The point being that if one begins with the notion that the majority of electrical power which we utilize is most likely directly 'harvested' from atmospheric ether using the power line grid itself - plus very tall buildings (like as suggested in this post, see video at bottom of post), then we can appreciate why such 'fronts' as power stations might be required (beyond what they contribute as a smaller/nominal percentage of course - and their value for cloud generation). As to why a 'party' would want to hide the origin of all our electrical power - well it is so they can sell it to us common people at highly inflated prices! Of course. Plus as with all matrix structures, with us being kept from reality by a veil, we become less strong and more controllable - because essentially we are 'running blind', all the while taking for granted, the so called 'truths and explanations' taught to us by the controllers since we were born. Plus in general, the present matrix runs on a premise of scarcity, rather than abundance - and thus creating an illusion that electrical power is enormously expensive and complex to produce supports the scarcity illusion..

The electrical grid structure itself is an incredible piece of technology. These vast structures and networks run across our landscapes. Yet because we have been told/educated that they 'just' carry high voltage power from power stations to homes, we ignore them, for the most part as just a essential eyesore. However, presuming there are waves of (electromagnetic type) energy constantly flowing over the face of the earth, it could be that the way these electrical grid wires are hung together and 'insulated from ground', etc, causes these earth energies to coalesce and produce high voltages/current in the wires themselves (in a a similar way to how the wire loop spinning inside a magnet 'fills up' with electricity in a standard generator). It might therefore be a possibility (as suggested above) that most of the electrical energy we use and pay for in good faith, is being produced not by conventional power stations, but instead by the power line network itself.

I read an interesting anecdote, which therefore doesn't count for much (for several reasons), but still: was by an individual who lived close to a decommissioned power station. They reported that when standing under the wires coming out of the station, the crackling sound and static feel is still present.

This is a more difficult matrix structure to prove definitively, compared with many others - and I am still looking to check my understanding and accuracy about the matter. A lot of the essential information is kept within the 'confines' of certain professional groups and engineers - along with a lot of compartmentalization. However, I see such vast and ever increasing electrical power use - while information and explanations about where such huge amounts of power  are coming from appears somewhat suspect (i.e. wind and solar and hydro). I just can't believe that mega cities of 10, 20 or 30 million people are being powered by large electrical generators (of the types shown above) with astonishingly huge fuel requirements. Please see the 'Airport consideration' illustration in the Annex section below - and then next time you are in an airport, take a look around with fresh eyes.

No doubt we shall be treated to a new (illusory) source of power soon, so as to take any attention away from the grid, (given the solar and wind is not all that convincing). My bet is on a 'space microwave beam'!

Annex section

Airport consideration: The major cities of the world have absolutely *vast* power requirements. The electrical power a modern first world city needs is phenomenal. You likely may never have actually stopped to consider how much power is actually required. As one 'small' example, let's just think about the large international airport which all capital cities have (and usually an airport with 3, 4 or 5 terminals). Here are some of the electrical needs of an airport:

• Lighting: terminals, car parks, roads, runways and taxi ways.
• Escalators and moving pavements: As an example, London Heathrow airport (LHR) has '1,035 lifts, escalators and autowalks'. (link). Have you ever considered how much power is required to lift 20-30 people and their baggage on an (up) escalator.
• Shops: Just in Terminal 5 at LHR (that's 1 of 5 terminals), there are 100 shops and restaurants. (link)
• Heating and air conditioning of huge spaces. For example, at LHR Terminal 5 there are 6 floor levels and 'the area covered by the roof is the size of five football pitches' (link)
• Water systems management.
• Control tower and radars.
• Baggage handling system: Again, just Terminal 5 at LHR has '5 miles (8.0 km) of high-speed track and 11 miles (18 km) of regular conveyor belts' (link).
• Passenger rail transit systems: At LHR, 'The transit [system] can accommodate up to 6,000 passengers per hour[30] and the trains run at 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph) with a journey time of 45 seconds'. (link)
• Probably 10s of thousands individual plug in devices from cookers, to cleaning machines, to telecoms equipment, etc.
• Electric vehicles for servicing the aircraft, etc.
• Sliding doors

Next time you are in such a place, please take time to marvel at such an incredible human creation - and it's power requirements.