General Discussion

It's an expensive failure at addressing the destruction of the planetary atmosphere, dependent on fossil fuels because of its intrinsic unreliability.

Its land and mass intensity makes it environmentally appalling.

If one is crowing about a system lasting six years without a need for maintenance, particularly at a time where this junk is blowing apart all over the world, one is engaged in selective attention.

I discussed the lifetime of wind crap some years ago, using real data: A Commentary on Failure, Delusion and Faith: Danish Data on Big Wind Turbines and Their Lifetimes.

Wind and solar were never sold to the public to address the use of fossil fuels. Advocates of this form of energy rely on fossil fuels. (One of Denmark's major exports is oil and gas from the North Sea.) It was sold to attack the only sustainable form of carbon free infinitely scalable high energy to mass ratio, nuclear energy.

It's 2025. We hit 430 ppm of carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere, having risen as of this writing, having risen by close to 60 ppm in this century, all the time carrying on about the useless so called "renewable energy" fantasy, a reactionary call to return to our dependence on the weather for energy, this precisely at the time we have destabilized the weather because our reliance on fossil fuels is growing, not falling.

It was time to wake up years ago. That we are still asleep at the wheel is a very dire reality for which history will not forgive us, nor should it forgive us.