Oh, look, an arid, dusty environment. Unsurprisingly, wind turbine blades - constructed of fibreglass or carbon fibre - don't do very well in an environment that involves ten years of constant abrasion from airborne dust.
Also, because these blades are fibreglass \ carbon fibre, they're a total bastard to recycle, to the point that most simply don't.
I am bitterly opposed to the reductive, childish level of debate that occurs around the entire power generation thing.
Every form of power generation has downsides. Every form. If there was one with no downsides, we'd all be using it.
Groups like Greenpeace assiduously downplay their opposition to each and every form of power generation, trying to cover up their apparent preference for returning us to the middle ages with ill-informed talk of "efficiency gains" when the kinds of efficiencies they would require - given their opposition to large-scale power generation - would violate quite important laws of thermodynamics.
Every form of power generation has downsides. Every form. If there was one with no downsides, we'd all be using it.
Some have worse downsides than others. Something like nuclear has a lot of advantages, but people are prejudiced against it. It's far better than this blight on every landscape, and coal which kills hundreds of people each year.
Yup. Just how ... unbalanced ... the public perception of nuclear is can be shown by the 2011 tsunami in Japan.
Almost 20,000 dead from the tsunami, and what leads in the papers? Two guys copped a dose from the Fukushima Daiichi reactor incident. You'd be hard-pressed from the coverage to realise a tsunami happened at all, such was the glee with which the press reported on the nuclear incident.
Oh, look, an arid, dusty environment. Unsurprisingly, wind turbine blades - constructed of fibreglass or carbon fibre - don't do very well in an environment that involves ten years of constant abrasion from airborne dust.
Also, because these blades are fibreglass \ carbon fibre, they're a total bastard to recycle, to the point that most simply don't.
They're a blight on the planet.
I could not be more opposed to these things, marching across the land like packs of invasive alien technology. 100% terrible
I'm not opposed to them per se.
I am bitterly opposed to the reductive, childish level of debate that occurs around the entire power generation thing.
Every form of power generation has downsides. Every form. If there was one with no downsides, we'd all be using it.
Groups like Greenpeace assiduously downplay their opposition to each and every form of power generation, trying to cover up their apparent preference for returning us to the middle ages with ill-informed talk of "efficiency gains" when the kinds of efficiencies they would require - given their opposition to large-scale power generation - would violate quite important laws of thermodynamics.
Some have worse downsides than others. Something like nuclear has a lot of advantages, but people are prejudiced against it. It's far better than this blight on every landscape, and coal which kills hundreds of people each year.
Yup. Just how ... unbalanced ... the public perception of nuclear is can be shown by the 2011 tsunami in Japan.
Almost 20,000 dead from the tsunami, and what leads in the papers? Two guys copped a dose from the Fukushima Daiichi reactor incident. You'd be hard-pressed from the coverage to realise a tsunami happened at all, such was the glee with which the press reported on the nuclear incident.