‘Clean energy’ projection — 86 million pounds of turbine blades to enter landfills each year
Based on the radical decimation of our environment thanks to greenie “clean energy” initiatives, I can only assume they’ve never heard of a cost–benefit analysis. Or, maybe they have, and I’m just giving them more credit than they deserve. Maybe they’re so wrapped up in their erroneous morally superior identity, they’d rather turn every majestic landscape into a barren hellscape before they would concede that political conservatism is best in show. Now that I think of it, I suspect the latter.
From a report over at Cowboy State Daily:
According to a 2017 study published in the scientific journal Waste Management, the world’s wind industry will be producing 43 million tons of blade waste annually by 2050.
The U.S. and Europe will account for 41% of that.
Currently, there are no scalable, cost-effective technologies to recycle the blade, and most of them are going into landfills.
Of all the ridiculous notions pushed by the left, demands for “green” energy remain one of the most irritating, for several reasons:
First off, there is the reality that the “green” agenda is just communism by another name, even though the useful idiots really do believe it’s about conserving and preserving the environment. Funny enough, I recently read an interview piece over at The Guardian, titled, “A greener Marx? Kohei Saito on connecting communism with the climate crisis”. Saito, a “degrowth communist” and an academic, believes Karl Marx’s lesser-known ideas on the environment are the answer to the current climate “crisis.” The man whose ideas helped to inspire 20th century governments to kill more than 100 million people? Um, no thanks!
Secondly, a multitude of the “green” initiatives are actually more detrimental than established energy technologies; nowhere is that more evident than the wind energy industry. The proponents sure are ambitious, and I applaud real innovation that inflicts the least amount of harm on the environment as little as possible, but wind turbines? One need not look very far to find countless examples of their crippling costs (both financial and environmental). The one mentioned above regarding the impending trash crisis; this one here where turbines “taller than the Statue of Liberty” toppled over in a spate of incidents; this one where the machines were declared a “health hazard”; or, from BBC:
Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents.
But leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road.
Levels are rising as an unintended consequence of the green energy boom.
Cheap and non-flammable, SF6 is a colourless [sic], odourless [sic], synthetic gas. It makes a hugely effective insulating material for medium and high-voltage electrical installations.
It is widely used across the industry, from large power stations to wind turbines to electrical sub-stations in towns and cities. It prevents electrical accidents and fires.
The end of the Cowboy State Daily piece includes a quote from Jonathan Naughton, a professor at the University of Wyoming, and the Director of the Wind Energy Research Center. Naughton says, “Is this [disposal] a problem, and are we working on it? Yes. Is it one that’s threatening the health and safety of anybody? No[.]”
Huh, interesting! This is the academic class we’re supposed to trust for educated and informed policy suggestions? He knows there’s an impending trash crisis (how gross) due to the current “green” energy industry’s manufacturing methods, and at the present rate of production, the future will be full of overflowing landfills — yet he plods on in the name of “green” energy? Predictable!
Image: Free image, Pixabay license, no attribution required.