- Wind energy is bad for the environment.
- Wind turbines have a negative impact on the countryside.
- Wind turbines are the wrong shape, the wrong size and the wrong colour to be aesthetically appropriate for rural areas.
- Wind turbines kill birds, bats, bees and (I’m alleging) whales.
- Wind turbines can make humans feel sick.
- Wind turbines have a quantifiably negative impact on mental health, increasing the instances of suicide in their vicinity.
- Wind turbines have a quantifiably negative impact on property values.
- It is immoral, directly contradicting the teachings of the New Testament, to impose unwelcome wind blight on people, against their will and without their consent.
- Wind turbines are bad for social justice, directly handing over control of our natural assets “from the many to the few” and resulting in the corporatisation and industrialisation of Open Access Common Land.
- Although wind turbines are indeed capable of generating electricity, weather-dependent energy sources are by their nature intermittent, unsustainable, and unreliable.
- The wind itself is one of the principal causes of turbine damage, meaning that the very resource they require to operate is also an existential threat to their sustainability.
- Wind turbines are non-renewable disposables with a lifespan of just a few years, made of metal and paint, built on huge concrete foundations, often on fragile upland ecosystems.
- The average capacity factor of wind turbines (ie what they actually generate in reality) is rarely more than 30% of their total capacity (what they theoretically could generate should the wind be blowing at gale force 24/7, 365 days a year).
- Biomass is a vastly more reliable and sustainable form of renewable energy than wind (a single biomass-fired power station can generate the equivalent of 500 industrial wind turbines running at an unachievable capacity factor of 100%); however because smoke-belching biomass-fired power stations look exactly the same as smoke-belching coal-fired power stations, inefficient wind turbines are more widely used as the shorthand symbol for all renewable energy, despite biomass contributing significantly more pro rata.
** See comments below **
- Anyone who prefers looking at a rural landscape with wind turbines to the same landscape without turbines has elevated the symbolism of renewable energy over the symbolism of unspoilt country views, indicating that their emotional resonance is more aligned with man-made technology than with the natural world.
- Liking wind turbines is therefore an artificial social construct rather than an innate biological instinct.
- In other words, people only like wind turbines because they’ve been told to.
- What this signifies is that, psychologically speaking, those who like wind turbines have an external locus of control, whereas those who don’t like them have an internal locus of control.
- This is confirmed by noting that opposition to wind turbines primarily derives from people’s personal experiences and the real-life impacts of specific wind projects, whereas support for them primarily derives from their theoretical meaning as abstract symbols of renewable energy.
- Opposing wind blight does not automatically correlate to any particular opinion on the use of coal, gas, fracking, nuclear, or any other form of energy generation; it simply means being realistic, sensible and candid about the numerous problems associated specifically with wind turbines.
- Opposing wind blight is not NIMBYism, unless the whole world is classed as our back yard, in which case it’s a badge we wear with honour; the real NIMBYs are those who virtue-signal their green credentials with wind turbines, whilst almost never personally suffering from the pollution involved in their operation.
- Blogs such as this are directly responsible for challenging the wind industry’s one-sided propaganda, bringing some natural balance and equilibrium back to the global discourse about wind energy.
I’ll come back to these axioms and I’ll add more later. Feel free to add your own! This list stems from re-reading through the blog from start to finish, and extracting what I feel are the most salient points from throughout the pages and pages of prose. I’ve shown my workings throughout – the theses, antitheses and syntheses I’ve explored along the way. The axioms above are the subatomic-level kernels of inarguable truth that I genuinely believe are now “settled science”!
If you can spot any logical flaws in any of the above axioms, then the floor is yours. If I’m wrong, set me straight!