They may appear to be innocuous – even elegant – on the landscape as they collect power from the currents, but wind turbines have their own set of problems that environmentalists wish to ignore due to their eco-virtue-signaling.

As environmentalists look at a sprawling field of wind turbines as ‘good for the environment’ – unlike giant smokestacks on the horizon emitting noxious greenhouse gases into the air – the dangers inherent to wind energy are mostly invisible from a distance. Take a closer look, however, and it becomes quickly apparent that wind farms come with their own high cost to the environment and our health.

Wind power is not the harmless energy source liberals said it was

Illegal logging, huge decommissioning costs, and even ecological damage plague the supposedly ‘green’ generators

BY Robert Bridge

In a new report, it has been estimated that close to a million balsa hardwood trees are being illegally logged in the Amazon rainforest every year to support the hefty demand for wind turbines around the world. Balsa is a lightweight but durable wood that is regularly used in the production of the massive turbine blades. Each set of three blades requires up to 40 trees to produce.

Balsa is a relatively rapid-growing tropical wood and until the mounting demand from turbines began, it was safely harvested in sustainable plantations. But since a few short decades ago, the harvest could no longer keep up with demand as the clear-cutting of this precious commodity surges. In a critical survey, the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) found that exports were increased by up to 50% following illegal logging in virgin rainforests.

In 2020, it was reported that over 20,000 balsa trees were illegally cut down from March to September in the Achuar indigenous territory along Ecuador’s Copataza River. Ecuador produces over 90% of the balsa in the world, with annual exports averaging 56,000 tons from 2013 to 2022. Other studies point to excessive illegal logging, with some estimates noting the removal of 75% of the trees in some areas.

READ MORE: https://www.rt.com/news/638008-wind-power-not-harmless/

GUSNOTE: METHINKS THAT ROBERT BRIDGE GOT TAKEN FOR A LITTLE RIDE.... THE REPORT QUOTES FIGURES OF BALSA DEFORESTATION (ESPECIALLY YEAR 2020) THAT ARE OLD AND SUITABLE FOR THE "ARGUMENT"... IT COULD ALSO BE ESTABLISHED RATHER QUICKLY THAT THE REPORT COMES FROM WHAT CAN BE ESTABLISHED TO BE IS "ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING THEORY" SOURCE OF PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION... don't trust my word for it....

BIRD-KILL PER TURBINES IS DIFFICULT TO ASSESS CORRECTLY... IN FACT, ACCORDING TO PROPER RESEARCH, ONE TURBINE IN ENGLAND AVERAGES 150 BIRD PER YEAR... OF COURSE THIS COULD BE DEEMED TOO MANY... IN AMERICA, THE NUMBER OF BIRDS KILLED BY WIND TURBINES IS AROUND 700,000 YEARLY...

IN AUSTRALIA, CATS KILL ONE MILLION BIRDS PER DAY...GO FIGURE...

TO REPLACE THE ENERGY PROVIDED BY WIND TURBINES WITH GAS AND COAL POWER, WOULD REQUIRE DESTROYING SOME LANDSCAPES WITH SHALE DRILLS AND COAL MINES. APART FROM HAVING BEEN PROVEN UNHEALTHY IN REGARD TO SOOT AND COAL DUST, THE BURNING OF THE COAL AND GAS PRODUCE CO2, WHICH SO FAR CANNOT BE SEQUESTERED BEYOND A SMALL PERCENTAGE COMMA POINT.

AND OF COURSE, THIS SOURCE OF PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION SEEMS NOT TO BELIEVE THAT CO2 AND METHANE WARM UP THE ATMOSPHERE...

AS WE ALL SHOULD KNOW, CO2 IS A WARMING GAS AND... AH CRAP, UNLESS YOU LIVE INSIDE THE PRINCIPIA...

BUT ONE ARTICLE IN THIS "PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL" MADE ME LAUGH... OR CRY THAT SOME PEOPLE MIGHT FALL FOR IT...

IT DEALS WITH THE PROBLEM THAT WIND TURBINES REMOVE ENERGY FROM THE NATURAL FLOW OF AIR MASSES, WHICH IN TURN DISTURBS THE CLIMATE... AND... OH WHY BOTHER......

IT CARRIES ON:

Converting wind turbines into cooling fans is nearly effortless. The big problem is who pays for the huge cost of putting these fans to work. With the ecological situation we globally face today, some people already cry that we are in a crossroad that will choose between the continuation or extinction of our civilization. While the urgency they spell out may have a certain degree of truth, they seem to limit their attention to the wrong scapegoat, namely the carbon factor. Possibly, if human beings are told that they are left with only two choices―life or death―and also that a monetary contribution can save them, they would be willing to so contribute. With resources pooled together, all of mankind would engage in a worldwide project of general welfare focused on doing one job―reinvigorating the circulation of all atmospheric currents, particularly the WSLs. Operating such a project, the windfarm companies would run a money-making business to maintain a better distribution of both temperature and water content across the Earth. The fund paying these windfarm companies would be the responsibility of all of mankind. Who will coordinate the conversion for these windfarm companies to evolve from energy producers to energy consumers? Possibly, with the political structure of the current world, the first candidate of whom people would think is the United Nations.

Before the conversion of the wind turbines can be realized, should people let the current wind turbines continue to function as they have been? This is a question equivalent to whether or not we should continue to harvest the moving energy of all the atmospheric circulating currents. Let us imagine an extreme case: What if all the circulation currents stop? The answer is that the Earth would immediately be enveloped by a highly efficient, thermal insulation blanket of 10 kilometers in thickness. Should we let the windfarms continue to damage the Earth’s heat exchange mechanisms, perhaps even stop them altogether, or should we start to utilize them to improve the environment? We can easily answer this question now. Should we continue to blame carbon dioxide and ignore a true culprit that causes damage to our Earth? This answer seems also readily apparent.

Operating the wind turbines as cooling fans requires energy. Ironically, as far as we can see today, there are only two efficient energy sources for this purpose: (1) fossil fuel and (2) nuclear fuel; both are in the “against” list of the environmentalists. As to the carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, we may plant more trees, and seaweed as well, to compensate for the adverse effect caused directly by the increase in carbon dioxide. As to nuclear fuel, the long-lived nuclear waste may eventually prove a threat to future human beings. But at least nuclear power can buy us time, with the hope that future generations can find ways to reduce any detrimental effect from the waste.

https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/RebigsolPROMfinal.pdf

I REST MY NUTCASE OF BANANAS...

AND WE NEVER SAID THAT WIND TURBINES OR SOLAR PANELS ARE COMPLETELY ENVIRONMENTAL GUILT-LESS... THE ALTERNATIVES ARE OIL, COAL GAS, NUKES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS ABOUT TEN/100 TIMES WORSE THAN WINDMILLS THAT KILL BIRDS...

I SAY GIVE CATS WINGS AND THROW THEM AT THE WIND MILLS... OR GO AND SEE SHAWN THE SHEEP...

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….