Certainly the wind industry does not help its case. It should have a lot going for it: wind power produces no carbon dioxide or other pollution.
Onshore wind CO2 production has, over the entire cycle, CO2 emissions around and about the same as hydro and nuclear. Because you need energy to smelt the metals that they\’re made out of (and no, no one is running furnaces from wind or solar, it\’s simply not possible). And you do pour an awful lot of concrete to anchor them into the ground. Concrete being made from cement the production of which is, last time I looked at least, 6% of all man made CO2 emissions.
Wind power produces no CO2 is simply a lie.
Turbines can quickly be removed when no longer wanted, leaving uncontaminated land behind,
And I suspect that that is a lie too. Digging up those concrete foundations isn\’t going to be an easy thing to do…..
And where in buggery did this come from?
And though wind is subsidised, as are all energy sources, it is much less so than fossil fuels: just one fifth as much in Britain, OECD figures indicate.
I\’m sorry, what? Wind, in the UK, receives one fifth of the subsidies that fossil fuel in the UK does? What the hell is this nonsense?
Yes, I\’m well aware that fossil fuels receive large subsidies globally: $100 billion a year in Iran alone recently. But that\’s not the same as subsidy in the UK.
Can anyone track down where this absurdity comes from? Provide a list of fossil fuel subsidies in the UK as against wind subsidies in the UK?