"...Sustaining the Wind" series.
If anyone wishes to call this "making stuff up...," well I really can't help them. Some people think critically, others are completely incapable of it and merely repeat rote slogans. In fact, it would appear that a huge number of people are incapable of critical thinking, which is why we are throwing trillions of dollars per decade down the "renewable energy" rabbit hole for little or no result.
From my perspective, before engaging in this activity, someone should have reflected on the fact that so called "renewable energy" was abandoned in the early 19th century because it was insufficient to provide decent living standards for a population less than 1/7th of the current population.
The first part, of the "Sustaining the Wind" series, already published, refers to requirements for steel, aluminum, never mind critical elements for the so called "renewable energy" industry, if - and it won't do this - it were to get to 90 exajoules of energy per year The so called renewable energy industry is a flat failure, simply because an expenditure of trillion dollar quantities in the last ten years had failed to arrest the growth of dangerous fossil fuels.
The series, all 5 parts, will probably come in producing several hundred references. I am unlikely to be dissuaded from making my ethical & technical argument from another graphic from another website from the "renewables will save us" circle of nonsense.
Part II is an examination, as a surrogate for other critical elements, of the element indium that would be required not only for wind power, but for the "CIGS" solar cells that have been absurdly referred to as a "breakthrough" solar technology.
If renewable energy was so great, dangerous fossil fuels would not be the fastest growing source of energy on the planet. Regrettably, the ethically vacuous advocates of this bourgeois artifact of bad thinking, the nonsensical view that so called "renewable energy" is sustainable, have very little interest in attacking dangerous fossil fuels, which are responsible for millions of deaths each year. They'd rather attack nuclear energy, which has clearly been shown to save lives and to have minimal impact on the environment, not zero impact, but minimal impact.
That this "big lie" has been allowed to prevail has huge technical and, more importantly, ethical and survival consequences for future generations.
I have made clear and open many times my ethical disgust at this very, very, very dangerous attitude, and have no intention of apologizing to anyone at all about it, simpleton or otherwise.
Have a nice weekend.
= new reply since forum marked as read