Really sharp analysis here. The bit about how anecdote-driven journalism effectively lets PR groups control the narrative by feeding reporters dramatic stories packaged withtheir talking points is something I've noticed working in comms. The shift from actual policy substance to emotinal hooks creates a weird incentive structure where the most extreme cases end up shaping reform debates. Makes me wonder if this is partly why we get such fragmented, reactive policymaking instead of coherent solutions.
Point taken; journalists all too often pick on human interest stories to illustrate a problem and to offer up potential solutions to that problem even though the illustrative example bears only a tenuous relationship to the problem and statistically is a very rare occurrence.
However, I don't think your analogy of the wind turbines is 100% apt. The point being, trees are natural life forms which are planted and which seed themselves spontaneously in areas which are subject to high winds - because, nature. When trees fall because of natural occurrences, they're not wasted; they provide food and shelter for animals and insects and they enrich the soil. Or alternatively, they provide fuel for somebody's log burner! Turbines are engineered and erected in exposed locations, often very rural, precisely in order to harvest the energy from the wind, but it's the wind itself which is the cause of failure, which is somewhat ironic, and this I believe is the primary impetus for renewables sceptics focussing on these admittedly rare and isolated incidents. When turbine blades are shredded or ignite - because of the wind they are supposed to be harvesting in remote rural locations - they pollute the environment and are costly to remove.
I think that I didn't explain my point as well as I might have done. I accept that trees are part of the natural cycle of regeneration, growth, decline and eventual failure, whereas wind turbines are artificial intrusions that aren't even very good at doing what they are supposed to do. However, rather than focus on infrequent if dramatic failures - what Musk is said to describe as unintended, sometimes explosive, disassembly - I would prefer to emphasise the systemic, consistent and inescapable decline in average performance. This is less visible but but much more pernicious. A tree can grow and provide natural services for 100, 200 or more years. A wind turbine is no longer fit for its original purpose after 20 or, at most, 25 years.
Yes, there's that and also the fact that extreme wind events in Scotland have been declining in frequency and severity since the Burns Day Storm in 1990. Which probably means that turbine failures are less likely to occur now than they were 20 or 30 years ago - allowing for the fact that there are now many more turbines of course. But the point is, along with a decline in extreme wind events, average annual wind speeds have also declined significantly, so the energy available to be harvested by wind turbines is likewise diminishing - as the cost of harvesting it increases exponentially!
While wind speeds may be declining, I suspect that another important factor is that the best sites have been developed. In response, developers are applying to build taller turbines in order to offset the combined effects of lower wind speeds and poorer sites.
Really sharp analysis here. The bit about how anecdote-driven journalism effectively lets PR groups control the narrative by feeding reporters dramatic stories packaged withtheir talking points is something I've noticed working in comms. The shift from actual policy substance to emotinal hooks creates a weird incentive structure where the most extreme cases end up shaping reform debates. Makes me wonder if this is partly why we get such fragmented, reactive policymaking instead of coherent solutions.
Point taken; journalists all too often pick on human interest stories to illustrate a problem and to offer up potential solutions to that problem even though the illustrative example bears only a tenuous relationship to the problem and statistically is a very rare occurrence.
However, I don't think your analogy of the wind turbines is 100% apt. The point being, trees are natural life forms which are planted and which seed themselves spontaneously in areas which are subject to high winds - because, nature. When trees fall because of natural occurrences, they're not wasted; they provide food and shelter for animals and insects and they enrich the soil. Or alternatively, they provide fuel for somebody's log burner! Turbines are engineered and erected in exposed locations, often very rural, precisely in order to harvest the energy from the wind, but it's the wind itself which is the cause of failure, which is somewhat ironic, and this I believe is the primary impetus for renewables sceptics focussing on these admittedly rare and isolated incidents. When turbine blades are shredded or ignite - because of the wind they are supposed to be harvesting in remote rural locations - they pollute the environment and are costly to remove.
I think that I didn't explain my point as well as I might have done. I accept that trees are part of the natural cycle of regeneration, growth, decline and eventual failure, whereas wind turbines are artificial intrusions that aren't even very good at doing what they are supposed to do. However, rather than focus on infrequent if dramatic failures - what Musk is said to describe as unintended, sometimes explosive, disassembly - I would prefer to emphasise the systemic, consistent and inescapable decline in average performance. This is less visible but but much more pernicious. A tree can grow and provide natural services for 100, 200 or more years. A wind turbine is no longer fit for its original purpose after 20 or, at most, 25 years.
Yes, there's that and also the fact that extreme wind events in Scotland have been declining in frequency and severity since the Burns Day Storm in 1990. Which probably means that turbine failures are less likely to occur now than they were 20 or 30 years ago - allowing for the fact that there are now many more turbines of course. But the point is, along with a decline in extreme wind events, average annual wind speeds have also declined significantly, so the energy available to be harvested by wind turbines is likewise diminishing - as the cost of harvesting it increases exponentially!
While wind speeds may be declining, I suspect that another important factor is that the best sites have been developed. In response, developers are applying to build taller turbines in order to offset the combined effects of lower wind speeds and poorer sites.