sitting in my Dacia Sandero without AC, drinking from a water bottle with the cap still on, reminding myself this game is still called football #europoor
I’d be wary of anyone who turns a 2012 Renewable Energy Foundation report into "wind farms are falling apart after 10 years". That is quite a lot of rhetorical scaffolding for a rather small claim.
There is a difference between declining load factors, rising maintenance costs, blade erosion, repowering decisions, and turbines physically "falling apart". Apparently that distinction is too delicate for meme-energy policy.
Wind turbines are usually designed around a 20 to 25 year life, with offshore planning commonly using about 25 years and sometimes considering extension beyond that. Repowering does not mean the original machine was a fraud. It often means newer turbines are larger, more efficient, and more economic. Oddly enough, replacing old machinery with better machinery is not a scandal when it is a car, a boiler, a server, or a power station.
Also, citing one old anti-wind-friendly report as if it simply settles the economics of modern wind power is not analysis. It is archaeology with an agenda and a suspicious fondness for dramatic photographs of damaged blades.
References: Renewable Energy Foundation/Hughes 2012 report; Royal Academy of Engineering wind-energy report; Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult end-of-life planning report.
@Blackfan@hodlonaut Not bound by framing? "In journalism, conclusions normally emerge after reporting, not before. This framing pre‑judges intent before evidence is presented."