For those who have accepted corporate propaganda over established climate science, turbines may induce unpleasant cognitive dissonance and other negative feelings.
Even if you don't agree with the climate change narrative, it is still good to use less coal when possible. I think it is a great direction to go in instances when it is economically viable.
> For those who have accepted corporate propaganda over established climate science, turbines may induce unpleasant cognitive dissonance and other negative feelings.
Even if you don't agree with the climate change narrative, it is still good to use less coal when possible. I think it is a great direction to go in instances when it is economically viable.
Of course one-off architecture is more akin to a work of art, for functional repetitive structures, I can't think of anything nicer than turbines. Sure, I'd rather view pristine natural landscape as well, but certainly prefer to see some elegant turbines scattered about, than a straight-out-of-hell coal power station/coal mine combo (which obviously has a far greater negative impact on living things than turbines do).
I suppose the implication is important too - every turbine I see implies a little less coal being burnt. For those who have accepted corporate propaganda over established climate science, turbines may induce unpleasant cognitive dissonance and other negative feelings.
I showed these bladeless turbines to my partner - they thought they were much uglier than standard turbines with blades.