This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Why the surprise!
These things are basically helicopters turned on their side and stuck up a pole. They need aircraft maintenance standards not conventional heavy plant over-engineered to run for decades standards. Even then helicopters aren't the most reliable or structurally sound beasts so wind turbines will be just as bad.
This thing needs to be addressed anyway, since so many governments today are subventioning "wind power" - really only as "propaganda propellers", so as to "convince" people that there are "no" better energy sources - and the mass media are applauding them so very loudly.
Well, even the really quite nastily anti-industrial "Der Spegel" found it necessary recently to point so some of their big drawbacks, but that's still en exception on the part of such forces.
A long-time "Green", professor Jesse Ausubel, the USA, recently has pointed out that wind power needs 5-10 times as much steel and concrete per kWh as does nuclear power, and that the so-called "renewable" energy sources are all quite bad environmentally too; he recommends nuclear beacuse of that.
And someone else has pointed out that those windmills don't work at all at windespeeds below 5 m/s or above 15 m/s.
So the scientific case against them is overwhelming.
Another important thing that needs to be said in this connection, in my opinion, is: Why are those governments building them at all?
And it can be shown that the ruling cliques today actually want all energy to be scarce and expensive, out of some very reactionary political motives.
Marxism, I hold, gives the basic reply to this question of why. Some quotes from Marx himself on this:
(Speech in London, 14.04.1856)
(First draft of a letter to Vera Zasulich, February-March 1881)
First, from that 1856 speech in London - held in English:
"Steam, electricity, and the self acting mule were revolutionists of a rather more dangerous character than even citizens Barbès, Raspail and Blanqui."
"This antagonism between modern industry and science on the one hand, modern misery and dissolution on the other hand; this antagonism between the productive powers and the social relations of our epoch is a fact, palpable, overwhelming, and not to be controverted. Some parties may wail over it; others may wish to get rid of modern arts, in order to get rid of modern conflicts. ..."
And in 1881:
" he capitalist social system...in Western Europe as well as in the United States, [is] engaged in battle both with science, with the popular masses, and with the very productive forces it engenders".
Thus I'm arguing that, for things to get basically better in those respects that The Numbers Watch most rightly is criticizing and attacking, the whole social "order" of today must be overthrown, by the vast majority of people.
Not a small or an easy programme, but necessary, I'm certain.