There are lies, damn lies... and statistics.
To work out that 255 million tons of CO2 have been saved by windmills, how has that been arrived at - by comparing against emissions from power generated by the 'dirtiest', most inefficient coal burning power station in the land? (Can't see it being true if you were to use France as a yardstick 'cos almost all their power generation is CO2-free)
It's very easy to make SF6 leakage appear insignificant by using statistics that show how little of it there is, weight for weight. The problem is that it's 23500 times as bad as CO2 (so 1kg SF6 is equivalent to 23500kg - ie 23.5 TONNES - of CO2) AND it's extremely long lived (persists in the atmosphere for 1000 years or more). So you don't want to be letting it build up. Not at all.
And it's not just wind turbines, it's used in all sorts of electrical switchgear - so as the environmental push goes towards doing more and more things electrically, the numpties are allowing more and more horrendous greenhouse gases to proliferate.
UK alone might have more than 1000 tonnes of SF6 in existing installations, growing at a rate of 30-40 tones per year. EU figure might be 6.73 megatonnes CO2 equivalent for emissions alone, growing by over 8% per annum. (2017 figures)
(Basic stats from a BBC programme 2019, which also cites various university studies and government agencies as the 'ultimate' sources:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49567197
Apparently, 6.72 megatonnes of CO2 is equivalent to 1.3 million extra cars on the road in a year. As a motorist/motorcyclist I am being perpetually beaten up for the damage my internal combustion engine is doing to the planet - beaten up by a load of halfwits. More electricity = more SF6 (could have banned it, didn't). Hey - lets put more ethanol in petrol, look how green we are!!! Yeah - and what's the exact saving of that, in terms of emissions? B. all compared to what you're turning a blind eye to.
Global warming caused by air travel, somewhere around 4% globally? Global warming caused by cement production, maybe 15% - so we've got a mass movement of 'flight shaming' and Swedish eco-goddesses who insist on travelling internationally by eco-friendly yacht - why aren't you 'concrete shaming'? Air travel has comparatively zero effect on the environment.
As for getting rid of petrol and diesel cars....are we then doing nothing about petrol/diesel lorries, vans, tractors, buses, trains? And if we're going to get rid of those as well, exactly where will the petrol/diesel come from for hospital (and other) emergency generators? I'm also quite intrigued about how NATO is going to function without diesel (as their entire strategy is based on easy access to plentiful supplies of diesel....wherever they have to deploy to).
I came across an article the other day, to do with USA 'great green navy', where the reporter was enthusing about how the US marines have apparently replaced their battlefield radio batteries with solar panels. This magnificence is not only 'green' but also saves front line soldiers from having to carry heavy batteries around with them, seemingly a 'win' on every front! To coin a phrase, 'you couldn't make it up'.
Vincent, I do very humbly apologise - must be the heat (and not being allowed out very much)(or maybe it's a new symptom!).
'55 Huntmaster, '56 VH, ' 51 VH, '80 R100RT, '00 Sprint ST (but all those Ariel parts can only make one running bike...)