07-04-2016, 08:59 AM
Thanks to all the critics, particularly the more recent.
@lizziep - the new first line is less generic, but (to me) smells slightly of the lamp. You be the judge... And "stormy" rather than "ephemeral." Plus additional changes per your fine critique.
@bluepressure - was also tempted to restore the original title, but perhaps the latest will work by equivocating (is wind power its advocates' fantasy, or its transitory nature mine?) "[S]tormy is for you as well. And other changes.
@achebe - the whole thing is a facet of "global warming" virtue-signaling: carbon (and its dioxide) are vital to life. Natural gas is great because it's cheap and easy to move; coal is great because the technology of mining it is mature and, consequently, also cheap. Coal does have problems with *real* pollution (see Beijing - on days when you can) but they can be solved at least as easily as those of other technologies... and a good deal easier than wind or solar, it seems to me.
Edit 2
Wind Fantasy
Who hasn’t heard a tale of careless wind?
It drove old sailors on with shifting force
and primed the lips of lovers who had sinned,
then called each other feathers blown off-course.
Today our science sees gas particles
with wind their average speed, direction, scents,
arrests its gusts in windmill manacles
to power cities’ grid-establishments.
But wind’s inconstant, fleeting as desire -
what moves us to prefer its fickle flow
to take the place of coal’s pent saffron fire,
a heady rush displacing steady glow?
We’ll have our stormy flutter but return
with time to coal, and constancy’s long burn.
@lizziep - the new first line is less generic, but (to me) smells slightly of the lamp. You be the judge... And "stormy" rather than "ephemeral." Plus additional changes per your fine critique.
@bluepressure - was also tempted to restore the original title, but perhaps the latest will work by equivocating (is wind power its advocates' fantasy, or its transitory nature mine?) "[S]tormy is for you as well. And other changes.
@achebe - the whole thing is a facet of "global warming" virtue-signaling: carbon (and its dioxide) are vital to life. Natural gas is great because it's cheap and easy to move; coal is great because the technology of mining it is mature and, consequently, also cheap. Coal does have problems with *real* pollution (see Beijing - on days when you can) but they can be solved at least as easily as those of other technologies... and a good deal easier than wind or solar, it seems to me.
Edit 2
Wind Fantasy
Who hasn’t heard a tale of careless wind?
It drove old sailors on with shifting force
and primed the lips of lovers who had sinned,
then called each other feathers blown off-course.
Today our science sees gas particles
with wind their average speed, direction, scents,
arrests its gusts in windmill manacles
to power cities’ grid-establishments.
But wind’s inconstant, fleeting as desire -
what moves us to prefer its fickle flow
to take the place of coal’s pent saffron fire,
a heady rush displacing steady glow?
We’ll have our stormy flutter but return
with time to coal, and constancy’s long burn.
Non-practicing atheist