4 ms·

Not to poo-poo this, but that video sure made it sound "perfect". I think we need a number of different solutions. Solar takes up vast real estate and isn't ve

Not to poo-poo this, but that video sure made it sound "perfect". I think we need a number of different solutions. Solar takes up vast real estate and isn't very efficient, wind - we bury how many thousands of 747 size blades in the ground each year that won't break down? Surely, that's not sustainable. Nuclear needs to be on the table, too.

foxyv 5y ago
> we bury how many thousands of 747 size blades in the ground each year that won't break down? This is worth worrying about, however landfill is one of the most plentiful non-renewable resources we have. These blades are completely non-toxic and can be buried safely so it is one of the least worrying problems about wind. The most damage that wind causes is destruction of ecosystems and excessive land use. Even that is pretty minor compared to other power generation methods. Wind is pretty awesome. (Also, yay nuclear!)
intrepidhero 5y ago
I agree with you. But I learned yesterday that Seimens has a process where they completely recycle carbon fiber turbine blades. I had no idea that was even possible. If it works out that's pretty neat. https://www.siemensgamesa.com/newsroom/2021/09/launch-world-first-recyclable-wind-turbine-blade https://www.siemensgamesa.com/newsroom/2021/09/launch-world-...
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I saw a video about that ('used up' wind power blades), honestly it sounded like anti-renewable propaganda and I'm sure the problem was hugely overstated. I'd rather have fiberglass/carbon/whatever but inert and harmless blades stored somewhere than CO2 and other shit in the air, or coal slag dumped wherever, or nuclear waste. Just grind them down and put them in landfill or whatever, it's fine.
guerby 5y ago
I read somewhere that even if we max out on wind turbine, the flow of blades to landfill would be about 1% of the current flow of comparable materiels from recreationnal boating. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/06/nautical-not-nice-how-fibreglass-boats-have-become-a-global-pollution-problem https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/06/nautical... As mentionned by other the fact that we talk about "waste" from wind turbine is likely due to fossil companies funding media campaigns about it.
- originalvichy 5y ago
  It’s highly likely it’s for that reason. Almost all fossil alternatives get these ”silver bullet” counter-arguments that don’t survive basic tests. Example: ICE cars vs. Electric: electric cars need more resources to create and thus use more CO2 in reality! Simple truth: initial energy cost might be high but battery-electric cars catch ICE cars in resource friendliness after only few years. They just had to find one for wind turbines that was better than ”they are an eyesore”.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    I don't know why but people don't seem to understand that expending all energy upfront can actually be a benefit assuming you don't throw the car away for ridiculous reasons. In economics capital is often considered to be stored labor. In practice storing labor is a very difficult or maybe even impossible thing, so the ability to store additional labor in the form of physical capital is very useful. Lots of people want to retire early. They want to work a lot in their youth and then relax instead of working until they die. If you get an ICE car right before your retirement, you are dependent on a lot of young people running the infrastructure necessary for that car. Meanwhile with EVs that infrastructure is a lot less labor intensive so a demographic decline isn't that bad. All the work was done before demographics got worse. Now try doing the same with food. You can drive a car for 20 years off a wind turbine that lasts 20 years but you can't store food for 20 years. You are reliant on young workers who will take care of you.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    And that bird thing too... very boring these non-arguments.
imtringued 5y ago
Have you ever thought about much much carbon we would have to bury if we wanted to properly dispose of the CO2 we emit? It would go way beyond wind turbine blades.

foxyv 5y ago

> we bury how many thousands of 747 size blades in the ground each year that won't break down? This is worth worrying about, however landfill is one of the most plentiful non-renewable resources we have. These blades are completely non-toxic and can be buried safely so it is one of the least worrying problems about wind. The most damage that wind causes is destruction of ecosystems and excessive land use. Even that is pretty minor compared to other power generation methods. Wind is pretty awesome. (Also, yay nuclear!)

intrepidhero 5y ago

I agree with you. But I learned yesterday that Seimens has a process where they completely recycle carbon fiber turbine blades. I had no idea that was even possible. If it works out that's pretty neat. https://www.siemensgamesa.com/newsroom/2021/09/launch-world-first-recyclable-wind-turbine-blade https://www.siemensgamesa.com/newsroom/2021/09/launch-world-...

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

I saw a video about that ('used up' wind power blades), honestly it sounded like anti-renewable propaganda and I'm sure the problem was hugely overstated. I'd rather have fiberglass/carbon/whatever but inert and harmless blades stored somewhere than CO2 and other shit in the air, or coal slag dumped wherever, or nuclear waste. Just grind them down and put them in landfill or whatever, it's fine.

guerby 5y ago

I read somewhere that even if we max out on wind turbine, the flow of blades to landfill would be about 1% of the current flow of comparable materiels from recreationnal boating. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/06/nautical-not-nice-how-fibreglass-boats-have-become-a-global-pollution-problem https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/06/nautical... As mentionned by other the fact that we talk about "waste" from wind turbine is likely due to fossil companies funding media campaigns about it.

originalvichy 5y ago
It’s highly likely it’s for that reason. Almost all fossil alternatives get these ”silver bullet” counter-arguments that don’t survive basic tests. Example: ICE cars vs. Electric: electric cars need more resources to create and thus use more CO2 in reality! Simple truth: initial energy cost might be high but battery-electric cars catch ICE cars in resource friendliness after only few years. They just had to find one for wind turbines that was better than ”they are an eyesore”.
- imtringued 5y ago
  I don't know why but people don't seem to understand that expending all energy upfront can actually be a benefit assuming you don't throw the car away for ridiculous reasons. In economics capital is often considered to be stored labor. In practice storing labor is a very difficult or maybe even impossible thing, so the ability to store additional labor in the form of physical capital is very useful. Lots of people want to retire early. They want to work a lot in their youth and then relax instead of working until they die. If you get an ICE car right before your retirement, you are dependent on a lot of young people running the infrastructure necessary for that car. Meanwhile with EVs that infrastructure is a lot less labor intensive so a demographic decline isn't that bad. All the work was done before demographics got worse. Now try doing the same with food. You can drive a car for 20 years off a wind turbine that lasts 20 years but you can't store food for 20 years. You are reliant on young workers who will take care of you.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  And that bird thing too... very boring these non-arguments.

imtringued 5y ago

Have you ever thought about much much carbon we would have to bury if we wanted to properly dispose of the CO2 we emit? It would go way beyond wind turbine blades.