3 ms·

Massive amounts of carbon fiber used in wind blades is coming from … oil. So same problem here. And it becomes unusable toxic waste.

phero_cnstrcts 2y ago
These studies are funded by the companies anyway. Can’t ever trust them.
XorNot 2y ago
We don't burn the wind turbine blades when we use them, nor when they break. The scale of issue in dealing with a bunch of solid waste you can just bury compared to climate change is insignificant.
- xcskier56 2y ago
  Well... technically... some people are starting to https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-makes-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-make... but this also produces energy and compared to the amount of electricity they produce during their lifetime this carebon can only be incredibly negligible
  - XorNot 2y ago
    Pyrolysis is not burning - from your link: > Carbon Rivers’ recycling uses pyrolysis—a process during which organic components of a composite (e.g., resins or polymers) are broken down with intense heat in the absence of oxygen and separated from the inorganic fiberglass reinforcement.
    - xcskier56 2y ago
      Keep reading > The process converts organic products back into raw hydrocarbon products called syngas and pyrolysis oil, which can be used for energy production. Which in a video I can't find they talk about piping this to a concrete plant that was burning it for their heating needs
Tagbert 2y ago
Massive on a personal scale but miniscule compared to the scale of oil production and combustion. So many people are worried about small scale downsides to technologies that are trying to address truly massive problems.
- glenstein 2y ago
  Right, and this is what makes it such a frivolous talking point. I mean, if it really were the case that the expenditures of oil were indeed at scales that overwhelmed any advantages of wind, that would be a legit argument. But to make that case you'd actually have to do the next step of assessing the relative scales of how much oil gets used in the creation of windmill components compared to an alternative case where the energy is generated with traditional fossil fuel infrastructure. I feel like if we're going to bring up the fossil fuel inputs into the creation of critical components for windmills, the mandatory next sentence has to be an acknowledgment of the relative scales of consumption in both cases. Otherwise it's a throwaway line with no context and no clear upshot.
  - jopsen 2y ago
    Well, also one can debunk these claims by just looking at the money. If oil inputs were so massive, the cost of a turbine (or by implication the electricity it generates) should be MUCH higher. Just guessing, but probably orders of magnitude higher.
  - gibolt 2y ago
    The easy argument for this is that switching everything to electric and then powering it with oil, would require significantly less oil (maybe 50-60%) that the status quo. We should switch, even if we don't convert to renewables. (Which we absolutely should)

phero_cnstrcts 2y ago

These studies are funded by the companies anyway. Can’t ever trust them.

XorNot 2y ago

We don't burn the wind turbine blades when we use them, nor when they break. The scale of issue in dealing with a bunch of solid waste you can just bury compared to climate change is insignificant.

xcskier56 2y ago
Well... technically... some people are starting to https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-makes-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-make... but this also produces energy and compared to the amount of electricity they produce during their lifetime this carebon can only be incredibly negligible
- XorNot 2y ago
  Pyrolysis is not burning - from your link: > Carbon Rivers’ recycling uses pyrolysis—a process during which organic components of a composite (e.g., resins or polymers) are broken down with intense heat in the absence of oxygen and separated from the inorganic fiberglass reinforcement.
  - xcskier56 2y ago
    Keep reading > The process converts organic products back into raw hydrocarbon products called syngas and pyrolysis oil, which can be used for energy production. Which in a video I can't find they talk about piping this to a concrete plant that was burning it for their heating needs

Tagbert 2y ago

Massive on a personal scale but miniscule compared to the scale of oil production and combustion. So many people are worried about small scale downsides to technologies that are trying to address truly massive problems.

glenstein 2y ago
Right, and this is what makes it such a frivolous talking point. I mean, if it really were the case that the expenditures of oil were indeed at scales that overwhelmed any advantages of wind, that would be a legit argument. But to make that case you'd actually have to do the next step of assessing the relative scales of how much oil gets used in the creation of windmill components compared to an alternative case where the energy is generated with traditional fossil fuel infrastructure. I feel like if we're going to bring up the fossil fuel inputs into the creation of critical components for windmills, the mandatory next sentence has to be an acknowledgment of the relative scales of consumption in both cases. Otherwise it's a throwaway line with no context and no clear upshot.
- jopsen 2y ago
  Well, also one can debunk these claims by just looking at the money. If oil inputs were so massive, the cost of a turbine (or by implication the electricity it generates) should be MUCH higher. Just guessing, but probably orders of magnitude higher.
- gibolt 2y ago
  The easy argument for this is that switching everything to electric and then powering it with oil, would require significantly less oil (maybe 50-60%) that the status quo. We should switch, even if we don't convert to renewables. (Which we absolutely should)