Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Two Bit da Vinci" channel.

@insAneTunA No offense, but that's not recycling. That's just reusing. I've seen their presentation and it seems they crush the composite into a powder which then gets mixed into the new product. That's an exercise in sweeping the problem under the rug. And the use of shredded composite as a filler was talked about in the video so he didn't do poor research. He just didn't name the companies proposing it.
3
@insAneTunA That's not recycling because the material isn't brought back to its original form for the original use, it's being physically shredded as used as filler inside another material. Recycling would mean restoring the fiber and resin to their original components so that a new fiberglass composite part could be made. Shredding and mixing is just reusing it as filler without recycling.
2
"what's the harm" oh so when I was a kid I was lectured about landfills and now they're cool
1
@kojomensah7474 Exacting water from the air is not efficient in a dry climate.
1
@insAneTunA Stop spamming, he mentioned the use of shredded composite as filler.
1
The blades on a turbine need to be light enough to be pushed by air. Airliners are powered by jet fuel rather than tailwind.
1
If you have to compare wind to coal to make it look favorable, you've already lost.
1
@insAneTunA Stop the spam. Separating the resin from the fibers would be a superior method as they could be reused in less stressed components in other uses, while shredding composite to use as filler is simply sweeping under the rug.
1
This is a fallacy. You're comparing wind to fossil fuel rather than comparing it to other renewable sources.
1
This is a complete fallacy. You want to downplay the issues with wind energy by bringing up fossil fuel, by pretending fossils are the only energy source we can use. What this says is that we should fix some issues before investing more in wind, or just accept that it's an avenue we may leave on the backburner as we invest in better renewables. But no, you people just say "ignore the issues because the alternative is fossil". This is a cult.
1
@richardgould-blueraven Look at it from the outside. If all the solutions have problems, cutting out the solutions with the most problems reduces the number of problems we have to deal with. Doubling down does not help us in any way. But somehow, people will defend wind simply because it's not fossil... But the point is that maybe we should rethink what we're doing and become more effective at replacing fossils - not insist on flawed solutions by saying that we should ignore the issues.
1
The fresh water would end up getting dumped back into the ocean after use.
1
False dilemma fallacy.
1
That's a false dilemma fallacy. Instead of recognizing the issues and shifting priorities, you defend wind under the excuse that it's better than fossil fuels, even though there's more than fossil.
1
@qwipperty yeah poor private businesses would have never coughed up the money for oil explorations if the state had refused to pick up the tab. Poor, poor industries. They can't do anything for themselves, they're soooo pooooor.
1
@myjizzureye you pay taxes on your income you pay taxes on your property you pay taxes on sales you pay an added tax on gas, you know, to pay for the roads then to build the roads and bridges the state funds them through concession of the road to a company that puts a toll and you pay the toll meanwhile the companies make a lot of money from those roads and avoid taxes and you praise the government for making them earn money easier? yeah bud, you're getting screwed and don't even notice it.
1
Because every structure is vulnerable to cyclical loading. There's boneyards with aircraft that won't break down anytime soon, but if you tried to fly them they'd break apart in mid air.
1
@SaveMoneySavethePlanet There is excess solar in certain regions - California has paid Arizona to take their excess energy. Lack of storage automatically makes solar easily go into excess in sunny regions even though it can't cover our needs, because it can generate more power than there is load on the grid on occasion and that power can't be saved until it's needed, forcing us to resort to fossil fuel.
1
It's easier to find a hill and build a rail uphill, put the concrete in cars. It's easier to get a runaway railcar to stop eventually than stopping a concrete block mid air.
1
@ShawnRitch Atmospheric water condensing is free and it's called "rain". A glorified dehumidifier doesn't add to the water cycle, it just skips a step. Affordable desalination would allow us to remain somewhat independent of the water cycle.
1
"Just get it out of air" - Okay, but all you're doing it extracting rainwater before it rains. Unless you vent all this dry air over the ocean, all you're doing is getting that air to reheat and evaporate humidity from "fresh" water such as nearby rivers or lakes.
1