Comments by "Martin Maat" (@MartinMaat) on "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" channel.

As a lingophile this back and forth is giving me wood. Anyone in for a treesome?
12
 @factchecker9358 I don't think the element cares about certifications once it ends up in the environment. Cadmium was banned in the EU for a reason.
8
I don't understand why panels that will likely still have over 75% of their original capacity are recycled. It seems to me there has to be an eager market for them. I imagine people who have some space left their yard would gladly pay $20 a piece for them to squeeze juice out of them for decades to come.
3
@Array_of_objects How optimistic. And gullible. It doesn't sound recyclable in any way to me. And there is still lithium in it, as it seems "integrated" in an inseparatable way. The fact that reuse or recycling is not mentioned at all says a lot.
2
Any news item coming from fusion research has one purpose only: to keep the money flowing. We should not fall for it. Better use that money to collect the energy that is beamed to us from the free fusion reactor in the sky that has worked for millions of years and will continue to work for millions of years, all maintenance free.
1
@argledotorg Yes, the potential payout is unbelievable to those who want to believe it. Like with Theranos, or Madoff, or Bitcoin, or <fill_in_your_favorite_scam>.
1
@DiamondSquidy No. The physics have been known and well understood for nearly a hundred years now. Every effort since has been about engineering, about creating a little sustainable sun in a laboratory. It is not going to happen. All we got so far are proofs of concept. I can look up at noon to see a proof of concept.
1
@SirCramptonian Don't forget the cloud. 3.0 minimum!
1
@Philippians4.13Enjoyer I thought he was just trolling, adding some nonsense to the discussion as a joke. The premise is pretty crazy already ("The world needs more 3D printers!"). So I joined in and added some more buzz words. But it looks like not everyone sees the joke. I mean, block chain. Come on.
1
Despite the encouraging computer animations and pretty logos this remains to be a dead in the water appoach. The only way to make this remotely effective would be to enclose the entire system in a well insulated confined space (both compressor and turbine enclosed) in order to not let the heat escape that is created during compression. I don't see that in any of the prototypes. This strikes me as one of those subsidies absorbing endavours made possible by scammers and civil servants who don't understand the first thing about physics.
1
@gregorymalchuk272 This is what governments are for, even in the most conservative view of what a government should be. Protect the people against unscrupulous bisnesses that poison everyone to make a quick buck.
1
I imagine it is probably more efficient to grow a lesser wood first (in a cultivated forest), harvest it, make beams and planks from it and then post-process it with chemicals in a pressure tank. This is already done. Unfortunately chopping good trees is still cheaper so we will need stricter import laws to change that.
1
I am very wary of anything hydrogen as a carrier of energy. Most of the times it turns out to be a way of the fossil fuel industry to keep doing what they are doing rather than a solution to anything.
1
I do not understand why there still are no kits on the market for around $1000. It seems so much simpler than say a washing machine or even a dryer. Polls with wired anchors could be a separate market. I do not see the maintenance costs due to the moving parts either. Car wheels with their bearings are maintenance free, they typically outlast the vehicle. Elon, get on this please.
1
Would it be bad idea to use depleted uranium to fill the rotors? It can't be worse than using it as ammunition.
1