Comments by "" (@old-pete) on "Business Insider" channel.

  1. The carbon foot print is rather low, compared to the energy wind turbines produce.
    4
  2. Cancer is not a scam... And windturbines work fine.
    2
  3. They produce eletricity cheaper and more enviromental friendly than fossil fuel power plants.
    2
  4.  @Bro-hl1pq  Feel free to read up on the topic. Do you even know how much waste coal power plants produce and what the effect of their emissions is? Or are you sticking your head into the sand?
    2
  5. ​ @Bro-hl1pq Then you are not reading up on the science, but just opinions.
    2
  6. They can be recycled, as shown in the video. In some countries 20 years are mandatory or the windturbines do not get a permit. Some turbines run for over 40 years. Considering the enviromental damage of fossil fuel power plants, windturbines are a better choice.
    2
  7. And that would be?
    2
  8. They do not kill whales and fish, to the contrary offshore windfarms are like a marine wildlife preserve, as fishing is prohibited in the area. The birds killed are 1/35th of what fossil power plants kill for each produced MWh. Replacing fossil fuel power plants with windturbines saves birds.
    2
  9. Do you think it is better to dispose them in landfills and waste all that material?
    2
  10. These drill holes are extremly expensive. Plane wings and wind turbines have to endure different types of stress and load cycles and are not comparable. And aircraft industry uses composite materials too, because they are superior.
    2
  11. ​ @nolansacket3457 Windturbines are recyclable. Geothermal is only cheaper in geothermic active areas, but there are not many. In other areas it is vastly more expensive, as one does not get enough energy out of the ground. The big challenge is to find stable ground layers and to secure even deep bore holes, that water does not mix in the ground layers, as this can lead to earthquakes. There are thousands of examples were badly made bore holes resulted in earthquakes and massive property damage.
    2
  12.  @SunnyAquamarine2  Your brother should have explained the difference to you. One makes software, the other makes machines.
    2
  13. Nobody ever claimed that... And shame on anyone who believed it.
    2
  14. A changing nature is expensive.
    2
  15. It is always compared to the alternatives.
    2
  16. Everything has waste. The "clean" is in relation to CO2 emissions.
    2
  17. Millions of people seem to disagree.
    2
  18. Veloia does not care about your opinion. They recycle the blades and get their money anyway.
    2
  19. Better than fossil fuels.
    2
  20.  @krystalstarrett6760  Looks like you are not well informed about China.
    2
  21. ​ @krystalstarrett6760 I am not the one making outrageous claims about China... You know that China produces most of its electricity with fossil fuels, especially coal? And they plan to increase fossil fuel based electricity production...
    2
  22. ​ @krystalstarrett6760 The one catching up is you, otherwise you would not have made your outlandish claim in the first place. If windturbines do not work in the US, then it is a problem of the US. They work in other countries.
    2
  23.  @krystalstarrett6760  You are the one bringing empty arguments. Do not blame others for your attempt to discuss matters you know nothing about. That is your personal problem.
    2
  24. They work and make profit.
    2
  25.  @komalley35  The recycling companies make a profit. The owner of the windturbine does not, but he made a profit by selling electricity. As long as recycling is mandated, it gets done. You are not allowed to throw your waste into nature either. You are required by law to recycle it or dispose of it in the proper way, which costs you money.
    2
  26.  @2023TMc  There is no free energy.
    2
  27. ​​ @ronsamborski6230 Nuclear power plants also depend on cooling. If not enough cooling is available, they have to power down.
    2
  28. Windturbines and solar panels can be recycled. Pumped hydro is no source of green energy, it is an energy storage installation, which is useful in times of higher energy supply. Dams can be useful, not just for electricity generation, but also to store water for times when it is in high demand.
    2
  29. ​ @simonbowman6206 If you are copy&pasting your stuff everywhere, at least make sure you know what you are talking about. There is no glass residue in the cement.
    2
  30. Very little.
    2
  31.  @paparoysworkshop  And now calculate the energy they produce and compare that with the same amount produced by fossil fuel power plants. If your numbers are true, a 5 MW turbine would need around 51 days to win back the energy needed for the blades.
    2
  32.  @paparoysworkshop  It is not magic. It is called engineering. It just reduces the need for fossil fuels.
    2
  33. How is that foolish?
    2
  34.  @karmaandkerosene_music  But they cost less carbon. Windurbines produce 17 to 35times more energy over their lifetime than is needed to produce them. The more carbon free to production, the smaller the carbon footprint. On average windturbines produce 3/4 of the carbon footprint of nuclear plants for each produced kwh.
    2
  35. ​​ @karmaandkerosene_music  Sounds like a classical Nimby problem.. If you do not want to see them in landfills, tell your goverment to make it illegal. Other countries managed that too. If you worry about birds, stop using windows, cars, planes, fossil fuels. They kill A LOT more birds. Windturbines do not cause whale beaching. I suggest to check the past 60 years of nuclear energy, looks like you missed a few huge blemishes.. Apart from the fact that it is more expensive. If you are worried about poor black kids, I hope you do not buy clothes and shoes made in Asia, but maybe poor asian kids do not interest you. If you were better informed, than you would know that experts did not predict that coastlines are under water right now. Climate change is not that fast. The melting of the greenland ice will take 6000 years, 2000 if we have a runaway warming of the planet.
    2
  36. The blades do not need to replaced, the leading edges can be repaired.
    2
  37. They do, when they are in working order. There are companies were one can buy used components or even complete second hand windturbines.
    2
  38. Many windturbines and solar panels pay for themselves, contrary to many fossil fuels who still recieve subsidies after all these years using them. And windturbines are not toxic waste and can get recycled. Solar panels can be, but that is why smart countries regulate their disposal.
    2
  39. Companies are recycling them for years, but it looks like facts do not interest you. You could have just watched the video to learn something.
    2
  40. Fiberglass is glass, look at your windows...
    2
  41. Windturbine blades have a lot more working hours than plane wings, while being lighter and longer. Plane wings have leading edges made of metal, which most windturbine blades lack. But one is considering to change that, since edge errosion is the main reason for blade failure.
    2
  42. Offshore turbines provide a habitat for sealife, especially all sorts of bivalves.
    2
  43. Not a lot. The CO2 emissions are around 1/50th of gasturbines and around 1/100th of coal power plants, assuming all the energy was supplied by fossil fuels.
    2
  44.  @billmalec  One does not need to believe. One can inform oneself. That is usually a good idea BEFORE making up ones mind.
    2
  45.  @billmalec  This has nothing to do with Biology.... If one does not even know what field of science does apply, maybe reading will not help much.
    2
  46.  @billmalec  About Biology... That does not help here. You need to read one about Windturbines or Energy Return of Investment in general, preferable one that is younger than ten years.
    2
  47.  @billmalec  The next ice age will take a couple more tenthousand years, if humanity does not intervene. And yes, the world cooled after WW2, but then we improved emisson standards. Acid rain was destructive to nature and buildings, until we stopped it. The ozone layer depletion was not always there. Read up.
    2
  48. Do you call that your windows, your car, your food and your comsumer goods from the other side of the ocean too?
    2
  49. If you think that poluting the enviroment is the better idea, feel free to throw your trash onto the street and pour oil in your drinking water.
    2
  50. Windturbines use less ressources and destroy less enviroment than fossil power plants.
    2
  51.  @darknesswithin2136  Did you need to tell us that you are so clueless about the topic that you cannot contribute an argument?
    2
  52. The cabon footprint is 1/100 of a coal power plant, 1/50 of a gas power plant and around 3/4 of a nuclear power plant.
    2
  53.  @darknesswithin2136  One can look it up. If one is clueless and too lazy too look it up, one could think like you.
    2
  54.  @yummygoy5138  Why should I supply public information and others do not need to? Just google carbon footprint windturbines...
    2
  55. ​ @darknesswithin2136 I told you what to type into google. If you cannot do that, it is doubtful that you would understand the article in the first place...
    2
  56. That does decide if something is green or not. One can get lung diseases or even suffocate to death from wood smoke.
    1
  57. I hope you removed your windows, as glass windows kill a lot more birds than windturbines. And that not count all the bird deaths caused by global warming and cats. But it is nice how many people suddenly become bird protectors when talking about wind turbines...
    1
  58.  @pedalingparson  You were the one being worried about the birds, which does not seem to affect you otherwise. That is called a double-standard. And there is no power plant that is biodegradable. To demand that from wind turbines is another double standard. Intermittency is dealt with using different souces of energy like solar, hydro, geothermal, biogas, biomass
    1
  59.  @pedalingparson  Fossil power plants need to get dismantled too. Depending on size, it can take years. Some stand around for decades, because companies do not want to pay the dismantling. Btw. the landfills do not happen in every country. Germany banned the disposal of turbine blades in landfills back in 2005... I suggest to ask around, then you will learn how many birds die because of glass windows. Just because it does not happen to you does not mean that it does not exist.
    1
  60. Easy solution. Tell the government to change the laws and make it illegal. Works in other countries too.
    1
  61. Because fossil fuels lead to waste, pollution AND the relocation of our climate zones.
    1
  62. One needs sand for cement.
    1
  63.  @curtislowe4577  Assignment: learn about the process of cement making. "Common materials used to manufacture cement include limestone, shells, and chalk or marl combined with shale, clay, slate, blast furnace slag, silica sand, and iron ore."
    1
  64. Wind turbines can be recycled to 80-90%. Recycled solar panels allow to build new solar wafers with 30% of the energy needed for unrecycled ones.
    1
  65. ​ @luckyx16 Because the enviromental laws of certain countries allow it. In other countries they are recycled. Complain about the laws, not the wind turbine. The framework of solar panels is trivial to recycle, no need to discuss it. Energy storage is needed when one has very much of solar and wind electricity production. No country is that far ahead, but there are multiple options. Pumped hydro, biogas, H2 storage, reddox flow batteries, lithium batteries.
    1
  66.  @luckyx16  What I am ignoring? Concerning the batteries, which ones are you talking about? The organic redox flow batteries are easy to recycle and lithium ones are probably already used, otherwise they are too expensive, unless there are cheaper and better ones in 10 to 15 years.
    1
  67. Aluminium is too soft. Considering how much energy they produce, their cabon footprint is negative.
    1
  68. That is why it is not the plan to build only windturbines...
    1
  69. Global warming does not make money. It costs, a lot.
    1
  70. There are already multiple solutions.
    1
  71.  @OddBall1958  They work quite well, but some nations do just not care about the enviroment and allow to dump the blades in landfills.
    1
  72. Nuclear is expensive and not a good technology to cut corners. If done right, it can be an asset, but most countries cannot afford a lot of it.
    1
  73.  @guy-tn2ud  What I wrote is fact. There are enough videos of smart people out there or better, read a study and do the research yourself.
    1
  74.  @guy-tn2ud  I do not see what this has to do with my arguments. But please explain to me how it is a good idea to cut corners with nuclear power.
    1
  75.  @guy-tn2ud  French nuclear plants had to be taken offline on large scale last year, because the service intervals were stretched too long. Many power plants are dependent on river cooling, without consideration for droughts. In Fukushima they did not consider large waves, despite the power plant being placed at the coast. In Chernobyl the technicians were not trained enough and the plant lacked sufficient security measures.
    1
  76. ​​ @guy-tn2ud That is no fear mongering. That is what happened. There was a test done in the nuclear plant in Greifswald Germany, in 1989. Three of six cooling pumps were turned off. Suddently a fourth pump broke down the remaining 2 were not enough to cool the reactor. Control of the reactor was lost. The reactor was close to melting down before the remaining pumps got online. The accident was caused by "sticky" relay contacts. Shellenberger a pr manager, not a scientist or engineer. And yes, many scientist pointed out errors in his work.
    1
  77. ​ @guy-tn2ud  this video tells the story of the usa, where proper enviromental protection laws are lacking. It does not look like this in other countries. Wind turbines are carbon negative, as they produce 10 to 50times more energy than is needed for their production. The dismantling takes up only a fraction of the energy needed for the production. Using fossil fuels leads to further co2 emissions and some countries do not have their own fossil fuels.
    1
  78. ​ @guy-tn2ud  No, that tell me the enviromental laws of the countries. Germany has no energy shortage. It has a price problem, because it is dependent on fossil fuels and the main supplier does not supply anymore. Last year Germany was supplying Electricity to France, because they are dependent on old nuclear reactors, which were not serviced regularly. In other words, both countries suffer from being dependent on old tech.
    1
  79.  @guy-tn2ud  Take a look at their gas storage. It is filled to 87% They get all the oil and coal they need. Electricity was not turned off.
    1
  80. Fixed installations are powered by electricity, which can come from wind, hydro or solar.
    1
  81. Wind turbines earn back the invested energy in 6 to 14 months, depending on model and location.
    1
  82.  @brainsmasher4205  True 111!!!!11234
    1
  83. It is not really burnt and especially not for electricity. The other compunds of the wings are burnt to make the fiberglass reusable.
    1
  84.  @Diponty  The world is not make believe. Try some facts.
    1
  85. There is no airborne pollution.
    1
  86. Do you live in a desert? Under normal conditions they last 20 years or longer in the rest of the world.
    1
  87. Aluminium is not strong enough for the big blades. Aluminium works in the low kW range.
    1
  88. That is not tough enough.
    1
  89.  @spectrumofreality  Then look at the wingspan of planes and the length of 6MW turbine blades. One can use aircraft aluminium for smaller turbines, but these are less efficient.
    1
  90.  @spectrumofreality  Yes, you can build wings of many sizes. The longer they get, the thicker you have to build them, the heavier the wing becomes. Not a good thing for material that is spinning around quickly. Carbon-GFK composite material is much lighter and stronger than Aircraft Alumium.
    1
  91.  @spectrumofreality  The blades do not snap because they are made of composite material. The centrifugal forces are so great that a heavier material would ripp itself to pieces. Carbon composite material is used in aircraft construction, see Airbus A350 or Boeing 787. But I am sure Aircraft Aluminium would be better and they are just doing it for the fun of it...
    1
  92.  @spectrumofreality  Large wind turbines pull around 20g at the bladetips. The blades are designed for 10^9 loadycycles.
    1
  93.  @spectrumofreality  Weightless material? Interesting. That could work.
    1
  94.  @spectrumofreality  You claimed there is no weight at the blade tipps --> weigthless. I am still waiting for the wind turbines with steel or aluminium blades. The only bigger ones I found were build up to the 80s and were discontinued because realiability issues...
    1
  95.  @spectrumofreality  That is why I wrote that it is weightless material. That is great. With that one can build truly giant windturbines. Plesse share that knowledge with the windturbine producers. But that is not steel or aluminium...
    1
  96.  @spectrumofreality  Feel free to continue to write about weightless material and ignore my question about windturbines with steel or aluminium blades.
    1
  97.  @spectrumofreality  There was no need to tell everyone that you ran out of arguments. That was obvious.
    1
  98.  @spectrumofreality  I never made that claim, but funny that you made another thing up.
    1
  99.  @spectrumofreality  Nope, but nice try though...
    1
  100.  @spectrumofreality  Not really, but your imagination is worrisome.
    1
  101. Coal powered plants produce at least tentimes the waste per produced kwh.
    1
  102.  @davidsuzukiispolpot  One should not shut down realtivly new plants. One should phase them out when they reached their end of life. The more wind, solar, hydro and biomass power plants one build, the less intermittent the production becomes.
    1
  103.  @davidsuzukiispolpot  I was not even talking about CO2. C3 plants get in trouble at CO2 levels between 50 and 100 ppm, C4 plants need at least 10 ppm. In other words values of 101 ppm and higher should be ok for the vast majority of plant life and it is rather pointless to discuss such a value that did not happen for millions of years, probably billions of years
    1
  104. 20 years is pretty standard and a legal requirement in some countries. One can order turbines for 25 and 30 year service life. The Tvindkraft windturbine from the late 70s is still running.
    1
  105.  @lbowsk  One can order ones with lifetimes of 30 years. Ask Siemens or GE.
    1
  106.  @KReed1966  That is the issue of goverment politics, not the technology.
    1
  107. Other countries know were to put them and they can produce electricity cheaply, if one does not select the wrong location.
    1
  108. They are. There are multiple companies that earn money with it.
    1
  109. ​ @MindHunger Recycling is a service, one has to pay for it. That is like saying a haidresser is not economical, because people have to pay him. And considering the damage prevented to the enviroment and the energy and material saved, it is very economical.
    1
  110.  @MindHunger  That is not subsidizing, but paying for a service. Or do you subsidize your hairdresser? Most recycling costs money or do you get paid for used motor oil or rundown tyres? That is why one makes it illegal to just throw away.
    1
  111.  @MindHunger  Looks like you did not understand the word. Paying for a service is not subsidizing. "A subsidy is money that is paid by a government or other authority in order to help an industry or business, or to pay for a public service."
    1
  112.  @MindHunger  That is what the textbooks say. Look it up.
    1
  113.  @MindHunger  Are you nuts? You told me yourself to look into textbooks, despite them confirming what I wrote before.. And in the real world this is the definitiin of subsidies, not something you make up.
    1
  114. But that does not happen. Fossil fuels kill 35times more birds than windturbines... Somehow that does not matter.
    1
  115. They pay well.
    1
  116. There are companies that recycle them. Just make it mandatory.
    1
  117. The carbon content of the air increased the past 100 years.
    1
  118. Inspection and maintenance is the job of the owner, not the manufacturer. And yes, you are right. Properly maintained they can last longer.
    1
  119. The physical reality is that they last longer in other countries. The short lifespan is an US problem, caused by their tax schemes.
    1
  120. There diferent models, but they ususally consist of a carbon, fibergalss, resin composite.
    1
  121. That is a myth.
    1
  122.  @stefanjohansson2373  100% myth in other countries.
    1
  123.  @stefanjohansson2373  If you had facts, you would show them. I cannot show you what does not exist.
    1
  124.  @stefanjohansson2373  If there so many other videos, please show them. Otherwise it sounds like one of the many tinfoilhat theories floating around internet.
    1
  125. It is only proof that some countries lack enviromental protection laws. Other countries do not allow this.
    1
  126. ​ @annatjiekruger77  That shows how few countries care about the enviroment. Sidenote. China builds roughly the same if not more winturbine capacity than the US and Europe together. Must be hippies then...
    1
  127. And the remaining silicium goes into the cement...
    1
  128. It is unfortunate to see how most people won't realize the scale of waste created by these fossil fuels. But do not worry, some dude with a cowboy hat will tell you how much money one can make by ignoring some trees and that fossil fuels are the best!
    1
  129.  @JohnBurgundy66  But we do not plan to reduce fossil fuel use to zero.
    1
  130.  @JohnBurgundy66  The world. And China and India are working on reduction, otherwise they would not invest heavily into renewables.
    1
  131.  @JohnBurgundy66  I never claimed to speak for the world. I just do not know of any country that plans to reduce fossil fuel use to zero. Something you claimed.
    1
  132. For not doing a thing, they produce a lot of electricity. And they look better than many skyscrapers. The Dutch covered their land in windmills in the past.
    1
  133.  @Jf72-j9r  First you claim they do not a thing, then you claim they do not supply that much electricity. What will you claim next? Windturbines produce around 9% of the electricity of the USA.
    1
  134. ​​ @Jf72-j9r We have a different understanding of nothing and I doubt you understand what communists are. If one wants more immagrants from south america or other warm parts of the world, one should indeed burn more fossil fuels.
    1
  135. There is a difference between weather and climate.
    1
  136. Everything humanity builds has some negative impact. The trick is to reduce the impact compared to alternativs.
    1
  137. It is about reducing the damage. If you wanted to stop the damage, humanity would need to turn off all machines and then commit collective suicide. I do not consider that an option. Btw. your comment also added to the damage of the enviroment.
    1
  138. Some goverments thought ahead and made disposal in landfills illegal.
    1
  139. Water is also natural part of a dynamic system. Too much of it and one will drown and whole cities get flooded. The problem is not CO2, we breath it out with every breath, but the problem is the amount in the atmosphere.
    1
  140. As is saves a lot of CO2, it is.
    1
  141.  @jimmccoal2693  Seven of 13
    1
  142. One can store lithium batteries in an apartment. Would you do that with uranium fuel rods?
    1
  143.  @tompsheridantsheridant7354  I see you were unable to come up with even one single argument and somehow had to vent your frustration about your incompetence. It is ok.
    1
  144. That is rather unusual. 20 years is pretty normal life span. Modern turbines are designed for 25 and a few even for 30 years life span.
    1
  145. No power plant can survive without cash inputs, especially the ones one needs to buy fuel for.
    1
  146. They make cement in other countries.
    1
  147. But the earth and plants are not using the excess of CO2. That is why the CO2 in the air is increasing. And plants do not grow better, if they have less water.
    1
  148. Do not assume that others act according to your personal beliefs.
    1
  149. That is not really a problem. Just declare a ban on landfill disposal.
    1
  150. None, when done right.
    1
  151. It is enough to power large parts of different economies worldwide. The secret is combining different sources of energy.
    1
  152. It is cleaner. Coal power plants produce at least tentimes the waste for each kWh. And that waste contains water solvable toxins.
    1
  153. How long do you plan to wait?
    1
  154.  @TR-uw2sp  And waiting sounds like a solution to you?
    1
  155.  @TR-uw2sp  You claimed nuclear is the answer. There must have been a question.
    1
  156.  @TR-uw2sp  There you have your answer. Do want to live on with these issues, until someday there might be more nuclear power, or solve them?
    1
  157. It helps to read different sources and to think for oneself.
    1
  158. But they do. In Europe the big windturbine producers want to change the laws to make landfill disposal of turbine blades illegal, which is already the case in some countries since 2005.
    1
  159. So you think removing mountain tops is better? Windturbines result in a lot less CO2 emissions and waste than fossil fuels.
    1
  160. It is much much less.
    1
  161. If what?
    1
  162. So you would prefer tentimes the waste from coal powered plants?
    1
  163. Moving with up to 400km/h for 20 years through rain and dust will peel of the edges. There is also the problem of a billion load cycle in their lifetime, that damages their structural integrity. And it is better to remove the blades BEFORE they fail or it can get ugly.
    1
  164.  @Secretsofsociety  They are not designed to break. As I told you, breaking is to be avoided. And if you want to be nitpicky. The fastest large turbine goes over 320km/h. I must have mistaken the numbers from some experimental ones. The Vestas V126 goes up to 390km/h.
    1
  165. You are right, modern blades can last 25+ years.
    1
  166. One can recycle them all. It is mandatory in other countries. The energy used is much lower than the energy produced by them.
    1
  167. They cannot endure the load. Windturbine blades have around 1000times the loadcycles than. airplane wings.
    1
  168. The birds recycle itself. Nature is quite efficient that way.
    1
  169. Natural change is not as fast as it happens now. There also no natural driver for an increase in temperature.
    1
  170. That is why one combines a windpark with other windparks in different areas, solar, hydro, biogas, biomatter and when possible geothermic energy.
    1
  171. These nuclear technologies do not work yet in production models. Wind works at night, contrary to solar, which complement each other. Windpower does not need much agriculture land, especially if you compare that to bioethanol, which many farmers happily supply.
    1
  172. Wind energy is older than Marxists...
    1
  173. Since they produce much more energy than is needed in the creation, I do not see the issue.
    1
  174. ​ @Pete4875  As I wrote, the ressources needed are very small compared to the electricity produced. Bird killing can be reduced, but is much smaller than the number of birds killed by global warming or glass windows. Turbine blades landing in landfills is the result of countries not having proper enviromental protection laws. In other countries this is forbidden and recycling is mandated.
    1
  175. Depending on location, coal and nuclear are the most expensive option.
    1
  176. Less than 1/10th of the waste and 1/100th of the CO2 emissions of coal power plants would I not call evil...
    1
  177. Wind turbines run longer than car transmissions and they produce electricity cheaper than most fossil fueled power plants and that with a negative carbon footprint.
    1
  178. Lack of rain is not good for the plants. And hundreds of millions of people migrating to the cooler parts of the world is probably not good either, but I guess you have a spare room for half a dozen people.
    1
  179. ​ @jackreacher.  But you are forgetting that it gets warmer too and the effect you describe is minimal, especially when considering that plants need more water when getting bigger. Overall this will not be good for most plants.
    1
  180. Modern windturbines produce electricity cheaper than fossil fuel power plants.
    1
  181. Nuclear waste is hardly green.
    1
  182. Neither are cheap and only hydrogen is clean.
    1
  183. That is a personal problem. Countries could make the stuff themselves and I am pretty sure GE produces stuff in the US.
    1
  184. It is math. The usuable energy increases with volume of air used. The volume increases quadratic with the radius of the turbine blades.
    1
  185. You do not save it with fossil fuels...
    1
  186. It also creates an amount of toxic ash that is tentimes as large as the waste from windturbines.
    1
  187.  @beautifulsydney  Did you never burn coal or listen in school? It should be obvious that coal leaves ash. That is 5s on google, if you want a picture. If you are on it, google mountain top mining or open pit mining of coal. A more traditional look is spoil tips from subterranean mining. Some are over 100m high. And we did not even talk about the exhaust gases yet that include arsenic, lead, PAH, mercury, sulfur dioxide, sulfur nitrate, chromium, NOx, cadmium, cyanides and fine dust particles.
    1
  188. The impact is smaller than producing the same amount of electricity with coal power plants. They produce tentimes as much waste just in ash.
    1
  189. ​ @murigrim Yes. Btw all power plants need electricity to run. Waggons of frozen coal have to be unfrozen before one can empty the waggon.
    1
  190.  @murigrim  Coal does not thaw when it is frozen outside. And one cannot shovel coal frozen to a solid block, unless one want to shovel chunk by chunk, but that way feeding a coal power plant in winter will be difficult. All power plants that are disconnected from the grid, need some form of backup to run. That is the problem of grid failure. If the grid had worked, other windturbines could have supplied the power. Many nuclear power plants have built in diesel generators for emergencies as they need constant cooling, even when not running. The emissions are considered. The energy needed for transports is very small compared to construction, upkeep and maintenance.
    1
  191.  @murigrim  A nuclear power plant needs 40 to 60 MW electricity when NOT running, to be able to start again. Even for weeks, if it has a long downtime. If you take a nuclear power plant offgrid, it cannot start. No powerplant can! One either needs a grid connection to get jump started from other power plants or one uses a backup generator. That is the problem of a blackout. Getting all the power plants back up can take a lot of time. Do talk about power plants, if you do not know how they work. If your car has a dead battery it does not start. You either get a back up starter or another car (fuel powered generator) to start it. As long as windturbines have a working grid connection, they are fine.
    1
  192. ​ @murigrim  It is a designed feature that power plants need power.
    1
  193. ​​​​ @murigrim There is no logic in that. And they run fine with windpower, if the grid is not down. You do not seem to understand the problem. It was a grid failure, not a windpower failure. A grid failure applies to ALL power plants. Btw. the power of diesel generators is very low compared to the 40 to 60 MW needed for nuclear plants or the 20 to 40 MW of coal plants. Even gasturbines need heating not to freeze up. And yes, that is a lot more power than they are producing in standbye... And I have no idea about what rolling blackouts you are talking... And all power plants sell electricity for profit. That is how they work.
    1
  194. Because that is dangerous. One blade weighs many tons, if that goes flying, someone might get hurt. And there is a good chance that the rest of the turbine gets damaged and might fail too.
    1
  195. In other countries companies PAY money to get a license to build wind farms.
    1
  196. There is no plastic in the cement. It all burns up. Burning fossil fuels is worse. Have you seen the mountains, that have been beheaded for coal or the open pits in other countries?
    1
  197. Considering that coal power plants produce at least tentimes the waste per produced kWh, the exchanged a lot of waste for a lot less waste and a lot less CO2 emissions.
    1
  198. It produces more power with much less carbon emission than fossil fuels.
    1
  199. A solution is available for years. It is goverments that do not care about nature and allow dumping the blades.
    1
  200. That is why a multi energy source approach is better. The US is rich in hydro and solar sources. With 330 million people and millions of farm animals there should also be enough sources for biogas, which can also be easily stored.
    1
  201. That is why you do not stand next to when it is crushed.
    1
  202. Recycled solar panels save 70% of the energy needed. Recycled steel saves 74% of the energy needed. How does that lead to more emissions?
    1
  203.  @Alphoric  How does saving 70% energy result in more air pollution? And no, ink is not burned off in paper recycling. Paper recycling saves 50% energy and 33% water...
    1
  204. If one wants to produce even more waste and do even more damage to the enviroment and to us, the fossil fuels are the way to go.
    1
  205. They can be. The just need they right power supplier.
    1
  206. Customers want longer lasting products, but that is not easy. The wind is a powerful force that shapes even rocks.
    1
  207. Yes, but they would be worse and one would distribute resin and plastic remains in the enviroment.
    1
  208. ... and USA, India, Europe.
    1
  209. It works just fine
    1
  210. Some cars do not last a day. Does that mean all cars break down that quick?
    1
  211. It is slightly more than double...
    1
  212. The energy is, by definition.
    1
  213. Coal power plants produce tentimes the waste just in ash...
    1
  214.  @williamfowler616  And? It is still less waste and CO2.
    1
  215. Oil is worse.
    1
  216.  @Baebon6259  When food gets more expensive, it is not good for poor people either. And it is unlikely that oil stays cheap.
    1
  217. A rip-off is still believing that fossil fuels are better for us.
    1
  218. They can be found all over the world. That has nothing to do with bombs.
    1
  219. Other countries have done that.
    1
  220. That is why more advanced recycling is done in closed machines with air cleaners. The outfit shown was very basic and not state-of-the-art.
    1
  221. It should include a mandate on recycling.
    1
  222.  @mark-1901  It works in other countries too. No need to hide anything.
    1
  223.  @mark-1901  Daenemark, Germany and Austria recycle.
    1
  224. Cheap electricity with a low carbon footprint
    1
  225. Most windturbines run a lot longer than 25% of the time... One needs to put turbines on really bad spots to get such abyssmal performance.
    1
  226. Solar panels can be recycled and new solar wafers made out of them, which need 70% less energy to produce.
    1
  227.  @blattimus  That is the problem of enviromental laws. Make recycling mandatory. The new wafers have the same performance of the old ones.
    1
  228. ​ @blattimus But there is a market for recycled material. Landfills should be avoided. If material cannot be recycled, it should be burned. The energy can be used to make electricity at least.
    1
  229.  @the_naP  Obviously "invested" means the energy that is used to build and setup the windturbine. That energy is much smaller than the energy the windturbine produces during its lifetime.
    1
  230.  @the_naP  Feel free to look it up. It is easy to google. The worst numbers you will find is that windturbines produce fivetimes as much energy as is put into them. The best numbers show a factor of 50. Realisticly thery are around 25, depending on model and location. Fossil fuel power plants also have the factor 25.
    1
  231.  @the_naP  You are aware that the produced electricity is measured? That is not modeled.
    1
  232. ​ @the_naP Feel free to look it up.
    1
  233. Apart from the parts were it lacks rain. The desertification increases.
    1
  234. ​​ @Diponty Thatt is too much power. Btw.all power plants need power to run, your car needs a starter too, nuclear power plants need even a lot of it, if they do not run.
    1
  235. The towers are made from steel. Aluminium and steel are not tough enough for the blades.
    1
  236. Not really.
    1
  237.  @f16airforce  That can happen...
    1
  238.  @f16airforce  So you think you know me. Interesting.
    1
  239. The benefit is huge. They produce a lot of energy with less enviromental impact than fossil fuels.
    1
  240.  @enginepy  What I wrote is fact. Feel free to list the impact of fossil fuels and especially the fuel production and transport and it is easy to see who comes on top.
    1
  241.  @enginepy  If you had mentioned anything specific, I could go into detail. Unfortunately it was your statement that was pretty generic. But feel free to do your research.
    1
  242. ​ @enginepy But you are trying to argue with me, without arguments. And no, I am not into windpower. I prefer a multitechnology approach, as windpower alone does not work well. And I never claimed there are no cons. Anything we do with the enviroment has cons.
    1
  243. ​ @enginepy  "Massive cons" without naming them, is a generic statement. One can write that about any power generator.
    1
  244. ​ @enginepy  Was this really so difficult? 1. The infrastructure costs are slightly higher. One should not forget that transmission lines are not as massive as for big power plants. The build-up of infrastructure has multiple uses. It needs to get build up anyway to decarbonize services that were provided by fossil fuels (heat, transportation) and a better infrastructure gives more flexibility for new business as there are more places were their energy needs are met. 2. Excessive copper requirements? Compared to what? If you mean the infastructure, then see 1. One should also note that one can use Aluminium for cables. 3. Turbine blades can be recycled. 4. The concrete requirements are modest compared to the needs of modern society and the concrete can be recycled. 5. The physical footprint is also modest, as one can use the ground below the windturbine. It is also unusual that sites get selected that are needed for something else. 6. Subsidies depend on the county. In some countries the construction is not subsized. One should also note that all other sources of electricity (fossil, nuclear, hydro) are subsidized too. 7. I know nothing about that, probably country dependent. 8. Substations are much smaller than for big power plants, otherwise see 1. 9. Transmission lines are point 1 10. Icing is a non-issue as moden turbines have an ice recognition and deicing features. It is also extremly rare and wind turbines are usually not running during these weather conditions (low wind). 11. Impact on wildlife is smaller than traffic or CO2 emissions. If one wants to protect wildlife, one should lower the CO2 output. 12. The limited generation times are considered in the price per kwh, it is comparable or lower than fossil fuels. 13. The overall electrical output is much larger than the energy input. Modern turbines generate over 30times as much. Fossil power plants manage only 25times as much.
    1
  245. They do not need to. It is all a matter of service, which costs money. If blade edges get damaged and lose efficiency, one can repair that and the blades regain most of their efficiency. But in some countries it is more favourable to use the turbines for only a short time, so they save on service and money to maximize profits.
    1
  246. For the same reason some cars break down after one day.
    1
  247.  @SunnyAquamarine2  Nope. But I am not surprised that would blame organized crime for a machine breaking down. And when a car runs out of fuel it is because of the Easter Bunny? Feel free to look up Green Energy, to learn what it means.
    1
  248. ​ @SunnyAquamarine2 And my great uncle with above Einstein IQ told me your developer "brother" should stick to software and leave the engineering to the engineers.
    1
  249. There are a couple hundred thousand studies that disagree. Even Exxons climate report from 1982 predicted the current global warming, based on CO2 emissions. And the physics are indisputable.
    1
  250. Paper is also more recyclable as fiberglas. There is a reason both are not used for large windturbine blades.
    1
  251. Producing lesss than a tenth of the waste of coal power plants is a scam?
    1
  252.  @Kang_Chakka  That does not answer the question. If you are happy with more waste and toxins in the enviroment, it is obvious who is getting scammed here.
    1
  253. ​ @Kang_Chakka So you think that windtubines produce the same amount of toxic ash as coal power plants. That is interesting.
    1
  254.  @Kang_Chakka  It helps to be informed. But feel free to live without doctors, medcine, plastics or machines.
    1
  255. ​ @Kang_Chakka Then listen to noone and do not use anthing that comes from somebody else and leave the world to the people who know how to inform themselves. 👍
    1
  256.  @Kang_Chakka  I wonder how you are typing now, if you are not dependent on others...
    1
  257. Solar mirrors are dangerous. They can be weaponized and can be problematic for local climate.
    1
  258.  @vassiliairton  One does does not do the work for one panel. One will direct the sun to a whole area, which will then heat up.
    1
  259. I doubt they would ignore it. They would probably tell you that these countries need better enviromental protection laws, since other countries do not have thar problem.
    1
  260. ​ @TheScience69  That does not happen there either...
    1
  261. ​ @TheScience69 But I am not talking about China... Once again, that is an issue of lacking enviromental protection laws. Look at Denmark, Finland, Germany and Austria. The European windturbine industry is actually demanding a bann on landfill disposal.
    1
  262.  @TheScience69  No. I meant the countries that recycle and service their blades, that they can last 20+ years.
    1
  263. ​ @TheScience69 But they do, inform yourself. 20+ years is ok. One has to remember that they produce electricity without burning fuel. Some designs are supposed to last 30 years.
    1
  264.  @TheScience69  That is not pretending. Other countries show how it is done. In the US one is inentivized with tax deductions to use wind turbines for only 10 years. It is more profitable to leave them be after that until they stop working and invest in new ones. That is not the problem of the wind turbines, but the US who cares more about money than the enviroment.
    1
  265. ​ @TheScience69 Wind turbines are not the entire infrastructure. Look at the age of cars and how many are built each year. Some people get new cars every 2 to 4 years. And as I wrote, the aim is for 25 years, that is what current designs are built for. A few models are alfeady designed for 30 years. Btw. gasturbines last around 20 years, 30 years with good maintenance.
    1
  266.  @TheScience69  You were talking about replacing infrastructure and I showed you how often stuff gets replaced without us having a problem with it. I was obviously talking about gas turbines for electricity production, not the ones for planes...
    1
  267. ​ @TheScience69  What are you even talking about? Running out of arguments already and trying to play the insane-card?
    1
  268. ​ @TheScience69 What is there to reply to? You wrote rubbish.
    1
  269. ​​ @TheScience69 So "do not shit your pants..." was your argument and you expected a different response than what I wrote. As I said, looks like you want to play the insane-card... 😂
    1
  270.  @TheScience69  I gave you an answer to that one too, but looks like you edited your post.
    1
  271.  @TheScience69  Then I suggest to get your eyes checked. I can still see my answer.
    1
  272. ​ @TheScience69 It is hardly my problem when you cannot see it. The question is why did you post, if you cannot see my answer? Do you feel so entitled to an answer, that you have to resort to insults after three hours?
    1
  273. Their edges dull from all the wind, dirt, rain and hail. The material loses structural strength over time, caused by the constant mechanical stress of the shifting winds.
    1
  274.  @siggyretburns7523  In a way, yes. They have a special coating, but the blades are supposed to run for 20+ years.
    1
  275. 80 to 90% of the windturbine can be recycled and they kill less than 1/100th of the birds that glass windows kill.
    1
  276. Coal power plants produce tentimes the waste of windturbines for every kwh produced just in ash.
    1
  277. The fibers include material that is not fiberglass. I doubt that is good for the quality of the cement.
    1
  278. Because many countries do not require recycling. That is a problem of the enviromental laws of these countries and not the windturbines.
    1
  279.  @Besitzt11  Considering the amount of load cycles, the blades lifetime of 20 (25) years is quite impressive. I know of only one company that offers blades with 30 year lifetime. The problem is that many countries do not have incentives to use the turbines for longer. In the US the most profitable time are the first ten years. In many european countries it is 20 years.
    1
  280.  @Besitzt11  I know of no design that is better. Would be nice to see a better design. The maintenance is the problem of the owner. There are many well maintained wind turbines that run longer than 20 years.
    1
  281. The old ones produce around tentimes the energy invested and the new ones up to fiftytimes. Fossil powered plants manage only 25 to 30 times.
    1
  282.  @portnuefflyer  Glad we found something that makes you happy.
    1
  283.  @portnuefflyer  And what works on small scale works even better on large scale. The higher the wind turbine, the faster and more stable are the winds.
    1
  284. It is warming...
    1
  285. ​ @eatMY455 The climate cycles do not last couple hunded years, but a few TENTHOUSAND to HUNDREDTHOUSAND years. There are called Milankovitch cycles and are known for a hundred years. According to them, it should get slowly colder, around 0.1 degree per 1000 years. The effect of CO2 was discoverec over 150 years ago, that is a bit BEFORE Al Gore. The oil industry knew about it since the late 50s and their studies predicted our temperatures quite accurately.
    1
  286.  @eatMY455  You are looking at the wrong maps. The only way to connect Antarctika to Southh America would be a massive Ice Age. That does not match with the Grapes... And thx to us cutting all the tres down, nature cannot absorb all the Co2. That is why the concentration is growing.
    1
  287.  @eatMY455  The map has multiple, proven inacuracies. And no, there was no ice age 500 years ago. I think we would have noticed... But funny that you believe such stuff.
    1
  288. The blades become cement, which in turn can be used for concrete. A couple tenthousand tons are receycled each year.
    1
  289.  @Rean-the-Bean  They are not explaining it correctly.
    1
  290. Not really...
    1
  291. You are right, they are net negative. They produce more than 25times the energy that is needed for their production, construction, service, demoltion and recycling.
    1
  292. Solar farms do not leak...
    1
  293. ​ @Diponty That is a different issue and mostly caused by lack of enviromental protection laws in these countries. And do not think that beheadd mountains, giant pits, pumps that run forever and changing climate zones are the better alternatives.
    1
  294. No. Nobody plans to remove all CO2 from the atmosphere. People would be content if we could stop the increase.
    1
  295. Much greater. 10 to 50times as much. Depending on power and location.
    1
  296. Wind and solar power can already be cheaper than fossil power plants and can be recycled, contrary to ash from coal power plants. In combination with hydro and biogas they can provide the year long coverage.
    1
  297. But it is. It can be used for concrete.
    1
  298. They can be financed without government money.
    1
  299. Glass fibres do not get burned. They become part of the cement... Thx to the development of recyclable blades, Vesta seems to have found a way to recycle all blades and divide them into their components.
    1
  300.  @Momoka7  Yes, they burn the blades, but the glass fibres remain and become part of the cement.
    1
  301.  @Momoka7  Then they are missing a core information of the process. Feel free to look it up. And no, it is not standard cement, but the minerals in the glass are similar to the minerals in the cement, so it works quite well.
    1
  302. Boats, cars, buildings. They are used for many things. And no, recycling them does not produce more CO2 than a coal power plant, unless you are talking about a model.
    1
  303.  @terenceiutzi4003  They are produced that way.
    1
  304. ​ @terenceiutzi4003 They make the stuff I wrote.
    1
  305.  @terenceiutzi4003  They use long ones.
    1
  306.  @terenceiutzi4003  One can repair the blades. In countries were the turbines run longer than 20 years, it is done regularly.
    1
  307.  @terenceiutzi4003  The US favours short lifetimes on the turbines. No need to run them long, when you earn all the money in ten years.
    1
  308.  @terenceiutzi4003  They run much longer in other countries, at a fraction of the cost. Do you have a source for 5$/kWh cost of electricity? You are missing information. Btw. Tvindkraft runs for over 45 years.
    1
  309.  @terenceiutzi4003  They last more than 20 years in other countries. Siemens offers turbines with a 35 year certification and GE offers them with a 40 year certification.
    1
  310.  @terenceiutzi4003  Humidity is no issue. There are many offshore farms without that problem. Which farm is supposed to have these problems?
    1
  311. ​ @terenceiutzi4003 I do.That is why I question your information. Looks like you have no source and just made it up.
    1
  312. They spin with over 200 km/h and are exposed to the elements 24/365. Rain, ice and dust have an effect like sandblaster after all this time and the leading edges of the blades get damaged, which reduces their aerodynamic efficiency by a lot. Companies are working on multiple solutions. The easiest, but most costly one is regular maintenance. Small damaged areas can be fixed in the field, before there is a need for replacement. Well maintained blades can last over 25 years.
    1
  313. People throw away working stuff for many reasons. Usually when new stuff is better. Wind turbines are usually designed for 25 years. Some manufacturers aim for 30 years for the mid power range (6 to 8 MW).
    1
  314.  @dafunkmonster  That can happen, but is obviously not normal.
    1
  315. Windturbines leave less waste.
    1
  316. They are not the only company doing this. And windpower is not really harmful to the planet compared to the alternatives.
    1
  317. There is no technology to do anything cleanly. There are only technologies that use less ressources than others.
    1
  318. How long do you plan to wait for nuclear power?
    1
  319. There is no need for that. Make it mandatory to recycle the windturbine, as some countries have done. That is what laws are for. Do not allow people to throw their rubbish into the wilderness.
    1
  320.  @ThisIsToolman  That can be regulated too. Owners have to build up reserves for that purpose.
    1
  321. ​ @ThisIsToolman The reserves can be regulated too.
    1
  322.  @ThisIsToolman  The reserves should not be something that needs managing. One can use banking guarantees or a security account, which result in monthly costs and cover the dismantling of the whole turbine.
    1
  323. That seems to be an US problem. With proper care the blades last 20 years in other countries. And the blades do not get buried there either. Why we should do this? To prevent climate change. Unless one does not mind to invite the climate refugees into ones home, one can can continue to burn fossil fuels.
    1
  324. Problem is that we do not do nothing. We all consume stuff. Using wind turbines to produce electricity reduces the damage. It does not stop it.
    1
  325. If waste can be burned, it should be burned. Just burying all that energy and take up space is a waste. Landfills should be reserved for waste that cannot be burned.
    1
  326. The energy is much less than these turbines produce.
    1
  327. Which is only a fraction of the energy they produce.
    1
  328. But they do. Depending on location and power, they generate 10 to 50times as much energy as is needed for their production.
    1
  329. Not really. How are windturbines supposed to solve health care?
    1
  330. Nuclear is too expensive and too slow to build.
    1
  331. China builds more renewable energy capacity than the US and Europe together...
    1
  332. With service they last 20+ years. Only neglected blades fall into disrepair that quickly.
    1
  333. It reduces the CO2 output by a lot.
    1
  334.  @michaelbaja1854  The production and disposal is added.
    1
  335. A good setup vaccuums the dust. The way shown in the video is not the right way. At least the workers should wear facemasks.
    1
  336. It is more efficient to recycle the blades in ones own country.
    1
  337. The capacity factor is determined by the wind, not their construction.
    1
  338. Why should there not be profit?
    1
  339. Some companies are paying money for the right to build wind farms. Seems to pay off.
    1
  340. Other materials do not have the strength/weight ratio, which makes the big turbines possible. If power in the kw range is enough, there are turbines with aluminium or steel blades. Small ones can be even made from wood.
    1
  341. Physics say it does.
    1
  342. ​ @larrya7822 I prefer scientist that do not ignore physics.
    1
  343. They produce a lot less CO2.
    1
  344. You need also water. Too much water makes you drown. CO2 works similarly. Without it, we would live in an ice age, with too much, many people would live in a desert. Imagine 8 billion people migrating to the few habitable places remaining.
    1
  345. Only in countries where recycling is not mandatory.
    1
  346. Physical stress and blade erosion. One has to remember that the blades are under physical stress, even when they are not running. Storms, shifting winds and turbulence affect the blades. The tips of the bigger blades have to endure around 20g of centrifugal force, while the blades endure load changes around a billion times in 20 years. More modern designs have a lifespan of 25 years and a few companies offer 30 years lifetime.
    1
  347. People have a different view on the cleanliness of nuclear waste.
    1
  348. That does not destroy the planet. The planet will be here, long after we are gone.
    1
  349.  @Justin-Outdoors  Reading too much Sci-Fi?
    1
  350.  @Justin-Outdoors  !
    1
  351. Coal power plants generate more than tentimes the waste per produced KWh and that does even include the powerplant itself...
    1
  352. Modern windturbines have a deicing function. And the amount of fuel burnt is negligible compared to the energy they produce.
    1
  353. That are US enviroment laws. In other countries recycling is mandatory.
    1
  354. That is not the problem of the turbine blades, but the countries that allow this.
    1
  355.  @ajhubbell3754  There are two ways. Using the fiberglass for cement or with newer ones, one can dissolve the resin and take the blades apart and sort the material. Apart from that, windturbines produce the multiple of the energy invested into them, similar to fossil fuel plants or even better.
    1
  356.  @ajhubbell3754  That is why they are called WINDturbines. Take a guess what GASturbines need to run.
    1
  357.  @ajhubbell3754  Tell that to Germany, who have to be careful with their gas use, since their main supplier is occupied elsewhere or the Texans who froze to death in 2021, when freezing gas regulators lead to blackouts, since some gas turbines got no fuel.
    1
  358. ​ @ajhubbell3754 That is still a lack of gas, which was not caused by turning off nuclear power plants. For countries that do not have fossil fuels, windturbines are way to energy independence. And no, the Texas disaster was not caused by windturbines. Gasturbines dropped over 11 GW of power, when the grid destabalized. And they dropped the power because they got no gas. And yes, gas regulators freeze, when they are not winterized, despite the same thing happening in Texas in 2011 before...
    1
  359.  @ajhubbell3754  Germany has gas and they had a good gas supply, until their main supplier was occupied elsewhere. And the US build cars and oil fired power plants, despite being dependent on oil from the middle east. Btw. Germany keeping nuclear power would not solved the problem. They still need gas. And when gas turbines do not get gas, they do not have gas. And yes, Texas has a lot of gas, but that did not help in the situation.
    1
  360. More like a problem with the lack of enviromental protection laws. Other countries do not have that problem.
    1
  361. Better than to cut down whole mountains and burn the carbon of thousands of forrests...
    1
  362. It is less than is needed to produce the same energy with fossil fuels.
    1
  363.  @davefroman4700  And? I think that is a good deal. Producing the emissions in 30 years that fossil fuels emit in half year. That is great.
    1
  364.  @Things_I_wish_I_knew  The flash freeze killed a lot of the gas supply, because the infrastructure had no cold protection. Only all a small part of the windturbines failed. Even coal and nuclear power was disrupted.
    1
  365.  @Things_I_wish_I_knew  Gas powered plants provided two and a half times as much power on average than windturbines in Texas in 2021. The days before the blackout, wind peaked at 10GW output, while gas provided 44 GW. The blackout was caused by 11 GW of gas powered plants going offline suddenly. Another 5 GW of gas powered electricity went offline after that.
    1
  366.  @Things_I_wish_I_knew  That was not the cause of the blackout. The gas regulators froze and stopped the gasflow to powerplants and private customers. And this happened 10 years after 75% of Texas was affected by rolling blackouts during a similar Storm in 2011. This was caused by 150 generators suffering from loss of supply, instrumentation failure and gas well head freezing. The fossil infrastructure in Texas is not frost protected and neither power companies or Government cared.
    1
  367.  @Things_I_wish_I_knew  Yes, they did. But they did not install many grid connectors, because they thought/still think? that is better for them. But connected grids are more stable and provide cheaper electricity. I guess that is what the power suppliers in Texas do not want, and the Governor protects their interest, instead of mandating an interconnection.
    1
  368.  @Things_I_wish_I_knew  No, they just want to evade federal oversight, which would happen if they were connected to the major natiinal grids.
    1
  369.  @mernshepherd6009  Not really. A 3 MW turbine needs around 28l oil per year for all lubrication. Some producers offer artifical lubricants that were manufactured CO2 free.
    1
  370.  @mernshepherd6009  No, that is pretty standard.
    1
  371.  @PhatRobs  One should be worried about eveyones carbon footprint. China is not alone in the world. The US is the second highest emittend of CO2 and plans to strenthen its industry. That kind of thinking leads to everyone else waiting for China. Everyone else means 75% of the world population are not doing enough.
    1
  372.  albinvega7008  That is much less than is needed for fossil fuels. And the more one decarbonizes the industry, the less fossil fuel is needed.
    1
  373.  @Things_I_wish_I_knew  The CO2 emissions of the US went down since 2005...
    1
  374.  @wrongfullyaccused7139  1. Then why can one see windturbines not moving. That contradicts your point. 2. The blades are not slowed down by brakes, but by pitching the blades and reduce power. The brakes are used for stopping the turbine blades. Using them to reduce power would overheat and destroy them quickly. 3. Maintenance makes up 15% of the yearly costs of a new turbine and around 25% of the yearly costs of older turbines. They make money just fine. There are enough communities that support their budget with the income from wind turbines. 4. But they are. 5. True. New technologies often need help from the goverment to get started, as did nuclear power. 6. The word you were looking for were "scientists"
    1
  375. ​ @dafunkmonster There are plants and animals that profit from sunprotection, especially when it gets warmer. Hops, the stuff we need for beer, grow better with shade. So I am all for it 👍
    1
  376.  @VanquishedAgain  Apart from these new reactors not running... And a lot of the reactor becomes waste after its runtime.
    1
  377.  @Ronkrein  Not really. The fossil energy demand becomes smaller with every turbine.
    1
  378.  @dafunkmonster  Not much. But it is an option and an example, as it also applies to bush beans, broccoli, cucumbers, garlic, cabbage, carrots, spinach, onions, .... and many more
    1
  379. ​ @mail-qh2qc But they do.
    1
  380. In some countries 20 years is a requirement to get a permit. Windturbines for 25 year lifespan are a business standard. Siemens and GE offer some models for up to 35 years, GE even offers 40 years. The oldes turbine runs for over 45 years...
    1
  381. Recycling does not cause much emissions. If one finds these emissions worrisome, one should immediately turn off all electricity.
    1
  382. ​ @Diponty That is not the argument. I am pointing out a double standard. That is like saving a couple thousand birds, only to kill billions with climate change.
    1
  383. In other countries they run 20+ years just fine. The new gerneration is designed for 30 years. One just needs legislation that prohibits dumping them into landfills, like other countries do.
    1
  384. Humanity uses windpower for hundreds of years. Countries got tamed with this.
    1
  385. Coal produces at least tentimes more waste for each produced kwh. How is that better than wind energy?
    1
  386. That is caused by lack of enviromental protection laws. That does not happen in other countries.
    1
  387. Your car makes micro plastic.
    1
  388. The glass becomes part of the cement. Some newer blade designs can be dissolved into their components.
    1
  389. Depends on the power plant. Wind turbines produce a lot less waste than coal power plants and can be easiliy removed compared to most other power plants.
    1
  390.  @Timeforchangenow  I am talking about long term effects. The enviromental effect of the blades depends on the country. Not all countries allow landfill disposal.
    1
  391. It is not much compared to the energy producted.
    1
  392. They do not need to.
    1
  393. That rarely happens. In most parts of the world they need to be certified for at least 20 years.
    1
  394. When one transforms it to a new product.
    1
  395. Plants need water. More heat does not help.
    1
  396.  @johnmarkgatti3324  Nobody is planning to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere to 100ppm... And no, the planet is definetely not cooling the past 20 years...
    1
  397. No need to be alarmed. One just needs to be aware.
    1
  398. 1. Recycling costs less energy then making stuff new. 2. Depending on the processes, one can power the process with electricity.
    1
  399.  @Nomadcreations  Sure. But there is no issue with windturbines.
    1
  400. It is both. The fiberglass is used for the cement, the rest burns off and reduces the amount of waste.
    1
  401. Yes, a good reminder that we still use and build sources of electricity that are more expensive and produce more waste.
    1
  402. .... is much lower than fossil fuel powerplants.
    1
  403. For the blades? Not strong enough.
    1
  404. It is getting warmer...
    1
  405. Nuclear creates around 40g per kWh while windturbines create around 0.163 g per kWh and coal power plants create 30g of ash per kWh alone.
    1
  406. Steel and aluminium are too heavy for bigger turbines (3 MW+). The US tried to use steel/aluminium blades until the 80s, but they were always unreliable. If one adds enough turbines in different regions and combines them with solar, hydro, biogas, biomass and maybe geothermic energy, the need for fossil back up power is reduced.
    1
  407. Not really. As every power plant that is not running, they need power for the electronics. A nuclear reactor or coal power plant need a small power plant even when powered down.
    1
  408. It does what it is supposed to do.
    1
  409. The effect is only minimal compared to fossil fuel powered plants.
    1
  410.  @cl5080  CO2 is no myth. And you are free to prefer oil lakes and uranium mines. And I guess the steel for pipelines, tankers and power plants appear from thin air in your world. Mountains that get their tops removed do not happen near you, therefore it does not exist.
    1
  411. ​ @cl5080 The percentage 2000 years ago was around 0,028%... And no the average global temperature was around 1 degree colder 2000 years ago. The warm spell in 12th and 13th century was not global. That was a local effect.
    1
  412.  @cl5080  I do not even watch that... The data can be looked up. I do not suggest news channels for that, better look at scientific studies.
    1
  413.  @cl5080  That is very unfortunate, but does not change the data. They are not measured by belief.
    1
  414.  @cl5080  Feel free to check yourself. I am glad that you know the intention of arsonist just by looking at them. Not that setting stuff on fire is a primary method of criminal land developers to get access to new land for decades.
    1
  415. They are still better than fossil power plants. And the more electricity is produced without fossil fuels, the better they get.
    1
  416.  @spazgoob  The calculations are done equally for all power plants and include the energy for all raw materials, construction, maintenance and decomission and recycling. The energy for mining is included in the energy for the raw materials.
    1
  417.  @spazgoob  Take a look at "life cycle assesment of onshore and offshore wind energy - from theory to application" Bonou, 2016 from Denmark. Not the newest study, but the turbines assessed are now quite common. The more powerful and modern a turbine, the better is the efficiency.
    1
  418.  @spazgoob  The only studies I found were quite old. To have current data, one has to look at different studies.
    1
  419. That is why we invented filters.
    1
  420. That is a different thing.
    1
  421. What gets controlled by whom? They prduce electricity. That is commonly seen as beneficial.
    1
  422. Wind turbines and solar panels exist much longer than these protests. And the protests against nuclear power started before some of the boomers were even born.
    1
  423. The carbon footprint is pretty low. Stricty speaking, the carbon footprint is negative, as one gets ressource, that costs more energy to produce than is invested in the recycling.
    1
  424. The problem are the enviromental laws, not the windturbines. Other countries do not have that problem.
    1
  425. Those blades do not remove CO2, no worry. And in other countries they need to be certified for at least 20 years.
    1
  426. Taking down working power plants is not a good idea. The public has to pay for the loss.
    1
  427. But there are solutions. Blame your government for not enforcing them and making it cheaper to throw the stuff into nature.
    1
  428. They are.
    1
  429. Aluminium is too soft for the bigger windturbines.
    1
  430. Greener than all fossil fuel power plants at least.
    1
  431. ​ @Dieselpwr What is "real" science? The energy needed for these thing is known, as is the energy they produce. The math is easy.
    1
  432.  @Dieselpwr  You seem to like assumptions. I suggest you try facts. And then you might recognize that there is only science...
    1
  433. ​ @Dieselpwr Then why are you ignoring these facts? And nobody claimed they produce free energy. And you think the diesel fuel used for wind turbine production produces more CO2 than fossil fuel power plants? You are funny 😂
    1
  434. ​ @Dieselpwr  I am talking about your arguments, but it looks like you forgot what they were...
    1
  435. Metal is not strong enough for the blades of the big turbines.
    1
  436.  @chair2335  Please look at models and power ratio. Australia disposes turbine blades in landfills too, which would not make sense if they were metal. "Wind energy uptake is soaring, particularly in Australia where it grew by 20% in 2021. But the wind sector has an oversized problem on its hands: its massive blades, made up of carbon or glass fibre-reinforced epoxy plastic composites, have until now proven almost impossible to recycle. Generally speaking, when a turbine reaches the end of its lifespan, its blades must be hauled away, sawn apart, and discarded in landfills – a practice that is now illegal in some European countries, with WindEurope calling for a blockwide ban by 2025."
    1
  437.  @chair2335  As I said, the blades for smaller turbines can be metal. The blades for the GE turbines on the Ararat windfarm are composite material.
    1
  438. Dust, rain, sand after years of exposure at speeds up to 220 km/h.
    1
  439. In areas where appropriate locations for windfarms are rare, they get replaced. In the US new windfarms are often build at a different location. The blades do not need to end up in a landfill as they can get recycled.
    1
  440. Wind turbines are easy to recycle. The blades make up only a very small part of the turbine. And they destroy less than fossil powered plants.
    1
  441. That is a lot less birds than die by climate change or simply windows....
    1
  442. Modern resins can be dissolved and all the components of the blades seperated.
    1
  443. I doubt he build them. The first 1 MW windturbine was built in the US, shortly before WW2. Biden is old, but not that old.
    1
  444. They do not have to. The technical development in windturbine technology was huge the past 20 years. The modern windturbines have four- to sixtimes the output of 20 year old turbines with an even higher capacity factor (thx to greater height). Companies can earn much more money with them and replace the old ones.
    1
  445.  @Therealphantomzero  Yes and no. Yes, because blades can last 20 years or longer. No, because companies plan the transition to stronger windturbines and reduce the maintenance spending in advance, which can result in the blades to wear out.
    1
  446. A lot less than by windows, traffic or global warming.
    1
  447. Then you are badly informed. One has to constantly invest energy into a fossil power plant to keep it running, but they can never use 100% of it.
    1
  448. No. I suggest to look at the waste produced at gas drill sites.
    1
  449. The designs get improved every year. GE offers windturbines with 35 year life spans. And they can get recycled for years.
    1
  450. They save a lot of CO2, are cheaper and produce less waste than some of the alternatives.
    1
  451. Please tell us which energy is not about money. That is like claiming humans are about oxygen...
    1
  452. One can recycle 80 to 90% of the material. In some countries this is mandatory.
    1
  453. Covid and Sars do not spread that way. Apart from cement being an extremly strong base and killing viruses and bacteria on contact.
    1
  454. One might think that, if one is not informed.
    1
  455.  @TheShavenChimp  Cobalt and lithium is also mined for the fossil fuel industries. Contrary to them, renewable energy reduces CO2 emissions and other secondary effects of fossil fuel. Solar panels and batteries can be recycled. Solar wafers produced with recycled material need only 30% of the energy of newly produced ones. Offshore windfarms are less problematic for whales than ship transports and reduce the need for coal and oil transports that do kill whales. Turbine blades kill less birds than global warming or glass windows. If one ignores renewables, one kills more birds and other animals for sure. The world is facing the biggest mass extinction event of the last 66 million years and the last time it needed a world cataclysmic event caused by a super volcano or giant meteor. Now we just burn fossil fuels and spread out.
    1
  456. Considering that many are cheaper and use less ressources than fossil fuel power plants, that is doubtful.
    1
  457. More birds die from climate change or glass windows than from wind turbines. And fossil fuel plants cause far more CO2 emissions.
    1
  458. There is no need for that. They are easy to recycle, it just has to be mandated.
    1
  459. They are cheaper than fossil fuels.
    1
  460. No. The emissions are MUCH smaller. Fossil fuel power plants generate emissions during their whole life time.
    1
  461. ​ @stephenwells1559 Nobody claims they are a source of energy. They just reduce the loss of energy. Imagine wearing a polar winter suit in death valley. The winter suit does not produce energy, but you will overheat anyway.
    1
  462. Machines never lasted for hundreds of years. Windturbines are not buildings.
    1
  463.  @BumboLooks  The machines stand in museums. I know of no machine thar runs daily and last hundreds of years. The grain mills are refurbished every few decades, meaning the moving parts are changed.
    1
  464.  @BumboLooks  She is a museumpiece, as I said.
    1
  465.  @BumboLooks  That is still not hundreds of years.
    1
  466.  @BumboLooks  It is still not hundreds of years. And no, it is not my tech.
    1
  467.  @BumboLooks  Seems like you are running out of arguments.
    1
  468.  @BumboLooks  That is still not hundredS of years. It is hardly my problem that you do not understand what hundreds are. And no, windturbines are not usually replaced in under 20 years...
    1
  469.  @BumboLooks  I did... And it is still not hundreds of years... The newcomen memorial got new steel cylinders over the years and other improvements. The video does not tell everything. There a blades with 25 and 30 year operation time. The maximum of 20 years is just wrong. That some blades do not last that long is the result of bad maintenance, often motivated by tax write offs. In Europe these blades usually last 20 years or longer. Well maintained they can easily last 25 years.
    1
  470.  @BumboLooks  Yes, 200 years is the minimum requirement for hundreds. It is quite lowballing it. The Newcomen engine did not run for 200 years in its orginal configuration. Once again, they are not my landfill blades and not all are younger than 20 years... These are not predictions, turbines have run that long... And yes, windturbines need maintenance, as any machine. You clearly show that you have no clue about windturbines, when you think they do not need maintenance. A DC3 has to endure lower and less loads than a windturbine. Windturbines experience around a billion load changes in 20 years. Old DC3 have around 90,000 flight hours, and there are only very few of those; windturbines are exposed to the elements for over 170,000 hours in 20 years and that is pretty normal.
    1
  471.  @BumboLooks  I am making nothing up, you are just not reading what I am writing.
    1
  472.  @BumboLooks  ... says the one thinking windturbines do not get maintenance. You are clearly out of your depth. You can check everything I wrote you, but you are clearly not interested to learn.
    1
  473.  @BumboLooks  I was not writing about replacing the blades... It is funny that people, like you, want to discuss stuff, they do not understand. It is even more entertaining when they react allergic to any explanation about the topic and are even unwilling to inform themselves, but instead invest all their energy to maintain their cluelessness.
    1
  474.  @BumboLooks  ... says Mr. No-Maintenance, who is insisting on discussing stuff he does not understand....
    1
  475.  @BumboLooks  I already told you yesterday it is rather obvious that you are running out of arguments.
    1
  476.  @BumboLooks  Says the one accusing others of lying...
    1
  477. That is why it is better to build the turbines yourself.
    1
  478. There are enough examples were they last longer. Some blades work for over 30 years. They just need to be maintained.
    1
  479. Which would be a lot. Consider the amount of fossil fuel saved. The oil can be synthetic and lasts a long time and can be recycled later.
    1
  480. But they can be recycled. The newest ones can even be divided into their components.
    1
  481. A car lasts longer than one day, would you not agree? Still some people dispose of their car before the first day ends. Does that mean cars do not last that long? Do you now understand the video? And yes, there are blades in use for 30 years. Btw using landfills for blades is illegal in some countries and they easily manage to recycle them. The recycling produces much less pollution than running fossil fuel power plants.
    1
  482. But people do not want them or the waste in their backyard.
    1
  483. Coal power plants produce tentimes as much waste as windturbines just with ash. And the ash includes many toxins.
    1
  484. The energy produced is much higher. The more energy is produced that way, the lesser fossils are needed to produce new ones in the first place.
    1
  485. Not really. Some countries got a strange idea and made a law that forbids to bury the blades...
    1
  486.  @erickrisler3555  Recycle. Vesta and Siemens Gamesa produce full recyclable blades since 2021.
    1
  487. Considering that fossil fuels are more expensive, your statement is interesting...
    1
  488. Compared to coal the emissions go down 70 to 90%...
    1
  489. A thing cannot be stupid. It is a thing...
    1
  490. Only if you want to pay even more money.
    1
  491. That will kill more animals than keeping them.
    1
  492. They glass gets so hot that it reacts with the other chemicals in the killn to cement. After the reaction there is no glass left.
    1
  493.  @salvor1  I just know how the process works, but feel free to look it up yourself. It is documented all over the net.
    1
  494. No. The enviromental policies of some countries are a disaster. This does not happen in every country.
    1
  495. Nope. You are badly informed. Windturbines produce the energy used for their production, maintenance and dismantling in 6 to 14 months. Compared to coal power plants, they produce only 1/100th of the CO2
    1
  496. How so?
    1
  497. Doubtful.
    1
  498. Alumium, steel or wood can only be used for smaller turbines, which makes them expensive and less efficient.
    1
  499.  @crashnreset6987  The materials are to heavy. Only composite materials are light and strong enough to not get ripped apart from the centrifugal forces of the large wind turbines. In other countries they must pay the disposal and the blades are of similiar material and last ovef 20 years, when well maintained. The problem is not the blades, but the lack of enviromental protection laws in some countries.
    1
  500. ​ @crashnreset6987 Not for small ones. For the big ones aluminium lacks tensile strength. It just gets pulled apart over time.
    1
  501.  @crashnreset6987  It is strong, but not strong enough. Please look at the power output of the models it is used for or feel free to post the model.
    1
  502. How long do you plan to wait? There were proposed decades ago...
    1
  503. But it does not look like that worldwide. Other countries banned landfill disposal.
    1
  504. The physics that explain the process of CO2 warming the planet where known 150 years before the word woke was invented... Good job mixing topics that have nothing to do with each other. It was always a good metric to judge how much a person knows about these topics. CO2 is not a bad gas. Earth is a planet, not a dimension. The next time someone dumps lead or dioxines into your water supply, you will understand what pollution is. CO2 is not energy, it is a molecule.
    1
  505. ​ @SoohNabis  And toxins that are put in the enviroment by man are called pollution. Yes, the enviroment can correct mankinds mistakes, but the process is too slow to counter ongoing pollution. That is why we need to reduce it, that the enviroment can better heal itself.
    1
  506. Everything wears out. Nothing is foreever. The dust can be contained. Since the problem with Asbestos, there are multiple technical solutions. And producing enough windturbines is not really a problem, but that is not the goal. The goal should be electricity production from multiple different sources.
    1
  507. No really. The carbon footprint of wind turbines is negative by a huge margin.
    1
  508. They can get recycled for years.
    1
  509. They produce a lot more energy than is needed for their production and dismantling. The new ones are even better than fossil power plants in that regard.
    1
  510.  @benfoot4212  That has nothing to do with believe. They run that long in other countries. And no, they are not turned by diesel generators. It helps to read the news completly. When there is not enough wind, wind turbines need electricity for their electronics, which is provided by the grid or in cases of grid failure by diesel generators. That is what happened in Scotland. And the need for oil is far lower than for fossil power plants.
    1
  511. In what way?
    1
  512.  @TDK054  If you cannot say, then obviously yes...
    1
  513.  @TDK054  So you do not know. Understood 👍
    1
  514.  @TDK054  Considering how hard you try to evade to give an answer, it is obvious.
    1
  515. ​ @TDK054 I am just asking for an answer. If you had one, it would have been easier to post that, than posting all the evasion... And how am I supposed to cancel you? If I could, how will not answering change that? You give the impression of a person, who does not think stuff through.
    1
  516. That are the wrong numbers. A turbine on a bad spot needs 14 to 16 months. On good spots they need 6 months. The return of energy of windturbines is as good or even better than gas turbines. One has to remember that getting gas out of the ground and getting it somwhere uses a lot energy.
    1
  517.  @normmcrae1140  I do.
    1
  518. It can be reclaimed from never blades that can be disassembled completly.
    1
  519. Considering that fossil fuel power plants produce more waste, windturbines reduce the waste.
    1
  520. ​ @youtubesucks8995 Coal ash is toxic. One can put it in special landfills, but the ground is dead and if there ever gets water in there and moves the toxins, the enviroment is in trouble. Landfills for windturbine blades are not used in all countries and the blades are inert. Coal also produces toxic exhaust gases, that are bad for plants. And while CO2 can be good for plants, too much heat and lack of water are bad for them.
    1
  521.  @youtubesucks8995  Fiberglass does not leach in the ground. It is also inert. The dust is problematic when you inhale it. That is why one should wear a mask. In the ground it is harmless. Coal dust contains, heavy metals, radioactive materials and other toxins. We do know that cement production creates CO2, that is nothing new. And a infinite population is not really the issue... Not even close.
    1
  522. Bladeless wind generators do not generate much power.
    1
  523. Did you ask them?
    1
  524. Some cars break down after one day, does that mean that cars last only one day?
    1
  525. That happens a lot in the US where wind turbines earn the most money in the first ten years because of tax schemes. In other countries they last longer.
    1
  526. Not really... Most windturbines produce twentytimes+ more energy than is used for them.
    1
  527. That is not the process the video is talking about.
    1
  528. It destroys less nature as mining and drilling of fossil fuels and the relocation of our climate zones.
    1
  529. Not constantly, but regularly, as fossil power plants.
    1
  530. That is not the historical average. And that humans did not live during these times, should be clue. It is not healthy.
    1
  531. There are micro fractures in the blades --> the material ages. Reusing it risks fractures while the wind turbines are running. This is dangerous and can be very costly when the remaining structure gets damaged. And wind turbines save a lot of CO2 without spending much money. That is why they get build.
    1
  532. It works just fine.
    1
  533. That will work in the future. At the time of the video the technology to disassemble the blades and sort the materials was not yet developed.
    1