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

  1. Yes, a good reminder that we still use and build sources of electricity that are more expensive and produce more waste.
    1
  2. .... is much lower than fossil fuel powerplants.
    1
  3. For the blades? Not strong enough.
    1
  4. It is getting warmer...
    1
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. It does what it is supposed to do.
    1
  9. The effect is only minimal compared to fossil fuel powered plants.
    1
  10.  @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
  11. ​ @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @cl5080  That is very unfortunate, but does not change the data. They are not measured by belief.
    1
  14.  @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
  15. They are still better than fossil power plants. And the more electricity is produced without fossil fuels, the better they get.
    1
  16.  @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
  17.  @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
  18.  @spazgoob  The only studies I found were quite old. To have current data, one has to look at different studies.
    1
  19. That is why we invented filters.
    1
  20. That is a different thing.
    1
  21. What gets controlled by whom? They prduce electricity. That is commonly seen as beneficial.
    1
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. The problem are the enviromental laws, not the windturbines. Other countries do not have that problem.
    1
  25. Those blades do not remove CO2, no worry. And in other countries they need to be certified for at least 20 years.
    1
  26. Taking down working power plants is not a good idea. The public has to pay for the loss.
    1
  27. But there are solutions. Blame your government for not enforcing them and making it cheaper to throw the stuff into nature.
    1
  28. They are.
    1
  29. Aluminium is too soft for the bigger windturbines.
    1
  30. Greener than all fossil fuel power plants at least.
    1
  31. ​ @Dieselpwr What is "real" science? The energy needed for these thing is known, as is the energy they produce. The math is easy.
    1
  32.  @Dieselpwr  You seem to like assumptions. I suggest you try facts. And then you might recognize that there is only science...
    1
  33. ​ @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
  34. ​ @Dieselpwr  I am talking about your arguments, but it looks like you forgot what they were...
    1
  35. Metal is not strong enough for the blades of the big turbines.
    1
  36.  @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
  37.  @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
  38. Dust, rain, sand after years of exposure at speeds up to 220 km/h.
    1
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. That is a lot less birds than die by climate change or simply windows....
    1
  42. Modern resins can be dissolved and all the components of the blades seperated.
    1
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45.  @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
  46. A lot less than by windows, traffic or global warming.
    1
  47. 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
  48. No. I suggest to look at the waste produced at gas drill sites.
    1
  49. The designs get improved every year. GE offers windturbines with 35 year life spans. And they can get recycled for years.
    1
  50. They save a lot of CO2, are cheaper and produce less waste than some of the alternatives.
    1