Lunar Graphene Chinese scientists have made an unusual discovery while analyzing the sample Chang'e-5 collected from the Moon's surface in December 2020. They found naturally occurring "few-layer graphene" for the first time, as state-run news agency Global Times reports, which could have major implications for our plans to make use of local resources once on […]
Wind turbines are bad: they kill birds, the sounds mess with marine animals, and there’s no way to recycle the blades so they have to be buried underground.
marine paints on ships, professional sports equipment such as skis, hockey skates, arrows, etc.
These things existed before nanotubes, marginal improvement isn’t world-changing.
Vantablack
Rich people stuff.
there are many further niches uses
But that’s it: niche uses that don’t really affect people’s lives, so carbon nanotubes haven’t changed the world on a macro scale. We’re just not there yet as a society/species and we won’t be as long as there are hungry and homeless people on this planet.
Fossil fuel industry is the one pushing for wind power, because guess what power is used to transport and install wind turbines. We need nuclear power, not wind power. A single medium-sized nuclear reactor can generate as much power as 900 wind turbines.
So? So is the US, Scotland, Denmark… what does that have to do with wind turbines being bad for the environment, impossible to recycle and less efficient than the alternative (nuclear)?
Offshore wind farms have a big impact on underwater pollution. From their construction to their deployment, offshore wind farms, with their turbines and metallic foundations, generate noise and vibrations below the sea surface (called “anthropogenic noise” because it is unnatural and human-made) that disturb marine life and flora, especially for the underwater mammals that rely on sound (like echolocation or vocalization) to survive in the ocean.
I already posted a link to the MIT website where they say you need around 900 wind turbines to match the power output of an average/medium-sized nuclear power plant.
What kind of argument is that? lmao. The US is also installing wind turbines, they are based communists!
I could be wrong about fossil fuel industry supporting wind turbines, but you can’t make the argument that just because China does something that means that thing is automatically good.
I guess the WEF is a bunch of communists and we should do everything they say.
Wind turbines are dumb and worse than nuclear power, I don’t care if Lenin himself rises from the dead and says wind power is the most communist thing ever.
China has triple the total wind power that the US does. The US added 18 GW of total capacity last year, and China added 72 GW.
Oh, I see, the more wind turbines a country has the more communist it is.
What kind of argument is that? The WEF says some random piece of technology is good so it’s automatically evil? Really?
It’s exactly the same as your argument, I just flipped it to show you how weak it is. I’m glad we agree.
In China, the largest wind turbine producer, Goldwind, is only 40% state-owned. In all countries wind power is a capitalist enterprise, whereas most nuclear power plants are publicly/state-owned and controlled.
Flipping an argument only works if the argument is rational, makes sense or helps illustrate a point. You’re screeching about the World Economic Forum.
Did you miss the part where the wind enterprises in China are mostly privately owned? In fact, every wind enterprise around the world is privately owned, while nuclear power plants by their very nature have to be publicly owned or at least under state-control. That’s why most, if not all, nuclear power plants operate as a loss; which is also why you don’t see companies advocating for them as much as they are for wind and solar.
Wind turbines are bad: they kill birds, the sounds mess with marine animals, and there’s no way to recycle the blades so they have to be buried underground.
These things existed before nanotubes, marginal improvement isn’t world-changing.
Rich people stuff.
But that’s it: niche uses that don’t really affect people’s lives, so carbon nanotubes haven’t changed the world on a macro scale. We’re just not there yet as a society/species and we won’t be as long as there are hungry and homeless people on this planet.
Wind turbines are remarkable as wind power though, and the fossil fuel industry exaggerates the still unfortunate number of birds killed by them.
Fossil fuel industry is the one pushing for wind power, because guess what power is used to transport and install wind turbines. We need nuclear power, not wind power. A single medium-sized nuclear reactor can generate as much power as 900 wind turbines.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-wind-turbines-would-it-take-equal-energy-output-one-typical-nuclear-reactor
China is a big advocate of wind power.
Relying on any one method though is stupid, a combination is needed.
So? So is the US, Scotland, Denmark… what does that have to do with wind turbines being bad for the environment, impossible to recycle and less efficient than the alternative (nuclear)?
I’m gonna need to see a source for your claims, at least.
A short summary:
https://sinay.ai/en/does-offshore-wind-affect-marine-life/
But here’s a full report on environmental impacts where it is all rated “moderate” severe: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/Revolution_Wind_DEIS__Vol1and2_508_compressed.pdf
The blades are impossible to recycle.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-wind-turbine-blades/100/i27
https://www.stenarecycling.com/news-insights/newsroom/2023/wind-turbine-blade-recycling-boosts-circularity-in-fossil-free-wind-energy/
I already posted a link to the MIT website where they say you need around 900 wind turbines to match the power output of an average/medium-sized nuclear power plant.
I guess China is installing so many wind turbines because they’re filthy capitalists, right?
What “fossil fuel” interests does China have to be the leader in installing wind turbines?
What kind of argument is that? lmao. The US is also installing wind turbines, they are based communists!
I could be wrong about fossil fuel industry supporting wind turbines, but you can’t make the argument that just because China does something that means that thing is automatically good.
The WEF is all gung-ho for wind power: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/greenertower-greener-steel-wind-power/
I guess the WEF is a bunch of communists and we should do everything they say.
Wind turbines are dumb and worse than nuclear power, I don’t care if Lenin himself rises from the dead and says wind power is the most communist thing ever.
China has triple the total wind power that the US does. The US added 18 GW of total capacity last year, and China added 72 GW.
Womp womp. Guess China is acquiescing to the whims of capital by making wind it’s third most plentiful source of energy generation.
What kind of argument is that? The WEF says some random piece of technology is good so it’s automatically evil? Really?
Oh, I see, the more wind turbines a country has the more communist it is.
It’s exactly the same as your argument, I just flipped it to show you how weak it is. I’m glad we agree.
In China, the largest wind turbine producer, Goldwind, is only 40% state-owned. In all countries wind power is a capitalist enterprise, whereas most nuclear power plants are publicly/state-owned and controlled.
Flipping an argument only works if the argument is rational, makes sense or helps illustrate a point. You’re screeching about the World Economic Forum.
Did you miss the part where the wind enterprises in China are mostly privately owned? In fact, every wind enterprise around the world is privately owned, while nuclear power plants by their very nature have to be publicly owned or at least under state-control. That’s why most, if not all, nuclear power plants operate as a loss; which is also why you don’t see companies advocating for them as much as they are for wind and solar.
You’re strawmanning Salad really hard.
Your argument is: “China does it, therefore it is good.” It’s not very compelling.
Your argument is: “Muh world economic forum bad” Which is true, but irrelevant.
Only as a response to the argument “China does it, therefore it is good.”