As per the article, the EU will discard about 650k tons of blades between 2044 and 2049, or 130k tons per year. That's less than 300 grams (or 0.7 lb) per EU citizen.
I'm wondering if these waste could not better be reused as construction material (e.g. grinded to pieces and then used as concrete aggregate).
The correct response to this is of course that wind turbine landfill isn’t a problem at all.
I do support alternative sources of energy, but what you've listed are serious sticking points that should be discussed and addressed, not just handwaving it away as propaganda.
It's similar to ignoring nuclear as a base load, ignoring that we decreased emissions by replacing coal with nat. gas, ignoring that train derailments are worse than pipelines, etc.
It would be better to openly talk about these things instead of just saying things like "oh well it's only so many tons of waste, or that much child labor, it must be some oil shill trying to trick us".
I just don't see why one mineral being pulled out of the ground seems taboo to talk about because it's potential propaganda, could it not go the other way as well with that logic?
I mean, if we scaled any higher and did replace fossil fuels, would mining lithium/rare metals and the lifespan of batteries/PV panels be worse than mining nat. gas?
These are serious questions that would benefit from a serious calculation.
These are not, in fact, serious questions.
What would the impact of mining lithium be if it did need to meet the needs that oil and gas is currently serving?
Comparing the effects of lithium mining vs nat. gas fracking on the land at the expected full scale needs an unbiased approach. Not to mention the supply and humanitarian issues.
Lithium is not comparable to oil and gas. An EV contains a few kilos of lithium, which is perfectly recyclable and not consumed. Meanwhile the average American motorist buys and burns 2 metric tons of motor fuel every year.
I was asking about the scale of lithium mining if it were to replace nat. gas and coal for energy production. Not just EVs. Have you seen a study of the projected impact of that?
Many people use the method everyday without comparing themselves to the man personally.
When you use the scientific method, you aren't comparing yourself to Francis Bacon are you?
Also, you seemed to have veered off topic, please reply to the last sentence of my last reply if you wish to continue talking to me.
When the conversation goes both ways, something is accomplished. When one is bringing up doubt without any intention of having that doubt assuaged, but only to spread that doubt to others, it's not good behavior.
Only you can ascertain your own motivations. But anyone can listen in and tell when valid answers are being ignored.
While I do agree that does happen I've also seen many people try to mind read others and assume bad faith when they were in fact asking genuine questions, and it's happened to me as well (it's actually happening now in a thread below). It's harder to read others than you think.
Sometimes people are so dug into their camp they assume bad faith because the questions threaten them and cause a fight/flight reaction instead of simply responding to the substance.
A lot of the times, it's just the socratic method being applied to you, but if you think the questions contain misinformation... the best way to fight misinformation, is with more information.
You may have just not convinced the person that your believed truth trumps their believed truth.
It requires communication, which pretty much never involves assuming a question is bad. If it's reiterated, then respond with your same point in more detail and ask for a response to that.
For instance, here's a recent snapshot from Dec 2022:
"The state of the lithium-ion battery recycling market. A conversation with battery analyst Yayoi Sekine of BNEF."
https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-state-of-the-lithium-ion-battery...
FYI, "BNEF" = Bloomberg New Energy Fund. Meaning this the POV of financial markets and institutional investors. Not just some random bloggers.
Also throwing out random statements and saying "trust me bro, Google it" is not a valid way to debate or source your statements.
If you're so confident in your ability to find the answer, by all means provide it.
Here's a snapshot of the merchants of doubt whackamole from Dec 2022.
"The right-wing groups behind renewable energy misinformation. A conversation with journalist Michael Thomas."
https://www.volts.wtf/p/the-right-wing-groups-behind-renewab...
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/pieces-of-wind-turbine-...
Wind turbine blades are not crushed or pulverized but buried whole.
Does not seem like a hard technical problem.
"But the blades are different as they are made up of fiberglass (a composite material) to be lightweight for efficiency yet still durable enough to withstand storms. The mixed nature of the blade material makes separating the plastics from the glass fibers to recycle into a workable fiberglass material difficult—and the strength needed for the blades means they are also physically challenging to break apart."
Obvious BS, just try harder. Crush them with a big steam roller or with a crane that drops a heavy thing on them. There are a thousand ways to break strong things. Then bulldoze the fragments into an industrial shredder, and bury the result. No need to separate the "fiberglass material" for recycling, thermoset resins don't recycle for shit anyway. Crush it and bury it, this whole thing is an imaginary problem.
It's better to be in the Earth than in the atmosphere.