Hacker News Reader

Comment by megaman821 | Hacker News Reader

I think I have read 5 of these turbine recycling articles and I really don't get the problem. My best guess is that countries that export or incinerate the majority of their trash have no place to bury the blades, so recycling is the best option to get rid of them.

View on HN

Wind energy opponents have successfully played this up as an issue to divide environmentalists.

The correct response to this is of course that wind turbine landfill isn’t a problem at all.

Windmill recycling, battery recycling, and land impacts of lithium mining are the three legs of the fossil fuel propaganda war. Other skirmishes include base load, range anxiety, and PV panel disposal.

So when are those issues acceptable to talk about without assuming they are propaganda?

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".

Talk about it all you want, but know that the fact that the press has run 1000s of stories about the land impact of lithium mining and has never run even one single article about the much, much, much larger land impacts of fossil fuel production is indicative of an organized backroom propaganda effort. Same thing for these other non-issues of renewable energy waste.

I've seen tons of articles about impacts of fossil fuel production on land.

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.

It's because the scale is completely disproportionate. The largest proposed lithium mine in the world will disturb 6000 acres, a negligible area. In the United Stats alone there are five million acres scraped flat for oil and gas production and 25 million more acres under lease. The entire meme about how lithium mining is a relevant environmental disturbance has been invented out of whole cloth by oil companies.

These are not, in fact, serious questions.

But aren't the scales of production/output disproportionate as well?

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.

The thing you are currently doing is known as JAQing off.

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.

No it's called the socratic method. You've ignored the meat of my question and now try to label it as bad faith I assume with that term.

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?

My dude, did you just compare your behavior in this thread to Socrates?

No my dude, I referenced the term socratic method.

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.

If you're using the socratic method, you're not debating, you're teaching. One interpretation is you have a stance and you're trying to get someone there and not particularly interested in what they have to say.

No it means you are trying to get them to clarify their stance and explain their reasoning so you can understand them better.

It's acceptable to talk about when one is listening as well as talking.

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.

> 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.

I can tell when there is a pattern of someone repeating the same falsehoods despite correction. I cannot know what their motivation truly is but I can apply Occam's razor for a shrewd guess.

The problem is when there is not adequate "correction" or the correction is not agreed upon, or even stated. Many times the question is ignored entirely under the assumption it is in bad faith.

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.

When we are honest about it. How much waste is there from a coal or gas power plant? It takes a wind turbine less than a day to make up for all the oil in the gears (vs if you burned the oil in a power plant), and they run for years after that.

I don't know these answers, that's why I'd like more people that were knowledgable to talk about the entire carbon cycle of wind turbines with actual numbers and sources.

Many people have discussed this. You can simply google and read to realize that your concerns are unfounded.

Asking someone to go Google something is not a debate, it just shows your ignorance on the topic.

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.

Every and all issues are discussed. Ad nauseam. (Just not in corporate media.)

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.

Base load is not propaganda. Grid stability and reliability is absolutely mandatory. We can't move off of fossil fuels if that means rolling blackouts when renewable energy generation is low. There are a variety of potential solutions but it will take decades to deploy those at scale.

Correct.

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...

And if that doesn't work just repeat "bird deaths" over and over.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com