In my view, it's all about energy density, comparative land use, end-user cost, and the waste volume created by the various forms of energy production. A hard fair look at the question really supports an even-handed comparison that in the end favors nuclear power.
Have they figured out a way to recycle the wind turbines?
Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills
Companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives.www.bloomberg.com
Ian
It’s actually fake news. Or to be more precise - engineered news*. Fiberglass, carbon fiber and kevlar are three composites that recycle nicely, but not inexpensively. They must be ground up first, like most recycled products.
Instead, it is far less expensive to just dump them in a landfill - sometimes crushing them first with heavy equipment like bulldozers. The article does touch on this, but it seems to have played down the capabilities of recyclers.
Even if not used in future composite construction, the ground up bits would add considerable strength to road beds and other non-critical structures - I don’t think I would use it in bridges, but if properly processed it could be. We currently add fiberglass to concrete to get the strongest batches.
* engineered news - news that intentionally leads the viewer to a predetermined conclusion that’s based on an agenda of the news agency.
Thanks Randy
So is the pollution caused by not recycling added into the “green” credentials?
Up here in Scotland they are an eyesore on numerous hillsides, I accept they may generate “clean” electricity but what is the real cost? Including, cabling to the grid, pollution making concrete for their bases, pollution making the roads to get them into the fields /tops of hills etc. There was big news about 18 months back when Scotland actually generated more energy in wind farms than consumed, but it was one day only, 40mph winds all day and the day was Sunday when offices and a lot of factories are closed.
They also generate a lot of noise and flashing light as the blades turn. (More pollution)
I am a sceptic that they are as green as the tree huggers think!
ian
Thanks Randy
So is the pollution caused by not recycling added into the “green” credentials?
Up here in Scotland they are an eyesore on numerous hillsides, I accept they may generate “clean” electricity but what is the real cost? Including, cabling to the grid, pollution making concrete for their bases, pollution making the roads to get them into the fields /tops of hills etc. There was big news about 18 months back when Scotland actually generated more energy in wind farms than consumed, but it was one day only, 40mph winds all day and the day was Sunday when offices and a lot of factories are closed.
They also generate a lot of noise and flashing light as the blades turn. (More pollution)
I am a sceptic that they are as green as the tree huggers think!
ian
I quite like some of the underwater tidal kite generators. They sit 100% below the surface of the water and end up towing a cable in a figure of 8 pattern. As it goes around the path it drives a turbine via the tension in the cable that it is pulling.
as they are below the surface they are not subject to problems associated with large waves as they pass over the top regardless.
I live just a few miles where the Super Conducting Super Collider was to be built in Texas (now cancelled). There was a lot of concern then of the same thing...