665
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

Are there no emissions during mining and at eol digging and maintaining a storage?

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Are you implying there is a form of energy that doesn't?

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

Do they store wind turbines after EOL? I thought they'd just get scrapped and recycled.

[-] Rakonat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The turbine blades are made of fiber glass or carbon fiber. There is no process in effect to deal with them. Too big to crush, not worth scraping or recycling. They all go landfilla.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

There currently are processes to deal with them, multiple companies are working on the problem.

Current solutions include shredding them and reconstituting into some sort of alternative building material, chemically separating the parts of the composite and creating recycled resin, and mechanically separating and sorting apart the different materials which are then recombined for alternative use.

This is a good place to look at recent american efforts, but there is more recent information available elsewhere: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-turbine-materials-recycling-prize

[-] Zink@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago

Of course there are, because mining and construction are powered by the old stuff. That doesn’t seem like a compelling downside to building things that generate clean power, since that’s a downside to building literally anything.

[-] medgremlin@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

The emissions are negligible on the grand scheme of things, especially compared to fossil fuels. The manufacturing of solar panels isn't the cleanest either.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

What's the grand scheme of things mean to you? If we average it out over 40 years? How does nuclear even fit in when solar and wind are cheaper? Nuclear plants don't provide on demand energy to fill in the gaps, they provide energy constantly.

The only reason it works for microsoft is because they plan to use all that energy consistently. But besides that why should we trust a for-profit company to do anything safely in the first place? Do we have a long history of companies being regulated well or self-regulating well?

[-] medgremlin@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

The nuclear industry is heavily regulated by the government via the NRC, but they impose even stricter regulations upon themselves. Solar and wind are cheaper, but they are less reliable. A grid comprised of a mix of solar and wind, bolstered by nuclear is the most effective and least environmentally harmful option that we currently have.

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
665 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

59366 readers
1294 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS