Actually I don’t know what GND is?
I never said it isn’t viable locally under some conditions.
The problem is that the conditions are very limiting.
Storage is a huge problem and will continue to be.
In this context I believe it’s Green New Deal.
This really isn’t making any sense.
And then there is this:
“Wind Turbine Blades Can’t Be Recycled, So They’re Piling Up in Landfills …”
Sorry about that robot thing … apparently that defaults when you try to copy the Bloomberg web site. Here is another site with the same story:
1 Like
Yep, the have to be buried whole or chopped up into pieces and buried and the epoxies and resins used are toxic as hell environmentally.
10,000 years from now don’t you know archaeologists are going to be shaking their heads when the dig into our landfills
Green New Deal. … federal $$$ into development and implementation of alternative energy infrastructure.
We already do this. Locate energy intensive industry near energy sources.
So the point is that Solar need not be transmitted long distances to be viable. Energy intensive industry can expand in areas with solar availability.
Consumers of those industries will be utilizing solar without these transmission losses.
I agree with you here. There’s clearly a portion of the American left that are hell bent on abolishing all US oil and gas production. I think that in their minds that will end climate change.
1 Like
Not and remain viable economically.
Wind and solar are not reliable enough to move an entire industry to where they are.
It takes a huge amount of energy for example to move ores from where they are mined hundreds of miles for processing.
Oh! I assumed it was an acronym for a type of renewable energy.
We already do this. Steel is not refined exclusively in proximity to ore but rather energy and labor. The main cargo on the Great Lakes is tachonite moving from the mines to the refineries.
I don’t see steel relocating. The point was that even localized energy sources play a role in the national energy economy. Non-transmissibility is not a deal breaker.
Until so called green energy can fly and fuel industry this kind of discussion is childish nonsense.
Fossil fuels feed humanity.
1 Like
Its not going to power airplanes either. Yeah, there have been a couple of really intriguing solar powered aircraft, but clearly they are of no practical use other than to spur the imagination.
2 Likes
This is jumping off a cliff insane.
It’s already 20% of our power supply. Nothing to sneeze at.
Fossil fuels in the near term.
Hopefully nuclear pulse propulsion in the long term if humanity will pull its collective head out of its ass.
I don’t think that will happen. In part, it represents a consolidation of “power” into a few hands. Nor will there be a collective will. Nor will there be a collective will to scale-up any other source. What is needed is a more egalitarian power source. Either way, energy will eventually be a bottleneck. It’s simple ecosystem stuff. There will be an overshoot.
There are just too many bellies.
There are some biofuels that have potential in aviation.
Cutting off nose to despite the face.
Because my political nemesis over-embraces renewable energy I will treat it as nonsense.
1 Like
