diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

Sanwizard said:
...[media: tubine blades in dump]...
Click to expand...
So, while you're not concerned with gigatons of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere that you can't see and have been proven to do be doing bad things to your health and climate and that wind turbines help minimize; you are concerned enough to post misleading news about a few tons of turbine blades in landfills that have been proven to not be an environmental hazard, are 73% economically recyclable, and a design from 30 years ago that didn't take recycling into account like today's designs? That those blades don't even have to be landfilled, they can be recycled and even with that they made 80x more energy than they cost.

...Wind turbine blades can't be recycled...
Click to expand...

Fact check: Wind turbine blades​

Companies that recycle blades: GE Renewable Energy, Vestus, REGEN Fiber, Carbon Rivers, Blade Recycling, Global Fiberglass Solutions.....

The USA article says ~73% is easily recycled (e.g., metals like copper/aluminum), it's the fiberglass part that's a pain. This link says they make 80x more energy over their life cycle then consumed.

New designs take that recycling into consideration, see New designs make recycling wind turbine blades easier.

We bury lots of stuff in landfills. Why is it wrong to put turbine blades in?

Compare that with how much damage equipment with fossil fuels does at their end of life and how much of it ends up in landfills and is toxic. For example, wind turbines don't pollute the ground they sit on... but it costs $95 million to do the soil remediation at Schilling. If you only look at one side, you'll never see the whole picture.
 
Slice turbine blades into 8' lengths. Add door, window, roof, call them tiny homes for the homeless.
Split a section in half for two roofs, and when cutting the 8' wall sections make an arch to match.
Two birds with one stone.
Just NIMBY.
 
Hedges said:
Slice turbine blades into 8' lengths. Add door, window, roof, call them tiny homes for the homeless.
Split a section in half for two roofs, and when cutting the 8' wall sections make an arch to match.
Two birds with one stone.
Just NIMBY.
Click to expand...
I was considering using one to make an underground bunker in case of a nuclear war.

It's a viable option and would have enough space for 3 to 5 people to be comfortable for several weeks. Unfortunately, the cost of transporting it here, then unloading it, is prohibitive.
 
svetz said:
So, while you're not concerned with gigatons of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere that you can't see and have been proven to do be doing bad things to your health and climate and that wind turbines help minimize; you are concerned enough to post misleading news about a few tons of turbine blades in landfills that have been proven to not be an environmental hazard, are 73% economically recyclable, and a design from 30 years ago that didn't take recycling into account like today's designs? That those blades don't even have to be landfilled, they can be recycled and even with that they made 80x more energy than they cost.


Fact check: Wind turbine blades​

Companies that recycle blades: GE Renewable Energy, Vestus, REGEN Fiber, Carbon Rivers, Blade Recycling, Global Fiberglass Solutions.....

The USA article says ~73% is easily recycled (e.g., metals like copper/aluminum), it's the fiberglass part that's a pain. This link says they make 80x more energy over their life cycle then consumed.

New designs take that recycling into consideration, see New designs make recycling wind turbine blades easier.

We bury lots of stuff in landfills. Why is it wrong to put turbine blades in?

Compare that with how much damage equipment with fossil fuels does at their end of life and how much of it ends up in landfills and is toxic. For example, wind turbines don't pollute the ground they sit on... but it costs $95 million to do the soil remediation at Schilling. If you only look at one side, you'll never see the whole picture.
Click to expand...
Just posting what I saw with this article. If its misleading, then blame CBS news. When I recently traveled cross country, I saw some very large piles of the blades along the remote highways (I like to see things when I travel, so I stay away from interstates as much as possible, and try to take the smallest roads I can find that are paved).
The article just confirms what I saw. I am not disagreeing with your points, as your research is excellent. I am just pointing out that there are always tradeoffs in life, nothing is perfect, and solutions to problems always have some negative aspect that will need attention.

I want all forms of energy, not just electric stuff. Choice is good. Free markets are good. Government mandates are anti-freedom.

Remember the scene in I-Robot where Will Smith hops on a motorcycle so he could travel freely? I kinda enjoy my freedom too. Thats one of the reasons I like Solar. I can go off grid and not need the electric company.
 
This is the kind of "science" they engage in.... its just BS based on FALSE assumptions. Here it is for "safe and effective"
dailysceptic.org

The Scam That Spins '95% Vaccine Efficacy' From a Placebo – The Daily Sceptic

The trouble with waiting 21 days after the jab to count someone as vaccinated is that it can make even a placebo appear to have 95% vaccine efficacy, say Prof Norman Fenton and Prof Martin Neil.
dailysceptic.org dailysceptic.org

It is EXACT SAME THING for manmade climate change! Its based on completely MADE UP "facts"!!!
 
aenyc said:
This is the kind of "science" they engage in.... its just BS based on FALSE assumptions. Here it is for "safe and effective"
dailysceptic.org

The Scam That Spins '95% Vaccine Efficacy' From a Placebo – The Daily Sceptic

The trouble with waiting 21 days after the jab to count someone as vaccinated is that it can make even a placebo appear to have 95% vaccine efficacy, say Prof Norman Fenton and Prof Martin Neil.
dailysceptic.org dailysceptic.org

It is EXACT SAME THING for manmade climate change! Its based on completely MADE UP "facts"!!!
Click to expand...
You are easily manipulated by fake information.

Dailysceptic is a fake news website created by a moron called Toby Young.. He espouses vaccine misinformation, climate change misinformation, and is a religious nut bag.

Funny how those things are always grouped together isn't it? Religion, anti-vaxxer, and anti-climate change always seem to come in packages together.

Not job extreme.. and anyone who follows him is a nut job too.
 
aenyc said:
This is the kind of "science" they engage in.... its just BS based on FALSE assumptions. Here it is for "safe and effective"
dailysceptic.org

The Scam That Spins '95% Vaccine Efficacy' From a Placebo – The Daily Sceptic

The trouble with waiting 21 days after the jab to count someone as vaccinated is that it can make even a placebo appear to have 95% vaccine efficacy, say Prof Norman Fenton and Prof Martin Neil.
dailysceptic.org dailysceptic.org

It is EXACT SAME THING for manmade climate change! Its based on completely MADE UP "facts"!!!
Click to expand...
@aenyc, there is no way you will change anyone's mind here with your opinions or facts. I have found it easier to just let the deep political or social beliefs of a few in this forum to continue down their own personal path, regardless of any new facts or information you may have otherwise.
Reality is simply something some just dis-regard. Kinda like a guy thinking he can have a baby because he puts on lipstick.
Many, such as @svetz do good research and based on information he has gathered to form his own opinion lays out his case. Others simply just enjoy their own emotional rants, so there is no need to argue any points.
 
Sanwizard said:
@aenyc, there is no way you will change anyone's mind here with your opinions or facts. I have found it easier to just let the deep political or social beliefs of a few in this forum to continue down their own personal path, regardless of any new facts or information you may have otherwise.
Reality is simply something some just dis-regard. Kinda like a guy thinking he can have a baby because he puts on lipstick.
Many, such as @svetz do good research and based on information he has gathered to form his own opinion lays out his case. Others simply just enjoy their own emotional rants, so there is no need to argue any points.
Click to expand...

Groupies.. its always entertaining to see groupies...

1683154132255.jpeg
 
Sanwizard said:
...Reality is simply something some just dis-regard....
Click to expand...
It's a little more complicated than that, as you can imagine a lot of people have pondered this. There's a plethora of studies, but here's a quick few off google:
@MurphyGuy 's views are not unique, deniers of something settled nearly 30 years ago are invariably portrayed as ignorant backwater Dunning–Kruger candidates, gullible and easily mislead by biased news outlets, or most charitably, victims of a PR campaign designed to deceive them. The common-sense and well-tested facts do seem to bear that out. Deniers on the other hand feel they are the one-sole truth, that believers are gullible/misled, and everyone else is crazy. They can prove it with facts easily with facts found by surfing the web (which when rebutted are usually ignored).

On the Bright/Dark Side...
Google said last year they were going to start demonetizing videos that contained lies, such as climate change deniers, climate change hysterics, and probably anything with a politician speaking. The idea being fake news would slow to a trickle if no one was making money off it.

But, a recent study showed they hadn't been successful. Pity. The good news is you can apparently report such videos to Google by clicking the 3 dots by the bell icon. This isn't meant to stop free speech, they can still put out whatever view they like - they just can't make money espousing lies from ads (they can still make $ from Patreon donors so don't expect too much).
 
Last edited:
The nice part about living in a constitutional republic, is that it is frowned upon for the government, a tech company, or pretty much anyone to declare themselves the only purveyors of truth. The government tried to put together a bureau of "mis-information", but all it did was try to exclude opinions from political opponents. The twitter files and hunter laptop story proved that.

That is also the nice thing about science. They used to put to death folks who went against central opinion, but it turned out that scienced proved the earth was actually round, and was not the center of the universe, and that we revolved around the sun, and not the other way around.
Always testing supposed concensus is the only way to move forward.
 
svetz said:
Google said last year they were going to start demonetizing videos that contained lies, such as climate change deniers, climate change hysterics, and probably anything with a politician speaking. The idea being fake news would slow to a trickle if no one was making money off it.
Click to expand...

Which would include conspiracy theories like, "Sars COV 2 (Covid 19) spilled over to the outside world from an accident in a high security bio lab studying bat corona viruses", when everyone knows that of the 39,397 wet markets in China, the one close to Wuhan virus lab happened to be the one where this virus unfortunately spread from an animal to a human.
 
Sanwizard said:
That is also the nice thing about science. They used to put to death folks who went against central opinion, but it turned out that scienced proved the earth was actually round, and was not the center of the universe, and that we revolved around the sun, and not the other way around.
Always testing supposed concensus is the only way to move forward.
Click to expand...
I suggest you re-read your own statement over and over and over.. There are some key phrases in there that are important.

"It turned out that science proved"
And yet the climate deniers and anti vaxxers are not posting science, they're posting conspiracy, accusation, and supposition.. and worse yet, they're posting these sources from bloggers, journalists, lawyers, politicians, and pretty much anyone who isn't a scientist, or has the relevant resources to study the science, or the education required.

"Always testing supposed consensus"
You need a laboratory, equipment, computer models, and all of the other relevant resources to "test consensus".. and above all, you need education in the relevant field of study, or at least something close to it. And by the way, scientists are constantly challenging their own findings..

Enter the internet where every wack-a-doodle moron can espouse their uneducated ignorant opinions to millions of others.. a resource never before available to the average person, and we end up where we are..

And one more thing, since your statement used astronomy as an example, and since it happens to be a subject I have a bit of knowledge in, I think its worth mentioning an interesting history.
It was the church that imprisoned Galileo and would have done the same to Copernicus if he hadn't died.. all to silence their scientific discoveries.
 
MurphyGuy said:
I suggest you re-read your own statement over and over and over.. There are some key phrases in there that are important.

"It turned out that science proved"
And yet the climate deniers and anti vaxxers are not posting science, they're posting conspiracy, accusation, and supposition.. and worse yet, they're posting these sources from bloggers, journalists, lawyers, politicians, and pretty much anyone who isn't a scientist, or has the relevant resources to study the science, or the education required.

"Always testing supposed consensus"
You need a laboratory, equipment, computer models, and all of the other relevant resources to "test consensus".. and above all, you need education in the relevant field of study, or at least something close to it. And by the way, scientists are constantly challenging their own findings..

Enter the internet where every wack-a-doodle moron can espouse their uneducated ignorant opinions to millions of others.. a resource never before available to the average person, and we end up where we are..

And one more thing, since your statement used astronomy as an example, and since it happens to be a subject I have a bit of knowledge in, I think its worth mentioning an interesting history.
It was the church that imprisoned Galileo and would have done the same to Copernicus if he hadn't died.. all to silence their scientific discoveries.
Click to expand...
Yup. It was the catholic church, which also would get you to heaven faster if you paid them more, similar to Al Gores carbon offsets. Now go plant a tree, and have a nice evening with the family.
 
Sanwizard said:
Click to expand...
Oh man, he's so full of $hit.. But I will compliment him on one thing, he's very skilled at what to say and what NOT to say.

Frequently these days, almost always actually, its not what they tell you, its what they don't tell you.
We're in a social war and the weapons of choice are intellectual content and context. They provide you with selected content and present it within a context of their choosing. Neither is honest and both parties do it.

So lets look at the subsidies between the fossil fuel industry and renewables.
Here is a chart from the Congressional Budget Office
en.wikipedia.org

File:2016 Energy-Related Tax Preferences.png - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

25% for fossil fuels, 59% for renewables.

Now for some contextual understanding...
The fossil fuel industry employs about 113,000 people. The products they produce must be repeatedly purchased by the other 330+ million of us citizens in the USA. And under the US Constitution and international trade, those companies in the fossil fuel industry sell their product to the highest international bidder and the money is pocketed by just a handful of companies.

On the other side of the coin...
The renewables industry employs about 770,000 people. The products they produce must only be purchased once and the benefits of the products purchased go directly to the person doing the purchasing. Instead of the proceeds benefiting a small handful of corporations, in the renewable industry, those proceeds benefit thousands of small businesses installing these green energy projects.

We should also consider the fact that by using renewable energy, energy production is decentralized.. the long chain of links does not exist and the benefits go directly to those who own renewable energy systems.

Johnson is a hack-tard.. he's probably heavily invested in fossil fuels or something..

I'm not wasting my time watching the rest of his BS.. the first 30 seconds showed him not being completely transparent. Not that such behavior is explicit to him or republicans at all.. most politicians and influencers do the same thing... They are simply trying to manipulate ignorant people.
 
Temperatures ranging back 10,000 years determined by measuring temperature of that ice layer today.
Anyone besides me think temperature of each layer has changed due to conduction over 10,000 years?

temp_this_layer(time_1) = temp(time0 + thermalConductivity x time x (temp_adjoining_layer - temp_this_layer)

Now make a mesh (maybe one dimensional model) and perform simulated annealing to find what it changes to in the future.
Or rather, start with measurements of the present and determine what past temperatures were.

Eventually, thermal entropy and entire ice column is one uniform temperature. Or the steady-state condition given bottom is at Earth temperature and top at atmosphere temperature. You will no longer be able t determine anything about thermal history.
The further back in time (deeper) you go, the greater the temperature change since it was deposited, the greater the error in projecting the change.

Climate change proponents say, "But the rate of change is much faster today, due to man's impact".
With that blurred temperature data and its uncertainty, can rapid rate of change from the past be determined? Or did its slope get made more gradual as stored thermal energy redistributed within the ice?


1683221841065.png
 
Sanwizard said:
Interesting scientific assessment:
Click to expand...

Not a scientific assessment.. not even remotely close to it. Not a scientific source. It's a selectively edited and possibly outright faked video produced by a religiously orientated source. As soon as you know the source is religiously orientated, you can bet it is faked or manipulated.. every time.

When researching science, stick to science websites and stay away from religious websites.
 
Hedges said:
Temperatures ranging back 10,000 years determined by measuring temperature of that ice layer today.
Anyone besides me think temperature of each layer has changed due to conduction over 10,000 years?

temp_this_layer(time_1) = temp(time0 + thermalConductivity x time x (temp_adjoining_layer - temp_this_layer)

Now make a mesh (maybe one dimensional model) and perform simulated annealing to find what it changes to in the future.
Or rather, start with measurements of the present and determine what past temperatures were.

Eventually, thermal entropy and entire ice column is one uniform temperature. Or the steady-state condition given bottom is at Earth temperature and top at atmosphere temperature. You will no longer be able t determine anything about thermal history.
The further back in time (deeper) you go, the greater the temperature change since it was deposited, the greater the error in projecting the change.

Climate change proponents say, "But the rate of change is much faster today, due to man's impact".
With that blurred temperature data and its uncertainty, can rapid rate of change from the past be determined? Or did its slope get made more gradual as stored thermal energy redistributed within the ice?


View attachment 147798
Click to expand...
Most of these knuckleheads don't even know what thermal conduction is.

Conduction, convection, radiation.. = all mystical magical fairy dust.
 
MurphyGuy said:
Not a scientific assessment.. not even remotely close to it. Not a scientific source. It's a selectively edited and possibly outright faked video produced by a religiously orientated source. As soon as you know the source is religiously orientated, you can bet it is faked or manipulated.. every time.

When researching science, stick to science websites and stay away from religious websites.
Click to expand...
That kinda sounds like "If I disagree with the source, it is bogus, just like people who believe in a higher power than themselves".
Not a very scientific viewpoint.
 
MurphyGuy said:
Most of these knuckleheads don't even know what thermal conduction is.

Conduction, convection, radiation.. = all mystical magical fairy dust.
Click to expand...
Yeah dude, I am sure you know more than the folks at Niels Bohr Institute. Your doctorate and thesis on geophysics and climate are world renouned.
Why not just keep an open mind, and review all data before making conclusions?
Just saying there are MULTIPLE points of view on the subject based on the science. We all know the climate changes. Man Made Climate change theory is a theory for a reason. That, plus in my view, I like warm weather, as it lets you grow more crops in more places.
Read "Earth in upheaval" by Velikovsky if you want to really worry about RAPID climate change. Or, perhaps just worry about the Russians loading nukes on their bombers as this "admin" moves us closer to Armageddon.
 
Sanwizard said:
Yeah dude, I am sure you know more than the folks at Niels Bohr Institute. Your doctorate and thesis on geophysics and climate are world renouned.
Why not just keep an open mind, and review all data before making conclusions?
Click to expand...
Niels Bohr Institute is acceptable. Do you have a video or piece of evidence you would like to present from their website? Key words "their website".. that means NOT a video taken from them, edited, changed, cut and copied and then manipulated even more by some other wack-a-doodle.

I would also settle for any papers, statements, and reports originating on THEIR website as well.

But I suspect that you won't fine anything significant there that supports anything you're after..


Sanwizard said:
Just saying there are MULTIPLE points of view on the subject based on the science. We all know the climate changes. Man Made Climate change theory is a theory for a reason. That, plus in my view, I like warm weather, as it lets you grow more crops in more places.
Click to expand...
May I suggest reference a science website that defines how the word "theory" is used within scientific circles?

Sanwizard said:
Read "Earth in upheaval" by Velikovsky if you want to really worry about RAPID climate change. Or, perhaps just worry about the Russians loading nukes on their bombers as this "admin" moves us closer to Armageddon.
Click to expand...
Seriously? There's that religion again.... What did I just say above? STAY AWAY from any science that uses religion.
en.wikipedia.org

Immanuel Velikovsky - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Dude, when you see the religion, run Forest run! Nothing that comes out of those sources is every legitimate, honest, or scientific unless it supports more religion or they can make money from it.
 
Sanwizard said:
That, plus in my view, I like warm weather, as it lets you grow more crops in more places.
Click to expand...
Hey man, I'm in Michigan.. I like warm weather too..

Unfortunately, while global warming does mean warmer weather, it also means colder weather, higher winds, more destructive storms, fewer crops, soil erosion, long dry spells, etc. So basically, while the weather is warmer on average, that warmer weather comes with some serious undesirable side effects.

Not to mention the fact that where it's hot right now, it will be uninhabitable later.. and where do you think all those people are going to migrate to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SenileOldGit
Climate change, COVID, and other things...
5 6 7
Replies
169
Views
5K
Daddy Tanuki
Daddy Tanuki
MurphyGuy
California suing big oil...
Replies
10
Views
563
MTM98290
MTM98290
M
Store Excess Solar (and Wind) energy in the ground as heat
Replies
13
Views
691
Michelle Konzack
M
K
Ground mount with high wind requirements
Replies
5
Views
675
Gold Country Russ
G
D
Help with New Battery Purchase
Replies
3
Views
218
hwy17
hwy17

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top