If All You See…

…are wonderful wind turbines that are not in your backyard, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Maggie’s Farm, with your Monday links.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “If All You See…”

  1. The Neon Madman says:

    See how dangerous those windmills are? They have blown the clothes right off that poor girl.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    (Bloomberg) — A wind turbine’s blades can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing, so at the end of their lifespan they can’t just be hauled away. First, you need to saw through the lissome fiberglass using a diamond-encrusted industrial saw to create three pieces small enough to be strapped to a tractor-trailer.

    The municipal landfill in Casper, Wyoming, is the final resting place of 870 blades whose days making renewable energy have come to end. The severed fragments look like bleached whale bones nestled against one another.

    “That’s the end of it for this winter,” said waste technician Michael Bratvold, watching a bulldozer bury them forever in sand. “We’ll get the rest when the weather breaks this spring.”

    Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.

    Built to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. That’s created an urgent search for alternatives in places that lack wide-open prairies. In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under.

    source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wind-turbine-blades-t-recycled-100011150.html

    The article goes onto say that one start up company has developed a process to break the blades down and make them into pellets and fibreboards, but the company is only in a startup phase and has not shown the process to be financially viable as of yet.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wind-turbine-blades-t-recycled-100011150.html

    From gitarcarver’s citation…

    “Wind turbine blades at the end of their operational life are landfill-safe, unlike the waste from some other energy sources, and represent a small fraction of overall U.S. municipal solid waste,” according to an emailed statement from the group.

    The industry estimates about 0.015% of landfill space over the next 35 yrs. It may take a while for it to be profitable to recycle 35 years worth of 0.015% of all municipal solid waste. Why would you do it at all? You’re looking for solution to a non-existent problem! See EPA higher estimate below.

    In contrast many have no problem shipping radioactive waste (which is not inert) around the nation and into someone else’s back yard, are caterwauling about 0.07% (see below) of the US’s solid waste/year? I bet old couches make up more waste. Or polystyrene packing. Or PVC and other film wrappings.

    https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-recycling/national-overview-facts-and-figures-materials

    In 2017, about 139.6 million tons of MSW were landfilled. Food was the largest component at about 22 percent. Plastics accounted for about 19 percent, paper and paperboard made up about 13 percent, and rubber, leather and textiles comprised over 11 percent. Other materials accounted for less than 10 percent each.

    The biggest turbine blades (GEs) weigh 12 tons each! x 8000 = 96,000 tons!! 96,000/139,600,000 x 100 = 0.07% of landfill/yr.

    • gitarcarver says:

      All that is happening is people are noting that the creation of so called “green energy” or “renewable energy” is neither.

      Sorry to burst the bubble of information for you.

      Clearly the left hates facts because, after all, all the left has is hate.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        He makes another semantic argument. There are energy sources that produce significantly less CO2 than coal, gas and oil. Solar, hydro-, wind and nuclear. Also of interest would be a scalable method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere.

        Do you have any facts to support your thesis that turbine blades are a significant environmental problem?

        Before long you’ll be able to avoid all EPA facts as tRump zeroes out the department.

        Sorry to burst the bubble of information for you.

        Clearly the right hates facts because, after all, all the right has is hate.

        • Chumpchange says:

          @Elwood

          How many Nuclear power plants have been built in the last 40 years?

          How many Hydro plants have been built in the last 40 years?

          How many wind and solar units are needed to offset the need for coal, gas and Oil?

          Many people claim that the states that oppose the ending of Oil, Coal and Gas are the ones that produce it and yet those that produce it also are the ones where a bazillion wind and solar units get placed. They replace one source of revenue for another.

          You keep saying we can do X or Y.

          Yet YOUR SIDE is the one that locks everyone up in COURTS for Decades over new nuclear or Hydro plants. Banning windmills in so many different places. Solar panels are obtrusively expensive in many blue states because the states see it as a mindless source of revenue by charging taxes on the use of them.

          You offer a generic solution with no teeth. I dont care who makes the money. I suspect the alternative energy crowd posting on the internet are all communist bots because 90 percent of the rare earths needed for all of these alternatives are MINED IN CHINA.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            All forms of energy generation have advantages and disadvantages that have to be balanced. Note that the ‘market’ does not take into account disadvantages known as negative externalities. For example, fossil fuels pollute and cause global warming. Wind only works when the wind blows and takes up land. Solar works when it’s sunny. Almost all non fossil fuel sources require batteries which require raw materials and waste. Nuclear generates long-term waste, is expensive and can have catastrophic failures. Hydroelectric floods land.

            We have to assess and balance the pros and cons.

  4. JGlanton says:

    I know exactly where that spot is where Ivy Ferguson is standing. Was there last fall. Its the Whitewater River at the Whitewater Cutoff by the 10 freeway by Palm Springs. Didn’t see any Playboy Playmates in the water, though, but its a cool area where me and my girlfriend hiked 9 miles and climbed a waterfall where we had lunch.

  5. Chumpchange says:

    @Elwood.

    You have 10 years or we all die!!

    that is no answer. That is double talk. Your side is like the GOP. They said vote for us and we will repeal and replace Obamacare. Well we saw how that worked out.

    Vote for AGW and we will save the world. We all know what that means. National healthcare, free housing, free income, free college and studen loan forgiveness. Oh and a few buks toward the environment.

    You have no answers which is why no one listens to you guys anymore. Your last post was so much double talk and it said NOTHING.

    Were gonna die in 10 years and thats all you got. We have to weight the advantages and disadvantages of????

    How about scraping fossil fuels today. After all we only have 10 years.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9803 access attempts in the last 7 days.