Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jdbm7a0 wrote

Reply to comment by Dontsleeponlilyachty in IPCC chart says Solar PV and Wind Turbines are best way to achieve Deep, Rapid, and Low Cost emission cuts before 2030. by DisasterousGiraffe

Real intelligent. Making fun of the people you want to get on board with you usually works like a charm. Then, politicize it so right away that anyone on that side you're demonizing who may have listened isn't going to listen

Here's what some of us who can think critically see.

From an environmental standpoint, the end products do what they're advertised to do. What is not widely covered is that the manufacturing process isn't the most environmentally friendly, nor is the disposal of them when they reach the end of their service life.

Turbines are made of non-renewable resources, fiberglass to be specific. When they reach the end of their service life, they are buried on site. On average, a 5-MW (megawatt) turbine holds 700 gallons of oil and hydraulic fluid; like car oil, these need replacing every nine to 16 months. Let's not forget that like anything with moving parts and seals, those seals leak and usually aren't replaced until they're leaking bad. It's not something great for marine life near those offshore sites.

Solar panels are hard to recycle because they're made up of the same stuff all electronics are made of. The batteries typically needed to store the excess energy in a residential system are made of lithium ion, not that environmentally friendly, nor is the slave labor used to mine the materials for the batteries. Lithium ion batteries can become unstable and catch fire rather easily as well.

It's JUST conservatives who are questioning whether or not these things are really that environmentally conscious. It just so happens that anyone with any thinking skills is on the conservative side. 😁

−5

RedditorsArGrb t1_jdbxsx1 wrote

The emissions and environmental footprint of lubricant oil in a wind turbine is insignificant compared to the footprint of directly burning fossil fuels for the same amount of energy. It's like thinking the motor oil you put in your car is anywhere near as much of a problem as the gasoline you burn every time you touch the pedal. You even make this connection yourself and then don't follow the thought anywhere.

Fiberglass is a durable composite material that's been used in homes and vehicles and elsewhere and then landfilled for decades. The importance you attach to "thing end up in hole" doesn't seem tied to any particular concern regarding the environment or human health or sustainability substantiated by research.

>It's JUST conservatives who are questioning whether or not these things are really that environmentally conscious.

Total nonsense. Environmental scientists publish life cycle assessments of renewable and conventional technologies all the time. It's a well established field of study. There are many comprehensive reports that highlight real concerns e.g. dirty production of turbine steel, they're literally just a google scholar search of "wind power LCA" away.

You're not a critical thinker if you just pick a twitter pundit/similar who appeals to your preconceived notions and uncritically regurgitate their disingenuous bullshit.

4

SandAndAlum t1_jdbyi35 wrote

love the continuation of the parody of the bad faith concern trolling

you forgot the spongebob caps though.

2

[deleted] t1_jdbzu92 wrote

There's a name for that? I figured that's how teenage girls type when they're upset.

−1

SandAndAlum t1_jdc0q2j wrote

Just as bad at understanding internet memes as relative scale of waste I see.

2

Dontsleeponlilyachty t1_jdclr48 wrote

MUh sUbSiDizEd oiL cOmpAniEs

1

[deleted] t1_jdcmitg wrote

Subsidies get handed out to everyone. Not just oil companies. Again. You're not proving a point by typing like a mental defect.

0