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.

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

The single most energy dense source of power we have that uses the least amount of land including mining and refining compared to everything else, and still preferred method by NASA for powering anything bigger than a camera… is outdated? Yeah okay.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

Nuclear land use is still below all other forms of energy generation when you take the whole lifecycle, from mining to refinement to production and construction, lile I said in my above post.

Most nuclear plants contain all their nuclear waste during their lifetime operation and transport after decommissioning. Yucca mountain was designed as a backup and assumed 30 years to fill if fuel rods were not reprocessed.

Cheap, safe batteries

Oh you sweet ignorant child. Industrial scale battery storage to offset solar for continues power during night time hours is horrifically expensive when you’re talking gigawatt grids, to say nothing of the severe safety hazard they are.

Nuclear only has one caveat is the price.

It’s the safest, bar none. More people died constructing the Hoover Dam than died in relation to Chernobyl and Fukushima combined.

It uses the least amount of land per megawatt produced. This applies both in raw terms of reactor size to generators, turbines or solar panels, or if you include all land needed to mine, process, refine, construct and decommission a form of energy. Cadmium based roof top solar is the only thing that comes close, which is not just niche use as no single building footprint can hope to produce enough power for a single floor, let alone high density structures, but cadmium based solar is also ridiculously expensive. And this metric fails to mention how inefficient battery storage for things like solar is, which further inflates the land use.

In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, be it carbon, methane and other climate devastating, Nuclear is the lowest in terms of emissions, and those emissions are all front loaded as part of the construction and mining process, which can theoretically be lowered with more RnD into greener practices for those industries.

So we have a source of power that is safe, efficient and proven that would allow us to put more land aside for conservation efforts which would help with carbon capture as well as lower emissions. And the only major downside is the higher upfront cost? Take a guess what’s going to happen to energy costs if we continue the current course and climate collapse continues to happen.

Brb gettig my Nuka cola

Wind Turbine’s problems is we have to replace the blades every 3-7 years depending on the model and there is no good way to recycle or break down the fiberglasse components. So every every 3-7 years you have 3 XL tractor truck trailer size turbine blades going into landfills.

Wind and Solar are still good, don’t get me wrong, but lets not pretend they have no downsides or drawbacks.

We’re just gonna set up a vat of molten metal and send it out Terminator 2 style. /s

Not to defend him (can’t really stand his videos at all) but he’s not a journalist. He’s just a freelance spokesman for products that will sponsor him.

I can only assume they are somehow expecting a cut or kickback from this, I can’t think of anything he’s done in the last 10 years that was actually good for the company. You have to live under a rock, or more accurately in an echo chamber, to believe someone like this is good for the profitability of a company, let alone deserves that many zeros.

Dyson swarm goes brrrt.

I know it’s not killing the sun, but we’d be hogging up all that sunlight from other planets in the solar system.

When costs are level per kilowatt over lifetime Nuclear is cheaper thanks to economies of scale, it’s only more expensive when plants are restricted by local authorities in how much they can produce in a given cycle so that other power generators in the energy sector can fill their contracts. When these artificial caps are removed and the plant is allowed to operate as intended and no kneecapped to allow coal and oil plants to operate at their peak effeciency rates, nuclear drops below .10USD. And thats using outdated equipment and maintaining the absurdly high safety standards saddled upon them despite being the safest form of power production bar none.

Theoretically the main advantage of the thorium is precisely because its safer and cleaner. When removed from its neutron source thorium quickly ceases fission and decay.

From where I stand you couldn’t be further from the reality of the situation.

Nuclear has a number of advantages from low carbon output per kilowatt over lifetime as well as being extremely cheap per kilowatt.

But the real advantage being overlooked is the small foot print and land use compared to other forms power generation. A nuclear reactor is ideal for high density population areas, adding no pollution like fossil fuels and using a fraction of the land that renewables require. And there is room for overlap between renewables and nuclear as well, meaning days where wind or solar would produce more power than usual, its easy to scale back solar production to take advantage of cheaper power, and vice versa for times when renewables aren’t going to generate enough to meet demand nuclear can increase their output relatively quickly and effectively.

The future of nuclear is however one of the most important. We are eventually going to be spending humans to other planets, and having mature, efficient and compact forms of power generation with long lifetimes and minimal start up power from idle states is going to be important, solar gets less effective the further from the sun we get, you can’t stick a wind turbine on a space craft and expect good results, and you’re out of your mind if you want to burn fossil fuels in an oxygen limited environment.

Treating nuclear as more than a curiosity but rather as the genuine lifeline and corner stone of our futures and future generations is significantly more important than fossil fuel profits today and all their propaganda.

We just call them Karens these days

deleted by creator

Greeding corporations saw something was popular and profitable 10 years ago and are now doing everything they can to take a slice of the pie and get their fingers it. With more hands in the pan, there is less pie to go around, so they squeezing every last dollar they can out while lying to consumers about why. The income on these ventures is so laughably high and many production costs of the few original programming offered so low that they could cover everything on 5 dollars a month if not less. But if they did that they couldn’t give their executives million dollar bonuses, which is the only reason they are in the business.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/tech/tiktok-data-china/index.html

CCP used tiktok data to identify and track pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong in 2018.

Yes but not for the reasons stated in the post you replied to.