Lunar Graphene Chinese scientists have made an unusual discovery while analyzing the sample Chang'e-5 collected from the Moon's surface in December 2020. They found naturally occurring "few-layer graphene" for the first time, as state-run news agency Global Times reports, which could have major implications for our plans to make use of local resources once on […]
Nanotubes are immensely valuable to many industrial processes though? They’re just in their infancy and limited by the “rudimentary” and relatively slow methods we have available to producing large amounts of them. They’re barely been on the larger market for a little over a decade.
Semiconductor devices were invented in 1947, but it took them nearly 25 years to replace vacuum tubes as the primary transistor in the majority of electronics.
I meant how nanotubes were presented like they were going to change the world. There was even talk of being able to build a space elevator with them. Maybe once there's a permanent Moon base they will be able to take advantage of the graphene, but as you point out it could be decades into the future.
Those things are still all possible, and carbon nanotubes have already changed the world with their applications on a macro scale.
The point I was making is more that they are still in their infancy as a technological innovation and product, and it might need years if not decades more to be widely adopted into widespread use and be world changing for individual people.
Their conductive properties and light weight makes them perfect for use in large scale battery components.
They have revolutionized polymer composites, as nanotubes bond very well to epoxy and create a material significantly stronger other current composite materials. The listed current applications for this are wind turbines, marine paints on ships, professional sports equipment such as skis, hockey skates, arrows, etc.
Vantablack is made from nanotubes.
I had to look this up, but apparently they are used in atomic force microscopes and have allowed us to discover tens of thousands of microbiological species that were undetected before along with revolutionized microbiological studies.
It’s a significantly lighter lightweight adhesive compared to glue and other tapes. Since the tape also uses Van der Waals forces, there are no chemical adhesives needed.
This is a limited list of course, but there are many further niches uses in various fields of research.
Wind turbines are bad: they kill birds, the sounds mess with marine animals, and there's no way to recycle the blades so they have to be buried underground.
marine paints on ships, professional sports equipment such as skis, hockey skates, arrows, etc.
These things existed before nanotubes, marginal improvement isn't world-changing.
Vantablack
Rich people stuff.
there are many further niches uses
But that's it: niche uses that don't really affect people's lives, so carbon nanotubes haven't changed the world on a macro scale. We're just not there yet as a society/species and we won't be as long as there are hungry and homeless people on this planet.
Fossil fuel industry is the one pushing for wind power, because guess what power is used to transport and install wind turbines. We need nuclear power, not wind power. A single medium-sized nuclear reactor can generate as much power as 900 wind turbines.
What kind of argument is that? lmao. The US is also installing wind turbines, they are based communists!
I could be wrong about fossil fuel industry supporting wind turbines, but you can't make the argument that just because China does something that means that thing is automatically good.
The WEF is all gung-ho for wind power: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/greenertower-greener-steel-wind-power/
I guess the WEF is a bunch of communists and we should do everything they say.
Wind turbines are dumb and worse than nuclear power, I don't care if Lenin himself rises from the dead and says wind power is the most communist thing ever.
China has triple the total wind power that the US does. The US added 18 GW of total capacity last year, and China added 72 GW.
Oh, I see, the more wind turbines a country has the more communist it is.
What kind of argument is that? The WEF says some random piece of technology is good so it’s automatically evil? Really?
It's exactly the same as your argument, I just flipped it to show you how weak it is. I'm glad we agree.
In China, the largest wind turbine producer, Goldwind, is only 40% state-owned. In all countries wind power is a capitalist enterprise, whereas most nuclear power plants are publicly/state-owned and controlled.
Flipping an argument only works if the argument is rational, makes sense or helps illustrate a point. You're screeching about the World Economic Forum.
Did you miss the part where the wind enterprises in China are mostly privately owned? In fact, every wind enterprise around the world is privately owned, while nuclear power plants by their very nature have to be publicly owned or at least under state-control. That's why most, if not all, nuclear power plants operate as a loss; which is also why you don't see companies advocating for them as much as they are for wind and solar.
Does something that's privately owned automatically make it a bad thing? It's way better for the environment than any fossil fuel-based method of energy generation, China is a big advocate of it, it fits into their long-term economic plans and vision, the technology/knowledge/blueprints can easily be exported, and the CPC as a leash on anything and everything private. And not only does the CPC nominally have control over even private enterprises through various methods, it's willing to crack down if and when necessary.
You are practically fearmongering.
You're also ignoring that despite having "only" a 40 percent stake in Goldwind, that is still likely a controlling/majority individual stake.
Does something that’s privately owned automatically make it a bad thing?
I think so.
But I could have been wrong re: Goldwind and it seems it is majority owned by companies linked to the CPC.
Let me revise my argument: wind turbines in deserts where there isn't much life aren't a big deal and are a good renewable resource (still inferior to nuclear, though); but wind turbines installed on sea are objectively bad and they negatively impact marine life and the marine environment.
Do you have any articles about wind turbines disturbing marine life? It makes sense on paper and I'm skeptical, but I'm very willing to read any articles you have. I have the others you linked me open in other tabs.
Not a lot of research has been done on the topic, it seems. Offshore windfarms have hundreds, if not thousands of turbines, constructing them involves a lot of dredging, pouring concrete, and so on. To be honest, I don't trust private companies not to cheap out on environmental damage mitigation, because they always do.
So? So is the US, Scotland, Denmark... what does that have to do with wind turbines being bad for the environment, impossible to recycle and less efficient than the alternative (nuclear)?
Offshore wind farms have a big impact on underwater pollution. From their construction to their deployment, offshore wind farms, with their turbines and metallic foundations, generate noise and vibrations below the sea surface (called “anthropogenic noise” because it is unnatural and human-made) that disturb marine life and flora, especially for the underwater mammals that rely on sound (like echolocation or vocalization) to survive in the ocean.
But here's a full report on environmental impacts where it is all rated "moderate" severe: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/Revolution_Wind_DEIS__Vol1and2_508_compressed.pdf
impossible to recycle
The blades are impossible to recycle.
In the US alone, some 8,000 blades were pulled down in 2021. Most blades were landfilled because there wasn’t much else that could be done with them.
I already posted a link to the MIT website where they say you need around 900 wind turbines to match the power output of an average/medium-sized nuclear power plant.
Ooh this could be huge.
Don't hold your breath. Remember carbon nanotubes?
Nanotubes are immensely valuable to many industrial processes though? They’re just in their infancy and limited by the “rudimentary” and relatively slow methods we have available to producing large amounts of them. They’re barely been on the larger market for a little over a decade.
Semiconductor devices were invented in 1947, but it took them nearly 25 years to replace vacuum tubes as the primary transistor in the majority of electronics.
I meant how nanotubes were presented like they were going to change the world. There was even talk of being able to build a space elevator with them. Maybe once there's a permanent Moon base they will be able to take advantage of the graphene, but as you point out it could be decades into the future.
Those things are still all possible, and carbon nanotubes have already changed the world with their applications on a macro scale.
The point I was making is more that they are still in their infancy as a technological innovation and product, and it might need years if not decades more to be widely adopted into widespread use and be world changing for individual people.
I'm not disagreeing or disparaging what you say, but I'd love to hear some examples.
Their conductive properties and light weight makes them perfect for use in large scale battery components.
They have revolutionized polymer composites, as nanotubes bond very well to epoxy and create a material significantly stronger other current composite materials. The listed current applications for this are wind turbines, marine paints on ships, professional sports equipment such as skis, hockey skates, arrows, etc.
Vantablack is made from nanotubes.
I had to look this up, but apparently they are used in atomic force microscopes and have allowed us to discover tens of thousands of microbiological species that were undetected before along with revolutionized microbiological studies.
It’s a significantly lighter lightweight adhesive compared to glue and other tapes. Since the tape also uses Van der Waals forces, there are no chemical adhesives needed.
This is a limited list of course, but there are many further niches uses in various fields of research.
Wind turbines are bad: they kill birds, the sounds mess with marine animals, and there's no way to recycle the blades so they have to be buried underground.
These things existed before nanotubes, marginal improvement isn't world-changing.
Rich people stuff.
But that's it: niche uses that don't really affect people's lives, so carbon nanotubes haven't changed the world on a macro scale. We're just not there yet as a society/species and we won't be as long as there are hungry and homeless people on this planet.
Wind turbines are remarkable as wind power though, and the fossil fuel industry exaggerates the still unfortunate number of birds killed by them.
Fossil fuel industry is the one pushing for wind power, because guess what power is used to transport and install wind turbines. We need nuclear power, not wind power. A single medium-sized nuclear reactor can generate as much power as 900 wind turbines.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-many-wind-turbines-would-it-take-equal-energy-output-one-typical-nuclear-reactor
I guess China is installing so many wind turbines because they’re filthy capitalists, right?
What “fossil fuel” interests does China have to be the leader in installing wind turbines?
What kind of argument is that? lmao. The US is also installing wind turbines, they are based communists!
I could be wrong about fossil fuel industry supporting wind turbines, but you can't make the argument that just because China does something that means that thing is automatically good.
The WEF is all gung-ho for wind power: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/greenertower-greener-steel-wind-power/
I guess the WEF is a bunch of communists and we should do everything they say.
Wind turbines are dumb and worse than nuclear power, I don't care if Lenin himself rises from the dead and says wind power is the most communist thing ever.
China has triple the total wind power that the US does. The US added 18 GW of total capacity last year, and China added 72 GW.
Womp womp. Guess China is acquiescing to the whims of capital by making wind it’s third most plentiful source of energy generation.
What kind of argument is that? The WEF says some random piece of technology is good so it’s automatically evil? Really?
Oh, I see, the more wind turbines a country has the more communist it is.
It's exactly the same as your argument, I just flipped it to show you how weak it is. I'm glad we agree.
In China, the largest wind turbine producer, Goldwind, is only 40% state-owned. In all countries wind power is a capitalist enterprise, whereas most nuclear power plants are publicly/state-owned and controlled.
Flipping an argument only works if the argument is rational, makes sense or helps illustrate a point. You're screeching about the World Economic Forum.
Did you miss the part where the wind enterprises in China are mostly privately owned? In fact, every wind enterprise around the world is privately owned, while nuclear power plants by their very nature have to be publicly owned or at least under state-control. That's why most, if not all, nuclear power plants operate as a loss; which is also why you don't see companies advocating for them as much as they are for wind and solar.
Does something that's privately owned automatically make it a bad thing? It's way better for the environment than any fossil fuel-based method of energy generation, China is a big advocate of it, it fits into their long-term economic plans and vision, the technology/knowledge/blueprints can easily be exported, and the CPC as a leash on anything and everything private. And not only does the CPC nominally have control over even private enterprises through various methods, it's willing to crack down if and when necessary.
You are practically fearmongering.
You're also ignoring that despite having "only" a 40 percent stake in Goldwind, that is still likely a controlling/majority individual stake.
I think so.
But I could have been wrong re: Goldwind and it seems it is majority owned by companies linked to the CPC.
Let me revise my argument: wind turbines in deserts where there isn't much life aren't a big deal and are a good renewable resource (still inferior to nuclear, though); but wind turbines installed on sea are objectively bad and they negatively impact marine life and the marine environment.
Do you have any articles about wind turbines disturbing marine life? It makes sense on paper and I'm skeptical, but I'm very willing to read any articles you have. I have the others you linked me open in other tabs.
https://tethys.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/summaries/SEER-Educational-Research-Brief-Underwater-Noise-Effects.pdf
Not a lot of research has been done on the topic, it seems. Offshore windfarms have hundreds, if not thousands of turbines, constructing them involves a lot of dredging, pouring concrete, and so on. To be honest, I don't trust private companies not to cheap out on environmental damage mitigation, because they always do.
You're strawmanning Salad really hard.
Your argument is: "China does it, therefore it is good." It's not very compelling.
Your argument is: "Muh world economic forum bad" Which is true, but irrelevant.
Only as a response to the argument "China does it, therefore it is good."
China is a big advocate of wind power.
Relying on any one method though is stupid, a combination is needed.
So? So is the US, Scotland, Denmark... what does that have to do with wind turbines being bad for the environment, impossible to recycle and less efficient than the alternative (nuclear)?
I'm gonna need to see a source for your claims, at least.
A short summary:
https://sinay.ai/en/does-offshore-wind-affect-marine-life/
But here's a full report on environmental impacts where it is all rated "moderate" severe: https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/renewable-energy/state-activities/Revolution_Wind_DEIS__Vol1and2_508_compressed.pdf
The blades are impossible to recycle.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-wind-turbine-blades/100/i27
https://www.stenarecycling.com/news-insights/newsroom/2023/wind-turbine-blade-recycling-boosts-circularity-in-fossil-free-wind-energy/
I already posted a link to the MIT website where they say you need around 900 wind turbines to match the power output of an average/medium-sized nuclear power plant.