“a carbon atom derived from a plant, like corn or grass, is no different from a carbon atom that came from a fossil fuel. It’s all part of the global carbon cycle, and we’ve shown that we can go from biomass in the field to durable plastic materials and back to foodstuffs.”
A MA y ZIN!
what’s the point of this post?
Well, the criteria for something being green is that it has to go back to the earth from whence it came or something.
One previous argument about the actual greenness of wind power was that the massive vanes were just giant chunks of carbon fiber and epoxy and absolutely not biodegradable in any real way.
So some chemists figured out how to break them down. First they’re cut into little pieces. Then pulverized through a series of hammer mills. Then broken down by a powerful solvent. Then the molecule gets broken by another chemical process. Then another chemical process is used to remove the chemical that broke the molecule to separate the carbon.
And viola! A new super lubricant that allows people who believe windmills are a viable solution to fit their heads All The Way Up Their Asses is born.
Its a bit of a process, but they did it! 
I love “science”.
Windmills aren’t a viable solution, why?
Because the blades aren’t biodegradable?
Are they?
Does it matter?
To whom?
To you and any other on here opposed to it.
The backup power required from other sources is about 80% since wind energy is only roughly 25% efficient at best most times.
Wind is intermittent and not a reliable source of energy. It can’t be stored for later use, etc.
Also, it takes a lot of maintenance and oil to keep them running efficiently so… It is a good try, but not so practical or one with very good results.
Wind energy.
Electricity where you don’t need it … when you don’t need it.
I get that.
If they were to figure out the storage issue, you think the maintenance would still outweigh the benefits?
Depends on the storage and efficiency. Wind might be an option eventually once we have better battery or electrical storage ability.
I think also power consumption of electronics would have to take a quantum leap forward in efficiency for it to be viable.
To even put a dent in our power consumption to a level of 20% from my understanding, the world would need at least 3.8M super wind turbines…
I think there might be some confusion here.
I’m not interested in whether or not they’re biodegradable or able to be upcycled. Im already pretty sure there are no viable “green” methods for this to be done.
I don’t set the criteria for what is or is not “green”.
Apologies, the confusion is my fault.
Was interested in your take on why they are not viable. I assume the same as Bauber.
I’m interested in why people think that they are.
Simple. Most people believe what they are told.
Oh. Well that settles it then.
Never mind the details of their construction, maintenance, takedown or re-use.
Why even bother trying to neutralize their carbon footprint, as these chemists have attempted?
If people don’t believe in the efficacy of wind power, they can just be told harder.
Y’all busters need to quit trippin’
China leads the world in wind power. You know those guys wouldn’t mess with it if it didn’t make financial sense.
world wide, windmills produce 743 gigawatts of electricity a year. Enough to avoid a billion tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere. That’s like cancelling out the emissions of Japan
How much in CO2 is put into the atmosphere to build, maintain, and service them per year?