placeholder

.

Good News! I'm sure you will be pleased to learn of this: This Signals a New Era for the Wind Industry’: Vestas Announces Chemical Recycling Method for Turbine Blades Danish wind turbine maker Vestas has announced that it has developed a chemical mixture that breaks down wind turbine blades and allows them to be recycled. The solution could be used to break down discontinued blades, as well as blades that are already sitting in landfills. The chemical compound — developed with the help of the Danish Technological Institute, Aarhus University and epoxy maker Olin — breaks down epoxy resin into its raw materials, reported Electrek. https://www.ecowatch.com/wind-turbine-blades-recycling-vestas.html

I don't know what you mean by wind and solar aren't so efficient. Measured in monetary terms they give the biggest bang for the buck. The problem has been storage. But like batteries, the decline in price has way outpaced predictions. Not so long ago it was expected that the cost to build a battery wouldn't reach $20 per KWh until 2030 at the earliest. That $20 mark is important because that's when 95% solar and wind become feasible. And that's when you're only counting on batteries to get you there. But it looks like the target has already been reached. As for birds, in the United States by far the worst threat is cats. That's followed by buildings. Followed by pollution from fossil fuels. Followed by wind turbines. Possibly when wind turbines are being built, the noise might cause some damage. But so do offshore oil wells and ships. And they sure don't cause the pollution attributable to oil wells and ships. The problem of recycling wind turbine blades has been solved. The are able to be dissolved and used again. And recycling PV cells is becoming a profitable business.. And there's actually a shortage of EV batteries available for recycling because they are lasting longer than expected in EV's and once they fall below 80% of capacity they can still be used for storage projects. Lithium availability is currently not a problem. Prices have fallen drastically. But in the future it could be a problem except that it looks like lithium is just a way station to other batters including aluminium sulfide. Also, mining lithium from sources where high thermal energy exists has been successfully exploited in Germany. If the same proves true for deposits in the Salton Sea in America, that could easily provide huge amounts. Sodium based batteries are also beginning to compete with lithium Actually, the problem isn't so much humans as it is wealthy humans who consume a hugely disproportionate share of resources including energy.

If by better ones you mean better reasons to build nuclear power plants, you're setting a very low bar. Most reasons couldn't help but be better than the one you offered.

Thanks for the deflection. Is that the best you've got? Government wastes money elsewhere so no problem?

Now if only Jobs had had the smarts to create something like a phone that was intuitively easy to understand and would radically change the whole consumer technology scene. I guess we'll all just have to wait for someone else to come along and make that happen.

The Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. They couldn't stop them from being approved. If you want to assign blame look to the so-called moderate Republican Senators. Although I don't think that even if they had voted against the nominees that would have been enough to stop them. Susan Collins did vote against Amy Barrett Browning but only on the grounds that the nomination was too soon before the election. And the nominees didn't lie. They just used lawyerese to give ambiguous answers to Senators who wanted to be able to claim that they were misled. If they truly were misled, then they have no business being in the Senate.

What exactly is the bad science that "established climate science" peddles? I believe you've got nothing but go ahead and prove me wrong.

I never make the claim that "everone knows that etc" In fact, when someone says that the odds are very strong that what they're promoting is a very dubious assumption. It's a pity that not everyone knows that.

When were you appointed spokesperson for everyone?

So far, the only independently confirmable evidence posted in this thread, as opposed to alleged evidence, says that the fishing industry has suffered badly in the wake of Brexit.

For one thing the methods were open and transparent. For another I supplied three studies that were peer-reviewed that had nothing to do with Bill Gates. They confirm that climatologists overwhelmingly accept that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Surprise! Nissan LEAF Batteries Last Much Longer Than Expected “Almost all of the [EV] batteries we’ve ever made are still in cars, and we’ve been selling electric cars for 12 years. We haven’t got a great big stock of batteries that we can convert into something else,” he added. “It’s the complete opposite of what people feared when we first launched EVs — that the batteries would only last a short time.” https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/21/surprise-nissan-leaf-batteries-last-much-longer-than-expected/

Musk also claimed that OpenAI was effectively controlled by Microsoft. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman calls Elon Musk a ‘jerk’ as report says the Tesla CEO was ‘furious’ about ChatGPT’s success Responding to Musk’s claims, Altman said on the podcast: "Most of that is not true, and I think Elon knows that. We’re not controlled by Microsoft. Microsoft doesn’t even have a board seat on us, we are an independent company.” https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openai-ceo-sam-altman-calls-211537864.html

It's more than that, I think. This is only my surmise, but after stoking up fears about AI, this is Musk's way of trying to enlist the extreme right on his side.

This probably has nothing to do with the fact that Musk demanded to be made head of OpenAI and was rebuffed. That's when he quit. Elon Musk reportedly left OpenAI's board in 2018 after Sam Altman and other cofounders rejected his plan to run the company Musk told fellow cofounder Sam Altman in early 2018 that he thought OpenAI, which has since created ChatGPT, was lagging behind Google, people familiar with the matter told Semafor. Musk offered to take charge of OpenAI to lead it himself, but when Altman and other co-founders said no, Musk stepped down from the board and backed out of a huge donation, per Semafor. https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-reportedly-tried-lead-openai-left-after-founders-objected-2023-3

The cloak is a constitutional one. Executive, legislative, and judicial branches are separate from each other.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958

"Scientists have known for decades that the Earth is warming. The rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century is unprecedented over thousands of years.It is unequivocal that humans are causing the warming." https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/climate-change-in-data/ And in a way, you're right, it is all about the money: Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ It's just that the it's the denialists who were motivated by it.

As Taibi or whatever his name is acknowledged, the laptop stuff was delayed by a day, and there was no evidence he'd seen of any govt involvement in the story He also said this Taibbi also noted that Twitter sometimes received requests from "connected actors" to delete tweets, with Twitter employees writing back, "handled." Taibbi wrote that requests came from "both parties," meaning Republicans and Democrats. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-files-matt-taibbi-bari-weiss-michael-shellenberger-elon-musk/

So, you don't believe that a lot of right wing stuff has been promulgated on Twitter?

Just because you don't use Twitter that doesnt mean you aren't affected by it. Stories that are promulgated there can make their way to other media.

At this point there is virtually no dispute. But if your criterion means that if even one scientist out of thousands disagrees, then there is a valid ongoing dispute.And please don't chime in with how some lone scientist disagreed with everyone and they turned out to be right. That's like claiming that because someone won the lottery, it makes good financial sense to buy lottery tickets.

One of those meetings was when, Hunter was hosting a charity event. His father dropped by. You call this a meeting? Typical of the distortions and omissions promulgated by you: “I remember the vice president coming in, and he did not go around the table. He just simply waved at everybody,” recalled one attendee, Father Alex Karloutsos of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. “I did not hear any business exchanges with anybody.” https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/us/politics/hunter-biden-investigations.html As for the rest, were they introduced to Biden as business associates of Hunter's? And is this really all you've got? Anyway, maybe I'll get around to investigating the rest of the claims And, as I've pointed out, the US attorney for Delaware, a Trump appointee has carte blanche to investigate whatever he wants and bring whatever charges he wants in regards to Hunter Biden. That permission was granted by Merrick Garland. The investigation was begun at least 4 years ago. So far, nothing.

Those terms were chosen to cast the widest possible net since those are the terms most widely used by denialists. He was actually trying to make sure that none were missed But if it's peer reviewed research you want, here's a list of all I could could find of those done in the last decade. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467616634958 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ERL....16j4030M Let's just say that the aren't supportive of deniers stances. If you like I can also share with you the stance of several leading scientific organizations on the issue.