by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The blades of the huge turbines cannot be recycled are are actually classed as hazardous waste, much like nuclear minus the radiation and there are issues with dealing with the “end of life” disposal of PV panels as well, it would appear.
That aside, let us start at the beginning. Those turbines and panels don't just grow naturally. They are manufactured from components that are also manufactured and the raw materials which are mined or whatever. All those processes create carbon emissions and I seriously have to ask whether those are being negated over the short lifespan that those turbines and panels actually have. The same goes for batteries for EVs, though that is a separate issue.
The lifespan of one of those big wind turbines is no more than 20 years after which it has to be dismantled, at a huge financial as well as environmental cost, and they still talk about “kicking carbon”. Small turbines that power a property, as long as we could consider changing the voltage and current kind that we are working with, are cheap to make – they can even be home-constructed (from trash components no less) – and can be maintained cheaply and have a much greater lifespan.
In order to really and truly kick carbon emissions and using “green” electricity we need to change the voltage, first and foremost, that we are using. We need to use that kind that can be produced by PVs on roofs and small wind turbines and that is nominal 13.5V DC and not 220/240V AC (or 110V AC as may be the case in the USA) and put 12 Volt DC circuits into our homes, offices and small workshops. Lighting can be easily and efficiently today with LEDs (yes, the also have a carbon cost attached to manufacture) and low voltage and even most of our electronics today need less than 12 Volt DC even. Even refrigerators and freezers are available in 12 V DC – generally for RV and yacht use.
And we have to change our energy, as in electricity, use. But the aim, by governments, is to go almost all electric, be that in the home, in transportation, everywhere. It would appear, however, that no one has actually worked out how that is supposed to work with the grid often already overstretched with just the few electric electric vehicles being plugged in to charge of an evening.
They know far well that with renewables, as in sun and wind, and maybe, just maybe, water, they cannot provide for the need and demand and hence they are advocating nuclear as a “green” option. Methinks they have forgotten something and that is the aftercare of nuclear, whether in the disposal of the waste or in the decommissioning of the plants. And then there are the possibilities of accidents or even, the gods forbid, an attack on such facilities.
Nuclear fusion is still very much in its infancy, despite the fact that good results have been achieved in some tests some years ago. However, so far no one really wants to go the fusion route, and that not only as regards to the problem of cooling. The main “problem”, so to speak, is that there will be no material falling on that can be weaponized.
We have to change the way we do things in order to truly “kick carbon” but neither governments, nor industry, as well as most individuals, are not prepared to do that.
We need to look more towards small wind and small solar – on every building – so that every building becomes a small power plant, rather than looking at ever bigger solar and wind farms and ever bigger turbines.
The main stumbling block for small wind and small solar on every home are the vested interests of the energy companies. Couldn't have households and small businesses being – more or less – independent from the energy producers, couldn't we now. And where would the income be for government from this as well? It can all be done but the will is simply not there. Lots of talk and lots of complicated solutions being suggested rather than finding easy solutions which often stare us in the face.
© 2021
