[Sivad]

Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But meeting the world’s total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today’s largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That’s a heckuva lot of neodymium.
https://thebulletin.org/2011/11/the-myt ... le-energy/

[Pants-of-dog]

not high performance rare earth magnets.

Wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the 5,700 turbines installed in the United States in 2009 required approximately 36,000 miles of steel rebar and 1.7 million cubic yards of concrete (enough to pave a four-foot-wide, 7,630-mile-long sidewalk). The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium — rare earth metals that are rare because they’re found in scattered deposits, rather than in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract.
https://thebulletin.org/2011/11/the-myt ... le-energy/

While it is true that older and crappier turbines do not use them, any honest comparison between fossil fuels and renewables would assume that both use the same quality turbines and have the same impact in that regard.

Some coal generators may use neodymium but most are just ferrite. Coal doesn't use even a significant fraction of the rare earths that wind does.

Is that because coal generators use crappier and older turbines that make them less efficient than newer electrical production stations?

[AFAIK]

Wind turbines and solar panels produce tiny amounts of electricity individually so you have to install large numbers of them. This requires huge quantities of steel, concrete and rare earths. It also requires huge amounts of space, which is very damaging to wildlife. They also require backup power to kick in when the sun and the wind fail. Gas is the most effective back up since production can be ramped up and down easily.

Nuclear is the superior energy source.

[Sivad]

While it is true that older and crappier turbines do not use them, any honest comparison between fossil fuels and renewables would assume that both use the same quality turbines and have the same impact in that regard.



Is that because coal generators use crappier and older turbines that make them less efficient than newer electrical production stations?

Wind needs more powerful magnets because of its low energy density(it has to produce more electricity with less energy input in order to be viable) and weight is also a big factor for wind turbines. Coal has a much higher energy density and the weight of the magnets isn't an issue for giant coal generators.

[Sivad]

From what I can tell coal only uses permanent magnets in the small generators used to fire up the plant, the electricity from coal is generated with electromagnets.

[Rugoz]

Oh look, the climate change deniers are so desperate they now engage in Rare Earths FUD!

sure, as better technology develops and they become competitive but that's still decades off.

It may be old but it's far from obsolete, attempting to transition from a cheaper more efficient fuel source to an inferior source for political ends is unlikely to succeed. They've already thrown $2 trillion into the transition and haven't gotten very much bang for the bucks.

What part of "look at newly installed capacity" did you not understand? For years now the majority of newly installed power capacity worldwide has been renewables. Inevitably, this will lead to renewables taking over when old power plants are being decomissioned. The transition is happening right now.

[Pants-of-dog]

Wind needs more powerful magnets because of its low energy density(it has to produce more electricity with less energy input in order to be viable) and weight is also a big factor for wind turbines. Coal has a much higher energy density and the weight of the magnets isn't an issue for giant coal generators.

So, yes, you are saying that they use crappier turbines, which then reduces their energy output for the entire life cycle of the station.

The amount of extra energy being expended to mine rare earth magnets, make them, and clean up after for these wind turbines is probably less than the extra energy they end up making.

This is why wind has a better EROI ratio than fossil fuels when looking at life cycles of electricity generation stations.

[Julian658]

The far-right simply isn't smart enough to understand it.

Right wing denialism of climate change is no different than left wing denialism of IQ measurements. The political spectrum influences reason.

[Godstud]

Nice strawman, @Julian658. No one's arguing about IQ being a measurement. They argue its actual value, as it is often used simply as a tool for racist cunts to employ, to further their racist agendas.

[Hindsite]

:roll: Nice strawman, @Julian658. No one's arguing about IQ being a measurement. They argue its actual value, as it is often used simply as a tool for racist cunts to employ, to further their racist agendas.

Everything that left-wing idiots disagree with is racist or racist agendas. Very sad.

[annatar1914]

Everything that left-wing idiots disagree with is racist or racist agendas. Very sad.

If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise what is your problem, wouldn't you agree that racism exists?

[Unthinking Majority]

:roll: Nice strawman, @Julian658. No one's arguing about IQ being a measurement. They argue its actual value, as it is often used simply as a tool for racist cunts to employ, to further their racist agendas.

IQ is so racist that white people invented it so asian people can score higher on it than they do lol.

IQ generally follows education level, not race or genetics.

[Hindsite]

If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise what is your problem, wouldn't you agree that racism exists?

I have not said that racism does not exist, but to claim everyone that has a different opinion is racist is absurd. Joe Biden has been called racist by some in his own party now, so what is his problem for speaking up? Obviously, we speak up to contest and refute the false accusation. Nothing complicated about it. It only takes common sense, no genius IQ required.

[Godstud]

IQ is so racist that white people invented it so asian people can score higher on it than they do lol.

IQ generally follows education level, not race or genetics.

Yes, but the racists argue that it's race and genetics, not education, nutrition, etc. I think you've missed some of the IQ debates here on Pofo, or you'd understand what I am saying.

How you use the information determines racism, and IQ is frequently a tool in the racist toolshed.

I have not said that racism does not exist, but to claim everyone that has a different opinion is racist is absurd.

Nobody was making that claim, however. The claim was that IQ is often used as a tool for racism. It is.

[annatar1914]

I have not said that racism does not exist, but to claim everyone that has a different opinion is racist is absurd. Joe Biden has been called racist by some in his own party now, so what is his problem for speaking up? Obviously, we speak up to contest and refute the false accusation. Nothing complicated about it. It only takes common sense, no genius IQ required.

But the over-use of an accusation of ''racism'' is not the issue at hand, what is the issue is that actual racists do use IQ measurement as a means of dehumanizing other races of mankind than themselves.

Just like ''Anti-Semitism''; while many types of people disagree with Zionism and even think Israel should not exist as a political entity, and accusations of ''anti-semitism are used too much to try to shut down debate over Israel, all Anti-Semites use Anti-Zionism as a means of injecting the virus of Anti-Semitism into public discourse.

[Hindsite]

Nobody was making that claim, however. The claim was that IQ is often used as a tool for racism. It is.

You left-wingers use much more than IQ as a tool for claiming racism, but always change the claim when caught in a lie. Anyway, I am sure that I do not use my near genius IQ as a tool for racism.
Praise the Lord.

[Godstud]

Please quote the offending statement.

You veered radically off-topic to defend a non-existent slight against you, @Hindsite .

[Hindsite]

Please quote the offending statement.

You veered radically off-topic to defend a non-existent slight against you, @Hindsite .

I was not defending anything. In case you did not notice, it went off topic before I made my truthful comment.

By the way, I made my comment in response to your statement, "No one's arguing about IQ being a measurement. They argue its actual value, as it is often used simply as a tool for racist cunts to employ, to further their racist agendas."

That is off topic from Climate change.

[Godstud]

No one's arguing about IQ being a measurement. They argue its actual value, as it is often used simply as a tool for racist cunts to employ, to further their racist agendas.

This comment is accurate. I was responding to @Unthinking Majority's comment:

'IQ generally follows education level, not race or genetics.'

I suggested that this was incorrect, based on my observations of how IQ is presented in this forum, by racists who see it as an argument.

I don't see why you think this comment was aimed at you...

[Hindsite]

This comment is accurate. I was responding to @Unthinking Majority's comment:

I suggested that this was incorrect, based on my observations of how IQ is presented in this forum, by racists who see it as an argument.

I don't see why you think this comment was aimed at you...

Actually your comment was in response to Julian658. I know that comment was not aimed at me this time, but I decided to add my two cents, because you had already taken it off topic anyway.