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 […]
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.
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.
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 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 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)?