Wind Turbine Blades - The Waste that the Upper Middle Class Dare Not Speak its Name

MrAbyss

Tens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills?fbclid=IwAR2OMOX4FPya77iJEj0WpV1UbzwUJTh4su1X1KKVrrltgd3mcRUFloaUK0M

Kivaro

Can they not be recycled?

Snails pace

Kivaro wrote: »

Can they not be recycled?

Nope, the blades have to be buried. Life span of a wind turbine is about 20 years, the magnets in the nacelle (the motor) only last a few years, also the amount of concrete, steel and stone that's used to create the foundation, it's hard to see how turbines are environmentally friendly.

Skylinehead

Kivaro wrote: »

Can they not be recycled?

I think they're fibreglass.

buried

Don't they also need lots of oil to lubricate and ultimately work the gears and hydraulics?

Snails pace

buried wrote: »

Don't they also need lots of oil to lubricate and ultimately work the gears and hydraulics?

I know gears have to be maintained and greased, I think its electric motors that rotate the blades and motor to face the wind

Gynoid

MrAbyss wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills?fbclid=IwAR2OMOX4FPya77iJEj0WpV1UbzwUJTh4su1X1KKVrrltgd3mcRUFloaUK0M

I read that earlier today. It is sobering.

MrAbyss

buried wrote: »

Don't they also need lots of oil to lubricate and ultimately work the gears and hydraulics?

15 tons of lubricant a year and they need a diesel engine to start them up.

On the plus side they provide a sense of sanctimonious well being among people who see Greta Thunberg as a living god.

Your Face

They are researching newer more sustainable materials and the newer models are way more efficient.
I'll panic later.

MrAbyss

Snails pace wrote: »

Nope, the blades have to be buried. Life span of a wind turbine is about 20 years, the magnets in the nacelle (the motor) only last a few years, also the amount of concrete, steel and stone that's used to create the foundation, it's hard to see how turbines are environmentally friendly.

Like electric cars, you would be hard pressed to find a piece a technology more insatiable for hydrocarbons and production of toxic waste as a wind turbine.

But ya know, David Attenborough and all that...

Hurrache

Snails pace wrote: »

I know gears have to be maintained and greased, I think its electric motors that rotate the blades and motor to face the wind

Not the new type that are being developed, plus they're tiny compared to the current versions.

Gynoid

MrAbyss wrote: »

On the plus side they provide a sense of sanctimonious well being among people who see Greta Thunberg as a living god.

there is a lovely poetic cadence in that sentence.

lawred2

MrAbyss wrote: »

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills?fbclid=IwAR2OMOX4FPya77iJEj0WpV1UbzwUJTh4su1X1KKVrrltgd3mcRUFloaUK0M

Steel that can't be reused

Wtf!?

That's utter bullshoite

MrAbyss

Your Face wrote: »

They are researching newer more sustainable materials and the newer models are way more efficient.
I'll panic later.

the tens of thousands of them coming towards the end of their lifespan is what bothers me now.

New 'sustainable' types will not solve this issue ever.

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

Steel that can't be reused

Wtf!?

That's utter bullshoite

They generally aren't steel.

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

They generally aren't steel.

Really? What are they made of?

Gynoid

Gynoid wrote: »

there is a lovely poetic cadence in that sentence.

I deem it hysterical posturing.

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

Really? What are they made of?

Glass or carbon fibre composite for the big ones, the same or occasionally some type of metal for the smaller ones.

Can you imagine the weight of one blade if it was steel?

Gynoid

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I deem it hysterical posturing.

You are a bit poetic yourself.

I am not a big fan of the Latterdays St. Greta and the Hysterics but sure lookit we will all know one way or another as time passes.

riffmongous

Unless you can provide some numbers that compare it to other energy sources this is only interesting, maybe scaremongering and ultimately not very useful. It could still prove to be much better, or much worse

bfa1509

A windfarm was put up near where I live. The amount of forestry they cut down is eye watering, mostly for access rather than the space the windmill occupies. The amount of diesel trucks needed to assemble and maintenence pickups going back and forth is probably more detrimental to your health than having fossil fuel powerstation nearby.

Terribly inefficient and ugly as hell too.

bfa1509

Gynoid wrote: »

You are a bit poetic yourself.

I am not a big fan of the Latterdays St. Greta and the Hysterics but sure lookit we will all know one way or another as time passes.

I'm in my twenties, the last generation want me to pay for their for their past and the next generation want me to pay for their future...

The Tetrarch

Next they will have millions of electric car batteries to hide.

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

Glass or carbon fibre composite for the big ones, the same or occasionally some type of metal for the smaller ones.

Can you imagine the weight of one blade if it was steel?

This checks out logically..

But why can't they just be reused on another turbine? What's structurally wrong with them? Fibre glass is easily repaired

Snails pace

Hurrache wrote: »

Not the new type that are being developed, plus they're tiny compared to the current versions.

I wasn't near a turbine in a few years

Harry Palmr

How many bothered to read the article? The extract is not representative of the wider situation.

We can process 99.9% of a blade and handle about 6,000 to 7,000 blades a year per plant,” said Chief Executive Officer Don Lilly. The company has accumulated an inventory of about one year’s worth of blades ready to be chopped up and recycled as demand increases, he said. “When we start to sell to more builders, we can take in a lot more of them. We’re just gearing up.

MrAbyss

Deleted User wrote: »

I deem it hysterical posturing.

so therefore wind turbine blades are Eco-friendly recyclables?

MrAbyss

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Next they will have millions of electric car batteries to hide.

like diesel cars, another ecological catastrophe being pushed by the Greens.

Taxes change the weather somehow I'm told.

Beasty

Bring back the windmills. Windy Miller was one of my heroes - he knew how to extract energy from his wind....

Hurrache

bfa1509 wrote: »

A windfarm was put up near where I live. The amount of forestry they cut down is eye watering, mostly for access rather than the space the windmill occupies. The amount of diesel trucks needed to assemble and maintenence pickups going back and forth is probably more detrimental to your health than having fossil fuel powerstation nearby.

Terribly inefficient and ugly as hell too.

And the fossil fuel powerstation was built using trucks and equipment running in air, on previously perfectly flat ground that didn't need foundation? Do they both cause as much cancer?

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

This checks out logically..

But why can't they just be reused on another turbine? What's structurally wrong with them? Fibre glass is easily repaired

Their leading edge gets hammered by the weather. A special type of tape is now being used to coat them and cut down the weathering and it'll probably be applied to new blades of that type rather than used as repairs after the damage



These are just one of the new omni directional type ones.

Ipso

Harry Palmr wrote: »

How many bothered to read the article? The extract is not representative of the wider situation.

But shur there’d be no middle class bashing, the.

Junkyard Tom

They must cost a fortune to run when there's no wind.

Capt'n Midnight

lawred2 wrote: »

Steel that can't be reused

Wtf!?

That's utter bullshoite

Steel is such a valuable resource that NASA had two special ships, the MV Freedom Star and MV Liberty Star, build and crewed so they could recover the steel from the Space Shuttle's boosters.

Jonybgud

Gynoid wrote: »

You are a bit poetic yourself.

I am not a big fan of the Latterdays St. Greta and the Hysterics but sure lookit we will all know one way or another as time passes.

That's the trouble, they're all just big fans, each with a carbon footprint the size of a small village.

Guy:Incognito

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

They must cost a fortune to run when there's no wind.

3 lads on minimum wage turn the handle, grand and cheap.

corner of hells

Gynoid wrote: »

there is a lovely poetic cadence in that sentence.

I have to say , I enjoyed it myself.

listermint

Have to say. This thread is full of hyperbole.


I'm interested in the ops ideas that would wean us away from fuels which are finite .


More details please...

Guy:Incognito

Harry Palmr wrote: »

How many bothered to read the article? The extract is not representative of the wider situation.

Youre not supposed to actually read it. Thats cheating.

Just throw up some reactionary nonsense instead.

MrAbyss

listermint wrote: »

Have to say. This thread is full of hyperbole.

Where?

listermint wrote: »

I'm interested in the ops ideas that would wean us away from fuels which are finite .

there is no such thing as free energy and never will be - nor zero carbon.

listermint wrote: »

More details please...

Everything you need to know is presented on this thread.

Diarmuid

The scary thing about this is that the Op and plenty of posters on page 1, get to vote tomorrow

sk8erboii

OH Wind turbines use concrete?

Better go back to unsustainable fossil fuels then!

Jesus what a retarded thread.

JohnnyFlash

Wind energy is great and all until the wind stops blowing and you’ve to have a load of expensive and inefficient fast-response thermal units ready to keep the power flowing.

topper75

bfa1509 wrote: »

I'm in my twenties, the last generation want me to pay for their for their past and the next generation want me to pay for their future...

A past that involved dropping you to the school gates and bringing you to training etc. every week.

When all the time you were trying to unjam the childlock on the rear door and screaming that you wanted to be on your bike?

It all seemed fine up to the point where opportunities for mitching off school and being angry at older people were presented.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

A windfarm was put up near where I live. The amount of forestry they cut down is eye watering, mostly for access rather than the space the windmill occupies. The amount of diesel trucks needed to assemble and maintenence pickups going back and forth is probably more detrimental to your health than having fossil fuel powerstation nearby.

Terribly inefficient and ugly as hell too.

not this one by any chance? https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1112/1090261-ireland-fined/

Cienciano

MrAbyss wrote: »

15 tons of lubricant a year and they need a diesel engine to start them up.

On the plus side they provide a sense of sanctimonious well being among people who see Greta Thunberg as a living god.

And that lubricant doesn't go into the atmosphere. It can be removed and processed or disposed of correctly.
Moneypoint power station burns 2 million tonnes of coal per year. Presumably the turbines use quite a bit of lubricant each year too.

If people think billions is spent on windfarms around the world because companies want to feel morally superior, they're living in dreamland.

Capt'n Midnight

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Wind energy is great and all until the wind stops blowing and you’ve to have a load of expensive and inefficient fast-response thermal units ready to keep the power flowing.

Next you'll be pointing that solar panels don't work at night


unless someone figures out how to do it , like these

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200129174512.htm

Edit now 30% more efficient https://www.ubergizmo.com/2020/02/solar-energy-absorber/