For those that keep saying wind turbines can't be reused or recycled need to read this
-
For those that keep saying wind turbines can't be reused or recycled need to read this
"The analysis found a total 99.9% material recovery – calculating that 79.5% of the wind farm’s components were recycled and 20.4% were reused or retained as spare parts, keeping nearly all material out of landfills."
100% of the recycling and component retention took place in the UK, supporting domestic green jobs and at least 10 supply chain companies.
@ar387 this is great news
I can't help chuckling at "turbine circularity" - like, that's obvious if you watch them for 5 minutes -
@ar387 What UK is doing with the glasfiber in the rotors, which is normally not recyclable and can only be burned in specialized facilities with ultra high temperatures
-
For those that keep saying wind turbines can't be reused or recycled need to read this
"The analysis found a total 99.9% material recovery – calculating that 79.5% of the wind farm’s components were recycled and 20.4% were reused or retained as spare parts, keeping nearly all material out of landfills."
100% of the recycling and component retention took place in the UK, supporting domestic green jobs and at least 10 supply chain companies.
@ar387 It makes you wonder who has been spreading lies. I'd note, for comparison, that neither gas nor coal can be recycled, though I believe wood ash is a useful waste product.
-
@radicalabacus @schnedan @ar387
It just delays the inceneration/landfill step. There are currently 33000 blades in the UK to replace and we need better solutions than shredding them to mix with even more plastic. It looks nice in the headlines, which is the main reason for doing it, but we're creating an even more difficult recycling problem for the future.
-
@radicalabacus @schnedan @ar387 Will the new products with RX Polymer end up in a landfill after use? How to make sure that the material is separated from plastics that can be recycled?
-
@radicalabacus @schnedan @ar387
It just delays the inceneration/landfill step. There are currently 33000 blades in the UK to replace and we need better solutions than shredding them to mix with even more plastic. It looks nice in the headlines, which is the main reason for doing it, but we're creating an even more difficult recycling problem for the future.
-
@radicalabacus @schnedan @ar387 Will the new products with RX Polymer end up in a landfill after use? How to make sure that the material is separated from plastics that can be recycled?
@rard @schnedan @ar387 I don't know; maybe RX Polymer can be recycled at least a couple more times (but I'm just speculating, and that still sends it to landfill/incineration eventually). I'd love to see turbine blades that could be more circularly recycled or even composted, but I suspect that only works for small turbines
-
@radicalabacus @geoffl @ar387 "but a material/process that could be a bit more fully circular would be an improvement."
Yes but so far that means: less stability, more weight, less efficiency, more cost.
Then you can use materials which allow full recycling.
In Germany the press said: you can't made this much railway sleepers or park benches. At least you need to burn these materials. And in Germany - to my knowledge - there is only one plant which can burn glasfiber - and it's way to small to process the amounts comming.
-
@radicalabacus @schnedan @ar387 Will the new products with RX Polymer end up in a landfill after use? How to make sure that the material is separated from plastics that can be recycled?
@rard @radicalabacus @ar387 "How to make sure that the material is separated from plastics that can be recycled?"
Doubt it's possible
-
@radicalabacus @geoffl @ar387 "but a material/process that could be a bit more fully circular would be an improvement."
Yes but so far that means: less stability, more weight, less efficiency, more cost.
Then you can use materials which allow full recycling.
In Germany the press said: you can't made this much railway sleepers or park benches. At least you need to burn these materials. And in Germany - to my knowledge - there is only one plant which can burn glasfiber - and it's way to small to process the amounts comming.
@schnedan @radicalabacus @ar387
I can't find products made from "Plaswire's smart RX Polymer" for sale anywhere, it looks like more greenwashing. Last year Plaswire were jumping on the blockchain bandwagon.
-
@radicalabacus @geoffl @ar387 "but a material/process that could be a bit more fully circular would be an improvement."
Yes but so far that means: less stability, more weight, less efficiency, more cost.
Then you can use materials which allow full recycling.
In Germany the press said: you can't made this much railway sleepers or park benches. At least you need to burn these materials. And in Germany - to my knowledge - there is only one plant which can burn glasfiber - and it's way to small to process the amounts comming.
@schnedan @geoffl @ar387 I guess the practical problems to solve are finding uses for RX Polymer and finding better turbine blade materials. No large power generation company is going to want to lose efficiency/profit. I'd rather power generation was not for profit but I'd rather they add wind generation capacity than gas or coal. Maybe they could be encouraged to use more recyclable materials through taxation it their current concern is lower profit?
-
@schnedan @radicalabacus @ar387
I can't find products made from "Plaswire's smart RX Polymer" for sale anywhere, it looks like more greenwashing. Last year Plaswire were jumping on the blockchain bandwagon.
@geoffl @schnedan @ar387 ew, that's awful. And it's not like blockchain's reputation wasn't already terrible at the time. Blockchain doesn't necessarily imply some sort of wasteful proof of work based cryptocurrency nonsense but it's also 100% not necessary just to keep track of blades and materials
-
@schnedan @radicalabacus @ar387
I can't find products made from "Plaswire's smart RX Polymer" for sale anywhere, it looks like more greenwashing. Last year Plaswire were jumping on the blockchain bandwagon.
@geoffl @radicalabacus @ar387 don't know if these actual use recycling materials from blades, but these are products which can.
they can cope with some degree of impurities and need fair amounts of material:
https://www.relux-umwelt.de/leistungen/bahnschwellen/
https://pioonier.com/kunststoff-bahnschwellen/ -
@geoffl @schnedan @ar387 ew, that's awful. And it's not like blockchain's reputation wasn't already terrible at the time. Blockchain doesn't necessarily imply some sort of wasteful proof of work based cryptocurrency nonsense but it's also 100% not necessary just to keep track of blades and materials
@radicalabacus @geoffl @ar387 you don't need blockchains... just some international standard signs
there is no english version, but this page lists plastic variant markings.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurzzeichen_(Kunststoff)
e.g. GF: glasfaserverstärkt (engl. glass fibre)
you can include the markings in the mold, laser em,... it will last a long time.
-
For those that keep saying wind turbines can't be reused or recycled need to read this
"The analysis found a total 99.9% material recovery – calculating that 79.5% of the wind farm’s components were recycled and 20.4% were reused or retained as spare parts, keeping nearly all material out of landfills."
100% of the recycling and component retention took place in the UK, supporting domestic green jobs and at least 10 supply chain companies.
@ar387 if the energy choice is between wind or fossil fuel, I'd rather be left with a mountain of old turbine blades instead of gigatons of carbon dioxide diffused across the atmosphere and roasting the planet alive
-
@ar387 The more important question is how many years did that wind farm run before needing to be decommissioned. When we compare various energy systems this is an important consideration.
@icanbob
Phase 1 was operating since 1995 and ran 28 years until 2023.
According to https://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/onshore-new/onshore-scotland/wind-scotland/operational-windfarms/hagshaw-hill-windfarm only Phase 1 turbines will be replaced. -
@radicalabacus @schnedan @ar387
It just delays the inceneration/landfill step. There are currently 33000 blades in the UK to replace and we need better solutions than shredding them to mix with even more plastic. It looks nice in the headlines, which is the main reason for doing it, but we're creating an even more difficult recycling problem for the future.
If this wind park can be used as a yardstick, these 33,000 blades will be replaced every 28 years, but not all at the same time.
With an average of 1,180 blades per year and assuming they are all the very large kind that weighs 26t,(1) that's 30,380t of blades to recycle every year.That's less than the stated capacity of the factory that uses them to create RX Polymer (2) and ~1.70% of the yearly plastic production in the United Kingdom(3).
In 2025, the blades produced 85 TWh(4), the equivalent of 1.450 times their own mass in coal (5).
Yes, fully recyclable material would be better, but given that blades can be safely stored before recycling, are not as radioactive or toxic as fly ash and do not continuously emit CO2 it seems prudent to use them instead of waiting for something better.
(1) https://theroundup.org/how-much-does-a-wind-turbine-blade-weigh/
(2) https://plaswire.com/solutions/
(3) https://www.bpf.co.uk/industry/Default.aspx
(4) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz947djd3d3o
(5) https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=2 -
If this wind park can be used as a yardstick, these 33,000 blades will be replaced every 28 years, but not all at the same time.
With an average of 1,180 blades per year and assuming they are all the very large kind that weighs 26t,(1) that's 30,380t of blades to recycle every year.That's less than the stated capacity of the factory that uses them to create RX Polymer (2) and ~1.70% of the yearly plastic production in the United Kingdom(3).
In 2025, the blades produced 85 TWh(4), the equivalent of 1.450 times their own mass in coal (5).
Yes, fully recyclable material would be better, but given that blades can be safely stored before recycling, are not as radioactive or toxic as fly ash and do not continuously emit CO2 it seems prudent to use them instead of waiting for something better.
(1) https://theroundup.org/how-much-does-a-wind-turbine-blade-weigh/
(2) https://plaswire.com/solutions/
(3) https://www.bpf.co.uk/industry/Default.aspx
(4) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz947djd3d3o
(5) https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=2@geoffl
I'm sorry, I missed the problem with the company mentioned when first reading the thread.My argument doesn't really hinge on a specific company though, there's others if this one can't deliver on its promises.
-
If this wind park can be used as a yardstick, these 33,000 blades will be replaced every 28 years, but not all at the same time.
With an average of 1,180 blades per year and assuming they are all the very large kind that weighs 26t,(1) that's 30,380t of blades to recycle every year.That's less than the stated capacity of the factory that uses them to create RX Polymer (2) and ~1.70% of the yearly plastic production in the United Kingdom(3).
In 2025, the blades produced 85 TWh(4), the equivalent of 1.450 times their own mass in coal (5).
Yes, fully recyclable material would be better, but given that blades can be safely stored before recycling, are not as radioactive or toxic as fly ash and do not continuously emit CO2 it seems prudent to use them instead of waiting for something better.
(1) https://theroundup.org/how-much-does-a-wind-turbine-blade-weigh/
(2) https://plaswire.com/solutions/
(3) https://www.bpf.co.uk/industry/Default.aspx
(4) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz947djd3d3o
(5) https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=2@Landa @geoffl @radicalabacus @ar387 nobody said otherwise...
-
@ar387 a canal restoration project in England just installed Lock Gates made from up-cycled end-of-life Dutch wind turbine blade(s).
