Thousands Of Wind Turbine Blades Wind Up in Landfills

Page 2 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

19 Apr 2020, 6:47 pm

Karamazov wrote:
What’s the replacement timescale on them?
Just thinking I can remember them being there on the welsh hills when I was a boy (so late 80s-early 90s), my Nan called them “cartwheeling grandmothers” at the time.
Have those been replaced multiple times, or would the blades still be the original ones 25~ years later?


Whatever the case, their carbon footprint does grow continually, through maintenance, manufacture and replacement.
A lot of people don't think about that.
*I'm* not "a lot of people", btw. :wink:

Wolfram87 wrote:
A quick googling suggests 20-25 years, give or take.


20-25 years of maintenance and repairs. :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

19 Apr 2020, 6:56 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
From the site:

Quote:
Upon customer request, we will also be happy to pick up rotor blades from anywhere in the world.


Which is nice, but leaves me to suspect that, as with so many things, the fundamental problem here is cost.


Would the dismantling, retrieval, transport, and refit result in a carbon footprint? :scratch:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

20 Apr 2020, 1:22 am

Karamazov wrote:
Quick google: this German company recycles carbon-fibre, and is specifically touting for business recycling wind-turbines.

ROTH - Wind Turbine page


Well there you have one solution



slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

21 Apr 2020, 5:08 am

cyberdad wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Quick google: this German company recycles carbon-fibre, and is specifically touting for business recycling wind-turbines.

ROTH - Wind Turbine page


Well there you have one solution


Here's hoping.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

21 Apr 2020, 5:38 am

Karamazov wrote:
How the full lifespan emission, industrial byproducts and landfill usage compares to coal or gas power plants is probably the fundamental question.

It’s not even close. Wind is unquestionably the better option. Most studied estimate that nuclear can compete with wind and outcompete solar, but fossil fuels cannot.



Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

21 Apr 2020, 5:45 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
How the full lifespan emission, industrial byproducts and landfill usage compares to coal or gas power plants is probably the fundamental question.

It’s not even close. Wind is unquestionably the better option. Most studied estimate that nuclear can compete with wind and outcompete solar, but fossil fuels cannot.

I know :wink:



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Apr 2020, 6:05 am

The_Walrus wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
How the full lifespan emission, industrial byproducts and landfill usage compares to coal or gas power plants is probably the fundamental question.

It’s not even close. Wind is unquestionably the better option. Most studied estimate that nuclear can compete with wind and outcompete solar, but fossil fuels cannot.


Not for baseload power supply,
And solo doesn't do all that well under moonlight.

Nuclear!
Hoowa!



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Apr 2020, 6:10 am

Karamazov wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
How the full lifespan emission, industrial byproducts and landfill usage compares to coal or gas power plants is probably the fundamental question.

It’s not even close. Wind is unquestionably the better option. Most studied estimate that nuclear can compete with wind and outcompete solar, but fossil fuels cannot.

I know :wink:

That you are wrong?
It is good to be self-aware. :wink:

Comparing apples with oranges produces an invalid argument. :mrgreen:



DeepBlueSouth
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 292
Location: Dépaysement, USA

30 Aug 2020, 6:16 pm

https://www.whatsorb.com/energy/vortex- ... out-blades

This seems to be the best solution to the major environmental impacts of traditional wind turbines, bladeless wind generators. They don't kill the birds, for one thing, don't generate the same alleged noise pollution [never been close to any turbines, but I hear they have a maddening sound when placed close to one's living quarters], and even solar panel production's environmental impact, compounded with their usable lifespan, currently gives them a definite carbon footprint which definitely ought weighs the benefits of their individual lifetime use [that's modern production methods for you].

Don't get me wrong, theoretically everything IS energy, so it could someday basically be free, I am 100% in favor of a green energy economy and upturning the energy system for the sake of environmental benefits, but 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' isn't the path to a carbon neutral economy. Much like when business and individuals buy carbon offset credits, i.e. claim to put money towards planting forests so they don't feel guilty flying a mostly empty private jet and use non-recycled paper products, etc.

As for Nuclear energy, uranium is the major impact issue. Enriched thorium being used for fission breaks down a LOT more quickly, it's my understanding that thorium energy rods' half-life render them non-radioactive after only a few years as opposed to uranium which is 'hot' for tens of or hundreds of thousands of years. Personal hydrogen cell generators for auto, home, or business use [as I understand them, I could be wrong] run on hydrogen generated from water, and their byproduct is also water. The technology for these is currently very expensive, which is likely why hydrogen cars are far less common than electrical cars. Many major auto manufacturers make hydrogen autos, but they're difficult to market due to a lack of hydrogen filling stations. Don't even get me started on the environmental impact of hydroelectric dams.... ocean bound wave generators also seem to be a great place to look for low environmental impact energy generation.

Many politicians and industry insiders cite the obvious issue as to why we half-ass green energy methods, conversion is financially "not worth it" to big businesses and government entities. With the scant taxes that energy companies like Exxon-Mobil pay in certain nations like the USA, we could conceivable raise their corporate tax rates to make them help pay for the new green energy methods which make sense, and have small, or no carbon footprint[s]. We seem to have the technology, we just have to cut through the greed and lobbying efforts by those who make the decisions for us.


_________________
-- Hank
o-(|8[#]


“Politics is the art of controlling your environment.”
― Dr. Hunter S. Thompson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,284

31 Aug 2020, 2:21 am

Wind turbines are a no-brainer. Their aesthetic concerns are secondary to the benefits of reducing reliance on fossil fuels.