Surging wind industry faces its own green dilemma: landfills

Wind turbines have become a vital source of global green energy but their makers increasingly face an environmental conundrum of their own: how to recycle them.

The European Union’s share of electricity from wind power has grown from less than 1 percent in 2000, when the continent began to curb planet-heating fossil fuels, to more than 16 percent today.

As the first wave of windmills reach the end of their lives, ten of thousands of blades are being stacked and buried in landfill sites where they will take centuries to decompose.

Spanish turbine maker Siemens Gamesa this week launched what it called a “game changer” – the first recyclable blades, which use a technology that allows their carbon and glass fibres to be reused in products like screen monitors or car parts.

“We have reached a major milestone in a society that puts care for the environment at its heart,” said Andreas Nauen, chief executive of Siemens Gamesa, which expects the blades to become the industry standard.

Europe is the world’s second largest producer of wind-generated electricity, making up about 30 percent of the global capacity, compared to China’s 39 percent, according to the Global Wind Energy Council, an industry trade association.

LANDFILL

Wind Europe, a Brussels-based trade association which promotes the use of wind power in Europe, expects 52,000 blades a year to need disposal by 2030, up from about 1,000 today.

“The public want to be reassured that wind energy is fully sustainable and fully circular,” said WindEurope’s chief executive, Giles Dickson, describing Siemens Gamesa’s new recyclable blade as a “significant breakthrough”.

While wind turbine blades are not especially toxic, the resulting landfill, if improperly handled, may contribute to dangerous environmental impacts, including the pollution of land and waterways.

All forms of energy have some environmental cost but renewables, almost by definition, cause less damage to the planet, said Martin Gerhardt, Siemens Gamesa’s offshore wind chief.

“If you look at oil wells and the spills or if you consider … methane leaks, compared to the fossil industries, wind is the lesser problem,” he said.

Wind power is one of the cleanest forms of energy, with a carbon footprint 99 percent lower than coal and 75 percent less than solar, according to a study by Bernstein Research, a U.S.-based research and brokerage firm.

Its emissions come mainly from the production of iron and steel used in turbines and concrete for windmill foundations.

If these were mitigated by techniques such as carbon capture and storage – where carbon dioxide is buried underground – “you’d be able to cut out the carbon footprint completely,” said Deepa Venkateswaran, the study’s author.

CHALLENGE

The growing mountains of waste created by old blades has become a rallying point for groups opposed to wind turbines, which they also say are noisy and spoil the countryside.

But landfill is likely to remain the preferred disposal option because it is the cheapest, said Eric Waeyenbergh, advocacy manager at Geocycle, a sustainable waste management firm.

“If you just throw it in the landfill, this is the cheapest price you can have when you’re dismantling the windmill. And that’s a problem because there’s no mandatory recycling or recovery obligation,” he said.

Geocycle and WindEurope are lobbying for landfills to be banned across Europe where only four countries – Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland – have outlawed the landfilling of composite materials, such as wind turbine blades.

Geocycle co-runs a cement kiln in Germany, with building industry giant Lafarge, which is partly fuelled by burning thousands of tons of old wind turbines, which create less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels.

Recyclable blades can also be ground up for use in products such as rearview car mirrors and insulation panels, or heat-treated to create materials for roof light panels and gutters.

However, industry groups say these techniques are not currently available at commercial scale or at a price that would make them viable alternatives to landfill.

David Romero Vindel, co-founder of Reciclalia, which cuts and shreds turbine blades for recycling as carbon fibre yarn and fabric, said a landfill ban would help his firm.

“We need the EU to push the sector in this direction of recycling,” he said.

Vivian Loonela, a spokeswoman for the European Commission said it will review its landfill policies in 2024.

“The recycling of (windmill) composite fraction remains a challenge due to the low value of the recycled product and the relatively small amount of waste (produced), which does not stimulate the recycling markets,” she said.

See more here: reuters.com

Bold emphasis added

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (3)

  • Avatar

    itsme

    |

    maybe they can make lots of houses out of the blades

    good grief
    (and that doesn’t include solar panels landfill)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Joseph Olson

    |

    the green deal scam is Pied Piper puppets, using Chicken Liittle science to force
    Jack in the Beanstalk energy solutions > so stupid a 16 year old high school drop
    is a major credible voice > “Only an Airhead Can Save Us from Air” at PSI

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Jerry Krause

      |

      Hi Joseph,

      I specifically address this comment to you because you just wrote: “energy solutions > so stupid a 16 year old high school drop [out] is a major credible voice”

      I know you are not stupid but I have been urging PSI Readers to read Galileo’s book ‘Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences’ as translated to English by Crew and de Salvio (1914). I have yet to read any evidence that you, or anyone else, has done so.

      I now attempt to help you to see what one can read from the 2nd page of it..

      “You refer, perhaps, to that last remark of his when we asked the reason why the employed stocks, scaffolding and bracing of larger dimensions for launching a big vessel than they do for a small one; and he answered that they did this in order to avoid the danger of the ship parting under its own heavy weight [vasta mole), a danger to which small boats are not subject. Yes, that is what I mean; and I refer especially to his last assertion, which I have always regarded as a false, though current, opinion; namely, that in speaking of these and other similar machines one cannot argue from the small to the large, because many devices which succeed on a small scale do not work on a large scale. Now, since mechanics has its foundation in geometry, where mere size cuts no figure. I do not see that the properties of circles, triangles, cylinders, cones and other solid figures will change with their size. If, therefore, a large machine be constructed in such a way that its parts bear to one another the same ratio as in a smaller one, and if the smaller is sufficiently strong for the purpose for which it was designed, I do not see why the larger also should not be able to withstand any severe and destructive destructive tests to which it may be subjected. The common opinion is here absolutely wrong. Indeed, it is so far wrong that precisely the opposite is true, namely, that many machines can be constructed even more perfectly on a large scale than on a small; thus, for instance, a clock which indicates and strikes the hour can be made made more accurate on a large scale than on a small. There are some intelligent people who maintain this same opinion, but on more reasonable grounds, when they cut loose from geometry and argue that the better performance of the large machine is owing to the imperfections and variations of the material.”

      I stop here because I don’t bore some readers who do not yet see where Galileo is going. Instead,I will give a historical example related to this article.

      I grow up on a farm which never had electrical power until we became connected to the Rural Electrification (RE) power grid a few years after WWII. However, some of our neighbors and my uncle had for previous decades had electrical power generated by a ‘wind charger’ (a small wind turbine) and a small bank of batteries And the only problem of their small electrical system was the batteries which did not have a lifetime near as long as the small wind charging machines which were still running after surviving for decades the numerous environmental weather storms common to our area.

      
Ponder what I have written and maybe read more that Galileo wrote centuries ago.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via