Why Wind Turbine Blades Are So Hard to Recycle | World Wide Waste 

Was this video sponsored by Veolia or GE?

This is just ridiculous. All of this combined wastes more energy than it produces.

"Greenhouse gases". 🙄 care to expound on that?

Maybe use the materials for Houses

@@tuscan9617 The fossil fuel industry.

Exactly my thought I even thought it would be great for insulation but what do i know just burn it.

@@carlosesteban5601 Not the best insulation material and even if you treated it to turn it into good insulation material, it would cost more than current insulation and the process would likely be less environmentally friendly. As for @NotQuiteUseful the issue is all the other things that go into the blades, make it less viable for concrete filler (they mentioned wood as part of the stuff in the blades).

@@rodon107 I dunno but wood fibers can be added to concrete but you could probably get the wood sections out. I know more steps more expensive but yeah it seems viable to me similar to hempcrete where hemp fiber is combined with lime to create vastly more insulated bricks. Dunno if you like alternative building materials I would advise you to check out Hempcrete. I'm no specialist in building materials but it seems viable to me.

@@carlosesteban5601 Hempcrete is a fundamentally different material than concrete. Hempcrete is meant to have airgaps and absorb moisture and is not load bearing. And part of what makes hempcrete special is how the silica in the hemp interacts with the calcium in the lime. Wood doesn't give you the same benefits. Concrete you want solid, no air gaps. Organics like the wood in turbine blades reducing the strength of the concrete and makes it more likely to fail.

@@stormelemental13 what if it was made into sawdust could it be used then? What if it was made into like this pressed material like Ikea furniture (forgot the English name)? Would the fiberglass alone be viable for bricks maybe with a different brick composition I'm sure there would be some material combination that could use the fiberglass for bricks. I dunno the person that figures that out will probably make millions.

I thought the same mate!

How is burning them useful? Edit: it was a genuine question, and I clearly wasn't paying attention when they stated the reason 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@theoneed2051 They're using it as fuel for the production process instead of as an additive.

Since the newer ones are made of fibreglass/Carbon fibre then crushing them becomes even more toxic. A simple law would be that no blades can end up in landfill (where they would never decompose). There are aleady lots of coal alternatives for cement making (old tyres/domestic rubbish/construction waste) and the end waste can be mixed into road material compound reducing its carbon footprint (a little). Perhaps asking the motorsport teams who use alot of expensive CF or aircraft manufacturers using more of this in planes what they are doing to recycle it??

Me also!

Great observation. Their lungs would get wrecked.

Also touching the shred fiberglass without gloves.

I noticed that also.

@@KevanTess Right?! Wtf, man? Amateur hour? - or are they just CONSTANTLY UPWIND of all their work material...😂... OR - are they the ALIENS amongst us??🤔🤔🤔

yeah madness, imagine driving one of those loaders around that constantly dust filled shed all day, you would never get the smell of fibreglass off your body. They will all get cancer, and this video will be used in the prosecution against veolia I'm sure.

We have a new company that has moved next door to our home. We are getting a larger amount of fiberglass on us our pets and our livestock. We are very concerned about our health and well being. We are trying to get them stop and are having a hard time! They are working without permits as we speak and still no one has stopped them!

@@mistyhill3666call the city or the state

So True, ... I worked with the stuff in the old School/non-osha Body Shop.

Me too...bummer.

What dose any of this have to do with concrete at all? Any coal powered factory could use this plastic filled bullshit.

@@PeteRoe im going to have to guess its because people dont stick around to hear what they are doing with their millings. a lot of people will have watched to the boring part and never got to hear that the final disposition of the material is burning. people are walking away from this video thinking its used as aggregate. that is one of the angles of this propaganda. the other is a call from the industry to appeal to the masses in search of better alternatives because their arent a lot of creative people working in the waste industry - usually a good thing.

Being mulched up by equipment that runs on diesel fuel.

@@PeteRoe I work with biomass boilers and plastics and resins absolutely ruins the inside of the boilers and covers it in burned plastic that's near impossible to remove so it's not just as simple as dump and burn without ruining your burning area unless you pay to modify it or the process. There are actually blower fans that need clean passageways as well as grates that let air circulate and plastics just burn and gum them up and stopping to repair is such a ball ache.

Got that right,this "green"energy isn't so green

I reckon there is a big enough market for things like temporary buildings made from whatever (e.g. the tents that company is using). The biggest issue is that they're a really awkward shape, and they're all slightly *different* shapes. You can't scale up reuse if you have to redesign your building for 100 different shapes of turbine blade.

Looks like they might work for sound barrier walls along the interstates

Just smile and nod, enjoy the koolaid, and keep using words like "green", "clean", and "renewable." The truth is too much reading anyways.

The artists who do these things have very little understanding of industrial scale and way way over-inflated view of their own significance in the world. You gotta be to think the world needs your art, right?

The facts are rage worthy. Evil is very comfortable to even those close to you

No it’s called government back door kick backs screwing the tax payers.

Goes hand to hand with electric car aka lots of waste and not environmental at all if you look big picture.

I noticed that. Max lifespan of 20 yrs, do newer model blades last longer, or were those in worse weather conditions?

@@TaxPayingContributor I'm guessing you rage about a lot of random things, lol.

Burning fiberglass instead of e.g. using it as construction material filler seems extra ludicrous.

Green energy ! Lol

And nuclear? how say is that to recycle? or oil, or coal? Have you seen what mines and drilling for oil does to the land?

@@biggerminds523 Two new-gen reactors that are 100 times more efficient (long-term) and are completely clean were launched recently. But you won't hear that in the "news".

@@Conserpov using it as filler in construction material is pretty ludicrous.

Where I used to work there were three wind turbines. Very very rarely were all three turning. About half the time only one was turning and the other half of the time two were turning.

@Oliver Twist amen

Wind turbines may be left 'dead' or mothballed for a variety of reasons. Usually, the company determines that repairing it or further maintenence is more costly than the projected revenue they can get from the remaining expected life of the turbine. Another is that the company that manufactures them has gone out of business, or exited the sector. Or the model is obsolete & replacement parts are very hard to source.

I can only imagine that certain companies get subsidies or investors who are willing to pay them to set up the turbines, but there's no money in maintaining them.

@@shaidyn8278 Setting them up provides a photo-op and a chance for "positive" sound bites. Maintenance does not do that.

That's not exactly what they said.

@@zbaby82 there are already plenty of systems in place for removal, containment, and storage of waste in strict manner. Reality is every form of energy production has different forms of waste/ hazards and different stages and efficiency.

Google ' Chernobyl birth defects images' and get back to me.

Have you heard of nuclear waste? Turbine blades are a menace, but they won't kill you.

​@@davidwilhelm7466nuclear waste problem was solved in the 50's

How about in yards?

he miss da chance to say its a "wind wind" in da end

Are you all like that void of purpose and spark find interest in that. Scary AF to see the fall of men to what you are

They treat people as if they are idiots because most of them are .

Proof that Americans will use anything but the metric system for measurement.

yeah but old tires is an excellent material to build farm infrastructure. you can give it all sorts of use and it's a durable and lasting material. i don't think old blades will have the same sort of second life, as the material itself cannot be broken down further.

I remember back in the sixties, door matts made of old tire strips to wipe your feet on were common.

one of the best uses I have seen for tyres is a wood basket ,I bought it from "fair trade" about 10 years ago,it is still in excellent condition,I believe it was made somewhere in Africa, search for "wood basket made from tyre"I hope my "fair trade" buy helped somebody out

Yet car tyres is one of the best reusable materials out there. Just not very attractive to the plutocrats. Burning fiberglass instead of e.g. using it as construction material filler seems extra ludicrous.

I'll take concrete over the cheesy lawn ornaments.

Humanity is dumb squared

Be grateful for what you have

Fiberglas and 150 kubikmeter Balsa wood per blade. For this to grow tropical primeval forest is cut down and to build the turbines they clear large areas of forest here with us. But hey it's green energy

@Crypto Arnold You're whole outlook is more toxic than the fumes. Weird flex too.

They were using a wet saw. did u notice the water hose that is connected to the saw, and the lack of dust?

20 years is the best-case scenario in ideal conditions, it's an absolute farce

20 years is best case scenario. Usually lightning or birds or extreme winds cause them to break sooner

Source

True 20 years appears to be best case. It needs a permanent second life use.

@@CircularSolar1 Or how about instead wait till the technology is mature enough to be economically and environmentally sustainable. We will also never be in a position to replace coal and nuclear with solar and wind, it would require massive battery banks and A: that's very hazardous, B: there isn't enough of the elements and compounds needed on the planet and C: terrible for the environment. Instead the sensible route would be to leave solar and wind for small-scale, niche applications, make our use of fossil fuels clean and efficient as possible, restore habitats across the world instead of paving them over to house ever increasing numbers of people, and massively invest in nuclear to make it safe and sustainable as possible, and other alternative energy sources.

You should see how lithium is mined, and how its nearly impossible to dispose of, the whole green thing is a scam.

They are being recycled. That are added to concrete as a strength modifier.

@@wymonwatson1309 until it’s not.

@@ianc435 Maybe do a little research, especially about co2. The green/man made climate change scam is a total grift.

@@wymonwatson1309 They won't. The facts will conflict with their biased narrative.

Of course not, they work

Fossil fuel powered.

Powered by Coal and Oil generated electricity

They would but it is too unreliable

They can be. The just need they right power supplier.

It’s both more forgiving and far less forgiving than people think. Resource squandering or not, humans are failing the exam

We humans have a problem with big numbers, scale and changing our thinking. Sadly it cut both ways: We can't wrap our heads around running up against physical limits and when we _do_ run our collective heads against a wall, we can't imagine the transition needed to mitigate the problem. That is why we need to listen to experts trained to handle scale and big numbers. We can still prevent the worst of the climate crisis and an ecological collapse, but we have to get our sh*t together asap. Yes, it will be different. No, different doesn't equate "bad".

@@madshorn5826 those experts are as bad as u bro… so u r how the slo norms view things. Would you like willingly give up your vote

@@seetheanimal5867 You have a foggy notion of democracy I see :-) There are things we can vote about and things we can't. We can't vote about science. We can vote for providing resources to a variety of different scientists, but we can buy a result we like, no matter how much money we plow into a research field. If we could, don't you think the fossil fuel industry would have sponsored some solid science by now? :-) Suppressing results you don't like is not democracy, it's criminal. Politics starts when the scientific consensus is reached. We can't cling on to outdated petrol cars - _unless_ our stated goal is the end of a human friendly climate and a 100 million climate refugees. We can vote about whether we change tech or accept going to hell in a handbasket, but we can't vote about whether the science is accurate. That's what I mean when I say "listen to the experts". As does everyone else who knows the first thing about reality.

@@madshorn5826 oh wow u r lost, and speaking about fake #’s and speaking of science when u have no concept of the process and purpose of science… U should consider willingly giving up ur right to vote for the common good

no that wont happen for a couple of reasons

@@happyblt624 are you going to elaborate or ....?

@@birchthebirch4593 when i feel like it

@@happyblt624 like what? I have experience in the trucking and waste disposal industries and can't see why not.

@@timhinchcliffe5372 most of all costs, huge upfront & upkeep costs which will deter companies, trucking is just easier, doesnt take as long to build, not as complex, and covid is not a good reason

True, sustainability is a misused term. We need to consider a circular economy where engineering components at the end of service can either be decomposed or used elsewhere.

@@georgiosyiannakou5537 It's as simple as that. Until then, whomever is able to capitalize on waste products will thrive abundantly.

And just gonna put up the bill, is all about profits, wind turbine is the dumbest clean energy solution that is not really a solution

Thinking of a solution is easier than to implement it.

@Man sky Source?

It's not that it's ok, it's just far from being the big bad some people might want to see it as

@@joaomoraes9323 it’s 12.5% of plastic waste. and the only thing we can realistically do is grind it up (a lot of energy consumption) and somehow that’s okay? plastic straws are only 3% of plastic waste and we banned them….no sense, all a political agenda

@@f.m.1898 stupid people banned plastic straws. No restaurant I eat at gives me a paper straw

@@f.m.1898 come on to the light friend…come on to the light.

Plastic straws cause ecological damage due to a combination of both their material (making them long lasting), as well as their shape (easily lodged inside of living organisms). There's still some hypocrisy here to be sure, but the reasons for banning straws are not directly equatable to arguments for banning turbine blades. As for plastic being perfectly recyclable.... that's far from the truth. We should really be focusing on greatly reducing our plastic production across the board if anything. With *that* said, many green technologies rely on high performance materials, and composites are some of the highest performing materials we have. All of these problems are related and none of them are easy or simple to solve.

Interesting possible application. There has to be some great applications for reuse of these extremely strong items.

Would you put 20+ year old, used, end of life material on your roof?

I was thinking the same thing, instead of trying to recycle them repurpose them

@@tioswift3676 Why not? We have no problem using billion year old rocks or 100 year old lumber.

@@tioswift3676 why not, technically tar is millions of years old isn't it?

Exactly. And as the guy said until there’s an actual demand for the scale of used blades from other sources, which there won’t be, that shredding them is the best option

id build a deck out of them, probably pretty weather resistant

@@ApexOfThrottle how are you going to make a deck out of them? 🤣 There's not a single flat surface on them.

Well the shredded material produces less emissions than the coal it replaces in the cement kiln, less SOx and less NOx. The shreds are low ash compared with coal, and allow other ash type wastes to be used in the cement process to replace the coal ash. If we want to continue using cement, then we should make it in the most efficient, and least polluting manner possible, so it makes sense to use the blades as fuel. Yes, I know the fuel burning CO2 emissions are very small compared with the calcination of the limestone. Second life projects are fun, but way too limited to tackle the problem. And no, I do not work for a cement co.

@@Elemblue2 a very good idea. Rip them along the blade, laminate into rectangular or I-beams. No rot, no sag. No drying and distortion. They will be quite flammable though. I doubt it would be cheaper than 2x4x8' at $5, but quite possible for longer/wider boards

Also, how much energy could it produce in an ideal lifespan? Also how much does it cost to remove the infrastructure, when don't want it anymore, like the turbine's foundation?

I was thinking the same thing, considering these things have to be changed so frequently and are difficult to get rid of in a environmentally way they should either make them out of different longer lasting materials or stop making them all together.

@@onegoodtech4all751 I work in recycling industry, no, stopping making it all together increases energy resources.

@@eugenetswong There is nothing in this world that is cheaper than natural resources. We need to find bio solutions, period. Anything you build, metal, aluminium, brass, whatever, degrades over time, it costs way more. I have worked in recycling industry, my dad as well. Hydroelectric is the best option in the world with the least pollution created. Bio energy is what we need, something that can be used like gas, put in tank, deliver, done. The first one to do that, would be a trillionaire. Because all we are doing now, is putting a filter, but the demands would only go up, and more filters require more materials burning more resources. Other than bio energy, it’s only delaying, because the only infrastructure that does it with minimum effect, is Hydroelectric, dams. The funny thing is, why is only China spending billions on this two research while everyone else try to implement these half ass back up plans?

There is way too much sense and independent thought in this comment thread. You guys need to stop thinking and just believe what you're told. 🤣

Exactly.

My plan is to destroy the earth for the next generations, our children and grand children. More waste like wind turbine so next generation will suffer.

@@fynkozari9271 good luck with that no way you could do it alone though

@@Infinitynous-gg6vs actually im not using air conditioner or cars or littering plastic. Only electricity to power PC, smartphone. Im not contributing greenhouse gas for climate change.

@@fynkozari9271 hah, nerd

Harold , I'll replay to your thoughts. And add a couple. Your right about the chemicals used. Filber glass should never be ground up. This is what we learned in a MEGA humen screw up. ( black trash bags 1970s , biodegradable) Everybody jumped up and down. Land fills would now break down trash faster. Before black trash bags lasted a 1000 years. ( note the 1000 year black trash bag if we keep USEING it would have saved 10s of millions of lives. See the HUMEN race is drinking water from deep well. Guess what. 3 main plasticizers used to make degradable trash bags. Breaks down, then leaches in to the ground water. 1 molecule at a time. 600 feet below earths surfaces. BILLIONS Of plastizer molecules, gather like big blobs of crap. They 100% float on top of the water, deep rivers, ect ect, they line the tops of caverns that for a million years, have been keep clean. Pure pure drink water. Humens drill the wells. The well heads go thru the toxic crap. Then they suck it up. And humens drink it. Pretty dame wild. At HEFTY trash bags, 70s.... no one cared I walked out and quit. Started bottle water COMPANYS with reengineered H2O.

"Design for disassembly" Makes the blades worse at their job

@@phillycheesetake Depends on the design. They WILL be heavier, but that isn't always a "bad thing".

@@haroldhenderson2824 Heavier actually is a bad thing when what you're talking about spins on top of a large column.

@@phillycheesetake some wind blade producers are working on resins that when exposed to specific chemicals and heat will decompose the resin, which would leave just the fiberglass and balsa/core. much easier to recycle that way.

i can help you burn your own trash. also, i can help your neighbor burn their trash.

Burning is the ultimate recycling, because you're reducing it to its component atoms, and returning them to the environment. It's essentially the same process that happens in a landfill, just much faster.

It is if your using them in a process that currently has to have a fuel combusted as part of the process - far better to use a waste product as fuel than extracting/mining/transporting new fuel sources - such as fossil fuels.

The result: a 27% reduction in CO2 emissions and a 13% reduction in water consumption. A single wind turbine blade that weighs 7 US tons recycled through this process enables the cement kiln to avoid consuming nearly 5 tons of coal, 2.7 tons of silica, 1.9 tons of limestone, and nearly a ton of additional mineral-based raw materials.

@@andrewday3206 but do companies actually do that? Because they can do this, and still burn the same about of fossil fuel as before.

for 8 years of intermittent production? Astronomical.

As opposed to what? Natural gas, coal?

Its all just bait and switch

Wind turbines were not created to decrease carbon footprint, they were created to maximize profit .. developing it in a way that means u can reuse it after the fact is more money, and god forbid someone find a way to use there old ones instead of buying new ones, well that's even less money for us!!! You see the problem ?

Money money money mooooney, money. Trump show. Im not his supporter.

I think in another 100 years when everything is used up it will be economical for things to be made out of trash.

Thats how the economy in any system works

A system narrowly focused on short term profits is obviously a fail, yes, we all see that.

That is why USA needs to up the cost for landfills and make companies pay for recycling. In my country you only pays for the pick up of the recycling bin not the contents of the bin. You can even go to the recycling centre for free and leave recyclable materials.

Or outside, if that's where he happens to be 😛

It's rather annoying that people expect solutions to be perfect at the offset and if they aren't it's, "Oh well, this has some downsides so...let's give up."

@@e.turduckeny630 Well, of course renewables have issues. But nuclear is safe, clean, and reliable, and can easily replace fossil fuels for as long as it takes to make renewables practical.

@@jamesharding3459 Yes, sorry if my tone made it seem I was anti-nuclear. More that I've seen a a growing trend in some people I know that see the issues with renewables and immediately discount the idea of all renewables. As if anything other than a perfect solution means we should just give up and preserve the status queue of fossil fuels with no deviation. I want to scream, "Do you understand how innovation works?"

Nuclear is by far the cleanest, cheapest, most compact option.

Only if Thorium is used. A lot less waste. A lot less radioactivity. But, you know, they have to use uranium to make bombs, so...........

we still waiting on the costs for small snail snukes. today these are 1/3 the cost of nukes

Small scale uranium nukes are already well established and have been powering military vessels for years. Thorium technology would be a welcome addition. You can't make a bomb from uranium fuel rods unless they go through an enrichment process. Uranium nukes do not directly lead to fission bombs.

Its waste should be coming to a landfill near you then.

Cut out two sheets from a turbine and you could use them as a roof for a shed or similar as example

Guaranteed none of it would wind up dumped by the side of the road no way

Oh, like the three pounds of re-usable (like the French do, but the left outlawed here in the US) nuclear waste from producing more energy than ten wind mills over thirty years? That waste? Nah, you don't want that to be shown.

@@gmarie701 I should have said "rather than fossil fuel methods" Nuclear, on paper, is the cleanest and most sustainable source we will likely ever find

@@gmarie701 aren’t left pro renewable right pro fossil fuel?

Ppl got scared of nuclear for some reason 🙄 To be fair, the old facilities weren’t great hence the meltdowns but new nuclear is completely different. One big problem is maintenance… the US isn’t great at that or staying on top of things. Sucks that our universe is full of energy but we been in an energy crisis for decades

There was a wind spill in your backyard and you didn't cancel a the BBQ.

And shredding the blades is putting CO2 into the air

dem hood starts bussin man, shit's lit

Sometimes, paying to recycling is cheaper than paying to bury in landfills. People don't understand that some recycling is not exactly profitable to anyone.

I find it hard to throw anything away unless it takes up needed space. I have kept stuff for over 20 years and found a use for it

@ 🤡

Certainly true for some men! :D

@@theobserver9131 🤷🏻‍♂️😅

Problem?

And the alternative being? Unlike you people who work in renewables are looking for ways to solve problems and this is just another problem that needs to be looked at

@@h3llb3nd4 live like the amish

@@davidho1258 Out of the box thinking, I like it

There is nothing bad in creating waste as a by-product of something thats how things work, it only becomes a problem if its not tackled in due time. And using green energy to expand green energy is way better than using fossile fules to expand green energy.

we chase the hope and ignore the true accounting. we don't have the technology and don't fund research that interferes with the economic imperative of consumer capitalism

@@jthadcast see above comment

When you think about it, everything we do is recycling, even burning fossil fuels or using landfills, it will become a tar pit or crude oil at somepoint in time. Haha

nah. some day it will be some sort of mineral deep underground.

Did you even watch the video.... they grind up the blades and BURN them to make cement.

Surprisingly, as the video says, GE is the one paying Veolia to recycle these blades. Definitely agreed, however. Just wish that there was an international solution.

So you want to live in a world owned by three corpos got it

@@AquaStockYT no, i don't know what you're talking about and how you came to that conclusion, but it's possibly because you misunderstood what i said, which if you did, you must be somewhat uneducated.

Anything can be recycled... whether it's profitable is another thing...

@@tf7274 Exactly, no one talks about that because it’s all about money and nothing about sustainability.

I had the same thought....minus the graffiti... :D

@@moltoniron633 what would be the advantage of that over just burning it? You're still releasing gasses into the atmosphere and the cost of bringing it to space is a lot

@@moltoniron633 Launch them? Rocket fuel is expensive! Besides, Earth's orbit is FULL of dangerous debris already. As much as I enjoy reading about space, satellites and exploration, we really trashed our orbit, lol. When you get a chance, take a look yourself.

or instead of littering, we can arrest criminals and not be afraid to be called racist

I like turtles

And somehow it's still one of the least polluting forms of energy. Shit's fuckin' wild.

Sounds like an inefficient process.

At least balsa is organic and can decompose.

@@pirojfmifhghek566 It actually isn't. Look into it further than greenies do. Wind power is trash.

@@stevenwhite3.1415 Fiberglass is expensive for a reason. There is loads of waste and lots of nasty chemicals involved. However, it has a very high strength to weight ratio which is critical in these sorts of applications. The heavier the blades, the higher the wind forces needed to start moving ergo they can't operate as well at lower wind speeds. It also limits performance at high speeds since heavier blades produce more force for a given rotation speed, capping the maximum speed they can rotate before breaking.

Green energy doesn't. It moves the sources of pollution to other industries.

It's impossible to reduce emissions. You would need to remove all life and volcano's on Earth in order to reach zero emissions.

Yes, well the word recycle is used arbitrarily in these circles just like the words "clean" and "renewable". These words don't have meaning anymore because green energy idiots just throw them out to give themselves a warm fuzzy. In the end, the consequences must be paid all the same. They would rather bide time indulging one another in ignorance though, than actually face the fact that solar and wind are a waste of time and that nuclear is, was, and will always be our best energy solution.

isnt it better to reuse something than to create something new though?

With that logic you shouldn’t recycle plastic bottles because more will get made… 🤔

@@GeorgeRobson4 Not always. Recycling happens because people see the word and think, "oh that's good." In reality, some recycling processes are more consuming than producing new product. People lean toward recycling because they say at least there is less trash filling up the holes in the ground. If I had to pick between buried trash or greenhouse gases I'd say bury it. We need to put more research into biodegration.

While the future figures out the solution.

because NIMBY runs the show.

Exactly. When you find them up and burn them how much material is still left to be buried? I would guess the energy recovered from burning each blade is less than the energy used in transporting it, crushing, handling, removal and transport of the ashes. Energy from uniform sources like electricity or natural gas is much easier and cost effective. This is obvious because the cement kilns have to be paid to take a free source of energy.

We are generating so much garbage that we haven't had time to look back and recycle and nobody seems to want to. People are going to look at our landfills someday and say, what the hell were they thinking?

One day major landfills are going to be the next mining boom. So much material and resources thrown away never to be seen again. It’s not sustainable.

@@hithere5553 well most of the materials change into worthless compounds, iron turns to rust, copper with salts make sulfur acid wich further corrupts, micro plastics, etc. so not a gold mine unless you're mining toxic waste and polluted ground water.

And then people ask why I laugh when they bring up how we should use wind turbines as Green energy its funny how major Outlets wait and long-ass time bring out the truth Even even though I knew this for years it doesn't get the attention that it should all green Energy Products have their faults mainstream media only brings up green energy whenever it suits them but NEVER. Their faults

The highest order of recycling is to turn an old blade into a new one, like a new water bottle from an old water bottle. The lowest order is to grind it up and burn it. Next lowest is to use it only one more time, like making a chair out of it. That is not really recycling, because the process ends when the chair goes into the landfill or gets burned.

Why? If we did that it wouldn't fit the leftist diatribe of saving the planet.

Yes, lots of times. You can google it using 'net lifecycle carbon per kWh' for various sources of electricity. Wind is about one hundredth the amount per kWh that coal produces, and about a fiftieth of that produced by natural gas per kWh. It's also a quarter of solar. It's about the same as nuclear, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, depending on the specific type of reactor and location of the wind turbines.

@@jhhggygghchdlfyggxzgdltfugc I just tried that and got millions of search results, each was just a clone of the same source and when find another fresh source doesn't corroborate inconsistent and don't seem to include the full life cycle cradle-to-grave carbon used like mining for msterials construction maintenance etc etc etc

None of the enviro math is accurate and it usually comes from some scam source.

@@jagmarc The first result I clicked on had about 20 links in the references to peer reviewed papers, respected international journals, ngos etc. Try using a different search engine, maybe your results are being influenced by the sort of thing you usually search for. (Luddite nonsense and for-profit anti science propaganda, apparently.) Slight variations in results are normal and expected; that can't explain 100x difference in the figures from multiple sources. There's no credible science supporting the speculation that wind is worse than fossils for carbon. That's entirely made up, with no supporting evidence.

Solar panels are the same issue

You can't make fibergalss last 50 years. It's actully very fragile. Even a birdstrike could take out a whole windmill by cracking the blade. Fiberglass is very high maintenance. Just look at how much goes into boats!! Windmills are to big to be made of any other material that would have the strength, without the weight. Plus the cost ratio would be skyhigh made out of metal or any other product. Windmills are not the answer!!

@@scrapcash2421 Windmills absolutely is a big part of the answer :-) While fiberglass is currently the only material strong enough this will change when R&D gets funding on par with the obsolete and failing nuclear industry. Some day we'll crack how to make cheap carbon fiber sheets or new materials will appear. Recycling is slowly happening today and will take off tomorrow. Still no comparison with dismantling nuclear power plants and recycling used tires. If processed blades can be burnt in the cement industry, surely they can be used for energy production too. All it takes is regulation to prevent dumping used blades in a landfill. This will add to the cost of new turbines, but this will not be a serious problem with wind turbines being way cheaper to install than fossil fuel and nuclear capacity. And before you start the talking point about wind being intermittent: we have flow batteries and liquid metal batteries up and running. We just need to scale up from here. Search for 'Ambri' here on RU-vid.

@@AnemonLaut50 There is nothing wrong with wood, it just isn't strong enough. For small turbines you can use wood just fine, but small turbine means small energy production. When you double the radius of the blades you quadruple the area swept by the blades and therefore you get four times the energy. (It is simple math : _Area = pi × radius²_ :-) On the other hand the materials needed for a generator scale linearly, so the bigger the turbine the better the economy. The newest (and biggest) turbines right now produce north of 7 MW. When you make the blades longer you run into bigger forces though Remember the merry-go-round on the playground? When you leaned away from the axis the strain on your arms got bigger. The strain of a 70 m rotating blade is enormous and currently fiberglass is the only (cheap) material strong enough. Fun fact: The top rotational speed is limited by the need for the tip of the blades to move well below the speed of sound, lest we'd have a continuous sonic boom from the wind turbines :-) The speed of sound is just 340 m/s so 100 m blades have to spin less than twice per second because _Circumference = 2 × pi × radius_ In practice the rotation speed is a lot slower as the real cap on rotation speed is the forces on the blades :-)

@@AnemonLaut50 🙂👍 Underline "other material". Metals aren't strong enough or cheap enough :-) Edit: A lot of metals "creep" under stress, just like caramel. Try tugging at a warm caramel ;-) Long lived would be nice, but "easily recycled" would fit the bill too :-)

The big idea with reusing is to also reduce. By repurposing something you take away the need to source that item with raw materials. Like if you made a play structure with the turbine blades that's replacing the need to cut down a tree to use lumber to create that structure. Expanding the lifetime of one item makes it so that there's less need to draw raw materials from the environment

I would think that most of these re-use projects are really trying to get people to think more about a circular economy in a creative way rather than offering a large-scale solution to this particular waste problem. The hope being that designers, engineers and planners will see re-use in action and can come up with better solutions in the future.

Using you reasoning then we shouldn’t make any kind of product? Because someday it will have to be disposed of. I think you are only looking at a narrow view of things. After initial investment, The fuel for wind is free. Same for solar.

Yes, delaying is what we need now. repurposing doesn't mean we're not gonna be thinking about how to deal with them in the end but it buys us time to develop new processes and technologies to eventually deal with the waste the best way possible. Anything that doesn't need to be burnt now can potentially be disposed of much more efficiently and environmentally friendly in the future than we are capable of today.

BINGO! I was saying the same thing because RRR is great but eventually the reuse ends up having to be recycled.

Yeah. Those damn americans. Using feet to measure things. And... Buses? Football yards???

becouse it gives a reference of length... a comparison to something you see daily

@@federicoxxx.jjjh.f2sss348 I stopped reading after seeing you misspelling because.

@@AA66999 Clearly a typo you tool.

@@AA66999 if a single letter stops you from reading that's your problem... English isn't even my first language

Freeways that are close enough to civilization that they need sound barriers are their own can of worms.

@@TheRealE.B. Most apartments and homes built next to freeways are for poor people and in my 6+ decades on this spinning rock it's quite apparent no one really gives a shyt about poor people, or else Ethiopia and other nations would have all the food and medicines they need and everyone in developed nations would also have affordable healthcare and access to food for their families.

A perfect part of a new border fence or wall. Dual use life.

Stupid idea

@@id10t98 Actual first world countries do care about this

It's not vestas anymore.....and F### vestas

@@cquiroz420 you might want to use a bit more words to write a message that can be understood.

@@harenterberge2632 The Chinese bought out the American facilities. and F### vestas.

@@cquiroz420 that is rather unspecific. Vestas only sold one particular tower factory in Colorado. And why the hate?

this whole thing was a waste of time and materials

This is not toxic waste.

We needed such law for doing something about dead horses left lying on the streets 120 years ago, instead the companies owning horse drawn carriages started making up lies about how automobiles are too dangerous and there should be a man waving a red flag walking in front of any car. We needed such law for pollution caused by fossil fuels 70 years ago, but the oil and coal companies lobbied against it. Unlike corpses spreading disease and pollution killing people and changing the climate, both of which were clearly known to be true by the FF industry, being made of materials that are little hard to recycle is a very minor issue. The only reason why people have spent 20 years trying to make it seem like windmills and solar panels are toxic and we should ban them because they aren't made of unicorn farts and pure magic like oil is, is that the lobbyists trying to oppose renewable energy couldn't find any real problems so they had to make shit up.

@@skunkjobb You say that like someone who's never had to get up close and personal with actual fiberglass...

While true, there are pluses in addition to the minuses. This is a copy of my recent comment: On the plus side, 85% of windmills can be reused or recycled. The blades are only 15% of the deal. If we can figure out eco-safe ways to recycle/reused blades, we’ll have a completely renewable form of energy. Another plus: it’s way quicker to erect windmill farms than it is to construct nuclear power plants, and the windmills will produce the same or more energy than nuclear plants.

@@MusicfromMarrs nuclear capacity factor 92.5% and wind capacity factor is 35.4%, you do the math. Not here to start a debate or argument just debunking misinformation so others aren’t misinformed. Yes I see the pros you bring up like time to construct but you’re way off actually comparing the energy.

@@conbro0985 it may take more land to produce the same energy, but wind goes up in unpopulated plains areas, or in the ocean. It’s also safer. There’s a link in my next comment; I do t know if it will stay.

@@MusicfromMarrs "and the windmills will produce the same or more energy than nuclear plants." - but not within nearly the same amount of space - by like a factor of thousands - how much do you want to dedicate of the different animal habitats to spinning blades and noise pollution?

@@MusicfromMarrs No one has calculated the effects of erecting all of those towers in the ocean on the currents, environment or marine life. Plus those plains are unpopulated by people - but not animals.

yes; they are very lazy, shreading and burning. they could very easily turn it into a slury and extract various materials from it; sort of how sewage is done. they could also very much turn it into a different product as-is, similar to say OSB? from there, the operation could be "profitable." it's clearly just an operation to improve "enviornmental image".

I agree with this. Endless rational discussions available on the internet why this may be a good idea.... the discussions against it are based on fear without knowing much. Fukushima, Chernobyl etc. Scared people. They were both preventable. And we have better technology. As long as no government burocrats or crazed psychopathic oligarchs prevent it, we can do it. But no, that would make people too free. Maybe in 10 years after we remove psychopaths from gaming us

BTW. Nice mustache, suit, hair combo bro

and that right there is the problem... we are told a big fat lie about all this "clean energy" but it's not clean, it's not even practical (Denmark is being paid by germany to shut off the windmills when it is too windy, while they run their more dirty but more flexible powerplants)

Burning oil resins and painted glassviber

@@timothy1742 It's called clean energy

Agree! Bus stops could also be an option.

4:31

@@youxkio Except all plastics and fiberglass degrade from the sun's UV rays, it tends to "chalk" and then get very brittle and crack unless completely protected by a paint or something. You def don't want a blade repurposed bus shelter to suddenly crack apart because some wind hit it during a storm while people sheltered under it

@@HobbyOrganist Now that explains the insisting explanation of using those blades for cement.... Yes, I guess it may be the only solution for those blades; very difficult to find a circular solution for them.

@@youxkio Yes, and when you think about it ask WHY they have to replace those blades in the first place, unlike a car engine or light bulb, the blades don't just "wear out" what happens is they get damaged- they are out there is the direct sun all day long, and like the paint on your car, dashboard, plastic trim etc- they get UV damage as well as I believe they start chemically breaking down. Look at those "Rubbermaid" plastic garbage/wastepaper basket cans and laundry baskets, notice how nice, strong and flexible they are when NEW, but ever notice how once they get some age on them the plastic CRACKS? Why would formerly flexible plastic get brittle and crack like that even tho those two items are typically not out in the sun? the answer on those (and that hich is in the sun too) is that the plastic itself is chemically degrading. Add the chemical degregation to the constant UV exposure and you get cracking and structural weakness, THAT is the main reason the blades have to be replaced. Even if they were metal, there's corrosion or metal fatigue to contend with- bending and flexing causes metal fatigue, its a main reason why jets have to be scrapped after a certain number of flights/hours- the wings and body get metal fatigue

You are missing a huge component to your statement here. Reducing overall consumption should be a global target. Instead of generating thousands od turbines to meet unrealistic and unsustainable consumption rates only makes the problem worse. Replacing a turbine every 20 years is also nothing compared to fossile fuels.

and they are manufactured w/ fossil fuel, shipped by fossil fuel trucks, have 100’s of gallons of oil in gears, & balsa wood means trees cut. Then there’s the bird kills.

So wind and solar are already the most expensive sources of energy by far, and then we have the incredible problems of disposing thousands of tons of retired equipment that only lasts 20 years or less. None of this krap would have ever gotten anywhere unless governments had spent YOUR hard-earned tax dollars on it.

We should NOT use them.

@@goosty17 Wind Turbines last for 50+ Years.

You cant recycle them.

when you by a car battery do you like that extra charge?

your mom needs to recycle you

We would have none of them then.

Whoever buys them should have to pay to get rid of them. It's a rounding error compared to the cost of buying them. Each blade costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and only $3000 to get rid of it.

I imagine if it was mixed together with something similar to expanding foam then a reasonably sturdy, light weight brick could be formed. These could be used for temporary structures, as the bricks could just be shredded afterwards and reformed again. I'd guess they would also work well for insulation or soundproofing.

...can we just stop pretending that wind is viable? Makes a hell of a lot more sense.

This video is not quite informative,if not misleading. US wind turbines even though somewhat commercially competitive, they are definitely not the first option when you want highly competitive wind turbines you definitely take a look at the Scandinavian countries as well as the Netherlands Finland and slightly Germany and Japan. Most of the technological leading companies on each of these countries has a run and going recycling program for their constructions. Now keep in mind that when someone installs a wind turbine park he has to pay on the initial price the suggested recycling program that the company he chose is offering,every company is obligated to sell wind turbines with a recycling program. Now what the video fails to mention is that the problem is not if wind turbines are recyclable but how sustainable the recycling is, which yes a lot of times the recycling of wind turbines is effective only when high demand of what they can recycle them to is in existence. So far they are recycled into a huge variety of low quality construction materials, high end construction materials for products like cars, noise cancellation panels and many many more,but the most effective recycling is the one that has consists of the least possible process and the least possible cost, that's why the park and the bike stant was so effective. The only legit problem of wind turbines as a mean of energy production is the installation process and the de-installation process, which a lot of the times it is the most expensive part of their lifespan, the most harmful to the environment and the toughest part to plan and deal with.

@@jwm6314 Lol, you're probably running your computer off electricity partially generated by wind right now, Luddite.

@@garthwright4064 water and sun is much more common and practical, I live in British columbia and all of our power for the most part comes from hydroelectricity. that man has a point wind is not really the way to go if it produces all this crap with it

Yes, fiberglass is almost impossible to recycle.

How much energy might be used in the recycling process? Is the cost benefit even worth it in the end?

@@THEGOOD360 I don't have numbers, but probably a lot. As of today, it's much cheaper to leave the blades in landfills. Not sure which cost benefit you're referring to.

@@OggeViking you know it’s the same reason why most plastic are not recycled because making a new plastic bottle is cheaper than recycling

is a wet cut

Dunno about that since you tipically don't want flammable insulation but I thought they would shred it and then make bricks out of it similar to hempcrete where the fibers add strenght and insulation.

also epoxy is expensive if I remember correctly

Good idea

dont limit the human imagination to a handful of engineers, and some middle management. there are better ways.

@@Plethorality we have to figure this out so that all those that virtue signaled about wind being clean energy won't look like dipsh*ts

@@davidwhitten3596 well that is one motivation, i suppose, but the willingness to stop the destruction of this planet is not virtue signalling, its just a virtue.

that is actually not a bad idea slice em up and sell em as dirt cheap shingles

@@arnearne12345 or expensive shingles as theyre green, environment friendly (recycled), and reduce carbon foot print to make new shingles.........

No, they would be too durable as shingles.

Yep, but for fencing the material is perfect. Or for walking paths, even for roofing. Just cut the appropriate length and width. I am sure that farmers will appreciate these free planks. But everybody is for profit, and the cost of disposal was not considered from the beginning. So if they cut into planks, then they want profit, and obviously farmers will prefer traditional material that do not come with inerrant issues of as recycled material.

and waists tax dollars

Similar to obamas bailout of a solar company…….huge waste of taxpayer dollars……

Wait until the solar panels are all junked. Way to go clean energy 🤣

these windmills make electricity at half the price of coal, and 1/3 the price of nukes. so..... why you fighting progress?

Better than fossil fuels

it's all nonsense.

Compare it to the alternatives. Coal, for example, leaves a massive pile of toxic ash as well as massive amounts of air pollution. Natural gas is better, of course, but it still emits way too much CO2 to be sustainable.

Because it's all about catering to the privileged white collectivist, and their fantasy's.

Because we live in a world where virtue signalling is more important than truth

Wind turbines are a scam. People have no idea how much energy and polution is used to make them, tramsport them, assembly and to keep them running. Also the hundreds of birds that every windturbine kill in it lifetime. And every 20 years you have to build new ones.

@@domitravel795 not to mention the efficiency for a lot of those. We have at least a dozen in the area that barely run at all, two of which collapsed due to production issues (Germany). But boosting green energy - in whatever form that may be, is a must to reduce our ecological footprint

@@MrSiimon93 Well, no wind or too much wind and the windturbines will not work.

Doesn't sound vary green

Domi Travel Actually scientists have already calculated the carbon Footprint for different types of renewable energy production. And wind is only marginally worse then nuclear at around 11g CO2 / kWh (and theres still room for improvement with bigger&more efficient turbines) . Compare that to 450g / kWh for Natural Gas and more than twice that for coal. And they do kill birds. An estimated 500,000 a year in the US. Sure, that is alot of birds. But at the same time up to 1.5bn Birds are killed by cats and windows each year.... So yeah, Wind turbines aren't perfect. But they sure as hell are way better then fossil fuels.

So littering...I bet your a fan of "modern art" installations that are twisted amalgamations of metal that don't represent any aspect of the natural world. "Art" that doesn't represent nature or God's creation isn't art. It's garbage.

How many can we use?

Yah it took me about 4 seconds to realize that too.

@@kregadeth5562 Thats assuming the system will work the same horizontally, may not clear debris as efficiently or something like that, but from the outset, it looks like a plausible solution to improve the efficiency of the process.

It is a bad approach tho sadly since other ways like brickmaking would be better creating insulated bricks similar to hempcrete.

@@carlosesteban5601 Don't know anything about bricks, but it sounds like you do. I'd like to comment and like a video of you revolutionizing industry. I'm all about looking to future success

@UCfPgv0aY-kw0umSSbXmHUKg That's unfortunate. There are problems everywhere, some just get highlighted more then others. There is a reason the computer/phone/tablet and app or internet you're using came from an amazing idea. We just need the input of all of us not the separation.

Unfortunately it is rather difficult to acquire turbine blades where I live because I would really like to test my theory or make a different project like a shed or something out of them since it seems like the company is paying to have them disposed it would be a great free project. I will ask around maybe I can get access to it through my university.

Depends on the power plant. Wind turbines produce a lot less waste than coal power plants and can be easiliy removed compared to most other power plants.

@old-pete yes I'm talking long term investment look at the environmental effects of the blades take that into consideration.

@@TimeforchangeTrudeaumustgoEndb I am talking about long term effects. The enviromental effect of the blades depends on the country. Not all countries allow landfill disposal.

after the complete lifetime cycle wind turbines are one of the most green forms of energy we have, they produce about 1/100 of the carbon a coal power plant.

I like it. Cut them into tiles, paint them in bright happy colors... boom!

@@theobserver9131 right on 👍

HAHAHA

Well isnt it still better though? Better for it to end up in landfills than in ur lungs like fossils anyway.

and so much money to be had!

Brilliantly put, I was thinking exactly the same thing

A non profit is a terrible option to figure this out. They come up with wild ideas that are expensive and impractical. A for profit company would find the most efficient way to do this.

This wasn't true recycling. They were reusing them as a fuel. They weren't recycling them into more wind turbines. I feel if its actually greener fuel there are more opportunities to use it that way than building bridges or any other contrived project

Yeh fam.. We can recycle them into oil to burn!!

you cant break apart the fibers in a way that makes them as strong as fiber concrete.

@@davidanalyst671 Can't? What does that word mean? :D

They act like cement making up 8% of greenhouse emissions is such a big deal but then tell you that 12+% of plastic waste is actually a small number.

@@Roukle eh the turbine blades are resin fiberglass and wood with minimal amounts of plastic involved, for the amount of energy produced outside of geothermal and hydro I'm fairly certain you create more waste of actual plastics and materials just for transportation of resources, coal power plants require cars to drive the coal there those tires are waste as well as the gas to transport it on top of the coal emissions, nuclear probably creates just as much in plastic waste alone as the entire wind turbine farm to produce equivalent power being scrapped just because of radioactive contamination, It's not that I don't understand your viewpoint but outside of entirely removing the entire power grid and everyone going to hunter-gatherers and building their tools from wood and Stone (which still destroy the environment and create waste we can find waste from civilizations 20,000 years ago from archeology sites) everything is going to be just a lower amount of waste the fight isn't to get rid of a waste entirely that's impossible it's to get it to a state in which it can decompose or be reabsorbed by the environment faster than we produce, at some point regardless of how long lived the waste we create is the Earth is still going to naturally bury it and pull it underground with the plates (coal and oil are technically waste from millions of years ago they got pulled underground and decomposed) the Earth can deal with almost anything eventually

w3ll that is capitalism.. always has to face the harsh truth

Wdym “that’s capitalism”? Like a communist country doesn’t need cement?

It probably still is cleaner tho but a stupid way to recycle. They could have made bricks with the added fibers that would have great insulation conserving energy even after the turbine finished it's lifecycle just sad to see the easiest solution of burning succeed

This exposes green energy has bullshit

@@Truthpatriot62 how? All I see is an energy company being cheap but not the technology failing. Like how is coal better when you have to burn 1ton of coal for around 8,141MWh of energy compared to a turbines average yearly output of around 6000MWh annually and you can still burn the waste instead of coal? Sure I would like it to be recycled properly but unless the government mandates it which it does in some parts of the globe companies won't have an incentive to.

That does decide if something is green or not. One can get lung diseases or even suffocate to death from wood smoke.