Snopes dealt with the question of whether windmill blades were buried in a landfill in Casper, Wyoming. Snopes said, “It is true that there is a landfill in Casper, Wyoming, that does accept decommissioned and damaged wind turbine blades and motors, both of which are not recyclable. However, it is important to highlight that up to 90% of a wind turbine is recyclable. That one-tenth of a windmill is not recyclable does not necessarily negate its overall green energy production over the course of its 20- to 25-year lifetime.”
Snopes has a way of twisting reality.
The blades have to be buried at the end of their lifespan. There is no alternative.
Wind turbine blades can’t be recycled and are piling up in landfills. There are only a few landfills in the country that accept decommissioned blades.
According to Bloomberg, companies are searching for ways to deal with the tens of thousands of blades that have reached the end of their lives.
A wind turbine’s blades can be longer than a Boeing 747 wing, so at the end of their lifespan, they can’t just be hauled away. First, you need to saw through the lissome fiberglass using a diamond-encrusted industrial saw to create three pieces small enough to be strapped to a tractor-trailer.
The municipal landfill in Casper, Wyoming, is the final resting place of 870 blades whose days making renewable energy have come to an end. The severed fragments look like bleached whale bones, says Bloomberg writer Chris Martin.
Currently, there are no plans to dispose of the plates in an environmentally friendly way.
The current process for getting rid of these blades is to pile them up and cover them with dirt like a mass grave.
Tossing these massive 120-foot pieces of fiberglass is incredibly wasteful and antithetical to the green aspect of this energy source.
The Casper regional landfill will accept 1000 of these blades, and then they’ll shut it down.
Each turbine blade needs between 30 and 44.8 ft. of landfill space. They run out of space fairly quickly. And there are no plans to deal with the problem of disposal.
You have to bury them and will soon run out of blade burial grounds.
thats a pantload put em through a shredder its plastic and can be used as construction material
There is no way to dispose of radioactive waste or toxic fly ash from burning coal.
Fly ash is used in concrete. Disposal of radioactive waste starts with reprocessing to get the fissile material left for inclusion in fuel elements. What is left will fill a very small volume and incasing it in vitrified materials renders it safe.
Do the math, They cost $4,000,000/widndmill. At best they generate $100,000/year of electricity. So at 25 years, they still cost more than $1.5 million more than they generated. What a waste of our money!!
Do the math or rely on world-renown financiers and energy researchers like Lazard, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and Lawrence Berkeley Labs to do it for you. Wind power is cheaper than fossil fuels or nuclear energy. So is solar PV.
I wouldn’t trust your references to get a passing grade on a fifth grade arithmetic test.
That “analysis” completely ignores the cost of the required 100% backup by conventional energy, because they only produce power 20-25% of the time. It’s like saying you can save lots of money by buying a car that only works 20% of the time without considering the cost of the other car that actually works 100% of the time. LOL
No it isn’t, Jack. You should wake up. Really. The world is going back to fossile fuels. From Sweden to Germany the game is up. China never went stupid. Coal plants being ordered left and right. Nuclear plants being built. Without massive subsides there would be very few wind farms or solar farms. They just don’t make economic or technical… Read more »
Those “world renowned” don’t mind twisting the figures to get the answers they want. After all the costs are included, so-called green energy is not cheaper, nor is it cleaner.
As always, the enviro-nuts ignore the ugly truths about so-called “green” energy. When I taught middle school science, our textbooks would give the rosy side of going green. I felt it my duty to inform my students about the ugly side of the life-cycle analysis, which includes the costs and risks of disposal. During my research, I found a story… Read more »
What is your opinion of acidic, toxic radioactive tailings from uranium mining being used to pave roads and children’s playground on indigeneous peoples’ territories, middle school science teacher? How about your opinion on fly ash lagoons?
After reading some of your comments, my feeling is that you aren’t smart enough to pass my 6th grade class.
Launch the old blades into low orbit. They’ll burn up on re-entry. It should only cost a couple billion per blade. Problem solved. Biden style.
nah, they should do the same thing you’re supposed to do with old car batteries. go down to the beach and throw them into the ocean.
Maybe they could pack them full of old Li batteries first? They could be used as electric power poles, building columns, culverts or communications towers?
The first option would require precautions to keep the metals and their compounds from seeping into the water table. That’s why you’re not supposed to throw Li batteries in the regular trash. For the second, I think it’s logical to assume the blades are being replaced because they are no longer structurally sound. If they were, why replace them?
One thing I have noticed is that plastic fan blades in household fans start moving less and less air as they age. The blades flatten over time causing the problem. You get the same problem with wind turbine blades. They simply become less efficient and you have to replace them because they simply don’t catch the air as they used… Read more »
just as bad as putting CORN in the gasoline… WTF.