Innovative use of materials may enable wind blade recycling
David Wagman | March 22, 2019Recycling existing thermoset materials that are commonly used in wind turbine blades can be challenging, so researchers at the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) are investigating a new composite of reactive thermoplastics as a replacement.
They say that these thermoplastics have three key benefits over their predecessors:
- They are recyclable at the end of a blade's life
- They are less expensive to manufacture
- They enable thermal joining and shaping, which is a lighter and potentially more reliable manufacturing process
(Click to enlarge.) A completed thermoplastic blade, ready for validation. Source: Dave Snowberg, NRELIn a recent article published in the journal Applied Composite Materials, the team noted that improvements in energy savings can be achieved by recycling retired materials and using thermal welding practices. In addition, thermoplastic materials have a room-temperature cure and require no post-cure steps, which they said is an improvement over traditional epoxy thermoset materials. Traditional materials often require expensive heated molds and an energy- and time-intensive post-cure oven procedure.
Because thermoplastics can be readily heated and formed, they also have the potential to be repaired if damaged.
Researchers work to develop a blade using recyclable thermoplastic material. Source: Dave Snowberg, NRELSo far, only blades between nine and 20 m long have been manufactured using these thermoplastic resins. Average utility-scale blades today are up to 50 m in length. Results show that traditional epoxy thermoset materials and thermoplastics perform similarly in small-scale models. This result warrants further research, the researchers said, potentially leading to full-scale experimentation.
NREL worked with partners from the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation on this research, including: Arkema, Colorado School of Mines, Johns Manville, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Purdue University, TPI Composites, University of Tennessee and Vanderbilt University.
The research is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Advanced Manufacturing Office. Additional supporters include the State of Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade, and the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation.
This is probably a bit off topic, but as these alternative energy device are becoming more common, the facts are beginning to leak out.
1. Because of the materials used - metals known as rare earths, batteries for storage, and now the wind-vanes, Many of these devices are not as, "clean or green" as many claim.
2. Because of the intermittent nature of wind and sunlight, huge storage or backup power is a necessity. Gas fired, backup Power Stations would probably be ideal, because they can be online in hours, not days, as with coal fired.
3. For household use, generator backup ideas display a complete lack of understanding of "Duty Cycle". Little portable cheap devices are used with a four to seven hour duty cycle. Instead of a larger (albeit more expensive) device with a 24/7 duty-cycle.
4. Most of the people advocating alternative energy solutions, have no idea of what "Base-load Power" means. I won't go into details about that in this company. Although I note that "Pumped Storage" would work just as well for alternative energy solutions. I do note however, that if I try to explain it to some alternative energy enthusiasts, they usually scream me down, and accuse me of all sorts of right-wing ideological mental defects, which I don't think I own. I guess it is a case of: "I have my opinions. Don't confuse me with facts."
I guess it is a fact: If you want an idea - ask a dreamer - if you want a business plan - ask an accountant - if you want to make the whole damn thing work - ask an engineer.
Yoowwrrr....Marum.(D
In reply to #1
Storage wouldn't be required if there was a nationwide grid of wind power. The wind is always blowing somewhere. My proposal of a worldwide grid would be even better.
All power sources could be tied into the grid (national or worldwide) until we quit using a power source such as solar power. Solar power will eventually stop because we will run out of places to store the old ones. They aren't recyclable. The wind turbines are recyclable. Now, even the blades are recyclable. And, the concrete foundations can be ground up and used in road construction.
If you prefer nuclear power, consider living over or very near a spent rod depository. 50000 year half-life? How much will be stored in 50000 years? You gonna bet your life on the future development of a method to neutralize the spent rods? Humm.
Climate Benefits of Wind and Solar Outweigh Costs of ‘Hidden’ Emissions (Dec 2017)
.
COMPARISON OF ENERGY SYSTEMS USING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (JULY 2004)
.
Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for electric vehicles based on electricity generation mix: A global perspective (March 2017)
.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM ENERGY SYSTEMS: COMPARISON AND OVERVIEW (2003?)
.
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards; Air Pollution from Power Plants (2012?)
.
I think you're grossly underestimating things like pollution ratios, "well-to-wheel" emission totals, and technological advances.