Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[DChemTech]

What % of scrapped large aircraft components are resin-impregnated glass-fibre (or like composites)?

Any 'strawman' type - 'yes, but' - conflation, esp' when comparisons with unashamedly filthy & decrepit
fossil-thermal units are raised, are so 'red-herring', as to be shameless, & clean-green energy must
surely be capable of, & duly held to, a far higher standard, ethically/commercially/politically... No?

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you implying that because windmills are presented as being green, they should be held up to a higher standard than other technologies - and if they cannot meet that higher standard we should just stick to the 'old' technology (regardless of consequences)? That's a bit odd, isn't it (to put it mildly).
I'm all for keeping all technologies to the same standards, and at that, accounting for the externalities for all. Yes, that includes landfilling for windmills. But at the moment, there seems to be a lot of selective outrage towards the negative externalities of windmills (and other green technologies), while those outraged do not uphold the same standards for the established system, all in order to uphold the (self-destructive) status quo. I'd be happy to see effort directed to windmill blade recycling, sure, but we should not lose the perspective - there are much, much bigger fish to fry at the moment.

As for that quantitative perspective, the issue itself of course is not 'windmill blades', but as you say, composite materials. Now, I found this little analysis targeted at Australia that provides some numbers:

- windmill composite landfilling is currently some tens of thousands of tonnes per year, and expected to reach up to 370000 ton/y in 2050. The blades make up ca. 10-15% of the turbine, the rest being recyclable (another source on aircraft recycling I found mentions that 85-90% of an aircraft is recycled - although that doesn't mention what is the remained).
- But, wind turbine blades make up about 5% of the global composite production annually. The other 95% of composites has the same problem (yet, the outrage seems to be selectively against windmills).
- For a 1MW turbine (which is rather small now), the waste boils down to 160 g solid waste/MWh.
- The amount of solid waste generated in coal fired plants is 200x larger per MWh (ashes, of which 64% are landfilled - and leaking toxic components, whereas the composites are inert).
- And that is only the solid waste.. then there's also the water and airborne pollution.

So yes. Blade, or better said, composite landfilling is a thing, and if there are ways to reduce it - let's go for it. But it's a very, very minor issue compared to some of the other things we need to tackle. And to argue that we should delay/avoid implementation of wind farms for it is simply outrageous, put in perspective. Wind energy has its fair challenges (mostly intermittency of the supply and the required changes to infrastructure), but this ain't one of them.

https://medium.com/climate-conscious/wi ... 61913dcbd9

[Zynerji]

Have they yet studied the climate change caused by removing so much energy from the wind?

One would expect in a macro system that this energy would normally have a purpose and a job to do in the self balanced cycles of nature.

What is the net effect of unbalancing this system by taking this energy out?

[Jolle]

Have they yet studied the climate change caused by removing so much energy from the wind?

One would expect in a macro system that this energy would normally have a purpose and a job to do in the self balanced cycles of nature.

What is the net effect of unbalancing this system by taking this energy out?

The tiny amount of energy taken out of the wind will otherwise be heat. So, with windmills, there is a short term advantage of storing a bit of that heat.
On a scale of other effect humans have on the movement and properties of the air (due to pollution, change in CO2 levels, burning stuff and landscaping/deforestation/city building) it’s almost nothing, if measurable at all.

[Just_a_fan]

Have they yet studied the climate change caused by removing so much energy from the wind?

One would expect in a macro system that this energy would normally have a purpose and a job to do in the self balanced cycles of nature.

What is the net effect of unbalancing this system by taking this energy out?

Well it might help to remove some of the heat energy that burning fossil fuels in car engines has put in to the air. SO that would help with limiting global warming.

[NathanE]

Correct Greg, & furthermore, the disposal costs of large non-recyclable parts of de-commissioned
wind units are also becoming an issue, now that many are rapidly reaching 'use by date' status.

Like bird murder, recyclability is in reality a very minor issue that has been completely blown up by antagonists of windmills.

The material is pretty inert, and as such quite suitable for landfilling with hardly any impact. Similar to what is being done with decommissioned aircraft. Noone complains about discarding aircraft this way, yet when its done with windmill blades, some act like its the onset of the apocalypse. The discarded material is only a very minor part of the windmill life cycle. And also, waste management in fossil operations isn't great. Many decommissioned mining and power generation, heavily polluted, are just abandoned. Let alone the pollution that operational facilities discharge into water and atmosphere.

And yet, thanks to the negative framing, even though for all quantitative reasons its an absolute non-issue, manufacturers are making great advances regarding production of blades with a better end of life outlook.

What % of scrapped large aircraft components are resin-impregnated glass-fibre (or like composites)?

Any 'strawman' type - 'yes, but' - conflation, esp' when comparisons with unashamedly filthy & decrepit
fossil-thermal units are raised, are so 'red-herring', as to be shameless, & clean-green energy must
surely be capable of, & duly held to, a far higher standard, ethically/commercially/politically... No?

Actually a huge amount of an aircraft is composite, has been for ages and in increasing amounts. Even putting aside airframe, a very large part of the interior, bulkheads, seats, luggage bins, trolleys, floor, ceiling, internal wall facings, ducting, etc.

[Greg Locock]

Interestingly the founder of the Australian Greens Party has objected to a large wind farm, one of his reasons being the known, measurable, effect on bird life. "NIMBY" Bob Brown.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... anklin-dam

[J.A.W.]

Like bird murder, recyclability is in reality a very minor issue that has been completely blown up by antagonists of windmills.

The material is pretty inert, and as such quite suitable for landfilling with hardly any impact. Similar to what is being done with decommissioned aircraft. Noone complains about discarding aircraft this way, yet when its done with windmill blades, some act like its the onset of the apocalypse. The discarded material is only a very minor part of the windmill life cycle. And also, waste management in fossil operations isn't great. Many decommissioned mining and power generation, heavily polluted, are just abandoned. Let alone the pollution that operational facilities discharge into water and atmosphere.

And yet, thanks to the negative framing, even though for all quantitative reasons its an absolute non-issue, manufacturers are making great advances regarding production of blades with a better end of life outlook.

What % of scrapped large aircraft components are resin-impregnated glass-fibre (or like composites)?

Any 'strawman' type - 'yes, but' - conflation, esp' when comparisons with unashamedly filthy & decrepit
fossil-thermal units are raised, are so 'red-herring', as to be shameless, & clean-green energy must
surely be capable of, & duly held to, a far higher standard, ethically/commercially/politically... No?

Actually a huge amount of an aircraft is composite, has been for ages and in increasing amounts. Even putting aside airframe, a very large part of the interior, bulkheads, seats, luggage bins, trolleys, floor, ceiling, internal wall facings, ducting, etc.

Leaving aside bird 'collateral damage' ("murder"!), large windmill blades are not really in the same
category as aircraft interiors, or even tail fins, since aircraft which come to the end of their service
life (ok - on mountainous ridges/in remote areas, they'll still break parts down to small pieces, if
violently - in situ), but are otherwise generally flown to a location convenient to facilitate scrapping,
whereas the cost % of disassembly/haulage of large parts from typically remote wind farms, is higher.

I wonder if anyone has considered the use of these large defunct blades statically set in ground, or as
seabed mounted fluid-flow vanes ( in air, or water) as deflectors to re-direct flows for purposeful use?

[Andres125sx]

So Andres, rather than continue in denial, why not check out the case studies of large soaring raptors,
such as eagles, & how they are affected both by being attracted by injured prey birds to 'wind farms',
& consequently fatally, by vortices which you so airily claim are sub 'butterfly effect' - & thereby show
you fail to comprehend scaling/Reynolds #/cube rule inertial effects...

What if you provide a source for your claims?

[Andres125sx]

Have they yet studied the climate change caused by removing so much energy from the wind?

One would expect in a macro system that this energy would normally have a purpose and a job to do in the self balanced cycles of nature.

What is the net effect of unbalancing this system by taking this energy out?

First would be to learn if it really unbalance anything as the percentage of energy taken out is IMHO negligible. We only take a small fraction of surface wind, none from above 100-200m height, so I don´t think we´re unbalancing any system but if you have some link wich proves the contrary I´d be glad to learn about this

[Andres125sx]

Interestingly the founder of the Australian Greens Party has objected to a large wind farm, one of his reasons being the known, measurable, effect on bird life. "NIMBY" Bob Brown.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... anklin-dam

Actually he does not say a word about measurable effect, he just assumes there is...

The proponents of this windfarm have zero idea of the impact on migratory birds

And his main concern is not about birds, but about the path needed for the lines carrying the energy to populated zones, so it´s not problem of windmills, it would be the same with a nuclear plant or any other plant

transmission lines to link the plant to a new power cable across Bass Strait would require a path to be cut through the Tarkine wilderness.

“Windfarms have great positives, they are generating renewable energy, which is helping save the planet from the climate emergency and that’s a very big plus. But they are very diverting to people who have an eye to the natural beauty of Tasmania and its landscape,” he said. “There is no doubt about that.”

[DChemTech]

Interestingly the founder of the Australian Greens Party has objected to a large wind farm, one of his reasons being the known, measurable, effect on bird life. "NIMBY" Bob Brown.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... anklin-dam

While greens are generally in favor of wind to my knowledge, somehow I am not surprised. If anyone is great at upholding the status quo with their erratic rejection of nuclear, CCS, genetic modification and increasingly biobased in general, its the greens. But yeah, politics, lets not go there.

[J.A.W.]

So Andres, rather than continue in denial, why not check out the case studies of large soaring raptors,
such as eagles, & how they are affected both by being attracted by injured prey birds to 'wind farms',
& consequently fatally, by vortices which you so airily claim are sub 'butterfly effect' - & thereby show
you fail to comprehend scaling/Reynolds #/cube rule inertial effects...

What if you provide a source for your claims?

I do, but it seems you blithely ignore them, or denigrate them, emotively.

What if you actually checked/understood the source/links already provided?

What if you provide bona fide sources - to either back you own claims on a non-hype,
respectably technical basis (no, a B-29 is not a B-36, & as testimony from B-36 crew
shows, yes they could see individual blade strokes whirl by, when some engines were
throttled back to idle in flight, for most economical range), or try & refute mine on a
level of science-based facts - rather than resort to infantile ad hominem retorts?

I am informed by a moderator that other readers are irritated by such a default approach...

[nzjrs]

Interestingly the founder of the Australian Greens Party has objected to a large wind farm, one of his reasons being the known, measurable, effect on bird life. "NIMBY" Bob Brown.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... anklin-dam

While greens are generally in favor of wind to my knowledge, somehow I am not surprised. If anyone is great at upholding the status quo with their erratic rejection of nuclear, CCS, genetic modification and increasingly biobased in general, its the greens. But yeah, politics, lets not go there.

Tell me about it. I like the phrase "A vote against nuclear is a vote for fossil fuels, just on a longer timeframe".

Sorry for the off topic.

[Andres125sx]

So Andres, rather than continue in denial, why not check out the case studies of large soaring raptors,
such as eagles, & how they are affected both by being attracted by injured prey birds to 'wind farms',
& consequently fatally, by vortices which you so airily claim are sub 'butterfly effect' - & thereby show
you fail to comprehend scaling/Reynolds #/cube rule inertial effects...

What if you provide a source for your claims?

I do, but it seems you blithely ignore them, or denigrate them, emotively.

What if you actually checked/understood the source/links already provided?

The only link you provided is about infrasound affecting people, nothing about birds affected by blade vortex.

But I guess you will never provide a source for this, basically because its your own invention based on old problems solved decades ago with modern mills with big and slow moving blades

[Tommy Cookers]

a big reason for having low velocities is to avoid damage from airborne precipitation or sea spray

btw ?
right now the UK is again being warned that what we call the Gulf Stream is about to collapse - due to global warming
(though they don't call it the Gulf Stream - or even the North Atlantic Gyre)
ie NW Europe will have catastrophic climate cooling eg ports closed by icing - caused by catastrophic climate warming !
handily for some, this collapse would cause some real actual sea level rise eg for New Yorkers