Turbine Blades Have Piled Up in Landfills. A Solution May Be Coming.
Name: Sarah Reed
New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/30/climate/wind-turbine-recycling-climate.html?searchResultPosition=1
Science publication: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adp5395
Wind power
is a promising avenue to achieve green energy goals worldwide. However, current
industrial processes for making these turbine blades use carbon-fiber material and
polymer thermosets (materials that permanently set when heated) that are
not easily recycled.1 Current recycling methods
include pyrolysis, which leaves a large portion of charred material recovered
unusable, and shredding/grinding for use in concrete, a method that is not
effective enough to account for projected wind blade waste in the coming decades.1 Scientists currently predict
43 million tons of blade waste by 2050, with most of the waste coming from end-of-life
blade removal rather than blade maintenance (Figure 1).2 Since this projection in 2017,
the goals for wind energy and turbine installation have only become greater. A
recent 2024 report from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) has communicated an
intent to triple global wind energy generation after the COP28 climate
conference at the end of 2023, a record breaking year for wind energy.3 The report shares strategies
for this industry growth and calls for standardization of manufacturing, but
mentions nothing about changing materials for blade production or anything about
sustainability being a priority throughout the turbine production process. Wind
energy is indeed a promising energy source, but the need for waste management has
gone relatively unaddressed by the industry. In response to this need, Clarke et.
al. has published with Science to share advances in “biomass-derivable
thermosets” for the future turbine blade production.
Figure 1: Projected
annual turbine blade waste separated by manufacturing waste and end-of-life
waste through 2050.2
In the
Science publication, Clarke et. al. outline their study. Using both experimental
and computational methods, they evaluate a new biomass-derivable material for blade
construction considering “cost, environmental impacts, manufacturability at
scale, and performance while being aligned with the pillars of sustainability.”1 Current materials for blade production
use fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs) made from cross-linked polymer
thermosets; these materials typically suffer from creep suppression
(deformation over time due to continued stress) and difficulties in recycling
when the blade reaches the end of its life. Emerging materials on the forefront
of advancement in this field for both sustainability and enhanced blade properties
are covalent adaptable networks (CANs) and vitrimers (similar to thermosets,
their structure changes with heating resulting in a stronger material). As
these materials are heated during the manufacturing process, internal stresses
are reduced as the topology changes through a self-healing mechanism,4 improving connectivity within
the material and increasing durability.1 For the study, Clarke et. al.
specifically focuses on polyester covalent adaptable network (PECAN) FRCs; a biomass-derviable,
“sustainable alternative to traditional thermosets, with similar or superior
performance in terms of creep, weathering resistance, and thermomechanical
performance if network architecture (alongside other factors) is properly
considered during formulation.”1
Clarke et. al. compares this
material to two industry standards: Elium-188O (a material with proposed recyclability)
and RIMR-135 (a typical non-recyclable thermoset) (Figure 2A and 2B).
Through a variety of instrumental methods, the authors tested the performance
of their two PECAN materials versus the two industry materials (Figure 2C-F).
After determining the enhanced properties of their PECAN polymers, they completed
a deep dive into how this could be applied in current manufacturing systems.
They utilized a computational model to evaluate safety and determine conditions
for blade construction before actually assembling a 9-meter blade prototype, demonstrating
“PECAN as a readily translatable resin technology to current wind blade
manufacturing infrastructure.”1 In addition to this, Clarke
et.al. studied how this PECAN material was able to avoid creep suppression, how
it faired under different weather conditions to evaluate material performance in
real world scenarios, and disclosed how PECAN can be recycled with relative
ease in comparison traditional FRCs.
Figure 2: (A) & (B) The materials examined (C)-(F) Comparisions of data
for different material properties measured in the study1
The New
York Times article, written by Minho Kim, begins with a general introduction of
the problem—non-recyclable turbine blades taking up space in landfills—before
introducing the solution presented by Clarke et.al. in the Science publication.
Kim then essentially summarizes the findings of Clarke et. al. with help from
quotes with both corresponding authors of the paper. In this endeavor, he does
well; he mentions the major points without using too much field specific
vocabulary. Throughout his discussion of the Science paper, Kim also brings in
bigger picture things to contextualize the findings from Clarke et. al.; for
example, he discusses current recycling methods with sources outside of the
Science paper after describing the difficulty with waste management of present
materials used for blades. Kim then ends the article with a discussion on
finances and the feasibility of actually implementing these biomass-derviable materials
in blade manufacturing with some quotes from a senior vice president at a large
energy consulting firm.
Overall, I liked how Kim communicated
the findings of the Clarke et. al. publication. He took a bigger picture approach,
but I think he did it accurately. Kim clearly stated the problem in his
exposition and partnered it with a visual aid. It was the only picture in the article,
but I thought it gave the reader a clear idea of what the article was about (however,
I am not sure if Kim is directly responsible for choosing the image). I also didn’t
think the title was too clickbaity, which I appreciated. Within the article
itself, Kim glossed over a lot of the details of the paper, not including any
real data points from the study, but communicated the results clearly and concisely
for a wide audience. He talked about the “biomass-derivable” materials using more
consumable language (i.e. the types of biological materials the reagents for
the PECAN come from—agriculture waste, sugars from wood, etc.). He used New
York City’s annual trash production as a way to contextualize findings for his
audience. Additionally, he talked about costs, which is an easily understood
metric for most readers. All of his sources cited throughout the writing seemed
legitimate (or at a minimum he didn’t do anything egregious like citing another
NYT article) and writing about climate-related news seems to be his specialty.
In terms of how well Kim represented the Science paper, I would rate this
article an 8/10 just for the lack of detail. However, in terms of accuracy and communicating
the results of Clarke et.al. in a digestible manner for a non-science audience,
I would rate it closer to a 9 or 9.5/10.
Sources:
(1) Clarke, R. W.;
Rognerud, E. G.; Puente-Urbina, A.; Barnes, D.; Murdy, P.; McGraw, M. L.;
Newkirk, J. M.; Beach, R.; Wrubel, J. A.; Hamernik, L. J.; Chism, K. A.; Baer,
A. L.; Beckham, G. T.; Murray, R. E.; Rorrer, N. A. Manufacture and Testing of
Biomass-Derivable Thermosets for Wind Blade Recycling. Science 2024,
385 (6711), 854–860. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp5395.
(2) Liu,
P.; Barlow, C. Y. Wind Turbine Blade Waste in 2050. Waste Manag. 2017,
62, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2017.02.007.
(3) GWR-2024_digital-Version_final-2.Pdf.
https://gwec.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/GWR-2024_digital-version_final-2.pdf
(accessed 2024-10-22).
(4) Ma,
J.; Porath, L. E.; Haque, M. F.; Sett, S.; Rabbi, K. F.; Nam, S.; Miljkovic,
N.; Evans, C. M. Ultra-Thin Self-Healing Vitrimer Coatings for Durable
Hydrophobicity. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12 (1), 5210.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25508-4.
As I read more of these blogs posts it becomes more apparent to me that the NYT is at the forefront of good scientific and unbiased (for the most part) writing. I agree with your rating for this article, with the slight caveat that I think the lack of detail actually greatly helps get the point across. If readers wanted more detail, they could read the research paper directly linked at the beginning of the article. Kim is great at communicating science, and from reading his bio it's apparent that he has had much experience writing about climate change and keeps a neutral stance on politics which helps keep his articles unbiased. I also enjoy the flow of his writing, introducing the problem, the solution, and the next steps for what can be done to make a difference. He also addresses the other side of the issue economically, showing how people might be inclined to be less green if it ends up costing them more money. Kim clearly did his research not just reading the science paper but brining outside sources to help fully encapsulate this issue.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you mentioned Kim's neutral political stance. It wasn't something I considered deeply in my evaluation of the article, but I think it definitely adds to his writing, especially on climate topics that can sometimes be polarizing. Good point!
DeleteGreat analysis! Overall, I agree with the assessment of the NYT article. The results of the paper were very well communicated and summarized for an audience that is not familiar with scientific jargon. He does a really good job of explaining to readers why they should care and how it will impact them without any exaggerations or click-bait statements. After looking a bit into Minho Kim’s background, it says that he generally covers political news relating to Congress and the White House but also has experience writing about climate change at his previous appointment at Politico’s E&E News. He was trained in journalism and economics which goes to show that journalists without scientific training can still write about scientific topics accurately and effectively. One thing that I did appreciate (haven't really been seen in any other articles so far) is that NYT is open to corrections of a previously published article as there are corrections that acknowledge and correct the mistake in reporting the length of the turbine.
ReplyDeleteI also noticed the correction! I agree that it's nice to see when a correction is made. I think the transparency makes the article seem more trustworthy in a way; not only are they willing to make the correction, but they also notify all of the readers that a correction was made. This is something I like about the NYT in general as a news source.
DeleteGreat topic choice! I really enjoyed learning about the end of life processes for wind turbines. It is really exciting to hear about improvements in the life cycle of wind turbines. As I was reading the NYT article I was wondering if it could use a more engaging title. Most titles we have seen are too much like click-bait. They get people to read the article by exaggerating the title. But in this case I think the article content was more exciting than the title. I agree with your rating of the article and I do think the article did a good job of representing the facts and the concepts accurately. Great analysis too!
ReplyDeleteInteresting point! I guess I am used to so many flashy titles that I find it refreshing to see something that is direct. The title certainly makes the message clear, but I can see why you would find the article itself more interesting than the title. Assuredly, this article would likely get more clicks with a more dramatic, click-bait title. Perhaps, it would be better in this instance to maximize clicks in order to draw attention to this important topic.
DeleteHi Sarah! After reading through both the ariticles and your analysis, I really appreciate that you've brought this topic forward. This is not something I would have organically come across, but is a really interesting point of view. On a first read of the paper and article I have one point of confusion.Figure 5H of the science article shows recycled material being an elastic polymer. Is this elasticity present in the original wind turbine blade? And if this elastic quality is not present in the original blade, is the material able to be recycled into a new blade? Does the introduction of the elasticity make this an upcycle or downcycle? I might be on the complete wrong train of thought here but was curious. Great analysis, Sarah!
ReplyDeleteTo my understanding this elasticity is not present in the original! Although what they propose is now made from biomass-derivable materials, it is still hardened when it goes through the manufacturing process. The typical FRCs used in current production methods are difficult to recycle into a new blade for this reason (as they are difficult to process once hardened), but the similar problem hardness when recycling the PECAN blades can be circumnavigated because of their chemical makeup. The PECAN blades can be recycled into the materials seen in Figure 5H, and I think the main point of the figure is to show how the blades can be recycled into materials with variable physical properties, making it applicable to a wide range of applications. Hope this answers your questions!
DeleteExcellent writing! I like your choice to write about wind energy haha. In writing my own blog post and reading yours, it does make me think even more about what kinds of effects our actions have on the environment (especially when we think we are doing what is better!) What do you think about when it comes to creating new technologies to be "greener" and maybe what unintended outcomes they could produce (such as wind turbine waste). Is there a balance we need to maintain? (I also think about electric cars for example, which don't outright require fossil fuels but do require destructive mining to create lithium ion batteries).
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed your post! I think its nice that we have introduced two different "problems" with wind energy; it speaks to the unintended consequences that sometimes occur when using new "greener" technologies. I think wind energy is a fantastic method for green energy generation, but, like most things, it still has some wrinkles that need to be ironed out. I think this applies universally to all new technologies, and I believe the balance will come over time as more scientists collect data and offer solutions.
DeleteGreat analysis! I agree with your overall score. I think Kim did a good job at summarizing the key points of the Science paper and didn't misrepresent the research (for the most part), which I know has been a big problem in a lot of the articles we looked at so far. I also agree that the NYT article was a bit lacking in detail from the Science study, and even though the article is pretty good as is, defining what the new material is would help strengthen it, especially since this is a materials study. My only qualm is calling the traditional materials "combinations of fiberglass and plastic" while failing to mention that this new material is still a fiber-reinforced polymer composite, it simply has other chemical properties that make it recyclable that I think could be highlighted instead. However this is a pretty minor terminology issue rather than a fundamental misrepresentation of the technology, and I think the NYT article did a good job of highlighting PECAN's recyclability and bio-based origins, which are the novel aspects of it.
ReplyDeleteLastly, to touch on Kate's comment, I think it would be interesting to include something in the NYT article about the fate of the PECAN FRC recycling products, such as their use in polyurethanes after their lifetime as wind turbines. This would help readers visualize the longer life cycle and utility of PECAN materials and avoid any negatice associations with traditional inefficient plastic recycling.
I agree with your points! On a surface level, calling the current materials combinations of fiberglass and plastic is fine when comparing that statement to how Kim talks about PECAN in the NYT article. However, when looking at the Science article, it's clear that PECAN is also an FRC, and the distinction lies instead in what materials are used to make the FRC. Additionally, the recycling certainly could have been talked about further. I don't think Kim should have discussed polyurethanes specifically, but I think mentioning the fact that some of the PECAN is able to be recycled back into starting materials for making more PECAN would have been an easy and impactful thing to mention.
DeleteGreat job on the blog post! I think the article and paper you chose were super interesting as this is an incredibly important issue that should be tackled and talked about more often as the global renewable energy sector grows. I had personally never heard of this issue, and had not thought about the life time of wind turbines, so all in all, I really agree with your analysis and thoroughly enjoyed reading Kim's article. He did a great job of summarizing the main bits of the study, and relaying them in a way that is not only easy for readers to understand, but allows them to see the importance from different angles. I agree that he took a big picture approach which I think is really important when talking about an issue that is not widely talked or cared about. Talking about the economic is incredibly important when we talked about renewables, and it really tied in well to the end of the article. All in all, I completely agree with your dual rating of this article, because of how little he dove into the actual science of the paper.
Delete