[thatsit]

Solar panels etc. will last decades and can and will be recycled afterwards. Further, most materials needed for renewable energy infrastructure (iron, lithium) are highly abundant on earth. Most of the suppliers work to use cheaper (=more abundant) materials in their products, replacing lithium with sodium in batteries and silver with copper in solar panels. Wind turbine blades are produced now using re-solvable resins.

[aaronmoodie]

Not only are older solar panels recyclable, but efficiency gains in panel construction mean that multiple newer panels can be created with the resources from older panels.

[pfdietz]

And iron (steel) is the most recyclable material we have.

[Saline9515]

Wind turbines are not recyclable[1]. Besides, the foundations use a massive amount of concrete (nowadays often extracted from the seabed, with all the problematic ecological consequences involved), that stays forever in the ground.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23527...

[Qwertious]

Existing wind turbines turbines are not recyclable - new wind turbines are.

Except, that's not even true. Some existing wind turbines are not recyclable.

Except that's not entirely true either! The tower portion of the turbine is usually steel, and easily recyclable! The nacelle, too. It's the base and the blades that can't be recycled.

Except that's not entirely true either! Existing turbine blades are made (mostly) of fibreglass, which is made of the fibre and the resin. The fibres aren't reliably as strong when recycled (which makes them not-very-useful when recycled), but the resin is just fine. And of course, if the blade is e.g. carbon fibre, then you can either re-use it or just burn it.

So, you statement should be that some (components of) existing wind turbines cannot be profitably recycled with current technology.

The wind turbine's concrete base doesn't need to be smashed up or ignored, incidentally - it can be re-used. Concrete is much sturdier than the e.g. gearbox.

[Saline9515]

None of this is economically profitable, which is why right now it ends up in massive landfils. The concrete base is reinforced with steel beams and weights so much that you can't move it.

Also sorry but I would require a citation for "new wind turbines are recyclable". That the tech exists doesn't mean that all installed turbines have it.

[chrisb]

The linked article is misrepresented.

Two points regarding blade recycling techniques taken straight from the top of the article:

- Cement co-processing and chemical dissolution are primary viable methods, yielding $27.57/ton and $199.71/ton returns respectively.

- Chemical recycling achieves top circularity (PCI=0.7) and notable carbon reduction (−0.475 t CO₂/ton).

Chemical recycling is not yet ready for industrial use; cement co-processing is.

[pseudohadamard]

Concrete recycling is actually a pretty big deal. For most of building history here the standard material to put behind basement walls, retaining walls, and so on, for drainage was crushed scoria. Now it's crushed concrete. Some amount of effort but you're recycling existing stuff, and they recover the reinforcing steel as well.

[Saline9515]

Cement co-processing is not exactly recycling as the original material (fiberglass) can't be reused for its initial purpose.

[gregbot]

Who cares? Those blades and that concrete are totally inert and just sit in the ground after their useful life. The ground already has lots of rocks in it.

[Saline9515]

It defeats the "renewable" designation, since it is quickly consumed and thrown away. Compare this with hydropower, where a dam can last centuries.

[nasmorn]

But if you repower the wind mill, the foundation can serve for the next turbine

[triceratops]

Curious you're so worried about "ecological consequences" but only when it's window power.

[Saline9515]

The problem is that those power sources are marketed as "renewable" (they aren't as they quickly end in landfills), are intermittent, require fossil fuels for when the wind doesn't blow, and are not profitable.

One could also say that they change heavily natural landscapes, but this is a matter of taste.

[triceratops]

> they aren't as they quickly end in landfills

Do you also lead a zero-plastic, zero-waste lifestyle?

> are intermittent, require fossil fuels for when the wind doesn't blow

Batteries.

> are not profitable.

Let the businesses worry about that.