A major problem with turbine blades!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 май 2024
- This company recycles wind turbine blades into fuel for cement factories so that they don't end up in landfills.
Join the Exclusive Drillage Time Members Club: / @drillagetime
Follow our Socials
🔗 beacons.ai/drillagetime
Business Contact: drillagetime@gmail.com
#windturbine #turbine #windpower #greenenergy #renewableenergy #recycling #fuel #cementfactory #coal #fossilfuels 
Наука
Ok now hear me out... Nuclear power
It's too easy. It's obvious we can't have that.
solar and wind is also profitable, a mix of nuclear and renewables would be amazing to have
@@rufus6996 as a stop gap for rural areas and personal use sure but ultimately when we're talking about large nation wide or state wide or hell even large city size energy production we should be focusing an overwhelming majority of our recorces on nuclear energy
@@tomlirk1309 Wind can be insanely profitable in large scale, one near me in England in 10 years will make £200 million profit in energy sales. But i agree nuclear energy can be great as it removes the intermittency issue with lots of power
@@rufus6996 well first I am fundamentally against for profit energy production so when talking energy production price doesn't matter as much and second we have to think of one the reliability/standardization and two the waste/environmental impact. Wind energy can only generate when there is a significant force of wind which creates environmental and weather limitations compared to nuclear fusion which keeps on chugging no matter the environment or weather. And when it comes to the waste we have to think about what it would one cost to repair and replace the turbine blades alone compared to nuclear fusion which the waste is incredibly small. Like I said on a small scale and stopgap sure wind and solar and hydro power work but it's offset by the damage done in it's creation and maintenance. And all of that for around the same energy production rate and nuclear fusion I'd say just skipping to nuclear is a better deal
Replacement and disposal of 3 blades over the course of 20 years uses more power than the turbine produces? That's 20 years we are talking about.
It's just entirely inaccurate. It's just trumper idiots propaganda.
They don't. Whoever made this video is distorting the fact to hawk this company's service.
@twobitsnick yeah sure. Wind power is useless
Yeah, don't take things you hear on the internet at face value.
@@rustys.1070yeah F off
Wind power is literally the future, along side solar and hydro
Fossil fuels is killing us
“Louisiana, Missouri”
For those who have ever been to Missouri, just know there are ALOT of redundant, REALLY stupid town names in that state.
I live in Missouri and can confirm this, I have never been able to get over how Kansas City is mostly in Missouri
i didn't even bat an eye at that till you told me
probably because of places in the US like "naples" "poland" and "manchester" 😭
Or uranus MO, which coincidentally has a giant Fudge Factory and water park, so you can have a wet and wild time in Uranus then eat the fudge afterwards
@@sanepsyko there’s a town in Missouri called “Mexico”
There’s a town near Whiteman afb called knob noster
I wish youtubers and commenters at least showed a link or anything when talking about statistic, especially when its power production vs consumption.
Yeah the Video is wrong
For example sind rubbish from wind turbines are only in kT while for example car tires are in MT
And we have already enough ways to recycle them but it costs more while the dumping costs 60 euro per ton recycling costs 300 euro per ton
Also it's wrong that they need to be replaced after 20 years it's more that the machine that produces the energy breaks down and it's to expensive to replace and because there technology since then is superior its cheaper to build a new one
No, they won't and they don't care. They just want to create hype for views and then show us advertisement of products we don't need
Links in comments will often result in reduced visibiloty die to spam filters. That's why commenters don't post links.
People do everything more destructive rather than just use nuclear power
*points to Chernobyl*
@@DinoLoverGaming You're more so pointing to beauratic incompetence of the USSR.
Things like cheaping out on the construction of the reactor, need to fill out quotas, and then subsequent need to not be shown to the population as even more incompetent after the failure of the Afghan war, were all factors contributing to the impact that Reactor 4 caused.
Now, if we look at for example, the second disaster the people point towards: Fukushima, people are moving back in again, and the area around the powerplant is getting improved by the day.
This really simply shows that awful things like Chernobyl are more-so caused by thing like incompetent government, that's wholy inneficiant (heads of nuclear energy had this... Ladder of sorts that they communicated by, which made things way more complicated), and skimping out on things that shouldn't be skimped out on.
@@DinoLoverGamingChernobyl happened because of Soviet mismanagement, cutting corners, and hiring under qualified staff. Not only is nuclear the most efficient way of generating energy, it’s also the safest. Only 76 people have ever died in nuclear plant meltdowns. That’s 76 people dead over 70 years. For comparison, over 1,400 people die every year to coal mines/plants. 75 people died in Chernobyl, and a single person died to Fukushima, which was caused by an earthquake and a tsunami hitting it at the same time. Last time I checked, somewhere like Missouri or Arizona doesn’t experience many tsunamis or earthquakes.
@@DinoLoverGaming permanent radioactive waste is just as not that bad as carbon monoxide and smoke which is also permanent.
@@dhirajsaxena1971 nuclear waste isn't this green glowing goo movies make it out to be. it gets buried underground in cement boxes or it can be reused again
Dude, I live near Louisiana and there is no way that is there, they definitely moved unless they've been making the turbines into drugs
Which Louisiana are we talking about?
Which one ya think I'm talking about based on the video
@@ME-pi2xc”The town of Louisiana, **Missouri**”.
Correct, Missouri, cause Louisiana MO is a drug town, almost everyone is high, and you can get drugs almost anywhere
@@ME-pi2xc That’s crazy.
Not accurate info.
Wind turbines create huge amounts of power over 20 yrs. Way more than what it takes to build them.
Non accurate info. The turbine uses more power to create than it will ever create. They use lots of oil and are actually completely useless
@@scottholt69ify Complete BS and you know it
@@scottholt69ify by this logic, you are also completely useless
@@scottholt69ifyNon accurate info
Scott Holt is not actually a human being, but is actually a deer standing on the back of a moose. This produces more scat than is in their youtube posts.
You can't both be right.
"Using up more power from fossil fuels than they were initially created to produce"
this is such a painfully obvious lie, but let me disprove it:
A 2MW wind turbine roughly has a total mass of 148 000 kg, and on average consists of 83% Steel, 15% Fiberglass, 1% Copper, and 1% Aluminium.
Producing 1kg of steel requires 6-15 MJ of energy to create, the Fiberglass, Copper and Aluminium all take a fraction of that energy to produce, so let's go with the high estimate of 15 MJ:
148 J x 0,83 x 10⁹ = 122 840 000 000 J = 1,23 x 10¹¹
In it's entire lifespan it will produce 20 x 31 500 000 x 2 000 000 Joules - Which equals 1,26 x 10¹⁵ J
In it's entire 20-year lifespan it will generate more than 10 000 times the energy required to construct it.
Looking at emissions:
Steel production generates 1,4x the mass in CO₂ compared to steel, that's 171 976kg of CO₂, and the fiberglass? the factor is aboit 2,0x - generating 44 400 kg of CO₂ for a sum total of 216 376 kg of CO₂, or 0,000172 kg/MJ
coal has about 93,9kg/MJ
whilst the 'Ringhals 2' nuclear powerplant in Sweden generates very roughly 0,000001 kg/MJ (NOT counting construction or maintenence emissions)
there are of course other costs and nuances associated with thing like these. But the claim that wind power is energy-negative (and bad for the environment) is, plain and simple, just a lie.
Thank you making an actually informed comment!
I read somewhere, probably not up to date(not sure) that said after 10 years in operation the gear box and the blades would have to be replaced. Did you add this maintenance cost to your post or is it necessary?
@@dr.randomz6782 Of course they don't.
@@dr.randomz6782It said right in the video that the blades last for 20 years, and that is what he calculated with. "During the 20 year lifespan..." , with gearboxes lasting between 10-20 years too. And as the original commenter said, the wind turbine produces thousands of times more power than it takes to build one, so even if it needed replacement every year it would still be beneficial CO2 wise. If you are not convinced by this, consider the following: according to thr DoE in the USA wind produces ~10% of the countrys power need. For that to be less than it takes to build, 10% af all US power would be spent on windmill manufacturing, and that is simply not possible.
Did you consider that there isn't always wind, making it hard to maintain energy production, and that there are no batteries capable of storing most of the generated energy, resulting in significant energy loss? Even though I'm not saying it's a not lie, I believe you're giving it more credit than it deserves making it seem that turbine winds are reliable when they are not
Im calling bullshit because it simply doesn't make sense economically, this legitimately sounds like anti windmill propaganda
This turbines are soooo huge, tall and wide, and are always exposed, require to much maintance and check ups, and the replacement of it's parts is dangerous and much more expensive than just make a new one. The solar panel require to uch maintance and replacemente too but those don't require a total replacement, but yeah, this systems are not so good in a long term. The hydroelectric and geotermic energy is more effective but requires to modify the nature a lot and also huge buildings.
I can imagine that government subsidies are what keeps the companies that make turbines afloat and viable.
Not certain though.
@@phantommak591lol turbines are a great way for renewable and consistent clean energy and can last for a fairly long time. Sure they take time to assemble and time to deconstruct, but they wouldn’t be used if they didn’t provide value. They have been used for a while now but yes, long term are not viable which is why they need to be replaced.
@@mrnoname5183 Sure thing, they still good, here where I live there's a region that is feeded only with eolic energy and most of the country receive energy from hidro plants, the thing is that even if it sounds like a joke, this examples, require a lot of this 2 resources to work properly too, is better than burning coal, or use straight oil. This year here we had the problem of low hidroelectric energy income due the low speed of waterstreams since the lack of rain, the energy price was so high since oil was needed to be used and also electrical shutdowns to reserve that energy, neither the solar, eolic and hidro energy where enough and this is a country of only 5 million people so yeah. It's totally fine but has this flaws and issues.
It's true, the production and disposal when totaled together are at a higher energy cost that what is produced by the turbine. Solar energy is even weirder because it actually costs more to recycle the panels into new ones than to just protect new ones, so they all end up in landfills leaking horrible chemicals and heavy metals.
Nuclear is the best option.
Did he really say that Veolia, the French multinational mega corporation that provides waste management to governments and businesses in many different parts of the world, only exists to recycle wind turbines? Surely that was a mistake.
People just need to realise that the only real answer is Nuclear power… and once enough people realise this, they need to rpeassure governments… but that’s never gonna happen sadly
They should just mount the crushers and shredders on the ships
That doesn’t make much sense
Burning wind turbines for fuel is A+ American logic.
Normal Germany does that too. Its a easy solution so why not.
RIP to climate change
@@edringweeko3419climate change will always be here😊😢
@@GlobalBricks1 I’m saying that because these people are adding fuel on burning paper nothing seems like a change
Which makes this likely bogus. Too much hauling and prossessing just to burn it.
Non hazardous medical waste??💀 So like bodies and organs too???💀💀💀💀
I studied this stuff for some highschool debates. Turbines and especially solar panels actually do use a lot of power to get rid of, and solar panels have all sorts of hazardous waste that harm those getting rid of them.
The best form of renewable green energy is actually nuclear fusion, something we do not currently have.
This info came from a very knowledgeable guy named Michael Shallenburger (spelled the name wrong I think)
I would suggest updating your info. Because solar panels are literally harmless and Windturbines have the fastest energy return of any facility. Nuclear power plants have a huge consumption of energy by just running it "about 5%" that doesn't matter though. The problem is, that they are extremely expensive and have limited locations.
@@elischarutzler6757 I would once again point to the environmental specialist I discussed previously. Solar panels contain many materials that are harmless when they are in operation but harmful afterward, and wind turbines have been shown to be extremely lacking in power production. Nuclear Fusion power, while the best renewable energy, isn't as effective as it could be because our infrastructure doesn't allow for it to impact our power grid in significant ways
@@elischarutzler6757 nuclear power is best idk why everyone hates it
☝️🤌👏
@@grandadmiralsuntzu5066 Silver, Copper, Aluminium, Glass and Silizium...a lot of polymers of course. So no difference to our daily rubbish bin. Considering the weight ratio, it's ridiculously small. Fusion would be a great thing...but we can't wait for at least 30 years till the first will begin building
this company doesn’t exist for turbine blades, is an 170 year old water treatment company from France that has a large foot in the environmental field in the US and many other parts of world
That's such a typical American way to deal with that problem. Wind turbines can easily run for 30 years and can be recycled back to new rotor blades for the wind turbine. "But then the multi-billion dollar company would go broke, duh".
But what's even more laughable is the energy grid and storage systems for wind turbines in every fucking western country.
Prime example, Germany, already has enough wind turbines in Northern Germany alone to power the majority of the countries need for energy. That's due to the geographical properties of the regions, wind blows constantly. The main problem is that politicians are dirty liars and didn't expand the power grid and energy storage systems, as promised, so that the energy is mostly stuck in the area where the wind turbines are placed and can't be transported to other regions that rely on coal energy. Wind turbines are literally stopped, to stop them from overloading the power grid with too much energy. So, if that system had been build, the shut-down of the nuclear power plants (What is a whole different story) would have made no difference.
(Also, by the way: France who always prides itself with how independence they are with their nuclear reactors are heavily relying on A. African and Russian Uranium and other needed materials and B. still gets its majority of power from German coal power plants to greenwash their numbers, because they want to spare money. And ironically, that power grit was built within the time the German government promised to build the north to south power grid.)
"Using up more power from fossil fuels than they were originally created to offset"
My man is doing meth instead of math😂😂😂
"This company exists to..."
Mate, wind turbine recycling is just a minor side hustle for Veolia, they've been around forever and are active in tons of other industries.
For anyone wondering, yes, there are many more towns in Missouri that have names like Louisiana. Just to name a few…
1. Louisiana
2. California
3. Houston (in Texas county, which is shaped like Utah)
4. Dallas County
5. Oregon County
6. Scotland County
7. Mississippi County
8. Holland
9. Hayti
10. Parma
11. Caledonia
12. Cuba
13. Sparta
14. Waco
15. Carthage
16. Billings
17. Dover
18. Mexico
19. Cairo
20. Atlanta
21. Troy
22. Beverly Hills
23. Florida
24. Miami
25. CONEY ISLAND
And there’s about 40 more that I can think of. Look up a map of them sometime!
Dad works there
"Stop using plastic straws the kill the enwirment"
It looks like the stuff inside a classroom desk
So if I never knew the problem existed then they are probably solving it pretty well
Tell me that you know they use nuclear power and fuel for ther shredder to work right ?
Yes but who is gonna tell "chernobal" people
Dude, this is false. The power created by the windmills in just one week completely ballance their own production emissions and do NOT make less power than they consume with the production.
Infact, they can run anywhere between 15-25 years without major changes and repairments.
It wouldn't make any economic sense to produce windmills if they were as crap as that.
Your sources? You made it up, didn't you?
First of all, the statement of “removing damaged wind turbines offsets the power they’ve produced” is just incorrect.
Second of all, Veolia is not a company that just takes scrap wind turbines. They also take a lot of hazardous waste and electrical equipment too.
Burning is not the only way to recycle the turbine blades. First of all, almost all of the rest of the turbine can be recycled, only the blades are more difficult. The old models have a different Material composition to the newer ones. The newest turbine blades are 100% recycable, like many fiber composites in aviation and cars.
Nuclear energy is the future. The best choice and we need to invest in that instead of sh!tty wind and solar.
i mixture of all the above would be great, having all our eggs in one basket is never a great idea. Wind and solar are great alternatives to energy, especially when you dont want to spend years building a nuclear reactor up to standards and throw billions to make it.
People always said one thing is better than other when in reality real life is not perfect and combining all of the choice is better than investing In only one choice
@@aimansoul Atleast coal plants should be turned off
@@rufus6996solar is a great alternative. Wind turbines suck ass. Believe me I work on them. They make 3k-10k a year and (a rough estimate) cost 20k-45k a year because of insurance, maintenance, taxes, ect. And believe me the insurance is extremely needed as they break down all the time. If you look at any decently sized windmill yard 1 out of 15 of them are broken and not moving or not working properly. There ass
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Burning blades for a better world?
Wind turbines are made from mainly recycled plastic, this guy saying that it uses more energy than it creates is just a bs story
@@rufus6996can i get a source for that? cuz usgs.gov says that only 16% of wind turbines are made of plastic and thats lumped in with fiberglass and resin
@@rufus6996actually theyre mainly made of steel
only 16% is plastic, fibreglass, and resin
The trash business is a *goldmine!*
Believe me, this will find its way into a fast food item’s ingredient list 😂
So what's the use in the first place? Just a dog chasing his tail.
It's a bs story with no base. Wind turbines only take between 6 months to a year yo produce more energy than it was needed to create and recycle
It's a false video
Government money
Every wind turbine company needs to know this
I didn't even know wind turbines were around for more than 20 years.
Make the blades of Aluminum, then melt them and recycle!!
Bro... you need to take a physics and engineering class.
Wind turbines produce more energy than their manufacturing cost and recycle after typically 6 months to a year, while also lasting for over 20 years xD they are fine
@@rufus6996though they need 30 years to recupe the energy lost in their transportation, installation, maintenance, and repair. I hope you realize they're not able to just prop up the wind turbine on the side of their factories and start making energy straight away
@@wooow35 dude you have no idea how much energy a wind turbines produces if you think it takes 30 YEARS for it to be carbon neutral. What the hell did you get that stat from 🤣 people wouldn't be using them if it took 30 years to produce enough energy to make a profit
@rufus6996 this clown is all over this comment section spewing anti wind turbine bs. You'd think his father was taken out by one
breaking: company uses revolutionary new technique called "recycling"
There’s a city named Louisiana? I was tripping the hell out because I live in the state Louisiana.
Wind turbines that makes energy
Tesla cars tires can’t make energy
Why not 🤔
Because it's a BS agenda...wake up..that's why😮
Because energy can’t be created. Iirc, an alternator on an ICE vehicle taps energy from the wheels to power the battery. On an EV, electricity is used to to move the wheels, so if that movement energy was tapped into and fed back into the battery, it would actually create some resistance and make the electric motors work harder, and be less efficient overall.
I refuse to believe over the 20 years it takes the turbines to be replaced they havent generated enough power to offset the carbon footprint of 3 blades. That just doesnt make sense
we will never reach true zero emissions. the point is minimizing where we can, and recycling, reusing, and repurposing everywhere else
In Pennsylvania some places leave the wind turbine blades so that snakes can use them as a home
I’m in Missouri and I’ve actually seen a few trucks hauling these blades cool to know what’s happening
‘Burns cleaner than coal’ the bar is THAT low.
A wind turbine produces the amount of energy it takes to assemble and disassemble it in the first 2-6 months so no. With a runtime of 20 years it is still a good deal. If only they were more recyclable
cutting them without protection seems not smart.
Also producing microplastic into the ground.
Oh, I knew we had it - there is a town in Texas that has stacks of them. So they aren't all going to this Louisiana.
The problem was the paint we could not reuse or recycle it newer ones already have recyclable paint
“Burns cleaner than coal” but I’d assume on par with or worse than oil considering they’re made of either glass or carbon mixed with plastic.
Interesting, I did my dissertation on this issue a few years ago, I found that we can use aluminium rather than these relatively 'un-recycleable' composite materials with very similar efficiencies but companies won't do this because of the cost of aluminium 😭
Thank you!
I didn't know they burned them but I know that they added them to concrete so they could cut down on the amount of rock and sand they use
Turbines never were "eco friendly"...nuclear is still the best option despite the potential accidents that could occur.The accidents that have happened so far because of a nuclear meltdown can be counted on your hand while turbines not only need fossil fuels to be powered but also cause noise pollution which is arguably more harmful to animals like cows.
That also offsets the energy used to transport the blades across the country, right?
Veolia is the company that managed water in my city in Mexico and we're so shit, they only lasted a couple years
Honestly, I thought they were going to use it to make the wings of a plane
thats why i see them on a specific road
Gee if only there was some sort of engineering community that warned of all the draw backs we would be getting with these things
I live 20 miles from a windfarm and go out of my way to visit the place
I actually live nearby there and can confirm this, although it's not directly in Louisiana. It's an incorporated land for tax reasons. Just don't think that this means we have a great amount of jobs and industry because we don't.
Most people forget, even tho it is kind of expensive and they are either massive or a lot of them, water energy no matter the way produces really good, clean and cheap energy!
Just gotta destroy a couple ecosystems to get that dam built up
They often break off of the windmills before 20 years. How do I know? I live in the middle of a windfarm
‘Environmentally friendly’
Did a research paper on nuclear energy we will run out of the isotope needed for the reactors by 2097
Wheather or not we can make it artificially no idea but I don’t think so
Nuclear, dude. Nuclear.
Id make a giant maze with the blades... set up paintball and airsoft games. Or even offroad go cart races
going to be a while before they recycle all those old blades. there are over 300 square miles of them buried in the desert.
Cool lil thing, recently in the UK we found out how to recycle used cement from demolitions which'll reduce carbon emissions by a LOT
It is kinda baffling how much stuff we kinda just bury
Louisiana Missouri???
"Not much of a Difference" is still a Difference. Nothing can make a big Difference on that. It must all be combined
"this company exist to solve a problem you didn't even know"
"Cuz the problem didn't exist"
It does exist. And it's such a cheap problem to royally screw up that you have companies putting out millions of defective blades, because it's cheaper to just replace a couple and bury them in a field than actually have blades that last longer than 5 years
Now i know :D
Great short
I hate when big industry's leave out recycling
Dam, i'm working on a pump with the job name "Veolia" at work lol, must be a coincidence though
Wind turbines being made compared to the power they produce does not cause fossil fuels to have used more energy to produce them
No I knew about this solar panels and windmills cant be reused so they are either throwen out or take more energy to do stuff like this
20 years is a bit .. of a big ass stretch. Not to mention the hundreds of gallons of hydraulic oil they disperse hundreds of feet of soil, ruining the soil. They're awesome to watch during a catastrophic failure though. That's about all they're good for.
Hydraulic oil??!?! Hundreds of feet of soil?? Where did you get this info from 😂
"Every twenty years" 🤣🤣🤣
So much for clean energy
We have recently started dissolving the epoxy, to reuse the fiber glass
I always thought those blades where made out of metal. Because they are so big, idk.
What happens to these blades outside the US? Do we recycle them or?
They have served their purpose, developing countries could care less.
How is it more expensive to bury blades in the ground than it earns from 20 whole years of operation?
Internet really thinks we are all morons.
Bro discovered recycling
people will do anything but nuclear
unfortunately, saying "nuclear power" makes every average joe think "death in a nuclear explosion"
Can the blades not be repaired?
Louisiana, Missouri is the most confising city name ive ever heard
Small improvement, but it can always be done better
Louisiana? Like alastor's home place?! 😅, I'm addicted to hazbin 💀
Same problem with solar panels
"ironically"
Ok but the machines that take down and shred and transport the wind turbines all use diesel/gasoline and it’s totally contradicting?
It only shows how ridiculously stupid the idea of renewable energy is.
Gee if only we had a solution developed in the 40s that completely solves this issue 5000 fold and can operate 24/7 365
Ofc. It's not as clean as we thought
What I do t get is why don’t we melt metal stuff down and just repurpose it
"What business ideas do you have?"
"Saving the environment by destroying it"
So a company had to be created to reuse the wind turbine blades, which have to get replaced every few years and thus costs fuel, so they wouldn't just rot in a landfill?
Tell me how this is better than nuclear power?