4.5 Review

A Multidisciplinary Review of Recycling Methods for End-of-Life Wind Turbine Blades

期刊

ENERGIES
卷 14, 期 14, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/en14144247

关键词

wind power; recycling; blades; end-of-life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past decade, wind energy has increased by nearly 500 GW of installed wind power. However, the lack of knowledge and possibilities for recycling fiber composites has created environmental frustrations when it comes to handling end-of-life wind turbine blades. The research conducted compared recycling methods based on waste materials, concluding that co-processing in the cement industry is the most economically viable option at present for handling large amounts of waste materials.
Wind energy has seen an increase of almost 500 GW of installed wind power over the past decade. Renewable energy technologies have, over the years, been striving to develop in relation to capacity and size and, simultaneously, though with less focus on, the consequences and challenges that arise when the products achieve end-of-life (EoL). The lack of knowledge and possibilities for the recycling of fiber composites and, thus, the handling of EoL wind turbine blades (WTBs) has created great environmental frustrations. At present, the frustrations surrounding the handling are based on the fact that the most commonly used disposal method is via landfills. No recycling or energy/material recovery is achieved here, making it the least advantageous solution seen from the European Waste Commission's perspective. The purpose of this research was thus to investigate the current recycling methods and to categorize them based on the waste materials. The opportunities were compared based on processing capacity, price, environment and technology readiness level (TRL), which concluded that recycling through co-processing in the cement industry is the only economical option at present that, at the same time, has the capabilities to handle large amounts of waste materials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据