Here's how shredded wind turbine blades can be used to make cement.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- ------------------------------------------------------
Business Insider tells you all you need to know about business, finance, tech, retail, and more.
Visit our homepage for the top stories of the day: www.businessin...
Insider Business on Facebook: / businessinsider
Insider Business on Instagram: / insiderbusiness
Insider Business on Twitter: / businessinsider
Insider Business on Snapchat: / 5319643143
Insider Business on TikTok: / businessinsider
"Cement factories burn the turbine blades for fuel" biggest plot twist of my life 100% was not expecting that.
Not a plot twist just sad irony
Yep they just put all the carbon back into the atmosphere they pretended to clean up with the wind turbine 😂
That did seem strange that all the blades were used for fuel as there is merit in using fibreglass in building not only some select structures requiring less weight but in strengthening some road surfaces built with concrete. 🤷🏻♂️ I guess R&D cost too much to prove it.🙄 There is gonna be plenty to recycle so they better find good new secondary uses for them.
I thought it was going to be the fibreglass used to reinforce the concrete
Fact is they dont last for 20 years , that was a estimate . They only last 5 years because the leading edge of the blade breaks down caused by all the dust and grit in the atmosphere .
“No officer im not burning my old tires in my back yard. I’m recycling them.”
Right?!? 😂
burning stuff with the right "tools" is kind of recycling. A tree is breathing co2 in order to build his wood and leaves and so on. If you burn it, you return it to it's original state, co2. Only problem is, those blades weren't made from co2 haha. But it is still better, when it is cleanly burned, so there are no artificial chemicals left, than to leave them rot in the ground for thousands of years if not longer.
@@Marco-xz7rf “cleanly burned” is the key here especially when they are made and subsidized under the premise of clean, carbon neutral, energy. Most of those plants that claim to use scrubbers blast out their stacks at night when people are sleeping and won’t complain about ash, smoke, and smell.
Back yard vs a full recycling plant converting the material to be burned safely. lol totally the same thing.
@@Thisisdumbbwhat a dumb statement.
Burning=Recycling... got it
It really is, instead of burying it in the ground, you recycle it for energy. makes perfect sense to me
@@XavierAway When you say you're recycling something nobody thinks you're just going to burn it.
@@XavierAway if you bury it in the ground and it breaks down over a million years you also recycle it without nuking the atmosphere
@@danielkrcmar5395 bs. Most people understand recycling just means re-using again for something else including, but not limited to, burning.
@@XavierAwayor otherwise repurposing
I live about a mile from a wind farm which is about 22 yrs old. We had a town hall meeting when they first wanted to install them. The private, family owned farms were eager to accept the $8500 per yr to lose 10 acres of their parcel of land, which are 100-150 acre parcels around these parts.
I did my research before going to the meeting. The 10 acres would now be taxed as commercial land. The taxes on the 10 acres was now 3X higher. The farmers were responsible to plow the snow and maintain access on the driveway to the turbine. I asked how efficient they would be, they said 15-20%. They said the structure is good for 20 yrs and if it is deemed unsafe, they would remove the blades and electrical components but the farmer would be responsible to remove the structure.
They now say they are good for up to 30 yrs. It’s also claimed that they are 20-40 % efficient, but lately due to the heat waves we’re getting in the summer they hardly move at all. We also have notoriously high winds which shut them down. They’re now offering $50,000 per yr to new installations, but I’m not sure that the farmers in my area have renegotiated for more money.
Dismantling costs in todays market however is quoted on the internet as USD $532,000 for each wind turbine….😮🙀😳😱
Damn, the US will genuinely monetize anything
Let's screw the farmers, what could possibly go wrong xd
I went to texas and it was a turbine graveyard. I said there is something wrong its unsustainable to ne doimg it so badly
Just leave the structure for a deer stand. lol
We need to factor in co structure, transportation and assembly costs.edit: oh and maintenance
Well, a modern 6MW wind turbine easily costs 5 million USD, add another half a million for dismantling isn't all that bad. The owner here is also responsible for escrow of the dismantling costs. Efficiency numbers are also pretty meaningless. Turbines can be optimized for different wind profiles (low/high bar for wind speed, optimal speed). Ultimately a professional planer will give you a prediction for the annual production for a given place and model. The rest is an economic choice if works or not.
Being a Civil Engineer when he first said cement I thought he meant to say concrete, and the shredded pieces would be included as an additive. The plot twist was wild.
Being a civil engineer I think you should fact check and not believe everything you're told in a TH-cam short.
Recycled as reinforcing fibers in concrete is where I thought the process and the video was headed too. At least, that's what I was thinking until I saw how finely milled the material ended up. Now, I am wondering if the temperature of incineration is hot enough to melt the remaining fibers into glass slag, which has industrial applications itself, including in concrete?
@@willong1000 You were right with your first assumption. The fibers are blended in a rotary kiln during an endothermic reaction.
With "burned" the video probably referres to the included resin reacting exothermic and thereby reducing the need for fuel and the emission of CO2.
Of 7 tons of this material 5 tons will make it into the concrete replacing silica and reducing the need for limestone and some other minerals. The about 2 tons which are mostly resin will react exothermic reducing the need for coal as fuel by 5 tons and also reducing CO2 emissions by about 20% (I don't remember the exact number).
Sadly this short ends absurdly misleading.
@@the_effect_de Thanks, I appreciate the time you took to elaborate upon the process. I assumed that the "fuel" component was plastic resin. I worked a little while in fiberglass manufacturing in my youth. I always appreciated what a person could make with the materials, even in hand-laid manufacturing, but the processes themselves and the waste products generated sure could be nasty! That said, I think reprocessing the blades for fuel and concrete-reinforcing fibers is an immensely better solution than burying in landfills!
@@willong1000 I did a tour of a local cement works way back in school and the temperature was around 1500'K. The radiated heat was crazy; I remember the guide telling us not to touch the handrails on the walkway near the top of the kilns as they'd take our skin off. They injected coal dust into the rotary kiln along with forced air. The amount was measured in tonnes per hour, so those blades (I'd guess 5 tonnes each for 100ft blades) won't feed it for long.
Why of course! Our cement plant is dedicated to meeting EPA standards. This plant runs on clean, burning, fiberglass and plastic!
Actually its balsawood
Which is logged from the rainforest
@Thatoneguy-ju6gq The blades qre made from all kinds of materials. Balsa wood is only one type. The video does not address this issue. Fake news?
@@devydraper4166 no
They are made from either fiberglass Or balsa wood because other materials would collapse the windmill
Fiberglass is not flammable
That leaves one other material that it could be
A material that we saw in the video (wood)
But hey i get it anything you guys disagree with is fake news “we prefer truth over fact” and all
Cement kilns burn so hot that very few chemicals escape. They're obliterated
@@robertb8629 Yeah but glass is one of the most stable compound there is. It's why they make test tubes out of it. What happens to it? Ends up as little beads, or slag, or what?
You can burn plastic, cleanly, without toxic fumes, but you have to do it very very hot, maybe a plasma furnace. I don't think there's a way to do it cleanly that results in a net energy gain. So WTF is going on here I've no idea, burning fibreglass to make cement!?!?
Hard to believe anyone does that job without a mask on. Incredible
No problem whatsoever
*coughs in blood
They are doing great job👍 polluting mother earth 🌎 😊😊😊
@@williamchaplick4227 Doesn't the polluting starts withe the 'green' guys that want more wind turbines?
Its ok hes wearing safety glasses 👍.
I thought the same, that material surely have some kind of carcinogen within it. 🤔
And this is just one of the many reasons why some people think green energy is a joke.
If the fuel is so fantastic, why doesn’t the cement company pay for it?
Eventually, they will when they are retired to go net zero. Cement requires a lot of energy to make and a lot of garbage is burned to make concrete.
Pay for it I think not. it's probably subsidized when they receive a truck load of scrap fiberglass it comes with a pallet of cash strapped to the top. that's why they call it Green because their making plenty of money.
It isn't. It's only viable because it's heavily subsidized by GE, who profits off selling wind turbines and boosted their esgscore by paying to "recycle" the massive yards full of old turbine blades. Shredded composite blades do not burn cleaner than the specific kind of coal used at cement plants.
Actually the main benefit isn’t the burning cleaner part, it’s the keeping 20 foot blades out of landfills part
@@wieldylattice3015 how is burning a bunch of fiberglass and resin better for the environment?
that's not recycling, thats just burning trash.
Thats sounds good for the environmentalists
Couldn't those shreaded pieces be used to fabricate more turbines?
A bit better than burning trash. Some energy is generated
That's what I was thinking. They're getting some energy out of it, but it's basically just another method of disposal.
Burns cleaner than coal allegedly….?
And the cement factory delivers the most expensive cement in the world.
The particulate dust coming off the blades when they’re being shredded and heated is going to be a class action mass tort claim in the next 20 year. No doubt in my mind.
Exactly my thought
That was my immediate thought as well! This definitely will not end well, that's for sure.
Its the next asbestos.
@@zachmdful we don't have fibreglass shovelling competitions...yet
Brooo I was legit holding my breath watching like that’s fibre glass getting crushed in the open air….
I literally laughed out loud at the end there. What a twist.
Haha you and me both. What a way to wake up in the morning 😂
The video is actually misleading; the company themselves state that 65% of the material recovered is used in cement, and only 28% is actually used as part of the fuel.
@@victorchen9170 ...what happens with the remaining 7%?
@@gagewesterhouse9558 Prob the unrecoverable parts discarded as waste.
Agreed how much diesel is burned to do that
A single mid sized nuclear plant could produce as much energy as 10,000 wind turbines while producing an amount of waste that wouldn't even fill a swimming pool in its entire lifetime. In fact, the waste could literally be kept on site in cooling pools for the entire life of the reactor, which will be decades.
You mean waste that is hazardous for so long that we don't even know how to warn future civilizations in 100000 years ?
Thank god you also understand.
“Muh nuclear disasters” is the only argument that can be made against them, and even that’s refuted by simply acknowledging that ALL nuclear disasters not resulting from war were due to incompetence in the management of these reactors.
Nuclear is the future.
@@BrandonCrowlmeltdowns are increasingly unlikely with thorium reactors, its mostly propaganda by “green” energy companies and traditional fossil fuel companies
Yeah but what to do with the man made global warming scam and making trillions of dollars of that ?
We will do ANYTHING to avoid nuclear power plants.
Just imagine your neighbor with a mini power plant. It would meltdown in a year.
@@complexity5545 a few kw reactor couldnt melt down with that low power
Yeah it's pretty pathetic especially since people are considering eating bugs and forcing people to live on three items of clothing per year. Btw it's C40 consortium before anybody wants to say I'm lying.
@@DarenMiller-qj7bu thats all a part of BP's "carbon footprint" scam to guilt the end user of products. What we need to do is put tariffs on fossil fuels. Nuclear plants are cheaper, cleaner, more efficient, and create more jobs than any other easily accessible energy source.
@@complexity5545 Why would your neighbor have a mini reactor in the first place? Centralized power generation is more efficient. Now following that why would they have a light water reactor capable of melting down if that were the case? Any small scale mini reactor wouldn't be anything that could melt down, it would likely be an RTG. Russia has hundreds of those just hanging out in the wilderness and they're not melting down because they can't.. We have reactor designs of any scale that are walk away safe that don't need active cooling to function.
For all people wondering, while this isn't technically recycling, it is a form of waste minimization. The problem is that the filtration methods to remove solid state pollutants from factory chimneys is neither cheap enough nor is it's usage incentivised to any degree I'm aware of. Technically, the solution to landfills would be to burn the trash but it gets so waterlogged that.
1. You're transporting a lot of water for any given fuel Mass which itself uses more fuel.
2. That fuel has to be collected in urban centers which means transport to power plants which are usually located in the outskirts takes longer.
3. You expend a lot of fuel just getting a fire going because of the water content.
Remember, plastic started out as crude oil just like gasoline.
We fight pollution by polluting!
Eh, just polluting a little less. But I'd rather that than it just rotting in dumps
You would rather burn toxic chemicals in the air instead of burying them in a landfill??? Why
@@elephxd The coal they burned previously is much more worse for the environment than the composites they burned here.
Also keeping landfills smaller makes things look prettier :>
@@oshkiv4684 you have no idea what chemicals are being added to the atmosphere from burning those. What are you smoking. "much more worse"
All that fossil fuel used to do this negates whatever energy was produced by these turbines.
Lol😂😂😂
That summarizes all "green" energy.
Seems pretty unlikely given how much energy these blades will produce over their useful 20-year lifestyle, but this is still quite ironic.
@@kennycanuck7232reminds me of a meme I saw a few years back. Someone did all the math to figure out the carbon cost of setting up enough wind turbines to replace all fossil electricity in Alberta. The carbon released to make turbines, blades, lay the pads poles you name it. Each item added up and totalled plus the carbon cost of maintaining them. Basically replacing the blades and whatnot over the next 15-20 years all of it. Totalled up to be this criminally large number of tons of carbon. This meme was passed around by people with a hate on for green energy to highlight how much carbon all this green energy would release. But they, like you, didn’t read to the bottom of the calculations were in a tiny font it is pointed out that Alberta releases that much carbon in coal fired power every 11 months.
my source: i made it up
These blades are made of Fiberglass mixed with special bond to hold it together. When being shredded, a dust cloud of these two toxic materials rise and spread around. inhaling that dust will immediately start to damage your lungs in an irreversible effect. I worked in a company that makes handles for hammers and other manual tool out of the same two substances for 18 years. Thankfully my station was in a totally separate building. I have seen employees come and go on almost monthly bases, despite the fact that the company had the most sophisticated vacuum system to vacuum out the airborne dust from the process.
The energy that is used shredding, sorting and shipping the blades to and from the shredding facility is probably more than the heat they gain from burning it.
Maybe the facility comes to the wind farm, rather than the other way around.
Most clean fuels, other than nuclear, are not worth it compared to fossil fuels. At least not at the moment
@@Max-hs4vu Yeah, that is exactly why EU politicians banned it. Wait, something does not add up
but that doesn't give Al Gore a hard-on
@Max-hs4vu that's so untrue.
Windowed, solar power, and hydro power are more than worth it.
It's even starting to push nuclear out of the picture. It's better for the environment and is economical more beneficial.
What you wrote was maybe true 20 years ago, but it hasn't been correct for a long time.
So now we’re pretending burning toxic polymers is “recycling” 🥴
Better than burying it…. What does burying it do? Eventually it gets dug up and burned in order to remediate the area.
That’s literally what happened? The resulting product was burned as a fuel in the making of cement?
@@UCannotDefeatMyShmeat yes they usually use coal. Making cement and steel typically uses coal for fuel. We have other things to clean up than just cars.
It goes up into space and gets turned into sunbeams
@@orishaeshu1084nobody talked about burying trash being better than burning. The term recycling still is being ridiculous. Apart from that the blades in Germany have always been used for cement production same as old tires. But I have never heard anybody say the tires or blades are being recycled when they were just put in the oven 😂😂
The turbine blades are made of fiberglass, so the cement factories are burning glass and epoxy resin
The carbon footprint is ridiculous😮😮😮😢😢
“We’ve never bothered to recycle wind turbine blades”. There I fixed it for you.
Burning turbine blades for fuel is not “recycling”.
If it is…. I believe we should be allowed to recycle coal for electricity
Sure if you can actually turn coal into turbine blades then you can burn them when you're done with them
Skip a step and just burn coal
@@johnb4024uh if you burn coal, you don’t need the blades, right? That’s the point.
Cement is made from Lime stone(CaCO3), Sand(SiO2) and Coal. The glass fiber replaces some of the Sand and the Polyester replaces the Coal, so you save ressources.
leave it to a grade A dumbass to be repping america #1 bullshit while being an active disgrace to our country. coal is mined exclusively for fuel, these items were going to become literal junk and got turned into a literal better fuel than coal, whatever point you're trying to make only applies in your deluded version of reality.
It feels like we have WAY more turbine waste that there should be for a 20-year lifespan of each blade. It’s like LED bulbs that should last for 5-10 years but instead are replacing every 1-3 years.
Right? Still have the L.E.D. bulb packaging that stated "25 year warranty" but costco won't warranty, because that company is no longer in business 😂🤣😅
Imagine how much waste that fossil fuel produces and none of it is recyclable.
8lbs per gallon of gas produces 8 pounds of waste. Lots of CO2, H20 and then small amounts of other crap.
Key phrase there being “feels like” In reality I feel like there probably isn’t as much as it might look like based of a video like this
Actually many lasted longer about 30 years instead of the origional 20, at least the rocky mountain power ones that are piled up in Wyoming. The center of the blades has some has strong lightweight materials like balsa wood I think some of this what they are burning. I wonder if the outside parts which is mostly fiberglass could be mixed into pavement? if that could help a road last like the blades did.
@@wfrobinetteImagine how many brain cells you liberals lose by believing false info and then trying to use that info to “reason” with! And yes I realize that I should be beat for using the words “liberal” and “reason” in the same sentence!!
Finally something usefull from all that stoopid waste
Wow i can officially say im recycling the fuel in my car😂
I bestow upon you the highest honor I can provide, that being this Sarcasm Award, A Laurel, and Hardy handshake.
Technically you are recycling it into carbon dioxide.
This comment needs more attention lol
@@Allexzyes to kill us
@@ClementFoli Flatearther?
Ah yes, as always recycling is just a cover word for burning.
Wind turbine when it's young: I save the environment
Wind turbine when it's old: I kill the environment.
It's nonreactive material in a landfill. There's nothing killing anything if burried properly. Don't know why idiots would want to burn it though.
I'd say just bury it well, and when someone comes up with a proper recycling idea you can just dig em up again, looking the same, as back when you burried them.
What about when it suddenly breaks ...
Wind turbines never save the environment they are extremely toxic to produce their magnets have so much rare earth metal it's insane then half the time they don't work because the wind's blowing fast.
Wind turbines from day of conception: How can I get my hands on some of that sweet taxpayer cash.
No it still kills the environment, think of all the birds that get killed.
Awesome we need to do more to keep our planet safe and clean.
Not really that awesome when you consider the benefits vs cost and environmental risk.
Just when I started getting a fuzzy warm feeling about this, I realized it was just burning warm fuzzy fiberglass.
Yeah, that's not my definition of "recycling".
oh…
It still would be great to find a cleaner fuel source then coal especially if that source can’t be used for anything else but I don’t know enough about the crushed blades to tell if they are safe to burn could easily see studies come out saying that they are harmful to the environment because they release toxins into the air or rain fiber glass shards into the air
@@Milescotoo bad it still is. Recycling is basically just finding a use for waste. Which is exactly what's going on here.
It's also silly how entitled a person has to be to be upset over recycling.... Just because it doesn't fit their fantasies.
Yup and that guy was rubbing it all over his hands
If they are 79% steel, you’re telling me they burn the steel for fuel instead of using it as steel
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is clean renewable energy 💀💀💀
How disingenuous people/companies etc. never ceases to amaze me. There's always a new low.
"Impossible to recycle" and "earth saving technology", shouldnt be the same thing 😂
That whole shredder factory looks like a dust fire explosion waiting to happen
Guys, if you have to pay for someone to take your stuff, your stuff is still waste. Don’t let these scammers fool you.
1200% more energy than these blades ever produced
Charlie on Sunny in Philly recycles the bar's trash by burning it in the furnace for heat and to give the bar that nice smoky smell that we all like. Apparently when he does it though, that's the opposite of green.
It's no problem for Philly. The prevailing wind flows east to Jersey where incinerating is illegal for fifty years.
Filthydelphia
Put in some hams. Sell some smoke ham sandwich
@@johnkulpowich5260how did you miss the chance to mention rum ham? 😂
@@johnkulpowich5260 perhaps some delicious local Delaware runoff crabs
@@falsefreedom1713 soff shell crab sandwiches tartar sauce lemon 🍋. Bread toasted
Why do they only have a 20 year life span? Fiberglass boats have a very long life. What are the blades made of? You should not burn fiberglass.
Fiberglass: A composite material made of fine strands of glass and plastic that's often reinforced with polyester or epoxy. Fiberglass is the primary material used in most wind turbine blades, which can be over 170 feet long. However, fiberglass is non-biodegradable and difficult to recycle, so it's usually thrown away in landfills or incinerated.
The green energy components being burned for fuel is hilarious 😂
Glad they found a purpose for them. Used to drive past fields of old blades out in the middle of rural Texas.
Why is the US always late when it comes to renewable. Other nations truly recycle
Wait something is not right here. GE pays the "recycling" company to process the turbines, who then turn around and pay the cement company to burn them.
This can't be a productive use of the turbines because if ut was the cement company would be willing to pay for the crushed turbines. The money should flow the other way.
Why is GE paying to recycle its turbines? Is there some government regulation they are following or grant they are getting? Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to just bury the used turbines in a landfill somewhere?
Unfortunately wind is a terrible way to make power at scale and we’ll have 2.2 million tons of waste per year by 2050 with our current rate of adding new wind farms. And with how light the blades are for their size that takes up a massive amount of space, so it’s actually cheaper, easier, and better for the environment to burn them
Believe it or not, any business plan involving a power station of any sort will include costs and plans for ultimate decommissioning, before the building permit is even considered. That's a lesson governments have learned decades ago, with fossil fuel stations.
Getting from there to "you build it, you take care it's disposed of properly" for renewable plants isn't a huge leap for anyone who does permitting for a living.
@@ValidoleBy law, the only plants that actually pay for their entire decommissioning plants are nuclear plants under the Price-Anderson act.
Laminated carbon fiber and fiberglass DO NOT burn cleaner than coal.
Was wondering why the US was making wind turbines, turns out you can make fuel out of them.
Lovely fibreglass shards released into the environment.
Done in the open air, come on the amount of airborne pollutant's just during the crushing process, crazy.
how in gods name did it take somebody this long to figure that out , jesus there made of fiberglass
First we had to look at them in all their inefficiency, now we get to breathe them. Makes perfect sense.
And most dont even last 20 years thats there max life, most make it 5-10 years
Wind turbines are not inefficient?! They are much more efficient than many things, including most cars.
@@MattMcclintock-n1n most wind turbines last in excess of 25 years. You are wrong.
They burn them? That was unexpected. So they're burning epoxy resin as fuel. That stuff is seriously toxic. I thought the glass fibers would be used to make glass reinforced concrete.
NOOOOOOOO! I thought turbine debris was mixed in cement or something. This is the saddest ending. It worked whole to save earth and in the end it becomes the cause of pollution 😢
Since when is burning the same as recycling?
Love how they use gas powered machines to make these, transport, build, service, disassemble, and transport them back to these yards so the process can repeat itself
You're forgetting the 20 years of power you get in the middle...
@@teamcybr8375you‘re pretending any of the critique under this video comes from a place of honest concern
@@teamcybr8375 not 20 years that is foe whole windmill blades wear down faster
They’re full of crap. That is fiberglass, resin, and catalyst in those blades along with paint. All of those are harmful chemicals. I worked in a boat plant and a plant that made fiberglass for windmill blades. The government gives tax breaks for the whole windmill blade process and GE doesn’t pay taxes. I was also a manager at GE, I know about all of this.
Recycling doesn't mean to just burn it
Not talk about how much a blade costs alone... ☠️
People, people, people. Let me explain what "RE-CYCLING" is. "RE" as in short for "again" and "CYCLE" as in a cyclical path. A cyclical path is something that goes around. Like the letter "O" see how it is round? If you start somewhere on the "O" and go around it in a "CYCLE" you will end up where you started and can do it all over again.
If you burn something as fuel the cycle is broken. Nothing enters the cycle again.
It is "RE-USING" at best because you use it again for something. But you can't really take the ashes from the burnt wind turbine-blades and make new ones, thus it is not "RE-CYCLING".
But really, even the word "re-using" is a lot too ambiguous. Because destroying something in order to generate something that does not last and has 0 of the original product that was sacrificed in making it, is not really "re-using" more like "using it to make power".
Otherwise making a campfire would be "recycling the wood to make heat" yeah, no, it is not. It's really just "using".
It's simple really, the word litterally tells you what it means.
So the blades become Hog Fuel, cool!
I work at Allegheny Shredders we actually make stuff like this, and more. My profile picture was a machine designed to take computers and hard drives and turn them into sand, then separates the metal and plastic “sand” for recycling!
Should edit this since sensitive Susan down below in the comments pointed out im bragging, I’m not, just love what I do for work, and wanted to share. These machines in this channel are pretty cool too, shreds some serious shit pretty quickly and without getting jammed up. Both companies this one and the one I work for are great. Neither are better. They both have an application for specific jobs.
*STOP BRAGGING PLEASE*
@@goldiegolderman1842 lol whose bragging, I literally have posted this a couple of times to just share that I have been part of creating similar machines, I didn’t say the shit we make is better, I didn’t say this was garbage and ours would have done this or that, simply just found it worth sharing that there are other machines like this one, that can do some pretty cool shit. Did you make this machines or something that you’re so upset? Or are you that sensitive from childhood trauma and not enough love into your adult years you need to find my second comment on a shredding machine video about how I also make them, didn’t compare shit to the ones I make and the ones on the video, just commented on what Allegheny can do, so maybe other people who find these videos interesting will look up our company so they can see what I’m talking about and maybe also find them pretty cool, like I do?
It’s crazy how somebody can see something you say and twist it into what they want it to be. Not a single word of either of my two similar comments were bragging about anything. But I’m super glad you took it that way, I’d like you to call your parents and tell them you love them, and how great you are as a person.
that's disposal, not recycling.
@@aaronkcmo it’s separated with magnets to sift between metal and plastic, which go into separate barrels at the end, the customer usually recycles these things, so it’s not always disposable. Jeez man everyone on this channel wants to be right.
@@WhiteboyLash5150 there are almost no ferrous metals in computers. further, it doesn't pay to do so much processing to recycle ferrous metals. mixed shredded plastic lumped in with non-ferrous metals and other materials would need extensive reprocessing to make anything suitable for recycling. this channel puts out political garbage and should be called out for it.
As long as the blades are chemically inert, I don't see the problem with just leaving them in a landfill.
Capitalism
This is like when Mr. Burns figured out how to "recycle" sea animals.
Yeah they're not for cement; they're for fuel.
They should do this with old boats too!!!
Burning fiberglass and calling it "recycling" is almost as silly as saying a biological man is a woman as long as he says he is.
Vote blue no matter who
but doesn't burning fiberglass create toxic fumes worse than burning coal? how does it burn cleaner than coal?
It’s not hard to find something that burns cleaner than coal….
Fiberglass fire is eco friendly
Cleaner than coal,wow ..now that is a clean fuel
All that equipment is using more electricity than the blades actually produce
That’s some expensive cement 😮
Burning the "green" energy making device is wild
Well, saying something burns cleaner than coal isn’t saying much
I was gonna say the same. Hell about anything burns cleaner that coal.
Wow... I thought wind power was supposed to be clean energy, and now you burn the blades for fuel. "cleaner than coal", I'm guessing most fuel is cleaner than coal. So basically wind power has now turned into slightly better than coal power plants but the electricity they produce is way more expensive. Yay progress!
So Violia really be like "Hey, burn this for me. I'll pay you."
Plastic and resin burns cleaner than coal? What a lie
Coal is almost certainly dirtier. Coal smoke contains all of the same chemicals as plastic smoke, along with heavy metals, some of which are radioactive.
Me thinking that the shredded blades were gonna be in the cement
Same...caught me off guard
Yeah! Me too. The fiberglass is OK, but the plastic probably weakens the cement overall.
Yeah wtf they burn the blades after they shred them!?
@@cloudysky1974 They cannot be recycled, nor can they be incorporated into any other product. The reason they wear out to begin with is that nobody accounted for the abrasion that happens when airborne dust interacts with the leading edge of the blades. Both fiberglass and carbon composites are awful at resisting abrasive wear.
The cement actually will eat the fiberglass. It's a chemical reaction. There are very specific kinds of fiberglass & treatments that can be used to reinforce concrete but unfortunately the turbine blades are not made with it.
1. Burning is not recycling.
2. It's pretty easy to believe that big things get smaller after you fed them through a shredder.
3. If you need to pay people to accept your "product", it's not a product. It's waste.
I agree with it not being recycling. Glass and metal can be recycling. Everything else is repurposing. It's also funny that the company that does it says it's cleaner than coal. Not a good endorsement, though believable. Coal burns dirty
It is recycling in a way. I'm not sure how toxic that is, but if it mainly emits co2, then it would ideally be reused from air by trees, grass and other plants.
@@Kuba-th6bm Sorry, it's not recycling. When you recycle a can and it becomes another can, that's recycling. This is at best repurposing. Mostly, it's burning trash
@@1anastudent I mean, for wood maybe I would be right. The cycle would be tree->firewood->ash/co2->sapling->tree and so on. But you're probably right.
@@Kuba-th6bm thank you. I enjoy respectful disagreement. I understand your idea. My look at the term recycling is technical. The only reason I'm so adamant is mainly plastic. The plastic industry hijacked recycle as a term but it's not like metal or glass.
"We've never been able to recycle wind turbine blades until we started burning them."
😂😂😂 it's crazy.
I need to get some carbon credits.
My car has been recycling gasoline for years.
this must be written by some kinda AI 😅
Super ironic xD
Waste to energy (incineration plants) are actually a better option than landfills and the smoke stacks are not your 1970s smoke stacks.
I really thought it was gonna be fiber additives for cement… then they burned it lol
Well the title is clickbait to be fair.. It's used to make cement here, but it can technically be used to heat whatever
@pictzone it can be used in any COAL fired power generator.
Mmmm burn to make pizza 😂😂
oh that's GREEN ISN'T IT??? JEEZ WE are lied to on a daily bases
They don't want to be recorded saying that the blades are burned in coal or gas power plants.
sifting through fiberglass pile with bare hands is crazy
I was thinking the same thing. That would hurt like hell
Not to mention they're no just fiberglass, but also CARBON FIBER 😂😂😂😂😂
If you look closely, you can see a safety slogan in the background as he does it 😂
that’s how you can tell he doesn’t do any laboring work, that and his bright and shiny new vest
Even the air should be itchy
The carbon footprint for these green wind turbines gotta be astronomical hahaha
Wind power is a big joke. You gotta pay the piper eventually
Not really. Most of them are made from recycled materials and the amount of energy created greatly outweighs the carbon footprint. Like using a $100 upfront to get back $10000 in 20-25 years.
@@douglasmarch6601 bullshit, the only solution would be nuclear energy
Yeah all energy not named nuclear has an astronomical footprint
@@douglasmarch6601 these things dont even stand for that long. They just need to build nuclear plans
Who else thought they were gonna turn the blades INTO cement 🤦🏻♂️
Me I thought the same
Funny how they were like 2 minutes of the shredder and then only 10 seconds of what they actually do with it
@@TBPonyprobably because polyester resin is highly toxic when you burn it. I don't think it is "safer than coal". Maybe "dangerous in a different way" but not safer
Guys, we all need to ask for green energy tax credits.
Our parents and grandparents cars have been “recycling” gasoline for decades.
@@allandill2033 i hope its like an incinerator with scrubbers akin to cat converters on a car. Maybe not pure heated air coming out, but i doubt there's black smoke coming out.
I still think this is silly, and like many green energy externalities, I find out later it isn't making the positive difference some people lead me to believe it is when all accounted for. For all the green awareness/planning/investment going around, we've only changed about 2% of energy to truly clean sources in the last 40 yrs. It's shocking. Electric cars just shift emissions from the tailpipe to the coal power plants, etc.
Until we start building new nuclear plants, we're largely kidding ourselves or not taking it seriously. They are the gift that keeps on giving in all the best ways, lacks carbon output, least health impact on society at large, waste isnt the problem it's made out to be, even the mining for fuels is a tiny footprint compared to every other source. Fusion will be the hands down winner if we ever figure it out. Current nuke tech is more than sufficient anyway. But, nuke pwr has a pr problem. The science seems spooky and it scares people. If they only gave it a fair chance, everyone would see it's a no brainer. Modern fail safes make all the biggest fears moot.
That's not recycling, that's disposal.
Disposal would be letting them sit in landfills, this is turning them into a new product aka recycling. Energy is a product
@@TACTICALwaffle2 Apparently you don´t know what words mean. Re-cycling is the word. It means to put something back into a cycle, like we can do with plastic bottles. We can shred the old ones and use that material to make new ones. That´s a cycle and it also works with glass.
I can dispose of stuff by burning it. I did that with an old wooden fence. Disposing means just to get rid of it.
So tell me, where´s the cycle in burning wind turbine blades?
@@TACTICALwaffle2So are we recycling trash by burning it and gathering the energy from that. Because here we call that an incinerator, not a recycler
@@Christopher_Giustolisi most plastics can only be recycled once and then they break down too much and have to be thrown away. This fiberglass was recycled once and turned into usable energy. Did you use the heat from your old fence to boil water to turn a turbine to create electricity that can then be used in the cycle again to make new products? It’s being used to power the factory, it’s not just being burned off into the air
@@TACTICALwaffle2 That´s why I took plastic bottles as an example because they can be recycled (meaning putting them back into the cycle) many times. With glass it can be done over and over again. Steel, aluminium, copper and other metals can also be recycled. The steel from old cables can be used to make new cables. Same goes for cans. I hope the concept is clear now.
This fiberglass wasn´t recycled, it will never end up as a new wind durbine blade, they just burned it. Where´s the cycle in that? I used the heat from the old fence to cook stuff in my dutch oven. That could be described as a cycle since trees absorb the co2 from the burning wood, grow and can be used to build a new fence, completing the cycle. A cycle means to end up at the beginning. Burning fiberglass doesn´t get you there.
Words have meaning and in this case the meaning is obvious. Cycle means that the steps can be repeated.
There´s another word, it´s upcycling. That means to make something else useful out of it. There were already projects where they used the old turbine blades as a roof for a building. It´s not a cycle but the next best thing. The material gets a second life. Another example of that is building furniture out of scrap wood or pallets.
Burning garbage isn´t recycling, even if the energy gets used. This is just an example of green washing.
Arsonists tells the court he wasn't burning buildings he was recycling them. 😂
You won 2024 comments with this 😅😊
😂😂😂
Well, Democrats keep changing definitions, so this fits right in.
How polluting is the cement manufacturing industry? If it were a country, it would be the world’s 4th largest greenhouse gas emitter and here I thought that they were cleaning up their act by incorporating the turbine blades into the cement. How could I have been so naive. Has anybody actually looked into the possibility of incorporating the product into cement or asphalt pavement?
That's illegal? Oh sh*t.
"Burns cleaner than coal" is like saying "is colder than the sun"
cement factories take anything that burns, its mad!
Actually, it means it burns cleaner than coal
Coal burns pretty clean so that’s saying a lot actually. 😊
@@ranranpoopantsreally? I thought coal burned bad and was bad for the environment
what does that mean bro
Such a sweet, irony, burning green energy stuff to recycle it God bless this company.
As an American, I want to thank you for using units of measurements that we can understand: footballs.
Americans don't even know how to use a football. Look up Australian football league. We actually kit it.
Football fields. But Statue of Liberty is better. Or the size of California City.
@@Dr.Kraig_Ren indeed. Did you know that the earth's circumference is 32.8 Californias long? This is an important metric, so jot it down.
I'm Australian and we tend to measure everything in Olympic sized swimming pools... Which is harder to break into smaller measurements.
I like the number of elephants measuring system for large stuffs
@@C.Fecteau-AU-MJ13you must be an immigrant. Aussies measure in roo tails.
Plot Twist: Allot of the fiber that are supposedly burned goes up into the atmosphere and we are breathing micro fibers in our lungs. It’s only years later we realize this from a random posting on a TH-cam short.
'Impossible to recycle, burns cleaner than coal' videos like this are going to be the reason my eyes detach from my brain from rolling them back too far
Hahaha ... Burns cleaner than coal. So does natural gas, but the green agenda is against that as well. "Clean-er“ is not the same as "clean". I am with you man, my eyes are stressing with the amount of rolling they are doing.
Sound like you’re one pretentious asshole
Wait till you learn what they make coal plants out of
Coal is a horrible filthy fuel source and throws tons of pollution and radiation out. This stuff burns cleaner, we got a bunch of it, why not use it?
It's not impossible to recycle, but the energy costs more money than you get back in raw materials.
It's uneconomical, it's bad for the environment to try to recycle these things. They didn't think about this when they were marketing them.
Recycling has to be economical. No business is going to lose their ass trying to recycle something. There has to be subsidies somewhere or tax breaks or something.
Mans just rawdogged that pile of fiberglass like it’s not gonna get into his skin 😬
I was thinking more along the lines of the stuff that’s going in his lungs but you’ve got a point too 👁️ 👁️
Oh no!!! Us that shape-shift into an evil person know this. This whole thing is a completely F@(k3N Farce.
I got itchy watching that
@@juliogonzo2718I feel the splinters in my skin 😬
Or lungs
I thought the pulverized blades were going to be integrated into the cement mix. 🤦🏻♂️
I did too!
They can be, they recover the fibre glass and use it as a source of silica in the cement. The description here only talks about one of the uses of the shredded blades.
we need even stronger concrete for EVs tho
@@Eduardo_Espinozawhere in EVs are you using concrete??
parking lots@@chicoliu6057
when I was a kid, i tossed a bunch of tires on a bonfire. I didn't realize I was recycling.
Underrated comment.
It's recycling if you roast your marshmallows on the tyre bonfire
@@coolcat498 haha, got it.
Nice comment!
Fk all the BS from MSM
@@coolcat498toxic food
Since when does fiberglass and resin burn cleaner than coal?
Coal isn't pure carbon and probably gives off a lot of sulphur, maybe fibre glass does burn more cleanly.
I don't know, I'm just trying to come up with an answer.
The video is wrong. Wind turbine blades _are_ recycled. Google.
@@Chris-dm1jejust googled it, nope landfill or incinerator is what it says.
Fiberglass insulation is made of plastic reinforced by tiny glass fibers. the smoldering of fiberglass causes toxic fumes of formaldehyde and other toxic chemicals in the burning process. Formaldehyde immediately causes eye irritation, headaches, skin irritation and can cause heart and respiratory death.
@Paleoman-fy4ue Weird, I've just googled and found the same as you. Last time, I found a thing saying they're 96% recyclable material.
I also found something saying blades aren't recyclable at all, apart from as a component in concrete. I'd heard a few years ago that scientists had found a way of combining acidic glass with alkaline cement, so at least that's one option. Hopefully, it won't make the crumbly stuff that British schools have been built out if for the last few years.
So, we use turbines to avoid combustion for producing power. Then, we turn around and burn the turbine blades?
For power!
100 tonnes of wood epoxy burnt for 20 years of energy production. Lifetime pollution from wind is already lower than coal, plus the carbon from the wood is already in the short term carbon cycle (CO2 -> tree -> blade -> CO2).
Releasing trapped petrochemical carbon isn't ideal, but it's an improvement. Eventually it could be economically feasible to produce the epoxy from biofuels instead of tapped oil deposits and have the entire life cycle be stable without mining petrochemicals.
@@connorbeck575 Producing biofuels, at scale, has NEVER proven more economically feasible than petroleum. Of course, choosing feedstocks like corn was THE worst possible choice. We need vast quantities of oily plant material that needs minimal energy input, is easy and environmentally safe to harvest, process and turn into fuels.
To date, nothing even comes close to the energy density per unit volume than petroleum.
@Kenjiro5775 I don't mean producing biofuels to become the energy source, I don't think that's happening soon but solar was extremely expensive only a few decades ago and is competitive now. Burning biofuels might eventually go the same way.
I meant so they could be processed into the epoxy component for wind but it might not be necessary / economical though.
For now the cost per kilowatt hour of onshore wind is already similar or lower than coal or gas and produces far less emissions.
@@connorbeck575 We still do not have a reliable method of electricity storage. The fires we are seeing with high capacity lithium ion batteries means it will not prove out in the long run. Solar power is coming along, but without high density storage solar cannot compete with on demand systems based on fossil fuels.
The blades are fiberglass. You cant burn glass so all they are burning is the glue
Pretty much. This shit might burn 1% cleaner than bituminous coal, but anthracite has it beat. Nvm oil and natural gas.
The glue is epoxy, which is a thermoset resin that cannot be recycled, but only burned. It is, however, also producing some rather nasty and toxic fumes, which they just release into the atmosphere, so there's that
Leave it to the government. Gaslight u with "green energy" on one hand and then burn the blades to poison u on the other. I dont believe for one sec that it burns cleaner than coal.
@@Arterexiusit's fine though. We don't even need an atmosphere. Remember the goal: we want Earth to look like Mars or Venus in the next century, and until then, party like you're the last of your bloodline. You just might be 😘🤣🤣
The pieces being rolled out from under the fire in the incinerator are the glass fibers that have melted and fused into " pure glass pellets". CoPD causing toxic fumes right there.
I like the irony of gasoline powered machines shredding down ecological wind turbines.
Which machine was gasoline powered?
Every machine featured in this short.
@@Sams.Videosdiesel my friend. they run on diesel. your point still stands tho it’s insanely ironic
@@EpicManaphyDude My bad. I meant oil in general.
I'd reckon they use more energy breaking up the blades than they get out of burning them.
All that ground up polymer is definitely great for the workers and environment
It is not like asbestos. also not like steel wool. it is way cleaner and "healthier"
IDK bout that… grew up & worked around asbestos, but nothing affected my health as instantly as polymer fumes from a nail salon. For the four months I worked around that environment, I had a constant headache, no appetite, & my hair went brittle & fell out. And I wasn’t even in the immediate area for more than a couple hours a day.
As someone in the turbine blade manufacturing business I can assure you...this is just burning plastic lol. I'm always telling people how not green they are but no one listens.
Watching them be buried straight up is funny. I wish they showed that on TV lol
@@compositestechbb9087It's what we do with 99% of the rest of our rubbish so why not with this
Companies really need to stop saying something is recyclable when the recycled product literally just means for burning.
That's not recycled it's destroyed
The carbon cycle is a real thing so technically they are correct. But this also means that when I burn gas in my car, I am recycling.
They're recycled into fuel. It's not like they're just incinerating them at a trash plant.
@@ButterfatFarms Defeats the purpose, takes them out of the cycle for carbon release. This is just your average corporate virtual signaling that's still part of the problem.
@@NightmareForge what are you complaining about? The blades are diverted from being landfilled as waste, meaning zero sustainability, and instead used to produce low-carbon cement as a waste fuel. Why is that a bad thing? They were going to be manufacturing the cement regardless and using an alternative waste fuel reduces the carbon footprint of that manufacturing process over what it otherwise would have been with conventional fuel.