Policy & Politics longer wind turbine blades

Published on March 23rd, 2015 | by Tina Casey

65

US Energy Dept. On The Prowl For Bigger, Longer Wind Turbine Blades

March 23rd, 2015 by  

As if the fossil fuel industry needed more bad news, the US Energy Department has just put out the call for new, longer wind turbine blade technology that will unlock an additional one million square miles of land for wind energy development. The new funding opportunity is relatively small at $1.8 million dollars but this is truly a case of a little going a long way.

In case you’re wondering where to park those longer wind turbine blades, the Energy Department has that angle covered, too…

longer wind turbine blades

Another Million Acres For Wind Energy

Take a look at the map below and you’ll see a huge gaping hole in wind energy development in the US, right there in the southeastern region. Politics aside, one reason for that hole is the relative lack of good quality, lower-altitude wind resources.

To tap into that region, the Energy Department is looking for new technology that involves turbine towers at least 120 meters (393.7 feet) high, when measured from ground to turbine tub.

With greater height comes an opportunity to build longer wind turbine blades, which the Energy Department expects to clock in at least 60 meter.

Dow Chemical buys US wind energy



The Road To Longer Wind Turbine Blades…

As you can see from the first image in this article, transporting wind turbine blades is a whole operation unto itself that can add significantly to the installed cost of wind energy, so the Energy Department’s new funding opportunity is looking for transportability as well as operational efficiency in a new wind turbine blade design.

The new longer wind turbine blade funding opportunity announcement has all the details, but for those of you on the go, it’s part of a broader goal to reduce the cost of wind energy and introduce more wind energy into more regions of the US:

Solutions may include, but are not limited to, modular, segmented or site-fabricated blade technologies. Resulting designs and associated manufacturing, logistics and installation requirements may be applicable to both land-based and offshore wind plants.

…And Taller Turbines Towers, Too

As for those taller wind turbine towers, they are already on the way. Last fall the Energy Department tapped Keystone Towers of Boston for something called an “on-site spiral welding system,” which will reduce or outright eliminate the need for costly, special transportation arrangements. The system is also expected to result in a steel tower that is 40 percent lighter than conventional towers, resulting in even more cost savings.

In the same $2 million funding package, the Energy Department also selected Iowa State to develop a modular system that also addresses the transportation cost issue while enabling greater height.

The Keystone system is based on proven technology used in the pipe manufacturing industry. We saw a similar approach last year when GE rolled out its new “Space Frame” taller wind turbine tower, which also leverages conventional methods to join smaller components together on site, rather than dealing with the cost of transporting larger components.

Wind Energy Politics Aside, Or Not

Returning to that thing about wind resources in the southeastern US, onshore wind energy is just part of the equation. Like the rest of the Atlantic Coast, the southeast has some mighty nice offshore wind energy resources, too.

In contrast to the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast is relatively shallow, so Atlantic states don’t have to wait for deepwater wind turbine technology. That’s why the Obama Administration’s offshore wind development initiatives have been focusing on the Atlantic coast.

Coastal southeastern states basically refused to join the initiative, called the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium. However, last year the Bureau of Land Management began issuing leases for offshore wind energy development, so that big gaping hole in US wind energy development is going to fill in, like it or not.

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Image Credits: (top, courtesy of US Department of Energy NREL/PIX 16178; bottom, courtesy of US Energy Information Agency)


Check out our new 93-page EV report, based on over 2,000 surveys collected from EV drivers in 49 of 50 US states, 26 European countries, and 9 Canadian provinces.

Tags: , , ,


About the Author

specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.



  • Coley

    Though I am totally in favour of wind and other renewables, one genuine point is often raised and is seized on by the Antis, and that is the siting of wind farms, we have a disproportionate number up here in the Northeast UK, while relatively few are to be found in the leafy suburbs of the South east.
    Hopefully moving most offshore will solve this.

  • Lynda DeBuhr

    In my last entry I voiced concerns that arrived from personal experience and was blasted from every angle – bad language, slang acronyms, and the stupidity card ( rgd wind energy). My entry was soley based on experience and I was looking for true positive feedback on what is being done. My entry in this area will cease. I am not a physicist but I have a math/Sci degree as well as a Medical background.
    Articles you ask — there are many. There are a;so many to support your negative approach to my honest question/ answer forum. This is not what I had anticipated from you.
    I have never uploaded articles to this site before but I will try include these to include a few opposing views.
    You are not doing a bad thing trying to develop non FF energy–I’ve been at it since the 80’s myself.
    I see pictures are my option. if I can post a few citations – they’ll be in the next posting. They are not to be slammed– only to be used as an educated approach to seeing beyond what government and large businesses guide you to see. If you don’t see the articles, google them–they are there. The far-fetched, weird ones are there too, as well as the ones you obviously alluded to. Yes, I’ve read the different articles written about the differing opinions.

    • Lynda DeBuhr

      Here is one

      Wind Turbines can be Hazardous to Human Health

      Alec N. Salt, Ph.D., Cochlear Fluids Research Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis.

      Updated 4/2/2014. To keep this as readable as possible I have not included reference citations. They are typically available in our publications.

  • Omega Centauri

    I just wonder whether a couple of million will have any real effect, on a multibillion dollar industry. Presumably the major WT manufacturers are designing the next generation products, I’d be surprised if they weren’t at least evaluating these ideas.

  • Zolicon

    ” What do you think about this? ”
    I know how to supply all the energy Man-kind needs and I know how to do it with out destroying the environment or the planet.

    • Matt

      And you are keeping its secret, because?

      • Zolicon

        3 reasons.
        1 – Big Oil enough said on that one.
        2 – Corrupt Governments.
        3 – I don’t have the support from the 99% I need to be able to implement these changes.

        • Doug Cutler

          Forget the 1%, how much do you need? Why not take it to crowdfunding? Revolutionary new beehive design is going to $8M. Latest smart watch to $20! Let us know.

          • Zolicon

            I did forget the 1%.

    • Lynda DeBuhr

      interested — from ND

      • Zolicon

        Interested in what may I ask ?

        • Lynda DeBuhr

          What are you referring to in creating energy less expensive and more efficient than what we currently have? I think i may have reworded your statement somewhat.
          I agree , govt and etc get in the way of many individual ways of creating these things. The engine is a prime example– we should be doing far better than we are at this point in technology – and some have proven a capability but their work suddenly disappears.
          EX: Tesla escaped with his life from Russia and Edison tried to shut him down (difference of technology opinions (ac vs dc)). Eventually Westinghouse hired him, but alas they also tried to control his work.
          I understand if you’re uncomfortable discussing this if you’ve been harassed by entities already.
          I tried passive solar in a large area of a home we build in the early 80″s — it was a great concept at the time. In 2001 and in in a newly built home and different area of our state, we invested in ground-sourced heat pumps for our heating/cooling systems. Another great concept, although not completely free from electrical need.
          My educational background is not physics -its math and science and a good dose of natural curiosity. No need to reply if you’re protecting your wellbeing – good luck with your endeavors.

          • Zolicon

            Okay this planet has enough energy in it to last a Billion Billion years so We tap into that.There are many Volcanoes on this planet and even when they are in a state where they considered dormant they have more energy that than all of the Nuclear Bombs on Earth.
            There are also many Geysers,Hot springs and water falls that can be utilized as an energy source and with out devastating Nature.
            infrared was a great discovery but it is not used to it’s full potential.

            With the use of infrared You can get rid of all the energy sucking streets lights that are on this planet.
            Technology is another major energy sucker that can be transformed.

    • Offgridman

      “I know how to supply all of the energy Man-kind needs and I know how to do it with out destroying the environment or the planet”
      Well so do we, solar, wind, geothermal, hydro in all of its various forms, methane and other synthetic fuel production, plus all of the other means. Then there is the energy management and efficiency measures that can be taken, along with changes to ways of powering transportation.
      In other words, basically what is shown and discussed on this site every day.
      If you have something new to propose we would love to hear about it, and Zach is open to taking articles from new sources that can validate what they are saying.
      So please, enlighten us.

      • Bob_Wallace

        He can’t. He explained that “Big Oil” and “Corrupt Governments” would do something or the other….

        • Offgridman

          I know Bob,it was late and was just trying to have a little fun playing with the crazies.
          If I remember the name right, he posted some videos a few years back demonstrating his perpetual energy producing machine without realizing that the extension cord coming through the fence powering it could be seen in the background.

        • Zolicon

          Here read this and learn that I can do what I claim.

          Okay this planet has enough energy in it to last a Billion Billion years so We tap into that.There are many Volcanoes on this planet and even when they are in a state where they considered dormant they have more energy that than all of the Nuclear Bombs on Earth.
          There are also many Geysers,Hot springs and water falls that can be utilized as an energy source and with out devastating Nature.
          infrared was a great discovery but it is not used to it’s full potential.

          With the use of infrared You can get rid of all the energy sucking streets lights that are on this planet.
          Technology is another major energy sucker that can be transformed.

      • Zolicon

        Well if You know how to do it where aren’t You doing it ?

        • Calamity_Jean

          We are doing it. Every few minutes another roof gets solar panels. Every few days another wind turbine is put up and another person buys an electric car. Every week another house has better windows installed or a new high-efficiency HVAC system installed. Every day we lobby our legislators for renewable-energy friendly laws. We are doing it.

          • Zolicon

            Well it is like they say every little bit helps.

          • Coley

            And switching electricity suppliers from conventional to clean suppliers such as ecotricity, every little helps;)

        • Offgridman

          I guess that you mean “Why aren’t you doing it?”
          Actually I am, for close to nine years all of the electricity needed to run the appliances and lights inside and out of our home, and all of our water supply has been provided by solar and wind. Are house was built so that solar thermal heating provides all of our needs unless the temperature goes under 20°F and then wood fired backup keeps us cozy. During the summer if the natural thermal effect of the house doesn’t keep us comfortable during a heat wave there is enough surplus from the solar panels to run the air conditioner.
          In a couple of years when long enough range EV’s are available to work in our rural location and the distances we need to drive we are ready to get one along with enough extra solar to keep it powered.
          Now that I have answered you can you please tell me what you are doing, and what your solution is for more energy supply for everyone else. Perhaps it is something that I could utilize as well as my current solutions, or as a means of powering my son’s homes if they want to build near me when they get old enough.
          You came here with the broad statement that you have the solution, but now refuse to give any inclination what it is because of paranoid delusions of conspiracy theories
          This is a safe place, you are amongst friends that are interested in the same goal as you, so one last time, please enlighten us.

          • Zolicon

            Okay this planet has enough energy in it to last a Billion Billion years so We tap into that.There are many Volcanoes on this planet and even when they are in a state where they considered dormant they have more energy that than all of the Nuclear Bombs on Earth.
            There are also many Geysers,Hot springs and water falls that can be utilized as an energy source and with out devastating Nature.
            infrared was a great discovery but it is not used to it’s full potential.

            With the use of infrared You can get rid of all the energy sucking streets lights that are on this planet.
            Technology is another major energy sucker that can be transformed.
            And that is just the tip of the ice-berg as they say.

          • Offgridman

            Thank you for the elaboration. Yes you are right that there is a lot more that can be done with geothermal and actually in Japan, Africa, and South America there are ongoing projects to better utilize this source. There is some high initial investment costs though, and still a lot of research needed for site location and making sure that the bore holes are done in the right place at the first attempt. Ironically the practice from the side ways boring and fracking drilling from the oil industry is helping to make what is needed for geothermal more accessible, even though the technology was initially developed for geothermal to start with.
            This works well for large grid feed energy supplies but is much harder to utilize on an individual level except for a very small number of people that live in the right location to use it for home or water heating. The investment for an individual to try and get their electricity this way would just be impractical.
            On the street lighting there are many places that are now reducing their overall energy needs to 10-20% of original by switching to LED’S with a much longer fixture life as a side benefit. Also with the better battery technology now available it is becoming possible to make these free standing fixtures getting the electricity needed from solar panels. So as you said to someone else every little bit helps, and we are able to do this without convincing people to accept the drastic change to infrared.
            Since finding this site I have gotten a lot of pleasure and expanded information perusing the current and past articles on all of the good news happening around the world with new energy sources and more efficient ways of utilizing it on many levels levels from individuals going without the grid to large scale implementation for the many people living in urban areas. Perhaps you might enjoy doing the same. Have a great day.

          • Zolicon

            There is some high initial investment costs though.”

            Not making those investments will cost Man-kind Their every existence.

          • Coley

            Iceland has the possibility of exporting a huge amount of wind and geothermal to mainland Europe and with the advances in HVDC cabling it’s now becoming a practical proposition.

  • Marion Meads

    One major disadvantage of big wind turbines like these is that it insures the continued legacy of bills by utilities if they chose to install wind power. Wind turbines cannot be installed easily by an individual household in an urban setting.

    Unlike solar PV when coupled with battery storage can help promote true energy independence for your household and commuting needs without having to pay the utilities nor OPEC types.

    But as long as we can clean the planet’s atmosphere, and there is someone who will be insured of generating money, we will have to live with this. Cannot complain much, as not everyone could install solar PV.

    As for me, my aim is to have complete freedom from the electric utilities and the fuel pump.

    • Matt

      As an individual yes PV is the way to go; assuming you own someplace to put them. But from the stand point of a town, city, county, state, country trying to kick the FF habit; wind will play an important role. I can install hydro (small or large) at my house; but it is still good to have. Ok let me say run of river so as not to start a fight about dams.

      • Lynda DeBuhr

        I’ve owned a geothermal heating/cooling furnace/air conditioner plus water heater system. Minus the energy it took to run the fans/blowers. Its efficiency was outstanding. With a large home on a duel system, it was the best system we had experienced in a cold winter /hot summer climate. The initial cost paid for itself in 2 years. We still share this experience as it was very unique and cost effective.

    • Omega Centauri

      WTs are only economical at large scale. That mostly means corporate ownership, although I can easily imagine creating a wind-power consumers coop. But, a modern large WT would need several hundred households -they produce that much power!

      In any case, not all of the electric power consumed is by small holders, large industries have no choice even if they put PV on their roof, but to buy a lot of power over the grid. They can use this sort of windpower.

    • Coley

      And it’s becoming increasingly doable, in the UK we have many farmers crying in their beer, yet one demonstrated how easy it is to return to profitability,simply by sticking up a medium sized wind turbine, he now claims to be making a £5000 profit as opposed to paying that amount to the utility company.
      Just how much more could he recoup by covering his cattle sheds and barns with PV?

  • Joseph Dubeau

    Good article Tina.

  • globi

    By the way, there’s also the option to manufacture a tower out of wood:
    http://www.designboom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/woodwind02.jpg

    A wooden tower is also lighter, doesn’t need special transportation arrangements and even stores carbon. link

    • Lynda DeBuhr

      What about wind shear? In ND it’s very windy almost all the time–Height and wind do not mix well here. If one of our frequent storms came through – these would be snapped and the damage would be nasty. 100 plus years ago before the evolution of homes having electricity, wind mills were used to generate power- then it was stored in batteries and thus provided energy to the pumps to water cattle, etc. When more efficient energy came along , this was no longer needed. This is basically going back to a very expensive technique. It also creates interference with nearby electrical devices (you’d love having your computers and cell phones messed with). Health research indicates living near these is also a concern — plus when near them—they’re noisy. Been around these and do not like them. We need a better solution!

      • Joseph Dubeau

        “This is basically going back to a very expensive technique. It also creates interference with nearby electrical devices (you’d love having your computers and cell phones messed with). Health research indicates living near these is also a concern — plus when near them—they’re noisy. Been around these and do not like them. We need a better solution!”

        FUD! We need to stop burning coal.
        How do you know they’re noisy?

        • Lynda DeBuhr

          As politely as I can, I’ll repeat: I lived around them for a number of years before we could move. Thus, that’s how I’ve heard their noise as well as dealt with their interferences.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Some early wind turbine installations were noisy.

            That was then….

          • Joseph Dubeau

            I’m sorry my 5 year old niece can fib better then that.
            Whose Health research are referring to?
            Interference with nearby electrical devices?

            Do you have any science to back this up?

          • Coley

            And as politely, I now live with them, no problems, I also lived in close proximity to two major power stations one of which supplied power to an Alcan aluminium smelter the other was an outdated dirty CFPS ( Blyth)
            I also lived and grew up in a heavily industrialised part of the world, replete with coal mines ( and I worked down many of them) slag heaps and more recently open cast mines ( now just about gone)
            The slag heaps, smelters, coal mines and CFPS are all gone ( and yes, I deeply regret the jobs they took with them) but the nature reserves and agricultural farmlands, and yes, the wind farms that have replaced them are a vast improvement.
            I have one major complaint, most of the deployment of renewables in my little corner of the world is creating jobs ( and wealth and investment)outside of the UK

      • globi

        Granted, that I don’t know the economics of this particular wooden tower.
        However wood has undoubtedly a higher specific strength and a higher specific modulus than steel.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_tYSb-BAws

        • Herb

          globi said,

          “However, wood has undoubtedly a higher specific strength and a higher specific modulus than steel.”

          Wood has greater strength than steel . . . in what universe?

          • Bob_Wallace

            Based on weight. Not on volume.

          • globi

            I wrote specific strength not strength.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_strength
            In this universe you just need to read what you quote.

          • Herb

            Globi, I’m not the guy you want to lecture on reading or reading comprehension. When I was in the 7th grade in Kansas, I, along with every other 7th grader that year, took a comprehensive reading test. My reading comprehension score was “13.6,” which meant that in the seventh grade, my reading comprehension was equivalent to that of a college freshman in the sixth month of his freshman year.

            A run-of-the-mill connecting rod that you can buy in any hotrod magazine is made of steel that has 200,000 psi of tensile strength. I don’t know what the mass is of a typical one-square-inch column of steel of a given length, but I’m pretty sure that it would be difficult to come up with a commonly available piece of wood that would get anywhere close to that, mass-for-mass. I’ll believe it if it’s proven to me, but you’d have to prove it. Steel is just mind-bogglingly strong.

            There are, of course, different properties of steel and any other structure material — not just tensile strength. There are flexing properties, tortional strength, shock absorbtion, stiffness vs. strength, etc., which means your main point that wood might be viable for wind towers, could very well be true. The only problem I see with it really is decay, which might be fixable through chemical treatment such as “Wolmanizing” (the common green treatment).

          • globi

            Again: I did not mention strength.

          • Herb

            If you don’t know what “mass-for-mass” means, then it’s clear that you’re reading comprehension has failed you, and discussing this with you is a waste of time.

          • Herb

            And I’ll say this — regardless of our bickering, the wood tower idea is very intriguing. If it could be moisture- and rot-proofed for a 50-year life, it could be very doable. I could see 100 years possible.

            A wood tower would be larger in diameter than a steel tower and of course have much thicker walls. It would be very easy to attach gear to the interior with lag bolts, and it would have other interesting and useful attributes as well. One potential problem might be getting sufficient clearance between the blades and the larger-diameter tower. It would be interesting to read an engineering feasibility analysis on it.

            It just hit me: the larger diameter would in fact be too much of a clearance problem. That’s why — I just realized — I’ve seen some towers that have skinny poles and then flare out at the base. They’re trying to create as much clearance as possible so the rotor doesn’t have to be cantilevered out on a long shaft. There’s no way wood would ever be able to compete with that small diameter.

            But now I’m back to my hybrid tower idea. Why not 50 – 75 meters of wood and then 75 – 100 meters of steel?

      • Matt

        Lynda, please do a little reading. Todays wind turbines have very little in common with a 100-150 year old wind mill. Much less so that a 100 year old coal plant. Research show there are not Health concerns with wind. Not so with FF. Have you ever been in a sky scrapper? They are taller and stand up in the wind.

        • Lynda DeBuhr

          Sky scrapper – Yes, many times.
          Agree : new devices are more advanced than ancient ones– the connection was the process involved, Standing up to wind is one thing, but wind shear is different. also the costs to maintain these outweigh their usefulness.
          What is FF?
          I’ve also lived near a coal producing electrical plant — i imagine you don’t like to hear this. Regardless, it’s much cleaner than you’d think. I have respiratory problems and while living near there, best 20 years of health. Since leaving and moving to a larger city, we face more pollution here.
          yes– I do read–thus, my blog post.

      • Eric

        Lynda, I’ve worked on wind farms for years and I’ve never had any issues with my laptop or cell phone. I’m not sure what you mean by “messed with”, but please – if you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk.
        I’m sure it is very windy in ND, that’s why it’s a good candidate for a wind farm. Believe me, the engineers who design wind turbines actually do calculate wind loads on their towers.

        • Lynda DeBuhr

          If you’ve never had problems, i’m glad to hear this. But, yes we have had issues of interference. i must politely ask why the issues i have dealt with are not important?
          Thank you for your comment on tower wind load– I’ll leave that to the engineers.
          I am a voice allowed to speak — I’m not ranting nor trying to cause a problem. These issues do exist.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Lynda, these issues mainly exist in the minds of a few.

          • Lynda DeBuhr

            As far as discussions go, this is not polite. Experiences shared, are just that – experiences.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Experiences? Or more anti-wind FUD?

            There are over 48,000 wind turbines in the US. There have been turbines in operation for over 30 years. If wind turbines caused cell phone problems that would be commonly known.

            There are multiple carefully carried out studies that find zero health problems associated with wind turbines.

            Many of us have stood close to modern wind turbines and observed no important noise problems.

      • Coley

        I know I’m repeating myself, but will continue to do so on this subject, I live next to a ‘wind farm’ and yes, I was apprehensive when it was being built having been subjected
        to all the doomsday scaremongering.
        However there have been absolutely no problems reported, it causes us no problems whatsoever, including problems with mobiles or computers.

    • Bob_Wallace

      Also concrete towers.

      “The use of concrete means that greater tower heights can be achieved; it facilitates the local supply and manufacture of the segments because they can be produced in places close to the wind farms and do not require highly-specialized labor; production and transport costs are reduced; concrete is less subject to price fluctuations than steel, and major synergies can be exploited with the processes involved in laying the foundations for the wind turbine towers.”

      http://www.acciona.com/news/acciona-windpower-inaugurates-first-concrete-tower-production-plant-mexico

      These towers are now allowing 120 meter hub height which means much larger swept area and getting up into cleaner, stronger wind.

      Taller towers will open up onshore wind farms in parts of the US where it was assumed there was little to no wind available.

      • Coley

        Quick question, why are the many oil platforms presently coming to the end of their production lives not utilised as a base for one or more wind turbines?
        Have tried googling,but no luck’perhaps you or others on here have an answer?

        • Bob_Wallace

          I don’t know enough about oil platforms. Would they be high enough? Seems like they would need a “pole” on top so the blades had a clean area to sweep. With a nacelle mounted up high would they be stable?

          Possible, but having renovated a few buildings, it’s often quicker, easier and cheaper to start from the ground and build up as opposed to repurposing.

          • Coley

            Aye, but they would certainly be high enough, obviously you would have to remove the ancillary equipment and mount a tower (or two) and their stability is a given I would have thought?

          • Bob_Wallace

            I just don’t know. And I was thinking about floating oil rigs, not ones anchored to the sea bed when talking about stability. (I look out my west-facing windows and see some of the best wind resources in the world. But the ocean is deep there.)

      • Herb

        I’m thinking hybrid tower, Bob, with 50 meters of concrete and then 100 meters of steel. Or whatever is doable.

        • Bob_Wallace

          If we can build 120 meter hub height towers with concrete why switch over to steel part way up?

          I don’t know the relative cost of concrete vs. steel towers. The apparent selling point for the concrete towers is that the sections can be poured into forms at the site, eliminating hauling large steel sections of tower.

          Another option/idea is a version of the old grid towers which can be assembled on site. But cover them with a ‘skin’. I think it’s GE who is giving that a try.

          • Herb

            Well, what I was thinking was that because of the enormous mass and weight of concrete it might serve best to have a partial concrete tower which could act as a super-massive foundation, which could have the steel upper tower changed at some point in the future when the owners want to repower that tower.

            I’m thinking about future flexibility in 30 years or even 20, when turbines are commonly 3 times the size of today’s 3-megawatt turbine. They could put up a new steel upper tower on the concrete base at less cost and install a 10MW turbine, but do so at lower overall cost. Make sense? I’m just brainstorming here with future flexibility and repowering in mind.

            It’s going to be interesting to see how the lattice-built tower covered with skin shakes out.

    • We have enough deforestation without needing to cut down more trees to make wind turbines. Better to use recycled materials to build the turbines with.

      • Bob_Wallace

        I really doubt we’ll see many towers built from wood, but let’s play along….

        Those trees cut down and used for towers are one way of sequestering carbon for a few decades.

        Where the trees are removed new trees can grow, snatching carbon from the atmosphere as they mature and sequestering more carbon underground with their roots.

Back to Top ↑