260 tonnes whoa. Wonder what the entire lifecycle costs look like for such a turbine. Is it sent for recycling after being decommissioned? Carbon and resource lifecycle costs for renewables are so complex and this article on steel makes me think even more. This whole topic is super interesting.
It really is interesting and very complex. I'm pretty sure that wind turbines would be recyclable, at least the steel in them would be, not the concrete. But it is certainly a valid point that wind farms, just like electric cars, are in no way "zero emission" right now. We aren't going to solve this problem by carrying on like we always have and just substituting one technology for another.
Great stuff Melanie. Fascinating topic, especially given our ability to use wood instead of steel in some buildings. I do also worry that a lot of Glenbrook’s electricity is generated from coal at Huntly down the road.
Thank you. I'm getting more interested in what wood can do the more I learn about steel. We still need steel but there are surely better alternatives for low-rise construction.
I enjoyed this article. Full disclosure i do not believe that CO2 causes more than 50% of the modern temperature rise... and the saturation will result in doubling causing half of that. Wood is useful but we need our trees to sink CO2, so sounds counterproductive. Not to mention it could not replace the steel in the modern wind turbine(think Holland for size limits offered by wood, or water wheels in UK just prior to the Industrial Revolution, there are limits). Certainly CCS has the most potential but is complex and as stated, is energy inefficient and limited life ( by the ability of a given well to accept more gas- they become full, so you must drill a new well, and eventually you run out of reservoir capacity; now we must transport the gases to the new geology, thereby adding to cost. Most greenies do not care for pipelines and their material, think steel or plastic). No easy answers and the flippant way “solutions” are tossed around is disconcerting. Melanie herself notes that EVs are not especially co2 advantaged, windmills are dreadfully inefficient (all that steel, concrete and copper and rare earths etc for 25% availability, and thats an annual average, with sometimes days of 0%). We must get smarter.
Very interesting, thanks Melanie. Re Chris' point about trees being required for sequestration; a tree will sequester carbon until mature and then it slows right down. The best thing is to mill it and lock the carbon away for another 100 years in a building or furniture and plant a new tree.
I do think this is complex, as there's a release of carbon from all the cut down forest that doesn't go into the wood. I think part of it is thinking about whole ecosystems.
Certainly, solutions are a complex picture, and we won't solve the situation by a straight substitution, eg petrol for EV, fossil fuels for renewables, wood for steel. It's more complex than that. EVs do have a significant emissions advantage over their lifetime, but things like how large they are makes a difference (an electric SUV is still a waste of resources). On the subject of sequestration, we should be able to allow for some forestry for timber and some for sequestration, but we also need to be thinking about whole ecosystems that sequester carbon, here's a recent article about saltmarshes. https://substack.com/inbox/post/87803021
I agree, it is complex. Collectively we have grown in numbers which exceed the ability of our home to support us, in the lifestyle we all want. So what to do - reduce our expectations or dramatically reduce our population? It might happen anyway.
Rammed earth interests me as a building concept, lasting way longer than a wooden building. But there is still steel reinforcing and concrete in the foundations if built to the NZ standard.
One way to use less steel would be to keep things going rather than replace with the new model; ie maintain and repair. I’m thinking of vehicles and appliances; reduce demand therefore production which admittedly will require new attitudes to the design.
If we could reduce our dependency on electronics in favour of mechanical systems so that repair is possible, there would be new work for repair shops all across the country.
I'm totally with you on the idea of maintaining things rather than throwing them away. It frustrates me so much that manufacturers get away with planned obsolescence. I'm still running a washing machine from 1997. Nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
I admit I haven't bought a secondhand laptop, but I buy secondhand cellphones and I've had brilliant service from them. I only got replaced my phone recently because Apple stopped it from working to force me to buy a new one. We've got ourselves locked into an economy which is dependent on waste (I get a bit angry about this if you couldn't guess).
Finally catching up on your write-ups and really enjoyed this piece - it must have taken quite a bit of research to get such a good overview, thanks Melanie!
Thank you. Yes, there's a lot of time which goes into the articles. I often find myself going down research dead ends, learning about things which never make it into the article. Fortunately I like learning about new things.
Thank you Melanie.I loved your article about concrete and now today, the one about steel.
Many thanks for your work.
Warm regards
Mimi Irwin
Thank you, I really appreciate it.
260 tonnes whoa. Wonder what the entire lifecycle costs look like for such a turbine. Is it sent for recycling after being decommissioned? Carbon and resource lifecycle costs for renewables are so complex and this article on steel makes me think even more. This whole topic is super interesting.
It really is interesting and very complex. I'm pretty sure that wind turbines would be recyclable, at least the steel in them would be, not the concrete. But it is certainly a valid point that wind farms, just like electric cars, are in no way "zero emission" right now. We aren't going to solve this problem by carrying on like we always have and just substituting one technology for another.
Great stuff Melanie. Fascinating topic, especially given our ability to use wood instead of steel in some buildings. I do also worry that a lot of Glenbrook’s electricity is generated from coal at Huntly down the road.
Thank you. I'm getting more interested in what wood can do the more I learn about steel. We still need steel but there are surely better alternatives for low-rise construction.
I enjoyed this article. Full disclosure i do not believe that CO2 causes more than 50% of the modern temperature rise... and the saturation will result in doubling causing half of that. Wood is useful but we need our trees to sink CO2, so sounds counterproductive. Not to mention it could not replace the steel in the modern wind turbine(think Holland for size limits offered by wood, or water wheels in UK just prior to the Industrial Revolution, there are limits). Certainly CCS has the most potential but is complex and as stated, is energy inefficient and limited life ( by the ability of a given well to accept more gas- they become full, so you must drill a new well, and eventually you run out of reservoir capacity; now we must transport the gases to the new geology, thereby adding to cost. Most greenies do not care for pipelines and their material, think steel or plastic). No easy answers and the flippant way “solutions” are tossed around is disconcerting. Melanie herself notes that EVs are not especially co2 advantaged, windmills are dreadfully inefficient (all that steel, concrete and copper and rare earths etc for 25% availability, and thats an annual average, with sometimes days of 0%). We must get smarter.
Very interesting, thanks Melanie. Re Chris' point about trees being required for sequestration; a tree will sequester carbon until mature and then it slows right down. The best thing is to mill it and lock the carbon away for another 100 years in a building or furniture and plant a new tree.
I do think this is complex, as there's a release of carbon from all the cut down forest that doesn't go into the wood. I think part of it is thinking about whole ecosystems.
Certainly, solutions are a complex picture, and we won't solve the situation by a straight substitution, eg petrol for EV, fossil fuels for renewables, wood for steel. It's more complex than that. EVs do have a significant emissions advantage over their lifetime, but things like how large they are makes a difference (an electric SUV is still a waste of resources). On the subject of sequestration, we should be able to allow for some forestry for timber and some for sequestration, but we also need to be thinking about whole ecosystems that sequester carbon, here's a recent article about saltmarshes. https://substack.com/inbox/post/87803021
I agree, it is complex. Collectively we have grown in numbers which exceed the ability of our home to support us, in the lifestyle we all want. So what to do - reduce our expectations or dramatically reduce our population? It might happen anyway.
Rammed earth interests me as a building concept, lasting way longer than a wooden building. But there is still steel reinforcing and concrete in the foundations if built to the NZ standard.
I'm sorry to say that I think you are right. Going on like we have been, only with greener technology, isn't going to give us the answer.
Interesting thanks Melanie.
One way to use less steel would be to keep things going rather than replace with the new model; ie maintain and repair. I’m thinking of vehicles and appliances; reduce demand therefore production which admittedly will require new attitudes to the design.
If we could reduce our dependency on electronics in favour of mechanical systems so that repair is possible, there would be new work for repair shops all across the country.
I'm totally with you on the idea of maintaining things rather than throwing them away. It frustrates me so much that manufacturers get away with planned obsolescence. I'm still running a washing machine from 1997. Nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
I admit I haven't bought a secondhand laptop, but I buy secondhand cellphones and I've had brilliant service from them. I only got replaced my phone recently because Apple stopped it from working to force me to buy a new one. We've got ourselves locked into an economy which is dependent on waste (I get a bit angry about this if you couldn't guess).
Finally catching up on your write-ups and really enjoyed this piece - it must have taken quite a bit of research to get such a good overview, thanks Melanie!
Thank you. Yes, there's a lot of time which goes into the articles. I often find myself going down research dead ends, learning about things which never make it into the article. Fortunately I like learning about new things.