[thatsit]

Solar panels etc. will last decades and can and will be recycled afterwards. Further, most materials needed for renewable energy infrastructure (iron, lithium) are highly abundant on earth. Most of the suppliers work to use cheaper (=more abundant) materials in their products, replacing lithium with sodium in batteries and silver with copper in solar panels. Wind turbine blades are produced now using re-solvable resins.

[aaronmoodie]

Not only are older solar panels recyclable, but efficiency gains in panel construction mean that multiple newer panels can be created with the resources from older panels.

[pfdietz]

And iron (steel) is the most recyclable material we have.

[Saline9515]

Wind turbines are not recyclable[1]. Besides, the foundations use a massive amount of concrete (nowadays often extracted from the seabed, with all the problematic ecological consequences involved), that stays forever in the ground.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23527...

[Qwertious]

Existing wind turbines turbines are not recyclable - new wind turbines are.

Except, that's not even true. Some existing wind turbines are not recyclable.

Except that's not entirely true either! The tower portion of the turbine is usually steel, and easily recyclable! The nacelle, too. It's the base and the blades that can't be recycled.

Except that's not entirely true either! Existing turbine blades are made (mostly) of fibreglass, which is made of the fibre and the resin. The fibres aren't reliably as strong when recycled (which makes them not-very-useful when recycled), but the resin is just fine. And of course, if the blade is e.g. carbon fibre, then you can either re-use it or just burn it.

So, you statement should be that some (components of) existing wind turbines cannot be profitably recycled with current technology.

The wind turbine's concrete base doesn't need to be smashed up or ignored, incidentally - it can be re-used. Concrete is much sturdier than the e.g. gearbox.

[chrisb]

The linked article is misrepresented.

Two points regarding blade recycling techniques taken straight from the top of the article:

- Cement co-processing and chemical dissolution are primary viable methods, yielding $27.57/ton and $199.71/ton returns respectively.

- Chemical recycling achieves top circularity (PCI=0.7) and notable carbon reduction (−0.475 t CO₂/ton).

Chemical recycling is not yet ready for industrial use; cement co-processing is.

[gregbot]

Who cares? Those blades and that concrete are totally inert and just sit in the ground after their useful life. The ground already has lots of rocks in it.

[triceratops]

Curious you're so worried about "ecological consequences" but only when it's window power.