IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v309y2022ics0306261921015993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A life cycle assessment comparison of materials for a tidal stream turbine blade

Author

Listed:
  • Walker, Stuart R.J.
  • Thies, Philipp R.

Abstract

Electricity generated from tidal streams via underwater turbines has significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than fossil-fuel derived electricity. However, tidal stream turbine blades are conventionally manufactured from non-recyclable reinforced polymer composite materials. Tidal stream capacity is forecast to be over 1GW by 2030, which using current methods will ultimately produce around 6000 tonnes of non-recyclable blade waste. This waste is currently disposed of in landfill or incinerated, both of which have greenhouse gas and human health impacts. To address a growing waste management problem, this high-level study considers for the first time a range of conventional and bio-based materials, manufacturing methods, and end-of-life treatments to determine the blade materials and designs likely to have low environmental impact. A finite element model is used to develop material cases and Life Cycle Assessment is used to study the impacts of each over a ‘cradle to dock, dock to grave’ scope. The impact of material choices on cost and modifications to the wider turbine are considered. Compared to a glass fibre composite turbine blade, steel blades are around 2.5 times heavier, and incur additional environmental impact due to upgrades required to the wider turbine. Carbon fibre composite blades weigh less than glass fibre, but cause greenhouse 80% greater gas emissions, and human and ecosystem health risks, so are also not recommended. The best environmental performance of the cases considered was a flax fibre composite. This material offers greenhouse gas emissions around 50% lower than glass fibre materials when manufactured using conventional epoxy resin, and around 40% lower when manufactured using recyclable epoxy resin, which also enables the reuse of the fibre and may further reduce environmental impact. Initial results suggest that the cost of these materials are similar to or lower than conventional composite materials.

Suggested Citation

  • Walker, Stuart R.J. & Thies, Philipp R., 2022. "A life cycle assessment comparison of materials for a tidal stream turbine blade," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:309:y:2022:i:c:s0306261921015993
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118353
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921015993
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.118353?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Walker, S. & Thies, P.R., 2021. "A review of component and system reliability in tidal turbine deployments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Guezuraga, Begoña & Zauner, Rudolf & Pölz, Werner, 2012. "Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW class wind turbines," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 37-44.
    3. Jesuina Chipindula & Venkata Sai Vamsi Botlaguduru & Hongbo Du & Raghava Rao Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2018. "Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Onshore and Offshore Wind Farms in Texas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Bonou, Alexandra & Laurent, Alexis & Olsen, Stig I., 2016. "Life cycle assessment of onshore and offshore wind energy-from theory to application," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 327-337.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abel Arredondo-Galeana & Baran Yeter & Farhad Abad & Stephanie Ordóñez-Sánchez & Saeid Lotfian & Feargal Brennan, 2023. "Material Selection Framework for Lift-Based Wave Energy Converters Using Fuzzy TOPSIS," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-26, October.
    2. Konstantina-Roxani Chatzipanagiotou & Despoina Antypa & Foteini Petrakli & Anna Karatza & Krzysztof Pikoń & Magdalena Bogacka & Nikolina Poranek & Sebastian Werle & Eleftherios Amanatides & Dimitrios , 2023. "Life Cycle Assessment of Composites Additive Manufacturing Using Recycled Materials," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Wu, Baigong & Zhan, Mingjing & Wu, Rujian & Zhang, Xiao, 2023. "The investigation of a coaxial twin-counter-rotating turbine with variable-pitch adaptive blades," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    4. Zhang, Dahai & Liu, Di & Liu, Xiaodong & Xu, Haiyang & Wang, Yuankui & Bi, Ran & Qian, Peng, 2024. "Unsteady effects of a winglet on the performance of horizontal-axis tidal turbine," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nurullah Yildiz & Hassan Hemida & Charalampos Baniotopoulos, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessment of a Barge-Type Floating Wind Turbine and Comparison with Other Types of Wind Turbines," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    2. Mohamed R. Gomaa & Hegazy Rezk & Ramadan J. Mustafa & Mujahed Al-Dhaifallah, 2019. "Evaluating the Environmental Impacts and Energy Performance of a Wind Farm System Utilizing the Life-Cycle Assessment Method: A Practical Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    3. Louise Christine Dammeier & Joyce H. C. Bosmans & Mark A. J. Huijbregts, 2023. "Variability in greenhouse gas footprints of the global wind farm fleet," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 27(1), pages 272-282, February.
    4. Michaela Gkantou & Carlos Rebelo & Charalampos Baniotopoulos, 2020. "Life Cycle Assessment of Tall Onshore Hybrid Steel Wind Turbine Towers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-21, August.
    5. Mendecka, Barbara & Lombardi, Lidia, 2019. "Life cycle environmental impacts of wind energy technologies: A review of simplified models and harmonization of the results," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 462-480.
    6. Li, Qiangfeng & Duan, Huabo & Xie, Minghui & Kang, Peng & Ma, Yi & Zhong, Ruoyu & Gao, Tianming & Zhong, Weiqiong & Wen, Bojie & Bai, Feng & Vuppaladadiyam, Arun K., 2021. "Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of a 40 MW wind farm with consideration of the infrastructure," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    7. Moussavi, S. & Barutha, P. & Dvorak, B., 2023. "Environmental life cycle assessment of a novel offshore wind energy design project: A United States based case study," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    8. Shalini Verma & Akshoy Ranjan Paul & Nawshad Haque, 2022. "Selected Environmental Impact Indicators Assessment of Wind Energy in India Using a Life Cycle Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, May.
    9. Niklas Andersen & Ola Eriksson & Karl Hillman & Marita Wallhagen, 2016. "Wind Turbines’ End-of-Life: Quantification and Characterisation of Future Waste Materials on a National Level," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    10. Li, Jinying & Li, Sisi & Wu, Fan, 2020. "Research on carbon emission reduction benefit of wind power project based on life cycle assessment theory," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 456-468.
    11. De Luca Peña, Laura Vittoria & Taelman, Sue Ellen & Bas, Bilge & Staes, Jan & Mertens, Jan & Clavreul, Julie & Préat, Nils & Dewulf, Jo, 2024. "Monetized (socio-)environmental handprint and footprint of an offshore windfarm in the Belgian Continental Shelf: An assessment of local, regional and global impacts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 353(PA).
    12. Zhang, Xiaoyue & Huang, Guohe & Liu, Lirong & Li, Kailong, 2022. "Development of a stochastic multistage lifecycle programming model for electric power system planning – A case study for the Province of Saskatchewan, Canada," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    13. Rueda-Bayona, Juan Gabriel & Cabello Eras, Juan Jose & Chaparro, Tatiana R., 2022. "Impacts generated by the materials used in offshore wind technology on Human Health, Natural Environment and Resources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 261(PA).
    14. Robert Kasner & Weronika Kruszelnicka & Patrycja Bałdowska-Witos & Józef Flizikowski & Andrzej Tomporowski, 2020. "Sustainable Wind Power Plant Modernization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-23, March.
    15. Sathre, Roger & Gustavsson, Leif, 2021. "A lifecycle comparison of natural resource use and climate impact of biofuel and electric cars," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).
    16. Elif Oğuz & Ayşe Eylül Şentürk, 2019. "Selection of the Most Sustainable Renewable Energy System for Bozcaada Island: Wind vs. Photovoltaic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-33, July.
    17. Ferreira, Victor J. & Benveniste, Gabriela & Rapha, José I. & Corchero, Cristina & Domínguez-García, Jose Luis, 2023. "A holistic tool to assess the cost and environmental performance of floating offshore wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    18. Summerfield-Ryan, Oliver & Park, Susan, 2023. "The power of wind: The global wind energy industry's successes and failures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    19. Campos-Guzmán, Verónica & García-Cáscales, M. Socorro & Espinosa, Nieves & Urbina, Antonio, 2019. "Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 343-366.
    20. Jesuina Chipindula & Venkata Sai Vamsi Botlaguduru & Hongbo Du & Raghava Rao Kommalapati & Ziaul Huque, 2018. "Life Cycle Environmental Impact of Onshore and Offshore Wind Farms in Texas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:309:y:2022:i:c:s0306261921015993. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.