Franco Arias Indep Study CCNYFRPwindblades Spring 2016

City College of New York – City University of New York
Department of Civil Engineering
Assessment of Present/Future Decommissioned

Wind Blade Fiber-Reinforced Composite
Material in the United States

Franco Arias
Submission Date: May 23rd, 2016
Independent Study
Spring 2016
Prof. Bank
1

Disclaimer
The research presented in this report was funded through the Research Program at the City College of
New York. The contents of the report do not reflect the views of the City College of New York. The
contents of the report reflect the opinions of the author only. This report does not represent a standard,
specification, or regulation. Manufacturer’s names are included in the report due to their significance in
completing the objective of the research.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the support and contributions of the following individuals
without whom the research would not have been successfully completed:
Prof. Bank, City College of New York

Prof. Ardavan Yazdanbakhsh, City College of New York
Prof. Russell Gentry, Georgia Tech
Nathan Post, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Chen Chen, City College of New York
Randi Horowitz, Hunter College
2

Executive Summary
Quantifying recyclable composite material coming from decommissioned wind turbine blades.
Project Summary
This research project encompassed the acquisition of manufacturer-specific wind turbine blade
technical specs and utilizing these technical specs along with the database from the American Wind
Energy Association (AWEA) to yield estimates for total amount of composite to be recycled each year
after wind turbines have reached their 20 year life cycle. The total contribution of recyclable
composite for the years 2020-2035 is sensitive to a wind turbine’s manufacturer/model, along with the
total count of online wind turbines for the years 2000-2015. Lastly, a forecasting of amount of
composite to redirect from landfills in the years after 2035 was accurately executed based off of an
online Megawatt capacity for each yeah after 2015.
Background
A wind turbine blade, regardless of manufacturer, model, length, or structural profile, is mainly
composed of 83% to 87% of composite material by total blade mass. The remaining weight of the
blade comes from balsa wood, resin, polymer, foam, paint coatings, and steel nuts/bolts/lighting
conductor cables. The composite might either be fiber-glass or carbon. Once the three wind turbine
blades have been taken into account in a typical wind turbine, the total weight of recyclable composite
material relative to total wind turbine weight falls within a 6-8% range, where the total wind turbine
weight is comprised of the rotor, nacelle, and tower. Current practices of composite material disposal
in the United States consists of landfilling, incineration, and pyrolysis. Recycling of the composite is
rarely an option, which is why better practices need to be implemented. The wind turbine generation
from the early 2000s will be completing its life cycle within the next five to ten years. The amount of
composite material that will be dismantled is far too abundant to not recycle given the alternatives
provided by the cement/concrete industries.
Process
A detailed look was taken at each wind turbine manufacturer. Model/platform brochures were
downloaded from their respective websites, from which the technical specs were obtained. These
technical specs provide specific data for the rotor, blades, tower, gear box, and generator. From these
technical specs, a rotor’s diameter, blade length, blade material, blade weight, and in some cases, total
wind turbine weight, were obtained. This data is crucial in the determination of total composite
material to be recycled given a manufacturer’s wind turbine model. In the event that a manufacturer is
no longer in service or has merged with another company, technical specs may not be easily
accessible. Nevertheless, wind turbines from these out of service manufacturers are still operational
and need to be accounted for when computing the total composite material to recycle in a given year.
As a result of the lack of technical specs for some manufacturers, a correlation between blade weight
and blade length had to be determined. Compiling the technical specs of several different
manufacturers that are readily available, along with their respective models, allowed for the plotting of
a blade weight vs. blade length graph. The correspondence between these two blade characteristics
was found by fitting a second order curve onto the graph which predicted blade weight behaving as a
3

function of blade length. Given only a blade’s length, the equation of the second order parabolic line
was utilized to determine the blade’s weight, from which the total composite to be recycled can be
calculated for the manufacturers that do not provide blade weights or the manufacturers that are no
longer in service. Given the previously stated 83-87% of composite by total blade mass, all blade
masses in this research were taken to be composed of only composite material, excluding any of the
minor weight contributions from balsa wood, resin, paint coatings, polymers, foams, and steel
nuts/bolts/lighting conductor cables.
The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) provides an in-depth database of wind
turbines found throughout the 50 states. The filtering system that the database uses is very precise and
allows a user to retrieve any information regarding wind turbines going back as early as 1983. A user
can select to filter out a search of the database based on a specific state, project status, year online,
project owner, project size, turbine manufacturer, turbine model, etc. The four filters that were of
importance for this research were turbine manufacturer, turbine model, rotor diameter, and year online.
With these filters in mind, a closer look was taken at the top 11 ranked states in terms of installed wind
capacity. Additionally, the data for these top 11 states was only inspected for the years 2000-2015,
considering that wind turbines installed prior to 2000 are no longer being produced or are too small to
consider to be a part of this research.
The resulting data for the top 11 states was exported onto Excel files and was inspected to
determine the total number of installed/operational wind turbines in the years 2000-2015. Based on
each year’s online/decommissioned count, the wind turbines were filtered out into their respective
manufacturers. Furthermore, the wind turbines for each manufacturer were broken down into its
corresponding models. The blade masses from the technical specs of each respective manufacturer
model, along with the blade masses computed through the correlation of blade mass and length, were
integrated into an excel spread sheet along with the data collected from the AWEA database. The total
amount of composite for each wind turbine and the number of wind turbines to be decommissioned
that given year are the two parameters that factor into the total amount of composite that will have to
be recycled in the years 2020 through 2035.
Similarly, the amount of composite to be recycled can be extended beyond 2035. By looking at
the behavior of the nation-wide installed wind power capacity over the last 15 years, reasonable
estimates can be made as to what sort of wind power capacity the United States will have in the next
20 years. Also, by assuming that the wind turbine industry is monopolizing and falling onto the hands
of four major manufacturers, namely Vestas, Gamesa, GE Energy, and Siemens, it is safe to predict
that the wind blade composite composition will be steadily increasing over the next 20 years despite
the expected increases in blade length.
Findings and Conclusions
The principal findings of this report were the weights of composite material to be recycled by
2035 after all the installed wind turbines from the 2000 to 2015 installation year period have reached
their end of life cycle across all 50 states. The top 11 capacity-rated states were analyzed on a year by
year basis to determine the manufacturers and wind turbine models installed in the 2000 to 2015 year
range. Based on each wind turbine’s technical specification, the total contribution of composite weight
for the eleven states was calculated with regards to the number of decommissioned wind turbine
4

blades. The overall recyclable composite weight by 2035 attributed to the decommissioned wind
turbines from the eleven states resulted in 536,802 tonnes of composite material. Additionally, the
total installed online capacity was recorded for the 11 states over the 2000-2015 year period and
resulted in 55,852 Megawatts. From each state’s overall composite weight by 2035 and total installed
online capacity over 2000 to 2015, a ratio of tonnes of composite per installed Megawatt was
developed. Taking the average for the eleven calculated ratios resulted in 9.57 tonnes of composite
material per Megawatt installed.
After developing a relation of recyclable compose weight with respect to Megawatt installed,
the remaining 39 states were analyzed. The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) provided
online turbines counts as well as total installed online capacity for each of the remaining states over
the same year period of 2000 to 2015. Lastly, the installed online capacity of each state, not including
the 11 analyzed states, was multiplied by the averaged ratio of 9.57 tonnes/Megawatt installed. The
processed data was tabulated along with the 11 analyzed states and resulted in the following values for
the United States: 42,029 online wind turbines to be decommissioned starting on 2020 and ending on
2035. An online capacity of 73,442.5 Megawatts was recorded for the operational wind turbines from
2000 to 2015. A recyclable composite weight of 705,215 tonnes by 2035, and a total blade weight of
829,665 tonnes by 2035, assuming all decommissions of wind turbines started as early as 2020.
The amount of total composite weight and blade weight were also estimated for the United
States for 2055, assuming installed wind turbines from 2015 to 2035 have completed their life cycles.
The predictions for composite and blade weights in 2055 made in this paper were based on the
installed online capacity of 2015 through 2035 and the calculated 9.57 ratio of tonnes/Megawatt. In
order to determine the installed online capacity of 2015 through 2035, the cumulative capacities for
the United States of the last 15 years (2001-2015) were inspected and the trend followed by these
capacities was simulated by a plot. The plot was extended 20 years into the future, resulting in
installed online capacities for 2015 through 2035. The resulting online Megawatt capacity for 2015
through 2035 was 288,011 Megawatts. Afterwards, the 9.57 ratio was factored in and the results
yielded a total composite weight to recycle by 2055 of 2,756,265 tonnes, and total blade weight to
recycle by 2055 of 3,242,665 tonnes, assuming all decommissions of wind turbines started as early as
2035.
Recommendations for Action
In the long-term, it is highly recommended to study all 50 states on a year-by-year basis.

Analyzing each state separately will yield more accurate results for the manufacturers and their
corresponding wind turbines that contribute to the state’s overall online capacity and amount of
composite material to recycle in the future. As a result of all 50 states being analyzed, a more precise
averaged composite weight per online Megawatt ratio may be developed. Additionally, the blade-
weight correlation developed may be vastly improved by increasing the number of technical
specifications used in this process.

5

Contents

Cover Page ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Disclaimer ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3
Project Summary ............................................................................................................................. 3
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Process ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Findings and Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 4
Recommendations for Action ......................................................................................................... 5
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
2 Objectives and Scope ................................................................................................................. 10
Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 10
Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 11
3 Wind Blade Design .................................................................................................................... 12
4 Blade Length-Weight Correlation.............................................................................................. 15
5 Analysis of Top 11 Capacity-Rated States ................................................................................ 19
6 Composite Weight per Installed Online Megawatt .................................................................... 22
7 Composite to Recycle in the United States by 2035 .................................................................. 23
8 Forecasts for the United States in 2055 ..................................................................................... 25
9 Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 29
References ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix A: Manufacturer Technical Specifications................................................................... 32
Appendix B: Top 11 Capacity-Rated States Tabulations ............................................................. 47

6

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Material Composition for Large Wind Turbines .......................................................... 14

Table 4.1 Vestas Model Details .................................................................................................... 15
Table 4.2 Manufacturer Model Details ......................................................................................... 16
Table 5.1 Results of Analyzed States ........................................................................................... 19
Table 6.1 Averaged Composite Weight per Installed Megawatt .................................................. 22
Table 7.1 Composite Weight by 2035 for 50 states ...................................................................... 23
Table 7.2 United States 2035 ........................................................................................................ 24
Table 8.1 Years 2001-2017 ........................................................................................................... 27
Table 8.2 Years 2018-2035 ........................................................................................................... 27
Table 8.3 United States 2055 ........................................................................................................ 27

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 Anatomy of Typical Wind Turbine Blade ................................................................... 12

Figure 3.2 Wind Blade Components/Materials ............................................................................ 13
Figure 4.1 Manufacturer Scatter Plot ............................................................................................ 17
Figure 4.2 Blade Weight-Length Correlation ............................................................................... 18
Figure 5.1 Decommissioned Wind Turbines Distribution ............................................................ 20
Figure 5.2 Composite to Recycle by 2035 Distribution ............................................................... 20
Figure 5.3 Online Capacity Distribution ....................................................................................... 21
Table 7.1 United States 2035 Composite Weight Distribution..................................................... 24
Table 8.1 Wind Power Capacity in the United States ................................................................... 25
7

Table 8.2 Cumulative Wind Power Capacity in the United States ............................................... 26

Metric Conversion Chart, Abbreviations, Symbols
1 US ton = 2000 lbs.

1 metric ton = 1000kg = 2200 lbs.
1 metric ton = 1 tonne
Blade Weight = tonnes

Blade Length = meters
Wind Turbine Weight = tonnes (excluding foundations)
Total Composite = Weight of 3 blades
Blade Weight = Composite only
Total Weight of Composite to Recycle = (W)(X)
W = Total composite for wind turbine model

X = Number of wind turbines to be decommissioned in given year
Mw = Megawatt
V = Vestas
G = Gamesa
GE = GE Energy
SWT = Siemens
MM = Senvion
ASR = Norwin
FL = Fuhrlander
D = DeWind
AW = Acciona
NM = NEG Micon
S = Suzlon
MWT = Mitsubishi
C = Clipper
N = Nordex
GW = Goldwind
DW = Danwin
ECO = Alstom
A = AAER/Pioneer
NW = Nedwind
HQ = Hyundai
NPS = Northern Power Systems
GEV = Vergnet
UP = Guodian
8

CCWE = China Creative Wind Energy
SHI = Samsung Heavy Industries
B = Bonus
ENR = Enron

1 Introduction
The wind industry is about to enter a phase in which there is an emerging issue of end-of-life
wind turbine blades. Over the last two decades, it has been common practice in the United States to
dispose of wind turbine blades in landfills or incinerate them. However, the sheer number of wind
turbines to be decommissioned in the coming years presents a far too great amount of potentially
recyclable material to be disposed of at landfills or discarded through incineration/chemical means.
Taking a closer look at the amount of composite material that will have to be handled in a period of 15
years from 2020 to 2035, it is evident that recycling methods and standards need to be imposed for the
dismantling and processing of wind turbine blades in the United States. The United States should
follow in Germany’s footsteps, where the world’s only industrial enterprise to recycle end-of-life
blades, Zagons Logistik, operates in northern Germany. Zagons Logistik reprocesses blades and other
products made from fiber-reinforced plastic for use in cement production. The end product is used by
cement producer Holcim (Erin Gill, 2012)
Unfortunately, there does not seem to be one entity/organization tackling the issue of recycling
these end-of-life wind turbine blades in the United States. If there is any recycling involved, it usually
consists of research-intended initiatives or small recycling contractors, none of which are remotely
prepared for the massive amounts of composite to be taken down in the coming years. As wind turbine
manufacturer, Vestas, explained when asked by Windpower Monthly on the issue of recycling, “the
responsibility of disposing of end-of-life blades rests with the wind-farm owner or operator” (Erin
Gill, 2012). The manufacturers claim to have no responsibility for what happens to the wind turbines
once they are decommissioned, and the wind turbine/farm owner/s claim that the process of recycling
the composite material, which involves dismantling, breaking down, and transportation, is far too
costly. In the end, recycling gets stuck in a limbo and owners end up taking the easy way out;
landfilling/incineration.
The objective of this research paper was to present accurate estimations for the amount of
composite material to be recycled in the United States by the end 2035 as a result of wind turbine
decommissions from 2000-2015 installations. Also, forecasting of composite amounts for 2055 was
estimated for the entire country. The 2055 composite amounts were attributed to online capacities
between 2015 and 2035. Detailed technical specs for each manufacturer model were gathered and
utilized alongside the database for online wind turbines in the United States found through the
American Wind Energy Association. Additionally, based on the obtained wind turbine specifications,
a blade weight-length correlation was derived and applied to compute for blade weights from wind
turbines without available technical specs or for future wind turbine installations.
This in-depth report provides a comprehensive account of all the processes executed during the
research undertaken. The report provides accurate results in terms of the amount of composite material
9

to be recycled once current operational wind turbines found over the last 15 years are decommissioned
as well as composite material amounts to recycle for future wind turbine installations. Through this
paper, it is expected to instill a sense of the amount of composite that will soon have to be dealt with in
an environmentally conscious manner. Additionally, conclusions are made, and recommendations are
provided for any future studies to be conducted regarding this subject matter.

2 Objectives and Scope
Objectives
The prime objective of this research paper was to provide accurate weights of composite
material for each consecutive year coming from wind turbine decommissions in the years 2020 to
2035. The wind turbines being decommissioned trace back to installations in the year period of 2000
to 2015 and occur assuming a typical 20 year life cycle for a wind turbine. Additionally, the process
was extended past the year 2035, involving decommissions of wind turbines that have yet to be
installed. The resulting amounts of composite material to recycle for each year in the future should be
of significance to both manufacturers and wind farm owners seeing as how both local and state
governments are keen on implementing legislation towards recycling of wind turbine blade composite
material.
The following intermediary steps were executed in order to reach the primary objective of this
research paper:
1. Acquire manufacturer technical specifications for each wind turbine model.
2. Sort technical specifications to determine blade length and blade weight, making the
assumption that all of the blade weight is attributed to composite material.
3. Develop a blade length-weight correlation plot to extract a second order curve equation that
allows for determination of blade weight given a blade length whose specifications are not
provided.
4. Access AWEA database to determine the top eleven states with the highest installed wind
turbine capacity.
5. Sort state data, separating online wind turbines counts for the years 2000-2015 into
manufacturers and each respective manufacturer into different platforms/models.
6. Provide total composite weight for each manufacturer model and present it along same
spreadsheet as AWEA state data.
7. Compute for total composite to recycle each year after wind turbines have reached their 20
year life cycle.
10

8. Obtain total installed online capacity over 2000-2015 year period and composite to recycle by
2035 for each of the eleven analyzed states.
9. Developed averaged composite weight per installed online Megawatt
10. Access AWEA database to determine total installed online capacity over 2000-2015 for
remaining 39 states.
11. Compute for total composite weight to recycle and total decommissioned blade weight in the
United States by 2035.
12. Develop United States wind power capacity trend based off of 2000-2015 cumulative capacity
pattern.
13. Determine total installed online capacity between 2015 and 2035 in the United States.
14. Compute for total composite weight to recycle and total decommissioned blade weight in the
United States by 2055
Scope
It is worth noting that the scope of this research is limited to the following:
1. Blade lengths no longer than 75 meters in length. The blade length-weight correlation derived
in this paper does not extend its reach to longer blades that might be manufactured in the future
seeing as blade weight should theoretically increase with rotor diameter as a cube of blade
length (Papadakis, 2009).
2. Blade length-weight correlation derived in the paper only includes the technical specs of the
most abundant wind turbine manufacturers installed in the 2000-2015 year period. Even though
not as present, low turbine count manufacturers may need to be included to get a more refined
correlation between the two blade parameters.
3. Online wind turbines only. Decommissioned wind turbines are excluded from the AWEA state
count.
4. Composite material weight contribution of 85% to total blade weight.

11

3 Wind Blade Design
A deeper understanding of aerodynamics and further advancements in materials such as

polymers have led to the resurgence of wind technology as a means to produce energy (Schubel et. al.
2012). As a result, wind turbine blades have been perfected to achieve the highest possible efficiency
over the last two decades (Papadakis, 2009). Today’s blades keep getting longer and lighter, despite
the square-cube law, which states that a turbine’s power output is proportional to the square of its
blade length. At the same time, a blade’s mass and volume are proportional to the cube of its length,
making the price of a turbine rise faster than the power output it generates (Stephenson, 2011). In other
words, the cost of manufacturing a blade increases as a cube of its length, while its power output only
increases as a square of its power output. The dilemma of the square-cube law which has been
troubling manufacturers and wind industry speculators over the last couple of years has been answered
by innovations in material use in turbine blades. Glass-fiber reinforced polymer and some carbon-fiber
reinforced polymer have been used in wind blade designs, enabling blades to keep getting longer and
lighter.
From these two fiber reinforced polymer materials, different fabrics and tapes with varying
orientations of fibers can be selected, thus giving the material different properties (Hardee, 2012).
There are 0 degree materials composed of fibers running along the axis of the blade that control tip
deflection. Alternatively, +/- 45 degree materials control twisting of the wind blade. Lastly, 90 degree
materials run along the circumference of the wind blade and are responsible for countering buckling
effects (Hardee, 2012). When integrated into the profile of a wind blade, the selected material is solely
responsible for providing adequate blade strength, stability to counter buckling, and stiffness to
mitigate wing-tip deflections. Over the course of the last 10 years, steel and aluminum wind blades
have been replaced by composite-material fabricated wind blades, usually having fiberglass as its main
source of structural stability, despite carbon fiber providing the highest strength-to-weight ratio and
stiffness (Tangler, 2000). The first composite-material fabricated wind blades of 2000 have been in
service for nearly two decades now, and assuming a 20 year life cycle, they will soon have to be taken
down.
12

Figure 3.1 Anatomy of Typical Wind Turbine Blade (Nolet, 2011)

A typical wind turbine blade cross section is depicted in Figure 3.1. In this figure, the shear
web of the wind blade can be observed, along with both spar caps positioned at either end of the shear
web. Knowing that the structural internal profile of a blade will determine its strength and stiffness
parameters under different loading modes (Hogg, 2010), Figure 3.2 depicts a typical wind turbine
blade with all of its interior components broken down into different layers and materials. Balsa wood
or polymer foam are the core materials for both the shear web and the shell of the blade. The shell
itself is composed of resin, fiber laminate, a balsa wood core, and structural adhesive. The shear web
has
balsa
wood
at its
core
whic
h is
sand
wich
ed by
two
layer
s of
comp
osite material. Meanwhile, the spar caps at either end of the shear web are composed of resin and fiber
13

laminate.
It is common
practice
to design
the spar caps
with 70%
unidirectional fibers and 30% of +/- 45 degree fibers. Similarly, the shell and shear web both contain
+/- 45 degree fibers (Hogg, 2010).
Figure 3.2 Wind Blade Components/Materials (Hogg, 2010)
The total % by weight of composite material found in wind turbine blades is 95% as presented
in Table 3.1. The vast majority of the composite material is found within the root of the blade. At the
root, thick airfoil profiles and low aerodynamic efficiencies are found, attributed to the intensive loads
the root has to withstand (Schubel, 2012). Additionally, a significant amount of composite material is
found within the spar caps. The shear web encases a smaller amount of composite material seeing as it
is comprised of a sandwich structure with balsa wood at its core. Despite this proposed 95% by weight
of composite material, it is a more conservative approach to take the % by weight of composite
material as being 85% of total blade weight seeing as how manufacturers vary their composite weight
percentages in blade weights. As per the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes, fiberglass fabric in advanced blades makes up about 60% of total blade weight, while vinyl type
adhesives consists of an average of 25% of total blade weight (Fingersh, 2006). In totality, an 85% of
total blade weight will be attributed to composite material for the remainder of this report.

14

Table 3.1 Material Composition for Large Wind Turbines (Ancona 2001)

4 Blade Length-Weight Correlation
The database provided by AWEA delivers rotor diameters for all online wind turbine
manufacturers. However, blade weights were not provided in this database. Additionally, not all
manufacturers for online wind turbines provided detailed technical specifications. This results in a
problem with the data for the composite weight calculations. As a result of this lack of information, an
estimated method had to be developed for determining a blade’s weight given its length in meters. By
obtaining technical specs from several different manufacturers, a correlation between a blade’s length
and its weight was determined. A second order line was plotted and its equation was used to evaluate
the weight of blades who had missing technical specs. The decision to select a second order line to
15

represent the interaction of blade weight and length was based on the assumption that there is a certain
limit that will be reached in the near future with respect to the length of wind turbine blades. Up to
date, carbon fiber is the lightest available wind turbine blade material that can elongate a blade’s
length to its limit, but even carbon fiber also has a blade weight-length threshold. Additionally, a wind
turbine blade acts as a cantilever beam whose moment distribution displays a second order
characteristic. As stated previously in this research paper, a blade’s composite weight is solely
attributed to 85% of the total blade weight.
The nine manufacturers used to develop a blade length-weight relationship were Vestas,
Gamesa, GE Energy, Siemens, Senvion, Norwin, Fuhrlander, DeWind, and Acciona. Their respective
technical specifications can be found in Appendix A. Table 4.1 displays the parameters for each wind
turbine model for Vestas. Similarly, Table 4.2 depicts the remaining eight manufacturers, along with
their wind turbine models, corresponding blades lengths, wind turbine weights, rotor weights and
blade weights. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 could not be integrated into one single table due to Vestas’ technical
specifications reporting the amount of composite weigh as a percentage of the total wind turbine
weight.
Blade Composite for
WT weight Composite Blade Weight
MANUFACTURER Model Length 3 Blades
(Tonnes) % (Tonnes)
(m) (Tonnes)
V90‐1.8 MW 44 240 7 16.8 5.6
V100‐2.0 MW 49 242 8 19.36 6.45
V100‐2.0 MW 49 259 7 18.13 6.04
V110‐2.0 MW 54 250 8 20 6.67
V100‐2.6 MW 49 259 7 18.13 6.04
VESTAS
V90‐3.0 MW 44 256 5 12.8 4.27
V105‐3.3 MW 53.5 357 7 24.99 8.33
V112‐3.3 MW 55 353 7 24.71 8.24
V117‐3.3 MW 57.5 408 7 28.56 9.52
V126‐3.3 MW 62 494 5 24.7 8.24
Table 4.1 Vestas Model Details
Composite
Rotor Blade
Blade WT weight for 3
MANUFACTURER Model Weight Weight
Length (m) (Tonnes) Blades
(Tonnes) (Tonnes)
(Tonnes)
G83‐2.0 MW 40.5 265.4 40.5 21.9 7.3
G87‐2.0 MW 42.5 303.6 45 17.75 5.92
GAMESA
G90‐2.0 MW 44 295.3 38.5 15.14 5.05
G114‐2.0 MW 56 364 64.19 22.69 7.56
GE ENERGY GE70.5‐1.5 MW 35 149 32.7 11.3 3.77
16

GE100‐2.5 MW 49 343.6 47.3 22.56 7.52
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 31 13.56 4.52
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 40.3 218.4 35.77 18.95 6.32
SWT93‐2.3 MW 45 276.4 54.5 19.8 6.6
SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.18 56.36 20.36 6.79
SIEMENS
SWT108‐3.0 MW 53 309.1 54 21.5 7.17
SWT120‐3.6 MW 58.5 405 100 32.4 10.8
MM82‐2.05 MW 40 265 38 21 7
MM92‐2.05 MW 45.2 287 43 24 8
MM100‐2.0 MW 48.9 312 46 27 9
SENVION
MM122‐3.0 MW 59.8 378 70 45 15
MM114‐3.2 MW 55.8 355 70 45 15
MM104‐3.4 MW 50.8 323 59 36 12
STALL29‐0.225
14 2.3 0.76
MW 32 5.3
NORWIN
ASR47‐0.5 MW 23 77.2 14.6 6.6 2.2
ASR54‐0.75 MW 26.5 69 11 6.9 2.3
FL54‐1.0 MW 26.5 140 15.5 8.1 2.7
FL70‐1.5 MW 34.5 203 28 13 4.3
FUHRLANDER FL80‐2.5 MW 39.5 314 40 18.6 6.2
FL96‐2.7 MW 47 325 43 21.5 7.2
FL100‐2.5 MW 49 342 45 23 7.7
D64‐1.25 MW 31.5 190 23 11 3.7
DEWIND D80‐2.0 MW 39.5 260 26 14.5 4.8
D93‐2.0 MW 45.5 315 38 20.2 6.7
AW70‐1.5 MW 34.5 202.7 15.2 11.2 3.73
ACCIONA AW100‐3.0 MW 48 316 46 25 8.3
AW109‐3.0 MW 53.5 342 48 26 8.7
Table 4.2 Manufacturer Model Details
Figure 4.1 shows a scatter plot with blade weight in its y-axis and blade length in its x-axis.
The plot takes into consideration the nine manufacturers previously mentioned. Each manufacturer
model is plotted in accordance to its blade weight and length and is differentiated by different colors.
The x-axis is modelled to retain blade lengths ranging from 10 meters to 70 meters. The y-axis has a
blade weight threshold set at 16 tonnes. From Figure 4.1, a second order curve can be fitted onto the
plotted points. This parabolic line is depicted in Figure 4.2, where it is clearly visible how the behavoir
of the line follows the wind industry trend of blade weights being directly proportional to blade
lengths. The equation of the line is determined to be y = 0.002x2 + 0.0733x – 0.6588, where an x value
17

of a wind turbine blade length can be inserted into the equation, yielding an analogous y value for its
respective blade weight. This equation serves as the basis for determing the weight of a wind turbine
blade whose technical specifications could not be attained.
Figure 4.1 Manufacturer Scatter Plot

Blade Weight vs Blade Length (MANUFACTURERS)
16
Vestas
14
Gamesa
12
GE Energy
Blade Weight (tonnes)
10 Siemens
8 Senvion
Norwin
6
Fuhrlander
4
DeWind
2
Acciona
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Blade Length (meters)
18

Blade Weight vs. Blade Length (COMBINED)
16
14
y = 0.002x2 + 0.0733x ‐ 0.6588
12
BLADE WEIGHT (TONNES)
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
BLADE LENGTH (METERS)
Figure 4.2 Blade Weight-Length Correlation

19

5 Analysis of Top 11 Capacity-Rated States
With the aid of the American Wind Energy Association database, the top 11 capacity-rated
states were inspected to determine each state’s wind turbine parameters. An operational wind
turbine year range filter of 2000 to 2015 was selected. Manufacturers, along with their respective
turbine models and blade lengths, were tabulated. Additionally, the technical specifications for the
available wind turbine manufacturers were used to include the total weight per wind turbine,
glass/carbon composite percent composition from total wind turbine weight, and total composite
weight for one wind turbine (assuming three blade composite weights make up the total composite
weight for one wind turbine). For those manufacturer models with missing technical specifications, the
blade-weight correlation derived in chapter 4 of this report was used to calculate approximate values
for total blade weight for each wind turbine, after which a 0.85 factor was imposed to account for total
composite weight per wind turbine blade. Afterwards, the resulting composite weight in one blade was
multiplied by three to account for total composite weight for one wind turbine.
An excel file was exported for the 11 states for the years 2000 to 2015. The spreadsheet
contained a detailed count on specific type of manufacturer wind turbine model as well as a count on
how many wind turbines were installed in a given year. The excel file was sorted and the number and
type of wind turbine model installed each year between 2000 and 2015 was determined. Assuming a
20 year life cycle for wind turbines, a wind turbine distribution for decommissioned wind turbines
between 2020 and 2035 was tabulated.
Once the wind turbine parameters and the wind turbine distribution for 2000-2015 had
been tabulated together, the total number of decommissioned wind turbines was determined for each
year from 2020 to 2035. Also, the total amount of blade composite weight to recycle between 2020
and 2035 was calculated. This was accomplished by multiplying the number of decommissioned
blades by the total composite weight for each corresponding wind turbine model. Similarly, the total
installed online capacity in Megawatts was obtained from the exported excel spreadsheet for each of
the 11 states between 2000 and 2015. The resulting amounts of decommissioned wind turbines
between 2020 and 2035, composite weight to recycle by 2025 and 2035, along with the total installed
online capacity for 2000-2015, was tabulated for each of the 11 states in a composite weight and
online capacity table.
The steps just described were repeated for each of the top 11 capacity rates states found
throughout the United States. Wind turbine parameters, wind turbine distribution, composite
weight and online capacity tables were prepared. The results of the data acquisition and calculation
for each of the 11 states can be found in Appendix B of this report. What follows is a summarized
table and figures reporting all the final results for the 11 analyzed states.
State Washington Oregon Oklahoma Texas New York Iowa California Minnesota Kansas Colorado Illinois
Total Number of Decommissioned
1,725 1,799 2,915 10,246 1,014 3,403 2,682 1,852 2,142 1,872 2,348
Wind Turbines
Total Tonnes of Composite to
28,114.2 28,752.4 54,242.2 173,165.0 16,707.8 56,440.9 38,225.9 27,621.3 39,725.2 31,742.8 42,064.8
Recycle by 2035
Total Installed Online Capacity (MW)
3,197.4 3,305.0 5,453.4 17,595.4 1,749.4 6,130.1 4,836.2 3,019.1 3,764.0 2,960.2 3,842.2
From 2000 to 2015

Table 5.1 Results of Analyzed States
20

Figure 5.1 Decommissioned Wind Turbines Distribution
Figure 5.2 Composite to Recycle by 2035 Distribution
21

Figure 5.3 Online Capacity Distribution
22

6 Composite Weight per Installed Online Megawatt
An approximation had to be derived for the amount of composite material that would have to
be recycled per installed online Megawatt. Each of the 11 analyzed states yielded a total amount of
composite to recycle by 2035. This total amount of composite is attributed to the wind turbines being
decommissioned in between 2020 and 2035. Taking into account a 20 year life cycle, these wind
turbines had a total installed online capacity from 2000 to 2015. These two parameters of total Tonnes
of composite to recycle by 2035 and total installed online capacity between 2000 and 2015 were
tabulated into Table 6.1 as seen below.
The composite weight per installed Megawatt was calculated for each of the 11 states given the
15 year time period of inspection. As seen in Table 6.1, the ratio of composite material per installed
Megawatt ranges from approximately 7.9 to 10.9. An average of the 11 values was computed and
resulted in 9.57 tonnes of composite per installed online Megawatt. The significance of this value
comes into perspective when looking at the rest of the country. Instead of running a year by year
analysis of the remaining 39 states, the AWEA database can be utilized to display the total installed
online capacity in Megawatts from 2000 to 2015 for the 39 states which are to be inspected. The total
composite weight to recycle by 2035 for each of the 39 states is calculated by multiplying the installed
capacity by 9.57 tonnes/Megawatt.
Total Tonnes of Composite Total Installed Online Capacity Composite Weight per Installed Averaged Composite Weight per Installed

State
to Recycle by 2035 (MW) From 2000 to 2015 Megawatt (Tonnes/MW) Megawatt (Tonnes/MW) from 11 States
Washington 28114.2 3197.4 8.792831676
9.57
Oregon 28752.4 3305 8.699667171
Oklahoma 54242.2 5453.36 9.946565053
Use this number to calculate Total Composite
Texas 173165 17595.43 9.841475883
Blade Weight to recycle by 2035 for
New York 16707.8 1749.36 9.550807152
remainning 39 states given their respective
Iowa 56440.9 6130.14 9.207114356
2000‐2015 total installed online capacity
California 38225.9 4836.22 7.904086249
Minnesota 27621.3 3019.09 9.14888261
Kansas 39725.2 3764 10.55398512
Colorado 31742.8 2960.2 10.72319438
Illinois 42064.8 3842.15 10.94824512

Table 6.1 Averaged Composite Weight per Installed Megawatt
23

7 Composite to Recycle in the United States by 2035
As stated in chapter 7 of this paper, the total installed online capacity in Megawatts from
2000 to 2015 was recorded for the remaining 39 states. Also, the online turbine count was also
gathered from the AWEA database. Table 7.1 presents the full 50 states, in which the 39
estimated states used the 9.57 Tonnes/Megawatt ratio to account for the total composite weight
Online Turbine Count 2000‐ Total Installed Online Capacity Total Composite Weight to recycle by 2035

State
2015 (MW) From 2000 to 2015 (Tonnes)
Alaska 94 61.69 590.6
Alabama 0 0 0.0
Arkansas 1 0.1 1.0
Arizona 144 268.3 2568.8
Connecticut 3 5.1 48.8
Delaware 1 2 19.1
Florida 0 0 0.0
Georgia 0 0 0.0
Hawaii 114 202.56 1939.4
Idaho 541 972.5 9311.0
Indiana 1096 1894.5 18138.4
Kentucky 0 0 0.0
Louisiana 0 0 0.0
Massachusetts 83 106.9 1023.5
Maryland 79 190.3 1822.0
Maine 287 612.9 5868.1
Michigan 886 1530.3 14651.5
Missouri 252 458.5 4389.8
Mississippi 0 0 0.0
ESTIMATED
Montana 466 665.12 6368.0
STATES
North Carolina 1 0.1 1.0
North Dakota 1174 2231.6 21365.9
Nebraska 518 888.71 8508.7
New Hampshire 75 185.4 1775.1
New Jersey 6 9 86.2
New Mexico 744 1111.98 10646.4
Nevada 66 151.8 1453.4
Ohio 254 444.15 4252.4
Pennsylvania 720 1339.7 12826.6
Rhode Island 10 8.89 85.1
South Carolina 0 0 0.0
South Dakota 583 1164.9 11153.1
Tennessee 18 28.98 277.5
Utah 204 388.9 3723.4
Virginia 0 0 0.0
Vermont 45 113.4 1085.7
Wisconsin 384 626.25 5995.9
West Virginia 327 583.3 5584.7
Wyoming 855 1342.3 12851.5
Washington 1725 3197.4 28114.2
Oregon 1799 3305 28752.4
Oklahoma 2915 5453.36 54242.2
Texas 10246 17595.43 173165
New York 1014 1749.36 16707.8
CALCULATED
Iowa 3403 6130.14 56440.9
STATES
California 2682 4836.22 38225.9
Minnesota 1852 3019.09 27621.3
Kansas 2142 3764 39725.2
Colorado 1872 2960.2 31742.8
Illinois 2348 3842.15 42064.8
to recycle by 2035. Similarly, the 11 states previously discussed are also included in Table 7.1
24

Table 7.1 Composite Weight by 2035 for 50 States
Figure 7.1 United States 2035 Composite Weight Distribution
A graphical representation of total composite weight to recycle by 2035 for all 50 states is
portrayed in Figure 7.1. Lastly, the final result for the approximated weight of recyclable composite
material in the United States by 2035 is presented in Table 7.2, along with total decommissioned wind
UNITED STATES
Decommissioned Turbine Count for Online Composite Weight to reycle Blade Weight to recycle by 2035

2020‐2035 Capacity in by 2035 (Tonnes) (Tonnes)
42,029 73,442 705,215 829,665
turbine counts, online capacity from 2000 to 2015, and total blade weight by 2035 (total composite
weight is 0.85 of the total blade weight).
25

Table 7.2 United States 2035
8 Forecasts for the United States in 2055
The previous three sections of this paper presented composite weights to recycle from 2020 to
2035 in the United States. These numbers were based on the assumptions that the wind turbines
installed in between 2000 and 2015 had completed their life cycle and had to be decommissioned. An
averaged ratio of composite weight per online Megawatt installed was developed from 11 analyzed
states. This same ratio was used to determine the remaining 39 state’s recyclable composite weight
given their operational Megawatt capacity from 2000 to 2015. It was theorized that a similar approach
could be taken to calculate recyclable composite weights years into the future.
In order to make sound forecasts of recyclable composite weights beyond 2015, it was crucial
to propose a reasonable Megawatt capacity for each year after 2015. In order to construct the behavior
of the installed wind power capacity in the United States over the next 20 years, a closer look had to be
taken at Figure 8.1, which presents the wind power capacities of the United States from 2001 to 2014.
Besides Figure 8.1, the American Wind Energy Association website also provided the cumulative
wind power capacity for 2015 as being 73,992 Megawatts.
Figure 8.1 Wind Power Capacity in the United States (AWEA, 2015)
26

Each year from Figure 8.1, along with its corresponding wind power capacity, was
tabulated and presented on an excel spreadsheet. A plot was developed where the years were
assigned to the x-axis and the wind power capacity in Megawatts was assigned to the y-axis. It is
worth noting that the year sequence was started on year 1, which is equivalent to starting the
sequence on the year 2001. As seen in Figure 8.2, the 15 data points were plotted, after which a
second order polynomial line of best fit was imposed onto the plot. Since the objective of this
plot was to simulate the behavior of the wind power capacity in the United States 20 years after
2015, the line of best fit was extended 20 years into the future. Afterwards, the equation of the
line of best fit resulted in being y = 261.59x2 + 1198.1x – 377.85. The derived equation of the
line was used to calculate the wind power capacity for the United States for the years ranging
from 2015 to 2035 as seen in Table 8.1 and Table 8.2.
Cumulative Wind Power Capacity
400000
350000
Wind Power Capacity (MW)
300000
250000
y = 261.59x2 + 1198.1x ‐ 377.85
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Years

Figure 8.2 Cumulative Wind Power Capacity in the United States
27

Cumulative Capacity Cumulative
Actual Years Years (On Plot) Actual Years Years (On Plot)
(MW) Capacity (MW)
2001 1 4147 2018 18 105943
2002 2 4557 2019 19 116820
2003 3 6222 2020 20 128220
2004 4 6619 2021 21 140143
2005 5 8993 2022 22 152590
2006 6 11450 2023 23 165560
2007 7 16702 2024 24 179052
2008 8 25065 2025 25 193068
2009 9 35068 2026 26 207608
2010 10 40283 2027 27 222670
2011 11 46930 2028 28 238256
2012 12 60012 2029 29 254364
2013 13 61110 2030 30 270996
2014 14 61327 2031 31 288151
2015 15 73992 2032 32 305830
2016 16 85759 2033 33 324031
2017 17 95589 2034 34 342756
2035 35 362003
Table 8.1 Years 2001-2017 Table 8.2 Years 2018-2035
The numbers presented in Tables 8.1 and 8.2 give the cumulative wind power capacities
for the years 2015 through 2035, or in other words, for the installed wind turbine blades in those
same years. Assuming another 20 year life cycle for these theorized installed wind turbines, an
approximation can be made on the amount of composite material to recycle from 2035 to 2055.
This recyclable composite material approximation would only take into account the installed
online Megawatt capacity observed in the years between 2015 and 2035. As seen in Table 8.3,
the online Megawatt capacity for the year range of 2015 to 2035 is computed as the difference of
the cumulative capacity for 2035 and 2015, respectively. Once the online Megawatt capacity
from 2015 to 2035 had been computed for the United States, the result was multiplied by the
averaged ratio of composite weight per online Megawatt installed that was developed from the
11 analyzed states in section 7 of this paper. The final results for the forecasts of composite
material to recycle in 2035 to 2055 are derived with respect to an installation period beginning in
UNITED STATES
Cumulative Cumulative Averaged Composite Weight per Total Composite Weight Total Blade Weight

Online Megawatt
Capacity (MW) in Cpacity (MW) in Online Megawatt Installed To Recycle by 2055 To Recycle by 2055
Capacity for 2015 to 2035
2015 2035 (Tonnes/MW) (Tonnes) (Tonnes)
73,992 362,003 288,011 9.57 2,756,265 3,242,665
2015. The results for these calculations can be observed in Table 8.3.

Table 8.3 United States 2055
28

There are some discrepancies that need to be mentioned with regards to Table 8.3. The
calculations executed in Table 8.3 use 9.57 as the ratio of composite weight per online Megawatt
installed. This ratio was derived from the 11 analyzed states in section 6 of this report, in which
the blade lengths and composite weight per blade ratio are smaller than the expected
characteristics of future wind turbine blades. An increase in wind turbine blade length results in
an increase in composite material per blade, which in the long run stands to increase the total
contribution of recyclable composite material per online megawatt installed in all 50 states. The
expected ratio of composite weight per online Megawatt is expected to be higher than 9.57 in the
coming years after 2015. This means that the calculated values in Table 8.3 are conservative and
could be presented as the lowest possible expected weight of composite material to recycle by
2055.
29

9 Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Based on the results of this paper, the following conclusions may be stated:
1. The overall recyclable composite weight by 2035 attributed to the decommissioned wind
turbines from the top eleven capacity-rated states of 2000 to 2015 resulted in 536,802 tonnes of
composite material.
2. The total installed online capacity recorded for the 11 states over the 2000-2015 year period
resulted in 55,852 Megawatts.

3. An averaged value of 9.57 tonnes of composite material per installed online Megawatt resulted
from the 11 top capacity-rated states

4. United States in 2035: A total of 42,029 online wind turbines from 2000 to 2015 are to be
decommissioned starting on 2020 and ending on 2035. An online capacity of 73,442.5
Megawatts was recorded for the operational wind turbines from 2000 to 2015. A recyclable
composite weight of 705,215 tonnes by 2035, and a total blade weight of 829,665 tonnes by
2035, assuming all decommissions of wind turbines started as early as 2020.

5. United States in 2055: The resulting online Megawatt capacity for 2015 through 2035 was
288,011 Megawatts. A total composite weight to recycle by 2055 of 2,756,265 tonnes, and
total blade weight to recycle by 2055 of 3,242,665 tonnes, assuming all decommissions of
wind turbines started as early as 2035.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions, the following can be recommended:
1. Highly recommended to analyze all 50 states on a year-by-year fashion.
2. Develop a more accurate averaged composite weight per online Megawatt ratio.
3. Improve blade-weight correlation by increasing the number of technical specifications

used in the process.
4. Develop a more precise forecast method that takes into consideration more market
projections based on online capacity, blade lengths, and blade weights.
30

References
Acciona. (2016). Manufacturers and Turbines Acciona. Wind Energy Market Intelligence. Retrieved
from http://www.thewindpower.net/manufacturer_en_46_acciona.php
Ancona, D. and McVeigh, J. (2001). Wind Turbine – Materials and Manufacturing Fact Sheet.
Princeton Energy Resources International, LLC.
AWEA, [State]. (2015) Market Database Pro. American Wind Energy Association. Washington, DC.
DeWind. (2016). Manufacturers and Turbines DeWind. Wind Energy Market Intelligence. Retrieved
from http://www.thewindpower.net/manufacturer_en_1_dewind.php
Fingersh, L. Hand, M. and Laxson, A. (2006). Wind Turbine Design Cost and Scaling Model.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado
Fuhrlander. (2016). Manufacturers and Turbines Fuhrlander. Wind Energy Market Intelligence.
Retrieved from http://www.thewindpower.net/manufacturer_en_44_fuhrlander.php
Gamesa. (2010). Technical Specifications and Life Cycle Assessments. Versatility Gamesa 2.0
MW Platform. Retrieved from http://www.gamesacorp.com/en/products-and-
services/wind-turbines
Gill, E. (2012). The complexities of recycling begin to bite. Windpower Monthly. (Unknown city of
publication).
Hardee, C. (2012). Improving Wind Blade Manufacturability. Wind system magazine. (Unknown city
of publication).
Hogg, P. (2010). Wind Turbine Blade Materials. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council. Loughborough, United Kingdom.
Nolet, C. Stephen (2011). Composite Wind Blade Engineering and Manufacturing. TPI
Composites, Inc. Warren, Rhode Island.
Norwin. (2013). ASR/Stall Technical Specifications. The Norwin Wind Turbines. Retrieved from
http://www.norwin.dk/norwinproducts.html
Papadakis, N. Ramirez, C. and Reynolds, N. (2009). Designing composite wind turbine blades for
disposal, recycling or reuse. Management, recycling and reuse of waste composites. Oxford,
United Kingdom.
Schubel, P.J. and Crossley, R.J. (2012). Wind Turbine Blade Design. Multidisciplinary Digital
Publishing Institute. Nottingham, United Kingdom.
31

Senvion. (2016). Technical Specifications MM/3.XM Series. Senvion Wind Turbines. Retrieved
from https://www.senvion.com/global/en/wind-energy-solutions/wind-turbines/mm/
Siemens. (2016). Technical Specifications (Product Brochures). Siemens Wind Power Platform
Portfolio. Retrieved from http://www.energy.siemens.com/hq/en/renewable-energy/wind-
power/platforms/
Stephenson, S. (2011). Wind blade manufacture: Opportunities and limits. Composites Technology
Composites World. (Unknown city of publication).
Tangler, J.L. (2000). The Evolution of Rotor and Blade Design. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. Palm Springs, California.
Vestas. (2016). Sustainable Products Material Use. Vestas Sustainability. Retrieved from
https://www.vestas.com/en/about/sustainability#!powering-sustainability
32

Appendix A
Manufacturer Technical Specifications
33

34

GAMESA
G114-2.0 MW
G90-2.0 MW
G83-2.0 MW G87-2.0 MW
35

SIEMENS
SWT120-3.6 MW
SWT108-3.0 MW
36

SWT101-2.3 MW
SWT93-2.3 MW
SENVION
37

MM104-3.4 MW
MM114-3.2 MW
38

MM122-3.0 MW
39

MM100-2.0 MW
40

MM92-2.05 MW
41

MM82-2.05 MW
42

NORWIN
43

ASR54-0.75 MW ASR47-0.5 MW ASR29-0.225 MW
FUHRLANDER
44

45

DEWIND
46

ACCIONA
47

APPENDIX B
Analysis of Top 11 Capacity-Rated States
WASHINGTON
Wind Turbine Parameters
Blade Length Weight Per Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

Manufacturer Turbine Model
(meters) WT (Tonnes) Composites % for 1 WT (Tonnes)
V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
V80‐1.8 MW 40 200 8% 16
Vestas
V80‐2.0 MW 40 207 8% 16.6
V100‐1.8 MW 49 242 8% 19.4
GE Energy GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
G58‐0.85 MW 28.5 131.4 7% 9.2
Gamesa
G87‐2.0 MW 43 303.6 8% 24.3
Bonus B62‐1.3 MW 30.5 150 7% 10.1
SWT93‐2.3 MW 45.5 276.4 8% 19.8
Siemens SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.2 8% 20.4
SWT108‐2.3 MW 53 309.1 8% 21.5
Senvion MM92‐2.0 MW 45.2 287 8% 22.9
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 43 228 8% 18.2
Mitsubishi MWT95‐2.4 MW 46.5 245 8% 19.6
Wind Turbine Distribution

Number of WTs (for given manufacturer) to be decommissioned in given year
Manufacturer Turbine Model 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
V47‐0.66 MW 268
V80‐1.8 MW 83 127 78 43
Vestas
V80‐2.0 MW 22
V100‐1.8 MW 58
GE Energy GE77‐1.5 MW 133 64
G58‐0.85 MW 5
Gamesa
G87‐2.0 MW 25
Bonus B62‐1.3 MW 37 12
SWT93‐2.3 MW 89 14 197
Siemens SWT101‐2.3 MW 2 94 55
SWT108‐2.3 MW 116
Senvion MM92‐2.0 MW 47 20 25
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 48
Mitsubishi MWT95‐2.4 MW 63
48

Composite Weight and Online Capacity
YEAR OF DECOMMISSION
Description of Parameter 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
0 268 37 12 0 83 260 167 104 241 162 157 118 0 116 0
Wind Turbines
Total Weight of Composite to
0.0 1768.8 373.7 121.2 0.0 1328.0 3840.8 3010.2 2041.5 4764.6 2924.0 3152.4 2293.2 0.0 2494.0 0.0
Recycle (tonnes)/year
3591.7
recycle by 2025
28112.4
recycle by 2035
Total Installed Online Capacity
3197.4
(MW) From 2000 To 2015
49

OREGON
Blade Length Weight Per WT Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

(meters) (Tonnes) Composites % for 1 WT (Tonnes)
V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
Vestas
V82‐1.65 MW 40.5 205 8% 16.4
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE Energy GE82.5‐1.6 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE100‐2.5 MW 49 343.6 7% 22.56
MWT47‐0.6 MW 23 90 7% 6.3
Mitsubishi MWT62‐1.0 MW 30 122.5 8% 9.8
MWT92‐2.4 MW 45 242 8% 19.4
Enron ENR70.5‐1.5 MW 34.5 160 8% 12.8
Siemens SWT93‐2.3 MW 45.5 276.4 8% 19.8
Senvion MM92‐2.0 MW 45.2 287 8% 22.9
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 43 228 8% 18.2
Number of WTs (for given manufacturer) to be decomissioned in given year
V47‐0.66 MW 131 55
Vestas
V82‐1.65 MW 135 2 33
GE77‐1.5 MW 50 67 80 51 48 6
GE Energy GE82.5‐1.6 MW 74
GE100‐2.5 MW 82 256
MWT47‐0.6 MW 41 42
Mitsubishi MWT62‐1.0 MW 41 63
MWT92‐2.4 MW 1
Enron ENR70.5‐1.5 MW 16
Siemens SWT93‐2.3 MW 44 108 76
Senvion MM92‐2.0 MW 10
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 49 141 47 43
50

0 188 97 41 0 50 67 259 103 403 129 199 256 0 0 0
Wind Turbines
0.0 1327.7 627.6 401.8 0.0 680.0 911.2 4173.2 1637.6 6745.0 2441.8 4031.1 5775.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
3037.1
recycle by 2025
28752.4
recycle by 2035
3305.0
(MW) From 2000 to 2015
51

OKLAHOMA
Blade Length Weight Per WT Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

(meters) (Tonnes) Composites % for 1 WT (Tonnes)
V80‐1.8 MW 40 200 8% 16
V90‐1.8 MW 44 240 7% 16.8
Vestas
V100‐2.0 MW 49 259 8% 20.7
V110‐2.0 MW 54 250 8% 20
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 35 149 8% 11.3
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE Energy
GE87‐1.85 MW 42.5 223 8% 17.8
GE100‐1.6 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
GE100‐1.7 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
GE103‐1.7 MW 50.2 338 7% 23.7
Gamesa G90‐2.0 MW 44 295.3 8% 23.6
Acciona Wind AW77‐1.5 MW 37.5 202.7 7% 13.4
SWT93‐2.3 MW 45.5 276.4 8% 19.8
SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.2 8% 20.4
Siemens
SWT108‐2.3 MW 53 309.1 8% 21.5
SWT101‐3.0 MW 49 291.4 7% 20.4
Senvion MM92‐2.05 MW 45.2 287 8% 22.9
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 43 228 8% 18.2
MWT95‐2.4 MW 46.5 245 8% 19.6
Mitsubishi
MWT102‐2.4 MW 50 295 8% 23.6
DeWind D93‐2.0 MW 45.5 255 8% 20.4
NEG Micon NM72‐1.65 MW 35.5 191.4 7% 13.4
52

V80‐1.8 MW 84
V90‐1.8 MW 55
Vestas
V100‐2.0 MW 75 119
V110‐2.0 MW 158
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 68
GE77‐1.5 MW 98 40 40
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 66 48
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 80 63 233
GE Energy
GE87‐1.85 MW 162
GE100‐1.6 MW 63
GE100‐1.7 MW 293 84
GE103‐1.7 MW 57
Gamesa G90‐2.0 MW 66
Acciona Wind AW77‐1.5 MW 82
SWT93‐2.3 MW 87
SWT101‐2.3 MW 66 85 10
Siemens
SWT108‐2.3 MW 26 130
SWT101‐3.0 MW 3
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 45 9
MWT95‐2.4 MW 54
Mitsubishi
MWT102‐2.4 MW 62
DeWind D93‐2.0 MW 60
NEG Micon NM72‐1.65 MW 45
0 0 0 113 0 182 40 85 91 153 194 257 596 0 368 710
Wind Turbines
0.0 0.0 0.0 1371.4 0.0 2676.8 544.0 1363.0 1262.6 2970.0 3765.6 4907.1 12580.8 0.0 8232.9 14568.0
4048.2
recycle by 2025
54242.2
recycle by 2035
5453.4
(MW) From 2000 to 2015
53

TEXAS

V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
V80‐1.8 MW 40 200 8% 16.0
V82‐1.65 MW 40.5 205 8% 16.4
Vestas V90‐3.0 MW 44 256 7% 17.9
V100‐1.8 MW 49 242 8% 19.4
V100‐2.0 MW 49 259 8% 20.7
V110‐2.0 MW 54 250 8% 20.0
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 35 149 8% 11.3
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE87‐1.6 MW 43 260 7% 18.2
GE Energy GE87‐1.85 MW 42.5 223 8% 17.8
GE100‐1.7 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
GE103‐1.7 MW 50.2 338 7% 23.7
GE116‐2.0 MW 57 370 8% 29.6
GE120‐2.5 MW 59 393 8% 31.4
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 47 305 7% 21.2
G83‐2.0MW 40.5 265.4 8% 21.3
G87‐2.0 MW 43 303.6 8% 24.3
Gamesa G90‐2.0 MW 44 295.3 8% 23.6
G97‐2.0 MW 47.5 320 7% 22.4
G114‐2.0 MW 56 364 8% 29.1
Enron ENR70.5‐1.5 MW 34.5 155 8% 12.4
MWT62‐1.0 MW 30 122.5 8% 9.8
Mitsubishi MWT92‐2.4 MW 45 245 8% 19.6
MWT102‐2.4 MW 50 295 8% 23.6
S64‐1.25 MW 31.5 151 7% 10.6
Suzlon
S88‐2.1 MW 43 228 8% 18.2
SWT93‐2.3 MW 45.5 276.4 8% 19.8
Siemens SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.2 8% 20.4
SWT108‐ 3.0 MW 53 309.1 8% 21.5
Nordex N100‐2.5 MW 49 368 8% 29.4
Bonus B62‐1.3 MW 30.5 150 7% 10.1
Fuhrlander FL54‐1.0 MW 26.5 154 5% 7.9
DeWind D80‐2.0 MW 39 260 6% 15.4
Sany SE87‐2.0 MW 42.5 254 7% 17.8
Samsung Heavy Industries SHI90‐2.5 MW 44 270 7% 18.9
China Creative Wind Energy CCWE116‐3.6 MW 57 370 8% 29.6
Guodian UP82‐1.5 MW 40 228 7% 16.0
AW116‐3.0 MW 56.5 363.8 8% 29.1
Acciona Windpower
AW125‐3.0 MW 61.5 422.5 8% 33.8
54

V47‐0.66 MW 369 1
V80‐1.8 MW 67
V82‐1.65 MW 165
Vestas V90‐3.0 MW 1 21 50
V100‐1.8 MW 167
V100‐2.0 MW 50 352
V110‐2.0 MW 230
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 25
GE77‐1.5 MW 367 207 406 721 678 100
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 167 33 175
GE87‐1.6 MW 23
GE Energy GE87‐1.85 MW 415 243
GE100‐1.7 MW 83 383 475
GE103‐1.7 MW 119
GE116‐2.0 MW 39
GE120‐2.5 MW 3
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 24 60 90
G83‐2.0MW 88
G87‐2.0 MW 79 78 60
G97‐2.0 MW 1 101
G114‐2.0 MW 1
Enron ENR70.5‐1.5 MW 207
MWT62‐1.0 MW 80 160 135 469 197
Mitsubishi MWT92‐2.4 MW 231 84
MWT102‐2.4 MW 84
S64‐1.25 MW 32 8 24 24
Suzlon
S88‐2.1 MW 66
SWT93‐2.3 MW 184 242 254 44
Siemens SWT101‐2.3 MW 87 34 35 5
SWT108‐ 3.0 MW 122 107 87
Nordex N100‐2.5 MW 12
Bonus B62‐1.3 MW 208
Fuhrlander FL54‐1.0 MW 10
DeWind D80‐2.0 MW 1 10 10
Sany SE87‐2.0 MW 5
Samsung Heavy Industries SHI90‐2.5 MW 1 2
China Creative Wind Energy CCWE116‐3.6 MW 17
Guodian UP82‐1.5 MW 6
AW116‐3.0 MW 100
Acciona Windpower
AW125‐3.0 MW 55
0 864 0 186 0 435 423 979 1697 1399 349 134 917 83 964 1801
Wind Turbines
Total Weight of Composite to Recycle
0 7878.7 0 1868.4 0 6069.8 6797.6 15891 24281 20969 6750.4 2716.1 18452 1892.4 19680 39918
Tonnes/year
Total Tonnes of Composite to recycle
15817
by 2025
173165
by 2035
17595
From 2000 to 2015
55

NEW YORK

V66‐1.65 MW 32.5 190 6% 11.4
V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
Vestas
V82‐1.65 MW 40.5 205 8% 16.4
V112‐3.075 MW 55 353 8% 28.2
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 35 149 8% 11.9
GE Energy GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.2
GE100‐1.6 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 47 305 7% 21.4
G90‐2.0 MW 44 295.3 8% 23.6
Gamesa
G58‐0.85 MW 28.5 153 6% 9.2
Senvion MM92‐2.05 MW 45.2 287 8% 22.9
Hyundai HQ82‐1.65 MW 40.5 223 7% 16.4
Northern Power Systems NPS100‐0.1 MW 8 42 5% 2.1
Goldwind GW82‐1.5 MW 40.5 254 6% 15.3
Fuhrlander F30‐0.25 MW 14.5 86 3% 2.58
Vergnet GEV29‐0.275 MW 14 76 3% 2.28
V66‐1.65 MW 7
V47‐0.66 MW 10
Vestas
V82‐1.65 MW 83 112
V112‐3.075 MW 70
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 19
GE Energy GE77‐1.5 MW 23 188 295
GE100‐1.6 MW 52 16
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 8 50 6
G90‐2.0 MW 37
Gamesa
G58‐0.85 MW 1
Senvion MM92‐2.05 MW 25 2
Hyundai HQ82‐1.65 MW 2
Northern Power Systems NPS100‐0.1 MW 2
Goldwind GW82‐1.5 MW 1
Fuhrlander F30‐0.25 MW 1
Vergnet GEV29‐0.275 MW 4
56

17 19 1 0 0 83 112 31 188 345 2 64 80 52 16 4
Wind Turbines
145.8 226.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 1361.2 1836.8 474.8 2481.6 4964.0 4.2 1478.5 2172.7 1185.6 364.8 9.1
1735.7
by 2025
16707.8
by 2035
1749.4
From 2000 to 2015
57

IOWA
V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
Vestas V82‐1.65 MW 40.5 205 8% 16.4
V39‐0.5 MW 18.5 60 7% 4.2
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 34.5 149 8% 11.3
GE87‐1.85 MW 42.5 223 8% 17.8
GE Energy
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 47 305 7% 21.2
G83‐2.0 MW 40.5 265.4 8% 21.3
Gamesa G87‐2.0 MW 43 303.6 8% 24.3
G90‐2.0 MW 44 295.3 8% 23.6
NM48‐0.75 MW 23.5 92.8 7% 6.5
NEG Micon
NM52‐0.9 MW 25 102.9 7% 7.2
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 43 228 8% 18.2
Goldwind GW82‐1.5 MW 40 310 8% 24.8
SWT93‐2.3 MW 45.5 276.4 8% 19.8
Siemens SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.2 8% 20.4
SWT108‐2.35 MW 53 309.1 8% 21.5
Nordex N100‐2.5 MW 49 368 8% 29.4

V47‐0.66 MW 148 1 1
Vestas V82‐1.65 MW 1 157 225 60
V39‐0.5 MW 1
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 29 107 100
GE87‐1.85 MW 1
GE Energy
GE77‐1.5 MW 66 133 400 179 2
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 100 44 3 17
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 10 129 1 1
G83‐2.0 MW 10
Gamesa G87‐2.0 MW 40 80 50
G90‐2.0 MW 40
NM48‐0.75 MW 1 1 1
NEG Micon
NM52‐0.9 MW 90
SWT93‐2.3 MW 76
Siemens SWT101‐2.3 MW 258
SWT108‐2.35 MW 176 19 218 223
Nordex N100‐2.5 MW 17 35
58

0 91 149 31 107 152 66 161 912 529 2 281 379 19 218 224
Wind Turbines
0.0 654.5 983.3 340.8 1209.1 1643.0 897.6 2334.4 15329.4 8921.2 27.2 5894.1 8298.5 408.5 4687.0 4812.3
Tonnes/year
4830.7
by 2025
56440.9
by 2035
6130.14
From 2000 to 2015
59

CALIFORNIA

V42‐0.5 MW 20.5 85 6% 5.1
V47‐0.6 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
V50‐0.75 MW 24 97.2 7% 6.8
V54‐0.95 MW 26 111.4 7% 7.8
V80‐1.8 MW 40 200 8% 16
Vestas V100‐1.8 MW 49 242 8% 19.4
V100‐2.6 MW 49 259 7% 18.13
V90‐1.8 MW 44 240 7% 16.8
V90‐3.0 MW 44 256 7% 17.9
V117‐3.3 MW 57.5 408 7% 28.56
V112‐3.3 MW 55 353 7% 24.71
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE82.5‐1.85 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 35 149 8% 11.3
GE Energy
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 40 218.4 9% 18.9
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE100‐1.6 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
Gamesa G90‐2.0 MW 44 295.3 8% 23.6
SWT93‐2.3 MW 45 276.4 8% 19.8
Siemens SWT108‐2.3 MW 53 309.1 8% 21.5
SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.2 8% 20.4
AAER/PioneerWind A77‐1.5 MW 38 187.5 8% 15
Clipper C93‐2.5 MW 45.5 298 7% 20.9
MWT45‐0.6 MW 22 90 7% 6.3
Mitsubishi
MWT62‐1.0 MW 30 122.5 8% 9.8
Nedwind NW40‐0.5 MW 19.5 92 5% 4.6
Nordex N54‐1.0 MW 26.5 115.7 7% 8.1
Norwin STALL29‐0.23 MW 14 46 5% 2.3
Senvion MM92‐2.0 MW 45.2 287 8% 22.9
60

V42‐0.5 MW 1 18
V47‐0.6 MW 62 50 38
V50‐0.75 MW 1
V54‐0.95 MW 1
V80‐1.8 MW 90
Vestas V100‐1.8 MW
V100‐2.6 MW
V90‐1.8 MW 26
V90‐3.0 MW 8 21 8 50 229 178
V117‐3.3 MW
V112‐3.3 MW 30 30
GE77‐1.5 MW 106 80 111 34 130
GE82.5‐1.85 MW 2
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 41 5 5 6
GE Energy
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 4
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 2
GE100‐1.6 MW 1 100
Gamesa G90‐2.0 MW 25 60
SWT93‐2.3 MW 60 34
Siemens SWT108‐2.3 MW 94 18
SWT101‐2.3 MW 34
AAER/PioneerWind A77‐1.5 MW 3
Clipper C93‐2.5 MW 8
MWT45‐0.6 MW 111
Mitsubishi
MWT62‐1.0 MW 60 38 45 3 50
Nedwind NW40‐0.5 MW 13
Norwin STALL29‐0.23 MW 1
Senvion MM92‐2.0 MW 75 50 120

10 111 103 145 104 32 152 21 61 172 221 351 798 18 33 48
Wind Turbines
81.0 699.3 872.5 1826.5 903.1 664.6 1957.2 375.9 751.4 2912.6 3592.6 6452.3 15132.6 387.0 784.2 833.1
Tonnes/year
5047.0
by 2025
38225.9
by 2035
4836.2
From 2000 to 2015
61

MINNESOTA

V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
V82‐1.65 MW 40.5 205 8% 16.4
Vestas
V90‐1.8 MW 44 240 7% 16.8
V100‐2.0 MW 49 259 8% 20.7
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 35 149 8% 11.3
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE Energy
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
NM48‐0.75 MW 23.5 92.8 7% 6.5
NM52‐0.9 MW 25.5 107.6 7% 7.5
NEG Micon NM54‐0.95 MW 26.5 115 7% 8
NM72‐1.5 MW 35.5 191.4 7% 13.4
NM82‐1.65 MW 40 205.3 8% 16.4
S64‐0.95 MW 32.5 164.4 7% 11.5
Suzlon S64‐1.25 MW 31.5 151 7% 10.6
S88‐2.1 MW 43 228 8% 18.2
G52‐0.8 MW 25.5 107.6 7% 7.5
Gamesa G87‐2.0 MW 43 303.6 8% 24.3
G97‐2.0 MW 47.5 320 7% 22.4
Mitsubishi MWT95‐2.4 MW 45 245 8% 19.6
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 47 305 7% 21.2
DeWind D80‐2.0 MW 39 260 6% 15.4
Nordex N90‐2.5 MW 44 241.4 8% 19.3
Goldwind GW70‐1.5 MW 34.5 159.4 8% 12.8
Siemens SWT93‐2.3 MW 45.5 276.4 8% 19.8
Senvion MM92‐2.05 MW 45.2 287 8% 22.9
Danwin DW23‐0.16 MW 11.5 22.4 6% 1.4
Alstom ECO86‐1.65 MW 42 223 8% 17.9
62

V47‐0.66 MW 18 34
V82‐1.65 MW 7 12 60 1 123
Vestas
V90‐1.8 MW 24
V100‐2.0 MW 100
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 99 67
GE77‐1.5 MW 201 200 33 134 137
GE Energy
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 32
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 1 119
NM48‐0.75 MW 5 1
NM52‐0.9 MW 1 14 1
NEG Micon NM54‐0.95 MW 4 29
NM72‐1.5 MW 1 15 1
NM82‐1.65 MW 1 14 1
S64‐0.95 MW 18 6
Suzlon S64‐1.25 MW 34 1
S88‐2.1 MW 4 37 10
G52‐0.8 MW 2
G97‐2.0 MW 18
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 29 15
DeWind D80‐2.0 MW 3
Siemens SWT93‐2.3 MW 43 11
Danwin DW23‐0.16 MW 12
Alstom ECO86‐1.65 MW 24

18 41 18 166 28 79 82 263 267 39 229 329 152 0 32 100
Wind Turbines
118.8 277.8 137.0 1804.1 426.8 953.9 1301.0 3747.5 4024.6 533.4 3454.2 5171.6 2995.8 0.0 604.8 2070.0
Tonnes/year
3718.4
by 2025
27621.3
by 2035
3019.1
From 2000 to 2015
63

KANSAS
V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
V80‐1.8 MW 40 200 8% 16
V90‐1.8 MW 44 240 7% 16.8
Vestas
V90‐3.0 MW 44 256 7% 17.9
V100‐2.0 MW 49 259 8% 20.7
V110‐2.0 MW 54 250 8% 20
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE87‐1.6 MW 43 260 7% 18.2
GE Energy
GE87‐1.85 MW 42.5 223 8% 17.8
GE100‐1.6 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
GE100‐1.7 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 47 305 7% 21.2
Suzlon S64‐1.25 MW 31.5 151 7% 10.6
SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.2 8% 20.4
Siemens
SWT108‐2.3 MW 53 309.1 8% 21.5
G52‐0.85 MW 25.5 107.6 7% 7.5
Gamesa
G114‐2.0 MW 56 364 8% 29.1

V47‐0.66 MW 170
V80‐1.8 MW 56
V90‐1.8 MW 111
Vestas
V90‐3.0 MW 67 33
V100‐2.0 MW 2
V110‐2.0 MW 75
GE77‐1.5 MW 100 67 99 32
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 262
GE87‐1.6 MW 16
GE Energy
GE87‐1.85 MW 135
GE100‐1.6 MW 278
GE100‐1.7 MW 223
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 40
SWT101‐2.3 MW 77
Siemens
SWT108‐2.3 MW 168 21
G52‐0.85 MW 1
Gamesa
G114‐2.0 MW 96
64

0 170 0 0 0 100 67 0 222 73 42 111 801 137 0 416
Wind Turbines
0.0 1122.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1360.0 911.2 0.0 3441.7 1438.7 541.2 1864.8 16764.2 2444.4 0.0 9837.0
Tonnes/year
2482.0
by 2025
39725.2
by 2035
3764.0
From 2000 to 2015
65

COLORADO
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 35 149 8% 11.3
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE82.5‐1.5 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE Energy GE87‐1.6 MW 43 260 7% 18.2
GE100‐1.6 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
GE100‐1.7 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
GE103‐1.7 MW 50.2 338 7% 23.7
V47‐0.66 MW 23 95 7% 6.6
Vestas V90‐1.8 MW 44 240 7% 16.8
V100‐1.8 MW 49 242 8% 19.4
Gamesa G97‐2.0 MW 47.5 320 7% 22.4
SWT93‐2.3 MW 45.5 276.4 8% 19.8
Siemens
SWT101‐2.3 MW 49 278.2 8% 20.4
NEG Micon NM52‐0.9 MW 25 102.9 7% 7.2
Nordex N90‐2.5 MW 44 241.4 8% 19.3
Sany SE100‐2.0 MW 49 290 8% 23.2
GE70.5‐1.5 MW 5
GE77‐1.5 MW 108 40 371 16 34 63
GE82.5‐1.5 MW
GE Energy GE87‐1.6 MW 125
GE100‐1.6 MW 167
GE100‐1.7 MW 14 153 88
GE103‐1.7 MW 145
V47‐0.66 MW 15
Vestas V90‐1.8 MW 139
V100‐1.8 MW 1 16
SWT93‐2.3 MW 66
Siemens
SWT101‐2.3 MW 1
NEG Micon NM52‐0.9 MW 33
Sany SE100‐2.0 MW 4
66

0 48 0 108 5 0 40 591 0 83 35 263 308 18 153 233
Wind Turbines
0.0 336.6 0.0 1468.8 56.5 0.0 544.0 7201.6 0.0 1544.8 481.8 4372.4 6393.0 412.0 3488.4 5442.9
Tonnes/year
1861.9
by 2025
31742.8
by 2035
2960.2
From 2000 to 2015
67

ILLINOIS
V82‐1.65 MW 40.5 205 8% 16.4
Vestas
V100‐2.0 MW 49 259 8% 20.7
G52‐0.8 MW 25.5 107.6 7% 7.5
Gamesa G87‐2.0 MW 43 303.6 8% 24.3
G90‐2.0 MW 44 295.3 8% 23.6
GE77‐1.5 MW 37.5 165.3 8% 13.6
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 40.3 218.4 9% 18.9
GE Energy
GE100‐1.6 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
GE100‐1.7 MW 49 285 8% 22.8
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 47 305 7% 21.2
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 43 228 8% 18.2
Acciona Wind AW82‐1.5 MW 40.5 238 7% 16.7
GW82‐1.5 MW 40.5 254 6% 15.3
Goldwind
GW100‐2.5 MW 49 290 8% 23.2

V82‐1.65 MW 34 218 22 1
Vestas
V100‐2.0 MW 49
G52‐0.8 MW 63
Gamesa G87‐2.0 MW 40 36 150
G90‐2.0 MW 100
GE77‐1.5 MW 100 66 209 132 100
GE82.5‐1.6 MW 145 188 84
GE Energy
GE100‐1.6 MW 233
GE100‐1.7 MW 103
Clipper C96‐2.5 MW 1 1
Suzlon S88‐2.1 MW 4 114
Acciona Wind AW82‐1.5 MW 67
GW82‐1.5 MW 68
Goldwind
GW100‐2.5 MW 3
68

0 0 0 63 0 34 0 359 128 421 282 402 490 0 0 152
Wind Turbines
0 0 0 473 0 558 0 5928 2206 6702 5440 6988 10408 0 0 3363
Tonnes/year
1030.1
by 2025
42064.8
by 2035
3842.2
From 2000 to 2015
69

Franco Arias Indep Study CCNYFRPwindblades Spring 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Franco Arias Indep Study CCNYFRPwindblades Spring 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

City College of New York – City University of New York

Department of Civil Engineering

Assessment of Present/Future Decommissioned

Submission Date: May 23rd, 2016

Prof. Bank, City College of New York

Findings and Conclusions

Recommendations for Action

In the long-term, it is highly recommended to study all 50 states on a year-by-year basis.

Cover Page ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Table 3.1 Material Composition for Large Wind Turbines .......................................................... 14

Figure 3.1 Anatomy of Typical Wind Turbine Blade ................................................................... 12

Metric Conversion Chart, Abbreviations, Symbols

1 US ton = 2000 lbs.

Blade Weight = tonnes

W = Total composite for wind turbine model

2 Objectives and Scope

1. Acquire manufacturer technical specifications for each wind turbine model.

9. Developed averaged composite weight per installed online Megawatt

4. Composite material weight contribution of 85% to total blade weight.

A deeper understanding of aerodynamics and further advancements in materials such as

Figure 3.1 Anatomy of Typical Wind Turbine Blade (Nolet, 2011)

Figure 3.2 Wind Blade Components/Materials (Hogg, 2010)

4 Blade Length-Weight Correlation

Table 4.1 Vestas Model Details

Table 4.2 Manufacturer Model Details

Figure 4.1 Manufacturer Scatter Plot

Figure 4.2 Blade Weight-Length Correlation

Table 5.1 Results of Analyzed States

Figure 5.1 Decommissioned Wind Turbines Distribution

Figure 5.2 Composite to Recycle by 2035 Distribution

Figure 5.3 Online Capacity Distribution

Total Tonnes of Composite Total Installed Online Capacity Composite Weight per Installed Averaged Composite Weight per Installed

Table 6.1 Averaged Composite Weight per Installed Megawatt

Online Turbine Count 2000‐ Total Installed Online Capacity Total Composite Weight to recycle by 2035

Figure 7.1 United States 2035 Composite Weight Distribution

Decommissioned Turbine Count for Online Composite Weight to reycle Blade Weight to recycle by 2035

8 Forecasts for the United States in 2055

Figure 8.2 Cumulative Wind Power Capacity in the United States

Table 8.1 Years 2001-2017 Table 8.2 Years 2018-2035

Cumulative Cumulative Averaged Composite Weight per Total Composite Weight Total Blade Weight

Table 8.3 United States 2055

Based on the conclusions, the following can be recommended:

1. Highly recommended to analyze all 50 states on a year-by-year fashion.

3. Improve blade-weight correlation by increasing the number of technical specifications

Manufacturer Technical Specifications

Blade Length Weight Per Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

Wind Turbine Distribution

Blade Length Weight Per WT Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

Wind Turbine Distribution

Wind Turbine Parameters

Blade Length Weight Per WT Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

Composite Weight and Online Capacity

Blade Length Weight Per Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

Composite Weight and Online Capacity

Wind Turbine Parameters

Blade Length Weight Per Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

Wind Turbine Distribution

Wind Turbine Distribution

Blade Length Weight Per Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight

Composite Weight and Online Capacity

Wind Turbine Parameters

Blade Length Weight Per Glass/Carbon Total Composite Weight