Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Integrated LCA and DEA approach for circular economy-driven

performance evaluation of wind turbine end-of-life treatment options
Stavros Gennitsaris a, Angeliki Sagani a, b, Stella Sofianopoulou a, Vassilis Dedoussis a, *
a
Department of Industrial Management & Technology, University of Piraeus, 18534 Piraeus, Greece
b
Centre for Research & Technology Hellas/Chemical Process and Energy Resources Institute (CERTH/CPERI), Athens 15125, Greece

H I G H L I G H T S

• An integrated LCA + DEA methodology is applied to evaluate different end-of-life treatment alternatives for wind turbine decommissioning.
• Circular economy-driven policy-making scenarios are suggested to enable improvements towards a more sustainable waste management.
• Waste management of wind turbine blade composites is the most significant contributor to GHG emissions and non-renewable energy consumption.
• The efficiency of thermal recycling processes is a key element for the transition to a circular economy framework.
• Remanufacturing, repurposing or waste prevention of wind turbine blades via design-for-recycling is crucial for sustainable waste management.
• Financial incentives could offset the price handicap of chemical recycling relative to cost-efficient landfill disposal practices.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to present an integrated joint application of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and Data
End-of-life options Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in order to evaluate the efficiency of different end-of-life treatment options for wind
Wind turbine decommissioning turbine decommissioning, considering, technological, economic, and environmental aspects in a circular econ­
Data envelopment analysis
omy context. Eleven scenarios have been configurated concerning the material waste management of a repre­
Life cycle assessment
sentative type of wind turbine operating in Greece. Mechanical recycling, landfill disposal and advanced thermal
recycling technologies, such as conventional or microwave pyrolysis are addressed. The proposed approach does
not only evaluate the efficiency of each one of the different end-of-life treatment processes relative to one
another, but it also suggests circular economy-driven policy-making scenarios towards more sustainable waste
management in the country. Real-world data calculations indicate that improving the performance of the energy-
intensive thermal recycling process could maximize the environmental benefits. А circular zero-waste approach
based on remanufacturing, repurposing or waste prevention through design-for-recycling of wind turbine blades,
could also favor long-term sustainability.

1. Introduction
The installed capacity of wind generation is steadily growing
worldwide. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency
[1], the rate of increase of the global installed capacity of Renewable
Energy Sources (RES) reached the figure of 261 GW in 2020; with wind
power share being 42.5 %, i.e. 111 GW. The total installed wind-
generation capacity has increased significantly from 7.5 GW in 1997
to 735 GW in 2020. The European Union’s (EU) strategic vision for
climate neutrality by 2050 includes increasing the share of RES to 32 %
by 2030, and wind energy is expected to play a key role in this growth
[2]. It is expected that this growth will be accelerated after the adoption
of the European Commission’s Action to reduce the dependence on
imported fossil fuels [3]. The National Energy and Climate Plan of the
Greek Government sets more ambitious targets to increase the RES share
in the gross final energy consumption at 35 %, which corresponds to an
increase of the total installed wind power capacity from 3.6 GW to 7 GW
in the time period 2020 to 2030 [4].
Currently, 34,000 wind turbines are 15 years or older, representing
36 GW of (onshore) wind capacity. 9 GW out of the total 36 GW
correspond to 20–24 years old wind turbines, whilst about 1 GW
correspond to 25 years or older ones [5]. Wind turbines are designed to

* Corresponding author at: at: Department of Industrial Management & Technology, University of Piraeus, 80 Karaoli & Dimitriou st., 18534 Piraeus, Greece.
E-mail address: vdedo@unipi.gr (V. Dedoussis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120951
Received 11 September 2022; Received in revised form 6 February 2023; Accepted 5 March 2023
Available online 15 March 2023
0306-2619/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Gennitsaris et al.
have a lifespan of approximately 20–25 years [5–7]. Furthermore, due
to the rapid developments in wind energy generation technology, there
is a tendency to try to substitute old wind turbine models with new more
efficient ones [8]. In this respect, the number of decommissioned wind
turbines is expected to increase significantly in the coming years.
Identifying efficient options for the management of decommissioned
wind turbines so as to maximize the environmental benefits of wind
energy generation from a life cycle perspective is, therefore, imperative.
Most commercial (onshore) wind turbines are horizontal-axis ma­
chines with three rotor blades, which are usually located upwind of the
nacelle and the tower [9]. Wind turbines material waste includes mainly
metals such as steel, iron, copper and aluminum, as well as composite
materials, and concrete, the latter being used in the tower foundation
[10]. It is evident, therefore, that according to the various material
waste considered, different end-of-life management procedures should
be employed. According to relevant literature, the recycling rate of a
wind turbine itself, excluding the foundation, ranges between 80 % −
90 % [11–13]. Regarding the metals used in wind turbines components,
steel and iron are highly recyclable and easy to recover, simply because
they are both magnetic. Copper is also highly recyclable and can be
reused, retaining most of its original physical and chemical character­
istics. Many research works estimate an average recyclability rate of the
order of 90 % for all waste metals of decommissioned wind turbines
[14–19]. As far as the concrete waste material of turbine foundations is
concerned, there are currently three options available: (i) it can be left in
situ, (ii) buried in landfills or (iii) recovered [20]. The currently avail­
able technologies for concrete recovery are well-established and, in
general, inexpensive. Nevertheless, the adverse environmental impacts
associated with the transportation of concrete waste to (distant) recy­
cling plants, in conjunction with the low cost of producing high-quality
new concrete, present significant handicaps in achieving materials
circularity in the concrete industrial sector [21]. Concrete recovery
could be a promising alternative approach to improve the sustainability
of the construction industry from a circular economy perspective [22].
As indicated in the relevant technical literature, recycled concrete could
substitute natural aggregates; thus, contributing not only to the con­
servation of natural resources, but also to the decrease of greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and non-renewable energy consumption [23–25].
Although most of the various materials that wind turbines are
composed of, are highly recyclable, end-of-life treatment of the blades
composite materials, glass fiber thermoset composites, in particular, is
still a challenge [12]. Nowadays, landfill disposal and incineration of
composite materials present the main end-of-life treatment options [26].
However, the disposal of composite waste materials in landfills in EU
countries, is either expected to be banned or substantially reduced in the
following few years, so as to meet the targets for a circular economy
[13,27]. In line with the latter, the European wind power industry has
already called for a landfill ban on decommissioned wind turbine blades
in Europe by 2025, whilst, at the same time, it commits itself to re-use,
recycle, or recover them by 100 % [28]. Also, the export of decom­
missioned blades from Europe to other countries is planned to be ban­
ned. Furthermore, adverse environmental effects are also associated
with the incineration process. According to the work of Beauson and
Brøndsted [20], significant amounts of ash are produced by this process.
Also, Lichtenegger et al. [29] estimate that the amount of blade waste in
2050 will reach 325,000 t; such a high figure highlights the need for
developing alternative waste management processes.
Several recycling methods have been proposed in the relevant
literature for the processing of composite materials, the most important
being mechanical, thermal and chemical recycling. In mechanical
recycling, wind turbines blades are cut and shredded. Shredded blade
waste material may be used as a filler, reinforcement material, and raw
material for manufacturing plastic objects or cement [30–32]. The most
widely applied technologies related to thermal and chemical recycling
of composite materials are conventional pyrolysis, or microwave py­
rolysis and solvolysis respectively [33]. Nevertheless, the most efficient
2
Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951
options for end-of-life management of blade waste are reusing and
repurposing for different applications [34,35].
Quite a few studies have been devoted to the environmental per­
formance of wind turbine systems [14–17,19,26,36–42]. Most of these
studies employed a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach [43] in order
to quantify the sustainability of wind turbine systems from a life cycle
perspective, i.e. from the extraction of raw materials and their
manufacturing stage to the end of their operational life and final
disposal. General aspects associated with the end-of-life treatment of
wind turbines, however, are still not very clear, inconsistent, or non-
transparent [44]. Recently, Mello et al. [45] carried out a thorough re­
view concerning the life cycle impacts of wind turbine systems. They
conclude that most of the published LCA studies, either disregard
entirely or hardly consider, the environmental impacts of the processes
employed for the recycling of wind turbine components; thus, failing to
provide a complete perspective.
The works of Nagle et al. [35] and Deeney et al. [46] provide,
perhaps, more concise information on the impacts of different end-of-life
treatment processes for wind turbines; unfortunately, they focus on the
blade waste management part only. Nagle et al. [35] compared the
environmental impacts of three end-of-life treatment alternatives for
wind turbine blades: (i) co-processing in cement kilns in Germany, (ii)
co-processing in Ireland, and (iii) landfill in Ireland. They claim that the
second one clearly performs the best, simply because of the material
substitution and the lower transportation distances involved. Deeney
et al. [46] also compared various end-of-life blade waste management
alternatives from an economic, social and environmental perspective.
Heat recovery, co-processing, bridge fabrication and furniture making
(re-purposing) were considered. It was found that bridge fabrication is
the most sustainable one, followed by furniture making.
The present research work tackles the wind turbine decommission­
ing problem using a circular economy focused approach. Various end-of-
life alternatives/scenarios for wind turbine decommissioning are iden­
tified and evaluated. The proposed circular economy-driven approach
addresses in an integrated/simultaneous manner both economic aspects,
i.e., the costs related to the end-of-life treatment technologies to be
employed and environmental impacts, such as GHG emissions, fossil and
nuclear energy use, and land occupation.
The environmental impact of the end-of-life scenarios considered is
evaluated via Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) employing the SimaPro PhD
9.4 Software [47], which is a tool for the assessment of the impacts of a
system across all its life cycle stages. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)
is next employed in order to evaluate the (economic) performance/ef­
ficiency of the decommissioning alternatives/scenarios. DEA is a well-
established mature multi-criteria analytic technique for assessing the
operational efficiency of multiple systems that exhibit similar charac­
teristics, with several inputs and outputs [48]. DEA employs a mathe­
matical/linear programming model to identify the relationships
between efficiency scores and various cost and environmental parame­
ters, with the dual aim of proposing the most efficient waste manage­
ment methods and defining targets for the inefficient ones to make them
efficient. It is worth mentioning that DEA methodologies have been
applied successfully in energy and environmental modelling [48–56] as
well as in the field of waste management [57–63].
The main contribution of the present work is that it combines the
application of two well established analysis tools, namely the LCA and
DEA techniques, in a novel integrated manner. To the best of the au­
thors’ knowledge this work is the first to address decommissioning of
wind turbine energy systems, in a comprehensive way, which covers all
life cycle aspects in a quantitative manner. Specifically, the proposed
approach does not only access the environmental impact of various
wind-turbine decommissioning alternatives, but it also evaluates them
with respect to their economical effectiveness, implicitly suggesting
circular economy-driven policy-making scenarios towards more sus­
tainable waste management practices. Also, unlike most of the previ­
ously published works, which concentrate on the end-of-life treatment of
S. Gennitsaris et al. Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951

the wind turbine composite blades only, this work does consider all parts Table 2
of a wind turbine system, including the metallic, electrical, and me­ Scenario‑based assessments for end-of-life management of materials of onshore
chanical components, the composite blades, and its concrete foundation. wind turbines.
The methodology has been applied to the decommissioning of a Scenario End-of-life waste management
representative type of wind turbine operating in Greece. It is envisaged Metals Foundation Wind Turbine Blades
that computational results and suggestions included in this paper could Concrete
serve as a technical, economic, and environmental basis for the devel­
1 Landfill Disposal Landfill Disposal Landfill Disposal
opment/proposal of appropriate public policies to encourage the 2 Mechanical Mechanical Landfill Disposal
implementation of circular economy-driven waste management pro­ Recycling Recycling
cesses at an industrial scale. 3 Mechanical Mechanical Repurposing
Recycling Recycling
4 Mechanical Landfill Disposal Landfill Disposal
2. Materials and end-of-life scenarios Recycling
5 Mechanical Landfill Disposal Repurposing
The methodology proposed in this work is employed in order to Recycling
identify the most sustainable option for decommissioning a Vestas V52 6 Mechanical Mechanical Thermal Recycling/Pyrolysis
Recycling Recycling
onshore wind turbine operating in Greece. The Vestas wind turbines are
7 Mechanical Mechanical Thermal Recycling/
the representative type of wind turbines operating in the Greek territory; Recycling Recycling Microwave Pyrolysis
45 % of wind turbines currently in operation in Greece are of this make 8 Mechanical Mechanical Recycling/Mechanical
[64]. Recycling Recycling Grinding
The main parts of an onshore wind turbine are: (i) the tower, (ii) the 9 Mechanical Landfill Disposal Thermal Recycling/Pyrolysis
Recycling
rotor, (iii) the nacelle, (iv) the generator and (v) its foundation. Wind 10 Mechanical Landfill Disposal Thermal Recycling/
turbines predominantly consist of steel; this is because the tower, which Recycling Microwave Pyrolysis
is the biggest part of a wind turbine system, is made out of steel. Nacelles 11 Mechanical Landfill Disposal Recycling/Mechanical
are made out of both iron and steel. Small amounts of copper and silica Recycling Grinding
are also found in nacelles because of the electronic components
involved. In addition, the nacelle cover contains fiber glass and resins
3. Methods
since it is made out of composite materials. As far as the rotor materials
are concerned, iron or cast iron is used for the blade hub, whilst the nose
3.1. Life cycle Assessment - LCA
cone and the blades are made out of glass reinforced plastic (GRP) and
resin. Last, but not least, the foundation consists mainly of concrete,
In order to evaluate the environmental impact of the different end-of-
with small amounts of iron and steel [65]. The relevant material
life material management scenarios considered for the decommissioning
composition of an onshore Vestas wind turbine, expressed as percent­
of a typical wind turbine, an integrated LCA was carried out using
ages by weight, is presented in Table 1.
SimaPro PhD 9.4 Software [47]. LCA is a technique employed to eval­
Considering the existing end-of-life treatment technologies for the
uate the possible energy and environmental impacts associated with a
materials associated with wind turbine systems (included in Table 1)
product, a process, or a system throughout its life cycle, in order to
eleven scenarios were defined. These scenarios, which are presented in
achieve sustainability goals in the context of circular economy. The
Table 2, are thoroughly examined in order to identify the relative ben­
relevant guidelines and modelling framework for conducting LCA is in
efits to be incurred by recycling (either mechanical or thermal) or by
accordance with the relevant ISO International Standards 14040–14044
repurposing of the various components of a wind turbine; thus, estab­
[43]. According to these Standards, LCA includes four interrelated
lishing the best waste management practice to be followed.
phases: (i) system boundaries identification, (ii) inventory analysis, (iii)
The scenarios included in Table 2 were defined by taking into ac­
impact assessment and, (iv) interpretation of results. These phases are
count both the waste hierarchy of the EU Waste Framework Directive
addressed in the following sections.
[67] and the level of technological maturity of the available end-of-life
treatment processes. Specifically, the scenarios investigated include: (i)
3.1.1. System boundaries & functional unit
landfill disposal or mechanical recycling (with a recovery rate of about
The system boundaries of this work include (Fig. 1): (i) the wind
95 %) for the metals found in wind turbine systems, (ii) landfill disposal
turbine to be decommissioned under consideration is broken down into
or mechanical recycling of the concrete used in the foundation (as
its major assemblies, sub-components and the associated materials, (ii)
concrete aggregates), and (iii) landfill disposal or recycling (either me­
the transportation of wind turbine subcomponents/materials from the
chanical grinding or thermal recycling, i.e., pyrolysis or microwave
installation site to landfill sites or recycling centres, and (iii) the avail­
pyrolysis) of the blades. It should be noted that mechanical recycling is
able alternatives to treat main wind turbine waste materials (either
the current end-of-life treatment practice followed in Greece, whereas
disposal or recycling).
advanced thermal recycling has not been widely deployed yet at the
It should be emphasized that the present LCA focuses on the wind
European level. However, thermal recycling was chosen to be examined
turbine decommissioning phase only, without considering the effect of
in the current analysis so as to highlight the importance of future in­
infrastructure construction, i.e., wind turbine components fabrication
vestment in advanced waste management procedures.
and assembly. Construction, installation and maintenance of trans­
formers, substations, etc., as well as other auxiliary devices, which are
components of a wind farm, were also excluded from the system
boundaries. This is a reasonable assumption to make simply because one
Table 1
expects the aforementioned infrastructure to remain operational beyond
Material composition of a Vestas wind turbine [66].
the wind turbine’s lifespan; consider, for instance, a repowering sce­
Material w/w
nario, or its utilization in a hybrid renewable electricity generating and/
Steel 71–79 % or energy storage system.
Fiberglass, resin, or plastic 11–16 % Selecting the functional unit is an important step in LCA modelling
Iron or cast iron 5–17 %
that enables the quantification of all inputs and outputs, as well as the
Copper 1%
Aluminium 0–2 % comparison among other LCA results reported in relevant literature. In

3
S. Gennitsaris et al. Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951

Fig. 1. System boundaries of end-of-life treatment of decommissioned wind turbine material.

this regard, the unit of analysis (functional unit) considered in the pre­
sent work is a Vestas 52 wind turbine, with a rotor diameter of 52 m and
a hub height of 50 m [68]. This wind turbine type was specifically
selected, simply because wind turbines with a rotor diameter of 52 m
represent the most common ones installed within the time period
1998–2004 [64].
3.1.2. Data sources and life cycle inventory
The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) analysis phase of LCA includes data
compilation for materials, energy flows and emissions involved in the
decommissioning, transportation, and end-of-life management of the
wind turbine assemblies/sub-components and relevant materials. The
expected lifespan of the wind turbine is about 25 years.
The required data for all unit processes included in the system
boundaries were collected separately and are presented in Table 3.
Specifically, the material weight estimations for the decommissioning of
the wind turbine under analysis are those reported in the work of
Andersen [10]. It should be noted that the wind turbine weight figure
includes the tower, the nacelle and the rotor (involving its hub); all
weight estimations are based on a rotor diameter of 52 m. Additional
material data concerning the wind turbine foundation correspond to the
ones reported in [69].
On the other hand, the data for the end-of-life management of waste
material, namely, landfill disposal and recycling of metals and concrete,
were taken from SimaPro PhD 9.4 Ecoinvent 3.9 database. Ecoinvent is
the most widely accepted LCA database and has been established
employing European industrial data [70]. It is worth mentioning that
regarding the recycling process of metals and concrete, recyclability
rates of 95 % and 80 % were considered, respectively. Moreover, ac­
cording to the work of Vo Dong et al. [71], which is devoted to the
different recycling pathways of composite materials, the total energy
consumed in mechanical grinding, pyrolysis and microwave pyrolysis is
estimated at about 0.27, 30 and 10 MJ/kg, respectively. It is also
considered that the avoided energy consumption for both the conven­
tional and the microwave pyrolysis process is equal to the average en­
ergy required for the production of virgin glass fiber reinforced polymer,
estimated at 22.5 MJ/kg. As highlighted in Yang et al. [72], the pyrolysis
process has high material and energy recovery potential, simply by using
the syngas or the oil produced to power the actual process itself.
Considering that pyrolysis of wind turbine materials is an endothermic
process requiring heat to be supplied to the system to sustain the reac­
tion temperature at the appropriate level, the pyrolysis products, i.e., gas
and oil, have great potential for heat application, due to their high
heating values; the overall range of reported values being: 13.9–37.7
MJ/m3 for pyrolytic gas, and 33.6 to 37 MJ/kg for pyrolytic oil. In the
context of the present research work, calculations have been carried out
considering the avoided energy demand figure only. The positive effects
of material and energy recovery were excluded in the present analysis
because the high heating values of pyrolysis products depend heavily on
both the type of the reactor employed and the conditions of the pyrolysis
process. Furthermore, such turbine blade pyrolysis processes with high
energy and material recovery potential can only be carried out in spe­
cifically designed facilities [73].
In order to estimate the required input data related to the trans­
portation stages, it was assumed that the decommissioned wind turbine
belongs to a wind farm, which is located in Xirolivado in Northern
Greece; on latitude 40.99◦ N and 24.37◦ E. Mavroraxi Waste Landfill
Site, located in Thessaloniki, in Northern Greece, is identified as the
most appropriate site for the disposal of wind turbine waste material.
Furthermore, the main mechanical recycling facility in Greece is located
in the city of Kavala, in Northern Greece, whereas the most appropriate
recycling facility for both pyrolysis and microwave-assisted pyrolysis is
located in Northern Italy; on latitude 46.01◦ N and 9.57◦ E. The relevant
transportation stages related data are summarized in Table 4.
3.1.3. Life cycle impact assessment
The data collection phase was followed by LCA. The various stages of
the end-of-life management of the wind turbine sub-components and
relevant materials, shown in Fig. 1, are introduced in the SimaPro PhD
9.4 Software. Following a thorough literature review on the existing
Standardized Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Methodologies
(distinguished either as single-issue ones or typical European ones) it
was decided to apply the IMPACT World + Midpoint methodology in
order to assess the potential environmental impacts of the different end-
of-life scenarios under consideration (refer to Table 2). IMPACT World
+ Midpoint was selected because of its ability to address the particular
environmental impact categories, which are of interest in this study, and
evaluate multiple impact categories by considering the most
Table 4
Input data related to transportation stages.
Route Transportation Distance
(km)
Disposal
Wind Farm (Xirolivado) – Landfill (Mavroraxi) 120
Recycling
Wind Farm (Xirolivado) – Main Recycling Facility 250
(Kavala)
Main Recycling Facility (Kavala) – Landfill 160
(Mavroraxi)
Main Recycling Facility (Kavala) – Recycling 1750
Facility (Italy)

Table 3
Material data for the Vestas V52 wind turbine [10,69].
Part Steel (t) Iron (t) Aluminium (t) Copper (t) Composite material (t) Concrete (t)

Wind turbine 76 11.0 1.2 1.2 8.0 –

Foundation 30.7 – – 0.025 0.025 570.9
Total 106.7 11.0 1.2 1.225 8.025 570.9

4
S. Gennitsaris et al. Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951

appropriated weight factors. According to Rigon et al. [74], this meth­
odology is one of the most popular ones for LCA studies. IMPACT World
+ Midpoint represents a combined mid-point/damage-oriented
approach; it links all types of LCI results throughout 14 mid-point cat­
egories to four damage categories, namely, (i) human health, (ii)
ecosystem quality, (iii) climate change and (iv) resources. It should be
noted that ‘midpoint’ refers to indicators that express impacts some­
where between the cause (emissions-LCI analysis) phase and the
damaging effect (harmful consequences) endpoint. Detailed presenta­
tion of the IMPACT World + methodology may be found in relevant
technical literature, e.g. Bulle et al. [75]. In the context of the present
research work, three midpoint impact categories were investigated: (a)
climate change, expressed in ton of CO2eq, (b) land occupation,
expressed in m2, and (c) fossil and nuclear energy use, expressed in GJ.
3.2. Data envelopment analysis – DEA
3.2.2. Input & output parameters
DEA has been carried out employing real-world input and output
data concerning the decommissioning of a Vestas V52 wind turbine,
which is currently operating in the Greek territory (refer to Table 2 and
Section 3.1.2). Having carefully reviewed the relevant literature, it was
decided to use the following input and output parameters in the analysis:
Input parameters:
- Total cost, expressed in €; it represents the overall cost for disposing
construction material associated with all wind turbine components.
Relevant data for the various scenarios considered is presented
collectively in Table 5. It should be noted that the cost of metal
landfill disposal is assumed to be similar to the corresponding one of
concrete.
- Material transport demand, expressed in tkm; for each one of the
different scenarios assessed.

Having evaluated the environmental performance of the different Output parameters:

end-of-life waste material management alternatives/scenarios using
LCA methodology, DEA approach is subsequently applied in order to - Land occupation, expressed in m2; it refers to the land, better landfill,
assess the scenarios from an economic perspective as well. DEA is car­ area required for implementing each one of the different waste ma­
ried out utilizing both economic and environmental indicators, the latter terial management scenarios.
having been estimated through LCA. - Climate change, expressed in tonCO2eq; it is the total amount of CO2
emitted to the atmosphere associated with each one of the different
3.2.1. DEA method scenarios. It reflects the adverse environmental impact incurred by
DEA is a data-oriented method that employs mathematical pro­ the different waste material treatment methods employed.
gramming techniques to assess the efficiency of several peer objects - Fossil and nuclear energy use, expressed in GJ; it refers to the primary
named ‘Decision Measure Units’ (DMU) that transform several inputs energy consumption associated with each one of the different end-of-
into several outputs/yields. Efficiency is defined as the ratio of the sum life management scenarios. It is noted that the primary energy is
of weighted outputs over the sum of weighted inputs. CCR model [76], defined as the energy associated with the amount of natural re­
which is one of the basic DEA models that have been proposed, is applied sources (in most of the cases fossil fuels, such as coal, crude oil,
in the context of the present work. Assuming that there are n DMUs with natural gas, etc.) that has not undergone any anthropogenic con­
m inputs and s outputs, the mathematical programming problem to be version and has to be converted and transported in order to become
solved in order to obtain values for the input (vi) (i = 1,…,m) and output useful energy.
weights (ur) (r = 1,…,s) variables is formulated as [77]:
∑s Data concerning the aforementioned output parameters were ob­
ur yrj0
maxz = ∑r=1m (1) tained via LCA employing the SimaPro PhD 9.4 Software. The relevant
i=1 vi xijo DEA matrix for the input and output parameters employed in this work
Subject to is shown in Table 6.
∑s The DEA model applied in the present work follows the assumptions
ur yrj involved in classical DEA models; namely, the inputs are minimized, and
∑r=1
m ≤ 1 (j = 1, ., n) (2)
i=1 vi xij outputs are maximized, whereas both input and output parameters take
only positive values. It is evident, however, that because of the adverse
ur ≥ 0, (r = 1, .., s) (3)
environmental impact of the output parameters considered, numerical
values of the undesirable output parameters should be minimized.
vi ≥ 0, (i = 1, .., m) (4)
Furthermore, the original output parameters, which are evaluated via
where xij and yrj correspond to the input and output parameter values
for the jth DMU, respectively. Index j0 refers to the particular DMU,
which is examined. The objective function, i.e., Equation (1), maximizes Table 5
the ratio of virtual output to virtual input of the DMU under consider­ Cost of end-of-life treatment of wind turbine materials.
ation, by calculating the appropriate vi and ur weights. Equation (2) Waste material Cost (€/t) Reference
represents the constraints. These constraints ensure that the efficiency
Mechanical Recycling
ratio of each one of the different DMUs considered does not exceed 1. Aluminum 45.5 [80]
Thus, the objective function ranges between 0.0 and 1.0; the latter value Copper 45.5
denoting that the corresponding DMU is efficient. The aforementioned Steel 181.8
non-linear program is linearized, and the solution of its linear equivalent Iron 181.8
Concrete (as aggregate) 30.5 [24]
provides the efficiency scores for all DMUs.
Mechanical Grinding
In this work, a Variable Returns to Scale (VRS) approach [78,79] is Composite Material 85.6 [81]
employed in the CCR model. Each one of the DMUs considered is asso­ Landfill Disposal
ciated with a different end-of-life scenario concerning a wind turbine to Aluminum 35.0 [82]
be decommissioned. Also, an input-oriented model has been adopted, Copper 35.0
Steel 35.0
with the dual aim of reducing the costs associated with the different Iron 35.0
scenarios and suggesting policies that could improve the overall effi­ Concrete 35.0
ciency by modifying the relevant cost parameters. Composite Material 88.2 [83]
Pyrolysis 255.6 [81]
Microwave Pyrolysis 182.6 [81]

5
S. Gennitsaris et al. Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951

Table 6
Original DEA matrix (Input – Output Parameters).
DMU Input values Output values (SimaPro 9.4 results)

Cost (€) Transport Land Climate Fossil and

(tkm) occupation, change nuclear
biodiversity (ton energy use
(m2) CO2eq) (GJ)

1 24,893.12 83,886.00 958.24 66.29 1,032.39

2 39,323.19 192,949.05 − 10.79 31.80 1,336.96
3 38,615.77 193,992.30 248.80 10.58 970.30
4 41,383.18 100,463.25 − 286.87 − 49.68 162.73
5 40,675.76 101,506.50 − 29.29 − 71.04 − 203.99
6 40,666.56 208,036.05 190.75 41.46 1,488.35
7 40,080.93 208,036.05 − 385.20 18.47 1,128.71
8 39,302.77 208,036.05 − 21.82 20.64 922.48
9 42,726.54 115,550.25 − 87.34 − 40.16 314.06
10 42,140.92 115,550.25 − 663.29 − 63.15 − 45.62
11 41,362.76 115,550.25 − 299.91 − 60.98 − 251.82 Fig. 2. GHG emissions of different end-of-life scenarios investigated (IMPACT
World + Midpoint methodology).

the LCA approach and are shown in Table 7, include both positive and
negative values. An appropriate numerical transformation [84] has been
applied to the original output values so as not only to make them pos­
itive, but also to convert them to desirable output measures, i.e., as the
transformed output value is maximized by the DEA method, the orig­
inal/actual output value is decreased [85]. The appropriately trans­
formed output parameter data are shown in Table 7. Also, it should be
mentioned that the present DEA was carried out using the transformed
output data employing the Excel Solver based DEA software – DEA
Frontier [86].

4. Results

4.1. LCA results

4.1.1. Climate change impact category

Estimated climate change emissions of the eleven waste management Fig. 3. Percentage share of different treatment methods in overall GHG emis­
sions of different end-of-life scenarios investigated (IMPACT World + Midpoint
scenarios considered in this work, are presented in Fig. 2, whilst the
methodology).
corresponding percentage share of the different wind turbine materials/
components treatment methods in overall GHG emissions, is illustrated
in Fig. 3. The highest GHG emissions are associated with Scenario 1, composite materials using conventional pyrolysis exhibits adverse GHG
estimated at about 66.29 tonCO2eq/wind turbine (see Fig. 2). The most impact (see Scenarios 6 and 9, in Fig. 3). This is because the conven­
significant contributor to GHG emissions (94 %) is the transportation tional pyrolysis process is an energy intensive one, with the required
phase of wind turbine materials from wind farm to landfill field (see energy being generated mostly via conventional fossil fuels. Scenarios 2,
Fig. 3); this is directly related to the fact that the employed trans­ 3, 7 and 8 are also responsible for a high contribution to GHG emissions,
portation trucks are powered by diesel fuel. As expected, mechanical mainly because of the increased transportation requirements implied by
recycling of metallic materials contributes significantly (>41 %) to the mechanical recovering of foundation concrete of these scenarios.
avoided GHG emissions in all Scenarios; Scenario 1 in which metallic Referring to Fig. 2, it is observed that Scenario 2, with an estimated GHG
materials are landfilled is obviously excluded. Waste management of the emissions figure of 31.8 tonCO2eq/wind turbine, has higher GHG emis­
composite materials of blades, i.e., repurposing (Scenarios 3 and 5), sions than Scenarios 8, 7 and 3 (20.64, 18.47 and 10.58 tonCO2eq/wind
thermal recycling/microwave pyrolysis (Scenarios 7 and 10) and me­ turbine, respectively). This could be attributed to the landfill disposal of
chanical recycling (Scenarios 8 and 11), is also associated with moderate the blades composite material associated with Scenario 2. On the other
avoided GHG emissions, of the order of 4–10 %. However, recycling of hand, Scenario 5, which is associated with recycling of metals, repur­
posing of blades and landfill disposal of concrete, has clearly the best
environmental performance (-71.04 tonCO2eq/wind turbine), followed
Table 7
by Scenarios 10 (-63.15 tonCO2eq/wind turbine) and 11 (-60.98 ton­
Appropriately transformed Output parameters data.
CO2eq/wind turbine); the latter ones are related to recycling of metals,
DMU Land occupation, Climate change Fossil and nuclear landfill disposal of concrete, and microwave-assisted pyrolysis and
biodiversity (m2) (ton CO2eq) energy use (GJ)
mechanical recycling of blades, respectively. It is interesting to note that
1 95.82 6.63 604.80 negative GHG emissions values indicate a positive impact on the envi­
2 1,064.85 41.12 300.23
ronment. In general, blades repurposing has a favorable effect to the
3 805.27 62.34 666.88
4 1,340.94 122.59 1,474.46 overall GHG emissions produced; as it has already been mentioned,
5 1,083.36 143.96 1,841.18 Scenario 5 has the best environmental performance of all scenarios
6 863.32 31.46 148.84 considered, whilst Scenario 3 performs relatively better than Scenarios 1
7 1,439.27 54.45 508.48
and 2 (see Fig. 2).
8 1,075.89 52.28 714.71
9 1,141.41 113.08 1,323.13
10 1,717.36 136.07 1,682.81 4.1.2. Land occupation impact category
11 1,353.98 133.90 1,889.01 The effect of the different waste management options on land

6
S. Gennitsaris et al. Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951

occupation is presented in Fig. 4. It was found that the most sustainable

end-of-life treatment options of wind turbine materials/components are
the ones related to landfill disposal of concrete of wind turbines foun­
dation, as well as to thermal recycling/microwave pyrolysis of turbine
blades composite materials. In particular, Scenario 10 associated with
landfill disposal of concrete and microwave-assisted pyrolysis of com­
posite materials, presents the best option, with an estimated land
occupation indicator of − 663.29 m2/wind turbine, followed by Scenario
7 related to mechanical recycling of concrete and microwave-assisted
pyrolysis of composite materials (-385.20 m2/wind turbine) and Sce­
narios 11 and 4 (-299.91 and − 286.87 m2/wind turbine, respectively).
On the other hand, Scenario 1 performs significantly worse than any
other Scenario, with an estimated land occupation indicator of 958.24
m2/wind turbine. This poor performance could be attributed to the fact
that all materials, i.e., metals, concrete, and composites, that a wind
turbine is made of, are disposed to landfill sites. A comparison between Fig. 5. Percentage share of different treatment methods in overall land occu­
Scenarios 4 and 10 shows that thermal recycling/microwave pyrolysis of pation indicator of different end-of-life scenarios investigated (IMPACT World
composite materials as an alternative to their landfill disposal could + Midpoint methodology).
improve significantly the land use impact indicator by almost 131 %.
The contribution of the different wind turbine materials/components
treatment methods in the overall land occupation impact for various
end-of-life scenarios investigated in the present work, is presented in
Fig. 5. It is evident that metallic materials recycling has the most
important and environmentally friendly effect on the land occupation
indicator, which is exhibited by the corresponding relatively high
negative figures calculated.

4.1.3. Fossil and nuclear energy use

Calculated fossil and nuclear energy use-related indicator for the
eleven end-of-life scenarios considered, are presented in Fig. 6. The
relevant percentage contribution of the different wind turbine mate­
rials/components treatment methods is presented in Fig. 7. Scenario 6,
which is associated with the mechanical recycling of both metallic
materials and foundation concrete, and with conventional pyrolysis of
blades composite material, has the highest non-renewable (fossil and Fig. 6. Fossil and nuclear energy use of different end-of-life scenarios investi­
gated (IMPACT World + Midpoint methodology).
nuclear) energy consumption figure, estimated at 1,488.35 GJ/wind
turbine (see Fig. 6). Poor performance of this scenario is mainly due to
the high transportation requirements associated with both mechanical
recycling and conventional pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is energy intensive with
the required energy being generated mostly by conventional thermal
power systems, while diesel-powered trucks are used for the trans­
portation of composite materials. Scenarios 2, 7, 1, 3 and 8, are also
important contributors to fossil and nuclear energy consumption, with
1,136.96, 1,128.71, 1,032.29, 970.3 and 922.48 GJ/wind turbine,
respectively; figures which are almost exclusively due to the trans­
portation demands associated with mechanical recycling of foundation
concrete and waste management alternatives of composites. On the
other hand, Scenarios 11, 5 and 10 related to landfill disposal of concrete
foundation have the lowest adverse impact on the environment.

Fig. 7. Percentage share of different treatment methods in overall fossil and

nuclear energy use indicator of different end-of-life scenarios investigated
(IMPACT World + Midpoint methodology).

Mechanical recycling of wind turbines metallic materials has also a

beneficial contribution to the fossil and nuclear energy use indicator (see
Fig. 7). It should be noted that repurposing of composite materials as
alternative to thermal recycling/microwave pyrolysis, i.e., consider
Scenario 3 instead of Scenario 7, could lead to a significant decrease in
fossil and nuclear energy consumption of the order of 15 % (refer to
Fig. 6).

4.2. DEA results

Fig. 4. Land occupation of different end-of-life scenarios investigated (IMPACT
World + Midpoint methodology). As it has been pointed out in Section 3.2, DEA methodology was

7
S. Gennitsaris et al. Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951

applied in order to discriminate the efficient end-of-life treatment pro­

cesses/scenarios (in terms of both economic and environmental aspects)
from the inefficient ones. DEA also provides targets and benchmarks for
the inefficient end-of-life scenarios.
The DEA efficiency scores φ for the different scenarios (DMUs)
investigated in this work are illustrated in Fig. 8. These results have been
obtained with the DEA approach carried out “in terms of the inputs”, i.e.,
trying to minimize the cost of waste management treatment and trans­
portation demand (inputs) of each one of the different end-of-life sce­
narios, with respect to constant/given environmental indicators
(outputs). It is seen that Scenarios 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 are technically
efficient management scenarios, since φ = 1. Scenarios 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and
9 are inefficient exhibiting efficiency scores ranging between 0.81 and
0.98 (i.e., φ < 1).
Original input values of the different scenarios/DMUs considered
Fig. 9. Cost of end-of-life treatment for the original and virtual DMUs and the
and the estimated target values of virtual ones are presented in Fig. 9
corresponding cost reduction target.
and Fig. 10, for the case of cost of end-of-life treatment processes and
transportation demand, respectively. Reduction targets represent po­
tential input savings to be achieved by the (estimated) inefficient DMUs,
if they were to operate under the conditions of the DEA calculated ef­
ficiency matrix. It is interesting to note that a reduction between 2.2 %
and 18.7 % could be achieved in the cost of end-of-life treatment pro­
cesses. It is observed that most inefficient scenarios are associated with
highest percentage reductions. Inefficient DMUs represent Scenarios 6,
3, 9, 2, 8 and 7, which are ordered in descending values of potential
reduction. On the other hand, target reduction for the transportation
demand ranges from almost 10.6 % to 52.5 %. Similarly, highest re­
ductions are associated with most inefficient scenarios.

5. Discussion

Results obtained with DEA methodology show that end-of-life sce­

narios that have adverse environmental impact, from a life cycle
perspective, may be efficient when economic parameters, i.e., the cost of
waste management processes and the transportation stages, are
considered. DEA results indicate that Scenarios 1, 4, 5, 10 and 11 are
technically efficient end-of-life management options from both an eco­
nomic and environmental point of view, with a cost of end-of-life
treatment processes ranging from 24,893–42,141 €, and a trans­
portation distance for materials/components distribution ranging from
83,886–155,550 tkm.
DEA outputs, which represent the environmental impacts obtained
with LCA, significantly affect the efficiency of the different waste
management treatment procedures. Thermal recycling/pyrolysis
employed for blade composites has adverse environmental impact,
mainly because of the high (fossil fuel generated) energy requirements
of this process. On the other hand, thermal recycling/microwave py­
rolysis of composite materials represent an efficient end-of-life treat­
ment option for wind turbine blades due to the lower energy demand of
the process compared to conventional pyrolysis; refer to the scores of
Scenarios 10 and 9 in Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. DEA efficiency score for the end-of-life scenarios/DMUs under
investigation.
Fig. 10. Transportation demand for the original and virtual DMUs and the
corresponding transportation reduction target.
Furthermore, end-of-life scenarios corresponding to landfill disposal
instead of mechanical recycling for concrete material (found in wind
turbine’s foundation) are technically efficient, mainly due to the high
transportation distances associated with the mechanical recycling of
concrete; compare technical efficiency scores of Scenarios 2, 3, 7 and 8
with those of Scenarios 4, 5, 10 and 11 in Fig. 8. The alternative of
mechanical recycling for foundation concrete exhibits significant envi­
ronmental impacts due to the associated transportation demands. Thus,
mechanical recycling instead of landfill disposal of concrete leads to less
efficient end-of-life scenarios; compare the scores of Scenarios 7 and 10
in Fig. 8.
DEA results suggest that a potential decrease of transportation de­
mand associated with the mechanical recycling of foundation concrete
by 46.7–52.5 % could improve the efficiency of end-of-life options
involving mechanical recycling of foundation concrete. Thus, decision-
makers should promote the operation of dedicated facilities for me­
chanical recycling of concrete material close to wind farm clusters. Such
a policy would encourage the recycling of foundation concrete; there­
fore, it would significantly contribute to the achievement of wind tur­
bine materials circularity.
It is interesting to note that Scenario 1, which is associated with
landfill disposal of all wind turbine materials and components was found
to be technically efficient (refer to Fig. 8). This result is obviously
attributed to its relative lower end-of-life treatment costs and trans­
portation demands compared to alternative scenarios considered.
Obviously, this option is the least sustainable one [46]. Moreover, it is
not expected to be an acceptable one because of the introduction of new
regulations. Landfill of composite wastes has already been banned in
many European Countries, such as Germany, Austria, the Netherlands

8
S. Gennitsaris et al.
and Finland [13].
Reuse or repurposing of composite materials from decommissioned
wind turbines represent, perhaps, the preferred recycling process; refer
to adverse GHG emissions values in Fig. 2. However, the low price of
virgin glass fibers acts as a disincentive for the adoption of composite
materials recycling [81]. According to DEA results, mechanical recy­
cling/grinding of composite materials can be technically efficient, when
it is combined with landfill disposal of concrete material, i.e., Scenario
11. Comparing the results of Scenario 11 for all the three categories of
environmental impact considered (refer to Fig. 2, Fig. 4 and Fig. 6), with
the corresponding ones of Scenario 5 and 10 (which are associated with
repurposing and microwave pyrolysis of blades, respectively) it can be
concluded that mechanical recycling/grinding of blades composite
material has a favorable effect. The feasibility of mechanical recycling/
grinding is verified by the findings of a recent economic study indicating
that mechanical recycling is the only recycling alternative for decom­
missioned wind turbine blades that is currently profitable [81].
Although, mechanical recycling represents a technically mature pro­
cedure for composite waste materials processing at an industrial level,
the quality of recycled composites is quite low because of the high
content of foreign materials. It should be noted that a high percentage of
about 40 % of material waste is generated during the grinding and
sieving processes [13].
In general, the high cost associated with recycling processes presents
a significant handicap for their implementation. An increase of landfill
gate fees for composite materials could certainly make the landfill
disposal option less attractive. However, a key element of a sustainable
action plan for promoting recycling processes, might be to invest in
research and development in order to improve the efficiency of thermal
recycling processes, namely, energy-intensive conventional pyrolysis,
which could certainly reduce the relevant cost [75]. Central government
financial incentives/subsidies could also boost the adoption of the
‘expensive’ conventional pyrolysis technology and improve its techno-
economic feasibility. DEA results indicate that subsidies of the order
10.6–18.7 % could make conventional pyrolysis more competitive.
Besides the financial cost itself associated with recycling processes,
there are also quite a few issues related to market issues and supply
networks that hinder the adoption of recycling as a universal waste
management option for decommissioned wind turbine blades. In
particular, new business models and value chains should be developed
to deal with the absence of a market for recovered materials, as well as,
the lack of expertise in integrating recycled composite materials into
new products [87]. Rentizelas et al. [88] highlight that a barrier-free
movement of waste and recovered materials between countries is the
key element for minimizing the cost of recycled products.
The fact that there is no thermal recycling plant in Greece presents a
serious handicap to the implementation of conventional pyrolysis in the
country as a sustainable alternative to landfill disposal of decom­
missioned wind turbine waste materials and components. In the present
work, it was considered that pyrolysis plants for further processing of the
relevant composite materials are located in Italy. DEA results suggest
that a potential reduction in transportation distance by 10.6–52.5 %,
could improve the efficiency of conventional (and microwave) pyrolysis
related end-of-life scenarios. It is evident, therefore, that policy-makers
should encourage the operation of advanced thermal recycling facilities
in Greece that could also make feasible the application of microwave
pyrolysis at an industrial level. It is believed that a cross-sectoral
approach, where composite waste materials not only from wind farms
but also from manufacturing, aircraft and automotive industries could
be processed in the same plants, should be adopted. Nevertheless, the
financial feasibility of this proposal and the corresponding material
flows, and value chains are topics for future research.
6. Conclusions
The present research work concerns the joint application of LCA and
9
Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951
DEA methodologies in order to evaluate the efficiency of waste man­
agement treatment of all the materials of a decommissioned wind tur­
bine in a novel integrated manner. The proposed approach is applied to
the decommissioning of a representative type of wind turbine, namely,
Vestas V52, which is located in northern Greece. Different end-of-life
treatment scenarios including landfill disposal, mechanical recycling,
advanced thermal recycling (conventional or microwave pyrolysis) and
repurposing, were considered.
The detailed LCA carried out shows that transportation demands
associated with waste management of the concrete material found in
wind turbine’s foundation is the most significant contributor to GHG
emissions and non-renewable (fossil and nuclear) energy consumption.
Recycling of the metallic materials, on the other hand, has a favorable
effect on GHG emissions, land occupation and fossil and nuclear energy
use. Alternatives associated with conventional pyrolysis of blades
composite material are characterized as inefficient. This is mainly
because pyrolysis process is energy intensive, with most of the required
energy generated using conventional fossil fuels. Furthermore, the
transportation stage of the blade composite materials from mechanical
facilities in Greece to pyrolysis plants in Italy are also associated with
adverse environmental impacts, simply because diesel-powered trucks
are considered. On the other hand, repurposing of composite materials
as an alternative to thermal recycling/microwave pyrolysis, could lead
to a significant reduction in fossil and nuclear energy consumption of the
order of 15 %. Finally, thermal recycling/microwave pyrolysis of com­
posite materials instead of landfill disposal could result in significant
improvement of the land occupation indicator by almost 131 %.
The combined application of LCA and DEA identified the relation­
ships between overall technical efficiency scores and various environ­
mental performance indicators (GHG emissions, fossil and nuclear
energy use and land occupation) and cost parameters (cost of waste
management procedures). It was found that end-of-life scenarios asso­
ciated with landfill disposal of concrete material found in wind turbine’s
foundation are the efficient ones. DEA results suggest having facilities
for mechanical recycling of concrete close to wind farm clusters.
Substituting mechanical recycling or microwave–assisted pyrolysis for
composite materials with conventional pyrolysis leads to inefficient
waste management procedures, mainly because of high cost and sig­
nificant energy requirements, and transportation distances associated
with this process. DEA results indicate that investing in research and
development in order to improve the efficiency of advanced thermal
recycling processes, could increase the environmental and cost benefits
associated with material waste that cannot be recycled mechanically.
Nevertheless, in addition to thermal recycling, a circular zero-waste
approach based on remanufacturing, repurposing or waste prevention
through design-for-recycling of existing wind turbine blades, could also
support the transition from a linear to a circular economy framework.
Financial incentives from the Greek government could offset the price
handicap of advanced thermal recycling relative to cost-efficient landfill
disposal practices.
Results of the present work are expected to provide useful informa­
tion to policy-makers for developing appropriate energy and environ­
mental policies that could encourage the implementation of enhanced
waste management approaches in the country. Such approaches include
repurposing, and mechanical and advanced thermal recycling, which
involve lower GHG emissions, lower non-renewable (fossil and nuclear)
energy utilization and lower amounts of waste materials in landfills. The
operation of dedicated facilities for mechanical recycling of foundation
concrete material close to wind farms could contribute to the circularity
of wind turbines. Another possible parameter to be examined in a future
work, which could contribute to the sustainability of wind power in­
dustry, is the economic viability of operating composite recycling fa­
cilities in Greece.
S. Gennitsaris et al.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Stavros Gennitsaris: Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Visualization, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Angeliki Sagani:
Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft.
Stella Sofianopoulou: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – review
& editing, Supervision. Vassilis Dedoussis: Conceptualization, Writing
– review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Centre for Research & Tech­
nology Hellas/Chemical Process and Energy Resources Institute for
providing access to SimaPro 9.4 Software. The constructive and helpful
comments made by anonymous referees are also gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable capacity statistics 2021.
IRENA; 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/
March/Renewable-Capacity-Statistics-2021.
[2] European Commission. Directorate-General for Climate Action. Going climate-
neutral by 2050: a strategic long-term vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive
and climate-neutral EU economy. Publications office 2019. https://data.europa.
eu/doi/10.2834/02074.
[3] European Commission. REPowerEU: Joint European Action for more affordable,
secure and sustainable energy; 2022. [Online]. Available: https://energy.ec.
europa.eu/repowereu-joint-european-action-more-affordable-secure-and-
sustainable-energy_en.
[4] Hellenic Ministry of Environment and Energy. National Energy and Climate Plan.
December; 2019, [Online]. Available: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/
2020-03/el_final_necp_main_en_0.pdf.
[5] Wind Europe. Decommissioning of Onshore Wind Turbines. 2020. [Online].
Available: https://windeurope.org/data-and-analysis/product/decommissioning-
of-onshore-wind-turbines/.
[6] Dolan SL, Heath GA. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility-scale wind
power: systematic review and harmonization. J Ind Ecol 2012;16(Suppl):1. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x.
[7] Nijssen RPL, Brøndsted P. Fatigue as a design driver for composite wind turbine
blades. In: Brøndsted P, Nijssen RPL, editors. Advances in Wind Turbine Blade
Design and Materials, Sawston. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing; 2013.
p. 175–209.
[8] Breeze P. Wind farms, electrical optimization, and repowering. In: Breeze P, editor.
Wind Power Generation. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2016. p. 59–65.
[9] Breeze P. The anatomy of a wind turbine. In: Breeze P, editor. Wind Power
Generation. Cambridge: Academic Press; 2016. p. 19–27.
[10] Andersen N. Wind turbine end-of-life: characterisation of waste material.
University of Gävle 2015.
[11] Ortegon K, Nies LF, Sutherland JW. Preparing for end of service life of wind
turbines. J Clean Prod 2013;39:191–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.08.022.
[12] Andersen N, Eriksson O, Hillman K, Wallhagen M. Wind turbines’ end-of-life:
quantification and characterisation of future waste materials on a national level.
Energies 2016;9(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/en9120999.
[13] WindEurope. Accelerating wind turbine blade circularity. 2020. [Online].
Available: https://windeurope.org/intelligence-platform/product/accelerating-
wind-turbine-blade-circularity/.
[14] Martínez E, Sanz F, Pellegrini S, Jiménez E, Blanco J. Life cycle assessment of a
multi-megawatt wind turbine. Renew Energy 2009;34(3):667–73. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.020.
[15] Tremeac B, Meunier F. Life cycle analysis of 4.5 MW and 250 W wind turbines.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13(8):2104–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2009.01.001.
[16] Zhong ZW, Song B, Loh PE. LCAs of a polycrystalline photovoltaic module and a
wind turbine. Renew Energy 2011;36(8):2227–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2011.01.021.
10
Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951
[17] Schreiber A, Marx J, Zapp P. Comparative life cycle assessment of electricity
generation by different wind turbine types. J Clean Prod 2019;233:561–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2019.06.058.
[18] Tazi N, Kim J, Bouzidi Y, Chatelet E, Liu G. Waste and material flow analysis in the
end-of-life wind energy system. Resour Conserv Recycl 2019;145:199–207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.039.
[19] Kouloumpis V, Sobolewski RA, Yan X. Performance and life cycle assessment of a
small scale vertical axis wind turbine. J Clean Prod 2020;247:119520. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119520.
[20] Beauson J, Brøndsted P. Wind turbine blades: an end of life perspective. In:
Wiesław Ostachowicz ML, McGugan M, SchrRoder-Hinrichs J-U, editors. New
Materials and Reliability in Offshore Wind Turbine Technology, Berlin. Springer;
2016. p. 421–32.
[21] European Commission (DG ENV). Service contract on management of construction
and demolition waste - SR1 - Publications Office of the EU. Paris, Feb. 2011.
Accessed: Nov. 29, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://op.europa.eu/en/
publication-detail/-/publication/0c9ecefc-d07a-492e-a7e1-6d355b16dde4.
[22] Liu K, Zheng J, Dong S, Xie W, Zhang X. Mixture optimization of mechanical,
economical, and environmental objectives for sustainable recycled aggregate
concrete based on machine learning and metaheuristic algorithms. J Build Eng
2023;63:105570. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOBE.2022.105570.
[23] McNeil K, Kang THK. Recycled concrete aggregates: a review. Int J Concr Struct
Mater 2013;7(1):61–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-013-0032-5.
[24] Ohemeng EA, Ekolu SO. Comparative analysis on costs and benefits of producing
natural and recycled concrete aggregates: a South African case study. Case Stud
Constr Mater 2020;13:e00450.
[25] Wang B, Yan L, Fu Q, Kasal B. A comprehensive review on recycled aggregate and
recycled aggregate concrete. Resour Conserv Recycl 2021;171:105565. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2021.105565.
[26] Chen J, Wang J, Ni A. Recycling and reuse of composite materials for wind turbine
blades: an overview. J Reinf Plast Compos 2019;38(12):567–77. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0731684419833470.
[27] van Oudheusden AA. Recycling of composite materials. Delft University of
Technology; 2019.
[28] Wind industry calls for Europe-wide ban on landfilling turbine blades.
WindEurope. Jun. 16, 2021. https://windeurope.org/newsroom/press-releases/w
ind-industry-calls-for-europe-wide-ban-on-landfilling-turbine-blades/(accessed
Nov. 28, 2022).
[29] Lichtenegger G, Rentizelas AA, Trivyza N, Siegl S. Offshore and onshore wind
turbine blade waste material forecast at a regional level in Europe until 2050.
Waste Manag 2020;106:120–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.03.018.
[30] Yazdanbakhsh A, Bank LC, Rieder KA, Tian Y, Chen C. Concrete with discrete
slender elements from mechanically recycled wind turbine blades. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2018;128:11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.005.
[31] Baturkin D, Hisseine OA, Masmoudi R, Tagnit-Hamou A, Massicotte L. Valorization
of recycled FRP materials from wind turbine blades in concrete. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2021;174:105807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105807.
[32] Paulsen EB, Enevoldsen P. A multidisciplinary review of recycling methods for end-
of-life wind turbine blades. Energies 2021;14(14):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en14144247.
[33] Mishnaevsky L. Sustainable end-of-life management of wind turbine blades:
overview of current and coming solutions. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(5):1–26.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14051124.
[34] Joustra J, Flipsen B, Balkenende R. Structural reuse of high end composite
products: a design case study on wind turbine blades. Resour Conserv Recycl 2021;
167:105393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105393.
[35] Nagle AJ, Delaney EL, Bank LC, Leahy PG. A comparative life cycle assessment
between landfilling and co-processing of waste from decommissioned Irish wind
turbine blades. J Clean Prod 2020;277:123321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.123321.
[36] Guezuraga B, Zauner R, Pölz W. Life cycle assessment of two different 2 MW class
wind turbines. Renew Energy 2012;37(1):37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2011.05.008.
[37] Uddin MS, Kumar S. Energy, emissions and environmental impact analysis of wind
turbine using life cycle assessment technique. J Clean Prod 2014;69(2014):153–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.073.
[38] Xue B, et al. A life cycle co-benefits assessment of wind power in China. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41(72):338–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.08.056.
[39] Vargas AV, et al. Performance and life cycle assessment of a small scale vertical
axis wind turbine. J Clean Prod 2015;254(2014):1210–6. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.073.
[40] Vargas AV, Zenón E, Oswald U, Islas JM, Güereca LP, Manzini FL. Life cycle
assessment: a case study of two wind turbines used in Mexico. Appl Therm Eng
2015;75:1210–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2014.10.056.
[41] Xu L, Pang M, Zhang L, Poganietz WR, Marathe SD. Life cycle assessment of
onshore wind power systems in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 2018;132:361–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.06.014.
[42] Bo Xie J, Xun Fu J, Yu Liu S, Sing Hwang W. Assessments of carbon footprint and
energy analysis of three wind farms. J Clean Prod 2020;254:120159. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120159.
[43] ISO 14044. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and
guidelines. International Organization for Standardization; 2006.
[44] Arvesen A, Hertwich EG. Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind
power: a review of present knowledge and research needs. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2012;16(8):5994–6006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.023.
S. Gennitsaris et al.
[45] Mello M, Ferreira Dias G, Robaina M. Evaluation of the environmental impacts
related to the wind farms end-of-life. Energy Rep 2022;8(3):35–40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.egyr.2022.01.024.
[46] Deeney P, et al. End-of-Life alternatives for wind turbine blades: sustainability
Indices based on the UN sustainable development goals. Resour Conserv Recycl
2021;171:105642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105642.
[47] PRé Sustainability. SIMAPRO LCA software.
[48] Sofianopoulou S, Dedoussis V, Konstas K, Kassimis A. Efficiency evaluation of
natural gas power plants using data envelopment analysis. In: IEEM 2009 - IEEE Int
Conf Ind Eng Eng Manag. Vol. 2; 2009. p. 315–9. doi: 10.1109/
IEEM.2009.5373352.
[49] Dedoussis V, Konstas C, Kassimis A, Sofianopoulou S. Efficiency evaluation of
hydroelectric power plants using data envelopment analysis. J Appl Oper Res 2010;
2(2):94–9. https://core.ac.uk/reader/161818320.
[50] Duan N, Guo JP, Xie BC. Is there a difference between the energy and CO2 emission
performance for China’s thermal power industry? A bootstrapped directional
distance function approach. Appl Energy 2016;162:1552–63. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.066.
[51] Korhonen PJ, Luptacik M. Eco-efficiency analysis of power plants: An extension of
data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 2004;154(2):437–46. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00180-2.
[52] Lam CM, Hsu SC, Alvarado V, Li WM. Integrated life-cycle data envelopment
analysis for techno-environmental performance evaluation on sludge-to-energy
systems. Appl Energy 2020;266:114867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.114867.
[53] Mahmoudi R, Emrouznejad A, Khosroshahi H, Khashei M, Rajabi P. Performance
evaluation of thermal power plants considering CO2 emission: a multistage PCA,
clustering, game theory and data envelopment analysis. J Clean Prod 2019;223:
641–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.047.
[54] Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL. A survey of data envelopment analysis in energy and
environmental studies. Eur J Oper Res 2008;189(1):1–18. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ejor.2007.04.042.
[55] Zeng Y, Guo W, Wang H, Zhang F. A two-stage evaluation and optimization method
for renewable energy development based on data envelopment analysis. Appl
Energy 2020;262:114363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114363.
[56] Zhang R, Wei Q, Li A, Ren LY. Measuring efficiency and technology inequality of
China’s electricity generation and transmission system: a new approach of network
Data Envelopment Analysis prospect cross-efficiency models. Energy 2022;246:
123274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123274.
[57] Albores P, Petridis K, Dey PK. Analysing efficiency of waste to energy systems:
using data envelopment analysis in municipal solid waste management. Proc
Environ Sci 2016;35:265–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.007.
[58] Chen HW, Bin Chang N, Chen JC, Tsai SJ. Environmental performance evaluation
of large-scale municipal solid waste incinerators using data envelopment analysis.
Waste Manag 2010;30(7):1371–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2010.02.002.
[59] Gastaldi M, Lombardi GV, Rapposelli A, Romano G. The efficiency of waste sector
in Italy: an application by data envelopment analysis. Environ Clim Technol 2020;
24(3):225–38. https://doi.org/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0099.
[60] Lorenzo-Toja Y, Vázquez-Rowe I, Chenel S, Marín-Navarro D, Moreira MT,
Feijoo G. Eco-efficiency analysis of Spanish WWTPs using the LCA+DEA method.
Water Res 2015;68:651–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.10.040.
[61] Lorenzo-Toja Y, Vázquez-Rowe I, Marín-Navarro D, Crujeiras RM, Moreira MT,
Feijoo G. Dynamic environmental efficiency assessment for wastewater treatment
plants. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2018;23(2):357–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11367-017-1316-9.
[62] Sarra A, Mazzocchitti M, Rapposelli A. Evaluating joint environmental and cost
performance in municipal waste management systems through data envelopment
analysis: scale effects and policy implications. Ecol Indic 2017;73:756–71. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.10.035.
[63] Struk M, Matulová M. The application of two-stage data envelopment analysis on
municipal solid waste management in the Czech Republic. Quant Methods Econ;
2016:349–55. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
310510515.
[64] Hellenic Wind Energy Association. HWEA wind energy statistics; 2022. [Online].
Available: https://eletaen.gr/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-01-28-HWEA-St
atistics-Greece-s2-2021-f.pdf.
11
Applied Energy 339 (2023) 120951
[65] Tota-Maharaj A, McMahon K. Resource and waste quantification scenarios for
wind turbine decommissioning in the United Kingdom. Waste Dispos Sustain
Energy 2021;3:117–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42768-020-00057-6.
[66] Mone C, Hand M, Bolinger M, Rand J, Heimiller D, Ho J. 2015 Cost of wind energy
review; 2017. [Online]. Available: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/
publication/0c9ecefc-d07a-492e-a7e1-6d355b16dde4.
[67] E. Commission. Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives
(Waste Framework Directive). Off J Eur Union, no. 1–28, 2008.
[68] Vestas Wind Systems. V52-850 kW The turbine that goes anywhere. Rel. Tec.
Vestas, p. 6, 2005, [Online]. Available: http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/
report/eiareport/eia_1242006/html/EIA_Report/Annex A3.3.pdf %5Cn.
[69] Vestas. Life cycle assessment of electricity production from an onshore V110-2 MW
wind plant. Vestas Wind Syst. A/S, no. December, p. 129, 2015, [Online].
Available: https://www.vestas.com/~/media/vestas/about/sustainability/pdfs/
lca_v903mw_version_1_1.ashx.
[70] Ecoinvent Database. https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/(accessed Feb.
06, 2023).
[71] Vo Dong PA, Azzaro-Pantel C, Cadene AL. Economic and environmental assessment
of recovery and disposal pathways for CFRP waste management. Resour Conserv
Recycl 2018;133:63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.024.
[72] Yang W, Kim KH, Lee J. Upcycling of decommissioned wind turbine blades through
pyrolysis. J Clean Prod 2022;376:134292. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2022.134292.
[73] Psomopoulos CS, Kalkanis K, Kaminaris S, Ioannidis GC, Pachos P. A review of the
potential for the recovery of wind turbine blade waste materials. Recycl 2019;4(1):
7. https://doi.org/10.3390/RECYCLING4010007.
[74] Rigon MR et al. Suggestion of life cycle impact assessment methodology: selection
criteria for environmental impact categories. In: Petrillo A, De Felice F, editors.
New Frontiers on life cycle assessment - theory and application. IntechOpen; 2019.
[75] Bulle OA, Margni C, Patouillard M, Boulay L, Bourgault AM, De Bruille G, Cao V,
Hauschild V, Henderson M, Humbert A, Kashef-Haghighi S, Kounina S, Laurent A,
Levasseur A, Liad A, Rosenbaum G, Roy RK, Shaked P-O, Fa S. IMPACT World+: a
globally regionalized life cycle impact assessment method. Int J Life Cycle Assess
2019;24:1653–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01583-0.
[76] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision-making
units. Eur J Oper Res 1978;2(6):429–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(79)
90229-7.
[77] Cooper W, Seiford L, Tone K. Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text
with models, applications, references and DEA-solver software. 2nd ed. New York,
NY: Springer; 2007.
[78] Laso J, et al. Assessing energy and environmental efficiency of the Spanish agri-
food system using the LCA/DEA methodology. Energies 2018;11(12). https://doi.
org/10.3390/en11123395.
[79] Bajec P, Tuljak-Suban D. An integrated analytic hierarchy process-Slack based
measure-data envelopment analysis model for evaluating the efficiency of logistics
service providers considering undesirable performance criteria. Sustainability
2019;11(8). doi: 10.3390/su11082330.
[80] Cost to recycle metal/Desert Metal. http://recycletucson.com/cost-recycle-metal/
(accessed Mar. 19, 2022).
[81] Liu P, Meng F, Barlow CY. Wind turbine blade end-of-life options: an economic
comparison. Resour Conserv Recycl 2022;180:106202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2022.106202.
[82] Law 4819/2021 (Government Gazette A’ 129/23.7.2021). Integrated framework
for waste management – transposition of directives 2018/851 and 2018/852 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 2008/
98/EC on waste and Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, FRA.
[83] Hoefer M. Wind turbine blade recycling: an economic decision framework; 2015.
[Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310510515.
[84] Iqbal Ali A, Seiford LM. Translation invariance in data envelopment analysis. Oper
Res Lett 1990;9(6):403–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6377(90)90061-9.
[85] Scheel H. Undesirable outputs in efficiency valuations. Eur J Oper Res 2001;132
(2):400–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00160-0.
[86] Zhu J. DEA Software - DEAFrontierTM Microsoft® Excel Add-In.
[87] Majewski P, Florin N, Jit J, Stewart RA. End-of-life policy considerations for wind
turbine blades. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;164:112538. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.RSER.2022.112538.
[88] Rentizelas A, Trivyza N, Oswald S, Siegl S. Reverse supply network design for
circular economy pathways of wind turbine blades in Europe. 2021;60(6):
1795–814. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2020.1870016.