LOW←TECH MAGAZINE English

How to Escape From the Iron Age?

Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0000

Image: Steel rebar construction for the concrete foundation of a wind turbine in Gilliam County, US. Image by Goose Chap, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Trapped in the Iron Age

In 1836, Danish antiquarian and curator Christian Jürgensen Thomsen distinguished three prehistorical eras based on the dominant materials used for weapons and cutting implements: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age.¹ Thomsen’s classification refers to the past, but according to his criteria, we have never evolved beyond the Iron Age. Even in the 21st century, iron remains the dominant material, not just for weapons and cutting implements but for about every modern technology.

We now use most iron in the form of steel. However, according to Thomsen’s criteria, we cannot speak of a “Steel Age.” First, steel is merely an alloy of iron (>98%) and carbon (<2%). Second, humans have been producing steel since the beginning of the Iron Age. That is a little-known fact in the Western world, where steel production only took off in the nineteenth century with fossil fuels. However, Asian and African metallurgists developed high-quality steels much earlier, and this knowledge eventually allowed Europeans to do the same – on a much larger scale.²

By 2021, the global iron and steel output reached 1,950 million tonnes (Mt). That is 22 times larger than the combined aluminum and copper output (88 Mt). The global iron and steel output corresponds to five times the global plastics output (391 Mt) and dwarfs the worldwide production of silicon (8.5 Mt) and lithium (0.1 Mt).³⁴ Steel is the fundamental material of industrial societies. Without plastics, lithium, or silicon, we would still be in an industrial society. Without iron and steel, we would be thrown back 3,000 years into the Bronze Age.

Where is all that steel?

The massive presence of steel in industrial society is not so obvious.⁵ At home, we find several steel appliances such as the refrigerator, washing machine, water boiler, bathtub, and cooking, heating, and cooling appliances. However, only 2-3% of total steel production ends up in domestic appliances.⁶⁷⁸ Outdoors, there’s a lot of steel in the form of vehicles. These are especially passenger cars that use around 10% of all steel globally (20% in rich countries). Busses, trucks, trains, and ships add another 4-5%. Altogether that is still less than 20% of the global steel output.

Most steel is embedded in other materials, located underground, or far away from residential areas.

Most steel is embedded in other materials, located underground, or far away from residential areas. More than half of global steel production goes into construction, which includes buildings (residential, commercial, industrial) and infrastructures (bridges, tunnels, harbors, canals, runways, oil rigs, refineries, pipelines, power plants, transmission lines, railways, subways, and so on). Much of that steel is embedded in concrete. Reinforced concrete is the world’s primary building material, and concrete is the only material that can match the output of steel (1,819 Mt in 2021).

Roughly 15% of global steel production serves to make machinery, including machine tools, industrial equipment, electrical hardware, and construction, mining, and farming machines. Even products made of other materials – such as other metals, plastics, and wood – are shaped by steel tools.⁵ The final 15% of steel production ends up in a variety of objects, from screws over food packaging to furniture and shipping containers.⁶⁷⁸

Image: Reinforced concrete is the world’s primary building material. Hole on Interstate 84, US. Image by Tony George, Oregon Department of Transportation, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).

The environmental footprint of the steel industry

Steel is often presented as one of the most sustainable materials. Unlike plastics, steel can be recycled without any loss in quality. The steel industry has made great advances in energy efficiency, more so than many other industries. Making one ton of crude steel now requires roughly 20 gigajoules (GJ) of primary energy on average – three times less than in 1950.⁹ This compares very favorably to other materials such as aluminum (175 GJ/t), plastics (80-120 GJ/t), or copper (45 GJ/t).⁷ Unlike plastics, steel is a biodegradable material.¹⁰ Finally, iron ore is not in short supply. It makes up 5 percent of the Earth’s crust and is fourth in abundance among the elements.¹¹ For comparison, copper only makes up 0.01%.⁵

However, despite all these advantages, the global iron and steel industry consumes more energy and produces more carbon emissions than any other industry. The total primary energy use of crude steel production was 39 exajoules (EJ) in 2021, which corresponds to 7% of all energy used worldwide in that year (595 EJ). The greenhouse gas emissions are even higher because around 75% of energy use comes from coal – the fuel with the highest carbon emissions. In 2021, the iron and steel industry produced 3.3 Gt of carbon emissions, roughly 9% of global emissions (36.3 Gt).¹² The concrete industry follows closely with 8%.

The iron and steel industry consumes more energy and produces more carbon emissions than any other industry.

The estimates above come from the World Steel Association and the International Energy Agency. These data are available for all metals and have been documented over a long period, allowing for historical comparisons. However, they only refer to the smelting of the metal. They do not include the energy use and carbon emissions for mining and transporting iron ore, coal, limestone, scrap, and steel products. Nor do they include the energy and emissions for coke production and ore preparation – all essential to the steel production process.⁷

Scientific studies that have set wider boundaries for the iron and steel industry conclude that the energy cost of steel production increases by 50% to 100%.¹³ One report concludes that the methane emissions from metallurgical coal mining alone could increase emissions by 27%. Another study estimates that seaborne transport of iron ore and steel adds 10-15% extra emissions.¹⁴¹⁵ Iron and steel production also create other environmental problems, such as high water use, solid waste production, and significant air and water pollution.

The carbon footprint of the iron and steel industry is incompatible with current ambitions to eliminate net carbon emissions by 2050, even less so because steel production is very likely to expand further. Steel production grew tenfold since 1950 and doubled between 2000 and 2020, growing faster than many researchers had predicted.¹⁶ Furthermore, efficiency gains have decreased, and there is a scientific consensus that current technologies have reached their thermodynamic limits.⁷⁹¹⁷ During the last two decades, the average energy use for the production of 1 ton of steel has remained around 20 GJ/t.⁹¹⁸

How to make steel without fossil fuels?

There are two ways to make steel, and one is much more sustainable than the other.¹⁹ On the one hand, there is the blast furnace or basic oxygen furnace, in which steel is made from iron ore and coal. This technology is – in its essential form – 2000 years old. On the other hand, there is the electric arc furnace, in which steel is made from steel scrap and electricity. The electric arc furnace, which is a relatively new technology, consumes much less energy than the blast furnace, makes use of a recycled resource (no need to mine iron ore), and works without the direct use of coal or other fossil fuels (the electricity can be supplied by solar, wind, or atomic power).

The most energy-efficient electric arc furnaces now consume less than 300 kilowatt-hours of electricity per ton of steel produced.⁹²⁰ Hypothetically, if we had produced all steel in 2021 (1,950 Mt) in such furnaces, the total power consumption of the global iron and steel industry would have been only 585 terawatt-hours (Twh). That corresponds to just one-third of all electricity generated by wind turbines worldwide in the same year (1,848 Twh). Unfortunately, more than 70% of global steel output was made in blast furnaces fed by coal and iron ore.⁹²⁰ A blast furnace consumes twenty times more energy and cannot be operated by electricity because coal is both the fuel source and the chemical reductant. The combustion of coal produces carbon monoxide that reduces the iron from its ore.⁷

Not enough scrap available

The solution seems obvious: let’s produce all that steel in electric arc furnaces. However, this is impossible. There’s not enough scrap available: the continuous growth of the global steel output makes a circular flow of resources impossible.²¹ It takes decades before most steel becomes available for recycling. For example, there is 543 Mt of steel stocked in ships.²² The scrap available for recycling in 2021 corresponds to the production level of 1965 when global steel production was less than one-quarter of what it is today (450 Mt).⁹¹⁰¹⁵²³ Consequently, the other three quarters need to be produced in blast furnaces using coal and freshly mined iron ore.

Image: Cars for scrapping at the Port of Cardiff. Gareth James via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 2.0).

Nowadays, China produces roughly half of the steel in the world and does that almost exclusively (+90%) in blast furnaces using coal and iron ore. Many other steelmaking nations have a higher share of electric arc furnaces. However, it makes little sense to point the finger at China. First, the US and Europe have outsourced many of their industries to China since the 2000s, a trend that corresponds neatly with the growing steel output in that country. Furthermore, twenty to forty years ago, China hardly used any steel. Consequently, there is almost no scrap available. China has no other choice than to use blast furnaces.²⁴

Ever higher grades of steel

A second obstacle is the continuous development of higher grades of steel. There are now over 2,500 different types of steel with a variety of properties, such as increased strength, tolerance to high temperatures, or corrosion resistance.⁷⁹²³²⁵ Although these higher quality steels can be produced in electric arc furnaces, they are not made from scrap, and they have much higher energy use.

Steel available for recycling forms a mix of steel grades. That mix is suitable for making plain carbon steel but not highly alloyed steels, which require scrap with similar qualities. However, that scrap is not available. For example, stainless steel, the most produced special steel grade, has a recycling rate of only 15%. Almost 60 Mt of stainless steel was produced in 2021, compared to only 4 Mt in 1980.²⁶ The traditional use of stainless steel was in cutlery, surgical tools, and medical and food processing equipment. However, it is now also used in the construction of tunnels and outdoor furniture, wastewater treatment, seawater desalination, nuclear engineering, and the production of biofuels.⁷

The low recycling rate and the need for the extraction of additional elements such as chrome and nickel make higher grades of steel more energy-intensive to produce. For example, stainless steel production requires almost 80 GJ per ton, four times more than the production of plain carbon steel.⁷²³ The continuous development of higher-grade steels is stimulated by environmental legislation (such as the use of lighter steel in cars) and by competition from other materials, mainly aluminum and plastic composites.⁷⁹²³²⁵ Ironically, the competition with these materials, which consume even more energy, makes steel less and less sustainable.

Steel and renewable energy

The steel industry is heavily dependent on the energy supply, but the energy supply is also heavily dependent on the steel industry. Almost 10% of the global steel output goes into building and maintaining energy supply infrastructure. That amount corresponds to the entire steel output in 1950. A great share of that steel goes to gas and oil infrastructure.²⁷. Oil and gas mining, production, and transportation require steel for offshore drilling platforms, pipelines, refineries, tankers, and storage tanks. Coal mining depends on steel for cutters, loaders, conveyors, excavators, and trucks.⁷

Unfortunately, the planned switch to low-carbon energy sources and the electrification of heating and transport technologies will not decrease our dependency on the steel industry – on the contrary. A low-carbon power grid requires much more steel (and other materials) than an infrastructure based on fossil fuels. Wind and solar power are very diffuse power sources compared to fossil fuels. Therefore, it takes much more materials (and land) to produce the same energy. In jargon, wind and solar have low “power density” or high “material intensity.”²⁸²⁹³⁰³¹³²

A low-carbon power grid requires much more steel than an infrastructure based on fossil fuels.

The “steel intensity” of thermal gas and coal power plants is between 50 and 60 tonnes of steel per megawatt of installed power.³³ Hydroelectric power plants have a lower steel intensity, with 20-30 tonnes of steel per MW.⁷³³ Atomic power’s steel intensity is also lower at between 20 and 40 tonnes of steel per installed MW.³³³⁴ On the other hand, solar PV requires between 40 and 170 tonnes of steel per installed MW.³³³⁵ Although there is little or no steel in the solar panels themselves, it’s the material of choice for the structures that support them.

Steel and wind power

The most steel-intensive power source – by far – is the modern wind turbine. The steel intensity of a wind turbine depends on its size. A single, large wind turbine requires significantly more steel per megawatt of installed power than two smaller wind turbines.³⁶ For example, a 3.6 MW wind turbine with a 100-meter tall tower requires 335 tons of steel (83 tons/MW), while a 5 MW wind turbine with a 150-meter tall tower needs 875 tons of steel (175 tons/MW).³⁷ The trend is towards taller wind turbines and a higher steel intensity.

Image: Steel towers for wind turbines in the port of Rotterdam. Image: Melle Smets.

Steel consumption further increases for offshore wind turbines. Onshore wind power plants rely on reinforced concrete for their foundations, but offshore wind turbines need massive steel structures such as monopiles and jackets.³⁸ The steel intensity for offshore wind turbines is calculated to be around 450 tonnes per MW for a 5 MW turbine – eight times higher than the steel intensity of a thermal power plant.³⁶. As these wind turbines get taller and move into deeper waters, their steel use further increases.

The most popular offshore wind turbine nowadays has a capacity of 7 MW, while the largest ones have a capacity of 14 MW.³⁶ If we make a conservative estimate based on the data above (the steel intensity doubles for every doubling of the power capacity), a 14 MW offshore wind turbine would require 1,300 tons of steel per MW or 18,200 tonnes in total. Such a wind turbine thus consumes 24 times more steel than a coal or gas power plant of the same power capacity.

Shorter life expectancy

The difference between renewable power sources and fossil fuels becomes even larger if the steel intensity is calculated per unit of energy rather than power (MWh instead of MW). In contrast to coal and gas power plants, the output of wind and solar power plants depends on the weather, and they do not always produce their maximum power capacity. Therefore, replacing 1 MW of fossil electricity generation capacity requires the installation of (on average) 4 MW of solar power or 2 MW of wind power.³⁹ A 14 MW offshore wind turbine thus has a steel intensity that is almost 50 times higher than a fossil fuel power plant for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.⁴⁰

A 14 MW offshore wind turbine has a steel intensity that is almost 50 times higher than a fossil fuel power plant for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced.

Solar and wind power plants also have shorter lifetimes (20-30 years) compared to thermal power plants (30-60 years).³¹ While this does not affect the steel intensity per MW of power installed, it again increases the steel intensity per unit of energy produced over time. That does not always lead to a doubling of steel use because foundations for offshore wind turbines and structures for solar panels may have longer lifetimes than the power sources they support and could thus be reused.⁴¹

Power transmission infrastructure

The data above only include the steel used in the power plants themselves. For fossil fuel power plants, they do not include the steel used in the pipelines, oil rigs, coal excavators, and the like. However, the same goes for the low-carbon power sources. Because they need much more resources than thermal power plants (steel but also other metals and materials), they depend on a global mining and transport infrastructure that is just as steel-intensive as the supply chain for fossil fuels.

Furthermore, because they are more diffuse power sources with intermittent and unpredictable power production, often located far away from energy consumption centers, renewable power plants drive the expansion of transmission infrastructure. That infrastructure is also based on steel – from switchyard equipment over towers to conduction cables.²⁸²⁹³⁰³¹³²⁴²

Finally, low-carbon power sources also have a high need for special grades of steel, which are more energy-intensive to produce. Steel for off-shore wind turbines should resist corrosion, and stainless steel is increasingly used for solar panel support structures.⁴³ Electrical lamination steel (iron-silicon) is indispensable for transformers in the power network.⁷ Nuclear power plants may have a relatively low steel intensity but are completely built up of energy-intensive specialty steels. For example, cladding the fuel elements containing fissionable uranium requires zirconium steel, while all structural elements contain austenitic stainless steel.⁷⁴⁴

Low carbon grid cannot be made from recycled steel

The high steel intensity of low carbon power sources confronts us with a so-called “catch-22”, a situation in which there seems to be no escape from a problem no matter what we do. We need much more steel if we replace thermal power plants with renewable ones. Because there is not enough steel scrap available, we can only produce that extra steel from iron ore in blast furnaces burning fossil fuels. To address climate change, we need to build low-carbon sources quickly and in great numbers. However, to achieve circular material flows and build low-carbon power sources from scrap and renewable electricity, we would have to do the opposite: slow down the development of a low-carbon power grid.

Image: Steel foundations for off-shore wind turbines. Image by Glen Wallace, Wikimedia Commons (CC BY 2.0).

A well-cited study from 2013 concluded that if wind and solar power would supply 25,000 Twh of electricity – which corresponds to total global electricity demand in 2021 – we need about 3,200 Mt of steel to build the power plants alone.³³⁴⁵ Global electricity demand is projected to grow to between 52,000 and 71,000 terawatt-hours in 2050, which would increase the extra steel demand to between 6,400 and 8,960 Mt.⁴⁶ Spread out over the lifetime of solar panels and wind turbines (25 years), we would have to produce 256 to 358 Mt extra steel per year to make wind turbines and solar panel structures – comparable to the steel demand for passenger cars (195 Mt) and other transportation modes (98 Mt) combined.

That is still a very optimistic estimation. Electricity demand only makes up around 20% of total energy demand. If the total energy demand (177,000 Twh in 2021) would be supplied by wind and solar, we would need 22,400 Mt of steel. That’s an extra 896 Mt steel per year – as much as the global production in the early 2000s. You could argue that electricity can be used more efficiently than fossil fuels, for example, in cars and heating systems. However, at the same time, total energy demand is expected to rise further, countering the gains made by increased energy efficiency.

The high-tech solutions

The steel industry counts on technological solutions to make steel production carbon neutral. One option is to replace coal by gas, an approach that is already common in the Middle East and North America. Gas-based steelmaking results in somewhat lower carbon emissions, but they are still much higher than in the case of the electric arc furnace. Therefore, most attention goes to hydrogen, which can replace purified coal (coke) as a reducing agent in a direct reduction shaft furnace.⁴⁷ However, hydrogen-based steelmaking does not offer an escape from the catch-22 because it further increases the need for a steel-intensive infrastructure.

The production of hydrogen is energy-intensive. It takes 50-55 kilowatt-hour to make 1 kg of hydrogen and 60 kg of hydrogen to make 1 ton of steel.⁴⁷ The production of 1 ton of steel from hydrogen thus consumes 3,000 kWh of electricity, which is ten times higher than the electricity use of an electric arc furnace making steel from scrap. Consequently, hydrogen-based steelmaking requires roughly ten times more wind turbines and solar panels than scrap-based steel production – and thus ten times more steel. On top of this comes the steel for building the pipelines and storage tanks that are part of the hydrogen infrastructure.

Image: Worker in a blast furnace. Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-F079044-0020 / CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Carbon capture and storage, in which the carbon emissions of steelmaking plants are captured and then stored underground, faces the same problems. It requires a steel infrastructure and extra energy, thus indirectly raising the use of fossil fuels. Reverting to older, preindustrial steelmaking processes is not the answer either. Today’s blast furnace is essentially still the blast furnace from earlier centuries, only much more energy efficient.⁷

The low-tech solutions

The picture painted above seems to offer little hope for carbon-neutral steelmaking and power production. However, there is a low-tech solution that could achieve it. We could adjust steel production to the available scrap supply both in quantity and quality. That would allow us to produce all steel from scrap in electric arc furnaces, dramatically reducing energy consumption and eliminating almost all carbon emissions. Of course, the intent should not be to replace steel with plastic composites and aluminum because they are even more energy-intensive to produce. The only solution is to reduce material use overall.

We could adjust steel production to the available scrap supply both in quantity and quality.

Reducing the steel output and using more common steel grades would not bring us back to the Bronze Age. As noted, global end-of-life ferrous scrap availability was approximately 450 Mt in 2021, which would allow us to produce roughly one-quarter of the current steel output. Furthermore, the scrap supply will continue to rise for the next 40 years, enabling us to produce more and more low-emission steel each year. By 2050, scrap availability is expected to rise to about 900 Mt, almost half of today’s global steel production.⁴⁸ All that extra steel could be invested in expanding the low-carbon power grid without raising emissions first.

There is a lot of room to reduce the steel intensity of modern society. All our basic needs – and more – could be supplied with much less steel involved. For example, we could make cars lighter by making them smaller. That would bring energy savings without the need for energy-intensive high-grade steel. We could replace cars with bicycles and public transportation so that more people share less steel. Such changes would also reduce the need for steel in the road network, the energy infrastructure, and the manufacturing industry. We would need fewer machine tools, shipping containers, and reinforced concrete buildings. Whenever steel intensity is reduced, the advantages cascade throughout the whole system. Preventing corrosion and producing steel more locally from local resources would also reduce energy use and emissions.¹⁰¹⁴

The continuous growth of the steel output – the increasing steel intensity of human society – makes sustainable steel production impossible. No technology can change that because it’s not a technological problem. Like forestry can only be sustainable if the wood demand does not exceed the wood supply, steel is sustainable or not depending on the balance between (scrap) supply and (steel) demand. We may not be able to escape the Iron Age, but we have an option to escape the catch-22 that inextricably links steel production with fossil fuels.⁴⁹

Thomsen, Christian Jürgensen. “Cursory View of the Monuments and Antiquities of the North.” Guide to Northern Archaeology by the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries of Copenhagen (1848): 25-104. See also: Eskildsen, Kasper Risbjerg. “Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788–1865): Comparing Prehistoric Antiquities.” History of Humanities 4.2 (2019): 263-267. And: Briggs, C. Stephen. “From Genesis to Prehistory: the archaeological Three Age System and its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. By Peter Rowley-Conwy. 226mm. Pp xix+ 362, 55 b&w ills. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. ISBN 9780199227747.£ 65 (hbk).” The Antiquaries Journal 88 (2008): 474-478. ↩︎
Forthcoming article, Kris De Decker, Low-tech Magazine. Subscribe to Low-tech Magazine’s newsletter. ↩︎
Idoine, N. E., et al. “World mineral production 2017-21.” (2023). https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/534316/1/WMP_2017_2021_FINAL.pdf ↩︎
Katz-Lavigne, Sarah, Saumya Pandey, and Bert Suykens. “Mapping global sand: extraction, research and policy options.” (2022). https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/1428b3/183490cc.pdf ↩︎
Colás, Rafael, and George E. Totten, eds. Encyclopedia of iron, steel, and their alloys (Online version). CRC Press, 2016. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
https://www.steelonthenet.com/consumption.html. Meanwhile the data on this page have been updated for 2023. ↩︎ ↩︎
Smil, Vaclav. Still the iron age: iron and steel in the modern world. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
“Steel in buildings and infrastructure”, World steel association. https://worldsteel.org/steel-topics/steel-markets/buildings-and-infrastructure/ ↩︎ ↩︎
Conejo, Alberto N., Jean-Pierre Birat, and Abhishek Dutta. “A review of the current environmental challenges of the steel industry and its value chain.” Journal of environmental management 259 (2020): 109782. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Between 25 and 33% of the annual steel production is destroyed once in service by corrosion. See: Iannuzzi, M., and G. S. Frankel. “The carbon footprint of steel corrosion.” npj Materials Degradation 6.1 (2022): 101. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41529-022-00318-1.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
“Iron”, Encyclopedia Britannica ↩︎
The potential of hydrogen for decarbonising steel production. European Parliament: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2020/641552/EPRS_BRI(2020)641552_EN.pdf ↩︎
Lenzen, Manfred, and Christopher Dey. “Truncation error in embodied energy analyses of basic iron and steel products.” Energy 25.6 (2000): 577-585. & Oda, Junichiro, et al. “International comparisons of energy efficiency in power, steel, and cement industries.” Energy Policy 44 (2012): 118-129. Both found in: Smil, Vaclav. Still the iron age: iron and steel in the modern world. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016. ↩︎
“Pedal to the metal”, Caitlin Swalec, Global Energy Monitor, June 2022. https://globalenergymonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/GEM_SteelPlants2022.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎
Yellishetty, Mohan, P. G. Ranjith, and A. Tharumarajah. “Iron ore and steel production trends and material flows in the world: Is this really sustainable?.” Resources, conservation and recycling 54.12 (2010): 1084-1094. ↩︎ ↩︎
See, for example: Hatayama, Hiroki, et al. “Outlook of the world steel cycle based on the stock and flow dynamics.” Environmental science & technology 44.16 (2010): 6457-6463. This paper predicted steel demand to reach 1.8 billion tonnes only by around 2025. ↩︎
De Beer, Jeroen. Potential for industrial energy-efficiency improvement in the long term. Vol. 5. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013. ↩︎
Wang, R. Q., et al. “Energy saving technologies and mass-thermal network optimization for decarbonized iron and steel industry: A review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 274 (2020): 122997. ↩︎
About 5% of global steel is produced by a third method: gas-based direct iron reduction. These furnaces use gas instead of coal and have therefore lower carbon emissions. However, emissions are still much higher than in the case of the electric arc furnace. Gas-based steelmaking mainly happens in the Middle East and North America. ↩︎
He, Kun, and Li Wang. “A review of energy use and energy-efficient technologies for the iron and steel industry.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70 (2017): 1022-1039. This source gives a value of 1-1.5 GJ/ton of crude steel. ↩︎ ↩︎
This also holds true for many other materials. See: “How circular is the circular economy?”, Kris De Decker, Low-tech Magazine, November 2018. https://qelnixcor.cloud/2018/11/how-circular-is-the-circular-economy/ ↩︎
Kong, Xianghui, et al. “Steel stocks and flows of global merchant fleets as material base of international trade from 1980 to 2050.” Global Environmental Change 73 (2022): 102493. ↩︎
ODPADKA, PROIZVODNJA JEKLA IZ JEKLENEGA. “Scrap-based steel production and recycling of steel.” Materiali in tehnologije 34.6 (2000): 387. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
In the West, the expansion of steel use happened over a period of 150 years, in tandem with technological evolution. In contrast, China compressed this technological evolution in just a few decades: shipping and railways, electrification, steel buildings, the car and the airplane, the internet, and renewable power technologies. There are still large parts of the world where the steel intensity of society is very low, such as India and Africa. There is thus still a lot of room for the growth of the steel output. Source: Smil, Vaclav. Still the iron age: iron and steel in the modern world. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016. ↩︎
AHHS Application Guidelines, WorldAutoSteel. ahssinsights.org/news/intro ↩︎ ↩︎
Sverdrup, Harald Ulrik, and Anna Hulda Olafsdottir. “Assessing the long-term global sustainability of the production and supply for stainless steel.” BioPhysical Economics and Resource Quality 4 (2019): 1-29. ↩︎
Conseil, Laplace. “Impacts of energy market developments on the steel industry.” 74th Session of the OECD Steel Committee, Paris, France (2013). Found in: Smil, Vaclav. Still the iron age: iron and steel in the modern world. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016. ↩︎
Deetman, Sebastiaan, et al. “Projected material requirements for the global electricity infrastructure–generation, transmission and storage.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 164 (2021): 105200. ↩︎ ↩︎
How (Not) to Run a Modern Society on Solar and Wind Power Alone, Kris De Decker, Low-tech Magazine, September 2017. https://qelnixcor.cloud/2017/09/how-not-to-run-a-modern-society-on-solar-and-wind-power-alone/ ↩︎ ↩︎
Kleijn, René, et al. “Metal requirements of low-carbon power generation.” Energy 36.9 (2011): 5640-5648. ↩︎ ↩︎
Weißbach, Daniel, et al. “Energy intensities, EROIs (energy returned on invested), and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants.” Energy 52 (2013): 210-221. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Chen, Zhenyang, Rene Kleijn, and Hai Xiang Lin. “Metal requirements for building electrical grid systems of global wind power and utility-scale solar photovoltaic until 2050.” Environmental Science & Technology 57.2 (2022): 1080-1091. ↩︎ ↩︎
Vidal, Olivier, Bruno Goffé, and Nicholas Arndt. “Metals for a low-carbon society.” Nature Geoscience 6.11 (2013): 894-896. The data are in the supplementary info: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1993#Sec5 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
“Energy”, American Iron and Steel Institute. https://www.steel.org/steel-markets/energy/ ↩︎
“Steel is the power behind renewable energy”, Arcelor Mittal. https://constructalia.arcelormittal.com/en/news_center/articles/steel-is-the-power-behind-renewable-energy#:~:text=Steel%3A%20a%20key%20material%20in%20a%20less%20carbon%2Dintensive%20world&text=Without%20steel%2C%20none%20of%20the,Schrijver%2C%20CEO%20of%20ArcelorMittal%20Projects. ↩︎
Topham, Eva, et al. “Recycling offshore wind farms at decommissioning stage.” Energy policy 129 (2019): 698-709. ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Gervásio, Helena, et al. “Comparative life cycle assessment of tubular wind towers and foundations–Part 2: Life cycle analysis.” Engineering structures 74 (2014): 292-299. & Rebelo, Carlos, et al. “Comparative life cycle assessment of tubular wind towers and foundations–Part 1: Structural design.” Engineering structures 74 (2014): 283-291. ↩︎
Assessing the significance of steel to the global wind industry, S&P Global, Commodity Insights. December 2021. https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/ci/research-analysis/assessing-the-significance-of-steel-to-the-global-wind-industry.html ↩︎
Bolson, Natanael, Pedro Prieto, and Tadeusz Patzek. “Capacity factors for electrical power generation from renewable and nonrenewable sources.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119.52 (2022): e2205429119. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205429119 ↩︎
This result corresponds well with Vidal, Olivier, Bruno Goffé, and Nicholas Arndt. “Metals for a low-carbon society.” Nature Geoscience 6.11 (2013): 894-896. The data are in the supplementary info: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1993#Sec5 ↩︎
For off-shore wind turbines, the lifetime of the foundations is estimated to be 100 years, so in principle they could serve for replacement wind turbines of the same size. On the other hand, it is not self-evident that these steel foundations will eventually be recycled. First, only around 10% of decommissioning costs can be recovered by recycling the metal, meaning that it is not economically and perhaps even energetically interesting to do it. Second, in some cass marine life has flourished around the foundations. The four offshore wind farms that had been decomissioned in 2019 lasted for 15, 18, 20 and 26 years. Source: Topham, Eva, et al. “Recycling offshore wind farms at decommissioning stage.” Energy policy 129 (2019): 698-709. ↩︎
See https://www.fedsteel.com/insights/steels-role-in-the-us-power-infrastructure/ ↩︎
See https://industry.arcelormittal.com/products-solutions/Products_in_the_spotlight/magnelis ↩︎
Maziasz, Philip J., and Jeremy T. Busby. Properties of austenitic stainless steels for nuclear reactor applications. Oak Ridge National Lab.(ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), 2012. ↩︎
Part of this has already been built. The researchers start from the solar and wind power production in 2013, which was 400 Twh, while both power sources produced 2,894 Twh in 2021. ↩︎
Electricity consumption worldwide from 2000 to 2022, with a forecast for 2030 and 2050, by scenario. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1426308/electricity-consumption-worldwide-forecast-by-scenario/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20recent%20forecast,on%20the%20energy%20transition%20scenario ↩︎
Bhaskar, Abhinav, et al. “Decarbonizing primary steel production: Techno-economic assessment of a hydrogen based green steel production plant in Norway.” Journal of Cleaner Production 350 (2022): 131339. ↩︎ ↩︎
Scrap use in the steel industry, World Steel Association. May 2021. https://worldsteel.org/wp-content/uploads/Fact-sheet-on-scrap_2021.pdf ↩︎
Another motivation for reducing the steel intensity of modern society is to limit the consequences of geopolitical conflicts. The more steel we produce for peaceful purposes, the more steel becomes available for war and destruction. Remarkably, the production of military equipment is absent from modern steel statistics, and if mentioned, its share is very low. However, in times of war, steelmaking facilities switch to producing steel for military purposes. The steel industry can thus be converted into a weapons industry at any moment, and there is now a lot more steel production capacity available than there has ever been in history. ↩︎

How to Build a Low-tech Solar Panel?

Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0000

George Cove stands next to his third solar array. Source: \"Generating electricity by the sun's rays\", Popular Electricity, Volume 2, nr. 12, April 1910, pp.793.

More efficient, less sustainable

Ever since Bell Labs presented the first practical solar PV panel in the 1950s, technological development has focused on reducing costs and increasing the efficiency of solar cells. According to these standards, researchers have made a lot of progress. The efficiency of solar panels increased from less than 5% in the 1950s to over 20% today, while the costs decreased from 30 dollars per watt-peak in 1980 to less than 0.2 dollars per watt-peak in 2020. Lower costs – to which higher efficiencies contribute – are considered of paramount importance because they allow solar PV panels to compete in the market with electricity generated by fossil fuels.

However, in terms of sustainability, very little progress has been made. To start with, ever since the 1950s, solar panels have been unfit for recycling, resulting in a waste stream that ends up in landfills. This waste stream will grow significantly during the coming years. Solar panels are discarded only after at least 25 to 30 years, and most have been installed only in recent years. By 2050, researchers expect that almost 80 million tonnes of solar panels will reach the end of their lives. ¹ ² ³ That is a significant waste of resources and a danger to the environment – discarded solar PV panels contain toxic elements and present a fire hazard.

The need for capital-intensive technology and long supply lines prevents the local production of solar panels by less affluent societies or DIY communities.

The manufacturing of solar PV panels is just as problematic. It produces toxic waste and requires a global supply chain, including capital-intensive factories, complex machinery, mined materials, and a steady input of fossil fuels. In life cycle analyses of solar panels, scientists calculate how much energy and materials are required to build a solar panel. However, they ignore the massive amount of energy and materials needed to set up and maintain the solar PV supply chain itself. ⁴ ⁵ ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹ ¹⁰ ¹¹ Consequently, these studies do not reveal the actual cost of solar panels in terms of fossil fuel dependence, emissions, and other environmental pollution. Furthermore, the need for capital-intensive technology and long supply lines prevents the local production of solar panels by less affluent societies or DIY communities.

Finding inspiration in the past

Are solar PV panels inherently unsustainable, unrecyclable, and dependent on high-tech and capital-intensive manufacturing processes? Or, is it possible to build them with local, recyclable and less energy-intensive materials and production methods? In other words, can we build low-tech solar panels? And, if so, what would that mean for costs and efficiency?

Before we try to answer this question, it’s important to note that the best low-tech alternative for a high-tech solar panel is often not a low-tech solar panel but direct use of solar energy. That is, putting solar energy to use without converting it to electricity first. For example, a clothesline and a solar thermal water boiler are much more efficient, sustainable, and economical than an electric tumble dryer and a water boiler powered by solar PV panels. Direct use of solar energy can happen with local materials, relatively simple manufacturing technologies, and short supply lines.

Nevertheless, in this article, I take the question literally: can we build low-tech photovoltaic devices, which convert sunlight into electricity? In a previous article, we have seen that history offers inspiration for building more sustainable wind turbines. Can history also inspire us to make more sustainable solar cells?

The prehistory of solar cells

Bell Labs’ solar PV panel, presented in 1954, came not out of nowhere. The silicon solar cell had its roots in less complex devices that could produce electricity from either light or heat.

In 1821, Thomas Seebeck found that an electrical current will flow in a circuit made from two dissimilar metals, with the junctions at different temperatures. This “thermoelectric effect” formed the basis for the “thermoelectric generator” – which converts heat (for example, from a wood stove) directly into electricity. In 1839, Antoine Becquerel discovered that light could also convert into electricity, and during the 1870s, several scientists proved this effect in solids, most notably in selenium. This “photoelectric effect” formed the basis for the “photoelectric generator” – which we now call a “photovoltaic” generator or solar PV cell. In 1883, Charles Fritts constructed the first photovoltaic module ever made, using selenium on a thin layer of gold. ¹² ¹³ ¹⁴

Throughout this period – and until the 1950s – the practical uses of thermoelectric and photoelectric devices were limited. Inventors built many experimental thermoelectric generators, usually powered by a gas flame, but their efficiency did not exceed 1%. Likewise, Charles Fritts’ solar panel, and the selenium solar cells made afterward, obtained just 1-2% efficiency in converting sunlight into electricity. ¹⁵ In short, the period before the 1950s doesn’t seem to offer much inspiration for building more sustainable solar PV panels.

A forgotten pioneer of solar power

However, the prehistory of the solar panel may be incomplete. In 2019, I received a mail from a reader of Low-tech Magazine, Philip Pesavento:

“I have been studying an early pioneer in solar cell technology from the pre-WWI era since the early 1990s. I am getting too old to continue doing anything with this, and even though there have been one or two scholarly articles about Mr. Cove, they have completely missed what he accomplished. I am enclosing a PDF of a PowerPoint that I put together back in 2015 and never presented to anyone. If you are interested in pursuing writing a paper yourself, I could mail you a thumb drive with all the background material that I have collected.”

If Philip Pesavento’s historical account and hypotheses are correct, George Cove set out to build a thermoelectric generator but accidentally made a photovoltaic generator – a PV solar cell. Although this happened in the early 1900s, Cove obtained a comparable power output and efficiency to the Bell Labs scientists in 1954. His design also showed much higher performance than the selenium solar cells built between the 1880s and the 1940s. ¹⁶ Philip Pesavento:

“It would be quite exciting to prove that relatively high-efficiency solar cells were invented 40 years before the development of silicon cells. More importantly, if it turns out there was a solar photovoltaic cell and panel system before World War I, it might also have some advantages concerning the cheapness of raw materials, low embodied energy to convert the ores into metallic materials, the efficiency of the final PV cells, and ease of fabrication.”

In other words, if Philip Pesavento’s historical account and hypotheses are correct, it may be possible to build low-tech solar panels.

George Cove’s solar electric generator

George Cove presented his first “solar electric generator” in 1905 in the Metropole Building in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Apart from an image, there are no data about this panel. ¹⁷ However, its power output and efficiency were remarkable enough for US investors to send an expert to Halifax. Based on this expert’s examination of the machine, they then brought Cove to the US (Sommerville, Mass.) to continue the development of his device.

Cove presented his second solar electric generator there in 1909. This 1.5m2 panel could produce 45 watts of power and was 2.75% efficient in converting solar energy into electricity. By mid-1909, Cove had moved to New York City, where he presented his third prototype, a solar array consisting of four solar panels of 60 watt-peak each, which charged a total of five lead-acid batteries. The total surface area was 4.5 m2, the maximum power output was 240 watts, and efficiency rose to 5% – similar to the first solar panel presented by Bell Labs. ¹⁸

Above: George Cove's first solar panel, demonstrated in 1905. Source: Technical World Magazine 11, nr.4, June 1909.

Above: Cove's second solar panel, with one section missing. Source: Technical World Magazine 11, nr.4, June 1909.

Above: George Cove's third solar panel. Source: \"Harnessing sunlight\", René Homer, Modern Electrics, Vol. II, No.6, September 1909.

Above: George Cove's third solar panel. The panels are now tilted at an angle as opposed to lying flat. Source: Literary Digest 1909, pp. 1153.

Above: One of the solar panels of Cove's third solar array, with the glass cover removed. Source: \"Harnessing sunlight\", René Homer, Modern Electrics, Vol. II, No.6, September 1909.

Although George Cove is absent from most historical accounts of solar power, his solar electric generator impressed some popular tech media of the day. For example, in 1909, Technical World Magazine wrote that “such a machine is cheap and indestructible as a kitchen range. Even in its present and somewhat crude and experimental state, given two days of sun, it will store sufficient electrical energy to light an ordinary house for a week. The inventor has proved this now for months in his establishment”. ¹⁹

Plugs set in asphalt

How did George Cove manage to build a solar panel that was 40 years ahead of its time? According to Philip Pesavento, who has a background in semiconductor engineering, Cove intended to build a better thermoelectric generator (TEG). He exposed his generator to the heat from a wood stove and direct solar energy – Edward Weston had made the first experimental solar thermoelectric generator (or STEG) in 1888. Cove’s intentions are also clear from how he described his device:

“The frame contains a number of panes of violet glass, behind which are set, through an asphalt compound backing, many little metal plugs. One end of the plugs is always exposed by sunlight, while the other end is cool and sheltered.”

Creating the largest possible temperature difference is key to thermoelectric power production, so Cove’s design makes sense. The problem is that when he measured the power output of his generator, it did not respond to heat like a thermo-electric generator was supposed to do. Initially, Cove observes that his invention uses both heat and light to produce electricity when exposed to solar energy:

“The principal part of my invention is the peculiar composition of the metallic plugs which are acted upon by the sun in such a way that the current is generated not only by heat rays but the violet rays as well”.

However, after further experiments with both the wood stove and solar energy, Cove states:

“When the machine is exposed to various sources of artificial heat it gives no electricity whatsoever. Other than the heat rays of the sun (short-wave infrared), perhaps the violet or ultraviolet rays are active in setting up the electrical current”.

The primary cell of Cove’s solar PV panel was a three-inch-long plug or rod of metallic composition, an alloy of several common metals. The 1.5 m2 panel had 976 rods, while the 4.5 m2 array had 4 x 1804 plugs. However, keeping the rods cool on one side and hot on another – separated by an asphalt layer – did not matter. What mattered is that Cove had unknowingly built a metal-semiconductor contact.

The semiconductor bandgap

George Cove did not understand how his solar generator worked, and neither did anyone else at the time. It was only with Einstein’s work on the photoelectric effect (in 1905) and later work in quantum mechanics (1930s and beyond) that the concept of a semiconductor bandgap was realized. Electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom in different “states”, which form regions that are called “bands”. These bands keep their electrons firmly in place. In between these bands are “bandgaps” – states in which no electron can be.

George Cove did not understand how his solar generator worked, and neither did anyone else at the time.

Conductors have no bandgaps, and so electrons flow through them. That is why a copper wire conducts electricity, for example. In insulators (like wood, glass, plastics, or ceramics), there is a very wide bandgap, which blocks the flow of electricity. Finally, in semiconductors, there’s a relatively narrow bandgap. That allows them to either act as an insulator or a conductor. Semiconductors can become conductors when they absorb a “photon” (an elementary particle of light) with an energy potential equal to or greater than the bandgap of the semiconductor material. ²⁰

The understanding of semiconductors led to the birth of the modern solar PV cell in the 1950s. It also improved the performance of thermoelectric generators – be it for different reasons. Thermoelectric generators do not take advantage of the semiconductor bandgap. However, semiconductors have higher thermo-voltages and lower thermal conductivities than metal and metal alloys with no bandgap, making thermoelectric generators more efficient.

The Schottky Junction

For a photovoltaic effect to exist, there must be some inhomogeneity in the system. In the 1950s, Bell Labs scientists managed to do this with the so-called p-n junction, which forms a boundary between a positively charged and a negatively charged semiconductor. P-type semiconductors have electron vacancies called “holes” (which attract electrons), while N-type semiconductors have extra electrons. At the junction between both is an electric potential.

However, it’s also possible to create a PV cell from a so-called Schottky junction, which connects a semiconductor with a metal. In this case, the metal functions as the n-type semiconductor. Philip Pesavento:

“My hypothesis is that George Cove stumbled upon a Schottky contact photovoltaic cell, decades before it was described by Walter Schottky. ²¹ There is the possibility of both photovoltaic (predominantly) and thermoelectric responses from these devices. The plug was an alloy of zinc and antimony – which we now know is a semiconductor. It was alternately capped by German silver (a nickel, copper, and zinc alloy) and copper on opposite ends. This formed an ohmic contact and Schottky contact, respectively. This is a photovoltaic device.”

Accidental discovery

According to Philip Pesavento, George Cove probably started with “German silver” as the negative material on both ends of the plugs, and an antimony-zinc alloy (ZnSb) as the positive material. These were the best available thermoelectric materials at the time:

“He probably ran out of German silver and substituted copper to finish making up a bunch of plugs since the difference in thermoelectric voltage between using copper and German silver was small. Then, during testing, Cove noted that these plugs (with a German silver cap at one end and a copper cap at the other end) gave a much greater voltage: 100s of mV’s versus the usual 10s of mV for a thermoelectric generator.”

What happened? By using copper, Cove had unknowingly built a Schottky junction. That converted his thermoelectric generator into a “thermophotovoltaic generator.” Such a device works the same as a photovoltaic solar cell but on a different wavelength. The solar spectrum covers a range of approximately 0.5 to 2.9 electron-Volts (eV), from infrared to ultraviolet. A semiconductor with a bandgap between 1 and 1.7 eV efficiently converts visible light into electricity (a photovoltaic generator) – while a semiconductor with a bandgap between 0.4 and 0.7 eV efficiently converts short-wave infrared solar energy into electricity (a thermophotovoltaic generator).

Above: This drawing from [Cove's 1906 patent](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bc/bb/50/6683e8b44edd4c/US824684.pdf) shows the zinc-antimony alloy “b”; the german silver (ohmic) end cap “c”; and the copper or tin (Schottky) end cap “f”. All these are press-fit because soldering the connections lowered the efficiency.

We now know that ZnSb – the negative material in Cove’s plugs – is a semiconductor with a bandgap of 0.5 eV. That largely explains why the inventor initially observed that his solar generator converted both heat and light into electricity. A thermophotovoltaic generator matches not only the infrared tail of the solar spectrum – it also matches the direct spectrum of a burning flame or a red hot emitting surface which is heated by burning wood or natural gas. It also converts the lower portion of the visible spectrum into electricity, be it very inefficiently.

According to Philip Pesavento, Cove then managed to refine the composition of the alloy close to Zn4Sb3 – a zinc-antimony alloy with proportions of 4 parts zinc to 6 parts antimony. That, we now know, is also a semiconductor. However, it has a bandgap of 1.2 eV – very close to the bandgap of silicon (1.1 eV). Consequently, it turned his thermophotovoltaic generator into a photovoltaic generator:

“In his enthusiasm, Cove probably made up a larger number of plugs and somehow got the proportions “wrong” on one batch. He then measured an even larger voltage. Finally, he made a careful study of zinc-antimony alloys and found that the 40-42% range zinc alloy gave the highest voltage (compared to 35% zinc in ZnSb). Having – accidentally – discovered Zn4Sb3, the higher bandgap of this semiconductor meant that it no longer worked when it was exposed to the heat from a wood stove. However, it worked even better when it was exposed to solar energy – because it was now converting far more of the visible spectrum of sunlight efficiently into electricity.”

Using colored glass filters, George Cove determined that most of the response was from the violet end of the spectrum and only a little from the so-called heat rays. His earlier PV plugs had responded equally well to heat rays and violet rays, while the older thermoelectric generators (German silver at both sides) did not respond to the violet rays at all.

Bring back the Schottky solar cell?

Schottky junction solar cells have commanded only a small amount of attention from researchers and corporations – few solar cell designs use metals in the active region, other than for contacts. ²² Nevertheless, Philip Pesavento believes that it would be worthwhile to attempt to fabricate some Schottky solar cells according to Cove’s design:

“If it could be demonstrated that Zn4Sb3 (bandgap 1.2 eV) can be used in a photovoltaic cell, there is a good chance that such a solar cell design will be sustainable. It would be a good candidate for a quick EROI and have an acceptably long operational life with a surplus energy output over several decades. It’s astounding that everyone seems to have missed this material and its application to photovoltaic cells and that no development has been done – even after researchers briefly recognized it as being a possible option in the early to mid-1980s. It fits in the category of a premature discovery which should mean it could be developed very quickly in this day and age.”

Apart from solar PV, Philip Pesavento sees potential in thermophotovoltaics for a wood stove, solar thermal, or dual junction tandem applications, using ZnSb instead of Zn4Sb3. Furthermore, if the plug-type solar cells prove to be effective, he believes that they would allow line concentrator solar collectors – such as parabolic troughs or non-imagining CPC concentrators – to be built at greatly reduced costs.

Low-tech manufacturing

The primary advantage of Cove’s design would be its low-tech fabrication method. In the 1970s and 1980s, scientists investigated Zn4Sb3 for use in photovoltaics and concluded that the material’s “obvious advantages are apparent simplicity and relatively low temperature of the preparation procedure.” ²³ The melting point for Zn4Sb3 is 570 degrees Celsius, while it’s 1,400 degrees for silicon.

Researchers studied metal-semiconductor junction solar cells based on other types of semiconductors than Zn4Sb3 in the 1970s. Again, their motivation was the simple and cost-effective fabrication procedure compared to silicon p-n junction solar cells at the time. ²⁴ ²⁵ Schottky cells do not require a high-temperature phosphorus-diffusion step, which ordinarily creates the n-layer of the p-n junction in silicon today. This alone reduces the energy input into the solar cell production process by 35%. ²²

During the 1980s, researchers made important advances in silicon p-n junctions, and interest in alternative configurations waned. However, there has been renewed interest in recent years. For example, research into graphene/silicon Schottky solar cells concludes that “simple and cost-effective device fabrication that does not require high temperatures is one of the advantages.” ²⁶ In other recent studies, scientists conclude that Schottky-type “selenium devices are… extremely simple and cheap to fabricate”. ²⁷ ²⁸ ²⁹ ³⁰

Easier recycling

Another advantage of Schottky solar cells may be easier recycling. Silicon modules are sandwiched between two laminate encapsulant layers (usually EVA, an ethylene/vinyl acetate copolymer). These layers are essential to ensure module service lifetime. ¹ ² ³ To recycle the silicon – the most valuable component of a solar panel – these layers need to be separated, but burning them also destroys the modules. Silicon cells can only be recycled by a combination of thermal, chemical, and metallurgical steps. That is an expensive process with an impact on the environment. Although you can find statements claiming that around 10% of solar panels are “recycled", they are more likely to be “downcycled”. The modules are shredded, and the resulting material is used as a filler material in asphalt and cement industries.

In contrast, the solar cells built by George Cove were entirely recyclable. They required no protective layer and did not even contain solder. Philip Pesavento:

“If you were to build the cells exactly the way Cove did by press-fitting the caps and then overwrapping them with wire to try to keep them tight, they would also be easier to recycle, being strictly a mechanical operation, no chemicals need to be involved. It would be labor-intensive to put them together and take them apart again, but it could be automated, too.”

Pesavento believes that it’s also possible to build flat solar cells from Cove’s material. However, whether or not those would need a protective layer that interferes with recycling remains to be seen. In the 1970s, Schottky solar cells based on other materials did not always need protective layers to reach more than 20 years of life expectancy. ²⁴

Efficiency

If we could build more low-tech solar panels, how efficient could we make them? According to Philip Pesavento, Schottky cells are slightly less efficient for the same materials than p-n junctions because p-n junctions generate a higher voltage – they get more of the energy in the photons they absorb.

“When every bit of efficiency counts, you do that. If making solar cells easier to manufacture using manual or artisan methods is your goal, the Schottky diode would be a more logical choice.”

On the other hand, it may be possible to build Schottky cells thinner than silicon solar cells – and that would increase their efficiency. Philip Pesavento:

“I have not found the specific numbers for the parameters – carrier velocity, recombination lifetime, absorption coefficient – to say this unequivocally. But the fact that Cove made such long skinny cells and got as high efficiencies as he did bodes well for making them thinner.”

Again, recent research into Schottky cells based on other materials seems to confirm this. For example, recent experiments with Schottky selenium cells brought layer thickness back to only 100 µm, compared to between 200 and 500 µm for silicon cells. ²⁷ ³¹ Scientists also reached 17% experimental efficiency for a graphene/silicon Schottky cell, up from 1.5% ten years earlier. ²⁶

We can also question the current obsession with higher efficiencies. Many people will argue that if low-tech solar panels are less efficient, we would need more solar panels to produce the same power output. Consequently, the resources saved by low-tech production methods would be compensated by the extra resources to build more solar panels. However, efficiency is only crucial when we take energy demand for granted, sacrificing some efficiency may gain us a lot in sustainability.

What happened to George Cove?

If Cove’s solar panel was so revolutionary, why is it forgotten? On this question, Philip Pesavento’s research material reads like a crime novel. Cove’s attempt to produce and market his solar energy device failed in mysterious ways.

The inventor became involved with a stock manipulator – Elmer Burlingame – who in 1909 and 1910 issued stock from businesses that were not his, including Cove’s start-up the Sun Electric Generator Company. In October 1909, Cove was allegedly kidnapped, and his life was threatened if he did not cease the development of his solar invention. However, the police dismissed Cove’s kidnapping as a hoax. In 1911, both Cove and Burlingame were arrested for stock fraud and spent a year in jail. Although Cove worked on other inventions after that, none of those were related to solar energy. ³²

In October 1909, Cove was allegedly kidnapped, and his life was threatened if he did not cease the development of his solar invention.

Was George Cove a charlatan? Was he the victim of one? Or was his reputation destroyed because the solar electric generator threatened other companies’ interests? There are many historical examples of suppression of technological innovations by large US corporations. George Cove was active in the same period as the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York, whose unscrupulous practices against competitors are well-documented. If Cove’s solar electric generator worked, it could have reduced the growing demand for Edison’s coal and oil-fired power stations. ³² Earlier, in the 1880s, Edison had bought the company that produced the best thermoelectric generator at the time – Clamonds’s Improved Thermopile – and subsequently stopped the development of the machines. ³³

More Mysteries

However, while it’s tempting to see George Cove as a victim, we can only speculate. Philip Pesavento’s archive material contains more mysteries, such as Cove’s patent – applied for in 1905, granted in 1906. In his patent, the inventor describes the making of his Zn4Sb3 plugs in detail, which helped Pesavento to calculate the power output and efficiency of the solar arrays. However, Cove describes these plugs for converting heat from a wood stove into electricity, which is not compatible with his choice of material. To make the stove generator work, it required ZnSb plugs with a bandgap of 0.5 eV. Philip Pesavento:

“Was this misdirection on the part of Cove to prevent folks from copying his stove patent and getting it to work? I don’t know.”

Even more surprisingly, an image that shows Cove standing beside one of his solar panels also appears in John Perlin’s 2013 historical overview of solar power Let It Shine: The 6,000-Year Story of Solar Energy. However, the solar panel in the image is attributed to Charles Fritts, the inventor of the selenium solar cell. Furthermore, George Cove himself has disappeared from the image. Excerpts from the book, as well as the photo, have appeared on several websites. Philip Pesavento was not surprised when I got back in touch:

“I made this discovery several years ago. I guess that somebody badly needed an image of Fritts’ solar panels, found this image, and then photoshopped George Cove out of it. After all, Cove is totally unknown and when known is thought to have invented a solar thermoelectric generator, not a solar PV panel. If you look closely at the two photos, you can see that the top of the right column portico behind him was cut and pasted to where Cove had been standing, it’s not quite right in its perspective.”

Update: Bellingcat untangled the mystery of the image.

Weckend, Stephanie, Andreas Wade, and Garvin A. Heath. End of life management: solar photovoltaic panels. No. NREL/TP-6A20-73852. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 2016. ↩︎ ↩︎
Xu, Yan, et al. “Global status of recycling waste solar panels: A review.” Waste Management 75 (2018): 450-458. ↩︎ ↩︎
Sica, Daniela, et al. “Management of end-of-life photovoltaic panels as a step towards a circular economy.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018): 2934-2945. ↩︎ ↩︎
Hornborg, Alf, Gustav Cederlöf, and Andreas Roos. “Has Cuba exposed the myth of “free” solar power? Energy, space, and justice.” Environment and planning E: Nature and space 2.4 (2019): 989-1008. ↩︎
Cederlof, Gustav, and Alf Hornborg. “System boundaries as epistemological and ethnographic problems: Assessing energy technology and socio-environmental impact.” Journal of Political Ecology 28.1 (2021): 111-123. ↩︎
Bartie, N. J., et al. “The resources, exergetic and environmental footprint of the silicon photovoltaic circular economy: Assessment and opportunities.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 169 (2021): 105516. ↩︎
Powell, Douglas M., et al. “The capital intensity of photovoltaics manufacturing: barrier to scale and opportunity for innovation.” Energy & Environmental Science 8.12 (2015): 3395-3408. ↩︎
Dehghani, Ehsan, et al. “An environmentally conscious photovoltaic supply chain network design under correlated uncertainty: A case study in Iran.” Journal of Cleaner Production 262 (2020): 121434. ↩︎
Carvalho, Maria, Antoine Dechezleprêtre, and Matthieu Glachant. Understanding the dynamics of global value chains for solar photovoltaic technologies. Vol. 40. WIPO, 2017. ↩︎
Dehghani, Ehsan, et al. “Resilient solar photovoltaic supply chain network design under business-as-usual and hazard uncertainties.” Computers & Chemical Engineering 111 (2018): 288-310. ↩︎
Kumar, Abhishek, et al. “Economic viability analysis of silicon solar cell manufacturing: Al-BSF versus PERC.” Energy Procedia 130 (2017): 43-49. ↩︎
Fritts, Charles E. “On a new form of selenium cell, and some electrical discoveries made by its use.” American Journal of Science 3.156 (1883): 465-472. ↩︎
Effect of Light on Selenium During the Passage of An Electric Current*. Nature 7, 303 (1873). ↩︎
Green, Martin A. “Silicon photovoltaic modules: a brief history of the first 50 years.” Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and applications 13.5 (2005): 447-455. ↩︎
Perlin, John. Let it shine: the 6,000-year story of solar energy. New World Library, 2013. ↩︎
Selenium Cells, Thomas William Benson, 1919. ↩︎
Extrapolating from the performance of the next panel, we can guess that this one had a power output of about 25W and just under 3% efficiency. ↩︎
Cove claimed to have built an even larger panel of 9 m2, but no image has survived. It was said to have had a power output of 768 watt at 8% efficiency assuming 100 W/ft2 solar insolation. This array consisted of 8 panels with a total of 14,432 plugs. ↩︎
Winthrop Packard, Technical World Magazine 11, nr.4, June 1909. ↩︎
Why don’t we use conductors for solar panels? When light hits a conductor surface it mostly reflects, and little or no energy is absorbed. Furthermore, in conductors, the free electrons move randomly, there is no flow of current, no directional capacity. ↩︎
Cove was not the first, though. Charles Fritts’ solar cell was also based on a Schottky junction. ↩︎
Byrnes, Steve. “Schottky junction solar cells.” (2008). ↩︎ ↩︎
Tapiero, M., et al. “Preparation and characterization of Zn4Sb4.” Solar Energy Materials 12.4 (1985): 257-274. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0165163385900516. See also: Mozharivskyj, Yurij, et al. “A promising thermoelectric material: Zn4Sb3 or Zn6-δSb5. Its composition, structure, stability, and polymorphs. Structure and stability of Zn1-δSb.” Chemistry of Materials 16.8 (2004): 1580-1589. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=chem_pubs ↩︎
Rothwarf, A., and K. W. Böer. “Direct conversion of solar energy through photovoltaic cells.” Progress in Solid State Chemistry 10 (1975): 71-102.. ↩︎ ↩︎
Anderson, W. A., A. E. Delahoy, and R. A. Milano. “An 8% efficient layered Schottky‐barrier solar cell.” Journal of Applied Physics 45.9 (1974): 3913-3915. ↩︎
Yavuz, Serdar. Graphene/Silicon Schottky Junction Based Solar Cells. University of California, San Diego, 2018. ↩︎ ↩︎
Todorov, Teodor K., et al. “Ultrathin high band gap solar cells with improved efficiencies from the world’s oldest photovoltaic material.” Nature communications 8.1 (2017): 1-8. ↩︎ ↩︎
Selenium can be deposited by thermal evaporation at only 200°C. This temperature is within easy reach of solar thermal technologies, which means that in principle these processes could be run by direct use of solar energy. ↩︎
Hadar, Ido, et al. “Modern processing and insights on selenium solar cells: the world’s first photovoltaic device.” Advanced Energy Materials 9.16 (2019): 1802766. ↩︎
Ferhati, H., F. Djeffal, and D. Arar. “Above 14% efficiency earth-abundant selenium solar cells by introducing gold nanoparticles and Titanium sub-layer.” Optical Materials 86 (2018): 24-31. ↩︎
Zhu, Menghua, Guangda Niu, and Jiang Tang. “Elemental Se: fundamentals and its optoelectronic applications.” Journal of Materials Chemistry C 7.8 (2019): 2199-2206. ↩︎
More details in “George Cove’s solar energy device”, Dennis Bartels, 1997. ↩︎ ↩︎
Polozine, Alexandre, Susanna Sirotinskaya, and Lírio Schaeffer. “History of development of thermoelectric materials for electric power generation and criteria of their quality.” Materials Research 17 (2014): 1260-1267. ↩︎

How to Make Wind Power Sustainable Again

Sun, 02 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0000

Illustration: Eva Miquel for Low-tech Magazine.

For more than two thousand years, windmills were built from recyclable or reusable materials: wood, stone, brick, canvas, metal. When – electricity producing – wind turbines appeared in the 1880s, the materials didn’t change. It’s only since the arrival of plastic composite blades in the 1980s that wind power has become the source of a toxic waste product that ends up in landfills.

New wood production technology and design makes it possible to build larger wind turbines almost entirely out of wood again – not just the blades, but also the rest of the structure. This would solve the waste issue and make the manufacturing of wind turbines largely independent of fossil fuels and mined materials. A forest planted in between the wind turbines could provide the wood for the next generation of wind turbines.

How Sustainable is a Windmill Blade?

Wind turbines are considered to be a clean and sustainable source of power. However, while they can indeed generate electricity with lower CO2-emissions than fossil fuel power plants, they also produce a lot of waste. This is easily overlooked, because roughly 90% of the mass of a large wind turbine is steel, mainly concentrated in the tower. Steel is commonly recycled and this explains why wind turbines have very short energy payback times – the recycled steel can be used to produce new wind turbine parts, which greatly lowers the energy required during the manufacturing process.

However, wind turbine blades are made from light-weight plastic composite materials, which are voluminous and impossible to recycle. Although the mass of the blades is limited compared to the total mass of a wind turbine, it’s not negligible. For example, one 60 m long fiberglass blade weighs 17 tonnes, meaning that a 5 MW wind turbine produces more than 50 tonnes of plastic composite waste from the blades alone.

Image: A fiberglass reinforced plastic blade. Source: [Gurit](https://www.gurit.com/Our-Business/Industries--Markets/Wind).

A windmill blade typically consists of a combination of epoxy – a petroleum product – with fiberglass reinforcements. The blades also contain sandwiched core materials, such as polyvinyl chloride foam, polyethylene terephtalate foam, balsa wood (intertwined in fibers and epoxy) and polyurethane coatings. ¹²³⁴

Unlike the steel in the tower, the plastic in blades cannot be recycled to make new plastic blades. The material can only be “downcycled”, for instance by shredding it, which damages the fibers and makes them useless for anything but a filler reinforcement in cement or asphalt production. Other methods are being investigated, but they all run into the same problem: nobody wants the “recycled” material. Some architects have re-used windmill blades, for example to build benches or playgrounds. But we cannot build everything out of wind turbine blades.

A 5 MW wind turbine contains more than 50 tonnes of unrecyclable plastic in the blades alone.

Because of the limited options for recycling and re-use, windmill blades are usually landfilled (in the US) or incinerated (in the EU). The latter approach is not less unsustainable, because incinerating the blades only partially reduces the amount of material to be landfilled (60% of the scrap remains as ash) and converts the rest into air pollution. Furthermore, given that fiberglass is incombustible, the caloric value of the blades is so limited that little or no power can be produced. ¹²³⁴

Dealing With Waste – 25 Years Later

Most of the roughly 250,000 wind turbines now in operation worldwide were installed less than 25 years ago, which is their estimated life expectancy. However, the rapid growth of wind power over the last two decades will soon be reflected in a delayed but ever increasing and never-ending supply of waste materials.

For example in Europe, the share of installed wind turbines older than 15 years increases from 12% in 2016 to 28% in 2020. In Germany, Spain and Denmark, their share increases to 41-57%. In 2020 alone, these countries will each have to dispose of 6,000 to 12,000 wind turbine blades. ⁵

Image: Old-fashioned windmills had sails made entirely from recyclable materials. Image: Rasbak (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Discarded blades will not only become more numerous but also larger, reflecting a continuous trend towards ever larger rotor diameters. Wind turbines built 25 years ago had blade lengths of around 15-20 m, while today’s blades reach lengths of 75-80 m or more. ³ Estimates based on current growth figures for wind power have suggested that composite materials from blades worldwide will amount to 330,000 tonnes of waste per year by 2028, and to 418,000 tonnes per year by 2040. ¹

The rapid growth in wind power over the last two decades will soon be reflected in a delayed but ever increasing and never-ending supply of waste materials.

These are conservative estimates, because numerous blade failures have been reported, and because constant development of more efficient blades with higher power generating capacity is resulting in blade replacement well before their estimated lifespan. ¹⁶ Furthermore, this amount of waste results from wind turbines installed between 2005 and 2015, when wind power only supplied a maximum of 4% of global power demand. If wind would supply a more desirable 40% of (current) power demand, there would be three to four million tonnes of waste per year.

Windmill Blades Through History

Yet a look at the history of wind power shows that plastic is not an essential material. The use of wind for mechanical power production dates back to Antiquity, and the first electricity generating windmills – now called wind turbines – were built in the 1880s. However, fiberglass blades only took off in the 1980s. For some two thousand years, windmills of whatever type were entirely recyclable.

The first wind turbines in Europe, built by Paul La Cour in Denmark, had traditional slatted wooden sails. Image: Paul La Cour Museum.

Old-fashioned windmills had towers built out of wood, stone, or brick. Their “blades” or “sails” were usually made of a wood framework covered with canvas or wood boards. In later centuries, parts were increasingly made from iron, also a recyclable material.

When new types of sails were invented in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (such as spring, patent, and rolling-reefer sails), as well as in the twentieth century (Dekkerized and Bilau sails), the design changed but the materials remained the same (eventually including aluminum). ⁷ Furthermore, contrary to modern wind turbines, which need to be replaced regularly and in their entirety, old-fashioned windmills could last for many decades or even centuries through regular repair and maintenance.

A look at the history of wind power shows that plastic is not an essential material.

The first wind turbine in the US, built by Charles F. Brush, had a 17 m diameter annular sail with 144 thin blades made of cedar wood. The first wind turbine in Europe, built by Paul La Cour in Denmark, had four traditional slatted wooden sails with a rotor diameter of 22.8 m.

La Cour’s design was copied by local enterprises in Denmark, resulting in thousands of wind turbines operating on Danish farms between 1900 and 1920. Dozens of experimental wind turbines were built during the first half of the twentieth century, including some with steel blades, such as the 1939 Smith-Putnam wind turbine in the US. ⁸

The three-bladed Gedser wind turbine relied on an air frame superstructure for blade stiffening.

In 1957, Johannes Juul – a student of Paul La Cour – built the three-bladed Gedser wind turbine. It had a rotor diameter of 24 m and relied on an air frame superstructure of steel wires for rotor and blade stiffening. The blades were built from steel spars, with aluminium shells supported by wooden ribs.

The Gedser turbine remained the most successful wind turbine until the mid-1980s. It ran for 11 years without maintenance, generating up to 360,000 kWh per year, but was not repaired when a bearing failed. When the turbine was refurbished and tested in the late 1970s, it performed better than the first wind turbines with fiberglass blades. ⁸⁹

Size Matters

The first wind turbine with fiberglass blades was installed in 1978 in Denmark, where it powered a school. With its 54 m diameter rotor, the Tvind turbine was at the time the largest wind turbine ever built. After 1980, fiberglass blades became standard in Denmark and the “Danish design” was later copied all over the world. The plastic blade, so it seems, is what defines the modern wind turbine. This presents us with a dilemma.

The switch to fiberglass blades was mainly driven by the desire to build larger wind turbines. Larger wind turbines lower the cost per kilowatt-hour of generated electricity, for two reasons: the wind increases with height, and the doubling of the rotor radius increases power output four times.

The desire to build larger wind turbines has driven the wind industry ever since. Rotor diameters increased from around 50 m in the 1990s to 120 m in the 2000s. Today’s largest off-shore wind turbines have rotor diameters of more than 160 m, and a 12 MW turbine with a 220 m rotor diameter is being constructed in the Netherlands. ³⁶¹⁰

Improved windmill blade from the 1940s, built and designed by P.L. Fauel. Image: Rasbak (CC BY-SA 3.0)

However, with increasing size, the mass of the rotor blade also increases, which requires lighter materials. At the same time, larger blades deflect more, so that their structural stiffness is of increasing importance to maintain optimal aerodynamic performance and to avoid the blade hitting the tower. In short, larger wind turbines with longer blades place ever higher demands on the materials used, and these exceed the capacities of recyclable materials. ¹¹¹² Wind turbines have become more efficient, but also less sustainable.

Larger wind turbines with longer blades place ever higher demands on the materials used.

Right now, this trend is illustrated by the increasing use of carbon fiber reinforced plastic, which is even stronger, stiffer and lighter than fiberglass reinforced plastic. ¹¹ The use of carbon fibers – which further complicates potential recycling – has become standard in the largest wind turbine blades, mainly in highly stressed locations such as the blade root or the spar caps. Consequently, we have again entered a new era in which blades are now so large that they cannot be made out of fiberglass reinforced composites alone anymore.

Reinventing the Windmill Blade

An industry that calls itself sustainable and renewable cannot send millions of tonnes of plastic waste to landfills each year. Consequently, could we revert to building wind turbine blades from recyclable materials alone? And how large could we build them? To which extent can efficiency and sustainability be reconciled?

Improved windmill blade from the 1930s, designed by Kurt Bilau. The tower is made of stone, the sails are made of wood and aluminum. Image: Frank Vincentz (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Most research into the design of more sustainable wind turbine blades sticks with plastic as the main material. Thermoplastics can be melted and re-used, making it possible to recycle the blades into new wind turbine blades, even on-site. However, due to the material’s lower strength and stiffness, these blades have not been built larger than 9 m for now. ¹¹³

Another area of development is the substitution of glass fibers for wood or flax fibers. These blades can be larger, but they have only small sustainability advantages over fiberglass-epoxy blades. ¹⁴¹⁵ The petroleum-based epoxy is more harmful than the glass fiber, and natural fiber based composite materials absorb more of it. ¹⁶¹⁷¹²

The length of wood blades is no longer limited by the availability of large tree trunks of consistent quality.

Some engineers and scientists follow different paths and revert to more traditional wood construction. For small wind turbines, blades can be carved out of solid wood. For larger wind turbines, the blades can be composed of a hollow aerodynamic shell and an internal framework of ribs and stringers supported by a beam called the spar – all built from laminated veneer wood boards, beams and panels.

Laminated Veneer Lumber

Laminated veneer lumber – in which the wood is peeled off the tree and then glued back together in thin layers – is a wood product that appeared in the 1980s, and which has an important advantage in relation to solid wood components. The consistency of wood can vary within a single tree. Therefore, the length of the wood spars used in pre-industrial windmills was limited by the availability of large tree trunks of consistent quality. The largest traditional windmill ever built – the 1900 Murphy mill in San Francisco – had a rotor diameter of 35 m.

Patent sails with Dekker leading edges, 1940s. Image: Reboelje.

In contrast, the process of veneering spreads out defects such as knots, giving better and more predictable stiffness properties. This allows to build larger wooden blades. ¹² Wood laminates offer substantial cost and weight reductions as compared to fiberglass. Although the strength and stiffness are lower, much of the load that the blade must support is a consequence of its own weight, so a wood blade doesn’t need to be as strong as a fiberglass blade. ¹² Nevertheless, the low stiffness of wood makes it difficult to limit the elastic deflections for very large rotor blades.

In a 2017 study of a 5 MW wind turbine with 61.5 m long blades, conducted at UMassAmherst in the US, it was calculated that in order to be stiff enough and withstand the forces that it’s exposed to, a blade made of laminated wood veneer panels would be 2.8 heavier than a plastic blade (48 versus 17 tonnes) and have a laminate of over 50 cm thick. ¹² Although this suggests that it’s technically possible to build a wooden blade more than 60 m long, it’s not very practical. With heavier blades, the wind turbine needs to be built much stronger, which increases the costs and the use of resources.

Best of Both Worlds?

There’s two ways to solve this problem. The first is to design a blade largely made from laminated veneer lumber, but reinforced with carbon composite spars and covered with an outer layer of fiberglass composite. In the above mentioned study it was found that such a wood-carbon hybrid blade is stiff enough to reach a length of 61.5 m for a 5 MW turbine, and can be built 3 tonnes lighter than a fiberglass blade. ¹² Another study for a wood-carbon blade of the same length comes to a similar conclusion, although in this case the wood-carbon blade is slightly heavier than the plastic blade. ¹⁴

A blade largely made from laminated veneer lumber, but reinforced with carbon composite spars, can be built more than 60 metres long.

Wood-carbon blades contain less plastic composite material, and the plastic is not intertwined with wood throughout the blade but clearly separated from it, making blade re-use, recycling or incineration more attractive. However, according to the studies mentioned above, a wood-carbon blade still contains 2.5 tonnes ¹⁴ to 6.2 tonnes ¹² of plastic composites, meaning that a three-bladed 5 MW wind turbine would produce 7.5 to 18.4 tonnes of unrecyclable waste – compared to 50 tonnes for a conventional blade.

Smaller Wind Turbines?

The environmental damage of the carbon-epoxy spars can be viewed as acceptable, if compared to the larger damage done by conventional wind turbine blades. However, the waste problem would not be solved, and further growth in wind power would still result in ever larger waste streams.

Image: A laminated wooden blade with carbon spar caps. Source: [^14]

Alternatively, we could define sustainability in more ambitious terms, and build wind turbine blades completely out of wood again – even if this means that we have to build them smaller. There’s an extra argument to question our focus on efficiency: the decrease in sustainability not only shows in the blades. Other parts of wind turbines are also increasingly made from plastic composites – most notably the nose cone and the nacelle cover (the housing that protects the drivetrain and the auxiliary equipment from the elements). ¹²³⁴

Other trends are the increased use of electronics, which are not suited for recycling, and of permanent magnet generators based on rare earth materials, which save costs compared to a mechanical gearbox but only at the expense of more destructive mining. Larger wind turbines also kill more birds and bats. ¹⁸

By sacrificing some efficiency, we could gain a lot in sustainability.

By sacrificing some efficiency, we could gain a lot in sustainability. Wind power advocates may not agree, because it would make wind power less competitive with fossil fuels. However, more expensive wind power can always be counteracted by higher prices for fossil fuels.

What’s really problematic is our choice of cheap fossil fuels as a benchmark to determine the viability of wind power. It’s by aiming to compete with fossil fuels – and thus by aiming to provide the energy for a lifestyle built on fossil fuels – that wind turbines have become increasingly damaging to the environment. If we would reduce energy demand, smaller and less efficient wind turbines would not be a problem.

Image: The first wind turbine in the US, built by Charles F. Brush, had a 17 m diameter annular sail with 144 thin blades made of cedar wood.

How large could we build practical wind turbine blades from laminated veneer lumber alone? Nobody seems to know. I asked Rachel Koh, the scientist who calculated the requirements for the 61.5 m wood-only blade, but she couldn’t help me: “I only ran the model for the blades of a 5 MW turbine. It would be hypothetically possible to run another study to answer your question, but it’s not a small undertaking”. She also notes that it’s possible to further improve the stiffness of wood laminates with manufacturing innovations.

A Forest of Wind Turbines

Whether we opt for large wood-carbon blades or smaller wood-only blades, in both cases we could also build the tower and the nacelle cover from laminated wood products. In 2012, the German company TimberTower built a laminated wood tower 100 m tall for a 1.5 MW wind turbine. A wooden tower seems to be besides the point, because it replaces part of a wind turbine that’s already perfectly recyclable. However, a wind turbine of which the structure is almost completely built out of wood offers extra benefits.

Illustration: Eva Miquel for Low-tech Magazine

Wood could make the production of wind turbines entirely independent of mined materials and of fossil fuels, except for the gearwork and the electric components (but further gains can be achieved, whenever possible, by using wind power for direct mechanical). ¹⁹ Furthermore, wooden wind turbines could become a carbon sink – sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere in their wood components.

Finally, the space between wind turbines on a wind farm, which is not suited as a residential area, could be used to grow a forest that would provide the wood for the next generation of wind turbines. The lumber could be sawed, processed and assembled on-site, which eliminates the energy use associated with the transport of wind turbine parts. The energy required for manufacturing the laminates and for constructing the turbines could come from the windmills, as well as from forest biomass. Especially if blades are made of wood only, the wind turbine could become a textbook example of the circular economy.

What about solar panels?

A forthcoming article investigates the sustainability of solar panels. Is toxic and unrecyclable waste inherent to solar PV power? Could we build solar panels using sustainable materials? And what would that mean for the affordability and efficiency of solar power?

Ramirez-Tejeda, Katerin, David A. Turcotte, and Sarah Pike. “Unsustainable Wind Turbine Blade Disposal Practices in the United States: A Case for Policy Intervention and Technological Innovation.” NEW SOLUTIONS: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy 26.4 (2017): 581-598. http://docs.wind-watch.org/ramireztejeda2016-bladedisposal.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Wilburn, David R. Wind energy in the United States and materials required for the land-based wind turbine industry from 2010 through 2030. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, 2011. https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Jensen, Jonas Pagh. “Evaluating the environmental impacts of recycling wind turbines.” Wind Energy 22.2 (2019): 316-326. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/we.2287 ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Martínez, Eduardo, et al. “Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine.” Renewable energy 34.3 (2009): 667-673. http://communityrenewables.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Life-cycle-analysis-turbines_Renewable-Energy_2009.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Ziegler, Lisa, et al. “Lifetime extension of onshore wind turbines: A review covering Germany, Spain, Denmark, and the UK.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82 (2018): 1261-1271. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117313503 ↩︎
Lefeuvre, Anaële, et al. “Anticipating in-use stocks of carbon fiber reinforced polymers and related waste flows generated by the commercial aeronautical sector until 2050.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 125 (2017): 264-272. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344917301775 ↩︎ ↩︎
De Decker, Kris. “Wind powered factories: history (and future) of industrial windmills.” Low-Tech Magazine. Barcelona (2009). here ↩︎
The Rise of Modern Wind Energy: Wind Power for the World. Pan Stanford Publishing, 2013. https://www.crcpress.com/Wind-Power-for-the-World-The-Rise-of-Modern-Wind-Energy/Maegaard-Krenz-Palz/p/book/9789814364935 ↩︎ ↩︎
Lundsager, P., Sten Tronæs Frandsen, and Carl Jørgen Christensen. “Analysis of data from the Gedser wind turbine 1977-1979.” (1980). http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/33441311/ris_m_2242.pdf ↩︎
Gupta, Ashwani K. “Efficient wind energy conversion: evolution to modern design.” Journal of Energy Resources Technology 137.5 (2015): 051201. http://energyresources.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/article.aspx?articleid=2211540 ↩︎
Brøndsted, Povl, Hans Lilholt, and Aage Lystrup. “Composite materials for wind power turbine blades.” Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 35 (2005): 505-538. http://www-eng.lbl.gov/~shuman/NEXT/MATERIALS&COMPONENTS/Pressure_vessels/FRP_Hutter_flange.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎
Koh, Rachel. “Bio-based Wind Turbine Blades: Renewable Energy Meets Sustainable Materials for Clean, Green Power.” (2017). https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/1102/ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Murray, Robynne, et al. Manufacturing a 9-meter thermoplastic composite wind turbine blade. No. NREL/CP-5000-68615. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States), 2017. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/68615.pdf ↩︎
Borrmann, Rasmus. “Structural design of a wood-CFRP wind turbine blade model.” (2016) https://www.eksh.org/fileadmin/bilder/themen/Energieforschung/02_-Final_Report-_Strcutural_Design_of_a_Wood-CFRP_Wind_Turbine_Blade_Model.pdf ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Spera, David. “Wind Turbine Technology: Fundamental Concepts in Wind Turbine Engineering, Second Edition.” (2009) https://ebooks.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/book.aspx?bookid=271 ↩︎
Corona, Andrea, et al. “Comparative environmental sustainability assessment of bio-based fibre reinforcement materials for wind turbine blades.” Wind Engineering 39.1 (2015): 53-63. http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/129909032/0309_524x_2E39_2E1_2E53.pdf ↩︎
The use of wood for wind turbine construction. Meade Gougeon, NASA. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800008214.pdf ↩︎
Loss, Scott R., Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra. “Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States.” Biological Conservation 168 (2013): 201-209. https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/35192/NZP_Marra_2013-Estimates_of_bird_collision_mortality_at_wind_facilities_in_the_contiguous_United_States.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y ↩︎
De Decker, Kris. “Heat your house with a mechanical windmill.” Low-tech Magazine. Barcelona (2019). here ↩︎