Search

The wind energy sector faces a persistent challenge in developing sustainable solutions for decommissioned Wind Turbine Blades (WTB). This study utilises Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) to evaluate the gate-to-gate carbon footprint of high-profile disposal and recycling methods, aiming to determine optimal strategies for WTB waste treatment in the UK. While this article analyses the UK as a case study, the findings are applicable to, and intended to inform, recycling strategies for WTB waste globally. Long-term sustainability depends heavily on factors like evolving energy grids and changing WTB waste compositions and these must be considered for robust analysis and development strategy recommendations. In the short to medium term, mechanical recycling of mixed WTB waste is sufficient to minimise Global Warming Potential (GWP) due to the scarcity of carbon fibre in WTB waste streams. Beyond 2040, carbon fibre recycling becomes crucial to reduce GWP. The study emphasises the importance of matching WTB sub-structure material compositions with preferred waste treatment options for the lowest overall impact. Future development should focus on the extraction of carbon fibre reinforced polymer (CFRP) structures in WTB waste streams, commercialising large-scale CFRP structure recycling technologies, establishing supply chains, and validating market routes for secondary carbon fibre products. In parallel, scaling up low-impact options, like mechanical recycling, is vital to minimise WTB waste landfilling. Developing viable applications and cost-effective market routes for mechanical recyclates is necessary to displace virgin glass fibres, while optimising upstream recycling processes based on product requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Breastfeeding is one of the foundations of child health, development and survival. Breastmilk substitutes (BMS) are associated with negative influences on breastfeeding practices and subsequent health concerns and, as with all foods, production and consumption of BMS comes with an environmental cost. The carbon footprint (CFP) of production and consumption of BMS was estimated in this study. To illustrate regional differences among the largest producers and consumers, the CFP of BMS production in New Zealand, United States (USA), Brazil and France and the CFP of BMS consumption in United Kingdom (UK), China, Brazil and Vietnam were assessed. The CFP values were then compared with the CFP of breastfeeding arising from production of the additional food needed for breastfeeding mothers to maintain energy balance (approximately 500 kcal per day). The CFP of production was estimated to be 9.2 ± 1.4, 7.0 ± 1.0, 11 ± 2 and 8.4 ± 1.3 kg CO 2 e per kg BMS in New Zealand, USA, Brazil and France, respectively, with the largest contribution (68–82% of the total) coming from production of raw milk. The CFP of consumption, which included BMS production, emissions from transport, production and in-home sterilisation of bottles, and preparation of BMS, was estimated to be 11 ± 1, 14 ± 2, 14 ± 2 and 11 ± 1 kg CO 2 e per kg BMS in UK, China, Brazil and Vietnam, respectively. Comparison of breastfeeding with feeding BMS showed a lower CFP from breastfeeding in all countries studied. However, the results were sensitive to the method used to allocate emissions from raw milk production on different dairy processing co-products (i.e. BMS, cream, cheese and lactose). Using alternative allocation methods still resulted in lower CFP from breastfeeding, but only slightly for UK, Brazil and Vietnam. Care is also needed when interpreting findings about products that are functionally different as regards child health and development. Highlights • Feeding breastmilk substitutes has a larger carbon footprint than breastfeeding. • Dairy farming contributes most to the carbon footprint of breastmilk substitutes. • Sterilisation of bottles contributes most to consumption phase emissions. • The results are sensitive to the allocation method used for dairy co-products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]