Recycled Wind Turbines Could Be Made into Plexiglass, Diapers or Gummy Bears

A new resin can hold fiberglass wind turbines together for years and then be recycled into valuable products, making green energy even greener

Person walking through wind farm in desert

The blades of a wind turbine are typically designed to be replaced about every 20 years. This means that, as wind energy becomes more popular, more and more of these hulking fiberglass structures will be discarded, and many of them could end up buried in the ground. To encourage recycling the blades instead, one research team has developed a binding resin—the ingredient that holds their fibrous material together—that can be transformed into more valuable substances.

“We’ve specifically designed a system with the end of life in mind,” says John Dorgan, a professor of chemical engineering and materials science at Michigan State University, who worked on developing the new resin. After being used for years to strengthen wind turbine blades or other structures, the resin can be recycled back into another turbine blade or downcycled into a composite material that can be used to make plastic products. It can also be processed to produce more valuable chemicals: these upcycled options include the shatter-resistant acrylic plexiglass, a superabsorbent polymer used in diapers and the food preservative potassium lactate—which Dorgan used to make gummy bears that he then ate.

Wind turbine blades are typically 170 feet long, roughly the length of an Olympic-sized swimming pool. But because bigger turbines can capture more energy, some offshore wind farms are investing in taller installations that can sport blades nearly twice as long. When these massive blades are damaged or reach the end of their lifetime, they must be retired from use. By 2050, experts estimate that more than two million tons of blade material could be decommissioned each year.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


There are two main obstacles to recycling these structures. “To start with is just the fact that they’re very large, and they’re meant to be very durable—to last in the weather for 20 or more years. So they’re just a hard thing to disassemble and move around,” explains Aubryn Cooperman, a wind energy analyst at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, who was not involved in the new resin’s development. Another problem “is that they’re made from materials that are as low-cost as possible [that will] still get the performance you need.” For maximum efficiency, wind turbine blades must be both light and strong, so engineers typically craft them from fiberglass bonded together with a polymer resin. In theory, this material can be recycled, but researchers say the resulting product is not particularly valuable. “The main problem is: it’s simply uneconomic to do it,” Dorgan says. “It’s cheaper to just bury it in the ground than it is to reprocess it into something useful.”

To solve this problem, recycling wind turbine blades must become easier and more profitable. Several companies in the renewable energy industry—including Siemens Gamesa, General Electric and Vestas—are working on this issue, Cooperman says. “Anything that makes it easy to recycle, that makes it less costly to recycle, increases the chances of more recycling happening,” she notes.

Dorgan and his colleagues decided to develop a new polymer resin that could bind a large fiberglass structure firmly together while it is in use and that could be turned into a variety of products when the time comes to retire the blade. The team produced a syrupy resin by dissolving polylactide, a polymer derived from plants, in a synthetic monomer called methyl methacrylate (MMA). Next, the researchers used vacuum pressure to pull the resin through glass fibers. After the fibers had been impregnated with the liquid, the resin hardened, producing solid fiberglass panels. The same process can be used to make larger structures, including wind turbine blades and boat hulls. The team presented the work this week at a meeting of the American Chemical Society.

When the time came to recycle their experimental fiberglass panels, the researchers had a few options. In one, they could crush up the panels and add an additional polymer, producing a plastic material that could be transformed into other objects through injection molding. This short-fiber composite might become the basis of computer housings or other objects but would not be particularly valuable, Dorgan says. Another option was to make strong new panels from the remains of the old ones: the team soaked the panels in the MMA monomer, which dissolved the hardened resin—then the researchers physically removed the glass fibers. The recovered “syrup” was used to make fresh fiberglass panels, which had the same physical properties as the originals.

But the leftover resin also has other potential uses. “What would really drive recycling of wind turbines is if you could turn them into something that’s worth more money or by using it to [make high-value] products out of it,” Dorgan says. For instance, putting the recovered resin through different chemical reactions allowed the team to extract new compounds. One substance produced this way was polymethyl methacrylate, an acrylic polymer better known as plexiglass. This transparent, shatter-proof substance is valued as an alternative to glass in a vast variety of goods, ranging from windows to car headlights. Cooking the resin at a high temperature produced poly(methacrylic acid), a superabsorbent material used in diapers and other products. A little more processing resulted in potassium lactate, which is added to a variety of foods as a preservative. Although Dorgan did use it to make his own version of gummy bears, he does not necessarily see homemade candy as the primary way to improve the recyclability of wind turbine blades. His goal is to encourage recycling by changing attitudes.

“I’m trying to push the boundaries of how people think about recycling,” he explains. “It’s about creating additional options and getting people to think about ‘What really are the limits on recycling?’ And as far as I know, nobody’s ever reprocessed a durable composite material into something that can be eaten.”

Sophie Bushwick was formerly the technology editor at Scientific American. She makes frequent appearances on radio shows such as Science Friday and television networks, including CBS, MSNBC and National Geographic. She has more than a decade of experience as a science journalist based in New York City and previously worked at outlets such as Popular Science,Discover and Gizmodo. Follow Bushwick on X (formerly Twitter) @sophiebushwick

More by Sophie Bushwick

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe