gellfex

Reefs from retired wind turbine blades?

Rate this topic

45 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, cityevader said:

The blades are also filled with balsa, about the least dense wood there is causing floating problems at sea. 

 

 

This is yet another example of "green technology" causing other long term problems. 

 

A bit off topic, but... 

"They" want everything to go electric for "no pollution" yet they don't want coal or nuclear power generation...

 

Plus, only a teeny fraction of automobiles are electric right now. How much more upgrade will be needed for the overall electric grid later? PG&E lines are already under intense scrutiny (especially here in wacko California) without "their" desired vast increase in electric consumption. 

 

I think that "they" feel electric power is some sort of magic perpetual motion machine or something. 


Are you implying that electricity can only come from coal? Because that is so far from the case it's laughable. Coal demand has been plummeting for a long time now in any state with decent infrastructure.

 

 

I'm all for nuclear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I read somewhere that a gas company was creating artificial reefs from scraps of polyethylene gas pipe.

Edited by Slowwwride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 mins ago, MakoMike said:

Who is going to pay for it?

Same place as other artificial reefs. Grant money, fund raising and volunteer labor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 mins ago, z-man said:

Same place as other artificial reefs. Grant money, fund raising and volunteer labor. 

I asked in reference to the disposal of wind turbine blades, which is the subject of this thread. Those blades are far from ideal material to use in building an artificial reef. Why would anyone choose to spend extra money and use a less than desirable material to build a reef?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 mins ago, Slowwwride said:

I read somewhere that a gas company was creating artificial reefs from scraps of polyethylene gas pipe.

 

using the blades to make artificial reefs makes little sense.  Besides the cost, generally speaking plastics (fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc) make poor artificial reefs.  Organisms do not adhere to them the way they do to wood or metal. Fiberglass boats for example make poor artificial reefs in comparison to steel or wood boats.  In addition, they tend not to be heavy enough and they blow around under the water instead of staying put.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 mins ago, Cpalms said:

 

using the blades to make artificial reefs makes little sense.  Besides the cost, generally speaking plastics (fiberglass, carbon fiber, etc) make poor artificial reefs.  Organisms do not adhere to them the way they do to wood or metal. Fiberglass boats for example make poor artificial reefs in comparison to steel or wood boats.  In addition, they tend not to be heavy enough and they blow around under the water instead of staying put.

 

If you google (fiberglass artificial reef) you can see that you are incorrect about organism adhesion on fiberglass reefs. It's been used for decades.  But it does appear that fiberglass boat hull, as well as wooden ones, are no longer accepted for reef programs. https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2005/reefplan05.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MakoMike said:

I asked in reference to the disposal of wind turbine blades, which is the subject of this thread. Those blades are far from ideal material to use in building an artificial reef. Why would anyone choose to spend extra money and use a less than desirable material to build a reef?

Do you have dementia or something. You quoted slowwwride who said “why not dip the ends in concrete footings and sink them”. This was just 2 hours ago. :banghd:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 mins ago, gellfex said:

If you google (fiberglass artificial reef) you can see that you are incorrect about organism adhesion on fiberglass reefs. It's been used for decades.  But it does appear that fiberglass boat hull, as well as wooden ones, are no longer accepted for reef programs. https://www.nj.gov/dep/fgw/pdf/2005/reefplan05.pdf

I never said fiberglass was not used.  Fiberglass hulls are just not nearly as good for artificial reefs building as are wooden or steel hulls for a variety of reasons.

 

They are no longer accepted - as I stated in my post and was cited in your report - fiberglass boats tend to move around on the bottom.  However, nowhere in the report you cited does it have a comparison of materials as to what material facilitates more life.  However any decent bottom fisherman will tell fiberglass wrecks suck as artificial reefs because they only hold a fraction of the life other materials do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, C.Robin said:


Are you implying that electricity can only come from coal? Because that is so far from the case it's laughable. Coal demand has been plummeting for a long time now in any state with decent infrastructure.

 

 

I'm all for nuclear. 

Coal is still the #1 supplier. Disagree all you want, see it first hand every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 mins ago, Cpalms said:

I never said fiberglass was not used.  Fiberglass hulls are just not nearly as good for artificial reefs building as are wooden or steel hulls for a variety of reasons.

 

They are no longer accepted - as I stated in my post and was cited in your report - fiberglass boats tend to move around on the bottom.  However, nowhere in the report you cited does it have a comparison of materials as to what material facilitates more life.  However any decent bottom fisherman will tell fiberglass wrecks suck as artificial reefs because they only hold a fraction of the life other materials do.

While I have no personal experience, the fact that the Japanese have been making artificial reefs from fiberglass since the 50s seems to indicate you're wrong about the material. Could there be another factor about fiberglass boat wrecks? Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gellfex said:

While I have no personal experience, the fact that the Japanese have been making artificial reefs from fiberglass since the 50s seems to indicate you're wrong about the material. Could there be another factor about fiberglass boat wrecks? Sure.

Let me try to make this more simple for you.  Countries all over the world have used fiberglass boats as artificial reefs and probably continue to do so.  The main reason is it is a cheap way to get rid of old boats.  What fisherman all over the world have also recognized is fiberglass reefs do not hold fish like wooden or steel artificial reefs hold fish. Kapish?

 

You google around and choose not to believe it - that doesn't make it any less true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 mins ago, Cpalms said:

Let me try to make this more simple for you.  Countries all over the world have used fiberglass boats as artificial reefs and probably continue to do so.  The main reason is it is a cheap way to get rid of old boats.  What fisherman all over the world have also recognized is fiberglass reefs do not hold fish like wooden or steel artificial reefs hold fish. Kapish?

 

You google around and choose not to believe it - that doesn't make it any less true.

You keep making this claim, yet actual scientists do not support it as far as the material itself, putting aside whether it's a boat or not. This study http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4879e.pdf does note " a greater abundance of benthic species has been recorded on concrete and plywood compared to fiberglass or aluminium", but in it's table of material comparisons does not note a biological difference. And the Japanese, who are no fools, have been doing it for many years. Why don't you come up with an argument more supported than your say so? And as @z-man noted, any reef is better than no reef. If the cost of whatever modifications to the blades needed to sink and stabilize them is less than other reef building, then it does make sense to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 mins ago, gellfex said:

You keep making this claim, yet actual scientists do not support it as far as the material itself, putting aside whether it's a boat or not. This study http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4879e.pdf does note " a greater abundance of benthic species has been recorded on concrete and plywood compared to fiberglass or aluminium", but in it's table of material comparisons does not note a biological difference. And the Japanese, who are no fools, have been doing it for many years. Why don't you come up with an argument more supported than your say so? And as @z-man noted, any reef is better than no reef. If the cost of whatever modifications to the blades needed to sink and stabilize them is less than other reef building, then it does make sense to use them.

Two hours of googling and that's the best you can come up with - benthic species??

 

I could care less if you believe me or not.  Seem like you spend far more time googling than fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, z-man said:

Do you have dementia or something. You quoted slowwwride who said “why not dip the ends in concrete footings and sink them”. This was just 2 hours ago. :banghd:

And I asked who was going to pay for the extra effort to put the ends in concrete. Why would anyone building an artificial reef go through that extra effort/expense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.