Windmill Abrasion Contaminates the Environment, New Study Shows

If you thought that illegally dumping decommissioned windmills is bad for the environment, read up on what 'normal' use does--the contamination of everything with toxic crap

Today’s posting constitutes a brief follow-up to my occasional pieces about the negative health and environmental impacts of windmills. For the most recent essay, incl. links to highly relevant content from late July and early August 2024, please see this:

'Green' Companies Caught Illegally Dumping Hazardous Waste in Czechia

Today, though, we’ll check out a paper by Daria Bedulina and colleagues with a very telling title, namely ‘Effect of particles from wind turbine blades erosion on blue mussels Mytilus edulis’, which appeared in Science of The Total Environment, vol. 957 (20 Dec. 2024), 177509. The paper is available in Open Access (i.e., without any subscription barriers) and you can read it in its entirety by clicking on the link above.

Offshore Windmill Particles Poison Marine Life

Here is the paper’s abstract (with emphases and [snark] added):

Offshore wind farms (OWFs) pose new anthropogenic pressures on the marine environment as the erosion of turbine blades release organic and inorganic substances with potential consequences for marine life. In the present study, possible effects of the released particles and their chemical constituents on the metabolic profile of the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis [Wikipedia entry; note that they are ‘subject to commercial use and intensive aquaculture’ and ‘a species with a large range…around the world’], were investigated, utilizing ¹H NMR spectroscopy. In the lab, mussels were exposed for 7 and 14 days to different concentrations (10 and 40 mg L⁻¹) of microplastic (MP) particles which were derived from cryo-milled rotor blade coatings and core materials (glass fiber polymer, GFP). Raman imaging techniques revealed that 30–40 % of the coating and GFP particles had MP sizes below 5 μm, with the majority (∼98 %) being ≤50 μm. Despite the identified enrichment factors (EF) for metals and metalloids from the rotor blade materials, especially Ba, Cu, Cd, Cr and Ni with EFs between 0.93 and 6.1, untargeted metabolic profiling of the entire soft body tissues of M. edulis showed no significant metabolic disruption, regardless of the particle concentration [that is, in a lab setting and for mussels—which are eaten by many other species, incl. humans—and guess what: we shouldn’t be ingesting Barium (‘never found in nature as a free element’), Cadmium (‘used as a component of control rods in nuclear fission reactors’), Chrome, or Nickel]. Observed trends in elevated concentrations of metabolites may indicate a possible short-term effect on mussels’ neuroendocrine system and a possible long-term effect on energy metabolism [oh, would you look at that: these windmill components may disrupt mussels’ neuroendocrine system: would comparable effects befall those who eat mussels?]. Experimental worst-case scenario of massive abrasion and the minimal response observed in M. edulis under the conditions tested suggest that erosion caused by wind turbine blades may pose little to no risk to bivalves at this stage. However, it is important to note that this study is only a preliminary step and further studies are needed to obtain a comprehensive overview of the issue before reaching a definite firm conclusion regarding the potential threat of OWFs abrasion to the marine environment, particularly considering the planned future extension of windpark construction in connection with the ongoing EU-wide energy transition.

Basically, what the authors are saying is that the toxic materials we use to make windmills are, well, shall we call it ‘highly problematic’?

Here’s what friend-of-these-pages Peter F. Mayer (who holds a doctorate in physics) wrote over at TKP.at:

It is important to bear in mind that the rotor blades reach speeds of up to 400 km/h. Onshore wind turbines are available with diameters of 138 to 175 metres, offshore turbines with even larger diameters in some cases. This results in circumferences of 430 to 550 metres for each rotation of the rotor ends. Even in slightly stronger winds, they only need 3 to 5 seconds for one rotation and they can achieve speeds of around 110 m/sec, which is 396 km/h. If the blade hits insects, water droplets, grains of sand, hail or other obstacles in the way at this speed, it damages the surfaces and causes abrasion [i.e., this is how they are working as intended].

If the wind turbines are installed in fields, the crops growing there are contaminated and if they are installed in forests and meadows, the farm animals and wildlife living there are contaminated. Offshore turbines poison marine life. There is now a growing body of evidence of this.

And now for the study’s findings:

Calculated EF [enrichment factors] varied between 0.41 and 6.0, showing minor to severe enrichments in the mussels. Here, it becomes evident that all elements except for Mn and Cu showed EF > 1 (for at least one of the three tested mussel samples, mean values are shown in S3, Table 1). This indicates possible intake of the particles or their additives (S3, Table 1). Most striking EFs were determined for Al, Ba and Cr (EF > 2) indicating moderate to severe elemental intake [remember: Aluminium is not a natural element and it shouldn’t be ingested]…

Analyses of the metabolic profiles obtained in the entire soft body tissue of M. edulis did not reveal any statistically significant treatment-induced changes, irrespective of particle concentration [note that their lab-based study ran for 14 days, i.e., there’s no way of knowing what the long-term effects of ingesting these particles are; I also doubt the ‘irrespective of particle concentration’ aspect, but then again, there’s no data past day 14…]…

Despite no statistical significance, variability and average intensity of many metabolites was higher in mussels exposed to all types of studied MP in comparison to seawater controls [who would’ve thought that…] (Fig. 4, B). Specifically, it was visible for the metabolic profiles obtained in mussels exposed to clay and GFP particles for 7 days and coating particles for 14 days. The highest fold-change was observed for sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [FDA says it’s ‘generally recognized as safe’, via Wikipedia; see also Cayman Chemicals], lactate [the conjugate base of lactic acid, via Wikipedia], tryptophane [necessary for us, also ‘a precursor to the neurotransmitter serotonin, the hormone melatonin, and vitamin B3’], inosine [Wikipedia], alanine [Wikipedia] and 4-aminobutyrate [‘ the chief inhibitory neurotransmitter in the developmentally mature mammalian central nervous system. Its principal role is reducing neuronal excitability throughout the nervous system’, says Wikipedia]. Besides, a trend toward an increase in succinate concentration was detected in particle-treated mussels after 14 days of exposure, irrespective of material (Fig. 4, C) [succinate, by contrast, is highly relevant for cellular metabolic health and ‘dysregulation of succinate synthesis, and therefore ATP synthesis, happens in some genetic mitochondrial diseases, such as Leigh syndrome, and Melas syndrome, and degradation can lead to pathological conditions, such as malignant transformation, inflammation and tissue injury’—that’s supremely bad as it means: causes genetic problems, may cause cancer, autoimmune problems, and a whole host of other issues].

From the Paper’s Discussion

Chemical analytics of windmill particles composition and uptake of elements by mussels

And this, dear readers, is the most concerning part of this paper (and this is also why I kept the linked content):

Topcoats used for OWFs [offshore wind farms] typically contain a polymer matrix with binders, pigments, fillers and extenders, along with different solvents, and additives (Mishnaevsky Jr et al., 2017) [you don’t want to ingest any of them, not even ‘secondarily’ via your diet]. In this study, matte weathering-resistant polyurethane topcoats found on wind turbine rotor blades were tested. According to the material safety data sheet, the repair-kit for this coating includes n-butyl acetate [a ‘colorless, flammable liquid…used as an industrial solvent’], mica [‘used in products such as drywalls, paints, and fillers, especially in parts for automobiles, roofing, and in electronics’], titanium dioxide [widely used, also as food additive (E 171) and in sunscreens], silicon dioxide (amorphous) [‘a common fundamental constituent of glass’], 1 bis (1,2,2,6,6-pentamethyl-4-piperidyl sebacate [an ‘irritant’ and a ‘environmental hazard’], xylene [a ‘colorless, flammable, slightly greasy liquid of great industrial value’] and 3-aminopropyltriethoxysilane [this one is particularly problematic—says Wikipedia: ‘APTES is a toxic compound with an MSDS health hazard score of 3. APTES fumes are destructive to the mucous membranes and the upper respiratory tract, and should be used in a fume hood with gloves. If a fume hood is not available, a face shield and full face respirator must be implemented. The target organs of APTES are nerves, liver and kidney.’]. The information about studied GFP material was not available, however, these materials typically represent glass fiber-reinforced epoxy resins [bon appetit, I suppose]. ATR-FTIR analysis confirmed the presence of polyurethane and alkyd-chains in coating material (signals of urethane groups) and epoxy binders in both materials. Epoxy resin-based coatings are known to release toxic compounds (like bisphenol A and 4-tert-butylphenol [‘A European Union risk assessment report into the molecule dated May 2006 suggested it had potential depigmenting properties and was a potential endocrine disruptor.’]), causing estrogenic effects and toxicity to various organisms (Bell et al., 2021; Vermeirssen et al., 2017) into aquatic environments. Ecotoxicity of polyurethane products is not well studied; however, it is proven that polyurethane can leach various toxic substances into water, posing environmental risks (Corapi et al., 2023; Lithner et al., 2009). Glass fibers, used to produce GFP for the windmill blades, are mainly composed of silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide with other oxides present in small quantities to increase the strength (Dathu and Hariharan, 2020)…

The highest mass fraction in the coating material was demonstrated for Ba [Barium] (1530 ± 180 mg kg⁻¹). Even though the barium sulfate was not included in the material safety data sheet, the material is commonly used in the windmill blade coatings as a filler and pigment (Benin et al., 2022). Moderately high mass fractions were found for Cr (95 ± 12 mg kg⁻¹) [Chrome] in coating materials.

Bon appetit, eh?

What about the implications here?

Mussels are well known for their ability to accumulate metals from food and surrounding water, that is why they are commonly used in monitoring programs like Mussel Watch (Goldberg et al., 1978; Rainbow and Phillips, 1993; Stankovic and Jovic, 2012)…

Most striking EFs [enrichment factors] were determined for Al, Ba and Cr (EF > 2), indicating moderate to severe elemental intake. Aluminum can be toxic for bivalves at high concentrations, causing genotoxic effects, oxidative stress and affecting reproduction (Mao et al., 2011) [i.e., affects DNA, normal functioning, and reproduction—what can go wrong with wind parks?]…

In bivalves that were sampled in- and outside of offshore wind farms (OWFs), Wang et al. (2023) found significant changes in gill metabolites such as increased levels of epinephrine, sulphaniline, and inosine 5′-monophosphate and lower levels of l-carnitine in animals from OWF areas. The field study suggests that the physiology of bivalves is affected by OWFs, as the animals showed an inflammatory response and appeared to have increased energy requirements and oxidation/detoxification capacities (Wang et al., 2023)…

It is also important to consider that the results of the present study may be related to particle sorting and rapid excretion through the digestive system. Mussels, like other bivalves, have the ability to sort particles based on their properties such as size, shape, nutritional properties and chemical surface composition and can also reject specific particles (Rosa et al., 2013; Baroja et al., 2021)…Huang et al. (2021) observed an increasing MP accumulation with increasing exposure time [not done here] in the digestive tract of mussels exposed to 2 μm MP particles, further studies are useful to clarify this aspect…no differentiation was done between different tissue types (digestive tract, gills) in the present study, no precise localization of the particles within the organism can thus be determined.

What a laundry list of limitations (not so labelled, though), but it’s an important pilot study, with follow-up enquiries planned and/or already underway.

From the study’s conclusion:

It is crucial to consider the potential environmental consequences of OWFs, specifically the erosion of rotor blades, which can result in unintended side effects such as enhanced plastic pollution of the oceans and effects on the marine ecosystem. In the present study, an experimental worst-case scenario of massive abrasion was investigated…Mussels exposed to blade coatings and core (GFP) particles showed moderate to severe intake of metals, in particular barium and chromium with high enrichment factors of >2. Some trends of elevated metabolite concentrations may indicate a possible short-term effect on mussels’ neuroendocrine system (sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine and 4-aminobutyrate), and amino acid metabolism (tryptophane, alanine) as well as a possible long-term effect on energy metabolism (lactate, succinate)…results indicate a potential threat to the ecosystem functioning within the wind park area [how one would restrict this contamination to the ‘wind park area’ I cannot understand] (as blue mussels are the ecological engineers in the epibenthic ecosystem [i.e., quite low on the food chain]), as well as a possible impact on the human health (due to the commercial use of blue mussels for human consumption).

What a bummer, eh? Care from some more seafood, anyone?

Forever Chemicals also Found in Wildlife

Peter F. Mayer also pointed to a press release by the German State Investigation Office (Landesuntersuchungsanstalt) of Rhineland-Palatinate whose officials, tasked with such an enquiry by the Federal Environment (sic) Ministry, found the following (as per their press release from August 2024):

‘Forever chemicals’ PFAS: Wild Boar Liver Heavily Contaminated

Due to general environmental pollution, the livers of wild boar are highly contaminated with perfluorinated and polyfluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS)—also in Rhineland-Palatinate. This is shown by studies commissioned by the Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Energy and Mobility. Due to the health risks, the State Investigation Office strongly advises against eating the liver of wild boar; marketing and further processing in other products is prohibited. Wild boar meat, on the other hand, is harmless to health with regard to PFAS [no evidence cited].

A total of 60 samples of wild boar shot in Rhineland-Palatinate (30 samples of meat and 30 samples of the associated liver) were analysed for PFAS in an external laboratory. The results show that all wild boar livers significantly exceeded the maximum PFAS values as effective throughout the EU since 1 January 2023. The PFAS levels for the compounds PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid), PFNA (perfluorononanoic acid) and PFHxS (perfluorohexanesulfonic acid) in the 30 wild boar liver samples were between 98 micrograms per kilogram (µg/kg) and 738 µg/kg; the mean value was 310 µg/kg. The maximum level that may not be exceeded under food law is 50 µg/kg for wild boar liver.

For those so inclined, here is the underlying ‘Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023 on maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (Text with EEA relevance)’.

Do also see ‘Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety’.

Both ‘regulations™’ are referenced by the State Investigation Office.

If you now think, well, what does it matter if the liver (and presumably other inner organs) are contaminated, well, these innards are often used as delicacies and in sausages or the like.

Hence, the State Investigation Office concludes in the following way:

Furthermore, for health reasons, the consumption of wild boar liver should also be avoided in hunters’ private households.

Problem is, though, that these ‘forever chemicals’ do bio-accumulate not ‘merely’ in the liver, but, as I’ve explained in a recent posting about, of all things, PFAS and ‘personal care products’, or cosmetics:

PFAS have been associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, including liver disease, adverse cardiometabolic and cardiovascular health, and various cancers (Bassler et al., 2019, Hall and Braun 2023, Meneguzzi et al., 2021, Steenland and Winquist, 2021). When exposed during pregnancy, PFAS may also contribute to adverse offspring health, including decreased birth weight, preterm birth, some neurodevelopmental disorders, and diminished vaccine response [oh, look at that: do PFAS induce pre-partum autoimmune disease?] in children (Gao et al., 2021, Gui et al., 2022, Hall and Braun 2023, Ho et al., 2022, Jeddi et al., 2022, Lee et al., 2021, Liu et al., 2024, Qi et al., 2020, Steenland and Winquist, 2021, Zhang et al., 2022). These health effects in offspring are in part due to the transplacental and lactational transfer of PFAS, facilitating exposure during gestation and infancy, respectively (Bloom et al., 2022, LaKind et al., 2022b).

Hence, I recommend reading up on these considerations here:

Personal Care Products, Pregnancy, and 'Forever Chemicals'

Bottom Lines

One of the core problems with these ‘forever chemicals’ is that they can be replaced in most cases, although not in all. Hence, while there are currently efforts underway to ban them, there will be exemptions:

EU Mulls Banning 'Forever Chemicals' in 2025

As regards the problem of environmental contamination, incl. wildlife and humans, well, here’s my estimate:

A significantly watered down ‘ban™’ will be announced later this year or the like, which will contain several exemptions for ‘relevant’ or otherwise ‘impractical-to-replace’ applications of such hazardous and highly toxic materials.

If I were a betting man, I’d think that ‘green™’ energy stuff, such as wind mills, will receive such an exemption.

That partial/imperfect ban, however, will be used by politicos™, experts™, and journos™ alike to denounce everyone who still raises a fuss as ‘PFAS ban deniers’ or the like.

And thus the great poisoning continues.