Is that trying to tackle the non-problem that was spun up a while ago by oil companies in propaganda pieces like the Landman show on TV?
It's a non-problem. The lifecycle assessment of wind turbines today, which is the accounting for the actual emissions of the lifetime of a wind turbine, factoring in: creation, installation, maintenance, even the disposing of it, was clocked to be offset after 5.3 months of running the turbine (according to this study: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.9b01030 ; and every other one I could find finds the same ballpark)
"Steel is very strong per volume, so steel is a good choice when strength per volume is one of the main constraints. However, wind turbine towers are essentially empty inside so there is room to increase the volume by making the walls thicker. The Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) material in a Modvion tower has higher strength per weight and higher strength per cost than steel alternatives."
Strength per volume versus strength per weight is an interesting trade-off. They're arguing this could let towers get taller.
From what I understood the main ecological issue with wind turbine are more due to the blades than the tower, I wonder if they're doing something on that side.
I never understood why wind turbine towers are built as hollow, tapered cylinders. Isn't the best mass-to-strength ratio acheived with truss/grid type structures, like in construction cranes?
I listened to a podcast titled "Taming the hydrogen hype" [1] that suggests things like nuclear power plants and wind turbines don't follow the same cost reductions as solar and batteries because they can't be fitted in a shipping container:
> So, most industrial things have big economies of scale, right? There's this imaginary world where, "Oh, I'm going to shrink down the cost, but the cost per unit is also going to go down." That requires magical thinking. It requires making it so small that you can make it in a factory and ship it in a shipping container.
Based on what I read on the site the turbine components can be transported using normal lorries. However, it would be interested to know:
1. If they can be shrunk even further and be transported in a container.
There has been lots and lots and lots of attempts to replace steel with wood in construction. These attempts have gone nowhere. So what is to say that this time it will be different? If wood is so good for tall construction why isn't it already used in skyscrapers?
Only 10% of the energy used to make windmills is in the steel part. 90% is in the concrete foot.
I love the wooden windmills please keep building them, but they look very expensive and labor intensive to make and reducing the energy it takes to make them is actually pretty easy.
Although I don't know why you'd want to reduce it on windmills specifically and not focus on low hanging fruit first.
Seems a bit randomly linked on the "energy transition" node, even though windmill production is not really high on the "energy wasters" list.
It makes it appear like you are working with something exotic.
And actually, when you compare it to other materials, carboniferous foam is pretty amazing stuff, it's combination of highly workable, low density, high strength, is tricky to replicate in more engineered stuff.
One of my most downvoted comments in HN was simply asking if the construction of a wind turbine ever offsets the CO2 to produce it... tons of diesel to mine raw materials, coal to smelt steel, manufacture, transport, installation, and then theres the question: what do you do with giant used carbon fiber blades (besides burying them, generating tons of waste: https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-...) Alas, even bringing this very valid science question generates sneers online and in previous comments there's already comments stating consipiracy theories about oil companies.
What we would probably discover is nothing is actually carbon negative, some are just less worse than others. I'd like to know the actual answers so we can affect real change, rather than just clinging to our crystals.
Huh?! I don't see this as a viable challenge to the extant business model and they never reveal the numbers, let alone a basic model, behind their "net-zero" marketing claim.
They also still haven't solved the main issue of non-modular turbine blade transport and assembly. Modular and stepped blades are the next frontier. Not tower construction.
Quite frankly, the tower is trivial.
The cost of the tower construction and materials is a small percentage of the initial blade, transmission, and generator assembly costs and on-going maintenance. Even the lubrication flow sensors and lubricants are highly specialized for the unusual duty-cycles and variable loading of a wind turbine.
I think this is modern Nordic engineering in a nutshell: Some of the smartest people you can find working on some of the dumbest projects you can think of.
For any of you wondering why would anybody do this, the full explanation is in the site footer: "This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 959151."
Tallest Wooden Wind Turbine
(modvion.com)186 points by Bluestein 19 May 2025 | 139 comments
Comments
Is that trying to tackle the non-problem that was spun up a while ago by oil companies in propaganda pieces like the Landman show on TV?
It's a non-problem. The lifecycle assessment of wind turbines today, which is the accounting for the actual emissions of the lifetime of a wind turbine, factoring in: creation, installation, maintenance, even the disposing of it, was clocked to be offset after 5.3 months of running the turbine (according to this study: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.9b01030 ; and every other one I could find finds the same ballpark)
Strength per volume versus strength per weight is an interesting trade-off. They're arguing this could let towers get taller.
I would have assumed of course that wind turbines are net negative emissions, even factoring in the construction and materials.
Do they mean net-zero in materials and construction alone? Because that sounds impossible.
> So, most industrial things have big economies of scale, right? There's this imaginary world where, "Oh, I'm going to shrink down the cost, but the cost per unit is also going to go down." That requires magical thinking. It requires making it so small that you can make it in a factory and ship it in a shipping container.
Based on what I read on the site the turbine components can be transported using normal lorries. However, it would be interested to know:
1. If they can be shrunk even further and be transported in a container.
2. Would this help reduce costs.
1. https://open.substack.com/pub/davidroberts/p/taming-the-hydr...
I love the wooden windmills please keep building them, but they look very expensive and labor intensive to make and reducing the energy it takes to make them is actually pretty easy.
Although I don't know why you'd want to reduce it on windmills specifically and not focus on low hanging fruit first.
Seems a bit randomly linked on the "energy transition" node, even though windmill production is not really high on the "energy wasters" list.
It makes it appear like you are working with something exotic.
And actually, when you compare it to other materials, carboniferous foam is pretty amazing stuff, it's combination of highly workable, low density, high strength, is tricky to replicate in more engineered stuff.
What we would probably discover is nothing is actually carbon negative, some are just less worse than others. I'd like to know the actual answers so we can affect real change, rather than just clinging to our crystals.
They also still haven't solved the main issue of non-modular turbine blade transport and assembly. Modular and stepped blades are the next frontier. Not tower construction.
Quite frankly, the tower is trivial.
The cost of the tower construction and materials is a small percentage of the initial blade, transmission, and generator assembly costs and on-going maintenance. Even the lubrication flow sensors and lubricants are highly specialized for the unusual duty-cycles and variable loading of a wind turbine.
For any of you wondering why would anybody do this, the full explanation is in the site footer: "This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Grant Agreement No. 959151."