Wind turbine blade transportation challenges
53 comments
·September 13, 2025mjd
JumpCrisscross
> you can't have practical electric lighting without inventing a whole lot of power generation and distribution technology
Didn’t lighting cause power generation and distribution?
ACCount37
Before there was technology for power generation and distribution at scale, "you can use electricity to make light" was a mere curio. Fit to be showcased at fairs, but not something that could be put to practical use.
The first arc lights were made in early 19th century - not long after the invention of voltaic pile made electric power readily obtainable in a lab. But it wasn't until late 19th century that arc lights began to be used as street lights. Why?
Because dynamos and alternators didn't exist in early 19th century. They only became usable for industrial power generation in the late 19th century.
Only when both power generators and arc lights were viable, electric lighting became practical. And electric lighting becoming practical has, in turn, caused electric power to be deployed at an ever-increasing scales, and spurned further investment into electric light, generators and transmission line technology. The invention of incandecent lights fit for household use and the war of the currents were both downstream from better power generation technology.
zdragnar
Sure, but it starts with the impractical version to kick off the other side.
The hearthstone house demonstrated the value of a central power source homes could draw from. The electric lights at the time were not much better than candles in terms of output, but it generated interest enough to get more people on board.
Now, electric lighting is present everywhere, and a practical solution for all but mass agriculture (where the sun remains more efficient).
amflare
You need to be able to distribute power to an area more than once
Kaibeezy
Were we not getting airships for this purpose? The ones with a butt?
A diagram comparing it to the 747s and oil tankers mentioned in the text would have been appreciated.
OK, looked it up. 108m v 72m. Kvikk diagram, pretty much to scale:
, ||
WR ============
‘ ||
, \\
747 ========
‘ //ricksunny
(what is a kvikk diagram - google isn’t helping here)
skyyler
wild guess: a distorted "quick"
Kaibeezy
Brain glitch. I’d just read this - https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20250909-kvikk-lunsj-the-...
eastbound
In height, they have a 24m limit because it’s a common threshold in airports from which special studies must be done. Funny thing: The A380 was 24.1m (its other dimensions also required extra studies, let alone the catering difficulties related to its huge passenger count).
Maybe wind turbines will cause larger planes which will cause an A380 come back ;)
1970-01-01
What is the full lifecycle plan for the turbine? Is this special airplane to land in the same dirt field that's now a housing development? Are they only pairing these megaturbines with airfields? How exactly will a new blade arrive on-site in 2050?
foota
They plan to be able to land the planes in a short distance over rough fields according to the article.
Goronmon
Are they only pairing these megaturbines with airfields?
That seems like the logical solution. Given the complexities involved overall, a step for "don't build over this patch of dirt" seems relatively achievable.
taeric
My grandfather in law used to love discussing the difficulties of transporting giant turbine blades. Always reminded me of the sheer difficulty with large solutions that are often not immediately obvious.
CarVac
Doing some pixel counting suggests a nacelle diameter of approximately 152 inches, which is close to the 155 inches of the A350's Trent XWB or the smaller of the various 777 engines (in particular, not the largest GE90).
mxfh
That diagram is just weird.
At that stage just build symmetrical sets of turbines and fly them wings out in pairs mounted to some host fuselage with wing mounts. Also that's how ornithopters got invented.
Overall some serious Cargolifter vibes.
CarVac
Turbines have lots of wing twist and far thicker roots than is desirable for planes.
And how do you fly it back?
mxfh
The desireable thing here is that they can fly, not that it's optimal.
also you could just drive, lol this thing:
https://mitxela.com/projects/turbine_transport_transformer
the bigger questing is anyway where this could safely land and start, when it's of no need for sea transport to begin with.
Same question remains for that plane. How to do the last miles from the airport. If the route is long enough you can usually find an autobahn and a river wide enough to get 100m blades around.
There seem little use for planes in that size class that doesn't add costs.
comrade1234
Genius idea - use the blades as the wings for the plane. They're close enough in shape. :)
silvestrov
How do you fly back?
xnx
Genius-er idea(?) - use the blades to make a helicopter that flies to the site and drives back.
ReptileMan
with one wing pushing up, the other down it will be a fun flight.
jauntywundrkind
Build two windmills that spin opposite directions.
I wish I could source it, it someone told a story of a contract no one could meet for dropping in either some heavy equipment to a site or maybe windmill parts? It was a small site and it seemed impossible to land them take off... The winning bidder for the contract just landed the plane then abandoned it. Not sure what else you'd do if your blades are your plane!
ortusdux
It's common to abandon mining equipment at the bottom of the mine, or have tunnel boring machines dig their own tomb. The machines are often custom made, and removal would cost more than their EOL value.
https://www.untappedcities.com/the-200-ton-tunnel-boring-mac...
jp57
Finally the use case for the "airship renaissance" I've been hearing about for the last 25 years.
Seriously, some kind of VTOL craft that could deploy the blades directly to the site seems necessary. Then there's ground transport from some airport out into the hinterlands.
Terr_
There's still a problem for generic cargo handling: The moment you start to release the cargo, the now-excessively-buoyant vehicle rises away.
SoftTalker
You tie it down before you unload. You probably also need to load ballast on for the return trip.
serf
seems silly to embrace the design of a plane that is made to move 2 static length blades when even longer blades have been shown to continue the trend of cheaper MW.
the article mentions that 3d printing is a no-go due to the facility needed to print the blade in -- seems like it'd be better to pursue an unfolding container factory with a printer in it and how to transport that thing with conventional craft than to go all-in on a new unproven airframe made for very specific parts.
plus that way the length of the product isn't set in stone, either.
I say this as a total layman -- i'm just taking the articles stated reason for no 3d printing and running with it.
jollyllama
You're gonna build the world's largest airframe from scratch in... (checks notes)... five years?
p1mrx
Sadly, an LLM rejected my idea of building an enormous helicopter drone from wind turbine blades. They can't spin fast enough to generate sufficient lift.
eightysixfour
Alternative, can you make a turbine blade that can be an (inefficient) wing when bolted to a fuselage and engine? Effectively fly the blade there, using it as a lifting surface area.
nielsbot
How do you get your plane back? Or would you just dispose of it like a rocket booster? :)
mxfh
The carrier host fuselage would need huge controls surfaces anyways, could just use them as normal wings when flying for itself with way less drag.
Or just do self mounting Multicopter using the big wing as lift surface for the long haul.
They already use propellers for mounting anyway, its wild out there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1gUm_W1z28
IshKebab
Why is that sad? That's way outside LLM training sets.
p1mrx
It's a fairly straightforward physics question, and Gemini Pro thinks the thrust to weight ratio is too low, by more than an order of magnitude, even before adding the weight of the frame and propulsion system.
tim333
Straightforward physics suggests the lift is a function of how fast you spin them. I'm sure with a fast enough spin you could get enough lift. Maybe rocket engines on the tips?
unfitted2545
Computer says no
alright2565
The big question is why not build the turbines offshore?
The article briefly mentions this, and that the off-shore blades are over twice the length of the blades this airplane is designed for, but it doesn't look at all at the economics of either option.
This reminds me of an excellent series of lectures I once attended about how you can't have practical skyscrapers without inventing the elevator, you can't have practical automobiles without inventing the windshield wiper, and you can't have practical electric lighting without inventing a whole lot of power generation and distribution technology, or efficient vacuum pumps.
Every big invention depends on hundreds or thousands of other ones you don't hear as much about.