Thursday
Jul172014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Ill wind
Jul 17, 2014 Updated 3.15pm 17.7.14.
Here's some encouraging news (except for the installers and the subsidy farmers). TM.
[Two posts amalgamated in error. Last paragraph of this one now deleted. TM.]
Reader Comments (31)
It will make no difference what so ever because politicians want to believe 97% of scientists support current energy policies.
Mailman
Look on the bright (green) side. Wind turbines not only produce electricity, they can also produce heat and light directly.
They produce so much free electricity though. If you don't believe me then see for yourself here:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
The windmills are producing a massive 3% of installed capacity as of 1000 BST.
“Lots of oxygen, in the form of high winds, can quickly fan a fire inside a turbine,” it says. “Once ignited, the chances of fighting the blaze are slim due to the height of the wind turbine and the remote locations they are often in.”
I suggest a large cylinder of carbon dioxide at the bottom, and a pipe up to the top of the tower which will release large quantities of the gas thereby extinguishing the fire.
Why not?
I put this in the Telegraph comments but I'll put it here too:
The fires have sadly killed people too http://eastcountymagazine.org/dual-deaths-wind-turbine-fire-highlight-hazards Two young mechanics, ages 19 and 21, died when a fire broke out in a wind turbine where they were performing routine maintenance. It didn't get much news coverage, if it had been two deaths at Fukushima we would never have heard the end of it.
Allan M: *snigger*
The irony is so rich it hurts!
Headline: Wind turbine fires 'ten times more common than thought', experts warn
Sub Head: Study backed by Imperial College finds wind turbines prone to "catastrophic" fires but the true scale of the problem is unknown
This is poor quality journalism. Look at the two statements above. Which is true?
Question everything and if it confirms a bias question it again.
More renewable than was thought.
Wind turbines are a waste, but this study is just as bad as the Climate Change studies you get. If only the worst 10% of Wind Turbine accidents are reported you cannot say fires are also 90% under reported. Junk Science seems to be endemic today and as usual the Journo's fell hook line and sinker.
A great pic. But if you really want to see how Green the wind blows you want to look at pics of rare earth mining in China. The magnets in turbines contain the rare earth neodymium that makes them about 2* as efficient. Recent posts on Energy Matters, the first by Roger Andrews is short and will likely entertain BH readers. The two posts on Energy and Mankind basically ask "what did fossil fuels ever do for us?"
Renewable Energy Growth in Perspective
Energy and Mankind part 1
Energy and Mankind part 2
I suggest a large cylinder of carbon dioxide at the bottom, and a pipe up to the top of the tower which will release large quantities of the gas thereby extinguishing the fire.
Why not?
Jul 17, 2014 at 10:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterAllan M
Sounds like fighting
fireCO2 withfireCO2.Although the wind industry always claims that no member of the public has been harmed by wind turbines (except via their pockets), it is one of the most dangerous industries as far as the workers are concerned. For example back in Dec 20111, the Telegraph reported:
The death and injury rate per rMWh is horrendous.
Update to Steve Jones at 10.01am:
At midday it has become 0.27GW, or .72%!
mikemUK, Steve Jones
It's worse than we thought only 0.24GW and 0.64% now 12:23. I hope nobody is relying on win to power their Aircon
The encouraging news is that Australia has finally managed to repeal its carbon tax.
mikemUK and SandyS,
Update to your updates, it is now 0.22 GW (.59% of demand and approx. 2.2% of installed capacity). Rather than clog up this blog, and incur the wrath of his holiness, I suggest we take windmill output as now being effectively zero.
Also, well done Australia.
What I find most alarming is in the second paragraph: “The renewable energy industry keeps no record of the number of turbine fires…”
This smacks of either wanton abandon or desperation to conceal, either of which are dire comments on the state of the industry. Whether or not the extrapolated figures are mere hyperbole, you do have to question quite why an industry chooses to ignore recording major incidents, then investigating the causes, and (hopefully) correcting.
The bird munchers are actually up to 0.56% of demand at the moment (13:35). Almost two thirds of a per cent. Great. And things can only get better so that's good too. Wonder how many diesel engines are going to be needed make up the shortfall when first the coal fired stations and then the nukes have gone? But, look on the bright side, someone's bound to make a killing even if the whole country comes to a standstill and freezes its nuts off in winters to come.
Your way out of date, guys.!
Its now 0.56% of (low, midsummer) demand...
SORREE - pressed the button twice - got a bit excited - and apologies to Martin Reed who beat me to it...
Radical Rodent - as not only a retired engineer but an ex-'elf-&-safety' consultant, turbine fires should be considered a 'dangerous occurrence', and therefore reportable to the Health & Safety Inspectorate via form F2508.
This is a legal requirement - the industry is not entitled to fail to report them.
This is the responsibility of the turbine operator.
On the bright side, at 0.56%, bird mortalities are lower.
The death and injury rate per rMWh is horrendous.
Jul 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby
///////////////////////
And this can only get worse in the case of off-shore wind, where working conditions are far more dangerous.
I for one consider that when they find out about the harsh realities associated with the marine environment, the toll that it takes on machinery, the difficulties that it causes to maintenance ect, that it will not be long before it is appreciated that it is not worth repairing/maintaining off shore turbines.
"...when they find out about the harsh realities associated with the marine environment"
Maybe they ought to talk to the offshore oil industry...
@davidchappell, for them to do that it would mean talking to the ungodly and risk being contaminated as a result. It will never happen.
Thank you, Sherlock1, this does make it look as though the turbine operators are engaged in either wilfully ignoring legislation, or dangerous ignorance of legislation. Neither of those options does anything to enhance the reputation of the operators; indeed, they look more like they are being criminally negligent.
Davidchappell:
It does make you wonder quite how deeply the subject was researched.Bishop Hill
Breitbart links to the Telegraph story for the following paragraph, but the Telegraph does not mention '200,000 wind turbines across the world':
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/07/17/Wind-Turbine-Fires-10-Times-More-Common-than-Thought
'According to the Telegraph, Engineers at Imperial College London and the University of Edinburgh found that out of the 200,000 wind turbines across the world, an average of 117 burst into flames each year, many more than the 12 reported by wind farm firms.'
A figure of somewhat over 1 in 2000 puts matters in scale.
It would complete the story to know how many of the 200,000 wind turbines are in Britain -- And how many of the 117 fires.
One commenter on the Imperial College News release says the number of wind turbines is 'about 5000':
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_17-7-2014-8-56-10
'117 fires per year out of 200,000 wind turbines imeans .000585% of wind turbines catch on fire per year. With about 5000 wind turbines in the UK, that means 3 wind turbine fires per year. This is hardly a major cause of wind farm failure.'
He or she does not complete his information by saying what the actual number of wind turbine fires per year in the UK actually is.
It would be helpful to know.
Stephen Prower
Stevenage
"bird mortalities are lower"
And some are ready-cooked...
I don't think the current crop of wind turbines are very well designed. I suspect they don't really have to be.
If they really had to earn revenue solely by generating power, a more reliable design would have evolved by now. But if they only have to *exist* in order for the key players to get paid for them (by governments, the EU etc.) then it doesn't matter if a few fail, or burn down - poor design will continue to be rewarded.
J Calvert. Good point.
The proper name for the so-called wind power industry is
"The Wind Subsidy Harvesting Industry"
Tallbloke is the first to use this term that I am aware of, so credit goes to him.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/07/17/wind-subsidy-harvesting-industrys-reputation-up-in-smoke-10-times-more-fires-than-reported/
Salt water ,rain ,snow, frost erosion all getting in through the heat ventilation ducts and wind turbulence damaging the rotar bearings.
Wind Turbines which are supposed to protect the environment ironically are at the mercy of the environment.
Unlike a conventional power stations you cant put a wind turbine inside a nice big protective concrete building then have to climb up a 500 foot high ladder inside to repair it.