Radical Rodent, I bow to your greater knowledge of the perils of HALON,! My recollection is based on why they were the best thing evah, and why the best thing evah had to be removed, and frequently was never replaced with anything, evah. The technology did move on from mainframe computers to desk top PCs, for most non-sensitive and non-military security ie Homer Simpson's work place.

In the Marine industry, at sea, you can't simply evacuate the vessel and wait in the car park for the Fire Service to turn up. The Marine environment is a bit more challenging for electronics, and it is preferable to keep them in a fire resistant room or cupboard, such that fire can not get in, or out.

ACK, I am in favour of wind turbines! I think they can be impressive to look at, but I would not want to have to look at one 24/7. Their ability to generate does decrease over time, quicker than forecast, but their catastrophic mechanical failure rate (gearbox, shaft drives, bearing failures etc) had not really been forecast at all.

Windturbine maintenance can consist of "man and a van" (probably 2 men) How big and heavy a replacement part can one man be expected to carry up a ladder, even an internal ladder, before a mobile crane is required? Now translate that to "man and a boat" for offshore wind farms, and the cost of getting a ship mounted crane in, and the maths gets silly. Ironically, the UK has suitably skilled personnel, from the oil rigs, and the oil rig supply and maintenance support industries, but it is expensive and, you've guessed it, weather dependent.

I do not know the maths and accountancy of windfarm subsidies, but whilst subsidies pay for initial costs, I don't think they are as generous for replacement in the event of premature failure. Insurance policies don't tend to pay for things that wear out.

Solar panels have become cheaper, as production costs have decreased. They have not become significantly more efficient in producing electricity. Wind power has seen some economies of scale, but the cost of an ocean-going mobile crane, plus 10 men is not going to get cheaper.

More problems with wind turbines - the blades are made of carbon fibre that is neither repairable nor recyclable. Denmark has reported a growing problem of what to do with them and I believe has started dumping them offshore as artificial reefs.

On paper wind turbines last about 30 years but that hides a decline in performance where they might continue to turn but the electricity they produce tails off. In practice the useful life is somewhat shorter, a figure disguised by a rapid upgrading programme where smaller turbines are being removed to make way for bigger ones before it becomes apparent what their real lifespan is. Offshore ones are the newest experiment and Denmark have just started renewing some it put in just 15 years ago. The ocean conditions are a nightmare.

It's worth looking at gridwatch. On paper its monitoring over 6GW of windpower but apart from a few winter months it rarely gets much above 1GW.

In comparison Fiddlers Ferry coal station has just successfully held the grid to ransom because at over 10 years past its 40 years use by date, it still works. This isn't due to a better build but a) things do better indoors with a full maintenance team 24/7 and b) almost all the parts are replaceable. To make that easy, the turbine halls feature a big ass crane. The low demand summer months are traditionally when power stations get their overhaul. Not fancy but fit for purpose.

golfCharlie. I seem to be learning more day by day just how stupid the wind turbine industry is. Before I considered much of the argument against to be pure ludditism or nimbyism. I saw turbines as large versions of windmills, and the problem was one largely of aesthetics. With time, objectors would get used to them. They can be spectacular in some settings. Atamont Pass in northern California is truely awsome with thousands of turbines draped in long lines over the hillsides. My view for years has been that the UK should invest in as diverse energy supply as possible, fossil fuels (but not coal), nuclear (but possibly not breeder reactors) and as much renewables as possible. Now I'm totally unsure.

Yet here we have an industry placing electronic systems on top of tall metal pillars in areas where it can be predicted they will attract lightning strikes. Such strikes can either fry the innards or cause fires. Now there is speculation that it might not be economic to repair lightning struck wind turbines. Operators must therefore plan for a certain percentage of complete losses. Bet they can't get insurance at any reasonable rates. I cannot believe the UK government and environmental groups are pinning future energy supplies on such a potentially susceptible system. Forget intermittency of supply, continuation of supply becomes a factor. I presume offshore turbines are even more susceptible.

Philip Bratby at 6.24am.

The appalling McGrath story on wood to jet fuel starts: "Plans to cut airline CO2 using greener jet fuels made from waste wood have been dismissed as a "pipe dream" by environmentalists.
Several high octane, waste-based biofuels are being tested by airlines as a way of curbing CO2."

It is my understanding that octane rating is the measure of the resistance of an evaporative fuel such as gasoline to pre-ignition (knocking or pinking) in a reciprocating internal combustion engine as the compression ratio increases. The higher the compression ratio, the higher the octane number required for the fuel. I therefore do not understand why high octane fuels would be being developed for use in jet engines as McGrath reports.

I wonder if any more knowledgeable reader could comment, but it seems to me that it is more environmental reporting cobblers of the sort that is damaging the BBC's reputation.

ACK, the electro mechanical kit of a wind turbine is going to be written off by a lightning strike, whether or not fire breaks out.

As IT and other high tech electrical systems started to dominate in the 70s and 80s (before the advent of a PC on every desk) mainframe computers were tucked away in fire resistant rooms with Halon, a fire extinguishing gas that displaced oxygen. Unfortunately, by displacing oxygen, it also extinguished human life, and was banned. There are substitutes.

Electrical fires, if suppressed, will reignite if the source of arc/spark is still being produced, ie you have to be able to turn the bloody thing off! In the home or office, pull the plug out, and/or isolate the incoming supply, then try and extinguish the fire. Isolating the incoming supply gets you out of the room, and closer to an Exit, so you can assess whether you want to go back and fight the fire, with the fire extinguisher used to hold open the Fire Door, intended to be kept shut.

Spraying water onto an electrical fire, especially if the electricity is still ON, is not a good idea.

Extinguishers for electrical fires tend to be a CO2 Foam. (The Green Blob have not banned them yet) They do work, but the mess created is such that electrical kit is not economic to clean and is therefore a write-off anyway.

Any automatic system for releasing a suppressant or extinguishing foam or gas, has to be capable of being activated whether power is ON or OFF.

I have had to clean up the full contents and consequences of a CO2 Foam extinguisher discharged into a yacht's engine bay. The "smoke" was actually just steam, the engine had not caught fire, just overheated. People confusing steam with smoke and release of CO2 is a bit of a touchy subject! The bloke who did it was a professionally qualified yottie, I was not the only one who questioned his competence!

One of the things that Gemany has done if it finds itself with too much electricity is to pay neighbouring grids to take it. This had pushed Swiss hydro into trouble because the grid operators preferred to use energy from Germany than from their own country because the companies couldn't supply negative cost or even free electricity.

Madness for one set of renewables to drive the most reliable out of business.

EM absolutely not. Windmills make loads of money. If the German system is anything like ours - if they're generating they get the standards base rate times 2 (on land, 3 at sea). They have priority over other energy supplies, so even though they're more expensive than gas or coal, we have to have the wind power. If they're generating and the electricity can't be used then they get paid to park their blades. Nobody denies that the towers produce electricity, but a) that electricity is very expensive and b) it's unreliable both over the short term (supply) and the long term as turbines don't last as long as conventional power stations and are difficult to repair. The latest concern is that sea based turbines might be easier to scrap and completely rebuild than try to repair a major fault. When you add up manufacture, installation, environmental damage, back up generation, maintenance and disposal there might not be much of a saving of CO2 either. All this also assumes that the turbine is well placed. Some are not and don't generate much bar headaches.

ACK it may be that a turbine is pretty much shot if it catches fire. Not much point installing the kit to put one out if that's the case, other than to protect what surrounds it.

golfCharlie. The question (not mine) was about the absence (or perhaps the ineffectiveness) of a fire suppressant system in the nacelle, rather than lightning protection. After all the metal tower should act as an effective conductor. The pictures showed fire first in the nacelle, spreading down the blades until they dropped off. Wish it could have been a video - were the blades still moving so it resembled a slow speed Catherine wheel? The blades are apparently made of a combustable super fibreglass like material, so probably are not a good conductor of electricity.

ACK, Wind Turbine Fires

I don't think you can economically fit a lightning conductor to a wind turbine blade intended to rotate and maintain electrical continuity, without the lightning bolt passing through the drive shafts, gearing and generator, which will all end up being fried, or ignite the lubricating oils anyway. A tree is not made of the best materials to conduct electricity, but when damp, proves perfectly adequate. The top of the wind turbine tower (nacelle?) may have lightning protection, of proper conductive metals, but a turbine blade is a taller and more attractive target.

Most wind turbine fires are caused by brake failure. Uncontrolled spinning overheats the bearings etc.

Even if Fire Departments had the kit to extinguish a fire that high off the ground, wholescale replacement of all the expensive bits is going to be required anyway, because no manufacturer or maintenence company will be able to offer any form of guarantee. Unless there is a threat to human life or other installations, there is no economic case to stop them burning, and it is easier to let them burn out.

Costs for fires and their consequences are not factored in to life cycle costs.

It would be more cost effective not to build them in the first place, but for remote locations I do appreciate they allow diesel generators to have an occasional rest.