Trent Brome writes on his Facebook page:
Arlington, WY – avg annual wind speed of 31mph, gusts above 110mph, seems like a great place for a wind turbine ….right?
Photos from Feb 1, 2011 as the cold air mass that formed Snowzilla barreled through. The wind chill in the area from yesterday was extreme, -54F !!
0453 AM EXTR WIND CHILL PUMPKIN VINE 41.05N 105.46W 02/01/2011 M-54.00 F ALBANY WY DEPT OF HIGHWAYS
A new record low was set in Cheyenne:
RECORD EVENT REPORT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHEYENNE WY 523 PM MST TUE FEB 01 2011 ...RECORD DAILY LOW HIGH SET AT CHEYENNE WYOMING... A RECORD DAILY LOW HIGH WAS SET TODAY AT CHEYENNE WYOMING. THE OLD RECORD WAS MINUS 5 SET IN 1899. THE NEW RECORD LOW HIGH IS MINUS 9.
Combine cold temperatures that make steel brittle along with gusty winds, and you have a Titanic recipe for disaster. For those that will argue that I’m being unfair to the promise of wind power, I welcome you to provide photos of any power plant in the USA that has been collapsed due to weather. Downed power poles sure, but power sources?
h/t to Eric Nielsen for the photo
=============================================================
UPDATE: While the Facebook page source of these photos shows them dated yesterday, Feb 1st, it appears the event actually happened November 25th. A similar photo here:
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/30961
The same author, Trent Brome, submitted them. It is unfortunate he did not make note of the correct date on his facebook page, and given a strong storm had just passed, I had no reason to expect otherwise. I apologize for not checking further. Thanks to V Marti for pointing out the other website link above. – Anthony
What really happened – Terry Hadley of the Texas PUC and the ONCOR rolling blackouts:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVkPks-LJU&w=480&h=390]
ERCOT is the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, not to be confused with FERC http://www.ferc.gov/
Electric Power Markets: Texas (ERCOT) – http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/texas.asp
.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
February 2, 2011 at 1:10 pm
“It is ironic that a man-made device designed solely to harvest the power of the wind cannot stand up to the wind. Meanwhile, down in Texas, home to the largest collection of wind turbines in all 50 States, there are rolling blackouts, because there isn’t enough power. It’s laughable.”
What’s laughable is your comment. Today was only the second rolling blackout in Texas in 20 years. The first happened due to record hot weather in 2006 and the second happened today due to record cold weather. California had twice that many in one single year. New York prefers rolling brownouts (no one area completely cut off) to discourage looting. Texas has a better reliability record than either of them.
Texas average residential electrical rate is $0.12/kwh without limit. Anthony Watts, a California resident, would probably give his left nut for electricity that cheap and dependable. He blogged recently that he was paying something like $0.40/kwh for electric use above some minimal lifeline amount. Average price in California is $0.14/kwh and in New York it’s $0.19/kwh. New York has 50% more nuclear power plants than Texas, by the way.
http://blog.saveonenergy.com/2010/02/texas-electricity-competition-brings-energy-prices-below-national-average/
Watch out for more failures when it starts to warm up. I spent 8 years in western Nebraska and Eastern Wyoming, most of it out doors. Despite the assurances of several engineers in the posts above, temperature could have been a factor. I remember a cold stretch of winter in Scottsbluff, NE in the early 70’s. We went from 12/29/73-1/12/74 with the temperature never rising above freezing and then dropping below zero each night. When the cold snap broke, the temperature shot up +/- 40 degrees in less than an hour as the chinook winds blew in. The twenty mile an hour winds, coupled with the rapid rise in temperature caused several structural failures in the region. These included stoplight horizontal arms and at least one partially constructed steel building. Since the wind wasn’t strong enough to account for the failures, there must have been a temperature component.
Watch that quality control in the steel.
Most of those wind towers are probably cold rolled steel welded into a tube. Or cast sections. I wonder what kind of inspection process they use?
When they get cold, they not only get brittle, but they undergo thermal strain. Add in a bending moment and vibrations from high winds, and something may break.
This should be a lesson to all those thinking about cashing in on the tax incentivized effort to replace wood burning stoves with anything else. Keep the wood burning stove. Eventually you will need it again. A high quality wood stove is the only heat source that allows you to survive off the guvmnt grid when it shuts down, and stay warm enough during frigid cold weather. It also allows you to cook food and boil water. If you don’t have this capacity, you are a sitting duck at best, cannon fodder at worst.
The tower builder Trinity in Texas builds a lot of tank cars. I don’t know whost tower this was but no one mentioned metal fatigue. A little flex and vibration can weaken the metals. It takes 1,450 tons of coal to make the steel in a huge tower. Algore says carbon free by 2018. There is no hiding use of carbon.
Kansas has a lot of wind and pays 6 cents / kwh. That is cheap because they have nuclear and coal. If they build may more turbines for free wind, the price will double quickly.
Greg Holmes says:
February 2, 2011 at 1:14 am
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law
According to Betz’s law, no turbine can capture more than 59.3 percent of the kinetic energy in wind.
It’s all downhill (towards the 20% you have seen) from there.
Does anyone have any idea of the effect of precession on wind generators?
From my (long-ago) gyroscope theory, there could be a considerable twisting torque being applied to the towers causing them to buckle in high winds if blade rotation is not stopped in time.
Although they do not appear to have high RPMs, the length of the blades means the tips are traveling at a high speed. Even attempting to turn a hand-held, spinning bicycle wheel (ie, small and slow speed) can demonstrate the torques involved.
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/30961
Wait a minute… it would appear that there is something amiss with this story. The above link with a picture that looks exactly like the failed tower has a date on it of Nov 25, 2010. So much for any discussion of what the temperature was in February, 2011 and what it might have had to do with the failure…. This thing has been laying there dead for a while.
REPLY: The Facebook page shows the photos posted from yesterday. Looks like he wasn’t clear about them being older. I’ll make a note. – Thanks -Anthony
V Martin says:
February 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/30961
Wait a minute… it would appear that there is something amiss with this story. The above link with a picture that looks exactly like the failed tower has a date on it of Nov 25, 2010. So much for any discussion of what the temperature was in February, 2011 and what it might have had to do with the failure…. This thing has been laying there dead for a while.
Quick gooogle check shows the conditions in Arlington, WY on 25.11.10 as cold and windy, as per usual for that area. Not as cold as the most recent conditions, but same ballpark. Does it really matter that it happened 2 months ago? Judging from some of the comments here, sounds like it’s not all that unusual.
That being said, until I see a whole line of them blown over, I don’t see any irony here at all.
As someone who has been involved in the design of numerous pressure vessel and storage tanks including tall stacks and towers it is disapointing to see the structural failure of the subject windmill, given all the knowledge and experience in other industries with the design of similar structures and the analytical tools available today to safely design even more complex structures. Something obviously is not right.
Just looking at the pictures it is difficult to determine the root cause of the failure. I am not familiar with the specific design codes used for windmill structures or what special loads they must consider. As already mentioned the ASME Boiler and Pressure vessel codes for unfired pressure vessels (ASME Section VIII Div 1 and 2) provide proven design procedures for wind, earthquake and other loads for structures such as tall towers. I would not be surprised if there have been Pressure vessel tower collapses, however I have not seen such an incident in almost 50 years of experience absent a fire where the metal strength has been significantly reduced as happened to world trade towers. There may have been some tower collapses due to Hurricanes where the initial design wind velocity was exceeded.
Some general comments:
1) Large portions of the windmill structure show a significant amount of ductility suggesting that as least some of the material was not brittle at the exposure temperature. A weldment could have lacked ductility or there could have been a weld defect that caused a brittle fracture.
2) Materials science re brittle failures has advanced considerably since WW II when the liberty ships failed. There is no excuse for a brittle fracture today unless the temperature drops below the official minimum design temperature for the site.
3) ASME codes provides a comprehensive design criteria for brittle fracture and covers numerous materials, material thickness and suitable exposure temperature. Not all steels have the same properties and desired properties are tailored by varying the chemistry and the steel making process. I believe -50 F is achievable without spending too much a premium with Carbon Steels depending on thickness. Thicker steels are more prone to brittle fracture than thin steels. The Tensile strength of the steel is not reduced at lower temperatures, but the toughness is reduced.
4) Every ASME pressure vessel built must be designed for the expected lowest exposure temperature, wind chill does not lower the metal temperature. I worked on a project in Northern Canada where the temperatures were as low as – 40 F using carbon steels for large pressure vessels.
5) There are standard ASTM tests that are used to test materials capability to resist brittle fracture. ASME commonly uses charpy V tests that expose the steel with a v- notch to a blow at the test temperature and the energy required (ft-lb) to break the specimen is recorded. Failure to meet this test is cause for material rejection.
6) ASME also provides allowable stresses for all tensile and compressive (buckling) loads. Large diameter/thickness ratios have lower allowable compressive loads for buckling. The nature of the failure makes one suspicious that buckling may have been the failure mode.
7) Openings in the shell must be properly reinforced to control stresses and avoid buckling, another possibility!
8) Of course one cannot rule out that the temperature fell below the lowest design metal temperature or the designer picked a standard design off the shelf not suitable for the normal lowest temperature. Alternatively the wind load could have exceeded the design wind load for the site, such as has happended in the Gulf coast with recent Hurricanes.
9) It is possible that cracks have formed and grown due to the vibration loads associated with the blade rotation possibly in conjunction with other loads.
Bottom line: a proper failure analysis/investigation must be performed to determine the cause of failure including a metallurgical inspection of the fracture surface under a microscope, testing of material specimens for strength and toughness, and advanced stress analysis. It is irresponsible not to undertake the investigation and publish the results for public consumption and to correct any deficiencies in other structures.
My birds have twittered. “At least that windmill is not killing our revelent others.
richard verney says:
Wind power is simply incapable of providing energy security. This is blatantly obvious and this hair brained scheme should be dropped forthwith. The UK like all other countries requires reliable energy produced as cheaply as possible.
—————————-
And you think that the 7 days of gas storage we have in this country is enough when the Russian next turn off the taps? Hardly energy security is it?
The reserves in the North Sea are running out with little propsect of find any more hydrocarbons in any significant amounts. Nuclear is the only way to replace the energy gap or renewable sources and most people don’t want a nuclear plant in their back garden.
It still doesn’t distract from the idea that millions will die from getting 30% of our electricity from wind power is alarmist in the extreme!
Freddy T says:
February 2, 2011 at 12:36 pm
It is worthwhile to replace an oil drilling rig because of the plentiful and cheap energy produced. Not so with a bird/bat grinder.
Also an oil rig is replaced with private funding; not so with bird/bat grinder.
Don Shaw says:
February 2, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Don,
What a bizarre concept. Make careful measurements and gather facts before indulging in speculation? Your thinking is way out of step with the thinking of the mob.
An excellent post. One of the best I’ve read here, and that is saying a lot.
To Patrick Davis at 12.50 am, I believe you will find that the TITANIC was built of wrought iron plate, not steel, but certainly all riveted construction. The quality of the iron was indeed found to be inferior in later testing whereupon it shattered in impact tests relatively easily compared to a better quality iron. I cannot speak about the rivets though they would almost certainly have been iron also. Had the vessel been built with its watertight bulkheads extended upwards through the decks, it may well have survived. But as each bulkhead section filled and overflowed into the next, the chain reaction spelt doom.
There have been many boats built of Lowmoor Iron forged in the Midland shires and many still survive, some are Ice boats on the canal, and two I know of in particular were built pre-1870; LAPLANDER & BALTIC. Strong stuff when poured correctly and very corrosion resistant. I believe TITANIC’s sister ship was of far better quality.
To Greg Holmes at 01.14 am. This is not a shame, it is a disaster. The disaster is that our UK (and elsewhere) governments have launched us into excruciatingly expensive power sources that do not – cannot – meet energy demands when required. The performance of these catastrophic monsters marring the landscape, are creating vast areas of chemical wastelands in the country of origin from whence some vital rare earth is required for the construction of their generator magnets – namely neodymium from China: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
When the wind does not blow, these huge turbines need to be driven round so as to prevent sagging of mainshaft components. When the temperature drops and ice forms, the blades need to be heated to prevent imbalance and major failure. This causes them to be CONSUMERS of power under such circumstances. The output from all of the UK’s wind turbines rarely gets higher than 6% of total demand, and during the coldest periods recently experienced, dropped to below 1%. Current power output by generation type can be monitored at n.e.t.a. here: http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#chartelement
It should also be noted that due to the unsteady reliability of the wind to blow at the right speed at the right times, conventional power stations will need to be fired and running to balance all output to demand as required. No savings there, none anywhere – wind powered electricity alone will cost not just money – but lives. As an additional power source – they are a financial drain on the consumer.
As machines of awesome beauty, they may be seen by some. But the cost and disruption to the landscape has to embody the thousands of tons of concrete poured for their bases, miles of access roads to their sites, and the now established damage to wild bird life they cause.
We no longer grind corn into flour using wind. If such was an efficient device to do so, would the land not be covered by corn grinding windmills? At least one can live in such ancient structures. (Legs and health permitting).
Take it from a guy who wrote his thesis on ductile to brittle transition, cold had nothing to do with embrittling the metal. It wasn’t that cold (most steel alloy’s basic qualification is a DBTT less than -40°), and the failure is obviously not from brittleness.
Lots of comments related. Some good some bad. Windmills will never make it, but ductile to brittle transition will not be a factor. The deaths from rolling blackouts will be. (See the more recent post about Texas.)
We figured out steel quality after the liberty ships. There has been very little problem with that since. (Some. We are still human.)
Eric N. WY says:
February 2, 2011 at 10:01 pm Says…
Does it really matter that it happened 2 months ago?
Well, when you have almost 200 posts with many theorizing about the failure and basing them on the misinformation of the temperatures that existed at the time, yes. And by the way, the other link didn’t actually say when the failure occurred… it could be much older than two months. It’s good to have the right information and hopefully somebody who knows with certainty will post it here.
Don Shaw says:
February 2, 2011 at 10:08 pm says…
Bottom line: a proper failure analysis/investigation must be performed to determine the cause of failure including a metallurgical inspection of the fracture surface under a microscope, testing of material specimens for strength and toughness, and advanced stress analysis. It is irresponsible not to undertake the investigation and publish the results for public consumption and to correct any deficiencies in other structures.
I agree with this sentiment exactly… since the public has an interest in this issue (both with the security of supply and safety since failed parts could leave the property), the public should have complete unfettered access to the results.
Here’s my question… Where on earth are the professional engineers societies with respect to these failures? Surely there is enough of a history of failures to warrant the creation of a new set of standards that at least relates separation distances to height of towers (as well as establishing other important engineering criteria) etc. In my opinion, the minimum distance from the tall ones to a property line should be 5 miles.
tx had rolling blackout yesterday (2-1-11) due to frozen pipes. took 2 plants offline
You leverage a collapsed steel wind tower with a power plant, they are vastly different in scope and design. the problem has nothing to do with wind power and everything to do with our crappy american design and engineering systems.
This happened at least on or before November 10th, 2010. This was not winter/cold related. Perhaps strong wind and engineering design, but not “brittle” steel.
It looks like the turbine fell on top of something. Here’s an enhanced version of that picture that shows it better: http://i.imgur.com/rTo3F.jpg
Good one, Arthur!
Yes, very good one Arthur! Thanks for the laugh.