I wonder what the incident frequency is for wind turbine fires versus say coal, hydro, or nuclear plants?
From STV Scotland:
Mr McMahon, who captured the spectacular fire in photos, added: “I didn’t hear any explosion or anything, but my wife shouted for me to come down and see the fire.
“There are around 13 or 15 wind turbines in the farm above Ardrossan. They were all off today because of the high winds, so something has obviously shorted out and gone on fire.
h/t to WUWT reader Gordon Daily
UPDATE: BBC reports in the south of Scotland the 50mph winds are knocking down turbines:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-16084013
Imagine a few thousand of these in dry forest or grassland in the southwest U.S.
High winds. Fire.
What could possibly go wrong?
According to The Telegraph that melting windmill cost £2,000,000, thats about $3,000,000. £20,000 a metre!
vboring,
Coal fired plants which burn powdered coal, as in turbines, use a very explosive material-coal dust. Coal plants seem to be reasonably good at handling the danger, though.
Why does the bad, bad wind hate the leftists so much?
These things obviously get built to the same quality standard employed for IPCC reports.
This morning when I heard there was going to be high winds in Scotland, I searched for live web cams of wind farms. No luck. I figured there would be windmill carnage and was hoping to watch.
Wind speeds have been up to 165mph. Not 50mph. That’s stronger than “hurricane” Irene, but with less global media coverage because it wasn’t affecting the USA.
I firmly suspect that the promoters of this type of energy production have very much under-estimated the maintenance costs.
If some (and this may be only one) turbine is unable to cope with wind speeds of 50moh and collapsed as a consequence of encountering such wind force, then every turbine (or at any rate every turbine made by the same manufcturer and/or installed by the same installer) which has at any time (in the past and in the future if 50mph plus winds are experienced) will as a result of health and safety laws need to be inspected and certified safe. Should sometime in the future another turbine collapse and cause injury, the failure to carry out such an inspection would lead to legal liabilities against the windfarm and/or the suppliers of maintenance services and/or the designers and/or manufacturers of the windturbine. This liabilities could in extreme cases lead to a charge of corporate manslaughter should a death occur.
I suspect that winds of 50mph are not uncommon and hence there will in future be a need for inspections to be carried out on a repeated basis, This will add to the costs of maintenance.
Neil Turner says:
December 8, 2011 at 11:31 am
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
Talk about pictures of cuddly polar bears, how about this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2071638/Polar-bears-Cannibal-pictures-prove-theyll-eat-bear-cubs.html
Something which the tree hugging greens probably would not wish to promote.
It’s probably the most energy a turbine has ever produced!
There is something strange with that windmill. Apparently it is facing the wind backward. Look at the two other turbines and the direction of the burning/falling debris and the smoke. Was it stuck in that position and turning backwards?
richard verney says:
December 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm
…………………….
The greens will say that the cub was drowning due to the lack of ice and the papa bear was just helping it out the water.
Has anyone tried a modified turbine ventilator, like those typically found on barns? Elongate the thing, say 60 feet tall and maybe three or four feet in diameter with the generator on the ground and a single structural member rising beside the blades to secure the other end of the axle at the top.
The prospects of a last-minute deal on climate change have emerged at the UN talks in Durban, as the US threw its weight behind the European Union’s proposal for a roadmap towards a new global agreement.
All eyes are now on China, the world’s biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, which has yet to back the proposal, and according to some insiders has been giving conflicting signals.
Other big developing countries such as Brazil and South Africa have said they are willing to discuss the proposed programme, though India has rejected it.
With only a day and a half of negotiating time left to run, the words of support from the US on Thursday came as a surprise to the conference. Todd Stern, US special envoy for climate change, told a press conference: “The EU has called for a roadmap. We support that.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/08/durban-climate-talks-us-backs-europe
Here is an exercise for climate modellers: To prevent extreme weather from too much CO2, you install many windgenerators; in a fluke extreme wind, some break and set the mountain on fire; that creates CO2; you install more wind generators to offset that, some of which burn etc etc…
How long before you get a division by zero?
Truly an Iconic picture of the ugly off-spring when science and politics(media) are married.
That’s pretty ironic that strong wind is one of the greatest enemies of wind turbines. Imagine that a big profit on the stock market were a major enemy of a trader. 😉
Winds as high as 165mph were reported that day in Scotland with 70-80mph sustained in most populated areas.
If you get hit by a 165mph wind you got a lot more than windmills to worry about as that will easily take the roof off a house.
F3 Severe tornado 158-206 mph
Roof and some walls torn off well constructed houses; trains overturned; most trees in fores uprooted.
I didn’t see any adjacent damage, no debris, and am presuming the leaves were already off those trees in the background not blown off. However the tower was isolated and it still could have been a microburst or unreported twister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microburst
*note should read “junk” science…
My pardons for the real ‘science’ still around.
Blair. @ur momisugly 12:57
Vertical turbines were frequently discussed about 30 years ago. I haven’t heard much about them in recent years. Cost must be the reason.
Right off hand. The winds are stronger aloft but a vertical turbine is best suited to winds just above the ground. Very tall ones would seem to need bracing not easily constructed for them.
Ray says:
December 8, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Nice show of observations skills, CSI Special Wind Crime Unit. Que theme tune. Yeeeaaaaahhh!
hahaha
the headline in Britain last week – ‘Huhne plans 32,000 more wind turbines’
this week – ‘Huhne plans 32,002 more wind turbines’
and counting
Captain! We’re venting plasma from the port nacelle!
Engineering, switch to Baseload Thorium Power! Engage! Make it so!
We shouldn’t be too hard on wind. Remember the eco-alternative (covered on WUWT on July 5th):
http://notrickszone.com/2011/07/04/weed-covered-solar-park-20-acres-11-million-only-one-and-half-years-old/
re: Richard Verney:
“Talk about pictures of cuddly polar bears, how about this one:……”
Not uncommon at all for big brown bear boars (males) to chow down on the cubs – which is one of the reasons you usually see the sows and cubs together but never boars with the cubs. Happens with great regularity here in Alaska. Cheers –