Here we have two videos, found via The Register, of a wind turbine generator failing catastrophically in high winds in Denmark.
The wind turbine in the videos has apparently failed to ‘feather’ it’s blades and has subsequently got into an overspeed condition. Engineers had been sent out to attempt to stop the turbine but they had [wisely] retired to a safe distance when they realised that it would be too dangerous to work on the turbine. They did, however, leave their van underneath and it nearly gets flattened by the generator head.
There’s quite a bang just as the blades separate. I’d be interested to know whether it’s just the sound of the stress failure or if the blade tips actually went supersonic at the moment of failure.
The turbine was 60 meters (~200 feet) high and was located at Hornslet near Aarhus. The Danish Climate Minister has ordered an investigation into the failure of this turbine and another turbine earlier in the week.
Both videos show the same turbine failing.
Entries (RSS)
March 18th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Revd Philip Foster wrote:-
Wind Turbines, the warmists’ solution to all the world’s ills, are a
total waste of space and a huge waste of taxpayers’ money who have to
fully subsidise these monstrosities. Everyone is paying right now
twice over for the ridiculously expensive wind generated electricity
through their monthly utility bills and through their taxes. The
‘British Wind Energy Association’ is at the centre of this fraud.
To replace one standard gas fired generator of 500-megawatts, would
require 2000 (yes two thousand) 750-kilowatt wind turbines. They cost
a minimum of £2 million each! 2000 wind turbines will cost £4 billion
pounds. Each wind turbine needs about 75 acres of space. That means
only ten turbines per square mile. Therefore 2000 turbines would
occupy 200 square miles or 520 square kilometres. The Gas turbine
generator would occupy only a few acres of land and can be sited well
away from beauty spots, cause no danger to wild life, and burn cleanly
making little to no pollution. CO2 emmissions are not pollution - but
a life giving gas for plants. SO2 (sulphur dioxide) can be, but gas
powered turbines produce almost zero SO2 and even coal fired
generators can keep their emmissions virtually SO2 free.
Now, if you do your sums, you might think I’ve got my figures wrong.
But no. Turbines are always (deceitfully) rated at their maximum
hypothetical output. But this never happens in real life. When the
wind doesn’t blow and when the wind blows too much - (we’ve seen what
can happen then!) they cannot produce any electricity. Even in the
best locations this makes every turbine off-line for 66% of the time.
Then, for every KW of power they do deliver, there has to be
conventional back up available instantly. So as well as 2000 wind
turbines consuming huge areas of often the most beautiful landscape,
there has to be built - you guessed it - a 500-megawatt gas fired
generator! This has to be permanently running on standby so as to be
available instantly. It makes no kind of economic or environmental
sense to have both. And since wind turbines alone are not an option
why start in the first place? Because of course of the huge amounts of
money the makers of these turbines can extract from governments and
the utility companies (who are forced to buy the wind energy) which
means you and me. Nice work if you can get it.
Oh, and for the bird lovers amongst us - wind turbines are the best
bird slicers around - making raw paté out of geese, ducks, swans,
ospreys, sea eagles and anything else that flies their way.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:57 am
A shame to take some facts and adorn them with such utter garbage.
Agreed, as a rough estimate, a turbine will produce an average of around 35-40% of it’s rated maximum output when charted over a year. If correctly placed, it will operate for at least 95% of the time, exceptions being still air (rare at hub altitude) and excessive gusts.
Taking an example of one turbine connected to a discrete power system, then you do need a spinning reserve. Returning to reality, an interconnected grid system of turbines spread over a large area (country-wide) will provide damn near constant power, requiring a small fraction of total output as a reserve to cope with fluctuations.
They are not subsidised in any way! The power industry is obliged to invest in renewables through such schemes as the renewables obligation and carbon credits/trading. These are businesses, do you think they are throwing money into a black hole just to upset people?
Nice to see the bird slicer rumour again, have you seen the size of a turbine blade? You could walk up the middle. And do you think creatures that have been blessed with flight and other fantastic abilities (turn, soar, hunt) cannot avoid a turbine blade? You may as well rail against TV masts and tall buildings.
If CO2 is not a pollutant, then why is the concentration in our atmosphere rising? From which corrupt/war torn nation do you intend to buy the gas to drive your little power plant?
If you have the ability to look at things with an open mind, research Denmark’s power system.
Windmills are not the answer to all our energy needs, I’ll accept that. They are the most effective option we have currently, and will continue to be so for the coming years.
March 30th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Dear Sirs,
I agree almost entirely with what Revd Philip Foster writes. You only have to read about the facts and you will find that the whole wind turbine issue is based on fantasy. But this does not mean we should cease to search for better turbines, with both more efficiency and less weight. Many people around the globe are working on these issues and who knows, may be one of these days a breakthrough brings us a real solution to a real problem: one third of mankind goes without any electricity and to compensate this lack of a clean energy source they burn everything they can lay their hands on. Burning oil or wood in individual homes is a very inefficient way of using fossil fuels. This has been studied by UN specialists and there is a fine report on this problem in the web. We need wind energy, only someone must develop better turbines. I think this is the only way to go.