• Wind Turbines: bonfires-on-a-stick

      14 comments

    The above image shows the second most common problem (after blade failure) that affects wind turbines: fire. This happens when transmission failures occur in these constructions. To date no gear oil has been invented to withstand the pressures produced within these transmissions. Recently, the U.S. government gave Dow-Corning a big grant to work on it. Previously, many others had tried and failed. Of course our idiotic politicians did not think about all that fibreglass and a little heat would cause such a bonfire with taxpayers’ money! With a little bit of thought would of course they Climate Change scammers should have realised that wind turbines are going to act like giant lightening conductors. With pyrotechnic combination of inflammable glass-fibre and 200 off gallons of transmission fluid they are bonfires on a stick. Watching one of these burn would be an impressive sight. The generator is too high for most fire tenders to reach with the water pressure they have.

    The Caithness Windfarm Information Forum has compiled an excellent report on Windturbine accidents and failures, click on the text below:
    CAITHNESS WINDFARMS INFORMATION to download their report.

    For your entertainment Dear Reader, we at the British Gazette have penned a little poem in the style of the exquisitely bad Scottish poet, William Topaz McGonagall:

    Tall wind turbine
    You stand erect upon the horizon
    Your blades they do not move.

    Tall wind turbine
    You present us with many hazards
    Your blades when they do move may become detached.

    Tall wind turbine
    You attract lightening strikes
    Your fibreglass nacelle and flammable transmission fluid then ignite.

    Tall wind turbine
    You cost us much money
    Your purpose is to save the planet.

    Tall wind turbine
    You provide little or no power
    Your usefulness is non existent.

    In the style of William Topaz McGonagall (1825 – 1902)

    • !. I wonder how much “Carbon” those aerofoils took to produce and how much they release when combusting.
      2.Don’t let anyone kid you that they are quiet. We have 13 of the monsters across the river from my house. Each gearbox generates an annoying and disturbing rumble and the blades generate awful “sw oo shing”.
      3. Given a nice sunset they also give an awfull lighting effect as the blades produce a rythmical shadow across my property…ideal for the onset of an epileptic attack I should think.

      And for what? Does ANYONE really think these things are efficient in saving the planet?

    • i think these things are pretty sick but they also make a dum sound makes you go nuts

    • How can you say that wind power is not the right path? Yes lightning does strike turbines but the only part of the turbine that is affected is the blades, any person with a brain can tell that the turbine is grounded and that fiberglass is not a conductive material. As far as funding taxpayers do not pay for their erection, or maintence it is all funded by private investors, utility companies and gov’t funding. Fires are caused by poor maintence practices and as far as them being too close to where you live that is poor planning on the erection company. Wind energy has been a proven source of energy for centuries and it IS reducing emmisions…Read into the facts and find that you are wrong in so may ways.

    • My appologies I was google searching wind turbine failures for a school project and I did not realize that this was off the British Gazette. I realize that taxes may be different across the pond but the rest of my comment proves true.

    • I believe that windturbines are a great, renewably source of energy, which, in the long run aids our environment immensely. We have a windfarm just above our house, and I’ve never noticed any noise whatsoever, except in particularly stormy conditions.
      In the futuer, fossil fuels WILL run out, it’s just a matter of time, so wind turbines are one of our only options, as well as solar and hydroelectric power.
      I don’t find them ugly at all. Previously living near Hinkley Point power station, and in comparison to power stations and pylons, wind farms are alot easier on the eye.
      Yes, they occasionally fail, but there are more serious problems with other sources of energy.
      Consider all points before making immediate desicions.

    • Some points:

      1. The author of this post doesn’t seem to understand electricity generation. There is no connection between transmission failures and mechanical issues in a generator, whether the generator is in a wind turbine, a coal fired power station or a nuclear power station, They all use the same basic technology to generate electricity. If anything wind turbines have more advanced systems because they are relatively new and are being improved on every year.

      2. If you are worried about lightening, then maybe we should all live in caves and demolish pylons and anything above a few feet. The tower may well be a point of discharge for lightning if a storm is passing by, but the same is true for any tall structure, including nuclear power stations.

      3. Wind turbines provide a distributed generating system. So if one is broken the others continue. The same can’t be said for centralised generation system, as has been demonstrated by the Fukishima incident. Also a distributed system like wind turbines and renewables is more robust in the sense of military defence. It’s harder to destroy a distributed system like the internet, the same would apply for renewables.

      4. On the issue of embedded energy and carbon emissions wind turbines. There is plenty or peer reviewed research on this.

      5. On the issue of climate change and science I recommend http://www.skepticalscience.com.

    • I can assure Jade that fossil fuels are virtually inexhaustible. Coal is limited to some few thousand plus years at current rates, oil probably longer, gas almost indefinitely. Poor Jade has fallen for the big oil lie. Has she not realised that they want to pretend shortage so as to increase the price (and get brownie points from Greenies – or is that greenie points from Brownies) ?

      The more fossil fuel we burn the better for the planet. Levels of CO2 are alarmingly low (a 50% cut would extinguish most life beyond bacteria from the planet). Every ton of fossil fuel makes enough CO2 to produce 1500 loaves of bread.

    • The advantages and disadvantages of so called wind power have been known to a rather specialised group of people for about the last three decades or more.

      People – of whom I am one – who go to sea in small boats, have long known of the limitations of wind generators. They do not reliably work and that is the key – reliability. The average wind speed around the British Isles is less than ten miles per hour – when it blows. Depending on the efficiency of the wind generator a minimum wind speed of eighteen to twenty miles per hour is required to generate any meaningful power and that description usually means about two amps per hour. Because the wind speed is not constant, this amount of power is subject to fluctuation – both less and more and therefore has to be monitored by various devices such as heat sinks, rectifiers, voltage conrol units and the like.

      The net result of all this nonsense is that the hapless yachtie has to dig further into his/her back pocket to pay for more certain forms of power generation such as solar generators (uncertain) and power generators (certain) provided you have some fossil fuel to power it.

      As for the tripe that informs us that the energy suppliers and the Governnent are responsible for paying for construction of these useless behemoths – my energy bills reveal the truth. All who receive energy from a supplier are now paying their share of the construction and installation and maintenance costs of these useless artefacts in the shape of an increased energy bill.. And our bills are likely to further go up.

      It doesn’t seem to be widely understood that the Government doesn’t have any money. It is taxpayer’s cash that is disbursed by the Government.

    • As the entire greenhouse gas theory, has been scientifically, trashed, trounced, this discussion is rather academic.

      To put it bluntly the carbon tax is a blatant fraud, a means of disenfranchising the West from its cheap energy resources, and instigated, by the UN, purportedly as a means of wealth redistribution to benefit Africa, in reality to finance the UN’s New World Order.

      The point is: It doesn’t matter if Green Energy works or not, the Green taxes and renewable energy grants, which artificially treble energy costs, roll on as remorselessly, as the fake science and lies of justification.

      Show me a man or woman, be they peasant, or President, who claims, anthropogenic activity causes global climate change, and I’ll show you a liar.

    • While I’m a fan of green technology (even if you don’t agree with the global warming lobby surely becoming more efficient and less impactful on the environment as a species is a worthy goal regardless?) I cannot help but laugh at the sheer idiocy of wind turbines. And this article, including the Caithness report, just strengthens my belief that they are a colossal waste of energy, time and money. If I remember rightly, an edition of New Scientist suggested that wind turbines only have an efficiency rating of 10%. If I understand that right, it means 90% of the energy goes into sound and heat. At least with a solar panel, you have a better chance of converting any wasted energy – including the heat generated – into useful energy. Wind turbines just look utterly pointless; a massive white elephant costing an incredible investment with little benefit. And it’s a scandal our political and scientific leaders are buying this technology hook, line and sinker.

      The next time you hear some wind-farm advocate waxing lyrical about how many houses a farm can serve, ask them if that energy is CONSTANT, or INTERMITTENT. Why the hell is this crucial question never addressed? The only reason we have any economy at all is because we have a source of electricity which is always on – mainly from nuclear and coal-power. We have become used to the idea of electricity always being on when we need it, so much so that we don’t give it any thought. All courtesy of non-renewable sources of energy. No way in hell am I convinced even for one second that wind farms have the capacity to serve our society in the same reliable way. Indeed, it’s been said wind farms will need back-up…in the form of nuclear or coal-power…which surely defeats the point of having them in the first place!

    • The OP of this article needs to go back to school and learn some basics.

      “To date no gear oil has been invented to withstand the pressures produced within these transmissions.” Again, check your facts, the Dow Corning grant (~750K) is to develop a lifetime lubricant, as in one that will last longer. EP lubricants in Gearboxes have been around for decades.

      The Lubricant in the towers is a Synthetic Oil Tim,
      Your logic presumes that the wind towers a local and serve the local grid. They are not and do not. They are part of the total grid. If the wind is low at one local, it is blowing in another hence the grid is being supplied with energy. Wind will not replace other forms, it is one of many. What we get when the wind blows reduces what we need from other sources. We need Wind, Solar and Hydro, they are cleaner forms of energy production We need Coal, & Natural Gas, as they are steady and predicable, although dirty. The more we get from cleaner the less we need from dirtier forms of energy.

    • “To date no gear oil has been invented to withstand the pressures produced within these transmissions.” Again, check your facts, the Dow Corning grant (~750K) is to develop a lifetime lubricant, as in one that will last
      longer. EP lubricants in Gearboxes have been around for decades.”

      ie they’ve not got a lubricant yet!! ‘will, may etc.’ So you are correct.

      “Your logic presumes that the wind towers a local and serve the local grid. They are not and do not. They are part of the total grid.”

      Yes, they are part of the grid – which is why they are such a huge problem: pulses and drop outs are almost instantaneous and potentially disastrous. Eg the Aluminium smelting plant in Germany which was trashed, at the cost of many million euros, by just one of these pulses.

      “If the wind is lowat one local, it is blowing in another hence the grid is being supplied with energy. Wind will not replace other forms, it is one of many.”

      The belief that ‘the wind is always blowing somewhere’ is a myth. High pressure over Europe means that frequently the wind is blowing nowhere. This was particularly true during the very cold December 2010 when there was no wind power anywhere in the UK or Europe – just when it was essential for extra power. Britain was within 4 hours of brown outs. With the removal of coal fired power stations, next time there will be black outs.

      “What we get when the wind blows reduces what we need from other sources.”

      This is nonsense. The gas turbines are running constantly, wasting energy, to be ready to pick up the slack the moment it happens. So no savings there. Add to that the additional energy drawn from the grid to keep the blades turning during still periods – otherwise the main bearings are distorted and break (they need replacing every 12-18 months anyway).

      “We need Wind, Solar and Hydro, they are cleaner forms of energy production We need Coal, & Natural Gas, as they are steady and predicable, although dirty. The more we get from cleaner the less we need from dirtier forms of energy.”

      We have plenty of fossil fuels, we do not need wind or solar. Both these are mere tax farming, causing massive fuel poverty. Burning coal/gas/oil is essential for the future of life on this planet.

      Further the engineering of modern turbines is complete rubbish. Even assuming they have a use (which they do not) they use about 2% of the wind passing through the turbine envelope. A proper turbine has angled blades that just overlap (like the old ‘farmstead’ water pumps) which make efficient use of the passing wind.
      Modern turbines are so badly designed – eg putting the heavy generating kit and blades on top of a 300 foot pole – that they cannot use the wind efficiently. Result? They have to build forty turbines where one would have been enough if properly designed. Obviously they should have the generating kit on the ground powered by the turbine at the top with a simple gearing system. The sort of thing we used to make in Meccano when we were young. Old fashioned wood and sailed windmills were more efficient that the modern ones – though I grant you they weren’t used to generate electricity.

    • [...] More of the real truths about wind turbines are becoming known on an almost daily basis The above image shows the second most common problem (after blade failure) that affects wind turbines: fire. This happens when transmission failures occur in these constructions. To date no gear oil has been invented to withstand the pressures produced within these transmissions. Recently, the U.S. government gave Dow-Corning a big grant to work on it. Previously, many others had tried and failed. Of course our idiotic politicians did not think about all that fibreglass and a little heat would cause such a bonfire with taxpayers’ money! H/T The British Gazette [...]

    • [...] The gearbox in each turbine holds between 200 – 500 gallons of fossil fuel sourced oil and so far no company has come up with a lubricant that can cope: To date no gear oil has been invented to withstand the pressures produced within these transmissions. Recently, the U.S. government gave Dow-Corning a big grant to work on it. Previously, many others had tried and failed. [...]

    Write a comment