After 13 years, 28 ton Vermont Wind Turbine Crashes. Not To Worry. Future Turbines Will Be Bigger.

[NNadir]

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081015/NEWS04/810150400/1004/NEWS03">Rutland Herald: Strong wind destroys Searsburg wind turbine

MONTPELIER — A blade on one of the Searsburg wind power turbines flew off during a recent windstorm, hitting the tower the turbine sits on and destroying it.

It is unclear when, or even if, the nonfunctioning turbine will be back to full capacity. It was one of 11 that make up the Searsburg project owned by Green Mountain Power.

"We had some really strong winds coming through," said GMP spokeswoman Dorothy Schnure. "A blade failed and struck the tower."

As a result of the accident, which sent the three blades of the turbine falling to the foot of the tower, the turbine was completely destroyed.

"It was damaged beyond repair," Schnure said.

Nobody was hurt in the incident, which did not pose a danger, she said.

The wind project was built in the late 1990s, with turbines that are smaller and on shorter towers than those used in new projects.

"They don't make them this size any more," Schnure said.

The Searsburg site was built as a research project and was the largest wind installation east of the Mississippi River when it was made.

When the project was built, "it really helped boost development of wind power projects, particularly in cold climates" Schnure said.

The project remains the only operational industrial scale wind project in the state.

Searsburg uses turbines that are roughly 200 feet tall, including the turbine blades. New turbines are typically 300 feet, 400 feet or larger.

Um...um...um...OK, then...

Reportedly the manufacturer of the 28 ton unit which became shards of flying metal after 13 years of making a racket claimed, without any justification whatsoever or any data whatsoever that the unit's life expectancy was going to be 30 years.

Turbine #10 at the Searsburg wind energy facility in Searsburg, Vermont experienced a catastrophic failure when one of the blades came in contact with the turbine's tower causing it to buckle during high winds. This turbine's 28-ton nacelle and 3-blade rotor assembly crashed to the ground scattering debris several hundred feet from the structure. Approximately 20-gallons of heavy oil spilled from the unit when its fluid reservoirs were damaged. The 11-turbine Searsburg facility was brought online in 1997 and according to preconstruction documents, the Zond Z-P40-FS turbines had an expected lifespan of 30-years<1>...

http://newsblaze.com/story/20081016142937tsop.nb/topstory.html">Catastrophic Turbine Failure At Vermont Wind Farm Raises Doubt

Industrial Wind Action (IWA) Group's executive director, Lisa Linowes, was not surprised by the failure. "The Searsburg towers are located at an elevation of nearly 3000-feet in some of the harshest weather conditions in New England. Performance issues and blade failures have plagued this project for some time, " she said pointing to incidences in May 2006<2> and again in May 2008<3>.

While the eleven-year old Searsburg turbines are failing, newer models have not improved the safety record. "Wind developers today tout life expectancies of industrial wind turbines that exceed 20 years," Linowes said, "but the fact remains that estimates of the functional lifespan of modern utility-scale wind turbines are speculative and cannot be substantiated since so far very few have been operating for ten years..."

... While weather conditions and climate are taking a toll on the machines, reports from the industry indicate the rush to erect industrial wind turbines is being accomplished at the expense of quality assurance and safe installation practices. Business Week published a report<4> in August 2007, which found, "The facilities may not be as reliable and durable as producers claim. Indeed, with thousands of mishaps, breakdowns and accidents having been reported in recent years, the difficulties seem to be mounting." A report this year found that turbine owners were not conducting regularly scheduled maintenance necessary to ensure the mechanical towers remain in good operating condition. An informal survey of approximately seventy-five wind farm operators in the United States found as many as sixty-percent were behind in their maintenance procedures<5>...

[Liberty Belle]

1. think that's bad? Read this! What happened at the wind farm....

GONE WITH THE WIND: 25 wind turbines damaged; witness saw explosive blue light before Campo-area wind farm went dark


wind turbines remain out of operation 2 months after storm damage and an as yet unexplained explosive electrical flash
“I saw a huge flash of blue out on the side of the hill where the windmills were. It started in the middle and spread out in all directions. It lit up the whole hillside the white-out of a snowstorm."--Ken Daubach, ex-firefighter, who witnessed the power go down


February 10, 2010 (Campo, California) – Battered by a winter storm on December 7, all 25 wind turbines at the Kumeyaay Wind project on the Campo Indian Reservation shut down---and haven’t come back on line two months later.

http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/2734

[NNadir]

3. Maybe it was aliens from outer space. I have another thread here that offers that explanation

for a blown up wind turbine.

[Statistical]

2. I wonder if premature end of life is calculated into the "low cost of wind"?

Nuclear reactor build it and it generates sold 92% of peak annual output year after year for 60 years.

Wind turbines output varies radically often it produces little or no power when needed the most, annual output is in the 25%-35% of peak, and dies in 13 years.

Wind may have a place but it certainly isn't going to replace baseload. Baseload needs to be rock solid consistent output 24/7/365. Even 92% capacity factor doesn't indicate the true consistency of nuclear reactor. They take one month refueling every 18 to 24 hours. So that is a well planned (often during low peak period) in which output is 0.0 and then to get up to 92% average over the fueling cycle they output 100% of peak consistently hour after hour for thousands of hours in a row.

Nuclear Energy = rock solid, reliable, emission free power from plants that last 60+ years.

[bigmonkey]

4. I wonder if "emission free" is calculated with the full lifetime of the waste in mind?

I suppose it might be. I wonder how that calculation was done.

[NNadir]

5. Every single wind power cost projection is based on a 30 year life. I analyzed Danish wind...

turbine lifetime on exhaustive data on Danish windmills provided on line by the Danish Energy Agency, which, predictably also touts Danish offshore oil and gas rigs. (Denmark is a dangerous fossil fuel exporter and to this day has a "Drill, baby Drill!" energy policy.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/185825/42/388/677953 ">The Operational Lifetime of Wind Turbines in Denmark: Government Data.

It shows that the mean operational lifetime of Danish Windmills since 1978 has been 15.9 years.

[w4rma]

6. Only 30 years if improperly maintained. (nt)

[kristopher]

7. Except for the 50+% that failed to ever generate anything...

[Fledermaus]

8. I'm not worried.

[glinda]

9. Aren't they made in China?

[Liberty Belle]

15. Campo Wind Farm's are made in Spain. Land of Don Quixote.

[kestrel91316]

10. I see you are now obsessed with reporting every wind turbine that has

ever failed, lol. As opposed to reporting on the many thousands that have never failed.

That figures.

[TheMadMonk]

11. Why not? The anti-nukers certainly insist on breathlessly reporting every incident...

...that takes place inside the gates of a nuclear plant as if each and every one were a bee's dick away from triggering unimaginable catastrophe.

[Liberty Belle]

16. No, I reported the failures in my magazine's circulation area.

And there are many others that have failed. I interviewed an Assembly candidate last week. She said she drove past a wind farm near Palm Springs recently and called 911 to report a fire. The 911 operator said, "let me guess--another fire at the wind farm?"

So apparently this is pretty common at least at some locations. For journalists to poke head in sand and not report these hazards in our communities would be wrong.

Some years ago, an experimental wind turbine in our area decapitated a man, by the way.

So it's pretty understandable why folks aren't keen here on getting anymore.

[phantom power]

12. k+r

[PHIMG]

13. Descent into self parody continues....

Chernoble, Three Mile Island = 100,000+ turbine failures.

[NNadir]

14. Not really. Since the wind industry is TRIVIAL, and an expensive failure

there is no telling actually - what the external costs of wind will be.

Nuclear energy produces more than 60 times the energy of wind power in something called pressurized water reactors.

The dumb claim by anti-nukes that Harrisburg and Kiev have both been wiped out notwithstanding, nuclear energy has produced between 25 and 30 exajoules of energy for more than 3 decades.

The wind industry is hiding behind the fact that it can't produce energy.

We need to add to the deaths from the wind industry, the deaths associated with dangerous fossil fuel backups.

Now, I recognize that the wind people don't give a rat's ass how many people die from dangerous fossil fuels, but I like to call them out on it and point out this undenialable fact about their position.

Not only are their expensive shorlived rickety machines falling out of the sky, but they're draining money that the planet desperately needs to fight climate change.

They're draining money from health care on a quixotic quest AND THEY'RE PERPETUATING COMPLACENCY on the part of their dangerous fossil fuel masters. There is a reason that the dangerous fossil fuel industry pays wind and anti-nuke advocates Amory Lovins, Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka Fisher huge salaries, and all the fraudulent representations to the contrary are essentially just that, fraudulent, dishonest, immoral and deadly.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who can comprehend the difference between Chernobyl and about 400 other reactors on the face of this planet. I notice that most of them - and almost all of them are car CULTists - never give up their precious cars because of the Yugo. On the contrary, they hand out denialist delusional horseshit about solar powered Teslas.

Never underestimate the power of the lie. Lies only die when they are confronted.