View Full Version : Another Wind Turbine Collapse!
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 19:00
No-one hurt, thank goodness. In case anyone still thinks that the Baillie windfarm is a safe distance from roads and housing.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7168275.stm
northener
03-Jan-08, 19:42
No-one hurt, thank goodness. In case anyone still thinks that the Baillie windfarm is a safe distance from roads and housing.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7168275.stm
Good job we closed down all the Coal Mines then, just think how many people got killed down there......
It's strange though, all those deaths and serious injuries down the pit - yet I never heard any clamour to close them on safety grounds - why's that I wonder?
Totally agree with you there Northener...good job none of those "bladepolishers"that cinderellas shoe was on about were in the nasel(sp?) when it collapsed...oh that wouldnt happen thought cos they only polish blades :rolleyes:
Good job we closed down all the Coal Mines then, just think how many people got killed down there......
Indeed, over 5000 deaths per year are recorded in China's coal mines alone.
percy toboggan
03-Jan-08, 19:54
UK coal is on the way back.
I missed out on a small fortune by not following an informed hunch three years ago. Shares have almost quadrupled in the interim.
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 19:56
Good job we closed down all the Coal Mines then, just think how many people got killed down there......
It's strange though, all those deaths and serious injuries down the pit - yet I never heard any clamour to close them on safety grounds - why's that I wonder?
I grew up in Central Scotland in the 1950's and pit deaths and disasters were frequent occurrences. At that time industrial death and injury was an accepted fact of life. It was almost a matter of pride to report the number of deaths on a big project.
Thankfully we are getting better at not killing people at work and the reason is a huge change in attitude to safety over the years.
Don't knock it Northener, it might be you next, or your son or daughter, friend and so on. There is no such thing as an accident. Something always causes it.
ywy2
northener
03-Jan-08, 20:02
I grew up in Central Scotland in the 1950's and pit deaths and disasters were frequent occurrences. At that time industrial death and injury was an accepted fact of life. It was almost a matter of pride to report the number of deaths on a big project.
Thankfully we are getting better at not killing people at work and the reason is a huge change in attitude to safety over the years.
Don't knock it Northener, it might be you next, or your son or daughter, friend and so on. There is no such thing as an accident. Something always causes it.
ywy2
Believe me, Windy - I definitely don't knock it. Father in law seriously injured on 2 occasions, 2 of wifes uncles killed plus various of my parents friends with emphysemia (sp).
I just find it amusing that we should all be worried about turbines crashing through the roofs of our houses, yet deaths on a completely unacceptable scale are OK - as long as we get our coal nice and cheap and don't have those dangerous turbines in the UK.....
.
Indeed, over 5000 deaths per year are recorded in China's coal mines alone.
How many Chinese cyclists die every year?.....
So are you saying that 5000 Chinese died to mine the coal that fuelled the works, that made the steel, that make the Turbines ?????
northener
03-Jan-08, 22:22
My point is that we don't care where our energy comes from as long as it is cheap and it is not ourselves that are put in danger.
Green_ is, I believe, against windfarm developments. That's his choice, I ain't got a problem with that. But, being the cynic that I am, it amuses me that the post, ahem, 'highlights' a potential hazard with turbines. This will, no doubt be siezed upon by anti-windfarm persons and screamed from the rooftops.
Whereas I have never, ever, seen any posts regarding the dangers faced by coal miners around the world. Why? because we want cheap coal and don't give a monkeys who suffers.
A few score Chinese get killed on the other side of the planet? Yeah, bring it on, I'm keeping warm.
What? A wind turbine? Here? We can't produce energy like this, someone may get hurt!
[disgust]
For the record, I'm not convinced either way by the pro or anti-windfarm lobby, I'm only interested in domestic single turbines on a 'self sufficiency' level.
As long as it doesn't fall on my head.....
.
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 22:23
This isn't about coal mines. The further you go back in any industry you'll see higher fatalities than in future years. Better regulations, regulatory control and putting responsibilities on company board members have improved things considerably. Where industry is now - generally - is that when accidents happen they happen because of human error, and not because of catastrophic failures of equipment or structures. Humans can and do make all kinds of errors, including over-riding control systems which are put in place for very good reasons.
The wind industry is regulated by HSE but nowhere near as tightly as for other power industries. Other power industries have the rotating bits on the inside, within engineered containment, and only industry workers or approved visitors have access to potentially hazardous areas. With wind farms, there are no restrictions on members of the public accessing the site at any time. And some houses are very close to turbines. Regulations are required to ensure safety during construction and during maintenance by workers, but there is NO REQUIREMENT for a safety assessment for normal operations. Hence to be safe there should be a requirement to be a certain distance from roads and from people's homes.
For off-shore wind, there is a requirement for turbines to be a minimum distance from oil and gas pipelines. This is because it is recognised that there is a danger from turbine collapse, thrown blade parts, fire, etc.
Highland Council used to have their own recommended minimum safe distance to housing - and for far smaller turbines. However, Scottish Planning Policy 6 for Renewable Energy did away with any requirement for a minimum safe distance to housing and roads, leaving each case to be judged on its particular circumstances - which has led to a free-for-all approach by the developers. Highland Council's 2006 Renewable Energy Strategy recommends 2km to nearest housing, but at present that remains guidance only and is not mandatory.
In a nutshell, the wind industry regulations ensure that oil and gas pipelines are more important than people. Frankly, I find this shambolic, and typical of a money-grabbing industry that puts greed and profit first and safety to its neighbours well down the order of importance.
Cinderella's Shoe
03-Jan-08, 22:27
Well said, GNG but don't forget public safety as well as that of the neighbours!
This isn't about coal mines. The further you go back in any industry you'll see higher fatalities than in future years. Better regulations, regulatory control and putting responsibilities on company board members have improved things considerably. Where industry is now - generally - is that when accidents happen they happen because of human error, and not because of catastrophic failures of equipment or structures. Humans can and do make all kinds of errors, including over-riding control systems which are put in place for very good reasons.
The wind industry is regulated by HSE but nowhere near as tightly as for other power industries. Other power industries have the rotating bits on the inside, within engineered containment, and only industry workers or approved visitors have access to potentially hazardous areas. With wind farms, there are no restrictions on members of the public accessing the site at any time. And some houses are very close to turbines. Regulations are required to ensure safety during construction and during maintenance by workers, but there is NO REQUIREMENT for a safety assessment for normal operations. Hence to be safe there should be a requirement to be a certain distance from roads and from people's homes.
For off-shore wind, there is a requirement for turbines to be a minimum distance from oil and gas pipelines. This is because it is recognised that there is a danger from turbine collapse, thrown blade parts, fire, etc.
Highland Council used to have their own recommended minimum safe distance to housing - and for far smaller turbines. However, Scottish Planning Policy 6 for Renewable Energy did away with any requirement for a minimum safe distance to housing and roads, leaving each case to be judged on its particular circumstances - which has led to a free-for-all approach by the developers. Highland Council's 2006 Renewable Energy Strategy recommends 2km to nearest housing, but at present that remains guidance only and is not mandatory.
In a nutshell, the wind industry regulations ensure that oil and gas pipelines are more important than people. Frankly, I find this shambolic, and typical of a money-grabbing industry that puts greed and profit first and safety to its neighbours well down the order of importance.
If there's no restrictions,why are the gates locked at the Causewaymire then?
northener
03-Jan-08, 22:31
Thanks for the info there Green_ ,
Regarding safe distances - you are right to be hacked off.
Regarding coal mines,my point could be dodgy nuclear supply from another (or even our own) nation, oil from disputed regions (now, where could that be?), even gas supplied by regimes using forced labour. Doesn't really matter - as long as we get it cheap and we don't have to see anything nasty- we don't care.
.
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 22:32
If there's no restrictions,why are the gates locked at the Causewaymire then?
Gates locked, huh. That'll stop bits flying onto the Causeymire then? I guess it's also why you see cars parked at the entrance and no-one in them.....
they would have to be very unlucky to be hit on the Causewaymire!The cars parked are usually people that have no right to be there...the base was the same..or indeed anywhere in caithness that causes a bit of interest x
The wind industry is regulated by HSE but nowhere near as tightly as for other power industries. Other power industries have the rotating bits on the inside, within engineered containment, and only industry workers or approved visitors have access to potentially hazardous areas. With wind farms, there are no restrictions on members of the public accessing the site at any time. And some houses are very close to turbines. Regulations are required to ensure safety during construction and during maintenance by workers, but there is NO REQUIREMENT for a safety assessment for normal operations. Hence to be safe there should be a requirement to be a certain distance from roads and from people's homes.
For off-shore wind, there is a requirement for turbines to be a minimum distance from oil and gas pipelines. This is because it is recognised that there is a danger from turbine collapse, thrown blade parts, fire, etc.
Highland Council used to have their own recommended minimum safe distance to housing - and for far smaller turbines. However, Scottish Planning Policy 6 for Renewable Energy did away with any requirement for a minimum safe distance to housing and roads, leaving each case to be judged on its particular circumstances - which has led to a free-for-all approach by the developers. Highland Council's 2006 Renewable Energy Strategy recommends 2km to nearest housing, but at present that remains guidance only and is not mandatory.
In a nutshell, the wind industry regulations ensure that oil and gas pipelines are more important than people. Frankly, I find this shambolic, and typical of a money-grabbing industry that puts greed and profit first and safety to its neighbours well down the order of importance.
Very interesting GNG. I think you will find that the Renewable Energy Strategy only recommends a distance of 1km from housing. I seem to remember reading somewhere that in France they have stopped the general public from getting up close and personal to wind turbines for reasons of safety, could that be right? Maybe the HSE should be taking these potential problems with wind turbines more seriously especially when developers are encroaching closer and closer to homes with their plans and even encouraging access to the sites as a tourist attraction. (I've no doubt on the entrance there will be a sign saying 'at your own risk' though.)
I wonder how many people are killed each year in accidents involving motor vehicles ?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that in France they have stopped the general public from getting up close and personal to wind turbines for reasons of safety, could that be right?
Windfarms I've seen in France (viewed from train windows) seem to be absolutely nowhere near any human habitation whatsoever, not even one isolated cottage. Mind you, this could be to do with (as I seem to vaguely remember) France have the same population as the UK but double the land mass.
Green_not_greed
04-Jan-08, 20:25
Windfarms I've seen in France (viewed from train windows) seem to be absolutely nowhere near any human habitation whatsoever, not even one isolated cottage. Mind you, this could be to do with (as I seem to vaguely remember) France have the same population as the UK but double the land mass.
That's not quite the case - Rupert is absolutely correct. Following a series of accidents in north-west France over the past few years. These accidents have included 5m lengths of turbine blade being thrown 200m. Most accidents were thrown turbine blades but there was also the complete collapse of a turbine across an industrial park - very similar to the distance between the Forss turbines and buildings.
The French declaration can be found here:
http://ventdubocage.net/securite_distance2.htm
The cars parked are usually people that have no right to be there...
Could you explain that? As far as I know you are allowed to walk around the windfarm so parking outside it seems fine to me.
I wonder how many people are killed each year in accidents involving motor vehicles ?
Obviously not enough; they are still manufacturing them and even making them faster........:confused
ywindythesecond
05-Jan-08, 01:34
Could you explain that? As far as I know you are allowed to walk around the windfarm so parking outside it seems fine to me.
Hi Torvaig
I think you could probably live the rest of your life in a tent on the Causeymire Windfarm and not suffer from a blade on your head. The risk of visiting a windfarm is minimal under most conditions, but the risk does not not exist. (Double not is not a mistake)
Industrial risks do exist and there is legslation for it, but windfarms seem to be outwith the Government's "Safety Envelope"
Despite it being windy today, the three new windmills near watten are not working and one of them only has two blades!!!
Don't think they're finished yet Fran. Or maybe it's too windy, not windy enough, too cold (some now have censors to turn them off if they're likely to get iced up and start chucking ice blocks around). Wonder what else stops them working?
Could you explain that? As far as I know you are allowed to walk around the windfarm so parking outside it seems fine to me.
Sorry Geo, what I meant was that the gates are locked for a reason...safety probably and also to stop vandals etc,so if cars are parked there to go a walk ,which they are entitled to do, then IF a blade came off and whacked into their car,they would most probably have no comeback,I think that as in every other "industry" there are accidents but to try to stop turbines "just incase" there is an accident is rediculous..........x
j4bberw0ck
05-Jan-08, 13:25
It's strange though, all those deaths and serious injuries down the pit - yet I never heard any clamour to close them on safety grounds - why's that I wonder?
Obvious. The unions would never ever have allowed it while Scargill was in charge, although probably unintentionally he achieved the same ends by making sure that coal supplies were too costly and too unreliable. If it's safety you're worried about, forget Chinese coal mines and look at driving, smoking, drinking and the Scottish diet as means of killing people, but no one talks abot banning those, either.
Green_not_greed
05-Jan-08, 15:46
......smoking, drinking and the Scottish diet as means of killing people, but no one talks abot banning those, either.
Really??????
Sorry Geo, what I meant was that the gates are locked for a reason...safety probably and also to stop vandals etc,so if cars are parked there to go a walk ,which they are entitled to do, then IF a blade came off and whacked into their car,they would most probably have no comeback,I think that as in every other "industry" there are accidents but to try to stop turbines "just incase" there is an accident is rediculous..........x
Its not ridiculous to try to stop windfarms being built too close to peoples homes and public roads if there is a serious risk of people being killed. If a piece of blade breaks or becomes detached from a moving turbine it will be hurled a considerable distance due to the speed it is rotating at (don't know exact figures but have read it is very fast). I believe there have been recorded instances in Germany of blade parts being hurled 400m or 500m metres and actually crashing through buildings. This would never happen obviously at Causeymire because there are not any homes close enough but for others in planning at the moment that is not the case.
Perhaps you misread me Olivia,I never said stop erecting them near houses I said its rediculous to try and stop them being used "incase" of an accident...accidents can and do happen....most by human error not machines,computers etc and if we say that they are dangerous because they "might" collapse or shed a blade then where do we stop?Car cause accidents all the time...we still use them,trains,buses,planes,boats,pylons,infact almost anything we use in everday life can or could cause death/serious injury IF they fail.....x
I believe there have been recorded instances in Germany of blade parts being hurled 400m or 500m metres and actually crashing through buildings.
Can you substantiate that?
I read something about it a fair while ago now - can't remember where though, so at the moment the answer is 'no' - as I said 'I believe'.
Green_not_greed
05-Jan-08, 19:24
IF they fail.....x
And of course that's never going to happen, is it....
http://media.komotv.com/images/070826_turbine_collapse_1.jpg
http://rawdenbydale.co.uk/images/Nissan%20Turbine%20Burning%20jpg.jpg
northener
05-Jan-08, 19:27
Obvious. The unions would never ever have allowed it while Scargill was in charge, although probably unintentionally he achieved the same ends by making sure that coal supplies were too costly and too unreliable. If it's safety you're worried about, forget Chinese coal mines and look at driving, smoking, drinking and the Scottish diet as means of killing people, but no one talks abot banning those, either.
It's not safety I'm interested in really, Jabs, it's people's rather cynical use of perceived danger to further their own cause whilst conveniently forgetting the alternatives' safety record.
.
It's not safety I'm interested in really, Jabs, it's people's rather cynical use of perceived danger to further their own cause whilst conveniently forgetting the alternatives' safety record.
.
You have hit the nail on the head.
Two wrongs don't make a right. No-one is forgetting or ignoring the dangers of mining coal, drilling for oil etc. and those involved - in developed countries at least - are far more safety conscious now than in earlier years. That's no reason to ignore the dangers of windfarms. Completely illogical.
northener
05-Jan-08, 19:46
Two wrongs don't make a right. No-one is forgetting or ignoring the dangers of mining coal, drilling for oil etc. and those involved - in developed countries at least - are far more safety conscious now than in earlier years. That's no reason to ignore the dangers of windfarms. Completely illogical.
At the risk of becoming a pedantic bore, Badger, I have never stated we should ignore the dangers of windfarms. What I have stated is that we rather hypocritically throw our arms up in horror at the dangers of collapsing wind turbines (because it suits our argument to do so) whilst (for example) burning coal from a country with a horrendous safety record in mining.
.
And of course that's never going to happen, is it....
http://media.komotv.com/images/070826_turbine_collapse_1.jpg
http://rawdenbydale.co.uk/images/Nissan%20Turbine%20Burning%20jpg.jpg
I never said it couldnt or wouldnt happen GNG....I simply stated that accidents happen everywhere...whether our power comes from turbines,nuclear,powerstations or even wave power...they can and will malfunction...usually because of human error, or by companies greed....in a perfect world none of that would happen...but everybodys idea of perfect differs....x
Green_not_greed
05-Jan-08, 20:21
....I simply stated that accidents happen everywhere...whether our power comes from turbines, nuclear power stations or even wave power...they can and will malfunction...usually because of human error, or by companies greed....in a perfect world none of that would happen...but everybodys idea of perfect differs....x
Or from component failure...etc....
Agreed, but conventional and nuclear power stations and their components are built, operated and regulated to significantly higher standards than wind power stations. Although there are obvious differences in potential consequences from an accident arising - say between wind and nuclear - I cannot understand why potential risk to the public and neighbours is being deliberately increased by choosing to construct turbines too close to roads and houses. Surely you'd agree that a safety zone of 1-2km around the turbines, plus restrictions on public access, would be a sensible move forward?
Surely you'd agree that a safety zone of 1-2km around the turbines, plus restrictions on public access, would be a sensible move forward?
I personally don't think so. Firstly, I've seen little evidence that debris throw will exceed 400 metres and secondly, the risk is so low that it will be unreasonable to restrict public access to remote and beautiful areas of the countryside.
Two wrongs don't make a right. No-one is forgetting or ignoring the dangers of mining coal, drilling for oil etc. and those involved - in developed countries at least - are far more safety conscious now than in earlier years. That's no reason to ignore the dangers of windfarms. Completely illogical.
It would be illogical to support the greater evil if there is a choice.
ywindythesecond
06-Jan-08, 03:25
I personally don't think so. Firstly, I've seen little evidence that debris throw will exceed 400 metres and secondly, the risk is so low that it will be unreasonable to restrict public access to remote and beautiful areas of the countryside.
Good point there reggy. You'll get a much better view looking out from a windfarm to remote and beautiful areas than you will looking through it to remote and beautiful areas.
ywy2
Despite it being windy today, the three new windmills near watten are not working and one of them only has two blades!!!
They're not finished yet. I live at the roadside in front of them. Looking forward to seeing them operational.
Highland Laddie
06-Jan-08, 15:10
Or from component failure...etc....
Agreed, but conventional and nuclear power stations and their components are built, operated and regulated to significantly higher standards than wind power stations. Although there are obvious differences in potential consequences from an accident arising - say between wind and nuclear - I cannot understand why potential risk to the public and neighbours is being deliberately increased by choosing to construct turbines too close to roads and houses. Surely you'd agree that a safety zone of 1-2km around the turbines, plus restrictions on public access, would be a sensible move forward?
What about component failures on cars, lorries etc, should we insist on a 1-2km distance between vehicles.
As far as i can see, your just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill to justify your own needs.
The chances of being hit from anything flying off a turbine, are about the same as you voting in favour of turbines.
Cinderella's Shoe
06-Jan-08, 15:24
What about component failures on cars, lorries etc, should we insist on a 1-2km distance between vehicles.
A good driver will allow a minimum of 2 seconds between their car and the car in front. 4 seconds in poor conditions. That's defensive driving. And the principle is the same.
Highland Laddie
06-Jan-08, 23:12
And i certainly agree with you,
but would not like to sit beside you in a car
if you are covering 400 metres in 2 seconds
infact not even 4 seconds.
of the top of my head, that must be somewhere about 200 miles per hour !!!
but then, i was never very good at math.
i'm sure someone could correct me.
Cinderella's Shoe
07-Jan-08, 18:40
And i certainly agree with you,
but would not like to sit beside you in a car
if you are covering 400 metres in 2 seconds
infact not even 4 seconds.
of the top of my head, that must be somewhere about 200 miles per hour !!!
but then, i was never very good at math.
i'm sure someone could correct me.
Sorry if I didn't explain this properly.
Its 2 seconds between cars past any point on the road. So if the car in front drives past a lampost and you drive past it 2 seconds or more later, you are a safe distance apart. The faster you go, the greatest the distance the cars will be apart. I don't know where the 200mph comes from.
should we insist on a 1-2km distance between vehicles.
Yes please - I'd really like that.
Highland Laddie
08-Jan-08, 12:43
And of course that's never going to happen, is it....
http://media.komotv.com/images/070826_turbine_collapse_1.jpg
http://rawdenbydale.co.uk/images/Nissan%20Turbine%20Burning%20jpg.jpg
It must be fantastic living in your world, where the only things that ever break down or fall apart are wind turbines.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.