Ooops!

[Digit]

has to generate electricity for approximately 6.8 months before it produces as much energy as is used during the manufacturing lifetime. This, they say, means the turbine model earns its own worth more than 35 times during its energy production lifetime.

If you break the figures down you will find that to achieve what they state above the turbine has to run 365 days, 24 hrs/day, at full rated capacity without any break down or maintenance time.
Not in my world!
Therefore they are bull shitting us, and why do they find that necessary if they have a good case?
Their figures as as reliable as a Greek chancellor's.

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

I see exactly what you mean!

If installed on a good site, the V90-3.0 MW wind turbine will generate approximately 280,000 MWh in 20 years - thus sparing the environment the impact of a net volume of approximately 230,000 tons of CO2, as compared to the figures for energy generated by a coal-fired power station.

What a con! And that report came from Vestas, the manufacturer. Now there's a surprise.

Many of the search results I came up with when I looked into this a few days ago are also based on figures from Vestas and so can hardly be called unbiased.

The best unbiased source I have come up with is this one from the US

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/pdf/fdm1092.pdf

 

[Digit]

Another one here...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... farms.html

... we all know of course that the Telegraph is utterly biased, unreliable blah blah blah of course.

Roy.

 

[BigShot]

I've not read any of the reports about the one that famously went up in flames recently, but my guess was that that the mechanism/system that feathers the blades in high winds failed to do so. Speed of rotation increases, things start to seize, friction builds, smoke, fire... oops.

I'm very anti wind-power (other than limited, small scale application) for a few reasons.
The main three being inefficiency; how overrepresented and overpromoted they are versus genuinely reliable systems like tidal; and that they are an eyesore. They've started appearing on some of the hills around here and I'm old enough to remember well what they used to like. You can't build a tiny cottage to turn some fields you've bought into a smallholding because it's green belt - but wind-generation companies can put up those heinous things are destroy the view for miles around. Grumble.

 

[Digit]

AFAIK Bigshot it was brake problem. Logic would suggest that the brake was incapable of maintaining its grip in the high wind, so with the brake fully 'on' and the blades still rotating, either total brake failure or fire was the inevitable result.

Roy.

 

[BigShot]

"The risk to the public is one in 100 million. You are much more likely to be injured by a lightening strike than by a wind turbine." - Chris Streatfeild, RenewableUK's director of health and safety.

Commentors on the article have said he's made the number up (and of course, if there's been "no" injury to the public, he's got absolutely no figures to base it on) but that aside...

...we now have to worry about lightning AND wind turbines instead of just lightning.
If 2 in 8 people who go outside are hit by lightning and 1 in 8 are injured by a turbine... the risk of being injured goes up from 2 in 8 to 3 in 8 when you add turbines to the mix. Now clearly the odds are far more slim than that, but I've used those numbers just to keep things simple.

I don't think maths is Mr Streatfeild's strong point.

 

[BigShot]

Cheers Digit. That makes sense.
It's slightly worrying that the brakes weren't capable of stopping the blades spinning even when they were feathered (or have I completely made up the idea that they are feathered in high winds - I'm pretty sure they are but starting to wonder now).

 

[Digit]

Poor maths seems to be a big problem with the industry BS. First there is that starkly misleading example that I posted earlier, then the list of structural failures would further suggest that their stress calculations aren't quite upto snuff either!
Your observation concerning calculations based on a claimed zero fatality rate further suggests to me that not only is their maths poor but their assessment of ours is likewise.

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

Better not let Mike Garnham hear you guys talking this way :wink:

 

[Digit]

Well in view of Mike's occupation Rog I credit him with good enough maths to see the way the industry is presenting maths to suit its own agenda.
Personally I consider it insulting that they seem to think that I can't count!

Roy.

 

[BigShot]

Digit - I can't count* and I can see there's something up.


* A slight exaggeration, I'll admit. I did do A-Level maths, but I had to do the non-calculator parts of the exams on my fingers because I can't make the numbers stay still when I'm working out in my head... and that someone like me didn't even need a pen and paper to figure out that the numbers are guff is worrying... slightly insulting too actually.

 

[Digit]

One thing's certain BS, if that fire was due to insufficient braking power the other turbines of the same design/manufacture are similarly at risk.
I wonder how many hours of Green electricty it's replacement will have to produce to cover the CO2 produced in the fire and subsequent construction and installation of the replacement?

Roy.