Wind Turbine Crashes To Ground, Casualties At Schools Were Narrowly Avoided

[elektra]

In a near miss at a High School in Illinois, a wind turbine crashed to the ground. Luckily school had just ended for the weekend when the wind turbine came apart over the weekend.
This can only be described as reckless endangerment. The placing of a wind turbine so close to the school to so that the children believe in the scam they call Sustainable Energy. Well, this wind turbine could not even sustain it's vertical position as designed. People should go to jail, thank God it happened over the weekend.

All across our nation, Wind Turbines have been placed close to schools to influence, brain-wash, propagandize the children into believing. This is not the first one that has failed near a school. One day one of these monsters will fall and kill.

Wind turbine collapses at Petersburg high school

PETERSBURG, Ill. (WCIA) — A wind turbine at a high school in Petersburg came crashing down over the weekend, officials said. The Menard County Sheriff’s Office reported on Friday that t…

www.wcia.com

PETERSBURG, Ill. (WCIA) — A wind turbine at a high school in Petersburg came crashing down over the weekend, officials said.


The Menard County Sheriff’s Office reported on Friday that the turbine at PORTA High School experienced a failure of its brake system, meaning the blades were able to spin freely. School officials got in touch with turbine-specialized technicians, but they could not work on the turbine until the blades stopped spinning. That would happen only if the wind died down or another equipment failure occurred.

 

[1srelluc]

I wonder if they have the grounds folks go around and pick-up all the dead birds before school starts?

As I've maintained many times before, I'd rather have a Super Max prison on my property line than a fuckin' wind farm.

 

[JGalt]

Earlier that day, before it collapsed...

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

In a near miss at a High School in Illinois, a wind turbine crashed to the ground. Luckily school had just ended for the weekend when the wind turbine came apart over the weekend.
This can only be described as reckless endangerment. The placing of a wind turbine so close to the school to so that the children believe in the scam they call Sustainable Energy. Well, this wind turbine could not even sustain it's vertical position as designed. People should go to jail, thank God it happened over the weekend.

All across our nation, Wind Turbines have been placed close to schools to influence, brain-wash, propagandize the children into believing. This is not the first one that has failed near a school. One day one of these monsters will fall and kill.

Wind turbine collapses at Petersburg high school

PETERSBURG, Ill. (WCIA) — A wind turbine at a high school in Petersburg came crashing down over the weekend, officials said. The Menard County Sheriff’s Office reported on Friday that t…

www.wcia.com

View attachment 798043

They have space lasers in them..don't they?

 

[Coyote]

Coal is so much safer..better to brainwash children with…

 

[themirrorthief]

In a near miss at a High School in Illinois, a wind turbine crashed to the ground. Luckily school had just ended for the weekend when the wind turbine came apart over the weekend.
This can only be described as reckless endangerment. The placing of a wind turbine so close to the school to so that the children believe in the scam they call Sustainable Energy. Well, this wind turbine could not even sustain it's vertical position as designed. People should go to jail, thank God it happened over the weekend.

All across our nation, Wind Turbines have been placed close to schools to influence, brain-wash, propagandize the children into believing. This is not the first one that has failed near a school. One day one of these monsters will fall and kill.

Wind turbine collapses at Petersburg high school

PETERSBURG, Ill. (WCIA) — A wind turbine at a high school in Petersburg came crashing down over the weekend, officials said. The Menard County Sheriff’s Office reported on Friday that t…

www.wcia.com

View attachment 798043

that junk crashed harder than Joes poll numbers...damn

 

[elektra]

Coal is so much safer..better to brainwash children with…

View attachment 798054

as I like to say, you cant build, maintain, and have a future with Wind Turbines without increasing our use of coal. The brainwashing is thinking that these giant steps back in technology are not 100% dependent on the consumption of coal. As we can see, they always fail, hence they will always need to be rebuilt. You do not build Wind Turbines without coal. So if you got a problem with coal you have to have a problem with Wind Turbines which have increased the use of coal.

This particular wind turbine consumed well over 2000 tons of coal, being manufactured. I got to do the math. It is hard, nobody advertises this, not even the experts agains. Well, they may but the democratic party controlled google search engine makes it next to impossible to find the coal usage by wind turbines.

Your post is a great example of brainwashing, you have no idea of the 1000's of tons of coal that are consumed manufacturing one wind turbine. If you like we can start with the concrete foundation, I guarantee I can prove that consumed a 1000 tons of coal, then there is the tower, the nacelle, the blades, the copper in the generator.

 

[westwall]

Coal is so much safer..better to brainwash children with…

View attachment 798054

Sad to say, Coyote, but you are the brainwashed one. Windmills are old tech, and not environmentally friendly in the slightest.

But hey, go ahead and regurgitate what your cult leaders tell you.

 

[Stryder50]

Coal is so much safer..better to brainwash children with…

View attachment 798054

It's all that pesky pollutant Carbon. Damn stuff that all life on this planet needs to exist in the first place.
Then they go and take another form of it, petroleum~"fossil-fuel" to make the composites/plastics to make those wind turbine towers.
There's just no getting away from that dangerous carbon.

 

[MarathonMike]

In a near miss at a High School in Illinois, a wind turbine crashed to the ground. Luckily school had just ended for the weekend when the wind turbine came apart over the weekend.
This can only be described as reckless endangerment. The placing of a wind turbine so close to the school to so that the children believe in the scam they call Sustainable Energy. Well, this wind turbine could not even sustain it's vertical position as designed. People should go to jail, thank God it happened over the weekend.

All across our nation, Wind Turbines have been placed close to schools to influence, brain-wash, propagandize the children into believing. This is not the first one that has failed near a school. One day one of these monsters will fall and kill.

Wind turbine collapses at Petersburg high school

PETERSBURG, Ill. (WCIA) — A wind turbine at a high school in Petersburg came crashing down over the weekend, officials said. The Menard County Sheriff’s Office reported on Friday that t…

www.wcia.com

View attachment 798043

Maybe they shouldn't have made the tower thingee out of cardboard.

 

[elektra]

Maybe they shouldn't have made the tower thingee out of cardboard.

it is not like it is some great technological advance

 

[Coyote]

Refusing to recognize that every form of energy production has it it’s dangers and downsides Is foolish. There is always going to be some sort trade off.

There is also an automatic knee-jerk reaction from those ideologically invested in only one idea. From both sides.

Laughing at them because it is “simple technology” is pretty silly, as if that matters. The underlying principle is simple though the technology to do it on a large scale is not. Do you make fun of hydro-electric power? There is nothing complex about a dam. You don’t have to build a Rube Goldberg machine for something to work.

Using wind turbines is not a “giant step back” In technology that will ”always fail”.

In my opinion, it is critical we diversify our sources of energy and that can’t happen overnight. We need a cleaner mix of sources. Why eliminate one automatically because you are “brain washed”?

Wind Turbines - pros and cons compared to fossil fuels.

Longevity: 20-25 years for a turbine, 50 years for a coal powered plant).

Cost to make and install a turbine:

• A commercial wind turbine of average size costs between $2.6 and $4 million. (Wind Turbine Cost: Worth the Million-Dollar Price In 2022?.)

Cost to build a new coal fired power plant:

• According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the cost of building a modern coal-fired power plant can range from $1.8 million to $4.5 million per megawatt of installed capacity. It should be noted that for some investment projects of this type, the cost can be below 1 million dollars per MW, especially when it comes to countries with low labor costs and weak environmental requirements. However, for a typical 500 MW power plant, the current figures correspond to a total cost of between $900 billion and $2.2 billion.(Coal-fired power plant construction costs.)

Toxic waste produced during operation:
Wind: none
Coal: 240,000 tons of toxic waste per plant per year.

Maintenance and operating cost:

• Nationally, financial analyst firm Lazard found in December 2016 unsubsidized wind projects costing between $32 and $62 per megawatt-hour while coal cost between $57 and $148 per megawatt-hour. (Cost of Wind vs. Fossil Fuels - MEIC)

Carbon Footprint:

• Very low compared to coal (Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds).

Failure rate (ie crashing):

• Wind turbine rotor blades are failing at a rate of around 3,800 a year, 0.54% of the 700,000 or so blades that are in operation worldwide. (Annual blade failures estimated at around 3,800)
• It is hard to make a comparison. What constitutes failure and how to make a comparable cost. Cost of land reclamation and waterways? Cost of Black lung? Cost slurry ponds failing? Failure of the various equipment used?

How “clean” is wind energy really? The best way I can think of to measure it is by its carbon footprint.

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

How green is wind power? It’s not a simple question. Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.
…Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted.



Wind Turbine Failure

There is no question that there has been an increase in turbine failure rates and the main factor seems to be is be in the new taller turbines and the too-rapid push to develop taller turbines, reducing the time spent between development and manufacture and quality control.

Giant Wind Turbines Keep Mysteriously Falling Over. This Shouldn't Be Happening.

The taller the turbine, the more epic the tumble.

www.popularmechanics.com

Turbines are falling for the three largest players in the industry: General Electric, Vestas, and Siemens Gamesa. Why? “It takes time to stabilize production and quality on these new products,” Larry Culp, GE CEO, said last October on an earning call, according to Bloomberg. “Rapid innovation strains manufacturing and the broader supply chain.”

Top 3 Types of Wind Turbine Failure

The three most common types of wind turbine failure are turbine blades, generators, and gearboxes.

www.firetrace.com

 

[elektra]

Using wind turbines is not a “giant step back” In technology that will ”always fail”.

In my opinion, it is critical we diversify our sources of energy and that can’t happen overnight. We need a cleaner mix of sources. Why eliminate one automatically because you are “brain washed”?

I wish to tackle each of your points individually. These replies can get too long for one individual comment.

I honestly believe this is an important subject, thee most important subject outside of wars our country has ever faced. I will have to ignore the, "brain washed" comment. Or not, could it be that somebody is much more educated or has better common sense than most?

To start, why is it critical that we diversify our sources of energy? Certainly diversification would be, Nuclear, Natural Gas, and Coal. But, why is it so important to diversify.

 

[elektra]

Wind Turbines - pros and cons compared to fossil fuels.

Longevity: 20-25 years for a turbine, 50 years for a coal powered plant).

I have never ever seen a 20 year old wind turbine. I lived in California, I passed by the wind turbines in Tehachapi, Palm Springs, and the Altamont pass. Not one of those wind Turbines made it to 20 years old. Thousands thrown in the garbage. But so what, I will happily state 20 years is how long a wind turbine will last. Definitely not 25.

50 years for a coal plant? Where do you get that figure! We have 80 year old coal plants operating. 80 years old, that is technology from 1930. Wherever you got that figure, they decided to take a low ball number for coal and at that technology from 1930 and compare it to technology with billions of dollars in research and development, in 2010 to present. That is extremely unfair.

A coal plant designed today can operate for a 100 years.
Compared to Wind turbines that are not proven to last 25 years.

We need one coal plant to provide a city with electricity, to include all commercial, industry, homes, and all the utilities a city requires, meaning pumping water which buy far is extremely energy intensive.

How many wind turbines to run the city, sorry, it can not be done.

There are around 380 coal plants in the USA today.
There are over 70,000 wind turbines and that number must increase to 1,000,000?

A coal plant can be built without wind turbines, a wind turbine can not be built without coal, or it's equivalent which comes from natural gas.

A coal plant provided electricity for an entire year without breaking or stopping.

A wind turbine, in the course of that year, can leave us without electricity in the evening when the earth's surface convection stops because the heating and cooling of the surface is much less without clouds and the sun.

A wind turbine, as shown in England throughout the last year, will leave us without electricity for weeks at a time when the wind does not blow.

How is it diversification, when they are not operating?
How is it diversification, when they cost 10,000 times more?
How is it diversification, when they cant build themselves, wind turbines?
How is it diversification, when they need so much land, we must now move them to the ocean?
How is it diversification, when they need so much more natural resources to build?
How is it diversification, when the 24 hours a day manufacturing of them, can never stop.

 

[elektra]

Carbon Footprint:
Very low compared to coal (Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds).

I like studies, let me take a look at this, "study". I will follow your link.

Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds

Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests.

www.carbonbrief.org

Damn, that is an article, not a study? Did you think you were linking to a study. No Problem, I will figure it out and find the study, no need for you to do the work for your argument. Sorry if that is snarky but it is a bit frustrating when people always link to articles and present them as studies.

a new study suggests

So, when I finally get to the study, it is only going to suggest, it is not going to prove, it is not going to be 100% fact, is that fair to say, because I am quoting the article you linked to.

The research, published in Nature Energy,

I must now go to something called Nature Energy to try to find the study there, but I found something very interesting here, which should stop me from going any further, and which coyote should of recognized and thus not used this link.

The research, published in Nature Energy, measures the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of a range of sources of electricity out to 2050. It shows that the carbon footprint of solar, wind and nuclear power are many times lower than coal or gas with carbon capture and storage.

Honestly, the study is now worthless. The study is talking about the future, not today. Further, the carbon capture and storage industry, does not exist.

Coyote, you have inadvertently proven my point is correct; that building wind turbines creates more CO2, not less. The study that is mentioned in the article, states that wind turbine manufacturing to be carbon neutral must use CCS, carbon capture and storage (does proper grammar state, "carbon-capture, and storage").

The article is poorly written, and coming from me, that is saying a lot.

I will always use your references, coyote. I will not ignore them, I will read them, and follow the links to where they lead.

 

[Coyote]

I like studies, let me take a look at this, "study". I will follow your link.

Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds

Building solar, wind or nuclear plants creates an insignificant carbon footprint compared with savings from avoiding fossil fuels, a new study suggests.

www.carbonbrief.org

Damn, that is an article, not a study? Did you think you were linking to a study. No Problem, I will figure it out and find the study, no need for you to do the work for your argument. Sorry if that is snarky but it is a bit frustrating when people always link to articles and present them as studies.

I didn’t present it as a study.

So, when I finally get to the study, it is only going to suggest, it is not going to prove, it is not going to be 100% fact, is that fair to say, because I am quoting the article you linked to.

I must now go to something called Nature Energy to try to find the study there, but I found something very interesting here, which should stop me from going any further, and which coyote should of recognized and thus not used this link.

Honestly, the study is now worthless. The study is talking about the future, not today. Further, the carbon capture and storage industry, does not exist.

Coyote, you have inadvertently proven my point is correct; that building wind turbines creates more CO2, not less. The study that is mentioned in the article, states that wind turbine manufacturing to be carbon neutral must use CCS, carbon capture and storage (does proper grammar state, "carbon-capture, and storage").

The article is poorly written, and coming from me, that is saying a lot.

I will always use your references, coyote. I will not ignore them, I will read them, and follow the links to where they lead.

The point I was making was not that it would be carbon neutral, but as I stated, a smaller carbon footprint than coal. Do have any studies that show otherwise? I’ll look for other sources.

 

[Coyote]

I have never ever seen a 20 year old wind turbine. I lived in California, I passed by the wind turbines in Tehachapi, Palm Springs, and the Altamont pass. Not one of those wind Turbines made it to 20 years old. Thousands thrown in the garbage. But so what, I will happily state 20 years is how long a wind turbine will last. Definitely not 25.

50 years for a coal plant? Where do you get that figure! We have 80 year old coal plants operating. 80 years old, that is technology from 1930. Wherever you got that figure, they decided to take a low ball number for coal and at that technology from 1930 and compare it to technology with billions of dollars in research and development, in 2010 to present. That is extremely unfair.

A coal plant designed today can operate for a 100 years.
Compared to Wind turbines that are not proven to last 25 years.

We need one coal plant to provide a city with electricity, to include all commercial, industry, homes, and all the utilities a city requires, meaning pumping water which buy far is extremely energy intensive.

How many wind turbines to run the city, sorry, it can not be done.

Average life span.

Coal plants are designed for a life span of 50 years. That is planned for. With good maintenance they can go 60 or 80 years. But the average retirement age tends to be around 50. The coal powered plants retired between 2000-2018 had average retirement age of 50 years. If you want longeVito…hydroelectric plants can last 100 yrs from what I’ve read.

The average for both wind turbines and coal plants was what I used.

There are around 380 coal plants in the USA today.

As of 2021, there were only 269.

There are over 70,000 wind turbines and that number must increase to 1,000,000?

A coal plant can be built without wind turbines, a wind turbine can not be built without coal, or it's equivalent which comes from natural gas.

A coal plant provided electricity for an entire year without breaking or stopping.

A wind turbine, in the course of that year, can leave us without electricity in the evening when the earth's surface convection stops because the heating and cooling of the surface is much less without clouds and the sun.

A wind turbine, as shown in England throughout the last year, will leave us without electricity for weeks at a time when the wind does not blow.

You completely miss the point if diversification if you see it as all one or the other rather than an interlapping network Using multiple sources.

How is it diversification, when they are not operating?

Every energy source we use has not operated or operated sub par at one time or another or under certain conditions. Isn’t the point to have multiple sources that can compliment and back up each other?

How is it diversification, when they cost 10,000 times more?

Do they?

How is it diversification, when they cant build themselves, wind turbines?

What? There is no power plant or turbine or another form of energy production that can build itself.

How is it diversification, when they need so much land, we must now move them to the ocean?

What doe that have to do with diversification? You think mining coal doesn’t utilize land? And worse…leave it worse off?

How is it diversification, when they need so much more natural resources to build?

But fewer to operate.

How is it diversification, when the 24 hours a day manufacturing of them, can never stop.

? That makes no sense.

 

[elektra]

I didn’t present it as a study.

Coyote, when you quote something that says, study. You are presenting it as a study. I just quoted you post, again. Your quote states study. Not that it really matters how you presented it, I showed how it is meaningless

Carbon Footprint:
Very low compared to coal (Solar, wind and nuclear have ‘amazingly low’ carbon footprints, study finds)

Whatever coyote linked to, states explicitly, that the carbon footprint, of some parts of a wind turbine, not all the part, certainly the entire wind turbine heavy industry, would be lower if carbon capture systems are built in the future.

 

[elektra]

Average life span.

Coal plants are designed for a life span of 50 years. That is planned for. With good maintenance they can go 60 or 80 years. But the average retirement age tends to be around 50. The coal powered plants retired between 2000-2018 had average retirement age of 50 years. If you want longeVito…hydroelectric plants can last 100 yrs from what I’ve read.

The average for both wind turbines and coal plants was what I used.

And again, you are comparing the Coal plants designed and built in the 1930's, without computers, to today? Not a fair comparison at all.

Many coal plants were retired because the government forced them to close. Not because they quit working. As I have shown, there are coal plants operating today that are over 80 years old.

If a coal plant from 1930's engineering and materials can operate 80 years. How long can a modern coal plant operate? I say at least twice as long, 160 years.

If we want longevity, we build new coal plants, as well as nuclear power plants.

Hydroelectric power is a dead idea. No more are being built, no more should be built. All the profitable sites are gone, and at that the loss of fish is something we can no longer sustain.

 

[elektra]

Every energy source we use has not operated or operated sub par at one time or another or under certain conditions. Isn’t the point to have multiple sources that can compliment and back up each other?

I completely agree with this statement.

Our tired old Nuclear reactors, operate for, up to, 940 days without an interruption in electricity output. Many records set with nuclear reactors. That record was an advanced gas cooled reactor.

Calvert Cliffs in the USA set a record for pressurized water reactor of operating 693 consecutive days.

SONGS 2 nuclear reactors in Southern California easily operate 500 days consecutively before they shut it down (politically).

Diablo Canyon's 2 nuclear reactors easily operate 500 days consecutively.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Calvert Cliffs will operate 500 days consecutively, easily, considering the record. When it shuts down to refuel and for maintenance, it will be down for 30 days.

How will the so called, "diversity" of solar power replace that power? Solar power only operates about 8 hours a day, I will even say 12 hours if you like. Much less on cloudy days, and in the winter, certainly much less as the sun is lower and it cloudy much more often.

Solar Power cannot compliment, nor back-up, a nuclear reactor, natural gas, or coal.

Wind Turbines, the greatest Wind Turbine project in the world, in the North Sea, supplying England with electricity, failed repeatedly last year because of lack of wind, and that was not a day here or there, but for weeks straight.

If we are relying on Wind Turbines, to back-up Nuclear Power, Natural gas, or Coal, again it is impossible. It is foolish. As a nation it is outright criminal and reckless.

Calvert Cliffs, has two nuclear reactors, they stagger the outages so one reactor is always only. Further, they schedule the outages typically when there is the least amount of demand.

Palo Verde has three nuclear reactors, again the outages are staggered so that two reactors are always operating, and at the time of year with the least demand.

Solar power and Wind power, are creating less diversity, for they can not back-up Nuclear, Natural Gas, or Coal.

make you best argument, I already have an answer that is factual.