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

[abu afak]

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

You're a LIAR and deceiver, and this ONE OFF thread is argument by ANECDOTE Fallacy.
Any Natl Stats on fallen wind turbines VS Pipeline, refinery, well-head, leaks, explosions/accidents, etc? Long term air pollution from Fossil Fuels?

"Places near schools to brainwash"?
You F****** conspiracist nut/Liar.
(yeah, let's put them down wind of a coal plant instead)

You're full of it on ALL fronts.

`

 

[elektra]

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

You're a LIAR and deceiver, and this ONE OFF thread is argument by ANECDOTE Fallacy.
Any Natl Stats on fallen wind turbines VS Pipeline, refinery, well-head, leaks, explosions/accidents, etc? Long term air pollution from Fossil Fuels?

"Places near schools to brainwash"?
You F****** conspiracist nut/Liar.
(yeah, let's put them down wind of a coal plant instead)

You're full of it on ALL fronts.

Coal plants, proven success. They run for 80 years, and we never ever hear stories about them falling over.

yeah, let's put them down wind of a coal plant instead

We do not put schools downwind of coal plants, so why bring up something we do not do. What we have doen is put dangerous wind turbines next to schools.

Further, Coal Power Plant technology is now clean. So your idea of a school somehow being downwind of a coal plant is simply a ridiculous stuttering argument from someone that has no factual argument.

Pipelines? We don't run Pipelines near schools.

Well-heads? Again, you are babbling.

abu afuk, has no facts

 

[Coyote]

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

No, Electra. If I were to post a study, I would post a study. It is to find. I posted an article which you are free to refute what it claims.

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.

And?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Actually you might have a point…coal backs up solar and wind and other forms of energy.
If the goal is to reduce the the overall use of fossil fuels and replace them with sources that are more carbon neutral (and you have yet to show coal is more carbon neutral than wind) then diversifying is the way to do it so what we are using is the best for a particular location or use while lowering the overall carbon footprint. The technology and necessary infrastructure is still developing, but the share of energy produced by non-fossil fuels is increasing every year.

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.

And…? It was backed up by other sources requiring, overall, far less use of fossil fuels. What is wrong that?

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.

You are right, instead they back up renewables. But nuclear isn’t a fossil fuel, and is cleaner than fossil fuels, though it has it’s own set of problems.

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.

I support nuclear as part of our energy grid…there is no argument there.

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

I don’t think you understand the meaning of diversity because that isn’t relevant to it.

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

And I am providing factual arguments

 

[Coyote]

Coal plants, proven success. They run for 80 years, and we never ever hear stories about them falling over.

The process of producing coal also produces toxic by-products, can contaminate groundwater, increase flooding. There are known health hazards associated with as well. Unlike a number of energy sources, these are not just in the manufacturing of a plant, but through it’s entire operational life.

We do not put schools downwind of coal plants, so why bring up something we do not do. What we have doen is put dangerous wind turbines next to schools.

Coal burning produces more than air pollution. Coal ash is a toxic by-product of burning coal.

Want to know what is in coal ash? Arsenic, boron, cobalt, chromium, lead, lithium, mercury, molybdenum, radium, selenium, and other heavy metals…look it up. Coal ash dumps leach into groundwater, which has wide ranging effects.

The Problems With Coal Ash Start Smaller Than Anyone Thought | Duke Pratt School of Engineering

How well toxic elements leach out of coal ash depends on the ash’s nanoscale composition

pratt.duke.edu

And they can be near schools.

9 Investigates: Coal ash site exposed near Lake Norman High School

MOORESVILLE, N.C. — Channel 9 learned there's 40,000 tons of coal ash on a Mooresville property about 50 yards from Lake Norman High School.

www.wsoctv.com

You can always regulate the building of turbines a certain distance from habitations (in fact most are in open unpopulated areas aren’t they?). A bit harder to handle the problem of coal ash.

Further, Coal Power Plant technology is now clean. So your idea of a school somehow being downwind of a coal plant is simply a ridiculous stuttering argument from someone that has no factual argument.

Pipelines? We don't run Pipelines near schools.

Well-heads? Again, you are babbling.

abu afuk, has no facts

And then, we have….coal ash.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Some were, some were also closed and replaced by cheaper, cleaner gas - but they were also designed for a 50 year life span. They are recognized as an aging part of our infrastructure.

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.

How long does a modern refrigerator last compared to one 50 years ago?

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.

That is the downside of hydro. Every source has it’s downside right?

 

[Coyote]

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.

But none of it says wind is as high or higher than coal.

 

[elektra]

No, Electra. If I were to post a study, I would post a study. It is to find. I posted an article which you are free to refute what it claims.

said study in your post, in your quote, so I am very sorry that I called what you posted, a study.

In the future I will be clear, "coyote linked to a webite and includes a quote stating they are using a study"

 

[elektra]

And?

But none of it says wind is as high or higher than coal.

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

Coyote, you are arguing the carbon footprint of a wind turbine is smaller than a coal plant, yet you link only compared part of the wind turbine, not the entire thing. It did not include the base, let alone everything else I can include.

Of course, it will not be higher than coal, if you only look at three parts, and not the entire wind turbine.

Further, the article states that the carbon footprint they come up with is achieved with non-existent carbon capture systems.

If, the output of wind turbines could possibly equal one coal plant, you could argue carbon footprints, but the 340,000 installed wind turbines, do not equal the output of one coal plant.

 

[elektra]

Actually you might have a point…coal backs up solar and wind and other forms of energy.
If the goal is to reduce the the overall use of fossil fuels and replace them with sources that are more carbon neutral (and you have yet to show coal is more carbon neutral than wind) then diversifying is the way to do it so what we are using is the best for a particular location or use while lowering the overall carbon footprint. The technology and necessary infrastructure is still developing, but the share of energy produced by non-fossil fuels is increasing every year.

If the goal is to reduce the overall use of fossil fuels, you can not do that by building more, and on a scale that the world has never seen.

If the goal is to reduce the overall use of fossil fuels, you can not do that by increasing the use of fossil fuels, to build more and more and more, forever.

If the goal is to reduce the overall use of fossil fuels, you must replace them with something equal, or close to equal in power output and land usage.

Carbon neutral, I have shown that wind turbines are not carbon neutral. Wind Turbines has increased the use of fossil fuels dramatically.

Diversify? Again, you can not diversify if what you add to the energy mix does not compete.

Destroying the earth, by the square mile is not diversifying. Destroying one part of the earth so that corporations get rich on the resources, and completely deplete them is not diveresifying.

 

[elektra]

The process of producing coal also produces toxic by-products, can contaminate groundwater, increase flooding. There are known health hazards associated with as well. Unlike a number of energy sources, these are not just in the manufacturing of a plant, but through it’s entire operational life.

Coal burning produces more than air pollution. Coal ash is a toxic by-product of burning coal.

Want to know what is in coal ash? Arsenic, boron, cobalt, chromium, lead, lithium, mercury, molybdenum, radium, selenium, and other heavy metals…look it up. Coal ash dumps leach into groundwater, which has wide ranging effects.

The Problems With Coal Ash Start Smaller Than Anyone Thought | Duke Pratt School of Engineering

How well toxic elements leach out of coal ash depends on the ash’s nanoscale composition

pratt.duke.edu

And they can be near schools.

9 Investigates: Coal ash site exposed near Lake Norman High School

MOORESVILLE, N.C. — Channel 9 learned there's 40,000 tons of coal ash on a Mooresville property about 50 yards from Lake Norman High School.

www.wsoctv.com

You can always regulate the building of turbines a certain distance from habitations (in fact most are in open unpopulated areas aren’t they?). A bit harder to handle the problem of coal ash.

And then, we have….coal ash.

Wind Turbines increase the use of coal, dramatically. You can not manufacture Wind Turbines without burning millions of tons of coal.

The day we say we can not burn coal, is the day we will no longer be able to sustain wind turbines.

 

[Coyote]

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

Coyote, you are arguing the carbon footprint of a wind turbine is smaller than a coal plant, yet you link only compared part of the wind turbine, not the entire thing. It did not include the base, let alone everything else I can include.

Of course, it will not be higher than coal, if you only look at three parts, and not the entire wind turbine.

Further, the article states that the carbon footprint they come up with is achieved with non-existent carbon capture systems.

If, the output of wind turbines could possibly equal one coal plant, you could argue carbon footprints, but the 340,000 installed wind turbines, do not equal the output of one coal plant.

Are you claiming coal has a smaller carbon footprint than wind? Got any studies that show that is the case?

 

[Coyote]

If the goal is to reduce the overall use of fossil fuels, you can not do that by building more, and on a scale that the world has never seen.

The carbon footprint of a wind turbine, including manufacture, transportation and disposal is still a fraction of what it is for coal.

If the goal is to reduce the overall use of fossil fuels, you can not do that by increasing the use of fossil fuels, to build more and more and more, forever.

You can if you are reducing it enough elsewhere. A coal power plant emits carbon from manufacturing and through its lifetime. A turbine only during manufacturing.

If the goal is to reduce the overall use of fossil fuels, you must replace them with something equal, or close to equal in power output and land usage.

Not necessarily.

Carbon neutral, I have shown that wind turbines are not carbon neutral. Wind Turbines has increased the use of fossil fuels dramatically.

They use far less than a coal plant. And natural has also been used instead of coal.

Diversify? Again, you can not diversify if what you add to the energy mix does not compete.

It does compete when you consider all the factors, not as the sole source but one of multiple sources.

Destroying the earth, by the square mile is not diversifying. Destroying one part of the earth so that corporations get rich on the resources, and completely deplete them is not diveresifying.

That is a whole different argument that is relevant other energy sources as well. Weigh it and pick your poison.

 

[elektra]

Are you claiming coal has a smaller carbon footprint than wind? Got any studies that show that is the case?

I am stating as a fact, that Wind Turbines dramatically increase the use of coal. They weigh over 2,000 tons each. It takes hundreds to equal attempt to replace one coal plant. All those natural resources require coal consumption, so that they can be manufactured by heavy industry.

Studies? I do not need a study to show that which is bigger, that requires more, produces more CO2, being manufactured. You did present a link and quote where the quote said the link is referencing a study, that study said if we only look at a 1/4 of the materials involved, and if we have carbon capture, than wind turbines are carbon neutral.

So what, how is it practical to use more of our natural resources to produce a product that is intermittent, unpredictable, inefficient, and extremely expensive.

In a sane world, the replacement should have to prove it is good for the environment and society.

 

[Unkotare]

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

View attachment 798054

1972?