Add One More “FAIL”, to the Wind Industry’s Ever Growing List! FOREST FIRE RISKS!

Forest fires and wind turbines: The danger no one is talking about

Posted June 29, 2011, at 6:19 p.m.

Despite all that has been written about wind power, a vitally important issue has barely been mentioned. When turbines fail, blades may fall to the ground or send fragments that land up to a mile away. Turbines often catch fire, and when they do they often send flaming shards into fields and forests. Much has been said about the short-term jobs created in preparing turbine sites, but almost nothing about job losses from turbine-caused fires in our paper mills, sawmills and other forest-dependent industries.

Official information on the number and severity of turbine-induced forest fires remains largely secret and unavailable. Nonetheless, there are scattered media reports and one thorough description of the safety record of the Caithness USA Wind corporation with installations in the northwest. That one corporation experienced 110 serious wind turbine fires over a 20 year period, but there is no mention of whether some of those fires may have spread to adjacent areas.

Similarly, media references to 43 turbine fires, mostly in the U.S. and Europe, merely state “no details.” Many references do contain brief statements, such as that 22 fires were caused by lightning strikes, but again, no references to those fires spreading far from the sites. Only 25 of the reports mention that turbine fires had spread to fields and forests.

In California, one such fire burned 68 acres, another 220 acres, and in Palm Springs several “spot fires” had been generated in surrounding areas. In Hawaii, 95 acres were burned. Australia lost 80,000 acres of forests located mostly in a national park. Spain lost nearly 200 acres from one fire. A comment on a German fire mentioned that “burning debris” from a turbine had traveled several hundred meters from the site. In Holland, three burning blades from a mere 270-foot tower cast a 50-foot flaming shard 220 feet from the site.

The most dramatic report emanated from Wales where “great balls of fire” landed more than 150 yards away, causing a hillside to burn. Fearing more forest fires, an Australian province enacted a law banning placements of wind towers near wooded areas. Yet, in heavily forested Maine, all of our wind power sites have been approved without even considering that turbines have often caused forest fires.

It requires little imagination to foresee that 400-foot blazing turbines, located in the most heavily winded areas along steep mountain slopes, could easily shoot flaming debris into wooded areas.

Mere fire engines cannot douse turbine fires. In every report, firefighters had to allow the turbine fires to burn themselves out. All they could hope to do was prevent the fires from spreading to other areas. In Australia, California and Germany, massive firefighting equipment evidently came from nearby areas.

That 220-acre California fire had been contained by 45 firefighters, two helicopters and two bulldozers. The 69-acre fire was contained with the help of 15 fire engines, four hand crews and four planes. A 5-acre California fire was extinguished by six fire engines, three water trucks, two helicopters, two tanker planes, a bulldozer and three hand crews.

When Maine experiences turbine fires, one wonders what allowances have been made to buy, store, maintain and make use of such equipment. Where will the personnel and equipment be located? Who will pay for them? Has the Department of Environmental Protection and Land Use Regulation Commission required bonding or insurance policies that would cover the costs of forest losses and jobs in our woods-related industries?

We needed a moratorium that would have allowed us to study all questions related to the turbine-caused forest fire dangers, but the Maine Legislature recently rejected a moratorium proposal.

We may hope DEP and LURC will forgo further site approvals until these and other questions are answered satisfactorily. General Electric reportedly recently wrote to a potential wind developer that its newer turbines rarely catch fire, presumably unlike the older ones already in place. If true, should Maine’s agencies require the installation of GE turbines only?

Forest fires present another unanswered question and one more reason why our permitting agencies should forgo approving more wind turbine sites in Maine’s wooded areas for the remainder of this year.

Clyde MacDonald of Hampden was an aide to Sens. Edmund Muskie and George Mitchell.

http://bangordailynews.com/2011/06/29/opinion/forest-fires-and-wind…

Stephen Ambrose to Canadian Council: Wind Turbine Noise is a Real Health Effect

Windpushers Continue to Deny the harm they are Causing!

Donna Quixote's avatarQuixotes Last Stand

Stephen Ambrose — Master Resource — May 5, 2015

“The Council of Canadian Academies continues to rehash selected studies to further wind turbine development–and set aside wind turbine complaints as only a nuisance for public-health officials. Dismissing white papers as ‘grey’ and neighbors’ documentation of harm just adds to the number of wind-turbine victims…. Public health studies should not appear to be performed with blind eyes and deaf ears.”

This question was posed by the Council of Canadian Academies (CAA): Is there evidence to support a causal association between exposure to wind turbine noise and the development of adverse health effects? The answer given was that only personal attitude and annoyance resulted for those in direct proximity to wind turbines.

However, real people and real studies have been ignored to reach this conclusion.  Continue reading here…..

stock-footage-rotating-medical-healthcare-symbol-over-ekg-background

View original post

Enter the Economists Part III

More on the Corruption of Climate Science….

berniel's avatarEnthusiasm, Scepticism and Science

_________________________________________________________

Enter the Economists:Part IPart IIPart III
Summary and Discussion at Bishop Hill

_________________________________________________________

An Amateur Appraisal

So far we have avoided an appraisal of the critique of Chapter 6 that was offered at the time by the Global Commons Institute and other outsiders. We have also avoided an appraisal of the treatment of this critique by the expert authors in the IPCC process. While something should be said of the latter, it is difficult to avoid in such a discussion an evaluation of the economic methodology in question. When faced with the ravings of a ‘crank‘, with (as one interviewee advised) ‘little understanding about economic systems,’ there is only so much polite listening that can be expected of the expert economists called in to do the Assessment. All the more so when political motivation is apparent. Can we dismiss the…

View original post 5,293 more words