Turbine fire war of words

By Martin Neville

Friday, May 18, 2012

 

Turbine fire war of words

The fire at the Ardrossan turbine in Scotland. Picture by Stuart McMahon.

THE enterprise behind the controversial Camp Hill wind turbine scheme has robustly defended the project amid fire fears.

The strong rebuttal by Partnerships for Renewables (PfR) followed a statement issued by The Wight Against Rural Turbines (ThWART) on Tuesday, in which the campaign group said the scheme could pose a fire threat to the ancient woodland of Parkhurst Forest.

It said the two 125-metre tall turbines proposed for Ministry of Justice land would be located little more than 100m from the nearest trees, sparking fears that if one of the turbines suffered an electrical fault or a lightning strike, burning debris could be blown into the forest.

The group’s news release included a photograph of a wind turbine that caught fire in windy weather at Ardrossan in Scotland and data compiled by the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, a group concerned about the proliferation of wind farms in Scotland. The data showed there had been at least 165 recorded incidents involving wind turbines catching fire around the world in the last ten years.

PfR hit back, stating modern wind turbines were designed with a raft of safety systems, including safeguards against direct lightning strikes.

A spokesman said: "The risk of forest fires from causes such as lightning, discarded cigarette butts or arson, although small, is still vastly greater than any potential risk from wind turbines.

"The single instance of a turbine fire last year in Scotland should be put in the context of the 3,100-plus onshore wind turbines currently operating in the UK, only one of which suffered a mechanical failure in winds of almost unprecedented ferocity.

"The theoretical risk of a similar thing happening on the Isle of Wight is minuscule."

ThWART said the scheme threatened the community with the "unacceptable effects of noise and shadow flicker as well as the overbearing scale of the industrial machines".

According to PfR, the project has the potential of generating up to 13 gigawatt hours of green electricity every year, powering the equivalent of 2,944 homes on an annual basis.

Reporter: martinn@iwcponline.co.uk

Comments

Log-in or register to comment on this story.

By ticking "Remember me" you agree to a cookie being stored on your computer - no personal data is shared.

Forgotten your password?
Displaying the last 10 of 31 comments - Show All Comments

Log-in to Report

by Yvonne Carter

20th May 2012, at 22:47:18

Has anyone noticed their electicity bills have been reduced since the country has been covered with wind turbines? Last week we were told our bills are going up again another £100 a year.

Log-in to Report

by James McAdder

20th May 2012, at 13:03:07

@ Joh Yelland Re:Biomass

While the theory of biomass is all well and good, it doesn't work in practice. You have to set aside land for biomass fuel production, land that, then, cannot be used for food production. So while it "doesn't rely on imported fuel", it will push us further into the red with regard to our ability to feed ourselves as a nation. Biomass is not, and never can be, a viable means of generating electricity. Wind power can be.

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

20th May 2012, at 09:50:01

Oh dear, I meant TOO much, not to much.
Useful tip for contributors: IWCP seems to have a 1000 character limit. Type your comment into Word, double click on the “Words:” button at the bottom left and you get the character count instead. Then copy and paste.

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

20th May 2012, at 09:47:30

Biomass has its good points – most importantly, its electricity is demand driven, not supply driven and intermittent like wind’s. It is less environmentally invasive per MW at the point of generation, and it is nationally secure if it doesn’t rely on imported fuel. It also has its bad point; a CO2 emission on a par with fossil fuels. Yes, you can replant to absorb CO2 by photosynthesis, but that is an unrelated action which could equally be claimed to neutralise CO2 emission from fossil fuels, cement manufacture or anything else. I also suspect, although I haven’t done the sums yet (I don’t believe anything, including myself, until I’ve done the sums), that for biomass to make a significant contribution to energy needs would need an unrealistically large area for growing its fuel. The reason that I suspect this? It is only taking us a few hundred years to use up most of the fossil fuels that were deposited over a hundreds of millions of years. So my instinct is against to much biomass…

Log-in to Report

by Neal Staley

20th May 2012, at 01:21:15

Isn't it strange that the Thwarties are against something which originally Real Ventures Biomass Plant had earmarked to supply electricity for? Biomass and Thwart now where do we start?

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

20th May 2012, at 00:06:58

...and of course I meant CAN'T reach it so it can't be put out...

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

20th May 2012, at 00:05:24

Wind turbines are an enormous technical achievement, and I don’t just mean their 125m height. But, like any high power high voltage machines, a component failure can result in fire. Once burning the fire brigade can reach it so it can’t de put out. Safeguards reduce the risk, but they cannot eliminate it. Blade failure is more common than fire and, as the rotor weighs 38 tons, at least as undesirable, but fire is the second most common failure mode and should not be ignored. In fact it isn’t; a press release on the Vestas V80 fire from Infinis, the Ardrossan wind farm operator, states, all Infinis staff vacate wind farms when wind speeds exceed 55 mph and therefore no one was present on site at the time of the incident” - so they are aware of the risk. (continued below)

Log-in to Report

by John Yelland

20th May 2012, at 00:04:54

(from above) There have been many other fires – in April this year for example a similar turbine caught fire in Gross Eilstorf. But how many? If no one was killed or seriously injured and no photographer was around at the time of a fire would we get to hear of it? I’ve never seen a press release on a turbine fire that wasn’t preceded by a press report.
I do however believe the risk of fire is fairly small, but because of the dreadful consequences of fire in a forest it needs to be extremely small. The descending fire ball in the picture is about the size of a bus and it is landing a long way from the turbine. We should follow other legislatures that have not allowed wind turbines close to forests - “as a standard precautionary measure”. As a chartered electrical engineer with experience in high voltage and high power I know what I’m writing about.

Log-in to Report

by sidney barton

19th May 2012, at 17:22:25

David Webster. what is the name of the river that flows through PARKHURST FOREST? I know of one about a hilf mile to a mile away called the Medina..

Log-in to Report

by Don Prescott

19th May 2012, at 16:07:55

@ David Charlton,
Sorry I did not notice your 2 lines "As always David spamming his petition, Along with a very biased and innacurate thwart report.. Whos next to comment.....Don"
I hope to have a nice surprise for you on Friday.
Hope you enjoy it.
Love
Don

Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.

Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Delicious Icon

More News

Most Read

  1. Tributes paid after cliff death

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013

  2. Awards for Isle of Wight beaches

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013

  3. School's improvement plan needs improving

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013

  4. Free school gets government go-ahead

    Wednesday, May 22, 2013

  5. Explosive discovery in garden

    Thursday, May 23, 2013