New York Times

December 29, 2008, 8:12 am
When Lightning Strikes Wind Turbines
By Kate Galbraith

This has been known to fry wind turbines. (Photo: The Associated Press)With snow, ice and frigid weather, winter creates complications for renewable energy, as I wrote last week. But for Ralph Brokaw, a Wyoming rancher with both cows and wind turbines on his land, the worst hazard is not the ice that his blades can throw off in the winter.

Rather, it is lightning strikes on the towers, which usually occur in summer when there are more storms.

The effect is spectacular — and scary. “It will explode those blades, and they’ll throw chunks of blade several hundred feet,” Mr. Brokaw, a member of his local fire department, told me over the telephone.

As the chunks fall, the firefighters douse them with water. Otherwise, “There’s really not much you can do with a turbine that’s 200 foot tall and on fire,” he said.

Mr. Brokaw said that in the past five years he has been called to help put out two or three turbine fires. He said that “there’s oil and gearboxes and a tremendous amount of wiring” in the generator — so even though the turbines are very well-grounded, they can sometimes light up.
From Green Inc.
Mapping the World for a Wind-Powered Future
Wind Companies Compelled to Play Nice in New York
Prius: It’s Not Just a Car, It’s an Emergency Generator
The Secretary of Agriculture’s Climate Challenge
Turbulence for Two East Coast Offshore Wind FarmsFrom Around the Web
Boston Globe
Wind, wave power play
What's This?

Powered by Blogrunner
.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous post

The Use and Abuse of Paper Towels
Next post

New Year’s Ball in Times Square to Stay Bright, All Year Round
.13 Comments
1. December 29, 2008
9:12 am

Link
It seems like the coverage of wind energy in this section disproportionately focuses on the risks associated with wind energy facilities (ice, lightning, etc) and often only anecdotally.

It would be nice to see the NY Times take a more comprehensive approach that scientifically assesses wind energy’s benefits and risks and compares them with the benefits and risks of other power generation options such as coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc.

Anecdotal pieces such as this one contribute little to the dialogue about our energy choices and future.

— Tim
2. December 29, 2008
9:45 am

Link
I’d like to see one of videos on YouTube. =)

Out of all the wind tubines out there I’d like to know how often lightning strikes one and then out of the ones that have been hit by lightning what was the end result (i.e. loss of life be it animals or humans and what kind of destruction to property along with the total value of the the property destroyed). My guess is that it’s not very high at all, but activists will be out there clamoring to show how unsafe they are while tens of thousands of people die on the roads each year. More people probably die from a vending machine falling on them than from a wind turbine being struck by lightning. But whatchya gonna do? People just have to complain about something, right?

— Capt. Concernicus
3. December 29, 2008
11:28 am

Link
If the these turbines are so dangerous, maybe we’ll have to have a Price-Anderson Act for wind like the other “carbon free” nuclear industry requires to be “economical”. (Not to speak of 80% federal loan guarantees.)

I’d second Tim’s comment on adding a bit more focus on comparative risk and more systemic rather than anecdotal commentary.

— Dennis
4. December 29, 2008
11:43 am

Link
The high number of annual lightning strikes to pole-mounted transformers (and the resulting explosions and fires in residential neighborhoods) hasn’t deterred utilities from using above-ground transmission and distribution lines. Two or three turbine fires won’t halt wind energy development in Wyoming, or anyplace else…once financing returns.
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2008/10/reffwest.php

— Denis Du Bois, Editor, Energy Priorities Magazine
5. December 29, 2008
12:37 pm

Link
Turnabout’s fair play, no? More people probably die from falling vending machines than from nuclear power plant explosions (and certainly do from consuming too much of what comes out of those vending machines :-)), yet some people find it perfectly acceptable to perpetuate misinformation about nuclear power. So how can they complain when similar tactics are used against them?

— James
6. December 29, 2008
12:55 pm

Link
I’m sure a lightning strike on a 200 foot tall wind turbine is amazing to watch, but apparently engineers have been working to prevent future fireworks displays that may force Wyoming Ranchers to get their entertainment elsewhere.

This company makes lightning rods that are inserted inside the turbine blades and suppress the massive current from a lightning strike. [http://machinedesign.com/article/when-lightning-strikes-wind-turbines-1011]

And this company goes a step further than a single point lightning rod with a design that relies on a sort of cluster effect of lightning “food” in the form a dense plasma cloud. [http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/210663/6/ARTCL/none/none/1/Ion-Plasma-Generator-Reduces-Wind-Turbine-Lightning-Strikes/]

— Brent
7. December 29, 2008
2:03 pm

Link
I think the previous comments display a little too much of that green self-righteousness that sometimes makes discussion difficult. The writer didn’t conclude by stating the risk of a lightning strike is good reason to avoid wind power. He was simply reporting a phenomenom which has been observed by people who live around turbines.

While I also support alternative energy sources, I hadn’t thought about this issue until reading it in the NYT. I think the story does a service in reminding the reader that there is no free lunch, even with environmentally friendly tech.

Here’s a few other “anecdotal” reports or concerns for the “pro-winders” to grind their teet over:
1. Wind turbines built in the flyways of migratory birds cause avoidable deaths of threatened species each year. Is this risk fully considered in choosing and approving sites?
2. Wind turbines are less effective in generating power on the hottest days - because there’s less wind - when we need this power the most.
3. Some neighbors of wind turbines have reported sleep disorders and nausea triggered by the constant, low frequency whine of the turbine blades. Is this risk properly disclosed and mitigated by proponents of wind energy?
3. Who pays to decommission these turbines when their useful life is exceeded? If I was leasing land for a turbine, I don’t want the promoter to abandon it and leave me with a 200 foot tall yard ornament.

And so it goes….

— P.D.
8. December 29, 2008
3:58 pm

Link
Wind power is not a solution.
The whole truth about wind turbines is never told by lobbyists and governments.
How could the very weak and extremely unreliable initial energy source of a wind turbine ever produce a steady power of any significance?
Please think!
And read: “Wind energy- the whole truth” at: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/
And to show how completely irrelevant wind power is in regard to the worldwide energy and climate crisis visit the following link: http://www.bp.com/iframe.do?categoryId=9024179&contentId=7044895
And play around with the charts you see there (The BP charts regarding energy reserves and energy consumption worldwide over the last 20 to 40 years.) and make some calculations. And if you don´t get confused with the zeros, you will get my point.
The resources now poured into futile, but very ingenious and high-tech windmills, could be far better used for, for example:
1) Burning coal in a cleaner way,
2) Efficiency of energy use in the broadest sense of the word
3) Promoting a drastic change of life style (There are about 6.5 billion people, who all have the right to have some energy to their disposal).
Just 3 ideas.
Alexander

— Alexander
9. December 29, 2008
7:19 pm

Link
I applaud Ms. Galbraith for pointing out some of the facts about wind turbines that the wind lobby is quick to dismiss. The National Lightning Safety Institute has very good information available about the hairline fractures that occur following lightning strikes. These fractures allow moisture to penetrate the blade and when the next strike occurs, the blade explodes. A lack of any regulatory environment makes incident reporting and data collection non-existent. Moreover, most turbines previously have been placed in unpopulated areas. No more…now the developers are proposing to place turbines within 750 feet of homes on Ohio, an extremely active area for lighting. Ohioans are scared to death and Ms. Galbraith’s article has brought attention to an important area of concern. olicy makers shoud take note and wind developers should be ashamed.

— julie
10. December 29, 2008
10:26 pm

Link
I agree with Alexander insofar as he understands the futility of wind energy, and appreciate the link to http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/. The public and our law makers need to see more of the truth to neutralize some of the high priced hype they get from the T.V. and AWEA’s lobby force.

Since CO2 in the air is such a serious problem doesn’t it merit a seriousand focused solution? Wind energy is rarely consistent enough even across large regions to reduce coal emissions, but nuclear power can.

Surprisingly it boasts the lowest death rate per MWH of ANY generation source in the free world - ever. Nuclear also doesn’t require the massive grid system overhaul central plains wind dictates saving billions more. Furthermore, the technology to reprocess spent nuclear rods we already own reduces the spent fuel issue dramatically.

With our nation’s finite energy dollars we would do well to focus on a single meaningful solution, taking advantage of economies of scale and building a reliable domestic energy manufacturing infrastructure that gives depth of meaning to “energy independence” in the process.

Some slick talking politicians claim “there is no silver bullet” to cure our energy challenges and so we need “silver buckshot.” That sounds like a way to attract more votes, not a way to produce the maximum amount of low carbon electricity at the lowest cost.

— Thomas
11. December 29, 2008
11:18 pm

Link
Fried food kills more people in Texas than wind turbines ever did or will do. Bring ‘em on. The more turbines the merrier.

— Ben in Texas
12. December 30, 2008
9:06 am

Link
#7 - P.D,

IF I’m one of those “previous commentors” you are talking about I’d just like to say that in no way am I one of those granola chewing, tree-hugging hippies you are attempting to reference. I was merely pointing out that everyone has a gripe about something regardless of what it is. I believe we do need alternative energy supplies, but you don’t see me running to Toyota to trade in my car for a Prius. You don’t need to one extreme to make an impact. If everyone
did things in moderation and we developed realistic alternative energy sources we could cut down some of our “addiction” to foreign energy.

#8 - Alexander,

Do you work for BP? If so, I can see why you are so against wind turbines as an alternative energy source. Therefore any discussion with you would be absolutely pointless.

— Capt. Concernicus
13. December 30, 2008
1:03 pm

Link
Capt. Concernicus
Rest assured, I am not an employee of BP, but their link gives a good global picture regarding the Global Energy needs and generation. If you know a better link please let me know. I also agree an article like: ‘When Lightning Strikes Wind Turbines’ is completely anecdotic and does not address the global energy crisis in a substantial way.

The number one priority of the US must be:
Complete Independence of FOREIGN fossil fuels.

America is sitting on one of the biggest fossil fuel reserves in the world, called COAL. Good for another 100 or 200 hundred years! Like China and Russia. Pour the resources into developing the technology to burn that stuff in a clean and efficient way. And once when America has that technology, imagine the power that will bring by exporting that technology to the rest of the world? Having that technology will turn the table completely for America. Instead of wasting a trillion dollars on wind. Have a look at: http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/wind-mills-electricity-yield.html There you will see how many monster (highly sophisticated) wind turbines a small country like the Netherlands has to build just to compensate their 1% increase of yearly electricity consumption.
Can you imagine Russia or China coming- up with that kind of technology first? America will be literarily blown of the face of the earth! And don’t forget that electricity is only 30% of all energy used. Why tackle only 30% of the problem with futile, but ingenious (Oh yes, I admire the technology used there, I am a mecanical engineer.) wind turbines and not tackle the complete problem.
Therefore America should do the following:
1) Burning coal in a cleaner way,
2) Efficiency of energy use in the broadest sense of the word
3) Promoting a drastic change of life style (There are about 6.5 billion people, who all have the right to have some energy to their disposal).
4) Put a 1 or 2 dollar tax on gas and use these revenues to force (or help) those dumboos in Detroit (I mean the CEO’s) to develop the most fuel efficient cars in the world. America has the technology and could lead again!
5) Super conductivity.
6) Plasma fusion.
7) Energy efficient housing. (Insulation, window planning and if you like put some solar panels and silly wind mill on the roof, but without subsidies and or tax breaks, but make it obligatory.)
8) Rethink city planning, so you don’t need a car to move from shop to shop.
Just a few ideas.
Alexander