Wind turbine collapse raises safety concerns

The wind industry says such events are rare: but accident statistics from Europe say, they’re not

January 20, 2018

The collapse yesterday of a wind turbine in South Kent, in Chatham-Kent made for stunning photographs and multiple news stories (even in Toronto!).

The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is said to be monitoring clean-up of the turbine site, to make sure the hazardous chemicals in the turbine are disposed of properly; the Ontario Ministry of Labour is also said to be looking into the incident.

Meanwhile, amid claims of how rare the incident is, the U.S.-based owner/operator is investigating the cause.

The wind power trade association and lobbyist, the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) weighed in, saying Canada has thousands of wind turbines and such incidents are rare.

But the collapse of the CK turbine has raised questions. Especially when several other news stories appeared the same day such as a report from an international website that monitors wind turbine accidents which says many countries are considering new setbacks for safety. And, a report from the U.S. notes that wind turbines require more maintenance as they age: soon, the average age of U.S. turbines will be 11 years.

Why was the collapse not detected by the operator? It is rumoured that someone passing by saw the destroyed turbine and reported it.

What sort of maintenance is mandated for these huge power generators, and were there routine inspections?

What public reporting is there for wind turbine incidents? The companies are required by their Renewable Energy Approval to report any incidents such as blade failure or fire to the Ontario government and the appropriate municipality, but when there was a fire in the K2 project in 2017, the municipality was not notified until some time after — a news report at the time said a company representative did not know which turbine had burned, and was driving around with his car window open, trying to find it.

In another project in Ontario, the wind turbine was visibly leaning “off plumb” and was eventually secured with guy wires, prior to foundation repairs.

There is apparently a report that a turbine blade went through the roof of a house in Chatham-Kent in 2009 (we’re looking for that).

As for fires, the wind industry’s own journal, NA Windpower, published an article some years ago titled, “It’s not ‘if’ it’s when,” referring to the frequency of wind turbine fires.

Clearly, these incidents are not as “rare” as the wind industry would have you believe.

The Caithness accident report from Europe says that between 2013 and 2017, there were 167 accidents per year, including fires, broken blades, and injuries/deaths among workers. Blade failure is the most common incident, followed by fires.

Caithness concludes:

Some countries are finally accepting that industrial wind turbines can pose a significant public health and safety risk. In June 2014, the report of the Finnish Ministry of Health called for a minimum distance of 2 km from houses by concluding: “The actors of development of wind energy should understand that no economic or political objective must not prevail over the well being and health of individuals.” In 2016 Bavaria passed legislation requiring a minimum 2km distance between wind turbines and homes, and Ireland are considering a similar measure.         

The Ontario government continues to dodge its responsibility on wind turbine noise by relying on computer models and its notion of compliance, despite growing evidence and thousands of complaints of noise and vibration.

With yesterday’s event, the government needs to assure Ontario’s rural citizens that it is doing everything it can in the area of safety.

Other questions relate to the technical aspects of the wind “farm” approvals:

  • What sort of design safety margins are required with regards to the material properties?
  • What kind of stress, natural frequency and fatigue analysis is required to be submitted for these when an application is drawn up?

 

  • Who reviews the technical part of the application? What are the qualifications of the reviewer? Are those applications ever farmed out to professional engineers who have the appropriate experience to conduct the review?
  • What inspection procedures are used during installation and afterwards during operation? Who conducts these inspections? What inspection reports are filed and where are they filed? What are the qualifications of those who review the inspection reports?
  • How often do IWT inspections need to be done…. and how are they being done after it is up and running so that relevant data is actually acquired?
  • How many IWTs are out there of this design or similar?
  • What design specifications are being followed for the design and manufacturing? For example, do they require x-ray weld non-destructive examination for all tower welds?
  • The Ministry of Labour is now reported to be involved in the Chatham-Kent turbine failure. If this IWT failed for a reason that can’t be readily identified, what position has the Ministry of Labour taken (or needs to take) on behalf of all the workers who install and maintain these things?

Does it mean that these are unsafe for people to be anywhere near both during construction and afterwards during operation until such time as the root cause failure analysis is completed?

Many questions, few answers.

Comments

Jackie Girard
Reply

It has been reported that this turbine wasn’t even connected to the grid. How many more are just standing there producing NO power?

Andre Lauzon
Reply

If it was not connected to the grid do we pay for the power that is not produced?????? (curtailed)

Bert
Reply

I think that after the turbine had self destruct, and they checked, it was not connected to the grid. It just means the breakers have tripped when it broke.

Tracy
Reply

Yaaaay!!
Be assured, someone from “the other side” is pulling for us..”sweet mystery of life 😊😊

Stan Thayer
Reply

Yes the fallen IWT will cost the ratepayers more because additional ministry officials will take years to study and report then commission a committee to detail the findings while all the information is kept confidential due to lawsuits then filed away never to be seen. Great work if you can get it! Good to outlast a couple of elections anyway, maybe into retirement for some.
10 years ago this month windmill caused problems in Germany, Australia, Ireland and other countries were making headline news around the world. The Ontario Liberals purposely ignored the information they were shown.
A website with an open forum similar to WCO recorded articles back then just like what we are witnessing here in Ontario now. Some of those old articles can still be seen at http://www.EPAW.org./documents.
Yes we have known that some of the IWT’s were not connected to the grid so they will not consume from the grid which is better than being connected and consuming more than producing.
IWT’S cannot be funded by an actual price per kilowatt produced because their maintenance is continous but the wind is not.
If Ontarians do not continue to pay a stipend or perdiam to the windmill promoters then the IWT’S could be abandoned and left to fall over like any other derelict piece of equipment. I won’t even start on the hazardous materials involved.
Somebody has got to develope a way to get control of this green energy mess.
Stan Thayer

P.S.. More bad news. As of January 1st 2018 Ontario water wells will be tested for arsenic. The proposed amount was 35ppm. but the lethal dose amount has not been verified yet so that will probably be amended. I have been informed by Ontario Waste Recyclers that the arsenic concern is as leachate from aging or broken solar panels that have not been sealed.

Sommer
Reply

It looks so flimsy. Are they all like this?

Tracy
Reply

Reported today: the collapsed turbine is still under investigation but will be removed this week!!!
Destroy the evidence……..pronto!
It is obvious the collapse of the turbine is related to the structure. Based on records, wind speed had nothing to do with the collapse.
In the best interest of the safety of the people living in close proximity of these turbines, people need to be IMMEDIATELY relocated away from these structures. Imagine the harm that could be done should this collapse at high winds! All turbines should be removed.
There is obviously a problem; yet I’m expected to live with a turbine that is less then 400 meters with a total of 18 turbines within a 3 km radius from my home?
I was inside my home when an ice chunk hit it. It scared the soup right out of me. The crash sounded like a bomb had hit. Siding on my home was damaged.
I’ve also been reporting for years of the negative health impacts caused by the assault from infrasound emitted from the turbines yet NOTHING has been done by the wind company or government to mitigate this on going CRIME. SHAME ON ONTARIO. Shame on all people who remain silent while we suffer. Take a bloody gun and hold it to my head. It would be much less painful. I’ve had enough of their bs.

Barbara
Reply

This happened on private property, with an un-occupied structure and with no human injuries?

Assuming all of the above?

Sommer
Reply

” Shame on all people who remain silent while we suffer.” You are absolutely correct, Tracy!
This needs to be said again and again and again until people fully realize that their silence is complicity.

Barbara
Reply

Isn’t there a “fear factor” present in this situation as well?

Leave a Reply to TracyCancel reply

name*

email* (not published)

website