Pictures

Damaged Turbine Crystal Rig wind farm near Dunbar (1)

Damage_crystal_rig_thumb Britain The Times April 16, 2005 Wind farm fears as blade snaps By Katrina Tweedie A TURBINE at a Scottish wind farm has broken down after one of its blades snapped off. The 10-tonne turbine, one of 31 at the £80 million Crystal Rig wind farm near Dunbar, East Lothian, was destroyed last week when a mechanism to stop it spinning too fast failed. Onlookers reported strong winds and said one of the turbine blades flew off and hurtled into the countryside. The 60ft high steel turbines are designed to withstand wind speeds of up to 60 miles per hour and owners, Fred Olsen Renewables, denied the breakdown was wind related. A spokesman said they were investigating the cause and that there had been little risk to people at the remote wind farm. The turbines from German firm Nordex were installed in August 2004. It will cost an estimated £1.25 million to repair. Anti-wind farm campaigners said the incident confirmed their fears about the danger of blades flying off wind turbines. David Bruce, of the pressure group Scottish Wind Assessment Project, said: “There were high winds so the turbines were ‘feathered’, or locked so they couldn’t spin round. It was lucky nobody was walking below. This is only about the second incidence of this in the UK but it shows this is possible.”
1 Apr 2005

Damaged Turbine Crystal Rig wind farm near Dunbar (2)

Turbinedestroyedinscotlandjun05_thumb Britain The Times April 16, 2005 Wind farm fears as blade snaps By Katrina Tweedie A TURBINE at a Scottish wind farm has broken down after one of its blades snapped off. The 10-tonne turbine, one of 31 at the £80 million Crystal Rig wind farm near Dunbar, East Lothian, was destroyed last week when a mechanism to stop it spinning too fast failed. Onlookers reported strong winds and said one of the turbine blades flew off and hurtled into the countryside. The 60ft high steel turbines are designed to withstand wind speeds of up to 60 miles per hour and owners, Fred Olsen Renewables, denied the breakdown was wind related. A spokesman said they were investigating the cause and that there had been little risk to people at the remote wind farm. The turbines from German firm Nordex were installed in August 2004. It will cost an estimated £1.25 million to repair. Anti-wind farm campaigners said the incident confirmed their fears about the danger of blades flying off wind turbines. David Bruce, of the pressure group Scottish Wind Assessment Project, said: “There were high winds so the turbines were ‘feathered’, or locked so they couldn’t spin round. It was lucky nobody was walking below. This is only about the second incidence of this in the UK but it shows this is possible.”
1 Apr 2005

Mountaineer (WV) After (1)

Mountaineer_after_thumb This is a post-construction photo in natural color covering the same area shown in Mountaineer (WV) Before. The yellow circles are in the same locations as above to allow accurate comparisons. It is somewhat difficult to pick out the actual wind turbines but their prominent shadows are easily discernable. They are black lines pointing roughly NE except the two in the SW corner, which point WNW in this composite photo. The 44 turbines of the Mountaineer project were manufactured by NEG Micon and imported from Denmark. They are 345 feet tall and each turbine can generate up to 1.5 MW when the wind is blowing optimally. However, because the winds blowing over Appalachian ridges are intermittent and only occasionally ‘optimal’, a realistic estimate of the annual average generating potential for a 1.5-MW turbine in this region would be less than 0.5 MW, a 30% capacity factor. Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before , Mountaineer (WV) After (1)(this image), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2). The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility.
14 Jan 2005

Mountaineer (WV) After (2)

Mountaineer_after_(2)_thumb This is a wider view from the same photograph (Mountaineer (WV) After (1). The study area is shown by the rectanglular outline. Jon Boone's Comments regarding Mountaineer (WV) Before , Mountaineer (WV) After (1), and Mountaineer (WV) After (2)(this image). The first two images (i.e. Before and After 1) show the extensive forest-interior habitat that existed before the windplant was constructed and the resulting impacts following construction in late 2002. The third image (i.e. After 2) shows the southern half of the windplant (about 22 turbines) and identifies the boundaries of the study area for the pre- vs. post-construction analysis. It also shows that the study area I chose was fairly representative of the existing habitat conditions at this windplant and gives a better view of the magnitude of the development’s impacts on forest and especially forest-interior habitat. [Forest interior is the type of habitat that exists at more than 100 meters from a clearing. Forest interior is required for the survival of certain species and is the type of habitat most easily destroyed by any form of development.] On the portion of the site that I analyzed, the construction of this wind factory cleared over 42 acres of forest for the string of eight turbines (out of 44) that I analyzed. The extensive fragmentation of habitat resulting from the 50-ft-wide service road and the 5+ acres (average) that were bulldozed to erect each turbine caused the loss of over 150 acres of forest-interior conditions within this once-contiguous forest tract. My estimate is that a complete analysis of the entire project area, including 5.5 miles of ridgetop and 44 turbines, would find a total of nearly 200 acres of forest were cleared and over 750 acres of forest-interior habitat was lost following construction of the Mountaineer wind energy facility.
14 Jan 2005

A Turbine in Yellowstone?

Yellostoneturbine2_-2-_thumb This photo by Dona Tracy was prompted by the following article. Cell Towers in Parks Decried The placement of cellular phone towers inside of the boundaries of at least 15 national park units has dialed up an urgent call from park advocates. Several groups, including NPCA and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) oppose cell towers in parks, saying the structures are eyesores that don't belong in a national park. The issue rose to national prominence earlier this year when a tower was built overlooking Old Faithful at Yellowstone National Park. "The [Old Faithful] viewshed is one of the most recognized assets in our National Park System," says PEER board member Frank Buono, former Park Service manager. "It is, however, being managed with all the care of a strip mall." PEER has charged the Park Service with failing to: protect the special qualities of the national parks; develop a central management plan for placing the towers (the current process is decided by individual park superintendents); inform and solicit comments from the public; and have a clear idea of how many cell towers exist in the park system. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 opened federal lands to cell towers, and they have since gone up in national parks such as Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Everglades. NPCA does not support the construction of cell towers in national parks and has directly opposed them in parks such as Antietam National Battlefield, Grand Teton National Park, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park (where a recent proposal for three towers along a main road was scrapped in June). "Over nine million people visit the Smokies each year to enjoy the breathtaking scenery" says Gregory Kidd, NPCA's associate Southeast regional director, "which would be threatened by cell towers." Although some companies claim they can build towers that blend into public landscapes, "I find it hard to believe that they can construct one that can blend into the natural beauty of the Smokies," says Kidd. Park Service officials have said that towers help to improve park communications during emergencies and satisfy visitor demand for cell phone coverage. Still, critics assert that the towers degrade the scenery and serenity of the parks. "We are arguing for a sound, informed public policy that will uphold the solitude and scenic values of the parks," says Chas Offutt of PEER."
1 Jul 2004

Mendota Hills

Bilde_thumb The Mendota Hills Wind Farm in Lee County near Paw Paw, the first utility-scale wind project in Illinois, went online at the end of 2003. The project’s developer/owner is Navitas Energy of Minneapolis.
1 Jan 2004

http://www.windaction.org/posts?p=36&type=Picture
back to top