Too Much Wind isn't Good: Wind turbine catches fire

YouTube Description:

A wind turbine near Dalry and Ardrossan in North Ayrshire caught fire during Scotland's extreme weather on Dec 8th 2011. Filmed by producer and cameraman James Alcock.
radxsays...

Look at this clip. The turbine head shouldn't pivot freely on its axis, and if the blades were feathered and locked, yet still spinning, it ought to cause a fuckload of friction and stress on the brakes and the gearbox, doesn't it?

The flaming mixture of oil and lubricant makes for nice special effects though.

siftbotsays...

Tags for this video have been changed from 'wind turnine, fire, scotland, storm, north ayrshire, december, 2011' to 'wind turbine, fire, scotland, storm, north ayrshire, december, 2011' - edited by calvados

Winstonfield_Pennypackersays...

Wave and solar power are where the investments should be made

Oh for... SIGH. From the Energy Information Administration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The most efficient forms of energy are Coal, Coal, Coal, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natual Gas, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. In that order.

The LEAST efficient forms of energy are Hydro, Biomass, Geo, Solar, Wind, and Wind.

Anyone notice anything interesting about the list there? Anyone? Beueller? Bueller?

"Green" energy is an absolute joke. America has enough Coal, Gas, and Oil to last well into the next century. Sure - put R&D into Solar, Wind, and Tidal - but swapping over to these forms of energy "right now" just for the sake of it is the height of idiocy. You swap energy sources when they make sense - not because of some moronic hoax (I.E. AGW).

siftbotsays...

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by Mordhaus.

newtboysays...

That is absolutely not true....all of it.
First, it's only close to true if you only count the direct costs of production, and ignore all the cost to mitigate the damages energy production causes.
Second, even then it's not true. I put in a solar system on my house around 10 years ago. It paid for itself in savings in under 8 years, and has a lifespan of over 20 years. That means, compared to coal, coal, and coal, it's incredibly more efficient and cheaper.

Geothermal is the MOST efficient and 'clean' form of energy out there. Where did you get your information, a BP flier?

So, if you should swap energy sources when they make (economic) sense, that would have been >10 years ago. If you count all the costs involved with other energy sources, not just basic energy production costs, it would have made sense to switch around 40+ years ago.

Winstonfield_Pennypackersaid:

Wave and solar power are where the investments should be made

Oh for... SIGH. From the Energy Information Administration...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

The most efficient forms of energy are Coal, Coal, Coal, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Natual Gas, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. In that order.

The LEAST efficient forms of energy are Hydro, Biomass, Geo, Solar, Wind, and Wind.

Anyone notice anything interesting about the list there? Anyone? Beueller? Bueller?

"Green" energy is an absolute joke. America has enough Coal, Gas, and Oil to last well into the next century. Sure - put R&D into Solar, Wind, and Tidal - but swapping over to these forms of energy "right now" just for the sake of it is the height of idiocy. You swap energy sources when they make sense - not because of some moronic hoax (I.E. AGW).

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More