Month: January 2016

PS 96: Peter Wright Is Granted The Right To JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) Uncategorized

PS – 96:

08-Jan-2016

(PS 96: Peter Wright Is Granted The Right To JUDICIAL REVIEW.)

Hi All,

just to let you all know that it really is A Happy New Year –

Peter Wright has been granted a Judicial Review of the vexatious and undemocratic decision of the Forest of Dean District Council Planning Committee, who voted by a majority, against the decision of the elected effected local Parish committee and against the wishes of the effected local community:

The Community Against Severndale Wind Turbine Group which includes 35 members of the immediate ‘effected community’ who are on the record as objectors:

  • ASHBY, Leah, Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat,, approximately 1.3kms from proposed turbine

  • AVERY-BROWN, Elizabeth-Avery & William – Wibdon Cottage, Stroat – approximately 700m from proposed turbine

  • BOLLEN, David – High Hall Farm – within 750m from proposed turbine

  • BOLT, Lisa – Everene Philpots Court within 700 m from proposed turbine

  • BROOKES, Tracey & Andy – Underwood Farm – within 800m of turbine

  • BROWN, Louella & David – The Waldins – within 650m of the turbine

  • CARPENTER, Garry, Stroat Hill Cottage, Stroat,, approximately 1.3kms from proposed turbine

  • CROSS, Nigel and Samantha 3 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine

  • DAVIDSON, Pam – The Garstons – within 750m from proposed turbine

  • ELSBY, Nigel & Linda, Stroat House, within 1.5km from proposed turbine

  • FORD, Claire & Roger – The steps – approximately 500m from proposed turbine

  • GOATMAN, Fiona & Robert – Beverstone Farm – approximately 1km from proposed turbine

  • HILLMAN, Robert & Alison Philpots Court Farm – within 700m from proposed turbine

  • HOLLIES, Lindsay & Mark – Chapel House, Hanley Lane – within 1km from proposed turbine

  • LANCE-WATKINS, Lee & Greg – Home Cottage Stroat – within 1.5km from proposed turbine

  • MAYO, Molly & Keith – Wibdon Farm – within 650 to 700m from from proposed turbine

  • NAIRNE, Andrew and Sue 4 Philpots Court – within 700m from proposed turbine

  • REES, James & Clare  – Greystones within 775m from proposed turbine

  • SMITH, Pam & David – Old Post Office within 900m from proposed turbine

  • WRIGHT, Sue and Peter – Little Wibdon, Stroat, approx. 500 – 550meters from proposed turbine

Minded that it is a relatively sparsely populated rural area, where numerous properties will be level with the blades on the overlooking slopes and clear visibility will be from Aust, Littlehampton, Thornbury, Rockhampton, Hill, Oldbury, Berkeley, Sharpness and beyond as it stands 50% taller than Gloucester Cathedral, undisguised by trees or other obstacles.

There would seem to be few if any supporters of the imposition of this turbine from within the community – other than those who have signed standard letters provided and vigorously solicited, by the applicants, either as potential direct beneficiaries in the scheme, tenants or employees of the applicant!

Also the many objectors from the wider local community.

!! Whoopee.

 

Peter heard from his solicitors Buxtons’ (specialists in such issues) yesterday; his case has been duly considered, by the relevant National authorities, and there is a reasonable case which the FoDDC has to answer.

 

Peter has not as yet received court dates & times yet and will keep us informed when he does.

 

As we all know Peter still has a long way to go and so your ongoing support is greatly appreciated.

 

Particularly when you consider just howmany different donations have been received through ‘Crowd Funding’, no responsible Councillors, Council or Court should remain unimpressed by the ratio of donors and effected local committee who seek democracy and that their opposition to this wind turbine is upheld – indeed wind turbines in general seem particularly unpopular amongst those armed with the facts of just how damaging to the environment thwey are and how ineffectual they are at producing consistent power output!

 

Peter believes he is now definitely going to need a barrister alongside Buxtons and being practical this will need some further funding, through the Crowd Justice site, for which he hope to start a new campaign shortly and secondly he really need to get his case together against the Severndale wind turbine, in detail.

 

This is not for the present action but should democracy prevail and the guidance of the Council Officer be shown to be correct and the initial decision of the FoDDC planning committee be quashed (one would hope), then Resilience may put in another application which will need to be challenge from day one.

 

A significant aspect of this will be in proving the local community is strongly against the wind turbine, particularly the effected local community  – so – please, in your time with neighbours and local people, please help to spread the facts accurately and truthfully of the catastrophic damage done by wind turbines and their abject failure as producers of reliable power not to mention their gross inefficiency in cost terms, do generally encourage friends and neighbours to become an active part of the campaign defending not just the tax payerts and environment but the local area particularly.

 

Similarly, should you come across any information/research which will increase the body of factual knowledge regarding the harm done by wind turbines particularly if it identifies problems with or created by wind turbines, we should like to know.

 

Feel free to come back to Peter or myself with anything you find or if you require further information.  Peter doesn’t anticipate a further meeting is needed at this point but should you consider a meeting would be beneficial let us know.

 

If Resilience start again, however, we shall definitely get together then.

 

Below is a copy of the letter received from the High Court.

 

Any assistance that you can give Peter, either in cash terms, knowledge terms or just as numbers ahowing support for his stalwart efforts on behalf of the effected community, the environment and common sense will be greatly appreciated.

 

This latest step forward is a geat leap forward I believe and even if we fail to get justice, which Peter’s lawyers consider unlikely, we still have further opportunities for redress both through appeal procedures and failing all else to the European Courts who now take precedence over many areas of national law!

 

One must also take into consideration that increasingly people are beginning to understand the folly of the climate change / global warming argument in terms of the anthropogenic input. It is not just the sound arguments of many independent scientists not dependent on Government and grants who have spoken out so strongly against the IPCC report but also numerous well publicised books by eminent earth scientists and climatologists such as Prof. Ian Plimer but also the new findings of the eminent mathematician Dr. David Evans who has  ‘unpacked’ the algorythms, mathematics and formulae underpinning the IPCC and conventional climate modelling and shown it to be packed with errors providing completely unreliable results for predictions!

 

For more details of Dr. David Evans’ work CLICK HERE

 

I believe I am justified in thanking you all for your continued efforts in support of Peter and wishing you, after this goos news, a very happy new year where we have every hope of seeing justice being seen to be done – regardless of any vested interests of iondividuals or political parties regardless of their donors!

 

Regards,

Greg Lance – Watkins

PS I hope you have a glass of something left from Christmas to raise to Peter’s success so far and may it continue – I’m told elderflower is very good!

HIGH COURT re JR 01 P1 07-Jan-2016

HIGH COURT re JR 01 P2 07-Jan-2016

Onward & Ever Upwards, to a viable green solution to the problems of energy which, unlike wind turbines, does not polute the area, produce a vaste amount of CO2, doesn’t slaughter birds, bats and wildlife, does not create a dangerous distraction on what is claimed to be Europe’s most dangerous road (The A48), does not require deisle generators for back-up when they stand idle, does not polute the scenery/amenity for miles around, does not generate constant noise flicker and vibration when they do work and which does not lead to so many accidents [see this web site: 05-Jan-2013
(PS 88: The shocking environmental cost of renewable energy.)]

PS 95: Do World Political Leaders Aim To Bankrupt Mankind

Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) Uncategorized , , , , , , ,

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 95:

05-Jan-2016

(PS 95: Do World Political Leaders Aim To Bankrupt Mankind
Based On An Error?.)

Do World Political Leaders Aim To Bankrupt Mankind Based On An Error?

.

Hi,

one increasingly realises that world political leaders seem to be determined to bankrupt mankind based on the fundamental error of believing that climate change and global warming are consequentially influenced by mankind, yet increasingly scientists are speaking out with proof that anthropogenic influence is so minimal as to be insignificant.

Never forget the folly of the British Government’s enacting of the Climate Change Bill through Westminster which was THE most expensive consequence of ANY British Parliamentary Act – Higher even than the 1909 Pension Act which largely accounts for the perilous state of British finances nowadays!

Miranda Devine: Perth electrical engineer’s discovery will change climate change debate

OCTOBER 5, 20151:34PM

Dr David Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science. Picture: Thinkstock

MIRANDA DEVINEPerthNow

A MATHEMATICAL discovery by Perth-based electrical engineer Dr David Evans may change everything about the climate debate, on the eve of the UN climate change conference in Paris next month.

A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-Bevan

Miranda Devine. Picture: Peter Brew-BevanSource:Supplied

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

His discovery explains why none of the climate models used by the IPCC reflect the evidence of recorded temperatures. The models have failed to predict the pause in global warming which has been going on for 18 years and counting.

“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”

There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.

While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.

So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?

Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.

He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.

If Dr Evans is correct, then he has proven the theory on carbon dioxide wrong and blown a hole in climate alarmism. He will have explained why the doomsday predictions of climate scientists aren’t reflected in the actual temperatures.

Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture: australianclimatemadness.com

Dr David Evans, who says climate model architecture is wrong, with wife Jo Nova, Picture: australianclimatemadness.com Source:Supplied

“It took me years to figure this out, but finally there is a potential resolution between the insistence of the climate scientists that CO2 is a big problem, and the empirical evidence that it doesn’t have nearly as much effect as they say.”

Dr Evans is an expert in Fourier analysis and digital signal processing, with a PhD, and two Masters degrees from Stanford University in electrical engineering, a Bachelor of Engineering (for which he won the University medal), Bachelor of Science, and Masters in Applied Maths from the University of Sydney.

He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.

He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.

When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review.

“It’s a new paradigm,” he says. “It has several new ideas for people to get used to.”

You heard it here first!

To read the original article CLICK HERE
You might also like to read Prof. Ian Plimer’s book. Ian Plimer is  an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at theUniversity of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published many scientific papers, six books and is one of the co-editors of Encyclopedia of Geology. He has been an outspoken critic of both creationism and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
His book on climate change not only refutes the primary propaganda being peddled by the scientists funded by Western Governments, controlled by the IPCC & UN but proffers example after example where the theory they have tried to convince the world of is wrong on many counts.
I suggest you read ‘Heaven & Earth’ and ‘Not for Greens’.
http://www.JoanneNova.com.AU blog makes well reasoned and scientifically based reading for those seeking the truth on Global Warming and Climate Change – a blog which systematically exposes the fantasies of the warmists & the faux science of the IPCC.

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

First published at CLICK HERE

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS 94: Wind Turbine Fires & Fatalities Are NOT Uncommon

Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) Uncategorized , , ,

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

PS – 94:

02-Jan-2016

(PS 94: Wind Turbine Fires & Fatalities Are NOT Uncommon!)

From our correspondent from The Netherlands: two wind turbine mechanics, respectively 19 and 21 years old, died because of the fire. One fell to his death and was found on the ground underneath the turbine, the other died from his burns and was found inside the charred remains of the turbine.

Could Vestas’ fire-prone turbines be installed in East County?

By Miriam Raftery

October 31, 2013 (Netherlands) – Two young mechanics, ages 19 and 21, died when a fire broke out in a wind turbine where they were performing  routine maintenance.  The tragedy occurred at Deltawind’s Piet de Wit wind farm in the Netherlands, but highlights the hazards associated with fires caused by wind turbines.

According to the Netherlands Times, “because of the height, the fire department initially had trouble extinguishing the fire in the engine room.”  The fire started in the afternoon, but it took until evening for a special team of firefighters to arrive and ascend with a large crane.

One victim was found on the ground beside the wind turbine; the other body was recovered by the specialized team.   Two other mechanics escaped safely.  A witness reported seeing two men jump through flames into a staircase.

Cause of the fire has not yet been determined, but Deltawind has suggested a short circuit could be the cause.  The turbine was a 1.75 megawatt Vestas V-66.  Troublingly, these turbines are being sold by secondhand dealers online to buyers who may have no knowledge about the potential fire hazard.

The wind industry has long claimed that wind turbine fires are rare.  But after creating a Google alert for the term “wind turbine fire,” ECM has received clips from media outlets around the world documenting that in fact, wind turbine fires are far more common than the industry would have prospective buyers believe.

Vestas has been plagued by wind turbine fires  in the past.  The company blamed a 2011 wind turbine fire on a brake problem.  In 2012, a Vestas V-112 wind turbine in Germany caught fire; Vestas blamed the blaze on a loose connection that caused an arc flash.  Also in 2012; a  similar arc fire occurred in a Vestas V-90 turbine in Spain during maintenance; in addition a Vestas turbine collapsed in Ireland.  Then in April 2013, a Vestas V-80 wind turbine in Ontario, Canada, burst into flames.

Tule Wind, an Iberdrola project has been approved by Supervisors and the federal government for construction in McCain Valley near Boulevard in East County.  That’s a cause for concern among firefighting experts, since aerial drops by firefighting planes can’t be done above 500-foot-tall turbines (fire drops work best at 100 to 350 feet), nor can firefighters be put at risk to battle blazes beneath whirling blades hurling off burning debris. Moreover, Boulevard’s fire station has been closed most days over the past three months.

Mark Ostrander, a retired Cal Fire battalion chief,  testified to San Diego’s Planning Commission that wind turbines in McCain Valley, along with Sunrise Powerlink, “will hamper aerial firefighting.”  He warned, “If we have a fire start in a wind area, we’re going to have to wait until it comes out, for the safety of the firefighters.”

But who is going to protect the safety of campers, hikers, or residents near the recreational area if a wildfire starts at Tule Wind?  (Even in a best case scenario with turbines that function properly, there is still increased risk of fire due to towering turbines attracting lightning strikes, as has also happened at wind facilities around the world. View a photo, posted on the Weather Channel.) Is putting hundreds of lightning rods up across fire-prone East County, where some storms have caused over a thousand lightning strikes in a single weekend, really a good idea?

Iberdrola has purchased Vestas turbines at some of its other projects.

Iberdrola also has an agreement to purchase at least half of its turbines through 2022 from Gamesa, another company with a track record of turbine fires, as ECM previously reported.  http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/10644

On May 22, 2012, a Gamesa turbine caught fire at Iberdrola’s Barton 2 Wind Power Project in Iowa, North American Windpower reported.   A Gamesa spokesman claimed the company’s maintenance contract had expired.

Gamesa turbines have also been linked to two turbine fires in Pennsylvania, including Iberdrola’s Locust Ridge project in 2009 and another fire at North Allegheny Ridge (not owned by Iberdrola) in 2012.  Iberdrola previously had issues with Gamesa turbine blades whirling off chunks of turbine debris at the same facility. ECM has previously reported on these issues and other turbine safety concerns  in an April 4, 2012 report, “The Dark Side of Green.”

Both Gamesa and Vestas have warned of problems in older models installed in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  However fires at plants with more recent installations make clear that fire and safety issues have still not been adequately addressed.

Gamesa has had at least five legal actions filed against it involving U.S. wind projects over warranty disputes for hefty repairs and lost production.  That includes  $34.5 million in turbine repairs at the Kumeyaay Wind Farm in on the Campo Indian reservation locally.  A witness told ECM that he saw a blue flash that radiated out through the wind farm during a storm in December 2009 before the project went dark.  All 75 blades on all 25 turbines were replaced and the facility was offline for three months.  (View court documents). Gamesa blades suffered from “design and manufacturing defects,” the suits allege, Recharge News has reported. 

San Diego Supervisor Dianne Jacob has voiced grave concerns over fire dangers posed by wind turbines in our backcountry, but other Supervisors ignored the fire risks, pushing through approve of the Tule Wind project as well as a County wind ordinance that opens up more rural areas for wind energy development. Yet these remote communites lack specialized firefighting forces such as the team used to ultimately quell the Netherlands wind turbine fire – and in on many days lately, have no fire station open at all, fueling growing safety concerns among residents.

For more information, see:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2013/10/30/dead-in-fire-wind-turbine-ooltgensplaat/

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-after-dutch-turbine-fire/

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/made-by-monkeys/environmental/storm-wind-and-fire-when-turbines-go-wrong-2013-07/

http://www.nawindpower.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11328

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1176961/vestas-v80-destroyed-fire-ontario

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmnAgSAfMsg

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/

PS 93: Wind Turbine Accident data

Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) Uncategorized , ,

PLEASE:
Help To Arm People
With The Truth & Facts
To Make Their Case & Defend Themselves

.

.

PS – 93:

01-Jan-2016

(PS 93: Wind Turbine Accident data.)

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data
to 30 September 2015

 

Data in the detailed table attached is by no means fully comprehensive – CWIF believe that what is attached may only be the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of numbers of accidents and their frequency. Indeed on 11 December 2011 the Daily Telegraph reported that RenewableUK confirmed that there had been 1500 wind turbine accidents and incidents in the UK alone in the previous 5 years. Data here reports only 142 UK accidents from 2006-2010 and so the figures here may only represent 9% of actual accidents.

The data does however give an excellent cross-section of the types of accidents which can and do occur, and their consequences. With few exceptions, before about 1997 only data on fatal accidents has been found.

The trend is as expected – as more turbines are built, more accidents occur. Numbers of recorded accidents reflect this, with an average of 16 accidents per year from 1995-99 inclusive; 49 accidents per year from 2000-2004 inclusive; 108 accidents per year from 2005-09 inclusive, and 156 accidents per year from 2010-14 inclusive.
This general trend upward in accident numbers is predicted to continue to escalate unless HSE make some significant changes – in particular to protect the public by declaring a minimum safe distance between new turbine developments and occupied housing and buildings.In the UK, the HSE do not currently have a database of wind turbine failures on which they can base judgements on the reliability and risk assessments for wind turbines. Please refer tohttp://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr968.pdf.This is because the wind industry “guarantees confidentiality” of incidents reported. No other energy industry works with such secrecy regarding incidents. The wind industry should be no different, and the sooner RenewableUK makes its database available to the HSE and public, the better. The truth is out there, however RenewableUK don’t like to admit it.Some countries are finally accepting that industrial wind turbines can pose a significant public health and safety risk. The Scottish government has proposed increasing the separation distance between wind farms and local communities from 2km to 2.5km (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26579733) though in reality the current 2km separation distance is often shamefully ignored during the planning process.Our data clearly shows that blade failure is the most common accident with wind turbines, closely followed by fire. This is in agreement with GCube, the largest provider of insurance to renewable energy schemes. In June 2015, the wind industry’s own publication “WindPower Monthly” published an article confirming that “Annual blade failures estimated at around 3,800”, based on GCube information. A GCube survey in 2013 reported that the most common type of accident is indeed blade failure, and that the two most common causes of accidents are fire and poor maintenance.
http://www.gcube-insurance.com/press/gcube-top-5-us-wind-energy-insurance-claims-report/

Data attached is presented chronologically. It can be broken down as follows:

Number of accidents

Total number of accidents: 1781

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
10
98
30
17
70
66
60
71
83
124
131
131
119
168
167
167
160
109
* to 30 September 2015 only

Fatal accidents

Number of fatal accidents: 116

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
9
15
3
0
1
4
4
4
5
5
11
8
7
15
15
4
2
4
* to 30 September 2015 onlyPlease note: There are more fatalities than accidents as some accidents have caused multiple fatalities.

Of the 162 fatalities:

  • 95 were wind industry and direct support workers (divers, construction, maintenance, engineers, etc), or small turbine owner/operators.
  • 67 were public fatalities, including workers not directly dependent on the wind industry (e.g. transport workers). 17 bus passengers were killed in one single incident in Brazil in March 2012; 4 members of the public were killed in an aircraft crash in May 2014 and a further three members of the public were killed in a transport accident in September 2014.

 

Human injury

136 accidents regarding human injury are documented.

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
5
4
1
2
2
2
6
10
16
16
9
14
12
15
9
7
6
* to 30 September 2015 only118 accidents involved wind industry or construction/maintenance workers, and a further 24 involved members of the public or workers not directly dependent on the wind industry (e.g. fire fighters, transport workers). Six of these injuries to members of the public were in the UK.

 

Human health

Since 2012, 60 incidents of wind turbines impacting upon human health are recorded.

By year:
Year
12
13
14
15*
No.
6
27
19
8
* to 30 September 2015 onlySince 2012, human health incidents and adverse impact upon human health have been included. These were previously filed under “miscellaneous” but CWIF believe that they deserve a category of their own. Incidents include reports of ill-heath and effects due to turbine noise, shadow flicker, etc. Such reports are predicted to increase significantly as turbines are increasingly approved and built in unsuitable locations, close to people’s homes.

 

Blade failure

By far the biggest number of incidents found was due to blade failure. “Blade failure” can arise from a number of possible sources, and results in either whole blades or pieces of blade being thrown from the turbine. A total of 326 separate incidences were found:

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
35
4
6
15
13
15
12
17
22
20
26
20
19
28
31
29
14
* to 30 September 2015 onlyPieces of blade are documented as travelling up to one mile. In Germany, blade pieces have gone through the roofs and walls of nearby buildings. This is why CWIF believe that there should be a minimum distance of at least 2km between turbines and occupied housing or work places,in order to adequately address public safety and other issues including noise and shadow flicker.

 

Fire

Image result for wind turbine two dead

Fire is the second most common accident cause in incidents found. Fire can arise from a number of sources – and some turbine types seem more prone to fire than others. A total of 258 fire incidents were found:

By year:
Year
70’s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
6
3
2
24
17
16
14
12
21
17
17
13
20
19
23
19
14
* to 30 September 2015 onlyThe biggest problem with turbine fires is that, because of the turbine height, the fire brigade can do little but watch it burn itself out. While this may be acceptable in reasonably still conditions, in a storm it means burning debris being scattered over a wide area, with obvious consequences. In dry weather there is obviously a wider-area fire risk, especially for those constructed in or close to forest areas and/or close to housing or work places. Four fire accidents have badly burned wind industry workers.

 

Structural failure

From the data obtained, this is the third most common accident cause, with 162 instances found. “Structural failure” is assumed to be major component failure under conditions which components should be designed to withstand. This mainly concerns storm damage to turbines and tower collapse. However, poor quality control, lack of maintenance and component failure can also be responsible.

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
1
14
9
3
9
7
4
7
9
13
9
16
9
12
10
14
12
4
* to 30 September 2015 onlyWhile structural failure is far more damaging (and more expensive) than blade failure, the accident consequences and risks to human health are most likely lower, as risks are confined to within a relatively short distance from the turbine. However, as smaller turbines are now being placed on and around buildings including schools, the accident frequency is expected to rise.

 

Ice throw

35 incidences of ice throw were found. Some are multiple incidents. These are listed here unless they have caused human injury, in which case they are included under “human injury” above.

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
9
0
0
2
2
4
4
3
0
3
4
1
1
1
0
1
0
* to 30 September 2015 onlyIce throw has been reported to 140m. Some Canadian turbine sites have warning signs posted asking people to stay at least 305m from turbines during icy conditions.

These are indeed only a very small fraction of actual incidences – a report* published in 2003 reported 880 icing events between 1990 and 2003 in Germany alone. 33% of these were in the lowlands and on the coastline.
*(“A Statistical Evaluation of Icing Failures in Germany’s ‘250 MW Wind’ Programme – Update 2003”, M Durstwitz, BOREAS VI 9-11 April 2003 Pyhätunturi, Finland.)

Additionally one report listed for 2005 includes 94 separate incidences of ice throw and two reports from 2006 include a further 27 such incidences. The 2014 entry refers to multiple YouTube videos and confirmation that ice sensors do not work.

 

Transport

There have been 148 reported accidents – including a 45m turbine section ramming through a house while being transported, a transporter knocking a utility pole through a restaurant, and a turbine section falling off in a tunnel. Transport fatalities and human injuries are included separately. Most accidents involve turbine sections falling from transporters, though turbine sections have also been lost at sea, along with a £50M barge. Transport is the single biggest cause of public fatalities.

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
4
3
6
6
19
10
11
11
24
17
10
17
10
* to 30 September 2015 onlyEnvironmental damage (including bird deaths)

177 cases of environmental damage have been reported – the majority since 2007. This is perhaps due to a change in legislation or new reporting requirement. All involved damage to the site itself, or reported damage to or death of wildlife. 61 instances reported here include confirmed deaths of protected species of bird. Deaths, however, are known to be far higher. At the Altamont Pass windfarm alone, 2400 protected golden eagles have been killed in 20 years, and about 10,000 protected raptors (Dr Smallwood, 2004). In Germany, 32 protected white tailed eagles were found dead, killed by wind turbines (Brandenburg State records). In Australia, 22 critically endangered Tasmanian eagles were killed by a single windfarm (Woolnorth). Further detailed information can be found at: www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3071 and at:www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=1875.

600,000 bats were estimated to be killed by US wind turbines in 2012 alone.

1,500 birds are estimated to be killed per year by the MacArthur wind farm in Australia, 500 of which are raptors.

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
1
0
1
1
8
1
6
5
10
21
13
19
20
20
16
21
14
* to 30 September 2015 only

Other (Miscellaneous)

361 miscellaneous accidents are also present in the data. Component failure has been reported here if there has been no consequential structural damage. Also included are lack of maintenance, electrical failure (not led to fire or electrocution) etc. Construction and construction support accidents are also included, also lightning strikes when a strike has not resulted in blade damage or fire. A separate 1996 report** quotes 393 reports of lightning strikes from 1992 to 1995 in Germany alone, 124 of those direct to the turbine, the rest are to electrical distribution network.


**(Data from WMEP database: taken from report “External Conditions for Wind Turbine Operation – Results from the German ‘250 MW Wind’ Programme”, M Durstewitz, et al, European Union Wind Energy Conference, Goeteborg, May 20-24, 1996)

By year:
Year
70s + 80s
90s
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15*
No.
13
7
4
12
13
11
12
16
18
24
27
25
43
36
33
33
33
* to 30 September 2015 only

Caithness Windfarm Information Forum
30 September 2015
Copyright CWIF 2015

 

 

 

These accident statistics are copyright Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2015. The data may be used or referred to by groups or individuals, provided that the source (Caithness Windfarm Information Forum) is acknowledged and our URL http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk quoted at the same time.Caithness Windfarm Information Forum is not responsible for the accuracy of Third Party material or references.

You may link to this page from your website but
please do not link to the Detailed List alone as it is important to also see the information on this page
nor reproduce the tables on your website as they will cease to be current.

The Summary may be downloaded in printable form here

This is GLOBAL data – see Detailed Accident List with sources and locations

The attached detailed table includes all documented cases of wind turbine related accidents and incidents which could be found and confirmed through press reports or official information releases up to 30 September 2015. CWIF believe that this compendium of accident information may be the most comprehensive available anywhere.

Data in the detailed table attached is by no means fully comprehensive – CWIF believe that what is attached may only be the “tip of the iceberg” in terms of numbers of accidents and their frequency. Indeed on 11 December 2011 the Daily Telegraph reported that RenewableUK confirmed that there had been 1500 wind turbine accidents and incidents in the UK alone in the previous 5 years. Data here reports only 142 UK accidents from 2006-2010 and so the figures here may only represent 9% of actual accidents.

The data does however give an excellent cross-section of the types of accidents which can and do occur, and their consequences. With few exceptions, before about 1997 only data on fatal accidents has been found.

The trend is as expected – as more turbines are built, more accidents occur. Numbers of recorded accidents reflect this, with an average of 16 accidents per year from 1995-99 inclusive; 49 accidents per year from 2000-2004 inclusive; 108 accidents per year from 2005-09 inclusive, and 156 accidents per year from 2010-14 inclusive.

.

.

We believe the information gathered on this site can act to bring the truth, regarding the dishonesty of the claimed benefits of Wind Turbines to the front of people’s minds as they are regularly taxed, in a hidden tax, on their energy bills to fund these politically correct and fundamentally all but useless monstrosities.

We have gathered a great deal of information in our efforts to prevent the industrialisation of Stroat and the banks of the Severn Estuary and across the wider area including the Forest of Dean (FoD), areas of outstanding natural beauty (AoONB)

Please help to spread the truth about the Wind Turbine scam and the fundamental flaws and lies that are presented as ‘fact’ regarding the anthropogenic influence of mankind on Global Warming and Climate Chance.

Arm yourself with facts to defeat the biggest con of the late 20th and early 21st Century, and do please spread the truth and the URL of this site as widely as you can.

Posted by: Greg Lance – Watkins

For more information about Stroat see: http://Stroat-Gloucestershire.com/

For more information about Greg_L-W see: http://GregLanceWatkins.com/