An Apparent Press Release In Favour of a Wind Turbine In Stroat That lacks Veracity, Balance Or Integrity! …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
An Apparent Press Release In Favour of a Wind Turbine In Stroat That lacks Veracity, Balance Or Integrity! …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

it is interesting to note from the aparent PRESS RELEASE by those who stand to gain the most from this environmentally damaging, inefective & clearly resoundingly rejected concept that requires obscene amounts of subsidy considering the near total failure of Wind Turbines to produce a viable output of electricity to feature on the local or national grid reliably enough to permit the switch off of more sensible methods of production such as nuclear..

Be minded that there is no balance to the Forester’s article of the 21-Feb-2018 in that it merely published the statement of the ambitions of the profiting company with no apparent fact checking!

You will of course be minded that the Local Government Officers, trained in such matters and having researched the proposed planning application reported to the Council and strongly recommended against the application being granted leave to proceed.

In my opinion and having listened to the matter at the planning committee the Council acted in palpable ignorance of any relevant facts and in a clearly vexatious manner when you consider the overwhellming preponderance of objection to the application, both by the professional Officers of their own Council and of the facts pertaining to the application, not least of which was the overwhellming opposition to the scheme from the residents within sight and sound of the proposed monstrosity right on the bank of the River Severn, visible from miles around.

Seemingly the only individuals in favour were those drummed up from out of the area and either family, tenants or employees of the land ower who aimed to profit from the subsidies + any potential income!

It was also worthy of note that the landowner herself was in a position to influence the application being a newly elected Counciller who had moved within days of the election onto the Planning Committee. Having nevert mentioned her application during the election nor having shown any talent, expertise or experience in planning matters!

The decision to appeal the questionable decision of the planning committe to grant the application made in Moira Edwards’ name with the commercial support of Resiliance, was made by the residents of the area effected in the name of Peter Wright and supported in his aims by the clear majority of effected businesses and residents who life and lifestyle would clearly be damaged by the instalation, which would likely give rise to a loss of jobs in the area.

The Appeal Judge upheld the appeal application & the vexatious Council decision was overturned. It was overturned on the limited list of reasons Peter Wright’s barristers felt needed to be fielded. There were many sound reasons for rejection of the plan, though few sustainable reasons in its favour have ever been put forward by the applicants – leading one to believe the matter was mainly being progressed for the personal; profit of a few wealthy individuals!

The latest appeal was granted to Peter Wright by 3 Judges voting unanimously against the scheme. Once again Peter Wright’s barristers felt they had no need of the many other reasons against the plan as Resiliance had failed to field any compelling reason for the application beyond seemingly that of their own profit, from which they undertook to pay what seemed to be a bribe, by way of paying back some of the subsidies and a portion of any revenue AFTER they had taken they management fees!

The repayment was beiguillingly deemed to be a ‘Community Fund’ and their highly profitable (for them) scheme was mastery of aesopian English calling it a ‘Community Wind Turbine’.

Here is The Forester’s unchallenged and seemingly unchecked Press Release by the applicant Resiliance:

FORESTER 21-Feb-2018 01 re Supreme Court

It is interesting to have read the applicants documentation of their proposed appeal to the Supreme Court – The first point of interest is that Our Council has withdrawn its support for the appeal, on that note it is also worthy of note that the Tidenham Parish Council has opposed the installation on every occassion on which it has been put to them to vote.

Further it is interesting to note that the applicants nor their legal advisors have put forward any new evidence to be considerred and thus have no compelling case for the application to the Supreme Court, it would seem.

I also note they are still using the misleading language of these giant windturbines so very damaging in many ways are somehow ‘Community Wind Turbines’ when any bribe paid to the public would seem to be funded by the public’s own investment extorted from them under pretence of the efficacy of wind turbines as a power source which they are most questionably able to fullfill.

We should also note when wind turbines are installed there would seem to be no financial provission made for tyheir removal at the end of their subsidy generating life cycle, nor for the massive damage done by the immense concretye block on which they stand and seemingly no provission for the huge carbon footprint of both their manufacture nor their dismantling – indeed just how do the erectors plan to remove the huge reinforced concrete block and all the waste and dust and tons of steel? and at whose expense or is this where the ‘Community’ learn just how large was their involvement in the wind turbine as no doubt the original profiteers will be long gone!

May I also point out that it is my suspicion that once the requisite number of turbines are installed the installers will vote themselves a very lucrative maintenance & management contract with adequate let outs and then sell tyhe primary ownership to new owners with no legal responsibility to in any way contribute to the ‘Community’ they would seem to have so competently sold their scam to!

I for one see little or no merit in Wind Turbines either as a genuine and honourable investment nor as a solution to power generation whether green or any other fashionable colour!

Let us hope the Supreme Court has had the wisdom to see through the scam as increasingly politicians around the world have!

.

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 your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

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

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Advertisements

Council Contemplates A VERY Dubious Public Investment Of Public Money …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Council Contemplates A VERY Dubious Public Investment Of Public Money …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

as has been pointed out by one correspondent with the Forest of Dean Council – it would be questionably a sound investment for yet more tax payers’ money!

Dear Councillor ******,
I note in today’s The Forester newspaper reference to a possible investment in the
above scheme to be discussed at the full Council Meeting tomorrow.
As you may be aware I and a large number of local residents are currently involved
in fighting the similar proposed Wind Turbine at Tidenham being undertaken by the
Resilience Centre who also built the Alvington Court Turbine. So far both the High
Court and the Court of Appeal have found unanimously in our favour in quashing the Planning Consent. Our legal advisers believe in the face of these clear decisions, the likelihood of the Supreme Court allowing any further Appeal are very slim. Moreover the FODDC itself has now withdrawn its objections and is not supporting the appeal by the developers The Resilience Centre.
Whilst I have no objection to the Council’s strategy of diversifying its treasury
management policy to permit consideration of alternative investments such as
renewables, I do have very strong reservations about the Council investing in any
type of individual Wind Turbine scheme proposed by The Resilience Centre, such as
suggested by Councillor McFarling in the Forester article.
Some basic facts as set out below, may help you understand why :
1.  The Alvington Court scheme failed to find sufficient private investors in its initial
funding proposal in 2015/16 and had to resort to an expensive bridging loan for
some £600,000.
2.  In September 2017 the Resilience Centre sought to raise an additional £600,000
via a public offering to replace this bridging loan this Offer closed in December
2017.
3.  Clearly once again insufficient private investor interest was generated, which is
why FODDC has now been approached by the Resilience Centre.
4.  The Share offer document is attached for information and you will note that The
Resilience Centre will benefit financially to a material extent in the payment of
management fees etc. from the scheme (pages 16 – 17).
Moreover, as noted above in view of the ongoing legal discussions, I would
seriously question whether it is wise for the Council to consider investing into any
similar single wind turbine scheme (particularly one operated by the Resilience
Centre), at least until the Supreme Court has given its ruling on the Appeal which
was submitted only last month.
I hope that you will feel able to object to this suggestion accordingly.
Minded that it would seem that Resiliencehas been unable to sell the shares in their dubious investment over a two year period perhaps it would be apposite for the Council to consider the wisdom of making up any of the shortfall  that Resilience would seem to have, particularly as the Council in the current year has shown a shortfall of its own, by way of an overspend of some £115,000 in the matter of Planning and related legal fees, a high percentage of which is likely to have been as a result of failing to take the advice of their own Officers in the matter of granting planning for a wind turbine for Resilience against the wishes of the clear majority of the Council’s own effected rate payers!
Fortunately wiser heads have so far prevailed in two appeal Courts with 4 Judges unanimously voting/adjudging in favour of the effected rate payers!
In pure investment terms I must admit I incline to doubt the wisdom of investing in shares in a scheme, particularly other people’s, where the vendors have been unable to sell their shares – just what would the Council do when it wished to sell its shares which would likely to prove even less saleable than the owners have found them to be so far!
I do not pretend to legal training but if the shares could not be sold might it not be probable any apparent profit would rapidly turn to a considerable loss and furthermore might there not be a possibility of becoming liable for the very considerable costs of reinstating the damage the Wind Turbine had cased and reinstating the land it had ruined!

ALVINGTON FORESTER 21-Feb-2018 03

I incline to the belief that the more time passes the more people will realise that using wind as a source of power is seriously unreliable in Britain and the more this becomes apparent the less the income on the shares will be & the less will be the probability of selling ones shares – the entire concept of a ‘Community Fund’ of any substance in the long run sounds little more than an unsophisticated Ponsi scheme where it will last until the founder sells their stake in the scam and the new owners are not obliged to pay out one cent!

Individuals may of course gamble their own money but I would caution it is morally repugnant for a public body to gamble public money on a scheme where clearly the very foundations are suspect even by its style, such as the pretence of the description, a ‘Community Wind Farm or Wind Mill’, whatever the apparent bribes and incentives – or even a collective guilt at having become embroilled in a Ponzi Scheme!

.

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 your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

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

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Deaf To The Environmental Damage Of These Costly, Noisy & Inefficient Eyesores …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Deaf To The Environmental Damage Of These Costly, Noisy & Inefficient Eyesores …
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

consider the massive pollution caused in the manufacture of the tons of steel & cement, then consider the tons of pollution caused by transport of all this and the massive structure of the Wind Turbine itself and the miles of coppoer wire for the installation & windings of the generator – now consider the infrastructure of roads to service these useless & damaging monstrosities.

Many of the service roads are across & through wonderful open vistas and across ancient moorlands, forests and peat beds.

Then consider the costs and pollution that will be caused cutting up the tons of reinforced steel & concrete & transporting it to landfill sites when the technology becomes obsolete as did wind power in the past.

Just why would anyone be so stupid as to instal wind turbines were it not for the bribes, backhanders and opportunities for the wealthy to milk the subsidies paid by tax payers!

WT - ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE 07

See more of Wind Energy’s Absurd on Facebook
Here is just a quick extract found on TWITTER!

Another Wonderful Whack of the Day comes from that special Constable, John, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation/Renewable Energy Foundation, in a letter to the Scottish Daily Mail.

His truncheon whacks the Scottish Government and Paul Wheelhouse into next week.

Enjoy.

————————————————————————————-

Deaf to worries about these ugly, costly and noisy sites

By John Constable, Energy Editor, Global Warming Policy Forum

There is hardly a Munro left in Scotland from which you cannot see a wind farm. In recent years the landscape has been transformed by enormous turbines.

These structures are more than 100 metres (330ft) in height and when many are clustered together, they are highly visible even from great distances.

People who choose to live in the wild areas of rural Scotland do so for a reason: because they love it. Those who go walking in these places feel the same.

They find them beautiful, and they’re sensitive to the landscape and to visual intrusion. Many are upset by the large number of turbines that have been erected.

Wind farms have a huge impact on the local environment, and not only visually. From surprisingly far distances people can hear them and the noise they make is peculiar and intermittent – it wakes them up at night and they can’t get back to sleep. Wind farms do not make good neighbours.

They are often constructed in areas where there are no roads, meaning these have to be created, sometimes on peat.

This leads to real concerns over the balance of damage and benefit – the benefits of low emissions energy on the one hand, yet the damage to the local environment on the ground, and whether that is really justified.

Almost all of the UK’s wind farming is concentrated in Scotland, because the Scottish Government is not listening to the objections of the residents who have to live near these sites.

Because so much of the Scottish population is concentrated in urban areas, however good the environmental arguments made by local objectors are, there simply aren’t enough voices for the SNP in Edinburgh to care. The simple truth is that this is political statistics.

So it is perhaps not surprising that the Scottish Government’s new energy strategy is planning an expansion of the number of turbines.

The Government has accepted a lot of the spin coming out of the wind farm industry without being sufficiently sceptical. They’ve swallowed it all hook, line and sinker. Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse continues to say that onshore wind is the lowest-cost form of new generation energy, but this is simply not true.

Onshore wind is generally extremely expensive in comparison to electricity from conventional sources, particularly combined cycle gas turbines.

It is well known that the subsidy and system costs of existing wind farms put them well above the cost of other forms of energy. Subsidies in the UK for renewables in total now come to about £7billion per year.

You’re taking money – in other words, resources – from elsewhere in the economy and giving it to wind generators.

By redirecting resources towards the wind sector, you are suppressing activity in other parts.

So you may have created jobs in the wind sector but how many jobs have you destroyed in other fundamentally economic activities?

The costs for all forms of wind are high. The farms require more grid and special operations of the grid system to keep it balanced. These costs are not small.

When you add it all up, the total cost to the consumer of a unit from a wind farm is considerably higher than that from a conventional generator. So how is the Scottish Government going to pay for these new plans?

In the autumn Budget, the Chancellor said there would be no new subsidies for wind turbines – indeed all renewables – until 2025 at the earliest.

With new sites, wind farm operators will sometimes say they don’t require subsidies, but that remains to be seen.

This suggests to me, then, that the SNP is either hoping for a change in policy, or it is being deliberately vague in its ambitions. Does it believe any of this?

If all these turbines were to be built, the Government faces another problem: an enormous expansion of the grid to serve them. You need an awful lot of wire to get wind from the wind farms to the interconnectors that serve the grid.

As Scotland knows from the controversial Beauly to Denny power line, this is not an easy thing – it’s expensive and ugly – and someone has to pay for it.

A few people may well benefit from the further expansion of wind turbines in Scotland – land owners and wind farm operators, perhaps – but it is unlikely to be the Scottish people.

No automatic alt text available.

.

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 your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

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

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Wind Turbine Blades: A Toxic Legacy For Centuries to Come – So Much for Saving the Planet …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Wind Turbine Blades: A Toxic Legacy For Centuries to Come –
So Much for Saving the Planet ….
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

STROAT WB SITE
https://stroat-gloucestershire.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Wind Turbine Blades: A Toxic Legacy For Centuries to Come – So Much for Saving the Planet

***

Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal: 2 New Papers Expose The Environmental Nightmare Of Wind Turbine Blade Disposal

No Tricks Zone
Kenneth Richard
22 June 2017

“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues” – Ramirez-Tejeda et al., 2017

Despite an explosion in installed wind capacity since 1990, wind power had achieved just 0.39% of the world’s total energy consumption as of 2013.

Germany has assumed a leading role in promoting the consumption of renewable energy.  And yet even in Germany the share of energy consumption from wind power reached only 2.1% in 2016.

Despite its extremely limited infiltration as a world energy source, it is assumed that a rapid expansion of wind power will ultimately be environmentally advantageous both due to its reputation as a “clean” energy and because of the potential to contribute to reduced CO2 emissions.

Recently, however, the austere environmental impacts and health risks associated with expanding wind energy have received more attention.

For example, scientists have asserted that wind turbines are now the leading cause of multiple mortality events in bats, with 3 to 5 million bats killed by wind turbines every year.   Migratory bats in North America may face the risk of extinction in the next few decades due to wind turbine-related fatalities.

Frick et al., 2017

“Large numbers of migratory bats are killed every year at wind energy facilities. … Using expert elicitation and population projection models, we show that mortality from wind turbines may drastically reduce population size and increase the risk of extinction. For example, the hoary bat population could decline by as much as 90% in the next 50 years if the initial population size is near 2.5 million bats and annual population growth rate is similar to rates estimated for other bat species (λ = 1.01). Our results suggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.”

Wind Turbine Blades Last 20 Years…And Then They Are Tossed Into Landfills

Besides reducing wildlife populations, perhaps one of the most underrated negative side effects of building wind turbines is that they don’t last very long (less than 20 years) before they need to be replaced. And their blades aren’t recyclable. Consequently, 43 million tonnes (47 million tons) of blade waste will be added to the world’s landfills within the next few decades.

Liu and Barlow, 2017

“The blades, one of the most important components in the wind turbines, made with composite, are currently regarded as unrecyclable. With the first wave of early commercial wind turbine installations now approaching their end of life, the problem of blade disposal is just beginning to emerge as a significant factor for the future. … The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.”

“Although wind energy is often claimed to provide clean renewable energy without any emissions during operation (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015), a detailed ecological study may indicate otherwise even for this stage. The manufacture stage is energy-intensive and is associated with a range of chemical usage (Song et al., 2009). Disposal at end-of-life must also be considered (Ortegon et al., 2012; Pickering, 2013; Job, 2014).A typical wind turbine (WT) has a foundation, a tower, a nacelle and three blades. The foundation is made from concrete; the tower is made from steel or concrete; the nacelle is made mainly from steel and copper; the blades are made from composite materials (Vestas, 2006; Tremeac and Meunier, 2009; Guezuraga et al., 2012). Considering these materials only, concrete and composites are the most environmentally problematic at end-of-life, since there are currently no established industrial recycling routes for them (Pimenta and Pinho, 2011; Job, 2013).”

In a new paper entitled  “Unsustainable Wind Turbine Blade Disposal Practices in the United States”, Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017) further detail the imminent and unresolved nightmare of wind turbine blade disposal. The environmental consequences and health risks are so adverse that the authors warn that if the public learns of this rapidly burgeoning problem, they may be less inclined to favor wind power expansion. Advocates of wind power are said to be “largely ignoring the issue”. It’s an “issue” that will not be going away any time soon.

In light of its minuscule share of worldwide consumption (despite explosive expansion in recent decades), perhaps it is time to at least reconsider both the benefits and the costs of wind energy expansion.

‘Adverse Environmental Consequences’ For A Rapidly Expanding Wind Power Grid

Ramirez-Tejeda et al. (2017)

“Globally, more than seventy thousand wind turbine blades were deployed in 2012 and there were 433 gigawatts (GW) of wind installed capacity worldwide at the end of 2015. Moreover, the United States’ installed wind power capacity will need to increase from 74 GW to 300 GW3 to achieve its 20% wind production goal by 2030. To meet the increasing demand, not only are more blades being manufactured, but also blades of up to 100 meters long are being designed and produced.”

“The wind turbine blades are designed to have a lifespan of about twenty years, after which they would have to be dismantled due to physical degradation or damage beyond repair. Furthermore, constant development of more efficient blades with higher power generation capacity is resulting in blade replacement well before the twenty-year life span.”

“Estimations have suggested that between 330,000 tons/year by 2028 and 418,000 tons/year by 2040 of composite material from blades will need to be disposed worldwide. That would be equivalent to the amount of plastics waste generated by four million people in the United States in 2013. This anticipated increase in blade manufacturing and disposal will likely lead to adverse environmental consequences, as well as potential occupational exposures, especially because available technologies and key economic constraints result in undesirable disposal methods as the only feasible options.”

Problems With Landfills

“Despite its negative consequences, landfilling has so far been the most commonly utilized wind turbine blade disposal method. … Landfilling is especially problematic because its high resistance to heat, sunlight, and moisture means that it will take hundreds of years to degrade in a landfill environment. The wood and other organic material present in the blades would also end up in landfills, potentially releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and other volatile organic compounds to the environment.”

“The estimated cost to put blade material in landfills, not including pretreatment and transportation costs, is approximately US $60 per ton. [A typical blade may weigh 30-40 tons]. In the United Kingdom, where landfilling organics is not yet prohibited, the active waste disposal cost (which includes plastics) is approximately US $130 per ton.”

Problems With Incineration

“Incineration of blades is another disposal method with potential for energy and/or material recovery. … Combustion of GFRP is especially problematic because it can produce toxic gases, smoke, and soot that can harm the environment and humans. Carbon monoxide and formaldehyde have been reported as residue from thermal degradation of epoxy resin. Another residue is carbon dioxide, which poses concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, about 60% of the scrap remains as pollutant ash after the incineration process, some of which is sent to landfills, potentially contaminating the sites. Possible emission of hazardous flue gasses is also among the issues with incinerating wind turbine blades.”

“One key issue is that all these thermal processing techniques for wind turbine blades would also require fragmentation of the material into smaller pieces through mechanical processing before being fed into the reactors, increasing energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.”

Problems With Mechanical Processing

“Mechanical processing is a relatively simpler disposal method that consists of cutting, shredding, and grinding the material to separate the fibers from resins, so it can be repurposed. This process is energy intensive and produces small fiber particles with poor mechanical properties that can only be used as filler reinforcement material in the cement or asphalt industries. … The dust emitted in the grinding process of FRP creates occupational health and safety risks for workers. Inhalation, as well as skin and eye contact can produce moderate irritation to mucous membranes, skin, eyes, and coughing. Occupational exposure and prolonged inhalation of such particles have been found to produce alterations of the cellular and enzymatic components of the deep lung in humans, identified as acute alveolitis.”

Problems With Chemical Degradation

“The last method is chemical degradation, which consists of first mechanically reducing the size of the blades, then degrading them using a chemical solution. … Although no industrial-level chemical recycling of thermoset polymers has been done yet, some hazardous chemicals such as nitric acids and paraformaldehyde have been used in testing and development processes. Occupational exposure to these chemicals can produce harmful respiratory diseases including potential nasal cancer, and dermal health effects.”

Advocates Of Wind Power ‘Have Largely Ignored The Issue’

“Few individuals and organizations recognize the problems inherently related to blade recyclability. This situation creates an obstacle for promoting policy interventions to solve these problems. As a result, manufacturers, wind farm operators, and advocates have largely ignored the issue, focusing efforts on promoting wind energy and addressing other issues such as negative impacts on wildlife and noise generation.”

“If the industry cannot come up with more sustainable manufacturing and disposal processes, public acceptance of wind energy would decline if the public becomes aware of these issues, inhibiting its growth as one of the main sources of electricity generation in the United States.”

NoTricksZone

NoTricksZone flatters these things when it puts the lifespan of wind turbine blades at 20 years. The whole unit has an economic life of little more than a decade (see our post here).

Wind turbine blade failure is one of the more common features of these wondrously ‘reliable’ things: Wind Turbine Terror: Spanish Home Hit by Flying Blade – Just 1 of 3,800 Blade ‘Fails’ Every Year

And it’s not uncommon for turbine blades to fail within months of coming into operation.

At AGL’s Hallett 1 (Brown Hill) wind farm, south of Jamestown, South Australia the blades on each and every one of its 45 Suzlon S88s failed within their first year of operation, requiring their wholesale replacement.

The 2.1 MW, Indian built turbines commenced operation in April 2008. Not long into their operation, stress fractures began appearing in the 44m long blades. Suzlon (aka Senvion aka RePower) claimed that there was a “design fault” and was forced by AGL to replace the blades on all 45 turbines, under warranty.

The photos below show the stubs from those blades outside Suzlon’s Jamestown workshop. The main bodies of the blades were ground up and mixed with concrete used in the bases of other turbines erected later (the plastics in the blade are highly toxic, and contain Bisphenol A, which is so dangerous to health that the European Union and Canada have banned it):

stubs-1

stubs3

Turbine blade failures, including events where 10 tonne blades are thrown to the 4 winds (aka ‘component liberation’) are so common that we are able to finish this post with a graphic documentary, the captions are linked to the stories behind the pictures:

turbine-separation

Sigel Township, Michigan, February 2016.

turbine blade germany

Ostsee, Germany, December 2015.

BladeFailure_Spain

Pontecesco, Spain, January 2016.

blade fail

Fenner, New York, February 2016.

turbinedutchbladeaccident

Leystad, A6 Highway, Netherlands, May 2009.

turbine blade donegal

Donegal, Ireland, December 2013.

turbine001 kerry

Kerry, Ireland, January 2015.

bladethrow-shredding-ocotillo

Ocotillo, California, May 2013.

blade-whitelee_accident

Whitelee (near Glasgow), Scotland, March 2010.

And, we’ll finish with the video that strikes fear into the hearts of those unfortunate enough to live within 2 kms of these things:

Terrifying, dangerous and pointless!

And, it must be comforting to know that the liberated components depicted above (along with 3,800 odd blade fails every year) were quietly dumped in landfills to deliver their toxic cocktail into aquifers and water supplies for centuries to come.

Welcome to your wind powered future!

To view the original article CLICK HERE

.

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 your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

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

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
.

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings
https://twitter.com/Greg_LW

& Publicise

My MainWebSite & Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide


eMail:
Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

The BLOG:
https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

The Main Web Site:
www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

%d bloggers like this: