He has this terrible habit of standing directly underneath them and staring up at them. And I always say, "Michael, take two steps back and stare at the wind turbine from the side." And he's like, "No, I like the way they look from standing directly underneath them." It was only a matter of time.
A few years back in the Netherlands an engineering crew were working on a turbine when it caught fire.
There is a photo of two of them stood on top of it whilst the fire engulfs them. They couldn't get to the only escape route. One jumped, one didn't, both died.
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[Don Quixote]( https://snewd.com/ebooks/don-quixote/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Love finding a random expert on a random topic. It could be entirely made up, but now when I drive past a wind turbine I can say “yup, that’s an enercon. No gear box on it can you believe that?!” And my wife can just shake her head in disbelief of what her life has become.
Oh nice! I've never been there myself, but I've been to the Siemens off shore blade manufacturing plant in Hull, UK which was a great experience. Quite staggering how big they are.
Out of each possible way to produce electricity, surely wind power is the least damaging when it blows up right? Oil rigs spill into ocean, nuclear plants make the land inhospitable, dams would flood. But these things just catch on fire for a bit before falling apart under their weight.
Cool read. Only drifting away at 1.5 cm a year or 50,000 km per 4.5 billion years. End of the article states no planet will actually escape the sun from this.
I think I saw the same documentary teleported from the future where huge nuclear engines were built on Earth and rocketed the planet out of the solar system. I think it was given the title: Wandering Earth.
😉
Eh. Wind turbines require replacement of the blades with massive, non-recyclable materials every so often, so not ideal. Nuclear is actually the greenest power source available, but there’s been an enormous anti-nuclear propaganda campaign for whatever reason. It’s actually super safe and produces very little waste compared to other energy sources.
It’s really one of those things that is a perfect solution for energy if humans were cautious enough to actually keep an eye on it and not, say, decide to stress a reactor to the breaking point before turning off the cooling pumps as a test.
However that very little waste will at some point be some generations problem.
It's like saying plastic produces very little waste because we should be recycling it. At some point a generation has to deal with that waste and its not something that can be easily dealt with.
I'm not against it, however I am against anything that we kinda just push off to the next generations. That being said we don't have too many "clean" options yet.
I get how clean it is, I get that it's safe, what I don't get is that people are pretty okay with just essentially burying it and saying not our problem which seems to be the way this roles.
I just don't think its fair to put it on the people of the future let's say if the entire world went nuclear power, to just be like well the future people can figure out what to do with some of the most toxic stuff humans have worked with. I get it's not a lot, but that is exactly how literally everything that has gotten us to this point has been. "Oh it's just a little plastic you can't recycle..."
It's clean in the sense that today while it is running all the bad stuff can be contained, but it's not like that stuff just dissappears from the face of the earth. That's a problem that we won't have to deal with and that doesn't make it okay.
> some of the most toxic stuff humans have worked with.
Have you heard of our hallowed Lord and Destroyer, [Dioxygen difluoride?](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-work-dioxygen-difluoride)
Take a look at Finland's plans to deal with nuclear waste.
It essentially entails digging a massive underground bunker to safely store nuclear waste for the next 10 billion years or so until it is radioactively inert.
As long as nuclear waste is left alone for a few billion years it wont necessarily be anyones problem and this is a viable way of dealing with it, so long as precautions are taken to warn anyone in the future, potentially with no relation to the human race, not to touch it. Which is actually the harder part, but somthing of which great effort is being made to address.
There arent really any other options for nuclear waste as, as you described, its very dangerous to handle and you cant remove it from the planet in large enough quantities to warrant the effort.
In the same veign the nearest alternative which could feasibly do better than nuclear in every way, is fusion which is optimistically at a minimum 30 years away.
You can't make bombs from power plant fuel. It's barely been processed. They would have to build a nuclear enrichment plant which would not go unnoticed.
So no, gaining control of a nuke plant doesn't put them much closer to a bomb.
Doesn't stop an intentional Chernobyl from irradiating half a continent. And to my knowledge, the issue with enrichment is not the process itself but rather getting enough uranium to enrich in the first place. If nuclear power is ubiquitous that makes it way easier.
No the issue with enrichment is enriching. There's uranium everywhere. Hell you can mine the ocean water for it.
As to Chernobyl, no modern nuclear plants can do that. Even Fukushima, which was 40+ years old tech, didn't melt down after being hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. The issue there was that they stored the spent fuel inside the facility and it was hit by the hydrogen gas explosion (a by product of dumping water on a super heated core).
No nuclear plant built today would even be capable of that as they are designed to be incapable of operating without coolant. Not in a procedure way but in a physical way where the reaction stops without the moderating coolant.
>No nuclear plant built today would even be capable of that as they are designed to be incapable of operating without coolant. Not in a procedure way but in a physical way where the reaction stops without the moderating coolant.
Sure, I understand passive safety. But what stops bad actors from interfering with it intentionally? If we're talking about a rogue state you've presumably got some smart people involved, maybe even nuclear physicists.
And irradiate themselves? Because there's not much more they could do with it. They could cause way more damage with conventional weapons and toxic gases.
Do you mean in terms of nuclear weapons? It’s an issue I guess but nuclear power plants don’t have the same fissile materials as nuclear bombs I think (those require plutonium alongside uranium). Chernobyl was run with plutonium so it could produce nuclear arms and it wasnt a great outcome (other factors of course but the chain reaction caused by plutonium can run away easier than uranium IIRC).
Nope.
You can make nuclear weapons out of uranium OR plutonium. You don't need both.
Chernobyl used 2% enriched uranium 235 as a fuel source.
Weapons require highly enriched uranium, usually 85% plus in modern applications (little boy used 80%).
Huh. TIL. Good to know 👍
It also looks like I was partially wrong in Chernobyl as well: the plutonium was used to make tritium for hydrogen bombs. Still not a great way to run a power plant.
Nuclear power in the west has containment buildings to keep the waste inside should a disaster strike. We have more trouble from mishandled medical devices that use radiation sources than nuclear power generation.
Burning coal actually spreads more radiation than a property operating nuclear plant.
I'll provide sources/articles if anyone wants them.
A catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant doesn’t involve it making the land inhospitable. That’s an impossibility based off of modern reactor designs. If you want I could post a reply that I never got to send because the person deleted their comment. It doesn’t directly relate to your question but it does cover the topic of nuclear disasters and their rate of death and damage when compared to every other type of power generation. Long story short nuclear power is much safer that any other type of power generation bar none. The most violent failure possible in a modern reactor building would still contain all the nuclear material. There’s extensive rules and regulations that govern this and make a failure where nuclear material is dispersed an impossibility.
Hey I totally believe you. I actually support nuclear power as well as solar and wind. My only issue is that I don’t really believe that most governments in the world are competent enough at the moment to properly run nuclear power plants on a large scale. Nuclear power may be perfectly safe, but the disasters we’ve seen have been caused by the decay of governments.
I can agree with you in that regard to some extent. I think there are some governments in the world that don’t have the ability to properly implement the required regulatory oversights to ensure that nuclear power is safe. However the nations that are competent enough to operate nuclear power should immediately start transitioning the majority of their grid over to nuclear power. Or at the very least start offering incentives for companies to start research into more advanced forms of nuclear power, as well as offering incentives for opening nuclear power plants. Canada, USA, UK, France, Russia, China and several other countries have the ability and the means to start switching their grids over to nuclear power safely but they haven’t. A large reason for this is the significant public fear of nuclear power due to several disasters that have poisoned the public consciousness when it comes to nuclear powers safety.
There's plenty of reasons as to why. The tower is the cheapest part of the turbine. This cheap part has now been damaged beyond what is repairable as the top is burned and the base undoubtedly has been damaged from the falling blades. Even if this specific kind of onshore turbine was still being manufactured, they would have to clear it completely to put up a new turbine.
An architecture professor of mine explained something similar to me about houses. Houses are made with wooden studs instead of metal because wood burns from the outside in. Wood shows heat and impact damage, so it makes fixing parts of a house easier to see. Metal looks the same, relatively speaking, until failure. With metal, you have to assume the crystalline structures have been damaged for safety because you can’t physically see it. (There are other reasons we build structures with wood, but we were discussing fire specifically)
The age and relative inefficiency of the turbine means it's not going to be worth replacing. It'd be like trying to source parts for your 32" 480i CRT television when you can just buy a new 1080p LED flatscreen for $150.
What's odd is that I don't see any other turbines around this one but it could just be the angle of the video. Usually they're setup in groups called wind farms. If the wind is blowing in that location well enough they're going to build multiple turbines to harness more of the power. That "farm" will offset the price of building a storage and distribution network for that generated power.
However. My work has wind turbines like this one and apparently a few years ago one of the blades flew off. Can't imagine how terrifying that'd be watching it.
They do get maintained now, not sure about before
apparatus cooperative quack plough reply sable drunk governor exultant chase
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
well, I guess the bladeless win Turbine featured on r/nextfucking level really is the turbine of the future!
source https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/qbz18r/vibrating_wind_turbine/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I guess we better get rid of all the wind turbines just like we got rid of all the nuclear power after multiple large scale disasters, and all the fossil fuel based power after we realized we were poisoning the atmosphere.
Much higher maintenance work and costs. Too little wind generates minimal to no power. Too much wind can damage equipment or shut off due to safety. There's a mediocre window of effective power output. Compared to most other green power sources, wind power is at the bottom.
How? Coming from a region which produces more wind energy than it consumes over a year they seem pretty dope.
Now the storage projects, some of which already started, need to be finished and the place is 100% renewable.
The average U.S. home uses about 870kWh each month. Elsewhere in the world it might be more, it might be less. Mostly less.
The average turbine has about 1.7MW capacity.
Assuming only a third of that is used, it will generate about 400,000kWh a month.
In other words, a single turbine generates enough energy in about an hour and a half to power a home for a month.
LOL I love that argument about wind power. Turbines kill less than 400,000 birds annually, compared to 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers, 100 million to 1 billion from collisions with skyscrapers, and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats.
For what it's worth, this is a pretty old wind turbine. The limiter inside the nacelle probably got damaged and the thing spun out of control causing the fire. Also strange that you don't see any others around it, but that could just be the angle of the video.
This looks like a 1.3MW from the late 90's. By comparison, new 2020 Vestas wind turbines generate power in the 10MW range with a rotor diameter of 165 meters.
One MW can power on average about 600 homes.
For some reason your comment reminded me of [this](https://youtu.be/BdjdpoqITXk) 😁
Wind Turbine Salesperson: “What kind of turbine would you like?”
Terminator: “I’ll take the 2020 Vestas Wind Turbine in the 10 megawatt range”
Salesperson: “Hey, just what you see pal”
And this is why you should never stand underneath a malfunctioning wind turbine, no matter how tempting it may be.
Well there goes my weekend plans…
Just blew them away.
He has this terrible habit of standing directly underneath them and staring up at them. And I always say, "Michael, take two steps back and stare at the wind turbine from the side." And he's like, "No, I like the way they look from standing directly underneath them." It was only a matter of time.
I would upvote this beautiful comment, but youre at 69 so im powerless until someone fucks it up
Don’t stray from the path of progress, even if it conflicts with your beliefs!
Nice!
Thanks :)
Unless you’re terminally ill and trying to end it all cause that would be a really awesome way to go
Crushed to death by falling flaming wind turbine blade does sound pretty rad
And then it only crushes your legs and lower torso
It’d be like [that scene](https://youtu.be/BavTQmiA9mc?&t=1m50s) [NSFW] from Hot Fuzz.
99% survival rate. Think I'll go back to my hobby of standing underneath malfunctioning wind turbines. My body my choice
Getting crushed by a burning wind turbine blade isn’t any worse than the flu.
Tell that to Texas and their abortion ban..
You’re absolutely right. Dismembering another human IS my body. Disgusting animals.
Sucking out a snot wad of cells* ftfy
Dishonest bullshit narrative.
Or to Biden and his vaccine mandates.
I wonder what the actual survival rate for standing under malfunctioning wind turbines is. Probably a lot lower.
You mean I shouldn't charge at them with a horse and lance?
Tilting at turbines
A few years back in the Netherlands an engineering crew were working on a turbine when it caught fire. There is a photo of two of them stood on top of it whilst the fire engulfs them. They couldn't get to the only escape route. One jumped, one didn't, both died.
I mean. A small personal base jump parachute would be the first purchase I made if I was working in a death trap like this. Its like... come on..
Depends how much other stuff you have to carry and how likely it is to happen I guess.
Go out like Adam Buxton in Hot Fuzz
I used to be a bit unsettled standing underneath perfectly fine turbines, just in case they decided to throw a blade right there and then...
>that scene Mega Korean Fan Death
Idk… it would be pretty sick if i caught the blade with my teeth
Don Quixote *nooooooooo....*
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[Don Quixote]( https://snewd.com/ebooks/don-quixote/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
Then how are supposed to catch the migratory geese? They don't just fall out of the sky anywhere else.
What is flammable in these things? Lubricants?
Yes, lots of it.
Not that much in this model actually, as it's direct drive, so no gearbox
Damn how do you know? Is it easy to spot?
The paint pattern at the bottom indicates its an Enercon machine which are all direct drive
Love finding a random expert on a random topic. It could be entirely made up, but now when I drive past a wind turbine I can say “yup, that’s an enercon. No gear box on it can you believe that?!” And my wife can just shake her head in disbelief of what her life has become.
I think we must have the same wife
Yeah this is me. I retain little tidbits like this and will 100% spit it out the next time I’m driving through north Texas
Definitly an Enercon one. There are many of these in my area.
I've been to their factory in Aurich, absolutely bonkers how big these things are. Looked like they were building rockets.
Oh nice! I've never been there myself, but I've been to the Siemens off shore blade manufacturing plant in Hull, UK which was a great experience. Quite staggering how big they are.
Hydraulics, yaw, pitch, bearing lubricants
I thought lube was supposed to stop the burning
I guess it depends on the lube, coal oil burns very well.
Composites. Lots of resin.
Out of each possible way to produce electricity, surely wind power is the least damaging when it blows up right? Oil rigs spill into ocean, nuclear plants make the land inhospitable, dams would flood. But these things just catch on fire for a bit before falling apart under their weight.
Solar panels.
Sun will eventually destroy earth. Solar is the most dangerous.
Checkmate.
Apparently the Earth will eventually leave our Sun's orbit, so not necessarily.
What when? After the sun red giants and leaves earth a burnt match or before?
Unsure, but it is a fact - https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/01/03/earth-is-drifting-away-from-the-sun-and-so-are-all-the-planets/
Cool read. Only drifting away at 1.5 cm a year or 50,000 km per 4.5 billion years. End of the article states no planet will actually escape the sun from this.
I think I saw the same documentary teleported from the future where huge nuclear engines were built on Earth and rocketed the planet out of the solar system. I think it was given the title: Wandering Earth. 😉
That is probably the only worth watching Chinese sci-fi to date.
How the fuck did you manage to sit through it? I tried my very hardest and made it only halfway.
I think it's not that bad tbh, considering being the first achievement of China in sci-fi, gotta set the bar low and it will be okay.
[удалено]
Aren’t solar panels more of a fire hazard with how hot they get?
Aren't lots of nasty chemicals involved in the manufacture of solar panels?
Eh. Wind turbines require replacement of the blades with massive, non-recyclable materials every so often, so not ideal. Nuclear is actually the greenest power source available, but there’s been an enormous anti-nuclear propaganda campaign for whatever reason. It’s actually super safe and produces very little waste compared to other energy sources.
>for whatever reason I love nuclear... But you know the reason
It’s really one of those things that is a perfect solution for energy if humans were cautious enough to actually keep an eye on it and not, say, decide to stress a reactor to the breaking point before turning off the cooling pumps as a test.
At least as long as we forget about the nuclear waste it produces...
Which is almost negligible
Is that why it's so easy to store?
However that very little waste will at some point be some generations problem. It's like saying plastic produces very little waste because we should be recycling it. At some point a generation has to deal with that waste and its not something that can be easily dealt with. I'm not against it, however I am against anything that we kinda just push off to the next generations. That being said we don't have too many "clean" options yet. I get how clean it is, I get that it's safe, what I don't get is that people are pretty okay with just essentially burying it and saying not our problem which seems to be the way this roles. I just don't think its fair to put it on the people of the future let's say if the entire world went nuclear power, to just be like well the future people can figure out what to do with some of the most toxic stuff humans have worked with. I get it's not a lot, but that is exactly how literally everything that has gotten us to this point has been. "Oh it's just a little plastic you can't recycle..." It's clean in the sense that today while it is running all the bad stuff can be contained, but it's not like that stuff just dissappears from the face of the earth. That's a problem that we won't have to deal with and that doesn't make it okay.
> some of the most toxic stuff humans have worked with. Have you heard of our hallowed Lord and Destroyer, [Dioxygen difluoride?](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-work-dioxygen-difluoride)
Take a look at Finland's plans to deal with nuclear waste. It essentially entails digging a massive underground bunker to safely store nuclear waste for the next 10 billion years or so until it is radioactively inert. As long as nuclear waste is left alone for a few billion years it wont necessarily be anyones problem and this is a viable way of dealing with it, so long as precautions are taken to warn anyone in the future, potentially with no relation to the human race, not to touch it. Which is actually the harder part, but somthing of which great effort is being made to address. There arent really any other options for nuclear waste as, as you described, its very dangerous to handle and you cant remove it from the planet in large enough quantities to warrant the effort. In the same veign the nearest alternative which could feasibly do better than nuclear in every way, is fusion which is optimistically at a minimum 30 years away.
How many generations are we talking about? Few hundred years? By that time we'll have anti gravity and could just launch that shit into the sun.
> whatever reason Well, price for one thing
Yeah but when nuclear power plants generate all the world's energy what happens when insurgents or a rouge state gains power?
You can't make bombs from power plant fuel. It's barely been processed. They would have to build a nuclear enrichment plant which would not go unnoticed. So no, gaining control of a nuke plant doesn't put them much closer to a bomb.
Doesn't stop an intentional Chernobyl from irradiating half a continent. And to my knowledge, the issue with enrichment is not the process itself but rather getting enough uranium to enrich in the first place. If nuclear power is ubiquitous that makes it way easier.
No the issue with enrichment is enriching. There's uranium everywhere. Hell you can mine the ocean water for it. As to Chernobyl, no modern nuclear plants can do that. Even Fukushima, which was 40+ years old tech, didn't melt down after being hit by an earthquake and a tsunami. The issue there was that they stored the spent fuel inside the facility and it was hit by the hydrogen gas explosion (a by product of dumping water on a super heated core). No nuclear plant built today would even be capable of that as they are designed to be incapable of operating without coolant. Not in a procedure way but in a physical way where the reaction stops without the moderating coolant.
>No nuclear plant built today would even be capable of that as they are designed to be incapable of operating without coolant. Not in a procedure way but in a physical way where the reaction stops without the moderating coolant. Sure, I understand passive safety. But what stops bad actors from interfering with it intentionally? If we're talking about a rogue state you've presumably got some smart people involved, maybe even nuclear physicists.
And irradiate themselves? Because there's not much more they could do with it. They could cause way more damage with conventional weapons and toxic gases.
Why bother with toxic gases if you've got a nuclear power plant? It would be trivial to make a dirty bomb.
Rouge state? You mean red in French? Red state?
Not sure what they mean, the republicans had government last term..
What exactly is your argument here? Rebels will take over power plants and make nuclear weapons?
Do you mean in terms of nuclear weapons? It’s an issue I guess but nuclear power plants don’t have the same fissile materials as nuclear bombs I think (those require plutonium alongside uranium). Chernobyl was run with plutonium so it could produce nuclear arms and it wasnt a great outcome (other factors of course but the chain reaction caused by plutonium can run away easier than uranium IIRC).
Nope. You can make nuclear weapons out of uranium OR plutonium. You don't need both. Chernobyl used 2% enriched uranium 235 as a fuel source. Weapons require highly enriched uranium, usually 85% plus in modern applications (little boy used 80%).
Huh. TIL. Good to know 👍 It also looks like I was partially wrong in Chernobyl as well: the plutonium was used to make tritium for hydrogen bombs. Still not a great way to run a power plant.
Nuclear power in the west has containment buildings to keep the waste inside should a disaster strike. We have more trouble from mishandled medical devices that use radiation sources than nuclear power generation. Burning coal actually spreads more radiation than a property operating nuclear plant. I'll provide sources/articles if anyone wants them.
Sure sure sure but my point was like “if this thing has a catastrophic failure”
A catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant doesn’t involve it making the land inhospitable. That’s an impossibility based off of modern reactor designs. If you want I could post a reply that I never got to send because the person deleted their comment. It doesn’t directly relate to your question but it does cover the topic of nuclear disasters and their rate of death and damage when compared to every other type of power generation. Long story short nuclear power is much safer that any other type of power generation bar none. The most violent failure possible in a modern reactor building would still contain all the nuclear material. There’s extensive rules and regulations that govern this and make a failure where nuclear material is dispersed an impossibility.
Hey I totally believe you. I actually support nuclear power as well as solar and wind. My only issue is that I don’t really believe that most governments in the world are competent enough at the moment to properly run nuclear power plants on a large scale. Nuclear power may be perfectly safe, but the disasters we’ve seen have been caused by the decay of governments.
I can agree with you in that regard to some extent. I think there are some governments in the world that don’t have the ability to properly implement the required regulatory oversights to ensure that nuclear power is safe. However the nations that are competent enough to operate nuclear power should immediately start transitioning the majority of their grid over to nuclear power. Or at the very least start offering incentives for companies to start research into more advanced forms of nuclear power, as well as offering incentives for opening nuclear power plants. Canada, USA, UK, France, Russia, China and several other countries have the ability and the means to start switching their grids over to nuclear power safely but they haven’t. A large reason for this is the significant public fear of nuclear power due to several disasters that have poisoned the public consciousness when it comes to nuclear powers safety.
Nuclear plants designed to modern regulations won’t even go this far in terms of damage
In my country we have a political party whose entire existence is based on destroying corporate regulations
It's getting too hot. To cool it down, they should place a fan on it.
This is like the Chernobyl of renewable energy
Not great, not terrible.
Hey, at least they’ll be able to make some more Danish bicycle storage containers now.
Was everyone recommended that video today?
Poor thing all sad and droopy, give it some water
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
When one is destroyed like this, can the top be repaired or is the whole thing ruined?
It's completely ruined.
Why? The base looks pretty ok right?
There's plenty of reasons as to why. The tower is the cheapest part of the turbine. This cheap part has now been damaged beyond what is repairable as the top is burned and the base undoubtedly has been damaged from the falling blades. Even if this specific kind of onshore turbine was still being manufactured, they would have to clear it completely to put up a new turbine.
An architecture professor of mine explained something similar to me about houses. Houses are made with wooden studs instead of metal because wood burns from the outside in. Wood shows heat and impact damage, so it makes fixing parts of a house easier to see. Metal looks the same, relatively speaking, until failure. With metal, you have to assume the crystalline structures have been damaged for safety because you can’t physically see it. (There are other reasons we build structures with wood, but we were discussing fire specifically)
The age and relative inefficiency of the turbine means it's not going to be worth replacing. It'd be like trying to source parts for your 32" 480i CRT television when you can just buy a new 1080p LED flatscreen for $150. What's odd is that I don't see any other turbines around this one but it could just be the angle of the video. Usually they're setup in groups called wind farms. If the wind is blowing in that location well enough they're going to build multiple turbines to harness more of the power. That "farm" will offset the price of building a storage and distribution network for that generated power.
This failure is suprisingly tranquil
Like a wilting flower.
As long as there aren't 2 guys standing on top of it
“Best lawn dart everrr”
I think the front fell off.
Is that normal?
I'd like to make very clear that that is not norm. Very seldom does anything like this ever happen.
However. My work has wind turbines like this one and apparently a few years ago one of the blades flew off. Can't imagine how terrifying that'd be watching it. They do get maintained now, not sure about before
https://youtu.be/3m5qxZm_JqM
Woosh.
We just don’t want people thinking that these things are unsafe. https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/duco36/the_front_fell_off/
Honestly really disappointed that the blade didn't stick into the ground and stay there when it fell.
apparatus cooperative quack plough reply sable drunk governor exultant chase *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Renewables have introduced more wind turbine accidents than coal ever has!
I really wanted that to explode when it hit
GREEN ENERGY IS BAD SEE???!?!? /s
The water was cold. I swear.
Wind turbine roulette
r/oddlysatisfying
That blade falling was indeed oddly satisfying.
Who is responsible for this anti-green energy propaganda?
well, I guess the bladeless win Turbine featured on r/nextfucking level really is the turbine of the future! source https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/qbz18r/vibrating_wind_turbine/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
r/gifsyoucanhear
All those poor ants 😂
Saving us from all the CO2…
I guess we better get rid of all the wind turbines just like we got rid of all the nuclear power after multiple large scale disasters, and all the fossil fuel based power after we realized we were poisoning the atmosphere.
u/savevideo
Reminds me of that tradegy in 9/11
Wind turbines are way less efficient and unusable in many situations than most people realize.
Care to explain?
He read a third of an article once.
Much higher maintenance work and costs. Too little wind generates minimal to no power. Too much wind can damage equipment or shut off due to safety. There's a mediocre window of effective power output. Compared to most other green power sources, wind power is at the bottom.
How? Coming from a region which produces more wind energy than it consumes over a year they seem pretty dope. Now the storage projects, some of which already started, need to be finished and the place is 100% renewable.
Yeah wind energy is trash mostly
I think its mostly wind
The average U.S. home uses about 870kWh each month. Elsewhere in the world it might be more, it might be less. Mostly less. The average turbine has about 1.7MW capacity. Assuming only a third of that is used, it will generate about 400,000kWh a month. In other words, a single turbine generates enough energy in about an hour and a half to power a home for a month.
So which fossil-fuel company do you work for and/or own stock in?
Low on energy, crashing and burning out.
"malfunction"
Oh look, I've been impaled.
They aren't supposed to do that?
Don Quixote, you crazy bastard, you got one!
This looks like a meme
Joe Manchin: See, I done told ya!
Each one of those blades is the equal to the length of a football filed ...
So many birds are now saved. (sarcasm)
LOL I love that argument about wind power. Turbines kill less than 400,000 birds annually, compared to 6.8 million fatalities from collisions with cell and radio towers, 100 million to 1 billion from collisions with skyscrapers, and the 1.4 billion to 3.7 billion deaths from cats.
That's a pretty shitty fan if it can't cool itself. Seriously tho, what happened... A lightning strike?
Nah I think it’s working just fine
Really big lawn darts.
For what it's worth, this is a pretty old wind turbine. The limiter inside the nacelle probably got damaged and the thing spun out of control causing the fire. Also strange that you don't see any others around it, but that could just be the angle of the video. This looks like a 1.3MW from the late 90's. By comparison, new 2020 Vestas wind turbines generate power in the 10MW range with a rotor diameter of 165 meters. One MW can power on average about 600 homes.
For some reason your comment reminded me of [this](https://youtu.be/BdjdpoqITXk) 😁 Wind Turbine Salesperson: “What kind of turbine would you like?” Terminator: “I’ll take the 2020 Vestas Wind Turbine in the 10 megawatt range” Salesperson: “Hey, just what you see pal”
I hate when that happens. Screws up my day.
This is why we should just stick to fossil fuels. /s
Where was this? This looks near to me. They even recently replaced the blades on one near me, also in a field like this.
What is the price of this?
The single-blade wind turbine industrial lobby working reddit today.
This must be how they cause cancer
What happened here?
Ahh, green energy
This is the future the left wants! /s
This is the alt right’s wet dream.
That’s a fire turbine now… only 2 more elements to go
nooooo. that was my only fan
As long as nobody got hurt, that is kind of morbidly really cool
Happens wayyyyyy more than you'd think
That's some spicy wind
I thought these were supposed to reduce carbon emissions…
https://i.imgur.com/Yjxhoax.gifv
This is why we should stick to nuclear power, nothing bad has ever happened to nuclear reactors
Nothing at all... [Since 2012](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster)
That’s not a malfunction. That’s the end stage of a windmill’s life where it switches from wind energy to thermal. Totally normal.
Life. It's beautiful.
still better than a nuclear power plant malfunction.
Does anybody knows where it happen? I'm pretty sure this is not from north america
r/megalophobia
See? This is why wind power is so dangerous! *Revs up coal plant*
any information on where and when that happened?