Hundreds of these things have spontaneously self-incinerated around the world, with the real potential to destroy life and property for miles around. But the wind industry and its government enablers, couldn’t care less.

When turbines erupt in toxic fireballs, firefighters can only stand back and watch.

When and wherever these things explode into balls of flame and toxic smoke they send a shower of molten metal and over 1,000 litres of flaming gear oil, hydraulic fluid (see our post here) and burning plastic composites earthwards.

As Australia approaches what portends to be a blistering summer, rural communities with the misfortune of having hundreds of these things in their midst are on edge. Their natural well-founded anxiety is perfectly understandable, but the ho-hum reaction of their political betters is criminal.

Authorities running cover for the wind industry have known about the proclivity of these things to self-emulate years. They continue to pretend that the ‘events’ are exceedingly rare (the numbers say otherwise) and that those charged with extinguishing the random blazes are well-equipped to do so. All bunkum, of course.

In the proto-communist-run People’s Republic of Victoria (a once great State of Australia), locals are incensed at the lack of care and empathy of the glorious leaders. And rightly so, as Shannon Deery outlines below.

Wind turbine fire safety fears spark urgent call for Allan govt to step in
Sunday Herald Sun
Shannon Deery
29 September 2024

The Allan government is facing calls for an urgent audit of Victoria’s 2500 wind turbines amid fears they lack critical fire safety equipment.

Ahead of the upcoming bushfire season, concerns are mounting over the safety measures in place to protect both regional communities and key infrastructure from potential fire hazards.

As the government rolls out another 900 turbines over the next decade and faces an ongoing fight over constructing powerlines through western Victoria to connect turbines to the Melbourne grid, the Sunday Herald Sun can reveal the state’s energy safety regulator, Energy Safe Victoria, has no records of whether or not wind turbines are fitted with critical internal fire suppression systems.

The gap in oversight has sparked alarm about the effectiveness of current regulations and the preparedness of the energy sector in addressing the risks associated with the government’s push toward renewable energy.

CFA guidelines recommend fire suppression systems are installed on all wind turbines, as well as automatic shutdown capabilities to enable turbines to be completely disconnected from the power supply in the event of fire.

Fire hazards at wind energy facilities can include electrical hazards, chemical hazards, and potential fire spread because of air flow impact or falling debris from fire-impacted turbines.

In June Energy Safety Victoria launched an investigation after a wind turbine burst into flames in Portland.

Firefighters were forced to let the blaze burn out after futile attempts to control the fire.

Irrewarra CFA captain, John Martin, said wind turbines posed significant dangers for both aerial and ground firefighting operations.

Mr Martin said it was almost always impossible for crews to get close to wind turbines, meaning bushfires could quickly spread from the turbine before facing any resistance.

“If you give a fire like that in that particular landscape a head start, the front’s going to get bigger and bigger and before you know it you’ve got a pretty serious, fast-running grass fire,” he said.

“It makes us feel pretty helpless. Anything within the tower, we can’t touch, we’ve just got to leave it.

“But it is the grass fires that really concern us as to how we can actually manage to eventually get on top of those.”

Mr Martin said there should be laws requiring fire suppression systems to be installed in every single wind turbine.

“It’s a no-brainer, it doesn’t matter the cost,” he said.

“Whichever way you look at it, these things do present problems for us in the CFA.”

Shadow Emergency Services Minister Richard Riordan called for an immediate audit of the state’s turbines.

“Fire suppression technology exists but is an optional extra for wind companies who this year received a massive cut to their fire service levy charges thanks to the Allan government,” he said.

“Protection of our rural communities from out of control wind turbine fires should not be an optional extra.

“A wind turbine fire cannot be fought from the ground, and it cannot be beaten from the air, only internal fire suppression equipment such as CO2 gas can be used to put these fires out effectively.

“A hot February day and a wind turbine spraying molten fibreglass, hot oils and other debris across many square kilometres of accessible grass lands is a disaster waiting to happen.”
Sunday Herald Sun

From Legal Insurrection

US Bureau of Ocean Management report says whales, dolphins, birds and bats can all be injured by wind turbine construction, and offshore fishing harmed.

Posted by Leslie Eastman

Joe Rogan’s interview with President Donald Trump certainly covered a wide-range of topics.

While my colleague Mike LaChance discussed the interview, as the podcast touched upon the subject of whale deaths associated with offshore wind farm construction, I thought I would chime in here.

I have noted the spate of whale deaths recorded along the East Coast. At one point, New Jersey Republicans demanded that construction on offshore wind farm projects be halted for up to 60 days to see if it reduced the number of whales washing up dead.

The moratorium did not go through. In fact, Federal authorities approved the construction of up to 195 wind turbines off New Jersey’s coast in July of this year.

With this in mind, let’s focus on “Donald Trump, Whale Psychiatrist”.

Specifically, here is what Trump said during the interview.

“They say the wind drives them mad. It’s a vibration issue because those structures are as tall as 50-story buildings… The wind is howling, objects are moving, creating vibrations and noise. You know what I want to be? A whale psychiatrist.

The noise drives the whales absolutely nuts. They are being washed up on the beaches, but oddly, the environmentalists remain silent on this.”

Trump has been an advocate for keeping America clean and healthy. He has not advocated for the anti-carbon push based on pseudoscience and the rush into green energy projects put forth by environmentalists.

Trump attacked environmental measures that he says harm the U.S. economy throughout the interview. By claiming that “a cottage industry of environmentalists and lawyers” thrives on fighting enterprises like fracking, he contended that environmental lobbying impedes economic progress.

Trump said, “Clean air and water are important, but U.S. economic vitality is suffering,” when Rogan questioned him about striking a balance between environmental effect and economic development.

Admittedly. the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has officials saying they have found no evidence linking offshore wind turbines to whale deaths. Furthermore, Benjamin Laws from NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources stated, “There is no evidence indicating that any equipment utilized for offshore wind projects could directly cause whale deaths.”

However, a new report from the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has just released a new report that said whales, dolphins, birds and more can be exposed to “unavoidable adverse impacts” by the construction of offshore wind farms. The BOEM was required to conduct an impact assessment for six wind farm sites that were previously approved off New Jersey/Long Island.

Specifically, in regards to whales, this is what the 620 page report listed as “potential unavoidable harms” during construction:

• Increased risk of injury (TTS [Temporary Threshold Shifts] or PTS [Permanent Threshold Shifts]) to individuals due to underwater noise from pile-driving activities during construction
• Disturbance (behavioral effects) and acoustic masking due to underwater noise from pile-driving, vessel traffic, aircraft, WTG [Wind Turbine Generation] operation, and dredging during construction and operations
• Presence of structures resulting in hydrodynamic effects that influence primary and secondary productivity and availability of prey and forage resources.
• Increased risk of individual injury and mortality due to vessel strikes.
• Increased risk of individual injury and mortality associated with fisheries gear.

The “potential adverse impacts” also include those on bats, birds, sea turtles, as well as commercial and recreational fishing. However, “experts” assure everyone that this effects are only temporary and everything will go back to normal when construction ends.

A BOEM spokesman said the federal agency is required to list all the “potential unavoidable adverse impacts” associated with wind farms off New Jersey. He also said the risks can be mitigated through the measures they listed here.

“Populations are expected to recover completely when stressors are removed,” BOEM wrote. BOEM also said if wind turbine construction is spaced out, and does not happen at all six sites at once, the sound damage from underwater pile driving will be reduced.

I will simply point out that when a whale dies, its impact is not temporary. For an administration that is supposed to be worried about the environment and endangered species, it appears that Team Biden is eager to overlook serious consequences for both if it suits its interests.

If offshore windfarms were the sole energy solution necessary for the safety and security of this country, perhaps certain environmental trade-offs could be justified. However, as we have seen with the Vineyard Wind Farms project, the technology is not perfected, and we are in jeopardy of permanently harming the coastline without substantial gains in either affordable or reliable energy.

It turns out Donald J. Trump, Whale Psychiatrist, is at least directionally correct in his diagnosis.

If he prevails in the election, I hope that pseudoscience used to generate destructive policies will be replaced by real science and eco-activist bureaucrats will be replaced with real scientists and honest researchers.

I fear it is going to take the country decades to recover from the green energy push that has been allowed to go unchecked.

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (@WEschenbach on eX-Twitter)

Perspective is everything.

The world’s largest CO2-capture plant just went into operation in Iceland, built by a company called “Climeworks”. You can read about it at their site.

Here’s a description:

“According to Climeworks’ estimates, Mammoth boasts an impressive annual capacity of capturing 36,000 tons of CO2. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent to neutralizing the emissions from approximately 7,800 gasoline-powered vehicles.”

Sounds impressive, huh? Same as taking 7,800 cars off the road? WOW!

However, to return to the question of perspective, how many giant plants of this size would we need to neutralize the annual global CO2 emissions, which are currently about 38 gigatonnes of CO2?

Why , a mere ONE MILLION EQUALLY LARGE PLANTS would do it … should be no problem, right?

I mean, if we could build one of these suckers per week, that would only take us … hang on, let’s see … carry over what sums to greater than 9, divide by pi, take the square root, allow for Cook’s Factor, this math stuff is tough … that would only take us 19,231 years to complete the project.

And how much energy does it require? The builders are VERY tight-lipped about this, but typically such plants require about 2 MWh of electricity per tonne of CO2 captured. Let’s call it 1.5 MWh per tonne to be conservative.

So to capture all of our emissions would require about 50 petawatt-hours of electricity per year …
… and to close the circle and return to the question of perspective, that’s about twice the current total annual global electricity consumption.

This CO2-capture project is nothing but pathetic climate virtue signaling.

w.

PS—As usual, I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are discussing. I’m happy to defend my own words … but I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. Thanks.