Clowd logo
CLOWD : Accident Data
   
 
 
 
Ros Pound
 
01933 355173 (a.m.)
01933 315132 (p.m.)
 
rospound@f2s.com
 
On-line Objection
 
Written Objection
 
 

Wind turbine out of control Turbine out of control

 

Run away wind turbinecollapses during a storm in Denmark, 22.02.08

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257

 

 

Vestas turbine collapse

15th January 2008

Collapsed turbineTwo giant Vestas wind turbines in the UK collapsed within weeks of each other in an indication there may be a serial failure in Vestas turbines taking place.

THE firm has insisted there are no major problems with their structures. An executive from Vestas Wind Systems gave the reassurance after it emerged that one of its turbines had fallen in Scotland just weeks before the most recent incident near Caldbeck in Cumbria. They have launched investigations into the incidents. The global manufacturer has produced about 35,000 turbines since being formed in the 1970s. Most recently, a 100ft steel turbine collapsed at J Stobart & Sons animal feed mill, Hesket Newmarket, on December 28. It had been helping to provide power to the mill for 19 years. A six-year-old Vestas V47 turbine toppled at Scottish Power’s Beinn an Tuirc windfarm at Kintyre on November 8. The 200ft mast bent in half and crumpled to the ground after being hit by a 50mph gust.

The Health and Safety Executive suggested precautionary measures are carried out.

In a November 19 press release,Vestas said the HSE has advised that,for Vestas V47 (660-kW) and V52 (850- kW) turbines,the “maximum speed pause” is adjusted from 25 meters per second to 15 m/s,and “auto reset parameters” reduced from maximum ten to maximum five (the number of times a turbine can re-start in a 24-hour period).

An investigation into the turbine collapse is on-going, Vestas said. Its technical and managerial teams were working closely with the HSE and others “in order to bring the matter to an early and considered conclusion. Until these investigations have been finalised,it is too early to make any conclusions,however,there is no early indications whatsoever that there is a serial inherent safety issue with this particular turbine class,” Vestas said.

The Danish turbine manufacturer noted that,as the HSE’s comments “merely provide precautionary guidance in the United Kingdom,we are under a duty to pass this guidance on to all our customers,so as to allow them to form their own judgement on an informed basis.”

President of Vestas Northern Europe, Klaus Steen Mortensen,told Platts: “the tower of the Scottish turbine under investigation bent over due to high wind speeds. We definitely believe it was a one-off and not a generic fault. We have many such turbines operating in high winds that have never failed.”

Mortensen said conclusions on why the tower failed should be available very soon. Vestas has installed over 2,100 V52-850 kW wind turbines world- wide.

Speaking from Denmark,Vestas’ Peter Wenzel Kruse, said: “Our inquiries are ongoing so I cannot give details on why these turbines have collapsed. They are two very different kinds of turbines.

“Investigations are not concluded but we believe the incidents are one-offs. It is the first time we have had these experiences. We want to know why.”

Following the turbine collapse in Scotland, Vestas president Klaus Steen Mortensen said in a press statement on November 19: “Until these investigations have been finalised, it is too early to make any conclusions, however, there are no early indications whatsoever that there is a serial inherent safety issue with this particular turbine class.”

The Health and Safety Executive has confirmed that it is awaiting the results of the manufacturer’s inquiries on both incidents before deciding whether to launch its own full-scale investigation.

The collapse in Cumbria prompted safety fears to be raised by anti-windfarm campaigners.

CUMBRIA’S oldest wind turbine was the second to collapse and an inquiry has been launched into what may be the first such incident in the 29-year history of harnessing wind energy in the UK.

The Health and Safety Executive has been notified of the incident, which has prompted safety fears from Cumbrian anti-windfarm campaigners.

Investigations are under way to determine what caused the 100-ft steel structure near Hesket Newmarket to crash to the ground. The British Wind Energy Association, which represents 98 per cent of UK wind energy firms, will be directly involved and has pledged to act on any potential issues arising.

The turbine, thought to weigh around 11 tonnes, has been helping to produce energy to power J Stobart & Sons animal feed mill at Newlands for the last 19 years.

When it was installed it was only the second privately-owned wind turbine in the country. But it collapsed, narrowly missing a country road, at around 11.30am last Friday (DEC 28) while the plant was operating. No-one was hurt.

J Stobart & Sons, which has been operating for around 40 years, notified the HSE. The HSE is waiting for further details before deciding whether a full investigation needs to be carried out. Peter Stobart, one of the company’s directors, has confirmed that investigations will be carried out by the contractor employed to maintain the turbine, as well as insurers.

Installing the turbine was an innovative development when it was passed around 20 years ago.

Mr Stobart said: “It is a sad end to this machine. It has been a great success in terms of what it generated. It produced an estimated 4.5 million units of electricity. It is unfortunate that it has met such a sad and sudden end.”

He added: “All those years ago it was a very innovative thing to do. It was certainly the first in the county and only the second in the country, privately-owned, that is.

“It was ahead of its time. We did it purely because we saw energy costs going up and, apart from what happened on Friday, it has been a tremendous success in what it has generated and the costs saved.”

Commenting on Friday’s incident, he added: “People said they heard something but no-one saw it come down.”

The collapse is likely to spark interest among windfarm campaigners and the renewable energy industry. Many turbines have a lifespan of 25 years.

Ruth Walsh, chairwoman of Communities Opposing Lamonby Turbines, said: “The turbine was only 19 years old and they are supposed to have a 25-year life. It fell near a road when fortunately no-one was driving or walking along it.

“It was windy but only averagely so for these parts. We’ve had much worse.

“We are extremely worried about this as it raises big questions about turbine safety, especially as the ones proposed for our village are over 100 metres tall. This must give councillors something to think about when they are considering future proposals.”

The British Wind Energy Association says last Friday’s collapse appears to be the first in its 29-year history where foul play is not involved.

The BWEA is working with the manufacturer, a long-serving member of the group, to try and understand why the turbine fell.

The organisation is waiting to discover the cause of a turbine collapse in Scotland, but foul play was believed to be involved.

Graeme Cooper, health and safety technical officer with the BWEA, said: “Turbine failure is very rare so this is very important to us and we will be directly involved.

“This is the first of these specific kind of incident we are aware of and there are over 2,000 installed turbines in the UK.”

He added: “The design life of a turbine is about 20 years and this had been up for 19, so it was pretty much at the end of its design life. It was also a very small turbine with a very early design.

“Taking the 19 years into account it has been doing a very good job and we have to remember that the industry and designs have changed drastically, there have been 19 years of developments and improvements made.

“If there is any learning from this incident here it will be taken away and if there are any ways of improving turbine design as a result of this then we will do it.”

http://www.off-grid.net/2008/01/15/vestas-turbine-collapse/
 
For information on other wind turbine failures: http://www.windaction.org/news/c48/

Caithness Windfarm Information Forum

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to March 31st 2008

These accident statistics are copyright Caithness Windfarms Information Forum 2008. The data may be used or referred to by groups or individuals, provided that the source (Caithness Windfarms Information Forum) is acknowledged and our URL www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk quoted at the same time. Caithness Windfarms Information Forum is not responsible for the accuracy of Third Party material or references.

The attached detailed table includes all documented cases of wind turbine related accidents which could be found and confirmed through press reports or official information releases up to March 31st 2008. 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. However, the data gives an excellent cross-section of the types of accidents which can and do occur, and their consequences.

It is noticeable that since about 1999/2000 data has been easier to find – presumably since the wide distribution of media via the internet. Numbers of accidents in the data reflect this, with an average of 44.1 accidents found per year from 1999 to 2007 inclusive, and only an average of 6.2 accidents found per year in the previous nine years (1990 -1998 inclusive). With few exceptions, before about 1997 only data on fatal accidents has been found.

The trend is as expected – the more turbines, the more accidents. There is a general trend upward in accident numbers over the past 10 years. This is predicted 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 (currently 2km in Europe), and declaring “no-go” areas to the public, following the 500m exclusion zone around operational turbines imposed in France. Data attached is presented chronologically. It can be broken down as follows:

Number of accidents

Total number of accidents: 482

By year:

Year 70s 80s 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No. 1 8 17 5 9 16 7 33 28 11 64 49 50 49 45 68 22

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

Fatal accidents

Number of fatal accidents: 45

By year:

Year 70s 80s 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No. 1 8 8   2 4   1 3   1 3 3 3 4 4  

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

Fatal accidents include 5 transport/driver distraction accidents and 2 unconfirmed accidents from 1996.

Of the 49 fatalities:

  • 35 were wind industry workers (maintenance/engineers, etc) and one farmer attempting to maintain his own turbine. Most common cause - falls from turbines. Included is one apparent suicide.
  • 14 were public fatalities, of which three were from road accidents attributed to “driver distraction of turbines” by police, one was from a road accident in which a driver was killed in collision with a turbine transporter, one was in a transport accident in which the road collapsed and the driver drowned, one was from an aircraft accident which hit a new and unmarked anemometer, four were from an further aircraft accident which flew into a turbine in fog (one incident killing four people), one was a 16-year old boy strangled after his necktie became tangled around an unprotected turbine shaft, one was a farmer who killed himself due to the pressure of public opposition to his proposed wind turbines, one was electrocuted, and the remaining accident was the collision of a parachutist with a turbine.

Human injury

A further nineteen accidents regarding human injury are documented. Thirteen accidents involved wind industry or construction workers, and a further five involved members of the public: one lost a leg in a transport accident, one was hit by thrown ice, one suffered spinal injuries from a falling turbine part, one fell from 100m metre tower during an accompanied visit, and one flew his aircraft into a windfarm site. Two of these injuries to members of the public were in the UK. One 2003 accident resulted in two industry workers receiving appalling burns.

Blade failure

By far the biggest number of incidents found were 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 122 separate incidences were found:

By year:

Year 70s 80s 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No.     3 3 3 6 1 18 3 5 15 13 14 9 11 15 3

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

Pieces of blade are documented as travelling over 400m, typically from much smaller turbines than those proposed for use today. 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 1km between turbines and occupied housing – and preferably at least 2km in line with other European countries in order to address other problems such as noise.

Fire

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 104 fire incidents were found:

By year:

Year 70s 80s 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No.     1 1   1 1 2 3 1 24 16 15 14 11 11 3

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

The 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

Structural failure

From the data obtained, this is the third most common accident cause, with 58 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 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No.     1       3 6 9 2 8 3 2 3 4 11 6

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

While 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. During November-December 2006, one school turbine collapsed and a second threw its blades, luckily at times outwith school hours. There has been a sharp rise in structural failures in the latter part of 2007 continuing into 2008.

Ice throw

22 incidences of ice throw were found (one of which has been classed as "human injury" above, in italics below):

By year:

Year 70s 80s 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No.         4 3   3 1   2   4 3 2    

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

Ice throw has been reported to 140m.

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.

Transport (non-fatal)

There have been 26 reported accidents – including a 45m turbine section ramming through a house while being transported, and a turbine section falling off in a tunnel. One man lost his leg in 2006 following a transport accident off the Scottish coast. Most involve turbine sections falling from transporters, though turbine sections have also been lost at sea. Two were on main roads in Scotland.

By year:

Year 70s 80s 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No.                 1   4   2 4 4 12  

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

The “2000” incident refers to a newspaper report which reports 73 accidents over 4 years along a 4km piece of road, and attributes them to driver distraction by turbines and thrown ice and blade pieces landing on and over the road.

Environmental damage (including bird deaths)

Only 33 cases of environmental damage have been reported – the majority in the past few years. 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. Thirteen instances include deaths of protected species of bird.

By year:

Year 70s 80s 90-94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08*
No.     1             1 1 6 1 5 7 7 4

*08 to 31 March 2008 only

Other (miscellaneous)

Other types of accident are also present in the data. Component failure has been reported under “other” if there has been no consequential structural damage. One entry under “construction” covers accidents and at least one human injury during construction of the Horns Rev offshore windfarm in 2002. Lightning strikes have been included under “other” only 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)

Caithness Windfarms Information Forum

31 March 2008

The summary may be downloaded in printable form

Full Accident Data