$400,000 Endurance Wind Tower Collapses Due to… Wind Power

The future is Green Energy, they say. Like the Endurance Endurance Wind Power E-3120 50kW which made it through three years before being tipped over by a force that its designers could never have anticipated it would encounter.

Wind power.

The £250,000 tower, which stood as tall as a six storey building, was hit by gale force gusts of 50mph. The structure then collapsed at a farm in Bradworth, Devon, leaving a “mangled wreck”. Installed by renewable energy company Dulas it was supposed to have a life expectancy of 25 years.

They neglected however to maintain that 22 years of that life would be as a mangled rusting wreck that would exist only to make a mockery of everything that it once represented. Much like Al Gore.

This isn’t the first time a wind turbine has spectacularly failed. This video from Denmark captures the collapse of a Nordtank NKT 600-180/43.

Here’s one catching on fire.

Green clean sustainable energy. It’s the future. For three years anyway. Then it blows up and you have to replace it.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Green energy is the biggest financial scheme in world history, and leftists world over are its proponents. Take Al Gore, the leftie of leftie, who never met a jihadi he couldn't do business with. So as he scammed the America/west into his schemes, he got richer & jihad spread farther – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/16/the-leftistti

    A project made in hell to destroy capitalism, the mainunderpinning of America's economic success – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/07/barack-hussei

    How gullible do leftist leaders think Americans are? VERY!

    Adina kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • Snow White

      AlGore Jr and SR both received $25,000 per yr. from Occidental Petroleum which was owned by Soviet loving and supporter Armand Hammer. Supposedly to rent land for some kind of mine, Locals say no minning ever took place. When Armand Hammer died it was revealed in One paragraph on the back pages of the newspapers that Occidental petroleum had no assetts. The Question is…Since Occidental Petroleum was not in the Petroleum business, Were the Soviets paying off the Gores and washing the bribes through Occidental Petroleum and this bogus minning deal? Another question. Bill Clinton turned over the Elk Hills Petroleum Reserves (made famous and locked up and off limits since the TeaPot Dome Scandal of the 1920s, to Occidental Petroleum. Since Hammer was dead and Occidental had no assetts, who got the TeaPot Dome Oil? Did the Gores get it? Or did Clinton take over Occidental Petroleum and give it to himself?

  • Mary Sue

    making wind turbines in china turned out to be not such a hot idea.

  • Ted

    The design specs say it could handle almost 3 times that windspeed, so it must have been an Isreali commando force that sabotaged it!! Or global warming…..or REPUBLICANS!!!

  • SuicidePrevention

    Yes, nothing ever goes wrong with fossil fuel or nuclear.

    • patron

      So Obama gets to lie to the American public and spend a trillion dollars a year in political payouts disguised as sustainable energy because moronic oil engineers failed to install in blowout prevention on an oil rig years ago?

    • Mary Sue

      solar and wind are as inefficient (as per current tech) as HELL.

    • Rifleman

      Yea, that happens about as often as something goes right with wind and solar powerplants.

    • Ar'nun

      Yeah but a nuclear reactor can't be tipped over by 60 mph wind.

      • EarlyBird

        I'm a big fan of nuclear energy. I would like the government to invest in making them much safer and even cleaner and more efficient than they are (comparable to other technologies). But it would, in fact, take government money given to researchers. Many of those experiments would fail.

        And many on this board would be howling that its a "hand out!" and a "pay off!" to the nuclear power lobby, if it was done by a Democrat.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "And many on this board would be howling that its a "hand out!" and a "pay off!" to the nuclear power lobby, if it was done by a Democrat."

          What are you talking about? FDR put together the Manhattan Project, and virtually all significant practical nuclear research has its roots in that program. And it was because of war, not because government needed to solve critical problems with energy. FDR also entered in to a landmark arrangement with the kind of Saudi Arabia (the first king, Saud himself) trading oil access for military protection. Things were sort of urgent at the time. See? What's the urgent need to invest in technology that will be stolen from us, while we still pay off the debt accumulated to fund that research? We'd likely be making those payments to the same ones who steal it.

          FDR was a Democrat. Nobody accused him (around here) of being a dupe of the Soviets but paradoxically he was. Most conservatives are very realistic, forgiving and compassionate. We just hate lies.

  • SuicidePrevention

    If wind or solar ever become cheaper than coal and methane, would you still rather
    burn the coal – just to spite Al Gore?

    • Mary Sue

      wind and solar are inefficient, far more so than coal. And inherently unreliable.

    • UCSPanther

      Just to spite you, Gorebot and David Suzuki, here is some footage of an ALCO RSD 1 diesel electric starting up and belching more smoke than any steamer I have seen:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3lzdaC8yQ4

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "If wind or solar ever become cheaper than coal and methane, would you still rather
      burn the coal – just to spite Al Gore?"

      I'm for honesty and integrity. If you can do it legitimately, why the need for so many lies and schemes? Solar and wind power have their places already and the market should determine their success, especially when any other nation can just steal the fruits of our labor and cash investments, without contributing themselves.

      We make fun, but we're not stupid. It's just not easy to fully articulate the arguments every time we discuss some aspect of the corruption and stupidity surrounding green energy schemes and leftists. We don't hate Gore for wanting to "clean up" the globe. It's all of the lies and corruption that gets us angry. Can you understand that?

      • EarlyBird

        Most big mainstream technologies that become part of our infrastructure, including coal, oil and gas, railroads, buses and so on, started out with huge help from the government. Much of that help looks like typical government sausage making, and it is, but the good stuff ultimately rises to the top and becomes supported or not supported by the market place. But to give birth it takes a lot of government help in the form of R&D and so on.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Most big mainstream technologies that become part of our infrastructure, including coal, oil and gas, railroads, buses and so on, started out with huge help from the government."

          Wrong. There were certainly significant railroad subsidies but I assure you that the US government did nothing to help Standard Oil or Rockefeller.

          You can see the difference between transport subsidies and energy subsidies, right?

          In addition, there is nothing wrong with creating incentives. We argue over the effectiveness of these "incentives" since they only incentive created by 0'Bama is aligning themselves with him. It's not a success incentive. These are political incentives he created. Is he incompetent or corrupt to the point of evil? Does it matter when the results are this bad?

          Sure there is a foundational theory that is just solid enough to fool people. Hey, we subsidized railroad expansion so let me as president go out and hand out money to some selected business with clean energy schemes. That's not the same thing as providing incentives for businesses to find real, successful solutions. It's like the difference between awarding Olympic medals to winners and having corrupt politicians pick winners before the events are held.

          Get it?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Much of that help looks like typical government sausage making, and it is, but the good stuff ultimately rises to the top and becomes supported or not supported by the market place."

          The government can not pick winners and losers unless it is the end-user and then it still must hold competitive bidding. Even the military runs their selections more efficiently than 0'Bama's handling of socalled green energy. We don't even know if his choices had any chance of success. That's not his job, and even if he was an "expert" (which he's not), it's conflicting interests to have him hand out money to some while not to others. Not that all should have money up front either, I'm simply pointing out that it's wrong on several fronts.

          0'Bama's way leads to failure and corruption. Just because you are unaware of the complexity doesn't mean we're imagining things.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "But to give birth it takes a lot of government help in the form of R&D and so on."

          For high risk and crucial programs like space travel or the first transcontinental railroad, you can make your case there. But the energy markets are already mature and there is a clear path to profit for successful alternatives. Government interference in these latter cases are just opportunities to exploit government funds for the political gain of those in charge.

          Not only that, the only government energy subsidies have all failed to some extent as far as I know. That's because people tend to use energy according to it's availability and there have always been alternatives. The marketplace of alternatives is so diverse, the government does not need to interfere. Laws applied to everyone demanding safety based on proven science, that's the role of the government. It ends there. Occasional tweaking of the tax code to encourage future technologies? That's congress's job. Even they go too far.

          O'Bama is totally corrupt. Whether that corruption flows from cynical desire for power, or complete leftist delusion, I don't care. It's moot at this point. I'm sure there's a huge dose of both and they're not mutually exclusive.

    • Rifleman

      "If wind or solar ever become cheaper than coal and methane, would you still rather _burn the coal – just to spite Al Gore?" – Yall are the ones peddling expensive and unreliable technology, not us. Our position will still be logically consistant, and we'll still be using whatever is the cheapest and most reliable. You're making the erroneous assumption that were foolishly spiteful like you.

      • EarlyBird

        Often innovative new and big technology like this never gets a chance to even get into the marketplace for consumers to decide, if it wasn't for government help. Basic "bench" R&D is so expensive and often so fruitless, that a company would lose its shirt doing it. There is just no profit in it.

        For instance, so much of our basic medical knowledge comes from scientists working off of government grants. As knowledge grows and technologies are shown to be viable, the free market jumps in and markets it. It's a terrific example of government and free enterprise working together.

        • EarlyBird

          I should have stated, "…free market jumps in, and further develops it, and markets it." They are not generally taking whole ready-to-go devices and drugs from the government researchers, but betting on the development of what looks viable from the bench.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Often innovative new and big technology like this never gets a chance to even get into the marketplace for consumers to decide, if it wasn't for government help. Basic "bench" R&D is so expensive and often so fruitless, that a company would lose its shirt doing it. There is just no profit in it."

          That's a theory you can start with but it's certainly not a universal law. It's most often NOT true. You need to now make your case. Nobody even tried to make a rational case for 0'Bama's actions. It was wrapped in "stimulus" as a way to ram it through and just spend more money on stupid things.

          If you want to start to make a case for government policy in 2013, fine. Let's hear your argument today. You won't be able to defend what 0'Bama has already done because he never presented a rational case, he failed, and we have evidence of political corruption to go along with that market failure and complete contradiction with all we know about our past successes.

          But then again, this is what happens when you put someone in a leadership position who was indoctrinated with lies about history. How can he learn valuable lessons from lies? Of course he believes in central planning. He's saving us through transformation…in his mind, he's right of course.

          But in reality he's just a corrupt leftist communist shia dupe that got elected for no good reason.

    • Ar'nun

      Yes, it is all a big old conspiracy to spite Al "Don Coyote" Gore and his wind farms. Maybe Gore knocked it over with his donkey? Or maybe Gore's fuel guzzling jumbo jet was flying over the UK a little too low.

    • Raymond in DC

      Given that wind and solar have energy density far below that of coal and methane, it would seem basic chemistry and the laws of physics mitigate against them ever being cheaper than coal and methane. That's why politicians rig the system – taxing and regulating "evil" fossil fuels while imposing mandates and granting subsidies and preferential tariffs to "green" energy.

  • Ar'nun

    We had 60 mph winds in Massachusetts last night. And while it was windy, it wasn't like being in a hurricane or something. This is too funny, I bet the turbine itself created higher speed wind.

    • gen. p. malaise

      hahahaahhaahahahahahahaha …how can the turbine create more wind then the wind which is turning the turbine?

  • gen. p. malaise

    evidence that wind power is not …repeat not viable is the fact that the numbers are difficult to get. if they were positive we would never …repeat never hear the end of it.

    the numbers that are available indicate that wind mills most probably do not return the energy consumed to construct and maintain them in a power grid.

    a small example is the life span of a wind turbine …(touted to be 25 years). the gear boxes are failing at 2 to 3 years and a change out is roughly 300 thousand dollars.

    still worse is ethanol production in the USA. It requires 1 to 2 gallons of diesel fuel (or equivalent since much electricity is also consumed in manufacture) to produce one gallon of ethanol. THAT is ONE HECK OF AN ENERGY LOSS.

    solar panels fare only slightly better at roughly 4 times the cost of conventional energy …coal, hydro or gas.

    but try to convince a liberal RETARD is impossible. they never liked math.

  • Kevin Stroup

    There is nothing wrong with exploring other alternatives to energy. The fact that a wind turban failed does not mean wind turbans are inherently bad. It means the engineering or construction or maintenance was at fault. All forms of energy production fail, given time and human error. The question is should we subsidize green energy or not. This article is silly. It conflates isolated, individual item failures with an economic issue. I expect more for FPM. I work on air conditioners for a living. I used to be chemist who made lubricants for various industries. Trust me, everything fails given time. Everything.

    • gen. p. malaise

      this isn't about "exploring alternatives" it is about being forced to subsidize failing systems.

      the original life span of the larger turbines is touted at 25 years. The gear boxes have been failing at the 2 to 3 year mark at a cost of 300 thousand dollars a unit …so I doubt the fallen turbine has a value of 400 thousand. I suspect it is a number thrown out to minimise the true loss.

      such is the problem and lack of a good fix that they are trying to go away from the gear box version but then it must be turned electrically if there is no wind as if it sits statically it will warp the shaft due to it's weight.

  • gen. p. malaise

    where did the 400 thous cost figure come from? I don't believe it. They cost a lot more then that unless it is a small turbine.

  • Kevin Stroup

    My point is: A gearbox failed, A tower failed. Nowhere does it say this is a system-wide problem. Both are single instances. This kind of stuff will happen. If you want to argue against subsidies, then do. But do not use single instances of mechanical failure to demonize an entire industry. It is unprofessional to the extreme, and it stinks of the tactics that the left constantly uses.

    • gen. p. malaise

      please try to comprehend.

      gear boxes (all of them) are failing 2 to 3 years into a planned 25 year life cycle.

      re-read as many times as required.

      • Kevin Stroup

        Really? The article states that all wind turbins fail in 3 years? Show me, please.

  • EarlyBird

    Yeah, see how dumb any technology intended to prevent polluting the planet and paying off enemy oil shieks is? I mean, there's never been an explosion at a drill rig, or an oil tanker that sank, or a cave in at coal mine, you know the energy that "real patriotic Americans" prefer to all this new fangled greenie limp-wristed "liberal" technology.

    Get back in your cave Danny!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Yeah, see how dumb any technology intended to prevent polluting the planet and paying off enemy oil shieks is? I mean, there's never been an explosion at a drill rig, or an oil tanker that sank, or a cave in at coal mine, you know the energy that "real patriotic Americans" prefer to all this new fangled greenie limp-wristed "liberal" technology. "

      This is a small article that assumes the reader already has enough background information to know it's just an illustration. It's not an attempt to make an entire case. I already explained to you in several other subthreads of this discussion why we are angry about 0'Bama. It's not a hatred of alternatives per se. It's an anger at how he exploited the desire of simple-minded people who dream about alternatives and expect the government to drive technological innovation. That's not how it ever worked, and the few times when we felt compelled to do so were only because we believed that we had no other choices. Competing for dominance in space with a totalitarian regime puts an important time constraint on things. And using NASA as a precedent for what 0'Bama did with "green energy" is just as delusional as 0'Bama's own ideas.

      Read what I wrote above and then if you want me to expand on this specific comment after that, I'll be happy to.

      Really you ought to not be so arrogant. You're the one that needs to wake up to the facts. It's bad enough when the smart ones are arrogant. If you want to act like a bully defending leftist ideas, go to huff post or some other hang out where your rhetoric will blend in and be occasionally celebrated. Here we just roll our eyes and try to find the patience to explain to you the facts of life, over and over again.

  • Flora Million

    I think the tower has its uses and it contributes a lot to conserving energy. The problem with it though is that it is very expensive. They should make stronger towers made of great quality materials to prevent this from happening again. We can't afford to lose something that expensive.

  • Wim

    Fortunately, there’s an alternative for green power. Hurray for cancer and other problems inducing radioactive power. Better check Tsjernobyl or Fukushima…
    Some companies are indeed scammers, but to try to break an entire industry over a few malicious companies…?