NYC Wind Turbine Failure
9

Question

NYC Wind Turbine Failure

azcats (Structural)

(OP)

31 Dec 19 15:36

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/12/30/wind-turbine-topples-to-ground-in-the-bronx-destroys-billboard-and-car/

https://nypost.com/2019/12/30/bronx-wind-turbines-blades-fly-off-smashing-car-and-billboard/

StrucDesignPE (Structural) · Answer 1 · 2019-12-31 16:44:56

https://www.foxnews.com/us/wind-topples-wind-turbi...

JAE (Structural) · Answer 2 · 2019-12-31 17:07:09

The video in the foxnews link shows pieces flying far and wide. A lot of people could have been seriously injured by that debris.

r13 (Civil/Environmental) · Answer 3 · 2019-12-31 18:18:01

Quote:
On the way down, the wind turbine also struck an electronic billboard that has been the subject of lawsuits involving the billboard’s owner and the New York City Buildings Department, according to the station.

One stone, two birds. A costly lawsuit is avoided.

3DDave (Aerospace) · Answer 4 · 2019-12-31 20:11:34

"Bailey: “A wind turbine should not be able to be taken down by the wind.”"

Ahh, the irony. https://twitter.com/coopcitytimes/status/121173399...

I wonder how that applies to umbrellas.

Sparweb (Aerospace) · Answer 5 · 2019-12-31 22:45:34

The reaction from the "man on the street" and the politicians (FWIW) hints that the installation was not permitted.

I'd like to know where the machine came from, if it's a certified type, if the manufacturer will support investigation of the failure, etc.

I'm biased against VAWT turbines - this is a typical failure process for the Darrieus type of blade.
Often too long and skinny to resist imbalances such as ice build-up. Just suggesting one possible cause of failure, there. But it's winter in NYC.

Running commentary from Twitter - not fact-checked: https://twitter.com/coopcitytimes

Quote (Coop City Times)

The wind turbine was erected between Dec. 11 and 13, but hasn’t been activated since it went up.
There is an ongoing effort to change the zoning for the property to disallow things like 60-foot illuminated signs and wind turbines but that change hasn’t been made as yet.

www.sparweb.ca

aussiejohn2 (Electrical) · Answer 6 · 2020-01-27 07:37:16

Paul Gipe: In 1961, Louis Vadot described the limitations of the [fixed pitch] Darrieus turbines in a United Nations report on wind power. "Finally", he said, "it is very difficult to design and build a practical furling device to protect these machines in high winds". With horizontal axis turbines there is intrinsic stall, and both blade pitching and nacelle yawing are practicable. With vertical axis turbines...not so much. One is then almost entirely dependent on brakes (and their controls) which experience shows are...limited. This lesson has been re-learnt many, many times.

itsmoked (Electrical) · Answer 7 · 2020-01-27 13:04:12

Let me correct that for you aussie;

Quote:
This lesson has been re-not-learnt many, many times.

Keith Cress
kcress - http://www.flaminsystems.com

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 8 · 2020-01-27 14:23:05

I am glad someone posted this, I was going to get one of these vertical ones for my farm.

I won't now. it was pretty dodgy economics anyway.

Sparweb (Aerospace) · Answer 9 · 2020-01-27 21:47:22

The NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratories) has a wind turbine test site.
They have tested many VAWT's at their site, and many fail. So many, many VAWT's fail...

Quote (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47072.pdf)

The mechanical components of the test turbine were installed during the week of March
17, 2008, and the inverter was installed during the week of May 5, 2008. The duration
test began on May 7, 2008 following inverter installation and commissioning. The
commissioning checklist from the installation can be found in Appendix B. The initial
duration test was conducted over a period of approximately four months from May 7,
2008 to September 13, 2008. The test did not meet the requirement in the standard for
at least 6 months of operation.
On September 13, 2008, the turbine experienced an inverter failure. This likely occurred
because the parameters in the inverter were set to optimize power performance. This
may have led to overheating of the electrical components and eventual failure, see
Figure 5. The turbine was subsequently inoperable until October 7, 2008 when the
inverter was replaced. The parameters in this inverter were set for normal power
production. Since an inverter failure is considered a major failure by the Standard, the
duration test was restarted on October 7, 2008.

On October 14, 2008, Mariah Power requested that the test team stop and/or lower the
turbine in winds above 40 mph (approximately 18 m/s) due to a potential problem with
the top shaft. NREL complied with this request, but determined that the turbine would not
be able to achieve the 90% required operational time fraction. As a result, the second
duration test was terminated on October 14, 2008. Because the turbine operated for only
one week between the test restart and termination, those results are not reported here.

Quote (Paul Gipe http://www.wind-works.org/cms/index.php?id=551)

Mariah and its Windspire will go down in history as another novelty Vertical Axis Wind Turbine that was doomed from the start. Tall and slender, it was, if nothing else, distinctive. Unfortunately, a tall and slender wind turbine mounted on a short tower is still a wind turbine on a short tower. Architectural ornamentation alone is not enough of a market to support a wind turbine manufacturer as Mariah learned to its regret.

www.sparweb.ca

chicopee (Mechanical) · Answer 10 · 2020-01-28 00:25:41

From the video, it appear that the turbine was spinning too fast and the centrifugal force was too much for the blades which broke apart.

chicopee (Mechanical) · Answer 11 · 2020-01-28 00:28:18

I read sometime in the last five or years that China has a lot of these type of turbines, so I suspect that the whole machine or parts of it were manufactured in China.

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 12 · 2020-01-28 04:28:49

They are all over the place in Chinese market places such as a Alibaba and AliExpress.

They are springing up all over the place around where I am as well. Lighting systems from childrens play areas seem to be a favourite linked with a solar panel and a battery .

For example this one.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33062971523.html

LittleInch (Petroleum) · Answer 13 · 2020-01-28 11:32:26

The particular type that failed looks very sketchy - thin metal blades subject to increasing bending forces and probably alternating rotational forces within the blade itself.

Like figure 1 in the attached https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darrieus_wind_turbin...

I wonder if they couldn't make it so the top of the turbine was variable in height causing the blades to be less bent and hence exert less torque?

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

Sparweb (Aerospace) · Answer 14 · 2020-01-29 05:27:15

It's been done. And patented. Now look at all the successful examples of folding-blade Darrieus that abound...

www.sparweb.ca

DM61850 (Electrical) · Answer 15 · 2020-02-06 21:40:25

The wind turbines have two mechanisms for preventing overspeed. They can feather the blades to stall the turbine and they can apply breaks. If you see a turbine on fire or smoking, chances are the brakes weren't able to stop the turbine. I saw a video once of two technicians that got stuck on top of the nacelle. The brake lost it grip and started the nacelle on fire and the men couldn't get to the ladder without going through the flames. They both jumped to their deaths. Some techs get harnesses that they can use to lower themselves so they are not stuck in or on top of the nacelle if it starts on fire.

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 16 · 2020-02-07 14:55:31

To be honest I am not a great fan of turbines anyway of any form...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05...

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 17 · 2020-02-07 16:23:24

At least old worn-out turbine blades don't have to be encased in lead-lined, concrete caskets before they're considered safe enough to be placed in a storage facility.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 18 · 2020-02-07 19:38:29

The waste from solar panels is pretty toxic as well.

BrianPetersen (Mechanical) · Answer 19 · 2020-02-07 22:06:57

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

dik (Structural) · Answer 20 · 2020-02-08 03:05:57

From the BBC:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101

Dik

FreddyNurk (Electrical) · Answer 21 · 2020-02-08 04:36:02

What do they do with the composite structures from old aircraft, or are there not enough of them in circulation to be an issue yet?

EDMS Australia

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 22 · 2020-02-08 04:55:58

There is loads in circulation but there isn't a huge volume of hull strips occurring yet.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 23 · 2020-02-08 05:30:44

There are aircraft 'bone-yards' all around the globe, or at least anywhere where it's dry and land is cheap:

https://allsitestructures.com/aircraft-boneyards-o...

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Sparweb (Aerospace) · Answer 24 · 2020-02-08 17:50:21

Quote (FreddyNurk)
What do they do with the composite structures from old aircraft, or are there not enough of them in circulation to be an issue yet?

Nothing.
You can be sure plenty of research is being done to "greenwash" this. There are some processes, but they're all expensive. It's the typical result like many other recycling processes - the cost is too high, especially in consideration of the lower quality than the original material.

To the ones who make the big breakthrough, there's a chance the big auto and aero OEM's would like to talk to you.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/...
https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite...

www.sparweb.ca

JAE (Structural) · Answer 25 · 2020-02-09 02:12:03

Stop Letting Your Ridiculous Fears Of Nuclear Waste Kill The Planet:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/...

BrianPetersen (Mechanical) · Answer 26 · 2020-02-09 02:43:51

All things made of glass-reinforced plastic or other composites have the same issue with respect to recycling - be it windmill blades or aircraft hulls or Chevrolet Corvette (or BMW i3) bodyshells or certain packaging materials or the translucent cover over your patio.

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 27 · 2020-02-09 03:41:26

One of the problems with nuclear waste is that it contains a large percentage of transmuted isotopes of Plutonium, which is not only one of the most poisonous substances known, it's also the material that most nuclear weapons use for their fissionable mass, and even if you don't use it to create an actual atomic bomb, it would be the ideal material to lace a conventional bomb with to it make a very 'dirty bomb'. And while it is true that you can convert the waste from one nuclear power plant into fuel for another, the design of the second plant won't be exactly the same as the first, so the fuel can't actually be recycled. Eventually the cycle reaches a point where it's no longer practical, at least not based our current understanding of how to design nuclear power plants.

Now if you really want to invest in a new power source that would address all of the issues currently being obsessed over, then we should be putting our R&D dollars into the development of FUSION reactors. While the science is understood, it's the physics that we're still having to wrestle with.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, for whatever they're worth.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Bill West (Electrical) · Answer 28 · 2020-02-09 07:54:40

FUSION -that one!! That's what we should be putting ALL our efforts in to. Thanks John.

Bill

waross (Electrical) · Answer 29 · 2020-02-09 16:14:45

How much carbon is released by refineries and upgraders to create the heat to drive the processes?
For every ton of carbon going into an upgrader in tar, how many pounds of carbon is released before gasoline comes out of the refinery?

How does the carbon footprint of gasoline by itself compare with carbon foot print of gasoline from the ground to the tank?
If the energy needs of upgraders and refineries were met by alternate sources, wind, water, solar or nuclear, how much would the carbon emissions of the transport industry be reduced?
How much could North America's carbon emissions be further reduced by switching from "Clean" diesel to "Clean" gasoline", to "clean" propane?
As for nuclear waste fears, JAE's link is a good read.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/...

It has been reported that the transportation industry accounts for 23% to 25% of the carbon emissions.
Consider: Using alternate energy to upgrade to "clean" synthetic propane, we will have drastically reduced our carbon emissions and to a great.
A argument could be made that we may make nuclear power portable with very little carbon emission.

Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter

Sparweb (Aerospace) · Answer 30 · 2020-02-09 17:09:07

My feelings about nuclear energy are summarized well by this:

The dreamer in me believes that a universal world commitment to safe nuclear energy would ensure a stable reliable energy supply for the entire human race for a very long time. Energy abundance would help the standard of living of most people on the planet to such a high level that very few of them would feel the need to harm anyone else.
The problem is getting to this state of energy nirvana.
Unfortunately, we live on THIS world, where half the people do not have a stable, accountable government to allow this NOT to be perverted into weapons, nor universal education to allow citizens to make use of such an abundant energy supply.

John,
There's no physical problem with nuclear waste. It's easily stored and safely handled all the time. It's only a problem because people insist on not using it for energy. Consider: it heats itself from its own radioactivity, meaning it is also an energy source. Meaning: a different reactor type could use it to produce more electricity. The problem with nuclear "waste" is entirely political. Making that "waste" into another reactor fuel to use for 2nd generation energy production exposes the material to the exterior world. As you noted, in between it's more useful for weapons, so the risk comes from the potential abuse.

www.sparweb.ca

Spartan5 (Civil/Environmental) · Answer 31 · 2020-02-09 18:15:59

Quote (SparWeb)
The dreamer in me believes that a universal world commitment to safe nuclear energy would ensure a stable reliable energy supply for the entire human race for a very long time. Energy abundance would help the standard of living of most people on the planet to such a high level that very few of them would feel the need to harm anyone else.

At a certain point we needed to realize that we can't consume our way out of this problem but that point has long since come and gone. We have a perverted view of what constitutes a high standard of living I think.

Conservation should be the first part of this equation, not the last. As someone else said, "there is no such thing as a free lunch." This is especially true when your tablemates are gluttons.

Even if we were to reach this state of energy nirvana, we would still consume ourselves into oblivion. It is our species' fatal flaw. And will be the cause of our, and many other organisms, extinction.

It's not just the carbon cycle that we've broken. We've short circuited every natural cycle (hydrologic, nitrogen, etc.) that we've injected ourselves into in order to facilitate our unfettered growth beyond the planet's carrying capacity for our "standard of living." We also broken all of the natural geographic barriers while we've simultaneously created untold artificial ones; both of which are accelerating life as we know its demise.

"Mad Max"-esque end of days are coming, folks. That's not to say we should give up I guess. Certainly not. Anything that will buy us another, say... 50 years(?) will be appreciated.

I'm personally banking on beneficent aliens who, in addition to bringing us free energy, otherwise correct us of the error of our ways. Beneficence being a coin toss though... I, for one, will welcome our future insect (or alien, or artificially intelligent) overlords.

That's enough doomsaying for the day =) Time to go for a walk in the sun!

RRaghunath (Electrical) · Answer 32 · 2020-02-10 09:58:40

Very true, my friend.
The climate change scenario is really scary and we need to act and act very fast!
What are we going to tell our grand children and with what face can we face them!!

Alistair_Heaton (Mechanical) · Answer 33 · 2020-02-10 10:26:58

Look on the bright side though. Florida will be the first place to sink.

thebard3 (Computer) · Answer 34 · 2020-02-10 12:19:03

Two comments about the nuclear waste debacle-
1- Control of nuclear waste is possible using current technology and engineering controls, but at a time scale not imaginable to most. The waste stockpiles demand diligence in monitoring and maintenance for tens of thousands of years or more.
2- As with many other imperatives, I think the public by and large is poorly informed about the benefits and perils of nuclear power in general, and waste in particular; the result of being educated by 24 hour news networks and the rants of politicians.

Brad Waybright

It's all okay as long as it's okay.

Sparweb (Aerospace) · Answer 35 · 2020-02-12 07:17:10

Thanks Brad.
It's fine to point out that the general public is misinformed, but that's universally true about so many subjects, and doesn't encourage anyone to learn more. I prefer to ask questions.

Ask yourself if you can agree with this sentence: There is no such thing as nuclear waste.

There two kinds of radioactive materials: those that we don't use for energy, and those we do. The U235/U238 combo that's put in most reactors is just the stuff with the "goldilocks" level. The ones we don't use for energy are either not radioactive enough, or too radioactive. At the low end are things like Carbon isotope 14, which I'm happy to store in my bones for the future archaeologists to analyze. At the other end is Polonium-210 which I'd prefer not to have on Earth at all. Between these extremes, however, are an abundant variety of materials of different chemistry, life, emission, and daughter products. The utility of most of these materials has not been completely explored.

Calling these products "waste" just calls attention to the EVERYONE's ignorance, including the scientists.

www.sparweb.ca

SuperSalad (Chemical) · Answer 36 · 2020-02-12 14:03:01

Anyone know anything about traveling wave reactors (TWR) Traveling Wave Reactor Wiki. I remember seeing a TED talk about them a few years ago and the concept sounded pretty cool.

The basic concept is to use a small amount of enriched material to basically "light the wick" and it then can burn down previously "spent" nuclear waste like a candle over a period of decades in a sealed reactor. I think the major problems are that TWRs produce too much heat? I think there are problems with cooling medium for the reactor core or something like that.

Andrew H.
www.mototribology.com

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 37 · 2020-02-12 17:01:49

If I recall correctly, the real issue with the TWR systems is that it's exactly like a candle, once lit, it burns until the fuel has been expended. In other words, it can't be throttled, it's all or nothing. Any unused heat had to be dissipated away immediately and thus wasted.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

thebard3 (Computer) · Answer 38 · 2020-02-12 17:38:44

SparWeb-
Great discussion! I'd classify 'waste' as anything that is disposed of permanently after it is deemed to be no longer economically useful. That may be different than Webster's but I doubt his would really work in this context anyway.
Take that old T-shirt. Do you give it to Goodwill where it might be re-purposed, or do you throw it in the trash where it heads to the landfill as waste? In the US, the nuclear industry decided long ago that it is cheaper to dispose of used nuclear fuel than to try to recycle or reprocess it. France, I believe, reprocesses most of their used fuel but I think there is still a considerable 'waste' stream that contains elements like strontium and cesium as well as other irradiated material. These elements are dangerous and I don't know what commercial or scientific value they hold. On the weapons side, there are a large number of superfund sites like Fernald and Mound here in Ohio, where you can attribute large areas contaminated with 'waste' to decades of carelessness and apathy. Once you sprinkle the ground with trace radioactive elements, then you turn a small amount of usable material into large quantities of economically un-useful stuff that has to be dug up and moved somewhere. When nuclear plants are dismantled, sizable volumes of neutron-activated materials like stainless steel and concrete must be moved away likewise.
So, using MY definition of waste, then I'd say there will always be significant volumes of material, no longer useful, that heads to the nuclear landfill.

Brad Waybright

It's all okay as long as it's okay.

IRstuff (Aerospace) · Answer 39 · 2020-02-12 17:46:05

Yes, aliens might come "To Serve Man"

Spoiler:

C.M. Kornbluth
or for you dilettantes, there was an episode of Outer Limits based on that

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

JohnRBaker (Mechanical) · Answer 40 · 2020-02-12 18:45:21

'To Serve Man' was a classic.

John R. Baker, P.E. (ret)
EX-Product 'Evangelist'
Irvine, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

The secret of life is not finding someone to live with
It's finding someone you can't live without

Come Join Us!

Posting Guidelines

NYC Wind Turbine Failure 9