New York City wind turbine topples, crushing parked car

Fox News ^ | 12/31/2019 | Robert Gearty

[Olog-hai]

The wind — of all things — toppled a New York City wind turbine which then crushed an unoccupied parked car, according to reports.

The incident Monday afternoon in the Bronx had elected officials who represent the area shaking their heads.

“A wind turbine should not be able to be taken down by the wind,” the New York Post quoted Jamaal Bailey, who serves in the New York State Senate, as saying.

The wind turbine was erected recently atop a six-story parking garage, according to reports. No injuries were reported, according to Fox 5 New York. …

[mountainlion]

Killing birds is not enough, now they want to kill people and cars.

Regreta Toungbird come back when you are grown up.

[Zuriel]

The turbines are tied into the national grid. If the daytime weather over much of the nation is such that the power needs are lower than normal (sunny=less electric lighting. About 70 degrees=less use of ac or heat), the turbines are easy to shut off; feather the prop, and it stops turning.

I don’t know how easy it is to quickly power down a coal or nuke power plant.

[Robert DeLong]

What a lucky reporter to be filming it as it embarks on its maiden voyage, from atop the parking garage to the parked car. 8>)

[sphinx]

What the heck is that all about?

Subsidy farming. It's big in the midwest.

Wind and solar have both come down in cost. Both have growing legitimate markets for off-grid applications. Neither is competitive without subsidy with conventional or nuclear generation.

[hecticskeptic]

I don’t know how easy it is to quickly power down a coal or nuke power plant.
_________________

Powering it down typically isn’t that big a deal especially for coal.... but based on my limited experience, powering up a big nuke plant can take up to 3 days.

[SgtHooper]

Was through there twice this year—no change.

[TexasGator]

“Be funny if the victim were an electric car. At a charging station.”

You are weird!

[sergeantdave]

“toppled a New York City wind turbine which then crushed an unoccupied parked car..”

As long as the windmill didn’t kill any birds, this is okay.

[hecticskeptic]

I am not sure that these ‘egg-beater’ types can be ‘feathered’ in extreme conditions to reduce the wind loads.
___________________________

It’s a good point and it’s not clear what technology this type had. With horizontal axis IWTs, they can both change the blade pitch as well as rotate the whole nacelle so that the blades can be positioned edge into the wind for extreme wind velocity conditions. The only option for a vertical axis egg beater type would be if it has a good brake on it. I can’t imagine any PE putting her/his stamp on such a project in a populated area without it having brakes.... but then again, I can’t imagine any project being approved that involves highly stressed rotating machinery being located above peoples’ heads regardless of what kind of brakes it has. Very simply, these things need to have a wide ‘clearance zone’ around them. As far as I’m concerned, this is like walking into a plant that has large overhead cranes that are allowed to move materials above workers.... that is a serious no-go safety condition for all plants (at least in the civilized world). In fact, this is worse since it involves an unsuspecting public.....

For the record, all rotating machinery is subject to fatigue inducing conditions.... and vertical and horizontal axis wind turbines are no different. However, I highly suspect that vertical axis wind turbines are much more susceptible to fatigue since with every revolution, there is an oscillating force applied to the blades (and/or blade support structure) on top of all other loads..... this is due to the fact that for half the revolution, it’s acting with the wind and for the other half, it’s against the wind. It might be that this particular turbine had an ‘event’ that caused it to go much faster than it normally should have (i.e. failure of some sort with the generator that removed the restraining torque and allowed it to accelerate) but what I would want to know is what fatigue analysis and testing records can be produced? I think I already know the answer to that......zero.

[Ragnar54]

The conditions weren’t extreme. 35 mph gusts

[polymuser]

“...had elected officials who represent the area shaking their heads.”

Well, the off-axis overload after the first blade broke had the column bolts shaking their heads...right off.

Link has video of it happening.

[Ragnar54]

Wind turbines are designed to extract climate guilt money from taxpayers and ratepayers. The electricity they produce is extremely expensive and unreliable. But they are green, so HOW DARE YOU!?

[Shady]

Dats da way it woiks in Gnu Yak.

[ronnie raygun]

Im sure there was some mungo to be had before it toppled

[Diana in Wisconsin]

“A wind turbine should not be able to be taken down by the wind,”

Gee. Ya THINK? LOL!

[TalBlack]

, I can’t imagine any project being approved that involves highly stressed rotating machinery being located above peoples heads”

Come to think of it a helicopter couldn’t legally operate at the altitude and position this windmill occupied.

[nutmeg]

.

[Popman]

Wow, that could have easily killed a bunch of people....

[Ezekiel]

That’s a compliment I hope. :)

Victim as in an environmentally correct vehicle, not occupants (no one was in it).

Kind of like the wars where islamics are pitted against islamics. Best just to stay out of the way!

Happy New Year!

[rlmorel]

I assume this graph addresses what you were referring to:

They describe the graph as such:
"...(Graph of relative flexibility and cost of power plant technology. Flexibility is on the x-axis and costs is on the y-axis. Both low: nuclear and coal. Both Medium: combined-cycle gas turbines and coal. Both high: simple-cycle turbines. Low cost and high flexibility: hydroelectric)

The minimum run time and ramp times determine how flexible the generation source is; these vary greatly among types of plants and are a function of regulations, type of fuel, and technology. Generally speaking, plants that are less flexible (longer minimum run times and slower ramp times) serve base load energy, while plants that are more flexible (shorter minimum run times and quicker ramp times) are better-suited to filling peak demand. Table 5.2 and Figure 5.3 show approximate (order-of-magnitude) minimum run times and ramp times for several generation technologies. It is important to realize that, in some sense, these are "soft" constraints. It is possible, for example, to run a nuclear plant for five hours and then shut it down. Doing this, however, imposes a large cost in the form of wear and tear on the plant's components.

The cost structure for transmission and distribution is different than for power generation, since there is basically no fuel cost involved with operating transmission and distribution wires (and their associated balance-of-systems, like substations). At the margin, the cost of loading a given transmission line with additional electricity is basically zero (unless the line is operating at its rated capacity limit). Capital cost thus dominates the economics of transmission and distribution..."

For my part, I fully appreciate the rigors of modern life and use of power, so I am more amenable to power sources that don't fluctuate due to lack of wind and sunlight, but I have no problem with those kinds of energy sources (especially if I don't have to have my tax dollars used to subsidize them to the degree they currently are)...I also would have less of an issue with windmills and acres of solar panels if they could deliver all the time on demand...I could live with that.

Perhaps someday there will be a good way to store energy from those types of sources to be used during those slack times they are prone to.