Two Wind Turbine Engineers hug pre-death on Flaming Wind Turbine

The Netherland Times Reported: (link)


wind turbinesA wind turbine caught fire Tuesday afternoon in Ooltgensplaat on Goeree-Overflakkee, costing the lives of two mechanics. Four mechanics were at work in the wind turbine on the Mariadijk, about 80 meters above ground, Tuesday afternoon.

Two mechanics managed to get themselves to safety in time, reported a police spokesperson. Rescuers found the body of a deceased mechanic next to the wind turbine on the ground. 
Because of the height the fire department initially had trouble extinguishing the fire in the engine room. In the evening, a special team of firefighters went up with a large crane, and found the body of the missing man.
Renewables are NOT cheap energy and do not create baseload power.

Lives are NOT renewable.


  1. Yes, and coal energy has a perfect track record, doesn't it?
    This might put things into context:
    Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

    Coal – global average 100,000 (50% global electricity)

    Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)

    Coal – U.S. 10,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

    Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

    Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

    Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

    Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

    Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

    Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

    Hydro – U.S. 0.01 (7% U.S. electricity)

    Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

    Nuclear – U.S. 0.01 (19% U.S. electricity)


  2. Voz, Any death is regrettable and coal mining, by its very nature being underground mining has the dangers of cave-in, gas releases etc.

    However, the energy from coal has brought the Western World prosperity.

    The Greens want the Third World to be deprived of the cheap source of Energy.


    Because they have erroneously accused CO2 from fossil-fuels to be a pollutant. One clown wrote to me and said; Look at China. In China the air IS polluted - visibility is limited. But not from CO2. CO2 is a colourless, tasteless gas that is currently at 400ppm. Humans exhale, with every breath, CO2 at 4000 ppm.

    The palookas think that every human is a polluter. If they stopped breathing we would be MUCH better off.

  3. Wow. Gloss over 100,000 deaths versus 150 for the same unit of energy. Maybe we could just burn humans for power and you'd be ok with it because it's cheaper...

    CO2 is only the tip of the iceberg. There is an overwhelming amount of death caused by coal that is caused by the air pollution resulting from it. Which is why in China there are 50% more coal power related deaths than the global average: they have a lot of power stations with much lower emission standards. This leads to lung issues which lead to a spate of premature deaths.

    So when someone says that coal is cheap, they are not considering the costs imposed on society through extra healthcare expenditure or through the amounts of premature deaths. We all pay for, it just comes under the line of health costs rather than power costs.

    1. Recent comment by a Climate Scientist:
      "it struck me that the agencies and NGOs that are withholding coal based electricity from the third world may guilty of genocide because the result of their keeping millions in poverty is causing many avoidable deaths."

  4. Firstly, these deaths are not attributed to CO2, but to actual measurable loss of life due to pollution. Look at the effects of the Hazelwood fire. It's very much obvious that the think is poisonous.
    I think the concept of "withholding" coal-based electricity from third world countries being something wrong has a lot of dubious assumptions behind it.
    It assumes that the countries can simply build a coal power plant and transmit the electricity to the population. This assumes there is a working and efficient power grid to do the distribution. On almost all counts this is false. Which is why the case for distributed generation in these countries is so strong. And this generation cannot come from coal, as small coal generators are both extremely inefficient, and require a logistical setup that is not there (think ports and roads to bring the coal in). They will come in the form of small grids using both wind and solar, increasingly aided by batteries to help smooth the curves.
    The second thing it assumes is that coal is automatically cheaper than wind or solar. With the evolution of cost curves, it is currently cheaper to build a new wind farm than it is to build a new coal fired power station. And the coal is dug up right here! All of the sudden, for a third-world country, you have to look at costs of shipping it over, of getting it off the boat and onto a truck (bad port infrastructures are fiendishly inefficient in underdeveloped countries), truck it all the way to the power station, and do this efficiently and repeatedly throughout the life of the plant. You look at the cost of this and the unit cost of coal will simply double. So for something that may be marginally cheaper in Australia, it is quite easily more expensive and complicated in third world countries. A Wind farm would have a lot of the same issues during construction, but that would be once in the lifetime!

    The concept of feeding third world countries growth through coal the same way that developed countries became rich completely ignores a century of technological developments. Why build hundreds of kilometres of power lines to connect a small village, when you can just add some solar panels to rooftops and have power during the day?


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!