Skip to main content

Walking into a Windmill

mill01 We’ve sometimes read stories about people who misjudged where a helicopter rotor was or just how close is too close when in proximity to an airplane propeller. But we hadn’t thought very much about the relative danger of being near a windmill. But danger there is:

[The Caithness Windfarm Information Forum’s] "Summary of Wind Turbine Accident Data to 31 December 2008"  reports 41 worker fatalities.  Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling as they are typically working on turbines some thirty stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16 members of the public to wind-turbine accidents.

Well, all right, that’s not getting in the way of the blades, exactly, but the roundup offered is almost comical in the way these towers of terror can do in the unwary. In addition to falling off them, you can have them hurtle themselves at you, throw ice at you, catch on fire and send flaming yuck your way, and collapse on top of you. They’re like the apple trees in The Wizard of Oz, but far crankier.

Most of these mishaps are simply collateral of having an energy generator heavily dependent on a moving part and of making towers that can deal with friction and vibration – presumably, engineers have worked out these issues, so there are likely occasional flaws in construction and siting that can send them cascading across the landscape. Given the small number of incidents (about 300 in the story) in relation to the number in use, perhaps small beans, but consider:

Why these fatalities for wind compared to none for the American nuclear power industry? Nuclear energy comes from a reactor core about the size of a living room where it can be monitored and contained in-depth. It would take 2,000 30-story tall wind turbines to produce the power of a typical nuclear plant, assuming 90 percent and 30 percent capacity factors. How many accidents would you expect when building 2,000 30-story turbine generators as compared to pouring concrete for a single containment building of a few thousand square feet?

More than zero, perhaps – nuclear plants have had industrial accidents, though nothing caused by radiation. Here’s the whole report, as a pdf.

Correx: We didn’t make it clear enough that the nuclear industry has had fatal industrial accidents – it has. We’re having a little fun with our wind friends, but we don’t want to be deceptive about it. The point the report makes about nuclear vs. wind and their relative potential for industrial accidents remains valid. The nuclear industry’s record on worker safety is remarkably good.

The windmill from Frankenstein (1931). First Victor von F- is heaved over its side and carried aloft by a sail before hurtling to the ground – he lives – then the mob catches it on fire and the creature is seemingly burned to death – or redeath – but also lives. Sort of a non-starter as a death trap.

Comments

GRLCowan said…
That source, and its source, seem to lack dignity. For instance, among their wind turbine accidents are those allegedly caused by driver distraction.

Paul Gipe has somewhere compiled statistics on wind turbine accidents that actually can be considered wind turbine accidents.

Many of them stem from the fact that a wind turbine could have electromagnetic clutches that, on power failure or detection of a fault, would declutch, and let B4C rods fall into the airstream, but that stream might not stop on cue.

(How fire can be domesticated)
Anonymous said…
Has no one ever died on the construction site of a commercial nuclear power plant?
Matthew66 said…
As anonymous has pointed out there is a factor that has not been considered - namely industrial accidents at nuclear facilities that do not involve exposure to radiation. It is well known that nuclear facilities are among the safest places to work, but I'm sure there have been industrial accidents where workers have been injured or killed by falling, or having something fall on them. These would be useful to include to add credibility and comparability to the article. I've seen articles here and elsewhere that compare industrial accident rates at various facilities.
perdajz said…
Yes, anonymous leads us to the four metrics of industrial safety:

1) public fatalities per unit output (kw-hr in this case)

2) public injuries per kw-hr

3) worker fatalities per kw-hr

4) worker injuries per kw-hr.

LWR are arguably perfect in the first two categories. You could extend this statement to North America if you like CANDU. Where a wind turbine is a missile hazard from the start, a nuclear power plant is built with myriad missile shields, snubbers, concrete walls, etc. expressly for the purpose of ensuring that no single mechanical failure poses a hazard to public health.

No. 3 is where the wind power industry really blows, pun intended. Gipe has likened wind power to coal mining in this regard, on a per unit energy basis.

And yes, workers have died in the construction and maintenance of nuclear power plants. But from a risk analysis perspective, it is one thing to lose a life in the construction of a 1000 MWe nuclear plant with 95% capacity factor, and quite another to lose a life in the construction of a piece of junk like a wind turbine that might generate 1 MWe, 10 or 12% of the time.

As for 4), worker injury rates in the nuclear power industry lately (last 5 years) have been comparable to rates in the finance or insurance industries. Stark evidence once again that no industry manages risk better than the nuclear power industry in the U.S. does.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…