The photo shows the collapsed wind turbine tower. Photos courtesy of Brian Hulke
By KATU Web Staff
NEAR WASCO, Ore. - A giant wind turbine tower collapsed Saturday in Eastern Oregon, causing a worker to fall to his death and another man to be injured.
The man killed is from Goldendale, Wash., while the second man is from Minnesota, according to Deputy Geremy Shull of the Sherman County Sheriff's Office.
The man from Minnesota was at last check listed in serious but stable condition at Mid-Columbia Medical Center in The Dalles, Shull said.
He did not release the names of the men.
The incident happened about 4 p.m. at a wind farm about six miles east of the town of Wasco in Sherman County, Shull said. Portland-based PPM Energy owns the wind farm but Florida-based Siemens Power Generation manufactured and owns the wind turbine tower that collapsed.
Melanie Forbrick, a Siemens spokeswoman, said three people were at the site when the accident happened, two of whom were Siemens Power Generation employees and a third a contractor.
Shull said the worker killed in the incident was at the top of a turbine tower when the support column holding the turbine buckled about halfway up and toppled over. Forbrick said the injured man was inside of the tower at the time while the third worker, who escaped injury, was at the base.
She said the turbine had been in operation for 500 hours and the workers were doing a routine inspection.
Forbrick said federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials were on site Sunday investigating.
"We are very saddened by this event and our sympathy goes out to the families and the workers as well," Forbrick said.
Forbrick said she did not know how the height of the turbine. Bonneville Power Administration documents from last year said the turbine towers would stand 263 feet high and reach about 400 feet with blades included. The Klondike III wind project, located in the wheat fields near Wasco, is expected to generate 221 megawatts of electricity when it's completed in late 2007, said Jan Johnson, a spokeswoman for PPM Energy. PPM is using 44 Siemens 2.3 megawatt wind turbines and 80 General Electric 1.5 megawatt wind turbines. - The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/9383316.html
19 comments:
This is a very terrible and unfortunate event, but to post this article on this blog is terrible. You cannot use the death of a worker as fodder for your movement. The reality is that you are more likely to get struck by lightning, survive, get on an airplane and crash than to be killed by a collapsing turbine. There was obviously something wrong the erection of this machine as it was the tower that collapsed and as it was only operational for 500 hours I am sure the crane company that put it up will be brought into question.
But nonetheless you should not have posted this!
It is important to see all aspects of wind turbine "farming" and this is definately one that the developers would not comment on as potential risk. This question was, however, posed to AWPC, and it was scoffed off as ridiculous, as ridiculous as concerns over noise, vibrations and lowered property values.
It is ridiculous. You can't even count on your one hand how many times this has happened in the past. You cannot use this incident as fodder. The likelihood of such an occurence happening again is extremely rare. More rare than you winning the lottery, so stop using someone's death as a means to get a message out.
On to the next topic please for gods sake!
I believe a fair debate necessarily
requires all pertinent facts, the sad death and injury that occurred indubitably did so. No fodder here Anonymous#1 just fact.
A question regarding fact Liz--was there an actual quote from Dr. David Suzuki,that was related to your June 24.07 posting?
Apparently it is a paraphrasing,I'd checked with the Suzuki foundation and was directed to the New Scientist essay of 2005 entitled "The beauty of wind farms " by Dr. Suzuki.
Now I've been referenced to your Blog twice now for a source for the Suzuki quote opposing the Wallace site.One of those referrers being the Green Party.
I'm not being nasty or catty here,a good friend of mine is trying to develop a nature -hiking trail on Nuttby mountain and I am trying to help put a balanced perspective together .
Thank you for your comments Bruce. I could not disagree with you on that fact that it is a fact that a man did die unfortunately in turbine tower collapse. My only point is that although Lisa's first intention may have to been to provide facts relative to the wind industry for people to interpret on their own. She has instead created a one sided environment where the only facts that are posted here are ones to support her movement of why not to install wind farms. That is a fact and that is the reason that postings like this article cannot be used here.
This blog exists to inform people of the inappropriateness of razing the land in this natural treasure and erecting concrete & steel mega-towers whose productivity is only as dependable as the wind. It also exists to inform the people of the Gulf Shore of the possible damage to their health which has been experienced when projects like this have been allowed in other residential areas. The people of Gulf Shore are fighting to keep their community livable. They are not prepared to sit idly by and let big business run roughshod over them. They are to be commended for standing up for their rights.
Lisa and the other residents are putting forth reasons why this particular project shouldn't be allowed in THIS area. Yes, her arguement may seem one-sided to the Atlantic Wind Power people, why wouldn't they? Why would they try to make a case against themselves? If you (pro Gulf Shore Windfarm people) want to see more arguement for this project you are quite free to start your own "blog" to that end.
To Bruce Farrell: I emailed the David Suzuki Foundation asking if they had been contacted by pugwashwindfarm or its editor. There reply, suitably circumspect, was that they do not have time to look at individual circumsances. I wrote back indicating that I took this as a no and in the adsence of comment from them I would say so. They have not emailed me with any clarification.
I was directed to their website and to an article in the New Scientist for David Suzuki's official position. The article is "The Beauty of Windfarms" and can be found using google.
In this article, Dr. Suzuki expresses the pleasure he gets from his vacation property on Quadra Island in the Georgia Straits. He goes on to say that he will gladly share the area with a windfarm.
David Suzuki's position hardly agrees with Lisa Betts' statement that Dr.Suzuki is on side with her group's opposition to wind power. It appears he was misquoted, misinterpreted or taken out of context. Bruce: I don't think it would be wise to rely on Ms. Betts statement. In fact I would advise anyone to question every statement made on this blog ( mine included ) and google everything.
Vague threats of libel suits have floated through this blog but the Suzuki statement may be the only real occrance of libel. I have now been unmasked as someone taking money from AWP ( do I pick the cash up at your house Lisa? Used 20's in a brown envelope please.) If this is untrue coud I sue for libel? Yes but to what end. The writer is anonymouse and blog editors are not responsible for submitted comment. Also, I am retired with no pension and no investment: a libel can't hurt me financially. I have no public profile, so a libel can not damage my reputation. Even if a judge decided I was libeled, what kind of remedy would be appropriate? None.
David Suzuki however is different. Publishing a statement that he is onside in opposing windpower has the potential to harm his reputation and the financial future of his foundation. As the statement is attributed to his blog's editor, it would be honest, reasonable, fair and wise to publish a retraction ASAP. The credibility of anyone supporting this blog will be pemanently damaged unless this false impression is corrected.
John McManus
Here's my email address. If you want information about my fiances, contact me,
annieatbr@webtv.net
Just take the time to look at what I wrote about Dr Suzuki at the end of my June 24th post and you will clearly see that I never said he is against wind energy - quite the opposite, in fact.
This information come from what he has said publicly, from his website and from a private conversation which I have refrained from quoting directly.
It is not I who is making the false impressions, John. You have consistently taken points made here and changed them to suit your agenda - whatever that is.
Please check what I have actually said in my posts before commenting on what I have not said.
Lisa: Your post was titled " David Suzuki agree with us. Big Time!" Completely false. His " Article " The Beauty of Windfarms " bemoanes the shortsightedness of NIMBYs opposing windfarms. Nowhere on his website or in this article, does he indicate any preferance for the type of financing used to develop wind farms.
The "Beauty of Wind Farms" does mention bird kills, but emphasises the low numbers and relative unimportance of the problem. He points out that a single incident a couple of decades ago has led to overemphasis of this question by anti wind power crusaders.
Your stated position is directly opposite Dr. Suzuki's . You do not want wind turbines near your location for aescetic reasons. Questions of financing, noise, flicker etc. canot mask the fact that you just don't like the way they look. David Suzuki wants to welcome a windarm to his part of cottage country.
It is no wonder David Suzuki is respected.
John McManus
John - I must reiterate, you must please not try to change what I have said.
My post was not titled "David Suzuki agrees with us. Big time!" it was a comment made towards the end of the post.
The rest of the post reads:
~~~~~
Oh, did I forget to mention that Canada’s greatest single environmentalist is opposed to this particular kind of project?
Dr Suzuki is very much for wind energy, although has concerns about bird mortality. What he very much opposes about them is when projects are in the hands of big money companies, financially benefiting very few. He opposes loss of lifestyle for any industrial project like this.
Pretty much our point of view too!
~~~~~
John, as long as you keep misrepresenting what I say in my posts and comments, it actually greatly weakens your position.
I went back and read your post of June 24, 2007 a couple of times: the entire post not just the out of context part you posted above.I also reread the Davis Suzuki Foundation renewables sectuion. "The Beauty of Windfarms" in the New Scientist of April, 2005, posts by Alex Dunlop and AJ and post by Doug Neil of Nova Scotia contributing to a debate about energy policy on the Green Party website.
Your post of June 24,2007 was titled "Property Values". It seemed to me to be an attempt to deflect the information from AJ who pointed out that early 2007 saw more sales in the area than early 2006. Towards the end it veers to a complaint about anyone trying to make money on land real estate developers want to chop up for cottages as greedy. Aren't the cottage developrs and those desperate for their property values to escalate just as greedy?
Next comes a subtitle." David Suzuki agrees with us. Big time! "David Suzuki" is highlighted. The next sentense you says he is opposed to this particulat type of project. I think this is untrue.
According to the David Suzuki Foundation, he has no time to discuss particular issues. They directed me to their website for the official policy on wind energy and to an article " The Beauty of Windfams" in the New Scientist , April 2005 for Dr, Suzuki's thoughts on the subject.
The foundation states that economics of scale have allowed wind developers to operate more efficiently. To back this up they state that the business has been worth $28 billion worldwide since 2003. I understnd this to mean that the David Suzuki Foundation has no objection to "big money" helping make the wind business more efficient with bigger machines and bigger windfarms.
Doug Neil, a Nova Scotia member of the Green Paty, develops this thread a bit more in a discussion of an energy platform on the party's website. His discussions with bankers and wind energy personnel lead him to conclude that projects under $30 million will not be concidered because they cannot be efficient if smaller.
The webpage goes on to say "Canada has tremendous potential with thousands of kilometers of coastline'. The Gulf Shore is part of this area with tremendous potential. Alex Dunlop picked up on this point and the Suzuki allegation dissapeared for a while.
In his article "The Beauty of Windfarms", David Suzuki says " They should always be subject to environmental assessment. But a blanket " not in my backyard approach is hypocritical and counerproductive." His statement that he would welcome a wind farm near his vacation property is framed by this quote. To me this is completely opposite the aims of Pugwashwindfarm.
In the next paragraph Dr.Suzuki states states that wind power worldwide was "a $6 milion industry last year." " cost has dropped... because of larger turbines." To me he is not crticising the " big money" involved in the industry, he is supporting it. He goes on to say " I think windmills are beautiful. They provide local jobs."
This article was written long before you stated "David Suzuki agrees with us. Big Time?" I can see no point where his policies ever approach yours. Even taking the smallest point out of context to try and prove that Dr. Suzuki thinks that professional wind developement organizations
should be kept out of the business fails . The official position of the David Suzuki Foundation and Dr. Suzuki' stated opinion is that the investment of money in the billions helps make the entire windfarm business more efficient through the economics of scale. I can see no way possible to portray this policy as a condemnation of"big money".
John McManus
ps. You may find this comment lengthy but I have negotiated a new deal where I'm geting paid by
the word.
The David Suzuki Foundation says " all provinces need to initiate strong policies that ensure wide manufacture and installation of wind turbines.
..as i understand this proposal in Pugwash
-there will be 27 of the world's largest fans with the towers standing somewhere about 270 feet high(about the same height as a 25 story office building) with the tip of the blades another 135 feet above that and spinning at sometimes upto 13 r.p.m..
Would that make these some -if not the tallest free standing structures east of Montreal??
Would that then make them the most graceful tallest structures in Pugwash?
I have seen comments here deceptively inferring that the sound from these will have the same effect on you as the sound from your fridge!
Who ever is making these kinds of comments either is being paid by the wind industry to act stupid or thinks the people of Pugwash are stupid or themselves are into their meds a little toooo much!
My sources of information are of a wider scope than one website, some of which are confidential.
If you look again at AJ's MLS search, you will see that it includes the whole district, not narrowed down to just this particular area. While MLS sales continue at the usual, if not slightly higher than historic levels for areas like Malagash and Northport, sales along the Gulf Shore are all but halted. There has been one sale in the same period of time there would be 8 to 12. Quite a drop.
Does this mean that Dr.Suzuki is saying one thing for public consumption and exactly the opposite to you in private. Won't he be pleased that you are telling everyone.
John McManus
To the a anonymous poster quetioning sound pressure levels:
I usually use google because my typing is poor but I'll give you both the URL's and Google hints. You will find the 40 db level for fridges and the 45 db level for wind turbines in lots of places. Believe or disbelieve, it will not change the meter 1 db.
Google: Sound level wind turbine 250 meters
URL's: thewindpower.net/25-windfarms-sound-level.php
omafra.gov.on.ca/english/engineer/facts/03-047.htm
Google:sound level refridgerator db
URL'S: www.ata.org/about_tinnitus/consumer/healthy-hearing1.html
uk.shoppydoo.com/prices-fridges-samsung.html
www.in.answers_yahoo.com/questio/inde?qid=20070518025715AAQ4USU
Google: salford university wind turbine noise
URL: www.berr.gov.uk/files/file/file40571.pdf
There is lots mre but it all says the same thing.
John McManus
John - that is not what I said.
You really do a great job of twisting around to your own purposes what someone says to suit your own agenda but, when given information contrary to your cause, all of a sudden you have nothing to say.
hmmm
It would appear very few people object to wind turbines in their back yard. Daniel D'Entremont is the person in Nova Scotia giving media interviews. For John MacManus, that seems to logically tell him there is nothing wrong with having an industrial park built here. He is wrong. And I think he knows it.
Nobody wants to publically complain because to do so is pointing the finger and potentially causing embarassment and shame on their immediate family members and long time neighbours, who receive cash under the condition of secrecy under iron clad lease agreements. Money is taboo, speaking out against family and friends is taboo, the wind developer wins everytime. It is by no accident these "business" conditions exist. Developers refuse to reveal their locations until they have the land leases locked up. They say it is because competition might sweep in. We know what competition is doing in this bid. Undercutting prices to the point where some of these developments won't get off the ground or worse, won't be maintained, because they bid lower than operational costs just to get the contract. The two people in this area who went public with letters to the editor in support of this project are a land owner getting paid by the wind developer and the former head of North Nova Forestry Co-op, who now writes in about aerial spraying that maybe it is not such a good idea and he wants his neighbours to be aware that they might suffer from depression, as this is what happened to him when he was accidentally sprayed during his tenure as the head of the Forestry Co-op. This is the same guy now pointing to the wind turbines as reasonable opportunities for communities to earn money. So knowing the motivations and history behind the two public supporters I am still in the dark as to what motivates John MacManus to throw his support behind the wind turbines. I am thinking it is likely ageism, that at his age he figures he won't be around to be bothered by the noise and if there is any chance at all these monsters will reduce his power bill (which it won't) then he is all in.
Take a look at the size of the blades on these things.
There're 4 times the length of the average house in Pugwash. 81 blades are proposed in Pugwash.
Someone was kind enough to suggest the sound they produce....the air they move (speakers pump air to make low frequency sound)... were comparible to the sound of rain falling on a roof or a clock ticking with regards to the health effects on those mis-fortunate to have them as neighbours!
The people with the sound level numbers are forgetting to tell you at what frequency they were measured.
There also forgetting to tell you that those are not continuous like the sound ouput will be from a wind turbine (all 27 of them) when the wind blows continuously day or night.
....as in how many people sleep next to their fridge with the thermostat control shorted so the motor runs continuously....
It appears there are some people commenting here who are awfully desperate to get their hands on a bag of the money these are going to generate locally.
. According to the study, the most important tool for small businesses to succeed in 2010 is search engine marketing, while email marketing, public relations and social media cited as crucial for success.
23.8% of all small businesses reported that search engine marketing was the tool most needed for their business to succeed in 2010.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Post a Comment