Could ‘Tentacle’ UFO Have Destroyed UK Wind Turbine?

[jpak]

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/01/06/could-tentacle-ufo-have-destroyed-uk-wind-turbine/

Several residents of a remote English village have reported sightings of a bizarre tentacle-shaped UFO above a local wind farm, on the night before a wind turbine was mysteriously destroyed.

Engineers from energy suppier Ecotricity are investigating why a blade more than 20 meters (66 ft) long fell off the turbine at a wind farm in Conisholme Fen, Lincolnshire, early on Sunday morning. In the meantime, locals are coming to their own conclusions after many of them saw strange flashing tentacle shaped lights above the wind farm on the night before the damage occurred.

John Harrison, a resident of nearby Saltfleetby, said he looked out of his window on Saturday night to see “a massive ball of light,” and “tentacles going right down to the ground” over the site. “It was huge” he said “At first I thought it must have been a hole where the moon was shining through but then I saw the tentacles – it looked just like an octopus.

“It was an incredible site sic; I have never seen anything like it before. I have no idea what it was, all I can say is what I saw”.

<more>

:nuke::evilgrin::nuke:

[dipsydoodle]

1. Probably the Great Spaghetti Monster

and it followers : The Pastafarians.

[formercia]

4. A pastafarian plot

destroying false gods and idols to the pasta-machine.

Pasta must be hand-made. Anything else is sacrilege.

[appal_jack]

22. Having just read _The_Watchmen_, I blame Veidt.

Having just read _The_Watchmen_, I blame Veidt.

-app

[drm604]

2. This sounds like

either some sort of illusion from light reflected from the spinning turbine, or some sort of electrical phenomenon perhaps akin to ball lightning.

[Joanne98]

3. I knew the Bush family were aliens!

[AndyTiedye]

5. Nessie?

How far are they from Loch Ness?

[dipsydoodle]

7. Too far

about 400 miles too far. :rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

6. Could it have been oil corpo sabotage? They don't like anybody getting free power?

Really, the oil/energy corps have done a lot of shit--got many cities to rip out their public transportation systems in favor of cars and freeways (Los Angeles being a notable example); have poured billions of dollars into fighting any kind of green energy initiatives; fomented a fascist coup (several times--all failed), via the Bushwhacks, in Venezuela, to regain control of Venezuela's oil; tried to seize $12 billion in Venezuela's assets, when the Chavez government insisted on a 60/40 split of the oil profits favoring Venezuela's social programs (also a failed effort--Exxon Mobil); recently tried to overthrow the government of Bolivia (to gain control of the gas and oil reserves--another Bushwhack project--also failed); successfully stole California's $80 billion government surplus (Texas energy corps); and hijacked the U.S. military for a corporate resource war, in which a million innocent people have been slaughtered--among other things.

It seems reasonable to me, to at least wonder if these global corporate predators don't have bizarre new weapons in their arsenal, to sabotage green energy projects. That's the way they do business.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Looking for "conspiracies" is a waste of energy

We're talking about a mechanical thing here (a wind turbine.)

In a wind farm, one turbine suffered a mechanical failure. It happens.

http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/UPDATE-PLUS-VIDEO-FOOTAGE-Tentacle.4847433.jp
http://www.louthleader.co.uk/news/LATEST-Tentacle-UFO-mystery-deepens.4853104.jp


Wind power is not free. Someone has to buy, erect and maintain turbines, and electrical grids.

Corporations, for the most part, exist to make the most money they can with the least amount of effort. If you show an "oil company" there's money to be made in alternative energy, they'll try to make money that way.

[kristopher]

13. That answer is a little too glib

First let me say that looking to oil companies for an explanation to a wind turbine failure isn't reasonable. However, although it probably wasn't your intent, your final sentence makes it seem that the oil companies perspective on the topic is the same as any other corporation.
I'd suggest that their cost benefit equations are significantly different than most other companies. There are two primary reasons for this: one, they already have a set market share in an industry that has an extremely predictable demand structure; two, that demand structure is threatened by wide-scale adoption of renewable technologies.
Sure, they can compete in the emerging field of renewables, but their expertise gives them little intrinsic advantage over other competitors, so the preferred course would be to maintain the sttus quo.

Why else would they set up a global warming denial industry?

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Don't make the mistake of assuming that all "oil companies" behave as a single entity

For example, back in the 70's, Shell did a lot of pioneering work on solar panels. Why? Because they realized that diversification was important.

Today, Royal Dutch Shell has been rather outspoken about "global warming" and about "peak oil."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050126/ai_n9693285

Shell boss warns of global warming `disaster'

Independent, The (London), Jan 26, 2005 by Saeed Shah

GOVERNMENTS, NOT oil companies, must act now on global warming or there will be a "disaster", the chairman of Shell's UK arm warned last night.

Delivering the annual business lecture hosted by the environmental group Greenpeace, Lord Oxburgh laid responsibility for tackling greenhouse gas emissions squarely at the feet of government.

Lord Oxburgh, a former chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, is one of the two chairmen at Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant. He heads the UK half of the business. He insisted last night that it was not up to the likes of Shell to reform their behaviour and reduce their supply of fossil fuels.

"Whether you like it or not, we live in a capitalist society. If we at Shell ceased to find and extract and market fossil fuel products while there was demand for them, we would fail as a company. Shell would disappear as any kind of economic force," Lord Oxburgh maintained.

…

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/wef/article3248484.ece

January 25, 2008

Shell chief fears oil shortage in seven years

Carl Mortished, World Business Editor

World demand for oil and gas will outstrip supply within seven years, according to Royal Dutch Shell.

The oil multinational is predicting that conventional supplies will not keep pace with soaring population growth and the rapid pace of economic development.

Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s chief executive, said in an e-mail to the company’s staff this week that output of conventional oil and gas was close to peaking. He wrote: “Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.”

…

“Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue,” he wrote.

…

http://willyoujoinus.com/">Chevron and http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021744&contentId=7042291">BP have made positive gestures. Exxon Mobil on the other hand…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/03/22/BUGKPHRTJ71.DTL&type=business

Quest for clean energy

Chevron, PG&E cited for positive steps to combat global warming

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

After years of denial or uncertainty, many of the world's largest corporations have started taking global warming seriously and are looking for ways to fight it.

…

That's the conclusion of a report released Tuesday by Ceres, a coalition of institutional investors and environmentalists based in Boston.

The report found that some businesses -- including the Bay Area's Calpine Corp., Chevron Corp. and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. -- have taken specific steps to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases and pursue cleaner forms of energy.

But many others haven't, according to the report. Exxon Mobil Corp. and San Diego's Sempra Energy were singled out for criticism, with Exxon rating lower than any other major oil company examined.

…

[kristopher]

15. That sidesteps the issue.

Your original claim made it seem that oil companies were motivated toward renewable energy just like any other company. They aren't. Their profit calculations are different in that, for them, gains in the renewable sector correlate to losses in another.

"They" have been aware of global warming since the 1970s and have vigorously opposed understanding and action on the issue for decades. Pointing to what has been going on the last couple of years as they try to rehabilitate their image in the press isn't a very good indicator of the their pattern of behavior.

It is often assumed that since they deal in "energy" they are well positioned to move into a renewable economy, that simply isn't true. Companies like Toshiba or companies specializing in electric generating businesses are far ahead of oil companies in relevant expertise.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. Hmm...

I guess you didn't really read what I wrote.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=3050409&contentId=7028373">BP and Shell (even Exxon) were doing research into "alternatives" 30 years ago. On the other hand, they deal with economic realities.

The "oil companies" have a tremendous amount of capital, and they are not run by fools. Show them that they can make money as easily in alternatives as in oil, and you'll see a tremendous shift.

[kristopher]

24. Once more with feeling...

"Show them that they can make money as easily in alternatives as in oil, and you'll see a tremendous shift."

I read what you wrote, you simply don't seem to want to accept a couple of simple concepts.

1) The "oil companies" (and minerals mining companies) have a guaranteed successful position in the current energy landscape. That means business as usual is a safe choice for them.

2) Neither their expertise nor their existing business infrastructure translates into a market advantage in a transition to a renewable landscape. That means a move in that direction by society affects them in two ways.

They stand to lose value on their existing assets and they are in a position of higher risk in acquiring future revenue streams.

Compared to a company like Toshiba, for example, the negatives of a transition to renewables are much higher because the assets that are now revenue producing will become obsolete and consequently the costs of transition for the "oil companies" and the minerals mining companies will be MUCH HIGHER than for a company like Toshiba.

Additionally, the existing business infrastructure of Toshiba is a base on which to move into the renewable energy business. Since the business infrastructure of the "oil companies" and the minerals mining companies DO NOT have value in a renewable energy economy, their existing assets become a liability, a sunk cost that cannot be recouped.

Therefore they are at a strong competitive disadvantage in a policy world that encourages the switch to renewables.

This is the reason they (all of them) opposed action on climate change for decades.

Pointing to "research" they've done into renewables in no way alters the competitive situation described. So to put it in your words" You can't "Show them that they can make money as easily in alternatives as in oil, because that isn't the reality. Therefore you cannot look to them for a tremendous shift."

[Peace Patriot]

16. No, we're not just talking about "a mechanical thing here (a wind turbine)."

We're talking about a mechanical thing--a wind turbine--that bit the dust in strange circumstances, with local people reporting never-before-seen, large bursts of light.

If I were there, I think that sabotage would have been the first thing that occurred to me. And so, who would sabotage a wind turbine? a) terrorists, b) pranksters, c) someone with a financial motive?

Could have been just odd lightning or something--purely an accident. But just from the given description, and what local people saw--the odd light--I think it is not unreasonable to suspect that human beings wrecked it, and to wonder about motives. And I laid out some activities of global corporate oil predators that illustrate their complete lack of social responsibility, and, indeed, complicity in dreadful acts--not least of them being the Iraq War--in pursuit of more profit than anyone should ever have.

Clearly, we don't know, and, not being on the spot, can't investigate. But sabotage is unreasonable, as a speculation? I don't think so.

[kristopher]

17. I don't believe sabotage is a reasonable possibility.

You can speculate about it, but the basis you've offered is not convincing. While I agree that dark interests are at work to prevent the move to a renewable economy, I think their methods are much more effective and subtle than wrecking a turbine in the English hinterland. Their goal is to negatively affect policies that encourage adoption of renewables, and occasional mechanical or structural failures aren't going to do that at all.

[phantom power]

9. Externalized cost.

[tinrobot]

10. Tentacle shaped lights could be lightning.

...or some sort of static discharge.

[OKIsItJustMe]

12. I was thinking something like "St. Elmo's Fire."

After all, you've got this big thing with moving "arms" and at least one big "leg" now, cover it with "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_Fire">St. Elmo's Fire," and...

[phantom power]

11. Vortexes trailing behind the turbines?

[NNadir]

18. Well given the notorious failure rates of wind facilities around the world,

I'm sure there's a rational explanation.

This is especially true if they're Vestas garbage. Those suckers can't even make it through the sort warranty without catching fire, blowing apart or falling down.

The one that caught fire this past October burning that boy didn't even get commissioned before it failed. Likewise that one that killed that fellow and injured his collegue in Oregon in 2007.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/08/wasco_wind_turbine_collapse_ki.html

[kristopher]

19. Poor little feller...

He's blowing a gasket...

Renewable Energy Information Campaign
Stralauer Platz 34
D-10243 Berlin

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Contact :unendlich-viel-energie.de

www.unendlich-viel-energie.de


The Combined Power Plant – the first
stage in providing 100% power from
renewable energy

Berlin, 9 October 2007
The companies Enercon GmbH, SolarWorld AG and Schmack
Biogas AG today presented the Combined Power Plant. Together
with the Institute for Solar Energy Supply Systems (ISET) at the
University of Kassel, these three companies have proved with this
project that renewable energy can secure 100 per cent of energy
supplies in accordance with demand. “The Combined Power Plant
shows that renewable energy sources can supply sufficient
electricity, can be controlled at any time, function in combination
and can be balanced out across the grid,” says Ulrich Schmack,
Board Spokesman of Schmack Biogas AG.

The joint project from Schmack Biogas, SolarWorld and Enercon
links 36 decentralized power plants based on wind, hydropower,
solar and biogas energy so that they can supply electricity around
the clock regardless of weather conditions and electricity demand.
It takes advantage of the unequally distributed energy potential
across Germany.

“The Combined Power Plant is scaled to meet 1/10,000th of the
electricity demand in Germany using renewable energy. This scale
corresponds to the annual electricity requirements of a small town
with around 12,000 households, such as Stade. The Combined
Power Plant therefore shows in miniature what is also possible on
a large scale: 100 per cent electricity provision using renewable
energy sources,” emphasises Frank H. Asbeck, CEO of SolarWorld
AG.

The wind and sun cannot be influenced, which places particular
importance to the linkage of wind, solar and biogas plants. “The
decentralised network enables wind, solar and biogas installations
to be controlled like a conventional large-scale power station and
thus meet Germany’s fluctuating energy requirements,” says Kurt
Rohrig from ISET, explaining the Combined Power Plant’s central
control unit."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x182107

And the nnoose just keeps getting tighter on the nneutron nnimrods...

[jpak]

21. If you don't know what you are talking about - make stuff up

Wind turbines are highly reliable with *very low* failure rates.

Nuclear power plants, however, trip or otherwise "fail" with regularity...

[petronius]

23. Funnel cloud? Lightning? There's all kinds of strange sights in the

atmosphere. I'll bet that these witnesses would have chalked it all up to odd weather, but the news of the wind farm damage required some sort of 'explanation.' So, the funny cloud of the night before retroactively became a UFO...

[trof]

25. I'm thinking St. Elmo's Fire. Static electricity.

I had St. Elmo's blow the nose radar cover off of a 727 one night.