Bloomberg Philanthropies tracked 132 oil & gas industry accidents in 2024, but missed the 43 solar panel fires, wind tower collapses, and other dramatic American "green" energy mishaps.
While any failure or accident can be serious, 43 incidents across a massive and rapidly growing industry are not out of proportion, especially considering that the U.S. has over 70,000 wind turbines and millions of solar installations. These incidents are rare relative to the scale of deployment.
Wind and solar accidents are far less deadly than fossil fuel-related incidents (explosions, toxic leaks, air pollution), which are often more destructive and more frequent per unit of energy produced.
I like your perspective, it has does have some merits to consider...
However, since wind and solar are intermittent low quality electricity generators, that cannot possibly match reliable base load grid inertia (ex. Spain), have terrible EROI, require enormous inputs of fossil fuels from cradle to grave, and last 15 years at best are probably not good signs.
Let's also think about all the fossil that goes into these contraptions and rate of accidents and fires therein that you mentioned about using fossil.
Respectfully, and I do appreciate all views pro and con,
It’s true that wind and solar are intermittent—they depend on weather and time of day. However, calling them “low quality” is subjective and not a technical term. The “quality” of electricity typically refers to reliability, frequency stability, etc., which can be managed via grid design, storage, and backup systems. Modern grids increasingly integrate batteries, pumped hydro, and demand response systems to compensate for intermittency.
Traditional base load plants (like coal and nuclear) do provide grid inertia due to their rotating machinery. However, synthetic or virtual inertia provided by inverter-based resources (such as batteries and solar) is becoming more capable, especially with advancements in grid-forming inverters. Many countries in Europe actually have high shares of wind and solar and have successfully maintained grid reliability through advanced grid management.
The claim that wind and solar have “terrible EROI” is not accurate. Peer-reviewed studies show Wind EROI: ~20–50:1 and Solar PV EROI: ~10–30:1. These are comparable to or even better than fossil fuels today, especially as easy-to-access fossil fuel sources decline and require more energy to extract.
Yes, manufacturing and installing renewable infrastructure requires energy, much of which is currently fossil-based. However, over their lifetimes, wind and solar repay that energy many times over. And as the grid decarbonizes, these fossil inputs are expected to decline.
Claiming that wind and solar “last 15 years at best” is also misleading. Wind turbines typically have lifespans of 20–25 years while solar panels often last 25–30 years, with gradual efficiency loss (~0.5%–1% per year). Many installations continue to function beyond their rated lifetimes with reduced output.
Regarding concerns about accidents and fires, all energy systems carry risks. Fires in solar panels or wind turbines are rare and typically less hazardous than incidents in fossil fuel systems (e.g., refinery explosions, gas pipeline leaks). Fossil fuel systems also contribute to air pollution, which causes significant health burdens.
Your concerns are valid but over exaggerated and outdated.
Hello Clifton, I always default to 101 principles when studying and in problem solving.
Take a look at my Substack writings on EROI and Energy Density co-authored by an energy industry expert. Please take a look at writings of Dr. Gene Nelson on GreenNuke - he is an expert on grids and nuclear. He is an expert on grid inertia amongst other things.
Most importantly, please note that there is no such thing as "renewables".
This is because 99.99% of processes are irreversible.
We can only become more efficient.
If you create order in one place, you must create more disorder somewhere else.
These are not my opinions, not exaggerations, but rather the tenants of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Once the basic laws of physics and thermodynamics are practically grasped, it is easy to see that wind and solar are highly inefficient and untenable, and will always rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, from cradle to grave.
Sorry, your statement is philosophically provocative but scientifically flawed. It misinterprets thermodynamics to make a case against renewable energy, ignoring real-world data and trends in energy systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental constraint, but it doesn’t support the conclusion that renewable energy is inherently inefficient or doomed.
Modern wind and solar systems have reasonable efficiencies (15–45%) and are rapidly improving. They are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many regions, even without subsidies. While there are embedded emissions (e.g. manufacturing solar panels), lifecycle analyses consistently show much lower carbon footprints than fossil fuels.
While early renewable infrastructure did depend heavily on fossil fuels, many parts of the supply chain are already being electrified. With grid decarbonization and green hydrogen, fossil fuel reliance is decreasing. Renewable systems are increasingly self-sustaining over time.
My reference to the 2nd Law was not meant to provoke you. It is an accurate restatement of the combined work of Carnot, Clausius and Gibbs.
You say that it is scientifically flawed, this is quite a bold statement.
I suggest you take a look at the Carnot Heat Engine, it is a great place to ground one's perspective with regards to heat flow and efficiency and work, and a 101 model from which every student and/or expert builds from in the field of energy and thermodynamics.
Yes .. ‘pull the other leg left nutters’, today given the levers of government, to make we Aussies, THE biggest ‘Renewable Only Energy’ jokers on the planet.
Interesting read! Most of the accidents listed are solar panel fires on residential rooftops, which generally come down to faulty wiring and installation rather than a systemic issue with the technology. Even jf it is likely less frequent per MWh produced, I would argue that a chemical spill is a worse outcome than a fire produces 0 casualties
This piece uses selective framing and misleading comparisons:
• It overstates the dangers of renewables and understates the risks of fossil fuels.
• It confuses electricity generation with total energy use.
• It makes a flawed extrapolation of incident rates.
• It critiques advocacy biases while ignoring similar industry-backed messaging from fossil fuel interests.
A truly fair energy comparison requires normalizing data by energy output (e.g., incidents per TWh), factoring in long-term environmental and health costs, and considering evolving safety measures.
The safest energy per TW-hr with the highest EROI Is nuclear by far...Itcalso has the highest energy density....We need more of that. But how can we build nuclear plants without fossil fuels?
LOL The problem with relying on weather for anything: It changes and is unpredictable. In Many states and climates. I remember it being 60 degrees on a recent Christmas. Wind? OMG... even worse. Imagine having your power grid dependent on it... Oh wait. Nice job, Ken.
Incorrect. Investigations by the Maui Fire Department (MFD) and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) identified the primary cause as the re-energization of downed power lines operated by Hawaiian Electric. These lines emitted molten material that ignited dry, overgrown vegetation near utility pole 25 off Lahainaluna Road.
All of the ships in the trans-Atlantic slave trade were powered by clean Green renewable biodegradable wind power
Substack just keeps getting better and better.
Outstanding analysis and post, Ken!
THANK YOU! much appreciated
Easy read and great information Ken!
Here is some details on why wind turbines burn so readily:
https://tucoschild.substack.com/p/wind-turbines-are-full-of-sh-and?r=2mh23j
Keep up the good work.
While any failure or accident can be serious, 43 incidents across a massive and rapidly growing industry are not out of proportion, especially considering that the U.S. has over 70,000 wind turbines and millions of solar installations. These incidents are rare relative to the scale of deployment.
Wind and solar accidents are far less deadly than fossil fuel-related incidents (explosions, toxic leaks, air pollution), which are often more destructive and more frequent per unit of energy produced.
I like your perspective, it has does have some merits to consider...
However, since wind and solar are intermittent low quality electricity generators, that cannot possibly match reliable base load grid inertia (ex. Spain), have terrible EROI, require enormous inputs of fossil fuels from cradle to grave, and last 15 years at best are probably not good signs.
Let's also think about all the fossil that goes into these contraptions and rate of accidents and fires therein that you mentioned about using fossil.
Respectfully, and I do appreciate all views pro and con,
TC
It’s true that wind and solar are intermittent—they depend on weather and time of day. However, calling them “low quality” is subjective and not a technical term. The “quality” of electricity typically refers to reliability, frequency stability, etc., which can be managed via grid design, storage, and backup systems. Modern grids increasingly integrate batteries, pumped hydro, and demand response systems to compensate for intermittency.
Traditional base load plants (like coal and nuclear) do provide grid inertia due to their rotating machinery. However, synthetic or virtual inertia provided by inverter-based resources (such as batteries and solar) is becoming more capable, especially with advancements in grid-forming inverters. Many countries in Europe actually have high shares of wind and solar and have successfully maintained grid reliability through advanced grid management.
The claim that wind and solar have “terrible EROI” is not accurate. Peer-reviewed studies show Wind EROI: ~20–50:1 and Solar PV EROI: ~10–30:1. These are comparable to or even better than fossil fuels today, especially as easy-to-access fossil fuel sources decline and require more energy to extract.
Yes, manufacturing and installing renewable infrastructure requires energy, much of which is currently fossil-based. However, over their lifetimes, wind and solar repay that energy many times over. And as the grid decarbonizes, these fossil inputs are expected to decline.
Claiming that wind and solar “last 15 years at best” is also misleading. Wind turbines typically have lifespans of 20–25 years while solar panels often last 25–30 years, with gradual efficiency loss (~0.5%–1% per year). Many installations continue to function beyond their rated lifetimes with reduced output.
Regarding concerns about accidents and fires, all energy systems carry risks. Fires in solar panels or wind turbines are rare and typically less hazardous than incidents in fossil fuel systems (e.g., refinery explosions, gas pipeline leaks). Fossil fuel systems also contribute to air pollution, which causes significant health burdens.
Your concerns are valid but over exaggerated and outdated.
Hello Clifton, I always default to 101 principles when studying and in problem solving.
Take a look at my Substack writings on EROI and Energy Density co-authored by an energy industry expert. Please take a look at writings of Dr. Gene Nelson on GreenNuke - he is an expert on grids and nuclear. He is an expert on grid inertia amongst other things.
Most importantly, please note that there is no such thing as "renewables".
This is because 99.99% of processes are irreversible.
We can only become more efficient.
If you create order in one place, you must create more disorder somewhere else.
These are not my opinions, not exaggerations, but rather the tenants of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Once the basic laws of physics and thermodynamics are practically grasped, it is easy to see that wind and solar are highly inefficient and untenable, and will always rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, from cradle to grave.
TC
Sorry, your statement is philosophically provocative but scientifically flawed. It misinterprets thermodynamics to make a case against renewable energy, ignoring real-world data and trends in energy systems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental constraint, but it doesn’t support the conclusion that renewable energy is inherently inefficient or doomed.
Modern wind and solar systems have reasonable efficiencies (15–45%) and are rapidly improving. They are now cheaper than fossil fuels in many regions, even without subsidies. While there are embedded emissions (e.g. manufacturing solar panels), lifecycle analyses consistently show much lower carbon footprints than fossil fuels.
While early renewable infrastructure did depend heavily on fossil fuels, many parts of the supply chain are already being electrified. With grid decarbonization and green hydrogen, fossil fuel reliance is decreasing. Renewable systems are increasingly self-sustaining over time.
Hello Clifton,
My reference to the 2nd Law was not meant to provoke you. It is an accurate restatement of the combined work of Carnot, Clausius and Gibbs.
You say that it is scientifically flawed, this is quite a bold statement.
I suggest you take a look at the Carnot Heat Engine, it is a great place to ground one's perspective with regards to heat flow and efficiency and work, and a 101 model from which every student and/or expert builds from in the field of energy and thermodynamics.
Have a great weekend,
TC
It’s alright Aust just about to renew a political party licence to govern for 3 years.
Agenda. To show worldwide how the SpainPortugal 24 hour test case, can be fully implemented to destroy a whole country of 26 million people.
Aust total power grid Wind Solar Batteries & some gas back up!
Nuclear … Labor politicians can’t even pronounce it properly…
Yes .. ‘pull the other leg left nutters’, today given the levers of government, to make we Aussies, THE biggest ‘Renewable Only Energy’ jokers on the planet.
Beat even California within 3 years!👍
Interesting read! Most of the accidents listed are solar panel fires on residential rooftops, which generally come down to faulty wiring and installation rather than a systemic issue with the technology. Even jf it is likely less frequent per MWh produced, I would argue that a chemical spill is a worse outcome than a fire produces 0 casualties
Unfortunately low quality Chinese inverters and the like lead to fires as well.
This piece uses selective framing and misleading comparisons:
• It overstates the dangers of renewables and understates the risks of fossil fuels.
• It confuses electricity generation with total energy use.
• It makes a flawed extrapolation of incident rates.
• It critiques advocacy biases while ignoring similar industry-backed messaging from fossil fuel interests.
A truly fair energy comparison requires normalizing data by energy output (e.g., incidents per TWh), factoring in long-term environmental and health costs, and considering evolving safety measures.
The safest energy per TW-hr with the highest EROI Is nuclear by far...Itcalso has the highest energy density....We need more of that. But how can we build nuclear plants without fossil fuels?
Or "renewables" for that matter?
LOL The problem with relying on weather for anything: It changes and is unpredictable. In Many states and climates. I remember it being 60 degrees on a recent Christmas. Wind? OMG... even worse. Imagine having your power grid dependent on it... Oh wait. Nice job, Ken.
oil
Hello Clifton,
I can see you are quite certain with your position.
Can you please share what your training and background is ?
Sincerely,
TC
The Lahaina fire in Maui was sparked from an electrical substation that supports a solar farm.
Billions of dollars in damage and over a hundred lives lost.
Incorrect. Investigations by the Maui Fire Department (MFD) and the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) identified the primary cause as the re-energization of downed power lines operated by Hawaiian Electric. These lines emitted molten material that ignited dry, overgrown vegetation near utility pole 25 off Lahainaluna Road.