ACK, to me, "flash point" is that scary temperature when things spontaneously combust. It has never happened in front of me, but I have had to deal with the consequences. It is the styrenes that are the problem, before the resins have cured/set. Resins that have set will burn, but boatyard fires show that the messy mass of glass fibres always remain.

For boat repairs, and no doubt many other uses, the "West System" (a manufacturer) produce reputable info.

I do not know whether similar issues surround "carbon fibre".

Fibre/fiber glass does contain some terms that are confusing depending on your side of the Atlantic.

The info (from USA) that I posted yesterday includes references to voids and moisture "exploding" during the intense heat and expansion from a lightning strike. This is what damages trees, timber, carbon fibre etc, irrespective of any actual combustion. Once heat warped or melted, fibre glass, grp etc can not be relied upon to perform as it did before.

Boat hulls etc will have other materials incorporated as reinforcing ribs, to provide extra strength and stiffness, and provide fixings for nuts and bolts. These areas will react to sudden expansion in a different manner to the rest of the structure. If metal, they may also conduct, causing very localised heating.

Just because nacelles and turbine blades are not made from well known conductors, does not mean they won't be struck and irreparably damaged.

Ok, I've read up on turbine blade and you can burn them, but at high temperatures with some nasty emissions and 60% of weight remains. They are looking at recycling but it looks like one of those areas where it might take almost as much energy to recycle as create from scratch.

According to news reports Ségolène Royal has authorised the building of 21,000 on shore wind turbines in France each with a 1500 tonne concrete base. Combined with the 6 off shore projects more concrete than used in Hitler's Atlantic Wall. Is an Atlantic Wall a new measure for concrete used in renewable projects? The onshore concrete in France will be three quarters of an Atlantic Wall.

We drove to the UK yesterday morning to return holidaying grandchildren for the new school year. It was a beautiful morning in Northern France, no wind and a light mist in the valleys, flags hanging limply and the sun shining from a cloudless sky. All the wind turbines with an odd exception were turning giving the impression of electricity generation rather than consumption. I did wonder how much electricity a couple of hundred turbines turning at "normal speed" would consume and if the French were happy to use the turbines to dump power no-one wants in the absence of storage capacity.

GolfCharlie's post fired off something in my memory. A while ago I listened to series of broadcasts on BBC on elements and the modern world on one their business programmes. For one of the elements covered, I can't remember which, there was a section on its use as a grid back up for so-called renewables. All I can remember is that they were talking about huge installations which would give hours of backup for Solar PV in particular. I have tried looking for something on the web but can't find a reference. I'm now beginning to think I dreamt it!

PCar, golfCharlie. The reason I "ignored" the comments about glass fibre boats was that they referred to glass fibre composites not carbon fibre composites. Also I wondered about the appropriateness of using the term "flash point". I think "fire point" (which is always higher) would have been the correct term. Both terms are used for volatile liquids. Resins are indeed liquids, but are they sufficiently volatile? If not, then they are "combustible", not "flammable".

I assumed (entirely wrongly as it turns out) that nannofibre carbon would be highly combustible. Therefore I ignored any reference to glassfibre, knowing that glass is not combustible.

I have tried tofind out why carbon fibres do not burn but without success. Can anyone help with a reference. I presume that the ignition temperature is very high, like diamond, and when the bonding resins in composites burn the temperatures reached are insufficient to ignite the fibres. I admit to being wrong (see PCar) but I am a natural born sceptic and find the behaviour of carbon nanofibres very odd, most substances when very finely divided burn more readily, even explosively.

PCar.

Re: Lightening not striking highest point:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=lightning+strikes&view=detailv2&&id=1F4E8FFDA772C5C94305BAD153C43231FB32190A&selectedIndex=66&ccid=4B7QayHy&simid=608009186603042181&thid=OIP.Me01ed06b21f247e35636e735989c367eo0&ajaxhist=0

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=lightning+strikes+wind+turbines&view=detailv2&&id=C57BCDB0E0E44E8BD6ED37FE31C1B000382957C3&selectedIndex=6&ccid=1%2f%2bSigZ0&simid=608040664423532921&thid=OIP.Md7ff928a0674e8aa91eb63c0dfccbedeo0

I presume in these cases the induced positive charge builds up most at these points. Most photographs, admittedly show lightning hitting the highest points, namely the blades.

When I dispute with you I either know something you apparently do not (as in the case of lightning not always hitting highest points) or I question what you have written. So intuitively I would expect carbon fibres to burn. Why don't they in composites where the binder is flamable?

I thought we were having a pleasant exchange, but here you go again with insults and out you trot with the t-word. If you get annoyed at my "contributions" (which you obviously do), just ignore them, as I do yours on occasion.

Very short notice via WUWT

Watch live: 10th anniversary debate for Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’