How big is your....?

**the second coming** · 25-Feb-08, 19:15

Originally Posted by rupert

You cannot compare the number of people killed or injured on the roads with a potential accident involving a wind turbine. We all choose to drive our cars, be passengers in cars and realise that we are taking risks by doing so whether from drunk, drugged, useless drivers or their vehicles that are death traps. If a developer is given planning permission to build a wind turbine near my house I have no say in the matter. Nor do I have any control over how well he maintains his wind turbine.

We all choose to use electricity though,

mostly without a thought to how it is produced.

You DO have a choice to object to planning applications and you
DO have a choice to go elsewhere if you dont like the outcomes and decisions.

**ywindythesecond** · 25-Feb-08, 19:43

I don't subscribe to the idea that the exploding windmill is an anti-wind stunt, and to scientifically dissect a moving or still image on a website is impossible, so there is no point in attempting to do it.

However, it struck me that there was no camera shake, so it must have been filmed from a weather-protected environment.

ywy2

**rupert** · 25-Feb-08, 19:56

Originally Posted by the second coming

and you
DO have a choice to go elsewhere if you dont like the outcomes and decisions.

How did I know you were going to come out with that old chestnut? Not if I can't get anyone else to live in my house because of all of the downsides to living next to a windfarm I can't! (Wait for it - there will be all the 'there's no evidence that a windfarm devalues property' trotted out next)!

**rob16d** · 27-Feb-08, 12:29

How long has this gotten! Yes I do want an exploding wind turbine....free fireworks!

**Green_not_greed** · 12-Mar-08, 23:12

Here are some more fireworks - last week in California. Check out the link and then click on video

http://www.kcra.com/news/15553196/detail.html#

**Rheghead** · 12-Mar-08, 23:18

Originally Posted by Green_not_greed

Here are some more fireworks - last week in California. Check out the link and then click on video

http://www.kcra.com/news/15553196/detail.html#

It doesn't seem to pose a fire risk to anything around it.

**Green_not_greed** · 12-Mar-08, 23:41

Originally Posted by Rheghead

It doesn't seem to pose a fire risk to anything around it.

A good point because there is nothing close to it except other turbines! This is not a couple of hundred meters from housing as is proposed at Baillie and some other Caithness developments.

As for risk, you should note that the fire was filmed in very low wind conditions. I have seen photos of burning debris scattered hundreds of meters from other fires. [It may take a while to search for such photos but they are around]

GNG

**Rheghead** · 12-Mar-08, 23:56

Originally Posted by Green_not_greed

A good point because there is nothing close to it except other turbines! This is not a couple of hundred meters from housing as is proposed at Baillie and some other Caithness developments.

I would have thought that the developer would have assessed the risk of fire from another fire in a turbine to be acceptable given that the usual spacing distance is ~350m.

And as far as the Baillie windfarm is concerned, the nearest buildings were ~300m distant and it is puzzling why the developer kept those turbines that were closest in the final application. They could have easily mitigated a lot of the concerns by reducing the number of turbines to 15 or 14.

**Green_not_greed** · 13-Mar-08, 00:56

Originally Posted by Rheghead

I would have thought that the developer would have assessed the risk of fire from another fire in a turbine to be acceptable given that the usual spacing distance is ~350m.

And as far as the Baillie windfarm is concerned, the nearest buildings were ~300m distant and it is puzzling why the developer kept those turbines that were closest in the final application. They could have easily mitigated a lot of the concerns by reducing the number of turbines to 15 or 14.

Fire assessment (and other potential accidents) are not required to be included by developers in Environmental Statements. This has changed slowly over the years but I still think that any inclusion of risk assessment to the public from operational turbines is not a mandatory requirement but is at the discretion of the developers. The better ones include it.

Not often that you and I agree, but I am completely with you regarding Baillie. The developers could easily have mitigated the risk to neighbours and also others risks, by reducing the numbers of turbines accordingly. If the developer had, for instance, gone for 3 turbines to power an archaeological trail, visitors centre and chalets, I think it would already be in place! (The area is very rich in archaeology and history - check out the ES - and it would boost tourism)

However, the problem appears to be greed, nothing more.