View Full Version : BBC news website.......
http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c154/flamerkit/_57213585_winturbinefire976by549.jpg
WOW!!:eek:
That's not the wind, it's the hatred of a thousands of NIMBYs focused onto one point.
waw....'ats wild!
what the hell is 'at?
ywindythesecond
10-Dec-11, 18:42
waw....'ats wild!
what the hell is 'at?
One of the several very good reasons for keeping windmills of all sizes far apart from people. You will have seen the new wind turbines in school playgrounds in Caithness. It is only a matter of time till another one of them breaks up (the one at Raasay primary already has)
Blimey, thanks for sharing.
One down and another 1000 or so to go, wish they would all burn down!!
C3.............:roll:[disgust]
Why on earth do they want to plaster these horrors all over Caithness when they can't cope with winds over 50mph?!
Imagine if the fireball landed in the trees when they were dry!
One of the several very good reasons for keeping windmills of all sizes far apart from people. You will have seen the new wind turbines in school playgrounds in Caithness. It is only a matter of time till another one of them breaks up (the one at Raasay primary already has)
Sadly most parents, and even teachers, have no idea how dangerous turbines can be. Councils happily stick them in school playgrounds, tell everyone what a wonderful green thing it is producing lots of electricity and never mention that it might collapse full length, throw blades or even catch fire. It happens even with small turbines. Can you imagine a blade flying off at speed or the whole thing falling into a crowd of children? Just not worth the risk. There must be many better things they can do to improve energy efficiency of school buildings but they probably wouldn't tick the right boxes.
Wow a natural incident hits a wind turbine and it fries, no widespread outages due to it happening or nuclear fallout. Technical fix and nobody got hurt. I never knew that things get damaged when the wind really gets up, lets ban trees as well.
lets ban trees as well.
No Rheg, trees are useful and pleasant to look at...unlike these monsters!!
C3.............:eek::roll:
Mystical Potato Head
10-Dec-11, 20:25
Dont worry folks,i'm pretty sure we'll get the "experts " viewpoint very shortly just to put all misguided amateur and especially,non scientific minds at ease.
Many people just automatically jump to the wrong conclusions when dealing with these matters so its nice to have them fully explained in a condescending
manner, leaving very little doubt as to what is thought of the level of intellegence and common sence that the poor members of the general public have been
hindered with.
I'm almost certain that this shot was not taken to the approved SNH guidlines(standard 50mm lens and SLR which has a FOV of 40 degrees,yada,yada,yada)
anyway,had it been then the visual impact of the alleged flames would be greatly reduced ;)
But then i'm a total idiot who doesn't understand anything beyond the x2 table and i only manage to understand that with the help of pictures but i'm sure
this is a very isolated and over dramatised incident which will soon be trivialsed by someone from the pro side of the argument(sorry,already has been).:lol:
After all,nobody got hurt so that makes it ok.Just a technical fix needed,technical fix?,now that is an understatement.
Dont worry folks,i'm pretty sure we'll get the "experts " viewpoint very shortly just to put all misguided amateur and especially,non scientific minds at ease.
Many people just automatically jump to the wrong conclusions when dealing with these matters so its nice to have them fully explained in a condescending
manner, leaving very little doubt as to what is thought of the level of intellegence and common sence that the poor members of the general public have been
hindered with.
I'm almost certain that this shot was not taken to the approved SNH guidlines(standard 50mm lens and SLR which has a FOV of 40 degrees,yada,yada,yada)
anyway,had it been then the visual impact of the alleged flames would be greatly reduced ;)
But then i'm a total idiot who doesn't understand anything beyond the x2 table and i only manage to understand that with the help of pictures so i'm sure
this is a very isolated and over dramatised incident.:lol:
After all,nobody got hurt so that makes it ok.Just a technical fix needed,technical fix?,now that is an understatement.
Generally agree it is over publiced, anti-windies don't need any excuse to criticise wind but the shoe was on the other foot when the Fukushima incident took place, nuclear apologists were shouting nobody was hurt then either and it was an engineering fix it. But in that case large outages were affecting the country's electricity and there are regions where nobody will be safe to live for years. A downed turbine is a flea in comparison with respect to the implications to infrastructure. And none of Japan's wind turbines were affected and they provided much needed power at the time of disaster.
To put things into real perspective, jellyfish put Torness nuclear out for several weeks earlier this week. An outage of 1.2 GW needs to serious balancing and yet this turbine going was probably never noticed by the balancing boys.
An outage of 1.2 GW needs to serious balancing and yet this turbine going was probably never noticed by the balancing boys.
Are you sure about this Rheg? Wasn't this burning monster the reason I was without power for the last 40 hours? I find it incredible that my county is covered with these monsters and yet a bit of a breeze and we have to freeze to death for 40 hours.....The mind boggles, it really does!!!
C3...................:roll::eek:
Mystical Potato Head
10-Dec-11, 22:31
Generally agree it is over publiced, anti-windies don't need any excuse to criticise wind but the shoe was on the other foot when the Fukushima incident took place, nuclear apologists were shouting nobody was hurt then either and it was an engineering fix it. But in that case large outages were affecting the country's electricity and there are regions where nobody will be safe to live for years. A downed turbine is a flea in comparison with respect to the implications to infrastructure. And none of Japan's wind turbines were affected and they provided much needed power at the time of disaster.
To put things into real perspective, jellyfish put Torness nuclear out for several weeks earlier this week. An outage of 1.2 GW needs to serious balancing and yet this turbine going was probably never noticed by the balancing boys.
Yes,its all about perspective,the perspective from one side of the fence or the other.The reverse of what you've said is also true with the pro windies not needing much excuse to indulge in criticism of the nuclear industry.Any incidents,even non nuclear that happen on a nuclear site are met with an over the top, sensationalism style of reporting.
Dont for a minute think that i'm trivialsing the effect of a major nuclear accident,the results of them speak for themselves,even idiots like me are aware of the long lasting implications,however i dont think using the effects of a major nuclear disaster to compare against the effects of a wind turbine frying is justified here.
Nobody was hurt but there is the potential for a serious fire if a similar incident occured when the ground was bone dry and i dont think its right to dismiss the incident by comparing it with a major nuclear disaster.
To state that a downed turbine is a flea in comparison with respect to implications and infastructure is obvious but i'm sure some would expect a better explanation as to what or why it happened instead of a nuclear comparison or dismissing it with this reply "Wow a natural incident hits a wind turbine and it fries, no widespread outages due to it happening or nuclear fallout. Technical fix and nobody got hurt. I never knew that things get damaged when the wind really gets up, lets ban trees as well."
These are after all constructed to use the wind and therefore should be designed so that when the wind really gets up they dont go tits up.
Neil Howie
10-Dec-11, 22:45
It is a spectacular photograph.
Both unexpected and awesome it looks like a still from a sci-fi film, an alien craft downed by phaser fire. But this is 21st century and the future it suggests depends on your viewpoint; for those against wind-farms it is immediately a poster image - expect to see this on any anti-windfarm website. It demonstrates danger, no graphs are needed, no maps and crosses. For the pro-windfarm camp it is an embarrassment, contained in its environment, accident's happen please move along.
The image may signify different things to each camp, I care not; for me it is the photograph of the year.
...... I find it incredible that my county is covered with these monsters and yet a bit of a breeze and we have to freeze to death for 40 hours.....The mind boggles, it really does!!!Hmmm.... A most interesting point. I guess the wave machines that they are planning will not fail during low pressure high wind situations and make more leccy when the waves are bigger too.
Hmmm.... A most interesting point. I guess the wave machines that they are planning will not fail during low pressure high wind situations and make more leccy when the waves are bigger too.
Yes that is true but tidal will have an intermitency (sp) twice every 24 hours which has to be met and addressed by the balancing boys, wind is variable but will display good performance over longer periods and is easier to meet by the balancing boys.
"There are around 13 or 15 wind turbines in the farm above Ardrossan. They were all off today because of the high winds, so something has obviously shorted out and gone on fire."
"staff are always evacuated from the site in 55mph+ winds as a precautionary measure"
See no underhand action by an anti-wind person after all!:roll:
AND even a pro-windy can report without being condescending and show this, (without even mentioning the Japanese nuclear incident, or banning threes!):
http://www.richarddows.co.uk/2008/12/22/wind-turbine-accidents/
There is a video of this. On AOL website.
AND even a pro-windy can report without being condescending and show this, (without even mentioning the Japanese nuclear incident, or banning threes!):
http://www.richarddows.co.uk/2008/12/22/wind-turbine-accidents/
[/SIZE]
I am a proponent of wind turbines, in fact any renewable energy in general.
I'm glad you are pro-wind then.
People have been quoting that this turbine failed at ~55 mph, fair enough but it actually failed at 165+ mph. glad it wasn't lost on anybody.
People have been quoting that this turbine failed at ~55 mph, fair enough but it actually failed at 165+ mph. glad it wasn't lost on anybody.So this was another one on top of Cairngorm as well the one at Ardrossan, which failed before 70mph, ish.
billy5000
11-Dec-11, 01:53
The turbines outside thurso(near ray)have a shoddy design flaw as ive noticed the tails are too small and most of the time there a several that dont turn into the wind properly which im hardly supprised being they have that tiny little fin on the back!!
il be putting together a small turbine soon, made from a hefty motor! and il basically mix the design so i get a conbination of mast and VAWT setup as i have a strong wind that rushes past the front of the house.
but i dont want it to stand out like an eyesore:)i was going to go with a water turbine but i ran into a design flaw and scrapped the idea for now!:)
I'm glad you are pro-wind then.Reggy you weren't quite awake there were you? I was referring to the chap,who although pro-wind was able, without hysterics, to write on his site: "These don’t detract from the good that wind turbines do, or the carbon footprint they generally reduce. It’s just interesting to see when they go wrong!" this was his opinion on his site, do you understand now?
And then you compound your tiredness in your later post #21 where you certainly came up with a howler "People have been quoting that this turbine failed at ~55 mph, fair enough but it actually failed at 165+ mph. glad it wasn't lost on anybody" where on earth did you get that idea from?
Wonder if there will be yet another "Last edited by Rheghead; ........."
roadbowler
11-Dec-11, 13:06
there were actually two major turbine "failures". This is the other one.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-16084013
Let's be fair, the Lothian and Borders Police did say the turbine “suffered brake system failure and had been freewheeling” in 50mph winds... Hmm just a breeze and away it goes..
Fraser McLachlan, the chief executive of GCube, a wind turbine insurer, said he was expecting a rise in turbine failures due to the “exceptional” weather in Scotland.
“We see turbine fires around the world when it gets very, windy,” he said. “They usually shut themselves off as a safety feature if the wind gets too much. But sometimes there is another failure.
Earlier this year, it emerged that wind turbines would be switched off for 38 days every year because they struggle to cope with power surges during high winds. Martin Livermore, director of the Scientific Alliance, said: “What we should be worried about is the fact these wind turbines cannot generate electricity when the wind is too strong so a lot of the time, they are not actually saving any fossil fuels.” OMG
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8944597/Blown-away-gales-wreck-wind-turbines-as-Scottish-storm-wreck-havoc.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/8944597/Blown-away-gales-wreck-wind-turbines-as-Scottish-storm-wreck-havoc.html)
Mystical Potato Head
11-Dec-11, 13:31
there were actually two major turbine "failures". This is the other one.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-16084013
Unable to cope with gusts of around 50mph apparently,maybe the lie(sorry,that should be the add on 100 rule) below applies.
People have been quoting that this turbine failed at ~55 mph, fair enough but it actually failed at 165+ mph. glad it wasn't lost on anybody.
Unable to cope with gusts of around 50mph apparently,maybe the lie(sorry,that should be the add on 100 rule) below applies.
You be careful or you'll be getting a dedicated Thread: 'Dear Mystical Potato Head' from our Orkney chum;)
People have been quoting that this turbine failed at ~55 mph, fair enough but it actually failed at 165+ mph. glad it wasn't lost on anybody.
I was out for a walk the other day in winds which must have been about 50mph and not one of the six wind turbines I could see were working.
Mystical Potato Head
11-Dec-11, 13:43
You be careful or you'll be getting a dedicated Thread: 'Dear Mystical Potato Head' from our Orkney chum;)
I would like to think someone can point out a blatant lie without suffering repercussions.Tis the Org though,so you never know.
roadbowler
11-Dec-11, 17:11
I personally don't have a problem with wind turbines, as in small scale home generation or small community schemes, but, the mass scale commercial generation of wind power is completely daft in my view and is definately not "green" by any stretch of the imagination. I for one certainly am not overly enthused about the 300 turbine offshore farm proposed off the caithness east coast. America has been at it a lot longer than we have and look what is happening there. http://toryaardvark.com/2011/11/17/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-in-the-usa/
14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the USA! mainly because the subsidy stopped..
Quite agree Roadbowler; small scale home generation. In fact back in the 1980's we ourselves looked into small-scale wind generation, but it was in it's infancy, so instead we concentrated on home insulation and conservation, and feel our home is very eco-friendly and efficient...
It is sad that someone should use the death of a local person to push their irrational hatred of wind farms.
Hear Hear Rheg
I'd just like to preface this by saying that I'm favour of all energy technology and production methods. That being said and just playing Devil's advocate for a moment: I'm surprised no one has compared this to an Oil Spill already. A news headline along the lines of "Catastrophic Wind Spill took 72 hours to clean up".
Hear Hear Rheg
Wot's that about, I ain't done nuffin sir..
Well I never, The Daily Mail are doing a poll on whether we should build more wind farms to cut down on carbon emissions, usually they have a vocal anti-wind following in their comments section who drown out any who are in favor of them but this is anonymous voting and it seems that even on a website that is hostile to wind, the silent majority of its readership, nearly two thirds, are in favor of wind!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/polls/poll.html?pollId=1029654
ywindythesecond
12-Dec-11, 19:49
Well I never, The Daily Mail are doing a poll on whether we should build more wind farms to cut down on carbon emissions, usually they have a vocal anti-wind following in their comments section who drown out any who are in favor of them but this is anonymous voting and it seems that even on a website that is hostile to wind, the silent majority of its readership, nearly two thirds, are in favor of wind!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/polls/poll.html?pollId=1029654
Given that Number 1 of the Top 20 recent polls at that link was "Do you think the right person won The X Factor? (http://forum.caithness.org/debate/polls/poll.html?pollId=1029826)" I am surprised that an educated and intelligent person such as you considers this poll to have any merit at all.
Well I never, The Daily Mail are doing a poll on whether we should build more wind farms to cut down on carbon emissions, usually they have a vocal anti-wind following in their comments section who drown out any who are in favor of them but this is anonymous voting and it seems that even on a website that is hostile to wind, the silent majority of its readership, nearly two thirds, are in favor of wind!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/polls/poll.html?pollId=1029654
Goodness me reggy; "but this is anonymous voting" you write, eh! are you serious? so you honestly think that although you agree that Mail readers are anti-wind, when it comes to a survey that's open to THE WORLD it will still be just Mail readers giving their views hidden behind their PC?
All you have to do is send this link to all your Green chums (no-way they'd buy the mail is there) and wow! I don't know, shaking my head in bewilderment..:roll:
Here's another interesting scientific one:
Do you think Caroline Flack and Harry Styles' relationship is inappropriate? 57% 43%
(Who the hell is Flack & Style?)
Wonder if we'll loose any more turbines 'cos they ain't built for these 156+MPH winds you know!
Yes and the anti-windies are sending the link to all their chums on the curmudgeon and fault-finder network.
Yes and the anti-windies are sending the link to all their chums on the curmudgeon and fault-finder network.Me (curmudgeon) 'a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man'? come come reggy what a thing to say of someone who stuck up for you on the Russia or America thread below, when you inadvertently upset our 85 year old oldmarine. Stop bullying us old 'uns
Me (curmudgeon) 'a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man'? come come reggy what a thing to say of someone who stuck up for you on the Russia or America thread below, when you inadvertently upset our 85 year old oldmarine. Stop bullying us old 'uns
Not my words to describe you, they are our very own Government Minister for DECC's words, Chris Huhne MP, surely they are appropriate, no?
Actually now you come to mention it, a neutral value observation does seem to confirm that the vast majority of active anti-wind people are of a certain age, no judgement on them, but they may be speaking at best from experience, or worse, a reluctance to change.
Not my words to describe you, they are our very own Government Minister for DECC's words, Chris Huhne MP, surely they are appropriate, no?
Come on reggy, can't you find a wind turbine thread anywhere, all this does every time I answer is bring up my siggy..
Anyway I'm off to sit by the fire with the blanket over me legs, watch the black and white telly and see if that new film is out with Rudolph Valentino in it - much better than this modern Torchy the Battery Boy rubbish.
Oh yes, and a cup of that new stuff Ovomaltine to settle me down..
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.