View Full Version : How big is your....?
.....like/dislike of windfarms?? :lol:
I design small ones and despise big ones [lol]
Highland Laddie
21-Feb-08, 18:07
I personally have no problems with any of them, as long as the are sighted in appropriate places.
I design small ones and despise big ones [lol]
Lol! You DESPISE big ones? Why?
PS. in all seriousness...you design wind farms?
orkneylass
21-Feb-08, 18:19
I think they are beautiful, just not very energy efficient!
I design small ones and despise big ones [lol]
Small turbines or small windfarms ?
I dislike them. They are a blot on the landscape so they need to be sited carefully.
I design small ones (less than 5m tall) but can't stand the massive ones.
You can see them for miles around, yet put 1,000 of my small ones there and you cant see them from a couple of miles. They're great (shameless plug) [lol]
I design small ones (less than 5m tall) but can't stand the massive ones.
You can see them for miles around, yet put 1,000 of my small ones there and you cant see them from a couple of miles. They're great (shameless plug) [lol]
1,000 sounds a bit excessive but less than 5m is sweet - where can I buy one?
How much do I hate windfarms - so much, just as much as you can imagine and then a bit (unless they surround pro-windfarm politicians' houses ;) )
1,000 sounds a bit excessive but less than 5m is sweet - where can I buy one?
How much do I hate windfarms - so much, just as much as you can imagine and then a bit (unless they surround pro-windfarm politicians' houses ;) )
Well that is quivalent number you would need to replace big turbines.
My ones are not for sale yet, still building prototypes, but maybe by the end of the summer there will be a few being produced for long term testing. The clever bit is that they are slow moving and almost silent in operation.
Highland Laddie
21-Feb-08, 20:11
Well that is quivalent number you would need to replace big turbines.
My ones are not for sale yet, still building prototypes, but maybe by the end of the summer there will be a few being produced for long term testing. The clever bit is that they are slow moving and almost silent in operation.
What sort of output are you looking at 0.5 kw - 1.0 kw - 1.5kw ???
silverfox57
21-Feb-08, 20:42
hi i have three very big ones behind me we are all waiting for them to start to see if they make a noise was told by powers to be that there would be no noise,if they where on today with this wind would have been good test,
What sort of output are you looking at 0.5 kw - 1.0 kw - 1.5kw ???
About 2 to 5kW depending on wind speed.
hi i have three very big ones behind me we are all waiting for them to start to see if they make a noise was told by powers to be that there would be no noise,if they where on today with this wind would have been good test,
If those are the ones at Bilbster, when are they due to start? Silverfox, come back and let us know how noisy they are. Some people around the Causewaymire say those turbines are very noisy, but maybe that's because there's so many of them and 3 won't be as bad.
If they had been working today though they might not have been turning as turbines have to shut down when windspeeds get too high.
Oops, forgot to answer the question.
One or two here and there look fine to me. I just think altering the nature of the landscape with lots of them causes too much damage to the environment etc. for too little benefit.
silverfox57
21-Feb-08, 21:01
If those are the ones at Bilbster, when are they due to start? Silverfox, come back and let us know how noisy they are. Some people around the Causewaymire say those turbines are very noisy, but maybe that's because there's so many of them and 3 won't be as bad.
If they had been working today though they might not have been turning as turbines have to shut down when windspeeds get too high.
tilter as soon as they start to turn you will be second to know:lol:
Bobinovich
21-Feb-08, 22:48
About 2 to 5kW depending on wind speed.
That's pretty respectable for a small turbine - please keep us posted.
Highland Laddie
21-Feb-08, 23:01
About 2 to 5kW depending on wind speed.
Yes Riffman, i would aslo be interested in the outcome, you may even get a sale here.
i think they are a good idea for providing power,i would much rather see fields full of them than a nuclear reactor at least there is no chance of them having leakages,over heating and exploding and you dont have to wait for hundreds of years before you can use the land after they have been removed or done their time,they dont emit radiation they dont leak into the sea causing fish stock damage or cancer to humans.
roll on the time when fusion reactors can be acheived and then we all might be happy and have good clean energy source...
but apart from that i dont mind them for the time being,
Highland Laddie
21-Feb-08, 23:11
i think they are a good idea for providing power,i would much rather see fields full of them than a nuclear reactor at least there is no chance of them having leakages,over heating and exploding and you dont have to wait for hundreds of years before you can use the land after they have been removed or done their time,they dont emit radiation they dont leak into the sea causing fish stock damage or cancer to humans.
roll on the time when fusion reactors can be acheived and then we all might be happy and have good clean energy source...
but apart from that i dont mind them for the time being,
You probably pickup more radiation sitting in your house watching television, than you've ever picked up from a nuclear reactor.
Yes Riffman, i would aslo be interested in the outcome, you may even get a sale here.
That's pretty respectable for a small turbine - please keep us posted.
Well the clever bit is that is is only borderline turbine, technically it does not rotate!
Once we get the prototypes running we put something up about it.
changilass
21-Feb-08, 23:57
You can site one at my house for testing:lol:
Highland Laddie
22-Feb-08, 00:35
Well the clever bit is that is is only borderline turbine, technically it does not rotate!
Once we get the prototypes running we put something up about it.
Could it be attached to the gable end of a house,
or does it have to be free standing.
I'm not a campaigner against them, but not a fan.
At the moment, they are popping up everywhere because of government subsidies.
It seems to me to be a free for all with companies trying to muscle in.
What I really don't like is the number of sites in caithness. Take the cassiemire one for example. How many turbines is there? 12?
Why not double it, or triple it? Have them all in one place, leaving the rest of the county unmolested.
My other problem is that the siting of any nuclear plant would be deemed as uneconomical because of the losses in the lines going south. Doesn't seem to apply to windfams.........
I really like them. They look awesome!
I really like them. They look awesome!
They'd be better in black?
They'd be better in pink! :p
Metalattakk
22-Feb-08, 04:09
I've always said, light them up when it's dark.
Why not? Imagine the swirling kaleidoscope of lights that could be achieved with a little forethought?
There's tourism market waiting here, folks.
The Pepsi Challenge
22-Feb-08, 04:13
If they did, would you claim the credit? ;-)
Metalattakk
22-Feb-08, 04:20
Yep. And I'd take all the money and give it to you.
After all, it can't be cheap bleaching that ginger hair to 'strawberry blond' all the time.
The Pepsi Challenge
22-Feb-08, 04:30
Speaking of hair, have you got any left?
Metalattakk
22-Feb-08, 04:33
Aye, I have a drawer-full. More than you'll ever need. And none of it is 'strawberry-blond' ;)
The Pepsi Challenge
22-Feb-08, 04:36
What's with the apostrophes/ inverted commas? Are you quoting me?
Metalattakk
22-Feb-08, 04:40
Got to be said, that's the last resort of the defeated man. Nice one, though. I'd have been proud of that too, if I had no where else to go. ;)
In all honesty, I'd rather be bald than ginger :)
Green_not_greed
22-Feb-08, 11:47
How big is your.....like/dislike of windfarms?? :lol:
Where do I start?
I dislike them because:
- they are a blot on the landscape unless sensitively sited (which is very rare);
- they require enormous subsidies to be cost-effective (which we are all paying for);
- they can be dangerous if sited close to roads or houses;
- they can be noisy and can cause adverse health effects to those living close by;
- they provide very few jobs;
- thay potentially cut jobs in tourism - outweighing any jobs created by windfarms themselves;
- they are being driven through by Government as "ivory towers" symbolic of doing something about renewable energy but in reality at tremendous cost and poor efficiency;
- land owners and turbine operators are becoming very rich on public money. Cost-neutral or low profit schemes would be far better, with public money better spent in R&D for tidal power etc rather than in large profits. This approach would also flush out true "green" companies from profiteers;
- they are unreliable sources of power - existing power stations need to keep running to provide reserve power. These tend to be fossil fuelled plants;
- the Government's planning system to drive them through is heavily loaded in favour of developers, with little recourse to taking public opinion into account;
- they are rarely sited in appropriate, well-thought out locations. Most are sited where they are because landowners happen to see the profitibility offered by developers. Having said that, Highland Council have a well-thought out Renewable Energy Strategy which was widely consulted upon and should form a main part in consideration of any Highland windfarm applications. Some developers have ridden roughshod over this document, purely to line their own pockets;
- there is no comeback or compensation for communities living close by. They are left with houses which are very difficult to sell, and have no compensation for their loss of amenity;
- they decimate wildlife - in particular birds;
- not one local poll of local people in Caithness has been in favour of development. No-one wants them anywhere near them.
On the plus side.......
- nah, can't think of anything.
GNG
Phew...that was a rant and a half! lol
You probably pickup more radiation sitting in your house watching television, than you've ever picked up from a nuclear reactor.
EMF from a tv is an entirely different matter,try telling that to the victims of the Chernobyl incident,that includes the farmers even in Scotland who had their stocks affected and deemed unfit for sale...........i would rather see the country side covered in wind turbines than have one nuclear fision reactor........or coal or gas generators
the second coming
22-Feb-08, 13:10
Where do I start?
I dislike them because:
- they are a blot on the landscape unless sensitively sited (which is very rare); opinion based on personal perspective
- they require enormous subsidies to be cost-effective (which we are all paying for); this is part of a carbon trading scheme, not a subisdy, they are far far far less subsidised than other historical forms of generation, nationalised power industry, British Energy to name but 2
- they can be dangerous if sited close to roads or houses; rubbish, prove this fact
- they can be noisy and can cause adverse health effects to those living close by; rubbish, prove this fact.
- they provide very few jobs; a few jobs is better than no jobs
- thay potentially cut jobs in tourism - outweighing any jobs created by windfarms themselves; rubbish, prove this fact
- they are being driven through by Government as "ivory towers" symbolic of doing something about renewable energy but in reality at tremendous cost and poor efficiency; partly true, cost and poor efficiency? prove this, show me the payback of wind turbines against other forms of generation, the sums add up. Show me the efficiency against other forms of generation. Again the sums add up.
- land owners and turbine operators are becoming very rich on public money. Cost-neutral or low profit schemes would be far better, with public money better spent in R&D for tidal power etc rather than in large profits. This approach would also flush out true "green" companies from profiteers;#
So are you stating here that you would accept turbines if the economies of scale where different, perhaps if we lived under a communist state???
- they are unreliable sources of power - existing power stations need to keep running to provide reserve power. These tend to be fossil fuelled plants; Rubbish, they are very reliable, wind is at times unpredictable but can be aggregated across the national grid system. They are designed as a base load medium. Nothing more. This arguement could be made to a whole range of generation technologies.
- the Government's planning system to drive them through is heavily loaded in favour of developers, with little recourse to taking public opinion into account; Not the opinion of developers, condider the amount of schemes applied against those that are actually built
- they are rarely sited in appropriate, well-thought out locations. Most are sited where they are because landowners happen to see the profitibility offered by developers. Having said that, Highland Council have a well-thought out Renewable Energy Strategy which was widely consulted upon and should form a main part in consideration of any Highland windfarm applications. Some developers have ridden roughshod over this document, purely to line their own pockets; Have considered the content of the H&I report. Or have you considered the real requirements of what is required for a site? It doesnt read like it.
- there is no comeback or compensation for communities living close by. They are left with houses which are very difficult to sell, and have no compensation for their loss of amenity; Rubbish
- they decimate wildlife - in particular birds; Rubbish, factually incorrect
- not one local poll of local people in Caithness has been in favour of development. No-one wants them anywhere near them. Rubbish
, you are not speaking for me or other people I know who have an educated, unbiased view which has not been brainwashed by factually incorrect sites that influence gullible individuals such yourself. Stop pedalling inane facts and propoganda
On the plus side.......
- nah, can't think of anything.
GNG
...................................
I dislike them because:
- they are a blot on the landscape unless sensitively sited (which is very rare); Agree
- they require enormous subsidies to be cost-effective (which we are all paying for); What doesn't?
- they can be dangerous if sited close to roads or houses;Load of rubbish. Roads and houses are far more dangerous than windmills.
- they can be noisy and can cause adverse health effects to those living close by;That has not been studied well enough yet, but I have heard from a few people working very close to them that they can cause problems.
- they provide very few jobs;Of course.
- thay potentially cut jobs in tourism - outweighing any jobs created by windfarms themselves;Haven't really heard of problems with tourism as most websites and brochers seem to forget to mention them.....
- they are being driven through by Government as "ivory towers" symbolic of doing something about renewable energy but in reality at tremendous cost and poor efficiency; Yes they are a cheap and quick solution to a long term problem (which will be solved with nuclear power anyway)
- land owners and turbine operators are becoming very rich on public money. Cost-neutral or low profit schemes would be far better, with public money better spent in R&D for tidal power etc rather than in large profits. This approach would also flush out true "green" companies from profiteers; The only people that make money from windmills are the companies that run the energy industry in the UK anyway , i.e. npower
- they are unreliable sources of power - existing power stations need to keep running to provide reserve power. These tend to be fossil fuelled plants; Interesting, but a myth. Wind forcasting is accurate enough now that with a large enough spread they can be a very reliable source of power, more so that a steam plant where a turbine might have to taken off with little notice.
- the Government's planning system to drive them through is heavily loaded in favour of developers, with little recourse to taking public opinion into account; Most community groups seem good at stopping them.
- they are rarely sited in appropriate, well-thought out locations. Most are sited where they are because landowners happen to see the profitibility offered by developers. Having said that, Highland Council have a well-thought out Renewable Energy Strategy which was widely consulted upon and should form a main part in consideration of any Highland windfarm applications. Some developers have ridden roughshod over this document, purely to line their own pockets; Most are sited on land which has no argicultural use. But just so happens to look nice even though no one ever uses it.
- there is no comeback or compensation for communities living close by. They are left with houses which are very difficult to sell, and have no compensation for their loss of amenity; Buy a oxy torch and go an cut a few down then.
- they decimate wildlife - in particular birds; I decimate more with guns. (not protected species obviously). If the birds cant see them they must be flying with their eyes shut.
- not one local poll of local people in Caithness has been in favour of development. No-one wants them anywhere near them. Some people dont like them, but not everyone.
On the plus side.......
- nah, can't think of anything. Save burning coal and gas an removes some of our reliance on foreign imports.
GNG
[quote=Riffman;343975] I decimate more with guns. (not protected species obviously). If the birds cant see them they must be flying with their eyes shut. /quote]
In Caithness there are a number of Annex 1 (European Birds Directive) protected species both resident and migratory at risk from collision with turbine blades. Some of these fly at night and during periods of poor visibility. At the moment the potential large windfarm for Lewis is in jeopardy of being turned down due to its potential serious adverse impact on protected species over there. Your comment is plainly ridiculous and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the situation.
Out of interest has someone sat there and counted all the dead birds? Has anyone found any?
Out of interest has someone sat there and counted all the dead birds? Has anyone found any?
The developers pay people to remove the bodies before anyone can see them.
Oh and that comment about foreign imports - what do you think most turbines are?
riffman your post is better!!! good arguements back. i'm 100% in favour of wind power !!
Out of interest has someone sat there and counted all the dead birds? Has anyone found any?
Why don't you try to find out for yourself? There are many reports, worldwide, of wind turbines killing large numbers of vulnerable birds such as raptors.
Why don't you try to find out for yourself? There are many reports, worldwide, of wind turbines killing large numbers of vulnerable birds such as raptors.
Even if a wind turbine extincted a species....the environmental savings turbines make are higher than the need for a few feathered birds!
100% for wind farms. i have no problem with them wahtsoever. they can bulid a coulpe in our garden if they like.:Razz
100% for wind farms. i have no problem with them wahtsoever. they can bulid a coulpe in our garden if they like.:Razz
Good on you dandie! Can I join you in your "build your windfarms in my backyard" campaign?
Good on you dandie! Can I join you in your "build your windfarms in my backyard" campaign?
yes you may but we need to think of something really big to publicise our campaign!! maybe we can expand to wind turbines on roofs like the ones on tescos roof i think i could probably get three on the roof!![lol]
I have no problems with them either and as for killing birds,well don't planes do that?As well as idiots with guns,patio doors,etc etc so really thats not an excuse not to have them.Riffman you can site a few in my garden too no problem at all,and on a windy day I can even hang my washing on them [lol] ;) x
woo so that's me, thumper and dandod! Woooo! right...i can also fit one on my tree in the back...will generate more power!
I have no problems with them either and as for killing birds,well don't planes do that?As well as idiots with guns,patio doors,etc etc so really thats not an excuse not to have them.Riffman you can site a few in my garden too no problem at all,and on a windy day I can even hang my washing on them [lol] ;) x
what a great idea!!! you should copyright the wind turbine/clothes drier before someone beats you to it. i think i will put my order in now can i have 2 please?
I will pm Riffman and see if I can cut a deal ;) good job rob,me and you dont live in the same street...we would have a windfarm in no time [lol] x
I know thumper! A HUGE windfarm! Dandod....you ONLy want 2! I'm getting 5!
Even if a wind turbine extincted a species....the environmental savings turbines make are higher than the need for a few feathered birds!
Everyone is entitled to their opinions rob16d. It could hardly be called environmentally friendly though if a species was made extinct by them, surely? For the sake of our feathered friends I'm glad you wont be making the decisions.
I will pm Riffman and see if I can cut a deal ;) good job rob,me and you dont live in the same street...we would have a windfarm in no time [lol] x
make sure he does not was too big a cut of the profits! what about some mini turbines on top of the lamposts to generate enough electric for them to work? copyright it quick! we could be the first org millionaires!
percy toboggan
22-Feb-08, 17:38
The bigger windfarms are the less I like them. One or two turbiness can even be aesthetically pleasing, if you don't have to live near them...wind factory's are ugly, scar the landscape and their relentless motion actually puts me on edge. A little. Sometimes. Their effectiveness and the subsidies they eat up make their validity questionable...someone is making a fortune out of these things.
Hehe! good lampost idea! Rupert...exactly...we are entilited to our opinion.....and I was giving mine.
ywindythesecond
22-Feb-08, 18:12
Good on you dandie! Can I join you in your "build your windfarms in my backyard" campaign?
rob16d, how many industrial size wind turbines would fit on a village football field, say 100x50 metres in size, do you think?
ywy2
I don't get what that last post is about?
Metalattakk
23-Feb-08, 01:24
Seems straight-forward enough to me, rob. Answer the question, eh?
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-08, 01:25
I don't get what that last post is about?
Well rob16d, there has been a lot of good natured banter on this post about windfarms in gardens, on lamp-posts and so on. And all these things are great ideas for small-scale wind turbines, like Tesco Wick size.
But what they have been talking about isn't windfarms, it is domestic wind turbines, so I just wanted to see if they knew what size an industrial wind turbine was, and how much space it took up.
So, go on folk, how many industrial size wind turbines do you think would fit into a village football field, say 100 metres by 50 metres.
ywy2
Yoda the flump
23-Feb-08, 01:28
So, go on folk, how many industrial size wind turbines do you think would fit into a village football field, say 100 metres by 50 metres.
ywy2
at a guess one?
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-08, 01:29
at a guess one?
Nope, way out.
ywy2
About 10% of one I would think.
You would need to leave at least 200m radius round the big ones if not more.
The only time I think of them is when they are mentioned here or I am driving past them. They do not affect my life so I don't really care about them.
- they are unreliable sources of power - existing power stations need to keep running to provide reserve power. These tend to be fossil fuelled plants; Interesting, but a myth. Wind forcasting is accurate enough now that with a large enough spread they can be a very reliable source of power, more so that a steam plant where a turbine might have to taken off with little notice.
I prefer the look of them to those great pylons marching across country, but I 'm not keen on the numbers of them springing up. Much better if they could all be in one area.
I'm intrigued by your "enough spread" though.........wind forecasting is hardly accurate for a week ahead, far less longer.....so do you envisage windfarms everywhere in the UK to make sure we catch the wind...........or known windy areas like Caithness and the islands being packed with them........or do we set up mobile ones on big trucks to travel to where the wind happens to be? :confused
Sapphire2803
23-Feb-08, 01:49
Damn! So I can't fit a full sized wind turbine in my back garden. Right, I'll test about 200 of yours then Riffman ;)
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-08, 01:53
About 10% of one I would think.
You would need to leave at least 200m radius round the big ones if not more.
Mathematics not your best subject Riffman? Though you have got the idea that these things take up a lot of space.
So best guess so far is that one industrial wind turbine takes up the space of ten village football fields.
ywy2
luskentyre
23-Feb-08, 01:59
I have no problem with them, obviously bearing in mind their location. I can see three turbines quite clearly from my house, but to be honest, the neighbouring houses are more of an eyesore. Telegraph poles are also far more intrusive, but we seem to accept them ok.
I guess that 10 football fields can fit...... 5 turbines? Come on tell us!
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-08, 10:10
I guess that 10 football fields can fit...... 5 turbines? Come on tell us!
I'll tell you when someone gets close.
ywy2
How about 30?? Come on we are all gonna get bored unless you tell us! :P
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-08, 11:09
How about 30?? Come on we are all gonna get bored unless you tell us! :P
30 is good rob16d.
The answer is about twenty-three and a half. Industrial turbines are spaced at around 350 metres apart, co-incidentally, just about the same as the average space between pylons. Some are closer, some are further apart, but 350 metres ia about normal.
So each turbine needs a space 350x350 metres. that is three and a half football fields long by seven football fields wide.=23.5.
So my point is that people who think a Tesco turbine bears any resemblance to an industrial turbine are way off the mark and need to come back to the real world.
ywy2
23 wind-turbines is an incredible good coverage! Bring on the wind-turbines...cover caithness in them!
Highland Laddie
23-Feb-08, 11:22
Any time I'm at Tesco (which is almost daily with my OH), the wind turbines always seem to be spinning away at a furious pace,
but does anyone actually know what size these turbines are and how much if any energy these turbines produce.
http://scruss.com/blog/?p=236 This has some information with regards to energy producing....it also says tesco modified the turbines to increase power output.
30 is good rob16d.
The answer is about twenty-three and a half. Industrial turbines are spaced at around 350 metres apart, co-incidentally, just about the same as the average space between pylons. Some are closer, some are further apart, but 350 metres ia about normal.
So each turbine needs a space 350x350 metres. that is three and a half football fields long by seven football fields wide.=23.5.
So my point is that people who think a Tesco turbine bears any resemblance to an industrial turbine are way off the mark and need to come back to the real world.
ywy2
i personally have never assumed the tesco turbines are anything like the industrial ones. i think that some might take that remark as an insult on their intelligence.:eek:
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-08, 12:01
I have no problem with them, obviously bearing in mind their location. I can see three turbines quite clearly from my house, but to be honest, the neighbouring houses are more of an eyesore. Telegraph poles are also far more intrusive, but we seem to accept them ok.
Luskentyre, I appreciate your point, but will you still be as happy when there are 3 more at Achairn, 1 at Bower Quarry, 30 at Spittal Hill, 25 at Camster, 13 at Yarrows, 12 at Stroupster, 13 at Durran Mains?
Many of these are likely to be within sight of your house and all of them within your view travelling to and from Wick or Thurso.
It is not wind power or windfarms themselves which is the problem, it is the numbers bieng proposed for Caithness, where we already generate more power than we need (when it is windy). Caithness is seen as an easy target for developers wanting the £300K subsidy for each turbine which we pay for through our electricity bills.
And I forgot the 2 at Lieurary and the 48 at Scoolary.
ywy2
By the way, that makes 3454.5 football fields just for the ones I have mentioned here.
I'm intrigued by your "enough spread" though.........wind forecasting is hardly accurate for a week ahead, far less longer.....so do you envisage windfarms everywhere in the UK to make sure we catch the wind...........or known windy areas like Caithness and the islands being packed with them........or do we set up mobile ones on big trucks to travel to where the wind happens to be? :confused
A week? No need. 24hour forcast is quite good enough to decide what rotating mass station needs to run up in the next day.
I may not like them, but there is no denying that with enough of them they can be a useful source of power.
Mathematics not your best subject Riffman? Though you have got the idea that these things take up a lot of space.
So best guess so far is that one industrial wind turbine takes up the space of ten village football fields.
ywy2
Considering I have never bothered measuring a football pitch........
You say later that a turbine needs 350x350m. Well that works out at a radius of 175m. I wasn't that far out saying 200m?!
[lol]
Riffman just pwned your soory behind ywy2!!! Hehe... *go riffman* *go riffman*
i dont have a problem with windfarms atall if it is going to help us in the long run does it really matter as long as they are placed in sutiable surroundings.
i dont have a problem with windfarms atall if it is going to help us in the long run does it really matter as long as they are placed in sutiable surroundings.
Good point....I think that a lot of people have this view, a very sensible one too!
ywindythesecond
23-Feb-08, 15:45
About 10% of one I would think.
You would need to leave at least 200m radius round the big ones if not more.
200m was a good stab at it, the mathematics is that a circle with a 200m radius has an area of 125714 sq metres, or just over 25 of the notional football fields of 100x50m.
ywy2
About 2 to 5kW depending on wind speed.
Riffman - I'd be interested in some details. We get a prevailing westerly wind here and I would like to make use of it. However, the cost and size of the ones from B&Q put me off. I'd like one of those smaller ones that we saw on the TV prog 'Its hard going green' . I also like the look of the ones with vertical cylinder blades - less vibration.
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 18:21
For all those who believe wind turbines to be safe, check out this video on line which happened in Denmark yesterday
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257
Pieces were thrown over 500m.
Brainwashing will only work if the truth can stay covered up!
GNG
Highland Laddie
23-Feb-08, 18:30
And someone just happened to be filming that particular turbine as it brook up,
it actually looks as if something struck the blades, will load it up in a pro-gramme i have, slow it down and see if i can see what it was.
For all those who believe wind turbines to be safe, check out this video on line which happened in Denmark yesterday
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257
Pieces were thrown over 500m.
Brainwashing will only work if the truth can stay covered up!
GNG
It is funny how someone was just so happened to be filming a turbine that is spinning unlike any large size turbine that I have seen (ie rotational speed more like a smaller turbine) and it explodes and then the shot suddenly turns out to be that of a very large turbine. Weird....:roll:
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 18:38
It is funny how someone was just so happened to be filming a turbine that is spinning unlike any large size turbine that I have seen (ie rotational speed more like a smaller turbine) and it explodes and then the shot suddenly turns out to be that of a very large turbine. Weird....:roll:
The turbine was spinning out of control because the brake had failed. Its quite a common occurrance and usually leads to the gearbox oil overheating and then a fire. I was told that the turbine was being filmed becuse of the speed it was spinning at. Its pure luck that what happened after filming started was caught at all. The photographer is extremely shaken.
GNG
The turbine was spinning out of control because the brake had failed. Its quite a common occurrance and usually leads to the gearbox oil overheating and then a fire. I was told that the turbine was being filmed becuse of the speed it was spinning at. Its pure luck that what happened after filming started was caught at all. The photographer is extremely shaken.
GNG
What was the model of turbine and when and where did this happen? And what caused the puff of smoke from half way up the tower as it exploded?
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 19:20
What was the model of turbine and when and where did this happen?
It happened yesterday (22 Feb) in Hobro, Nordjylland, Denmark. There was a previous turbine fire there in 2004. I have been told it is a recent turbine but don't yet know the model for certain. Both Siemans and Vestas have manufacturing facilities there.
Two technicians were working in the tower trying to fix the braking system but escaped before it exploded.
It happened yesterday (22 Feb) in Hobro, Nordjylland, Denmark.
How did it end up on the internet so soon after the event? It is funny that the photographer was so shaken about it yet he didn't flinch when it exploded or seemed to be happy enough to set up a tripod.
How did it end up on the internet so soon after the event? It is funny that the photographer was so shaken about it yet he didn't flinch when it exploded or seemed to be happy enough to set up a tripod.
thats what i was thinking when i was watching it[lol][lol]
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 19:41
How did it end up on the internet so soon after the event? It is funny that the photographer was so shaken about it yet he didn't flinch when it exploded or seemed to be happy enough to set up a tripod.
It was posted 4 hours after the event. That's all I know at present.
The wind industry are extremely closely guarded about accidents. Many are covered up, though in recent years more and more have come to light through public sources.
Even given this, there were (at least) 67 published accidents in 2007 alone. And that's the ones I know of. These included 4 fatalities, 15 instances of blade failure (where bits were thrown hundreds of meters), 11 turbine fires, 10 turbine collapses, 12 transport accidents, 7 environmental accidents, with the rest as "miscellaneous".
The wind industry promotes itself as super-safe. The truth is its actually less safe than the construction industry. If you are really interested, try attending the next BWEA safety seminar!
A lassie I am working with is doing a study into commercial wind turbine reliability..... interesting reading. Sorry but cant reveal details at this stage.
It was posted 4 hours after the event. That's all I know at present.
Gosh it takes me ages to upload a film like that.
Anyway, you knew enough to know that the photographer was badly shaken, 2 workers fled the tower before the explosion and the place etc.
What is your source for this information?
Slowing the video down you can see one of the blades fail at the root and go straight upwards. The other blades then hit the tower and cut it in half.
Me thinks they need better brakes.....
What is also puzzling about the film (may be it is just me?) is this, anyone who has experience of filming anything in windy conditions will be all to aware of noise in the microphone which drowns everything out practically, as heard in the end of the film. However, we don't seem to hear it during the first part of the film but we do hear some form of swishing (wind turbulence on a microphone should drown out the swishing of the blades) then a loud bang from the explosion but no wind turbulence. Hopefully the photographer was 500m away! Hmmm...the time lag of the bang over a good distance should be noticable? But it isn't. Then the swishing noise continues well into the 'aftermath' part of the filming then we hear a step-change to what I expect to hear, the noisy turbulance from the wind on the camera's microphone. Weird.
Probably because if you check the wind re camera direction the mic is not in the wind for the first shot.
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 21:17
Gosh it takes me ages to upload a film like that.
Anyway, you knew enough to know that the photographer was badly shaken, 2 workers fled the tower before the explosion and the place etc.
What is your source for this information?
Its from the person who posted the film.
Probably because if you check the wind re camera direction the mic is not in the wind for the first shot.
I've found that it makes little difference, wind swirls a lot at high speeds. So if it were true, how come the first backgound noise is still heard into the aftermath part of the film, the camera doesn't change direction (@ 25-28 secs) and yet the soundtrack changes and wind turbulence is then suddenly clearly heard on the microphone?
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 21:42
For any of you that still work at Forss, this happened in 2005 at a French industrial site with turbines about the same distance from buildings....
http://www.environnementdurable.net/vdb/documentsoriginaux/nord/Eolienne2.jpg
French TV coverage of the event can be found at
http://www.environnementdurable.net/vdb/normandie12.htm
Well unless someone can prove otherwise, that turbine film looks pretty authentic and very scary. If it is indeed completely accurate, this needs to be widely publicised and large wind turbines should never be built near people's homes or places of work. It sure puts paid to the myth that they are completely safe!
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 21:47
FYI yesterday's Danish turbine explosion can now be found on the french website
http://ventdubocage.net/documents/html/dk-accident.htm
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 22:06
http://members.aol.com/fswemedien/melle.jpg
You boys and girls still want to build them in your garden????
http://members.aol.com/fswemedien/tuettendorf.jpg
Hope you've got very, very big gardens and lots of water features......
I'm da Mamma
23-Feb-08, 22:09
For those who would like to build a turbine in their back yard ie Dandod, Thumper, Rhegheed, Rob16 etc - i think you better go back to the drawing board with your master plan. :lol::lol:
Unless you fancy being squashed by a turbine!
For those who would like to build a turbine in their back yard ie Dandod, Thumper, Rhegheed, Rob16 etc - i think you better go back to the drawing board with your master plan.
Unless you fancy being squashed by a turbine!
Here is another piccie from GNG's source, quite a convincing photomontage don't you think? not, bring back ywt2, all is forgiven!!
http://members.aol.com/fswemedien/Villmar_Ansbach_kl.jpg
Green_not_greed
23-Feb-08, 22:18
I think I've proved my point that wind turbines are not safe when built beside roads and houses.
It sure puts paid to the myth that they are completely safe!
Was there a myth that windpower was completely safe? I never heard about that one.
How safe are motor vehicles and what do they do for mitigation of fossil fuels?
Here is another piccie from GNG's source, quite a convincing photomontage don't you think?
Since I haven't seen the source or the context, I would have read into that picture that, rather than trying to be a convincing photomontage (which it patently isn't) the cartoon turbines are there simply to show the scale and positioning.
Why all the paranoia and conspiracy theory tendencies in this thread? Why wouldn't someone with a videocamera or mobile be present when a turbine malfunctions? Most of the pictures in the news these days are taken by the passing-by public.
If it was a hoax, I think we can rely on BWEA or Yes2Wind to reveal all.
Sapphire2803
23-Feb-08, 22:45
You boys and girls still want to build them in your garden????
Yep, half sized one would be good, garden's not big enough for a full size ;)
Hope you've got very, very big gardens and lots of water features......
My whole garden is a water feature for most of the year!! Lol
I'm da Mamma
23-Feb-08, 22:49
Rheghead - i'm not playing Devil's Advocate, but I have to admit that these recent windfarm threads have made me very curious. I have being doing a little bit of homework and while reading the BWEA website I founds this:
How safe is wind energy?
Wind energy is one of the safest energy technologies. It is a matter of record that no member of the public has ever been injured during the normal operation of a wind turbine, with over 25 years operating experience and with more than 70,000 machines installed around the world.
Do you really think this can be any safer than other energy generators? And if so, how?
It appears that there is a bit of spin by BWEA. I can't be bothered with people comparing windfarms to roads/house. You must compare like to like.
Since I haven't seen the source or the context, I would have read into that picture that, rather than trying to be a convincing photomontage (which it patently isn't) the cartoon turbines are there simply to show the scale and positioning.
Why all the paranoia and conspiracy theory tendencies in this thread? Why wouldn't someone with a videocamera or mobile be present when a turbine malfunctions? Most of the pictures in the news these days are taken by the passing-by public.
If it was a hoax, I think we can rely on BWEA or Yes2Wind to reveal all.
If the footage was absolutely without some form of manipulation (which takes time to do properly) how come the soundtrack changes for no apparent reason and the bang takes no account of the speed of sound through the air?
How come there is a puff of smoke half way down the tower and how come a fibreglass blade can rupture a steep column? And how come the wind doesn't blow the debris more than it seems to ought to?
If it was taken by a passerby, how come there is no flinch when the bang went off? A tripod was involved, ok, but passerby?
Rheghead - i'm not playing Devil's Advocate, but I have to admit that these recent windfarm threads have made me very curious. I have being doing a little bit of homework and while reading the BWEA website I founds this:
How safe is wind energy?
Wind energy is one of the safest energy technologies. It is a matter of record that no member of the public has ever been injured during the normal operation of a wind turbine, with over 25 years operating experience and with more than 70,000 machines installed around the world.
Do you really think this can be any safer than other energy generators? And if so, how?
It appears that there is a bit of spin by BWEA. I can't be bothered with people comparing windfarms to roads/house. You must compare like to like.
I agree that we should compare 'like with like'. Regardless of the number of deaths in other energy sectors.
However, have you revealed any deaths from the normal operation of windfarms as a result of your investigation? I accept that there is a notion that windfarm industrial accidents are kept quiet by wind companies and that belief is held by antiwindies but there is something called the HSE which has some fairly draconian investigative powers and I'm afraid that the wind energy sector being immune to them doesn't hold water with me. Nor does windfarm companies having teams of employees which are employed to pick up dead birds on an ongoing basis.(sorry Badger but that made me laugh:) )
im all for renewable energy regardless of what it does to the "sighting" of our landscape, if it means it will look horrible but save some rain forrest or something im all for it, the world is dieing and we should all be looking to alternitives, i would have my whole house run on solar/wind/hydro etc to keep my costs down (if thats possible) and also keep the world clean and a chance to regenerate but sprouting more trees!
Sapphire2803
23-Feb-08, 23:06
I can't be bothered with people comparing windfarms to roads/house. You must compare like to like.
I disagree, I'd rather have it compared to something I am familiar with. If I consider something to be an acceptable risk and do it every day, like driving a car, then that is a good comparison.
If you were to tell me that there is a 5% chance of me being killed by a flying teapot then I might bin my teapot, if you compare it to a 25% chance of being run over and killed by a space hopper when crossing the road, then I can have a better basis for decision. I know how many times I've crossed the road over the years and that hasn't happened... yet. So the teapot would stay.
P.S. Don't bother looking for those statistics online, they're only in classified documents kept in an underground bunker by hobbits working for a power company planning a teapot farm....
well after all, that is one less big windmill for me to worry about [lol]
My little ones are a heck of a lot safer than those. The key to the design is that it self reguates in high winds making it impossible to shred!
I'm da Mamma
23-Feb-08, 23:13
I agree that we should compare 'like with like'. Regardless of the number of deaths in other energy sectors.
However, have you revealed any deaths from the normal operation of windfarms as a result of your investigation? I accept that there is a notion that industrial accidents are kept quiet amongst antiwindies but there is something called the HSE which has some fairly draconian investigative powers and I'm afraid that the wind energy sector being immune to them doesn't hold water with me. Nor does windfarm companies having teams of employees which are employed to pick up dead birds on an ongoing basis.(sorry Badger but that made me laugh:) )
Hang on and please don't twist my words (i don't have any time for that) - I have done some homework not investigations. You are the one who appears to be more knowledgeable than me about windfarms and I asked you a question that you have ignored. If you can't answer the question then just say - it really doesn't matter - it was an honest question, it deserves an honest answer. I wish you the best in future debates with the antis, but please try to answer the question.
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/3928/1160262471377bia8.jpg
I'm da Mamma
23-Feb-08, 23:27
I have been reading the Yes2wind website - can anyone answer is there a local group that supports windfarms?
I note that Yes2wind encourage local support groups:
Campaign locally
If you're part of an established group, or able to get together a few like-minded individuals for a day, getting active on the high street is one of the most effective ways of building a pro-wind campaign. A good way to reach a large number of people is to set up a stall in a busy area of town.
Smacks of desperation - no?
Are there any pro-wind highland groups?
Hang on and please don't twist my words (i don't have any time for that) - I have done some homework not investigations. You are the one who appears to be more knowledgeable than me about windfarms and I asked you a question that you have ignored. If you can't answer the question then just say - it really doesn't matter - it was an honest question, it deserves an honest answer. I wish you the best in future debates with the antis, but please try to answer the question.
I am not claiming to know anymore than anyone else, oneupmanship is not something that I subscribe to.
What I do subscribe to is trying to honestly gather those facts that seem to be genuine without any bias and with proper foundation. In the days of photo-manipulation and clever editing techniques, that is a pretty hard and tall order to achieve. I am the first on here to be tripped up by the usual antiwindies for the slightest thing. Mountains made of molehills? Despite the numerous times I have proved them wrong. Bias?
I try to be unbiased about windpower despite my dislike for windturbines. But if I give a nanometre of credit towards the merits of windpower, someone somewhere will hail me as a heretic!
Yes, I do get my facts wrong sometimes, but I try honestly to present them fairly, unlike antiwindies who conciously try to mislead and twist, everything.
At the end of the day, they have only what I think anyway, they are an eyesore (to some), but the only difference between them and me is that I accept them as an integral part of a mixed low carbon energy strategy, and I base that on a reasoned arguement which takes into all the facts as I see them rather than a single issue of visual amenity.
I'm da Mamma
23-Feb-08, 23:32
I am not claiming to know anymore than anyone else, oneupmanship is not something that I subscribe to.
What I do subscribe to is trying to honestly gather those facts that seem to be genuine without any bias and with proper foundation. In the days of photo-manipulation and clever editing techniques, that is a pretty hard and tall order to achieve. I am the first on here to be tripped up by the usual antiwindies for the slightest thing. Mountains made of molehills? Despite the numerous times I have proved them wrong. Bias?
I try to be unbiased about windpower despite my dislike for windturbines. But if I give a nanometre of credit towards the merits of windpower, someone somewhere will hail me as a heretic!
Yes, I do get my facts wrong sometimes, but I try honestly to present them fairly, unlike antiwindies who conciously try to mislead and twist, everything.
At the end of the day, they have only what I think anyway, they are an eyesore (to some), but the only difference between them and me is that I accept them as an integral part of a mixed low carbon energy strategy, and I base that on a reasoned arguement which takes into all the facts as I see them rather than a single issue of visual amenity.
Sounds like you are a frustrated CWIFer - i think you should join their bandwagon. :lol: You can sort out the twisting and misleading.
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9910/1160253643781bso8.jpg
Indeed Rheggy!
http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/9910/1160253643781bso8.jpg
Indeed Rheggy!
What you talking about Willis Riffman?:confused
bada boom
Does that mean I get my brains over my nice Ivy League suit for heresy?;):confused
If the footage was absolutely without some form of manipulation (which takes time to do properly) how come the soundtrack changes for no apparent reason and the bang takes no account of the speed of sound through the air?
How come there is a puff of smoke half way down the tower and how come a fibreglass blade can rupture a steep column? And how come the wind doesn't blow the debris more than it seems to ought to?
Rheghead, I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea. Neither do you. I've never seen or heard a turbine going out of control and exploding before. I assume you haven't either. I just can't see your average anti-windies conspiring on such a massive scale to manipulate data on safety when they can usually find enough valid objections to specific windfarms without resorting to that kind of subterfuge. We're back to that old saw - as much as we may appreciate the need for diverse forms of renewable energy, there doesn't seem to be anywhere at all to put a windfarm where it will not disbenefit someone or something.
Rheghead, I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea. Neither do you. I've never seen or heard a turbine going out of control and exploding before. I assume you haven't either. I just can't see your average anti-windies conspiring on such a massive scale to manipulate data on safety when they can usually find enough valid objections to specific windfarms without resorting to that kind of subterfuge. We're back to that old saw - as much as we may appreciate the need for diverse forms of renewable energy, there doesn't seem to be anywhere at all to put a windfarm where it will not disbenefit someone or something.
Fair enough, No one here is an expert on film authenticity to my knowledge, but would you acknowledge to the effect if the footage is discredited (and I have given enough evidence to that effect in the detailed soundtrack) ??
It is early days in the appraisal of this video and I will assume that all and sundry will be in gear to to see if it is genuine an dnot a fake or a cobbled-together clip.
For the sake of truthfulness and all etc!
but would you acknowledge to the effect if the footage is discredited (and I have given enough evidence to that effect in the detailed soundtrack) ??
Sorry - don't understand what you're saying?
I just can't see your average anti-windies conspiring on such a massive scale to manipulate data on safety when they can usually find enough valid objections to specific windfarms without resorting to that kind of subterfuge.
I have read CWIF's data on the safety of windfarms and there is a bias against the windfarm industry. Any information with a bias is misinformation.
From the moment a buzzard got killed at Forss, there seemed to be an international movement got into gear to publicise that fact across the globe, so it seems to me that antiwind organisations are fairly well organised via the internet.
But there seemed to be a definitely lack of physical evidence of the said bird's demise when looked at retrospectively.
I have seen it recently in attempts to discredit comments that i have made on other sites, albeit that I have been antiwind on those sites, which they don't care about.
Call me an old sceptic but when folk's have a one-sided agenda then I automatically assume a conspiracy....hence why I use different logins to different forums to gain a balanced viewpoint to the windfarm issue.
Highland Laddie
24-Feb-08, 01:23
Call me an old sceptic .
You old sceptic;)
Sorry - don't understand what you're saying?
OK, let us suppose I am filming some footage of a turbine exploding, I film it and I can hear the turbine swooshing out of control and a bang at the precise moment the turbine explodes even though the footage shows that the turbine explodes at distance and the bang happens at the same time(impossible to replicate). I then go on to film the collapsed turbine, the soundtrack is integral to the film, i can't separate the two with them being sychronous etc and yet the soundtrack of the exploding part is still audible over the collapsed part of the film until there is a step-change in the background noise with no obvious movement of the camera's position.
How come the soundtrack changes approximately 28 sec in to the film of the collapsed turbine if it is supposedly posted without manipulation?:confused
You tell me!! Consider yourself on CSI Caithness, I am all ears.....
OK, let us suppose I am filming some footage of a turbine exploding, I film it and I can hear the turbine swooshing out of control and a bang at the precise moment the turbine explodes even though the footage shows that the turbine explodes at distance and the bang happens at the same time(impossible to replicate). I then go on to film the collapsed turbine, the soundtrack is integral to the film, i can't separate the two with them being sychronous etc and yet the soundtrack of the exploding part is still audible over the collapsed part of the film until there is a step-change in the background noise with no obvious movement of the camera's position.
How come the soundtrack changes approximately 28 sec in to the film of the collapsed turbine if it is supposedly posted without manipulation?:confused
You tell me!! Consider yourself on CSI Caithness, I am all ears.....
Rheg, I just listened to it again. My answer is - I don't know. It's confusing to a non-gizmo person like me, and it'll be interesting to see if this does turn out to be a hoax.
Perhaps you're right, perhaps there's so much at stake for both sides of this argument (big big money for developers and for the anties everything in their environment that they cherish) that both might resort to cheap tricks. Perhaps the exploding turbine is doctored film. Perhaps developers/landowners really do pick up dead birds from around turbines as suggested by a previous poster on this thread and subsequently pooh-poohed by yourself.
I'd like to think you are wrong and everyone is above board on both sides, but I think you'd agree I'd be away with the fairies. So call me a sceptic too.
Metalattakk
24-Feb-08, 03:45
So call me a sceptic too.
I've been called the most sceptical man in the world, but you know, I don't think that's strictly true.
luskentyre
24-Feb-08, 03:58
For all those who believe wind turbines to be safe, check out this video on line which happened in Denmark yesterday
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cdd_1203701257
Pieces were thrown over 500m.
Brainwashing will only work if the truth can stay covered up!
GNG
Aye, brainwashing - like in your bizarre signature picture! It seems you're happy for inconsistencies as long as they're in your favour.
Green_not_greed
24-Feb-08, 09:53
Aye, brainwashing - like in your bizarre signature picture! It seems you're happy for inconsistencies as long as they're in your favour.
I have been and will remain consistent in my views about wind turbines. A much better stance than twisting and turning at every argument or swaying in the wind.
Green_not_greed
24-Feb-08, 09:58
I have read CWIF's data on the safety of windfarms and there is a bias against the windfarm industry. Any information with a bias is misinformation.
So by your own argument, pro-wind sites eg
http://www.bwea.com
http://www.yes2wind.co.uk
http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk
...are full of misinformation.
Full marks! I believe you are beginning to see the light!
So by your own argument, pro-wind sites eg
http://www.bwea.com
http://www.yes2wind.co.uk
http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk
...are full of misinformation.
Full marks! I believe you are beginning to see the light!
Two wrongs don't make a right....
Was there a myth that windpower was completely safe? I never heard about that one.
Maybe you haven't, but it doesn't mean that their safety is not promoted by windfarm developers trying to build in unsuitable locations.
I have a question for you, purely hypothetical of course, but it is this -
A large windfarm is given planning permission by Highland Council. It is for 21 turbines, some of which are built only a few hundred metres from people's homes. An accident happens, such as on the video clip, and a person is killed by a piece of flying debris. The family of the victim, who just happens to be the breadwinner, decide to sue. Who is legally responsible and who will pay compensation?
Highland Laddie
24-Feb-08, 13:54
Maybe you haven't, but it doesn't mean that their safety is not promoted by windfarm developers trying to build in unsuitable locations.
I have a question for you, purely hypothetical of course, but it is this -
A large windfarm is given planning permission by Highland Council. It is for 21 turbines, some of which are built only a few hundred metres from people's homes. An accident happens, such as on the video clip, and a person is killed by a piece of flying debris. The family of the victim, who just happens to be the breadwinner, decide to sue. Who is legally responsible and who will pay compensation?
I'd imagine the developer of the site would be insured against such accidents.
Who is legally responsible and who will pay compensation?
I haven't a clue, I'm not a lawyer, but surely if these things can happen on a regular basis, as seen from experience as you and GNG seem to be experts on it, the HSE should prevent from such developments going ahead, or are they in on the conspiracy too?:confused
I don't know whether the HSE are even consulted on this sort of thing. The point I am trying to make, is that at the moment there seems to be a complacency over the potential safety issues involving windfarms, no doubt due to the propaganda constantly issueing forth from the pro-wind lobby. There is now no doubt that there are many recorded instances of dangerous events occurring involving wind turbines and maybe the authorities who decide on these sites need to look more closely at this aspect before giving approvals. As I have said before they should never be sited close to people's homes or places of work. My hypothetical family are not content with a hand-out from some insurance company (even if such a policy existed) and want someone to be brought to account for this devastating consequence to themselves. Who would be at fault? The manufacturer of the turbine, the landowner, the developer, the council who gave permission or all of them? Lets hope it never happens, but if it did someone could be in a whole lot of trouble.
I don't know whether the HSE are even consulted on this sort of thing.
On a bit of a google over this, the DTI are the responsible body over blade failures on commercial windfarms.
j4bberw0ck
24-Feb-08, 20:36
what caused the puff of smoke from half way up the tower as it exploded?
And I demand to know how it could be that streams of molten steel were seen running out from the tower; jetfuel could never burn at sucha temperature, so0 it must have been thermite. And all those CIA people sneaking round.... probably planting bombs.
Sorry!! Wrong tower! Wrong conspiracy! Silly me!!:lol::lol:
Highland Laddie
24-Feb-08, 20:44
And I demand to know how it could be that streams of molten steel were seen running out from the tower; jetfuel could never burn at sucha temperature, so0 it must have been thermite. And all those CIA people sneaking round.... probably planting bombs.
Sorry!! Wrong tower! Wrong conspiracy! Silly me!!:lol::lol:
Nice one m8
And I demand to know how it could be that streams of molten steel were seen running out from the tower; jetfuel could never burn at sucha temperature, so0 it must have been thermite. And all those CIA people sneaking round.... probably planting bombs.
Sorry!! Wrong tower! Wrong conspiracy! Silly me!!:lol:
LOL!! Very funny!
Mind you, it is funny that such a graphic piece of footage of a windturbine failure has not caught the attention of the major news channels, given the controversial nature of onshore windfarms. Very strange indeed....:roll:
Green_not_greed
24-Feb-08, 21:22
I haven't a clue, I'm not a lawyer, but surely if these things can happen on a regular basis, as seen from experience as you and GNG seem to be experts on it, the HSE should prevent from such developments going ahead, or are they in on the conspiracy too?:confused
HSE are not a statutory consultee on planning applications. They provide guidance on safety but apart from some pretty run-of-the-mill generic advice to the windfarm industry they've not really had much input. Their involvement is mainly reactionary after accidents happen - and by then it could be too late. Its only after several similar accidents happen in the UK that HSE will start to look at issues and causes. They have already started to look at some issues after two UK turbine collapses late last year.
Incidentally HSE and DTI have both commended CWIF regarding the CWIF accident database, so despite what Rheghead thinks it is at least recognised by relevant authorities.
I'm da Mamma
24-Feb-08, 21:28
I have been reading the Yes2wind website - can anyone answer is there a local group that supports windfarms?
I note that Yes2wind encourage local support groups:
Campaign locally
If you're part of an established group, or able to get together a few like-minded individuals for a day, getting active on the high street is one of the most effective ways of building a pro-wind campaign. A good way to reach a large number of people is to set up a stall in a busy area of town.
Smacks of desperation - no?
Are there any pro-wind highland groups?
As no one has replied, I take it there are no pro-wind groups. Let me know...
I'm da Mamma
24-Feb-08, 21:31
HSE are not a statutory consultee on planning applications. They provide guidance on safety but apart from some pretty run-of-the-mill generic advice to the windfarm industry they've not really had much input. Their involvement is mainly reactionary after accidents happen - and by then it could be too late. Its only after several similar accidents happen in the UK that HSE will start to look at issues and causes. They have already started to look at some issues after two UK turbine collapses late last year.
Incidentally HSE and DTI have both commended CWIF regarding the CWIF accident database, so despite what Rheghead thinks it is at least recognised by relevant authorities.
Big words GNG - can I have proof of the commendation by HSE/DTI. Thanks in advance.
Sapphire2803
24-Feb-08, 21:32
As no one has replied, I take it there are no pro-wind groups. Let me know...
People don't tend to jump up and down and start groups unless they're dead against something.
Shame that...
I'm da Mamma
24-Feb-08, 21:49
Hi
I've just found a link on the Yes2wind website:
February 19th 2008 - SEA (sustainable enerjgy alliance) activists and supporters take to the streets of Grantham with a 5ft hour glass highlighting the fact that time is running out to address man-made climate change and that wind power must play a key role in addressing it. The group also displayed pro wind banners and spoke to the people of the town about the Thacksons Well wind farm project. The Grantham Journal attended and took a photograph - press releases were also issued with photographs of the day to other local media.
Does anybody here fancy joining me in a similar demo? NO? I don't blame you, how sad can you get! What do you think they achieved? BTW can anyone get me the photo of the 5ft hour glass, i'd love to see it, i need a laugh from time to time.
Green_not_greed
24-Feb-08, 21:50
Big words GNG - can I have proof of the commendation by HSE/DTI. Thanks in advance.
Given that these are personal letters I am reluctant to post them on line. However, I'm more than happy to meet and show you copies. Please PM me to arrange.
Hi
I've just found a link on the Yes2wind website:
February 19th 2008 - SEA (sustainable enerjgy alliance) activists and supporters take to the streets of Grantham with a 5ft hour glass highlighting the fact that time is running out to address man-made climate change and that wind power must play a key role in addressing it. The group also displayed pro wind banners and spoke to the people of the town about the Thacksons Well wind farm project. The Grantham Journal attended and took a photograph - press releases were also issued with photographs of the day to other local media.
Does anybody here fancy joining me in a similar demo?
You've missed your chance Mamma. SEA were in Inverness, Wick and Thurso last summer getting petitions signed in support of Baillie and Spittal windfarms.
Oh noes.... it all burns!
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3436/1161392042679bse4.jpg
Green_not_greed
25-Feb-08, 16:29
To follow up on the Danish wind turbine explosion on friday - it made todays Copenhagen Post
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105852.html (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105852.html)
and was one of two incidents - the second one happened only yesterday. The Danish Government have received calls for an investigation. Both turbines were Vestas - the same manufacturer as the one which collapsed in Argyll late last year, though at present I have no idea if its the same turbine type.
GNG
the second coming
25-Feb-08, 17:08
To follow up on the Danish wind turbine explosion on friday - it made todays Copenhagen Post
http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105852.html (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105852.html)
and was one of two incidents - the second one happened only yesterday. The Danish Government have received calls for an investigation. Both turbines were Vestas - the same manufacturer as the one which collapsed in Argyll late last year, though at present I have no idea if its the same turbine type.
GNG
I have to admit it makes impressive viewing. Some thoughts though;
Why was the overspeed protection dissabled?
Why had the pitch control not been disabled?
Why had the high speed shaft mechanical brake not been engaged?
What where technicians doing in the turbine whilst in this operational state? This is not industry approved.
Was it coincidence that it was filmed on camera or was somebody called to come and film?It states categorically that the failure was due to lack of maintenance.
As a similar thought, how many people do you know that drive vehicles on the road without necessary service maintenance or MOT. How many accidents and deaths are there on the roads?
This is not a deviation from the fact the turbine failed catastrophically but to illustrate that any mechanical device will fail without the necessary service care and maintenance.
The responsibility for this failing such as this lies solely on owner/operators who put profit before safety. Not the technology itself. I have seen far, far worse failures of electrical generating devices using other generating mediums.
In the UK the problem lies with the clash between Ofgem and consumers striving to lower energy costs, investors and shareholders striving to maximise profit and divendend returns and finally the pressures of H&S and environmental legislation enforced on the technology. Its either a happy medium or a rob peter to pay paul scenario. Are you happy to take a huge increase in energy bills to please your views on generation, are you happy to take a reduction in shares value, savings return and pension value to allow investors a bit of slack. I very much doubt it. And I know that the majority of investments these days have interests in wind generation.
It states categorically that the failure was due to lack of maintenance.
As a similar thought, how many people do you know that drive vehicles on the road without necessary service maintenance or MOT. How many accidents and deaths are there on the roads?
This is not a deviation from the fact the turbine failed catastrophically but to illustrate that any mechanical device will fail without the necessary service care and maintenance.
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.
Incidentally HSE and DTI have both commended CWIF regarding the CWIF accident database, so despite what Rheghead thinks it is at least recognised by relevant authorities.
The only thing I have said about CWIF is that there is a bias against windfarms in the presented data. What should I expect from an antiwind farm website?:confused
here's one for you all who hate wind turbines
http://gizmodo.com/360117/exploding-wind-turbine-video-is-destruction-delicious
the second coming
25-Feb-08, 19:15
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
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)!
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#
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
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
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
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.
ExoticQueen
13-Mar-08, 12:42
.....like/dislike of windfarms?? :lol:i cant stand them they look like alien ships they spoil the countryside they are horrible too look at :(
weeboyagee
13-Mar-08, 14:46
Erm,... I don't know if I like them or dislike them? :confused:
What I do know is that if I see them I stare at them - and usually land up nearly crashing the car!!! Is this common amongst car drivers?
WBG :cool:
Green_not_greed
15-Mar-08, 10:48
Here is another photo as promised - similar distance to the turbines at Forss from occupied buildings
http://members.aol.com/fswemedien/herenveen1.jpg
That last pic is quite worrying.....
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.