Another wind farm shut down

formatting link
so on.

Of course, if a half gram of uranium gets dropped on the floor of a n equally isolated reactor room during refuelling, its national news and calls for nuclear power to be banned..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
Loading thread data ...

formatting link
>
formatting link
> ..and so on.

It's "highly unusual".. 1 in 140 is pretty unusual. ;-)

Did they factor in all the extra inspections and the CO2 used to make them into their green "savings"? How long before they admit wind power uses more CO2 than it saves?

Reply to
dennis

formatting link

formatting link

It looks like about one turbine a year, suffers some kind of failure and overspeeds in high winds.

They are not in secure sites where members of the public are prohibited.

Its likely that as more are installed,more will fail per year.

The cost of servicing and getting power from them in the remote locations they are supposed to be in, is never mentioned.

The nuclear industry would not tolerate a safety record like that, nor would it be able to pass such costs along to the public.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but they certainly are not 'the answer'

Or even realistically 'a viable cost effective answer'

They only exist because in the fullness of its stupidity, the government has signed up for a fixed percentage of power to be 'renewable' no matter what the cost, or the carbon production involved.

If instead it had merely set a carbon cap on power production, and charged power companies who exceed it, we would now have 20 new nuclear stations humming away doing what they do best. Generating low carbon low cost. low maintenance SAFE electricity.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

formatting link
>>>>>
formatting link
>>>>> ..and so on.

And we'd still be f....d when the U runs out... Mind, they never take out any conventional capacity when they put up windfarms, so they are just part of the 'more more more' of develop or bust anyway, and don't have much to do with sustainability at all. Fewer people needing less power is the answer, and it will happen - one way or another.

S
Reply to
spamlet

Look up fast breeder reactor then give us an indication when fissionable material will run out.

The concept is that less fuel is consumed overall.

There will be other sources of power and the price will fluctuate according to cost of supply and demand.

Reply to
Fredxx

The reality is, that more is.

There are other sources of power, but the playing field is less tilted, more a vertical wall with windpower placed at its base.

Its pure bollox-think.

I am totally reminded of the voiceover on Jubilee where 'The crime rate was reduced to zero, in 2020, by making everything legal'

>
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

messagenews:hobs0s$2i3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.albasani.net...

Why does more CO2 matter anyway? It just makes trees and grass and vegetables grow faster, and makes the sea slightly less alkaline.

Reply to
Matty F

formatting link
for that I love this bit:

ScottishPower Renewables managing director Keith Anderson said: "This type of incident is exceptionally rare and highly unusual."

So what about the couple that fell over the other year and as some one else has said 1 in 140 (or 420 at 3 blades/turbine) doesn't seem "exceptionally rare" to me and it was only opened 10 months ago (May

2009).

Why aren't they designed to with stand a lighting strike? They are put on the tops of hills and are tall and pointy...

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

formatting link

Because they are only designed to fleece the taxpayer, not to actually WORK.

Get real.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Dennis did at least did include a smiley.

An "exceptionally rare" event is no less exceptional if it happens after only 10 months. You need to wait and see if it happens again. The more frequently it happens then the more you can distrust the stated failure rate.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Yes. The mistake is to assume that if a "once in a thousand years" event occurs, it must necessarily be a thousand years before it occurs again.

Reply to
Tim Streater

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:20:52 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Matty F wrote this:-

Reply to
David Hansen

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:41:58 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-

formatting link
>Thanks for that I love this bit:

Meanwhile I note this bit

"Sixty-five turbines have begun operating again following an inspection led by turbine manufacturers Siemens.

"The examination is expected to be completed by the end of the week."

So, there was been a problem, it was detected immediately and it has been addressed. Something to note, not something to make a fuss of. Machinery fails from time to time.

Reply to
David Hansen

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:30:46 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be "Man at B&Q" wrote this:-

That is true. Also failure of towers is nothing to do with failure of blades. Trying to conflate the two is mischevious.

Reply to
David Hansen

formatting link
>>> Thanks for that I love this bit:

If you look carefully at the back of the blades there is a sticker that says "DANGER - Do not install or use this product in areas that may be subjected to wind"

Adam

Reply to
ARWadsworth

formatting link
>> Thanks for that I love this bit:

Oh dar. You almost had me with that one.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

No, the mistake was ever to have said "once in a thousand years".

Common sense tells you that it's bollox. "Once in 1000 years" is completely meaningless when talking about some engineered system or structure that has a design life measured in decades. Even worse is talking about "the kind of storm that only happens once in a thousand years" - they cannot possibly mean that.

So ignore the "once in a thousand years" stuff. Get hold of the technical risk analysis reports, and you'll find that what they

*actually* said was: "We estimate there is a 1 in 1000 chance of it happening sometime in a given year". That is the technically correct way to say it - and now it makes sense.

People can still argue whether the risk estimates are too high or too low, but that is a different matter - at least everyone is back in the real world and talking the same language.

But no... the media droids always have to change it into "once in a thousand years". And then they wonder why they have no credibility?

To address Tim's specific point: If the estimated risk is 1 in 1000 per year, then regardless of whether it does or doesn't happen this year, the same estimated risk of 1 in 1000 will apply again next year (unless there is also a reason to revise the risk estimate itself).

The key point is that "once in a thousand years" should never enter the argument at all.

Reply to
Ian White

well common sense is, as often the case, wrong.

MTBF is a very precise term. If it gets dumbed down to 'once in a thousand years' that's not the people's, who do the calculations, fault.

I suspect its more like the MTBF is 1000 years.

No more boom and bust.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

What about the platforms where trains pass through?..

Reply to
tony sayer

There's a warning.

A yellow stripe parallel to the platform edge often backed up by announcements when trains are due.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.