Total greenwash :-)

I had to share this one with you.
http://d3m26nztbnmh2a.cloudfront.net/turbinewashing.mp4
I believe the build up of bugs does nothing for the blade efficiency, so what the heck, let's stop the thing and hire a helicopter at 20 gallons of kerosene an hour and clean em! No expense spared in pursuit of subsidy.
Simples!
And to complete your enjoyment, watch a vulture break a wing and die in Crete.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RcTjdY1aN4&feature=player_embedded

And finally.. just to get a feel for the scale of what is being imposed..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=doU20jzKdRk

As many people have been DIRECTLY killed in wind turbine accidents in 40 years as in Chernobyl..
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm
Figures for illness due to infrasound, are not even being investigated....
Remember, this is all about SAVING THE PLANET. Do shut up and don't be a NIMBY.
Oh dear. Darwin strikes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rw98mJHxpQ&feature=related

TTFN.
Can I have a nuke in my back yard (NIMBY)
Please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote: ...

However, the World Health Organistion estimates that the final toll from Chernobyl may be about 4,000 early deaths and the figures in your reference seem to include a lot of people falling off the roof while fitting domestic wind generators.
Nevertheless, if we look at the deaths per TWh generated (d/TWh), even including the 4,000 projectde deaths from Chernobyl and a high death rate from early methods of uranium extraction, nuclear still comes out as by far the safest fuel.
These are whole life figures, from breaking the ground to decomissioning and include related deaths, such as mining fuel (particularly coal), transport, explosions (gas) and the collapse of hydro electric dams, as at 2008:
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 Natural Gas 4 Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 Wind 0.15 Hydro - Europe 0.10 Hydro - world including Banqiao 1.4 Nuclear 0.04 Nuclear, excluding Chernobyl 0.003
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wonder what Hydro plants caused deaths? I think that only dams designed and made specifically for Hydro generation should be considered .i.e. not reservoirs made from old trees and soil and to which someone has decided to add a small generator. And 3rd world countries with lax building standards should be excluded from all categories, since they are not relevant to modern standards in 1st world countries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Even if they built and operated nukes?
MBQ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matty F wrote:

These are whole-life figures, so include deaths of construction workers.
The Banqiao dam mentioned was built in China in the 1950s, with Soviet help. It was designed for 300mm of rainfall in one day - a 1 in 1,000 year event. In 1975, 1060mm of rain fell in one day - a 1 in 2,000 year event - and the dam collapsed whem the water overtopped it. The death toll, including consequential deaths due to epidemic, is estimated at up to 230,000 people.
The Vajont Dam, north of Venice also caused civilian deaths in 1963, while the Taum Sauk pumped storage plant dam in Missouri collapsed, without loss of life, in 2005.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wasn't there a dam collapse at Frejus in southern France that caused deaths as well? 60s or 70s from memory
Peter Scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Scott wrote:

Dams are like any other high energy storage. You don't want to be near when they release it all suddenly in an uncontrolled fashion.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Peter Scott wrote:

Malpasset, 1959, but it was for water supply and irrigation and had no generating capacity.
Colin Bignell
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having now read about the Banqiao dam, the engineers and authorities made a rather astounding number of errors which surely would not happen in the West.. The Vajont Dam was more of an unfortunate natural accident. Taum Sauk, that I have folllowed since the event, was another example of sheer incompetence. I take back what I said about Banqiao! I suppose the main requirement is to have nobody living immediately downstream from a dam, or at least have adequate warning devices.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 15:44:11 -0700 (PDT), Matty F wrote:

Of course, Germany's had problems with dams in the past - been OK for last 65 years or so though.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lies, all lies
Here's the truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWZVDiVvKsg

--
geoff

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Matty F wrote:

Ones like this
<http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/the_sayanoshushenskaya_dam_acc.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:17:48 +0100, Nightjar <\"cpb\"@ wrote:

Yes, to be fair you should really include the number of people falling off their roof while fitting nuclear reactors ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I estimate that the toll from fatuous posts made to usenet may be about 100,000 deaths. Obviously you're now a prime candidate for early demise.
My claim has about as much value as that made by (some unknown numpty) at the WHO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:

The real question to ask is what is meant by "early death". According to James Lovelock in one of his books I read recently, the WHO could only find evidence for some 75 deaths from Chernobyl, some 19 years after the event.
As Lovelock says, if the 4k people die a week after the accident, that would be terrible. But they don't. They die, on average, a few days before they would otherwise.
I quote:
"The exposure of all those living in Northern Europe to Chernobyl's radiation on average reduced their lifespan by one to three hours. For comparison, a life-long smoker will lose seven years of life.
No wonder the media and the anti-nuclear activists prefer to talk of the risk of cancer death. It makes a better story than the loss of a few hours of life expectation. If a lie is defined as a statement that purposefully intends to deceive, the persistent repetition of the huge Chernobyl death toll is a powerful lie."
Lovelock's Gaia ideas were unfortunately pounced on by the new-age twerps, which has annoyed him intensely - he is actually a sensible chap who has stated that he'd be happy to have a year's worth of UK high-level waste suitably encased in concrete, buried in his back garden. He'd then use it for energy generation.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Streater wrote:

That is in fact correct: those are the only deaths DIRECTLY attributable to Chernobyl.
But of course it doesnt take into account the case of Frau Panickstricken, whose children say she fainted from the shock of hearing the word 'Nuclear' on the news, and never recovered, or Ivan Overactiv whose three bottle of vodka and 60 malborough habit was so rudely cut short by heart failure, which they attribute to being 'somewhere near Chernobyl, once'.
Any predictions beyond that are horrendously suspect. To be fair.
Chernobyl residents have been uprooted and moved, and it wasn't the best of places anyway..and so any statistics are already poorly controlled.
As with nearly all these studies of low level radiation death increases, any differences are right down in the noise: there simply is no clear unequivocal blip on the graphs that is big enough not to be..well. just a blip.
The same thing happened post some release of radiation at sellafield. Some doctor claimed that there had been a blip of cancers, and his maths exactly coincided with a radiation release that was subsequently admitted to. However, the mere fact that it EXACTLY coincided is in itself deeply suspicious. Then you look at the size of the blip, and see there are blips like that all the time everywhere.
As far as I can tell there is good evidence from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and now Chernobyl. as to how much radiation will kill you within days or weeks.
There is evidence from the rest of the world as to what the normal background radiation that we have evolved under, is.
The safety people have connected the few points with a straight line, and declared the nuclear industry must be something like less than 1% of background overall to be safe: Any release worse than that is a 'nuclear accident'.
Using that straight line, they predicted 30,000-50,000 deaths (IIRC) from Chernobyl, over a period of 10-15 years.
Those deaths have not happened. That some deaths have, is a certainty. People die all the time.
More people die from skin cancer, each year from the great nuclear reactor in the sky, than have ever died from radiation sickness and radiation induced cancer,altogether, probably.(if you exclude the people who were simply vaporised at Hiroshima etc)
Its an example of a laudable standard being set, in the absence of certain knowledge, by responsible people, to ensure that any cancer increase from the nuclear industry was immeasurably small, being taken by irresponsible people and used as a predictive tool, claiming predictive FACT, to frighten people away from nuclear power.
what we do know, is that intense radiation kills quickly.
Exposure to certain medium half life radioactive nucleides, like iodine and ceasium, does when they enter the food chain, give rise to thyroid and bone cancers respectively.
inhalation of radioactive heavy particles, like uranium or plutonium, does lead to lung cancer, as does exposure to Radon (which occurs naturally). However uranium and plutonium are heavy, and do not travel far.
There is almost no evidence at all that prolonged exposure to low level radiation does much at all. Such evidence as there is, which correlate radon emitting areas to lung cancer clusters, is persuasive, but of surprisingly low value. Radon accounts for the largest part of our exposure, and it may be 2-3 times normal on e.g. Dartmoor. That is, the danger from radon on Dartmoor is 2-300 times greater than the danger of the whole nuclear industry, if straight lines rule. And there is considerable evidence that straight lines do NOT rule. That in fact up to a point the body repairs radiation damage: Only if its too much to deal with, does the cancerous process start, as more mutations take over and start to run a localised area of the body.
In short as I understand it, the position is that the sorts of 'accidents' that get headlines and cause power stations to be shut in Germany, are of the order of 100 times less than a holiday in Dartmoor would do to you.
Chernobyl itself is almost the worst nuclear accident imaginable. No Western reactor in use could have failed the same way, they have secondary containment that Chernobyl does not. The whole three mile island incident is a tribute to how WELL those sorts of secondary containments work. No third party deaths have ever been attributed to three mile island.
In short in 50 plus years of reactor operation, we have had off the top of my head three cases where things have gone badly wrong. Windscale which was a disgrace, and utterly politically inspired, which led to a huge release of radioactivity. Masses of people did not die.
Three Mile Island, where again the worst happened, but the secondary safety systems held up, and although the site will be hot for many years, nearly all the radiation was confined.
And Chernobyl, the worst ever possible accident. A complete pile blowing its containment vessel and catching fire, and throwing clouds of radioactive smoke up into the air. Short of detonating a bomb under a reactor, its hard to see what could be worse. And 75 people died, about 10,000 thyroid cancers IIRC were caused, treatable by removal of the thyroid and a daily pill of thyroxine..which is not nice, but its not death either, and that's really it.
Apart from that its a minor catalogue of minor spills..a door left open, a fuel rod dropped, a leak in a pipe somewhere..inexcusable, yes, but not a reason to close down a whole industry.
14 million people in Pakistan affected by flooding. possibly laid at the door of global warming.
75 dead on an oil rig, and a gulf of Mexico ecosystem laid waste to some extent,. That's oil. How many die each year in tanker fires and oil and gas explosions? A lot more than do in nuclear accidents. How many people die in the wind farm industry. Rather a lot actually. Someone killed at Felixstowe last month when a turbine blade fell on him,..collapsing towers and so on kill a few people every year.
How many died at Bhopal? In Chinese coal mines every year?
I cant answer for you guys, but when I look at the worst that not using nuclear power can do, and the worst that using it can, its a no brainer.
CO2 will hang around a LOT longer in the atmosphere than a hot pair of gloves will twitter on a Geiger counter. And we can seal the gloves cheaply and simply, if it worries you.
All human activity produces waste. Nuclear waste is actually one of the more easily handled and contained of them.
The public PERCEPTION is the that nuclear power is dirty, expensive and deeply dangerous. The reality is that it is actually not. Its very very safe. Its been FORCED to be, by regulations, which if applied to ANY OTHER INDUSTRY would make that industry completely uneconomic. The public perception is that windpower is cheap clean safe non polluting and the power comes carbon free. Its none of them.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

This is a UK group.
Remember Aberfan.
Andy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andy Champ wrote:

Is it not permissible to discuss the world in the context of how it relates to the UK?
Should we not discuss the merits of Chinese Angle Grinders.
I do remember Aberfan.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
saying something like:

Dig up your own talent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.