http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...ade-snaps.html

...and 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..

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...ade-snaps.html

..and 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..

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?

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...ade-snaps.html


..and 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..

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


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.


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?

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.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...ade-snaps.html

..and 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..

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


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.


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?

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.

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

"spamlet" wrote in message
...


And we'd still be f....d when the U runs out...

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

The concept is that less fuel is consumed overall.

Fewer people needing less power is the answer, and it will happen - one
way or another.


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

spamlet wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene...ade-snaps.html

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

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.


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?
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.

And we'd still be f....d when the U runs out...

Breed plutonium then. Use thorium.

We are ****ed when the sun runs out of hydrogen, or the earths core runs
out of heat. And radioactivity (much te same thing largely)

Its all ad hoc and temporary.

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.


FFS Fat Fuel Synthesis. Takes the obese and renders em into biodiesel.
Coming to a crematorium near you...;-)



S

Fredxx wrote:
"spamlet" wrote in message
...

And we'd still be f....d when the U runs out...

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

The concept is that less fuel is consumed overall.

The reality is, that more is.



Fewer people needing less power is the answer, and it will happen - one
way or another.


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

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'

On Mar 24, 7:47 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in ...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...shut-after-bla...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ene.../7505006/Europ...

..and 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..

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?

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

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:05:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

Thanks 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...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:05:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

Thanks 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...

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

Get real.

On Mar 25, 9:41*am, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:05:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...shut-after-bla...

Thanks 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).

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

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

Why does more CO2 matter anyway?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

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

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

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.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

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

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).

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.

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



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

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

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).
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.

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



On the contrary, failure of towers is almost always caused by blade failure.

One the thing is out of balanvce it will rip the mountings or the tower
to shreds.

As any wartime pilot with a propellor shot to bits, would know.

I do love your casual approach to this. Would you be so casual if it was
just a seal on a nuclear power station 'Its OK, a seal went, some
radioactivity escaped, but its fixed now?

No, You are a person with an unstated interest in windpower.

Dual standards, and a hypocrite.

It shuld not be possible to lose a blade through overspeed, Any more
than it should be possible for a reactor core to go intro meltdown.

The fact hat it happens with monotonous regularity merely highlights the
'one standards for windpower, quite another for the nuclear industry;'
approach the eco ****s foist on us.


Someone could have been killed. One day someone will be.


In ANY other industry the presence of high velocity high mass machinery
operated on publicly accessible land with no safety guards, barriers or
any sort of warning would simply NOT be tolerated.

Only the sheer ugliness of the damned things that mean that no one
really wants to go near them at all, since they ruin every landscape
they are imposed on, prevents there from being more serious injury than
there has been already.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:05:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503

Thanks 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...

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

Get real.


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

ARWadsworth wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 02:05:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...bine-1.1015503
Thanks 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...

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

Get real.


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"

Oh dar. You almost had me with that one.

Adam

Tim Streater wrote:

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.


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.




--
Ian White

Ian White wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

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.


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.


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.



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.


I suspect its more like the MTBF is 1000 years.

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.


No more boom and bust.

s

In ANY other industry the presence of high velocity high mass machinery
operated on publicly accessible land with no safety guards, barriers or
any sort of warning would simply NOT be tolerated.



What about the platforms where trains pass through?..
--
Tony Sayer
k

On Mar 26, 11:21*am, tony sayer wrote:
s

In ANY other industry the presence of high velocity high mass machinery
operated on publicly accessible land with no safety guards, barriers or
any sort of warning would simply NOT be tolerated.

What about the platforms where trains pass through?..

There's a warning.

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

MBQ

On Mar 25, 1:13*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 05:30:46 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

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).
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.

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

On the contrary, failure of towers is almost always caused by blade failure.

One the thing is out of balanvce it will rip the mountings or the tower
to shreds.

As any wartime pilot with a propellor shot to bits, would know.

I do love your casual approach to this. Would you be so casual if it was
just a seal on a nuclear power station 'Its OK, a seal went, some
radioactivity escaped, but its fixed now?


I suspect the risk to life and limb of several windfarms failing at
the same time is measurably smaller than a similarly scaled failure in
a nuclear power station.

Moral of the story - don't walk under wind turbines in a gale.

Matt

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Only the sheer ugliness of the damned things that mean that no one
really wants to go near them at all, since they ruin every landscape
they are imposed on, prevents there from being more serious injury than
there has been already.

At last we have the real truth.
You're a nimby.

tony sayer wrote:
s

In ANY other industry the presence of high velocity high mass machinery
operated on publicly accessible land with no safety guards, barriers or
any sort of warning would simply NOT be tolerated.



What about the platforms where trains pass through?..

Oh the ones where suicides do the leapy bit?

that claim lives every year?

GENERALLY there are signs.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

Only the sheer ugliness of the damned things that mean that no one
really wants to go near them at all, since they ruin every landscape
they are imposed on, prevents there from being more serious injury than
there has been already.

At last we have the real truth.
You're a nimby.

When it comes to windmills, I am a NIABY. If not a NA.

On Mar 26, 12:53 am, David Hansen
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:20:52 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Matty F
wrote this:-

Why does more CO2 matter anyway?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

The IPCC is now discredited, have you not heard.
Why have there been 354 changes to AR 4 since the publication deadline
of December 2005?. Fixing mistakes?

http://hro001.wordpress.com/2010/03/...to-the-future/

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:06:08 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Matty F
wrote this:-

The IPCC is now discredited, have you not heard.

Wrong. Some people claim that the IPCC is discredited. Some people
always have, but the claims remain untrue.

Next.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 04:40:51 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be "Man at
B&Q" wrote this:-

What about the platforms where trains pass through?..

There's a warning.

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

There are also warning signs.

Railway platforms with trains passing through are rather more
dangerous than wind farms. Talking about his "Black Dog" Winston
Churchill said that he always kept well away from the edge of
platforms when a train was passing through.

I have visited one of the largest wind farms in the UK and there are
signs there, warning of a number of things including ice being
thrown from the blades. I am entirely happy to stand under the
blades, if one did fail then it might kill me, but that chances of
that happening are down in the noise, along with the chances of a
train being derailed just before it passes through a station and
killing me. Both are possible, but highly unlikely.

I have also crossed the A1, on a level crossing where there were no
warning signs fore me to read and where vehicles were being driven
at high speed.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54