|
Wind not good for wind farms...
I heard a report of one on the corner of a warehouse breaking off and
falling through the roof. That will teach em. Brian -- Brian Gaff - Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! "Andy Burns" wrote in message o.uk... Andrew Gabriel wrote: Interesting pics at 16:47, 16:38, and 14:48 (might be same as first one)... I think the one that planted itself (rather than incinerated itself) was a private 30m "baby" one on a farm, not part of a windfarm, according to radio reports. .. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:29:24 +0000, Nightjar wrote:
It took me an extra hour to get home last night when the power to the recently opened Hindhead tunnel on the A3 failed and only then was it discovered that the backup system did not work, so the tunnel was closed. Er what in a tunnel needs power to allow things to drive through it? Don't cars in the south have lights? Or has it been designed such that it needs forced ventilation? -- Cheers Dave. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 09/12/2011 17:29, Nightjar wrote:
It took me an extra hour to get home last night when the power to the recently opened Hindhead tunnel on the A3 failed and only then was it discovered that the backup system did not work, so the tunnel was closed. Why was it closed? The cars have their own lights, and surely they didn't need the ventilating fans? Andy |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 09/12/2011 14:59, Dave Liquorice wrote:
And how do you know which direction the wind is going to come from? And when they do fall over bits go flying far further than just tip height. Worst case is going to be a detached end of a blade coming off an overspeeding turbine, and then, being spin stabilised, flying like a boomerang. Now operating tip speed can be 90 metres per second. That I reckon could chuck lumps of ice nearly a kilometre. Let it overspeed to double that before it breaks up... Be afraid. You can run, but... Andy |
Wind not good for wind farms...
"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message ... Interesting pics at 16:47, 16:38, and 14:48 (might be same as first one)... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-...1__CK12_14_15_ Can I advise them how to spell advice? -- No plan survives contact with the enemy. [Not even bunny] Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (\__/) (='.'=) (")_(") |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:33:08 +0000, Andy Champ wrote:
And how do you know which direction the wind is going to come from? And when they do fall over bits go flying far further than just tip height. Worst case is going to be a detached end of a blade coming off an overspeeding turbine, and then, being spin stabilised, flying like a boomerang. Now operating tip speed can be 90 metres per second. That I reckon could chuck lumps of ice nearly a kilometre. Let it overspeed to double that before it breaks up... Be afraid. You can run, but... Aye, they look "slow and graceful" but they are huge and going really fast, 90m/s is 200mph(*). There is an awful lot of kinetic energy tied up in a working turbine. If something fails that energy has to go somewhere... (*) The Vestas V80 that caught fire in Scotland has a tip velocity at the top of its rated working RPM range of 80m/s, 179mph. -- Cheers Dave. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
|
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 20:08:22 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: And they want to put these things up 400 yards from where people LIVE!!! As you probably know, I've nothing against windmills, but that WOULD be bloody stupid. .. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Andy Champ wrote:
On 09/12/2011 14:59, Dave Liquorice wrote: And how do you know which direction the wind is going to come from? And when they do fall over bits go flying far further than just tip height. Worst case is going to be a detached end of a blade coming off an overspeeding turbine, and then, being spin stabilised, flying like a boomerang. Now operating tip speed can be 90 metres per second. That I reckon could chuck lumps of ice nearly a kilometre. Let it overspeed to double that before it breaks up... A friend calcualted it..at full tip speed and no wind resistance we got a a range of about 250 yards..it was less than I thought. Be afraid. You can run, but... Andy |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:33:08 +0000, Andy Champ wrote: And how do you know which direction the wind is going to come from? And when they do fall over bits go flying far further than just tip height. Worst case is going to be a detached end of a blade coming off an overspeeding turbine, and then, being spin stabilised, flying like a boomerang. Now operating tip speed can be 90 metres per second. That I reckon could chuck lumps of ice nearly a kilometre. Let it overspeed to double that before it breaks up... Be afraid. You can run, but... Aye, they look "slow and graceful" but they are huge and going really fast, 90m/s is 200mph(*). There is an awful lot of kinetic energy tied up in a working turbine. If something fails that energy has to go somewhere... there isn't that much of any energy in them, just enough to make a lot of vibration and noise, and catch fire, that's all really :-) (*) The Vestas V80 that caught fire in Scotland has a tip velocity at the top of its rated working RPM range of 80m/s, 179mph. Reasonably part for the course.. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes: Dave Liquorice wrote: (*) The Vestas V80 that caught fire in Scotland has a tip velocity at the top of its rated working RPM range of 80m/s, 179mph. Reasonably part for the course.. There's an Ecotricity one just near the M4 in Reading. That's 2MW output at peak, spinning at 3 revs/second. I don't know the dimensions though, and it's a different make. It was one of the largest land-based ones at the time, but that must be 6-7 years ago now (watched it going up, as I was driving past twice a day then). -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 09/12/2011 20:27, Andy Champ wrote:
On 09/12/2011 17:29, Nightjar wrote: It took me an extra hour to get home last night when the power to the recently opened Hindhead tunnel on the A3 failed and only then was it discovered that the backup system did not work, so the tunnel was closed. Why was it closed? The cars have their own lights, and surely they didn't need the ventilating fans? It is 1.2 miles long, so they probably are essential. I suspect that the fire detection systems were considered even more important. Colin Bignell |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 10/12/2011 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Now operating tip speed can be 90 metres per second. That I reckon could chuck lumps of ice nearly a kilometre. Let it overspeed to double that before it breaks up... A friend calcualted it..at full tip speed and no wind resistance we got a a range of about 250 yards..it was less than I thought. Hmm. Lets see. If the ice was fired off horizontally at 90m/s it would get 250 yards in about 2.5 seconds. In 2.5 seconds a stone can drop about 100 feet (ignoring wind resistance). Given an upward trajectory is would have managed a bit further but I can't be bothered to work out what. So TFP's friend had a rather small turbine in mind or perhaps he did take wind resistance into account. A similar calculation using a 100m high starting point suggests 4.5 seconds and 400m distance. -- Roger Chapman |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher writes: Dave Liquorice wrote: (*) The Vestas V80 that caught fire in Scotland has a tip velocity at the top of its rated working RPM range of 80m/s, 179mph. Reasonably part for the course.. There's an Ecotricity one just near the M4 in Reading. That's 2MW output at peak, spinning at 3 revs/second. I don't know the dimensions though, and it's a different make. It was one of the largest land-based ones at the time, but that must be 6-7 years ago now (watched it going up, as I was driving past twice a day then). There is an optimal tip speed for a turbine..too fast and you get transonic airflow (think helicopter blades) and a lot of noise=wasted power. Too slow and you are not getting as much out of the rotor diameter as you could. modern turbines are about 'as good as it gets'. Which is 'not nearly good enough' Which is why all these 'the technology will improve by a factor of ten' predictions are so much ********. That was the difference between a bit of cloth on some wooden poles and a modern turbine. From now on in its a few percent left to come only. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
|
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:54:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Aye, they look "slow and graceful" but they are huge and going really fast, 90m/s is 200mph(*). There is an awful lot of kinetic energy tied up in a working turbine. If something fails that energy has to go somewhere... there isn't that much of any energy in them, just enough to make a lot of vibration and noise, and catch fire, that's all really :-) I note the smiley but how much does a 40m blade weigh? Then think of that mass moving at 100mph... -- Cheers Dave. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Nightjar wrote:
It took me an extra hour to get home last night when the power to the recently opened Hindhead tunnel on the A3 failed and only then was it discovered that the backup system did not work, so the tunnel was closed. What did they do, divert Milford-Witley-Haslemere-Hindhead? The old A3 being reverted to nature, I wondered what the backup plan was in event of closure. Theo |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 22:39:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote: On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:54:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Aye, they look "slow and graceful" but they are huge and going really fast, 90m/s is 200mph(*). There is an awful lot of kinetic energy tied up in a working turbine. If something fails that energy has to go somewhere... there isn't that much of any energy in them, just enough to make a lot of vibration and noise, and catch fire, that's all really :-) I note the smiley but how much does a 40m blade weigh? Then think of that mass moving at 100mph... Especially when one of its partners has already parted company, and it's flaying around lopsidedly... -- Frank Erskine |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:02:13 +0000, Nightjar wrote:
Why was it closed? The cars have their own lights, and surely they didn't need the ventilating fans? It is 1.2 miles long, so they probably are essential. Not heard of ventilation shafts? I suspect that the fire detection systems were considered even more important. Batteries? -- Cheers Dave. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:54:39 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Aye, they look "slow and graceful" but they are huge and going really fast, 90m/s is 200mph(*). There is an awful lot of kinetic energy tied up in a working turbine. If something fails that energy has to go somewhere... there isn't that much of any energy in them, just enough to make a lot of vibration and noise, and catch fire, that's all really :-) I note the smiley but how much does a 40m blade weigh? enough to kill a man last year when one fell on him Then think of that mass moving at 100mph... Doesn't do condors much good for sure.. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Dec 9, 2:05*pm, tony sayer wrote:
Even I'd be very wary of keeping the stick back for a long time like that, its almost against natural instinct!... It is incredible that any analysis allows the two controls to not be mechanically linked, even though it is fly by wire. Otherwise in a panic situation not only do they have to go through visual displays, the window, the checklists, the radio, the emergency procedures, the controls, but tell one another "I am pulling back... I am still pulling back". Worse than the "full rudder moves beyond the aerofoil limits of the aircraft". You can argue in a car no-one would turn the wheel full lock at 100mph, because of visual feedback. In an aircraft not responding correctly or with unknown damage someone may well turn it "full lock" in order to provide sufficient compensatory input. Pilot human error has a very large component of imbecile designer error. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:05:14 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote: There is no law against it and at least one proposed installation is less than 150yd from the landowners house, and less than 400 yards from other houses and a little over 500 yards to the nearest housing estate. If an owner want's to put up his own right next to his house, that's his lookout, but I'd look askance at the size of the huge windmills being erected near to housing estates or simple private dwellings. Out on the moors/up on the hills is where they belong. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 10/12/2011 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A friend calcualted it..at full tip speed and no wind resistance we got a a range of about 250 yards..it was less than I thought. So did I. 90 metres per second, assume it flies off at the 45 degree for peak range its vertical speed will be ~60 metres/second. 6 seconds up, 6 down again at 1g. Flight time is therefore 12 seconds, horizontal velocity 60 metres per second gives me ... 700-ish without thinking too much. And the real blades are mounted up a tower. Consider the tip of the top blade, it's a _long_ way up. And also consider we are thinking of an overspeed situation... Andy |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Andy Champ wrote:
On 10/12/2011 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A friend calcualted it..at full tip speed and no wind resistance we got a a range of about 250 yards..it was less than I thought. So did I. 90 metres per second, assume it flies off at the 45 degree for peak range its vertical speed will be ~60 metres/second. 6 seconds up, 6 down again at 1g. Flight time is therefore 12 seconds, horizontal velocity 60 metres per second gives me ... 700-ish without thinking too much. And the real blades are mounted up a tower. Consider the tip of the top blade, it's a _long_ way up. And also consider we are thinking of an overspeed situation... yes. I cant remember what the safety area is but its no more than a few turbine heights - two or three. All normal health and safety, environmental and nuisance laws have been bent like paperclips to get onshore wind allowable. All because we are told there is no other alternative to reducing CO2 emissions. When there is, and windmills don't reduce carbon emission very much at all. Andy |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 10/12/2011 22:47, Theo Markettos wrote:
wrote: It took me an extra hour to get home last night when the power to the recently opened Hindhead tunnel on the A3 failed and only then was it discovered that the backup system did not work, so the tunnel was closed. What did they do, divert Milford-Witley-Haslemere-Hindhead? The old A3 being reverted to nature, I wondered what the backup plan was in event of closure. So far as I could see, there wasn't one. Coming from London, we were simply turned back the way we came and I didn't see another diversion sign after that, although I wasn't driving and we really were aiming for Chichester, so may not have followed the official route, if one existed. Colin Bignell |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 10/12/2011 23:51, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:02:13 +0000, Nightjar wrote: Why was it closed? The cars have their own lights, and surely they didn't need the ventilating fans? It is 1.2 miles long, so they probably are essential. Not heard of ventilation shafts? Probably prohibited in an area of outstanding natural beauty, which was the reason for putting the road in a tunnel in the first place. I suspect that the fire detection systems were considered even more important. Batteries? For all I know, that may have been the basis of the backup system that failed. However, given that the tunnel only opened in July, it was ridiculous that it failed at all. Colin Bignell |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 11/12/2011 19:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Andy Champ wrote: On 10/12/2011 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A friend calcualted it..at full tip speed and no wind resistance we got a a range of about 250 yards..it was less than I thought. So did I. 90 metres per second, assume it flies off at the 45 degree for peak range its vertical speed will be ~60 metres/second. 6 seconds up, 6 down again at 1g. Flight time is therefore 12 seconds, horizontal velocity 60 metres per second gives me ... 700-ish without thinking too much. And the real blades are mounted up a tower. Consider the tip of the top blade, it's a _long_ way up. And also consider we are thinking of an overspeed situation... yes. I cant remember what the safety area is but its no more than a few turbine heights - two or three. Local factory owner wants to prove his 'green-ness' by putting a 40m-tall turbine up. Trouble is , it's within 150m of the nearest house - and there's lots more of us within 300-500m. Turbine manufacturer recommends an exclusion zone 'fall-over' distance of 1.5 x tip height - this area can't be obtained due to the small size of the factory plot. The factory offices and production areas fall within the 'fall-over' zone. We're fighting it... - www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com All normal health and safety, environmental and nuisance laws have been bent like paperclips to get onshore wind allowable. That's so true. Highly-paid consultants writing garbage reports that 'prove' that turbines will be inaudible, and council planning departments who haven't a clue - quote from the Council's report granting permission 'A proposal such as this would normally produce an output in the region of 75- 100kw.' This case is at appeal at the moment - we're hoping for some sanity from the national appeals board... Crazy! Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 11/12/2011 19:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Andy Champ wrote: On 10/12/2011 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A friend calcualted it..at full tip speed and no wind resistance we got a a range of about 250 yards..it was less than I thought. So did I. 90 metres per second, assume it flies off at the 45 degree for peak range its vertical speed will be ~60 metres/second. 6 seconds up, 6 down again at 1g. Flight time is therefore 12 seconds, horizontal velocity 60 metres per second gives me ... 700-ish without thinking too much. And the real blades are mounted up a tower. Consider the tip of the top blade, it's a _long_ way up. And also consider we are thinking of an overspeed situation... yes. I cant remember what the safety area is but its no more than a few turbine heights - two or three. Local factory owner wants to prove his 'green-ness' by putting a 40m-tall turbine up. Trouble is , it's within 150m of the nearest house - and there's lots more of us within 300-500m. Turbine manufacturer recommends an exclusion zone 'fall-over' distance of 1.5 x tip height - this area can't be obtained due to the small size of the factory plot. The factory offices and production areas fall within the 'fall-over' zone. We're fighting it... - www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com register with the european platform against wind..something like that. Good collection of reasons why wind is not a good idea in the real world www.clarewind.org.uk I am against ALL renewable energy by the way, that is not fully paid for by the person who erects it ...if it can compete on a level playing field let it. But the reality is it is forced down our throats by subsidy using greed as the basic motive for its introduction. Get a local poll organised. The usual flannel is to say 'most people are really in favour of this' but several hundred people who are prepared to stand up and be counted saying 'no' are hard to wave away. See here for how the local worthies on the council were forced to actually represent the people who elected them. http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=16 All normal health and safety, environmental and nuisance laws have been bent like paperclips to get onshore wind allowable. That's so true. Highly-paid consultants writing garbage reports that 'prove' that turbines will be inaudible, and council planning departments who haven't a clue - quote from the Council's report granting permission 'A proposal such as this would normally produce an output in the region of 75- 100kw.' So about the same as a small car engine... if that. This case is at appeal at the moment - we're hoping for some sanity from the national appeals board... Oh ****. The appeals board usually gets bought off. Crazy! Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 12/12/2011 05:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote: On 11/12/2011 19:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Andy Champ wrote: On 10/12/2011 09:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote: A friend calcualted it..at full tip speed and no wind resistance we got a a range of about 250 yards..it was less than I thought. So did I. 90 metres per second, assume it flies off at the 45 degree for peak range its vertical speed will be ~60 metres/second. 6 seconds up, 6 down again at 1g. Flight time is therefore 12 seconds, horizontal velocity 60 metres per second gives me ... 700-ish without thinking too much. And the real blades are mounted up a tower. Consider the tip of the top blade, it's a _long_ way up. And also consider we are thinking of an overspeed situation... yes. I cant remember what the safety area is but its no more than a few turbine heights - two or three. Local factory owner wants to prove his 'green-ness' by putting a 40m-tall turbine up. Trouble is , it's within 150m of the nearest house - and there's lots more of us within 300-500m. Turbine manufacturer recommends an exclusion zone 'fall-over' distance of 1.5 x tip height - this area can't be obtained due to the small size of the factory plot. The factory offices and production areas fall within the 'fall-over' zone. We're fighting it... - www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com register with the european platform against wind..something like that. Ah - didn't know there was one. Bit late now as we're at the appeal stage. Good collection of reasons why wind is not a good idea in the real world www.clarewind.org.uk I am against ALL renewable energy by the way, that is not fully paid for by the person who erects it ...if it can compete on a level playing field let it. But the reality is it is forced down our throats by subsidy using greed as the basic motive for its introduction. Amen to that! Get a local poll organised. The usual flannel is to say 'most people are really in favour of this' but several hundred people who are prepared to stand up and be counted saying 'no' are hard to wave away. See here for how the local worthies on the council were forced to actually represent the people who elected them. http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=16 We have a fairly strong case, I think. There's only a handful of us within 500m of the proposed site, and we've all objected. All normal health and safety, environmental and nuisance laws have been bent like paperclips to get onshore wind allowable. That's so true. Highly-paid consultants writing garbage reports that 'prove' that turbines will be inaudible, and council planning departments who haven't a clue - quote from the Council's report granting permission 'A proposal such as this would normally produce an output in the region of 75- 100kw.' So about the same as a small car engine... if that. That figure is, of course, the rating of the turbine running at full power - given that this particular install is at the low point in our valley, surrounded by trees and factory buildings, and in a low wind area - they'll be lucky to see even a fifth of that.. This case is at appeal at the moment - we're hoping for some sanity from the national appeals board... Oh ****. The appeals board usually gets bought off. In this case it looks as if they are listening. They've told the man to get another noise survey done, and have asked some other pointed questions. there's hope yet! It's annoying that the whole thing is surrounded in subsidies and extravagant claims - and dressed up so that, if you object, you're assuring the imminent end of life on this planet. We suspect that all this particular installation is about is subsidy and a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with a 'super-green' turbine in the background. 'Follow the money' as they say! Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote:
They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. -- Cheers Dave. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 12/12/2011 09:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote: They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. Hi Dave Yes - it seems that the 'accepted techinque' (accepted by the consultants and the pro-wind lobby) is to measure the existing background noise at 'noise-sensitive locations' - then take the manufacturer's noise data for the turbine, feed that into some formulae to do with distance from the turbine, and use the results to 'prove' that 'you'll hardly hear it'. All highly dubious.... IMHO. And you're right - everything measured in db(A) - so as to minimise the LF end of things. Cunning! The original consultants' report is available here http://www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com/eis.html the noise measurements start at p11 To make it more 'bent' - the turbine that the man has planning permission for is a modern (gearboxless) model (although the quoted configuration does not actually exist). We suspect that he intends to install a 'recycled' German, 20-year-old unit, which will have a gearbox which was noisy when the unit was new, and will be even noisier still now. The original noise figures were based on the 'mythical' new turbine. Pointed this out to the local planners, who ignored the fact. It all stinks! Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
In article , Adrian Brentnall
scribeth thus On 12/12/2011 09:33, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote: They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. Hi Dave Yes - it seems that the 'accepted techinque' (accepted by the consultants and the pro-wind lobby) is to measure the existing background noise at 'noise-sensitive locations' - then take the manufacturer's noise data for the turbine, feed that into some formulae to do with distance from the turbine, and use the results to 'prove' that 'you'll hardly hear it'. All highly dubious.... IMHO. Is all dubious, wind turbines do make noise and as they say a noisy noise annoys;!.... And you're right - everything measured in db(A) - so as to minimise the LF end of things. Cunning! Typical of that vexed industry... The original consultants' report is available here http://www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com/eis.html the noise measurements start at p11 To make it more 'bent' - the turbine that the man has planning permission for is a modern (gearboxless) model (although the quoted configuration does not actually exist). We suspect that he intends to install a 'recycled' German, 20-year-old unit, which will have a gearbox which was noisy when the unit was new, and will be even noisier still now. The original noise figures were based on the 'mythical' new turbine. Pointed this out to the local planners, who ignored the fact. It all stinks! Adrian -- Tony Sayer |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote: They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. +1 The blade fundamental frequency is typically in the range of 1-3HZ IIRC. That goes straight into the ground, and can get amplified especially in timber frame houses. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 12/12/2011 09:33, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote: They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. Hi Dave Yes - it seems that the 'accepted techinque' (accepted by the consultants and the pro-wind lobby) is to measure the existing background noise at 'noise-sensitive locations' - then take the manufacturer's noise data for the turbine, feed that into some formulae to do with distance from the turbine, and use the results to 'prove' that 'you'll hardly hear it'. All highly dubious.... IMHO. And you're right - everything measured in db(A) - so as to minimise the LF end of things. Cunning! The original consultants' report is available here http://www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com/eis.html the noise measurements start at p11 To make it more 'bent' - the turbine that the man has planning permission for is a modern (gearboxless) model (although the quoted configuration does not actually exist). We suspect that he intends to install a 'recycled' German, 20-year-old unit, which will have a gearbox which was noisy when the unit was new, and will be even noisier still now. The original noise figures were based on the 'mythical' new turbine. Pointed this out to the local planners, who ignored the fact. Remember that at least one wind farm was forcibly closed for a period after the noise it made exceeded the planning application guidelines. The case was notable in that their lordships deemed that the council did have power to enforce the conditions on which permission was granted. http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News...wn-6934757.htm It all stinks! Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
|
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 12/12/2011 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote: On 12/12/2011 09:33, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote: They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. Hi Dave Yes - it seems that the 'accepted techinque' (accepted by the consultants and the pro-wind lobby) is to measure the existing background noise at 'noise-sensitive locations' - then take the manufacturer's noise data for the turbine, feed that into some formulae to do with distance from the turbine, and use the results to 'prove' that 'you'll hardly hear it'. All highly dubious.... IMHO. And you're right - everything measured in db(A) - so as to minimise the LF end of things. Cunning! The original consultants' report is available here http://www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com/eis.html the noise measurements start at p11 To make it more 'bent' - the turbine that the man has planning permission for is a modern (gearboxless) model (although the quoted configuration does not actually exist). We suspect that he intends to install a 'recycled' German, 20-year-old unit, which will have a gearbox which was noisy when the unit was new, and will be even noisier still now. The original noise figures were based on the 'mythical' new turbine. Pointed this out to the local planners, who ignored the fact. Remember that at least one wind farm was forcibly closed for a period after the noise it made exceeded the planning application guidelines. The case was notable in that their lordships deemed that the council did have power to enforce the conditions on which permission was granted. http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News...wn-6934757.htm We'd rather it didn't get that far. In this case it's not a 'farm' as such - just one dirty great windmill in completely the wrong location. Laughed at the '2km' distance mentioned in your link - some of us are less than 200m from the planned location - and people working in the factory will be within 50m of it. Fingers crossed that the planning appeal folks have their thinking heads on when they revisit the application in Feb 2012. Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
Adrian Brentnall wrote:
On 12/12/2011 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Adrian Brentnall wrote: On 12/12/2011 09:33, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote: They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. Hi Dave Yes - it seems that the 'accepted techinque' (accepted by the consultants and the pro-wind lobby) is to measure the existing background noise at 'noise-sensitive locations' - then take the manufacturer's noise data for the turbine, feed that into some formulae to do with distance from the turbine, and use the results to 'prove' that 'you'll hardly hear it'. All highly dubious.... IMHO. And you're right - everything measured in db(A) - so as to minimise the LF end of things. Cunning! The original consultants' report is available here http://www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com/eis.html the noise measurements start at p11 To make it more 'bent' - the turbine that the man has planning permission for is a modern (gearboxless) model (although the quoted configuration does not actually exist). We suspect that he intends to install a 'recycled' German, 20-year-old unit, which will have a gearbox which was noisy when the unit was new, and will be even noisier still now. The original noise figures were based on the 'mythical' new turbine. Pointed this out to the local planners, who ignored the fact. Remember that at least one wind farm was forcibly closed for a period after the noise it made exceeded the planning application guidelines. The case was notable in that their lordships deemed that the council did have power to enforce the conditions on which permission was granted. http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News...wn-6934757.htm We'd rather it didn't get that far. In this case it's not a 'farm' as such - just one dirty great windmill in completely the wrong location. Laughed at the '2km' distance mentioned in your link - some of us are less than 200m from the planned location - and people working in the factory will be within 50m of it. I think that would be a national outrage if it got passed.. Fingers crossed that the planning appeal folks have their thinking heads on when they revisit the application in Feb 2012. Good luck. Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On 12/12/2011 19:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Adrian Brentnall wrote: On 12/12/2011 14:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Adrian Brentnall wrote: On 12/12/2011 09:33, Dave Liquorice wrote: On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall wrote: They've told the man to get another noise survey done, Survey of the existing noise levels? Make sure that the survey uses the relatively flat C-Weighting curve not the A-weighting which rolls the low frequencies off very dramatically. Just because you can't hear it with your ears doesn't mean low frequencies have no affect on the human body/mind. Hi Dave Yes - it seems that the 'accepted techinque' (accepted by the consultants and the pro-wind lobby) is to measure the existing background noise at 'noise-sensitive locations' - then take the manufacturer's noise data for the turbine, feed that into some formulae to do with distance from the turbine, and use the results to 'prove' that 'you'll hardly hear it'. All highly dubious.... IMHO. And you're right - everything measured in db(A) - so as to minimise the LF end of things. Cunning! The original consultants' report is available here http://www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com/eis.html the noise measurements start at p11 To make it more 'bent' - the turbine that the man has planning permission for is a modern (gearboxless) model (although the quoted configuration does not actually exist). We suspect that he intends to install a 'recycled' German, 20-year-old unit, which will have a gearbox which was noisy when the unit was new, and will be even noisier still now. The original noise figures were based on the 'mythical' new turbine. Pointed this out to the local planners, who ignored the fact. Remember that at least one wind farm was forcibly closed for a period after the noise it made exceeded the planning application guidelines. The case was notable in that their lordships deemed that the council did have power to enforce the conditions on which permission was granted. http://www.northern-times.co.uk/News...wn-6934757.htm We'd rather it didn't get that far. In this case it's not a 'farm' as such - just one dirty great windmill in completely the wrong location. Laughed at the '2km' distance mentioned in your link - some of us are less than 200m from the planned location - and people working in the factory will be within 50m of it. I think that would be a national outrage if it got passed.. It could certainly be arranged! g Odd how the original application was chucked out by the Planners on the grounds that it would have a detrimental effect on the local environment & residents - but, on the re-application, they gave it the 'thumbs-up'. One wonders...... Fingers crossed that the planning appeal folks have their thinking heads on when they revisit the application in Feb 2012. Good luck. Thanks! We have some good people on 'our' side Adrian |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 21:49:09 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote: Local factory owner wants to prove his 'green-ness' by putting a 40m-tall turbine up. Trouble is , it's within 150m of the nearest house - and there's lots more of us within 300-500m. Turbine manufacturer recommends an exclusion zone 'fall-over' distance of 1.5 x tip height - this area can't be obtained due to the small size of the factory plot. The factory offices and production areas fall within the 'fall-over' zone. We're fighting it... - www.ceramicxwindfarmsucks.com "Given the overwhelming technical arguments against the planning application - it's hard not to conclude that this application has been granted for political reasons, rather than for planning reasons." Hah. Welcome to Ireland, still the land of the brown envelope. |
Wind not good for wind farms...
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:53:57 +0000, Adrian Brentnall
wrote: We suspect that all this particular installation is about is subsidy and a photo of the happy workforce in front of the factory gates, with a 'super-green' turbine in the background. Beats me why the factory owners couldn't find a better site and still get the credit for it. Who says it has to be on their own plot? Just them, I'd suppose. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter