On Thursday, 7 May 2015 11:20:11 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:41:15 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 18:49:10 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for
the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a chance
of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump,
the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged one,
in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.


yes we need to make sure that they kill less people than nuclear has,

No, because neither of them kill enough to matter.

If yuo're putting safety measures in for nuclear then
you must also put safety measureing in for turbiuns

Nope.

Yep.


the same goes for coal and gas.

Not even possible with coal fired power.

They have bene numorous safety improvemnts to pits over the last 100 years.
Year ago we used to send kids down the pits.


Thta's teh only way to properly price energy in
order to compare the cost and safety aspects.

That has never been what its about.

That's the problem isn't it.


so every single turbin would need to have safety
equipment installed so people don't get killed by them,

No. What matters is that hardly anyone ends up dead.

Hardley anyone isn't good enough.

Corse it is. It will never be possible to see no one dead.

I agree but that's NO excuse not to make things safer is it ?


I don;t think ANYONE has been killed because
of storing old fuel cells from nuclear reactors.

Yes, but even you should have noticed
that few did end up dead in Chernobyl.

31 died.

a few in various coal mines too, and some due to wind turbins.



and that cost should be added to the cost production
just like any other system for generating power.

It isn't with coal fired power generation.

It is.

Wrong, as always.

right as always. When the generating companies pay more for the coal they put their prices up.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/15 08:22, Dennis@home wrote:
On 07/05/2015 06:47, harryagain wrote:

The strange thing is that the fire just happened when they were present.
Also they didn't notice 'til it was too late.
And the built in fire extiguishers didn't work.

Looks to me like they done something stupid.



Most fires are because someone does something stupid, that's why you
need escape plans .

Most fires in wind turbines are down to failed gearboxes.

Most new wind turbines don't have gearboxes.

On 07/05/2015 15:38, Huge wrote:
On 2015-05-07, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 07/05/2015 10:55, whisky-dave wrote:
...
Hardley anyone isn't good enough.

Although setting a target figure of no worse than nuclear power,
excluding Chernobyl, would be a start. That would be around 0.004 deaths
per TWh.

I don;t think ANYONE has been killed because of storing old fuel cells from nuclear reactors...

It is actually safe to swim in spent fuel cell ponds, provided you stay
on the surface. Diving to get closer to the cells is not recommended though.

Are you an xkcd fan?

I am now, although until you mentioned it, I had not realised that was
where the article I was thinking about came from.

--
Colin Bignell

On 07/05/2015 10:55, whisky-dave wrote:

Hardley anyone isn't good enough. I don;t think ANYONE has been
killed because of storing old fuel cells from nuclear reactors.
Perhaps you need to talk to harry about this, he seems very concenred
about the cost of making sure no one dies from nuclear but couldn't
give a **** about those dying because of wind turbins or even coal
production.

But you might die a horrible death from nukes, like old age, unlike wind
turbines that kill you when you are young.

On 07/05/2015 16:28, whisky-dave wrote:

So what is ?

Slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Why don't bungi jumpers slam in the where they jump from then ?


Because they don't jump off things without overhangs.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 07/05/2015 14:23, DJC wrote:
On 07/05/15 07:36, Bod wrote:
On 07/05/2015 07:06, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 22:12, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 18:49, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 06/05/2015 16:12, whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if
the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and
jump, the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical (obviously a slightly advanged
one, in
that it's slowly breaks the fall) If you know the hieght would
it be
that difficult to design such a thing ?


We obviously need the HSE to step in and regulate these highly
dangerous
structures.

What about metal rungs going part of the way down (say20ft) and a
little
covered safe area where 2 people can sit and wait for rescue?

Makes more sense to have a fire proof rope and a gadget
that allows a controlled rate of descent on that rope.

Mechanisms can freeze up in icy weather.

In practice that is easily avoided by the mountaineers and riggers.

I still think that the best and safest/cheapest way, is to have metal
rungs so they can quickly climb down a short distance to a small covered
cubby hole where they can clip themselves onto until they are rescued.
They'd be away from the smoke and a small metal cover over their heads
will protect them from any falling bits. I'm sure it wouldn't cost much
to equip all of them like that.
There'd be no mechanisms to possibly fail either.


Or even at hatch into the internal shaft at that lower level, where
there would be some prospect of descending from within. The fires seem
to be at the top.



Interesting idea and food for thought.

I'm not convinced. The electrical cables must go
thru there and can obviously be involved in the fire.
And its much safer to stay outside lack of oxygen
and smoke inhalation wise.

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 23:40, Rod Speed wrote:
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote

I suspect that an integral fire fighting system would have been of
more use to the two Dutch engineers.

But a lot more expensive than a fire proof rope.

That was the point of my suggestion that wind generators should be
subject to more regulation - price them out of the market.

I'm not convinced it would do that. The cost of an integrated
fire system would be a pretty small part of the total cost.

It's a start.

I've never bought this it’s a start line with stuff like this.

I'm sure that a thorough investigation of all the potential risks could
produce a lot more regulations. For example, enclosing the blades in a
cage to contain them if they break up or fall off.

That is never going to get up. Same with aircraft.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 7 May 2015 10:52:47 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 21:38:54 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 6 May 2015 11:37:32 UTC+1, Dennis@home wrote:
On 06/05/2015 09:10, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 23:08, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:23, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 18:01, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsWPnpZLiLs


Crikey.

not a nice way to go......


An absailing rope and a point to hook it onto, might be handy
for
the
future or even just a rope. At least it would give them a
chance
of
descending relatively safely.

A rope might burn through. I think I'd prefer a parachute if the
tower
were high enough.

From my parachuting days, I seem to remember that the minimum
height
for a chute to open is about 500ft and that's assuming that the
chute
opens perfectly, which is not always the case.

You need a rope and an air brake, just attach to harness and jump,
the
rope should survive the few tens of seconds needed.

Its still a bit risky if its windy, then you need the rope to be
attached to the ground.

Would a bungi rope be practical

Too much risk of slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Not much risk at all if you get the measurments right, plenty of people
do
it for fun.
http://www.ukbungee.co.uk/content/24...ne-bungee-jump

That is nothing even remotely like a wind turbine.

(obviously a slightly advanged one, in that it's slowly breaks the
fall)
If you know the hieght would it be that difficult to design such a
thing
?

Sure, the height isn't the problem.

So what is ?

Slamming into the tower at the end of the fall.

Why don't bungi jumpers slam in the where they jump from then ?

Because they always ensure that they jump from a bridge
or a crane etc where there is nothing you can slam into.

On 06/05/2015 22:34, Tim Streater wrote:

As a matter of interest, what is up there that's so flammable?

Plastic composite housing, cable insulation, lube oil, and lots of
energy to get it going.

Andy