We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.
--
Bod

On 05/05/2015 15:48, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 15:27:16 +0100, Bod wrote:

We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.

Nothing new there then. Have you a link to the source of that tasty
morsel?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/n...time/index.htm

and dangerous.......

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

On 05/05/2015 16:38, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
and dangerous.......

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


Crikey.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.

Drivel.
Do you actually know the difference between payback time and efficiency?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...rce#Wind_power

On 05/05/2015 17:19, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.

Drivel.
Do you actually know the difference between payback time and efficiency?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...rce#Wind_power


http://waldenlabs.com/the-truth-about-wind-power/

On 05/05/2015 17:26, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 17:19, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.

Drivel.
Do you actually know the difference between payback time and efficiency?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...rce#Wind_power


http://waldenlabs.com/the-truth-about-wind-power/

AND:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...-revealed.html

"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......

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.

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......



I watched the twin towers live, it wasn't nice either.
You could see them jumping.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 17:19, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.

Drivel.
Do you actually know the difference between payback time and efficiency?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...rce#Wind_power


http://waldenlabs.com/the-truth-about-wind-power/

What has an article a bout the USA (completely different weather /politics)
got to do with the UK?

On 05/05/2015 18:57, Dennis@home 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......



I watched the twin towers live, it wasn't nice either.
You could see them jumping.

Yes, it was sad and sickening.

On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

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

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could find a
single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having failed to
verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going any further
with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be based in
social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or pseudo-news
generators.

--
Denis McMahon,

Denis McMahon scribbled


On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

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

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could find a
single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having failed to
verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going any further
with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be based in
social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or pseudo-news
generators.


I found it. Try harder.

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-aft...-turbine-fire/

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comment..._engineers_die
d_when_the_windmill/

On Tue, 05 May 2015 21:34:18 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Denis McMahon scribbled


On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

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

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could find
a single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having failed to
verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going any further
with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be based
in social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or pseudo-news
generators.

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-aft...-turbine-fire/

Looks like an industry interest.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comment..._engineers_die
d_when_the_windmill/

Social media.

BBC News? Telegraph? Guardian? Mainstream Netherlands Media? ....

--
Denis McMahon,

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.

--
Colin Bignell

On 05/05/2015 22:24, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 21:34:18 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Denis McMahon scribbled


On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

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

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could find
a single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having failed to
verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going any further
with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be based
in social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or pseudo-news
generators.

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-aft...-turbine-fire/

Looks like an industry interest.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comment..._engineers_die
d_when_the_windmill/

Social media.

BBC News? Telegraph? Guardian?

No particular reason why they would cover an industrial accident abroad.

Mainstream Netherlands Media? ....

I don't read Dutch, but it is on an English language Dutch news site:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2013/10/30/dea...ooltgensplaat/

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Much less viable for those who have never used one.

On 05/05/2015 23:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Much less viable for those who have never used one.

The same is true of many safety devices, which is why the people who
might need to use them get training.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 23:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Much less viable for those who have never used one.

The same is true of many safety devices, which is why the people who might
need to use them get training.

They don’t with those in the twin towers situation being discussed.

On Tue, 05 May 2015 23:16:59 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 05/05/2015 22:24, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 21:34:18 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Denis McMahon scribbled


On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

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

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could
find a single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having
failed to verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going
any further with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be
based in social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or
pseudo-news generators.

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-aft...-turbine-fire/

Looks like an industry interest.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1q0sca/
last_week_two_engineers_die
d_when_the_windmill/

Social media.

BBC News? Telegraph? Guardian?

No particular reason why they would cover an industrial accident abroad.

Mainstream Netherlands Media? ....

I don't read Dutch, but it is on an English language Dutch news site:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2013/10/30/dea...-wind-turbine-
ooltgensplaat/

Yes, that's the pseudo news generator I was talking about. Click their
"about" link. They have a total staff of 4.

They may not be a spoof site, but they're not mainstream news. They do
seem to be the source quoted for some other media organisations, eg a
local county paper somewhere in the USA quoted them.

This rather graphic image of people having to choose between jumping to
almost certain death or being burned alive is the sort of thing that rags
such as the mirror, mail, sun, star, even daily express these days seem
to thrive on, and yet none of them picked it up.

I'm not saying it didn't happen (at the moment), I'm saying I'm very
sceptical about the reports I've seen so far.

--
Denis McMahon,

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 17:19, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.

Drivel.
Do you actually know the difference between payback time and efficiency?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...rce#Wind_power


http://waldenlabs.com/the-truth-about-wind-power/

What has an article about the USA got to do with us?

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 17:26, Bod wrote:
On 05/05/2015 17:19, harryagain wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.

Drivel.
Do you actually know the difference between payback time and efficiency?

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...analysis-finds


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...rce#Wind_power


http://waldenlabs.com/the-truth-about-wind-power/

AND:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...-revealed.html

You never read that did you?
Wind farms are not about creating jobs ****-fer-brains.

Denis McMahon wrote:

I'm not saying it didn't happen (at the moment), I'm saying I'm very
sceptical about the reports I've seen so far.

You think they send fire engines, ambulances and helicopters to wind
turbines for the hell of it?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=vid&q=turbine+Ooltgensplaat

You might need to turn on subtitles and Dutch-English translation of them.

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-en-publicaties/kamerstukken/2013/11/26/beantwoording-kamervragen-veiligheid-windturbines/beantwoording-kamervragen-veiligheid-windturbines.pdf

"answers to parliamentary questions member of the Jansen (SP) on the
external and internal security of wind turbines. Those questions have
been raised as a result of a fire in a wind turbine Ooltgensplaat where
two technicians were killed."

"Inspectie SZW was commissioned by the Public Prosecution investigation
launched into the accident Ooltgensplaat"

Inspectie SZW = Inspectorate for Social Affairs and Employment ~= H&S
Rijksoverheid = Government

Not a complete waste of time as everything wears out. However I do think all
renewables are based on calculations which cannot be substantiated. IE
climate and wind in particular are pretty transient things to base a whole
industry on. I am reminded of the speed that old sailing clippers were
replaced by steam power once it became an option, as the wind was fickle and
it meant many ports had to have reliable trade winds nearby.

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bod" wrote in message
...
We've all been spun bull**** about how efficient they are.

The payback time is probably somewhere over a 100 years.
They need to be renewed about every 20 to 30 years and many cost over a
Hundred grand each.
--
Bod

On 06/05/2015 02:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 23:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Much less viable for those who have never used one.

The same is true of many safety devices, which is why the people who
might need to use them get training.

They don’t with those in the twin towers situation being discussed.

That is a different part of the thread. This bit is about wind turbine
maintenance staff.

--
Colin Bignell

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 06/05/2015 02:40, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 05/05/2015 23:24, Rod Speed wrote:


"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Much less viable for those who have never used one.

The same is true of many safety devices, which is why the people who
might need to use them get training.

They don’t with those in the twin towers situation being discussed.

That is a different part of the thread. This bit is about wind turbine
maintenance staff.

Makes no sense to use parachutes in that situation.

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.

On 06/05/2015 03:05, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 23:16:59 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
....
I don't read Dutch, but it is on an English language Dutch news site:

http://www.nltimes.nl/2013/10/30/dea...-wind-turbine-
ooltgensplaat/

Yes, that's the pseudo news generator I was talking about. Click their
"about" link. They have a total staff of 4.

That is fairly common for foreign language news sources. They don't have
reporters, merely translators who take news stories from other media.


They may not be a spoof site, but they're not mainstream news. They do
seem to be the source quoted for some other media organisations, eg a
local county paper somewhere in the USA quoted them.

This rather graphic image of people having to choose between jumping to
almost certain death or being burned alive is the sort of thing that rags
such as the mirror, mail, sun, star, even daily express these days seem
to thrive on, and yet none of them picked it up.

It would be unusual if one picked it up and not the others, as that sort
of story would come through a news agency, not from their own reporters,
so it would probably be more accurate to say that Reuters didn't pick up
on it.

I'm not saying it didn't happen (at the moment), I'm saying I'm very
sceptical about the reports I've seen so far.

The video looks real enough. What is your problem with it? Deaths among
people working on wind turbines are common enough to give them a death
rate of 0.15 per TWh.


--
Colin Bignell

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.

Have to use wire rope then, or have a hang glider stored in every
turbine housing. :-)

--
Colin Bignell

On 06/05/15 08:34, Brian-Gaff wrote:
However I do think all
renewables are based on calculations

I don't.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

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.

Have to use wire rope then, or have a hang glider stored in every
turbine housing. :-)

Lol.

On 05/05/15 21:34, Jonno wrote:
Denis McMahon scribbled


On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

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

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could find a
single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having failed to
verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going any further
with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be based in
social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or pseudo-news
generators.


I found it. Try harder.

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-aft...-turbine-fire/

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comment..._engineers_die
d_when_the_windmill/


Yep. its very strange - I saw in a local paper some years ago that a man
had been killed at Felixstowe docks when a wind turbine blade being
unloaded fell on him.

Never been able to find it online since.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Bod" wrote in message
...
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.

Base jumpers do it a lot lower than that.

On 05/05/15 22:24, Denis McMahon wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 21:34:18 +0100, Jonno wrote:

Denis McMahon scribbled


On Tue, 05 May 2015 16:38:43 +0100, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

and dangerous.......

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

I'd find that alleged[1] 2013 incident more believable if I could find
a single mainstream media or industry report for it. Having failed to
verify the first story in the video, I didn't bother going any further
with it.

[1] Alleged because all the reports I can find for it seem to be based
in social media, groups with an anti wind energy bias, or pseudo-news
generators.

http://renews.biz/52979/two-dead-aft...-turbine-fire/

Looks like an industry interest.

http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comment..._engineers_die
d_when_the_windmill/

Social media.

BBC News? Telegraph? Guardian? Mainstream Netherlands Media? ....

Not important enough and doesn't fit their lefty agenda.

Of course if it had been a nuclear power station....

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
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.

Have to use wire rope then,

Yeah, a fire proof rope makes a lot more sense.

or have a hang glider stored in every turbine housing. :-)

Ejector seat.

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.

Base jumpers do it a lot lower than that.

How much lower, what is the minimum height?

On Wed, 06 May 2015 08:34:37 +0100, Brian-Gaff wrote:

However I do think all renewables are based on calculations which cannot
be substantiated.

A bit like the real cost of nuclear power then?



--
Aspersions don't float.

"Bod" wrote in message
...

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.

Base jumpers do it a lot lower than that.

How much lower, what is the minimum height?

There isn't one, which is the reason that more than 250 of the fools have
ended up dead.

On 06/05/2015 09:35, Bod wrote:

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.

Base jumpers do it a lot lower than that.

How much lower, what is the minimum height?

It seems that one did it from the Whispering Gallery in St Paul's
Cathedral. Having said that, most seem to agree that 500ft is the
minimum safe height.

--
Colin Bignell