windfarms good for birds

[Rich_]

Originally Posted by freefeet

It's certainly becoming rather ted(ious).

A steel tower windmill is not going to collapse after twenty years, it just needs a mechanical overhaul.

Not getting involved in the argument about the pros & cons of wind power, but a steel tower on a turbine I would imagine would be subjected to a lot of stresses and over a 20 year period and could be subject to metal fatigue similar to the airframe of an aircraft which also have to be repaired or replaced. Have you seen the spectacular way in which a wind turbine self destructs if the brakes fail on a windy day? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEcc...eature=related You wouldn't want any weaknesses in the main tower, and having seen a couple of films of this happening I am surprised the ones up the road from me are sited so close to the road, within 200 yds in some cases.
An old fashioned water mill is a brick or wooden building where only the mechanical parts are subjected to stress and wear.

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by Rich_

Not getting involved in the argument about the pros & cons of wind power, but a steel tower on a turbine I would imagine would be subjected to a lot of stresses and over a 20 year period and could be subject to metal fatigue similar to the airframe of an aircraft which also have to be repaired or replaced.

As someone who used to repair and service aircraft - specifically helicopters - i can assure you that they don't fall to bits after twenty years - and a helicopter takes a lot more punishment and vibration than a wind turbine tower, it's also made from aluminium which i'm sure you know isn't anything like as strong as steel and reinforced concrete.

I've flown in two planes over 60 years old without any thoughts as to them falling to bits. If a turbine is put up correctly, serviced correctly and has its blades balanced correctly there should be no reason for failure.

As to the water mill i think you missed the point. The point i was making is that if things are looked after properly they will last and last and last. It's a very tiny investment in terms of energy for the good upkeep and servicing of a wind turbine in relation to its output.

[Rich_]

Suppose if they can keep a steel ship seaworthy in salt water for decades they should be able to do keep on top of a wind turbine.

[freefeet]

Originally Posted by Rich_

Suppose if they can keep a steel ship seaworthy in salt water for decades they should be able to do keep on top of a wind turbine.

And North Sea oil rigs! Those things take some of the worse punishment of any man made structures on the planet. It seems fairly obvious that if we can make an oil rig to withstand the environment of the North Sea we can make a wind turbine tower to last more than 20 years.

[Nightranger]

Originally Posted by freefeet

And North Sea oil rigs! Those things take some of the worse punishment of any man made structures on the planet. It seems fairly obvious that if we can make an oil rig to withstand the environment of the North Sea we can make a wind turbine tower to last more than 20 years.

Bearing in mind what I said about high tension cables earlier in the thread...did you know that oil rig plumes cause incredibly high casualties among migrating birds in bad weather...then again, lighthouses are not innocent either. I am not being cyinical here, it just goes to show how complicated these issues are.

Ted - I am not aware the RSPB has ignored the nuclear debate but I think we ought to have some cynicism about Tony Blair's comments of a few years a go. This has certain parallels with the debate about a new 'London' airport because basically, the real desire is to expand Gatwick but a legal block prevents this and I suspect given that BAA have announced the sale of the airport, the legal block will not be lifted when it expires next year. A few years ago there was a proposal to build a new airport at Cliffe...before that it was Maplin Sands...now Boris Johnson has proposed another airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary. This smacks of 'give us what we want and no one gets hurt' (to quote U2 in Vertigo) or put another way, give in on opposing expansion of current airports or the wildlife area gets it. To my mind, Tony Blair was voicing a lack of patience with the way too many wind farms were being opposed and trotted out nuclear power because he knew it was the one the public has least trust in. At the time, the RSPB stated that they did not think nuclear power was the way forward, which neither supports nor condemns it. As far as I can tell, the RSPB's policy on sustainable energy fully allows them to review situations should the information reveal something of more importance to the overal debate...maybe we should all take a little bit from that and keep our minds open even if that is not normal human nature. At the end of the day, there are few short of the industrialists who think we are not facing a lot of problems even if we disagree on the finer detail

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by Nightranger

Bearing in mind what I said about high tension cables earlier in the thread...did you know that oil rig plumes cause incredibly high casualties among migrating birds in bad weather...then again, lighthouses are not innocent either. I am not being cyinical here, it just goes to show how complicated these issues are.

Ted - I am not aware the RSPB has ignored the nuclear debate but I think we ought to have some cynicism about Tony Blair's comments of a few years a go. This has certain parallels with the debate about a new 'London' airport because basically, the real desire is to expand Gatwick but a legal block prevents this and I suspect given that BAA have announced the sale of the airport, the legal block will not be lifted when it expires next year. A few years ago there was a proposal to build a new airport at Cliffe...before that it was Maplin Sands...now Boris Johnson has proposed another airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary. This smacks of 'give us what we want and no one gets hurt' (to quote U2 in Vertigo) or put another way, give in on opposing expansion of current airports or the wildlife area gets it. To my mind, Tony Blair was voicing a lack of patience with the way too many wind farms were being opposed and trotted out nuclear power because he knew it was the one the public has least trust in. At the time, the RSPB stated that they did not think nuclear power was the way forward, which neither supports nor condemns it. As far as I can tell, the RSPB's policy on sustainable energy fully allows them to review situations should the information reveal something of more importance to the overal debate...maybe we should all take a little bit from that and keep our minds open even if that is not normal human nature. At the end of the day, there are few short of the industrialists who think we are not facing a lot of problems even if we disagree on the finer detail

I also am unsure of RSPB’s stance on nuclear. I do know that in the USA, environmental groups advertise an agenda of simply saving the wildlife but ultimately lobby against human health, welfare, energy and advancement. I can’t say if the RSPB has entered this arena, but it seems as if their advice is being sought as it should be. It is only when these agencies refuse solutions again and again, that we must examine their true motivations.
I am unaware of the comments by Tony Blair regarding the RSPB or Nuclear Power. If you would please tell me what they were, it would help my understanding. (Please forgive the ignorance of a Yank) How long ago did he say that we had less than a year to live due to Global Warming? Our Barbara Boxer is a real ‘piece of work’ too. It seems that everywhere I look in our government lately, there are followers of Marx and Mao, child-molesters, liars and a general disinterest in the voice of the people. Fortunately, ‘The People’ will eventually be heard, either through the voting booth or the 2nd Amendment.

[Ted Pearson]

Originally Posted by freefeet

As someone who used to repair and service aircraft - specifically helicopters - i can assure you that they don't fall to bits after twenty years - and a helicopter takes a lot more punishment and vibration than a wind turbine tower, it's also made from aluminium which i'm sure you know isn't anything like as strong as steel and reinforced concrete.

I've flown in two planes over 60 years old without any thoughts as to them falling to bits. If a turbine is put up correctly, serviced correctly and has its blades balanced correctly there should be no reason for failure.

As to the water mill i think you missed the point. The point i was making is that if things are looked after properly they will last and last and last. It's a very tiny investment in terms of energy for the good upkeep and servicing of a wind turbine in relation to its output.

It sounds as if experience as a mechanic has given you a vast knowledge of structural design. Just how much ‘stronger’ is steel than aluminum? What regulations relating to construction of oil rigs operating in the North Sea (DNV typ.) have structural strength requirements higher than those operating in other waters (ABS, IMO typ.)? Hope that enquiries into if you know what you are prattling on about do not make you irrita(Ted).
Getting around all the conjecture, the manufacturer of these windmills specified their lifecycle at 20 years. By what method do you assume they could last any more than 20%beyond that and how can you claim the overhaul cost to be ‘miniscule’? It has already been established that these windmills will be profitable less than ¼ of their life before requiring an overhaul. I imagine if they were designed to meet your ‘hundreds of years’ serviceability criteria, cost would sharply increase while the energy output does not, so we would only break even decades later. That is only if the wind patterns do not shift north or south of the location, a new migratory path for birds shuts them down or the next technology makes them obsolete.
As to the old fashioned windmill, I think you ignored Rich _’s point. The main reason the mill you speak of has lasted this long is because it was built well and designed to last for generations. I would imagine that hundreds of years ago, when this mill was built, it was by a family of Millers who constructed it as a family business. I think you would agree that occupations back then where handed down through multiple generations and along with the probability that the family also used the mill as their home, it was built to NEVER break down. This being the case, materials used in the construction were selected to have much better properties and were more robust than if it was only to be used for a few decades. Incidental factors such as a river that did not diminish, fairly consistent occupation and yes, owners that provided needed service and repairs, ensured that it still works today. I would hope that you do not believe that the reason many of our newer contrivances today do not last as long as those made years ago is because we do not take care of them properly.

[rossy]

i agree with chris jb on this one as i know exactly where he is on about. total waste of money and they do have a devastating effect on birds. also how many on here can tell me that there bills have gone down because of them. people are like sheep and are brainwashed by the people who make these decisions. all this about going green and green tax makes me laugh have you ever looked at the size of britain on the map ? we are being taken for a ride. anyway windfarms to me are of no use end of. rossy

[Herd900rd]

[quote=rossy;557131 anyway windfarms to me are of no use end of. rossy[/QUOTE]

Then you won't be wanting any of the power they produce when they DO become effective? Are you a dead sparrow?

[richnfamous]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

Denmark is doing very good, (if you can say that 20% is good) because they have in infrastructure heavy in hydroelectric power.

I can assure you that Denmark has almost no hydroelectric power at all. Sweden and Norway have plenty - on the other hand, neither Sweden nor Norway uses wind power much.

I don't buy the nuclear argument. The embedded energy in a nuclear power plant is huge and there's still no solution to the waste problem - neither high-grade or low-grade. Like coal, just because a lot of the pollution is invisible, people can be misled into thinking it's clean, when it's not.

The long and the short of it is this: we're going to have to reduce our energy use across the board by a substantial amount - but don't worry, reducing your standard of living can actually improve your quality of life.

As for wind farms being bad for birds: seems to me to be just another 'nimby' argument, and the people who oppose renewable energy development will probably be the first to start shouting 'why didn't we do more, earlier' when energy supplies reach their, on current projections inevitable, tipping point.

Birds aren't stupid. They'll learn to live with wind farms just as they've learned to live with shotguns. If in doubt, just watch a wood pigeon in an area where people shoot at them.