Hmm, maybe not totally motoring related, except to say that these turbines power the Nissan factory, so I suppose that's a good enough link.
groups.msn.com/honestjohn/vehicles.msnw?action=Sho...3
groups.msn.com/honestjohn/vehicles.msnw?action=Sho...4
These were taken from the A19 this afternoon, apparently 7 fire engines had to attend (wish I'd seen how they fought such a high fire). The rest of the windfarm has been shut until they find out what happened, apparently these things are standard wind turbines as found in any other windfarm.
Blue
|
Should probably add that it was really cool up close, you could see huge flames that were engulfing the blades, they just don't show on the pictures (still not bad quality for a phone I think).
It looks like a burnt out match now, the blades have sort of melted down and blackened, looks awful.
Blue
|
What on earth is up there to make that much smoke?!
I know the scale of those things is very confusing but it looks like a portacabin...I can only see them having the generator and control systems in there...
|
Radio said that it was the motor (huh? These things don't have motors do they?) I can only think that they mean the actual generator bit. This caught fire and then set fire to all the associated gubbins, interestingly enough even the blades appeared to be burning.
Blue
|
Radio said that it was the motor (huh? These things don't have motors do they?) I can only think that they mean the actual generator bit.
Same thing really though I guess. Would be interesting to see one in reverse at full whack!
|
|
|
If its an alluminium alloy (probably got magnesium in it) then yes, it burns quite nicely.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
I think the blades are carbon fibre composite type stuff. They'd burn a treat!
|
|
The one I went inside had a gearbox at the top, and the generator was underground driven by a shaft inside the column, they are smothered with oil that stinks, just like gearbox EP oil, this is all over the place and leaks into the ground. This oil must have caught fire? They are rubbish anyway, false idols.
|
|
|
|
Radio said that it was the motor (huh? These things don't have motors do they?) I can only think that they mean the actual generator bit.
It's how they start up!
--------------
Mike Farrow
|
|
|
Radio said that it was the motor (huh? These things don'thave motors do they?) I can only think that they mean the actual generator bit. This caught fire and then set fire to all the associated gubbins, interestingly enough even the blades appeared to be burning. Blue
Well it would need a motor to turn the blades to make the wind,or have I got the meaning of wind farm wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the blades are just glass fibre, hence why they burn well when engulfed in flames - alot of the blades are made on the Isle of Wight and then shipped to Southampton on a barge. I would also think that the cabin at the top would have a nice big gearbox and generator along with lots of nice oils that would make a good bonfire given the right incentive!!
|
Makes you wonder just how much enegy these things save.
I was returning from France in October, and on the N154 between junction 12 on the A10 and Chartres. The road is a single carriageway and not easy for overtaking. I came to a halt in traffic due to three long and wide loads, with miles of traffic streaming behind, travelling in the opposite direction. These loads were accompanied by the usual assortment of small vans with "convoi exceptionnel" signs. They also had three motorcycle police outriders. The loads were so wide that traffic had to drive onto the verge to avoid them.
As they passed by I tried to figure out what they were. They looked a bit like the wings of a plane, and then I realised they were the blades of wind generators.
Goodness knows how much free energy they would have to produce to compensate just for the cost of fuel used to transport them, as well as the extra fuel burnt by the cars and lorries caught up in the jams.
|
Makes you wonder just how much enegy these things save. I was returning from France in October, and on the N154 between junction 12 on the A10 and Chartres. The road is a single carriageway and not easy for overtaking. I Goodness knows how much free energy they would have to produce to compensate just for the cost of fuel used to transport them, as well as the extra fuel burnt by the cars and lorries caught up in the jams.
How much less disruption if they'd been the components of gas, coal or nuclear generating plant?
|
How much less disruption if they'd been the components of gas, coal or nuclear generating plant?
The raison d'etre of these things is the saving of energy.
I've never experienced a hold up such as this with any of the forementioned.
|
|
Wind turbines should be banned. Horrible things to live near and can only contribute a tiny amount of power to the national grid. The future's nuclear, the sooner we accept that the better.
|
|
|
|
>>>Goodness knows how much free energy they would have to produce to compensate just for the cost of fuel used to transport them, as well as the extra fuel burnt by the cars and lorries caught up in the jams.
Ah, but that can be set against the transport and construction energy costs incurred by other types of power generation equipment. Building a new nuclear or gas-fired power station would consume a lot of energy. More than an equivalent Wattage of big wind turbines? (I don't know).
Cheers, Sofa Spud
|
Rubbish! Wind turbines cost more energy to produce and install than they generate in their life, same with photovoltaic cells. They are only useful in remote areas where it is not cost-effective to connect to a large-scale energy plant.
The politicians will say, wow look it powers 400 homes!
Yet domestic (household) electricity consumption accounts for 4% of the total. I think we will look back at wind turbines and ask how we were so stupid, as with 1960s council flats.
|
Rubbish! Wind turbines cost more energy to produce and install than they generate in their life, same with photovoltaic cells.
Got any facts to back that up with?
|
As interesting as this may be, I have to remind you this is a motoring website.
DD.
|
|
|
|
Rubbish! Wind turbines cost more energy to produce and install than they generate in their life, >>
Mapmaker made the same point in the "Prezzie from Santa" thread, I will repeat my reply:
That is a very interesting point, do you have figures on this? Surely it depends on the lifetime of the turbine, there are turbines in Scandinavia that have been running for 20 years with very little operator intervention. Afterall any conventional power station incurs a significant cost in energy terms to build (and maintain) and subsequently achieves only limited efficiency in converting the energy within oil, gas or coal into electricity, additionally there is an energy cost in extracting the oil, gas or coal in the first place.
Of course reducing the demand for energy is the ideal however the comparison needs to be on the basis that x amount of energy is needed in y place and therefore what is the most efficient way of producing it.
|
|
|
|
>>>Goodness knows how much free energy they would have to produce to compensate just for the cost of fuel used to transport them, as well as the extra fuel burnt by the cars and lorries caught up in the jams. Ah, but that can be set against the transport and construction energy costs incurred by other types of power generation equipment. Building a new nuclear or gas-fired power station would consume a lot of energy. More than an equivalent Wattage of big wind turbines? (I don't know). Cheers, Sofa Spud
But the amount of enrgy used to construct wind turbines is in an inverse proportion to the amount of energy they produce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
