Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[10ebbor10]

In Germany, there was the idea of letting the neighbors get a share of the profits - something that was immediately decried as "buying consent". Duuh

Also exists in Belgium. Though it's more of an investement sheme. You have to pay first.

I never found them noisy myself. Except if you get really, really close maybe, but even when you're right under them, the actual motor is 40m up.

The big ones are 140 meters high.

They're quite nice too. Quite a few people don't complain about them, until they plan to put one within 250 meters of their house, of course.

It's funny that you should say that because that is exactly what is going to happen where I am. I'm fine with it really, although I would like at least some kind of compensation for it.

However, it's noise that is the problem, it's safety. If the rotor of one of these things breaks, pieces can fly up to 4 kilometers far. Which happens quite often

– Failure of blades: approx. 10^-4 - 10^-3 per turbine, per year
– Wind turbine collapse: approx. 10^-5 - 10^-4 per turbine, per per year

[Owlbread]

The wind farm on the other side of the glen hasn't collapsed or broken down or anything like that in the 4-5 years it's been up, nor have I ever heard of anything like that happening in these parts, so "quite often" doesn't seem very accurate in practise. Maybe there's a malfunction or two but I've never heard or seen anything about it.

[10ebbor10]

Quite often = one in 1000 or one in 10 000 chance per year. (Decrease by factor ten for actual collapse)  (Per turbine)

So really, it's not that spectacular that nothing happened in four years. Also, Scotland appears to favour smaller turbines, which might behave differently, and certainly throws pieces less far.

I did manage to find this article.

[Owlbread]

That article seems like a complete overreaction from the newspaper, fueled by biased campaigners, to a fluke incident.

[Sheb]

He's speaking about 0.01-0.1% chance of failure per year. You'd need 200-2000 windmills in that farms to expect a failure in  4-5 years.

[Frumple]

Which... really doesn't sound that bad, compared to the general bad stuff coming out of a lot of other methods of energy production. Yeah?

[Sheb]

Sure. Still may be a good idea to put some distances between homes or sensitive infrastructure (chemical plants, nuclear plants) and turbines. Like every single method of energy generation, it carries risks and those should be minimized.

[Owlbread]

I think those risks can be minimized through more effective engineering.

[Descan]

There aren't that many people in the highlands, ye?

Put all the windfarms there. Fuck the Gaels, we gots giant rotating blades!

;P

[Helgoland]

Offshore is the only real solution to get wind power working - lots of space, lots of wind, less people complaining. Let's just hope that the comparatively high cost will go down as the technology ripens.

[Chaoswizkid]

Could also just make the whole offshore complex a big alternative energy bundle. Windfarms, tide generators and solar arrays.

[Owlbread]

There aren't that many people in the highlands, ye?

Put all the windfarms there. Fuck the Gaels, we gots giant rotating blades!

;P

That is true, but the best wind is out there. And in Orkney of course (windiest place I've ever been). The thing with us is that we also have a lot of offshore stuff too, along with wave power. The USA should take note.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Could also just make the whole offshore complex a big alternative energy bundle. Windfarms, tide generators and solar arrays.

How could you mention the oceans and not include algae?

[Chaoswizkid]

My god, you're right. What have I done...

[FearfulJesuit]

We are in the peculiar position of not having had a government this dysfunctional....since before the Civil War.