UK wind record

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 31 Oct 2013, 19:29

stevecook172001 wrote:I read on the BBC that this was going to be the worst storm since than big one in the mid eighties. What a load of bollocks. It was just a bit windy and wet. I was all excited and everything in anticipation and bugger all happened.

Well, "worse since" is not the same as "as bad as". Having said that, I was in Northwest London on Sunday night / Monday morning and I do know what you mean. Mind you, we were in Rickmansworth and it seemed just more than averagely breezy, while just up the road in Watford was one of the high-profile fatalities. I think the track of the depression headed a bit further south than anticipated. Over 100 trees down across rail tracks alone, but nothing to compare with '87.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 06 Nov 2013, 16:52

I've just had a look at UKWED (Did a search for Status: Operational) and we now seem to have over 10 GW of capacity in the UK

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 06 Nov 2013, 17:12

There might be 10GW capacity, but the wind never blows at the optimum speed on all the turbines at once, so 10GW will not be generated. As is stated on other websites (and ridiculed) we only ever get half, (if we're lucky).

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 06 Nov 2013, 17:20

Quite. Which means we need to build more...

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 06 Nov 2013, 17:23

RenewableCandy wrote:Quite. Which means we need to build more...

And bugger the countryside.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 06 Nov 2013, 17:31

If "the countryside" were as Nature intended in the UK, it'd be covered in TREES.

Which people would still complain about because they'd "spoil my view" (and yes I've heard it happen!). Can't win, really.

There's a brilliant para in a book called "The Plot" (written by a woman about a small piece of land once owned by her Dad) in which she describes "The Western View", which is a certain way of looking at the landscape, involving taking it all in at once and pretending, subconsciously, that it is one's own. I can't put it into words quite like she does, but it goes some way to explaining people's attitude to "the countryside".

It's a damn odd word and all. Why the suffix "-side"?..

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 06 Nov 2013, 19:21

There's a lot of damn odd words in the English language, as I suspect there are in every language. If the place was covered in trees we could burn some so we wouldn't need the harsh white monstrosities. There's another damn odd word for you.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Nov 2013, 20:29

Nine days after that windy day and Dungeness is still not actually producing and electricity! You don't ever get 1.1GW of wind power stopping completely for nine days on the trot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-24838306

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 07 Nov 2013, 16:45

But Biff that's not the point. Dungeness Looks NiceTM !

(I quite agree about the trees though: given the choice they're obviously a better bet than any other source of energy on the landscape...)

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 07 Nov 2013, 16:53

woodburner wrote:the harsh white monstrosities.

There's a load of 'em in north Kerry and a good place for them too: the wind 'resources' there can be awesome. Is there a reason we can't have trees and turbines?

Thing is, the monstrosities should be green, not white.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 07 Nov 2013, 17:03

Yes! I thought this. Why can't sea turbines be painted blue, and land ones a green/ cloud camo colour. Why are wind turbines always white? If people find 'em an eyesore, why not paint them a different colour to help them fit in.

edit: I suppose white's the best overall camo colour anyway. Gees, criticising them about being an eyesore always seemed stupid to me anyway. I sometimes find other people in the countryside a bit of an eyesore (what you doing on my hill

) , but what can you do?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 07 Nov 2013, 17:42

Actually painting them doesn't sound feasible. You can pigment concrete though. Cost is probably the limiting factor.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 07 Nov 2013, 19:25

Snail wrote: Why are wind turbines always white?

They're not always. The Ecotricity ones near us are dark green at the bottom and then fading through paler greens upwards to white. It doesn't actually make much difference. By far the dominant thing is whether the sun is shining on them and whether there are relatively dark or relatively light clouds behind them. It gives the illusion of the complete range from bright white to almost black via invisible in between depending on the weather conditions.

I don't think alternative paint schemes would make a jot of difference.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 07 Nov 2013, 20:32

What about invisibility ? Invisible, green, or even just green . Nah.

Post by **adam2** » 08 Nov 2013, 08:24

emordnilap wrote:
woodburner wrote:the harsh white monstrosities.
There's a load of 'em in north Kerry and a good place for them too: the wind 'resources' there can be awesome. Is there a reason we can't have trees and turbines?

Thing is, the monstrosities should be green, not white.

You cant economicly have trees and wind turbines in the same immediate area.
The output of a wind turbine is very strongly influenced by height above obstructions such as trees or buildings.
If a wind turbine is erected in a forested area with trees say 50M high, then the turbine must be made about 50M taller to achieve the same output. This adds significantly to costs.
Access for construction and maintenance would also be impeded by significant tree cover.

Also wind turbines should be erected in windy and therefore exposed locations, these are usually lacking natural tree cover, and saplings planted by man are unlikely to prosper in such exposed locations.