“Ah memories:

LONG DISTANCE INFORMATION GIVE ME MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE
HELP ME FIND THE PARTY THAT TRIED TO GET IN TOUCH WITH ME
SHE COULD NOT LEAVE A NUMBER BUT I KNOW WHO PLACED THE CALL
'CAUSE MY UNCLE TOOK A MESSAGE AND HE WROTE IT ON THE WALL !

Sorry Memphis, wrong GT, I actually posted on the thread in Louth. I blame my grandson for tinkering.”

“Why would Peter Kubicki be reading this? I'm sure he's got better things to do than reply to the loonies of the area.”

“Peter Kubicki,

one other thought Peter, what contingency plan will you have to ensure safe zones around the turbine if icing develops. Static low wind icing only needs a cordon around the base......but dynamic icing may cause ice to be shed over a large area. Not far from you there were some blade excursions involving UFO's!

Your duty of care to protect pupils and public from lethal aerial phenomenon will require rigorously enforced pupil proof fencing. And your head of science may be alarmed when he works out little sums involving radial and detached tangential acceleration, angular momentum and ice block trajectories! You may be staggered when you realise just how far debris may fly.

I assume the vendor has 100% safe overspeed protection to prevent run away events as made famous on you tube.......we are talking pupil risks here!

You may like to google "wind turbine failures" for a laugh. The installed cost of £30 000-oo may seem peanuts after the first undesired aerial incident involving damage or injury!

Fascinating little projects for the pupils and parents!”

“Hi James, well said yet again.
May I add that larger machines than these discussed here also incur losses due to auxiliary load for such things as cooling, lubrication, azimuthing and rarely anti-icing. A large 100:1 ratio gearbox (to increase a 30RPM turbine to synchronous speed of 50Hz) does not take kindly to frequent stops/starts and so may be maintained "motoring," again using power.

I differ slightly with some of your previous view on spinning reserve using coal and other fossil fuelled generators. A fossil fuel burn produces pollution even when on low load. Station economics requires a high load factor because the cost of station auxiliaries persists what ever the load factor....i.e. the cooling towers/pumps are still required. Nuclear fission can carry out (albeit very undesirable) load changes without significant changes to emissions and remain non-polluting what ever the load. But again any station on spinning reserve or part load is losing money.


Head teacher Peter Kubicki believes it will be one of the first large county schools with a turbine.

Peter, I should make the testing and fiscal evaluation of this machine an absolute priority to ensure no other school installs such a folly.

True they look impressive and may sound impressive on the 15 days out of a hundred when they are performing. But when your mathematics and physics laws are backed up by some empirical testing you may find the £30 000-oo would have been better spent in energy conservation.

It is likely the turbine manufacturer never mentioned the cube law or intermittency and in your case the proximity of buildings causing turbulence.

One thing you will achieve is all your pupils will gain first hand knowledge of the reality of the wind power folly and perhaps the true cost of subsidies, making wind power the most expensive method to generate electricity. Your pupils may also learn about spinning reserve fossil fuelled power plants that continue to pollute when on low load. The fickle wind requires you to import power any time the turbine falters! Major power plants take in the order of 24 to 48 hours to come up from a black start. Even gas fired stations take many, many hours to come up to load. This means that effective back up for fickle wind needs "real power stations" on spinning reserve, able to take up load or reject load as the wind varies.

It is well argued that wind power is costly, intermittent and polluting......I look forward to your project confirming this, especially in a typical winter high pressure weather system that may prevail sub zero°C for several days co-incident to NO WIND.”

“Why do people get so enamoured by these ugly noisy wind turbines that never can come close to living up to their promise.
\
Read Pensioner Immingham when he mentions the cube rule.. The power output of these things vary exponentionally as the cube of the wind speed. The full out put is generally rated to be at a wind speed of about 50km/h. It could be more or less but not much less.
Now I have just looked at Grimsby's wind speed. It is 13km/h or 26% of 50km/h. Now that does not give 26% output , but the cube route of 26% which equals: 1.75% of full output. But then at 13km/h the turbine would not even be turning. Output zilch.. They are a great way to waste money, whilst cluttering up the place.
If the output is being sold to the utility it is probably being forced to buy power it does not need or want. The utility has to supp;y power when the thing is not putting out, The utility must always have the available spinning load. This means that the rest of the utilities customers must pay for this service.”

“I appeal to the head of science to let his pupils study the wind cube law. Maybe he could enlighten us to their study and findings? You may also learn the term intermittency!

Still they keep disproving the cube law....LOL

From the GT: Some one may have made typos with the numbers involving heights!

Quote:

In a separate development, Immingham town councillors have deferred making a recommendation on two 150-metre high turbines proposed for North Moss Lane in Stallingborough.

The two three-megawatt turbines have a hub height of 105 metres ¿ taller than Grimsby's Dock Tower ¿ and blades with a radius of 90 metres.

Councillors agreed to await the recommendation from Stallingborough parish councillors at their next planning meeting.

The application from Aeolian Stallingborough Ltd will be assessed by North East Lincolnshire Council planners at a later date. End of GT quote.

If the hub is 105M high and the blade(s) swept disk has a radius of 90M these will be truly magnificent land marks far higher than the planning permission states ! One hundred and ninety five metres equates to six hundred and forty feet, very considerably higher that the dock tower ! Is this another failure of figures by the inept ITC? I didn't think the ITC had any powers in the planning field?, aren't they just opinionated "consultants?"”

“A total waste of money. There will never be enough wind to make the thing pay for itself.”