TOT moorland fires and turbines

I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case
the wind turbines in the background have been stationary, despite the
obvious wind. I wonder why?

Bill

On 03/05/2011 19:12, Bill Wright wrote:
I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case
the wind turbines in the background have been stationary, despite the
obvious wind. I wonder why?

Bill

Perhaps they were paid to shut down, like these in Scotland?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

Six Scottish windfarms were paid up to £300,000 to stop producing
energy, it has emerged.

The turbines, at a range of sites across Scotland, were stopped because
the grid network could not absorb all the energy they generated.

On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:12:19 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case
the wind turbines in the background have been stationary, despite the
obvious wind. I wonder why?

So they don't fan the flames?

That's only a joke folks.

There is presumably a danger of the turbines and the cables from them
being damaged by fire. It would be safer for firefighters not to be near
damaged live cables. I don't know how the turbines are controlled. If
they receive control signals through surface or subsurface cables there
would be a risk of fire damage to those cables leading to out of control
turbines.

Just a few thoughts.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

"Bill Wright" wrote in message ...
I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case the wind turbines in the background have been stationary,
despite the obvious wind. I wonder why?

Bill

If you saw the items in the press it might just boil down to shortcomings in that medium ;-)

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

Graham. wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ...
I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case the wind turbines in the background have been stationary,
despite the obvious wind. I wonder why?

Bill

If you saw the items in the press it might just boil down to shortcomings in that medium ;-)

I hadn't thought of that. Damn.

Bill

On Tue, 03 May 2011 22:52:56 +0100, Bill Wright
wrote:

Graham. wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message ...
I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case the wind turbines in the background have been stationary,
despite the obvious wind. I wonder why?

Bill

If you saw the items in the press it might just boil down to shortcomings in that medium ;-)

I hadn't thought of that. Damn.

Yes. Damn these modern cameras with their brief exposures. Where's
decent motion blur when you need it?

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

So they don't fan the flames?

That's exactly what BBC Radio 4 reported a few minutes ago.

Is there a cunning plan to run them as fans in order to make it rain?
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

Brian Gaff wrote:

I'm not sure how one can say it cannot absorb all the energy, as the energy
is not used if its not needed.

There was mention of a temporary grid fault ... possibly meaning the
parts of the grid the turbines feed into were at/above maximum capacity?

On 03/05/11 20:07, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:12:19 +0100, Bill
wrote:

I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case
the wind turbines in the background have been stationary, despite the
obvious wind. I wonder why?

So they don't fan the flames?

That's only a joke folks.

GK Chesterton maintained that the wind is caused by the trees waving
their branches about.

Hugh

--

Hugh Newbury

www.evershot-weather.org

In article ,
Hugh Newbury wrote:
On 03/05/11 20:07, Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:12:19 +0100, Bill
wrote:

I've seen a few news items about the moorland fires, and in each case
the wind turbines in the background have been stationary, despite the
obvious wind. I wonder why?

So they don't fan the flames?

That's only a joke folks.

GK Chesterton maintained that the wind is caused by the trees waving
their branches about.

almost as believable as the 'dark-sucker' for light bulbs - they don't emit
light, they suck in dark and when they are full they go black.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16