Don't know how someone got a photo of ice throw in action, but they did.
Looks like snow to me. What's interesting with this line of thought - ice throws - is that a) Dr. Pierpoint's calculation for throwing distance assumes a perfect vacuum. b) Where's the articles of damage done to property of personal injury with ICE throws? None on this web site. Why - becauses none exist. Another red herring of an issue.
login or register to post comments | email this page »
Bullshit, Anne. For one thing, quit foaming at the mouth. This photo doesn't have anything to do with Dr. Pierpont's estimates (which I don't agree with, actually). And check out the Caithness Report listing over 70 auto accidents caused by ice throw.
That report details 1 incident with human injury over a 20 year period. Even that injury was to a wind maintenance worker. Even one throw going 140 meters - which fall far short of the setback distances. Either 1000 ft or 1200 feet from a road in most towns. And yes, this still seems like a red herring issue and yes Dr. Pierpoint's calculation doesn't account for wind resistance. How about some information that is based on our state's setback distances?
You need to READ the report. I totalled them at one point; wish I could put my hands on the exact numbers, but I do recall 33 deaths, including a German parachutist caught in a turbine field; well over 70 auto accident claims; and instances of property damage in the thousands.
I did read the report. And the maximum ice throw in that report was 140 meters. The one human injury was the wind maintenance worker.
The interesting thing to note is that the report is based upon a site that unlike the NYS setbacks obviously had not established decent setback distances. If this is really a true issue, I'm sure Effie can find an article somewhere amongst the thousands of operating turbines in the US that shows throws of over a 1000 feet and had caused accidents, injuries, property damage, or something other than some picture of small ice or snow coming off of blades falling harmlessly in the immeadiate area.
No, I can't. Ice throw doesn't typically exceed 1,000ft ... regardless of what the theorists may say. Reality shows the formula I gave above to be accurate.
However, that is not to say this is a dead issue. Setbacks for wind turbines may be set from homes, property lines, roadways, right-of-ways, overhead utility lines, churches, schools and public buildings such as libraries. The issue for most towns is they only consider homes and property lines when dealing with ice throw -- this is wrong. Ice throw is not that dangerous to homes (it usually breaks against the outside wall or window). Ice throw IS a significant danger to roadways and railways. Yet towns are not considering this.
THAT be the problem here.
As to the report, methinks we are not talking about the same report. Try this one http://www.stopillwind.org/downloads/WindTurbineAccidentData.pdf
The setback of 1000 feet would eliminate any danger to anyone. As you said stats don't exist for damage beyond that radius.
I was reading the same report and in context of ICE throws Max throw of 140 meters over a 20 year measurement period. I read it again. So handling just the ICE issue for now - you agree that Ice throw is a red herring because of the limited throw distance and the lack of any data that shows that Ice travels beyond the 1000ft setback requiremet --- right? We're not not visual requirements - just Ice.
No, we don't agree it's a red herring. If you're going to reply, will you at least READ my posts? Ice throw is a non-issue for HOMES but a serious issue for ROADS.
Only if the roads are within 140 meters - according to your own data. It is a red herring issue unless you have something other than your own creative interperations - like real published material (meaning - not your published work) using modern equipment and setback guidelines.
