Wind turbines and neighborhoods just don’t mix It seems. Would you want one of these to do this when a wind storm comes your way? Wind power has it’s pluses and minuses, just like any energy solution. But like a coal or nuclear power plant. They really shouldn’t be sited next to/within population areas. – Anthony
Wind turbine’s deadly ice shower
From the Peterborough UK Evening Telegraph
Resident Peter Randall, whose son’s house lies a stone’s throw away from the turbine, said: “Somebody is going to get killed. There was huge lumps of ice shooting off and landing everywhere.
“No one wants to leave the house because they are frightened and worried about the ice falling.
Maria Clark, who owns King’s Dyke Karpets, based yards from the turbine, said: “It has been really frightening, the turbine has been stopping and starting all morning. The ice makes such a loud noise when it shatters we thought a bomb had gone off in the yard.
“It scared a customer away. They were in the shop when it landed and said they did not want to risk their car and ran out.”
Last month The Evening Telegraph revealed how residents had lodged complaints with the environmental health department at Fenland District Council due to alleged noise pollution and had demanded the turbine’s removal.
The huge machine, which measures 80 metres at its hub and 125 metres when one of its three blades is vertical, was put up in August.
A spokesperson for Cornwall Light & Power said: “We received a report of an ice shedding incident near our Whittlesey turbine on Saturday morning and immediately made arrangements for it to be switched off.
“The turbine will remain stopped until we have a clear understanding of what happened and any safety concerns have been fully addressed.
“Cornwall Light & Power is a reputable operator with a proven track record of generating clean electricity safely and we will act quickly to resolve this issue.
“In the meantime, any local residents who have concerns can call us directly on 01872 226930.”
MP for Cambridgeshire North East Malcolm Moss said the turbine should remain closed until a new risk assessment could be made, as the problem could also have national implications.
He said: “I had no idea this turbine was going up, it came out of the blue really and I am surprised they put one so close to homes and businesses.
“I assume that a risk assessment was put with the planning application, but if it was not then a full inquiry should be undertaken.”
Whittlesey councillor Ronald Speechley today said he would by lobbying the council to find out what can be done.
He said: “I have received a lot of complaints and the fact that ice has fallen off should be brought to light. This should have been thought of before they put the turbine so close to houses and the road.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
davidgmills (09:25:41) : simple horizontal windmill
David,
The technical University of Delft (Netherlands) has performed a lot of research
on vertical windmill designs.
If you paste the following text in the Google search engine you can download a PDF with interesting designs: [PDF] ROTAPEC VERTICAL WIND TURBINE
In short: 6 advantages of vertical windmills:
1. No stress on the blades due to the effect of the wind coefficient.
2. Silent (optimal aerodynamic design) (Noise produced by a windmill blade, an airplane prop or a wing is proof of “bad” aerodynamics)
3. Placed on a rooftop these kind of windmills have the ability to make use of updrafts which is a common phenomena in urban area’s.
4. Because of the reduced stress these type of windmills can be used for a period of 25 years without maintenance
5. Modern high performance direct drive generators and electronics eliminate the use of a gear box.
6. Relative easy transport and installation (complete rotor unit including blades is transported and installed as a single part.
The TU Delft also experiments with windmill driven pumps for various applications.
Another idea is a wind turbine that is kept in the air by a balloon kite (design Wubbo Ockels)
Because of the (much)higher wind speeds at higher altitudes this type of windmill is up to three times more efficient compared to a conventional concept.
The costs are much lower because you do not need the tower construction.
By the way, the TU Delft is also the winner of the Solar Challenge (Lumina) a race across Australia with solar panel powered vehicles.
Stephen
If the H-IGCD is true, then it is a problem of unprecedented scale.
False. For example, no one has yet invesigated the benefits of GW, regardless of cause, to anywhere near the same massive extent as they [the ipcc] have hypothesized [mostly disasterized] the detriments. GW might well not even be a “disease agent”! [And GW must also be compared to Global Cooling to further evaluate the whole effect of GW.]
Stephen, the mistake you are making is that you are presuming that the ipcc “scientists” have done this evaluation of benefits, and in general have acted as true scientists should. I myself had assumed this to be the case, that is, before I actually started looking at the whole thing myself ~8 years ago. I was literally stunned to progressively find out that the ipcc “science” is not science. What it amounts to as presented by to the public by the ipcc is instead a massive propaganda operation directed toward obtaining many other obvious ends, none having to do with actually understanding what is going on so as to take realistic measure to adjust, if necessary.
So you are making an understandable mistake. But it is a mistake.
Do you have any scientific background?
Russ R. (10:57:03) :
“When someone plants a windmill seed, that sprouts into a windmill seedling, and eventually grows into a full-fledged windmill, is when windmill farming will be economically viable.
Until then, it is just tilting at windmills.
Windmills are good for remote locations, that lack access to grid electricity. In that situation they can supplement the use of a generator, which will still be used for peak demand periods. They are the equivelent of horse transportation, in a world that already has superior methods of transportation. Horses are useful, and much better than nothing, but a large step backward, in terms of productivity and efficency. And waste, in energy production, makes us all poorer.
One of these days, someone will create a green utopia state, where all the windmill farmers can prosper, without competing against coal, NG, nuclear. I wonder whether the fence will keep people in or out”.
Russ, just for fun…
At this moment the highest yield in terms of calorific energy per m2 land use for bio fuels is made by the production of bio diesel or jet fuel from algae.
I remember it was 10 times the yield of corn/ethanol
Recently a complete line of urban micro turbines have been developed.
The Turby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzz609KMtvE
and a Chinese concept: http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/03/21/micro-wind-turbines-small-size-big-impact/
The TU Delft has made an inventory of all available technologies but I can’t find the PDF at this moment in time.
I will put it on the web later.
I am not opposed to new technology, for energy production, distribution, and storage. I just don’t like selecting ineffencient methods, because they are sold as the solution to a problem, that I don’t think stands the test of scrutiny.
If windmills are a superior solution, then the market will select windmills and reject other methods.
Until then, they are a fad. Fads are fine, but don’t make the taxpayer foot the bill for them. Windmills should stand or fall, on their own merits.
While I type this, it is snowing and there is no wind. Later on, the wind will pick up, but by then, the windmill will be iced up. I would like my furnace fan to run, during both times, and have enough electricity to do my work. I don’t see how that happens unless I have a back-up system, which means I have two systems to buy, maintain, and climb on the roof in a storm to knock ice off.
Tough sell, for many consumers. That is why the free market has not selected this method, so far.
“” Retired Engineer (16:13:23) :
>>>Deletions<<<
George E. Smith (10:34:49) : Tip velocity. Mach 1 is about 1100 f/s. With a 300 ft diameter, you’d need over 1 r/s. Big guys don’t spin that fast, although the video clip seems a lot faster. “”
Hello Retired; I’m not in the habit of making stuff up; So I’ll just mention the front cover article on Wind Turbines in the Nov 03 2008 issue of DESIGN NEWS; which I’m sure as a retired engineer you know about. On page 48 in that issue and article, the author says “On a wind trurbine, these gearboxes act to increase speed rather than to reduce it. Amin says they typically take a 70 or 80 rotor rpm up to 1400 rpm or so to run the generator…” Amin is Parthiv Amin, President of Wineregy Drive Systems, a subsidiary of Siemens Energy & Automation (who makes the gearboxes). They were discussing a 1.5 MWatt turbine with a 100 m diameter rotor at the top of a 100 m tower. Your 1100fps is about 330 m/s if I remember my high school 8th grade physics, so at even 60 rpm they would be pushing mach 1. But I’m with you, and I doubt that they operate over mach 1 and I never implied that; just that they are pushing it.
And I also took the trouble to ask one of my colleague active MEs if indeed such a gearbox was a problem, and he thought not; that a 20:1 speed up was not a big problem (they weigh 16 tons). Not being an ME myself, I sought the counsel of experts before concluding that the friction in a speed up situation like that would be serious; he says not.
But I’m with you; they ain’t supersonic; but that barrier is there as a design issue, and definitely a runaway issue if the speed control goes haywire.
George; just a 50 years operational physicist/mathermatician/Optical designer/Electronic engineer; and non retired.
I agree about the non-commercial viability and other problems re the wind turbines.
However there is a very different possible way to harvest wind. Dutch researchers have been flying KITES right up into the jet stream to produce electricity at what should be competitive rates over Holland, UK, the best latitude I presume for the jet stream. Apparently the power obtainable is proportionate to the wind speed to the fourth power, so a small increase of wind speed yields a hugely increased efficiency; moreover the jet stream is reasonably constant. See here for the kites on U-tube, plus other natural energy possibilities (eg the new tidal reef concept) that look as if they could be commercially viable alternatives – just as hydroelectric is.
Paul Shanahan wrote:
I don’t see how this “is a good thing” Surely moving these storms by hundreds of miles via wind turbine would bring havock to the local eco-systems that rely on the nutrients and water brought in by said storms, not to mention the destination local eco systems that are not set up to cope with storms of this nature.
Ross wrote:
Katherine, thanks for the link.
…
…
After reading the article, I think I agree with Paul Shanahan’s assessment.
I agree. I suspect it would also disrupt migration patterns. But the first thing that came to mind was legal battles. No doubt the researchers count diverting a storm from NYC as a Good Thing, but areas affected by the diversion? Or if running the wind farm meant a blizzard would hit NYC, do they choose to allow the blizzard to hit or deprive millions of homes of electricity? I can imagine civil suits filed against the wind farms for damages to property or loss of life either way.
I wish there was a wind turbine outside my house. It is 9am in the morning and already 86 degrees fahrenheit (According to my non-stephenson German made maximum-minimum thermometer under the pergola). We could really do with a breeze this morning. Supposed to reach 90 degrees at the airport, but who lives at the airport? We are always have the temp 5 or 6 degrees higher here in the suburbs. I shall just have to repair to the nearest (5 kilometres away) white sandy beach replete with blue sea for the day (and a six pack, or maybe a twelve pack). Folks! Get on down to Australia today! We will throw a heap of barbies on the BBQ for you!
Sorry folks! That should be prawns on the BBQ. I have started into my six pack already!
For Lucy Skywalker; Sorry it doesn’t quite work out that way. other things being equal, the available power would go up as the cube of the wind speed, not as the 4th power; but that is anything but an advantage.
If you build an 800 KiloWatt unit at some design wind speed, if the wind speed drops in half, which is not a significant changer at all, then you now have only a 100 KW unit, so you just lost 871/2 percent of your generating capacity.
And the pull on the kite string would change as the square of the wind speed; so if the wind speed doubled from the design speed the tension in the string would go up by a factor of four, so you would have to make the string more than four times as strong as your thought was needed.
Over a 30 year or so life cycle, the wind speed is going to change by much more than 4:1; much more even that 10 to 1 so thats a 100 to one change in string tesnion, and a 1000 to one change in generating capacity.
Conventional power plants don’t operate with a completely uncontrolled energy input; let alone a completely uncontrollable one.
Niche applications at best. The European experience is that the up time on those wind farms is between 15 and 25%, with most under 205. Lack of wind, and maintenance headaches seem to be the problems.
Ron de Han:
What I actually meant was a vertical windmill and not a horizontal windmill. For some reason I had them backwards. I had to google vertical windmills and find an image. But yes you are right that they are far more efficient and as someone else pointed out do not have the “paddlewheel” problem, unlesss he had vertical and horizontal backwards as I did.
Well I just located and read Stephen’s brief description of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.”
I wasn’t sure at first, so I got out my copy of AIT which I keep in my office desk, and yes Stepen’s version is shorter.
So now I know what is wrong with my posts Anthony; I just don’t give enough details for people to grasp what I’m trying to say.
But Stephen’s tome will serve a valuable purpose if it just communicates one idea to those who read it.
One of the truest things in Stephen’s essay, and also in Al Gore’s book (see pages 66/67); the correlation between CO2 levels in the ice cores, and the purported temperatures recorded in those ice cores, is absolutely irrefutable, and as is clearly evident in Gore’s book, although he went out of his way to hide that fact; is that the temperature changes ALWAYS occur BEFORE the CO2 changes. People who have that raw data say the correlation coefficient is maximised when you delay the temperature data by 800 years; but if you look closely at those curves, you will see that a second analysis is called for, which isolates the rising edge data from the falling edge data, and does a separate cross correlation, on just the rising edges, and just the falling edges.
I haven’t done that other than eyeballing the curves, but I believe what you will find, is that rising Temperature edges PRECEDE rising CO2 edges by less than 800 years, but falling Temperature edges PRECEDE CO2 edges by more than 800 years, and you will also find that the CO2 edges fall much more slowly than they rise; the decay time constant is much longer than the rising edge time constant.
Now the CO2 graph in Gore’s book, has an actual ppm scale, while the temperature graph has no scale at all. So he deliberately scaled the two curves so that the average amplitude of the changes are similar for both curves so they look alike.
Now that is perfectly fair; if one graph has steps that are 10 times the size of the other, it doesn’t help in a comparison; but since the temperature scale is quite arbitrary, so is the origin of that graph, so if you shift the origin, you can easily overlap the two curves on top of each other rather than vertically separate them, as they are in Gore’s book. That is what any 8th grade science student would have done with that data.
Then it would be painfully obvious, what the only useful information in those graphs is; namely that the relative timing of the edges shows that the CO2 changes ALWAYS follow the Temperature changes, and by something in that 800 year range.
When I went to school (longer ago than I care to remember) it was fashionable to have the cause of something happen before the effect of that cause. Having the cause of something not happen until 800 years later than the effect; is bloody unsportsmanlike; it’s not Cricket !
That relative timing would be a statutory bar to any thesis that CO2 causes global warming.
Just for Kicks now; we presently have a significantly rising CO2 edge going on right before our eyes. So what if we went back 800 years in time from that rising edge which would put us around 1208 AD; what the hell was going on then to cause the CO2 to rise now.
Well I do believe that was right in the middle of the Mediaeval warm period from about 900 to 1400 AD. Well Michael Mann says there was no such thing; but what does he know; after all his famous hockey stick curve from IPCC in 2001 or thereabouts says right on it;- “NORTHERN HEMISPHERE”.
So I guess the hockey stick was just a local anomaly, and not a global effect after all. Later expurgated versions of the hockey stick omit those fateful two words; but you can check the original for yourself.
I don’t just make stuff up.
So I know this is a wind farm thread; but when I saw that word ice; I just flipped out I guess.
Speaking of ice; at Vostock station where many of those cores come from, the temperature has gotten close to -90 C officially, and surpassed that anecdotally. At that temperature, there are NO greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and you have CO2 snow on the ground as well; you are about as close to outer space as you can get on earth.
Now isn’t that a wonderful place to choose to dig up representative information about the climate of the whole planet?
Just asking of course
Has anyone read about windturbines killing bats without hitting them?
“Researchers a the University of Calgary found that the vast majority of bats found dead at a wind farm in Southwest Alberta suffered severe injuries to their respiratory systems consistent with a sudden drop in air pressure – called barotrauma.1 The findings, published in the most recent issue of the journal Current Biology could potentially have far-reaching consequences on bat populations.
”
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/29/study-finds-high-rate-of-bat-deaths-caused-by-drastic-changes-in-air-pressure-at-wind-farm/
From what I remember reading a long time ago a bat will almost eat it’s
weight in insects each night so we are loseing thousands of very usefull
critters?
Reply: There’s a post and thread on that, see here. ~ charles the moderator
Stephen (07:39:25)
Perhaps my tone was a little too abrasive but the “argument to authority” really irks me and many others questioning the AGW hysteria. The ultimate expression of this is “the science is settled”, do not question your betters. As for the vaunted scientific societies taking policy positions on matters of scientific thought, I feel that is disgraceful behavior in an organizations allegedly devoted to the integrity of scientific. It reeks of political coercion. The enthralling thing about this subject is that the educated layman willing to devote some time to the subject can understand the science or lack thereof, and form an opinion. And the opinion of many contributors here is that the climate science to date does not justify any action on limiting man’s emissions of CO2.
Thank you Charles, I guess I need to start remembering
where I read what, I now remember reading that here also as well
at other sites about the same time.
Thanks
About 8 months ago, in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, approximately 400 dead ducks were found in a “tailings pond” in the tar sands area. They were found at the bottom of this pond which is unusual, as dead birds usually float. Our premier, Ed Stelmach, who has been a Greenpeace target since his election, got in a heap of trouble for stating to the media that this was no big deal compared to the 16,000 birds per year killed in the turbine farms of Pincher Creek, Alberta. I smiled and thought “good for you, Eddie!” Then was saddened as Mr. Stelmach was forced to make a public apology for the statement. Apparently , even if politicians want to tell the truth, ….
By the way, ask anyone from Pincher Creek what they think of the wind farms there. Make sure your kids have their ears covered !!
@george E. Smith (19:01:44) :
George, Brilliantly expressed – and succinct as well.
The fact that the ice cores are both physical evidence and “repeatedly” demonstrate CO2 lagging temperature – and never the other way around – should not only be the nail in the coffin but also the stake through the heart of the AGW hypothesis.
From Johnnyb (14:00:50) :
Oh Geez, this is what happens when you close down the mental asylums and give all of the lunatics a job working for the government.
-end quote
My thesis, which I call “My Thesis of UN Nincompoops” is that every government in the world did what we did, sent our most non-competent but annoying ‘diplomats’ as far away from our government as we could: to the U.N. We just didn’t expect them to actually get any power to do anything stupid once they were there. Oops!
From Alphajuno:
I’ll have to investigate that further. Change is required at some point since we’re using fossil fuels faster than they are produced by nature. Planning ahead (and taking action) seems prudent since we will need fossil fuels for some things for the forseeable future.
=end quote.
Yes we need change and planning but… The lead time needed is about 10 years, all told, to build most major facilities. We have so many to choose from that there is no energy shortage, and never will be, unless we are so stupid as to let it happen. Hubberts Peak says that the oil took about 100 years to reach peak so it ought to take about 100 years to drop off to near zero, so we have time. Oil production is a bell curve like shape.
The alternatives, in no particular order, and an idea of the scale available are:
Coal & related. We have about a 250 to 400 year supply depending on who you trust and what you assume. About 1/3 of the U.S. sits over coal. South Africa runs on coal liquids and it’s a 1940’s invention. Add in the tar sands and oil shales and we have 1000 years plus. Cost is higher than oil, but not by much, for liquid fuels. The biggest barrier to use is cheaper oil.
Natural Gas. “Lots”. The more we look the more we find. If ocean floor clathrates can be harvested, the potential supply runs to several hundreds to thousands of years.
Direct solar (thermal or photovoltaic) about a 100 x 100 mile square in the desert to power the U.S. (storage is an issue but solvable at a price via any/all of pumped water, compressed air, thermal storage, flywheels, batteries, etc.) It runs out when the sun runs down. Call it a few billion years.
Algae farms. About the same area, but best sited near exiting coal plants for CO2 enrichment and sewage plants for nitrogen et. al. enrichment. Same few billion years of sun. Exact area depends on technique used. Open ponds take more, sealed ‘reactors’ less.
Other biomass. Larger area needed, depending on species, and could range up to a 100 x 1000 mile swath for the U.S. as a whole. A bit much… But at 50 tons / acre / year for some species it can contribute a great deal. Algae is better yield (10 to 100 times better) but trickier to grow than trees and grass.
Wind. While the whole of the U.S. could be powered by the wind in the area to the east of the Rockies and west of the Mississippi with lots of room to spare, storage is an issue just like for solar and frankly, while I like the looks of windmills I’m personally bothered by the air pressure variations and noise. I’m also not fond of the tendency to murder birds and bats… Australia is the proposed site for a thermal / wind system that solves these problems (air skirt over hot land, central tower with small turbines inside. Don’t know if you would call it an air turbine or a solar collector…)
Wave / tide. An area of about 100 x 1 miles would power all of California with exiting machine designs (about 1/10 of the U.S. population). Our coastline is far far longer than that. 1000 miles for the west coast?
Geothermal. “Lots”. Depending on how you define it, it’s highly variable. Is a ground source heat pump ‘geothermal’? It is certainly a good idea… Powering Iceland and parts of California today, among others. The amount is more than needed for the whole world. It’s mostly a matter of how much you want to spend to drill deep enough.
Trash. One of my favorites. We can easily turn our trash and lawn clippings into liquid motor fuels (gasoline and Diesel) for our existing cars. My best estimate is that what I “produce” each year on my fractional acre is about what our cars eat. I don’t think we’re running out of trash any time soon. This is proven technology in production in the Los Angeles area trash system.
And last, but biggest and best: Nuclear. Conventional Uranium is about 1000 years+ but isn’t known for sure since no body really cares. Reprocessing moves it out to about 10,000 years with breeders. Add in Thorium reactors and you get to about 20,000 years (Thorium is running right now in several places). Then, the killer: A scientist in Japan invented a polymer that absorbs Uranium from sea water. It can be recovered at about $140/lb. Well inside the economical range, but not presently price competitive with Uranium from dirt. The neat part? More Uranium erodes into the ocean each year than is needed to power the whole planet. We run out of energy when we run out of planet.
Any proposition of the form “We are running out of energy” or “We must conserve” or “Efficiency we save us” is just fundamentally broken. All we need to do is effectively use the cheapest sources available to improve life for everyone on the planet as quickly as possible. A wealthy society can afford to set large parts of the planet aside for parks; a poor one can not…
There is no energy shortage and there never will be. There is a shortage of imagination and willingness to act sensibly.
B Kerr said:
We, yes you and me, are buying wood burning stoves.
The presenter was sat next to a wood burning stove and had a wee glass of red wine in his hand. Looked very Christmasy.
He explained “That trees consume CO2 when they grow and the burning of wood is environmentally friendly.” Clearly a form of good man made CO2.
-end quote
Fascinating… Here on the Loony Left Coast of the USA, the local Air Quality Police have announced that anyone using wood heat on a forbidden day will be subject to punishment. How one is to know it’s going to become a ‘spare the air’ day when lighting the fire at 5 am is a bit unclear…
You must [burn | not burn] trees to save the planet!!! Perfectly looney…
Chris Ward said
I’m beginning to think that strong AGW is the biggest scientific fraud in history. Trouble is, unlike the Piltdown Hoax, this fraud threatens the future prosperity and freedom of the world.
-end quote
Get a copy of “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”. Unfortunately, the dictum to “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity” would argue for AGW as a popular delusion rather than Fraud… except maybe on the part of folks who ought to be smart enough to know better… Tulips anyone?
For the U.S. at least, windmills can replace natural gas powered turbines for some small percentage of load at not too much increase in management problems. Doesn’t do much for base load coal / nuke displacement, though…
DAV,
Your points about storage and geothermal limits are true, but only in the context of cost effectiveness. These problems are all solved AT A COST. It’s just that the cost is well above any reasonable price folks would pay given the alternative (vastly cheaper) oil, coal, and nuclear. We could drill deep enough to power the whole place on geothermal, it is just incredibly stupid to do so with several hundred years of coal and several thousands of nuclear. Similarly we could use wind with storage, at a high cost.
An example? There is a city in Alaska that has a giant battery bank to keep power going to the city when the generator plant is down. There is no grid out in hellengone so battery UPS becomes cost effective on a city wide scale (they really want electricity to the heater, fan & lights during Alaska nights!).
A mix of wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, gas turbine, fuel cell, co-generation, nuclear and some storage is possible and manageable. In fact, it’s what Pacific Gas & Electric does now. They have a pumped storage facility in the hills… It all runs great as long as the State doesn’t get involved.
The exact mix would be best chosen by markets rather than by politicians with law degrees (and little education in engineering or business economics… They are the folks who brought us buying electricity at mini-bar prices from Enron… all priced on the spot market only.)
The good news is that, post California bureaucracy induced electricity shortages, I have 2 standby generators so I can always use them rather than my wood heater on ‘spare the air days’… at least as long as we have gasoline available… even though it has to be “Special” California gasoline…
Sigh. Why are governments so stupid? Rhetorical, I know…
Back to the original topic,
Propeller driven aircraft that are certified to fly in icing conditions have deicing systems for their propellers. Most often it is an electric heating element that is embedded in a rubber sheet that is glued to the leading edge of the propeller. Next time you ride a commuter plane you can see the dark colored boot on the inner third of the prop.
Since wing turbines generate electricity , there should be plenty of power available to deice the blades in a similar manner.
I think the problem is that wind turbines are now being installed in more northern climates, a wind turbine in southern California won’t have this type of problem.
E.M.Smith
Thanks for the quote.
Please remember that I was watching “The BBC News” at 10 o’clock.
BBC = British But Crap.
Sorry if I offended anyone; but that is the BBC.
The BBC say that wood burning stoves are environmentally friendly so there!!
You guys out there in the colonies must have it all wrong!
This is the BBC telling us that wood burning stoves will save us money and that we can stay warm. Mind you we cannot afford to have hot/warm food or have any lighting, but we cannot have everything.
E.M.Smith
Wait a minute!
Kicked off the snow and got into my greenhouse.
I have a black tulip growing between the haggis plants.
Any offers for a black tulip bulb?
re: no ice problem on wind mills in southern CA: yet