They are about to litter the countryside near my mate's with huge metal windmills. I am wondering if this will mess up the alreadt mediocre tv reception (digital or analogue).
As buildings reflect rf, surely thes moving windmills will create a whole load of reflected mush. Anyone heard of any issues?

If you ask the turbine folk, no. However I believe that near Glasgow they're having to erect a repeater station after the latest field of them went up as most of the east end now suffers naff reception.

http://dennistoun.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/tv-signals-gone-with-the-wind.html

Scandalous. Ugly power station spoils countryside and blocks RF.

Clearly – they need a much biggger transmitter mast.

yeah but think of all the freshly milled grain you will get, or do you mean wind turbines?

They are about to litter the countryside near my mate's with huge metal windmills

I'd write to them and ask for a nice discrete nuclear power station instead. Or maybe he doesn't use electricity, in which case, any effect on reception won't be a problem…

Can they not just build a coal one there as the fumes wont matter if they are inside watching telly?

If they are in your line of sight to the transmitter, they may well do
I wouldn't have thought there's enough surface area to them to cause a secondary [reflected] signal unless they're very close to you

I'd write to them and ask for a nice discrete nuclear power station instead.

Well at least that will still allow you to get rubbish reception when the wind's not blowing.

I love the irony of these "My mobile phone has poor signal / you're not building a transmitter near me" and "I want reliable, green electricity / NO WIND TURBINES" arguments

Well at least that will still allow you to get rubbish reception when the wind's not blowing.

Until it breaks, or we run out of uranium. And in any case, if they're going to build a new one for him, he'll have to wait 15 years for them to build it before he can watch TV with/without rubbish reception!

Don't the turbines chop up the signal into little bits and make the stream all swirly?

Maybe buying Sky would help him unless he lives really close to a turbine.

I want reliable, green electricity

Plenty of the normal stuff will do

I want reliable, green electricity / NO WIND TURBINES

Do explain to me why that is ironic.

Do explain to me why that is ironic.

The irony lies in the fact that electricity to power both the transmitter and his TV has to be generated somewhere, yet they don't seem to realise that this generation will affect someone somewhere, so why not the user (OP)…

Plenty of the normal stuff will do

Glad that's sorted then. No need to worry about this global warming bollocks then 🙄

yeah but think of all the freshly milled grain you will get

😆 LOL

global warming bollocks then

🙄 it's not global warming anymore, tut tut

The irony lies in the fact that electricity to power both the transmitter and his TV has to be generated somewhere, yet they don't seem to realise that this generation will affect someone somewhere, so why not the user

Yes, but the user was asking for reliable electricity 🙄

Yes, but the user was asking for reliable electricity

😆

Yes, but the user was asking for reliable electricity

Nope, the user was asking for no generation to be built where it may affect his friend's reception. If everyone were to make the same request (be it on perceived loss of TV reception, local visual / environmental damage, loss of house value etc) , then problems with TV reception would cease to be an issue, as there wouldn't be much electricity to enable said broadcasts to happen, never mind the individual user receive them…

If you use electricity, then you must be prepared to put up with the inconvenience that one day, someone may come up with an idea to generate some near you. If not, then that demonstration of hypocrisy would be the irony I highlighted earlier. The same applies to landfill sites, incinerators, factories etc. If you use it, then one day it may need to be produced near you; and if so, you've not got a leg to stand on to prevent such developments from taking place.

Couldn't be bothered to read beyond the first sentence, given I was asking what was ironic about "I want reliable, green electricity / NO WIND TURBINES", which definitely does have the word "reliable" in it.

Though I'll also point out that the OP wasn't asking for them not to be built, he was asking about their affect upon reception.

If he had been asking for them not to be built then I'd refer you back to my first paragraph (I'm assuming here he does still want to watch TV when the wind doesn't blow).

Likewise, however, when the generation starts to affect the very purpose of its being…

Couldn't be bothered to read beyond the first sentence

Why bother taking the time to reply then?

And a snip from the Daily Mash

Margaret Gerving, a retired headmistress from Surrey, said: "I've noticed there are lots of wind turbines just standing about doing precisely **** all most of the time. Surely we can use some of the bits to make at least one helicopter?"

Wind Turbines right next to Whites Trail / Skyline / W2 – bloody love 'em!!!!!

wind turbines are too expensive. The only reason our landscape is being blighted by these ugly monstrosities is coz a bunch of peaked capped numpties are insistent on complying with yet another EU directive. Stupid people who live in towns and cities who have a chip on their shoulder about those fortunate enough to live somewhere that they perceive to be better than where they live.

Questions for all you wind turbine huggers:

1) How many wind turbines do you need to produce the same electricity as a typical gas fired powerstation?

2) How many acres of land would you need for all of these turbines?

3) How much extra will each UK household be paying to enable power companies to implement wind energy? (you will be shocked)

Wind turbines produce zero energy in very high winds and zero energy on still days. An unreliable source of energy! So you will always need a proper power station.

Turbines are ugly and take up huge amounts of space. Give me any power station as an alternative any day! At least these only occupy a small area of our countryside.

Nuclear energy is the way to go. The French invested in it and now we buy a lot of our electricity from their grid. Or were they wrong? Should they have continued with coal or gas fired stations?

The global warming issue being caused by mankind is a big lie! The natural world makes most of it's own pollution! (85% or more). The world also absorbs all of this so called pollution. It's a balanced machine that works in long cycles. Longer than we can record, but scientists know sea levels were once 7m higher when the world was a lot hotter. Conversely, large parts of the world were shrouded in thick ice during one of many ice ages. Man hadn't even been invented at this stage! These cycles are ongoing and there is nothing we can do about it.

The green movement is all about taxation and making money. If Governments were truly committed to protecting the environment, they would ban certain activities/products, not just allow them to carry on whilst making additional tax revenues from them.

Emissions are a result of successful economies. Economies which generate tax receipts. Did you hear politicians rejoicing about the reduction in emissions when vehicle use plummetted after the hikes in fuel prices last year? No! They were worried about the economy. It's just one big lie! Those who believe in it are as niaive as they come!

The real issue is about global security. We are far too dependent on the burning of fossil fuels. A finite resource that we should aim to consume less of. Alternatives should be sought, but please don't tell me it has got anything to do with saving the planet!

In the meantime we'll have to put up with the scientifically challenged idiot journalists talking a mountain of utter nonsense about "saving the planet".

Guys, we aren't saving the planet, we are saving the human race. The planet will happily take care of it's self!

As one of those naive enough to believe in climate change and the need to do something about it I'll bite!

If your brief description of climate change is anything to go by then you know very little on the subject. I suspect you've based your views on work by 'scientifically challenged idiot journalists' 🙂

The UK and EU Energy policy is moving at glacial speed but it is at least starting to consider mitigating climate change and the risks posed by energy security. An energy policy that manages these risks will use a range of energy sources. I didn't know that we had to use either wind or gas or nuclear? The UK has a fantastic wind resource and it'd be a waste if we didn't use it. Yes, the grid and the way we use manage energy will have to change with increased renewables but investment in a smarter grid is needed for many other reasons. And yes, renewables are more expensive at the moment but that will remain the case until the environmental costs of other energy sources are considered by the generators and users rather than those that have no choice in the matter and are least able to adapt.

Anyway, I could go on but I'm off to circuits. Happy to discuss later.

TTFN,
MB

The global warming issue being caused by mankind is a big lie!

You have even lost Bush as an ally on this one

The only reason our landscape is being blighted by these ugly monstrosities is coz a bunch of peaked capped numpties are insistent on complying with yet another EU directive.

The green movement is all about taxation and making money.

Any chance of a creditable source for ANY of these your assertion?

The world also absorbs all of this so called pollution.

Why so called polution?Do you think that pollution is not a problem? Are there no man made impurities in our air and water? 🙄

Your post is one of the dumbest things I have read on here. That is an impressive achievement

Do windmills play havoc with TV and radio?

I hope so [except Radio 4]

alledgedly the largest UK landbased one is only pushing out 4% of its potential output as the cables are moving on the moor

that coupled with the >10% downtime for repairs/ servicing windfarms are never going to be competitive/ reliable enough to replace conventional means of generation

Answers:problems
tidal power: buggers up the local environment/habitat

legislate on energy efficiency and force the power companies into innovative tariffing that penalises the wasteful:sends the power companies bust and will be socially inequitable (only rich people can afford energy efficient gadgets)

therefore its far better to keep putting up wind farms so that everyone can see we are doing something to combat "climate change" so they can sleep easy at night 😉

Hi big_n_daft. Any more info on this wind farm? I presume you're talking about Whitelee, south of Glasgow. Do you have any evidence to back that up as 4% since commissioning in May would be rather disappointing? For a wind farm in that location you'd expect 30 to 35% annual load factor.

Anyway, you've jumped from a single allegation to discounting wind farms as one of the contributors to the national energy supply. I tend to agreed that wind farms have been used as window dressing to make up for years of a lack of national energy strategy but I don't think that excludes them from having a part to play.

As for reliable, if we lost the interconnector to France at the wrong time, a coal fired power station was forced to close after an accident (as has happened) or we lost our largely imported gas supply we'd be equally stuck.

As for reliable, if we lost the interconnector to France at the wrong time, a coal fired power station was forced to close after an accident (as has happened) or we lost our largely imported gas supply we'd be equally stuck.

Yes, windfarms are better because they're predictably unreliable.

sorry, largest in England

4% is obviously hearsay, >10% down for maintenance/ repair is a matter of direct observation

it only has a 27% capacity factor to start with

I also doubt if the money for local environmental projects is going on anything other than a part time ecologist with no real money to spend if anything at all. How easily we gave up our common land!

I think 'intermittent' is the preferred technical term 🙂