You do know they typically have three blades, right? Since you're apparently choosing to be obtuse, I'll modify the wording slightly to help you understand: The radius (i.e. length of this one blade) is obviously one half of the diameter of the turbine's tip circle. All three tips lie on that circle, spaced uniformly at 120 degrees apart.
Don't forget the massive hub in the centre of the tip circle. Each blade is not the whole of the turbines radius. Just saying like. Edit. Took too long typing.
So you actually believe the blade root doesn't extend at all into that 'great cog bit', as it isn't called in the trade? Nah, it's obviously just super-glued to it ... unsmart arse!
The blade is 75m, the finished turbine has a diameter of 154m. Can we leave it there now, this is the City of Culture thread. Ta.
Good call. I know nothing of the sector and little of the science but I hear people casually stating ‘facts’ like these quite often: passing them on as if they’re learned in the area. But what I do know and realise is that the very concept, existence and funding of this type of power is heavily political – too long winded to detail and probably verboten on this forum anyway. Now the OP might well be learned in the area and fair ****s to him if he is but what is particularly concerning and puzzling is that the OP is being casually disparaging and damaging about a power source that has threads in providing hundreds of jobs for this city. Seems ****ing braindead to pass it on even if it is true.
I find it amusing that the criticism is targeted at onshore when the subject blade is from offshore. As for the facts and the failings of the technological efficiency, I would like to see links to support it.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk Wind energy accounts for 18.71% of our energy demand at present. No split information between on or off shore. Higher than I thought it would be.