B&Q Wind Turbines (Merged Thread)

[Deleted User]

magyar wrote:

For what it's worth it's clear to me that this is all about moneyspinning for B&Q and nothing for the environment. My worry is that in a year's time people will look at their return on investment and see very little, which will damage the whole wind industry.

It's quite telling that you don't see many major developers putting up turbines in anywhere other than the windiest of areas.

Magyar, whilst we don't see many major developers putting up turbines at the moment, they will start to come very quickly. I work for the largest property consultancy company in the UK and am trying to drive foward the areas of sustainable development for our clients. Now depending on the development in question the LPAs are pushing the Merton 10% rule big time and this means that developers are having to look at all aspects of renewables including wind. Whilst many are tending to favour CHP, wind turbines have a certain cache to them and from a PR and visible statement point of view they are more "attractive" than some CHP plant or solar.

It is likely that we will see an uplift on the 10% rule by many LPAs to 20% even 30% renewable requirements in development which will further push the use of wind, along with other renewables. What is sad though is that the LPAs will give the green light to a development on the basis of intergrated renewables such as wind (based on manufactures claims), which in some cases (because bigger turbines can and do generate some power) will not even produce 1%.

By the way refering back to my post earlier on "quietrevolution" you can expect to see many more developments with this turbine during the forthcoming year, they have a big order book and the developers and planners love them.

regards

Freddix

colinS

Freddix,

That's an interesting article about the Proven 2500. But did you read who bought it - an engineering consultancy. Who would hire them? If so-called engineers can't see the pitfalls in micro generation, what chance does the average B&Q shopper have.

I have spent long periods of my life sat at a bar drinking, but that doesn't mean I could be a barman at the drop of a hat. People are rushing into generating electricity, and their only training is switching on lights and electric appliances.

Only now are some universities doing studies on micro generation and the grid. Once it was thought OK to dump sewage into the sea until too many companies took up the practice. We really do not know what the concequencies of thousands of homes pouring electricity into the grid are.

Brian Wilson the Labour ex energy minister and chief bullshitter for Windsave did little to advance net metering here in the Uk while in office (we still can't wind our meters back, as some states in the US can). But I am beginning to think that Wilson's ineffectiveness in his job may not be such a bad thing.

Micro generation is a bandwagon at the moment, and politicians love to ride bandwagons. But it is not only wind turbines that are not delivering the goods; there are reports the small CHP systems are not proving too profitable also.

At the moment I think small solar lights are about the best home renewable you can invest in - but mine do seem not to last long, I have about half that still work.

Pandora123_2

Anyone have experience with this rooftop turbine?

Renewable Devices - Swift Turbine

:A

susank

Like to know more about this one as it looks the better buy overall with a longer life.

gromituk

North Berwick (see the videos) may be a good place for it - I'd like to know its output in a suburban setting in the South of England though!

[Deleted User]

Pandora123 wrote:

Anyone have experience with this rooftop turbine?

Renewable Devices - Swift Turbine

:A

"DON'’T DO IT"

and have a look at this website http://www.bettergeneration.co.uk/wind-turbine-models/the-swift-rooftop-wind-energy-system.html

Seriously, Swift are in bed with Scottish and Southern, who have recently stopped 80 of their turbines purchased from Swift because of problems. Swift say it's down to incorrect installation.

All of this is beside the point. They are even more expensive than a Windsave turbine so payback figures are going to be worse (which is saying something).

Save your pennies and concentrate on reducing your existing usage. I am sure most people could actually do more at home, whether its better insulation (either roof or walls), fit TRVs and room thermostat, turn down your heating, switch off your lights, install energy efficient bulbs and so forth.

Not as trendy or as exciting as a wind turbine that's for sure, but the results will be real and you will be reducing your carbon emissions.

Please think about this. It would be interesting to know what measures you have already implemented and what is driving your interest in micro generation.

regards

Freddix

kittiwoz

freddix wrote:

They are even more expensive than a Windsave turbine so payback figures are going to be worse (which is saying something).

That's unfair and untrue. While the Swift turbine is more expensive than the Windsave one it has double the life expectancy, a lower cut in speed (2.3m/s compared to 3.5-5m/s!), is rated at 1.5kW rather than 1kW and the powercurves shown on bettergeneration show much greater output across the range of windspeeds but especially at low speeds (percentage-wise). The annulus encircling the blades is designed to reduce noise and turbulence and certainly seems effective, both from the videos on the Renewable Devices website and also from the good performance shown on the detailed power curve. Also I think it is worth noting that Renewable Devices claim that a Swift turbine can produce 2,000 to 3,000kW per annum is based on the performance at a test site in Edinburgh where over 3,000kW (I think it was about 3,200kW) was achieved, whereas Windsave's claims for the performance of their turbines do not seem to have the backing of any sort of empirical data whatsoever. The payback for a Swift turbine should therefore be better than the Windsave turbine despite the higher initial cost.

That's not a recommendation to buy one. There is certainly no point in buying a turbine if you can reduce your energy consumption. I wouldn't look on a turbine as a way of saving money but if you are interested for environmental reasons then I think the Swift turbine actually gets you something for your money whereas the Windsave one is a white elephant. There is another turbine shown on the bettergeneration website called the Future Energy 1kW which looks like it might be good value. It has a very low price point and the powercurve looks pretty good though it is not as good as the Swift one. It will be noisier than the Swift turbine and I don't have any other info about it so I don't know if there is test data for it or have any idea how much thought has gone into the engineering of it. The big thing to note is that a lot of sites just aren't suitable for turbine installation and you would need to get an idea of what the windspeed distribution is like for your area in order to judge whether a turbine might be viable (in terms of fluid mechanics not finances).

[Deleted User]

kittiwoz wrote:

That's unfair and untrue. While the Swift turbine is more expensive than the Windsave one it has double the life expectancy, a lower cut in speed (2.3m/s compared to 3.5-5m/s!), is rated at 1.5kW rather than 1kW and the powercurves shown on bettergeneration show much greater output across the range of windspeeds but especially at low speeds (percentage-wise). ...Also I think it is worth noting that Renewable Devices claim that a Swift turbine can produce 2,000 to 3,000kW per annum is based on the performance at a test site in Edinburgh where over 3,000kW (I think it was about 3,200kW) was achieved, whereas Windsave's claims for the performance of their turbines do not seem to have the backing of any sort of empirical data whatsoever. The payback for a Swift turbine should therefore be better than the Windsave turbine despite the higher initial cost.

Unfair, sorry so you are basing your facts on a company that is actually selling this product. You use the word "claim" and I think that's the point. They claim yet we fail in almost all instances to see any proof from companies such as Swift, Windsave and all. And as for payback, I believe and do correct me if I am wrong (which I am sure you will) that the Swift turbine costs 2 x 3 times more than the Windsave, so even if it's got improved generation capacity it will probably take even longer to payback.

Why are you so keen on Swift's, what is your interest in the company.

Freddix

colinS

I see that the story of Proven 2500 turbine that generated only 9p a week, that Freddix posted last week, was in the Times on Saturday. It's a pity that of all the wind turbines to be highlighted as a poor performer it was a Proven machine. These turbines are sold to customers all over the world and are generally well thought of. On Proven's site are case studies of customer satisfaction, whereas there are none on Windsaves. On the other hand, B&Q took out half page adverts in the Times for the Windsave turbine - I doubt that Proven has ever advertised in that paper.

John Large, the engineer who bought the system, claims he was sold a pup, but what sort of engineer spends £13000 on a system without doing some data collection and analysis. And what data would show it was advisable to site a 2.5kilowatt turbine in an urban back garden. Proven claim he was told that his site was unsuitable, but he ignored them; he disputes this. I have to say I am inclined to believe Proven and Sundog, the company that installed the system.

The editor of the Times really isn't too well informed about micro generation; in a sidebar titled, Alternatives, which I assume is alternatives to windpower in micro generation, the list was: biogas, solar, and tidal power. Judging how he checked out he first choice, John Large, who says he hasn't given up of micro generation, will probably pick tidal next.

If Lewis Smith, the Times' environmental reporter, trawls these pages for copy, perhaps he could pick up on the views about Windsave, they are by far the worst culprits in the sorry tale of urban home wind generators.

Cardew

colinS wrote:

The editor of the Times really isn't too well informed about micro generation;

This approach is commonplace in the media. Unfortunately it is too often giving totally misleading information about the cost advantages of alternative energy.

Alternative energy is ‘fashionable’ so lazy journalists regurgitating advertising propaganda for solar & micro generation have ready made copy; no attempt to check their facts!!

The publicity given to the Windsave/BBQ project doubtless persuaded many to waste their money.

Whatever happened to responsible journalism?