B&Q Wind Turbines (Merged Thread)

[Deleted User]

colinS wrote:

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.


I agree - most of the reports from owners on Proven have proved very positive and it seems to be a shame that this one bad site have been highlighted by the press but at least it might reinforce the message that turbines in urban locations in the main don't work.

We really should get together and get the Times to publish on all our findings about Windsave

Freddix

kittiwoz

freddix wrote:

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.

• The powercurves I refer to are shown on the bestgeneration website which you yourself provided a link to and which does not sell the Swift turbine.
• They are however provided courtesy of the manufacturers. I think it is fair to assume that they are correct despite this because they are empirical engineering data as opposed to sales pitch figures such as "could save around £X amount per year" which could vary wildly depending on conditions.
• As I say, Swifts "claim", and yes this is a sales claim as opposed to engineering data like the powercurve, that the turbine can produce 2,000 to 3,000kW per annum is based on performance at a test site in Edinburgh so I would consider that a degree of proof although it obviously only applies to that situation.
• The payback time for the Windsave is infinity because it will never payback within the lifetime of the machine. I think that the better performance and longer lifetime of the Swift turbine give it a better chance of achieving simple payback within its expected lifetime. I would say better odds of achieving simple payback = better payback figures. Both would make rotten financial investments, no question, but I don't think the Swift would be worse than the Windsave.
• I have no interest in Swift beyond an academic interest as someone who has a degree in mechanical engineering and is interested in the environment.
• The reason I far prefer it to the Windsave turbine is that from the available data it seems to perform far better and because it has several features which suggest it has been designed from the bottom up to function as a roof mounted turbine and seems like a neat piece of engineering design, where as the Windsave turbine gives every indication of being a quick and dirty adaption to reach market quickly and at a low price point following a bit of well-timed bandwaggon jumping.

I don't recommend any turbine, Swift or otherwise, but I'm not against windpower and I think even at microgeneration level it may have some worth, eg. commercial and public buildings, new builds. I wouldn't advise retro-fitting on domestic houses unless there is no grid connection. If you read what I said I quite clearly advised against a turbine on financial grounds but if someone wants to get one anyway and asks for advice I'm not going to pretend they are all as useless as the Windsave.

[Deleted User]

kittiwoz wrote:

• The powercurves I refer to are shown on the bestgeneration website which you yourself provided a link to and which does not sell the Swift turbine.
• They are however provided courtesy of the manufacturers. I think it is fair to assume that they are correct despite this because they are empirical engineering data as opposed to sales pitch figures such as "could save around £X amount per year" which could vary wildly depending on conditions.
• As I say, Swifts "claim", and yes this is a sales claim as opposed to engineering........
  
  level it may have some worth, eg. commercial and public buildings, new builds. I wouldn't advise retro-fitting on domestic houses unless there is no grid connection. If you read what I said I quite clearly advised against a turbine on financial grounds but if someone wants to get one anyway and asks for advice I'm not going to pretend they are all as useless as the Windsave.

kittiwoz,

Fair enough to the above, but I just think it is risky to base ones arguements on data posted by the manufcaturer and also on their own claimed test sites and video footage. Windsave has had some video footage of their turbine "not hunting" for the wind and sounding as "quiet as a mouse".. various reports from actuall users don't seem to support this though.

The key message I think from both of us is don't buy a windturbine until you have explored all sensible areas of reducing your initial energy usage to start with.

Freddix

[Deleted User]

The Warrick Wind Energy Trial have managed to find an independent client who has a Wind Save turbine installed to allow them to publish his data.

This follows after Windsave withdrew from the trial saying that their turbine didn't need anymore data testing.

Well all I can say is I'm glad I didn't buy one with 10 kWh generated over 10 weeks of the windiest time of the year you could be looking at an annual saving of £8 with a payback of just over 125 years.

What a bargain and before anybody says "well at least they are generating something and reducing carbon emissions" what do you think the embedded cost of carbon is on manufacturing this product.

There are a few other sites and other micro turbine manufactures with data to be published soon so keep an eye on the site.

http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Maidenhead.pdf

Freddix

Cardew

freddix wrote: »

The Warrick Wind Energy Trial have managed to find an independent client who has a Wind Save turbine installed to allow them to publish his data.

This follows after Windsave withdrew from the trial saying that their turbine didn't need anymore data testing.

Well all I can say is I'm glad I didn't buy one with 10 kWh generated over 10 weeks of the windiest time of the year you could be looking at an annual saving of £8 with a payback of just over 125 years.

What a bargain and before anybody says "well at least they are generating something and reducing carbon emissions" what do you think the embedded cost of carbon is on manufacturing this product.

There are a few other sites and other micro turbine manufactures with data to be published soon so keep an eye on the site.

http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Maidenhead.pdf

Freddix

Interesting - but not unexpected.

Although it is acedemic in this case, if we are talking about payback times for any device we really must include lost interest in the equation.** So if you bought and installed the system for, say, £1,000 it is costing you £50-£60 in lost interest. By the way 10kWh in 10 weeks at the windiest time of the year is > 50kWh pa which is nearer a saving of £4 pa.

**If you take out a mortgage of, say, £100,000 and pay back £5,000 a year you dont say the payback time is 20 years.

USUAL DISCLAIMER
As this is a money saving site, the above is purely looking at the financial savings.

colinS

Cardew,

Don't bother to mention lost interest charges to Windsave buyers, because the kids like watching the blades go round and you have to pay a bit of money out if you want to see some "green" bling stuck on your house. The trouble is that in some cases some of that Windsave money is from taxpayers, and I want it returned, to be put back in the kitty for a better use that this bit of jock junk.

Flash_Estivo

We'll it looks like Daventry Council have invested some tax payers money. They have a brand new Windsave turbine on the top of their council building.

Mine has been up and running now for nearly 3 months and has generated 90 kwh for those of you that are interested.

magyar

Out of interest when you buy a Windsave turbine do they do anything like tell you the average windspeed at your house?

gromituk

How tall is the council building? It might be tall enough for the turbine to generate something useful!

Cardew

Flash_Estivo wrote: »

Mine has been up and running now for nearly 3 months and has generated 90 kwh for those of you that are interested.

Thanks for this info.

That is the highest output I have heard of; electricity worth £7 to £8 in 3 months. That is in winter so you are in line to save what? £25 a year?

Be interested in where it is sited.

Whats your verdict?