B&Q Wind Turbines (Merged Thread)

[Deleted User]

smudge2006 wrote: »

I am so tempted to get a wind turbine at the moment. All the negative publicity seems to be from people living in housing estates or valleys etc.

I'm on the top of a hill in the countryside and the house nearly gets blown away on a windy day! Is it still worth it?

No No No No not as Magyar says "of course it is" this is very misleading.

Lets get back to some basics.

Microturbines DO NOT WORK in terms of actually getting your money back. Yes a well sited turbine "might" produce some reasonable electricity but the reality is that even with an output in cash equiviant of c. £100 per annum (which would be good going) you are never likely to get your money back before the turbine fails, shakes your house to bits etc.

Living on top of a hill which is very windy does not mean that a micro turbine will be able to produce its best output. Too windy and the turbine will not generate, if you have a lot of trees, hedges and other rural structures around then this can effect the wind causing turbulence which will not produce a constant wind speed resulting in poor output.

To get the best results the wind should be able to travel clearly and unobstructed all the way to the turbine. If you had a hedge which was 10 feet tall located in the direction of the prevailing wind the hedge would need to be 10 x the distance away from the house/turbine in order not to effect the wind.

I live in the countryside and the wind blows like a banshee and we have certainly seen speeds of 65mph plus (which is way too fast for a turbine) and enough to pick up a 15ft trampoline with safety enclosure and throw it over our shed and across the adjacent next door neighbours garden and into the side of the house. The wind often blows our garden furniture over and takes down small and old trees - but i know the wind is not clean, because in the autumn it creates mini cyclones with the leaves showing how turbulent the air really is.

BUT, you will more than likely get a better output than a house in an urban area and if you just want to do the green thing and are not worried about payback then do consider it (once you have taken into account the embedded carbon in the manufacture of the turbine itself and the polution caused by people driving to your house to carry out a survey and then the people coming to your house to install it and then the people coming to your house to fine tune it and the people coming to your house to change a component and the people coming to your house to look at your new turbine and to remark on how green you are and isn't it great that you are doing your bit oh and of course lets not forget the planning officer who will come to your house to see whether he should refuse it (even though I believe that planning for micro turbines has changed (but would have to double check that!))

If you have the land then consider a proper turbine mounted on its own pole/tower and not on your house. PROVEN do a range which in the main have positive things said about them, but you are then talking BIG money, so again unlikely to get real pay back.

Better still look at a community turbine. Scale does pay long term (heck you could even make a profit) and getting everybody else involved locally will help raise the issue of sustainability and generally green and ethical living.

Good luck and make the right choice, but glad your thinking along the right lines.

Freddix

magyar

freddix wrote: »

No No No No not as Magyar says "of course it is" this is very misleading.

Well thank you for your effusive welcome, Freddix. As someone who works in the wind industry, I can promise you that with the right wind speed and the right turbine (which I think you'll find is what I said), it is worth it.

[Deleted User]

magyar wrote: »

Well thank you for your effusive welcome, Freddix. As someone who works in the wind industry, I can promise you that with the right wind speed and the right turbine (which I think you'll find is what I said), it is worth it.

Magyar if you work in the wind industry then heaven help us.

It is just your sort of statement that people in the wind industry make that causes all the bad press. If you READ my email fully you will see that I accept that a well sited wind turbine (of the correct type) will generate some savings but to say it is "worth it" needs quantifying - which I note you don't bother doing.

People who do not understand the way the wind acts in the environment are quick to assume that a turbine sited on a house which sits on the edge of a cliff by the sea with nice onshore breezes woudl say this is an ideal site. The fact is it is not. Why? because wind rushing in shore will be compressed at the cliff face which then acts to push the wind up and over said house and turbine. A house located some 200 metres back from a cliff face would probably get a better wind stream and generate greater output on a turbine.

Please do feel free to demonstrate in what way it is "worth" having a wind turbine installed - bearing in mind this is a money saving website.

And lets have all the facts please - including all the associated costs that go with owning a wind turbine, which are

• The cost of the turbine in the first place (including installation costs if required)
• The comparison between energy saved and therefore money saved versus the cost in real money of lost interest on your investment
• The cost of planning (if relevant)
• The cost of maintenance
• The cost of meeting all other criteria for the Low Carbon Buildings Programme to qualify for any grant you may wish to use in your calculations

So Magyar please feel free to share your expertise with us and drop the misleading statements like "of course it is" which you caveat with phrases like "the right turbine" and "the right wind".

Do let us know what the "right turbine" is? I am sure we will all be fascinated.

Oh and by the way if your work in the wind industry please tell us who for and in what capacity so we can make our own judgement as to whether or not all your talk is unbias and true.

Freddix

magyar

freddix wrote: »

Magyar if you work in the wind industry then heaven help us.

It is just your sort of statement that people in the wind industry make that causes all the bad press. If you READ my email fully you will see that I accept that a well sited wind turbine (of the correct type) will generate some savings but to say it is "worth it" needs quantifying - which I note you don't bother doing.

People who do not understand the way the wind acts in the environment are quick to assume that a turbine sited on a house which sits on the edge of a cliff by the sea with nice onshore breezes woudl say this is an ideal site. The fact is it is not. Why? because wind rushing in shore will be compressed at the cliff face which then acts to push the wind up and over said house and turbine. A house located some 200 metres back from a cliff face would probably get a better wind stream and generate greater output on a turbine.

Please do feel free to demonstrate in what way it is "worth" having a wind turbine installed - bearing in mind this is a money saving website.

And lets have all the facts please - including all the associated costs that go with owning a wind turbine, which are

• The cost of the turbine in the first place (including installation costs if required)
• The comparison between energy saved and therefore money saved versus the cost in real money of lost interest on your investment
• The cost of planning (if relevant)
• The cost of maintenance
• The cost of meeting all other criteria for the Low Carbon Buildings Programme to qualify for any grant you may wish to use in your calculations

So Magyar please feel free to share your expertise with us and drop the misleading statements like "of course it is" which you caveat with phrases like "the right turbine" and "the right wind".

Do let us know what the "right turbine" is? I am sure we will all be fascinated.

Oh and by the way if your work in the wind industry please tell us who for and in what capacity so we can make our own judgement as to whether or not all your talk is unbias and true.

Freddix

Hi Freddix. Firstly, I don't want to be antagonistic; my post was clearly a very general comment, and my criticism of your post was more to do with the fact that you could have replied along the lines of "it may be hard to get the economics to work", rather than "Magyar's got it all wrong", which I found unnecessarily rude. If you read my other posts you'll see I've been similarly scathing about B&Q turbines as well as others which oversell their returns.

I'm not going to say exactly who I work for in the wind industry, but I will say that it's not in microgeneration; I work for one of the major large-scale developers. I have no specific bias towards any small supplier, nor would I have anything to benefit from it - in fact I have long been worried that people who install uneconomic turbines will damage the industry in general.

There's no 'right turbine' for all conditions and locations and I wouldn't suggest there was. All I did was point the OP in the direction of the BWEA who, whilst obviously pro-wind, have a lot of information and useful links on their site.

Fundamentally, though, if you have the wind conditions to get a high enough capacity factor (typically 30%+) and you have the right export deal (i.e. a netting deal) then you can reduce your overall energy costs.

colinS

Magyar,

I assume you mean net metering when you refer to a "netting deal". The only net metering deal I saw costed was in the money section of the Times newspaper. The turbine looked to be a Proven, the location appeared to be rural, and it was on a hill above the house. After one winter's operation the payback time estimated by the young couple that had bought the turbine had increased from 12 years to 15. You pointed out Baywind the co-op wind energy company to me on the previous page of this topic, and I think that's the way to go, net metering is just not on for wind turbines. If you are off grid then they are a fair option, but otherwise they are just recreational DIY for wind enthusiasts like me. Building tiny turbines can be fun, but putting turbines on houses will never be profitable.

[Deleted User]

magyar wrote: »

Hi Freddix. Firstly, I don't want to be antagonistic; my post was clearly a very general comment, and my criticism of your post was more to do with the fact that you could have replied along the lines of "it may be hard to get the economics to work", rather than "Magyar's got it all wrong", which I found unnecessarily rude. If you read my other posts you'll see I've been similarly scathing about B&Q turbines as well as others which oversell their returns.
......


Magyar, your response is welcome and is far more relevant than your previous post of "of course it is". There has been some very relevant and useful info and thoughts posted on this board on the topic of wind and I just think the place for generalism is now over.

People need to be informed. I support wind power generation on all levels providing people understand what they are getting into and that they have explored all other viable options for saving and generating energy that are more cost effective and better for the environment first.

Large scale wind can and does work and if you are not working within the micro wind industry then thats fine, because the people who are, are not doing the industry any favours right now with their spin and hype.

regards Freddix

Cardew

The micro wind industry using "spin" - isn't that the idea;)

Its good to see a 'grown up' debate on this issue; although it should always be remembered that the title of this thread is "B&Q Wind Turbines."

Therefore for the benefit of those less qualified people reading this forum it cannot be emphasised enough that the B&Q device is a complete and utter waste of time in economic terms.

kisk

The Carbon Trust is to monitor 100 installations of roof mounted wind turbines so hopefully this will give tangible results that will allow people to make the right choice. I’m an Energy Engineer with a local authority and have to report on the practicality of the “B&Q” turbine. It’s difficult as there is so much misleading information mostly on the plus side. Turbulence in housing estates drastically reduces the average wind speed which requires much higher wind speeds in order to produce any measurable output. In the case of wind turbines bigger is better and the higher you can mount the turbine is also better. As always before embarking on the renewable option make sure that the basics are up to the job such as low energy lamps, roof insulation, cavity wall insulation, draught proofing, etc. Think about the way you live walking, cycling taking the bus to work (where possible) will probable save more CO2 than any little wind turbine will.

What I would really like is a ban on patio heaters, how ridiculous, B&Q sell wind turbines and patio heaters. People dont buy these things if it’s too cold put on a fleecy. Not only can we buy patio heaters but we can also buy outside bug killers!!!! The bugs, it’s their territory, and it’s the patio heater that’s attracting them. OK end of rant but reducing ones carbon footprint is basically how we choose to live our lives.:p

gromituk

I wholeheartedly agree with you on patio heaters and the rest, but I'm not sure about the bug killers - you get insects in the summer time whether or not there are any patio heaters around!

[Deleted User]

kisk wrote: »

The Carbon Trust is to monitor 100 installations of roof mounted wind turbines so hopefully this will give tangible results that will allow people to make the right choice. I’m an Energy Engineer with a local authority and have to report on the practicality of the “B&Q” turbine. It’s difficult as there is so much misleading information mostly on the plus side. Turbulence in housing estates drastically reduces the average wind speed which requires much higher wind speeds in order to produce any measurable output. In the case of wind turbines bigger is better and the higher you can mount the turbine is also better. As always before embarking on the renewable option make sure that the basics are up to the job such as low energy lamps, roof insulation, cavity wall insulation, draught proofing, etc. Think about the way you live walking, cycling taking the bus to work (where possible) will probable save more CO2 than any little wind turbine will.

What I would really like is a ban on patio heaters, how ridiculous, B&Q sell wind turbines and patio heaters. People dont buy these things if it’s too cold put on a fleecy. Not only can we buy patio heaters but we can also buy outside bug killers!!!! The bugs, it’s their territory, and it’s the patio heater that’s attracting them. OK end of rant but reducing ones carbon footprint is basically how we choose to live our lives.:p

Kisk and Cardew thanks for your comments above.

Good to hear that the EST is going to carry out a proper study on micro wind generation. This study combined with the one that the Warick Wind Engery Trials ( http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/) are doing should debunk the myth about micro wind generation and take away the positive spin (Cardew I was very aware of my choice of wording in my previous post and didn't feel the need to use the standard "no pun intended" line) of the manufcaturers.

The nice thing is that I believe the study is partly sponsered by B&Q (see below) who of course already sell the rubbish Windsave turbine. So once the results start being published I doubt that Windsave will be selling many more of its turbines.

The project is joint funded by the Energy Saving Trust's partners: B&Q, British Gas, EDF Energy, E.ON UK (Powergen), Northern Ireland Electricity, RWE (npower), Scottish & Southern Energy, and ScottishPower. Installation of the monitoring equipment is scheduled to take place between now and June 2007. The trial is scheduled to run for 12 months, with results in Autumn 2008.

I had a quick look at the Windsave website again the other day and its amazing to see how much its changed since we first started this thread and posted some of our views. They have had to change a lot of their output figures which have come tumbling down (funny that) although I do wish the ASA would pay them a visit as they still quote in big letters "5 - 7" years payback in some instances. Perhaps 1 in 1000 of their turbines might manage this, in the right location, with a ROC payout, the right wind profile and a lot of luck with the mechanics holding out, but as for the other 999..........

Cardew as you say this thread was about Windsave and should I buy......... I agree we must keep it up and keep informing people about this poor product, but we should all (as you Kisk and I have done previously) also keep telling people to look to use less and make easier savings with lighting, insulation etc first.

Self generation should be last on the list (unless you are off grid) in terms of expenditure or until such time that it is cheaper to self generate than it is to carry out other measures.

BUT LETS NOT FORGET WE SHOULD ALL TRY TO USE LESS TO START WITH.

Freddix