B&Q Wind Turbines (Merged Thread)

BaJi_2

I wouldn't worry about not having a battery. Just change your electricity meter to an import/export meter and use the grid as your battery.

Money saving is less relevant than energy saving in this argument. If you like wind turbines, have the spare cash and want to reduce your carbon dioxide output (or footprint as some people like to say) then get one. If not then just find a cheap energy supplier or use a green electricity supplier. Anyway, at present it's much cheaper than photovoltaic cells .

In terms of reducing carbon dioxide, I would want to know how much carbon was produced to make the turbine and when will this be paid back by the electricity it produces (and so not used from the grid).

Is it a vertical axis turbine? If not has anybody seen a domestic one?

George_Bray wrote:

I agree. The manufacturer's leaflet and/or video playing at B&Q stores says the payback period is 7 or 8 years. It also says the wind turbine has a design life of about 10 years. What a joke. The payback period of 7 or 8 years is likely to be wildly optimistic - they don't state which area of the UK it's based on - so my guess is that you would never get a return on your investment.

Also, it has no battery (a real weakness in my opinion) so you either use electricity while the wind's blowing, lose out entirely, or sell 'surplus' at a very low price to your electricity company.

Regards
George

George_Bray

BaJi wrote:

I wouldn't worry about not having a battery. Just change your electricity meter to an import/export meter and use the grid as your battery...
Is it a vertical axis turbine? If not has anybody seen a domestic one?

It looks to me like a small version of the huge wind farm type turbines, so I assume it has a horizontal axis.

If power can be sold to the electricity company at the same or greater price as it costs to buy electricity, then your point about not needing a battery is very encouraging. After all, batteries are inefficient, quite expensive and have a relatively short life.

I may try making a home-made wind turbine to help keep the set up costs down. It won't produce the same output as a B&Q wind turbine but should be more cost effective in monetary/investment terms.

Regards
George

stebiz

George_Bray wrote:

I agree. The manufacturer's leaflet and/or video playing at B&Q stores says the payback period is 7 or 8 years. It also says the wind turbine has a design life of about 10 years. What a joke. The payback period of 7 or 8 years is likely to be wildly optimistic - they don't state which area of the UK it's based on - so my guess is that you would never get a return on your investment.

Also, it has no battery (a real weakness in my opinion) so you either use electricity while the wind's blowing, lose out entirely, or sell 'surplus' at a very low price to your electricity company.

Regards
George

I saw these in B&Q last night and said exactly the same to my wife. These should be vastly subsidised by the government - that is if they really care about the environment!!!

Stebiz

BaJi_2

Why not build one it'll be fun. Take a look at http://www.cat.org.uk/ for books on the subject.

The price you can sell electricity you produce depends of course on the electricity supplier. You'll need to negotiate if they don't have a set contract.

The B&Q turbine only produces 1kw? I believe there are other similar turbines (perhaps a little more expensive) that can generate more, around 1.5kw and higher.

George_Bray wrote:

It looks to me like a small version of the huge wind farm type turbines, so I assume it has a horizontal axis.

If power can be sold to the electricity company at the same or greater price as it costs to buy electricity, then your point about not needing a battery is very encouraging. After all, batteries are inefficient, quite expensive and have a relatively short life.

I may try making a home-made wind turbine to help keep the set up costs down. It won't produce the same output as a B&Q wind turbine but should be more cost effective in monetary/investment terms.

Regards
George

Phil_L_2

Hello, this is my first post after lurking for some time.

With regard to wind turbines, we have been looking closely at these for sometime at work. The thing to remember is that the system works by extracting energy from the air and there is a cube law involved in the ratio of wind speed to extracted energy. If the generator is rated at full load at 9m/s at 4m/s it may give 10% not the 50% you think you will get.

Anyone who is interested this site has a lot of useful information www.navitron.org.uk.

For anyone wanting to build their own unit http://www.scoraigwind.com/ has a lot of links to some very useful information.

gromituk

IanW555 wrote:

I would like to have a wind turbine, so I contacted my council (Rochford, Essex) who were very negative about it and said that you do need planning permission and would probably end up at appeal. This would all cost alot of money and would not be viable. This is a terrible attitude in this day and age when we should all be going green.

Au contraire - I think they're right. Domestic wind turbines are silly - you just do not get enough energy out of the wind at roof level. And think of the energy embodied in the turbine (i.e. the amount needed to make and install it). Save the planet by using less energy instead - don't fly; don't buy air-freighted food; use public transport; cycle; walk; turn down the heating; don't heat unused rooms; install low energy light bulbs; reject polythene bags; insulate. All much less glamorous than whirling turbines, but much more effective.

BaJi_2

Well, come up onto my roof top in a reasonable wind and say that. The problem is the turbalance created by most domestic locations, nearby roofs and other obstacles. The wind changes direction frequently, although output is still pretty good from the turbine (enough to keep the lights on in the house). Hence my question about vertical axis windturbines (something like the ventulators you see on top of white vans). As I understand it, they are less affected by wind from varying directions (turbulance). They have disadvatages on the large scale but on the small scale they seem to be practical.

Sensible suggestions on saving the planet (I prefer fly less, I like to fly now and then); although the planet will be here for another 5 billion years until the dying Sun consumes it (although it might be spared). It's really the human race, or perhaps our current civilisation that needs to be saved.

gromituk wrote:

Au contraire - I think they're right. Domestic wind turbines are silly - you just do not get enough energy out of the wind at roof level. And think of the energy embodied in the turbine (i.e. the amount needed to make and install it). Save the planet by using less energy instead - don't fly; don't buy air-freighted food; use public transport; cycle; walk; turn down the heating; don't heat unused rooms; install low energy light bulbs; reject polythene bags; insulate. All much less glamorous than whirling turbines, but much more effective.

gromituk

BaJi wrote:

Well, come up onto my roof top in a reasonable wind and say that.

Just what percentage of the time is that then?

Cardew

One might ask why Windsave B&Q etc etc will not allow their machine to be fitted for evaluation.

Ever seen an independant report from 'average' properties? All their literature talks of 'up to' a certain output etc.

Seen anything about servicing costs?

If it will last 10 years, why only a 2 year warranty?

In money saving terms they are a joke.

BaJi_2

Most of the time, actually. Given that the weather is becoming more irregular. My, you are a doubting thomas.

The servicing comment above is a little naive. How many machines or materials are there that don't need servicing? It's a simple machine.

gromituk wrote:

Just what percentage of the time is that then?