Wind turbines

Mankysteve

PeterZ wrote: »

I also find them to be very elegant magnificent structures, I also find them very relaxing to watch. We have two very large turbines quarter of a mile from us, I often stop by and watch them when out walking, I find it quite relaxing to watch them turning.

One man eye sore is another man master piece.

There are solution to the immediacy of wind there on solution just up the road from me. Capable of 1800MW operates in the 70-75 % efficiency rate and can respond in aprox at quickest in 16 seconds and 75 seconds from a standstill to full power.

Paid back its initially investment quicker than expected.

Cardew

Bringing the thread back to small scale turbines – about which the OP was enquiring - the Warwick wind trials make interesting reading, and should put off anyone thinking of installing these devices.

http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Warwick+Wind+Trials+Final+Report+.pdf

The best performing turbine in the trial generated an average of 2.382 kWh per day when in operation, equivalent to 869 kWh in a full year. – So about a quarter the output of a 4kWp solar array.

The poorest site generated an average of 41Wh per day(note Watts not kilowatts) when in operation or 15 kWh per year, which is less than the energy it consumed to run the turbine’s electronics. Energy consumption averages 80Wh per day per turbine (29kWh per year) which is significant on some sites.

Many actually consumed more electricity to run their electronics than they generated! So you are in effect running a fan

Even the very best turbine on top of a tower block would have generated 869kWh a year(see above) - except it couldn't be operated because of the noise.

celerity

Mankysteve wrote: »

There are solution to the immediacy of wind there on solution just up the road from me. Capable of 1800MW operates in the 70-75 % efficiency rate and can respond in aprox at quickest in 16 seconds and 75 seconds from a standstill to full power.

Paid back its initially investment quicker than expected.

Are you sure about your figures, as 1800MW seems way too high? Which wind farm is it?

/\dam

Mankysteve

Cardew wrote: »

Bringing the thread back to small scale turbines – about which the OP was enquiring - the Warwick wind trials make interesting reading, and should put off anyone thinking of installing these devices.

http://www.warwickwindtrials.org.uk/resources/Warwick+Wind+Trials+Final+Report+.pdf

The best performing turbine in the trial generated an average of 2.382 kWh per day when in operation, equivalent to 869 kWh in a full year. – So about a quarter the output of a 4kWp solar array.

The poorest site generated an average of 41Wh per day(note Watts not kilowatts) when in operation or 15 kWh per year, which is less than the energy it consumed to run the turbine’s electronics. Energy consumption averages 80Wh per day per turbine (29kWh per year) which is significant on some sites.

Many actually consumed more electricity to run their electronics than they generated! So you are in effect running a fan

Even the very best turbine on top of a tower block would have generated 869kWh a year(see above) - except it couldn't be operated because of the noise.

Yeah I agree on the Micro generation side they about much use a chocolate tea pot. Only time there approbate is if you off grid such as being out on boat.

celerity

Cardew wrote: »

the Warwick wind trials make interesting reading, and should put off anyone thinking of installing these devices.

That is a damning trial, and reinforces what we've already said on this thread - urban domestic-scale wind turbines are highly likely to be a waste of time.

They do make a point of saying the following though:

"As anyone who knows anything about wind power will attest, urban environments and building mounting is probably the most challenging context in which to try to make wind power work, and the findings of this study cannot be generalised to larger-scale wind, nor to freestanding wind of any size mounted on poles or masts well away from obstructions. All the evidence (and theory) is that wind power is an excellent and highly effective choice for such conditions, which exist widely across the UK away from buildings and towns."

/\dam

Jon_Tiffany

celerity wrote: »

That is a damning trial, and reinforces what we've already said on this thread - urban domestic-scale wind turbines are highly likely to be a waste of time.

They do make a point of saying the following though:

"As anyone who knows anything about wind power will attest, urban environments and building mounting is probably the most challenging context in which to try to make wind power work, and the findings of this study cannot be generalised to larger-scale wind, nor to freestanding wind of any size mounted on poles or masts well away from obstructions. All the evidence (and theory) is that wind power is an excellent and highly effective choice for such conditions, which exist widely across the UK away from buildings and towns."

/\dam

Yes, exactly. Its important to realise that wind turbines will only work in the correct setting.

The Warwick wind trials were like putting a load of solar pv on north facing roofs and under trees and then saying, oh look solar pv is a waste of time. Everyone already knew that small wind turbines in urban environments didn't work, the trial just confirmed it.

Wind turbines, much like solar pv and hydro all need to be sited in appropriate locations.

A 5kW wind turbine is a good size for a domestic property and in a good spot should generate around 7,000kWh a year. You will need some land though, you cant go putting one in the average back garden!

And going back to the original chimney turbine, I too am amazed that James Cann got involved in such a stupid idea.

System

celerity wrote: »

Are you sure about your figures, as 1800MW seems way too high? Which wind farm is it?

/\dam

It's not, it's Dinorwig

Cardew

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Everyone already knew that small wind turbines in urban environments didn't work, the trial just confirmed it.


And going back to the original chimney turbine, I too am amazed that James Cann got involved in such a stupid idea.

That statement is perhaps made with the benefit of 50:50 hindsight;)

Up until a couple of years ago that wasn’t prevailing wisdom. Don’t forget B&Q were selling that disastrous Windsave turbine.

B&Q buying manager Paul Johnson said: 'We are the windiest country in Europe, so there is enormous scope for a home windmill. There is massive hunger out there for this product. I am absolutely convinced they will become as common as a satellite dish.'

WHICH tested one in 2009(it used more power than it generated!!)

Even our Prime Minister elect was demonstrating his Green credentials by showing off the turbine on his house in London during the election campaign.

The bottom line is that only a tiny percentage of properties in UK would meet the criteria that wind turbines be placed a minimum of 11m above any obstacle within 100m. The odd crofter in the Outer Hebrides perhaps.

tiggerpud

Thanks for all of your replies. I do live in a rural location with plenty of land (4.5 acres of paddock) and it always seems windy here (I'm only about 2 miles from coast) but it seems perhaps not a viable option at the present time then.

Jon_Tiffany

Cardew wrote: »

That statement is perhaps made with the benefit of 50:50 hindsight;)

Up until a couple of years ago that wasn’t prevailing wisdom. Don’t forget B&Q were selling that disastrous Windsave turbine.

No, not at all, no hindsight, its all old news I'm afraid. It was well known way before the wind trials that wind turbines do not work well in urban environments. It has always been the prevailing wisdom.

The warwick wind trials were in part in response to the growing number of small windturbines intended for use in urban environments.

Take a look at some of Hugh Piggots books on small turbines, go back 20 years in time and ask him if urban wind turbines work.