|
|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
moonwind
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1140
|
|
|
|
|
Northern_Lad
Joined: 13 Dec 2004 Posts: 14210 Location: Somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 06 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
These are Windsave machines.
Anyone interested in the subject should search this site for the word Windsave. There's lots.
And read this article
https://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/story/0,,1805154,00.html
While it is something of a relief that they appear to be on the point of production, all of the previous criticisms levelled still seem to be valid.
1/ The turbine blades are 2m across. They are a lot bigger than Sky dishes. And (hopefully) they move. However such things are not silent, particularly in turbulent wind.
2/ The structural wisdom of attaching a hundredweight of vibrating machinery to a pole attached to your house is something that building insurers will need to be convinced of.
3/ The economic case is unproven, and to those in the know, looks uncertain (to be more polite than some experts). It is not reassuring that the financial claims made by Windsave are so much grander than those made by any other wind turbine manufacturer. Or that they have been so reluctant to publish performance figures - how much power from how much wind. Without those figures, independently verified, **all** financial, or green, claims are just that - unsubstantiated claims by the people selling the thing.
And I don't like the easy way that they happily confuse 1/3 of the electricity (if only...) with "1/3 of the energy"... and are too reassuring about planning permission, poo-poo the noise issue and don't mention that should the thing ever be generating more than you are using, you will donate it to the grid - there's so little likely to be surplus that its not worth bothering to meter the export so as to sell it.
4/ One aspect of the performance (financial, green and simple output) that is in considerable doubt is whether Windsave are making any (let alone enough) allowance for the reduced efficiency caused by rooftop mounting. Or urban sites.
Putting a wind turbine on an urban roof is about as sensible as mounting a solar panel in the shade. Quite simply, its about as poor a site for such a device as you could find.
There will be shelter from some directions, turbulence from the roof its mounted near and from other nearby buildings. The turbulence increases turbine noise and reduces the power that can be extracted from the wind.
Windspeed lowdown (less than 20m) above built-up areas is distinctly slower than elsewhere. And the amount of power the thing can develop varies *critically* with the wind speed. A little more or less wind speed makes a massive difference to the available power. That's general for all wind turbines in their operating windspeed range.
5/ I'm an enthusiast for wind power.
But I'm very afraid that these things will be sold into comically unsuitable locations, and build a perception as yuppie green statements, that don't work well enough to generate a payback, and are annoying and possibly even dangerous.
And in so doing may hamper the use of wind power where it could be used effectively and harmlessly.
How much did the Sinclair C5 advance the acceptability of electric cars? Or did the excessive claims and evident underperformance prove horribly damaging? That's what worries me.
Remember INEBG? Dick Strawbridge insisted on mounting his Windsave turbine on a proper tower, high and well away from obstructions (and incidentally, the house). Wise man for that, at least!
Last edited by dougal on Fri Sep 29, 06 7:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
RichardW
Joined: 24 Aug 2006 Posts: 8443 Location: Llyn Peninsular North Wales
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46233 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
moonwind
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1140
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
Posted: Fri Sep 29, 06 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
moonwind wrote: |
On the leaflet ... it says that this "bit of kit" qualifies for up to a 30% grant under the DTI Low Carbon Buildings programme - subject to conditions (**VERY interested what conditions**) |
Umm, that hasn't really been decided yet AFAIK...
Quote: |
It is an awkward situation for the EST, which administers a new Department of Trade and Industry programme to fund 30 per cent of the cost of small-scale renewables. The Swift and Windsave turbines were accredited under a previous government scheme, Clear Skies, which did not require them to meet performance criteria, Archibald says. Clear Skies rolled over into a new scheme, the Low Carbon Building Programme, in April, meaning that the two turbines still qualify for grants - although the government has not yet announced the criteria that products will need to meet. |
https://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/story/0,,1805154,00.html
Very well worth a read.
Quote: |
One consultant who sits on the government's renewables advisory board and has undertaken extensive testing of some of the turbines says: 'We found the performance of them is on average between 10 and 25 per cent of what the manufacturers are claiming.' |
He's not saying that Windsave are 'over-hype-ing' their product is he? |
|
|
|
|
moonwind
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1140
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46233 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
jema Downsizer Moderator
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 28237 Location: escaped from Swindon
|
|
|
|
|
moonwind
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1140
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
dougal
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 Posts: 7184 Location: South Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|