Sunday Times : "Urban greens struggle with windy dream"

[Andy Hall]

Not a personal attack - merely an observation.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 15:58:21 +0000 someone who may be David Hansen wrote this:-

is the version of this story by "The Observer". The quoted words from Friends of the Earth and others are very sensible.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:25:33 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-

The ones in the bit of the article which I went to the trouble of quoting.

[Andy Hall]

What's even more hilarious is B&Q's quote that this is their largest selling item by value since launch.

It might be their largest *priced* item, certainly not value. One also wonders if they mean that their revenue for units x price is the highest. If that's true, then either there are an awful lot of suckers about or B&Q are doing rather badly in general.

[The Natural Philosopher]

he could hacve saved more buying a new woolly and some decent underwear, and turning the stat down 1/10th of a degree.

[fred]

In article , David Hansen writes

I believe that may be a misquote, here is the corrected entry: "It's making a very visible statement to the effect that, "I'm a bit of a tit"" The concept of house by house wind power using such small generators in unsuitable areas is a joke.

[fred]

In article , The Natural Philosopher writes

Could you just put that image away please (the one with the pee & sweat stained Damarts that is).

[Bob Eager]

The ones some people are sewn into at this time of year, and let out of in the spring?

(OK< perhaps that just makes the image worse...!)

[Dave Liquorice]

*You* didn't quote any part of the article. You only included a part of the post from "fred" that just happened to included a quote.

You wrote "Nothing in the article surprised me, or cast doubt on the value of such turbines as part of a low carbon electricity system.".

That statement is refering to the article in general, not a specific section. Most of the article is talking about small roof top types of turbine with only a passing mention of larger freestanding ones. Thus it is not clear to which turbines you are refering, hence my query requesting clarification of your comment. I would still like a direct answer to the direct question "Which turbines?".

[fred]

Thanks for that Cletus, I've just had my dinner :-@

[Dave Liquorice]

That *is* the "value", ie how many pounds in brings through the tills. That is the only "value" big companies, nay any sustainable company, is =

interested in.

The Times article says "Manufacturers have reported a rush of more than =

15,000 orders in the past two months and last week sales of =A31,500 win= d turbines at B&Q generated more cash than any other item at the store." Which is much clearer.

I wonder how many of the 15,000+ ordered will actually get installed and= of those how many will produce the 30% reduction in power bills.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:11:38 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-

I went to the trouble of quoting, "Among those installing turbines are the celebrity chefs Jamie Oliver, who has applied for permission for a rooftop turbine on Fifteen, his restaurant in Newquay, Cornwall, and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, who has been more ambitious in commissioning a six-kilowatt, 11-metre freestanding turbine to power his new cookery school at his Devon farm."

I then went to the bother of typing, "I think you would lose that bet, though it depends on the rated output of Mr Oliver's turbine and where it is sited. Mr Fearnley-Whittingstall's turbine will undoubtedly keep them going much of the time, assuming he has researched wind conditions properly."

They are examples of local turbines, which is what I was referring to in my second paragraph.

The "B&Q" turbine is also an example of a local turbine. Provided one is sited in the right place it will undoubtedly contribute useful electricity to the system, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If it is not sited properly then it will not do as well, but this is true of all forms of engineering.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:18:57 GMT someone who may be fred wrote this:-

Not convincing.

Rather obviously one needs to check suitability before splashing out on a piece of equipment. One wouldn't install a natural gas fired boiler somewhere that natural gas is not available, or a water turbine where there is no source of suitable water.

Friends of the Earth rightly point out that it is better to save energy than try and produce it. However, if one does this then all sorts of "unsuitable" forms of energy become suitable. Heating a "traditional" house requires a high energy input, but a superinsulated house can be heated by all sorts of methods that rely on there not being much heat loss.

The same is true of electricity. Not many buildings can be run entirely from a local house size wind turbine, at least in the short term. Those that are use batteries, which have their own environmental problems that mean that if possible using an external electricity system is in many ways better environmentally.

[Derek ^]

No.

If the mission is to get to Mars and the rocket doesn't get off the launch pad, it is disingenuous to confabulate it with those that do.

HTH

DG

[Weatherlawyer]

But on the mast?

Consider that under a wild wind where the upper storey in a wood are thrashing branches, the calm and even quiet.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing? If so, with whom?

The calculated force having been transmuted, is turned into electrical energy. The point I was making is that any vibrations are likely to be the fault of the machinery.

No doubt with wear and tear the props do go out of balance. If you fix that you are likely to get more efficient machines and no vibrations. But who is going to do that? More especially as the householder will like as not get used to the vibrations as they worsen.

Anyone have any idea how much abrading takes place on a propeller? I don't believe they last very long.

As for them felling the stack, it depends on the way the thing is fitted does it not?

[Andy Hall]

I think we'll have to wait for the court cases to find that one out.

Preediction. B&Q withdraw it from sale within 6 months.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well let's look at some figures.

My house - lets say - is at a nice sort of 21 degrees.

The engineers said it would take 10KW to keep it warm at -5 C

I would say the outside mean temp over the year is 15C so 6 degrees average drop is 6/26 x 10KW. Or about 2.3Kw average. About 3 1/2 brake horsepower.

Lowering the stat one degree saves me 1/6th of that...380watts. I doubt a wind generator can average anything like that. 380watts 24xx365 is about 3MWh. A cost to me in electricity of £300 or so.

And all I have to fork out for is some extra socks and a decent set of underwear.

Stack that up against a wind generator and laugh...

I could get as much back by blocking half the underfloor and roof ventilation vents in strong winds, too.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:50:22 +0000 someone who may be Derek ^ wrote this:-

The "B&Q" turbine has already been shown to get to Mars. There were a number in operation before B&Q started selling them. Whether it gets to Mars as quickly as other rockets and the related question of whether it makes use of the fuel as well as other rockets doesn't affect the fact that it has already got to Mars.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:11:19 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

You heat your house by electricity?

Replacing lights by energy saving bulbs will lower the lighting load of a house, often the largest load over the year. That is the sort of thing that should be done first and if such things are done the wind turbine will produce a greater proportion of the electricity used in the house compared to not doing those things.

[Peter Parry]

Not altogether, you also need to consider the gyroscopic forces. The poor efficiency of small wind turbines in turbulence is only partly accounted for by the varying strength of the wind. Also of importance is the varying direction of gusts which turn the head assembly. If it happens to be rotating at the time the wind turns it some of the stored rotational energy goes into resisting the turning motion and is transmitted to the mount.

With the small Rutland I have here doing some measurements on the odd occasion it moves in a steady wind the predominant noise is blade noise, certainly there is little sound or vibration transmitted down the mast. However, once the wind starts gusting and shifting direction (the usual situation) the sound and vibration through the mast and mount increases dramatically.