Home wind turbines dealt a blow

"Home wind turbines are significantly underperforming and in the worst
cases generating less than the electricity needed to power a single
lightbulb, according to the biggest study of its kind carried out in
An interim report revealed that homeowners could be being misled by
the official figures for wind speeds because they are consistently
overestimating how much wind there is - sometimes finding that real
speeds are only one third of those forecast. In the worst case
scenario, the figures indicate that it would take more than 15 years
to generate enough 'clean' energy to compensate for the manufacture of
the turbine in the first place":
formatting link

Reply to
Only 15 years? Bet it is more by the time you add the carbon cost of transporting, fitting, and ultimately disposing of it.
Reply to
John Rumm
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D/
As I see it the major problem is the concentration of housing. Country stand alone properties would have a much better chance then a house in a town with the interference effect of the adjacent properties. A relatively low level turbine such as would have a chance of being passed by planners would spend its entire life in the turbulence zone above the roofs and suffer scordingly.
Reply to
That'll be because the vast majority of things designed to combat the 'excessive use of natural resources' and to challenge the 'deadly threat of global warming' are, in fact, a complete load of old bollocks.
We could no more reverse any change in the climate, however miniscule, than we could put out a volcano by getting a small boy to piss on it, and a fan and an alternator onna stick from B&Q would be even less effective.
Reply to
Mungo "Two Sheds" Toadfoot
In article ,
If we didn't need concentrated housing in the form of large towns and cities we'd not need wind energy either - the existing hydro plant would cope with the much reduced population. Who of course couldn't have paid for the hydro installations...
Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)
That doesn't make any sense. We are talking about wind turbines not hydroelectric plants. A lot of power is used by businesses, factories and shops. Probably far more than houses which is why they all have power factor correction devices fitted and their own substations for industrial applications.
Wind turbines are a joke, so are solar panels. They never produce enough power to run the average house for a day, even with minimal use. Show me some wind turbines or solar panels for domestic use that can power an electric shower, kettle, TV and radio, maybe even a computer.
Reply to
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 01:26:15 -0800 (PST) someone who may be cynic wrote this:-
As it says in the article:
"But the environmental consultancy running the project, Encraft, said there was noticeable disparity between poor results in urban and suburban areas - such as the west London area where Conservative leader David Cameron hopes to put up a turbine - and far better ones in high-rise and coastal locations.
"Other research, however, shows that seven out of 10 people say seeing turbines reminds them to save energy, said Matthew Rhodes, Encraft's managing director. 'There is no doubt that microgeneration as a whole has a critical role to play in delivering a low carbon and secure energy future for the UK.
"'Micro wind turbines are part of this mix, but they need to be installed in a responsible and appropriate manner.'"
As I have said in the past, before installing a local wind turbine people should measure wind speeds to get an idea of what it will do.
formatting link
has a little weather station for 85 pounds which will measure this.
Reply to
David Hansen
So there's obviously a market for 'model' wind turbines that don't actually do anything, then - as useful reminders.
Oh, I forgot...B&Q (inter alia) already sell those.
Reply to
Bob Eager
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:37:18 -0000 someone who may be "john" wrote this:-
formatting link
the heart of its scheme will be five wind turbines. The new "power station" will also incorporate solar-energy panels and three hydro-generation systems.
"The grid will be supported by stand-by diesel generators and batteries, to guarantee continuous availability of power."
On the mainland wind turbines and solar panels are part of an integrated electricity system.
Reply to
David Hansen
Don't forget this bit:
"However, using green energy to give the neighbouring island of Muck mains electricity was hit by a series of disasters.
For much of last winter, its 35 residents had to do without electricity for five hours a day. Its 60ft high wind-turbine scheme was also broken for months".
Reply to
Solar panels as in photo-voltaic or thermal?
Plenty of wind turbines about, you could pick up a 400kW jobbie from the side of the road at the end of last month, bit bent mind... Smaller ones say 5kW rated to be useful are also easily available.
But using wind and or thermal solar panels is not about replacing mains power or fuels but reducing ones consumption of them. If I had the spare cash, I'd be installing a large heat bank with wind (5kW or so), thermal solar, wood burner and oil boiler as energy sources. If the heat bank was up to temperature and the wind was blowing I'd be wanting o sell the excess power to the grid, that still seems to be rather hard to set up.
OK at current fuel prices it would take a long time to pay back but with kero now at 40p+/l when it was 30p+/l only 2 years ago and 17p/l 7 years ago using todays energy prices in the pay back calculation is not entirely accurate...
Reply to
Dave Liquorice
Reducing our greedy energy consumption is not just about reducing global warning. It can also eleviate other problems such as diesel emmisions, noise, landfill, waste transport etc. etc. all of which kill.
Reply to
Reducing our energy consumption is not necessarily anything to do with CO2 or waste and landfill.
This is another GreenMyth.
Many energuy sources have no CO2 impact whatsoever in operation, and not a lot on building either.
- nuclear. - wind - geothermal - hydroelectric. - direct solar
All these have another factor in common: largely the energy is free,so arguments about 'but you cant turn them on and off at will' (nuclear, geothermal wind) is totally bollocks. You can just dump the excess capacity at no real extra cost.
I WISH the Bunny Huggers would understand that we don't have an energy problem. We have a resource and pollution problem. The planet is awash with free energy, only limited by the cost of turning it into electricity, and the pollution that may, or may not, result.
What we are short of is metals, and oil/gas. What we have too much of is *waste* metals, oils (plastics), and gas...we can't do much about he metals apart from recycling them, but we sure can synthesize the rest if we need them and *have the energy* to do it.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher
But do people save more energy than is consumed by the motor used to keep the model windmill turning when it isn't windy?
Reply to

Site Timeline Threads

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.