Sunday Times : "Urban greens struggle with windy dream"

[Andy Hall]

In both cases I suspect the answer would be the same:

"It doesn't suit the cause"

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:03:00 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

No. As I said The best one might say is that there is a difference of emphasis, which could simply reflect the difference in wind conditions between the two areas.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:35:26 GMT someone who may be "Mark" wrote this:-

A few people have been rebutting the distortions and evasions of the anti-lobby, including me. Attempting to personalise the discussion is interesting, but adds little to it.

[Andy Hall]

It's not personalising it per sec, simply highlighting that support seems to be in a minority of one.

Not very compelling really when the subject matter is generalised and/or subjective as well

[Peter Parry]

Difference in emphasis? Two faced is the description most people would feel is more appropriate I suspect.

You still didn't mention why you feel it inappropriate for FOE to give clearer and more objective guidance on the matter.

[Derek ^]

I don't watch as many TV adverts as you, but I have no complaints about my A35 van. :-)

It got me there ;-)

DG

[Mark]

You are just evading a simple question If you believe these small turbines work as advertised have you spent £1500 of your own money on one.

-

[Aidan Karley]

Depends on the cost that is assigned to wasteful behaviour in your parents time. Say, for example, that your parents wasteful behaviour costs the lives of 5 of your great-great-great-grandchildren, and 30 years off the healthy lives of your children ... would you invest deliberately in your own great-great-great-grandchildren? I know my answer.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Investing suggests you know facts. The above is hypothesis. So call it gambling.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Pots and kettles.

Distortions and evasions are mainly on your side.

The plain fact is that a small wind turbine is unlikely to make even the slightest impact on anyones electricity bills in the vast majority of sites.

[Peter Parry]

The point you are missing though is that buying a rooftop wind turbine is, for the vast majority of the population, very wasteful behaviour because not only will it never recoup its cost (thus wasting money which could have been spent on more useful things) it will also never recoup the energy required to manufacture, ship, install and maintain it. Fitting one is far more wasteful than not fitting one. It's about the same as leaving the front door light on all night, every night, for years and a statement not of saving but of conspicuous consumption.

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:32:23 +0000 someone who may be Peter Parry wrote this:-

People are making this claim less and less about large wind turbines. It is a false claim, but some persist with the FUD.

Some people make this claim about solar PV panels (which is where the claim originally came from). It may have been true decades ago, but it is not true now.

So, now we come to small local wind turbines. Well it is rather early to draw firm conclusions, but there are pointers. The relatively small local turbines installed in Denmark in the 1980s recouped the energy required to manufacture, install, maintain and decommission them in less than a year. For a given level of engineering knowledge smaller turbines are less efficient than larger ones, however turbine engineering has advanced dramatically since the 1980s. Against this house mounted turbines will seldom be mounted in the ideal location, but UK wind conditions are better then Danish ones. I would be very surprised if this doesn't all balance out at a worst case of two years. I forecast the average is more likely to be a year, provided the turbines are not put up in totally unsuitable places.

Feel free to submit figures to the two enquiries I mentioned if you believe so strongly that a local turbine will never recoup the energy required to manufacture, ship, install and maintain it.

[Andy Hall]

Never mind about the ugly maxi and midi sized ones.

The question is about the little ones on individual roof tops. Have you spent your money on one?

I'm surprised that it is considered that wind conditions in the UK are better than Denmark since the latter is so flat.

[The Natural Philosopher]

True, but we aren't discussing large wind turbines sited in open spaces well above the boundary layer and manufactured to industrial standards are we?

Who is weaseling and distorting now?

True, but we aren't discussing solar panels are we?

Who is weaseling and distorting now?

Indeed. all downwards.

Sadly, the laws of physics have not. But then it sounds like you rely on faith and hope,(but not charity) rather than the laws of physics and engineering..

Against this house mounted turbines will seldom be

They are not. They are worse for most people..who live in the SE.

Denmark is a flat maritime country, with a huge expanse of north sea to the west to allow uninterrupted presentation of its nasty dark cold windswept shores to the maximum of bitingly cold winds.

In this country conditions like that are met only in the western and northern coastlines.

I would be very surprised if this doesn't all

I think you are as silly as others have said, frankly.

Usual arguments of the faith based 'unless you can prove to me that its not true, it is true, so there'

I tell you that unicorns also exist (somewhere, and of type unspecified) Prove to me I am wrong?

[Peter Parry]

We are not talking about large wind turbines sited with some degree of care after lengthy measurements on windy sites.

We are not talking about solar PV panels.

No it isn't - we have good wind speed data from urban sites which is consistent with data from wind speed models corrected for surface roughness. This clearly shows that in urban areas roof mounted wind turbines will never generate enough electricity to cover their manufacturing installation and maintenance costs. No improvement in technology is going to compensate for wind that isn't there.

We are not talking about optimally sited multi kW local turbines on

60ft towers.

What we are talking about is roof mounted turbines and over 90% of the UK population who live in urban or village areas.

"Average" conditions are meaningless except to propagandists. In urban areas there is no UK wind advantage over Denmark. I presume you have looked at the detailed Danish wind maps I referred you to earlier? That shows exactly the same lack of wind in urban areas as occurs in the UK and may explain why the Danes, leaders in wind energy, don't have roof mounted wind turbines on houses in urban areas.

What you fail to grasp is that the vast majority of the UK population lives in totally unsuitable places but they are being mislead by greenwashers and manufacturers, aided by a hopelessly inadequate model used to calculate wind speed, into thinking they will work when they won't.

Which two enquiries?

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:26:48 +0000 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

I didn't make any claim about physics. However, I will now. Physics has advanced since the 1980s.

What I did say was that turbine engineering has advanced dramatically since the 1980s, the result being that more electricity can be obtained from the same wind, or turbines in less good conditions can produce the same amount of electricity. The latter approach has led to wind farms being planned/built in locations that were previously not suitable.

That advance in engineering drove the list price of large turbines from 1400 Euro per kW in 1990 to 830 Euro per kW in 2004. In the past few years that engineering expertise has been applied to smaller turbines, turning them from something that was not particularly viable in urban areas (due to turbulence as well as wind conditions) to something rather better. The Swift is a good example of a better engineered local turbine.

Excellent. Name calling is nearly always a good sign.

[kevallsop]

The pdf, downloadable from:

that:

"It is usually optimally mounted at the highest point of a roof, in a position that benefits from maximum prevailing wind, but it will work effectively in almost any location."

I suppose that depends upon one's definition of 'effectively'. As it is rated at 1.5kW at 12.5m/s, a quick calculation says it will produce a whopping 20W or so at its cut-in speed of 2.3m/s.

[tim(yet another new home)]

They had a few case studies on Working Lunch a couple of weeks ago (may still be available on the web site).

IIRC one guy had paid 1500 (after loads of grants and discounts) to produce 80 quid of leccy a year. You have to be comitted to the idea for that.

tim

[Andy Hall]

... or just committed perhaps.

The payback period is nearly 20 years on that.

[Roger]

The message from Andy Hall contains these words:

The real payback period is never. Stick the money in an ISA and get a similar sum tax free every year until Bastard Brown runs out of stealth taxes.