Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me.
Marcus20VT Regular Member Joined: 02/09/2008 Location: WalesPosts: 49
Posted: 04:15pm 12 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Again,
I have been playing with turbines for a while now, with only moderate success!(In fact I am being very kind to myself calling my success moderate!!)
I am now thinking of biting the bullet and buying a manufactured wind turbine and connecting it to the grid.
So, the turbine has to be MCS (microgeneration certificate scheme) certificated, as I want to claim my FIT (36.2p per KWhr if below 1.5KW, or 28p per KWhr if between 1.5 and 15KW system). This tarrif is guarenteed for 20 years.
My average annual wind speed for my area is 6.2 m/s according to this website I found the other day.
What I spend on the system and installation, I would like to get back in less than 5 years.
My local-ish eco store has this http://www.mysolarshop.co.uk/wind-turbine-kit-p-601.html?osC sid=397diitdl4e8r7ni5mmjavkke7 which is a good price for the equipment, but is there something better??
Thanks for your help!
shawn Senior Member Joined: 30/03/2010 Location: New ZealandPosts: 210
Posted: 07:02am 13 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Marcus others will chime in and give you better stats on your payback but my gut tells me you are better to go with PV,
Don't get me wrong I love wind turbines but the hard reality is payback takes a while depending on your situation of course.
My advice would do lots of homework on real costs and payback before spending lots of cash.
shawn
Marcus20VT Regular Member Joined: 02/09/2008 Location: WalesPosts: 49
Posted: 10:33am 13 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Thanks Shawn
I would love to go with PV - I have a south facing roof, and I have contacts in Sharp - but we will be moving house and PV isn't really portable.
That's why I wanted a turbine. I can un-install and decomission quite easily to site to a new location.
Also, call me weird, but I actually like turbines - they're nice to look at!!
Rastus Guru Joined: 29/10/2010 Location: AustraliaPosts: 301
Posted: 01:47pm 13 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Marcus,
I can't imagine any rebate scheme being generous enough to pay back costs in five years.They are usually a carat to intice investment.Here in Australia with plenty of sunshine cost return is claimed to be upto 20yrs,about as long as they are offering to give you the rebate,coincidental?Cheers Rastussee Rastus graduate advise generously
Go read http://www.solacity.com/SmallWindTruth.htm
and pay particular attention to the section on Small Wind Turbine Real World Performance about halfway down.
Marcus20VT Regular Member Joined: 02/09/2008 Location: WalesPosts: 49
Posted: 01:40pm 14 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
eek that makes scary reading.
I downloaded a couple of the trial reports as well - even more scary!
However, isn't this all about 3/4 years old now - surely things have improved as a new industry cannot afford to stand still. A $50,000 installation must produce more than 13,000 KWhrs a year, or the Industry really is in a world of trouble!!
There is a sentence at the end - Another situation where a small wind turbine can make good sense is in case your province, state, or country has rebates or other incentives that make it cheap to install one (just keep ongoing maintenance and repair cost in mind as well). While we would like to advocate responsible spending of government money, the small wind industry needs many more customers to mature. It takes time and installation numbers for manufacturers to work out the bugs, make better turbines, and make them cheaper. - the UK government has bought into this with the FIT tarrif, I'm sure other countries have done the same. This has to be a factor when considering micro-generation where PV is not suitable.
It is scary reading isn't it, as is Paul Gipe 's down to earth discussion of real world micro turbine performance. Sustainability Ireland also has a good discussion around real world results from micro turbines. As I have seen it, the discussion amongst amateur builders, and commercial builders alike have usually revolved around the expectation that small or micro wind turbines have the same relative performance limits of large turbines. Most people agree that the ceiling for performance is the Betz limit, and then assume that to be true of all sizes of turbines. This doesn't take into account the well known, but poorly understood Reynolds effect, which explains why small chord foils do not works nearly as well as large chord foils. An MIT trained Phd who did his doctorate in HAWT CFD wind turbine modeling, Dr. Curran Crawford, told me that he believed that conventional HAWT's of less than 6 ft dia, in his mind, due to the Reynolds effect of having such short chord lines, have a maximum theoretical aerodynamic efficiency of only 12-15%. Paul Gipe, who has more real world testing experience than anyone, says on his website, that regardless of manufactures claims, his experience shows that it is very unusually for micro turbines to ever reach 20% eff! This lines up well with the real world test result I have seen, though most manufactures claim higher. This is one reason I have been so successful with my turbine, for the same swept area, my blade chord is 20-30 times deeper, so my Reynolds numbers are much much better. It also begs the question, how will mine scale up, with a conventional, scaling up brings very big benefits, from 6ft dia to 60 ft dia, the swept area effectiveness may almost triple because of the improved Reynolds numbers. Mine may not, or it may. In the not distant future we will know!
Marcus20VT Regular Member Joined: 02/09/2008 Location: WalesPosts: 49
Posted: 09:11pm 14 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Drew - I've just looked - your design ROCKS!!
I would love one of those!!!!
I am not sure I should have used the words "scary reading", and I'm curious about your response. I'm going to assume "fagged" means something like fooled? and agree, that the small wind industry is full of manufactures making claims they can't back up.
Where I am going to begin to disagree
"Building mounted turbines of any make don't work"
This is a statement that might make sense if it were written like "building mounted turbines have not been shown to be economic, compared to buying fossil fuel based electricity". Clearly they work, look at some of windside.com installations, or some of turby.nl installations. They do work, and I understand that at least some of turby's installations return comparably to PV. They do and can work, though conventional HAWT installations clearly aren't a good fit.
"Urban turbines don't work"
This is a bit nonsensical, given an apropriate tower, of course they work. Look at the medium sized conventional turbines run by the Toronto co-op. Why wouldn't they work? Yes, all low solidity turbines, HAWT or VAWT suffer major performance losses in turbulent conditions. They also have duribility issues in turbulent conditions, but to say they don't work is unjustified. They haven't been shown to make watts cheaper than coal at today's prices. So what! Who thinks energy prices are going down? Are you saying sit on our thumbs till someone proves the economics of thorium reactors?
"If you don't have wind you don't have power",,,, Yep!, that took a stroke of genius didn't it! thanks for pointing it out to us Nubs...
"You need a clear uninterrupted wind path",,, another leap of understanding! Thanks for that! In fact it's only true if your hidden postulate is still that "works" means makes cheaper electricity than coal, and is based on conventional turbines and VAWT's low solidity blade schemes, which make them extra sensitive to turbulence.
Comments like yours make me a bit tired and sad. So sure of so much, nothing new could come along, no change is gonna happen.
In product development circles there's a story about the three stages of product development. Your comments fit well, perhaps you're in management?
1. Come up with idea, submit to management, hear back "impossible, won't work"
2. create proof of concept showing functionality possible submit to management hear back " ya ya, so it works, but it's never gonna be economic"
3. produce evidence of potential successful economic model submit to management, hear back " ya ya, we thought of that yesterday, aren't you ever gonna come up with something new"....
couldn't be fagged = couldn't be bothered to click the link (which, I'll admit, wasn't a link, so you'd have to copy'n'paste it).
Did you read the article, especially the links. Did you read the warick wind trials pdf? Where it lists that several building mounted turbines were shut down because they made too much noise? I'd have to argue a turbine that is shut down, doesn't work.
Or, the fact that both the warick wind trials and the BEST pdf both mention that some smaller building mounted turbines USED more than they generated. Clearly, those particular turbines, don't work.
Does wind have to be cheaper than fossil fuel to be considered "working". No. Hell small wind could be twice as much and still be considered successful. Fossil fuel electricity is currently incorrectly priced (ie, it externalises many of it's costs, for example it doesn't pay for any pollution it generates) and recieves way to much in .gov incentives. I'm seriously considering dropping $20,000 on a turbine, with a return on investment of somewhere between 5 and 10 years. If it's as windy where I live and the turbine is as good as I hope, then it's 5 years, if I only produce as much as I use, then it's 10 years. Realisticly, probably somewhere around 7 - 8 years.
But the smaller urban (and/or building mounted) turbines can have an infinite ROI, i'd have to say, that doesn't work. Some of them may even have a negative return, (ie, they never even generate enough electricity to pay back what it cost to produce them in the first place). That doesn't work either.
So, for the term "they don't work" I guess I'd need to define it. I'd say it's something like "economiclly viable, with a somewhat reasonable ROI". And by that I mean, within 10 years, and certainly within the life of the turbine.
If you have a 1Kw turbine, measured at 10m/s yet you never have wind above 8m/s you'll probably only ever get 500w out of that turbine. You could consider that a success, and to be working, but considering that for a majority of the time you'll probably get 100w, I'd have to argue that no, it doesn't work.
If you are in an urban environment, you are much more likely to get a better return on solar panels. You'll get less drama from your city council, your neighbours, and quite likely a better return.
As for your comments
"If you don't have wind you don't have power",,,, Yep!, that took a stroke of genius didn't it! thanks for pointing it out to us Nubs...
"You need a clear uninterrupted wind path",,, another leap of understanding!
The documents make it clear that wind turbines ARE installed in places that do not have sufficient wind. In fact, that is the main problem, turbines with insufficient wind. Wheather that is because the site is shaded, or just a not very windy locaiton, or mounted to low, is irrelevant, the wind resource for that turbine is insufficent. At the risk of pointing out the bleeding obvious (And I'll admit it IS, or should be bleeding obvious) if it isn't windy it won't work. You'd think this would be so self evident it doesn't need to be said, but those articles make it clear that it does need to be said. In the same way that it shouldn't need to be said that solar panels need direct sunlight, but I've seen panels happily sitting in the shade.
Warpspeed Guru Joined: 09/08/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 4406
Posted: 08:04am 15 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
This is rather like the guy that bought his very first car.
Did all the calculations about purchase cost, depreciation, and fuel economy.
Worked out his savings over using public transport for the next twenty years.
The figures looked good so he bought the car as a long term INVESTMENT.
First he had a lot of unanticipated mechanical problems, then someone rammed into his parked car. Lastly the car was stolen by joy riders and totally written off.
But he still felt that buying another car would save him money in the long run..........
I have heard plenty of stories of how good an investment wind power is, mostly always from people trying to sell me something.
By all means do it, buy a wind machine, but do it for the challenge, or for self sufficiency, not for financial reasons.
Be like the sports car nut that really enjoys driving and tinkering with his carburettor.
He does not give a stuff about the cost of a replacement battery, fan belt or muffler, he just loves driving his car fast with the wind in his hair.
He does it for enjoyment and satisfaction, as a rewarding hobby.
Not as a an exercise in applied automotive financial investment.Cheers, Tony.
Air Bender Senior Member Joined: 25/01/2011 Location: AustraliaPosts: 206
Posted: 11:06am 15 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Warpspeed I agree there is a difference between doing something for finanial gain and doing something for enjoyment. Most people that play with windmills as a hobby would be very happy to come close to breaking even. You are far better of investing you money elsewhere if your purpose is only for financial gain unless you have a very good location.
Turbulant air in built up areas is a problem for low solidity lift type wind mills wether it be Vawt or Hawt. In my location which is only a block away from the main street of town, I can have the same speed of wind blowing through the wind mill but from different directions. But the mill will perform by far better with the wind blowing from the direction that is least obstructed. I have read this same thing from outher members running lift Vawts. A drag type Vawt with high solidity and large cord would quite likly be affected a lot less by turbulant conditions and be a lot more practical.
But for the hobbyist it dosnt realy matter just as long as you occasionly get the window when the wind is coming from the right direction and at the right speed, and the mill gets up and flys that what realy counts.
"I'd have to argue a turbine that is shut down, doesn't work."
Who is making you argue SnowGhost? Do you find arguing with people allows for either side to easily change perspective? I prefer discussion, where each party begins by acknowledging that they don't know everything, have a perspective they want to share, and are looking to hear the other person. I find that to be much more productive than argument. When's the last time arguing caused you to change your mind? I think it was Dale Carnige who said something like "nobody wins an argument, the party who appears to lose, just walks away muttering, dang that guy was a good arguer, if I had said ___ then it would have been different."
"Or, the fact that both the warick wind trials and the BEST pdf both mention that some smaller building mounted turbines USED more than they generated. Clearly, those particular turbines, don't work."
Agreed, a shut down turbine doesn't work. I am not trying to say all turbines can do all things for everyone. I agree that conventional HAWT technology is effective and useful in certain size ranges. I don't see evidence that it works as effectively in smaller size ranges than high solidity VAWTS. I see a lot of theoretic basis for why small chord systems have limitations, both due to renoylds numbers, and turbulence. The report doesn't say that all were shut down, and is limited to low solidity turbines. While well intentioned, a report like this is tricky to interpret because they aren't able to test a significant options. It is however good information for consumers about the tested types of systems. Bit like saying we tested Cadillacs and found they all were gas guzzlers, so all cars are gas guzzlers.
"So, for the term "they don't work" I guess I'd need to define it. I'd say it's something like "economiclly viable, with a somewhat reasonable ROI". And by that I mean, within 10 years, and certainly within the life of the turbine."
I agree, in many circles economically viable=reasonable ROI would be a good measure, the tricky thing is that the cost of Watts varies widely, in the Canadian north many off road, and off grid communities have an electricity cost (barged in diesel) of greater than 1$/Kwhr Clearly for these communities many more turbines are economic, therefor, by your standard they work. I'm trying to make the point that you're original definitive statements "Don't" are unfounded, and you seem unwilling to retract them. Why?
I agree that not all locations are suitable for wind turbines, or PV. However a high solidity, turbulence tolerant VAWT will be suitable for many more locations than conventional VAWTS. See the windside stats on their website. My turbines should collect 2-4 times as much energy per swept area. Therefore I don't accept your definitive "don't" statements and hope this discussion has helped you to see why.
I apologize for the snarky tone in my previous post. I have heard more often than I like, don't can't, that's impossible etc. If people like me took those statements to heart, we would have a very different world.
Best Wishes
Drew
Warpspeed Guru Joined: 09/08/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 4406
Posted: 10:25pm 15 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
I was employed as a Technical officer at the Victorian Solar Energy Council many years ago. My duties were to help plan, install, and then monitor solar thermal, solar electric, and wind projects throughout Victoria. A fantastic job at the time!
I saw all the costs, and all the problems, (and the benefits) of alternative energy projects both large and small all over Victoria.
As long as the project was funded from public money, and maintained free, the user was reasonably happy, apart from the numerous problems, inconveniences, and breakdowns, which I had to attend to personally, and fix.
At the end of the monitoring period when the user was handed over the entire system free of cost, in more than a few cases the system was just simply scrapped as being an expensive and troublesome white elephant.
The most successful systems were low temperature swimming pool heaters using black plastic pipe. The most troublesome of all by far, were wind machines. What many users did not expect was the constant need for maintenance and the likelihood of losing the entire system in one violent storm.
Most users expected to just erect a wind turbine, and then get free power forever afterwards, just needing to keep an eye on the battery charge and condition.
They never anticipated masts falling over, or blades being shed, or blade noise.
This is something for the real alternative energy enthusiast, a labor of love installing and constantly maintaining a wind machine.
It is not an install and forget money spinner for the lazy or disinterested.
I agree with others here, PV panels are a much better choice for reliable long term trouble free operation, but even they are not totally without their own particular problems from storm damage.
Storm damage is the number one killer, and one little storm can cost thousands, or tens of thousands, and completely change the long term economics of any project.
It is unfortunate that good wind sites are always the most exposed to storm fronts !!
The simpler, and the fewer moving parts an alternative energy project has, the less risk there will be to catastrophic storm damage. I doubt if any of these systems can be insured at anything like bearable cost because of their fragile nature.
Cheers, Tony.
niall1 Senior Member Joined: 20/11/2008 Location: IrelandPosts: 331
Posted: 11:55pm 15 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
"the most successful systems were low temperature swimming pool heaters using black plastic pip"
no bearings to fail either ...Edited by niall1 2011-08-17niall
Warpspeed Guru Joined: 09/08/2007 Location: AustraliaPosts: 4406
Posted: 12:21am 16 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
And these simple robust systems don't mind being frozen solid, hit by hail or wind blown debris, or run dry.
Cheers, Tony.
Rastus Guru Joined: 29/10/2010 Location: AustraliaPosts: 301
Posted: 09:33am 16 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Snowghost,
My place is the only house up the track and the utility company has quoted me $70,000 minimmum that I would have to pay to have acsess to power at the gate.I then need to pay a contracter to have the power connected to the service box.Up to this point I've used engine generated power (exspensive) and gives fluctuating frequency's that ruin air compressors ect.So most of the time I do everything by hand.I'm contemplating installing wind turbines for power at an estimated $7000, doing everything myself.Do you consider this a viable project or should I use rabbits to power an exercise wheel connected to a generator? The "sky isn't really falling",lol,Cheers Rastus.see Rastus graduate advise generously
I'd go the rabbits. You can eat them when they get a bit older and their power output drops. And they will breed and generate more rabbits, so you can get more power (so, was channeling clarkson for a moment).
$7,000? What size turbine and tower. I'm interested because my spreadsheet for a 5kw system runs around $10 ot $18 thousand, depending on, erm, options. Quality of tower, and where I put the thing. If it's close to the house I only need 25 meters of 10mm TC+E cable, but if I put it in the optimal wind location I need 220 meters of 35mm cable, which gets expensive fast.
And of course, in this case alternative power may be a better bet. $70,000 is a lot to get grid power.
Rastus Guru Joined: 29/10/2010 Location: AustraliaPosts: 301
Posted: 05:46pm 17 Aug 2011
Copy link to clipboard
Print this post
Hi Snowghost,
The best eating rabbits are 3/4 grown.I thought you'd have more fun bringing the RSPCA or mixo into the equation,glad you responded to the humour all the same.The $70,000 is an indication of the distance to the closest utility feed line.The tower will be a tripod lattice construction rated to withstand 120mph winds.My, erm,choice of gen is 1.5kw,sitting 10ft above a 50ft tower, 48v system running 240v AV from the tower base to the house.I don't use a lot of power but do want to be out of the dark after sunset.Cheers Rastussee Rastus graduate advise generously
Notice. New forum software under development. It's going to miss a few functions and look a bit ugly for a while, but I'm working on it full time now as the old forum was too unstable. Couple days, all good. If you notice any issues, please contact me.
Print this post
that makes scary reading.
