Another take on wind turbines

"The breezy conditions at the site on the River Thames will help generate enough clean electricity to power 23 homes. ". Hmm.. "Will help" - how much? And it always, always, pisses me off when newspaper reports don't give actual numbers in kW peak or average, or kWhr over a year, or whatever, rather than "enough for x homes".

[edit - roughly speaking, a UK home uses electricity equivalent to about 1kW, on average over a year: so if we are being generous, these turbines add up to 23kW installed capacity; about 2kW for each of the 10 turbines. That fits with what's said later about them being developed to become each(?) equivalent to 20m^2 of solar panels; at about 200W/m^2, that would be 4kW (when it's light). Compare that with the power capacity of a single off shore turbine of about 3MW (and they are getting bigger). David MacKay's Ch 10 Page 60: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air | David MacKay and related chapters is now a bit out of date, but still very useful.]
 
Last edited:
sgr143 said:
"The breezy conditions at the site on the River Thames will help generate enough clean electricity to power 23 homes. ". Hmm.. "Will help" - how much? And it always, always, pisses me off when newspaper reports don't give actual numbers in kW peak or average, or kWhr over a year, or whatever, rather than "enough for x homes".

[edit - roughly speaking, a UK home uses electricity equivalent to about 1kW, on average over a year: so if we are being generous, these turbines add up to 23kW installed capacity; about 2kW for each of the 10 turbines. That fits with what's said later about them being developed to become each(?) equivalent to 20m^2 of solar panels; at about 200W/m^2, that would be 4kW (when it's light). Compare that with the power capacity of a single off shore turbine of about 3MW (and they are getting bigger). David MacKay's Ch 10 Page 60: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air | David MacKay and related chapters is now a bit out of date, but still very useful.]
Click to expand...
I point people to David MacKay's document as well, it's was a such pity that he died. He made the same point that people always state "there's a huge amount" etc. without ever quantifying it, something that had always annoyed me as well.

The amount of harvestable energy drops very quickly as wind speed drops and vertical designs have always tended to be fairly inefficient. However, you can offset this by having millions of them and also gain from air movement caused by passing vehicles.

The article is pretty useless is providing useful data.

The new breed of turbine is said to be able to spin from even a gentle movement of air, or a passing car. Each unit is made from recycled plastic and weighs about 4kg (9lbs), but the design could be scaled up to help generate as much electricity as 20 sq metres of solar panels, according to its developer, Alpha 311.​

The existing unit weighs 4kg but could be scaled up and would obviously be much heavier.
The scaled up unit could match the output from 20sq. m panels, or a small nuclear power station if you scaled it up an awful lot.:D

The article indicates that one 68cm (27in) vertical turbine will help generate enough electricity to power 2.3 homes in breezy conditions. How breezy and "help" to power 2.3 homes? Why not say it will "help" to power all of London.:D
 
Last edited:
Marketng dweebs spin in the gentle movement caused by a passing whimsy but they don't produce any useful output.

Trouble with windmills is once they're turning it is impossible to judge how much power they're producing. It is far to simplistic and glib to say, oh! look at all those turbines powering London as they look the same in a 3 Kt zephyr as they do in a 30Kt stiff breeze. Someone'll mutter something about hundreds of GigaFloppits per square sausage-slice and the media fawns.
Its a bit like seeing a Ferrari go past at 30mph and muse about 600Bhp rather than the 10 you're actually witnessing.

As for a turbine under a metre tall weighing 4Kg being able to "power 2,3 homes" I simply don't believe it. How much power do "2.3 homes" consume? Over ten at times, and sometimes a good deal more. I doubt there's that much energy in anything less than a water column a hundred feet high, let alone any amount of wind.
Or might they be referring to a still somewhat unfeasable 500w output these houses might be using at night?
 
Slowboat35 said:
Marketng dweebs spin in the gentle movement caused by a passing whimsy but they don't produce any useful output.

Trouble with windmills is once they're turning it is impossible to judge how much power they're producing. It is far to simplistic and glib to say, oh! look at all those turbines powering London as they look the same in a 3 Kt zephyr as they do in a 30Kt stiff breeze. Someone'll mutter something about hundreds of GigaFloppits per square sausage-slice and the media fawns.
Its a bit like seeing a Ferrari go past at 30mph and muse about 600Bhp rather than the 10 you're actually witnessing.

As for a turbine under a metre tall weighing 4Kg being able to "power 2,3 homes" I simply don't believe it. How much power do "2.3 homes" consume? Over ten at times, and sometimes a good deal more. I doubt there's that much energy in anything less than a water column a hundred feet high, let alone any amount of wind.
Or might they be referring to a still somewhat unfeasable 500w output these houses might be using at night?
Click to expand...

I thought exactly the same thing when I first read it, then I noticed the "help to power" bit. That's why I posted "why not say it will help to power all of London. :D

I'm pretty certain that the reporter was told some unrelated facts along the lines of:

1) The O2 Arena uses as much power as 23 homes
2) We are fitting 10 wind turbines
3) Even a passing car could cause a turbine to spin (but not actually produce any significant output)

The reporter then joined all of these up into.
These are great turbines and they extract power from the slightest breeze. The output of 10 turbines will help to provide the equivalent of the power needs of 23 homes.
 
This is a fantastic fairy story. I have dug a little deeper after my eyes nearly popped out reading the Grauniad piece.

Check out this article from proactiveinvestors.co.uk, a supposedly serious website offering investment advice:

New breed of mini wind turbines installed at O2 arena

Quote from above...

"The installation of 10 of the 68cm vertical turbines could generate up to an estimated 87,600 kilowatt hours (kWhs) a year"

This works out at exactly 1 kW average over 1 year for one turbine only 68cm high!

Time to sell your house and your shirt and buy a few shares in Alpha-311.

Al
 
Alan S said:
This is a fantastic fairy story. I have dug a little deeper after my eyes nearly popped out reading the Grauniad piece.

Check out this article from proactiveinvestors.co.uk, a supposedly serious website offering investment advice:

New breed of mini wind turbines installed at O2 arena

Quote from above...

"The installation of 10 of the 68cm vertical turbines could generate up to an estimated 87,600 kilowatt hours (kWhs) a year"

This works out at exactly 1 kW average over 1 year for one turbine only 68cm high!

Time to sell your house and your shirt and buy a few shares in Alpha-311.

Al
Click to expand...
Wow, that's impressive. I'd need to check theoretical values but think that output isn't too far from a 2kW system running in a steady wind speed around 20 knots. I think that's at least 20-30 times better than a Rutland 913. Not bad from a vertical rotor about 68 x 15 cm They must have developed a perpetual motion machine as the figures may well be more than the energy in the wind moving past the device.

I must buy one and that's all my power needs on the boat sorted, including propulsion. :D

I'm a bit sleepy, must do some actual calcs. when I'm more rested.
 
I reflect - now that all us appear to think that credibility is being tested.

But the fact is the The Guardian has reported that O2 is going to solve energy needs with these devices, that historically have proven - not very good. Someone, somewhere has conned a journalist into making the report and accepting that the article does not enjoy peer review, I don't think the journo has made up what he has written. Either our hilarity is misplaced (and unkind) or someone has been telling porkies and Alpha 311 is a fraud. Are there not laws to restrict the making of such porkies (share prices or company valuation must have been lifted).

I'd like to believe in Alpha 311 and the hapless journalist - not that I'd actually want a giant Forgen - but surely there is some basis to all of this.

Unlike some - I'm not critical of the journo - he has simply written what he was told, that's what a journo does - if the story is incorrect then that reflects on O2 and Alpha 311 - and its to them we might direct our criticism and hilarity.

Stay safe, take care

Jonathan
 
I am a Gruniad reader but I sometimes despair at their reporting on science and technology. It is quite common for them to confuse energy (kWh) and power (kW) at which point I usually stop reading.
Anyway, if were the 1st of April I would have been amused at this article . . . passing cars generating electricity indeed. Action and reaction: it the wind turbine is loaded (rather than just spinning freely) then the torque to provide the electrical power must come from increased aerodynamic drag (and increased fuel consumption) from passing vehicles. This means the electrical power generated from the wind turbines is actually being produced as a result of burning fossil fuels, or in the case of electric vehicles, from solar / wind / other forms of power generation.
 
I got all excited by the solar tower technology.
17 years on and (almost) nothing.
Even though, like Neeves, I'd like to believe.
 
Neeves said:
I reflect - now that all us appear to think that credibility is being tested.

But the fact is the The Guardian has reported that O2 is going to solve energy needs with these devices, that historically have proven - not very good. Someone, somewhere has conned a journalist into making the report and accepting that the article does not enjoy peer review, I don't think the journo has made up what he has written. Either our hilarity is misplaced (and unkind) or someone has been telling porkies and Alpha 311 is a fraud. Are there not laws to restrict the making of such porkies (share prices or company valuation must have been lifted).

I'd like to believe in Alpha 311 and the hapless journalist - not that I'd actually want a giant Forgen - but surely there is some basis to all of this.

Unlike some - I'm not critical of the journo - he has simply written what he was told, that's what a journo does - if the story is incorrect then that reflects on O2 and Alpha 311 - and its to them we might direct our criticism and hilarity.

Stay safe, take care

Jonathan
Click to expand...
I suspect that the journalist did put the fact together incorrectly. I said in an earlier post that I think he did get some basic facts and just ended up with 2+4 = 500

1) The O2 Arena uses as much power as 23 homes
It seems reasonable a explanation for the choice of 23 homes

2) O2 are fitting 10 wind turbines
This provides a link between 10 turbines and power needs of 23 homes

Subsequent use of the words helps to provide is where it is a bit deceptive. It would seem that the journalist did know that the turbines knew that the output would only provide a portion of the energy required. I would have preferred that to have been made more obvious and an estimate of percentage given.

I'm leaning more towards an attempt to make it sound more newsworthy than an accidental error.
 
The willingness to engage in mass innumeracy really winds me up. We have a perfectly good set of SI units. So why does power consumption have to be measured in 'homes'.

It's starts young. I was reading my son a book about dinosaurs and it has a bit about a certain dino weighing as much as X number of elephants. He asked me if that was a lot. Like me, he has never picked up an elephant and had no idea what one would weigh. If the book simply told me the weight of the dinosaur in kg then I could have translated that easily into something that meant something to him- people, cars, cows, whatever.
 
Kelpie said:
The willingness to engage in mass innumeracy really winds me up. We have a perfectly good set of SI units. So why does power consumption have to be measured in 'homes'.
Click to expand...
It causes all sorts of conversion difficulties. Have you, without looking it up, any idea how many areas the size of Wales there are to a Rhode Island? Or how many double decker bus lengths to a blue whale?
 
JumbleDuck said:
It causes all sorts of conversion difficulties. Have you, without looking it up, any idea how many areas the size of Wales there are to a Rhode Island? Or how many double decker bus lengths to a blue whale?
Click to expand...
Completely agree. I read Kelpie's post and considered working out how much I'd have to squash an average size dinosaur to make it the size of Wales. I gave up when I realised the difficulty in expressing the resulting thickness as I'd probably have to use the thickness of a human hair as the nearest standard unit of measurement.

I think length measurement units are a bit lacking at the smaller end. There's a whole load of things to choose for length of larger things. You can use pinheads, stamps, cricket pitches, football fields or Wales for area of larger things, though there is also a bit of a jump in scale here.

I wonder how scientists and engineers cope with these obvious limitations.:D
 
Last edited:
From Alpha 311 (rather minimalistic) website:

"One A311 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine can generate as much power as 24 solar panels. 24 solar panels measuring 1m2 will produce 6KW per day. "

They seem to be designed for roadside use; designed to use turbulence from passing vehicles. No evidence of real world test results given.
 
I'm not totally against the "home" as a measure of it helps some people visualise the amount of energy, but why not say, "100 average (10kWh per day) homes"? then both parties would be happy.
 
srm said:
From Alpha 311 (rather minimalistic) website: "One A311 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine can generate as much power as 24 solar panels. 24 solar panels measuring 1m2 will produce 6KW per day. "
Click to expand...
Since they can't distinguish between "6kW per day" (nonsense) and ""6kWh per day" (which may be what they meant), or indeed really between "power" and "energy", it doesn't give one an awful lot of confidence in their data or claims.
 
srm said:
From Alpha 311 (rather minimalistic) website:

"One A311 Vertical Axis Wind Turbine can generate as much power as 24 solar panels. 24 solar panels measuring 1m2 will produce 6KW per day. "

They seem to be designed for roadside use; designed to use turbulence from passing vehicles. No evidence of real world test results given.
Click to expand...
I wonder where they get the figures for solar. I think a 1kW panel will produce about 5.3kWh max per day in Greece when lying flat (that would be in July).

A 1kW panel would be around 1.33m2 in area and they mention 24. i.e. Approx. 18 times the area of a 1kW panel

That would make peak daily output around 94kWh for 24m2 of solar panels and an annual daily average of approx. 63kWh. I imagine that they must be using an annual daily average from somewhere a lot less less sunny than Greece if their figure is less than 10% of the figures I gave.

I assumed that their 6kW per day was a typo, perhaps they really did mean a peak output of 6kW. That doesn't make sense either as peak output would be much higher.

Perhaps they really mean something simpler such as "one of our turbines can generate as much power as 24 solar panels as long as they are fitted in a nice shady spot".:D

I've just had a quick look at their and domain registration. I couldn't find any office address, phone number or company registration information. They also use a privacy protection company to obscure their registration details. Seems extremely odd for any company actually trying to develop sales to organisations, councils and government bodies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top