Another take on wind turbines

Neeves said:
I have not read the whole article again but assuming the rest is the same as this sentence, or part of a sentence, then you are barking up the wrong tree and chastising the journo unfairly.
Click to expand...
The journalist is a scientifically illiterate sucker who has recycled company press releases without even bothering to ask someone with A-level physics about the claims. She deserves all the chastisement she gets, as does the Guardian for employing someone wholly unsuited for the role of energy consultant.

You are right that "...help generate..." is significant. It's a weasel-word cop out along the lines of "Up to 50% Off!" in shop windows at sale time. A hamster in a treadmill can help generate the power for 23 homes ... or for 23,000 homes, for that matter.
 
JumbleDuck said:
The journalist is a scientifically illiterate sucker who has recycled company press releases without even bothering to ask someone with A-level physics about the claims. She deserves all the chastisement she gets, as does the Guardian for employing someone wholly unsuited for the role of energy consultant.
Click to expand...

Steady on, you are being far too harsh. She (does gender really matter ?) is not the Guardian's energy consultant but their correspondent. There is a big difference between those two terms. The former would suggest that the holder has some advanced qualification in a science subject, the latter, perhaps not.
 
JumbleDuck said:
You are right that "...help generate..." is significant. It's a weasel-word cop out along the lines of "Up to 50% Off!" in shop windows at sale time. A hamster in a treadmill can help generate the power for 23 homes ... or for 23,000 homes, for that matter.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true.
Some interesting results if you google "hamster wheel electricity generator"
 
Sealong said:
Steady on, you are being far too harsh. She (does gender really matter ?) is not the Guardian's energy consultant but their correspondent. There is a big difference between those two terms. The former would suggest that the holder has some advanced qualification in a science subject, the latter, perhaps not.
Click to expand...
I have amended my post to say "correspondent". Nonetheless, if the Guardian want to employ an innumerate dupe as correspondent, they really ought to employ a consultant as well to deal with stories where a modicum of subject knowledge would be useful. Otherwise people might assume that some rudimentary fact-checking or indeed journalism had been done on the story.

The second one looks a bit dodgy too, by the way. Vesta get 15 MW maximum out of 43,742 m^2, at which rate getting 1MW out of a 140m high tower would require a 21m side-to-side sweep all the way up the tower. Even if resonant coupling improves things (and as a general guide anyone who tries to sell you any power generating device based on resonance should be treated with extreme skepticism) the Betz limit will still apply and since the Vesta will be running at about 80% of Betz, the very best case is probably a 16m oscillation. Yeah, right.
 
Alan S said:
I mentioned in an earlier post that I had been in touch with the turbine manufacrurers hinting that I would like to invest and asking for confirmation of their figures. Very brief reply so I have asked for some more complete test data....


"Thank you for getting in touch.

You asked: "Is it true, as reported in New breed of mini wind turbines installed at O2 arena
that "...The installation of 10 of the 68cm vertical turbines could generate up to an estimated 87,600 kilowatt hours (kWhs) a year – enough electricity to power 23 homes...."?

It is indeed true.

Regards,
Click to expand...


I hve replied as follows:

"
Thank you,

These are very impressive figures. That works out at an average power generation of 1 kW over a year for one turbine. Peak power must be several kW.

Using the turbulence of passing vehicles to generate energy is a brilliant innovation.
This really will be a game changer and I think I would like to be part of it.

I would very much like to see more information, eg power output/windspeed graph, dimensions, installation costs expected lifetime, maintainance requirements etc.

Regards,
"

By the way, does the panel think I am being a bit cheeky?
I would not like to be thought of as trolling, but after all, they started it with unbeleivable claims.

Al
 
Alan S said:
I hve replied as follows:

"
Thank you,

These are very impressive figures. That works out at an average power generation of 1 kW over a year for one turbine. Peak power must be several kW.

Using the turbulence of passing vehicles to generate energy is a brilliant innovation.
This really will be a game changer and I think I would like to be part of it.

I would very much like to see more information, eg power output/windspeed graph, dimensions, installation costs expected lifetime, maintainance requirements etc.

Regards,
"

By the way, does the panel think I am being a bit cheeky?
I would not like to be thought of as trolling, but after all, they started it with unbeleivable claims.

Al
Click to expand...

Not cheeky at all. if the data turns out to be robust - your scepticism might fade and you might invest or buy a unit. If you scepticism is well founded, no that's the wrong wording - totally valid and based on sound principles you would (as a potential investor) walk away.

Jonathan
 
Alan S said:
Using the turbulence of passing vehicles to generate energy is a brilliant innovation.
This really will be a game changer and I think I would like to be part of it.
Click to expand...
Alan
It is not a brilliant innovation at all. The electricity is generated by an increase of the drag on the passing vehicle and the fuel consumption of that vehicle. You could term it as: "Robbing Peter to pay Paul".
 
Sealong said:
Alan
It is not a brilliant innovation at all. The electricity is generated by an increase of the drag on the passing vehicle and the fuel consumption of that vehicle. You could term it as: "Robbing Peter to pay Paul".
Click to expand...

I think he was being a bit tongue in cheek.
The real issue is that there isn't a meaningful amount of energy there to harvest in the first place.
 
Today's energy miracle in the Guardian is a vertical vibrating generator. Converts the oscillating turbulence into vibrations to power the generator. Sounds perfect for sailing yachts as we already have the vortex generator. Just need to convert the oscillations to power. If it generates enough get rid of the sails and use an electric motor!
 
crewman said:
Today's energy miracle in the Guardian is a vertical vibrating generator. Converts the oscillating turbulence into vibrations to power the generator. Sounds perfect for sailing yachts as we already have the vortex generator. Just need to convert the oscillations to power. If it generates enough get rid of the sails and use an electric motor!
Click to expand...

Neeves already mentioned it in post#60 and some comments were made. Good vibrations: bladeless turbines could bring wind power to your home

It was written by the same journalist as the one mentioned in #1. At least we can be certain it will be well researched and full of facts. I must read it soon. :D

Perhaps she is now on a "sucker list" and being approached by many new firms kick-started by rich Nigerian princes.
 
Last edited:
I did think that this does open an opportunity for a member here to apply as a consultant to or for the Guardian specifically on wind generation or more broadly to support their science pieces. Its ever so easy to be critical - being critical helps no-one, except it can make you feel virtuous, actually offering to support the Guardian would be for the greater good - and, unless you are altruistic, you could do it for money.

Don't tell me you are so flush that the idea has no merit. But even if you are that flush - the rest of us would benefit if you simply did it for the greater good.

These articles are going to appear in great frequency, I include articles on tidal power, wave power, harnessing the hot air produced in forums :), hydrogen fuelled cars, small scale local nuclear power stations, cold fusion or did we do that one to death? - the list is endless.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan
 
Neeves said:
I did think that this does open an opportunity for a member here to apply as a consultant to or for the Guardian specifically on wind generation or more broadly to support their science pieces. Its ever so easy to be critical - being critical helps no-one, except it can make you feel virtuous, actually offering to support the Guardian would be for the greater good - and, unless you are altruistic, you could do it for money.

Don't tell me you are so flush that the idea has no merit. But even if you are that flush - the rest of us would benefit if you simply did it for the greater good.

These articles are going to appear in great frequency, I include articles on tidal power, wave power, harnessing the hot air produced in forums :), hydrogen fuelled cars, small scale local nuclear power stations, cold fusion or did we do that one to death? - the list is endless.

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan
Click to expand...
You might have a point, it does seem to be a growth area as you predicted. I see there's another thread going on a Guardian article about a micro-wave boiler. Drop in replacement for a gas boiler and get 84% efficiency plus an extra 12% by recovering waste heat, giving 96%. Not bad and close to the 100% from a normal heating element. Of course running cost will be about 5x that of the gas boiler it replaces but greener if the electricity comes from renewables. That seems to be common in these articles, use green energy, re-cycled plastic. Obviously much better than existing technology and nobody checks out any claims made by the manufacturer.

https://forums.ybw.com/index.php?th...heating-boiler-april-fool-early.561932/unread

I doubt anyone makes a boiler with normal electric heating elements. It would make more sense to heat on demand for hot water and radiators. Even more sense to fit electric radiators and avoid pumping hot water around.:D

The article was written by a different journalist, Damian Carrington Environment editor. I guess that the environmental angle will be his main focus. i.e. Replace fossil fuel with clean electicity.
 
Last edited:
I would like to defend The Guardian.

They offer their news free, but suffer the same issues that YM or PBO suffer - how do you offer a free, or cheap (?) in the case of, say PBO, service with competition from the internet, ie here. In this case we have a manufacturer who is talking of adding turbines to existing poles (which to me seems a good idea) and with the Spanish development offering what to me seems a very novel mechanism (a wobbling tower). I would never have heard nor thought of any of this (but its hardly mainstream for me). Hopefully ideas like this can be fine tuned, might lead to other ideas that are more acceptable. My interest is obviously whether any of this can be grafted onto a yachtsman need for power (and there is a direct link with the vertical turbine). I'm not sure of a wobbly mast!

I confess I don't expect erudite scripts from every journalist - any physicist will be earning their keep - being a physicist - not a journalist - and I (or we) are lucky to have members with knowledge to correct the errors. To me the errors are not those of the journalist but of the 'inventors' or 'manufacturers' of the product and their customers (who have not enjoyed any critical comment - and it is they who are spending the money buying these things). The journalist is simply repeating the data provided. I similarly don't expect a journalist to analyse everything a politician might say - I simply expect the journalist to report what is said, accurately, and to report with the same accuracy what is said by opposing politicians and fill in any background colour to the statements.

I am sure if The Guardian charged for their publication they might then be able to employ a team of reporters with expertise in all sorts of technologies and skills, from soccer to nuclear powered aircraft carriers - in the meantime I am glad they exist and survive at all and do introduce concepts I might otherwise miss. Newspapers, the Guardian in particular, were never renowned for their scientific skills, the Guardian was best known for its political leanings.

I confess some bias - I had a similar secondary education as some of its famous editors.

:)

Take care, stay safe

Jonathan
 
Mistroma said:
The article was written by a different journalist, Damian Carrington Environment editor. I guess that the environmental angle will be his main focus. i.e. Replace fossil fuel with clean electicity.
Click to expand...
He has a first degree in Earth Sciences from Edinburgh and a PhD in Geology from Cambridge, so he is a heck of a lot better qualified than the gullible cut-and-paster of press releases who did the wind turbine articles. I'm still a little worried about his grasp of the First Law of Thermodynamics, though.
 
JumbleDuck said:
He has a first degree in Earth Sciences from Edinburgh and a PhD in Geology from Cambridge, so he is a heck of a lot better qualified than the gullible cut-and-paster of press releases who did the wind turbine articles. I'm still a little worried about his grasp of the First Law of Thermodynamics, though.
Click to expand...
Never mind the First Law what about the Second ?
That's where a grasp on energy is important.
 
Neeves said:
I am sure if The Guardian charged for their publication they might then be able to employ a team of reporters with expertise in all sorts of technologies and skills, from soccer to nuclear powered aircraft carriers - in the meantime I am glad they exist and survive at all and do introduce concepts I might otherwise miss. Newspapers, the Guardian in particular, were never renowned for their scientific skills, the Guardian was best known for its political leanings.
Click to expand...
They do charge for their publication. The website is subsidised by the Guardian (£2.20 on weekdays, £3.20 on Saturday) and the Observer (£3.20 on Sunday). It is certainly very good of them to continue making most of the content available on line for free, though if stories about GMG (Guardian Media Group) losses in Private Eye are right, that may not last.

However that's a side issue to the one at hand, which is the lamentably poor quality of science reporting in the papers. Worse, in my experience, than any of the other UK broadsheets. This is not hard stuff to get right, if you actually want to do so. You hire journalists with a solid background in the field and when stories stray outside their regions of expertise you get outsiders to help. That they do not do so is a sad reflection on the low status of STEM in their eyes. Would they employ a ballet critic who knew nothing about dance, a football reporter who didn't know the offside rule (whatever that is) or a politics reporter who didn't understand the UK electoral system?

The journalist is simply repeating the data provided. I similarly don't expect a journalist to analyse everything a politician might say - I simply expect the journalist to report what is said, accurately, and to report with the same accuracy what is said by opposing politicians and fill in any background colour to the statements.
Click to expand...

And there we differ. I expect journalists to hold those in power to account (the Washington Post's delightful motto is "Democracy dies in Darkness") and not just report what they say. Similarly I expect a journalist reporting on new generation systems to do more than cut and paste press releases without making any attempt to check whether the claims made are reasonable or even physically possible. Investigative journalism is at the very heart of a functioning society. Pravda reported very accurately what politicians said.

And ... relax. I read the Guardian regularly online because it has by far the best reporting on education, which is my business. Their environmental reporting in particular drives me nuts, though.

Simultaneous disclaimer and boast: I used to do fact checking for various BBC programmes. At last count, around 120m viewers in total and the only serious mistake was an issue on which the producer preferred to belief his researcher and ten minutes on Wikipedia rather than my emphatic advice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top