ENER Tiny Turbines May Have a Bright Future

NC Susan

Deceased
WIND ENERGY

Tiny Turbines May Have a Bright Future

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,575877,00.html


By Frank Dohmen
They are small and look more like art than innovation. But the mini-windmills built by a British company could soon be on roofs across Europe and the US -- if German energy giant RWE has its way.

quietrevolution.co.uk​
A small wind turbine like this one may be coming soon to a roof near you.


They look a bit like attachments for a gigantic hand-held mixer. But at five meters (16 feet) tall and with a diameter of close to three meters, they are certainly too big for a kitchen cabinet. They would, however, definitely fit in backyards and city parks and on the roofs of houses and office buildings. And if the German power company RWE has its way, there will soon be thousands of the funny-looking rotors installed in the coming months and years -- in Germany, in Europe and even in the US.
It is not, as one might be tempted to believe, a vast, futuristic art project. Rather, the odd-looking, twisting contraptions are the newest generation of high-tech wind turbines. In contrast to their cousins, these windmills are virtually silent, do not require long blades to catch the wind, and spin no matter which direction the wind is blowing. Even better, their modest size and weight mean they can easily be installed on rooftops -- and they can generate up to 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to supply two low-energy homes, or a 20 person office, with power.
The rotors are produced in limited numbers by a company called Quiet Revolution located in Great Britain. Founded in 2005, the company has already managed to demonstrate that it may have vast potential. Late last year, the company produced its first rotors, and almost immediately began winning design and technical prizes.




Furthermore, the first model -- known as QR5 -- has been installed on a number of rooftops in England. There is one located on top of Kings College School in Wimbledon and an ever-growing number of high-rise buildings are likewise crowned by the apparatus. A large pub chain has begun installing them as well. Indeed, the future looks so bright for Quiet Revolution that the German energy giant RWE recently bought a small stake in the company -- a move that was officially announced at a press conference on Monday in Essen, where RWE is based. The share is worth €7.5 million ($11 million).
Since the beginning of the year, Fritz Vahrenholt has been responsible for expanding RWE's presence in the renewable energy sector. Formerly the head of the wind turbine company Repower, Vahrenholt has also steered RWE into billions worth of investments in offshore wind parks and led RWE's construction of biomass facilities.
He has also kicked off a search for innovative new companies. "When I saw Quite Revolution," Vahrenholt says, "it was immediately clear to me that with this wind turbine, the dream of many people to have their own, decentralized power supply could be fulfilled -- even in places where the sun doesn't shine and where there is no power grid."
Still, he warns against getting too excited. "These turbines aren't going to change the overall energy mix," Vahrenholt says. The output is still too low and, at €30,000 per turbine, the price is still too high. Installation and maintenance costs make the mini-windmills even more expensive. For the moment, they are little more than a prestige or marketing installation for rich environmentalists.








But RWE's investment could change that. There are already ideas to replace the carbon-fiber material out of which the turbines are made with cheaper materials. There is also plenty of room for output to be boosted. Furthermore, should the gadgets prove workable, they could be mass-produced in a country where labor is cheaper. The cost per unit could fall dramatically -- assuming there is a demand. But few doubt that there would be. Just a few days ago, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he is interested in installing wind turbines on top of the city's buildings. "If rooftop wind can make it anywhere, this is a great city," he said. "We have a lot of tall buildings."
RWE is hoping he means it.
 

WFK

Senior Something
Numbers, numbers:
"they can generate up to 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to supply two low-energy homes, or a 20 person office, with power."

about 1 plus kW when running, I presume.
and with "UP TO" you always have to assume year-round maximum wind :lkick:

I wonder: what can the gizmo deliver predictably.

Anyone want a predictable power source?
 

Moto

Inactive
Numbers, numbers:
"they can generate up to 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to supply two low-energy homes, or a 20 person office, with power."

about 1 plus kW when running, I presume.
and with "UP TO" you always have to assume year-round maximum wind :lkick:

I wonder: what can the gizmo deliver predictably.

Anyone want a predictable power source?

These types of systems use a battery that charges when wind is high and provides power when wind is low. It's just a matter of staying ahead of the average draw if you don't want to draw from the grid. Many similar solar systems actually put extra unused energy back into the grid and get compensated by the power company.

Don't be so quick to deride these types of innovations...they are the future. Henry Ford didn't make a Ferrari first time out. Give it time.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Numbers, numbers:
"they can generate up to 10,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a year, enough to supply two low-energy homes, or a 20 person office, with power."

about 1 plus kW when running, I presume.
and with "UP TO" you always have to assume year-round maximum wind :lkick:

I wonder: what can the gizmo deliver predictably.

Anyone want a predictable power source?

yep coal, there's tons of it in the UK but because of the EU we can't use it, the UK's energy policy is dicated by the EU


these machines cost a fortune to make, install and rebuild and never pay for themselves
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Henry Ford didn't make a Ferrari first time out.


he never made the Ferrari, his descendants still make crappy Fords and always will
 

rafter

Since 1999
Henry Ford didn't make a Ferrari first time out.


he never made the Ferrari, his descendants still make crappy Fords and always will

Umm, not feeling green today? And your ideas are? I think the new wind generators are great, and in time they will probably be on everyone's roof's along with their solar panels.

The world it is a changing. Wanna go along for the ride?
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Umm, not feeling green today? And your ideas are? I think the new wind generators are great, and in time they will probably be on everyone's roof's along with their solar panels.

The world it is a changing. Wanna go along for the ride?

fossil fuels are fine, CO2 causing GW is the biggest hoax of all time, wind generators do NOT pay for themselves for at least 15 years (I mean the large ones they're vandalising the UK countryside with) then no doubt they'll fall down, they also require a huge amount of concrete
the whole idea of wind generated power is total crap, I am NOT however against renewable energy where feasible (like hydro, but thats been exploited to the full)
NUKE is the only answer, even the ****ing Labour Govt have realised that after 10 years delay
 

Turnpike Jim

Inactive
I think it was "zog" who advocated putting a solar panel (or wind genny?) on every telephone pole you could find. Tie these into the grid right there. Wouldn't solve all the problems, but would make a serious dent.

Jim
 

rafter

Since 1999
fossil fuels are fine, CO2 causing GW is the biggest hoax of all time, wind generators do NOT pay for themselves for at least 15 years (I mean the large ones they're vandalising the UK countryside with) then no doubt they'll fall down, they also require a huge amount of concrete
the whole idea of wind generated power is total crap, I am NOT however against renewable energy where feasible (like hydro, but thats been exploited to the full)
NUKE is the only answer, even the ****ing Labour Govt have realised that after 10 years delay

Maybe the wind doesn't blow enough in the UK. But in many parts of the world and here in the US it does.
Personally I'd rather live near a wind farm than a nuke plant. But I'm one of those that believes if you can't get rid of nuke waste, you shouldn't make it.

And I don't mean by hiding it in a hole some where.

Perhaps with high cost of energy, people will just start using less. IMO that wouldn't be so bad either. I see no reason for 2 people to live in houses of 2,000 sq feet or more, but it has started to be the norm here. 2 people can comfortably live in 1,000 sq feet and a little less.. Imaging the energy saving there?
 

Loon

Inactive
We have a windmill that is probably about 15 feet high. We live in a wind tunnel near the lake. That windmill spins around and turns almost constantly. We use it to aereate our large fish pond. I would love to have a windmill up by the house to help supplement our energy needs. Years ago we knew a very smart older gentleman who built his own windmill. He was able to power everything in his house off of it and he actually sold power back to the electric company. He had a small city house on a small lot. He was one of the smartest men I ever met. He's been deceased for a lot of years now.

My point is, these windmills aren't rocket science. Look at them. How hard would it be to actually make one of these and hook it up yourself? I think it would be a great idea for a start up company to produce kits and sell it to people to build their own windmills. I do think they are the way of the future. I hope in my lifetime I get to see these really take off and become affordable for most Americans.
 

BlueNewton

Membership Revoked
I am happy to see this information. I'll be installing an alternative energy system in the next few months--possibly a wind/solar combination. Appreciate the post.
 
Last edited:

Walker10

Veteran Member
Actually, none of these 'alternative energy' devices represent the future, because they are all oil based energy.

These types of devices are only called alternative energy because instead of taking oil and building a typical fossil fuel power plant or nuke with it, we are taking oil and building solar panels, windmills, etc. instead. It is not possible to create any of these devices without the use of an increasingly scarce resource.

This is something that is hard for people to wrap their heads around because oil is so pervasive in our civilization, but it a fact that our civilization must come to grips with as peak oil moves inexorably forward. Fact is, our civilization simply doesn't know how to create energy WITHOUT using oil.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Maybe the wind doesn't blow enough in the UK. But in many parts of the world and here in the US it does.
Personally I'd rather live near a wind farm than a nuke plant. But I'm one of those that believes if you can't get rid of nuke waste, you shouldn't make it.

And I don't mean by hiding it in a hole some where.

Perhaps with high cost of energy, people will just start using less. IMO that wouldn't be so bad either. I see no reason for 2 people to live in houses of 2,000 sq feet or more, but it has started to be the norm here. 2 people can comfortably live in 1,000 sq feet and a little less.. Imaging the energy saving there?

I got that payback period from the British Wind Energy Association, they're only installing them in windy areas of the UK so I guess that period applies to them, I believe there has to be a force 6 gale before they're productive (the big ones I mean)
anyhow the Labour supposedly green Govt will be expanding the NUKE plants at existing locations, there are no more opportunities for hydro however we have decades of coal, we should use that until some form of renewable is viable and not visually polluting
so we have no problem with power, only the myth that CO2 causes GW is preventing the UK from having as much power as we need, this myth is perpetrated by the brain dead for whatever reason, peak oil?


you don't need so much acreage of NUKE plants compared with wind farms, also they're always on the coast
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Actually, none of these 'alternative energy' devices represent the future, because they are all oil based energy.

These types of devices are only called alternative energy because instead of taking oil and building a typical fossil fuel power plant or nuke with it, we are taking oil and building solar panels, windmills, etc. instead. It is not possible to create any of these devices without the use of an increasingly scarce resource.

This is something that is hard for people to wrap their heads around because oil is so pervasive in our civilization, but it a fact that our civilization must come to grips with as peak oil moves inexorably forward. Fact is, our civilization simply doesn't know how to create energy WITHOUT using oil.



apart from NUKE, otherwise well said
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
For US utilities, Wind Power and Nuclear are considered the most "viable" power sources today. It's almost impossible to put up a new coal burning fossil powerplant although a lot of "upgrade" work is out there. If a plant is fossil, then it probably is fired by natural gas and is combined cycle.

Right now Germany is the most wind driven society on earth and they're planning more. They're also the nation who wants to outlaw nuclear power by 2020. Both eventualities are unlikely and Germany will shortly be the most affected country when the Russians shut down the natural gas pipeliine.

Best,
Joe
 

Fleataxi

Inactive
Turnpike Jim:

If I had the money, I'd buy it from you - the Air 440 works great here in Northern NV, and almost all alternative energy setups are wind/solar combinations.

The Air 440 is just about the perfect size for the applications we need out here, and they're easy to "gang up" for even more power.

Fleataxi
 

one4freedom

Veteran Member
This unit has 10 percent less swept area then a Southwest windpower model 500 but we'll give them the benefit of more efficiency, although my guess is that it would actually be a lot less efficient since only half of the swept area is used. The 500 is rated at 500 kw a month or 6,000 kw a year at 12 mph average wind speed which is obtainable at least 30 feet above any nearby obstruction in probably at least a third of this country. But to get 10,000 kw you'd need at least 15mph average which put you in a much smaller area of the country. In southwest Minnesota on a 105ft tower the older model of the 500 that I have produces enough power for an energy efficient home and some additional heating when the wind really is blowing.
 
Actually, none of these 'alternative energy' devices represent the future, because they are all oil based energy.

These types of devices are only called alternative energy because instead of taking oil and building a typical fossil fuel power plant or nuke with it, we are taking oil and building solar panels, windmills, etc. instead. It is not possible to create any of these devices without the use of an increasingly scarce resource.

This is something that is hard for people to wrap their heads around because oil is so pervasive in our civilization, but it a fact that our civilization must come to grips with as peak oil moves inexorably forward. Fact is, our civilization simply doesn't know how to create energy WITHOUT using oil.

Plastics and lubricants (I presume that's what you are referring to here, yes?) can and are made from any hydrocarbon source. This has included coal-tar products (a by-product of the manufacture of coking coal) as well as the byproducts of the manufacture of charcoal, sugar and so on. Even rendered animal fats and oils are usable.

You need to make a distinction between manufacturing something using a resource (which can be seen as an investment) and running that thing on it (which is simple consumption). Nothing currently manufactured is not touched in some way by oil, be it in the materials or simply the transportation but that does NOT mean that it is not a good investment of those resources. In any event, last time I looked we had supplies of oil for the next couple of years at least :)

As for that last sentence, I suspect you might have skipped that bit in the history text books about the industrial revolution - which was initially wind-and-water powered, and subsequently moved on to coal for heat, power, transport and lighting.

Any "solution" to energy generation will be a mix of technologies, as there is a mix today. Nuke plants are huge, vastly expensive and slow to build and good base load electricity generators. Since the electricity load varies, there is also a requirement for additional capacity, be it natural gas fired (for peak loads) or wind (which can power a pumped storage or battery facility).

This is a prep board, and many among us here are VERY interested in living somewhat or entirely by their own means, and wind power is a VERY practical solution for personal use. It complements solar power, and most importantly is within the means of the individual, which again is of no little importance to a lot of us less inclined to rely on the public utilities.
 
$60,000 a pop? (not including installation)


heck of a long payback period


:whistle:


.

Not if the utility company charges you $60k to run electricity out to you.

And who knows - $60k to be able to ignore electricity price hikes from now on might be considered a good investment by some here.

Alternative energy is NOT necessarily all about immediate payback. There IS an emotional aspect to this as well - the feeling of independence is worth something too. This IS a prep board - remember?
 

Walker10

Veteran Member
Plastics and lubricants (I presume that's what you are referring to here, yes?) can and are made from any hydrocarbon source. This has included coal-tar products (a by-product of the manufacture of coking coal) as well as the byproducts of the manufacture of charcoal, sugar and so on. Even rendered animal fats and oils are usable.

Actually I was referrring to virtually anything made from any 'fossil fuel' as they are all depleting. By using coal for instance in lieu of oil, all we would be doing is prolonging the inevitable by a short period. Also, are these types of plastics and lubricants the equal of those produced from oil? I frankly don't know the answer to that but I sticks in my head that I read somewhere where lubricants such as these are not always able to be substituted for oil based ones.

You need to make a distinction between manufacturing something using a resource (which can be seen as an investment) and running that thing on it (which is simple consumption). Nothing currently manufactured is not touched in some way by oil, be it in the materials or simply the transportation but that does NOT mean that it is not a good investment of those resources. In any event, last time I looked we had supplies of oil for the next couple of years at least :)

I agree, but even though we will be able to create things like windmills and solar panels right now because we still have access to sufficient quantities of oil, what happens after oil depletes and we no longer have access to it? How will we go about replacing the windmills and solar panels? This is my point.

As for that last sentence, I suspect you might have skipped that bit in the history text books about the industrial revolution - which was initially wind-and-water powered, and subsequently moved on to coal for heat, power, transport and lighting.

Oh no, I understand what you're saying Enid, I was talking about how civilization exists right now...at this stage of the Industrial era. Yes, if we want or must retrogress to an earlier era that may (or may not) be possible. But, if we simply want to substitute another power source (electicity in the case of 'alternate power') for oil based power to keep civilization as we know it right now, then no, mankind simply has no way of doing that without massive quantities of oil.
 

Bab

Inactive
I'm a definite supporter of wind power generation (having a genny myself)...but I question putting it on the roof of a house. They look handy there, but there is vibration on any of them that could, in time, dismantle your house.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
$60,000 a pop? (not including installation)


heck of a long payback period


:whistle:


.
This is actually a Great Idea!
EVERYTHING COSTS A FORTUNE WHEN FEW PEOPLE ARE MAKING THEM, THE CONSUMER DEMAND IS LOW AND EFFICIENT MASS PRODUCTION MANUFACTURING METHODS ARE NOT YET EMPLOYED.

Gin up a worldwide demand, plug in tax rewards for the consumer and manufacturer, and these units will suddenly be available everywhere for under $500 apiece.

The first computers and VCR's cost a mint too.
 

AzProtector

Veteran Member
Hey...we use 12 of those Air 440's along with our solar panels...we have a steady wind of about 15 miles per hour up here along with 320+ days of sunshine per year.

We are totally off-grid.
 
Actually I was referrring to virtually anything made from any 'fossil fuel' as they are all depleting. By using coal for instance in lieu of oil, all we would be doing is prolonging the inevitable by a short period. Also, are these types of plastics and lubricants the equal of those produced from oil? I frankly don't know the answer to that but I sticks in my head that I read somewhere where lubricants such as these are not always able to be substituted for oil based ones.

<snip>

... but even though we will be able to create things like windmills and solar panels right now because we still have access to sufficient quantities of oil, what happens after oil depletes and we no longer have access to it? How will we go about replacing the windmills and solar panels? This is my point.

The best estimates I have seen for current coal usage projects about 300 years supply. If we were to use more for plastics and less for electricity, then we'd have more than 300 years. Biomass such as sawmill waste is renewable. I guess I'm less worried about this than you are.

In any case, I guess I missed your proposed solution. At some point the sun will go nova, and the entire earth will be incinerated. It won't stop me planting an apple tree tomorrow (or putting up a windmill either :) )
 
Oh no, I understand what you're saying Enid, I was talking about how civilization exists right now...at this stage of the Industrial era. Yes, if we want or must retrogress to an earlier era that may (or may not) be possible. But, if we simply want to substitute another power source (electicity in the case of 'alternate power') for oil based power to keep civilization as we know it right now, then no, mankind simply has no way of doing that without massive quantities of oil.

We currently use massive quantities of oil because it is incredibly cheap. When it becomes more expensive, we will use alternatives that may not be quite as convenient, or are more expensive. We might change the way that we do things, or the way that we run our lives, or more likely all of the above. We have built suburbs because it is cheaper than the alternatives (such as urban rapid transit systems) - when that ceases to be the case, we will stop doing it, or at least the majority will. It all eventually boils down to cost.
 

Walker10

Veteran Member
The best estimates I have seen for current coal usage projects about 300 years supply. If we were to use more for plastics and less for electricity, then we'd have more than 300 years. Biomass such as sawmill waste is renewable. I guess I'm less worried about this than you are.

It depends on how we use coal for instance. First, coal reserves haven't been inventoried for 50 years or so from what I understand do the 300 year estimate may be very exagerated. The more we rely on coal as a substitute, of course, the quicker it will deplete and that 300 year estimate may turn out to be a 50 year supply instead, it all depends. As far as biomass goes...well, I know it can be done, but in what quantities and what unintended consequences would there be? It might turn out to be another ethanol (from corn) debacle. Frankly I'm dubious about the percent of oil we use that could be replaced throught this means.

In any case, I guess I missed your proposed solution. At some point the sun will go nova, and the entire earth will be incinerated. It won't stop me planting an apple tree tomorrow (or putting up a windmill either :) )

After reading about the problem of peak oil for a couple of years now and all the proposed 'solutions' to the problem, I've come down on the side that believes that based on the best production figures available, that we are in fact either at, or very close to peak oil. After you list all the proposed solutions to this problem and pick each apart to see whether or not they are viable solutions, I think you'll see that each 'solution' proposed so far, while they initially sound viable, turn out to have insurmountable problems.

Frankly, and I know I'm going to sound like a doomer when I say this, but IF peak oil is near or actually upon us, I believe the only solution will be a wholesale reconfiguring of our civilization. Basically, it will be the end of the Industrial Age and a transition to...?

But I do not think it's possible to find another energy source that (1) does not rely on oil at any stage (2) provides the same or even close to the same 'bang for the buck' and (3) provides the feedstock that oil does to create the wide variety of products, from fertilizers, to drugs, to what is it, 100,000 different products that are derived from oil?
 

jed turtle

a brother in the Lord
manure/algae to methane (natural gas).

OTEC. (ocean thermal energy conversion).

two methods of generating fuel and electricity without touching fossil fuel.

neither pollutes, and both will continue until the sun no longer shines.
 
Top