Selfsufficientish.com

I can understand the argument that wind turbines are inefficient mounted among the windbreaking patterns of pitched roof housing. However, would that apply to a large, flat area, such as the roof of a typical school auditorium?

Although it would be worth testing before investing, my hypothesis is that such an area is likely to get significantly nearer the figures suggested in the NOABL reference that Hugh Piggot's site refers to.

Wulf

ps, height of turbine tower has nothing to do with it's power - you can put a "tiddler" on top of a very tall mast - in simple terms, the higher the tower, the less turbulence, and the more wind that it catches - in urban areas, it's about the only way to get satisfactory performance!

to reiterate - if you mount the tower on the building the noise/vibration WILL travel into the building - at any appreciable windspeed it will make one heck of a racket, straight into the main structure of the building - these vibrations will also cause major structural damage! It is NOT practical to roof mount!
Probably the thing the school hasn't looked at is solar hot water heating - most schools use bags of hot water, often using oil or gas - nice big flat roof covered with solar heating panels makes a load more sense! 8)

PurpleDragon wrote:if the windfarms can be used, and people can come round to thinking green instead of nuclear, then perhaps we can actually save this planet

I realise I'm in a minority on this, and I'm not trying to provoke an argument, but I do feel strongly that windfarms are as much a mistake as nuclear, and am baffled how people who seem to be in favour of reducing the damage we do to the environment are so strongly in favour of these things. I can only think that this is because they have mistakenly believed the propaganda that compares a nuclear power station to wind turbines. I don't believe we are being given that choice - I think the energy companies want to sell us as much energy as they can, and that means exploiting all profitable ways of doing this.

But lets just imagine, for a moment, that we are actually getting a choice in the matter. Put out of your mind the notion that, instead of a nuclear power station, you might get half a dozen turbines on a hillside near you. Hunting around the web for some figures, I find that, broadly speaking, a nuclear power station has an output of roughly 1 - 1½ thousand times the biggest wind turbine. Each turbine of this size requires a spacing of 450 meters. So a nuclear power station equates to around 100 square miles of turbines (one statistic I found put it at 140 sq. miles).

Imagine that; 100 square miles filled with over 1000 huge machines. Each 5 times taller than a tall oak tree. Each with 1000 tonnes of concrete foundations. No question of access rights to that land. No choice but to see massive industrialisation of the countryside beyond any comparison of what has yet happened. Each turbine needing an access road for its construction and servicing. Each one needing to be individually wired in to the grid. A quantitative increase in the decommisioning of the land. This is very different to a few pretty windmills waving at you.

This is utter madness. It truly breaks my heart to think there are companies and groups who are actively campaigning to bring this about. I'm utterly amazed that FoE, et al, actually support this sort of future. They seem to have been completely subsumed by the argument that if we don't want nuclear, we've got to have windfarms. They've swallowed it hook, line, sinker, rod, and green umbrella, too. See those CEOs rubbing their hands in glee as their stock rises and their bonuses multiply.

Are they really beautiful? I see them as instruments of destruction. A gun is an elegant, some would say beautiful, mechanism; but is it once you find out that its sole purpose is to kill? The folly is to think that this is a once only event - it's not. Unless we reverse out energy consumption, we will continually have to deal with the problem of how to generate more energy. What will our grandchildren do, once the land is full of both windfarms and nuclear power stations. We will have lead them further down the path that means we are simply going to consume ourselves into extinction, and windfarms will have played a supporting role in that. What sort of future is that for them?

It's all a con, just like the idea that bio-fuels can replace our road fuel needs; it promises our salvation, but when you do the sums and see what is involved, in fact you see it leads us further to our own demise. Imagine a doctor saying "Good news - we can save your foot, but we'll have to amputate the rest of you."

We are junkies, hooked on energy. Any suggestion that we rethink our consumption habit makes us break out in a cold sweat, desparate to find some way of getting another fix. But we can handle it; after all, a windfarm is harmless innit, so we'll be OK on that; gimme gimme gimme.

PurpleDragon wrote:Do you have a solution to this, coz I don't?

Here are some solutions:

Design new houses with energy efficiency as a primary objective - thermal mass, solar gain, superb insulation...

Insulate like mad - triple glaze; 250+mm loft insulation; cavity wall insulation; correct damp wall problems; draftproof; heat scavenging ventilation... A highly insulated home needs very little additional heat input, and space heating is one of the largest consumers of energy.

Efficient heating systems - condensing boilers are now the only option for gas heating in the UK, and are much more efficient than open flued boilers. Community heating systems - 37% of the energy input to a power station is wasted as lost heat. Geothermal heating - ground source and air source heat pumps (like a fridge in reverse).

Solar heat - directly, through glass to the inside of the building, preferably combined with thermal mass to store it; indirectly, by panels on the roof to heat water...

Community hydro generation - needs flowing water nearby, but I've seen it supply a small community in Scotland extremely effectively.

PV cells - not very cost effective at the moment, but apparently this is set the change.

Also - sorry Martin - but I'm not convinced that a modest building mounted turbine can't be made to do something beneficial. I accept that there are problems with them, and they are not ideal, but we have to work with the situation we have - most people live on a tiny piece of land without the option of a tower. This is a problem just waiting to be developed and improved. Maybe not grid-tied, but an independent low voltage supply.

And bear in mind that we are not about to run out of fossile fuel. The current 'crisis' is purely political (a few people control a resource that everybody uses). But we need to reduce our use of it because we are damaging the planet at current levels of consumption, and because that will make the resouce last longer. It won't last forever, though, so we have to come to terms with the idea that energy consumption of this nature is a limited option.

In the broader spectrum, there are other issues, too. I think we need to rethink how it is that we make a society work. I don't buy the idea that economic growth (capitalism) is the answer to everything. The inevitable cycle of consumption seems mad to me - how can it do anything other than fail in the end? And, after all, why do we need to be 'rich'? Why do we need to continually raise our 'standard of living'? These things don't seem to have solved many of society's problems.

And finally, the elephant in the sitting room that no one wants to mention - we have to get a handle on population control. The world has finite resources - more people means more resources used. Eventually, we will pass the point where the world can support the population. I reckon the sensible level may already have been passed. It's awkward for the politicians who depend upon a growing population to support the capitalist model (and to cover for the shorfall in pensions), but we're gonna have to address this at some point.

alleluia! - agree with nearly everything!
Imagine my alternative usage of turbines - take my home town, Eastbourne as a fr'instance - I'd like to see some turbines up on the downs overlooking the town, where they'll catch a good wind - the company is owned by the local people, and they have used very little concrete in their mounting
(we're already able to "screw" small turbines to the ground - give us a while, we hope to be able to do it to the biggies too!). As part of a "zero (or even better, negative) population growth and conserve like mad" scenario, with other renewables being used too, it could work, and it need not be terrifically permanently damaging to the environment! 8)
"Farms" are not necessariuly a good thing, they perpetuate the "grid" - but in the interim, I suspect we'll have to use the leaky old thing for a while longer!
As to turbines on roofs - Paul Gipe's comment sums them up
"Thus, manufacturers who say you will get an average of 6 m/s on the roof at your site and this will generate 1,000 kWh/year from a 2-meter diameter wind turbine will overestimate production by 10 (ten) times! Those that say you can get 2,000 to 3,000 kWh on your roof top will overestimate your production by 20-30 times!"
at those sort of figures, you're talking about £10 worth of electricity per year generated......................I've seen installation costs of £5,500 - so to pay back, we're talking 550 years....................

if you want to get a turbine to work in an urban area, you need a tower on this sort of scale!

-it gets it up into smooth airflow - but imagine the fun getting planning consent!

here's a diagram showing areas of turbulence -

From The Evening Argus (18.08.2006)

(extract)

Sixth-Form students could learn more about environmentally-friendly electricity if proposals for a new wind turbine are approved.

The 15-metre turbine is earmarked for land at Downs View Link College in Brighton, which is joined to Varndean College in Surrenden Road, and caters for students with special needs including autism and severe physical disabilities.

The idea behind the wind turbine is not only to reduce energy costs and carbon emissions but also to provide an educational resource.

It would be connected to a digital display in the college to show the amount of electricity generated and carbon dioxide saved.

The display would be linked to an IT network so that the £25,000 facility could be used by pupils at Varndean and other schools in the area.

Half the funding would come from the Government, the other half from Brighton and Hove City Council, which is trying to reduce carbon emissions by insisting on sustainable energy sources in new developments.

It is estimated the turbine will save the college about £800 a year in electricity. Any surplus electricity would be sold back to the national grid.

The governing bodies of both colleges support the proposed scheme and residents were invited to a consultation session at the Link college last month to discuss the plans.

The wind turbine would be 80m from the nearest house.

The application will be decided by the city council's planning chiefs by the end of September.

Thanks, Martin. I've learned a heck of a lot from reading your comments on this forum and visiting your website (and others you have recommended).

I agree with Muddypause, too. A lot of "green" initiatives still seem to be based around solving the problem "how can we keep on doing just exactly what we're already doing and preserve the environment at the same time". Answer - we can't. We've got to reduce reduce reduce. We should reuse and recycle as well but first of all we've got to start using less of everything.

Can you imagine if David Cameron had announced that he had added a couple of inches of insulation to his loft? Would there have been photos in all the newspapers of his insulation? No way. A roof-mounted turbine is much sexier. But from what Martin says the insulation would have been a much better thing to do.

I think you hit the nail on the head there! - it's all down to what's "sexy" - insulation certainly isn't, neither are energy saving bulbs, but turbines have got this romantic image (I'm smitten too!) - if I could bend the rules of physics to make roof mounted ones work, I would! (I'd be a rich man already if I'd flogged a chocolate teapot to everyone who'd enquired about them!)
At times I get hopping mad with the stupidity of the government - so much could be done so simply and cheaply - "grants" are a stupid and patronising way of giving us a little of our own money back (and costs circa £600 to award a £400 grant). It is patently clear that not only are they not interested in doing ANYTHING about renewables, but many of their "initiatives" and "bodies" do their best to make the technologies far more expensive and difficult to get hold of than they need to be.
I sincerely hope the Brighton school is having a proper mast-mounted turbine - up on the downs, they should get some decent airflow - and it really should do what it says on the tin!

Martin wrote:

I sincerely hope the Brighton school is having a proper mast-mounted turbine -

It didn't mention model or indicate who may be installing the turbine. From the illustration printed with the article, it looks similar to the photograph of the turbine you posted previously on this thread.

The Argus ran an article a few weeks back about a wind turbine that's been erected at the Marina in Brighton (I haven't seen the turbine myself). Do you know anything about that, Martin?

Well, Muddy - I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. A very rewarding experience - you've given me tonnes to think about. Thank you

Muddypause wrote: I realise I'm in a minority on this, and I'm not trying to provoke an argument, but I do feel strongly that windfarms are as much a mistake as nuclear, and am baffled how people who seem to be in favour of reducing the damage we do to the environment are so strongly in favour of these things. I can only think that this is because they have mistakenly believed the propaganda that compares a nuclear power station to wind turbines. I don't believe we are being given that choice - I think the energy companies want to sell us as much energy as they can, and that means exploiting all profitable ways of doing this.

I agree with alot of the points you make - people are fooled by the idea that hey instead of that nuclear power station we could have a wind farm annoying someone other than me, and all will be tickity boo. and of course its just not like that.

but it has to be said that the two main reasons for objecting to nuclear power stations are 1 the waste product is a huge problem and 2 the 'what if something goes wrong' scenario

red

I've been educated and fascinated by this discussion, but grown ever more befuddled too. While I agree that energy consumption in our culture is going mad and we have only ourselves to hold responsible for what we use, I can't help but think electricity actually is a good thing for the most part. The ability to communicate with people from around the country and around the world, as well as people who are in walking distance in my community, the ability to have lighting in dark evenings, hospitals which can monitor, screen and look at your insides without cutting you open to help you be healthy. All these things are joyful and can help us to make the most of the world around us - provided we encourage responsible use of them. Its not the energy or even the inventions, so much as how we choose to use it all, which will be a key discussion in our futures.

I agree that energy consumption should be reducing, but the gains of civilized living and the responsibilities of developed lifestyles are not mutually exclusive. NIMBY be damned - if every household in the country had one of these fantastic turbines in the garden, plans to fit solar panels to the rooftops in the next ten years and meaningful insulation, then maybe we could begin to prioritise what we choose to use our energy on. A turbine is a darn sight more elegant and effective than a sky dish or TV aerial - and 80 per cent of my neighbours have those. As we have to live within our means financially or face the consequences in short order, maybe we should be arguing for households to live within their means of energy production.

Maybe the schools haven't done the research they could have done or found out about the deals you have found, but they are raising the profile of sustainable energy and environmental responsibility. Instead of criticising them, why not contact them with more alternatives they could try - or make contact with the school in your locality and see where they are at in their efforts to get the eco-school status, at least offer them the benefit of the research you have access to - you don't generally have to sign up as a full on PTA member!

As for me, I'll be looking again at the school I work in and our environmental development goals. With the benefits of modern technology and making effective use of electricity I've been fortunate enough to discover this website and can be inspired and educated to think further about all the options available to increase our effective use of energy - at home and work - and by effective I mean to minimise energy consumption while promoting a safe, healthy and responsible lifestyle in our communities, in the modern world. I hope, in a self-sufficient-ISH, kind of way.