So what do folks like us do? Here in the remote corners of NJ where the population of a few thousand people is spread across 24 square miles, many of us have turned to the renewable source of energy, that is called wood. Personally, we have invested a very efficient soapstone wood stove that has a 30 gallon water filled heat exchanger. The water is heated in this three ton “woodburner” just twice per day. The heat exchanger circulates the 180 degree heated water into a 300 gallon highly insulated storage tank. Therefore, although the initial costs are high, for which there are no rebates, the resultant heat utilized by burning wood in a 93 plus efficient wood burner saves us more than 60 percent of the propane utilized by one of the 95 percent efficient boiler. Currently we utilize 50 percent of our wood for the burner by recycled scrap wood and 50 percent from fallen trees harvested most recently from the gypsy moth blight we had a few years back. Hopefully, we foresee replanting a few acres of Poplar trees which can be used for future heat as they mature in roughly 20 years. Existing oaks fall now and then, and with the high efficiency wood burner, only two cords are used per year. Isn’t time to think of a renewable energy source as wood and other vegetation?

That said, I really don’t like the comments of Tom. Wind Power is not inefficient or expensive at all! Typical comment from some brainwashed fool. Additionally, do your research about bird deaths! There is no proven fact that they are drawn to wind turbines at all, in fact most ACTUAL research shows that this the bird death thing is entirely made up, as they clearly see what is happening and avoid flying near turbines. But hey, keep reading your backward-thinking pro-oil right-wing blogs, man!

Let me also point out how SLOWLY the new, large turbines move…. birds are not blind, they can see much better than we can anyway. I think you’re thinking of those fast-spinning little windmill things that generate a 12V battery or something.

In any case, it’s hardly “making America broke,” it actually gives farmers a lot of money if they agree to put turbines on their land. Also, wind farms avoid the insane amount of money that goes to building coal and nuclear plants. You do realize that the government SUBSIDIZES those antiquated power sources, right?

The usable swept area perpendicular to wind direction inside a lattice transmission tower is about 600 square feet. A 2MW H axis turbine has about 20,000 square feet of usable swept area. Wind shear causes winds at 40 – 125 ft. from ground level to be lower and less directionally stable than winds at 200 to 450 ft. aloft.

Due to the low output per V axis turbine, the transformer, collection lines and interconnection would be very expensive. This idea is just another wind energy pipe dream – just like the bizarre reality we experience with commercial wind today – high cost, low value, making America broke by wasting human and financial capital while making an enormous industrial footprint.

I will be the first to admit that I have little faith in the small backyard wind turbine. Too many sites and people promote something that really has little practical use.

A turbine rated for 1 kW with a wind speed of something like 25 mph can be expected to put out 115 to 125 watts at a far more typical wind speed of 10 to 12 mph. Very few places in the US have average wind speeds in excess of that (10 to 12 mph). 100 watts, to me, is a waste of time, money and effort. Others will have a different opinion obviously.

Never the less the suppliers only want to talk about the 1 kW rating – unrealistic as it is.

Putting a turbine on a roof top is another tricky thing that fails far more often than not.

I have found Homepower.com to be open and accurate in their assesments. The magazine is subscription but two of their articles 1) wind turbine buyers guide and 2) Apples and Oranges are freely available on the net to anyone wanting to look. I suggest reading the two documents to anyone interested in wind power.

The Warwick Trials Final Report is a detailed study of small turbines – again easily found.

Another study of small turbines is http://www.wind-works.org/SmallTurbines/CalculatedYieldofSmallWindTurbinesatZeelandTestSite.html

NRDC provides wind speed information for many places in the US – that gives one an idea of what might be expected – not guaranteed

Regards,
Russ

I can’t let your rather dismissive and disingenuous comment about ‘otherpower.com’ pass without comment. Power from the wind is not a new idea and has been in development for more than 150 years, each new generation adding to the combined knowledge of the previous. On this site you will find very technical details of the latest generation of turbines that don’t need big industry to create. They are busily ensuring that harnessing and marketing wind energy does not become the sole domain of the bigger power generators and supply companies. There is more real invention here than on the site you mention which is essentially a commercial magazine (which requires a subscription by the way Jeanie). Suggesting that their ’stuff doesn’t work’ is simply wrong . These fellows are VERY highly regarded, worldwide, in the ’small wind’ community and are leaders of invention in their field. If anyone could come up with a practical way of producing turbines that fit into pylons its probably these chaps. There is no ‘hustle’ or ‘peddle’ here, just the accumulated wisdom I mentioned earlier distributed for free.

Richard

Many people have trouble that in engineering you don’t grab the first neat sounding thing that comes by.

You look at it, study it, make your points, get answers and try to come to an informed conclusion.

When Richard referred to the ‘other power’ in the next to last post he pointed out one of the less technical sites on the net who are busy trying to peddle books, training and stuff that doesn’t really work except for a backyard inventor or somebody that loves to tinker.

A good site for information on wind turbines is http://www.homepower.com I find them unbiased and not trying to hustle you.

“4. Transformers, switchgear etc will have to be included for each individual tower rather than on a collective basis which would increase the cost?”

This is not an issue! The windings in the turbine would be designed to produce high voltages and feed directly into the HV grid. Control electronics are commonplace and are never collective for turbines.

Well done lads – a good idea!

There is more than enough energy available, it’s storing it that is the problem.

How many ways to create energy… endless…

You can use the currents of the ocean… out of the way, works all the time… and is very cheap… moving water turns generator….

Solar energy should be used for a global sharing electrical grid… then no need to store, you just share to the dark side of the planet… the planet has a 24 cycle…. 12 in dark, 12 in light… it’s a no brainer here…

Except nobody will do it.. too political….how unfortunate and a shame. As solar energy would provide for the planet needs as clean energy…

Another free energy that is clean when down right is magma energy. Yes, the earth is full of magma… many places it comes to the surface, like Hawaii…

you don’t need to touch it.. just use the heat…

Why do we waste energy too? recycle energy… it doesn’t mean biomass either… biofuels are the devil, they steal food from our plates… that isn’t going to work… unless you plan to starve out a few billion individuals….

Sorry, but true…

The problem is, the world has become dependent upon dirty energy… oil and coal will be running out sooner then you think…

Are you prepared to do without?

Let’s look at what the article says:
“The most efficient way to go about this,” says Nick Blitterswyk, cofounder of Urban Green Energy, “would be to build new towers.”
I think this is obvious.

“The American power grid is clogged, archaic, and small.”
Frankly, this statement is being generous to our grid at best. Anyone in this country that has a clue understands that the grid is in dire need of modernization.
Thus, new towers, and means of transmission, are a matter of necessity as well as practicality.

As it happens, I live in Buffalo, a few miles from one of the largest hydro facilities in the NE US in Niagara Falls. Those towers are truly massive, and provide more than enough height to capture viable wind. We also have one of the best average wind speeds in the NE.

As far as tapping into the grid, why can the power not be used locally, or transmitted to a central transformer where the cost burden can be concentrated?

C’mon folks, be CONstructive, not DEstructive!

There are more points at: http://dvice.com/archives/2009/05/brilliant-wind-.php which I believe need answers as well.

The original article led me to understand existing towers would be used which as you agree is impractical. The artists sketch with this article is really very poor. Comments by Mr. Washburn are totally misleading I believe. This is a greenfield project stuff.

Darrieus turbines are known as inefficient units in comparison to HAWTs unless your new blade design manages what no one has been able to over the past many years.

The comments in the article about problems of connecting windfarms into the grid seem bogus to me. Either a farm is a good business model or it isn’t. It might seem green to be able put things right where you want but it isn’t good business.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the trade off using the present cost of the towers and the cost of a turbine with equivalent output and related infrastructure to pay for the stronger tower, your turbine and the additional infrastructure required.

I have seen the tall turbine towers and blades being transported and they are far more than just a pole – not cheap items.

Good luck
Russ

Personally I think its a good idea as most of the good onshore sites (in my country anyway)are taken or designated as SSIs. Capacity factors are dropping from 0.30 to 0.25 since wind farms have been installed in the last few decades.

2000m2 swept area? those towers must be at most 15m X 100m, and there is no way you can catch all the wind inside them, unless you start hanging propellers off the outside? I bet you have it figured out anyway. Well done.

I Just hope you can get the power companies to accept the new additions.

1. Low output due to small available space for the rotors – forget mW machines which are industry standard. Swept area of the rotors is what counts for production

2. Due to the lower elevations of the rotors the wind velocity will be less & further lower the output

3. Forget existing towers which are not designed for the additional load

4. Forget saving any money due to the extreme additional cost of the required individual switch gear, equipment to step up the voltage to line voltage

The only advantage is to the kids who got the prize.