|
|
| Robert Ratcliffe 2006-11-21, 9:25 am |
| Hi All
Does anyone know the UK market value for domestic wind turbines?
Or can anyone point me in the direction of a web site that has this info on
it ?
Many thanks
| |
| Eeyore 2006-11-21, 9:25 am |
|
Robert Ratcliffe wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Does anyone know the UK market value for domestic wind turbines?
What do you mean by value ?
> Or can anyone point me in the direction of a web site that has this info on
> it ?
I've found google to be very helpful.
Graham
| |
| Robert Ratcliffe 2006-11-21, 9:25 am |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:456309AF.D17A6762@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Robert Ratcliffe wrote:
>
>
> What do you mean by value ?
>
How many millions/billions is the market for selling domestic wind turbines
in the UK
>
on[color=darkred]
>
> I've found google to be very helpful.
I have looked on Google, have asked here due to not finding the answer
>
> Graham
>
Rob
| |
| Eeyore 2006-11-21, 9:25 am |
|
Robert Ratcliffe wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> How many millions/billions is the market for selling domestic wind turbines
> in the UK
Depends how much you choose to mis-sell them.
Turbines at roof level are not a great idea. There's not enough wind there.
Fitting one is largely tokenism imho.
Graham
| |
| Robert Ratcliffe 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"DONKEY" wrote in message news:45631599.12F73353@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Robert Ratcliffe wrote:
>
turbines[color=darkred]
>
> Depends how much you choose to mis-sell them.
>
> Turbines at roof level are not a great idea. There's not enough wind
there.
> Fitting one is largely tokenism imho.
So to cut a long story short, you aint got a clue
tanks
>
> Graham
>
| |
| Roger Thorpe 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| Robert Ratcliffe wrote:[color=darkred]
> "DONKEY" wrote in message news:45631599.12F73353@hotmail.com...
>
>
> turbines
>
>
> there.
>
>
>
> So to cut a long story short, you aint got a clue
>
> tanks
>
>
>
I'd have to agree with the rather gloomy donkey. It's a kind of flag
rather than an energy technology.
BUT
why not look at the market for solar roof panels of a similar cost and
guess at 10% of that?
I don't know of a better way since you couldn't really market them on
the basis of a sound financial decision.
--
Roger Thorpe
My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!
| |
| Eeyore 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
|
Robert Ratcliffe wrote:
> "DONKEY" wrote in message news:45631599.12F73353@hotmail.com...
>
>
> So to cut a long story short, you aint got a clue
Oh right.
Yet another gullible fool.
Wait 'til B&Q get a few irate customers wanting their money back !
Check out the turbine they're offering. By the maker's own figures it needs > 5
m/s-1 to function even at low power yet most of the South of England only gets
that kind of speed at *25 metres* above ground level - *NOT* roof level.
Graham
| |
| Roger Thorpe 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
| Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
> I'd have to agree with the rather gloomy donkey. It's a kind of flag
> rather than an energy technology.
> BUT
> why not look at the market for solar roof panels of a similar cost and
> guess at 10% of that?
> I don't know of a better way since you couldn't really market them on
> the basis of a sound financial decision.
>
In order to justify my "dissing" of the B&Q windpower I made a rough
calculation.
Wind isn't my area so I don't have any hourly wind data myself but I
stole the data from http://www.iesd.dmu.ac.uk/wind_energy/wetc152.html.
I've no idea where this dataset comes from.
The published data for the windsave suggest that it's working range is
5m/s to 14 m/s
It yields 1kW at 12.5 m/s so, where the windspeed is u I assume that you
get 0.5 u^3
windspeed(m/s) probability power(W) power*probability
4-6 0.16 70 11
6-8 0.17 182 31
8-10 0.15 378 57
10-12 0.13 682 89
12-14 0.10 1118 112
Total=300W
So over the 10 year life you get about 26280 kWH
There's no storage in this thing, though so you only really gain when
you're actually using power. That makes the estimate a bit more
difficult, but it might be fair to put the yield at a quarter of the
value above.
The cost is £1500. Lets forget interest and maintenance
This gives you an electricity cost of 23P per KWH.
That's actually a lot better than I had expected. Does anyone have more
appropriate data?
Roger
--
Roger Thorpe
My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!
| |
| Eeyore 2006-11-21, 1:25 pm |
|
Roger Thorpe wrote:
> Roger Thorpe wrote:
>
> In order to justify my "dissing" of the B&Q windpower I made a rough
> calculation.
> Wind isn't my area so I don't have any hourly wind data myself but I
> stole the data from http://www.iesd.dmu.ac.uk/wind_energy/wetc152.html.
> I've no idea where this dataset comes from.
>
> The published data for the windsave suggest that it's working range is
> 5m/s to 14 m/s
> It yields 1kW at 12.5 m/s so, where the windspeed is u I assume that you
> get 0.5 u^3
>
> windspeed(m/s) probability power(W) power*probability
> 4-6 0.16 70 11
> 6-8 0.17 182 31
> 8-10 0.15 378 57
> 10-12 0.13 682 89
> 12-14 0.10 1118 112
> Total=300W
>
> So over the 10 year life you get about 26280 kWH
> There's no storage in this thing, though so you only really gain when
> you're actually using power. That makes the estimate a bit more
> difficult, but it might be fair to put the yield at a quarter of the
> value above.
>
> The cost is £1500. Lets forget interest and maintenance
> This gives you an electricity cost of 23P per KWH.
>
> That's actually a lot better than I had expected. Does anyone have more
> appropriate data?
I'll bet those windspeeds weren't at roof level in an urban area.
Graham
| |
| Roger Thorpe 2006-11-22, 1:25 pm |
| Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> I'll bet those windspeeds weren't at roof level in an urban area.
>
> Graham
>
Indeed. The mean winspeed of that dataset is about 8 m/s. Roof level in
an urban area might have a mean below 5 m/s.
I suppose one might be a ble to get that 23P per kWH in a really good
location. A scottish croft perhaps?
--
Roger Thorpe
My email address is spamtrapped. You can work it out!
| |
| sylvan butler 2006-11-22, 1:25 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:27:35 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Check out the turbine they're offering. By the maker's own figures it needs > 5
> m/s-1 to function even at low power yet most of the South of England only gets
> that kind of speed at *25 metres* above ground level - *NOT* roof level.
And don't forget turbulence caused by near objects. For efficient
operation a wind turbine needs to be a certain distance above nearby
objects, with that distance increasing the closer the object. If the
"ground level" spec is 25m, I'd expect if you install the turbine in a
sea of buildings it would need to be at least 25m above any adjacent
roof tops, and perhaps higher because of turbulence caused by varying
contours of the roof and ground lines.
sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com
|
|
|
|