|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > December 2006 > windplant requirements
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
windplant requirements
|
|
|
| well i've been looking at some stuff and want everyones opinion.
a AirX spec sheet says that KWH per month is 38@12mph. ok, we can
assume this is grossly overinflated.
but.....
I just checked my last electric bill, I only use 17kwh/mo. so If I can
get a constant 12mph breeze i wouldnt need anyything more that this,
right? assume inverter with intertie and such.
where i live, the site appears to be viable, and the AirXs sell for
cheaper than whispers
| |
| George Ghio 2006-12-16, 3:25 am |
| Tater wrote:
> well i've been looking at some stuff and want everyones opinion.
>
> a AirX spec sheet says that KWH per month is 38@12mph. ok, we can
> assume this is grossly overinflated.
>
>
> but.....
>
> I just checked my last electric bill, I only use 17kwh/mo. so If I can
> get a constant 12mph breeze i wouldnt need anyything more that this,
> right? assume inverter with intertie and such.
>
> where i live, the site appears to be viable, and the AirXs sell for
> cheaper than whispers
>
There is far more than this to successful wind energy. See;
<http://s78.photobucket.com/albums/j103/GGhio/>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-12-16, 3:25 am |
| Tater wrote:
> I just checked my last electric bill, I only use 17kwh/mo. so If I can
> get a constant 12mph breeze i wouldnt need anyything more that this,
> right? assume inverter with intertie and such.
I'm no expert in these things but I would think that, in general,
you are correct. It all has to start with having enough wind and
a place to put the tower.
Wind is never constant so it's not if you have a 12mph breeze but
how long the wind blows at what speeds at the location and height
you want to place your tower. You can estimate this kind of stuff
with nearby weather station data but nothing beats measuring it
yourself.
Anthony
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2006-12-16, 9:25 am |
| Tater <tater1337@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I just checked my last electric bill, I only use 17kwh/mo...
Really? Sounds very low. The national average is closer to 1000...
17 would be 24 watts, averaged over a month, which might mean you
don't own a TV or a fridge or a microwave oven, kinda like Ted
Kaczinski.
Nick
| |
| Ron Rosenfeld 2006-12-16, 9:25 am |
| On 15 Dec 2006 20:40:48 -0800, "Tater" <tater1337@yahoo.com> wrote:
>well i've been looking at some stuff and want everyones opinion.
>
>a AirX spec sheet says that KWH per month is 38@12mph. ok, we can
>assume this is grossly overinflated.
>
>
>but.....
>
>I just checked my last electric bill, I only use 17kwh/mo. so If I can
>get a constant 12mph breeze i wouldnt need anyything more that this,
>right? assume inverter with intertie and such.
>
>where i live, the site appears to be viable, and the AirXs sell for
>cheaper than whispers
I wonder if your 17kWh number is a daily average consumption for the month,
rather than a total monthly consumption.
Well, I don't know where you live. But the last time I checked, average US
consumption was closer to 20-30 kWh/DAY; and European consumption about
5kWh/DAY.
--ron
| |
|
| On 15 Dec 2006 20:40:48 -0800, "Tater" <tater1337@yahoo.com> wrote:
>well i've been looking at some stuff and want everyones opinion.
>
>a AirX spec sheet says that KWH per month is 38@12mph. ok, we can
>assume this is grossly overinflated.
>
>
>but.....
>
>I just checked my last electric bill, I only use 17kwh/mo.
Doesn't sound right. Even an energy-efficient refrigerator uses about
twice that much. 17kWh is about what a satellite TV receiver uses in a
month.
>so If I can
>get a constant 12mph breeze i wouldnt need anyything more that this,
>right? assume inverter with intertie and such.
>
>where i live, the site appears to be viable, and the AirXs sell for
>cheaper than whispers
Here's 3 years of data on an AirX properly installed at a very windy
location.
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klem..._Summaries.htm.
That might give you a rough idea about what to expect at your place.
This page http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/klem...rbines_Home.htm
shows the difference in production between an AirX and a Bergey XL.1
(which has a swept area in between that of a Whisper 100 and a Whisper
200).
Wayne
| |
|
|
Tater wrote:
> well i've been looking at some stuff and want everyones opinion.
>
> I just checked my last electric bill, I only use 17kwh/mo. so If I can
> get a constant 12mph breeze i wouldnt need anyything more that this,
> right? assume inverter with intertie and such.
boy i really need to get 8 hours sleep before reading the fine print on
my electric bill.
you guys are all correct, the number i posted above is NOT my monthly
consumption, but the daily average. boy is my face red.
monthly useage is 498, which means to generate all my power i'd need
two plants about the size of the bergley XL. 1 or the whisper 200 or
one ARE110.
and that would have me break even on the electric generations, so i'd
still have to pay facility charges.
more study seems to be in the future
| |
|
|
George Ghio wrote:
> There is far more than this to successful wind energy. See;
>
> <http://s78.photobucket.com/albums/j103/GGhio/>
>
George.
once again thanks for pointing me to you site again. please realize
that you dont know what my site is, and that i've reviewed all this
information before, and am confident that i have a better than average
site.
someone who you might like to point this information out to is
http://www.countrysidemag.com/ who put up their windplant in the middle
of an industrial area surrounded by buildings and trees taller than
their tower yet still seem to have their winsplant cranking out power
every day, all approx less than 10 miles from my site.
i should really take some pics of the site, as it is a perfect example
of how NOT to set up a windplant
| |
| George Ghio 2006-12-16, 9:25 pm |
| Tater wrote:
> George Ghio wrote:
> George.
>
> once again thanks for pointing me to you site again. please realize
> that you dont know what my site is, and that i've reviewed all this
> information before, and am confident that i have a better than average
> site.
>
> someone who you might like to point this information out to is
> http://www.countrysidemag.com/ who put up their windplant in the middle
> of an industrial area surrounded by buildings and trees taller than
> their tower yet still seem to have their winsplant cranking out power
> every day, all approx less than 10 miles from my site.
>
> i should really take some pics of the site, as it is a perfect example
> of how NOT to set up a windplant
>
Yes indeed, pictures are worth a thousand words.
Getting power out of a wind gen is easy, it spins and electricity comes out.
Usually far less than the gen can produce. Then there is the question of
turbulence. This is the same as having a loose fan belt in your car,
wear and tear on bearings.
If you are happy with perhaps 10% to 20% output with high maint. and
like to watch things spin you can stick up a wind gen almost anywhere.
The AirX may be cheap, but if the output is a fraction of its rating
then the cost per watt goes up. At some point PV is cheaper.
I know of perhaps fifty small wind gens in this part of the world. Of
those maybe three produce close enough to spec to have been worth the money.
Reason; Not enough wind often enough.
Let us know how it works out. Be good if you can track the data.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| On 16 Dec 2006 17:04:00 -0800, "Tater" <tater1337@yahoo.com> wrote:
>someone who you might like to point this information out to is
>http://www.countrysidemag.com/ who put up their windplant in the middle
>of an industrial area surrounded by buildings and trees taller than
>their tower yet still seem to have their winsplant cranking out power
>every day, all approx less than 10 miles from my site.
According to their FAQs, the operation is powered by sun, wind, and
steam.
>i should really take some pics of the site, as it is a perfect example
>of how NOT to set up a windplant
You wrote that it's "cranking out power every day". I hope you do take
some photos and share them, because if that turbine is helping to
power the publishing of the magazine, then it sounds like a *good*
example of how to get something out of a less than optimum location.
The benefits of adding wind to a solar setup are like those of
tracking - they're more than meets the eye. Consider that in
solar-only setups that include storage, batteries are discharging more
than two-thirds of the day. Therefore *any* power generated in those
off hours is a plus. For those used to watching batteries discharge 16
or more hours a day, it's way cool to see them gain at all hours once
a wind turbine is added. Better yet, if energy is consumed during
those off hours, then any wind power generated when needed lessens or
perhaps even eliminates the amount that would otherwise make an
inefficient trip through the batteries. That can be an easy 20%
increase in system efficiency on top of the additional power
generated, *and* substantially increase battery life. Or decrease
battery expense, however you want to look at it. Go visit those
magazine owners and talk to them, I bet they'll tell you that battery
longevity was a factor in their decision to make use of wind power.
About assessing wind installations by observation only - there are
probably hundreds of Air models in my area, some in crummy-looking
locations. Their value can't be properly evaluated without reviewing
each installation individually, and talking to the owners. Otherwise,
one has no way of knowing if a bad-looking location might turn out to
be better than it looks (or vice versa). For example, one site that's
nearby has two units on short un-guyed poles, in between buildings and
a hill many times the tower height. Most folks who don't know better
would declare the installation worthless. And yet the day I visited
both turbines were doing real well in typical wind, and the owner was
beaming like a proud parent.
Wayne
| |
| Jens Kr. Kirkebø 2006-12-17, 5:25 pm |
| On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:01:02 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:
>
>Doesn't sound right. Even an energy-efficient refrigerator uses about
>twice that much. 17kWh is about what a satellite TV receiver uses in a
>month.
34kWh for an energy-efficient fridge ? Sounds awfully high. My
mid-size freezer uses (I have measured it) about 16kWh/month. I'll be
getting a new fridge soon too, it's rated at about 13kWh/month.
| |
|
| On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:18:56 +0100, Jens Kr. Kirkebø <jkk@scm.no>
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:01:02 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>34kWh for an energy-efficient fridge ?
I was referring to US-sized fridge-freezer combinations. Ours is 22
cu.ft., and uses about 1.2 kWh per day.
> Sounds awfully high. My
>mid-size freezer uses (I have measured it) about 16kWh/month.
Freezers do tend to use less, mostly because they don't get opened as
often, and sometimes because ambient temperature is lower than
standard. What's the energy rating of your freezer?
> I'll be
>getting a new fridge soon too, it's rated at about 13kWh/month.
That seems exceptional, and better than even the smallest and most
expensive models listed here
http://www.aceee.org/consumerguide/...m#compactsmall. How big
is the one you're planning to buy, and does it have a freezer section?
Got a link?
Wayne
| |
| George Ghio 2006-12-18, 3:25 am |
| Tater wrote:
> Tater wrote:
>
> boy i really need to get 8 hours sleep before reading the fine print on
> my electric bill.
>
> you guys are all correct, the number i posted above is NOT my monthly
> consumption, but the daily average. boy is my face red.
>
> monthly useage is 498, which means to generate all my power i'd need
> two plants about the size of the bergley XL. 1 or the whisper 200 or
> one ARE110.
>
> and that would have me break even on the electric generations, so i'd
> still have to pay facility charges.
>
> more study seems to be in the future
>
Ah, now you have learned a real lesson. The correct numbers are required
for system sizing.
Your next lesson is to learn that people who can't tell you what their
system uses/produces are not worth listening to when it comes to system
design.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-12-18, 1:25 pm |
| Jens Kr. Kirkebø wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:01:02 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> 34kWh for an energy-efficient fridge ? Sounds awfully high. My
> mid-size freezer uses (I have measured it) about 16kWh/month. I'll be
> getting a new fridge soon too, it's rated at about 13kWh/month.
It does, but otoh I have pretty minimal electrical needs, and use about
60-90 kWh monthly. 17 is a pretty darn small load.
--
derek
| |
| Jens Kr. Kirkebø 2006-12-18, 5:25 pm |
| On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:53:01 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:
>
>Freezers do tend to use less, mostly because they don't get opened as
>often, and sometimes because ambient temperature is lower than
>standard. What's the energy rating of your freezer?
A++
Link: http://www.electrolux.dk/node39.asp?ProdId=34887
(sorry, no english link available)
>
>That seems exceptional, and better than even the smallest and most
>expensive models listed here
>http://www.aceee.org/consumerguide/...m#compactsmall. How big
>is the one you're planning to buy, and does it have a freezer section?
35 cubic feet, no freezer. With a freezer section, consumption
doubles. I prefer a separate chest freezer, much better capacity and
total consumption is about the same as a fridge-freezer.
>Got a link?
Yep, here:
http://www.aeg-electrolux.co.uk/nod...sp?ProdID=12195
I was wrong, it uses 145kWh/year which is only 12kWh/month.
| |
|
| On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:04:11 +0100, Jens Kr. Kirkebø <jkk@scm.no>
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:53:01 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>A++
>Link: http://www.electrolux.dk/node39.asp?ProdId=34887
>(sorry, no english link available)
pg 51 here http://tinyurl.com/yy7c5a, 153kWh per year, 330 liters.
>
>35 cubic feet,
Under 12 it appears...
> no freezer. With a freezer section, consumption
>doubles. I prefer a separate chest freezer, much better capacity and
>total consumption is about the same as a fridge-freezer.
>
>
>Yep, here:
>http://www.aeg-electrolux.co.uk/nod...sp?ProdID=12195
>
>I was wrong, it uses 145kWh/year which is only 12kWh/month.
The total consumption of the separate units is 298kWh per year, for
19.53 cu. ft. total capacity. Which is 15.26 KWh per cu.ft. per year,
versus 19.9 for our fridge-freezer combination. That's a substantial
improvement if the standards used for measuring volume and consumption
are similar, but not the difference it first appeared. Did they
achieve the saving by making the freezer manual-defrost?
Wayne
| |
| Jens Kr. Kirkebø 2006-12-19, 3:25 am |
| On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:38:21 GMT, wmbjk <wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net>
wrote:
>
>Under 12 it appears...
Sorry, I'm a metric person 
>The total consumption of the separate units is 298kWh per year, for
>19.53 cu. ft. total capacity. Which is 15.26 KWh per cu.ft. per year,
>versus 19.9 for our fridge-freezer combination. That's a substantial
>improvement if the standards used for measuring volume and consumption
>are similar, but not the difference it first appeared. Did they
>achieve the saving by making the freezer manual-defrost?
At least the freezer is. Not sure about the fridge. I'm not interested
in using power to defrost, I can do that fine myself 
The freezer has very thick walls though, which means smaller capacity
and lower consumption.
| |
|
|
wmbjk wrote:
> On 16 Dec 2006 17:04:00 -0800, "Tater" <tater1337@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> According to their FAQs, the operation is powered by sun, wind, and
> steam.
>
from their dated website
BTW-COUNTRYSIDE is printed with soy ink (simple nontoxic black only,
except for covers), on recycled paper (quality newsprint) and is
produced in a "recycled" former tavern in Northern Wisconsin's
Chequamegon National Forest-on Macs and powered by solar, wind and
steam.
they've moved. they now reside in an old vending company office (i used
to work there) in the middle of an industrial park.
I did visit them when they were out in the Chequamegon, and i was not
entirely impressed. the steam power was experimental, and the wind
power was not at an optimum site(but it did work). their main source
was solar from about $64,000 of panels on a tracking mount.
impressive aint it? well how much juice does an office use? espcially
when one uses wood heat and the only fridge is one of those
under-counter student fridges.
and I dont trust them. I have a freind who thinks they are the best
thing since sliced bread, when they moved the the new place, I noticed
their windplant wasnt truning, at all. my freind had talked to them and
they said that thay had shut it down because the local electrical co
wouldnt buy back juice from them(they got all they needed from solar).
I tried to explain that you dont STOP a windplant and thaty they most
likely bunged the generator when moving, and even if they couldnt sell
the juice, they could have wasted it with a big overlit sign by the
road saying "we waste free electricity because the power company doesnt
want it" or some such.
that and the slant on their magazines articles makes me more cautious
of them than some of the crazed posters we see here.
anyway, I bet they dropped the steam power, and they nearly dropped the
wind. no idea even why they moved as their previous site was more eco
freindly that where they are now (across the street from a plastics
molding company and a painting facillity)
|
|
|
|
|