Slashdot Mirror


12 Small Windmills Put To the Test In Holland

tuna writes "A real-world test by the Dutch province of Zeeland (a very windy place) demonstrates that small windmills are a fundamentally flawed technology (PDF of tests results in Dutch, English summary). Twelve much-hyped micro wind turbines were placed in a row on an open plain. Their energy yield was measured over a period of one year (April 1, 2008 — March 31, 2009), the average wind velocity during these 12 months was 3.8 meters per second, slightly higher than average. Three windmills broke. The others recorded ridiculously low yields, in spite of the optimal conditions. It would take up to 141 small windmills to power an average American household entirely using wind energy, for a total cost of 780,000 dollars. The test results show clearly that energy return is closely tied to rotor diameter, and that the design of the windmill hardly matters."

18 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. A little sad. by haeger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would take up to 141 small windmills to power an average American household entirely using wind energy...

    I think this sais more about American household power consumption than it does about small windmills. Doesn't it?

    I think it's a little sad and I would love to see a power-meter that shows exactly how much power you use when you use it. I think that would make people think.
    Also it's a little amusing to read this site on how "bloated" KDE and Gnome are, or how bloated the linux kernel is, but still people use their terrible inefficient cars and houses that are energy-hogs.
    Why isn't everyone here trying to make their home and car as efficient as comfortably possible? It's the "techie" thing to do.
    And the tech is already available.
    Remember that the cheapest energy unit is the one that you don't use.

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    1. Re:A little sad. by rossdee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If americans lived in Holland, rather than California, Texas, or Florida, then they wouldn't need A/C for 90% of the year.

    2. Re:A little sad. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would like to see some examples of how Americans consume so much more power then Europeans? Not saying that it doesn't happen, but I lived in both places and didn't really notice much difference in how people behave towards electrical consumption. Gasoline is a different matter of course, it's obvious that Americans drive bigger and less efficient cars, but electricity? Could it be that there are more extremes in climate in the US and so cooling/heating is the big culprit? For example, I bet power usage for air conditioning in the southwest is pretty astronomical. Phoenix or Las Vegas average temperature in the summer months is around 40C (104F). The hottest places in southern Europe are nowhere near that.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:A little sad. by caluml · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Phoenix or Las Vegas average temperature in the summer months is around 40C (104F). The hottest places in southern Europe are nowhere near that.

      Call me stupid, but perhaps it's a little short-sighted to build cities where humans can't naturally survive. Why do you think Europe has developed so fast over the last few millenia - perhaps because they didn't need to struggle against the elements to grow crops and survive.

    4. Re:A little sad. by hwyhobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Call me stupid, but perhaps it's a little short-sighted to build cities where humans can't naturally survive

      I wonder if you logically extend this attitude to starving Africans?

      --
      End anonymous moderation and posting on /.
    5. Re:A little sad. by Xonstantine · · Score: 3, Insightful

      get a window fan

      Great. You know what a window fan does when it's a 115 degrees? It acts as a convection oven.

      and a attic ventilator

      Helps a litte bit. A little bit.

      plant some shade trees.

      Yeah, and in 20 years when the trees reach maturity, that might be useful.

  2. Re:EPA would never let you build them by Bucc5062 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was going to use my mod points to mod you informative, but when I got to the web site I got this little conundrum:
    --------------
    Subscribe/Join AAAS or Buy Access to This Article to View Full Text. The content you requested requires a AAAS member subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. If you already have a user name and password, please sign in below
    --------------------
    If you provide a link, please at least make it one where I don't have to pay, or provide the full text here.

    As it is I can hardly determine if your thoughts about the EPA are a troll, or true. Try again.

    --
    Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  3. Re:EPA would never let you build them by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think the EPA has any say in whether most people want to put a windmill on their property or not. I know people that have looked into putting one or more windmills on their farm (it turned out they don't have enough wind to make it worthwhile), and they didn't run into any EPA restrictions.

    Neighborhood associations and local (city,county) regulations might be a different story, of course.

    --
    [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  4. New here? by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is original research posted to Slashdot all the time, mostly in the field of computer science.

    If there is enough data in the article to draw your own conclusions, then there is enough to discuss. This is a discussion site. If Slashdot only posted agreed-upon facts, then we would all just sit here with our dicks in our hands.

    What the fuck is wrong with you people lately? This isn't wikipedia. We don't need anything filtered for truthiness by the retards responsible for that site.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  5. Re:Original research? by Alomex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Repeat after me: slashdot is not wikipedia.

    Original research must appear somewhere in journals and the like. When it appears it becomes news. Slashdot is, guess what? news for nerds.

    Now someone please mod the parent down.

  6. HMmm. I am curious by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I spent time in Germany, I noticed that their homes really are quite similar to ours. The real issue was that EU has MUCH nicer climate throughout. With that said, I would like to see a comparison of electrical/Gas usage of a HOME, as opposed to a region. The reason is that most places try to compare regional uses which adds in manufacturing as well as travel.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Re:While I agree... by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sailors all over the world use small wind generators to charge their batteries while at anchor.

    That doesn't tell me anything if I don't know the size of the battery or the rate of charge.

    Sunforce Air X Marine Wind Turbine 12 Volts. 400 Watts at 28 mph. 46" Blades. $750.

    It strikes me that anchoring in 28 mph winds would keep you usefully occupied managing other problems.

  8. Re:Obvious? by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Misschien kan de man niet Nederlands heel goed spreken of lezen?

  9. Re:Some thoughts by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Probably not. So? 100 years is a LONG time. 100years ago we only had coal power. 100years before that we didn't have the lightbulb. Also I think that number is pretty frivolous. Nuclear reactors will get more efficient. They will be able to reuse their waste (already have that tech). And we will be able to find much more in the ground. Uranium is more common than tin. If there is a demand I'm sure we'll find more. Enough to last 150years I'm sure. By then we will have something way better. Gimping what is effective now for something that may happen in 100+ years from now is silly.

  10. Re:While I agree... by narcberry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or nuclear. It's proven, it's working today, and there's phenomenal amounts of energy.

    When did America become so retarded?

    --
    Modding me -1 troll doesn't make me wrong.
  11. Well duh by zogger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one in the industry I am aware of would say one of those tiny (those montana and skystream models are the exception there, as they are more realistically sized) windchargers would power a household. And further, no one credible who sells or installs realistically sized residential windchargers would recommend it be installed on a household roof. I have a very small windcharger, 300 watts max output in ideal conditions, it is designed to provide a small amount of battery recharging capability for like sailboats or a small weekend cabin or something, and that's it. Same as no one solar panel is going to power your home. This is the duh part, I mean, read the dang specs before you buy and try to keep in mind what your demand would be. There are still a lot of decent windchargers out there that fall between these tiny models and those megawatt sized hugemongous models.

      This was sort of a *really* stupid test. Might as well throw a lawnmower engine in your caddy to try and achieve epic mileage, and then see how far you get down the road. It is that dumb to anyone who knows anything about alternative energy.

    There are tens of thousands of people who own and use residential windchargers, all over the planet, but they are all designed for the task, they are all large, and mounted on sturdy tall towers. The mentioned two largest ones there should be considered entry level in size for practical household use. Yes, size matters obviously, and this info has been out there for close to a century now as regards wind to electrical power.

  12. Burj Dubai by failedlogic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tall buildings and skyscrapers are a boring part of the city scape. Nothing ever moves. They are only pretty with Christmas lights.

    I suggest Turning the Burj Dubai building into not only the world's tallest building, but also the world's largest windmill. At that height, one swing should power the whole world for the year!

  13. Re:While I agree... by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hypocrite.

    The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with a discussion on future energy sources for the Earth. You could have just as easily mentioned that the sun is eventually going to kill off all life on the planet. Neither fact is relevant.

    Honestly, if you hadn't quoted my post, I'd question whether you were actually replying to it, and not some other post. This is not a physics problem, it's a question of resources. If you have some evidence that our readily available nuclear fuel will not be exhausted in a relatively short (i.e. centuries) amount of time, please post it here.

    In other words, prove me wrong before acting like a supercilious douchebag.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.