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."
Wow, reading more I see how blatantly WRONG this summary is. There was one windmill that two of them would power a whole house. The "Energy Ball" one is the POS that takes 47 windmills, the rest are a lot better.
But the electricity needed to power the average American household would power a medium-sized Dutch city, right?
Get your own free personal location tracker
Why don't the Dutch install tidal turbines in their fields instead, and wait for their country to flood.
Oh I kid, I kid
3.8 meters/second average is not a windy area, infact it's a Class 1 [doe.gov] wind speed. There are many places in the U.S. that are Class 3 or better, and you'd get much different results from those areas.
Yeah. You'd have ALL of them break.
It's physics 101.
Capturing a larger cross-section of moving air is more efficient.
The reverse is also true (generating thrust):
Turbofan engines are more efficient at lower air-speeds than straight turbojets.
Moving a small amount of air at a higher velocity will create more wasteful eddies than moving a larger cross-section of air at a lower speeds.
Helicopters are the extreme case WRT aircraft.
You need a lot less power to make a helicopter hover than a ducted-fan or jet VTOL aircraft (like the Harrier or the JSF).
It reminds me of people who are surprised that electric cars / hybrids take up the most energy when they accelerate.
Duh, that's when you're actually gaining kinetic energy.
In cruise, you're just fighting drag (air) and friction (road).
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"
windspeed cubed and radius squared
not to mention the effect of turbulance on o/p
Clearly, designs made a huge difference in output
How the hell did this bit of poor reading comprehension get a 5 informative ranking?
Look at the size of the blades and the power produced. They are VERY proportional. Design didn't make much difference at all. What counts is the total surface area of wind you are taking advantage of. i.e. blade size.
The smallest unit had about 1/25 of the blade area coverage as the largest one, and produced fairly close to 1/25 of it's power.
Take home messages:
1) Design doesn't matter.
2) You are going to get ballpark 10 watts/square meter of wind in a windy area (avg 3.8 meters/sec wind)
4) A smaller number of large windmills are more cost effective to buy then a bunch of tiny windmills with the same surface area.
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.
Sure, we're not all US, but US households are becoming a de-facto benchmark because they're the biggest consumers of energy on a per-household (or per-capita) basis.
Actually they are not. In Canada we have a bigger household energy consumption than the US but this is due to heating. When it the winter lasts 6 months and temperatures drop to -40C heating tends to use a lot of energy no matter how efficient your home's insultation is.
I thought all your hippy orgies in your communes would keep you warm you socailists.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
But what sort of idiot puts a windmill on a roof? There are so many things wrong with that.
1) A roof is way too low. The optimum height, in terms of tower cost versus power value, for a turbine of scale sufficient to power a household is generally at least a hundred feet, and preferably notably more. Wind roughly follows a so-called "1/7ths power law", so those first hundred or two feet up make a huge difference. After that, it's a case of diminishing returns.
2) A roof is high turbulence. Turbulence is very bad for wind turbines -- robs them of powers and stresses their hardware. You want to be well above sources of turbulence.
3) A roof is generally not nearly strong enough, and would have to be reinforced anyway.
4) They weren't even bothering to test on a roof in their study.
One thing this article left out was the tower. That may seem like a trivial thing to most people here, but it's not in the least. I made a spreadsheet to crunch the numbers when I was looking into wind power. I found that it actually can be approximately breakeven where I live (in Iowa) if you're out in the countryside so that you can build a very tall tower, and you use a guyed tower**, and you can get a good deal on the tower, and you're grid connected so you don't have to deal with power storage, and you're not an idiot when it comes to turbine selection. Yeah, a lot of "Ifs". But regardless, the tower generally makes up 50-75% of your total costs in a properly designed home-scale system (20-25%-ish on a commercial-scale system).
"You see, Government is a system that is based on weapons." -- Timster
No it doesn't have to use a lot of energy. Here in Finland we are beginning to build so called zero-energy houses, which use a very little energy for heating. The insulation is VERY thick, I think it's about 50cm atleast in the walls and more on the roof. My friends house (we live on the southern coast of Finland, winters usually range from 0 to -20 degrees celsius, but more is not totally uncommon), has 60 cm on the roof and has a ridiculously inexpensive electricity bill (both heating and lights etc.)of about 150 euros / month (1 kwh = roughly 10 cents (euro cents)) The house is about 300 square meters total and has three stories.