Just a quick note to say that Issy now has a blog on the main Ecotricity site…

http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/news/copenhagen-blog

Paul

Thanks for dropping by. You are totally right – this post was absolutely steered off-topic.

We just met with Isabelle again today, and I’m pleased to say there will be a new focus on it and lots of new posts from Isabelle and COP15. News will be appearing here next week some time.

Cheers
Paul

How can we encourage the Copenhagen deal to be effective between now and the Summit (wherever you are in the World)?

Regards
Adi Lawton

Thanks for the info – I’ll chase them all up ..

PS. Let me know if you need someone to hold the sound meter !

thanks guy

You really can’t see that you’re being rude, and insulting?

And I think Dale’s recent posts have clarified for everyone that your proposals and claims are incorrect.

I think you should give up now.

It’s not “The materials used” that I am talking about. It is the QUANTITY of materials used !! This will be 8 times for a turbine of twice the diameter – no matter how f**** stupid and Lay you may be !

*Edited to remove strong language – Gerard – you have been warned several times! You will find it difficult to post anything on here now. Paul – Blog Manager

“and as I have pointed-out so many times by now, since your ‘turbines” operate in “Constant revs” mode, the power taken-in by them is pretty-much pro-rata with windspeed. The Cubic relationship which you quote, applies to a “Constant pitch” (Revs to suit wind) mode of operation.”

Our turbines are actually variable speed (and variable pitch) and as I’ve posted earlier tonight twice already – these turbines and the fixed speed turbines (that also typically have variable pitch) both harness the cube law.

Your grasp of what we build and how it works is simply not up to scratch – leading to the question – is anything else you say?

Cheers.

“The constant revs mode ( of “Modern windfarms”) gives a more or less pro rata relationship i.e. twice the speed gives twice the power (INTO the Alt.) whereas “Constant Pitch” mode (revs vary to suit windspeed) gives a more or less cubic relationship, i.e. if the speed doubles the power put INTO the A becomes 2×2×2 what it was at the lower speed.
I hope this will dispurse at least some of your current fog
regarding the science of getting energy from the wind”

This is just plain untrue. Large scale wind turbines come in both types – fixed speed and variable speed. And although variable speed turbines are more efficient generally (and especially dealing with gusts, which fixed speed machines tend to turn into gearbox torque load spikes) both types of machine harness the cube law. They simply do. Check it out, grab some power curves, you’ll see it for yourself.

Cheers.

“Current (80m high) “technology” runs at constant revs. which wastes high winds, causing the power taken from the wind to be more or less “pro-rata” with windspeed.”

This is nonsense. Current fixed speed technology machines may run at fixed speeds but they still harness the cube law to be found in the energy of the wind – they do not operate pro rata to wind speed. Grab yourself any one of dozens of publicly available power curves from commercial wind turbines and you will see this for yourself.

If you have this wrong what real handle do you have on this subject?

Cheers.

There is an optimum size you are right about that – although it’s not fixed by theory, it moves. Last time I looked 800kW turbines were it (48m blades or so) and above and below that it got more expensive. There are many many factors in this.

But one metre machines are, and IMO, will always be at the very expensive end of wind energy.

To say otherwise is to not have looked at what you can actually buy in the world today, what it costs and what it produces – some pretty straight forward empirical evidence.

Cheers.

I spoke to Dale about this (and your other comment) – he thinks it is a great idea and well worth doing – he racked his brains but couldn’t think of anyone who might be able to offer solid help in the local area. Sorry for not getting back sooner, I have been mulling it over too much…

I suppose you have already been in touch with the local groups such as Transition Stroud, Stroud Valleys Project, Social Enterprise Centre, Stroud Commonwealth and their Communiversity, or Vision21? Might be something useful in there if not.

I also met with a nice bloke called Ian Gough who set up Green Education, and does a fair amount of education based work in the Reading area (including tours of the turbine at Green Park). Sounds like you two might have a few things in common.

Will drop you a mail if I think of anything further…

Paul

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/15/copenhagen-climate-deal-obama

It seemples….

If you want a safe future for you an your kids…. get off yer ar#se and start building a modern day, self-sustainable ark…

The govt and it’s officially appointed helpers will not be cavalry like riding atop the horizon to help you, not now…nit never.

It will be bumpy ride kids…. but for those that can do (not waffle)….the future can still be bright and fulfilling….

Live well….all of you.

My brain is fried, you are correct about the diameter. Not sure where my brain was going with that.

I think your credibility is greatly undermined by the way you conduct yourself and when someone says:

“If the diameter is doubled then the tower height must quite obviously be doubled as well.”

Anything that they might say about their own alleged invention must questionable. When the diameter of turbine blades are doubled, the radius is increased by 50% not 100%.
The increased diameter is shared by the blades because the hub is at the centre.
The tower height thus needs to increase in height by 50% or so, hence the materials used on the tower are not doubled.

If the radius is doubled, then sure the tower height would increase by the same amount, but then the swept area would be greater as well.

So how long is it before your “blades” – which need to be wings to do anything At All – are digging into the dirt ?
If the diameter is doubled then the tower height must quite obviously be doubled as well.
Secondly, and as I have pointed-out so many times by now, since your ‘turbines” operate in “Constant revs” mode, the power taken-in by them is pretty-much pro-rata with windspeed. The Cubic relationship which you quote, applies to a “Constant pitch” (Revs to suit wind) mode of operation.
Allthough I don’t expect every “feral kid” in the street to be aware of this, I would expect anyone receiving serious sums of public money exactly for this kind of knowledge – to have it.
So if you feel “belittled”, that really isn’t my doing.
I didn’t see the point of reading carefully the rest of your essay. I have enough to keep me occupied. But keep polishing-up the “interpersonal skill”, allthough you are undoubtedly doing vastly better than me, as it is ! I just make make wind-energy equipment which shows a sustainable return. I also give-away the reasons why this is. If this “rubs you up the wrong way”, it isn’t my problem.

You have made a claim which – if true – could turn the wind industry as it is now on its head. Understandably, all those who are interested in these things want to know more. Given these facts I fail to see how your credibility could not be at stake. All we ask is that you explain your position clearly. So far, you have not shown yourself able to do so.

You ask for examples of your misrepresenting or belittling other contributors. Here we go …
November 8, 2009 at 10:09 am “To dismiss the fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased … … simply shows that you are more of a fool than merely an optimist.”
November 8, 2009 at 5:04 pm “Dale+ Co. have a pathological aversion to simple facts, prefering to stay cocooned in their plastic techno-world of jargon that we all need to read-up on to be able to speak to their highnesses.”
November 8, 2009 at 4:45 pm “It’s seldom that anyone manages to become senile in their 40’s ? Congratulations !”
November 9, 2009 at 8:48 pm “You are evidently unable to process the simple facts which I point-out.”
November 9, 2009 at 8:48 pm “You should be locked-up before you do any more damage with public money and your outrageous deception.”
November 12, 2009 at 9:41 am “But it is … … making sundry tossers quite well-off.
I believe the above is Arithametic, if you look, rather than someone or other’s opinion. So now you really have a subject, it’s such a pity that you made your film already !”
November 13, 2009 at 9:31 am “I am sorry if primary school arithametic is still beyond your mental capacity.”

I do not know your brother but I imagine he is probably quite a nice bloke.

I have searched the internet in vain for any reference to this elusively recorded public meeting at Llandeilo and the figures you quote other than your own assertions. Your repeated referral to this event seems to be the foundation of your argument regarding the relative costs – both financial and environmental – of conventional wind power generation versus your claims for the TAD.

Who gave these figures at the meeting? Were the figures from a trustworthy source or mere hearsay? Do they conform to the performance profiles from similar sites? Are there particular local circumstances that need to be taken into account? Are there other factors that were not included in the calculation that should be given consideration? Until these questions are answered it is not possible to judge the worth of your counterproposal.

Please can you supply other references so that the rest of us can verify your claims? The figures you give for Llandeilo are surprisingly far adrift of the norm for this type of venture. (For comparison, the British Wind Energy Association quote between 2 and 10 months as the time taken for a modern wind turbine to repay the energy investment that has been made in its manufacture. A typical machine nowadays could be rated at 2MW capacity, would operate at a load factor of 30% and would at least be eligible for ROC income of 4.5p / kWh. You are the one with the arithmetical ability, so I am sure you can work out the financial case in its favour.)

I am equally uncertain of the logic you infer regarding the efficiency increases available from a reduction in size. While every mechanical system in conventional physics has its optimum scale for most efficient working, it is rare for economies of scale to be reversed as you seem to claim. My own knowledge of industrial manufacture and design engineering encourages me towards scepticism. Again, I qualify my understanding of your position as I have difficulty in negotiating my way through your innovative use of grammar and spelling.

Please answer these questions. Even though the chances seem to be receding with every post, if you are onto something it could be to the benefit of all of us on this planet.

Best regards,

Jonny.

I appreciate all forms of harnessing wind energy – Large or small scale.

I can also appreciate the beauty of some nearby large trees (Uley), which is very fortunate … but with regard to my plans for a small turbine (not a TAD !!??!!!) and the reduction in windspeed …. this is very unfortunate.

And the relevance of this comment to the Copenhagen thread is nil … however I would like to say good luck to Isabelle and any one else who makes the trip ..

I’ve never written anything before on a blog, I’m only doing it because a good friend suggested it might be a way of communicating with you ~ Dale ….

I suppose I could send my CV to Ecotricity – but it’s too late in the evening for formality and you give the impression of being someone who prefers a more relaxed discussion ?

Anyway – I’m in the process of setting up a local independent research facility, focusing on waste / recycling technology & alternative energies. I would also like to incorporate this with a technical training school (mostly for youngsters – from around the stroud valley area).

I don’t know if you can help directly, but maybe you know someone that can ??

In reference to ongoing Stinchcombe job – I would love to see some noise / sound level data that comes from that lovely stretch of M5 motorway ?? How can anyone complain of potential turbine noise with six lanes of her majesty’s finest tarmac – in close proximity ….. being pounded upon ??

Go easy on me GGv

Double the diameter of the blades and you increase the output about 4 times. Meanwhile the tower height is not required to match the increased diameter (or swept area), it can be increased in size to meet the increased radius, not diameter.
eg. the worst case scenario is that the carbon footprint (gCO2/kWh) remains the same, or it is improved.

Power = 0.5 x Betz Factor x Swept Area x Air Density x Velocity cubed

Examples of two Enercon turbines…
The E33 with a 33.4m diameter blades, tower height a minimum of 37m. Lets increase the size to the E 82 with a blade dia of 82m. Using your logic then because the swept area of the E82 is about 6 times greater, the tower needs to be 6 times bigger! eg. about 222 metres

But the hub height of the E82 is a minimum of only 78m, because the height (and materials used) is a function of the radius of the blades, not the swept area.

The materials used are based on design and the locality of the turbine, not on silly layman’s arithmetic.

It isn’t MY credibility that is at stake, neither have I misrepresented any other “contributor”, and, as usual would ask for direction to any such misdemeanour. If you cannot provide that, then in fact it is you who are doing the “misrepresenting”
But, as usual, – and oddly like my own brother – you manage to shift the light away from what I was pointing-to. Well I shall shift it back !
I am pointing to the fact that the the lowest cost for a windfarm is achieved by using TADs of a size where the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around a metre diameter. I have explained, very simply, why this is.
I have also pointed-out that the two modes of operation – Constant pitch – revs to suit wind
and
Constant Revs – pitch varied to suit the wind
give quite different “Power-taken v windspeed”
characteristics.

Since “modern windfarms” operate in the former mode, they progressively waste the higher winds.
The above two considerations account, very nicely, for the disparity in return p.a. of cost – (energy) – between “modern windfarms”, and what can be obtained from a very sensible TAD design, of about the “best size”