Author Topic: Olympic wind turbines (Read 5191 times)

tanner0441 · « **on:** August 05, 2012, 04:27:15 PM »

Hi

Watching the news the other night I was interested to see several VAWTs along the front of the olympic stadium. After a while my interest was raised enough to look on Google and discovered they are 8KW units and cost 40,000 GBP each, they're 5mtrs tall by 3mtrs wide and 18mtrs above ground.

I think there is 8 of them the report mentioned the model number and manufacturer. The design wind was I think 15mtrs a sec which means they are unlikely to manage the rated output very often.

Brian

DamonHD · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2012, 04:52:52 PM »

Quiet Revolution's qr5 I think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/31/olympic-park-erects-wind-turbines

http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/node/963

Rgds

Damon

dbcollen · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2012, 05:07:17 PM »

"smaller scale vertical axis wind turbines that are designed to be more effective at harnessing the wind power in urban environments" Amazing the Bu!!$#.. that the media prints.

bob g · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2012, 06:05:43 PM »

this kind of stuff sets my hair on fire!

probably a government mandate where they had to install some AE/RE with every new building complex, much like they make developers place so called "art works" around new buildings here in the states.

if the art works were so damned good they wouldn't need a government mandate for placement, just as if the wind turbines did even half of what they purport to do they would be placed everywhere without the government mandates.

its about to the point that a guy can make himself a multi millionaire simply following the picks of the federal government and selling those stocks short!

government picks a company to loan money to, i am thinking it is time to sell that stock very short, because it is a very safe bet it will be in bankruptcy within a year or two.

bob g

fabricator · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2012, 07:03:01 PM »

Damon what would the ROI be over there be on a turbine that has an upfront cost of 40,000 Pounds in a suburban area?

DamonHD · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2012, 03:57:03 AM »

No idea, but my guess would be about zero. I wish it were otherwise.

Rgds

Damon

electrondady1 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2012, 08:58:53 AM »

"The Olympic Delivery Authority has installed vertical axis wind turbines in London's Olympic Park after plans to place a single, giant wind turbine fell through. The London 2012 Olympic Games has received some flak for not meeting its green targets and failing to be the â€˜Green Olympics' that it promised to be, but the installation of the seven qr5 turbines suggests that Olympic organizers are still attempting to meet their sustainable goals."

i just wish i could talk some one into giving me 40,000 English pounds
for one of my little vertical mills
i would be happy to do a deal and give them the next one free

mab · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2012, 09:47:58 AM »

Well FIT's can be found here:-

Quote

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/

But as D-HD says this is unlikely to do anything useful.

Just another example of gov't (or some gov't funded committee) sparing no expense to give the impression that they are tackling environmental issues.

If they'd spent even half that money on solar PV it would've been useful.

m

DamonHD · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2012, 10:36:38 AM »

Lots of solar would have been good.

Various stands of feedback I have from people who may actually know suggests that a lot of the 'green' at the games is lip-service and a happy co-incidence when 'green' happened to align with 'cheap'. (Of course, with an appropriate tax regime, the two would largely align automatically.)

Rgds

Damon

electrondady1 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2012, 11:16:54 AM »

the is nothing even remotely "green" about the Olympic games.
what ever the motivation in reestablishing the ancient tradition,
they have become a platform for national and corporate interests.
the whole process(corrupt) of picking a new city every four years and building extravagant facilities is grotesque.
why not hold the games in Olympia every year .
the Greeks could really use the money .

tanner0441 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2012, 03:41:33 PM »

Hi

From what I remember they recon the payback is 12 years. Which is more bovine crap, since I first saw them I have made a point of watching them (when I can't get away from the olympics) and I don't know what the cut in speed is but it is going to have to be very low and the one on the end, right hand as presented, never seems to be turning very fast at all. They say they couldn't use horizontals because of the esthetics.

I don't know what the lighting load is on the place but the PA is a million watts, the kitchens must be pulling a fair amount there are 30,000 catering staff.

Sorry if I sound cynical but I can't see the little town in North Wales where I live getting any benefit at all. As I see it the only people who will benefit are the sponsers, McDonalds and the like, and woe betide anyone who uses the word olympic or 2012 in their advertising. Even some little shop selling underware who aranged the bra's in the window like the logo was threatened with court action.

280,000GBP would buy a lot of solar even at 1GBP per watt.

Brian.

Jon Miller · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2012, 03:50:11 PM »

UK Feed In Tariff for that size of turbine <15kW is Â£0.29/kWh and I would think say really optimisticaly 5,000kWh/year = Â£1,450.00 + Â£77.50 for export and energy savings of Â£0.07kWh for avoided export - Â£350. so Â£1,877.50 a year less Â£300 to service a year + Â£200 for spares etc. Â£1,377.50.

I would think that Â£40,000 includes VAT @ 20% = Â£32,000 / Â£1,377.50 = 23 year payback.

Green wash all over.

Jon

fabricator · « **Reply #12 on:** August 11, 2012, 05:31:43 PM »

I think you are being overly generous with that 5000 kWh/year by about 50%. I'll bet when the Olympics are over and the dust has cleared those things will quietly disappear, especially after some bean counter finds out the need regular maintenance.

clockmanFRA · « **Reply #13 on:** August 12, 2012, 07:45:21 AM »

For Â£40,000 i could have put 10 off my 3.7m diameter Hugh Piggott design VAWT up.

But alas, the committees just would not listen.

bob golding · « **Reply #14 on:** August 12, 2012, 06:48:57 PM »

just read a bit of that guardian article. 7 mts a second. i would be happy with 7 metres a second. if i am lucky i see 5 metres a second in the winter, and i am right on the west coast.
the prevailing winds on the UK are south westerly so i get most of them. the only wind likely at the olympic park are easterly's. maybe in late winter most years, and its dry so a lot less energy.
someone wasn't paying attention when they OKed that project. strill it wasnt there money.
expect cameron will start blabbering on about having to pay for it all next.

tanner0441 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 12, 2012, 07:31:56 PM »

Hi

I used to live on the Lleyn Peninsular (north west coast of Wales) with the sea on three sides and looking at my wind conversion chart to convert from MPH we managed five and a half to six most of the time. If it was above that it was a ridiculous wind trying to rip the roof off so any turbine would be shut down before it shed the blades.

I remain sceptical that now it's all over they will just disapear one day never to be mentioned or seen ever again...

Brian.

clockmanFRA · « **Reply #16 on:** August 13, 2012, 04:04:43 AM »

Brian, just think, every time the London Olympics will be mentioned I/we will think about those rubbish VAWT and how some folk, so called professionals, were stupid and gullible.

Â£40,000 each?

Absolutely disgusting.

DamonHD · « **Reply #17 on:** August 13, 2012, 07:00:41 AM »

FYI:

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2198320/quietrevolution-and-hutchinson-sign-gbp2m-following-olympic-success

"Quietrevolution has awarded a Â£2m contract to Hutchinson Engineering to supply more than 400 vertical axis wind turbines, after the two firms worked together to deliver a wind turbine for the Olympic Games."

Rgds

Damon

sean_ork · « **Reply #18 on:** August 13, 2012, 05:11:37 PM »

Quote from: clockmanFRA on August 13, 2012, 04:04:43 AM

Brian, just think, every time the London Olympics will be mentioned I .........

will be remembering the fantastic sport that took place

If it's windmills that first spring to mind I politely suggest that .........

electrondady1 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 14, 2012, 07:58:18 AM »

i like vertical mills because of the way they look
they didn't spoil the Olympics for me.
the double helix?.
for me it's a bit of a gimmick.

it draws attention to the devise and for me an urban windmill should be almost invisible.

bob g · « **Reply #20 on:** August 14, 2012, 08:49:13 AM »

almost invisible?

that is never going to happen, at least in sizes that is going to make any power at all.

the fact that they cannot be made to be invisible is reason enough for me to want to see a double helix or any other esthetically pleasing design.

if it is inevitable that something is going to be within sight, and of questionable utility, then it had better look good!

bob g

electrondady1 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 14, 2012, 11:41:02 AM »

ive spent a bit of time at this now.
there's more than one way to skin a cat.
i'm not going to tip my hand.
you have it partially right in saying that to be utilitarian, they must be large.

News:

Author Topic: Olympic wind turbines (Read 5191 times)