Windsave, again
Anent my previous rant about Windsave claiming impossible efficiencies, they’ve made some changes to their website. The machines now have larger diameters (1250 and 1750 mm — up from 1000 and 1400mm), and much lower rated power (500W and 1000W at 27mph — down from 750 and 1200).
Plugging in those numbers to Cp = P / ( 0.48106 d2 v3 ), we get more realistic efficiencies of 0.378 and 0.386 (for the small and large machines, respectively).
The Lakota turbine we installed last week has a nominal rated power of 900W at 28.8 mph for a 2.09m diameter rotor. It has a very conservative Cp = 0.20, although David Cooke says that typically they see 1,000 Watts at around 25mph (a Cp of around 0.34).
At the other end of the scale, the Lagerwey LW52 is a 51.5m diameter machine rated at 750kW at 12ms-1. This advanced utility scale, variable pitch machine has a Cp = 0.34.
Windsave’s revised figures are much more credible, but until we have real figures backed by a few years of installations, there’s little more we can say about them. I’m a little concerned that, although there are claims that 1000s of these machines have been sold, there’s not a single real photo of one on the web.
I’m going to enjoy putting up an anemometer and logging system alongside the urbine downtown. We’ll see how it runs.
November 11th, 2004 at 11:04:56
Windsave has never intended to mislead, unfortunately like a lot of start up companies it is not the technical people that write the marketing literature. When a genuine mistake is discovered it is corrected. The product is truly innovative due to its gridlink application time will tell whether this wins out
February 22nd, 2005 at 09:09:07
I know sweet FA about wind power and I would love to know if these rooftop systems are really workable? I came across this blog in my efforts to find out more and I would really appreciate some advice from the writer. I am not a techie so would need any response spelt out real slow. Hope you can help. Thanks. Joe
September 11th, 2005 at 13:19:04
Like Josef I came across this after picking up a flyer for the Windsave system at one of those home type shows. I was very impressed by the blurb and would truly like to know if these things work as advertised.
Also - I checked out some info on the Swift system mentioned also and wondered what exactly makes one system “better” than another, I’ve no technical experience but obviousely would like to go for a system that was as cheap, reliable and efficient as possible - this is a big move.
Anyone know *roughly* how much these systems cost also - that will go a long way to determining whether I’ll go for it or not, i.e. how man years (decades!) will it take to pay for itself?
Thanks
Chris
September 11th, 2005 at 21:44:30
We’ll only know if they work as advertised after they’ve been in use for a few years. No matter how cheap (or reliable, or …) they are, they will be several times more expensive than joining a renewable energy co-op, and sharing the cost of a large, efficient utility-grade turbine in a windy location with a few hundred like-minded folks.
The big unknown for most homeowners is just how windy their rooftop is. Short of investing in anemometry (which would be about the same price as a turbine, with no return in power for the homeowner), they only way to find out is to buy a turbine, and see how well (or otherwise) it works.
December 21st, 2005 at 16:51:29
There’s a freely available national database called NOABL, http://www.bwea.com/noabl/noabl_c.gif
where you can look it up, you can see from this map that the only places where you get more than 10m/sec averages are way up high, Lake District fells and Scottish mountains. Beautiful places, but not what you might call prime sites for housing.
The bit about energy ministers sitting on the board is truly worthy of Private Eye-type exposure, ‘I Think We Should Be Told’ and all that.
March 1st, 2006 at 04:19:49
May 14th, 2006 at 02:18:26
We shall see if I deserve the goodies
David
May 31st, 2006 at 06:07:32
June 1st, 2006 at 16:38:07
September 5th, 2006 at 05:32:03
September 16th, 2006 at 13:07:51
October 4th, 2006 at 09:33:16
We are uk destributors to clear skies registered installers of the Zephyr Air Dolphin which is made in Japan after meany years of development funded by the Japanese Government.
We are interested to hear what the opinion if it is? Good or bad comments are appreciated.
If you live near Aberdeen call in at Kingswells where we have one installed at a test location which is our MD, Dave McGraths house. Have been testing for about 6 months now with one planned for shetland or orkney.
Thanks,
Stuart
Engineering Manager,
siGEN Ltd.
sjg {at} sigen.co.uk
ps. i hope this isnt picked up as advertising as its not ment to be, im an engineer not a sales person and would appreciate learned comments.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:45:38
If you think about the baseline energy usage of your house.
Fridge and Freezer 300-600W,
TV 50-100W
Plasma 400-500W
PC 80-500W
on average the Windsave seems to be generating around 500W (probably less if you look at the average UK windspeed). Therefore the spillage is small, maybe ~5 units per day. The sell back price for a unit is ~2p the cost of the meter (£?) and the current price of setting up a payback contract (~£150) will make this uneconomical.
October 6th, 2006 at 05:31:58
1. A increase in noise generated by X amount of turbines in your street.
2. The potential danger of one or more turbine blades braking free of the main structure and slicing into your roof, or even worse scenario of slicing through a person. Just try and lag your roof, its a lot cheaper and safer.
October 7th, 2006 at 05:25:11
As pointed out in other postings, Windsave is a use-it-or-lose-it system, if you are not drawing power when the turbine is generating power, the electricity is given away free to the grid.
This turbine is the Sinclair C5 story all over again, watch out for the grand dumping of Windsave turbines at a cheap price in the near future.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:15:53
With a bit of control the power could be used in an immersion heater or something rather than just giving it away.
The Zephyr seems good but at over 2500 it’s a lot more expensive. If it’s as quiet as the videos show, that’s good. I have an Air303 and it sings in the strong wind!
B&Q are now selling the Windsave in Ireland for 2400 euro, but I think it’s illegal to connect a generation system to the grid here. But I suppose I must be wrong on that too!
I wonder if David (May06) has got connected yet?
October 16th, 2006 at 05:28:58
Also I heard on the BBC on Friday, that the subsidy for micro generation for this year will run out in a couple of weeks - so you can forget about that £400 rebate when you buy a Windsave turbine.
October 16th, 2006 at 07:37:47
The baseline consumption you state does not allow for the fact that for a large number of hours per day typical households are not occupied therefore electricity consumption will not include items such as t.v.s.
Also fridges and freezers cycle on and off as they reach the set temperature and if undistubed i.e. doors not opened, will draw no power for hours on end. (check the instruction manual for any freezer and it will tell you in the event of a power cut the freezer can stay frozen for up to 15hrs if not opened)The same obviously applies at night.As long as other devices are not left on standby, all of the power generated by the wind turbine could then be sold to the grid.
October 17th, 2006 at 03:04:56
http://www.fifeweather.co.uk/windhoursenergy.html
That site started up in February 2006, so covers in part the windier months of the year.
The anemometer is mounted on an extension of the TV aerial installation, so is distinctly above the roof level.
The Web camera gives a good idea of the exposure to the North-West; but the ground and town continue rising behind the camera to the South-East for about 1/2 mile.
Prevailing winds are from the South-West as for most of Britain. See elsewhere on that Web site.
I also have an anemometer and weather station about 2 miles to the west, mounted in a less favourable position relative to my house; but generally the two show good consistency in their readings; and that also applies to the other parameters such as temperature, rainfall etc. (Different manufacturers)
Generally, because of their lower and more congested locations, I would expect domestic anemometers to record lower wind speeds than Met Office ones, which are located for the most part in exposed situations such as airfields so not representative of the typical locations for domestic wind-powere turbines.
Alex Dow
October 25th, 2006 at 03:25:11
October 26th, 2006 at 04:44:09
October 28th, 2006 at 07:21:56
Goverment planning changes mean that very shortly no planning will required for installation of turbines, - open to debate if property prices will effected, I guess likely to be negative., noise vibration etc.
These turbines will be sprouting soon on lo-cost housing in town near you. All about saving “the community” fuel bills etc , use will have no bearing on the capital cost of installation and servicing, and carbon emited in manufacture and installation and servicing. Taxpayers get a very poor return, very likely a loss!
Polititians will love them, as visual vindication of being “green,” the whole stinks of green spin,
Efforts should be going in to tried a tested insulation, less sexy , but easy to install no maintence .
Thank you for this site, PS I would be pusuaded to install tubine if the economics added up…………….. and this does not.
October 29th, 2006 at 17:50:06
October 29th, 2006 at 18:34:23
I went along to B&Q today to see the Windsave WS1000 turbine and decided that I would not like it strapped to the side of my house for visual impact, noise, and vibration reasons. Nobody could or would tell me about the noise or vibration levels.
On coming home I did a rough cost/saving estimate and at my current electricity consumption it would take me at least ten years to recover the cost of the turbine, the projected lifespan, and that is based on the turbine operating at max. output i.e. a third of my electricity consumption.
Saving the environment and reducing energy consumption are all very well
and I support Marco’s views and anyway if everybody reduced their energy consumption energy producers would react by increasing prices and cutting costs, i.e jobs, maintenance, etc., as they must maintain and increase profits for their shareholders and investors. And the usual suspects who are unable or cannot afford to conserve energy will suffer physically and financially.
It looks like the more you save the more you pay.
I like the idea of Micro Renewables but it’s going to take a lot of convincing.
October 30th, 2006 at 05:57:08
I went to B&Q in Oxford to see what they could tell me. Now Oxford is a reasonably large city with a sizable environmentally aware community. Th best response
B&Q gave me was “Dunno mate heres a brochure.” MMMMM! Micro wind wont work in the Urban environment without getting turbines 10m above the highest roofs…
This Windsave and Swift stuff is a rip off
Rumi
October 30th, 2006 at 17:45:40
I drive an Aixam Mega electric van{very good!but slow!}and would love to produce electricity.I have just had Solar thermal water heating installed,seems good so far with the Thermomax tubes.Today I fitted a BIG ,used Jotul woodstove at work,hey,no more gas!I have a woodstove in the house and one in my home workshop.They are all very good.It seems hard to sort some of these things out and get the info and the grants,but,it all helps,never give up and dont be too cynical!
Positive Ritchie
October 31st, 2006 at 16:43:59
just my 2p.
for those of you who are wondering, a well lagged cylinder will probably only need about 100w to keep it hot, that’s easy and not time critical.
November 2nd, 2006 at 17:33:05
I had the usual B&Q experience in my local store (East Kilbride). The turbine is big enough to be a nasty eyesore and vibration generator, but small and potentially fast spinning enough to be seriously noisy. The salesman was a Spotty Herbert who knew less about it than I did, and fobbed off all questions about noise and vibration by saying that would be covered in the pre-installation survey, which he also had no information on, about how soon or how thorough it would be. I think he considered calling security when I asked how it minimised trailing edge turbulence. Poor Spotty Herbert.
Worryingly, he knew nothing about the warranty term, and that’s vital information. It needs to be at least ten years, which is the break-even time, assuming about 250-300W practical average usable generation, rising energy prices and (vitally) no ongoing maintenance issues.
Even if it is ten years or more, I’m seriously doubtful that Windsave will be around that long. They have no margin for paying out on warranty or third party liability claims, for one thing.
A couple of other things that you should be aware of:
First, to qualify for a grant (if you can get one before the money runs out), you first have to have: cavity wall insulation; CF lightbulbs fitted wherever possible; 270mm of loft insulation. As my loft is floored, I actually can’t meet that last criteria, unless I lag above the flooring.
My home insurers are “going to get back to me” about the implications of slapping one of these on my brickwork. The phone drone knew nothing about it, but advised not fitting one until they’d checked, as there could be serious implications on both the house structure, and on third party liability (I assume if if came off and flew through my neighbour’s roof - or person).
So while I’d like to save the dolphins and all that, I’m not going to splash out £1500 on something that might actually end up costing more in insurance and brickwork damage than it saves in electricity, quite apart from the sleepless nights and neighbour-annoyance (and slaying) potential. I remain ready to be convinced, but it’ll take more than a high-gloss, low-information sales brochure to do it.
November 2nd, 2006 at 17:46:59
November 3rd, 2006 at 08:02:51
5.2 5.4 5.2
5.8 6.0 5.9
6.4 6.5 6.4
ie significantly higher. So if the measurements from the house roof are accurate/typical - real yields will be way down on any manufacturers claims.
David
November 3rd, 2006 at 12:55:30
I have a small (10w) turbine connected, and like you find that the actual wind speed is far less than the DTI web indicates. Often the turbine doesn’t spin as the wind is too turbulent, and even on a windy day I often get less than 2w from it.
Howard
November 4th, 2006 at 04:53:10
If the turbine doesn’t furl, then the inverter cuts it out (stated in the B&Q flyer) at 14m/s - a fraction over its rated speed. It would take 15 hours of 5m/s wind, its cut in speed, to make up for each hour of 14m/s plus windspeed lost through the lack of a furling mechanism.
November 4th, 2006 at 06:24:04
I take it that these people want the money up front ie. before the survey is carried out,so are you going to get some little herbert who was ripping your granny off over double glazing the week before.
Secondly.
If you really want to piss your neighbours off buy some guinea fowl much more entertaining and you can eat them when they’ve had the desired effect.
YUM
November 4th, 2006 at 08:36:15
November 5th, 2006 at 03:26:02
November 6th, 2006 at 05:01:04
Here in rural Norfolk(UK) last week, for several days we had winds that, at times, I am sure were higher than 14m/s. This would have meant that because the turbine would have shut down I would have lost the opportunity to donate kilowatts free energy to the grid - during the times I was not drawing electricity. Should Plug n Save, trademarked by Windsave, be Plug n Give ?
November 7th, 2006 at 04:30:09
I note that Proven are now trying to promote “Wind-crofting”. (Like the name, but can it work either for him or other people).
November 9th, 2006 at 09:05:20
I’m going to make mine at home for a cost of £300, at 20p per daytime unit I think the payback period will be that much shorter.
November 12th, 2006 at 07:36:39
November 20th, 2006 at 06:24:13
November 26th, 2006 at 16:47:37
November 30th, 2006 at 06:02:49
What a joke!!!
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/RoofTopWindSaveinScotland.html
November 30th, 2006 at 18:21:02
December 2nd, 2006 at 08:58:04
Having preached for 30-odd years that “green” does not mean having the latest low emission vehicle; it means keeping the same car on the road for years (in my case, 21 years for one particular car, thereby avoiding the life-cycle cost of your 5 cars to my one), I consider that I have built up sufficient “carbon credit” to buy the Windsave system just for the fun of it. At my time of life, I can also afford to write off £1,498 without weeping too much either!
It has taken me some time (and £130) to push my application through Planning, and - as a tenant - I am in no position to claim a grant. However, I have a siege mentality (2.5KVa petrol alternator in the shed, and 2 tons of anthracite in the bunker), so “free” electricity has a certain appeal anyway. Thus, with Scottish Natural Heritage’s blessing (though they caution that I am on Whooper Swans’ migratory flightpath), I am pushing ahead with my Windsaver installation, and I signed up yesterday.
What prompted my thinking in the first place was the fact that I was contemplating installing gas (tanked) central heating in a house which currently is all electric. That was going to cost £5,000 plus, as well as the upheaval and inconvenience. It seemed to me, then, that, so long as Windsave brought down by a little the overall price I was paying for electricity to run my home, its installation was a worthwhile experiment.
So, watch this space. My total power consumption (all-electric house) averaged over the past two years is 12,283 units pa, and I should like to see the Windsave system make a moderate hole in that. The next hurdle I have to surmount is for Windsave’s agents to survey the site and to tell me whether they think that it is suitable.
I shall keep you posted.
December 4th, 2006 at 09:04:34
December 4th, 2006 at 09:07:39
She started to argue, but I cut her short by reiterating the correct number, and asking her why she had called. She told me that she had to make sure the numbers were correct, so that Windsave’s agents could phone to arrange a suitable time for survey.
I said “That’ll be a call within three working days of 2nd Dec, then.” (The date I signed the contract.)
“Oh no.” She said. “It’s 7 working days.”
I fished out the contract. It says “3 working days”, I told her; however, not wanting to start an argument, I said that I’d look forward to Windsave’s agent contacting me whenever and however.
Out of interest, I still have the contract in front of me, and it still says “3 working days”.
Is this a hint of worse to come?
Keep watching.
December 5th, 2006 at 04:48:46
I think you have the wrong idea about furling. On modern furling wind turbines the idea is to continue to generate electricity while in a state of furl, unless the wind strength is so high the tail ends up at 90 degrees to the blades. Windsave from B&Q does not furl it cuts out at 14m/s, If the wind strength is as great as you say where you are you are going to lose a lot of electricity with this turbine. I still do not know what the Windsave system does about the free spinning of the blades once the braking effect of generating electricity is stopped; perhaps they explained that to you at B&Q, but I very much doubt that.
It seem B&Q’s service on this product is about as good as the product itself.
December 5th, 2006 at 08:19:22
http://www.renewabledevices.com/swift/videoclips.html
Check out the background noise (or lack thereof!)!
Given a good site, this design looks like a winner to me. No idea how to get hold of one though. Any clues as to how this company is doing anyone?
December 6th, 2006 at 07:43:52
December 6th, 2006 at 08:35:27
It is very easy to slate the companies involved in providing these turbines for domestic consumption isnt it!! We have go to remember here this is NOT just to save money (although 1/3 rd of a 3.5kw home is very achievable for a domestic property) Has everyone forgotten about he energy savings and reduction of carbon emmissions here? If only 1% of the country had one of these we would reduce 1000’s of tonnes of carbon emmissions each year going into our atmosphere. Also the Windsave system is only and has only ever been advertised as a ‘contributory’ system which will supply an accumulative supply of energy to your household when the wind blows between 4m/s and 15 m/s. Not to be bought if you want to give back to the national grid because your household will consume more than what the turbine will make in normal running conditions. This WILL save you money but more importantly this is the ONLY totally green turbine on the market at the moment because storage batteries are not used in the inverter plug n save unit, this powers directly into your ring main. When batteries are used we are also then making more carbon deposits in the production of those batteries which kind of defeats the whole object of having a turbine. In my eyes the Windsave system pound for pound out beats any other system on the market with cost outweighed by the return time. GET ONE !!!
(Well, Sean really seems to have drunk the KoolAid here. I can’t determine if he’s posting from WindSave’s office. I still think that a well-sited utility-scale wind turbine bought by 1000 potential domestic turbine users would have a better energy yield. - scruss)
December 6th, 2006 at 10:30:23
These turbines and their respective inverters are not grid tie approved they are designed to sense the load being consumed in the house and supply to that load. So if you are out and have no load and its windy the energy these things may produce goes nowhere. The inverter has also been found to take 90 seconds to allign itself with the load by which time the turbine has in most cases lost the wind.
The tail plane on the Windsave turbine is too small and only in very strong steady (not gusting) wind conditions is the turbine able to stabilise itself in to the wind. In lighter conditions the turbine tail and blades compete to be the tail.
I have carried out extensive research into the manufacture of small wind turbines, The Windsave machine is made from off the shelf components, the blades, hub and cone are made by a leading European fan blade manufacturer and the motor is also a 1kW off the shelf product with permanent magnets retrofitted. If anyone knows their physics they will see the obvious mismatch between motor size and output rating.
Unless windsave have discovered a superconductor with which to manufacture their motors the total weight of the unit offset against the rated output and amount of copper and ferrite in these units does not add up.
Finally windsaves previous product which never made it to the market but was widely advertised as the answer to domestic energy needs beggars belief if you wand to see their original flyer go to: http://www.newclearpower.org/windsave.html
its at the bottom right of the page.
I have asked windsave to allow us to wind tunnel test a turbine, they have declined. What have they got to hide?
Rumi
December 7th, 2006 at 11:52:19
Thanks for your comment. As you will see from my first post, I am happy to regard this thing as a big boy’s toy (not as an investment), and just see what it actually does. I was researching Windsave before B&Q started stocking it, so most of my correspondence has been with the company itself.
According to Windsave’s literature, the electronics of the machine stop it from generating at windspeeds of 15m/s and above; the next sentence IMPLIES that it will withstand persistent speeds of 35 m/s, and gusts of up to 52m/s.
What it actually SAYS though is “Our product has been designed and developed to meet the relevant standards and codes. For example IEC61400 Part2 requires the system to be capable of withstanding 35 m/s wind speed. We have also accounted for structural design limits where the structure is able to withstand short gusts at up to 52m/s (app 120mph). Note, this is “extreme” and represents possible wind events “over a 50-year period”.
Which, I am sure you will agree, is not quite the same thing!
Elsewhere, the text talks about, “shutting it down” (OK, I understand what that means) and “making it safe” (which I do not) in “particularly extreme winter weather “(which it does not define). It also makes no mention of where the wind energy goes when (above 15m/s) the machine cuts out; I imagine into spinning the wheel. The background picture in Windsave’s literature appears to show a propellor feathering mechanism, (my RAF background) so I am assuming that the wheel “spins” rather than “screams”.
(Does my word “feathering” mean the same as your word “furl”?).
Re your remark about “losing” electricity at high wind speeds. This is a matter of semantics as much as physics. I’m not paying for the power in the first place (remember, I’ve written off the £1,498) so I’m not losing anything - just not gaining either. Furthermore, as the law stands at the moment, (though a private member’s bill is before the Scottish Parliament to change it) you have to instal an additional meter and pay lots of MONEY up front, and annually, before you are acually permitted to SELL electricity back into the grid. Thus - if the machine is generating above the base load of my little (all electric) cottage, and dumping into the grid - I am “not losing” twice over - once, because the electricity is free in the first place, and again, because I don’t have to pay to be allowed to sell it - because I’m not selling it…….
If you’re sitting where I am, it makes perfect sense………
I’m sure that all will become clearer, though, when, and if, the thing turns up. I shall keep you posted on my adventures (if any) with Thomas the Turbine; I’ll certainly tell you if I end up looking for him in the fields to the North East the next time we have gales like those last week!
I’ll also buy a plug-in power meter on e-Bay.
December 8th, 2006 at 05:15:36
I know I am wasting my time with this post because you seem determined to write off £1498 of your own and tax payer’s money on this piece to junk. I do assure you that I am not arguing for argument’s sake; I am a keen wind enthusiast and I want wind power to be one of the spokes in the renewable energy wheel that this country could run on. But when the Windsave saga finally comes to an end wind energy will have suffered greatly from the bad publicity that will arise from what is really a scam.
There have been many incarnations of the Windsave turbine. One of those incarnations has a boom connect to the tail, and I think that this one furled (it is the one on the A4 flyer, on sale for under £1000). Furling is the folding of the tail boom allowing the blades to turn out of the wind, which is what they naturally wish to do. This, if properly implemented, happens gradually as the wind increases. As the blades go through the 90 degrees of furling the first variable of the Betz theorum - area swept by the blades - decreases, and so the generator is not overloaded even though the seconded variable - the windspeed cubed - is increasing. So the turbine can carry on safely generating electricity. B&Q’s Windsave does not furl it cuts out. If the inverter just creates an open circuit there is no braking effect and your blades will over speed, wearing out the bearings of the generator. This is the cheap way to control the generator, much like a tv remote is now cheaper than knobs and buttons on the tv. (I do not think the remote is for convenience, considering the time spent looking for the damn thing)
Feathering (I think) is the altering of the pitch of the blades. This is used on some turbines, such as the Proven downwind turbine - a very good turbine. It is not used on a cheap turbine like Windsave’s, because it is quite complicated.
You might like to take a look at http://www.fieldlines.com. This site is more for the build you own enthusiast, but is has many knowledgable contributors who are used to building and running their own turbines. It’s not just a case of sticking something up a pole and sitting back to enjoy the glow got from saving the planet - NW London yesterday gives you some idea of the energy you will be tapping into in the near future.
Do, please let us know how things turn out, but I just want to make this last effort to urge you to save yours and our money until something more suitable comes along
December 8th, 2006 at 09:36:12
Does anyone have any real-world data from Renewable Devices Swift turbine?
I see there were two on the BP garage opposite Edinburgh that have now been removed. Was there any reason (poor yield perhaps etc) for their removal?
December 8th, 2006 at 13:41:14
I quote
“Thank you for the enquiry about the wind turbine at Largoward Primary
School. We were asked by Swift to trial the wind turbine for them - we
are (it would appear) in prime position - height and wind wise. We
have had a few teething troubles and are on about our third or fourth
turbine, but (touch wood) they seem to have got the troubles sorted and
it has enough puff to provide our hot water.”
Make of it what you will, or better still make one of your own, it’s bound to better.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:13:35
http://www.windenergy.com/documents/downloads/spec_sheets/Skystream_Spec_Sheet_lo.pdf
Direct connection to grid, tower and inverter included but pricey!
December 15th, 2006 at 13:45:29
ISTR certain places in the UK don’t allow downwind turbines for noise reasons.
January 4th, 2007 at 05:07:48
Speaking to someone there, they told me that they hadn’t been producing the amount of power they were meant to and had been taken away for “modification”.
Perhaps mounting turbines just above the lip of a roof is the problem? Certainly the support towers looked very short to me!
Incidentally, I also hear Tesco are putting up 3 x 20 metre turbines at the Glasgow St Rollox store, which they reckon will power the whole store.
January 9th, 2007 at 08:47:21
January 9th, 2007 at 15:35:22
I see that there is a lot of negative responses from experts about urbine turbines, but what about on skyscrapers? If the roof is a lot higher up than anything around it, it seems the wind is likely be good and if the turbines are micros they won’t harm the building the way a bigger turbine might. If these vertical axis turbines are good in turbulent winds, they seem more likely to be a good design for urban landscapes.
I am willing to assume that some of what these companies say is overhype, but there are just so many big buildings out there with wind just whistling over them.
January 10th, 2007 at 06:21:21
January 11th, 2007 at 13:11:57
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7231998734518073050&q=windsave&pr=goog-sl
-my Windsave doing the business!
:-))))))
January 12th, 2007 at 00:24:36
I have contacted our council for permission but need all the details which I will not have untill a survey has been carried out.so it looks as if I have reached a stalemate, but after reading all of these comments I am having second thoughts.Jan Pearson
January 12th, 2007 at 07:00:24
January 12th, 2007 at 07:59:38
im an objective renewable energy engineering student.
JAN PEARSON, from my experience, id say wait a bit, reassess the market in time for this autumns windy lovelyness. if you would like a detailed technical report about installing a windsave, which will MASSIVELY fastrack you planning application, i would be happy to give you my email adress.
this forum says to me that humans are such a silly race who will argue and try to pick holes in a technology, so crucial to our survival on earth, just to get one up on someone, or to look cool. its embarrasing.
OBJECTIVE renewable energy engineering student.
(Martin, in the absence of accredited third-party test data, you don’t know what you don’t know. 7m/s on a rooftop? One often struggles to get that in open air at 50-80m above ground level. And how do we know you are objective? We’ve only got your [subjective] opinion on it … —scruss)
January 13th, 2007 at 04:59:02
As you can see from my postings on this blog one of my concerns about this turbine is furling. When I saw the turbine at B&Q I gave the tail a push and it did not move. In your video the tail is wobbling about all over the place. Is this Windsave’s idea of furling or is it just a thing bought about by the video image? As Scruss says it is certainly not the way a wind turbine should furl. Perhaps you may have to go up the pole and tighten the bolts that hold the tail on.
January 22nd, 2007 at 09:29:43
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:15:35
If the instalation companies are installing the wind turbines in positions such as in a photo link on Paul Gipes site of course the output will be greatly affected. But this is not the fault of the wind turbine.
So is it the consensus that most contributors dont like the sales offensive by windsave, and that the main problem is the incorrect siting.
If people have time on there hands they can carry out there own measurement campaign (direction and wind speed) before purchasing. It does cost money but only a fraction of what it costs to buy the wind turbine, and for enthusaiasts it will be interesting (even that will be worth the money)
January 25th, 2007 at 05:03:59
Please keep us informed about your Windsave turbine, whether the news is good or bad. There is so little input from Windsave users to be found on the web.
I fear in your case what I predicted has come true; without a decent furling system your turbine cut out, freed from the braking effect of generating electricity it went into overspeed. Windsave says in FAQ 8 that it has a mechanical switch to stop this happening, but I guess that is as cheaply made as the rest of the turbine. In a couple of years time, one way or another, you will be paying for the call out you had to make.
But there are more frightening things to happen to a turbine than overspeeding. I have a test rotor up a mast that is only about 8ft high. It is 1 metre in diameter and has 6 blades, I have no alternator attached, so there is little weight on the top of the mast. The other day I came home to find a blade had broke, the rotor was then unbalanced and running rough. The whole thing was shuddering. Can you imagen what that would be like if it happened to your Windsave turbine. I have tried on this blog to impress on people how dangerous wind turbines can be in the wrong sort of weather. A person has got to be crazy to want to bolt a wind turbine to their house.
January 26th, 2007 at 11:51:28
February 5th, 2007 at 13:01:38
I guess there are too few installation for insurers to have a clear idea of who they can fob off liability onto. Just something to bear in mind.
March 9th, 2007 at 12:19:30
Renewable Devices claim that their installers, Southern Electric Contracting, cannot install them properly/ installed a demo part not intended for construction, leading to a tail failure in Edinburgh (fell off into the carpark).
Now 5 months on - no sign of new turbines.
SEC are claiming that it is a product problem - strange given that they bought 20% of Renewable Devices last year.
Latest date given for replacement (and upgraded) turbines is 6 months plus. Teriffic news given that the install cost circa £90k.
Beginning to sound like never to me……
March 10th, 2007 at 05:29:03
And I also want to see the top people of these companies that have consistently lied about their products to be brought to book.
March 29th, 2007 at 02:32:09
I am going to spend my money, some 5.5K, on insulating the external walls of my house. The reason being that all of the practical technologies of the other means of ‘going green’ are in their infancy and are a ’suck it and see’ means of saving, or making money. Am I right?
David
April 2nd, 2007 at 04:45:48
Finally if that is David H from Holywell, give me a ring to discuss wind technology.
Peter
April 10th, 2007 at 17:23:44
Oddly enough they are still flogging them via B&Q despite these problems. It seems to me that this new industry is making any sort of claims to flog their machines while its all the latest fad. Reminds me of the dodgy double glazing salesmen of the past.
Hopefully a company will emerge that can deliver economical microgeneration via wind turbines, but it seems its not happened yet.
April 11th, 2007 at 04:39:02
May 8th, 2007 at 08:10:28
May 9th, 2007 at 05:27:46
Wasn’t that free upgrade supposed to arrive in April? Windsave are keeping up their usual low standards of performance.
June 1st, 2007 at 10:26:41
June 7th, 2007 at 14:50:22
Howard
June 15th, 2007 at 06:56:35
Howard
June 20th, 2007 at 03:58:24
Fed up with Windsave and their lies, I can already here the pitter patter of the administrators feet rushing to Windsaves office.
My order went under ages ago, waiting for new parts, then no delivery of parts etc etc blah blah. (got a “fantastic” rave review on the bbc not so long back either as i remember) you have been warned.
June 28th, 2007 at 16:23:11
July 7th, 2007 at 07:14:36
July 9th, 2007 at 04:59:55
Windsave is not a new product, it is an electricity producing wind generator, and these have been around for decades. While being cheap, this has cause most of the problems that buyers of this product have experienced - like Robert’s post just above.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:13:48
The chief exec of windsave confirmed as much when backed into a corner on Panorama not so long ago.
Nice idea as it is, look to other energy producing measures which are proven ie: Solar Panels.
July 11th, 2007 at 13:46:09
Solar panels are a lot more expensive at about £5k per kilowatt and in an IDEAL position should produce 750kw per year. If a 1kw wind turbine was installed in an IDEAL position it would produce at least this for a lot less money. If your house is not in a good position dont buy a wind turbine and if you live in a dark forest dont buy solar..
July 12th, 2007 at 05:07:42
You would be hard pressed to find a better siting than the Windsave in this photo,
http://www.pbase.com/tim_bateman/image/73753972, but it is still only earning its owner 10p a day. If you know of a better siting where a Windsave turbine is earning its owner a good return, please give me details; this product has been on sale for three years, and I have yet to discover a moneysaving owner of one.
July 12th, 2007 at 07:51:53
I wouldn’t call that a well-sited wind turbine: right above a bluff wall, with the rest of its wind rose affected by the roof.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:11:50
No doubt it will be upgraded soon and produce more.
A lot of the people here should re read the brochure and take a reality check on what they have bought. If you want a turbine to produce a profit spend £20000 and get a 4-5kw model. I personally havent bought one of these i prefer to see how they go.
Who knows the real return may come when in the future you need some form of renewable energy source at your house before you sell it and houses that have add a premium..
July 13th, 2007 at 05:26:24
I don’t know if it was net or gross, but it was in the winter when the winds are generally higher. It may not be a good site for a wind tubine, but it is about the best for what the Windsave was designed for; gable end, and not too many houses around. A better siting could be obtained from an industrial building with perhaps a large car park in front, so the wind would not be obstructed; something like a B&Q store, have you seen any Windsaves sited like that?
Peter,
The first prototype Windsave with the AEG generator was made about August 2004. This gave Windsave plenty of time to test its product on houses and publish the results - something it never did. This link will give you an interview with Brian Wilson, who is making predictions of 2005 sales, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4013231.stm. So the turbine has been on sale for about two and a half years, long enough to deliver some money saving customers, where are they? Holly’s rant came from the experience of dealing with Windsave, A £1500 deposited at 5% would return about £65 net, better than the Windsave in the picture. You have completely the wrong idea on the money side of generating your own energy, it is not a question of profit, it is a question of pay-back time. Depending on siting, a good 6kw turbine, such as a Proven, could take over 12 years to pay off and then start making a profit. A Windsave will not last long enought to pay for itself, because it’s cheaply made.
Wind is just not the right sort of renewable energy for houses on the grid, and until PV becomes cheaper, which it will, just spend your money on the simple things that will save a little bit of cash.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:54:42
It will be a very long time before solar gets down to £1000 per kw installed.
I know you dont agree but it just shows that some people think about saving some cash and some about saving the planet..
July 14th, 2007 at 04:54:48
If you wish to save the planet by windpower, put your money here, http://www.baywind.co.uk/, they put their turbines where the wind really is, not where we wish it to be. PV manufacturers give a 20 year guarantee with their product, Windsave give only 2 years, and then you have to start paying for a maintainance contract, if you can find any company willing to take it on. In regards to the climate, the Windsave and any other turbine has to first pay off the amount of carbon emmisions it has taken to manufacture it, rooftop turbines will take ages to do this, the energy above the average house just isn’t there.
If you wish to put a bit of green bling above you house just to make yourself feel holier than thou about saving the planet, that’s fine with me, I just hope it’s fine with your neighbours, who have to put up with it.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:14:35
The install date of early March has constantly been slipped and I had to renew my grant application whilst waiting for the product ‘upgrade’ to be completed.
Today I was told that due to changes to the brackets, my property was no longer suitable and they’ve cancelled my order! No further explanation was offered.
August 8th, 2007 at 05:26:38
But do you believe what he says?
August 23rd, 2007 at 19:39:57