Another absurd example of urban wind ignorance

I came across this article today:

With one turbine up, others may follow

There is a lot of comment and discussion underneath the article. What I find striking and alarming is that nobody seems to notice that the tower is so short that the wind turbine is not being exposed to any wind. It makes me angry and sad to see small wind turbines of this sort, sited in this way, being held up as examples of the way forward. Anyone with any real knowledge and experience of small wind turbines knows that they need to be on tall towers above surrounding obstacles to work properly. This site is like putting a solar panel in the cellar. Also the turbine type is a VAWT which has huge problems but we can put that to one side since it is never going to produce any useful energy placed like that in any case.


About hugh

I live off-grid in NW Scotland and have spent my life playing with wind turbines. I also love small hydros. Hands on renewable energy is my thing and I like to learn and to share my experiences.
This entry was posted in Rooftop madness. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Another absurd example of urban wind ignorance

  1. admin says:

    I can never understand the logic for VAWTs. Yes a HAWT will struggle in this location but that does not make a VAWT a good choice. The wind is lacking, and the result will be disappointment whatever choice of blade configuration. Wind is free in a sense but those who know the wind are aware that you need a tall tower to reach it and that it comes at a price in terms of investment, so the energy you get is never actually free. In this case I would confidently predict that the energy would turn out very expensive indeed.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Surely, being a VAWT it will use gusts more efficiently than a HAWT. It is in an urban location with (probably) little direct constant direction wind so a VAWT would seem the best bet for the location. Given a good open space and room for a tall mast than HAWT everytime but in this location, hmmmm. VAWT does eem to make more sense. And all efficiencies aside, anything is better than nothing when we are talking about free wind energy.

  3. Scribhneoir says:

    Sorry but your optimism is misplaced – there is no way that "the bottom of this VAWT can possibly be 6 meters or more above the roof."can"
    and with the falling leaves in midwinter, this WT perhaps is not so few exposed ?
    The original article clearly says – "All have a base about 5 feet in diameter and are typically about 18 feet tall, shorter than most tree lines."
    It says a lot that they boast about it being shorter than the tree line.
    grrrr indeed

  4. Anonymous says:

    (excuse my english…I'm french :P)
    Well, due to the visual, I find it kinda hard to really get where this WT is placed .
    from what I see, it's standing back the house, and with the perspective of the extremity of this house, the bottom of this VAWT can possibly be 6 meters or more above the roof."can"
    and with the falling leaves in midwinter, this WT perhaps is not so few exposed ?
    Well, putting aside that a VAWT is deep hlhhgvlh…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *