New Study Says City-Based Rooftop Wind Power Doesn’t Pay Off
A new study put out by the UK’s Carbon Trust reports that domestic windmills in urban locations are actually net carbon emitters, as more energy goes into their production, shipping, and maintenance than is saved by their use.
Additionally, the study notes that home wind power could only provide .4% of UK electricity consumption and will only save .6 million tons of carbon dioxide. For reference, the Carbon Trust says that 1.5 TWh could be produced annually using urban windmills—and the UK used 2,700 TWh of energy in 2006.
The reason why urban windmills aren’t useful is fairly simple. The Carbon Trust explains that small wind turbines require open, exposed locations that have high wind speeds. These locations are usually found in rural areas, which can produce nine times more wind energy than urban areas. Since the output from urban windmills is low, the cost of the resulting energy ends up being high.
But while wind energy may not be the way to go in cities, that doesn’t mean that urban homes can’t make use of alternative energies. Solar power is becoming increasingly popular, and plenty of cities around the world get more than enough sunshine to utilize it effectively.
Additionally, transmission lines can deliver wind power from rural areas to urban areas. So if you’re really stuck on powering your apartment or townhouse with wind, the future isn’t entirely bleak.
More Posts on Wind Power:
- Wind-Powered Tall Ships Are Once Again Important As Oil Prices Hurt Trade
- Kites Could Become Major Source Of Wind Power
- Texas To Build Wind Power Superhighway
- The Five Best Micro Wind Turbines
- Vertical-Axis Wind Turbines: The Future of Micro Wind?
I don’t know if I’d call 1.5 terawatts “measly.” I wonder if this just looks at traditional horizontal-axis turbines or if it also looks at vertical axis turbines and the non-traditional horizontal ones (the ones that look like paddle-wheels).
I suppose I could read it and find out.
Yeah, I’m not sure I buy this study. I guess I’m biased living in San Francisco, which is like a giant wind tunnel. Just like any piece of renewable tech, it’s going to work really well some places and not in others.
Good point on that one…I’ll revise it.
[...] Carbon Trust reports that domestic windmills in urban locations are actually net carbon emitters. read more | digg [...]
New Study Says Rooftop Wind Turbines Don\’t Pay Off | nerdd.net…
\r\nA new study put out by the UKs Carbon Trust reports that domestic windmills in urban locations a…
I’m sure in some, if not many urban places in the UK, the net result is a carbon emission, but if it works well in a windy place, it’s still a good thing. I’d have one if I was living near the sea, for example. Horses for courses.
Yeah, I’m not convinced solar is as big an opportunity here in the UK as it is elsewhere in the world, more’s the pity. And the missing tiles on my roof are testament to our potential wind energy. So, disappointing stuff.
This is not new. REAL scientists have been saying this for more than a decade. I have books from the 1970’s that say this. I did a report at RIT for a thermodynamics class on the subject.
Bigger wind turbines are needed for overall useful output. But bigger is more dangerous. Also, the reverberations would shake a building.
But starting to invest in a technology so it can grow it a good step.
Did anyone think of … Chicago?
Ever seen a skyscraper? Ever felt the wind blowing up the sides of one of those puppies, or at the top of it?
The problem is lack of engineering creativity, not a lack of wind. What if a series of small turbines ran all the way up the sides of a skyscraper, with a large turbine at the very top? Pool all the small energy gains together and trickle it up. I bet the whole building would be completely self sufficient.