Comments on: Small Wind Sucks, Test Finds http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/ Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More. Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:03:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1 By: wind turbine http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-6055 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:07:34 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-6055 This test has two problems. One is the low wind speed, this speed is lower than the common wind speed for small wind turbines. The second is that the wind turbines in the test are not small wind turbines, most of them are mini wind turbines. Small wind turbines is usually from 3kw to 20kw.

]]> By: wind turbine http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23766 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:07:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23766 This test has two problems. One is the low wind speed, this speed is lower than the common wind speed for small wind turbines. The second is that the wind turbines in the test are not small wind turbines, most of them are mini wind turbines. Small wind turbines is usually from 3kw to 20kw.

]]> By: wind turbine http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23767 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:07:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23767 This test has two problems. One is the low wind speed, this speed is lower than the common wind speed for small wind turbines. The second is that the wind turbines in the test are not small wind turbines, most of them are mini wind turbines. Small wind turbines is usually from 3kw to 20kw.

]]> By: windmafia http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-6054 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:51:21 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-6054 8.5 mph? That’s 3.8 m/s = no responsible wind installer would suggest using a small wind system in less than 5 m/s.

This whole test is like putting a solar panel in the shade and then bitching that it doesn’t produce.e

dumb asses…

small wind works when properly sited – otherwise, it’ll suck as bad as this article.

windmafia

]]> By: windmafia http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23763 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:51:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23763 8.5 mph? That’s 3.8 m/s = no responsible wind installer would suggest using a small wind system in less than 5 m/s.

This whole test is like putting a solar panel in the shade and then bitching that it doesn’t produce.e

dumb asses…

small wind works when properly sited – otherwise, it’ll suck as bad as this article.

windmafia

]]> By: windmafia http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23764 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:51:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23764 8.5 mph? That’s 3.8 m/s = no responsible wind installer would suggest using a small wind system in less than 5 m/s.

This whole test is like putting a solar panel in the shade and then bitching that it doesn’t produce.e

dumb asses…

small wind works when properly sited – otherwise, it’ll suck as bad as this article.

windmafia

]]> By: windmafia http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23765 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:51:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23765 8.5 mph? That’s 3.8 m/s = no responsible wind installer would suggest using a small wind system in less than 5 m/s.

This whole test is like putting a solar panel in the shade and then bitching that it doesn’t produce.e

dumb asses…

small wind works when properly sited – otherwise, it’ll suck as bad as this article.

windmafia

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-6053 Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:56:18 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-6053 True, the smaller they are, the more inefficient.

Once you get to the 16 foot rotor size you are only about twice the cost of solar, and at some point between that size and the municipal scale wind is that point at which wind becomes cheaper than solar.

The study had many surprises, that’s why I found it interesting.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23759 Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:56:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23759 True, the smaller they are, the more inefficient.

Once you get to the 16 foot rotor size you are only about twice the cost of solar, and at some point between that size and the municipal scale wind is that point at which wind becomes cheaper than solar.

The study had many surprises, that’s why I found it interesting.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23760 Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:56:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23760 True, the smaller they are, the more inefficient.

Once you get to the 16 foot rotor size you are only about twice the cost of solar, and at some point between that size and the municipal scale wind is that point at which wind becomes cheaper than solar.

The study had many surprises, that’s why I found it interesting.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23761 Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:56:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23761 True, the smaller they are, the more inefficient.

Once you get to the 16 foot rotor size you are only about twice the cost of solar, and at some point between that size and the municipal scale wind is that point at which wind becomes cheaper than solar.

The study had many surprises, that’s why I found it interesting.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23762 Sun, 02 Aug 2009 01:56:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23762 True, the smaller they are, the more inefficient.

Once you get to the 16 foot rotor size you are only about twice the cost of solar, and at some point between that size and the municipal scale wind is that point at which wind becomes cheaper than solar.

The study had many surprises, that’s why I found it interesting.

]]> By: Robert Stannard http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-6052 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:27:28 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-6052 In writing this article Susan Kraemer seems to have gone for sensationalist headline over substance. The comparison given for costings between solar and wind power have been heavily biased towards solar. Why quantify the usage of ten of one of the worst examples listed in her own alternatives for wind power, the Ampaire 600 which produces 20kWh a month at $12,710 each and not the Skystream at $15,149 which makes 176 kWh a month or the Montana (16 foot rotor) which costs $26,359 and makes 224 kwh a month. To portray the Ampaire x10 as the representative option for wind power which then results in the disproportionate price differentials that she states is a ridiculous way to arrive at a conclusion when other alternatives are available. In her list of alternatives for wind power there are eight models noted but when it comes to the solar option she mentions just a cursory statement of “Solar? About $15,000″ with no list of manufacturers/models. I have been pricing the possibility of both solar and wind power installations recently and there is just as wide a variance of prices/output in solar as she has listed in wind power so why has this not been noted in the same fashion?

If we add to this the comments of Mr David Sharman of Ampair regarding the unsuitability of the test site and the restrictive/inappropriate format of the test, then it negates the value of the article in it’s current form. This is before Mr Sharman points out the relative values of the Ampair 600 & 6000 models and their intended usage/market. The manner in which the data was gathered with the parameters used for the testing having been flawed and the unbalanced way in which the conclusions were arrived at makes this article worthless. I believe that anyone writing such an article should remember the old adage of “Lies, damn lies and statistics” before drawing their conclusions, figures can be made to say just about anything the individual/organisation wants them to.

]]> By: Robert Stannard http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23755 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:27:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23755 In writing this article Susan Kraemer seems to have gone for sensationalist headline over substance. The comparison given for costings between solar and wind power have been heavily biased towards solar. Why quantify the usage of ten of one of the worst examples listed in her own alternatives for wind power, the Ampaire 600 which produces 20kWh a month at $12,710 each and not the Skystream at $15,149 which makes 176 kWh a month or the Montana (16 foot rotor) which costs $26,359 and makes 224 kwh a month. To portray the Ampaire x10 as the representative option for wind power which then results in the disproportionate price differentials that she states is a ridiculous way to arrive at a conclusion when other alternatives are available. In her list of alternatives for wind power there are eight models noted but when it comes to the solar option she mentions just a cursory statement of “Solar? About $15,000″ with no list of manufacturers/models. I have been pricing the possibility of both solar and wind power installations recently and there is just as wide a variance of prices/output in solar as she has listed in wind power so why has this not been noted in the same fashion?

If we add to this the comments of Mr David Sharman of Ampair regarding the unsuitability of the test site and the restrictive/inappropriate format of the test, then it negates the value of the article in it’s current form. This is before Mr Sharman points out the relative values of the Ampair 600 & 6000 models and their intended usage/market. The manner in which the data was gathered with the parameters used for the testing having been flawed and the unbalanced way in which the conclusions were arrived at makes this article worthless. I believe that anyone writing such an article should remember the old adage of “Lies, damn lies and statistics” before drawing their conclusions, figures can be made to say just about anything the individual/organisation wants them to.

]]> By: Robert Stannard http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23756 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:27:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23756 In writing this article Susan Kraemer seems to have gone for sensationalist headline over substance. The comparison given for costings between solar and wind power have been heavily biased towards solar. Why quantify the usage of ten of one of the worst examples listed in her own alternatives for wind power, the Ampaire 600 which produces 20kWh a month at $12,710 each and not the Skystream at $15,149 which makes 176 kWh a month or the Montana (16 foot rotor) which costs $26,359 and makes 224 kwh a month. To portray the Ampaire x10 as the representative option for wind power which then results in the disproportionate price differentials that she states is a ridiculous way to arrive at a conclusion when other alternatives are available. In her list of alternatives for wind power there are eight models noted but when it comes to the solar option she mentions just a cursory statement of “Solar? About $15,000″ with no list of manufacturers/models. I have been pricing the possibility of both solar and wind power installations recently and there is just as wide a variance of prices/output in solar as she has listed in wind power so why has this not been noted in the same fashion?

If we add to this the comments of Mr David Sharman of Ampair regarding the unsuitability of the test site and the restrictive/inappropriate format of the test, then it negates the value of the article in it’s current form. This is before Mr Sharman points out the relative values of the Ampair 600 & 6000 models and their intended usage/market. The manner in which the data was gathered with the parameters used for the testing having been flawed and the unbalanced way in which the conclusions were arrived at makes this article worthless. I believe that anyone writing such an article should remember the old adage of “Lies, damn lies and statistics” before drawing their conclusions, figures can be made to say just about anything the individual/organisation wants them to.

]]> By: Robert Stannard http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23757 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:27:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23757 In writing this article Susan Kraemer seems to have gone for sensationalist headline over substance. The comparison given for costings between solar and wind power have been heavily biased towards solar. Why quantify the usage of ten of one of the worst examples listed in her own alternatives for wind power, the Ampaire 600 which produces 20kWh a month at $12,710 each and not the Skystream at $15,149 which makes 176 kWh a month or the Montana (16 foot rotor) which costs $26,359 and makes 224 kwh a month. To portray the Ampaire x10 as the representative option for wind power which then results in the disproportionate price differentials that she states is a ridiculous way to arrive at a conclusion when other alternatives are available. In her list of alternatives for wind power there are eight models noted but when it comes to the solar option she mentions just a cursory statement of “Solar? About $15,000″ with no list of manufacturers/models. I have been pricing the possibility of both solar and wind power installations recently and there is just as wide a variance of prices/output in solar as she has listed in wind power so why has this not been noted in the same fashion?

If we add to this the comments of Mr David Sharman of Ampair regarding the unsuitability of the test site and the restrictive/inappropriate format of the test, then it negates the value of the article in it’s current form. This is before Mr Sharman points out the relative values of the Ampair 600 & 6000 models and their intended usage/market. The manner in which the data was gathered with the parameters used for the testing having been flawed and the unbalanced way in which the conclusions were arrived at makes this article worthless. I believe that anyone writing such an article should remember the old adage of “Lies, damn lies and statistics” before drawing their conclusions, figures can be made to say just about anything the individual/organisation wants them to.

]]> By: Robert Stannard http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23758 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:27:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23758 In writing this article Susan Kraemer seems to have gone for sensationalist headline over substance. The comparison given for costings between solar and wind power have been heavily biased towards solar. Why quantify the usage of ten of one of the worst examples listed in her own alternatives for wind power, the Ampaire 600 which produces 20kWh a month at $12,710 each and not the Skystream at $15,149 which makes 176 kWh a month or the Montana (16 foot rotor) which costs $26,359 and makes 224 kwh a month. To portray the Ampaire x10 as the representative option for wind power which then results in the disproportionate price differentials that she states is a ridiculous way to arrive at a conclusion when other alternatives are available. In her list of alternatives for wind power there are eight models noted but when it comes to the solar option she mentions just a cursory statement of “Solar? About $15,000″ with no list of manufacturers/models. I have been pricing the possibility of both solar and wind power installations recently and there is just as wide a variance of prices/output in solar as she has listed in wind power so why has this not been noted in the same fashion?

If we add to this the comments of Mr David Sharman of Ampair regarding the unsuitability of the test site and the restrictive/inappropriate format of the test, then it negates the value of the article in it’s current form. This is before Mr Sharman points out the relative values of the Ampair 600 & 6000 models and their intended usage/market. The manner in which the data was gathered with the parameters used for the testing having been flawed and the unbalanced way in which the conclusions were arrived at makes this article worthless. I believe that anyone writing such an article should remember the old adage of “Lies, damn lies and statistics” before drawing their conclusions, figures can be made to say just about anything the individual/organisation wants them to.

]]> By: Sandy Henderson http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-6051 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:58:26 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-6051 Not wishin to hogg things but there is a good reason why small wind is less efficient – it’s easier for relatively more of the wind to deflect round the edges and not have it’s speed reduced. It’s a scale thing, just like a large field needs less fencing per unit area than a small one.Even in most of Scotland( not noted as a sunny place ) the annual amount of solar radiation striking a flat square meter exceeds 700 kilowatt hours. Presently it is more cost effective to use this for heating purposes.

]]> By: Sandy Henderson http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-23754 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:58:00 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-23754 Not wishin to hogg things but there is a good reason why small wind is less efficient – it’s easier for relatively more of the wind to deflect round the edges and not have it’s speed reduced. It’s a scale thing, just like a large field needs less fencing per unit area than a small one.Even in most of Scotland( not noted as a sunny place ) the annual amount of solar radiation striking a flat square meter exceeds 700 kilowatt hours. Presently it is more cost effective to use this for heating purposes.

]]> By: Sandy Henderson http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-6050 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 09:33:45 +0000 http://cleantechnica.com/?p=2964#comment-6050 Not only is the above conclusion that most small wind turbines are expensive toys, but the big boys are on the wrong track as well. None of them get much cheaper than about £1000 per kilowatt rated capacity, which makes them ten times more expensive than diesel powered generators of the same output. Catching the wind should not be that dear.The mistake made by the aerospace engineers who first went down the route of horizontal axis machines was to assume that aerodynamic efficiency equated directly with cost per kilowatt hour. Any machine that has to survive and operate cheaply outdoors has to be cheap to maintain and fail safe wherever possible. The large horizontal axis machines fail on both counts. Worse still those deployed offshore cost twice as much but do not produce twice the energy, and they are inaccessible for more than 10% of the time ( which makes them a poor insurance risk). Savonious type vertical axis wind turbines, are much less efficient at peak efficiency, but produce useful power over a wider range and can be made much cheaper. In Scotland some of the mobile phone masts are disguised as trees and are often difficult to spot. It is entirely possible to construct a vertical axis wind turbine mostly made from coloured galvanised sheet steel, with the generators at, or near ground level, about the size, shape, and appearance of a tree,that would have a rated output in the 5 to 10 kw range and cost less than £1000 per kilowatt output. These turbines could blend in well with the countryside, be quieter, safer for birds and bats, scale up readily, and use off the shelf components readily available. Anyone who spends the large sums quoted for the small horizontal axis machines would be better off spending it on therapy. regards Sandy

]]>