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. Sat, 26 May 2012 00:15:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: wind turbine http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/#comment-6055 wind turbine 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. 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 wind turbine 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. 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 wind turbine 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. 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 windmafia 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 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 windmafia 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 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 windmafia 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 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 windmafia 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 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 Susan Kraemer 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. 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 Susan Kraemer 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. 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 Susan Kraemer 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. 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 Susan Kraemer 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. 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 Susan Kraemer 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. 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 Robert Stannard 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. 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 Robert Stannard 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. 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 Robert Stannard 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. 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.

]]>