‘Flat Pack’ Turbine Aims to Boost City Wind Power

July 13th, 2012 by Nicholas Brown

Vertical Axis Wind Turbine on Liverpool Front.

Keele University recently had a new “flat pack” wind turbine installed on its campus. It is intended to address the problems that wind turbine setups have in urban areas.

McCamley UK installed the turbine, which is the first of that product line to be installed in the UK, but previously, a prototype of the turbine was installed in Bulgaria. It is a vertical-axis wind turbine (VAWT) that has an electricity generation capacity of 1,000 watts (1 kilowatt).

The chief executive of McCamley, Scott Elliot, said that he hopes this new wind turbine would be able to fill a gap in the wind industry for wind turbines that operate in towns and cities.

Field trials have shown that the turbine starts generating electricity at a low wind speed of 1.8 metres per second (4 mph, or 3.5 knots), and a self-regulating system enables the turbine to safely operate at high wind speeds as well without damage caused by excessive stress.

Cities are not usually very windy, and this makes it difficult for wind turbines to pay for themselves in these locations. McCamley claims their new turbine design addresses this issue.

Buildings tend to obstruct wind, and cities tend to be populated with many buildings. Despite this, buildings can, in some cases increase wind speed via the Venturi effect. The Venturi effect takes place when a high-pressure fluid, such as air, is forced through a pathway that reduces its pressure, but increases its velocity (speed).

A simple example of the Venturi effect is a squirt nozzle. It basically exchanges pressure in favour of velocity. The stream of the fluid that is subjected to the speed increase is actually narrowed in the process.

“Wind energy has huge potential in the UK, but the traditional wind farm models are just not effective and are certainly not suitable for urban environments,” said Elliott. “This leaves a huge gap in the market where businesses, residential blocks and other organisations could be benefiting from clean energy.”

VAWTs are normally less economical than HAWTs (horizontal axis wind turbines). There is the possibility that this could change, but if so, we’ve got a long way to go. Still, VAWTs can tap wind on smaller scales and be useful to individual homeowners or businesses without the resources or space to install a HAWT or more.

This turbine arrives in “flat pack” storable parts and does not have to be installed using a mast.

Source: Keele University
Photo Credit: Sarah Grice

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Keele University, VAWT, VAWTs, vertical axis wind turbines, zero emissions generators

About the Author

Nicholas Brown writes on CleanTechnica, Gas2, Kleef&Co, and Green Building Elements. He has a keen interest in physics-intensive topics such as electricity generation, refrigeration and air conditioning technology, energy storage, and geography. His website is: Kompulsa.com.

Conrad Clement

All this fierce argumentation without even once mentioning the main advantage of this type of spiralled Darrieus concept, which is its extremely low noise level. The only hint at this key advantage in city areas is given by citing the company name Quiet Revolution, which the author doesn,t even seem to have stated on purpose…
- Bob_Wallace
  
  If you can’t demonstrate that the device creates electricity at an attractive price everything else becomes irrelevant.
  
  Who is going to install something that doesn’t work because it’s quite?
  
  Here’s something to consider. Wind turbines may have no place in urban areas. Urban winds are not smooth and steady due to the infrastructure we place there. The good, really usable wind is up high, along ridge lines, offshore.
  
  Solar, waste heat recovery – those we can install in urban areas.
Dave2020

OK Bob . . . .

I think you know from previous posts that I will probably never be in a position to furnish the data you demand, which is why you ask for it. A professor at a university school of engineering said to me, “I love ideas that challenge the orthodoxy.” but she was denied any funds to help me prototype a design.

The Chief Designer, Dynamics, at a world-class motorsport concern (WRC & F1) was taken aback when shown the same proof-of-concept model, but he soon regained his composure and invented several implausible reasons for not believing the evidence of his own eyes. He asked me to pay £5k to ‘research’ the data. The evidence was the same – the attitude of mind couldn’t be more different.

“Please don’t make statements such as – Once people pay attention to design science, HAWTs will be dead in the water.”

Why not? It’s my right to free speech. That’s why we’re here isn’t it? My ideas would only challenge the orthodoxy if they’re a plausible alternative. If there is no data, you can dismiss my comments as wild speculation, if that makes you feel better. If there was data, wouldn’t you seek to discredit it anyway?
- Bob_Wallace
  
  If you had reliable data you would be credible. And I would support. I have no dog in the fight. I simply don’t like to see people make unsupported statements and mislead others.
  
  Thing is, “design science” is not data. You’re making claims based on words, not data.
Bob_Wallace

“We usually have to wait until this stuff is deployed, before any third party can gain access to do their studies.”

It’s common for companies to send their product to independent labs when their own data might not be readily accepted. These folks aren’t even furninshing data that they have gathered aside from saying “we saw it turning around in the wind”.

Please don’t make statements such as ” Once people pay attention to design science, HAWTs will be dead in the water.” unless you can bring the data.
Bob_Wallace

I’m developing an intolerance for whirligigs.

How about no more articles on these things unless they include third party testing data which proves that they actually generate electricity at a reasonable cost?

” (S)tarts generating electricity at a low wind speed of 1.8 metres per second (4 mph, or 3.5 knots)” is as meaningless as that article that talked about chairs that generate electricity from harvested butt heat.
- Dave2020
  
  The claims relate to the McCamley turbine,
  
  http://www.mccamley.com/
  
  which isn’t a whirligig, as you can see.
  
  There’s no shortage of articles where people make optimistic claims for their new products. It’s called marketing. But, as with many other projects, these guys work in partnership with a university, which helps to keep them honest. Why be intolerant of just this article Bob?
  
  These turbines are specifically designed for the urban environment, where they seem to work quite well – horses for courses. If they don’t give a decent return they won’t sell.
  - Bob_Wallace
    
    Do you see any third party test data on that link you used?
    
    Where is your data that these turbines work “quite well”?
    
    The fact that they can be seen to spin when the wind blows does not rise the level of useful data.
Dave2020

Quiet Revolution have been making this type of VAWT (pictured) for five years.

http://www.quietrevolution.com/qr5-turbine.htm

More recently:-

“UK installer Sitec has already purchased 100 models, and Ward said that the company’s factory at Pembroke Dock in Wales is “ramping up production” prior to the technology’s full release, rising from nine turbines a month to 30.”

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2120234/quietrevolution-ready-noise-turbine

Ward admitted that, like many start-ups, the business is in a “financially tight” position, despite support from German energy giant RWE, which bought a £6m stake in the company in 2008.

“If you’re trying to attract investors into the market, it’s very difficult when the goalposts keep moving. They’re silly buggers. The government has these carbon targets to meet and here’s an industry trying to help them … but we can’t get anything done,” he said.

Slow revolution ain’t it. The neoliberal nuts say that ‘markets’ will deliver the best solutions. Gimme a break! Markets are reactive. They can’t and never should determine the future.

Now consider this; a paradigm shift in the method of ‘power regulation’ would capture the energy in high wind speeds, instead of letting it go to waste. Once people pay attention to design science, HAWTs will be dead in the water.