07 Aug 2008
They may have been pilloried in the press as a prime example of ineffective greenwash, but small-scale wind turbines could provide electricity that is cheaper than that drawn from the grid for large numbers of homes and businesses across rural Britain.
That is the conclusion of a major new report released today by the Carbon Trust, the Met Office and engineering consultancy Entec, which argues that while many wind turbines installed in urban areas will struggle to offset the carbon emissions associated with their manufacturer those sited in more open, rural locations could deliver significant carbon savings.
The report calculates that if just 10 per cent of those households that could install turbines with the average grid electricity price of 12p per kWh then the UK could generate 1.5 Terawatt Hours (TWh) of green electricity a year saving 600,000 tonnes of carbon emissions.
"The aim was to clarify the potential there is with small-scale wind," explained John Callaghan, senior technology acceleration manager at the Carbon Trust. "We certainly think that it has a role to play, particularly in more rural environments."
The report features a guide to help businesses assess whether their location could be suitable for wind turbines. "In many ways the location you pick is more important than the turbine design," explained Callaghan. "You are looking for an open location with good wind speeds and the higher you can get the turbine the better."
The report also sets out a number of new policy proposals designed to help encourage uptake of small-scale wind turbines. In particular, it calls for new criteria for the government's renewable energy grants to ensure that only turbines installed in appropriate locations are supported and advocates a relaxing of planning rules that would allow turbines more than 11m tall to be installed without planning permission.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT ENERGY
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
The best green companies in the UK should be preparing their entries for annual BusinessGreen Leaders Awards
INSIGHT
INSIGHT
The science and practical application of an improved method for the specification of power and cooling infrastructure for data centres
A look at alternative approaches to managing energy for cost and/or sustainability reasons in data centres
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
MICRO WIND
If a building in a city has connection to the power grid, there is no way the cost of a small wind turbine can be recovered. The subsidies cannot be recovered and such subsidies are distorting the market for low cost and low carbon power. In the developed world the most economical and most rapid way to reduce CO2 release and generate electricity is to use large and small integrated cogeneration units. If natural gas is available, cogeneration units should be mandatory for any building that considers itself ecologically friendly. There is no logical reason to burn natural gas without producing electricity at the same time. No central power plants without cogeneration should be allowed to burn natural gas. Homes and Businesses should get natural gas rates for their cogenerators that are similar to large cogeneration or gas turbine units. Wind turbine promoters of all sizes always mention the peak ratings to mislead the public and purchasers. The only thing that should be mentioned is a guaranteed yearly output for the site or at least the average output of all turbines of that type sold. A sealed not resetable microchip should be required for wind turbines of any size to measure the total lifetime actual output of the machine similar to the odometer in the car. In fact car engines should have a similar microchip. Without including the grid transportation costs and without considering the CO2 cost and the capital cost of replacement power for wind turbines, the companies that sell them and the politicians and others that promote them are decieving the public. Wind turbines would have very high costs for CO2 and capital if the maximum advertized capacity of the turbine had to be ensured by a gas turbine or engine generator owned and operated at the turbine site by the turbine owner. At least the tubine owner should be required to pay and report all of the CO2 costs and capital costs associated with replacement electricity up to the full advertised capacity of the machine. The total of a nations CO2 wind power and capital costs should always include such figures. I hydro, fuel or nuclear power is imported to make up for wind failure, the average CO2 releases of that exporting country and the capital costs should be included in the reported figures for capital and CO2 costs for wind power for that year. Otherwise wind turbine advantages are based on false figures. No country would allow oil well towers or identical heighth and weight to be placed and kept on and off shore where wind turbine towers now are and are now proposed. Nuclear power is the only low carbon way to produce the energy needed for a country at low cost. There is not a sincle nation, including the smallest island nation, that does not have the space to store with adequate safety all of the fission products that have ever been produced by all of the nuclear reactors of the world. They also have room to store a hundred times as much or more. Nuclear "waste" placed in large gravel pits and covered with twenty feet of earth is far safer than allowing cigarettes to be smoked or cars to be driven. Malaria would kill far more people and make far more area unproductive over the next hundred years than all of the nuclear "waste" piled in a big pile. ..HG..
Posted by Henry Gibson, 04 May 2009
It's not a "pole", it's a tower you need, sir.
Quite right. The thrust of the argument is that urban wind turbines are a waste of time as you can't get the wind speeds required so close to lots of buildings so you need to get the turbine up into clear air. This means 10m above the ground or other turbulence causing obstacles. So in an area of typical two storey housing that means a tower 10m *higher* than the surrounding houses or some 17-20m high. Last time I looked at the size of the average suburban garden, this kind of construction would have been infeasible and very unpopular. Solar is the way to go in a dense urban area. Wind makes sense if you've got some space spare in the top paddock with no trees. There you can get away with a 10m tower to get you clear of the ground effect. There's a reason why "proper" wind farms are built in the middle of nowhere with 100m towers. The only urban sites that might work are multi-storey blocks but then I doubt they are built strong enough to take the huge loading forces that putting a wind turbine on their roof will create in a storm.
Posted by AccordGuy, 13 Jan 2009
11m tall
Is this serious? 11m is a very tall generator. What sort of pole would be needed? What are the energy implications of such a pole??
Posted by Stephen Williams, 07 Aug 2008