Power your School portables'

[Paul Bailey]

But will that windmill (looks like and H80 whisper ) produce 1.1Kw in an hour with this siteing???? See this link (http://wellandtribune.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1645300)

Also as wev'e noted in prior posts here ,they are breaking ALOT is the rules of siteing and placement for Clean non turbulant air, Safety ,since its real close to the gound and possible Pole mounted to the backside of the portable itself thus inducing noise and the list goes on and on. These types of installs make a Green statement of intent of good effort for there actions but end up giving properly applied and installed systems a bad wrap. Thats alot of $$ for the actual money there going to save as they quote a 3 year payback of the $12,000 retrofit where as in reality its along ways away from that. Paul

[Rob Beckers]

Not sure whether to laugh, cry, or just be happy when reading this... (Or maybe all three?!) :sick:

Clearly either the reporter got all his numbers wrong, or (worse) the people that are behind this installation are clueless. The first clue as to the clue-less-ness should be that they're confusing power and energy, and if you're going to talk about payback that's a bad one to mix up.

The happy part is that it is good to see a school invest in renewable energy, and do so in a way that's hands-on, so students get engaged. Projects like these serve as a powerful introduction at a stage in kid's life when they're open to new ideas. It can be used to introduce concepts such as climate change, pollution, energy production, and conservation. That's all good.

Reading how their itty-bitty turbine (yeah, it does look like an H80 or similar, and that's a 1kW @ 12.5 m/s turbine) is supposed to produce, presumably, 11 kWh each hour is laughable. Even at rated power it'll only make 1 kWh per hour, and that will only happen with a storm blowing 45 km/h or 28 mph. How often is that going to happen 15 feet off the ground just over a building?

I sincerely hope that they are fully aware that their turbine is placed, eh, less than optimal (to put it politely). That their project is meant as a demonstration, to show the principle, rather than something practical. I hope too that they are aware of proper turbine siting rules (http://www.solacity.com/SiteSelection.htm), so they can tell their students "our turbine is not meant as an example of how a windmill should be installed". I hope too that no students will be forced to study in that building during a windy day. Being bolted to a glorified shipping container it must make quite a racket.

The solar panels are likely 360 Watt total rated. It would make sense, 4 modules @ 90W each. The angle looks a bit off from optimal. For southern Ontario it should be around 45 degrees for maximum annual production (if you want to maximize payback). Hopefully someone told them that it takes sun for those things to work, so there's not a whole lot of energy being produced at night and they may fall (far) short of that 360 Watt-per-hour. :blink1:

What makes me want to cry is their payback calculation. This really misinforms people and leads to unrealistic expectations (and unhappy customers). Not counting subsidies and other funding, a system like this has a payback time measured in decades. As in 5 or so decades (if that turbine will ever pay for itself, they would need to be in a very, very windy spot for that to happen). This is just not going to happen. Reading the article I looks like these people were misled by an unscrupulous sales person: There's no way this little system is going to even make a dent in the cooling needs of a poorly insulated portable in summer. Do they even know how many Watts it takes to light up a classroom?

There you have it. Now I know some people will read this and blame me for not cheerleading the advance of renewable energy, any form or installation thereof. I believe in properly informing people, so they know how things work, what to expect, and especially, what is realistic. I can only hope that the information in the article reflects the reporter's lack of understanding, and the people involved in the project know of its many limitations.

-RoB-

[Joe Blake]

And did you read this little gem?

Energy produced by the wind and sun come into the portable as a direct current and is stored in four direct current batteries. A convertor converts the energy to an alternating current which is fed back to the main hydro panel in the portable.

Firstly, has somebody (re)invented the A/C battery? Secondly, whilst it's an understandable error if you don't know what an INverter is, hopefully the journalist would have run the article past someone "in the know" before printing.

Whilst it is good to see a group making very real steps in the area of renewable energy, the very unreal expectations inherent in this article are very unhelpful indeed.

4/10. Needs to try harder.

Joe

[Dave Turpin]

It has been nearly three years since this article was written.

Perhaps someone in Ontario should contact the news agency and see if they will do a recap? See if they really made their 3-year payback period.... (which I am sure was based on the turbine somehow producing 11x its rated output)

[Rob Beckers]

Dave, great idea! Give 'm a call... Let us know. :)
I wonder if their turbine is still running.

-RoB-

[Peter Klaassen]

When I sail by this school I look at how this turbine is fairing. From our view at Lock 8 in Port Colborne it seems to be a poor set up and this past month it looked like the furling had failed - it was sort of pointed up towards the sky. I would guess that their pay back has not panned out as far as the wind turbine is concerned. As Rob says, it is a shame that they didn't site it better. I have to say there are some breezy days when we come in off Lake Erie and wish there was less wind blowing us sideways through the Piers. Last trip downbound we had 25 to 30 knots WNW'ly at the piers but much less at Lock 8. The turbine was lazily spinning at the sky. For wind it is all about Location, Location, Location.
Pete Klaassen
from the Lake Freighters