Board logo

Wind turbine for workshop/garage lights an radio
scotty g - 4/1/08 at 11:21 AM

Hi all, not too far off finishing my workshop next to the garage, i will probably be running some cable down the garden for power tools etc but in the interests of being green, doing my bit for the environment and all that i was thinking of setting up a wind turbine to at least power the lights, radio, mini fridge etc.
Does anyone know a good site to find out more , maybe a DIY version?
Cheers.


nitram38 - 4/1/08 at 11:25 AM

Not a locost option, as well as a turbine you will need a UPS (uninterupted power supply) which basically stores energy via batteries for when the wind drops or a static switch that changes the supply to the mains.
B & Q do a set up for £1500, but I don't know what else it includes in the kit.


billynomates - 4/1/08 at 11:30 AM

Not worth the investment. If your really that concerned about saving the planet, sell the project and buy a mountain bike.


bbwales - 4/1/08 at 11:45 AM

I have seen a small system where a guy built his own using a bank of car batteries a 90 amp alternator (24V) from an army landrover (FFR) and the blades were small he then used an inverter to give 240 volts where required. This installation I have to say was in a hotel and powered most of the equipment in the hotel.

Regards

Bob


Avoneer - 4/1/08 at 12:08 PM

Yeah, but the price of the technonly would take 30 years to break even!

Even better, sell the project and buy a mountain bike (as mentioned) and hook it up to a battery via a belt and you can get fit and power everything in your garage at the same time.

Pat...


Guinness - 4/1/08 at 12:14 PM

http://www.navitron.org.uk/

Is your man. They supplied all the gear to Dick Strawbridge for "it's not easy being green" as far as I know.

The 2 panel solar water kit with all the bits is £1500 from Navitron. A single kit with most of the bits is £3000 from B&Q!

A 200W 12v turbine is about £325, add in your batteries for when it ain't windy.

HTH

Mike


twybrow - 4/1/08 at 12:18 PM

There are locost ways of doing them, but you would need to be pretty handy with electronics and fabrication. Building your own blades/hub etc would be difficult, but as mentioned, the elctronics may prove more difficult. Someone at my work has made one for himself (9' diameter on a 24' high tower), but we make propellers for a living, so it guess that was a simple task for him. It can be done, and dont be put off by others saying it cant...

Step by step guide

Vertical axis design

Another useful site...

Another step by step

Might be of some use...

A good starting point

Plenty of info out there, have a good look, and make up your own mind.

[Edited on 4/1/08 by twybrow]


britishtrident - 4/1/08 at 12:29 PM

Absolute waste of time and energy.

Wind power for electricity generation is nbg. I drive past some fairly big wind farms in west of scotland and 95% of the time they aren't even turning..

In UK latitudes solar electricity generation is only useful for topping up batteries.


twybrow - 4/1/08 at 12:41 PM

Agree, solar for energy generation is limited in the uk, but by the technology/cost, not the sun. However, solar for hot water generation is very viable and cost effective in the uk. You can heat a tank of water on a cloudy day.

As for this being a complete waste of time and money, that is a bit of a crappy attitude. Someone probably said that when Ron suggested builing a sports car 'on the cheap'. If you can lay your hands on some of the more technical bits (often available from scrap yards etc), then I think it could prove very useful and cost effective (assuming you are not moving house any time soon!).

If the wind turbines you see in Scotland are not turning, chances are they are broken/switched off. They will turn in a very light wind (5mph) so if they are always off, I would say they are locked off for a reason.


MkIndy7 - 4/1/08 at 01:02 PM

quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
Agree, solar for energy generation is limited in the uk, but by the technology/cost, not the sun. However, solar for hot water generation is very viable and cost effective in the uk. You can heat a tank of water on a cloudy day.



Whilst on a training course for Vailant boilers they had their solar water heating on display... "oooh feel the heat going into the hot water cylinder"...
yes it is very hot but how fast is it flowing for the sun to have heated it up to that temperature.. "erm well sir"

I think it equated to 0.5kw at very best, admitedly its possibly usefull if applied to a cylinder that is left standing all day and then hardly used, but even in domestic situations I think it'd struggle, and as for the cost.. well!

Even they admitted a payback period around 20 years when faced with people that know what there talking about.


coozer - 4/1/08 at 01:17 PM

Use a small alternator with blades on it and a Tesla coil to upgrade the output. Should be enough to light the workshop and dance around to the radio...


twybrow - 4/1/08 at 01:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MkIndy7

Whilst on a training course for Vailant boilers they had their solar water heating on display... "oooh feel the heat going into the hot water cylinder"...
yes it is very hot but how fast is it flowing for the sun to have heated it up to that temperature.. "erm well sir"



Even if you pre-warmed your water before going into a conventiaonal boiler, imagine the savings you could make. Plus, this 20 year payback is based upon current fuel prices - anyone had a letter from their supplier re price increases?! I am sure you could DIY and make it pay in much less time. Check out what Dick did on I'Its not easy being green' they made one from old bits of pipe etc, and that was heating all of the water for a family!


tks - 4/1/08 at 02:21 PM

you can do it different and cheap.

You could build a simpel vertical mill.
They are the easyest to build.

as a generator you can use a normal AC engine. the only thing you need is to rev it 10% above its rpm rating then you generate the full 230AC power * the rating of te engine. Sow turn a 220v 100watt engine in a generator is simple.

Downside of this is that unter that rpm it won't produce much. (a DC engine will)

+ is that you don't need any time of converter / batteries.

also take in mind i talk about small consumers don't try to start another electric motor in this setup.

if you want to use a 3phase engine you can only thing needed is a capicitor

lights should work.

there should be websites wich use tis concept.

Tks

p.d. wanting to be green is never wrong.
and in my opinion as long as there is wind/enough wind it always will be efficient.

some say the the Co2 polution you create to build one huge windmill is bigger then its Co2 savings, others say that if you never build one you never can build one without the polution.

Energie prices will go up and who knows where the limits are??? in 2004 in spain 1 litre of 95 was 86 euro cents. now its 1,10 euro cents this is a rise of 25% approx.

This year in spain earthgas is up by: 4%
electricity is up by: 5%
water is up: between 2 and 5%

if electricity ge sup everything goes up because to maintain your rate you need to compensate costs. so the price of alloy ill keep riseing etc. etc.


britishtrident - 4/1/08 at 03:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
quote:
Originally posted by MkIndy7

Whilst on a training course for Vailant boilers they had their solar water heating on display... "oooh feel the heat going into the hot water cylinder"...
yes it is very hot but how fast is it flowing for the sun to have heated it up to that temperature.. "erm well sir"



Even if you pre-warmed your water before going into a conventiaonal boiler, imagine the savings you could make. Plus, this 20 year payback is based upon current fuel prices - anyone had a letter from their supplier re price increases?! I am sure you could DIY and make it pay in much less time. Check out what Dick did on I'Its not easy being green' they made one from old bits of pipe etc, and that was heating all of the water for a family!


Attempting to pre-heat the water isn't that viable in the UK either, because domestic hot water peak useage dosen't fit in with the solar day and the fact we use hot water in huge peaks (filling the bath, washing machine dishwasher) it would require a very large super insulated "hot well" resevoir.

Supposing that was viable you then run into heath issuess, as the hot well become the ideal breeding ground for water born bugs such as Legionella.

In the UK climate the only two really viable green technologies are heat pumps and CHP.

Heat pumps are very effective but just imagine the environmental impact if every house in the UK tried to use it for heating.


scotlad - 4/1/08 at 04:13 PM

From an ex winfarm technician (me).......

Wind power? Boll**ks! Waste of time and resources.


scotty g - 4/1/08 at 04:43 PM

My plan was more along the DIY route, build it for as little as possible i dunno maybe £250?
As well as the feeling of being green i thought it would also be an interesting construction exercise as well as educational, i like to learn new things.
I thought if i just use it to run the lights then at least its saving some energy and can only be a good thing.
I will do some more research and hunt the scrap yards and ebay to work out how much it might cost.
Cheers.


twybrow - 4/1/08 at 04:43 PM

So what is the answer then people? If wind is no good (and I certainly agree it is far from perfect) then what else? Surely we dont all want to continue with gas/coal power? Is nuclear the way forward (not really viable for just running the garage lights!)? Or tidal? Micro-generation? Just curious as to peoples views....


scotty g - 4/1/08 at 04:47 PM

I remember years ago when i was a lad growing up in North Devon there was a plan drawn up to build a huge barrier across the Bristol channel, it was to be built in such a way as to use both the incoming and outgoing tide.
It would have generated huge amounts of energy but would have cost a staggering amount of money to build which is probably why it never happened.


liam.mccaffrey - 4/1/08 at 04:51 PM

i wrote my BEng final year assignment on solar water heating systems.

I now associate the mere mention of the phrase with a time in my life where i was the most stressed and unhappy i have ever been.

in fact i hated them so much i burned my thesis when it was handed back to me.

Despite liking them, i wouldn't have one because they make me so unhappy.


02GF74 - 4/1/08 at 05:03 PM

the answer is GM - Genetic modification.

the next generatrion of kiddies should be modified to have very thick insulating skin and fur so no need for heating plus 4 stomachs to digest carrots meaning no need for such bright lights. Probalby not very practical for the DIYer as you need some specailist equipment like syringes, bunsen burners, test tubes and stuff.


Guinness - 4/1/08 at 05:06 PM

I think we all need to accept some level of responsibility for our energy consumption and useage, both on a personal and a national level.

Unfortunatley that is going to mean some pretty un-popular decisions being made, which as long as we have "here today, gone tomorrow" politicians in charge, just won't get made.

As an island nation, we really should look at tidal energy for our future needs. But it's expensive and un-popular / not sexy. Obviously tidal isn't going to be the answer for somewhere like New Mexico. So it's never going to be a one size fits all solution. Each nation is going to have to make the most of its own natural resources.

On a personal level, we are all faced with options about our energy consumption and where we get it from (the joys of a "free market economy" ) . If we all insulated our houses, switched off the TV at night etc etc, and reduced demand by 5% we might do our bit, but the majority is going to have to be done by central govt.

I personally loved "it's not easy being green" but it's not for me. I am looking at fitting a solar hot water system when I convert my loft this year. I believe it will make a difference and be suitable for my useage. However the loft will also be packed out with insulation so it doesn't get too hot in the summer, and too cold in the winter.

Rant over,

Mike


Confused but excited. - 4/1/08 at 05:25 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scotty g
I remember years ago when i was a lad growing up in North Devon there was a plan drawn up to build a huge barrier across the Bristol channel, it was to be built in such a way as to use both the incoming and outgoing tide.
It would have generated huge amounts of energy but would have cost a staggering amount of money to build which is probably why it never happened.


The other reason why such renewable sources were declared non-viable at that time, was that the study group set up by the Government to assess the viability of these schemes, was composed of 'experts' from UKAEA.
No bias there then.


billynomates - 4/1/08 at 05:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
So what is the answer then people? If wind is no good (and I certainly agree it is far from perfect) then what else? Surely we dont all want to continue with gas/coal power? Is nuclear the way forward (not really viable for just running the garage lights!)? Or tidal? Micro-generation? Just curious as to peoples views....


Nuclear for me. The French don't seem to have any problems with it, it's green up to the point where you need to get rid of the waste. And it's sustainable.


twybrow - 4/1/08 at 05:47 PM

How on earth is it sustainable? Ok, you might have plenty of fuel, but how many holes in the ground can we chuck the waste into before we decide it is a bad idea!?

For the uk, i think we will have to adopt a mix of wave/tidal/wind/nuclear for the majority, with far more emphasis on local generation (biomass) to supply small communities


t.j. - 4/1/08 at 05:55 PM

quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
the answer is GM - Genetic modification.

the next generatrion of kiddies should be modified to have very thick insulating skin and fur so no need for heating plus 4 stomachs to digest carrots meaning no need for such bright lights. Probalby not very practical for the DIYer as you need some specailist equipment like syringes, bunsen burners, test tubes and stuff.



I still think it all crap.

I hope France will provide us with the new fusion-reaction-energy.
Also Sun in shining in Africa so.... make export product!

There is Imo still not enough proof for this warming problem due CO2.

So help the poor, help to prevent Aids,
Search for new energy sources. Help China and others to stop with 2 stroke instead. Then you're doing something usefull instead of saying:
"you may not drive a car! and don't put on the light"

BTW; how the climate these days? I don't hear the globalwarmers now!
They are using the short memory from people.


billynomates - 4/1/08 at 06:09 PM

quote:
Originally posted by twybrow
How on earth is it sustainable? Ok, you might have plenty of fuel, but how many holes in the ground can we chuck the waste into before we decide it is a bad idea!?




Fair point. I stand corrected.
It's still our most realistic option with todays resources though.


I love speed :-P - 4/1/08 at 06:12 PM

If we did go nuclear, we could get rid of petrol and have electric cars, no need for gas just use electric heaters etc thus we could bring down co2 levels by quite a lot. The problem is which is better to die of radiation or climate change?


Simon - 4/1/08 at 09:21 PM

quote:
Originally posted by scotty g
.... but in the interests of being green, doing my bit for the environment and all that Cheers.


You should have planted a tree instead.

Green (nor does any, for that matter) cheap energy does NOT come in small packages. Can you imagine if the government decided that the greenest heating was log fired stations, everyone would decide to have their own log fire in the living rooms. Nice smoke from every home in the country as opposed to one BIG log fire with filters and controlled pollution. A bit like what won't be happening if the current bunch of tossers introduce bin taxes - nationwide carbon recycling, via quickest route possible. A match.

Nuclear is greenest, till the waste needs getting rid of, coal will be clean.

The green issues are solely there for tax purpose. If it's good, you can have it; if it's bad it's banned, not taxed, that's a contradiction

ATB

Simon


scotty g - 4/1/08 at 10:04 PM

I did plant a tree, in fact in the last 2 years i have planted 4 trees all in the back garden, 2 apple, 1 plum and horse chestnut.


JoelP - 4/1/08 at 10:14 PM

is to dump it into the sun. All we need is a reliable way to get it there, which im sure can be done. Im not sure on the exact figure but you can get an awful lot of energy per tonne of waste.

Why on earth cant you just link an alternator to a fan and store the excess in a few old batteries? Combine that with waterwheels in your gutter fall pipe and jobs a good un!


twybrow - 4/1/08 at 11:10 PM


Can you imagine if the government decided that the greenest heating was log fired stations, everyone would decide to have their own log fire in the living rooms. Nice smoke from every home in the country as opposed to one BIG log fire with filters and controlled pollution. A bit like what won't be happening if the current bunch of tossers introduce bin taxes - nationwide carbon recycling, via quickest route possible. A match.


But by burning crops/logs etc (assuming the source is renewable) the plant will have absorbed the same amount of carbon as it will give out when burned. The use of fossil fuels is a problem because the carbon is "stored".


jono_misfit - 5/1/08 at 03:18 PM

Nuclear waste although bad, isnt as awful as frequently portrayed if treated properly.

Last time i checked each station only produces about 10 tonnes of highly reactive waste per year. This waste is then vitrified and sealed in containers before being stored in geologically stable structures. It doesnt leach into the water table or through the ground structure. Its also all in one place unlike the particulate and chemical discharges from fossil generation sites.

I read something about Raw reactive uranium despite being in the ground for X million years doesnt move even in areas of failry porous rock.

What is a greater concern is the security threat to the waste and lower grade waste for terrorist activities.

Current "green" solutions are exceptionally poor both in terms of quantity and quality of generation. The best that can be hoped for from these is they offset the massive grid losses slightly the times that they are operating. They can cause a large amount of remedial work to the grid with re-cabling and switching due to them being located on the weak exterior of the grid.

To get better overall efficiency power generation needs to be carried out in bulk and this current goverment incentive to have greater micro generation seems to be at odds to this.

Im firmly in favour of nuclear at the moment becuase its the cleanest viable option available. The world has enough reserves of uranium 237(?) for conversion to plutonium to supply the worlds current maximum demands for the next 10,000 years.

If you want to be green at home / in the workshop fit more / better insulation to your house and help reduce your energy consumption.

IF you want a less energy demanding radio buy a trevor balis wind up one.


Simon - 6/1/08 at 08:16 PM

I wouldn't go as far as to say Nuclear waste isn't bad. I've just read Alan Weisman's book (The World without Us) on what would happen to the planet if the human race mysteriously dissappeared.

The amount of nuclear waste is truly scary - there are 411 nuclear stations on the planet actually producing 13,000 tonnes of high level nuclear scrap

Uranium 235 has a half life of 704 million years. In the US, there is at least 1/2 million tonnes of depleted U 235 (called U 238). Half life 4.5 BILLION years.

There is a place in the States called the Waste Isolation Plant which opened in 1999 and was designed for low - medium grade nuclear material - gloves, shoes covers, rags, machining equipment (irradiated during manufacture of nukes) including walls from bomb factories etc etc. The WIP has room for 6.2 million cu feet of stuff and is 20% full.

Read the book, I'm not an environmentalist, but the state we're getting the planet into is rather shocking.

ATB

Simon


JoelP - 6/1/08 at 09:10 PM

the rate of technological advance is staggering though. At worst 50 years til we have developed a truly clean and free energy source, maybe another 50 to make it work on an industrial scale. And im sure that in that time we will also be able to either clean up existing waste (at least its all stored neatly!) or safely get it into the sun.


jono_misfit - 7/1/08 at 06:46 PM

I chose my words very carefully in my first sentence. Nuclear is bad its undenaible but to me its our only current option.

Even without nuclear power stations the amount of high and medium radioactive waste is considerable. It comes from everthing from processing/manufacturing through to food and medical. This waste has less regulation but can prove to be every bit as dangerous.

I think in terms of tonnage these sources far outstrip the power stations.

I think that figure in the book must also contain material from decommisioned stations. 400 power station would be 4000 tonnes (very approximatley) of spent fuel (something like 97% mass remains after re-processing a pellet).

No matter what its a less than ideal amount of waste.

Im sure there will be some great saviour of power source will come allong soon and save us. Stable fussion would be nice or working plasma toroids.


scotty g - 7/1/08 at 08:36 PM

yes but can i get them in my workshop?


britishtrident - 7/1/08 at 08:53 PM

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/radscout.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s595641.htm