backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 93 comment(s) - last by MaBigelow.. on Dec 18 at 1:22 AM

Mariah Power's Windspire vertical wind turbine is looking good in Washington D.C.; the company takes its name from "They Call the Wind Mariah", a hit song from Clint Eastwood's film "Paint Your Wagon".  (Source: Mariah Power)

The new $5,000 Windspire vertical wind turbine from Mariah Power will provide a fourth of your household's power and comes with nice extras like Wi-Fi and a 5-year warranty.  (Source: Mariah Power)

The company is currently accepting preorders for the 2009 model, its first entry in the consumer market.  (Source: Mariah Power)
The newest fix in wind power is decidedly different from previous efforts

Wouldn't it be nice if someone just paid a quarter of your electric bills?  That's precisely what Mariah Power's Windspire turbine provides.  While DailyTech has seen more than its share of wind turbines for power plants and advances in turbine technology, the field of home wind power is relatively new.

Mariah Power aims to change all of that and it is offering a new type of turbine to boot according to Engadget.  The company's 9m tall $5,000 offering is a slender vertical turbine, which spins slower than its propeller-equipped brethren, but is actually at least as efficient.

The turbine produces 2000 kWh annually; enough to supply a quarter of an average home's electricity.  Lovers of sky creatures can also rejoice -- the new design is even "bird-friendly" thanks to the slower rotation speed of its shaft, a mere 2.5 times the wind speed, making turbine-related fatalities a thing of the past.

While the price tag may seem higher than some, a 30% tax credit passed October 3 for small wind power up to $4,000.  So buyers can pocket part of the costs of the turbine at the end of the year.  Additionally, it comes packed with some nice perks like Wi-Fi and a monitoring program you can install on your computer to monitor your power generation.

Prices may even drop from $5,000, but that's the initial price for the 2009 model, which the company is currently accepting preorders.  The turbine comes with a 5-year unlimited rotation warranty, to help set your mind at ease.

Other nice perks include the ability to pick the color of your turbine for a small premium ("Soft Silver" comes default for free).

While the turbine certainly isn't meant to be considered a major money-maker for homeowners, it is a nice toy, and a decent way to do your part to spur alternative energy adoption.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How much wind needed?
By Whedonic on 12/1/2008 12:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
The estimated 2000 kWh is under what sort of conditions?




RE: How much wind needed?
By Gul Westfale on 12/1/2008 12:28:50 PM , Rating: 5
that was measured during hurricane katrina. your mileage may vary :)


RE: How much wind needed?
By quiksilvr on 12/1/2008 10:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
Either way its cheaper than solar and can be implimented with homes. All in all a very nice product.


RE: How much wind needed?
By salgado18 on 12/1/2008 12:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know, but having like four of those would make me energy-independent.

Add an eletric car and you can save quite some money! In the long run, that is.


RE: How much wind needed?
By ebakke on 12/1/2008 1:04:56 PM , Rating: 5
Add an electric car, and you're going to need way more than 4 of those.


RE: How much wind needed?
By wookie1 on 12/1/2008 1:09:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's great if you only need power when the wind blows at the right speed for the turbine to produce its maximum capacity. Don't confuse capacity with output. For all other times you'd need to turn off the lights and A/C, or have a conventional alternative.


RE: How much wind needed?
By phattyboombatty on 12/1/2008 2:01:17 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, but in many areas you get credit for the surplus power that put back on the grid. So sure, there will be times when there isn't any wind and you are using a lot of power that will have to be supplied by the grid. But there will be other times when it is really windy and you aren't using a lot of power and your meter is running in the opposite direction.


RE: How much wind needed?
By jiteo on 12/1/2008 2:49:58 PM , Rating: 1
Can you even do that? I mean electrically, how do you put power back?

It's an honest question - I'm not an electrician, but I seem to remember enough from my E&M classes to think "Wait, that can't be right."


RE: How much wind needed?
By bridgeman on 12/1/2008 3:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing technically difficult about changing the direction of power flow. Any transmission line, transformer, etc., can carry current in either direction. When adding power to the grid, you're acting as a current source rather than a sink.


RE: How much wind needed?
By phattyboombatty on 12/1/2008 4:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Not only can you do it, but it's pretty much the only way a homeowner could afford to use solar or wind power. In Illinois (and I believe in other states as well), state law mandates that utility companies allow homeowners to put surplus power back onto the grid and get a full-price credit for that power.


RE: How much wind needed?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/1/2008 7:27:22 PM , Rating: 4
It depends on the location as to how much money you can get. There was a national law passed about 'small energy producers'. It compels power companies to allow you to sign a contract for selling your power to them. But that law only mandates you get what they pay for power, not what you pay for power. So you could use 10MWhs/year and sell 10MWhs/year back and still owe a pretty penny to the power company. But you're right, many municipalities and states have additional regulations governing pricing of power for small producers, allowing a 1:1 offset.


RE: How much wind needed?
By Avitar on 12/2/2008 2:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
There are regions like the western Dekotas dowm to WestTexas where the wind is atl east that good but there are very few people near by. Then the region ten miles off the Eastern seaboard from Maine down to Delaware is excellent.


RE: How much wind needed?
By tapa on 12/2/2008 6:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
Making you energy independent is a complete waste of money. You'd need powerful batteries and power electronics. It's much more efficient to have one or two of these (or better yet, the conventional ones) and offset part of your grid consumption.

Energy independence is even more senseless if you plan to produce more power than you need. So actually you'll be dependent on the grid for selling your energy.


RE: How much wind needed?
By qdemn7 on 12/2/2008 11:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
Is not about money, it's about independence. You can save lots of money by not owning a car and taking the bus or riding a bicycle. The question people have to ask themselves is what is more important to them... saving money or freedom?


RE: How much wind needed?
By jbartabas on 12/1/2008 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to be an average of 5.4 m/s. There is a tiny bit more 'information' there:
http://www.windowswindandsolar.com/_literature_277...

Although it probably raises as many questions as it answers...


RE: How much wind needed?
By MaBigelow on 12/18/2008 1:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the link. The information on our site is directly from the company. More information coming soon.


RE: How much wind needed?
By jonp on 12/2/2008 12:23:30 AM , Rating: 2
Don't speculate; check out the test results data from the company directly http://mariahpower.com/test_data.html


RE: How much wind needed?
By Souka on 12/2/2008 4:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
this statement is of note: "but is actually at least as efficient."

Under all conditions? or just very specific ones?

It'll be a hit if the power curve is more effecient in all wind speeds.... but if not (likely), then home owner's will need to consider their local wind patterns.

Also...how is the noise on this generator?


Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By itlnstln on 12/1/2008 12:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if my HOA would allow me to have one in my backyard. :rolleyes:




RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/1/2008 12:22:04 PM , Rating: 5
Oh please, don't get me started on HOAs -- they are the scum of the earth in 99.9% of cases.


RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By bldckstark on 12/1/2008 12:33:38 PM , Rating: 1
My wife and I can afford a new house in a nice neighborhood, but refuse to buy one because of the HOA's. We have purchased land that we intend to build on when our kids have graduated high school. We have to wait because there are no parcels available within our chosen school district that does not have some type of HOA.


RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By Tsuwamono on 12/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By mmntech on 12/1/2008 12:44:53 PM , Rating: 3
Here in Ontario, many HOAs decided unilaterally to ban clothes lines since they're apparently an eyesore. What a load of crock that is. The government eventually stepped in and passed a law overturning those bans. Housing developers who mandate these stupid rules are scum. Fortunately, where I live, I can do what I want on my own property, within city by-laws of course.


RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By rcc on 12/1/2008 1:28:45 PM , Rating: 5
Once set up, these things are self-sustaining, and you get to vote for the board members, usually.

The problem is that the only people that generally have time to participate are retired, with plenty of time to weed the front yard, etc. With plenty of time on their hands, they live to cruise the neighborhood and point out what you are doing wrong, and make up new rules to suit themselves.

Personally, if a neighborhood is going to have an HOA, the rules need to be specified up front, and require a 3/4 majority of the home owners (7/8??) to change.

They do serve a purpose, unfortunately that purpose gets diverted into the whim of the few. If they limit themselves to making sure there aren't 5 cars parked on someone's front lawn, or to keep someone from parking one of these contraptions on their roof, I have no problem with them. But they won't.


RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By foolsgambit11 on 12/1/2008 7:34:31 PM , Rating: 5
Screw that. They shouldn't even be able to limit themselves to that. What is this, the property owners' equivalent of DRM? Well, you can live in your house, but you can only paint it one of these 6 colors....

I understand city zoning laws, and public safety land-use laws, but aesthetic limitations on personal property usage is ridiculous. And I'm not usually much of a libertarian. But this issue has always boiled my blood. If you're concerned about your property value being affected by my home, then you can pay me to look pretty for your open house. But don't try to make me pay money so you can tell me what to do. Heinous.


RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By rcc on 12/2/2008 10:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
It's one of the prices that some people are willing to pay when living in close proximity to each other. As I said, if it's predefined and you know what you are buying into, I have no problem with it. If you don't like the terms, buy elsewhere. It's when they change the rules after you move in that pisses me off.


RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By JediJeb on 12/2/2008 4:01:29 PM , Rating: 2
As my Uncle once told me, " If you can't walk out on your back porch and pee without your neighbors seeing you, then your neighbors are too close."

I can't stand living in town and was so very glad when I was able to buy a house out in the middle of nowhere and get out of my apartment.


RE: Home Owners Assh*le-ciation
By rcc on 12/3/2008 5:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Cool, then this is no problem at all for you.


A sound investment
By arazok on 12/1/2008 12:31:42 PM , Rating: 5
My annual hydro bill is about $1,000. This would save me $250 per year, for a 20 year return on investment, assuming it never breaks down.

I’m going to launch a program of my own. Any person who gives me $5,000 now, will receive a monthly reimbursement of $20.83 from me. I’ll at least do something with your money that makes sense, like invest it. That way, you still get the paltry returns you wanted, and I can get rich by investing your money wisely.




RE: A sound investment
By omnicronx on 12/1/2008 1:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you live in the middle of nowhere and would like to be completely off the grid. 20k does not sound too bad then does it? I can think of countless people who would install this type of device at their cottage instead of a generator, if it can keep your lights running during a storm, that would be great.


RE: A sound investment
By Keeir on 12/1/2008 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
I guess though you need to think of

#1. Installation Costs
#2. Energy Storage Costs
#3. Maintaince Costs

Its not 20k to live off the grid... it probably more like 40-50k once you pay #1, #2, and #3 over 20 some years, if not even more.

Instead of a generator?!? Why would anyone do that? There are plenty of power outages that happen/are caused during Non-wind events.... Again, you run into #1 + #2. A energy storage system to store ~10kWh (roughly 8 hours of normal household usage) usually costs at least 1,000+ dollars...

I guess I just can't see this replacing a generator anywhere except maybe a very windy region and in the cabin a wealthy person who is constantly using a generator...


RE: A sound investment
By kontorotsui on 12/1/2008 7:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you keep wasting time calculating the return of investment on green/renewable energy?
All of us often spend money with absolutely no return of investment, only for the pleasure we get from some activity.
If you drive a long way to see a landscape or a friend, you spend money with absolutely no economic return for you, yet you do that for your pleasure, it is your money, you earn it and you spend it as you wish.
What would you say to someone trying to explain that you're wasting money for no return? I would say, go to hell!

Some people receive a pleasure from their lives being a less inpact on the environment (regardless of how small that inpact is) and when they consume less resources from the planet.
Aren't they free to spend their hard earned money as they wish, for their pleasure, without someone coming to count money in their pockets and firing judgements on their lives and choices?
Try to respect the others, when they think differently from you, that is a sound investment!


RE: A sound investment
By arazok on 12/1/2008 8:44:00 PM , Rating: 5
I have no problem with you spending money on wasteful things. I have a problem with the government taking MY money, to give to YOU, to spend on wasteful things.


Not economical...
By jskirwin on 12/1/2008 12:39:36 PM , Rating: 3
$5000 for the unit... Does that include shipping, installation and connection to my electrical box? Assuming it does the tax subsidy will cover 30% of that, bringing the cost down to $3,500.

Total Cost: $3,500

Electricity is going for $.13/kwh according to my power company. For ease of calculations let's assume that I can use every one of the 2000 kwh produced by the turbine per year. That 2,000 kwh/year will save me $260/year.

Total Savings: $260 per year

So it will take roughly 13 1/2 years to break even on the unit. That's the most positive way to look at it.

Another way to look at it is that you are spending 13.5 times more for electricity by buying the turbine.

It also looks like an old CB antenna I had in the '70s. It looks ugly next to that house too.




RE: Not economical...
By wushuktl on 12/1/2008 12:58:19 PM , Rating: 2
and i'm sure the same kinds of comparisons were being made for horses and cars. the article already says that it's not going to actually save money so what's your point?


RE: Not economical...
By jskirwin on 12/1/2008 8:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and i'm sure the same kinds of comparisons were being made for horses and cars. the article already says that it's not going to actually save money so what's your point?


Cars didn't become widespread until the assembly line made them cheaply AND the infrastructure was there to support them. Both conditions weren't met until the advent of the interstate highway system in the 1950's. Neither conditions exist at the present or in the foreseeable future for wind turbines.


RE: Not economical...
By Zoomer on 12/2/2008 9:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad electricity, unlike cookies, is fungible. Who cares if you made it yourself or not?


RE: Not economical...
By phattyboombatty on 12/1/2008 2:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. It doesn't produce nearly enough power to be economical. In order for a wind turbine to be practical, it needs to really pump out a huge surplus of power during windy times so that enough electricity is put back on the grid to offset your power use during the non-windy times.


RE: Not economical...
By JonnyDough on 12/1/2008 3:29:14 PM , Rating: 1
You fail to take into account rising energy prices and the interest you could make by investing that money in a low-risk fund somewhere. Just thought I'd say something. Money does not = the same money when you add time. A penny saved is a penny earned, refers to an ADDITIONAL penny.


Depends on location
By Screwballl on 12/1/2008 12:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
there needs to be some sort of disclaimer:
"Power generation is not guaranteed in areas with very low average wind speeds."

My parents in western South Dakota would benefit from this due to it being windy 350 days of the year, whereas myself in northwest FL would not, it is only windy maybe 30 days out of the entire year (and thats an exaggeration, it is windy less days that that here, and probably more days than I stated above, in SD).




RE: Depends on location
By GotDiesel on 12/1/2008 6:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, location is everything.. I built a version of this as a college project some 30 years ago.. the concept is sound, but wind is not unless one lives in the right location..


RE: Depends on location
By cigamit on 12/1/2008 11:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Easiest way to find out whether your site is suitable is taking a glance at a wind map. You also need to take into consideration surrounding trees, structures, and how high you will mounting it.

http://www.bergey.com/wind_maps.htm

For instance I live in a category 2 area on top of a hill among open pastures, and get a good amount of wind for a fair part of the year. If you live in a category 1 area, you might want to consider other alternatives. Most of the turbines I have looked into require a wind speed of roughly 10MPH just to start the thing turning (depending on the number of magnets ofcourse).

I read somewhere (here maybe?) that they were making a more efficient one that backed off a few of the magnets in lower wind conditions to still allow it to start, which would help a little.


RE: Depends on location
By Jotomo1967 on 12/2/2008 2:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
cigmat is right location is eveything the winds maps can also be found at http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps.html

IMHO, if you can tie one Windspire with a good PV system and a good storage solution you could be off the grid or selling back to the grid.

I went out to there website,

http://www.mariahpower.com

The Windspire's startup spin is only 9 mph, AEP is 12 mph, that seems real low. I live in level 2 wind area also, I would have to do more testing on my site to see if it would work but it looks doable.

IMHO, here is what I would do.

1 Windspire
1 Good PV system on the roof.
1 Good storage system

The storage system I would use is a ZESS 50 from ZBB Engery. There website is http://www.zbbenergy.com/
That would get me off the grid and backedup for three days.


There's always a comment about the birds.
By PAPutzback on 12/1/2008 12:51:16 PM , Rating: 2
Do that many birds really get killed by these things compared to the amount killed by auto traffic? I figure it is the green thing to do to use natural fertilizer.




By JonnyDough on 12/1/2008 3:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Only if you buy it in violent fusia or tempting turquoise because then when it spins it looks sooo pretty that it's hypnotizing. To birds I mean.

Of course if you order the deluxe Boeing insignia model you can kill a lot of our feathered flying friends too. For some reason they seem attracted to anything resembling a jumbo jet moving near the ground.


Really?
By VaultDweller on 12/1/2008 8:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The turbine produces 2000 kWh annually; enough to supply a quarter of an average home's electricity.


Really? Wow. That's barely enough to cover my apartment for a month - I'd be using even more if I had a house.




RE: Really?
By cokbun on 12/2/2008 1:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
i hope this thing will raise its capacity so maybe it could power a house by itself, with future improvements in nano materials, batteries and more efficient turbines, and lower price off course..


Great investment
By tjr508 on 12/1/2008 4:33:16 PM , Rating: 3
Let me get this straight...
Assuming that you live in the ideal landscape for this type of thing, AND it is absolutely free to install, then you have a ROI of 25 years. I'm willing to bet that there are folks out there marketing this as a way to save money.




Growing tomatoes
By wordsworm on 12/2/2008 7:30:15 AM , Rating: 3
You know, hydroponic tomatoes are great. At any time of the year, I can go into the basement and pick one of them, roll it up for some smoking burritos, or throw it into a bowl of salad and fire it up on the grill, there's nothing better. But there's always the unwanted attention of the extra watts that those expensive lamps require. I can't help but think having 2-3 of these pouring juice into the lights would assist in reducing grid-strain and keep those pesky inspectors and police out of the garden.




What kind of efficiency?
By Solandri on 12/1/2008 3:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The company's 9m tall $5,000 offering is a slender vertical turbine, which spins slower than its propeller-equipped brethren, but is actually at least as efficient.

After some of the loose usage of the word "efficiency" here, I'm a bit wary. Is this "at least as efficient" at extracting energy from the wind, or "at least as efficient" at converting shaft rotation into electricity? Big difference.




HEALTH AND SAFETY WARNING
By lemonadesoda on 12/1/2008 5:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
Do not fly kites in your garden.




It would take me 25 to 30 years...
By Yawgm0th on 12/1/2008 7:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
For return on investment, here in Minnesota. Energy is simply not expensive enough to justify wind power. The vast majority of MN electricity (and US electricity, for that matter) comes from coal and nuclear, and it's just so much more efficient.

Going by cost of acquisition alone, it would cost me $.50/kWh for the first five years. That's assuming no maintenance or other costs, which is an unreasonable assumption. Residential electricity here costs between $0.075/kWh and $.09/kWh, depending on several factors.

If they can cut the price by 50% or more or increase the output of this, I'd have to think about getting one or two. Even then, it would be more of a novelty since it would still take a big chunk out of my life to pay for itself.

If you live in a state with electricity costs => $.15/kWh (I'm looking at you, Hawaii), then the time for wind-powered homes is near.




Wind Power
By FPP on 12/3/2008 6:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
Intersting posts, in that some very astute people are asking some insightful questions and coming to some very logical conclusions.

Wind power, under the best of conditions, only supplies electricity at about a third of the turbines rated output. In other words, to produce what a fossil or nuke source, by KW/Hr.produces, continuously, requires at least THREE of these, in various locations, and that is for the output of a (1)single turbine's rated output.

In other words, you need three to produce one's max output, and THAT is suspect based on the wind, one of the most non-linear unpredictable phenomena on the planet.

I cannot wait to see the posts on this.

The electirc grid requires a predictable output at ALL times. Wind will NEVER accomplish this, unless you stack enough of these in enough places, and/or unless some kind of storage is developed, or altenrative hybrid source, adding even more to the true cost.

Let's all wake up.




FPP
By FPP on 12/4/2008 6:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
No matter what measurement you use for energy output over time, the fact remains that wind has zero predictability and that peak output of a wind generator only represents a theoretical output, not a predicted output.

This being the case, they must, statistically, build wind farms to address this, and have another, reliable secondary source available at ALL times. In other words, wind is an unreliable source of power.




Squeak, squeak...
By RoberTx on 12/5/2008 12:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
Wait till a bearing goes out on your wind generator about the time you want to go to sleep. Imagine all of the neighbors have one and half have bad bearings 'cuzz they let Fat Ernie work on them.




The big ones...
By RoberTx on 12/5/2008 1:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
I live in the Texas panhandle where the large wind generators are going up everywhere. Some have been in operation for several years now. But this puzzle me and I haven't found an answer to it yet. There has to be over a thousand of these big generators already up and operating yet at any given time only a handful have spinning props even when the wind is very strong. New transmission lines have been installed so capacity is not an issue. So what gives, why are so few actually generating?




Awesome appliance
By MaBigelow on 12/18/2008 1:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
Our company just installed the first residential Mariah Windspire in Michigan last week in the Soo. Very exciting to have a homeowner with one up and spinning! Michigan is thrilled as these will be built in Manistee, Michigan.




2000 What??
By rcc on 12/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: 2000 What??
By Solandri on 12/1/2008 3:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't a continuous power generator. It only generates when there's sufficient wind. So labeling it as an X Watt generator would be deceptive since it can't generate that wattage 24/7 like a diesel generator could. Saying it produces an average of 2000 kWh annually under in certain windy areas is a much more honest specification.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: 2000 What??
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/2/2008 4:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
no. What part of 2000kwh sounds like 2000kwy to you? In one year, it produces 2000kwh. That's kw H . You can't just go and change it.


RE: 2000 What??
By Amiga500 on 12/1/2008 3:28:24 PM , Rating: 4
Why do people persist in mixing their units. How do you have an measurement in hours, annually.

Q: What is your electric bill measured in?

A: kWh

Q: What is the time measure of the cyclic weather cycle of the planet?

A: A year

The units are "mixed" (well, they aren't really) for a good reason.

**But** I guess these calculations are on the assumption that you can put power back into the grid for the same price as you get it off the grid. Without the grid action like a giant battery (for want of a better analogy), this system would not work.


RE: 2000 What??
By matt0401 on 12/1/2008 3:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's not mixing units, it's a logical way to describe electrical output for this type of electricity producer.

A wind turbine can't run at the exact same rate forever, so it wouldn't make sense to describe in terms of an average number of 'watts' produced. Instead, they look at how well it performs in certain conditions (for example, summer vs. winter, windy vs. not-so-windy, etc.) and state this in how much raw electricity (watt-HOURS) is produced over a repeating period of time (for example, per year). Hence, kWh/year.

The generator may very well produce zero watts if the day it was being measured happened to not have any wind. :P


RE: 2000 What??
By bridgeman on 12/1/2008 3:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, kWh is a measure of energy. Power * Time = Energy. So over the course of a year, this turbine will, on average, produce 2000 kWh = 7200 MJ of energy.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: 2000 What??
By foolsgambit11 on 12/1/2008 8:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the author just said it produces, on average, 228.15W, wouldn't we all be confused? But that would be accurate (assuming a 365 day and 6 hour long year).

The fact is, everybody uses familiar units of measure. For instance, you say that the earth's circumference is 40,000 km. You don't say it's 40 megameters. People always talk about going, say, half a kilometer, not 5 hectometers. Heck, technically, the second is the SI measurement of time - why don't we call it 36 hectoseconds instead of an hour? So it would be 55.5 Watt-hectoseconds, not 2000 kWhs. That would be the most accurate, right?

In other words, the point of communication is to be understood as easily and as clearly as possible (at least, many forms of communication, including news like this). And 2000 kWhs per year is a very good way of conveying how much juice this thing can be expected to put out.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/2/2008 2:54:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the author just said it produces, on average, 228.15W, wouldn't we all be confused


I wouldn't be. I'd know from that measurement that this whole rig is sufficient to power one incandescent 3 way bulb on high. Or seventeen 13 watt CFC lights. Or perhaps one low to mid end home computer, without peripherals.

I understand what you are saying regarding distances, and I agree. But you have to use a measurement over time to compare them

If you drive at 60 kph, you travel 60 kilometers in an hour. If you average 60 kph over a period of 2 hours, you go 120 kph, but you don't say you went at 120 kilometers per 2 hours. But you would say that you drove 120 km yesterday, and everyone would assume that you drove quickly for a short time, or very slowly all day.

When it comes right down to it, an average measurement like 2000 kWh per year, doesn't really tell you much that is useful. Unless, as someone else said, you can dump excess power back on the grid at a 1:1 exchange rate. Because they can't profile your power use to it's output. But you can, if you want to take the time and effort.

For instance, where I live, the wind, what there is of it, dies every day just before sundown. Sometimes it picks back up later at night, sometimes not. So this thing would be merrily generating power during the day when I'm out, and would shut down when I'm at home firing up the computer, turning on lights, feeding the kids, etc.

So, if I can't dump power to the grid at the same price I pull it off, my average power from this device would be substantially lower than 2000 kWh per year.


RE: 2000 What??
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/2/2008 4:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
should have been left at an average of 2000 kWyear(s).


No it shouldn't have. In one year you get 2000kwh. Just because a year is the amount of time it takes you to get that much doesn't mean you can start calling it 2000kwy. It doesn't matter how long it takes, it's still 2000kwh.

2000kwh = .228kwy. That's 2000 / (24*365) for the number of hours in a year.

This is sort of what you are doing-
person 1: this rocket can go 100 light-days in a year!
you: so isn't that just 100 light years?

NO . Stop saying this.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/2/2008 10:55:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It doesn't matter how long it takes, it's still 2000kwh.


You crack me up. That measurement has an inherent time frame in it. One Hour. Of course it flippin' matters how long it takes.

If it generated 2000 kW average for an hour, it would take a MUCH bigger generator than generating 2000 kW over the course of a year.

I didn't mean to make a big deal out of this, it's not that important. It's just the goofy way that people choose to make something understandable to the masses.


RE: 2000 What??
By jbartabas on 12/2/2008 1:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You crack me up. That measurement has an inherent time frame in it. One Hour. Of course it flippin' matters how long it takes.


No, not one hour. It's the equivalent amount of energy that would be generated in one hour by a generator at 2000 kW constant power But this 2000 kWh energy can be generated during any period of time: in the present case, the wind turbine needs 1 year to generate it (I guess it peaks at something like 1.x kW)...

quote:
If it generated 2000 kW average for an hour, it would take a MUCH bigger generator than generating 2000 kW over the course of a year.


If it generated 2000 kW of power, it could generate that power for whatever period you want, a minute, an hour or a year ... (actually rigorously, you probably would have some heat dissipation issues the longer you run it, but the "much bigger generator" thing is kind of irrelevant.)

What you probably meant is that generating an energy of 2000 kWh over an hour would require a much 'bigger' generator (basically a 2000 kW generator) than to generate 2000 kWh over a year (basically a 0.228 kW generator).


RE: 2000 What??
By jbartabas on 12/2/2008 1:17:20 PM , Rating: 1
"The kWh is a measure of power over time. The kW is a measure of power.
By contrast, the joule has a time measurement built in, more or less.
[...]
It's still goofy as hell and should have been left at an average of 2000 kWyear(s)."

It's already been stated by others but who knows, repetition might make wonders ...

Joules and kWh both measure the same thing, i.e. an energy. The only difference is that 1 kWh = 3.6 megajoules (or the amount of joules generated by a equivalent constant power source of 1 kW, over a period of an hour).

2000 kWyear would be ~8766 times more (the rough number of hours in a year) energy than 2000 kWh ... If that would be the annual energy generation of this turbine, that would be a great deal .... that's also the amount of energy that the real thing would produce over .... ~8766 years.

2000 kWyears wouldn't make sense because you haven't specified the number of years ...


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/2/2008 3:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
We are basically saying the same thing, I'm just complaining about the measurement terms.

quote:
2000 kWyears wouldn't make sense because you haven't specified the number of years


This is the root of the problem. kWyears absolutely defines the number of years..... It's one. But it's used as an equivilency, not an absolute rating.

We don't say my car goes 15000 MPH per year.

But we do say my generator puts out 2000 kWh per year?

We say I drove my care 15000 miles last year.

Or, my generator put out 2000 kW last year (or 2000 kWy)

Ok.


RE: 2000 What??
By jbartabas on 12/2/2008 4:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We don't say my car goes 15000 MPH per year. But we do say my generator puts out 2000 kWh per year? We say I drove my care 15000 miles last year. Or, my generator put out 2000 kW last year (or 2000 kWy) Ok.


MPH = miles/hours = distance/time = speed
kWh = kiloWatt * hours = (energy/time)*time = energy

So when you say: one generates a given energy per year (i.e. 2000 kWh annually), the meaning is straightforward.

When you say: one's car goes a given speed per year, or annually (15000 MPH per year)... well it's not clear what you mean.

If you really want to make a parallel between the car and the generator, I guess you'd have to equate speed (distance/time) to power (energy/time), and then energy the generator outputs to the distance the car travels. Then you have various ways to see it:

* If one wants an equivalent to the kWh for the car, one could say something like the car went ~21 MPH-month annually. That's still a total distance of ~15000 miles over the year; that also tells you that it would be the distance traveled by a car constantly going at 21 MPH over a period of a month (probably not very useful though ... except if you were billed by a rental car company in MPH-month, like electricity companies bill in kWh).

* If you want to say a generator put out 2000 kW last year (assuming constantly), then the equivalent for the car would be to say that it went at 1.7 MPH last year (i.e. 15000 miles over 1 year).

* Finally, the equivalent of saying "my car went 15000 miles last year" would be "my generator put out 7.2 Gjoules last year". Probably the most rigorous solution, but then where would be the fun of arguing about kWh ;-)


RE: 2000 What??
By PrinceGaz on 12/2/2008 1:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
If it did actually average 2000 kWh over a full year, because you got your time units confused (you may have been thinking 3600 seconds in an hour), the actual amount of energy it would generate over a year is 17.52 GJ (17,520 MJ).

That would actually be sufficient to fully power a DeLorean housed time-machine consuming 1.21 GW for over 14 seconds, which as we know is a lot longer than it actually takes for it to activate once it is receiving sufficient power. The only problem really is the usual one with electricity-- storing it, and especially storing it in a way that can deliver as much as 1.21 GW of power through the power cables.


RE: 2000 What??
By PrinceGaz on 12/2/2008 1:43:26 AM , Rating: 2
Please ignore that previous post, as I've just realised I was approaching the units the wrong way. The previous poster was correct- it would only be 7.2 GJ of energy you would collect (assuming it lived up to expectations), though that would still be enough to power the DeLorean Time Machine for nearly six seconds, which I think is enough for a successful temporal transferance.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/2/2008 10:44:04 AM , Rating: 1
Cool, my first -1. And for simply stating scientific fact. Gotta love DT.

: )


RE: 2000 What??
By jbartabas on 12/2/2008 1:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well kWh is definitely rather confusing because, in practice, people have consistently demonstrated a tendency to interpret that as a 'per hour' unit. So I guess it would be harsh to blame you for that rather usual confusion regarding the unit ...

However you should consider the possibility that your "scientific facts" are inaccurate, and that your insistence to be right at all costs has a bit to do with your rating...


RE: 2000 What??
By Yawgm0th on 12/2/2008 1:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Your flagrant misunderstanding of watt-hours has something to do with your rating, I would imagine.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/2/2008 2:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
Really?? Elucidate, please do. How have I misunderstood the meaning of a Watt hour, or kilowatt hour?


RE: 2000 What??
By ChronoReverse on 12/2/2008 5:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes you have completely misunderstood it.

A kWh is an unit of energy just like the joule:
1 kWh => 1 kilowatt * hour
1 J => 1 watt * second
1 watt * second = (1 / 31 536 000) watt * year

Can you see how the number completely changes if I arbitrarily change one of the units? The same thing happens when you change the unit in kilowatt hours.

This is why saying 2000 kilowatt hours is the same as 2000 kilowatt years is absolutely ridiculous.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/3/2008 5:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is why saying 2000 kilowatt hours is the same as 2000 kilowatt years is absolutely ridiculous.


You totally missed what I was saying. I didn't say that 2000 kWh is the same as 2000 kWy. What I said was 2000 kWh annually should be written as 2000 kWy.

Because you are taking something with an hourly time frame and adding a yearly time frame. Hence my comment on measuring MPH annually. Get it, something per hour measured yearly?

Don't get hung up in cars or wind turbines, it's the measurement units that are the root of my comment.


RE: 2000 What??
By ChronoReverse on 12/3/2008 7:28:18 PM , Rating: 2
But you're still wrong. If I generate 1000 joules, I don't change the word joules to something else whether it's over a year or not.

You're just completely wrong here.


RE: 2000 What??
By matt0401 on 12/2/2008 11:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
RCC, the reason you keep getting into arguments with people is just because you got your units completely backwards. You probably know what you're talking about despite this simple but hugely consequential mistake. Or at least that's me giving you the benefit of the doubt.

In summary, just remember that the Watt is a measurement of power over time, opposite of what you earlier stated. To get technical, it's actually one joule per second . Joule is the measurement of just power (or more generally, energy). Because people don't measure their quantities of energy in Joules in everyday life, the kilowatt-hour is used as a larger unit. Like how one foot is exactly twelve inches, one kilowatt-hour is exactly 3,600,000 joules. Another way of thinking about this quantity of energy is that it's the amount of energy produced by something producing energy at one kilowatt for one hour. It actually doesn't matter over what time frame this energy is produced.

1 kWh could be produced by a 2 kW wind turbine in 30 minutes, but it could also be produced by a 1.5 MW (commercial, windfarm size) wind turbine in just over two seconds.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/3/2008 6:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Electric measurement of power at one point in time, as capacity or demand. For example, light bulbs are classified by wattage. ...
www.energycenter.org/ContentPage.asp

---------

Main Entry: kilo·watt
Pronunciation: \'ki-l?-?wät\
Function: noun
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
Date: 1884
: 1000 watts

----------

Main Entry: kilowatt–hour
Function: noun
Date: 1892
: a unit of work or energy equal to that expended by one kilowatt in one hour or to 3.6 million joules

----------

So Matt, as you can see above. A Watt is not a measurement of power over time. It's a measure of power at a single point of time. If you want a measurement over time we most commonly use kilowatt hours, although you could use Watts per second, or Joules.

As for the rest of it, I don't disagree. The problem is you guys are too busy taking exception to my disagreement to actually see what I'm saying.

From your description.

That 2 kW wind turbine is running in the perfect wind and every hour it generates 2 kWh.

Over a 2 hour period it would generate power at a rate of 2 kW per hour, or a total of 4 kWh. But you wouldn't say that it generated 4 kWh bihourly would you?

In any event, lets leave it at.... yes, I understand what everyone is saying...... yes, I also know what the definitions are, I've been in the Electronic/Electrical field for 40 years...... And if it's easier for everyone to have 2 time constants in a measurement... go for it.


RE: 2000 What??
By matt0401 on 12/4/2008 3:18:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Watt is not a measurement of power over time

quote:
Over a 2 hour period it would generate power at a rate of 2 kW per hour


You just contradicted yourself there... :P "2 kW" is "power" and "per hour" is "over time".

Your first statement was right, the Watt isn't power over time. There's actually no such thing because power is by definition energy over time.

quote:
Over a 2 hour period it would generate power at a rate of 2 kW per hour, or a total of 4 kWh.


To correct this statement you would state that over a 2 hour period it would generate energy (or electricity) at a rate of 2 kW, or a total of 4 kWh.

quote:
But you wouldn't say that it generated 4 kWh bihourly would you?


You could. That statement is actually 100% correct. it would generate 4 kWh every two hours: bihourly. But it's awkward. A better way to state the amount of energy produced would be to say it generated x kWh annually, which is exactly what the article did, and exactly what you're opposing.


RE: 2000 What??
By matt0401 on 12/4/2008 3:30:03 AM , Rating: 2
To continue...

I think you may be confused in that you think "annually" means "all year round". In the case of this turbine, it most certainly does not produce 2 kW all year round, and so therefore they need to state the exact amount of energy (or as close an estimate as possible) produced in a repeating cycle. Hence, kWh/year. If it generated 2 kW all the time, then of course they could simply state that it generates 2 kW. Its inconsistency is why they need to state a quantity of energy being produced.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/4/2008 12:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's actually no such thing because power is by definition energy over time.

Please cite a reference.

quote:
You just contradicted yourself there... :P "2 kW" is "power" and "per hour" is "over time".


How so?? Forgetting about the whole power vs. energy thing. If you have a unit of anything, and you want a rate of flow, you add a time element.

n. (Abbr. kWh or kW-hr)
A unit of electric energy equal to the work done by one kilowatt acting for one hour.
http://www.answers.com/topic/kilowatt-hour


RE: 2000 What??
By ChronoReverse on 12/4/2008 5:51:38 PM , Rating: 2
Good grief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

quote:
How so?? Forgetting about the whole power vs. energy thing. If you have a unit of anything, and you want a rate of flow, you add a time element.

No.

You divide by time to make it a rate. If you multiply by time, it means something else entirely.

Furthermore, if you have a rate and multiply by time, you get the original unit. A watt is work over time. Therefore a watt multiplied by time is just work (which is another way of saying energy).

quote:
unit of electric energy equal to the work done by one kilowatt acting for one hour.

See that? It's a unit of energy. 1 unit of energy, whether generated over a year or 1 second, is still 1 unit of energy.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/8/2008 1:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good grief: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)


From your reference.

Electrical power
Main article: Electric power

The instantaneous electrical power P delivered to a component is given by

where

P(t) is the instantaneous power, measured in watts (joules per second)
V(t) is the potential difference (or voltage drop) across the component, measured in volts
I(t) is the current through it, measured in amperes
If the component is a resistor, then:

where

is the resistance, measured in ohms.

If the component is reactive (e.g. a capacitor or an inductor), then the instantaneous power is negative when the component is giving stored energy back to its environment, i.e., when the current and voltage are of opposite signs.

End Quote.

Hmm, the formulas didn't come through, but you can follow your link if you need to see them.

But it's still a moot point. I never said that a kilowatt hour wasn't a kilowatt hour if it was generated over a different period of time. Do you read before you post?

For the record, you don't divide or multiple. Unless you are adaping for a different unit of time, or a different measure of power. A kilowatt hour is not a kilowatt divided by an hour. Although if you want to divide it by 60 you could make kilowatt minutes. Don't know why you'd want to though.

As an exercise in tuning into the same wavelengh... can we agree that.

1 kWh generated over the course of a day equals 24 kWh? Or, 1 kW(day).


RE: 2000 What??
By JKflipflop98 on 12/3/2008 5:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
I think the pompous "I'm better than you" attitude is what most people don't like. Gotta love dumb smart people.


RE: 2000 What??
By rcc on 12/3/2008 6:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
lol, ok if calling a measurement in an article "goofy" is an "I'm better than you" attitude, fine.

Why is it on these boards that if you argue a point, or or express an opinion contrary to the masses, that you are snooty, smug, or have some sort of attitude.

Appreciate your similarities, and celebrate your differences. Without both nothing works well.


RE: 2000 What??
By ChronoReverse on 12/3/2008 7:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's just that you're completely wrong


RE: 2000 What??
By matt0401 on 12/4/2008 3:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody's going to criticize the minority for having an opinion. However, disputing fact certainly warrants criticism.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki