Ikea buys windfarm to power Dublin and Belfast stores

josip

JJayoo wrote: »

Wind energy is also in it's infancy. Japan have been pumping cash into developing their wind energy sector since the tsunami fcuked up their confidence in nuclear energy. They have developed a new type of turbine called the wind lense turbine which increases energy production 2-3 times.

So wind technology has been around for decades with incremental improvements but then the Japanese decide they want a go and we get a factor of 2-3 in improvements within 2 years?

We need either more Japanese engineers or Japanese marketing people.

biko

So that's how wind is made?

Mad_Dave

josip wrote: »

We need either more Japanese engineers or Japanese marketing people.

I think in this case it's marketing. They're comparing figures for a turbine with a wind lens against the same naked turbine, when I feel it would be more correct to compare it with a turbine of equal overall diameter.
Taking the figures from their website and doing some really basic calculations (done on scrap paper in 2 minutes, so please excuse any mistakes)

12.8m turbine with lens (overall diameter 15.4m) vs naked turbine gives 1.55 times more power.
12.8m turbine with lens vs 15.4m turbine gives 1.07 times.

This highlights another concern for this idea - it doesn't seem to be scalable. The 2-3x increase was for a much smaller machine.

Edit:

biko wrote: »

So that's how wind is made?

Here ya go http://www.weatherwizkids.com/weather-wind.htm

Amerika

Wind power is popular now because it has a lot of fans... but a wise man knows what's watt.

But it does have its uses. I guess if you have no alternative power source because you live 100 miles from the nearest power line, then a windmill makes sense. But what does it cost (which is passed onto consumers) to purchase, maintain, and replace all those banks of storage batteries when the wind isn’t blowing? And what is the cost to the environment to produce those batteries?

kneemos

josip wrote: »

Wouldn't the power stations have to be replaced at some stage?

At the moment the power station is needed anyway for calm days.Personally I'd much prefer a power station to miles of turbines even if they were made to work,much less enviromentally damaging than those god awfull things.

JJayoo

The difference between Japan and the rest of the world at present is that they really really need energy. Their policies towards energy have changed so drastically. They were putting all their hope in nuclear.

"In the aftermath of the accident, then Prime Minister Naoto Kan announced that Japan would have to “rebuild its energy policy from scratch.” Kan scrapped the government’s plans to boost the share of nuclear power in Japan’s electricity supply to 50% by 2030, and his successor, Yoshihiko Noda, pledged to reduce nuclear dependence to zero by the 2030s—a position incorporated in the 2012 election manifesto of the Democratic Party of Japan."
http://www.tokyofoundation.org/en/articles/2013/tackling-japans-energy-crisis

So Japan have a huge need/drive to find innovations that will work in a weak economy.

NuckingFacker

Hydro-electric installations, coal made more efficent, gas, oil or nuclear - if the money being pumped into wind was spent instead refining what we already know actually works, might that not be better? Are "they" sure they can't build a 1000% more efficent gas power station? If they put their minds to it, they could.

Mad_Dave

R&D into conventional power generation is ongoing, for example integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) - which as I understand it converts coal and other carbon fuels into gas.

However the two big reasons why money is being invested into wind, and all renewable sources are a) carbon based fuels are finite - and depending on who you believe are going to run out in the not too distant future, and b) security of supply. For countries with little to no natural resources it makes sense not to be wholly reliant on imported fuels.

JJayoo

This guy will save us all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HL1BEC024g

dan1895

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no they won't, the odd time they might but for the most part they'll get nowhere near this figure and Ikea will still buy plenty of thermally generated power.

Why not do something actually useful like put PV solar on the store roofs and water collection systems?

The Dublin store has a water collection system on the roof which is used for the toilets. It also some kind of system that goes under the store that gets power/heat from thermal sources, the science of which I don't understand. Don't know if there are solar panels there but wouldn't be surprised.