50kW wind turbine installation, Maple Honda, Maple Ontario
Maple Honda will install a private wind turbine at its new dealership in a unique partnership with Power Stream.
In keeping with leading edge technology pioneered by Honda Motor Co. Maple Honda has taken the innovative step of integrating energy efficiency in an automotive work place. "This is a new venture for both Power Stream and our leading regional automotive dealership. Our goal is to provide a tangible model for alternative energy options in Ontario. The Production of wind energy creates no air pollution and, if the turbines are sited properly, has minimal environmental impact." says Mr. Zanchin. This is the first commercial-scale use of wind power to generate electricity in the region. The wind turbine will provide supplemental wind power to Maple Honda, and will produce approximately 110 MWH/Yr-which is the equivalent of powering 17 homes. It removes 82.5 tons of CO2 emissions/Yr and is completely Canadian made. Maple Honda will open for business in early fall 2006.
Related posts:
- Skystream Wind Turbine Installation Dommelvalley asked: Dommelvalley Green Power installation of a 1.8kW...
- Wind Turbine Installation hunternumba1 asked: 3kw wind turbine installation by windturbines.ie PLEASE COMMENT!!!...
- A Homemade Wind Turbine (Free Energy) DHMIII asked: I DID NOT BUILD THIS OR MAKE...
- How To Build A Wind Turbine For Free saveearthenergy asked: http://EnergyForEarth.net - How To Build A Wind...
- Wind Turbine Raising in Richmond, Indiana JChrisHardie asked: This short educational highlight video shows clips...
Tags: Co2 Emissions, Electricity
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Been a pleasure talking to you Fox. Please don’t get me wrong…the environment is of course of paramount importance to all of us and nothing distresses me more (apart from the wife getting angry about money) than the destruction of the rain forests…(bio fuels, but that’s another argument) I love this project that you’ve posted and assure you that I can see the benefits for localised WTs…but as discussed, as a national solution I think it’s a combo of gesture politics and making $.
February 18th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
You are indeed very informed on this issue, and I must say I agree with you, but think of it this way - at least they are investing in a green technology - there is much more concrete etc/CO2 emissions involved in building a single power station than thousands of WTs. At the very least, think of it this way - nobody has ever died, or wars been waged while trying to power a wind turbine. There are much worse things they could be spending their money on..
February 19th, 2009 at 9:40 am
for £100,000,000,000!!! And in terms of the all important ‘carbon footprint’ who is to say that 7K individual generators with all that concrete for foundations, logistics, steel, copper windings, massive infrastructure, added complications in terms of frequency to the grid, maintenance…doesn’t add up to the C02 released from a couple of reliable coal stations? I don’t know, haven’t and probably can’t do the math but in the end, I think as a national solution, the whole thing whiffs a bit.
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
with WTs. Anyway, enough of politics and lets get back to the science. Of course I can’t say catergorically because I myself have never stood there and actually measured, but I have read from what I would consider to be fairly reliable sources that a turbine will on average produce over a year about 27% of its rated output. So if you tot this up over our learned governments (sorry, politics again) proposal of 7000 of them your talking the equivalent of just a couple of decent sized CFPSs…
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 am
on an already extortionate rate for your energy. There are two main directives…the RO (renewables obligation) and ETS (emissions trading scheme). It’s all supposedly lovely save the planet stuff but its real aim is essentially to charge the customer a great deal more for what is a necessity rather than a luxury which is then returned to governments as almost completely invisible taxes. This I think is the real reason why we are now so keen to be covering our land and as you say sea…
February 24th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
which for reasons best known to the press and our national leaders is kept as quiet as possible. What I do know is that EU diktats now state that we must supply a certain percentage of our power from ‘renewable’ sources and our government has opted, like all others within the EU for wind. If you’re in the wind industry I guess there couldn’t be better news but for us minion consumers (and I tell you, hardly a single one of them are aware) you will be paying way over the odds…
February 24th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Thanks again Fox. I remember seeing my first large turbine just outside a small town called Swaffem in Norfolk UK sometime around 2002. I think it was rated at 2.2MW and I was mightily impressed and subsequently became very interested. Trouble is, as said the whole issue has now been politicised. I know and I think you know too that wind is actually a very expensive method of gen’ for national purposes. We are now in a very strange political climate, being part of the EU…
February 27th, 2009 at 9:22 am
The exisitng generation capacity will always be around to power the grid however, by building these turbines they can shed a huge portion of that load. Don’t worry- your traditional generation will always be there and you wont be left in the cold. These machines are also being installed in an extremely high wind resource area such as along coastlines. It is very rare for the wind to “stop blowing” and these installations will be extremely reliable forms of generation.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:53 am
The diesel generation was just an example of where this particular machine is used. You are right, nuclear is used for base load supply, wind and other forms like coal and gas are used to volley peak load back and forth with wind as they can easily and quickly be brought online. However, in many areas with good wind resource, turbines can supply much of the base load as well. For example, Denmark has been very successful with wind and are on their way to 20% of their energy comming from it.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
One more thing before I get on. You talk of taking up the slack from diesel gen’. That, I know is fairly straight forward but diesel only accounts for a very tiny percentage of our grid. Infact they are usually only fired up at times of very high demand (half time England Vs Germany). Apart from hydro, the rest, as I’m sure you know is Nuke, coal and gas…one of which is impossible to stop start the other two extremely expensive and wasteful.
March 5th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
as a bigger vote winner than being more sensible about things. I really do think that we are heading towards a major problem and it’ll only be then, when we have people sitting at home, under candle light, freezing cold that they’ll start to care a little less about Polar bears and the like and start to wonder where the hell it all went wrong.
March 7th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Once again thanks for your answer Fox. Now, I know that they have their place but a £100 billion! On top of that, they seem to be under what I would consider a completely misguided opinion that these 7000 odd giant mills will do the job on their own without any investment in any other forms of gen’. There is talk…and I can see it happening, of not only rocketing bills but also regular power cuts. They have become political because they are banking on the electorate seeing the green agenda…
March 9th, 2009 at 4:19 am
These are valid points but the technology IS there to produce perfectly viable electric cars - just run a search on the T-zero, Tesla Roadster, X-1 electric car. These vehicles can easily take out some of the highest performance supercars yet will drive 300km on a charge and frankly, they look amazing. These vehicles can be charged in less than an hour provided you have a high amperage power supply to plug in. The only problem at the moment is the cost of lithium batteries due to lack of demand.
March 9th, 2009 at 6:47 am
These units in particular are most popular in remote communities that rely on diesel generation. Diesel power can cost upwards of $0.40/kW. One of these units can supplement that generation with a cost of $0.13 per kW or less depending on the wind resource in the area. When the wind doesnt blow, the diesel takes up the slack, but when there is wind you are cutting costs by up to 75%. Same holds true in the UK. Wind power is much cheaper and easier to install than any other.
March 10th, 2009 at 9:45 am
This is very true- wind will never be a primary source of power for the electrical grid but it is excellent at offsetting load from other types of generation. You will always need traditional technology to take up the slack when the wind doesnt blow but when it is, it is not only extremely economical, but also environmentally friendly.
March 12th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Oh and just one other thing, I noticed a reply from you about electric cars. I would say that the problem with them is not so much the simplicity and lack of profit margin but more to do with range, a several hour re-fuelling stop, crap performance, battery degradation and looking like an idiot…well, at least the ones here in the UK.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:01 am
Thank you Fox…you’ve gone to a lot of trouble with this answer although I have to admit that I don’t understand half of it…maths never really was my bag! Whilst I’m here, I wonder what your feelings are about the mass proliferation of w’turbines. Our UK government recently announced that it’s about to splurge £100 billion on them…seems absurd to me as it doesn’t take a genius to work out that they can only ever be as reliable as the wind no matter how technologically advanced.
March 15th, 2009 at 4:07 am
In any case, its enough power for about 17 homes.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:30 am
The numbers are really not as impressive if you actually run them: Lets say you want to raise the temperature of the water from 22degC to 100degC or boiling point. Energy required can be calculated with Q=mc(T1-T2). Specific heat capacity of water is 4.18kJ/kgdegC. Given an energy input of 50kJ/s, 50/(88*4.18)= 0.1359 kg/s of water. (0.1359kg)*(60sec)*(60min)= 489L/hr. So its more like half a ton of water per hour.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:19 am
This turbine has a rotor diameter of 10m or a cross sectional area of 78.5m^2. Assuming a windspeed of 40km/hr or 11.11m/s, thats a volumetric flow of 872m^3/s. Given the density of air @ STP is 1.2kg/m^3, the mass flow rate of air is 1046kg/s. Kinetic energy is calculated as Ek = (1/2)mv^2, then the kinetic energy passing this turbine is (1/2)(1046)(11.11)^2 = 64554J/s or 64.5kW.
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:03 am
Just an observation and a bit of cynicism about the truthfulness of rated output. I find it difficult to believe that a breeze passing through this turbine would carry the energy equivalent to boil 3 tons of water in an hour.
March 25th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
maybe.. but assuming you can boil 2L of water in a 1000W kettle in 2 minutes (I am estimating here, havent done any calorimetric calculations), and this thing produces 50kW - that means on a windy day you can boil (60/2)*50*2 = 3000L/hr .. or in a normal workday of 8hrs you could boil 24000L of water … what do you need 24000L of boiling water for?
March 28th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Seems like an awful lot of expense and time to boil 20 odd kettles…when it’s windy.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
turn down the volume =P lol!
March 31st, 2009 at 7:56 pm
This thing is right near Canada’s Wonderland. I see it when I’m riding rides