navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address. Following continuous spam/hack attempts on the forum, "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Correspondence re anti-competition aspects of the MCS/FITs tie-up.  (Read 102117 times)
notamemberoftheclub
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2009, 03:36:59 PM »

The small wind turbine industry does not oppose the idea of reasonable standards

What is wrong with the MCS / FIT's proposals is that the standards apply only to those products for FIT's

Hence this will not stop the sale of dangerous wind turbines and is actually likely to increase the market for cheap, inferior quality product in the short term (low prices)

My proposal is that the standards should apply to every wind turbine sold with no link to FIT's

Logged
guydewdney
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4320



« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2009, 06:09:44 PM »

This is a link to a Youtube Video of an identical wind turbine to the one I have purchaced. Mine is still currently in its box, as i am still batteling with my local District Council. They have insisted that I provide a detailed Accoustic Noise report specific to my turbine at my location. They also do not recognise the reccomendation in the PPS22 doccument or the noise collection method sugested. They further have refused to accept the manufacturers report as they say there is no way to confirm background noise levels are of the same tonal type to that of my area. However they are also refusing to grant temporary permission to errect the turbine so that Noise data can be collected. So I am in a catch 22 situation right now.

Here is the Video




Then bolt it to a trailer, and the guys to three other trailers / cars and erect it like that. Then its mobile, and up for a few days - all legal like. ish
Logged

Pic of wheel on day 1
7.2kW Waterwheel and 9.8kW PV
notamemberoftheclub
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2009, 06:11:54 PM »

I am very keen to present a reasonable and balanced opinion on the MCS debate even though the BWEA (British Wind Energy Association)  have not responded to my offer to help them send out their letter of support for MCS which they intend to send to Paul Rochester of the Department of Energy and Climate Change

I have posted the BWEA letter below

If you would like to offer your support you can write to Alex Murley   A.murley@bwea.com and to Paul Rochester Paul.Rochester@decc.gsi.gov.uk

Alternatively if you disagree with MCS please also write to Alex and Paul

THE MORE PEOPLE WHO GET INVOLVED THE BETTER but please identify if you are a business or private individual and provide contact details to verify your response

If you would like more information on MCS I will be pleased to send copies of the letters I have sent to the industry - mail stephen@hymoto.co.uk

It would be useful if you would copy me if you e mail Alex and Paul

In the BWEA letter below I have added a paragraph below shown in red - this paragraph taken from an e mail from Alex Murley of BWEA to myself

Mr. Paul Rochester
Head of Microgeneration and Standards
Department of Energy and Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2AW




Dear Mr Paul Rochester,                        


The UK small wind sector fully supports MCS
 
BWEA is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries. Formed in 1978, and with over 540 corporate members, BWEA is the leading renewable energy trade association in the UK. BWEA currently has over 80 small wind system members, including micro- and small-wind turbine manufacturers, installers, test laboratories, utilities, academic institutions and certification bodies.

   Taken from a BWEA letter to myself BWEA's small wind membership has grown from 30 companies in 2007 to over 80 companies in 2009 and includes the following (13) small wind manufacturers: Proven Energy (UK), Ampair (UK), Eclectic (UK), Marlec (UK), Evance/Iskra (UK), Renewable Devices (UK), Northern Power Systems (USA), Fortis (NL), SeaB (UK), Vertical Wind Energy (UK), Quietrevolution (UK), Nheolis (FR), Gendrive (UK);


It is on behalf of BWEA membership, and those additionally listed within this letter, that we would like to provide clarity on the importance of industry standards for wind products, and the installation of wind products, in supporting the development of an ethical and sustainable UK market for small wind turbines:

(1) We fully support MCS as a means to support national policy development in the UK.

(2) We fully support the continuous improvement of MCS standards in light of enlarged knowledge, new experiences, and constructive, evidence based feedback from industry stakeholders.

(3) We are fully committed to the responsible and sustainable growth of the UK small wind market through the provision of consumer assurance on performance and safety.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Murley, Head of Small Systems, BWEA

List of BWEA members (Name, Business title, Organisation)
List of non-BWEA member (Name, Business title, Organisation)


Logged
notamemberoftheclub
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2009, 06:19:01 PM »

If anyone would like full copies of my correspondence with the BWEA and their replies please e mail stephen@hymoto.co.uk

This is long and detailed but you are welcome to it

Stephen
Logged
martin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15733



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2009, 07:00:54 PM »

the last three "bullet points" are tantamount to an incredibly arrogant and patronising "we're in charge, pay us gazillions to become a member of our scurrilous and dishonest organisation, or you can go stuff yourself".......... now what's that old saying? - something about "pride goeth......." whistlie
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 07:03:57 PM by martin » Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
Flamethrower_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 745



« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2009, 08:46:16 PM »

Martin,

All this reminds of a bunch of *ankers! (place a b or w as you see fit in place of the '*') if we can't rip you off one way  banghead we will do it another way wackoold to any SME's who are trying thier hardest to survive at this minute in time Huh
Logged
Ted
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3936



« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2009, 09:27:49 PM »

Something to file in the 'you couldn't ******* make it up' category.   wackoold

Gemserv, the company selected by DECC to run the MCS, have a corporate charity - Tourettes Action.

http://www.tourettes-action.org.uk/news-page/2009/8/17/were-gemservs-charity-of-the-year.html
Logged

Volunteer moderator
Rob in Halstock
Guest
« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2009, 11:38:57 AM »

This MCS system is a FITup... yes. But its not just the small manufactures who are going to suffer its the consumer too, and ultimately the Climate !. The only real way to ensure turbines are available at low cost and installed safley is to allow full international trade without barriers or restrictions to planning permission placed on non MCS machines. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the system works right now for ensuring a new building or building modification has been correctly done. I see no reason why a "Renewable Energy instalation Inspector" position could not be created. After all it realy does not matter if the turbine was installed by a 1 armed person with 3 brain cells. If the instalation complies with all relavent regualtions then it should be given a certificate of approval and be allowed to be switched on.
Logged
northern installer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1494


« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2009, 09:46:05 AM »

Rob,again I would request you read my post in detail;building control deal only in implementing the building regulations;they cover 'specialist' areas,not with a friendly in house engineering team,but by referring to certificates provided by competent installers,agrement certification of materials and so on.There is no 'inspector of turbines' and most unlikely that the will ever be one,local authorities have neither the funding,nor infrastructure for such a venture.
To look at it another way,who,in their right mind,is going to come from a local authority, look at a turbine spinning merrily on its pole,but without any certification of manufacture or installation,put in by someone without relevant qualification,and then sign his/her name to some sort of certificate? which insurance company is going to provide his/her professional indemnity? who is going to pay his salary?if such people do exist,they probably work from the same office as the tooth fairy.
With regard to your turbine,the u tube vid looks very nice,but I would suggest you spend the time whilst waiting for planning stripping it down and looking for the following:lack of concentricity ,rotor/stator....  poor brush alignment.... brushes wrong size for housing.....tight bearings.....bearings end loaded without a spacer between....bearings welded into a poorly machined  housing (!!!)....inadequate/cracked/bodged housing....weakness around furling bracket....inadequate strength in pole...
all these and more have been found in the few turbines I have put up;and finally,beware of 'generic' designs,some turbines are quite well made,but others,obviously from the same drawings look the same but have appalling workmanship.Can you now see the need for industry wide certification?

edit;by this I do NOT mean certification by MCS!
« Last Edit: December 21, 2009, 09:51:19 AM by northern installer » Logged

"government scrappage scheme still available on Tardis trade ins (dont ask how we get around the deadline...)"
biff
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12270


An unpaid Navitron volunteer who lives off-grid.


« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2009, 09:13:46 PM »

awwww good folk, bike
                this thing has become tres serious.we need freedom of expression,,within a certain framework,if some inspector of turbines came at me with such questions of safety and reliability i would probely tell him i had just caught swine flu.
 may i also add that there is indeed such a person as the windturbine inspector.he is 84,alive and well and living on an island of donegal.i have to addmitt he is also the undertaker ,postman and piermaster and due to his busy schedule he is only available to inspect windturbines after 12midnight in nice weather and 8 pints of the blackstuff.i guess stephen tasker and northern installer would question his reliability but he has yet to say a bad word about a single windturbine.he did remark"dey are bloody hard to see without a lamp" after he walked into a tower horror in the dark. stir
                                 biff whistlie
Logged

An unpaid Navitron volunteer,who has been living off-grid,powered by wind and solar,each year better than the last one.
northern installer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1494


« Reply #40 on: December 22, 2009, 10:09:28 AM »

Biff,sounds wonderful,I think I could enjoy living where you are!
Logged

"government scrappage scheme still available on Tardis trade ins (dont ask how we get around the deadline...)"
northern installer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1494


« Reply #41 on: December 22, 2009, 11:05:24 AM »

It is my view that a wind turbine  should be designed,constructed and installed in such a way that it will withstand any forseeable gale,without the need to be lowered or shut down in any way other than by its own inbuilt systems;it should have a design life of at least twenty years,with nothing more than a yearly service and inspection and three yearly overhaul by the manufactures designated engineers.I believe anything less than this specification to be utterly pointless.Comments invited.
Logged

"government scrappage scheme still available on Tardis trade ins (dont ask how we get around the deadline...)"
wigmyster
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #42 on: December 22, 2009, 05:39:42 PM »

Yes that should definitely be a option if you want peace of mind & have the money. The question is should it be the only option that is what is being debated here. No matter how well you design a product sooner or later be it by design or use something will happen. When that does happen the objectors revel in it. I live in Cornwall near the site of the Scottish problem turbine & from the initial problem the wives tales & wind hate whispers have now escalated to the point where my Mother actually phoned me worried saying a piece fell off & took a child's eye out (Not true by the way). This is the problem we have as we all love a good "road crash". We also had a fool in the paper saying quoting the hourly output of a local small scale wind farm as the yearly output i.e a factor of 8760 out.

My point being that its even possible that having this extra so called blanket will make the PR worse as things will still go wrong from time to time as with all mechanical devices.

Its the link  between MCS & the FIT that is the bug bear & more to the point its the 80k to get MCS. As Ted has said if we have standards already why do we need more? If the MCS standard was grant funded would it be so much of a issue?
Also the price of a nice 11kW Danish & 50kW Canadian downwind has close to doubled in the last two years. Strange that! Wonder why? It must be the exchange rate is bad or could it possibly be anything to do with FIT?

RR or Lada there should be room for all with a MOT & that's includes the Alfa's if you know what I mean. As with all things in life you should be able to pay for what you get expecting to get a better product the more you pay. I am afraid from my side of the fence with very few exceptions you pay what the UK can afford linked to a perceived pay back period of 5-7 years & longer for smaller machines. This is the only reason some of us look at cheaper foreign machines as we can see the same turbine in the UK with a 5 year warranty for 500% less across the water.

Logged
brackwell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3349


« Reply #43 on: December 22, 2009, 05:40:09 PM »

Northern installer,
Of course you need this standard in 2009. It is perhaps lack of standards that has allowed the pickle we are in regarding wind turbines. I am in favour of turbines but i would not want my neighbour to erect something which could fly apart for his sake as well as mine!  
That however is not the thread - it is broadly how bearocracy will add significant expense to certification.  Namely,
Theoretical stress analysis
 wind tunnel testing
Long term cyclic endurance testing
Noise assessment
How to recycle at end of life
and dont forget H&S where nobody will take responsibility for anything.

Sorry to say this will sink small wind turbines and i so much wanted one being a sailor.   Perhaps the only way is to put one up before April and forgo FITs

Ken
Logged
petertc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541



« Reply #44 on: December 22, 2009, 06:49:38 PM »


Theoretical stress analysis
 

If you want to learn some free software for stress analysis try CAE Linux might cut down some costs, most of this stuff is static analysis, if you have to get to dynamic analysis then the cost will jump dramatically.
I think that some commercial  software out there say the results are for a guide only !

You could go for destructive testing but again lots of costs setting things up.

The company i work for do a certain company that make things that fly that have rotors and some of the test rigs we make see some very serious forces  Grin Grin Can't say too much more  police
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!