Monday, 30 September 2013

First complete month

... practically.

As regular readers will be aware, our solar panels were out of action for 5 days this month. (See "Hiccups").

But apart from that, I now have a complete month's worth of readings.

For the sake of calculating an average, I've accounted for the 5 days of missing readings by allocating the predicted average value for each missing day (4.97kWh).

I've spreadsheeted the results, which are as follows:


The purple line at the right hand side is the readings from the last few days of August, and the red line is the readings for the whole of September.

The predicted daily average is 4.97kWh per day.  I've not added this line to the graph, but you can see where it would lie from the flat section between 19th-23rd, where the panels were out of action.

I've put a dotted linear trend line in to show the underlying change in the actual kWh generated for September. Oddly, it climbs towards the end of the month. I was expecting it to go down as the amount of daylight diminishes towards winter. I suspect this is because the weekend at the end of the month was unusually sunny, thus skewing the trend line upwards.

I have put together another graph, which shows the predicted generation for the whole year, broken down into months.  I have divided up the predicted annual generation figure into 12 months based on the average number of hours of sunlight per month from the met office figures at
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/19812010/sites/blackpool.html



The predicted total for September was 149kWh, and the actual generated (including assumed average for 5 days as discussed above) was 157kWh.

Other stats I've pulled out of the readings: 
  • The actual readings are 105.4% higher than the predicted
  • the array is generating 0.37kWh per each hour of daylight (sun up to sun down, irrespective of clouds)
It is satisfying to see that the actuals are slightly higher than the predicted.  It will be interesting to see how October pans out.


Monday, 23 September 2013

Dreaming the Big Dream Part 3 - Wind Turbines

Following on from Part 2 (Energy Storage)

Using *only* solar panels to generate our electricity, it is apparent that for our household to become electrical energy independent, the long-term energy storage required is unfeasibly expensive (although not impossible).

How then to generate more energy during the autumn/winter months while there is not so much sun around?

Which brings me onto wind turbines.  We all know about wind turbines - there are plenty of them dotted up and down the country already. Wind turbines are windmills that generate electricity when the wind blows them round. We live on the North West coast of England, and by 'eck it's blowy. A wind turbine would seem a very appropriate source of renewable energy.

This is the offshore wind farm at Morecame Bay, just up the coast from where we are.


This is commercial wind generation. Commercial turbines are HUGE (blade lengths up to 50m). There are a number of different models, and they generate between 1500kW and 3000kW.  They are fed into the grid, and are part of the country's national energy generation.

See this link for some tech. spec. on commercial turbines:

Obviously not appropriate for domestic generation. You'd have great difficulty sticking one of these puppies in your back garden.

But there are many different sizes and designs of wind turbines.  A lot of product development has gone into domestic turbines over the last few years. You can get teeny-tiny ones that you fix onto the side of your house (or motorhome or boat etc.) that generate enough electricity to charge a battery or light a few lights (50W).


Like this vertical-axis turbine. Without traditional horizontal blades they take up a lot less room. But at about £600 a go, they are a lot of money for the small amount of power you get from them.

I have identified 6 factors to consider in a domestic wind turbine:

1) How much electricity does it generate?

2) What is its operating range?
  • the operating range of a wind turbine is the slowest to the fastest wind speed in which they can generate electricity (There is a minimum wind speed below which they will not generate anything at all, and there is a maximum wind speed above which they switch off to prevent damage to the generator.)
3) What is its survival speed?
  • the fastest wind speed the turbine will tolerate before it is physically damaged (eg. in a storm)
4) How much does it cost / cost effectiveness? (what is its £ per kW)

5) What are the on-going maintenance/repair costs? (Turbines, unlike solar panels, are mechanical devices with moving parts that wear out, and need to be serviced/maintained to keep them operating)

6) How big is it? (Will it physically fit on your property? Will you get planning permission to install it?)

A little bit about wind speeds - there is a thing called the Beaufort scale which classifies wind speeds (primarily for nautical use, but a handy guide) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaufort_scale  This describes wind levels in easy-to-understand terms such as 'light breeze - wind felt on bare skin, leaves rustle' etc.

In the UK, you're allowed to put a wind turbine on your property without having to apply for planning permission as long as you adhere to these conditions:

I've discounted house-mounted turbines, they're too small to be of any decent use. The most pertinent restrictions for pole mounted turbines are:
  • the maximum allowed rotor diameter is 2.2m.
  • the lowest point of the rotor sweep must be at least 5m off the ground. So for a 2.2m diameter turbine, it must be mounted on a pole at least 6.1m off the ground.
  • the pole it is mounted on must be positioned at a minimum distance away from all your property boundaries, so that if the pole snaps at the base and falls over, it must land completely within your own property, whichever direction it falls in. 
Of course, you can install wind turbines that exceed these specifications, but you'd have to go through formal planning application. And if one of your neighbours objects to the idea, it would become difficult to secure permission to do it.

On a purely geek-interest level,  I've found a French company that have designed a new type of turbine blade. They use a 3D scooped design that has been engineered using fluid dynamics to produce zero wind-shear. This means they are silent in operation (well, not quite, but to all intents and purposes).  Because of this engineering, they have a wider operating range than traditionally-bladed turbines.   They are rudderless, and will automatically point in the correct direction to collect the incoming wind.  But my goodness they do look weird.  Here's one:


This is the Nheowind 3D-50. You'd need planning permission for one of these - the rotor blades have a 3.2m diameter. It has a maximum power output of 2kW. It starts generating electricity at a minimum wind speed of 6mph, reaches its maximum output at 29mph, and has a cut off speed of 68mph. It can physically survive wind speeds up to 112mph. 

It's 6mph turn-on speed is equivalent to 2 on the Beaufort scale ('light breeze' - wind felt on exposed skin, leaves rustle.)  Its maximum output is achieved at 29mph, or 6 on the Beaufort scale ('strong breeze' - large branches in motion, umbrella use becomes difficult, empty plastic bins tip over.) It continues to pump out 2kW all the way up to 68mph, ('fresh gale' - some twigs broken from trees, cars veer on road, progress on foot is seriously impeded).   It's survival speed, 112mph, is classified as level 2 hurricane on the safir-simpson wind scale. Thankfully we have never experienced one of these on the Fylde coast.

I've found some wind speed data for our area on the met office website:

According to the data in the link above, the average annual wind speed (AAWS) for the North West varies between 7-10 knots (8mph - 11.5mph). This is measured at a height of 69m amsl (above mean sea level) which is rather high to be sticking a small turbine. More investigation needed to see how the wind speed drops at lower heights. 

This data is from measurements taken between 1971-2000 at Ringway (Manchester airport).  I fancy the Fylde Coast may be higher than this.

According to the datasheet for the Nheowind 3D50, using the met office figures above it will turn in about 1000 kWh over the year.  Considering the additional time and effort required to get through planning, that's pretty poor compared to the solar panels, which are looking like giving me around 1800kWh for the year. 

The viability of wind energy is highly dependent on what your local average wind speed is.  For comparison, an AAWS of 20mph (5 on the Beaufort scale -'fresh breeze' - branches of a moderate size move, small trees in leaf begin to sway)  would produce about 6000kWh over the year.  I doubt the Fylde Coast average is that high, but you can see we're getting into the realms of viable investment.

Cost-wise, I've found a UK distributor charging £4400 for the 3D50 bundled with a Power One inverter

Then there is the 3D50's big brother, the Nheowind 3D100.  This turbine has a rotor diameter of 4m compared to the 3D50's 3.2m, yet it turns in more than double the power: 3000kWh per year at 9mph AAWS, rising to 15,000kWh per year at 20mph AAWS.

But in the meantime I reckon it's worthwhile spending a few quid putting up a wind speed monitor for a few months to see just what we're getting. It's impossible to make a sensible judgement before knowing that.

Addendum: just found a couple of handy little resources:

- I've not read them through properly yet, but the first one has some info on how wind speed varies depending on how high off the ground the turbine is.

...........................
Second addendum:  Just found out about the qr5 - a mid-scale vertical axis turbine that has some impressive figures... http://www.quietrevolution.com/qr5/faqs-technical.htm
It is a 6kW turbine, already MCS approved and the company is working on a smaller 2.5kW version.
...........................

Third addendum: I've found a more localised wind speed database for the Fylde Coast on the Department of Engery and Climate Change website.  It is indeed higher than at Ringway.
http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/windspeed/default.aspx

You have to enter the OS square code for the area you want to know the windspeed, and then click on 'find wind data' to search the database. AAWS results come back in m/s at various heights above sea level. Our little chunk of Fylde Coast is SD324300.

At 10m above sea level, our AAWS is 5.8m/s (12.9mph) ; at 25m above sea level, our AAWS is 6.6m/s (14.7mph).  



A qr5 vertical axis turbine being installed on a roof
From what I've read since last night, I'm beginning to get the impression that the vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) like the qr5 are going to be the future of small-scale wind generation. Their design is simpler - they have no 'yaw' considerations (they don't have to turn to point in the direction of the oncoming wind - they spin on their vertical axis no matter which direction the wind comes from. This means they also capture more energy from turbulent gusts that rapidly change direction. They are visually appealing (I think so at least!)  They have a much larger 'wind capture' area than an equivalently sized horizontal axis turbine (HAWT) so you get more kWh in the same space. I must confess the 3D50 scooped blade design has a charm of its own, but I think for the above reasons, VAWT is the way to go.

I've found an independent review of it, and it seems to come out very well.  
http://www.bettergeneration.co.uk/wind-turbine-reviews/qr5-wind-turbine.html
However, it also includes the price, which is way out of anything we could realistically afford (£25,000 installed). Shame. I think it's a beautiful bit of tech.  I look forward to investigating their smaller 2.5kW version when it comes out at.


Thursday, 19 September 2013

Hiccups...

Solar panels are a very simple technology. No moving parts, no batteries, nothing like that. You simply shine sun on them and they generate electricity.

Not so with inverters however.  Inverters are jam packed with very clever electronics to convert the DC power from the panels into a stable AC signal that can be fed directly into the mains grid.

The inverter is smart - when the panels aren't generating enough electricity to be able to provide a stable feed into the grid, it shuts itself down, with a helpful little message on the screen "waiting for sun".

Yesterday afternoon, in bright sunshine, the inverter switched itself off.  It decided there was no electricity coming from the panels, and shut itself down.  Because I like to go and peek at it at regular intervals, I became aware of this quite promptly.  I've rung the installation company and they've asked me to check a few things (have you turned it off and on again?), all to no avail.

So now, 24 hours later, it is still switched off. Waiting for the sun. And the sun is beating down from a clear blue sky this afternoon and ALL THAT BEAUTIFUL SUNLIGHT IS BEING WASTED. *sob*

They can't get out to me before the weekend, so now I'm powerless (groan) over the weekend.

That's going to knacker my averages :/

Here's the last week's generation results:

Weds 11th Sept 0.8kWh
Thurs 12th Sept 4.2kWh
Frid    13th Sept 2.5kWh
Sat     14th Sept 10.8kWh
Sun     15th Sept 1.3kWh
Mon   16th Sept 4.3kWh
Tues   17th Sept 1.3kWh

Total for the week of 25.2 kWh
average 3.6 kWh per day

Tuesday, 17 September 2013

Energy distribution during the day

As I've outlined in previous posts, solar panels don't generate energy at full whack all day long.

When the sun rises, the amount of sunlight reaching the panels starts increasing.  When there is a measurable amount (a few Watts), the inverter switches on and starts supplying power to the grid.

Then, as the sun gets higher in the sky, the power coming from the panels rises and rises until it reaches the peak.  The peak is higher during the summer months as the sun is higher in the sky and more watts of light energy are falling on the panel than compared to the low winter sun.


This is a photo of the graph on the inverter taken at the end of 14th September 2013.

Each column on the graph is an hour's generation. Each horizontal line is 25% of maximum output power. This was a good day to demonstrate how the energy generated changes during the day, since there was no clouds in the sky all day, and the change in output energy is purely due to the changing position of the sun in the sky.

The peak plateaus out at just under 75% power over lunchtime for about 3 hours. In mid-September, the sun is now too low in the sky even at midday to get 100% out of the panels. The array was generating for a total of 11 hours.

A total of 10.8kWh generated for the day is certainly very respectable for a 1.92kW array. It will be interesting to see how this graph compares to midwinter, and then again at midsummer.

Monday, 16 September 2013

Dreaming the Big Dream Part 2 - Energy Storage

I can see this is going to be the killer issue for becoming electrically self-sufficient. There is one significant stumbling block to overcome, which I shall explain:

As described on the previous blog entry, I've worked out I would need approximately 40 solar panels to generate all our household's electricity requirements for an entire year.

Assuming that theoretically, I could install 40 panels, I've made a graph showing how the average amount of electricity generated per day changes over the year due to the change in sunlight / daylight hours (red bars).  (These figures are for 40 panels, but they're derived from the estimate/predictions for our 8-panel array.)

Also, on the same graph, I've shown the average amount of electricity we use per day (blue bars). I've taken these numbers directly from our npower 2012 consumption figures.  The monthly distribution is a bit squiffy, presumably due to when they take meter readings, but the total for the year is correct.


You can see straight away that the two graphs are almost perfect opposites of each other. Whilst the total kWh generated over the year matches the total kWh used during the year, we use more than we generate during October - March. And then we generate more than we use during April - September.

For us to survive just on solar panels, we would need to store all this energy generated during the spring/summer months so we could use it during the winter months.  The total surplus generated from April-Sept would be 2198.17kWh.

And herein lies the killer problem.  That is a thumping huge amount of electrical energy to store, and it needs to be stored for 6 months.  We would need to start using the stored energy during October, and would continue using it all the way through til March.

I have done some very trivial research into electrical energy storage - apart from the obvious (sealed lead-acid batteries) there are a number of other energy storage technologies that are being developed. Here's two:

FLYWHEELS
Flywheel energy storage is a maturing technology. Here's an example:


From what I've read, this looks like a fantastic technology for energy storage- it's very simple and there's little to go wrong. They're about the size of R2-D2, so you'd need a bit of space to install it (they can go underground). But.... and it's a big but, they don't have the long-term requirements we'd need.

Flywheels 'leak' energy due to them gradually slowing down, even with vacuum chambers and magnetically suspended flywheels, the second law of thermodynamics means they can't store energy indefinitely.  Graph showing storage time for flywheel  Click that to see the graph - it quotes 95% of stored energy still available after 10 hours, which means it would leak all of its stored energy after 8 days (200 hours).  One of these flywheels can store 50kWh, which is enough for about 1½ - 2 days worth of electricity.  This technology would be ideal for storing solar generated energy for use overnight, or for covering shortfall in generation due to a particularly rainy day, so they are definitely worth keeping on the radar.

CRYOGENIC COOLING
Cryogenic cooling energy storage is another technology being developed. This is a lot more complex though. The process uses excess energy to liquify gases by cooling them to very low temperatures, and then when the energy is needed back, the liquid gases are pumped into room temperature chambers, and the resultant expansion of the gases used to drive a turbine to generate electricity.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenic_energy_storage
Whilst being quite a cool (groan) technology, it goes without saying that this is *way* outside anything realistic for domestic use.

BATTERIES
Which leaves us with batteries. Normal, sealed lead-acid batteries (car batteries).  A very mature technology, mass produced and cheap. After a quick google, there are loads of different kinds, and you're talking about £30 for a 12V-12Ah battery. If my A-level physics is still up to scratch, that translates into 0.144kWh, fully charged, for one battery. Remember, the excess energy from the summer is 2198.17kWh, which would all need to be stored in batteries. Now you see the problem. I'll do the maths for you - that's over 15,000 car batteries. Not going to happen. This is a dead end, we need to back up and look at this another way. But that's for another day.


This gives a total storage capability of 2.4kWh - a much more respectable figure, but we'd still need 916 of them to get us through the winter.  And that would set us back over £11,000, and they'd fill an entire shed.  So I think realistically, we can still discount batteries as a solution.

What do you think? Please comment.

Saturday, 14 September 2013

Dreaming the Big Dream

This week I started daring to dream the unthinkable dream:
Would it ever be possible to become completely self-sufficient for our electricity needs?  Is it possible that I would never have to buy another kWh from the national grid, ever again?  How much would it cost? Is this something socially responsible and worthwhile to pursue?

If we were to disconnect every single electrical appliance in our home, and never turn a light on again, then obviously the answer would be yes. But this is not an acceptable solution for me and my household.  You could quite accurately accuse me of being an energy non-conformist activist, but I'm not about to become a hemp-wearing yurt-dwelling beardy wonder.

So let me rephrase the question:  Assuming my household continues to use the amount of electricity we're using at the moment, would we ever be able to generate that amount indefinitely? Then we would be truly electrically self sufficient.

Being an electrical/electronically minded geek type, I find this kind of thing interesting so I'd like to investigate what it would take to actually make this happen.

As for being a socially responsible and worthwhile project to pursue, I'd say unequivocally, a resounding yes. Given that our country is muddling its way through an emerging energy crisis, and will continue to do so over the next 5 or 10 years, reducing my demands on 'the system' is a wholly responsible thing to do. 

The cost? This is also key. Making a responsible judgement on the use of our finances (in conjunction with my loving and long-suffering wife of course) must be weighed into the equation. Is becoming electrically independent something only the filthy rich could aspire to?

I've broken the question down into three solvable parts:
1) How much electricity *do* we use at the moment?
2) How many solar panels/wind turbines/insert other renewable energy source here* would be needed to generate that amount?
3) What kind of energy storage requirements would be required to make sure the energy was available to use even when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing?
4) What kind of costs are we talking about?

Question 1:
This is dead easy to solve - I'm with npower, and they have a very helpful website showing me how much energy I've used over the past years, broken down by month.  For the whole of 2012, we used 8969kWh. I gather this is quite high for domestic consumption, but then I work from home and have a number of computers/air con etc. in the office that's in use 9-5 throughout the working week. Broken down by month, December was the highest with 982kWh. July was the least at 393kWh.  From the 2013 readings so far, our consumption has dropped slightly this year, probably due to me fitting LED lighting in the office and throughout the house.

Question 2:
I'm not yet in a position to answer this accurately. Our solar panels have been up for just over 2 weeks, so the predications/estimates for the amount generated this year are just that. According the latest figures I've compiled, we could be generating between 1700-2000kWh per year with our 8 panels.  Using a simple division of the 2012 yearly amount, this shows we would need between 36 and 42 panels. We could fit another 2 onto our south-facing roof, taking us up to 10 panels. Still only about a quarter of the power we would need for the year.  But even now, this doesn't sound absolutely out of the question - even using only solar power. For the sake of three more bits of roof that are the same area as ours is currently, it is looking quite achievable from a generation perspective...

More later on this methinks... off out to walk the dog with the wife...

Please feel free to leave comments/ideas about this topic.





Thursday, 12 September 2013

Sept 4th - Sept 10th

Generation results for the week:

Wed 6.5
Thur  6.8
Fri    1.3
Sat   4.3
Sun   5.6
Mon 6.7
Tue   11.0

Total 42.2 kWh for the week
Avg 6.03 kWh per day.

With 11kWh, Tuesday was the highest generation day yet, with only very thin patchy cloud from sunrise to sunset.  

As an aside, I managed to dig out this graph showing the measured performance difference between conventional (c-Si) solar panels and the HIT panels:


(taken from the Panasonic datasheet for the panel)

For those of you with a mathematical bent, you may have noticed that there is a maximum difference of only about 10% between the two panel technologies at optimum sun conditions. Away from the centre of the peaks, the two panels' performance are very similar.  Although it is the area under the curve that matters when comparing the two.

Wednesday, 4 September 2013

First full week

Right, first full week of solar generation completed - here's the total kWh generated for each day over the last week since installation:

Wed 8.3
Thur 5.2
Fri    3.9
Sat 10.4
Sun  2.5
Mon 5.5
Tue   5.8
Total 41.6 kWh for the week
Avg 5.9 kWh per day.

As you can see, the values vary considerably despite being over 7 consecutive days, with virtually identical amounts of daylight (sun up to sun down).  The differences are due to cloud cover.  Even for the HIT panels, when the sun goes behind moderate cloud, the drop off is noticeable.

I've detailed in a previous blog post ("First full day") about how I have worked out the predicted average daily kWh for each month.  The seven days above span across the end of August and beginning of September, so I've crunched those two months averages and the prediction shows an average of 5.46kWh/day for this period.

Therefore at the moment, I'm getting about 8% more than predicted, which, if consistent over the year, translates into a final year prediction of 1776 kWh for the year.

As the winter nights draw in, and the cloud cover is more frequent, the predicted daily averages drop off as follows:
October:     3.18 kWh / day
November: 1.79 kWh / day
December:  1.13kWh / day

The panels were working absolutely flat out for a good chunk of Satuday (August 31st). I checked the inverter a couple of times over lunch when the sun was at its highest, and they were kicking out 1920W, which is their theoretical maximum. It was sunny all day on Saturday, with only intermittent hazy cloud cover from time to time - hence the 10.4kWh total for that day. It's worth noting that the predicted daily kWh average for *June* is 7.59kWh.