I am really upset after reading all the comments made,I am very keen into going a little greener for my grandchildrens sake..so its not about getting my money back over a period of time,I think that is not the way to look at things,eg..I dont look into getting my cash back after having my new kitchen installed
My problem either isnt with planning permission,recently obtained from my local authority,the difficulty is now with building control,and building regulations,I want the turbine fixed onto a gable wall,and they now say I need to get a structural servey,this adding about thousand pounds to the cost,with no guarantees the wall will be sound,what do you think I should do??

barry, walsall, england

Is John Large the same John Large who acts as a consultant on Nuclear Energy matters? It may explain why he was willing to spend £13000 on placing a wind turbine in an unsuitable place.

Owen Gwynne, Runcorn,

Grow Your Own Energy, a UK consumer advisory service on domestic renewable energy agrees with the main premise that urban small wind is a niche market. The vast majority of urban sites, especially for building mounted turbines are likely to be unsuitable. We'd encourage those considering a wind turbine to visit our web site and use the Technology Choice Questionnaire to see if the technology would be viable for your home. www.growyourownenergy.co.uk

Mark, Grow Your Own Energy, Birmingham,

All of this domestic windfarming and -itting about with lightbulbs is irrelevant peripheral nonsense compared with industrial and commercial vehicle usage of energy. We need Hydrogen. Preferably generated by local direct solar electrolysis systems made by Hydrogen Solar of Guildford. Why the government doesn't promote this utterly clean technology for immediate production is a mystery unless you are a dependent of the existing Hydrocarbon industries [oil, gas, coal etc.].

Jonathon Baxter, Oxford, England

I quite agree with Mr Leyland of Cambridge. Your 'Environment Correspondent cannot tell the difference between kilowatts and kilowatt-hours. Since this distinction is central to his argument, he has clearly no comprehension whatever of the issues at hand and should be sacked immediately. Until this happens no credence can be attatched to any scientific report in the Times.

I have been buying the Times for abou twenty years and would deeply regret having to transfer my allegience to a different paper. But this sort of incompentence is not acceptable in a paper of record.

Brian, Darlington, England

B. Edwards, you're missing one thing here: cost. Gas central heating is cheaper than the heat from a lightbulb produced by electricity.

Of course, since this country is stuck in the fifties where heating is concerned and they are STILL building houses with electric heating, for a lot of people it's true that it doesn't make a difference.

Starling, Lancaster,

This article is peppered with techinical and engineering errors, not least in the authors complete inability to tell the difference between power and energy which renders almost all his numerical arguments meaningless. How such an obvious scientific illiterate claims to be a science author I know not. Or should we perhaps conclude that to be an 'Environment Reporter' requires no scientific thinking skills whatsoever. Which might explain why almost everything they write is so woefully lacking in anything aproaching scientific reasoning.

William Leyland, Cambridge,

The same misconceptions exist in all the hype over low energy light bulbs. The “waste” energy from ordinary light bulbs is in fact heat, and in a heated, thermostatically environment there is no energy saving, merely a transfer from electricity to whatever fuels the central heating.. Use them outside by all means, but don’t pretend there is any energy saving indoors except in the height of summer. Similar arguments also apply to the so-called waste energy from TVs on standby, mobile phone chargers, etc, it all ends up as heat within the home.

B. Edwards, Beaconsfield, Bucks

I have to take you to task over your careless and innaccurate use of terminology. A kW is a unit of power. We buy (and in this case sell) energy, not power. Energy is power multiplied by time, or if your technical, power integrated over time. An average house uses 23kWh or kilo-Watt hours of ENERGY in a day, and Mr Large's turbine has produced 4 kWh of energy.

If we want people (especially kids, whose future is going to be affected most) to understand the energy debate, let's start by getting the basics right.

Tim Collyer, Billingshurst, UK

It's not all doom and gloom; fusion power offers the prospect of virtually unlimited clean energy and is estimated to be only 30-50 years away. We just need to find a decent stop-gap until then.

Mikko Takala, Drumnadrochit, Scotland

It is just more pie in the sky. One thing that never seems to be taken into consideration is the amount of energy required to manufacture, maket and install these things doutfull if they will ever repay this energy before the end of there usefuill life.
Same with solor heating for your hot water, simple maths say that you wil need a 40 year payback time, by then it will be a ugly blot on your roof

P.Vernon, Halifax west yorks,

Your reporter meant kilowatt-hours (kWh) which is a measure of energy, not kilowatts (kW) which is a measure of power.

ColinG, Dohar,

No mention of a grant? I wonder how much this folly cost the tax-payer? It could easily be 5k!

It's hard to comment on the figures with any confidence as Lewis Smith doesn't know the difference between energy and power, and seems to have doubled the averege domestic usage for some reason. Nevertheless, if the turbine has exported 4kWh to the grid in 4 weeks, I can't see that even covering the energy required to keep the electronics running.

Tom Harrigan, Banbury,

This article confuses kilowatts (kW) a measure of power, with kilowatt hours (kWh) a measure of energy.
This makes me sceptical of the entire article since it is clearly written by someone who doesn't understand even the units in which energy is measured.

Michael de Podesta, London, UK

Like Bruno Prior, I would give this article more credence if the writer knew the difference between kilowatts (kW) and kilowatt.hours (kWh). Wind turbines do not deliver at their headline capacity (for all sorts of reasons) for more than a fraction of the time.
That is why, when the UK reaches the headline wind power generation capactity of 2 Gigawatts (announced 10th February) it is so misleading to say that 2 Gigawatts is enough energy (sic) for 1.1 million homes. 2 Gigawatts delivered continuously - as coal, oil, gas or nuclear power could do - is enough; 2 Gigawatts total generating capacity of wind turbines will not deliver the same and will only save part of the fuel.

Edward Tufton, London,

You wanna see some hot air? Check out the "turbine" at the BP station on the south side of Wandsworth Bridge. It turns with no wind. Surely most thinking people that pass it regularly conclude that its connected to the photovoltaic panels on the petrol station roof, so that it turns to make PR Power.
This and many other Renewable Energy "badges" do the move towards sustainable (sensible) development and genuinely alternative energy no good at all.

J Williams, London,

Ideologically driven micro-generation across the country. The Great Leap Forward immediately springs to mind. Go back to economics class folks.

Paul, Dublin,

The whole subject of micro and distributed generation is overhyped by environmental groups. Even the environmentalist George Monbiot agrees that it will not be of benefit to most people. His and other articles are referenced from the Greenspin website (www.greenspin.org.uk) which aims to counter inaccurate and misleading information propagated by Greenpeace and other bodies.

Greenspin, London, UK

I agree with Bruno Power. If he is only generating 9p worth of electricity a week then this amounts to 1kWh at the lowest price of most companies. This is dire and if the case, I am surprised Mr Large is not taking the supplier to court. Either that or he has sited his turbine behind a wall. This article does not give those of us enough information. I live rurally and want to buy a small turbine. Can we have infromation from someone in my position to let me know if buying one will be cost effective for me? I only use on average 15Kwh per day.

P Roberts, Nairn, UK

Reference David Vinter

The Rance tidal barrier certainly looks impressive when walking across it. However it was very expensive and generates a miserable 1% of Brittany's electricity let alone France's.

Charlie, London, UK

Richard,

The best CHP technologies return c.90% global efficiency - still excellent, but not 100% like you say.

"Why do we seem to find this so unattractive?" Cost, my dear Richard, cost. The only way you can recoup the upfront cost is by generating a lot of electricity, AND selling any excess back to the grid at the same price that it charges you for any shortfall - don't count on it!

Also, you won't produce much electricity to begin with. Except for the CCGT technology (and they are huge, definitely not for domestic use), a CHP plant produces a lot more heat than power, so most of the time how hard you run it will be limited by your heat demand.

Michael, London,

The comment about Mr Large's connections to the nuclear industry is unfair - a review of the studies available on his site (www.largeassociates.com) indicates that they are not excessively favourable to nuclear power.

There are other doubts about this story, besides the ignorance of the difference between kW and kWh. You can find at the above website a press release announcing the installation of the turbine - a 2.5 kW unit from Proven that "matches the base load" of their office, and "exporting any surplus". £13,000 is _very_ expensive for such an installation. What does it cover?

Assuming 4 kWh was meant, was this referring to total generation (as implied), or could it be the amount exported? If the latter, this may indicate simply that his base load consumption is greater than all but the very peak output of his turbine. If so, he should certainly have taken into account the value of the imported electricity displaced. If not, this is indeed catastrophic performance. We should be told.

Bruno Prior, Maidenhead, UK

Following about twnty years working in Andalucia on farms and houses I can state that so called alternative tecnology is incapable of producing viable "White electricity" ( the one that makes a washing machine work. While being a nice idea it simply does not work. The problem is simply the amount of electrity requires is too large for a simple system to produce. An instalation large enough to provide a stream of 15 KVA is beyond the economic cost of a simple householder. Either you learn to live with only 2000 watts an hour or you need the national grid- QED

PEDRO F SANTAMARIA, Granada, Spain

Some 40 years ago , France invested an enormous sum of money into the River Rance tidal generating scheme. Is it not strange that they have never done another, and taken the nuclear route instead, to such an extent that they are 75% reliable on nuclear plants?

DAVID VINTER, LOUTH, LINCS., UK.

David Cameron has one of these doesn''t he?

Steve Byrne, Christchurch,

The only way to get a bit of profit out of your wind turbine (which isn't the point of a wind turbine in the first place, but that aside), is to ALWAYS switch it off when there isn't sufficient wind to get full capacity (so you also need to stop it when it's running half or 3/4 speed). Otherwise you end up paying more for maintenance than you get in electricity.

starling, Lancaster,

First , power is measured in KW, energy is Kilowatt hours. This is a key factual error. An average household would use 23 KWH in a day.
Also, 'third's' (sic) is just plural so should be 'thirds'

Richard Jones, Chester, UK

Is this the Mr John Large who is regularly wheeled out by the gullible media as an expert in nuclear generated electricity.

jferguson, leatherhead,

Herein lies the danger of jumping on a bandwagon from a position of ignorance. Dedicated followers of fashion rarely see a return on their "investment", however Mr Large can draw extra wamth from his piety.

Dave, Notts, UK

Setting aside the general picture on the private exploitation of renewable energy sources, can I please, please ask that The Times sends at least a few journalists on a GCSE level physics course.

The journalist almost certainly means the Mr. Large's machine has managed to generate only 4 kilowatt HOURS of power over the four weeks it has been installed and that the averable household consumes 23 kilowatt HOURS of electricity per day. The kilowatt is a rate of consumption not a unit of electrical energy.

What the journalist actually wrote really meant that at some time Mr. Large's machine has achieved 4 kilowatts. This would in fact be very attractive as the consumption of an average household is just under one kilowatt. In other words, the journalist told us that, at times, Mr. Large's machine was generating enough electricity for four average households. Sadly, I assume this was not in fact the case.

David Cooke, Woking, UK

Try solar hot water then, it's passive for a start, no nasty whirring or buzzing noises at night disturbing you or the neighbours, practically maintenance free, and will return better than 30% per year in utility hot water energy costs for around 25 years.
Since 84% of all household energy is heating the house and supplying domestic hot water it has to make sense. Wind? There's a lot of hot air about it, and big subsidies for big business, but for the likes of you and me? Forget it the Govt. are not interested.
For a start the utilities rake in 6 billion a year. Take 30% of that away because we're creating our own energy supply and not buying it. Utilities lose 2 billion quid and Mr G Brown loses the VAT you pay and the Tax take from the utilties. That's why solar is not as high profile as it should be. www.mantra-energy-management.co.uk

Ains. Casson, Westhoughton, Lancs.

The most sensible option is micro-CHP (Combined Heat and Power). Instead of a gas boiler for your hot water and heating, you have a small (say 5kW) engine, connected to al alternator. The engine is cooled by water that is passed around the house and surplus electricity is fed to the grid. The engine can also function as a pump for the hot water.

The best gas fired combined cycle (gas and steam turbine) powerstations are about 56% efficient (coal, oil, AGR nuclear about 38%) but only CHP can be 100% (including the heat demand). Battersea power station used to heat flats in Pimlico decades ago, but I know of no other major CHP schemes in Britain, and have been unable to find anyone who can install a 5kW plant in my house. Why do we seem to find this so unattractive?

Richard, Preston, UK

What kind of ‘engineer’ is this guy, if he thought he was going to get any kind of return from this nonsensical device?
If he felt a need to fly a ‘green flag’ he should have bought a green flag.

seamus, spain,

Mr Large's experience could have been predicted by any competent electrical engineer. Wind turbines are synchronous machines that must rotate at a constant speed and in phase with the main supply before wind enegry that reaches the blades above a threshold is able to generate electricity. For the most time, they are been driven by the mains and consuming power.

The wind-power debate is skewed by the subsidies that companies receive to install these useless monuments to gullability.

Anthony Cutler, Malvern, Worcs/UK