The Center for American Progress reports
As part of its first major retrofit in 30 years, two custom-designed wind turbines have started generating power for the Eiffel Tower. Located above the World Heritage Site's second level, about 400 feet off the ground, the sculptural wind turbines are now producing 10,000 kWh of electricity annually, equivalent to the power used by the commercial areas of the Eiffel Tower's first floor. The vertical axis turbines, which are capable of harnessing wind from any direction, were also given a custom paint job to further incorporate them into the iconic monument's 1,000-foot frame. At the same time they bring the image of the 1889 tower firmly into the 21st Century.
[...]In addition to the wind turbines, the renovation includes energy efficient LED lighting, high-performance heat pumps, a rainwater recovery system, and 10 square meters of rooftop solar panels on the visitor pavilion.
There was no required renewable energy target for the Eiffel Tower's facelift, but the project developers see it as a major landmark in Paris' climate plan. The city's plan(PDF) aims for a 25 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 25 percent drop in energy consumption, and for 25 percent of energy to come from renewable energy sources by 2020.
(Score: 4, Informative) by deadstick on Thursday February 26 2015, @12:57AM
...is a pretty pretentious way to say "1.1 kilowatts".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @01:24AM
What matters is... will it blend at this power? (nope)
(Score: 1) by draconx on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:30AM
Indeed, that's a paltry amount of power. I don't know what "the commercial areas of the Eiffel Tower's first floor" includes but I suppose it's just a handful of light fixtures.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:40AM
There's one very expensive restaurant and some visitor stuff.
Arguably, the first floor is open about 14 hours a day on average, so the 10MWh/yr average closer to 2kW. That's a couple hundred LED lightbulbs. I don't think they counted the elevators in the "first floor"...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @05:17AM
To put it in perspective, my small 2kW residential solar system generates about 3200kWh per year. Our local council have installed 17.5kW worth of PV on the library and 30kW on the admin office generating a combined 78000kWh/year.
10,000kWh is pitiful for a commercial site and national monument.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:50AM
10,000kWh is pitiful for a commercial site and national monument[emphasis mine].
You don't normally want to change the look of a national monument much.
Nobody in their right mind is going to cover the Great Pyramids in Egypt with tons of solar panels even if that would generate a lot of solar energy.
Same goes for this. This is just some feel-good gimmick/symbolic gesture. If you want real wind power it'll be generated at a wind farm not a national monument.
(Score: 2) by monster on Friday February 27 2015, @11:03AM
Given that some archeologists think that they were covered by white stone tiles and even a golden tip, it's even possible that they would look a bit more faithful to their aspect in ancient times.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @06:52AM
10,000kWh is pitiful for a commercial site and national monument.
It may be pitiful compared to the power consumption of the site, but it is pretty good for a site that can't be disfigured for historical reasons.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:23AM
but it is pretty good for a site that can't be disfigured for historical reasons.
But is being disfigured for pretentious environmental-themed status signaling.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:51AM
But is being disfigured for pretentious environmental-themed status signaling.
Well yeah, there is that.
You can't even notice these vertical turbines from the ground, but simply converting to LED lighting everywhere would probably saved more power than they will ever generate. The flood lights they use at night are enormous. Perhaps no LEDs that big yet.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by sudo rm -rf on Thursday February 26 2015, @10:47AM
I agree, I'd say they did a pretty good job of "unobtrusive modernization". In fact I really like the looks of the turbine, but I miss some Tesla-coils throwing sparks all around the place.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:14PM
but it is pretty good for a site that can't be disfigured for historical reasons
There is no "can't" about it - there is nothing that the greenwash brigade would not stop at to ram their schemes down everyone's throats, and as far as they are concerned the more in-your-face it is the better. They would recycle the dead sea scrolls if they could get their hands on them.
As someone else said, the power being produced is piffling , not much more than 1 kW. There is a major restaurant and other facilities on that level and 1 kW would hardly keep a grill pan going. It is a publicity stunt.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday February 26 2015, @04:16AM
Yea, that certainly called out for a major press release. I guess the greens take what victories they can get and gewg has to submit (and get posted) at least one from CAP's website daily, looks like a contractual obligation or something.
What I want to know is how many millions of euros got pissed away in the retrofit project and for somebody to do the math on how many decades will be required to hit the breakeven point... if ever. Custom turbines, solar collectors (but just for water heating and not electric), along with a rip/replace on all the lighting to go for LEDs to get the usage down low enough they could even pretend the system actually powers something beyond the visitors kiosk touting their greenness. Then look into this UGE outfit that made off with the cash and investigate their politcal connections.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday February 26 2015, @08:33AM
What I want to know is how many millions of euros got pissed away in the retrofit project and for somebody to do the math on how many decades will be required to hit the breakeven point... if ever.
C'mon, j, you do not want to know this! You already do! Or at least suspect in your own mind. But again you miss the point. Eiffel Tower. Kind of a national monument. Symbolic greening does not have to break even. Do you thing Jimmy Carter's solar panels on the White House ever broke even? Of course not, since Reagan had them removed well before end-of-life. Now we will just never know.
So let's just talk about Antropogenic Global Warming, since the data on that is much more available. And if you have a predetermined Republican talking point all set up, that is OK too. Just be prepared for some criticism. As Stephen Colbert famously said: "Reality has a well know liberal bias!"
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday February 26 2015, @04:57PM
They did a fairly comprehensive revamp of the first floor recently, so the additional cost of the turbines' poles is probably negligible in there.
The Eiffel tower is a quite profitable tourist trap. If they want to make a statement about people using renewables, that's not a bad place to invest a few bucks. Most marketers would kill to get that level of customer attention. Did UGE get paid for it, or did it come out of their marketing budget?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by soylentsandor on Thursday February 26 2015, @07:19AM
I don't think so. Your kilowatts figure is an average that will likely be well exceeded on a windy day and it will be zero on a windless day so it is almost meaningless.
Also, the energy company charges me per kWh, it's also what my electricity meter shows. I know I consume about 4200 kWh per year and so I have a decent idea of how much 10,000 kWh/year is.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday February 26 2015, @03:30PM
Do you have more devices rated in kW that burn electricity, or meters that measure kWh or burnt electricity? I'm guessing not. So why is the latter more relevant?
Can I power 200W of lights and 2kW of heating, and still have enough to boil the kettle and microwave my lunch at the same time? The 10000 kWh/year figure tells you nothing, whilst the 1.1 kW immediately tells you "no freaking way".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by soylentsandor on Thursday February 26 2015, @09:22PM
Watt measures the energy consumption at a given moment, whereas kWh measures total energy consumption in a period. It's like speed versus distance. Since wind turbines don't produce a constant flow of energy, the expected yearly production is the more relevant number here. We measure that in kWh.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday February 26 2015, @02:16AM
Cnet has some pics with people to get a feel for the size:
http://www.cnet.com/news/the-eiffel-tower-now-generates-its-own-power-with-new-wind-turbines/ [cnet.com]
Very cool that they can hide something that big within the structure such that it is essentially invisible.
France seems to have a several of these small wind projects. Here on SN is another [soylentnews.org].
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.