Is Backyard Wind Power Worth It?

eldavojohn wonders: "In the October IEEE Spectrum magazine, I read an article on backyard windmills and their growing feasibility. With the lowest model's price tag, it's about $9,000 and lasts for around 100,000 kilowatt-hours (20 year life), which results in 9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, the article mentions that if the market takes off, that price will drop. However, I was wondering what price range the windmills would have to fall to (or the energy rates have to rise to) before I could consider this? Well, the price of the windmills in the article are out of my price range right now. I don't imagine many Americans have $8k-$11k laying around and the current month's rates for energy in my neighborhood are 2.2 cents/kWh for the first 800 kWh and 1.2 cents/kWh after. I was wondering what are your thoughts on being an early adopter of wind energy? Do you think that if enough people bought these windmills, the price per kWh could compete with the local power grid's? Will it ever?"

Comments

Is it also worth the drama?

[Channard]

Because some communities tend to be rather picky about what you put up. Even if it's only slightly visible, some drama queen or snooty neighbour may kick up a fuss about it.

Re:Is it also worth the drama?

[dgatwood]

This is why we need law changes to prevent homeowners' associations from having so much power over individual properties. It's okay for them to require you to pay into a communal pool for maintenance of shared resources, but beyond that, your home is your castle, and no one should have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do to it, public health and safety laws notwithstanding.

Re:Is it also worth the drama?

[CastrTroy]

I think the problem stems from the fact that too many people view their now not only as a home, but also as a financial investment. They're worried that if you paint your garage door flourescent green, then you will bring down the value of their house. I can see their point of view, but a house should not be there just to make money. Buy a house that you like, not one that you think will gain the most value in 3 years so you can sell it and upgrade.

Then sell your home

[spun]

Then don't buy a home where there is a homeowner's association. Sell your home if one gets voted in. Why should the desires of the one automatically outweigh the desires of the many? Especially when the one can simply refuse to play by selling and moving. That's the beauty of the free market: people are free to set up socialist systems such as homeowner's associations within it and you are free to buy into them or not. But you don't have the right to limit the free market by saying people can't do that. Property rights are a deal mutually enforced by property owners, and if other property owners want to say that you have to jump through a flaming hoop into a pile of dog doo before they will honor you property claims, well, what can you do except defend your property yourself.? You want the privilege of being part of a system that defends your property rights? You play by that systems rules, or leave and make your own system. What's that you say? Every place is already owned and encumbered by rules you didn't agree to? Tell that to the vast majority of humans who own no property at all, I'm sure you'll get a lot of sympathy.

Re:Then sell your home

[sumdumass]

Sure and we can use this type of thinking to our advantage too. Our home owners association already has stuff in place to keep the poor out. We have rules not particulaly faviorable to blacks unless they are the type who conform to the uncle tom versions of blackness. We have been able to keep the mexicans out and we are working on the jews and extreamly religous christians. I also think some rules are even hostile to foreigners. Of course it was hard to keep the irish and germans out because they adapt so easily but we got that covered too.

So yea, if you don't like it, leave. And we can justify all our positions based on property values and value to potential buyers willing to spend the most money.

Seriously, there are some things a little more important then value of investments. Other people's implied values shouldn't be used as reasoning for limiting someone elses freedoms.

(note, that was a fictional acount but i can easily see how inocent looking rules could work that way. thats the purpose of the home owners association, keeping undesirables out and property values high.)

Re:Then sell your home

[DeadChobi]

No, I have every right to keep you off my property if I don't want you there. You are violating my right to do with my property as I please. Your right to access ends when you step off the sidewalk and onto my lawn. You are not allowed to throw trash onto my lawn, as you are vandalizing my property. You should respect my right to private property because otherwise I will throw you to the curb and take your wallet, your clothes, and whatever else you have. After all, you're violating my freedom by protecting those objects. Why should I respect your right to have that wallet? What do I have to gain from that?

Re:Not the way you described it.

[sumdumass]

The problem with that logic is that you asume those results to be true. This couldn't be more problematic then ever.

First there is no guarentee that outcome will be true even if this stay exactly the same as it is today.

Second, just because the acerage Joe cannot afford it, doesn't mean power companies cannot. It is more likley that power generating companies could asbsorb the costs and distribute it to people it provides power to while keeping the pricing cheaper overall to each user. Also, if power generating companies pick it up, while likley on a larger scale, it could very well reduce the price for the average joe to implement it themselves. Maybe even to a point wer eit could be cheaper then the power companies rates.

Third, the article/submision doesn't acount for unused power that should go back into the grid. The power companies should be paying for this backflow of energy and it would reduce the costs even more to the average joe. possibly making this .09/KWH might actualy be .05 depending on the household usage compared to energy produced.

fourth, Even if the average joe does take this alternative energy up, there is no guarentee that 100 years from now, grand kids won't still have problems with lung disease and skin cancer. We have proven a likly conection but as science insist, they conclusion could change with new evidence.

Fith, I take issue with this do it now, we don't care what it will cost you (even if it bankrupts you or starves your children) additude and then instill some scary scenario that could happen If certain other issues are ignored. It is almost as bad as certain tv preachers claiming god will take his life if you don't donate a certain amounts of money to me. Or even these out of state charities claiming to be supporting fallen law enforcment officers and firefighters making statements like "well, if you don't contribute, they will remeber this when you need thier help" (implying the cops won't protect you or firefighters won't help you next time you need them if you don't give them money now).

Also, for those wantig to take it further, this can be applied to global warming and all the scare threats used there too. It might be one reason why so many americans even though admiting global wamring might exist, question either the facts of global warming itself or the purposed remedies. There are quite a few people who belive global warming is happening but refuse to belive the stated causes or the purposed actions to fix it. This doesn't even begin to address those who think this is some concocted problem designed to get people to by from different forces in the enrgy markets. And yes that could be applies to backyard energy sources too.

Early Adopter...

[RexRhino]

What happens a few years from now, when some new dramatic improvement in turbine design happens? Or 100% efficent solar panels are invented? Or heck, maybe they even invent portable fusion reactors, who knows what is coming in the future?

If you are amortizing the cost of a windmill over 20 years, this IS a concern. 20 years is a lot of time for technology to significantly improve. Think of how much cars have changed, let alone technology like computers and information networks. Alternative energy sources are a hot thing to invest in lately, and I have a feeling there will be some serious improvements real soon. Maybe if you could amortize the cost in 5 years, it would be a reasonable risk. But 20 years? I can't see how it would be a good idea.

Re:Not the way you described it.

[wiremind]

That is the sort of attitude that extingushes the renewable energy movement. Thank you for your demonstration. I agree expense is a factor, however, in 100 years, your grandkids will curse your mantra "not economical for Joe Average." as their skn cancers flare up, and lung disease eats away at them.

Thats just a stupid comment. To say something like that only reinforces peoples views that enviromentalists are are a bunch of emotional, illogical and completely unscientific people. Because what you just did was scare-mongering, it was NOT rational.

To suggest that the economic feasibility of wind turbines has an effect on your grandkids getting skin cancer and lung disease is absurd. you might as well have simply written "I hate anyone who disagrees with using Eco-power, wont you think of the children!"

A much better post would have been:

Yours: That is the sort of attitude that extingushes the renewable energy movement. Thank you for your demonstration.
Mine: no comment, this is just a dumb comment and doesnt actually prove any point at all.

Yours: I agree expense is a factor,
Mine: While the cost of renewable energy is prohibitively expensive right now we should continue to support this type of research because a time might come when it becomes an affordable and maybe even neccesary option.

Yours: however, in 100 years, your grandkids will curse your mantra "not economical for Joe Average." as their skn cancers flare up, and lung disease eats away at them.
Mine: I'm a little worried about all this global warming stuff. I've heard alot of opinions in every direction, and if we learn that our use of fossil fuels is infact warming the planet, then technologies such as this one might become a neccesity for our children and grandchildren.

Kyle

9 cents/kwh? DId nobody take math in school?

[btempleton]

I'm being mean here but there are deliberate blinders going on here, making the vendor, the IEEE spectrum writer and the Slashdot editor forget basic math. The vendor's motive, I understand, but there is no excluse for IEEE writers and slashdot people.

$9,000 for 100,000 khw over 20 years is NOT 9 cents/kwh. Why? Anybody with a mortgage knows that money paid over time is vastly different from money today. The unit presumably delivers 5,000 khw per year or about 13.7 khw per day. So at 7% interest, that's 16.7 cents/kwh, which is more than just round-off error.

And frankly, for the vendor to say it's 9 cents is very close to fraud. The power plants don't amortize without considering the time value of money when they work out the costs.

Another way to think about it. Put the $9,000 in the stock market. Historical rate of return is about 10%. That means you would pull out $900 per year -- while still keeping the principal intact, except for inflation. At California's 13 cents/khw from the grid, that buys you 6900khw, assuming the price stays even. Your wind turnbine gets you only 5000khw. It doesn't pay for itself in 20 years, it never, ever pays for itself, no matter how long it lasts. And you still have the principal when you are done.

I'm all for renewable energy. But I hate it when people also for renewable energy either get stupid or just plain lie to make it seem better than it is.