Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
I'd rather go with solar panels, though I'm waiting for a breakthrough in technology (higher output, lower prices). A windmill is too big and too much of an eyesore to be installed in backyards.
1) No, on a purely financial basis, it probably isn't worth it. (Saves the posts of people doing a detailed analysis.)
2) Yes, it has the non-financial benefit of being earth-friendly, which isn't necessarily captured in a financial analysis. (Saves people from lecturing others that money isn't everything.)
3) Yes, it would probably save you money if the appropriate goods were taxed to reflect their environmental costs. What the appropriate externality compensation would be depends on your ideology, so if you wanted people to use less fuel anyway, you probably think these costs are HUGE.
4) Yes, we know that alone, windmills won't solve all energy problems. No one thinks that.
5) Yes, some birds are killed from these. No one cares, since tall buildings kill a lot more.
Does that about cover it?
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Are you sure you are reading your bill correctly? Are you in canada or something? I think i pay about 13 c / kwh
e 5_6_a.html ,,
.. the distribution cost is fixed) .. if you are making energy on site you save on both since they aren't distributing that power to you...
here is a list of average prices around the US
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/tabl
1/2 is the distribution cost and 1/2 is the generation cost..(this is only matters if you choose a different energy provider as all you can save is the generation cost
With rising energy costs, global warming, and environmental concerns, I think the answer to your final question is a resounding "maybe".
This same energy-conservation trend has shown itself in hybrid vehicles. The first hybrids were priced almost twice the cost of regular vehicles. So people doing the math and asking themselves the same questions you are about wind power. However, as popularity grew and more hybrid vehicle models became available, the prices became more competitive. Even the government has gotten involved in many areas by offering tax cuts, toll leniencies, and access to restricted lanes as incentives. While many people would argue that it still isn't cost-effective to purchase a hybrid, there have been over a million sold.
I think there are other benefits that can be said about windmills. I remember reading a report once which showed that minor improvements to homes (new paint, adding walk-in closets, new windows) increased sale prices by way more than was invested. How much more could you get for a house when you tell a potential buyer that their electricity bill will be 20-90% less other homes because of the big fan in the backyard? I'm willing to bet it would sell for at least $10k more in most areas.
So returning to your second question, I think the outcome of windmills will indeed be determined by their popularity. If they catch on, I think production will diversify and the government will get involved to offer incentives. However, the article itself says "the SkyStream turbine is not meant to wean you from the grid completely".
--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
The big problem with wind power is that on top of that price, you also have to invest in a huge (and very expensive) energy storage system that can supply your entire energy needs for at least a day when there is little/no wind.
I haven't looked into windmills myself as I'm still living the apartment life, but I've a friend who has read up on the matter some and raves about the vertical axis windmill and all the benifits thereof. Were I in a position to consider it, I'd start with these.
Is .02/KWH right? I just got my bill today and saw that I was billed an "energy cost" of 0.029/kwh for all power over the month + between 2.6 cents and 8.5 cents per kwh depending upon the date (summer/"winter" billing). If my real cost per unit of power is between 5 cents and 10 cents, it's not quite as much of a stretch for spending $9000 on a small windmill.
I think that the power company has been taking lessons from the telephone company in producing their billing statements.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Depends where you live- I want to know where the submitter lives to be getting those prices on residential electricity. Here in Beaverton, OR, I'm paying 8.4c/kwh- this technology looks like it could be attractive as the cost of fuel-based electricity generation goes up. Heck- marry this tech to a Zap Xebra, and you've got independance from the gas station for (within $2000) about the same cost as a Toyota Prius.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Otherwise you have to figure in the opportunity cost of not investing that $9K. Even in CDs you can get about 3% on that, which means you can withdraw more than $580 a year from it for 20 years, not just $450; that works out to over $0.11 per kWh. As alternative power plant designs become more durable, this kind of calculation becomes more important: a $9,000 windmill that produces 5,000 kWh/year for infinity years instead of twenty sounds like it will produce free energy, but that "free" will really cost you more than $0.05 per kWh when you do the math.
The electric companies factor these sorts of costs into their bill when they build a new power plant. If you don't do the same, you might think you're successfully competing with them when you're really just tricking yourself.
Just build your own, maybe a few small ones or one larger one.
1 000_watt_wind_turbine.html
http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/06/diy_
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
9 average for 20 years is pretty good, considering 20 years of fossil-powered electricity will end up costing you 10x that.
The problem with that logic is that you asume those results to be true. This couldn't be more problematic then ever.
.09/KWH might actualy be .05 depending on the household usage compared to energy produced.
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
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.
1. Someone I know lives on 50-odd acres; his house is about 1/2 mile from the road. As I understand it, the power company quoted him $18,000 to run power poles from the road to his house. Of course, this upfront cost was just for the opportunity to send them money every month thereafter. For that same $18,000 he bought a complete power system including a bunch of special batteries, high tech electronic load and generation management and a diesel generator. I think the generator and batteries came from folks who had installed Y2K panic systems, and never used them. For several years he ran the generator once a week for a couple of hours, now he's installed two solar panels and he has gone all summer without running the diesel, though he will probably have to run it occasionaly during the winter. He has a small wind generator for testing, so far. His major electricity usage is shop tools and clothes dryer. He uses propane for hot water, and propane and wood for heat. He plans more solar panels eventually, and will then use the diesel only for emergencies.
2. According to the World Bank, small amorphous silicon solar panels are replacing kerosene lamps in rural African villages - they cost about the same as two months' worth of kerosene, provide more light than the kerosene lamps previously used, and once paid for cost nothing to run, except amortized cost of replacement every ??? years. This also offers the opportunity to radically change lifestyles in these areas. Evidently amorphous silicon panels are less efficient than the more expensive solar panels but are so much cheaper that they're a better deal. I can easily foresee several families in a village connecting their panels and batteries together, and voila! Instant community power grid, that can grow incrementally.
For the large percentage of people who live outside areas that already have well-developed electric power and other networks, localized community-based or individualized solutions including wind, solar and small hydro can be very practical, and even life changing. This paper notes that:
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
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.
I live in a community without a homeowner's association. Some of my neighbors come from cultures where the standard for maintaining a home differs significantly from typical suburban US standards.
And that should affect you exactly why? I didn't buy my house as an investment- I bought it to live in. What happens on the other side of the fence is none of my business.
When my neighbor began parking his truck in his yard, began storing applicances and garbage in his lawn, installed a new concrete porch without a permit, refused to cut the grass, and ordered a portable storage unit delivered to his house where it has sat in the driveway for more than a year, what is my recourse?
All of that sounds like standard American suburbia to me. NONE of it affects you or your property. Now if you could *prove* damages, there are always the courts. I may have to do this soon to a neighbor who happens to be an old folks home- they take care of their landscaping except for this one tree, which is about to take out my gutters. But I'll give them a few options first, including paying for gutters that are more compatible with the tree, triming the tree to the 12 feet required by the city code, etc.
I'm still not anxious to be a part of an HOA, but there are some advantages.
Most cities do have codes that cover this however. The HOA is just snobery on top of that.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Wind turbines are only useful if the average wind speed is above 10 mph. The unit illustrated doesn't even cut in until 8 mph, and achieves its rated output at a wind speed of 20 mph.
Unless you're in an area with wind speeds like that, a wind turbine is a waste of time. Most people don't live in areas that windy; it's not comfortable. I've known people along the California coast who have useful wind turbines, but that's a special situation, where you have reliable medium-speed wind all year because of the ocean/land temperature difference. The serious California wind farms are in mountain passes or at desert/mountain boundaries, where the geography guarantees wind. Also, wind speeds are higher a few hundred feet up, which is why the really big wind machines on the high towers work even in flat terrain. A little turbine in your back yard probably is just going to sit there, stationary, most of the time.
If you're thinking of getting a wind turbine, put up a pole with one of those little "weather station" units that has an anemometer, and log wind speeds for a year. For a few hundred dollars, you'll find out if it's going to work.
If you can hang a wind chime outside your house and it doesn't drive you nuts with constant clanging, your location is not suitable for wind power.
I live in an area of the country (the south) where part of the culture is parking your truck in the yard and having a few appliances on the front porch or the yard. But lately we've had a bunch on Yankees move in and start creating HOAs in the new neighborhood, trying to destroy our local culture. Everything has to be painted beige and the HOAs have mailbox police to make sure every mailbox looks exactly the same.
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
Cary, NC?
The power that a plant can generate goes by by the square of the wind speed. This is awesome news if the average wind speed on your site is greater than the "rated" wind speed for the plant. It is terrible news if your average wind speed is less. Let me give an example. suppose the rated wind speed for the plant you are looking at is 16 mph. This means that the plant will generate the stated wattage if the wind speed is 16 mph. However if the average wind speed on your site is only 8 mph, you will get only one fourth of the stated wattage.
Not only that, but you have to be careful when looking up wind speed statistics for your site. If you have no wind in 4 days out of 5, but winds of 40 mph on the fifth day, your average will be 8 mph but you will find that the energy your mill generates is less than expected. This is because most mills are designed to scale back or even stop generating in high winds, to protect the mill. Some mills will only generate significant power when the wind speed is in a rather narrow band.
Another thing. Most neighborhoods have large buildings (i.e. two story houses) and tall trees. These obstruct the wind to a great degree. Your mill needs to be well above all of the surrounding obstructions. In my neighborhood this would be impossible for all practical purposes, because we have a number of large oak trees. I'd need a tower well over 100', and my yard is not big enough for the guy wires.
To sum up, if you have constant, reliable winds that average the rated wind speed or better, with very few local obstructions, this can be a good investment. Otherwise you should pass. If you home is on the eastern shore of one of the great lakes, I'd say go for it. The other 99.9% of us will need to try something else.
I have my electric bill right in front of me now (I'm living in Maine right now). Its 0.0838 / KWH PLUS a delivery charge per KWH. I'm paying closer to 10 or 12 cents most likely. Can't really say becase this damn bill is kinda hard to figure out.
One thing to understand: its not 9 cents per kwh. You pay the entire $9k up front in 2006 dollars but you get the power back over a 20-year lifespan... In 2007 dollars, 2015 dollars and 2026 dollars... Which even at 5% annual inflation are worth less than half of what 2006 dollars are.
Another: almost nothing with moving parts runs 20 years without maintenance. What will the maintenance on your windmill cost in terms of both dollars and time (which is dollars times your expected hourly wage).
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Few suburban homes are in good locations to produce wind energy. Even if you're in a good location, aside from the issue of creating an eyesore in your neighborhood, your neighbors won't be too happy the next time the wind picks up and you have a 60-80 decibel buzz keeping them up all night.
include $sig;
1;
These aren't the types of things HOAs generally address. These are regulated by zoning and ordinances. If an HOA is involved, their role is simply reporting it to the governing authority. If it's a real problem, discuss it with your city's codes and zoning department. But as a last resort, calling the city is like using nuclear weapons, it better be worth the cost. (these things tend to get nasty)
HOAs put their attention to 'quality of life' issues. They may place covenants on your deed that says you have to maintain X amount of landscaping, and what type. They may limit the color you can use to paint your house. In the past I have heard of HOAs requiring all homes to use cedar shake roofs. And one locally had a requirement that ALL cars must be parked in garages overnight. They might also forbid RVs and boats from being stored on your property.
The big difference? The city can attach or condemn your property if you're not within ordinances. They can also put you in jail. A HOA can simply sue you.
It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit. -- Harry Truman
There are legitimate reasons for HOAs. Any time you share a wall, an HOA is absolutly necessary. That being said, the idea that HOAs will go the way of the dodo if people don't want them doesn't fly here in California. We have laws that limit property taxes. So, the local governments have started taking the Ben Franklin approach to increasing revenue. Basically they figured out that 'A penny saved is a penny earned.', so, they now require new development projects to form an HOA if they permits. This means that for each of the houses built, they get to tax at the old maximum rate, but they do not supply the services that those taxes would have supplied in the past. It is basically a run around the tax laws.
Due to this, the number of houses per capita that are available that are not in an HOA is artifically limited. In fact, here in California, builders that successfully get houses built without an HOA, advertise that as a selling feature of the house.
Wind energy is far more dependent on location than solar energy. The available annual solar energy in the desert Southwest is only about twice that in Alaska. This means that the geographic variation in electric rates has a greater effect on the viability of a solar electricity system than annual sunlight. But the wind energy available in mountainous areas of the US like the Rockies is more than ten times that available in the Southeast. That's why you see big clusters of windmills in mountain passes and other windy areas, and few if any in typical suburbs.
Also note that your average wind speed does not tell you what you need to know. Available power from the wind goes up as the cube of wind speed, so bursts of strong wind produce more energy than steady light breezes.
So the bottom line is that unless you live in a very windy area, your electric rates are already so low that no form of home power generation is likely to be very cost-effective for you right now. So you have to ask yourself two questions: what you think will happen to your electric rates in the future, and whether solar might make more sense than wind in your area.
All this information is readily available; the Wikipedia article on wind power is as good a place to start as any.
If a LOT of people bought windmills, the cost of oil would go DOWN because the demand dropped. So go ahead and buy one, it will make my electricity cheaper. :-)
Read this month's magazine from http://www.homepower.com/. Also you can read this: http://www.homepower.com/files/beginner/WindPowerB asics.pdf to get the basics of wind power.
In my opinion. If you're looking for financial benefits. Forget it. This isn't a buy it, set it up and forget it kind of thing. You also need to factor in the cost of maintenance. You'll need to start looking at the appliances you have. Does that old fridge you have need to go because its such a pig when it comes to electricity? How about that washer and dryer or the furnace that heats your home? Oh, and don't forget that air conditioner. Replace those filament bulbs with energy efficient ones too. Don't forget the cost of the batteries when they decide to give up. You think the wind is going to be there all the time? You'll need them for that and when the main power grid decides to take a break for a few hours.
Thinking about selling off the excess power you make to the utilities? Yea, sure. They don't pay you anything for that power except to maybe offset your bill when your meter runs backwards. Even then, most put a limit as to how much you can contrubute to the grid. I think here in California, Southern California Edison puts a limit of 10Kw (someone will correct me if they changed it). The average family home that hasn't taken steps to get energy efficient appliances and lighting uses 5Kw/h on up. If you get a system, only get a size that will generate what you need. Any excess is just waste and you won't make any money from it. Sorry but the power companies don't want you making a profit off of them.
If you want to do this because you'll feel better that you're consuming green energy and you're interested in the technology. Then go for it and you'll have the bragging rights that most people don't.
Just my 2 bits.
Specks
Batteries not included
basically wind costs about $1.50 per watt rated power at the moment, not sure what that is in actual average power in average wind conditions (whatever they might be...), but it sounds pretty darn cheap to me. My house needs about 1kw average power, so $1500 * (rough guess out of my ass) 2 (rated = 1/2 average power) = 3-4k, my electric bill is over 1k per year, so this will pay itself off in a few years.
add on a decent inverter $1k+, battery storage for a day or so $2k, and I'd be mostly off grid for about 6-7k, payoff time, 5-6 years.
watch "the money masters" on google video
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.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
I would suggest that you build your own windmill. You should be able to build one with similar power for under a $1000 (I think), or maybe a bit more if you need to buy tools like a welder and such, but then you have an excuse to buy tools too. Check out Other Power for more details.
what sig?
I know I have thought about this a lot - I live in Arizona where energy bills are sky high and the sun is always out. Some of the power plants around here have a few solar panels but I always wonder why there isn't more of a movement toward "backyard" solar in some of the sunnier states around the U.S. I sometimes think a big obstacle is that power companies have a lot of the technology and don't want to distribute it because obviously power companies in Arizona would be in trouble if everyone had solar panels.
The previous poster makes a good (and interesting) point about money spent over time, but he's not also factoring in the fact that power company energy costs are likely to go up dramatically over the next 20 years as oil and other energy sources become more scarce, and environmental factors will also drive up the cost of energy from your power company. I suspect you won't be paying 13c/khw for the next 20 years....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon