Slashdot Mirror
Home Wind-Power Turbines Make Headway
Pickens writes "Wind turbines, once used primarily for farms and rural houses far from electrical service, are becoming more common in heavily populated residential areas as homeowners are attracted to ease of use, financial incentives and low environmental effects. Experts on renewable energy say a convergence of factors, political, technical and ecological, is causing a surge in the use of residential wind turbines, especially in the Northeast and California. "Back in the early days, off-grid electrical generation was pursued mostly by hippies and rednecks, usually in isolated, rural areas," said Joe Schwartz, editor of Home Power magazine. "Now, it's a lot more mainstream." Some of the new "plug and play" systems can be plugged directly into a circuit in the home electrical panel and homeowners can use energy from the wind turbine or the power company without taking action. Schwartz says that even with the economic benefits, it can take 20 years to pay back the installation cost. "This isn't about people putting turbines in to lower their electric bills as much as it is about people voting with their dollars to help the environment in some small way," he said."
There's probably a lot of other things you could do with the same money, like put in a ground-loop heating/cooling system. Of course, it wouldn't be as showy, and none of the neighbors would know you had it, so it's not the best way to show off how eco friendly you are, but would probably benefit you quite a bit more.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I've been wanting to do this on the family farm for years. My concern is not really about reducing power usage as it is about having power during the power failures that are not all that uncommon.
There is also a big push to put the big corporate wind turbines on the local farms. Those could easily make the difference between making a profit or losing money on a farming operation.
I spent yesterday afternoon and this morning at a local wind turbine construction site where they are putting up approximately 75 turbines this year. The owner of the land said he had been working for seven years just to get to the point where they are putting them in.
Another way to be more environmentally friendly would be to use adobe or compressed earth building techniques.
In this area, we get about the same amount of yearly rainfall as in places like Santa Fe, New Mexico where the use of adobe is very common. I think it would do quite well.
For cooling, swamp coolers work quite well for us.
I am involved with a group of people building windmills. It has nothing to do with buying things. It has nothing to do with keeping up with the neighbors. None of us drive Priuses (most of think they are a scam unless you live in a super-densely populated place).
We're buying used motors on eBay. Some of us are making our own blades from fiberglass (and some are buying them).
We have created an open source hardware project that makes power. It'll cost me $300 - $400 to make something I think is cool, will pay for itself over time, help reduce my footprint on the planet in an almost measurable way and let me do something creative.
You got a problem with that?
This is a great topic and I'm glad to see it pop up here. I'll be buying a wind turbine for the new house I'm building here in a couple of months.
The reason has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "being green" or "sticking it to the man". I'm greener than your average bear and have found that "sticking it to the man" rarely works as well as one might have hoped.
Quite simply, I'll be five miles back from the nearest power line. I poked around and considered solar, but the idea of getting power production 24/7 rather than 5 or 6 hours per day closed the deal for me. My property is in an excellent wind zone (Cat 4 thru Cat 6, depending on which map you look at) and I'll be able to provide 120% of my power needs--excellent. Being able to provide all of my own needs and not be dependent on an ever-more-fragile grid is just a bonus that appeals mightily to the geek in me.
Turbines overall are great, though I've become convinced the industry is still at the "hand-built and tuned" phase the automotive industry was once in. It'll need more standardization before it can go mainstream in any significant fashion.
Great technology though.
Ferretman
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
That's the great thing about the cost - it's already rolled into the price (the energy costs). Power from a major generation facility also factors in the capital costs of the plant (embodied energy) and the cost of fuel, plus the cost of maintenance and upgrades. The summary indicates a 20 year payback. That's usually done without the time value of money factored in, and without maintenance costs. Once you get beyond 7-10 years, it's generally not economical from a business point of view. Also, with a 20 year payback, it means that the energy embodied in the unit is nearly as high as the total lifetime output of the unit. Solar cells (photovoltaics) are the same way, though there's always a new technology right around the corner that plans to change that, but it never seems to be commercially viable.
;-)
Personally, I'm a practical green. I'm even willing to pay a small premium for green, provided it's equivalent to the non-green alternative. Being in the building industry, where we get greenwashing all over the place, so I tend to be skeptical. The old marketing slogan, "reduce, reuse, recycle" should have has a tag line, "in that order." I can't say I'm living it completely, but where it's practical I'm in. Wind turbines can be a positive source of energy, but they can also be an eyesore. They are also one step removed from the primary source of power - solar. Once we figure out how to efficiently capture and store even a small fraction of the 1200W/m^2 that hits the earth, we'll go a long way to solving our energy problems. It's as close to an ideal solution as can be had, though it's not without pitfalls. Still, I look forward to 40% efficient solar panels with lifetimes measured in at least years, if not decades, which can be bought for less than a penny per kilowatt hour. I'll use them to power my flying car
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It sounds like you are saying that:
1) A wind turbine won't generate enough electricity over its lifetime
to offset grid usage and the manufacture of itself
That could be true in some situations. Depends on the turbine and the location. When pursuing sustainable energy, it's vital to pick the sort of generator that best fits the local environment. Sometimes that's not wind. Sometimes it is.
2) Wind turbine purchases are just conspicuous consumption of a green flavor
Showing off may be the motive for some people, but all the turbine owners I know sincerely are trying to live sustainably (and are often entertained by the logical contortions HEMI fanboys utilize to claim green equality/superiority).
3) Wind turbine owners are suckered by slick salesmen
The owners I know did extensive research, and almost all of them built their own from kits or scratch.
So you can definitely do wind wrong and lose on carbon. You can also do it right. And there are many benefits to wind power. Even if your electricity is more expensive than the grid's, some people are willing to pay more for what they consider a higher quality product. Fossil-fuel electricity can't stay artificially cheap forever. Distributed generation can be more robust than centralized plants (like TCP/IP).
Plus you get free poultry delivered to your backyard.
They found that is not the case. Birds hardly get killed by turbines - accidents happen of course, but are rare.
The researchers thought that this is because of the noise those turbines make, even upwind this is audible to the birds at sufficient distance. So they just fly around them. The mortality was as low or lower than around power lines: those also kill birds that happen to fly into them.
This result actually surprised the researchers, in a happy way of course. And the research being done by a.o. animal protection groups gives it quite some credit to me.
As a NERC certified generation dispatcher, I can tell you for certain that in most cases you will not make a profit putting power back to the US grid, and there's a chance that you may never actually get an investment fully recouped without a state and/or federal rebate or some other program. This doesn't mean that it's a bad idea - just do it for the right reason.
Some issues that a small "Qualified Facility" has to address:
How do you measure the power you're putting to the grid? The standard issue power meters only flow in one direction - they don't spin backwards when you're generating more than you're using. They usually require you to install a special meter that requires routine calibration by a licensed professional.
There's a morass of legal requirements that must be met before you can get paid. Additionally, states have the ability to (and usually do) regulate the profit out of small home renewable energy sources below a certain output level, such as small wind, solar, geothermal, micro-hydro, etc... And above a certain output and you become classified as an "Independent Power Producer" - which opens up a larger can of legal worms. The issues go on and on...
Bottom line - if you're looking at this as a "get rich quick" scheme, I'm afraid you're going to be sadly disappointed. However, it DOES help by taking the some of the burden off of the greenhouse-gas-spewing power plants, and offsetting your own personal load on an already overloaded grid. Make sure you do your homework for your state and take full advantage of any rebate programs or tax incentives offered.
Heres an interesting project that I have always wanted to try: http://www.otherpower.com/wardmil.html
~comfortably numb~
Rather than generating more power a home, it's a lot easier to just use less. If you setup a rather simple energy monitoring system in your house (like $100 worth of equipment, etc.) you should be able to reduce your energy usage by 5% just through targetting. That includes using less water, gas, and electricity. Throw gasoline in there and you're really going to save money (and lower your carbon footprint).
If you really want to make a difference, spearhead an energy monitoring and targetting campaign at work. Disclaimer: I am in the business. Typical savings for industrial sites are in the 5 to 15% range, and for commercial sites are up to 25% savings. Find out how much your company spends on energy/utilities and you'll realize that's a big payoff. It's much bigger than installing some 0.5 m^2 swept area windmill that generates maybe 100W 30% of the time, and 500W 5% of the time, and needs an expensive inverter and lead acid batteries with limited life span.
If you are really stuck on doing something at home and you have air conditioning, you can get reasonably inexpensive 800W solar panels (they might generate 500W peak on a sunny day in northern climes) and then you could hook it directly to an old 12V marine air conditioner, with only a single 12V battery to balance the load. Then during really hot days you can generate electricity and use it immediately to cool your house, so you don't have the expense of storing the energy for later, and the expense (and maintenance and inefficiency) of an inverter to get back to 120 or 240VAC.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
It's not "300-400", but...
"The BWC EXCEL (http://www.bergey.com/) is a modern 6.7 meter (22 ft) diameter, 10,000W wind turbine designed for high reliability, low maintenance, and automatic operation in adverse weather conditions"
"Prices, which include a voltage regulator, pump controller, or a line-commutated inverter, range from $21,900 to $27,900."
"The BWC EXCEL is most often installed on a guyed lattice tower, which is available in heights of 18 m (60 ft.) to 43 m (140 ft.). Prices range from $7,400 to $12,680. "
SO, *worst case scenario* is 27,900 + 12,680 = $40,580.
Now, Electricity is what, about 10 cents per kilowatt hour? So $40,580 will buy 405,800 kwh of electricity.
In the last 2 months, I used a total of 946 kwhs for my small 2br apartment. Let's say a house'll use twice that, or about 1000kwh per month.
It'll take 405 months (33 years) for the system to pay for itself.
Of course, Your electric bill is more than just 'kwh x price per kwh'. Heck, I pay more in "Power Supply Charges" than I do in "delivery and System charges". All in all, I pay 19.39 cents per kwh. That means $40,580 will buy 209,499 kwh of electricity, and the system pays for itself in 210 months, or 17.5 years.
Of course, that doesn't take into account any future electricity price increases. It also doesn't take into account how, with the right system, you can keep up and running indefinitely the next time there is a grid blackout or winter storm that knocks out the power.
Not always true. There are two types of 'buy back'- One (netmetering) uses one meter that can go in both directions. If you are using more than you are producing, the meter goes forward. If you are producing more, it winds Backward. If it ends up at at a higher number at the end of the period (month/quarter/year), you pay for the net amount you used. If it ends up at at a lower number, you do NOT get paid for the extra you gave them.
The other way is to have 2 meters- one for what you use, and one for what you sell to them. Even though they only pay wholesale rates, it would be possible to sell them more than you use, and actually make money.
While payback period may be the easiest measure to calculate, it's not a very good one. You really need to be calculating either IRR or mortgage length if you want to determine whether something is a good investment. They're different ways to measure the same thing. Basically, when you install something like a wind turbine or solar setup, you're buying an annuity. You need to show that that annuity is a better investment than other comparable investments on the open market.
I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
Replying to myself to say:
.. 5.3 kWh Battery Bank (B220-4)
/of course 1000 watts is a little low for most people...
if the above system seems a bit costly, try this:
$2,590 1 kW XL.1 Turbine, with PowerCenter
$1,595 60 ft. Tilt-up Tower
$450
$1,044 1,500 W Inverter System
$5,679 Total Cost
$5679 = 29318 kwh, which is 30 months payback.