Slashdot Log In
Is Backyard Wind Power Worth It?
Posted by
Cliff
on Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:25 PM
from the a-mini-holland-without-dikes dept.
from the a-mini-holland-without-dikes dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Is it also worth the drama? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it also worth the drama? (Score:4, Interesting)
Over here someone went to repaint their house as the CCNRs mandated (in all fairness the paint was looking tired).
Once the painters were out a neighbor threw a fit that the color was too brigt to be allowed. Whole thing ended up on the local news and in court!
The real kicker? The painters were painting the house the exact same friggin shade of color. They color matched to some of the paint under the eves where it was not yet sun-fadded.
There's nothing like putting your foot in a drama queens ass in court, especially when they are the ones pressing charges and the judge holds them down for said foot insertion
Needless to say the home owner won, but they did not get to counter-sue for court costs (so their insurance paid) and their home-owners quietly dropped them after the renewal period the following year was over.
-nB
Parent
Re:Is it also worth the drama? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Is it also worth the drama? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Then sell your home (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Then sell your home (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Parent
Re:Then sell your home (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Then sell your home (Score:4, Informative)
So if there are no inherent rights, where do rights come from, and what do they mean? The whole concept of rights revolves around society, around other people. If you were alone in the world, you would no more think of rights than a fish thinks of water. Alone without society, your power is your only right. In order to form cooperative societies that benefit all more than any could benefit himself alone, we all have to give up some of our rights. I give up my right to hit you in the face or take your things because you do the same for me.
So all rights are arbitrary, agreed upon by society because they benefit everyone. And all rights involve giving up some kind of freedom as well, so the exchange had better be worth it. In the case of violence, pretty much everyone can agree. The same goes for personal property. However, private property is a harder sell. Too many freedoms are lost by too many people for too little gain by too few.
Most people would agree that the things a person works for should be there own, and this is often used to justify private ownership of natural resources. However, in order to labor on a piece of land and thus call it your own, you need to keep others off it, and this happens before you have the justification for doing so.
So private ownership of resources can not be justified from first principles, only as an arbitrary privilege granted by society. A privilege granted very unfairly, I might add, as most resources are owned and controlled by people who labored very little for the privilege. Therefore, society has all the justification it needs to impose any kinds of limits or qualifiers on the ownership of private property, from having to pay taxes all the way to having to paint your house a certain color. If you don't like it, you con't have to own property.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As for the second point, well, sorry. I got a bit off track. I was trying to point out the inherent injustice of all systems of private ownership of natural resources. The conflict in question may be between property owners, but the system of absolute property rights advocated by libertarians is just so crazy I felt the need to point
HOA (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Her reply was, "I am planning on having a garden and planting tomatoes. And planting them along a fenc means you don't need to buy tomato stakes.".
After that, the relitor purposly avoided showing homes in areas with associations. So yea, defina
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wit
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
9K? WTF ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Solar panels (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Solar panels (Score:5, Interesting)
A windmill is too big and too much of an eyesore to be installed in backyards.
They don't have to be eyesores [windside.com].
Parent
Re:Solar panels (Score:5, Interesting)
I have seen much mor offending things than a few windmills in the scenery
I suppose they'd complain about these [wikimedia.org] too.
Parent
To avoid a few flamewars. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:To avoid a few flamewars. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.otherpower.com/bartmil.html [otherpower.com]
-nB
solw dwon cbowoy i'ts been one minute since your last confession. wait... wrong forum.
Parent
worth it... (Score:2)
But is it "worth it" in terms of saving the envirionment? Maybe.
Although I think some kind of solar power or fuel power from renewable fuels is a better option right now..
1.2/2.2 c/kwh???? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Where the heck do you live? (Score:2)
Those rates are insanely low. The national average is about $0.095/kWh with some paying close to twice that. For me, $0.09/kWh is about what I pay after taxes, etc, but I would rather skip the backyard windmill.
Sadly, I think you are probably right about most Americans lack of liquidity.
Where do you live ?? (Score:2)
Where I live, we are paying about 6.5 cents and get our electricity from a non-profit municipal utility. I consider us very lucky to have this low cost electricity.
If you really have those electricity rates, then the pay back for you is pretty far down the road, but for most people, if they can afford the initial investment and have a suitable locatio
They need to make more "noise" (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For those who still maintain that arguement, here are a few things to keep in mind. The initial study made some assumptions.
1, The battery will die shortly after the 100,000 mile warrenty leaving a 5,000 repair bill every 5 years of ownership.
2. Gas prices are $1.50 to $1.80 per gallon.
3. You drive less than 10,000 miles per year
4. Your car depreciates faster than a traditional car
What do you do when there's no wind? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 don't think he mentioned going off the grid, which would be a pretty bad idea. He just talked about putting in a windmill. If there is no wind, you just buy from the grid. If you generate surplus energy, you dump it on the grid (to the dismay of the power company). At least wher
Re:What do you do when there's no wind? (Score:4, Informative)
Usually, folks just get set up with "net metering", where any power they dump back into the grid is deducted from how much they use. At best, you never pay for power, at worst, you only pay for what you can't generate. With a large turbine, a good, windy week could zero out your electric bill for a month or two, yet you don't have to maintain the battery banks to store that excess energy (or worry about using a "dump load" on your turbine.)
steve
Parent
It's only $.09 per kWh if the interest rate is 0 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Why buy? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.makezine.com/blog/archive/2006/06/diy_
Hooking to the grid can cost $$ (Score:5, Informative)
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 [worldbank.org], 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 [resource-solutions.org] notes that:
Early Adopter... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Only works if it's too windy to live there. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Not 9 cents per kwh (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Low-end models are very loud (Score:3, Insightful)
Wind speeds and electric rates vary enormously (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] is as good a place to start as any.
Supply and Demand (Score:3, Funny)
9 cents/kwh? DId nobody take math in school? (Score:5, Insightful)
$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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Build your own! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not the way you described it. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Not the way you described it. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the way you described it. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 d