Comments on: Quiet wind-turbine comes to U.S. homes
Part of growing variety of small wind machines, this turbine can turn out 1.5 kilowatts and is suitable for home roofs.
Most Popular
Google's mobile hopes go beyond Nexus One
The world may have thrilled to the potential for a Google Phone, but what Google actually unveiled is its plan for a new smartphone world order.
• Photos: Unboxing Nexus One
Using your smartphone safely
faq Worms, Trojans, and SMS attacks are risks for mobile phones, but the biggest practical threat to users is losing the device.
About Green Tech
Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech reporter Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Green Tech topics
For a residential customer, it would take at least 12 years to recover the initial $10,000.
This uses the highest electric rates in the United States (Hawaii) at $0.3327* per kWh and output of 2000 kWh per year from the article. The $1000 federal credit and a matching $1000 state credit are included in the calculation.
Using rates from the mainland (Connecticut is highest at $0.1923* per kWh), it would take almost 21 years (including $2000 in total credits.) At the US average of $0.118* per kWh it would take more than 33 years.
For commercial customers, the payback is more than 8 years. This assumes $5000 in total credits ($4000 federal; $1000 state) and Hawaii's $0.3037* per kWh commercial rate. In Massachusetts (highest mainland rate of $0.1718* per kWh), the payback period is more than 14 years.
I love the idea of household wind and solar, but the idea of a 3-year payback is ridiculous.
*Rates from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
In few years these will be available for $5k, later on even less. The key is for people to keep buying these so they can be produced in large numbers, thus lower cost.
They are more realistic in estimating a typical production of 2,000 kwhr/year, which is 15% of theoretical. At that rate it's a lousy investment. But this is early-adtopter stuff. It looks simple enough to be mass-produced for a fraction of the current price, maybe $1-2k (before markup). Professional installation probably costs a couple of thousand dollars, though a skilled DIY-er could probably do it. So as the retail price falls and the price of electricity rises, it potentially becomes worthwhile.
Wind - if the device was $500 and you could buy 10 of them it might make sense. $10 or even $5K doesn't make sense.
Btw, rebates, credits, etc are TAXES paid by everyone. Again, these aren't rebates, they are taxes.
Also I read somewhere I am trying to find it now that a small wind power company wnats to sell these or a similar product at Menards or Home Depot for $2,000.00 give it time its comin
Payback is important, though, if companies are selling things based on their economic benefits. To tell people that they will make their money back in 3 years when that is not remotely true is fraud. I object to anyone lying to me about the costs and benefits. I do admit that my analysis was very simple. Perhaps there are benefits that I have not included (decrease in pollution, reduction in days without power dues to storms, etc.) If we can quantify those, we may get a different payback result.
As sythara noted, this thing may only cost $5000 in 5 years. It might. Assuming electric rates jump to $0.30 per kWh and with $2000 in credits, the payback period drops to 5 years. This is much closer to their estimate. And if the thing lasts 20 years and requires no maintenance, the net benefit is $9000 ($2000 credit + $12,000 in energy saving - $5000 investment), or $450 per year. That's what they should be selling--not unreal payback numbers.
If there is a real economic net benefit (savings, reduced pollution, better standard of living, increased convenience or safety, etc.) then these are things worth doing. That includes highways, railroads, and airports. Otherwise, they are strictly political decisions. Which is fine, these are made all the time for a variety of reasons and are part of our way of doing things. If there is an economic benefit, show me. If it is a political choice, explain to me why I should support it.
If the price is right and the benefits are there, I'd love to have one of these on my roof.
You tell me about economies of scale? Well the one or more types of residential wind turbines have been around for a long time now and economies of scale of the components has been done. Theoretically, if a certain efficient design can be mass produced like the washing machine, these 2 kW wind turbines, with installation and inverters included should not exceed $800. If you have the time, you can assemble your own small wind turbines right now, and the parts are cheap, it would literally cost you the price of a washing machine.
This only means that these residential wind turbine companies wanted a quicker pay-off, and they are a major impediment to renewable energy adoption. Show us an efficient wind turbine, and price it just at par with a washing machine, and there will be mass adoption and the company who produces that will be more than successful.
What these calculations do not show is that in addition to the tax credits, there are also substantial state and federal grants to encourage doing this. Basically, at least 1/2 the cost (in NY). So if it's $5000 not 10, and you get the tax credit. . . suddenly it's not nearly as bad. (3 years is closer than it would appear)
The other side of the coin is that I personally think that spending some more now to give our children an actual livable environment is actually worth something. But I suppose some people would rather spend the extra money on a hummer. It's not just about saving money. Besides, even if it was 10 years, you have your house for longer than that, generally.
Early adopters pay a price, but they make everything better for everyone later. And in this case, the more early adopters there are, the better off everyone will be in a more direct and significant way.
Global Warming is a bit bigger of an issue than whether you can tape a tv show or watch a movie in HD. Tack that onto the trillions we spend on issues related to our strategic focus on the middle east, and the fact that many who live in that region are completely convinced that we are out to get them and concerned only for our own selfish consumption. . . . Seems to me anything that nudges us towards self-sufficiency benefits us strategically, militarily and economically. But then if you are a blind faith republican, I suppose you imagine the only thing important is whether the oil industry keeps making record profits at all costs.
It's MUCH better that our money flows directly to the selfish, to dictators and into the hands of those who hate us. That's just SO logical.
My wife likes to comment about the exorbitant price of pre-made Rice Krispy bars in the store. But just because you can throw together a batch for < $5 at home, doesn?t mean you could sell them to the public. Try making them in your home in the same way the store must, including nutrition information, packaging, food Good Manufacturing Practices, labor, ovens large enough to produce them to the scale required, etc., and I?ll bet it would cost you more per package than the store charges!
Perhaps you could get parts for a wind turbine like this for $200. But would it be a quality product that you can offer a warranty on, that would pay for your labor to assemble it, that would pay for the salaries, administrative and marketing activities you would need to sell sufficient quantities of this product? Oh, and what about the primary claim this product makes: that it is quiet enough to use on a home rooftop? Do you think they came up with the final design the first time? Would your $200 one be as quiet?
Then, the argument that this is just a "windmill with [a]...generator on it" assumes that all windmills are equal and the windmills of today should be just the same as windmills on your grandfather?s farm 50 years ago. I live in Iowa, and while I do see a few old-fashioned windmills still standing, I hardly ever see one turning. The modern-day, efficient windmills are even less mature than solar technology.
I say it again: if you can build and sell these for even $1,000 apiece, go into business; you?ll make a killing!
For example, the egg-beater style wind turbines are more efficient than this one reported and are safe for the birds and less noisy than the wind itself, truly lower noise than ambient wind.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080910-pf-energy-ball.html
The cost of materials for all of these small wind turbines is very cheap, should be a fraction of the cost of washing machine, material for material. The problem now is that these companies know that there are rebates, and they are pricing it based on the rebates that you are going to get. So it is really attractive to build companies that make these small wind turbines. But because they are too greedy to price it where it will make sense, these turbines will not hit critical mass sale. And a lot of these companies will flop instead. If these thousands of companies will pool together, to create an automated fabrication plant, they can afford it, and will be able to produce wind turbines a lot cheaper than washing machines. You may not be profitable at all by selling too few machines at onerous prices, but you can have tremendous profits by selling lowest priced machines by the millions. And we know that these small wind turbines can be very very cheap, it is not rocket science, and all the parts should be cheaper than washing machines.
So here we are, with various companies getting greedy eyes from the tremendous potential profit because of the current rebates, thousands of these will sprung up. It would really be good if one of these companies would brave the waters to sell and install these small wind turbines at sub $1000 per kW capacity. They would make tremendous profits, because at that price, it would be free for all homeowners. The cost of production would be less than $200, and installation about $300, and inverter would be $250. If they sell these machines equal to the rebate it literally would cost the homeowners nothing, these companies would still be left with tremendous profit. There is still a problem though, not all places have wind strong enough to give you a good rebate.
In case you have good wind power potential, here's a place where you can buy many kinds of wind turbines and their components on the cheap, some as cheap as washing machines, literally:
http://www.magnet4less.com/index.php?cPath=8_83
BUT there is a caveat to this.
Those same power companies are expected to make $$$ in a given time. When they cannot, they have to raise rates. If the consumer demand is less, then they will simply charge the remaining consumers more to make up for it. Think it can't happen?
It does.
Washington State had a windstorm in Dec 2005. Many areas were without power for more than a week. That's a huge setback for the electric provider. No power to the consumer means no power used and they can't make money off that. Instead, they were able to lobby Washington State into allowing them to raise their rates to compensate for the missing expected funds. Yes, they could bill for power that they didn't deliver.
I love the idea of being more independant from the grid, or at least offsetting our dependency to it, but I don't for a minute think it will do anything to reduce the actual monthly bill. Not when companies can legally bill you for power that you *aren't* using.
OTOH, increasing reliance on renewable energy does slightly bring down demand for the grid, and it does so over a long period of time (years instead of days). As you pointed out, a significant portion of electric rates is tied to utilities building more generating plants to meet the increasing demand. Therefore, a constant, minimal decrease in demand would, for the medium term (for example, 5-20 years), reduce utility costs, presumably freezing or decreasing the utility rates. And even freezing the utility rate would be better than increases.
Of course, if demand dropped sharply (e.g. 50%), I?m sure regulators would allow increases in rates to offset the economies of scale that the utilities would lose. However, that would seem to just increase the demand for renewable energy (and we could just all join hands and sing together that we no longer have to rely on non-renewable energy).
So what.
If you use that logic, you are a fish on a hook.
15% may be more realistic than even more false number, but 15% is probably not what you'll get.
You better do a wind study before you buy this thing.
You may get something closer to 2 to 3 percent of theoretical.
It may cost you more to maintain this thing per year than you ever get in savings. The dent in your electric bill may be so negligible that you don't even notice on a month to month basis.
Wind Power has been around for decades, and for most people, its the same fraud today as it was ten years ago.
If you are in an unusually consistently high windy area...and you aren't, you just think you are....but if you really were, you could consider a cheaper version of one of these things.
the problem is, just no matter how bad you want there to be an answer to those problems, and they are real problems, this is not the answer, for all but a tiny fraction.
If you are in the tiny minority that has almost hurricane force winds consistently blowing over the roof of your house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then by all means, buy one of these things.
But most people will find this thing won't be spinning most of the time when they need electricity in the evenings after work. And when a storm finally hits to spin the thing, it may spin too hard and shut down for safety reasons instead.
Study after study has shown, these things produce power, when you don't need it, and don't produce power when you do, and overall, have loads of trouble running on any type of consistent basis.
Yes, granted, maybe if the taxpayer foots the majority of the bill, then the majority of the loss is on the taxpayers back, and not the homeowner...the homeowner just foots the rest of the loss.
THERE IS NO PAYBACK, EVER, NOT EVER...NOT IN 10 years not in 20, because for many people it simply doesn't produce power of any significance.
All I can say, is DO A WIND STUDY.
IF YOU DIDN'T DO A WIND STUDY, DON'T BUY.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp
White = low wind
Color = 12.5+ mph
In brief, Montana/North Dakota to Texas looks great. The west and northeast have sporadic strong winds. The southeast looks pretty still. Oh, and Alaska looks like a good candidate.
Allowing for installation costs the total cost could go as high as $1,500. Keep in mind that a home built turbine would be rated a little less than the one in the article at 1 kw instead of 1.5 kw, and that will vary depend on wind speeds. However, once one wind turbine is installed, hookup of additional turbines becomes much less expensive, bringing the average cost down.
As someone pointed out, the wind does not blow all the time, but when you hook your turbine into your incoming electrical system (as federal law allows), when the wind does blow it can slow your meter down considerably. Depending on where you live, payback could be less than two years.
prickey2008@yahoo.com
Show charging a hybrid! http://mariahpower.com
- by margegeneverra February 10, 2009 7:11 AM PST
- I'd love to use wind power, but the numbers just don't work. Not even close!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(38 Comments)Even with an unreasonably optimistic estimate (free installation, zero percent borrowing cost) the numbers don't come close to working.
$10K price (assuming this includes installation?)
less $1K rebate
$9K cost
Assuming a kwh costs $.10 (mine currently costs $0.08), one needs 90,000 kwh recover the initial cost (not including the cost of borrowing the money).
If a site got the peak wind 50% of the time, generation would be 1.5 kw times 50% of 365 days time 24 hours, which equals 6570 kwh per year. That makes the payback 13 years (assuming no maintenance cost or breakdowns).
If installation costs were required the payback gets worse.
If one includes the cost of borrowing the initial $9K it gets much worse.
If one includes maintenance or other operation costs, it gets worse
If electric rates increase, it gets better, but not a lot.