The truth about wind turbines: Size matters

[kristopher]

Occasionally people here post about buying small wind turbines for home use. Because of the economics of the performance of these turbines I routinely criticize these purchases and recommend that more bang for their buck can be had by contracting with their utility for green energy purchases. This short article addresses the issue.


The truth about wind turbines: Size matters
09/24/08 · 12:07 pm

From Jay Leno's on the west coast, to Alliance director's Christy Mihos' on the east coast, the results are in for small roof-mounted wind turbines. They're just blowin' in the wind.

The situation came to a head recently when Massachusetts suspended a rebate program for small wind turbine projects, causing, in one case, Mashpee Commons to reconsider its proposal to mount rooftop turbines in the shopping center. The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, which oversees the state's major alternative energy programs, canceled the small wind initiatives because the turbines it has funded produce far less energy than originally estimated.

A sampling of the 19 small wind turbines installed using MTC grants shows an actual average power output of only 27 percent of that estimated, with the high being 59 percent and the low an abysmal 2 percent.

The low power results from three causes: a) Turbine manufacturers overstate the capacity of their turbines. b) Site maps overstate the wind speeds at the various locations. c) The turbine heights are far too low.

There are small turbines at Logan Airport. These have underperformed. Ditto for small turbines at Brooklyn Navy Yard. New York City's Mayor Bloomberg has proposed dotting the city with them. A good public relations ploy, but experts say these small turbines generate so little electricity that the economics may never make sense.

On the west coast, Jay Leno has installed a wind turbine on the garage ...

http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/index.php/2008/09/24/the-truth-about-wind-turbines-size-matte?blog=20

[DCKit]

1. Location, location, location. Then, height.

In most areas, solar is far more effective.

[Xithras]

3. One of my neighbors learned this the hard way

A 2 acre lot a few homes down from mine recently sold to a couple of neo-hippies from the Bay Area. I get along with them great, but I questioned them when I saw the mast for a windmill going up. The guy told me that "wind is the future of California power" and that he'd done his research. He brushed me off when I tried to raise an issue with it.

In our part of California, a windy day between May and September is a rare thing, and even winters aren't that blustery. Since getting the thing erected in June, I think I've only seen it turning one time. It turned out that his "research" focused on wind generation along the coasts.

Solar panels would have been far more effective. We get right around 300 days of sun a year here.

[NoFederales]

2. Size does matter, and these outfits that mount the windmills on home roofs

are just asking for it--noise, possible roof damage, and wind interference.

Remote use of wind turbines and PVs for fence charging, water aeration (maybe limited pumping) are great rural tactics when you only need a few hundred watts to keep battery banks charged, but I can't see these small home power systems delivering an estimated requirement of 18 to 20 kW output. Now, running a diesel powered generator (off grid or by Utility cooperation) with farm produced biodiesel makes more economic sense to me. But what do I know, I'm just a hick hayseed?

Glad to see a counter argument to the green doers--not trying to deliver a put-down negative, just happy to see pragmatic rebuttal to some of the silly renewables hype.

NoFederales