Wind Turbine: Alternative Energy Flop

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,365
Reaction score
35,804
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
In its October 2011 issue, Consumer Reports reviews wind turbines as an alternative energy option.

1. CR tested Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine. The $11,000 unit was installed at the Yonkers, NY headquarters. Even before rebates, the unit is less expensive than many wind systems. It’s warranted for five years, and can be ordered through True Values.

2. Another factor in selection, it’s among the few systems that can be mounted on a roof, and is low-noise rated. This should involve an analysis of the roof’s structure, as the system is over 440 pounds. And, may require a waiver from the zoning board.

3. WindTronics, which makes the system, says it can deliver 18 to 23 percent of an average home’s annual electricity needs. Based on this, it should pay for itself in about six years, based on a) the energy created in your area, b)the 30% federal tax credit, and c) thousands in state rebates.

4. Sadly, we have yet to see the power the company says we should expect- even after sever visits from the tech. At the current rate (no pun intended), the Honeywell wouldn’t pay for itself over the expected 20 years of its life.

5. WindTronics claims 2,000 kWh per year at class 3 winds, which the federal government defines as 11.5 to 12.5 mph. But windknowledge.com showed an output of just 1,155 kWh per year at the 12 mph average it predicted for our area.

a. This is only about 10% of the 11,000 kWh per year for the average home- not the 18%- 23% WindTronics asserts!

b. And, while WindTronics calculator gives a ‘good’ rating for the 12 mph speeds it predicts in our zipcode, that is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 foot roof height Honeywell calls for.

c. And, a New York government map lists average wind speed for our area below 10 mph, not 12.

d. Hills, trees, other obstructions will give an even lower wind speed.


6. Want to guess why CR sub-titles the article “…new wind turbine delivers little” ?
 

Photonic

Ad astra!
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,746
Reaction score
248
Points
48
Location
California
In its October 2011 issue, Consumer Reports reviews wind turbines as an alternative energy option.

1. CR tested Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine. The $11,000 unit was installed at the Yonkers, NY headquarters. Even before rebates, the unit is less expensive than many wind systems. It’s warranted for five years, and can be ordered through True Values.

2. Another factor in selection, it’s among the few systems that can be mounted on a roof, and is low-noise rated. This should involve an analysis of the roof’s structure, as the system is over 440 pounds. And, may require a waiver from the zoning board.

3. WindTronics, which makes the system, says it can deliver 18 to 23 percent of an average home’s annual electricity needs. Based on this, it should pay for itself in about six years, based on a) the energy created in your area, b)the 30% federal tax credit, and c) thousands in state rebates.

4. Sadly, we have yet to see the power the company says we should expect- even after sever visits from the tech. At the current rate (no pun intended), the Honeywell wouldn’t pay for itself over the expected 20 years of its life.

5. WindTronics claims 2,000 kWh per year at class 3 winds, which the federal government defines as 11.5 to 12.5 mph. But windknowledge.com showed an output of just 1,155 kWh per year at the 12 mph average it predicted for our area.

a. This is only about 10% of the 11,000 kWh per year for the average home- not the 18%- 23% WindTronics asserts!

b. And, while WindTronics calculator gives a ‘good’ rating for the 12 mph speeds it predicts in our zipcode, that is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 foot roof height Honeywell calls for.

c. And, a New York government map lists average wind speed for our area below 10 mph, not 12.

d. Hills, trees, other obstructions will give an even lower wind speed.


6. Want to guess why CR sub-titles the article “…new wind turbine delivers little” ?
It's actually VERY much based on where you live.

My friend recently payed $9k for a solar energy portable system that generates 2kW, since we live in Santa Monica, California, with 95% of the days being sunny, it will pay for itself VERY quickly.

Alternative energy works, but it only works in the areas it's designed for.
 

Dr.Traveler

Mathematician
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
652
Points
190
It's actually VERY much based on where you live.

My friend recently payed $9k for a solar energy portable system that generates 2kW, since we live in Santa Monica, California, with 95% of the days being sunny, it will pay for itself VERY quickly.

Alternative energy works, but it only works in the areas it's designed for.
This. Back in the late 80's when I was in middle school, the local art teacher famously had a windmill that generated 105% of the energy she needed for her home. For the curious, if you generated more energy than your home used, it was the law that the local utility company had to buy your excess energy. That meant she had a nice side income off her 80's tech windmill.

So it can work, but not everywhere. The same is true for all kinds of alternative energy sources, which is why they're so slow replacing our current energy needs. It's a very patchwork solution. Where it works, it works well. Where it doesn't, it flops horribly.

For the record: This is why I'm very very very much pro-Nuclear. That's the closest thing we have to blanket solution. Yeah, Nuclear plants can have problems, but so can oil refineries and Coal burning power plants. Every technology has risk.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,365
Reaction score
35,804
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
In its October 2011 issue, Consumer Reports reviews wind turbines as an alternative energy option.

1. CR tested Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine. The $11,000 unit was installed at the Yonkers, NY headquarters. Even before rebates, the unit is less expensive than many wind systems. It’s warranted for five years, and can be ordered through True Values.

2. Another factor in selection, it’s among the few systems that can be mounted on a roof, and is low-noise rated. This should involve an analysis of the roof’s structure, as the system is over 440 pounds. And, may require a waiver from the zoning board.

3. WindTronics, which makes the system, says it can deliver 18 to 23 percent of an average home’s annual electricity needs. Based on this, it should pay for itself in about six years, based on a) the energy created in your area, b)the 30% federal tax credit, and c) thousands in state rebates.

4. Sadly, we have yet to see the power the company says we should expect- even after sever visits from the tech. At the current rate (no pun intended), the Honeywell wouldn’t pay for itself over the expected 20 years of its life.

5. WindTronics claims 2,000 kWh per year at class 3 winds, which the federal government defines as 11.5 to 12.5 mph. But windknowledge.com showed an output of just 1,155 kWh per year at the 12 mph average it predicted for our area.

a. This is only about 10% of the 11,000 kWh per year for the average home- not the 18%- 23% WindTronics asserts!

b. And, while WindTronics calculator gives a ‘good’ rating for the 12 mph speeds it predicts in our zipcode, that is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 foot roof height Honeywell calls for.

c. And, a New York government map lists average wind speed for our area below 10 mph, not 12.

d. Hills, trees, other obstructions will give an even lower wind speed.


6. Want to guess why CR sub-titles the article “…new wind turbine delivers little” ?
It's actually VERY much based on where you live.

My friend recently payed $9k for a solar energy portable system that generates 2kW, since we live in Santa Monica, California, with 95% of the days being sunny, it will pay for itself VERY quickly.

Alternative energy works, but it only works in the areas it's designed for.
One must wonder, then, why the greatest use for solar in this nation is to heat swimming pools...

Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas, 22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear, 3.6% biomass, 2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal, 0.31% wind, 0.08% solar.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,365
Reaction score
35,804
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
It's actually VERY much based on where you live.

My friend recently payed $9k for a solar energy portable system that generates 2kW, since we live in Santa Monica, California, with 95% of the days being sunny, it will pay for itself VERY quickly.

Alternative energy works, but it only works in the areas it's designed for.
This. Back in the late 80's when I was in middle school, the local art teacher famously had a windmill that generated 105% of the energy she needed for her home. For the curious, if you generated more energy than your home used, it was the law that the local utility company had to buy your excess energy. That meant she had a nice side income off her 80's tech windmill.

So it can work, but not everywhere. The same is true for all kinds of alternative energy sources, which is why they're so slow replacing our current energy needs. It's a very patchwork solution. Where it works, it works well. Where it doesn't, it flops horribly.

For the record: This is why I'm very very very much pro-Nuclear. That's the closest thing we have to blanket solution. Yeah, Nuclear plants can have problems, but so can oil refineries and Coal burning power plants. Every technology has risk.
Two probs...

1. we import most of our uranium, much from Russia

2. nuclear energy is supported by huge subsidies.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,775
Reaction score
15,518
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
DrTraveler::

Back in the late 80's when I was in middle school, the local art teacher famously had a windmill that generated 105% of the energy she needed for her home.
Even happy anecdotes like this miss the point that even if that teacher AVERAGED 105% of home needs with a wind turbine -- that home was NOT 100% powered from wind.

Even the best sited, best engineered wind farms have periods of multiple days below 10% of ratings. During those days -- and for 20minutes every 5th hour -- that home was powered by "something else".

The more concise statement is -- the teachers' home electricity was FINANCED by wind power..
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,775
Reaction score
15,518
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
It's actually VERY much based on where you live.

My friend recently payed $9k for a solar energy portable system that generates 2kW, since we live in Santa Monica, California, with 95% of the days being sunny, it will pay for itself VERY quickly.

Alternative energy works, but it only works in the areas it's designed for.
This. Back in the late 80's when I was in middle school, the local art teacher famously had a windmill that generated 105% of the energy she needed for her home. For the curious, if you generated more energy than your home used, it was the law that the local utility company had to buy your excess energy. That meant she had a nice side income off her 80's tech windmill.

So it can work, but not everywhere. The same is true for all kinds of alternative energy sources, which is why they're so slow replacing our current energy needs. It's a very patchwork solution. Where it works, it works well. Where it doesn't, it flops horribly.

For the record: This is why I'm very very very much pro-Nuclear. That's the closest thing we have to blanket solution. Yeah, Nuclear plants can have problems, but so can oil refineries and Coal burning power plants. Every technology has risk.
Two probs...

1. we import most of our uranium, much from Russia

2. nuclear energy is supported by huge subsidies.
I don't know for sure -- but I'll wager that we import it because it's more expensive to get permitting and do the mining operations here in the US -- than it is to buy it from Russia.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,365
Reaction score
35,804
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
This. Back in the late 80's when I was in middle school, the local art teacher famously had a windmill that generated 105% of the energy she needed for her home. For the curious, if you generated more energy than your home used, it was the law that the local utility company had to buy your excess energy. That meant she had a nice side income off her 80's tech windmill.

So it can work, but not everywhere. The same is true for all kinds of alternative energy sources, which is why they're so slow replacing our current energy needs. It's a very patchwork solution. Where it works, it works well. Where it doesn't, it flops horribly.

For the record: This is why I'm very very very much pro-Nuclear. That's the closest thing we have to blanket solution. Yeah, Nuclear plants can have problems, but so can oil refineries and Coal burning power plants. Every technology has risk.
Two probs...

1. we import most of our uranium, much from Russia

2. nuclear energy is supported by huge subsidies.
I don't know for sure -- but I'll wager that we import it because it's more expensive to get permitting and do the mining operations here in the US -- than it is to buy it from Russia.
Red Tape: 90% of our GDP.
 

Dr.Traveler

Mathematician
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
3,948
Reaction score
652
Points
190
Two probs...

1. we import most of our uranium, much from Russia

2. nuclear energy is supported by huge subsidies.
Both true, but the 2nd one is especially sad because most of the energy infrastructure in the USA is supported by subsidies. No one is building anything, Coal Plants, Oil Refineries, etc, without some form of money from the Feds.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
67,461
Reaction score
29,885
Points
2,300
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Two probs...

1. we import most of our uranium, much from Russia

2. nuclear energy is supported by huge subsidies.
Both true, but the 2nd one is especially sad because most of the energy infrastructure in the USA is supported by subsidies. No one is building anything, Coal Plants, Oil Refineries, etc, without some form of money from the Feds.
No one is building anything, Coal Plants, Oil Refineries, etc.....PERIOD!.....Because of all the political pressure from environmentalist whack-o Luddites.
 

LAfrique

VIP Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
1,416
Reaction score
69
Points
83
In its October 2011 issue, Consumer Reports reviews wind turbines as an alternative energy option.

1. CR tested Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine. The $11,000 unit was installed at the Yonkers, NY headquarters. Even before rebates, the unit is less expensive than many wind systems. It’s warranted for five years, and can be ordered through True Values.

2. Another factor in selection, it’s among the few systems that can be mounted on a roof, and is low-noise rated. This should involve an analysis of the roof’s structure, as the system is over 440 pounds. And, may require a waiver from the zoning board.

3. WindTronics, which makes the system, says it can deliver 18 to 23 percent of an average home’s annual electricity needs. Based on this, it should pay for itself in about six years, based on a) the energy created in your area, b)the 30% federal tax credit, and c) thousands in state rebates.

4. Sadly, we have yet to see the power the company says we should expect- even after sever visits from the tech. At the current rate (no pun intended), the Honeywell wouldn’t pay for itself over the expected 20 years of its life.

5. WindTronics claims 2,000 kWh per year at class 3 winds, which the federal government defines as 11.5 to 12.5 mph. But windknowledge.com showed an output of just 1,155 kWh per year at the 12 mph average it predicted for our area.

a. This is only about 10% of the 11,000 kWh per year for the average home- not the 18%- 23% WindTronics asserts!

b. And, while WindTronics calculator gives a ‘good’ rating for the 12 mph speeds it predicts in our zipcode, that is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 foot roof height Honeywell calls for.

c. And, a New York government map lists average wind speed for our area below 10 mph, not 12.

d. Hills, trees, other obstructions will give an even lower wind speed.


6. Want to guess why CR sub-titles the article “…new wind turbine delivers little” ?


While Wind Power is not perfect, it is however an alternative. I was especially pleased with T. Boone Pickens' efforts to promote wind power. "Where corn grows, oil flows."
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,936
Reaction score
21,516
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
This. Back in the late 80's when I was in middle school, the local art teacher famously had a windmill that generated 105% of the energy she needed for her home. For the curious, if you generated more energy than your home used, it was the law that the local utility company had to buy your excess energy. That meant she had a nice side income off her 80's tech windmill.

So it can work, but not everywhere. The same is true for all kinds of alternative energy sources, which is why they're so slow replacing our current energy needs. It's a very patchwork solution. Where it works, it works well. Where it doesn't, it flops horribly.

For the record: This is why I'm very very very much pro-Nuclear. That's the closest thing we have to blanket solution. Yeah, Nuclear plants can have problems, but so can oil refineries and Coal burning power plants. Every technology has risk.
Two probs...

1. we import most of our uranium, much from Russia

2. nuclear energy is supported by huge subsidies.
I don't know for sure -- but I'll wager that we import it because it's more expensive to get permitting and do the mining operations here in the US -- than it is to buy it from Russia.



You are correct.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,936
Reaction score
21,516
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
In its October 2011 issue, Consumer Reports reviews wind turbines as an alternative energy option.

1. CR tested Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine. The $11,000 unit was installed at the Yonkers, NY headquarters. Even before rebates, the unit is less expensive than many wind systems. It’s warranted for five years, and can be ordered through True Values.

2. Another factor in selection, it’s among the few systems that can be mounted on a roof, and is low-noise rated. This should involve an analysis of the roof’s structure, as the system is over 440 pounds. And, may require a waiver from the zoning board.

3. WindTronics, which makes the system, says it can deliver 18 to 23 percent of an average home’s annual electricity needs. Based on this, it should pay for itself in about six years, based on a) the energy created in your area, b)the 30% federal tax credit, and c) thousands in state rebates.

4. Sadly, we have yet to see the power the company says we should expect- even after sever visits from the tech. At the current rate (no pun intended), the Honeywell wouldn’t pay for itself over the expected 20 years of its life.

5. WindTronics claims 2,000 kWh per year at class 3 winds, which the federal government defines as 11.5 to 12.5 mph. But windknowledge.com showed an output of just 1,155 kWh per year at the 12 mph average it predicted for our area.

a. This is only about 10% of the 11,000 kWh per year for the average home- not the 18%- 23% WindTronics asserts!

b. And, while WindTronics calculator gives a ‘good’ rating for the 12 mph speeds it predicts in our zipcode, that is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 foot roof height Honeywell calls for.

c. And, a New York government map lists average wind speed for our area below 10 mph, not 12.

d. Hills, trees, other obstructions will give an even lower wind speed.


6. Want to guess why CR sub-titles the article “…new wind turbine delivers little” ?


While Wind Power is not perfect, it is however an alternative. I was especially pleased with T. Boone Pickens' efforts to promote wind power. "Where corn grows, oil flows."




Yeah, then he figured out he was losing his ass on the project and abandoned it after foisting off the turbines he had on the poor Canadians. He screwed them pretty good.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,775
Reaction score
15,518
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Drive-by linking eh?? Well I hit it.. Before you go into the wind generation business with that nifty 30 foot mast and all...

An indemnity is an agreement
between two parties in which one
agrees to secure the other against loss
or damage arising from some act or
some assumed responsibility. In the
context of customer-owned generating
facilities, utilities often want
customers to indemnify them for any
potential liability arising from the
operation of the customer’s generating
facility. Although the basic principle
is sound—utilities should not be
held responsible for property damage
or personal injury attributable
to someone else—indemnity provisions
should not favor the utility but
should be fair to both parties. Look for
language that says, “each party shall
indemnify the other . . .” rather than
“the customer shall indemnify the
utility . . .”
Got that tip chief?? :eek:

That brochure looks like one of those nasty GPO documents on Proper Handling of Raw Poultry..

Chuckles Roxy... I'm running out tomorrow to become a CEO of my very own giant energy company. Providing enough power for my teens to use a hairdryer FOR FREE sometime on Tuesdays and Thursdays..

Wait Sally -- not yet -- not yet.. OK GO!!!!
 

LAfrique

VIP Member
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
1,416
Reaction score
69
Points
83
In its October 2011 issue, Consumer Reports reviews wind turbines as an alternative energy option.

1. CR tested Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine. The $11,000 unit was installed at the Yonkers, NY headquarters. Even before rebates, the unit is less expensive than many wind systems. It’s warranted for five years, and can be ordered through True Values.

2. Another factor in selection, it’s among the few systems that can be mounted on a roof, and is low-noise rated. This should involve an analysis of the roof’s structure, as the system is over 440 pounds. And, may require a waiver from the zoning board.

3. WindTronics, which makes the system, says it can deliver 18 to 23 percent of an average home’s annual electricity needs. Based on this, it should pay for itself in about six years, based on a) the energy created in your area, b)the 30% federal tax credit, and c) thousands in state rebates.

4. Sadly, we have yet to see the power the company says we should expect- even after sever visits from the tech. At the current rate (no pun intended), the Honeywell wouldn’t pay for itself over the expected 20 years of its life.

5. WindTronics claims 2,000 kWh per year at class 3 winds, which the federal government defines as 11.5 to 12.5 mph. But windknowledge.com showed an output of just 1,155 kWh per year at the 12 mph average it predicted for our area.

a. This is only about 10% of the 11,000 kWh per year for the average home- not the 18%- 23% WindTronics asserts!

b. And, while WindTronics calculator gives a ‘good’ rating for the 12 mph speeds it predicts in our zipcode, that is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 foot roof height Honeywell calls for.

c. And, a New York government map lists average wind speed for our area below 10 mph, not 12.

d. Hills, trees, other obstructions will give an even lower wind speed.


6. Want to guess why CR sub-titles the article “…new wind turbine delivers little” ?


While Wind Power is not perfect, it is however an alternative. I was especially pleased with T. Boone Pickens' efforts to promote wind power. "Where corn grows, oil flows."




Yeah, then he figured out he was losing his ass on the project and abandoned it after foisting off the turbines he had on the poor Canadians. He screwed them pretty good.

At least T. Boone Pickens was honest and just trying to make more contribution to humankind. What amazed me on Pickens' case is the fact that Texas and Federal officials helped paved his way and even enacted laws to give Pickens a boost! I often wondered if we would have gone after T. Boone Pickens had his ideas on wind power been very successful, just as we crucified Rockefeller for convincing Congress.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,936
Reaction score
21,516
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
While Wind Power is not perfect, it is however an alternative. I was especially pleased with T. Boone Pickens' efforts to promote wind power. "Where corn grows, oil flows."




Yeah, then he figured out he was losing his ass on the project and abandoned it after foisting off the turbines he had on the poor Canadians. He screwed them pretty good.

At least T. Boone Pickens was honest and just trying to make more contribution to humankind. What amazed me on Pickens' case is the fact that Texas and Federal officials helped paved his way and even enacted laws to give Pickens a boost! I often wondered if we would have gone after T. Boone Pickens had his ideas on wind power been very successful, just as we crucified Rockefeller for convincing Congress.




Pickens was interested in making money. Helping huimanity is far from his intent. Otherwise he would be continuing with the wind program even though it's a monetary loser. Wake up dude.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top