Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although it's getting increasingly common to see solar panels on the roofs of homes, household wind turbines are still a fairly rare sight. If Rotterdam-based tech firm The Archimedes has its way, however, that will soon change. Today the company officially introduced its Liam F1 Urban Wind Turbine, which is said to have an energy yield that is "80 percent of the maximum that is theoretically feasible." That's quite the assertion, given that most conventional wind turbines average around 25 to 50 percent.
It makes 1,500 KWH per year. With taxes and fees I pay about .15 per KWH so I would save $225 per year. It costs $5,450. The ROI would be 24.2 years. Maybe a little sooner since I am sure rates will increase in the next 24.2 years.
(and really, I would still have those fees, so I really only saving .11 per KWH but I choose to be generous in the math and it still comes out bad)
Maybe in HI or remote areas where power costs .45 per KWH it works out a little better at around 8 years. And of course this assumes you self-install.
It makes 1,500 KWH per year. With taxes and fees I pay about .15 per KWH so I would save $225 per year. It costs $5,450. The ROI would be 24.2 years. Maybe a little sooner since I am sure rates will increase in the next 24.2 years.
You've missed an important factor, which I find is easy to do with wind calcs... ""The Liam F1 generates an average of 1,500 kilowatt-hours of energy [per year] at a wind-speed of 5 m/s [16.4 ft/s " I figure that to be just over 11 mph.
Within the rated range of the wind turbine, the energy increases as the cube of the speed... IOW, at double the wind speed the electricity generated increases by a factor of 8. And that means that small differences in wind speed result in what we perceive as disproportionate changes in power produced, and thus in payback times. Very rough calcs indicate to me that wind speed would only have to increase to 13.75 mph to double the indicated output with this windscrew. On the other hand, only a slightly lower wind speed would probably extend payback time beyond the rated life of the equipment.
This is why siting is so critical to success with wind energy, and big commercial installations look for site with strong, steady winds over 15 mph. The big wind farm that's a half hour south of me at Southpoint enjoys a steady 21-26 mph wind, about as ideal as you could hope for. On the other hand, it's not unusual for tall buildings to have wind speeds in that range up on top. But there's a huge resistance to putting a "Danish" style wind turbine... the familiar three-bladed propeller type... on top of skyscrapers, because of the danger of catastrophic failure throwing debris over the sides. So most of the research to date in that arena seems to be concentrating on low-profile types, despite lower efficiencies. If it proves out, perhaps this design will be useful for urban rooftops.
In any case, it's an intriguing concept, and I'll look forward to hearing more about it in the future.
If it hit a 50 mph wind would the generator be able to handle the power to put into the grid? I;d love to see a power curve on the device too.
As you know, I am always interested in new, cleaner ways to generator power. I just always "do the math" to make sure it even has a chance of an ROI at one point. As much as I want to be green, right now, every penny counts. Even if it is a future penny.
It makes 1,500 KWH per year. With taxes and fees I pay about .15 per KWH so I would save $225 per year. It costs $5,450. The ROI would be 24.2 years. Maybe a little sooner since I am sure rates will increase in the next 24.2 years.
(and really, I would still have those fees, so I really only saving .11 per KWH but I choose to be generous in the math and it still comes out bad)
Maybe in HI or remote areas where power costs .45 per KWH it works out a little better at around 8 years. And of course this assumes you self-install.
3 of these could make a home run decently enough.
What about homes that are not on the grid? Off-grid housing could very well save tons of money on this. Depending on where you are (rural) it could cost up to 40k just to get attached to the grid. If that's the case these make a lot of sense.
Alternative energy sources that are attached to grids do not make a lot of sense, due to the fact that you have to pay the energy company to resupply the grid. But, if it makes someone sleep better at night knowing they are attached to the grid so be it.
On-Grid and off-grid are totally different. I was looking at as an on-grid. Off-grid you do what you can to avoid running a gas/diesel genset almost at all costs. Most people are not buying off grid and needing to spend 40k to get power run to their house.
Unless you live in an area with consistent wind, it can only supplement your power requirements.
I use 5000 KWH a month too -- so until I get that off-grid place in an area that doesn't need 12 tons of A/C to keep cool. I am looking at things thru a different set of glasses.
And I never said they should abandon the project, in fact I gave an example at even the low wind requirements for a little amount of power generated that would provide an ROI in 8 years. Which to me is very acceptable.
That's probably just the wind mill part, the cost for the mast and base are substantial. The power estimates are probably based on best case scenario. The site plays a huge roll in how effective they are.
Last edited by thecoalman; 05-29-2014 at 09:16 PM..
Alternative energy sources that are attached to grids do not make a lot of sense, due to the fact that you have to pay the energy company to resupply the grid.
Huh? With net metering in most places you're trading power giving it to them when you have excess and taking it back when you need it. That may come with fee for being connected but it's a lot cheaper, more efficient and greener than having you're own storage.
Otherwise you'll need many wind mills, your own storage and in the end you are going to be without power unless you have a huge amount wind mills and storage.
Huh? With net metering in most places you're trading power giving it to them when you have excess and taking it back when you need it. That may come with fee for being connected but it's a lot cheaper, more efficient and greener than having you're own storage.
Otherwise you'll need many wind mills, your own storage and in the end you are going to be without power unless you have a huge amount wind mills and storage.
ROI would depend on each setup. Using a combination of wind and solar would be ideal, and also having ample storage capacity is a must.
It can be more efficient to have it on-grid, but that will depend on several variables. Is it better than burning coal? Absolutely, is it better than living off-grid? No.
I actually have wind energy for my condo, and it is fairly cheap compared to everything else in the area. 0.077cents pkWH.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
