Windmill/ wind turbine for your own power supply

Parent Cafe
41

<p>^^</p>

<p>This reinforces the basic concept that it is impossible to draw general conclusions. The impact of fiscal incentves are wide ranging on an individual basis. Just as the expected production, and especially long term production is. The future availability of cheaper technology is still in flux as a market with excessive supply caused a financial tsunami where governments were forces to curb their incentives. The “new” solar industry, despite the numerous bankruptcies, is rebounding, albeit with increased cost. The model that predicted decreases similar to the Intel chips is probably not happening anytime soon. It will happen in the future but solar energy will remain a costly proposal, and perhaps the costlier of all resources for a long time, safe and except for niche markets. </p>

<p>The longevity of the current crop of panels remains an unanswered question. The first wave of wind turbines in California were also expected to have a 30 years lifespan. The developers were lucky to reach the end of the first ten years. When projects reverted to avoided cost (without frontloaded contracts) most turbines could not cover their repair costs. Interested parties in that history might enjoy reading the description of Kenetech/US Windpower <a href=“History of Kenetech Corporation – FundingUniverse”>http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/kenetech-corporation-history/&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>The technology has changed considerably since the inception of the wind energy business. The technical issues have a thing of the past and the technology is as sound as they come. On the other hand, the PV industry has yet to overcome their massive issue of competitive cost/reward ratio on a long term basis. </p>

<p>PS Here is an interesting link (many interesting links are available at NREL although most are on the theoretical basis the US loves so much) </p>

<p><a href=“http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/”>http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

42

<p>^^ Thanks again for the links and information.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>However, it is possible to draw general economic conclusions re the aggregate impact on the economy and consumer prices. I do think it is too limiting to look at the individual situation only and not at the big picture, as costs do not disappear just because someone gets a subsidy to cover those costs.</p>

<p>Costs are costs, regardless who pays, and in the end someone pays. Because the taxpayers are on the hook does not change the fact that, currently, the cost per unit of energy produced is way more expensive. This raises prices all around for producers and consumers because that subsidy money must be borrowed by the Treasury; and to pay back that borrowed money, prices must be increased in order to raise the revenue to make loan payments. There is no free lunch for the general economy, even if a subset receives individual free lunches and lower electric bills.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Agreed, but that was a costly scenario. Going bankrupt after being given government startup grants and loans to operate says volumes about their product relative to the competition. They could not even survive after being given money. And, of course the costs are going are higher now, as they have to pay their own way and the new higher costs are actually closer to what their true costs should have been in the first place. I would have been much happier if private individuals lost their money instead of taking taxpayers on the ride with them.</p>

<p>As for the solar and wind technology catching up, I am not convinced the technology will be able to drive the business model forward, as a consistently viable energy production alternative. This is because the technology also has to compete with the fact that the carbon-based technologies are also improving, while producing gobs more power per production unit, especially including all-weather situations. </p>

<p>A good example is today an airplane of X weight traveling Y distance burns something like 35% less fuel than 30 years ago. And improvements continue. Electricity-producing water and gas-powered turbines are experiencing similar advances.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This contrasts the wind turbines to the water-powered and gas-powered turbines that pay for themselves many times over based on the amount of electricity they produce. </p>

<p>I think we agree that until capital improvements and repair costs can be covered by the amount of electricity produced sans a subsidy, wind and solar will stay limited in their economic appeal. But, this is only the first hurdle; there is another another hurdle - that being the very real potential to be a drag on consumer surplus.</p>

<p>There is a place for wind and solar energy, but if they come at a substantially higher price per energy unit, I am not comfortable with the tradeoff of higher consumer prices, which must follow. Given that energy is such a large part of basic living expenses, I find the higher prices, which would lead to a lower consumer surplus that further leads to a loss of real wealth and a lower standard of living for the consumer a most un-welcomed result.</p>

43

<p>There are price distortions/ subsidies for so many products that it is rather unfair to single out energy subsidies. The individual home/farm owner might as well buy what serves their needs (based on energy price, availability and security) after sufficient technical analysis to judge if it will work.</p>

44

<p>^^ Not sure of your point because I never said a person cannot purchase what they want. I am simply pointing out the real pocketbook effects, which you are free to ignore. I choose not to ignore these effects.</p>

<p>In many other subsidized markets, one can choose not to enter or partake in those markets, i.e., I do not have to purchase a subsidized Chevy Volt or ride the train or fly out of a rural airport etc. Basically, if no one bought the Volt, it would be put out of business, same for rural airport flights, and useless trains to nowhere.</p>

<p>However, one (a company or person) cannot make such choices with energy, because it must be purchased. Therefore, it is not an individual market choice, as you state, and consumers do get harmed in terms of real wealth loss because of a distortion if the distortion results in higher prices. </p>

<p>Because energy is a necessity, is 30+% of the general economy, and such the biggest part of living and production expenses (that are perpetual on-going expenses), it is the largest and most damaging draw on the consumers when the market is distorted and when forced to pay higher than necessary prices.</p>

<p>In a nutshell, I am not a fan of overall wealth destruction in the economy due to higher than necessary prices, just to give myself a free lunch. That is because I know it is not really a free lunch either for I would pay more than the free lunch in higher prices overall. Energy is unique in that way, as it affects costs across the board.</p>

45

<br>

<br>

<p>Industrial wind turbines DO that easily. </p>

46

<p>Here are the real numbers from someone who has installed his own solar PV system and lived with it for several years. I previously had electric bills totaling ~$1800-2000 per year. I installed 10,560 watts of solar, and my bills are now $15 month, which is the minimum fee for a meter. I produce about 1000 kWh excess per year, and I am not compensated by the utility for that. There is no maintenance other than brushing off the snow. I could install this same system today for around $15,000 by doing the work myself again. You get a 30% credit from the Feds, 30% from the state. I can also sell my RECs for ~$1300/year. It’s a no-brainer. </p>

47

<p>I wouldn’t argue with xiggi about wind turbines… He knows of what he speaks.</p>

48

<p>Aren’t there taxpayer subsidies and/or expenses with all forms of energy? Gas, coal, oil? Roads, cleanup, pollution measures, etc?</p>

49

<p>^^ Bingo, OHMom! </p>

<p>The fossil fuel industry has been one of the largest beneficiaries of government support. Just imagine the number of people who claimed we went into Iraq to ensure our supply of oil – without going into politics. The reality is that fossil fuels are often found in very inhospitable regions of the world. Locally, we have all kinds of market incentives for coal, gas, or even ethanol. The energy world is one that lives with own sets of rules and market “distraction” from the producers to the end suppliers. It is virtually impossible to define the true cost of our energy supplies. </p>

50

<p>D2 is majoring in Energy Commerce. I guess she’ll learn about all this stuff and can advise me when she graduates. :)</p>