Small windpower a scam ? Survey says SO

[jacobs]

It's just like back in the 1980's when the government offered tax credits and rebates, the crooks came crawling out of the woodwork. BEWARE!

[Truth Squad]

Small wind is a scam. I worked for 10 years for one of the major manufacturers. To say they cherry-pick the output data is an understatement. To say that the product is unreliable is an understatement. If you worked with eyes wide open for six months on the production line, warranty, or purchasing, you'd never buy a small wind turbine. Small wind does a huge disservice to renewable energy. In fact, I'd say small wind is an embarrassment to renewable energy.

You'd have to work for one of the manufacturers to see how deception is taken to a whole new height. How the purchasing department is to find CHEAP, not better, when it comes to parts. You should see how many people hired come into a small wind manufacturer with the best of intentions and leave with the worst of disillusionment.

Reliable small wind is a good 50 years into the future at least, I'd say. Look, I was there 10 years and the advances made were minimal. Reliability actually never improved. If anything, it went down. All the fancy, new, gee-whiz designs? Same old-same old. Unreliable, low-bid parts of dubious quality, and same old overrated output cherry-picked.

To produce a good, quality small wind turbine, you need someone who comes into it with the idea to make a good, quality small wind gennie FIRST and THEN make money when it's totally bomb-proof. Right now, you have people who want to make MONEY, MONEY, MONEY FIRST with no sweat equity and minimal money into the bird on the line. Quality doesn't work that way. Until someone figures that out, small wind is wasted money. And at least 50 years into the future.

[Windsun]

I am not so sure any more that commercial wind is much of an answer either, especially following the unmitigated disaster that Spain had (and still has) with wind.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/...lete-disaster/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Mmm...eature=related

[BB.]

From Windsun's first link--this is why I hate government subsidies:

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

You get the exact opposite results of what they were trying for in the first place (reduction of CO2; reduction of fossil fuel plants):

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

[jacobs]

Originally Posted by Truth Squad

Reliable small wind is a good 50 years into the future at least, I'd say.

Reliable small wind was developed back in the 1930's. The problem is that it isn't inexpensive. The general public has become accustomed with inexpensive (cheep, poorly made) products from China. Until we are willing to pay for a quality product, it's not economically feasible for a manufacturer to design and market a quality product.

[Windsun]

Originally Posted by jacobs

Reliable small wind was developed back in the 1930's. The problem is that it isn't inexpensive. The general public has become accustomed with inexpensive (cheep, poorly made) products from China. Until we are willing to pay for a quality product, it's not economically feasible for a manufacturer to design and market a quality product.

That really is the major problem. You could make a good reliable small wind generator, but it would probably cost on the order of $900 to $1500. But judging by the proliferation of junk out there (most - not all - made in China), people will buy cheap before they buy quality.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone has ever really built a well engineered, well built small turbine to see if it would sell. The bottom line has always been inflated specs and lowest possible cost.

[BB.]

I guess it is better to put up a cheap, poorly built, wind turbine that will fail/fall apart in months or a year and find out that you don't have enough wind--than to buy a 3x more costly model (that may not even exist at this time) that will last 5+ years and find out you don't have enough wind.

For 99% of the population--solar thermal (heating water and/or air) and solar PV are the only realistic choices out there (however, solar thermal system usually require maintenance; and solar PV is not cheap). And even then, site location (weather, natural and man-made shading, and even city regulations regarding cutting "heritage trees") limit many people from installing workable Solar RE panels.

To repeat the three steps to Solar RE power--CONSERVE, conserve, conserve. Then look at Solar RE power.

-Bill

[niel]

being careful here to keep this general and tossing some of my thoughts around to this, i must say the real problem with involving government in anything is that they don't know what they are doing as they have little actual knowledge of the subject matters they are ruling on or budgeting for.
i look at this as the same type of a problem an individual may encounter in trying to supplement his electric needs or completely supply his electrical needs. a complete off grid arrangement supplying all power needs is not easy or cheap to do as many here know and forces conservation in such cases. we as individuals can rely on batteries to offset times when no re power source is available. large scale electrical generation can't do this. this was their analogy of the car running behind the bike as the bike represents the renewable source for movement and if it's powered by wind or solar it is prone to be non-operational during times and as such the car must run too to keep things moving during said times. they just don't have the luxury of backing it up with batteries to use during the off timeperiods as none of it is stored.
governments, and hence politicians, don't have enough working knowledge of the subjects to know what to do if anything and so they pass bad laws and impose ridiculous requirements at times that turn out to be counterproductive and i'm not going into their fine art of padding the bill with bureaucratic costs until it costs hundreds if not thousands of times what it should be. supplementation to the grid with re is not a bad thing, but it can't replace the original power source easily let alone even to be a majority source with the original power source. what they are needing to do is what the individual would need to do, but on a massive scale without storage battery capacity to offset things. not so easy or cheap to do.

[emsai]

Originally Posted by Windsun

I am not so sure any more that commercial wind is much of an answer either, especially following the unmitigated disaster that Spain had (and still has) with wind.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2009/...lete-disaster/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Mmm...eature=related

Every major source of power (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) has an agenda, an advocacy, and money to push and propagandize its programs and sabotage others. Ph.D consultants who support these programs by selling their opinions are a dime a dozen. It is difficult to see through all this chaff and discern the real contribution wind can economically make to power generation. Those industries with a strong political power base (coal and oil for example) do not want to give up even a small piece of the generation pie, health of the planet be damned. And they will fight a dirty and vicious fight to hold on to every erg. Stifling innovation-converted-to-production in solar and wind power generation is very much to their advantage.

Wind has no real political power base. While it may not be THE answer, it is definitely a part of the answer, and in many parts of the world, it may be most of the answer. That is true of many poor countries and regions bordering mountain ranges and windy plains, particularly those with very little natural resources. Even in our country. But bet your last dime, coal, oil, and gas, and to a lesser degree - nuclear, will try to get it all.

[BB.]

Small wind may have not have much political power--and according to multiple studies shows that it is a huge waste of money where it takes 20x the funds to generate the same amount of power with small wind turbines as one large industrial wind turbine:

Small windpower a scam ? Survey says SO

And to be repetitive (and complete), quoted from a pro-wind site:

Massachusetts Small Wind Report 2008: Consultants to the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative have issued a damning report on the performance of small wind turbines installed under the MTC's subsidy program.

Bottom Line

"MTC is now considering program changes to the Small Renewables Initiative that will apply to future small wind projects. MTC expects that these program changes will be announced in late summer, 2008.
As a result of the information outlined in the following small wind progress briefing, MTC believes that it is in the best interest of the small wind community for MTC to stop accepting applications from new, small wind projects. . . ."

But wind overall (or Big Wind?) certainly does... The article Windsun posted, and I quoted earlier:

Wind power is a complete disaster

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWh basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34 — compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25¢; coal at 44¢; hydro at 67¢; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

Wind has ~15x the US government subsidizes as the next highest, nuclear.

Somebody is sure pulling the levers of power out there for wind...

There is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).

If you want to see what government subsidies are like--come to Northern California and turn on your A/C. For flat rate Residential Electric (over 1,000 kWhrs per month), would you want to pay $0.44 per kWhr?

Or, how about my E-7 Time of Use rate plan, turn on your A/C between noon and 6pm Mon-Friday in the summer and pay $0.30 to $0.60 per kWhr (the more power you use, the higher the kWhr billing rate).

All that money is going to pay for green/non-coal power (and various other programs).

Kind of makes TVA's (Tennessee Valley Authority) "Green Power" program which adds less $0.03 a kWhr to a power bill look pretty pathetic. What is the typical cost of electric power there now--$0.08 per kWhr? Any over there want to volunteer for a $0.52 per kWhr adder to their bill for "green power"?

-Bill