Write your local politicans for a green cheque.

[Hairless Kitten II]

I have read in a magazine that the ROI of a windturbine is made after 9 months of use.

It means, after 9 months, you’re only making profit.

I don’t know if this is true (one can back this up ?), but if it is, our governments should take action and not tomorrow, but right now.

Every village should be granted a loan to build a big mill and its inhabitants just pay for their electricity what they are used to be. After 9 months, when the windturbine is paid off, we only pay for the maintenance.

This business model has some advantages:

• It’s good for the environment. Green power is better than coal or nuclear turbines, no question about it.
• It’s good for the economy. Countless people will have a job for constructing and maintaining those turbines.
• It’s good for the economy (part II). The money you don’t pay for electricity will be spend to other stuff. This spend money will create jobs and eventually lower taxes.
• It’s good for the economy (part III). Governments can lower welfare checks, which means lower taxes, which means better business, lower unemployment, etc…

What are we waiting for?

[Saige Dragon]

Give yourself 3 months, then build it. About a year from now I will be certified to charge you an arm and a leg to maintain the wind turbine.

[South Lorenya]

I live in the suburbs of NY. There's simply no room for them. They're also *still* fixing Gulotta's mess

[Galloism]

I live close to an airport. Large wind turbines are so tall that they would fuck with the instrument approaches into the airport, and the FAA would deny permission to build them.

No go.

[Hairless Kitten II]

I live in the suburbs of NY. There's simply no room for them. They're also *still* fixing Gulotta's mess

The location of the turbines doesn't have to be near by. Denmark and Belgium by instance build already turbines at sea, 20 miles offshore.

While those mills are more expensive, they have some advantages:

• They don’t create any visual pollution
• They produce more electricity than land based ones.

[Saige Dragon]

And on a serious note; wind turbines and your health? A concern in places of denser populations where a turbine may wind up being built in somebody's back yard, literally. I do like Hollands approach of building a field of enormous turbines out in the ocean (is it Holland? I could be mistaken.).

[Galloism]

I live in the suburbs of NY. There's simply no room for them. They're also *still* fixing Gulotta's mess

The location of the turbines doesn't have to be near by. Denmark and Belgium by instance build already turbines at sea, 20 miles offshore.

While those mills are more expensive, they have some advantages:

• They don’t create any visual pollution
• They produce more electricity than land based ones.

We can't do that here either. Hurricanes.

[Hairless Kitten II]

I live close to an airport. Large wind turbines are so tall that they would fuck with the instrument approaches into the airport, and the FAA would deny permission to build them.

No go.

I didn't know that entire countries are loaded with airports. Thanks for that information.

[Hairless Kitten II]

And on a serious note; wind turbines and your health? A concern in places of denser populations where a turbine may wind up being built in somebody's back yard, literally. I do like Hollands approach of building a field of enormous turbines out in the ocean (is it Holland? I could be mistaken.).

No it's Denmark and Belgium.

[Hairless Kitten II]

I live in the suburbs of NY. There's simply no room for them. They're also *still* fixing Gulotta's mess

The location of the turbines doesn't have to be near by. Denmark and Belgium by instance build already turbines at sea, 20 miles offshore.

While those mills are more expensive, they have some advantages:

• They don’t create any visual pollution
• They produce more electricity than land based ones.

We can't do that here either. Hurricanes.

The location of the turbines doesn't have to be near by... You can build them where there's room, where they fit into the environment, etc...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Green Cheques doesn't have to involve wind turbines. You could fit solar panels to the roofs of tall buildings well, or harness the power of the waterfalls using traditional water mills, which could be of good use to larger streams too.

[Galloism]

I live close to an airport. Large wind turbines are so tall that they would fuck with the instrument approaches into the airport, and the FAA would deny permission to build them.

No go.

I didn't know that entire countries are loaded with airports. Thanks for that information.

A lot more than you'd think. There's right around 20,000 in the contiguous united states.

Also, you suggested building one in our town. Our town is nestled right up against the airport. In order to build anything over 2 stories high, we have to clear it with the FAA. Offshore won't work either, because of hurricanes.

[Vault 10]

I have read in a magazine that the ROI of a windturbine is made after 9 months of use.
It means, after 9 months, you’re only making profit.

What you have read is either a lie or a highly intentional miscalculation.

The cheapest 20 kW turbine will cost you at least 50 grand plus 'installation' (erecting a tower a few times taller than your house), plus servicing. Even if the wind was absolutely perfect all the time, it would only produce 175,000 kWh in a year, which is worth about $10,000 at wholesale prices. However, the typical output is only 25% of maximum rated power. This results in only $2,500 revenue per year.

If the turbine maintenance cost nothing, and the interest/inflation rate was 0%, it would pay off in 20 years, but since neither is true, at 4% inflation and $1,000/yr maintenance, you'll actually be losing $500 a year on it.
The only way wind power producers survive is through subsidies.

[Galloism]

The location of the turbines doesn't have to be near by... You can build them where there's room, where they fit into the environment, etc...

So, we would power our town in Florida by putting up wind turbines... I guess in northern and western Georgia. There they'd be (relatively) safe from hurricanes, and we could probably find a spot where they're not near an airport.

But, then again, that doesn't "power our town" per se unless we have the electricity shipped back here. At that point, you might as well just have the feds erect a few wind farms and do the same thing to cut out the middle-man.

(also, i don't think those numbers are accurate you're using)

[Grave_n_idle]

Green Cheques doesn't have to involve wind turbines. You could fit solar panels to the roofs of tall buildings well, or harness the power of the waterfalls using traditional water mills, which could be of good use to larger streams too.

In fact, government REALLY needs to jump all over that solar panel thing. Electric companies have started allowing small rebates in some places, for the right to use roofspace for solar panels - which is a very sneaky move when you think about it. It takes that roof out of commision for private panel usage or for some other agency to use it, and it allows the electric companies to pay a small downpayment in order to secure a small bonus market that they can charge for at full price.

[Hairless Kitten II]

I have read in a magazine that the ROI of a windturbine is made after 9 months of use.
It means, after 9 months, you’re only making profit.

What you have read is either a lie or a highly intentional miscalculation.

The cheapest 20 kW turbine will cost you at least 50 grand plus 'installation' (erecting a tower a few times taller than your house), plus servicing. Even if the wind was absolutely perfect all the time, it would only produce 175,000 kWh in a year, which is worth about $10,000 at wholesale prices. However, the typical output is only 25% of maximum rated power. This results in only $2,500 revenue per year.

If the turbine maintenance cost nothing, and the interest/inflation rate was 0%, it would pay off in 20 years, but since neither is true, at 4% inflation and $1,000/yr maintenance, you'll actually be losing $500 a year on it.
The only way wind power producers survive is through subsidies.

How is the situation for big turbines? In this area, we were not allowed by the local government to build a private small windturbine.
Even for the solar panels, it took us 2 years of paper war with those scumbags.

[Galloism]

Green Cheques doesn't have to involve wind turbines. You could fit solar panels to the roofs of tall buildings well, or harness the power of the waterfalls using traditional water mills, which could be of good use to larger streams too.

In fact, government REALLY needs to jump all over that solar panel thing. Electric companies have started allowing small rebates in some places, for the right to use roofspace for solar panels - which is a very sneaky move when you think about it. It takes that roof out of commision for private panel usage or for some other agency to use it, and it allows the electric companies to pay a small downpayment in order to secure a small bonus market that they can charge for at full price.

Actually, I got a brief job doing security at this convention center, and when I went up on the roof there were all these solar panels. The interesting part was that the solar panels were retractable. See, we have lots of hail here in America's penis, so solar panels are a difficult proposition. However, whenever a storm would roll in, they would retract their solar panels, wait for the storm to pass, and then put them out again. There were little electric motors that would retract the panels.

[Vault 10]

In fact, government REALLY needs to jump all over that solar panel thing. Electric companies have started allowing small rebates in some places, for the right to use roofspace for solar panels - which is a very sneaky move when you think about it. It takes that roof out of commision for private panel usage or for some other agency to use it, and it allows the electric companies to pay a small downpayment in order to secure a small bonus market that they can charge for at full price.

While wind power is at least promising to not break the bank, direct photovoltaics are an outright insane concept. The cost of the panels never pays off. You need 12-16 grand to install an off-grid rooftop system to get you an average of 500 watts during the day, or 20-25 grand for an on-grid or battery-backed one.

The only way solar power can be practical is in highly concentrated form, be it solar-heated steam turbines or, in some future, high-temperature photovoltaics.

[Grave_n_idle]

Green Cheques doesn't have to involve wind turbines. You could fit solar panels to the roofs of tall buildings well, or harness the power of the waterfalls using traditional water mills, which could be of good use to larger streams too.

In fact, government REALLY needs to jump all over that solar panel thing. Electric companies have started allowing small rebates in some places, for the right to use roofspace for solar panels - which is a very sneaky move when you think about it. It takes that roof out of commision for private panel usage or for some other agency to use it, and it allows the electric companies to pay a small downpayment in order to secure a small bonus market that they can charge for at full price.

Actually, I got a brief job doing security at this convention center, and when I went up on the roof there were all these solar panels. The interesting part was that the solar panels were retractable. See, we have lots of hail here in America's penis, so solar panels are a difficult proposition. However, whenever a storm would roll in, they would retract their solar panels, wait for the storm to pass, and then put them out again. There were little electric motors that would retract the panels.

Heh. I wonder what they ran the motors on...

[Grays Harbor]

The location of the turbines doesn't have to be near by... You can build them where there's room, where they fit into the environment, etc...

So, we would power our town in Florida by putting up wind turbines... I guess in northern and western Georgia. There they'd be (relatively) safe from hurricanes, and we could probably find a spot where they're not near an airport.

But, then again, that doesn't "power our town" per se unless we have the electricity shipped back here. At that point, you might as well just have the feds erect a few wind farms and do the same thing to cut out the middle-man.

(also, i don't think those numbers are accurate you're using)

surely you are not suggesting that greeners might use incorrect, inaccurate or false data in order to prove their point?


[/sarcasm]

[Galloism]

Heh. I wonder what they ran the motors on...

Electricity no doubt.

See though, in America's Penis, the sun shines all day every day except for two hours per day pretty much the whole summer (unless we get a hurricane). You can damn near set your watch by the timing of the thunderstorms. It's really really predictable. So, they could operate in the black all summer at least on those panels.

[JarVik]

I have read in a magazine that the ROI of a windturbine is made after 9 months of use.
It means, after 9 months, you’re only making profit.

What you have read is either a lie or a highly intentional miscalculation.

The cheapest 20 kW turbine will cost you at least 50 grand plus 'installation' (erecting a tower a few times taller than your house), plus servicing. Even if the wind was absolutely perfect all the time, it would only produce 175 kW in a year, which is worth about $10,000 at wholesale prices. However, the typical output is only 25% of maximum rated power. This results in only $2,500 revenue per year.

If the turbine maintenance cost nothing, and the interest/inflation rate was 0%, it would pay off in 20 years, but since neither is true, at 4% inflation and $1,000/yr maintenance, you'll actually be losing $500 a year on it.
The only way wind power producers survive is through subsidies.

This

I seem to recall reading that the big Danish Windfarm will break-even in 40-50 years.

I'll see If I can find the article.

It is unfortunate but much of the news articles on alternative (and conventional) power don't like reporting the figures and numbers to make good comparisons. For example when ever a new solar or windfarm is reported in the media they mostly list just the installed capacity which is a missleading as that figure assumes the wind blows a 65 km/hr 24/7 and that the sun is always at high noon. The efficiency, or what proportion of installed capacity which will actually be delievered is seldom reported.

[Vault 10]

How is the situation for big turbines? In this area, we were not allowed by the local government to build a private small windturbine.

With big turbines, it's better. The cost per maximum kilowatt power is a bit higher, a 5-6 MW turbine costs about $18 million. But the average output can reach 33% (rather than 20-25%), and it's cheaper to plug them into the grid.

However, there's a limited number of places where these 33% can be practically achieved. Not any place is suitable. Too high winds means danger, too low means low power.
It's still not competitive with coal and nuclear power, but capable of breaking even at least in a tax-less environment.

[Grave_n_idle]

In fact, government REALLY needs to jump all over that solar panel thing. Electric companies have started allowing small rebates in some places, for the right to use roofspace for solar panels - which is a very sneaky move when you think about it. It takes that roof out of commision for private panel usage or for some other agency to use it, and it allows the electric companies to pay a small downpayment in order to secure a small bonus market that they can charge for at full price.

While wind power is at least promising to not break the bank, direct photovoltaics are an outright insane concept. The cost of the panels never pays off. You need 12-16 grand to install an off-grid rooftop system to get you an average of 500 watts during the day, or 20-25 grand for an on-grid or battery-backed one.

The only way solar power can be practical is in highly concentrated form, be it solar-heated steam turbines or, in some future, high-temperature photovoltaics.

So, you can see that there is strong capacity for solar panel technology to improve, but you can't see the strategic advantage in 'holding the terrain'?

I think I talked to you about solar panels before, and I pointed out THAT time that you were talking about 1990's technology, too. I've seen 4kW systems for close to the 16 grand price you suggest.

I don't quite understand WHY you don't want solar panels to be a good alternative, but it's clearly a deliberate misdirection on your part to constantly trot out incorrect data.

[Grave_n_idle]

Heh. I wonder what they ran the motors on...

Electricity no doubt.

See though, in America's Penis, the sun shines all day every day except for two hours per day pretty much the whole summer (unless we get a hurricane). You can damn near set your watch by the timing of the thunderstorms. It's really really predictable. So, they could operate in the black all summer at least on those panels.

I was just wondering what kind of appetites those motors have, versus the amount of power the panels are pulling in. You have to assume there's a substantial margin, but it would be comical if it was breaking even.