New Study Says City-Based Rooftop Wind Power Doesn’t Pay Off
A new study put out by the UK’s Carbon Trust reports that domestic windmills in urban locations are actually net carbon emitters, as more energy goes into their production, shipping, and maintenance than is saved by their use.
Additionally, the study notes that home wind power could only provide .4% of UK electricity consumption and will only save .6 million tons of carbon dioxide. For reference, the Carbon Trust says that 1.5 TWh could be produced annually using urban windmills—and the UK used 2,700 TWh of energy in 2006.
The reason why urban windmills aren’t useful is fairly simple. The Carbon Trust explains that small wind turbines require open, exposed locations that have high wind speeds. These locations are usually found in rural areas, which can produce nine times more wind energy than urban areas. Since the output from urban windmills is low, the cost of the resulting energy ends up being high.
- » See also: Asia Light Years Ahead of the US in Clean Tech Investment — Financial and Economic Consequences
- » Get CleanTechnica by RSS or sign up by email.
But while wind energy may not be the way to go in cities, that doesn’t mean that urban homes can’t make use of alternative energies. Solar power is becoming increasingly popular, and plenty of cities around the world get more than enough sunshine to utilize it effectively.
Additionally, transmission lines can deliver wind power from rural areas to urban areas. So if you’re really stuck on powering your apartment or townhouse with wind, the future isn’t entirely bleak.
More Posts on Wind Power:
- Wind-Powered Tall Ships Are Once Again Important As Oil Prices Hurt Trade
- Kites Could Become Major Source Of Wind Power
- Texas To Build Wind Power Superhighway
- The Five Best Micro Wind Turbines
- Vertical-Axis Wind Turbines: The Future of Micro Wind?
“Solar power is becoming increasingly popular, and plenty of cities around the world get more than enough sunshine to utilize it effectively.”
Yes, and lets all sit back and enjoy the show as new 3-dimensional zoning laws are applied to these cities that were developed without solar tech in mind. Someone in residential CA has already been forced to cut down redwood trees because they grew tall enough to block the sunlight from a neighbor’s solar panels
we should love mother earth
It really depends on the end goal. Individual, rooftop turbines aren’t meant to replace the grid, but to supplement it, reducing grid usage by the home owner. Wind farms are definitely great, but take up a lot of space and aren’t economically feasible in areas lacking consistent wind.
Also, solar typically gets paired with batteries which actually power the household. The cost of solar is still very expensive whereas wind is generally cheaper. Check out mariahpower.com — they are just starting production, but their product is only $5k and requires an average wind speed of 5 m/s (avg over 24×7x365) to be beneficial. There’s currently one out in front of the US Botanical Garden in DC…
The technology just isn’t there yet to remove the grid from the equation for all people, so a great first step is reducing the grid dependency.
What about vertical turbines like Quiet Revolution?
http://www.quietrevolution.co.uk/
They run at lower speeds, can take wind from any direction and they’re gorgeous.
I haven’t read it, but I also wonder if the study assumes that the turbines are produced at a great distance from the point of installation and therefore have a larger footprint? Like Clayton C. said - use wind where it’s appropriate. Thinking in universals is a petroleum mindset. Alternative energies are contingent - a much more biological model.
If the study used the type of windmill shown in the picture - no wonder the out put was measly. That’s a pretty small windmill. There is some reluctance to windmills in suburban and urban landscapes cause of the noise, too. So I’m willing to say that urban windmills are not a priority. But i wouldn’t write them off quite yet. With improvements and higher energy costs they could possibly become more appealing.
Goes to show now everything works like you’d expect. You really have to crunch the numbers.
From the description it appears that the calculation fails to take into account the energy source the domestic windmill replaces.
It also appears to favor centralized production and distribution - thus keeping people paying the local gigantic gas and electric utility in perpetuity.
The freedom gained, money saved, and money put to more useful endeavours than paying the electric company must also be taken into account.
Are they subtracting the carbon saved by NOT using standard coal-fired electricity?
I thought so.
So, let me get this straight. A windmill running for 200 years produces a net gain in carbon emissions?
I’m curious how they calculated this net gain, since it seems logical to me that the longer the windmill is active, the more net energy it would produce.
It’s true. Wind turbines are most effective when they’re really big, horizontal axis, and high above anything else, which means urban ones are far from ideal.
I’m sure, however, that some well placed urban turbines will be net carbon savers. (yeah maybe I should read the report)