I installed 5 months ago solar panels that are supposed to produce 5 megawatts per year. So far (in autumn and winter months) we’ve generated just under 2 megawatts. So the system seems to be about on target for generation. But 5000 x .15 = $750. So at current rates, it’ll take 22 years for me to get back my investment of $35,000 (minus PA Sunshine rebate of $11,500 plus Federal Tax Credit of $7050) = $16,450. That is, if electricity continues to be charged in my region at .15 per kwh, which it will not.

However, I am not complaining; I just want the figures to be clear for those interested. And I will get an incredibly generous rebate from Pennsylvania. I mean, I’m supposed to get one. It hasn’t shown up yet, and now 5 months after installation, they say they want to inspect the system again. I do imagine I’ll get the rebate some day, and the federal tax credit seems like a sure thing. Note that the 30% is taken AFTER any state rebates, so it’s 30% of $23,500 (=$7050).

And who would have thought that the year I installed solar panels would be a record-breaking snow dump in my area. I’ve shoveled off the panels three times so far. Not that it’s required, I just do that to maximize my yield. One could just wait for it to melt, but I like to see the generation continue on the sunny days after the big snows.

So one would need to be motivated by something other than finances at current electricity rates. And I am. It’s like purchasing a $16,500 science project or toy that has the benefit of clearly helping the environment while slowing paying me back. People (seem to) think nothing of spending $45,000 for a Lexus. I drive a gas-miser Geo Metro that I bought for $1,700. So it depends on how we choose to spend our disposable income. With the Lexus, the money drains out of your account and never comes back; with energy projects it goes out and then comes back

As for the stimulus effects of these rebates and tax credits, I’ve learned how that works. I stimulated the economy by putting out $35,000 in cash. Some day, maybe in a couple of months, I’ll get the $18,550 back. And I’ll spend that windfall on installing a geothermal (actually ground source) heating/cooling system to supplement my current gas-steam system.

I was interested in the wind turbines too (why not?) but have decided that wind power doesn’t make sense in my location.

Perhaps the best energy bang for buck is the very unexciting insulation. (I’ll get a $1,500 federal tax credit on that too, based on at least $5,000 in cost.) Just look at how fast the snow melts on your roof. If it melts quickly, you’re REALLY contributing to global warming–you’re heating up your neighborhood instead of your house! Another of my hobbies is to look at rooftops in the snow and see which ones have quickly melted, and which not. Many of the newly constructed townhouses are snow-free within a day or two. I guess buyers don’t notice this feature, since most people buy during the spring.

Maybe I’ll save a lot of money over the long term with my insulation, solar, and geothermal projects. I know that many people cannot afford these fancy wind, solar, and geothermal projects, but almost everyone can afford a few sheets of insulation. The payoff is amazingly fast.

I installed 5 months ago solar panels that are supposed to produce 5 megawatts per year. So far (in autumn and winter months) we’ve generated just under 2 megawatts. So the system seems to be about on target for generation. But 5000 x .15 = $750. So at current rates, it’ll take 22 years for me to get back my investment of $35,000 (minus PA Sunshine rebate of $11,500 plus Federal Tax Credit of $7050) = $16,450. That is, if electricity continues to be charged in my region at .15 per kwh, which it will not.

However, I am not complaining; I just want the figures to be clear for those interested. And I will get an incredibly generous rebate from Pennsylvania. I mean, I’m supposed to get one. It hasn’t shown up yet, and now 5 months after installation, they say they want to inspect the system again. I do imagine I’ll get the rebate some day, and the federal tax credit seems like a sure thing. Note that the 30% is taken AFTER any state rebates, so it’s 30% of $23,500 (=$7050).

And who would have thought that the year I installed solar panels would be a record-breaking snow dump in my area. I’ve shoveled off the panels three times so far. Not that it’s required, I just do that to maximize my yield. One could just wait for it to melt, but I like to see the generation continue on the sunny days after the big snows.

So one would need to be motivated by something other than finances at current electricity rates. And I am. It’s like purchasing a $16,500 science project or toy that has the benefit of clearly helping the environment while slowing paying me back. People (seem to) think nothing of spending $45,000 for a Lexus. I drive a gas-miser Geo Metro that I bought for $1,700. So it depends on how we choose to spend our disposable income. With the Lexus, the money drains out of your account and never comes back; with energy projects it goes out and then comes back

As for the stimulus effects of these rebates and tax credits, I’ve learned how that works. I stimulated the economy by putting out $35,000 in cash. Some day, maybe in a couple of months, I’ll get the $18,550 back. And I’ll spend that windfall on installing a geothermal (actually ground source) heating/cooling system to supplement my current gas-steam system.

I was interested in the wind turbines too (why not?) but have decided that wind power doesn’t make sense in my location.

Perhaps the best energy bang for buck is the very unexciting insulation. (I’ll get a $1,500 federal tax credit on that too, based on at least $5,000 in cost.) Just look at how fast the snow melts on your roof. If it melts quickly, you’re REALLY contributing to global warming–you’re heating up your neighborhood instead of your house! Another of my hobbies is to look at rooftops in the snow and see which ones have quickly melted, and which not. Many of the newly constructed townhouses are snow-free within a day or two. I guess buyers don’t notice this feature, since most people buy during the spring.

Maybe I’ll save a lot of money over the long term with my insulation, solar, and geothermal projects. I know that many people cannot afford these fancy wind, solar, and geothermal projects, but almost everyone can afford a few sheets of insulation. The payoff is amazingly fast.

support. Each wind powered devise should be taxed to kill this industry Think and support clean coal power- gas power- and the atom power

support. Each wind powered devise should be taxed to kill this industry Think and support clean coal power- gas power- and the atom power

1) It’s important to differentiate between m/s and mph. 5 mph is slow and the Helix units don’t start producing electricity until 8mph (about 3.5m/s). 5m/s is pretty fast (about 11.2mph).

2) Don’t be distracted by “rated capacity”. It’s useless (at least until we settle on a single speed for its measurement across all turbines). The key turbine-specific factors (i.e. excluding wind speed) are swept area and efficiency. Swept area is reported; efficiency is claimed and, for most small turbines, has yet to be demonstrated. The latter is complicated further by the fact that efficiency diminishes somewhat as wind speed accelerates.

3) A similar version of the equation is:

0.6125 X (speed cubed) x 1.91 x (8,760 hrs/yr) x (1kW/1,000W) x (Swept Area) X (efficiency),

where 0.6125 is the constant used when speed is measured in m/s and 1.91 is a way to annualize wind power based on a Rayleigh distribution (given certain assumptions). The only factors that vary from one turbine to another are swept area and efficiency. Be suspicious of any small turbine efficiency claims above 20% at 4m/s and above 16% at 7m/s (15.7mph).

1) It’s important to differentiate between m/s and mph. 5 mph is slow and the Helix units don’t start producing electricity until 8mph (about 3.5m/s). 5m/s is pretty fast (about 11.2mph).

2) Don’t be distracted by “rated capacity”. It’s useless (at least until we settle on a single speed for its measurement across all turbines). The key turbine-specific factors (i.e. excluding wind speed) are swept area and efficiency. Swept area is reported; efficiency is claimed and, for most small turbines, has yet to be demonstrated. The latter is complicated further by the fact that efficiency diminishes somewhat as wind speed accelerates.

3) A similar version of the equation is:

0.6125 X (speed cubed) x 1.91 x (8,760 hrs/yr) x (1kW/1,000W) x (Swept Area) X (efficiency),

where 0.6125 is the constant used when speed is measured in m/s and 1.91 is a way to annualize wind power based on a Rayleigh distribution (given certain assumptions). The only factors that vary from one turbine to another are swept area and efficiency. Be suspicious of any small turbine efficiency claims above 20% at 4m/s and above 16% at 7m/s (15.7mph).

This one is not intended for 5 mile an hour winds, Russ.

Just like you’d not blame the solar panel manufacturer if a solar roof in a forest failed to perform to spec, the company specifies 14 mph OR BETTER winds as a requirement.

This one is not intended for 5 mile an hour winds, Russ.

Just like you’d not blame the solar panel manufacturer if a solar roof in a forest failed to perform to spec, the company specifies 14 mph OR BETTER winds as a requirement.

The formula for power available in the wind is Power (P) = 1/2 air density (D) * swept area (A) * wind velocity (V) cubed or P=1/2D*A*V cubed

Considering an air density of 1 –

For the S322 at 3.5 m/s that is 68 watts – at 5.5 m/s that is 265 watts and at 8.5 m/s that is 980 watts

Say your area has the national average wind speed of 5 m/s the S322 would provide 200 watts while at their rated wind speed of 6.3 m/s the output would be 399 watts.

The annual expected output for various speeds using a 35% capacity factor:

3.5 m/s = 210 kWh

5.0 m/s = 611 kWh

5.5 m/s = 813 kWh

6.3 m/s = 1222 kWh

8.5 m/s = 3003 kWh

Slight difference with ‘relatively small’ changes in wind velocity.

I stand corrected on one point – they do seem to use a capacity factor of 35% in determining the annual output which many parties do not.

The formula for power available in the wind is Power (P) = 1/2 air density (D) * swept area (A) * wind velocity (V) cubed or P=1/2D*A*V cubed

Considering an air density of 1 –

For the S322 at 3.5 m/s that is 68 watts – at 5.5 m/s that is 265 watts and at 8.5 m/s that is 980 watts

Say your area has the national average wind speed of 5 m/s the S322 would provide 200 watts while at their rated wind speed of 6.3 m/s the output would be 399 watts.

The annual expected output for various speeds using a 35% capacity factor:

3.5 m/s = 210 kWh

5.0 m/s = 611 kWh

5.5 m/s = 813 kWh

6.3 m/s = 1222 kWh

8.5 m/s = 3003 kWh

Slight difference with ‘relatively small’ changes in wind velocity.

I stand corrected on one point – they do seem to use a capacity factor of 35% in determining the annual output which many parties do not.

I am not talking about 5 mph winds – close to 5 m/s is the average across the US – a few places higher and many lower. To rate a machine a wind speed that exists a few places only makes sense if it is trying to make a turkey look good. 14 mph winds (annual average) is uncommon! Look at NRDC for that fact.

With PV or wind you are prepaying your electric bill for years to come – not a bad thing if it makes economic sense considering coming price escalations. Putting it on a long term mortgage and paying interest on that makes sense – I don’t think so!

There is zero track record for these turbines that I have seen – outside of their own records/review. There is not one positive outside third party review that I have seen – I am talking about NREL or a similar party – not testimonials. I have looked at most everything on the net regarding wind turbines.

Virtually all parties rate their machines on 100% availability – which this bunch does.

Am I aggressive? Not really, I hate to see a company trying to fool the public. Honeywell is another one that has come along today with someone saying great things – another dud to me.

The day I find wind that works in my location I buy it (providing it is cost effective)! I think it would be wonderful! 5 m/s wind annual average wind speed.

I am not talking about 5 mph winds – close to 5 m/s is the average across the US – a few places higher and many lower. To rate a machine a wind speed that exists a few places only makes sense if it is trying to make a turkey look good. 14 mph winds (annual average) is uncommon! Look at NRDC for that fact.

With PV or wind you are prepaying your electric bill for years to come – not a bad thing if it makes economic sense considering coming price escalations. Putting it on a long term mortgage and paying interest on that makes sense – I don’t think so!

There is zero track record for these turbines that I have seen – outside of their own records/review. There is not one positive outside third party review that I have seen – I am talking about NREL or a similar party – not testimonials. I have looked at most everything on the net regarding wind turbines.

Virtually all parties rate their machines on 100% availability – which this bunch does.

Am I aggressive? Not really, I hate to see a company trying to fool the public. Honeywell is another one that has come along today with someone saying great things – another dud to me.

The day I find wind that works in my location I buy it (providing it is cost effective)! I think it would be wonderful! 5 m/s wind annual average wind speed.