Posted on 02/25/2005 8:14:20 PM PST by Pikamax
... however, except for the publication date (less than 2 year ago) of the Canadian study (which happens to be a virtual reprint or of an NREL study,) nothing in my posts is "obsolete." My data is as recent as yours. The Study uses batteryless direct-to-grid systems. You seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that my "obsolete" study used the same 10KW turbine setup from the same company; that the study's version of the setup COSTS LESS to install; and the installation was analyzed in a region with MORE FAVORABLE WINDS than yours.
I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in your reasoning. Your payback scenarios, contrary to your assertions, DEPEND on the utility buying all your excess power at the same price you pay the utility for its power. YOU said your simple calculations didn't include any subsidies or net metering. You conveniently ignored the fact that without net metering all the excess power you produce doesn't bring in a penny of payback.
Even if there was a net metering capability in your analysis, you, yourself, said that utilities don't pay as much as they charge.
Of the $0.13 you pay for power, only about $0.04 (less if your power is heavily nuclear or hydro generated) is the cost of generating the power ... and that's the price the utility is likely to pay you IF there is a net metering capability. The other $0.09 pays for distribution, transmission, and a host of costs of being a utility, none of which you are entitled to as a generator.
By using "published monthly Watt-hour productions based on wind speed class" you completely IGNORE where all that power goes. In your scenarios, MOST of the power from the 10KW setup goes NOWHERE. In you 1KW setup, you IGNORE the reality that there are significant periods of time when the turbine is spinning away producing power you are not consuming; that power, too, goes NOWHERE.
While a convenient dodge, the date of my data doesn't alter the credibility of the data (in most cases it is more favorable than yours); it does not alter the logic of the analysis (your's may be simple, but it's wrong); and it doesn't alter the conclusion (without subsidies, tax credits, and netmetering, wind power is not cost effective.)
Throttle generally means to cut off air to a combustion engine (as throttling one's throat starves one's lungs); governors control maximum speed by operating the throttle against load and weighted centrifugal force to operate either throttles or fuel injectors where air volume is constant and CFM changes increase with speed; on steam engines the driving force is a function of pressure and volume and is governored; in any case, all generators are sychronous at one certain speed, the prime mover simply changes the fuel volume or steam volume with load. With water turbines water is bled off or directed through the turbine as is air from wind by prop-feathering or dump buckets of some sort. Frequency is critical as it can't be changed downstream.
So, I'm curious ... where did you get your numers?
If you go directly to the Bergey 10KW spreadsheet and plug in average wind speed for a class 2 area (4.4 m/s to 5.1 m/s .. and don't forget to set the tower height to 18 meters - the smallest you can buy for a 10KW unit) you'll see that a Bergey 10KW grid intertie system will generate between 9,139 KWh and 13,439 KWh annually (that's from 762 KWh per month and 1,120 KWh per month). My "typical house" analysis used 833 KWh per month ... right on target.
How did you come up with 2,000 KWh per month?The Bergey 1KW spreadsheet suggests that a 1KW turbine on a 14 meter tower, at the same 1,100 foot altitude, will generate annual outputs from 1,410 KWh to 2,033 KWh (thats 118 KWh per month to 169 KHh per month.) Even my 1KW analysis (at 182 KWh per month to 219 KWh per month) was overly generous. Using the Bergey data, the 1KW payback for materials only is from 54 years to 77 years.
How did you come up with 375 KWh per month?It would seem my "obsolete data" is a whole lot closer to current reality than your "current data."
The Bergey Price Lists confirm that your $33,500 price tag is for materials only. The Solar Panel Store Price Lists confirm that your $8,500 price tag ($9,100 if you want a tower that actually has a pipe to hold up the turbine) is for materials only. Installation costs (labor, equipment rental, permits, utility fees,etc.) will raise that number considerably.
I've published sources for ALL my data ... where are yours??
Waiting to see if pillbox_girl is going to reply and I don't want to miss it.
Thing got busy for me all of a sudden. I've got a big order to fill here that looks like it has some problems. Even worse, an unexpected nasty anti-gun bill has popped up in my home state that I need to pressure my reps about, so I haven't had the writing time to respond to Dimple in the the detail his post requires. I haven't had time to get to all my pings yet, and haven't read the main forum in a few days. On FR I've been concentrating on shooting down an ignorant little gun grabber on another thread; I value my rights more than my position on wind power. I will respond to Dimple in the next week, I hope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.