Wind power review
 

Executive summary: don't waste your money

Wind power has been the fastest growing source of new electric power, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. But if you're considering a wind turbine to supplement your home's power, consider our experience with one product, the Honeywell WT6500 Wind Turbine, a cautionary tale.
Among the few wind turbines that can be mounted on a roof, the WT6500 is similar to traditional wind turbines: Any unused energy it generates can be sent or sold to a utility for credit off your power bill. But it's quieter than traditional turbines, and according to the manufacturer WindTronics, starts generating power at lower wind speeds. The company claims the unit starts spinning from winds of a mere 0.5 mph—with electricity generated from only 3 mph. Traditional gearbox wind turbines, said the company, require at least 7.5-mph winds to start generating power.
A tool on Windtronics' website had calculated we'd get 1,155 kWh per year at the 12-mph average it predicted for our area of Yonkers, New York. And the authorized installer, during his initial visit, didn't say the roof of our headquarters might generate any less, but that rating is at a height of 164 feet, not the 33 feet WindTronics requires for rooftop installations.
In the 15 months since the turbine was installed, though, it has delivered less than 4 kWh—enough only to power a 12,000 btu window air conditioner for one afternoon. A company representative in charge of installations worldwide recently visited our offices and confirmed that our test model was correctly installed. What's more, he told us that while the WT6500 should start generating power at about 3 mph, the initial juice goes just to power the system's inverter, which must be running before it supplies any AC power elsewhere. The true wind speed needed to start producing AC while the inverter is on is 6 mph, not far from the 7.5 mph needed by a traditional gearbox wind turbine.
The Honeywell costs $11,000 installed, comes with a five-year warranty and has a 20-year expected product life. But having a thorough site analysis by a manufacturer-authorized installer, backed by your own research on websites such as the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is vital.
At the rate the WT6500 is delivering power at our test site, it would take several millennia for the product to pay for itself in savings—not the 56 years it would take even with the 1,155 kWh quote we received.


Recouping cost of wind turbine may take more than a lifetime

re: Wind power review
 

Location. Location. Location.

It works really well if your house is 164 feet high. Trust me.:D

Love Technology....

Not completely surprised.

20-25 years ago, when the only units were the big-blade variety (say, 100-ft rotors), I read an article that said they took more than 40 years to pay-back the initial investment and maintenance costs.

With the proliferation of smaller "Salad-mixer" varieties, I assumed with lower acquisition, land-footprint, and blade maintenance costs, the payback would be quicker.

Guess not.

Kind of like the P-R releases where an airline, or military branch, flies an airplane on bio-fuel. The most recent example, by the Air Force, tells the total program cost, and how many gallons delivered (I think it was an A-10).

It's not until you use a calculator that you realize it was over $40 a gallon.

It goes with my general assessment of world government and business: Pacification, appeasement, and distraction.

Most of the 'green movement' falls into the distraction category....but it still generates big profits for those promoting it.

I guess you can consider it a profit if the politician you invest a couple million in returns to you a half a billion dollar subsidy.

I think I am missing your point. More altitude should give you a higher average windspeed and fewer times when the windspeed is insufficient to generate electricity.

I read it as 33 ft was the required minimum, not a recommended optimum height.

Maybe I missed something.

WW

These whirlygigs need to be located in a high, hot area with a lot of wind. Like a climate conference or greenpeace meeting.

re: Wind power review
 

I don't know the details but you can't just plop one of these machines in downtown Yonkers and expect it to perform (apparently, unless you put it on top of a 16 story building or higher).

Before I'd consider the expense, I would want to live along the coast where there's
always 10 - 15 knots off the ocean or in the plain states like Wyoming or Montana where it always blows.

It's not clear to me that Consumer Reports did their homework.

Of course they didn't. I mean they have a differing viewpoint than you do. The logical answer is because they didn't do their homework, and not the fact that you might just be wrong on one thing. Yeah, that seems like the left way of thinking.