KEY POINTS:
Homeowners could soon get part of their power supply from a small wind turbine fixed on their roof, if a power company's trial shows potential.
The electricity distribution company Vector yesterday began the trial at Waitakere City Council, where a micro wind turbine has been installed on the roof of the civic centre from where it will feed electricity directly into the building.
Here is the latest selection of Your Views:
Pro-turbine
The noise generated is obviously not a problem. "The turbine was virtually silent with a sound output of less than 35 decibels, well within local government noise emission standards." The obvious benefits of wind power seem to be overlooked. There are no CO2 emissions, a major contributor to global warming. Wind can supplement solar (not replace it) heating, exponentially reducing the costs to households, and the environment. Any surplus electricity can be resupplied into the grid, and given NZ's climate surplus would be likely, and would contribute to reduced costs in electricity obtained off the grid.
Ms Auckland
Think it'll be a much wiser and better idea to install solar panels on roofs. Not only will the latter be more economically viable but also far less noisy than wind turbines. It is a known fact that e.g. modern windmills are in no way suitable near private homes as they generate far too much noise, as well as they have proved an obstacle for birds. I take it that wind turbines will be a similar nuisance.
John Long
I think it would be a good addition to all homes, providing the cost is not too high,
although we will need this and other means to generate power if we don't have nuclear power in the not to distant future.
Owen McShane of Kaiwaka
I use a wind turbine to pump water because water is easily stored.
The power output of these micros varies with the cube of the wind speed. They deliver unreliable highly variable power and if we have large numbers required more distribution investment to supply the backup. Add installation costs and you are looking at $15,000.People are often surprised to find that all the houses I have recently designed or renovated have solar heating. My recent houses have targeted the holiday or weekender market. Solar heating delivers real benefits to this market because the owners can flip off the electric booster when they go back home for a week or so, knowing that, when they return, the water will still be warm, or even hot, without having churned through the power in their absence.Even on a winter's day, when they return, it takes only twenty minutes or so for the booster to heat the warm water up to shower temperature. That's a real plus. But the main reason we are going solar in our current dwelling is that we can dump the existing hot water cylinder and gain room for a massive pantry in what is otherwise an impossibly small kitchen.
Graeme
"The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind". So said Dylan, but these small, inappropriately placed, costly home turbines are not the answer. Both for the environment and consumer benefits.
1). Few of these turbines will be placed where they will perform anywhere near their optimum operating range.
2). The initial cost/payback ratio is definitely uneconomic.
3). The initial environmental cost of producing these windmills is said to be greater than their life-long payback.
4). Britain has been experimenting with similar windmills for a number of years and the findings are that it is not economic, environmentally sound, and people are sick of the noisy things in their neighbourhoods. If you really want to do something good for the environment - electrically wise - reduce your usage: low wattage lights, low wattage fridges and freezers, no electric heaters (or use heat pumps), turn off TVs and microwaves etc when they are not in use. These appliances use lots of energy just sitting there.
Kiwi Overseas
I would definitely install one of these. Read about them a year ago in a new scientist magazine. If these are the same ones, advances in technology and miniaturization of components means they are very efficient with a reasonably power output - and there are more and more of these sorts of small scale generation units coming on to the market. We have a rural property in NZ and the power supply can be fragile at times. Apparently distributed power generation is looking more attractive in a whole host of countries overseas as the cost of building large scale centralised power station becomes increasingly prohibitive. From what I recall there are no plans in NZ for any new major power stations anytime soon - so why not encourage more personal power solutions? Better than building another hydro station, or a nuclear power plant.
Ian
The article mentioned wavering consent fees by councils as they are doing for solar systems - your joking aren't you? What research did your reporter do? Councils charge anywhere between $000 in Waitakere, $159 in Kawerau, and $520 Thames Coromandel for the same rubber stamp on up to 15 pages of details. Western Bay of plenty is a snip at $475 and Tauranga is $220 going up to over $300 at the end of this month. Please ring a couple of councils to confirm what fees they charge for consent to install a solar system then publish the results.
Kevin
Very interesting, want to buy or install if possible depend on price and council rules.
Kazel (Opotiki)
Solar panels for hot water cost about $4500 to install and are said to repay the cost of installation within 7 years, sooner if power prices increase. I am concerned that the solar60 panels are not lasting as long as they should (nowhere near 20 years) I would happily get a wind turbine if it was quiet and had the same rate of payback, ie, 7 years.
Jacqui (Ohope Beach)
Consider the visual and noise impact of a wind turbine on your neighbour's roof. Have you ever heard one of these things?
Andrew Atkin
There is also the possibility of using the turbine to drive a heat-pump instead of an electrical generator - possibly for both hot water and home heating. Do systems like this exist? In principle they should be very efficient (as heat pumps are), and eliminate the need for electronics if the converters prove to be too costly. However, you would of course want an electric motor integrated with the system, so it can do the job when there is no wind.
Solar Mike
Its doubtful these turbines will average much power when installed in urban areas, probably only 10 per cent of max power or 3.6Kw per 24 hours, thus giving an annual figure of 1000Kw or $200 worth of electricity. Unless they are priced less that $2000 for complete installation, it's not viable.
Sweetpea (North Shore)
It would take 16 years at today's power prices for the amount saved to pay for an $8000 turbine. That is assuming that a quarter of power required by an average house is generated and I am uncertain if that $8000 includes the cost of the rectifier and filters that would be needed to use the generated power to run fussy appliances like a computer. Still it is a tempting idea.
Simon
It is inefficient, expensive to installed, and the return does not justify the cost. However if the Government wishes to subsidise I would still not be into it. I have solar hot water and the Government has subsidised it with an interest free loan over 5 years. I have paid nearly 6 times the original cost of an ordinary hot water cylinder. I have had it less than three years and had to fork out an extra $400 in maintenance costs. On top of that I have not had sufficient hot water. It is a white elephant. In the winter there is not enough sun. Plus the amount of hot water is insufficient for a family of 4-5 people. I have to have electric kick it least 6 hours a day just to get hot water early mornings, mid-afternoon and evening. Plus if you live in places by the sea you suffer from salt corrosion and if you live in Rotorua you get sulpher in the water which will rust it. I try to get an interest free loan from the Green Party who are all bull. Never return my calls. They just want free publicity but don't deliver. I got talked into solar by a smooth talking salesman. Forget it. It is a joke.
Chris
A few people have mentioned solar panels as an alternative. I wonder if those people realise that with the current technology it takes more energy to make a solar panel than that panel will *ever* generate in its entire lifetime.
A Wong
Wind turbines on the roof might be a viable cost-cutting exercise if it is used for small power generation. The costs are prohibitive, but that will come down if consumerism has its say. The price of solar panels, so expensive years ago, are predicted to come down in the next couple of years, after all. This would certainly be a much better environmental imitative to support than the likes of Greenpeace. We are talking about concrete action here, not airline environmentalism.
Colin England
Yes - I would like to put a wind generator up. In fact - I'd put up a couple of them. Throw in some solar water heating and solar electrical generation and kiss my power bills goodbye. Such a set up though does need some operating rules and standards to govern over how the generators connect onto the national grid and how much the electricity suppliers pay for the electricity supplied. For the connection to the grid the line company will have to know about it so that they can turn it off when they need to so that they can work on the lines. For how much the retailers pay the consumers it would have to be the same amount that they charge the consumer otherwise the consumer doesn't get any benefit from they're investment. Of course - if the government got around to writing up such rules then such a path wouldn't need to be lead by a large corporation. The people would be able to do it themselves. I would also suggest that the government provide some sort of subsidy - the best that I can think of is buying up a huge amount of the needed gear and selling it to the people at cost.If every house in the country did this then we wouldn't have any concerns about power generation.
Le Fox
I had an acreage property and to get power on was going to cost dearly, so I looked at every electricity generating alternative. Solar & wind apart from being a ridiculous amount of money to install, it wasn't going to be able to run the big items in a normal house (huge fridge freezer, dishwasher, & spa bath, swimming pool). That was about 10 years ago, but unless solar & wind generators have greatly improved for household use, it won't catch on. I went with the expensive electricity also as a resale benefit.
Power_user
The output of a turbine is dependent on the swept area of the blades and the height of the tower. Given these ones are relatively tiny and roof mounted I doubt they would generate much power at all, maybe enough to light a couple of bulbs occasionally. Given this and the tens of thousands they cost to install and maintain, they should never be subsidised by taxpayers in any numbers. While they are neat toys for people who like gadgets, far better to invest in larger windfarms with good economies of scale if you like renewables. However unless you are prepared to accept intermittent electricity, we will still need to concurrently build large centralised plants as baseload. For example last night here in Wellington, we had a still frosty night. At 6pm, you would have residential, commercial and industrial loads at maximum capacity and very little wind, wave or solar power around. This is a burning issue, given NZs electricity use is growing 2 per cent per year, we need to double our generation in the next 30 years to keep up.
Andrew Atkin
Small wind turbines do make sense as part of the solution. The advantage of 'small' is that the turbine requires far less total mass (to make) as a ratio to the wind area swept - and energy collected is dictated by area swept, and of course wind speed [2x speed = 8x power]. So, if these things are mass-produced so that the cost is more proportional to the materials-costs, rather than factory construction-costs, then they could have a place. However, they should be painted white so that they are less obtrusive to look at. I also think energy companies should bypass the customer for this system, and instead just give people a small reduction in power-charges in exchange for being able to put them on their roofs (so they're just part of the total grid). This would solve a lot of hassles and problems associated with risk, capital and maintenance, and it shouldn't worry the consumer considering that they have to be hooked up to the grid in any circumstance - it would all balance out.
John (Wellington)
Of course, who wouldn't want the wind to pay for a third of their electricity?So we'll take 3, and theoretically, never need to pay a cent for electricity ever again. But we're a bit skeptical, they didn't fly that idea so there must be a catch ... perhaps, 1 turbine per household?Or maybe, they're just too darn expensive to even use the number 3.And if every household did have 3, then, how does that affect their revenue model if no one's paying for electricity? Or, what happens if every household gets 6? Do they propose to pay every household a few hundy a month for the surplus electricity put back into the grid? So, they've either hatched this plan with very little foresight, or they're intentionally not elaborating on certain points because it really does sound too good to be as simple as putting wind turbines on your roof, and never needing to pay for electricity ever again.
Alan Wilkinson
I doubt micro wind generators can be economic given the cost of setting up a dual input power controller to a house, and certainly not unless there are financial credits for feeding power back into the grid.
John Irving
Congratulations to Vector for its small but altruistic venture into promoting the use small domestic wind mills around NZ. These will benefit the lucky few recipient customers who will enjoy lower electricity bills from electricity retailers, but will also reduce network losses the cost of which are normally passed through to all Vector customers. Unfortunately there will be nothing in it for Vector unless this very influential lines company can persuade its regulator that carbon emission reduction projects like this are in the national interest; and that accordingly no line company should not be penalised when it make investments that support the government energy efficiency and conservation strategy.The Vector initiative may be the straw that breaks the back of the camel that keeps energy and transport sector dependent on Arab oil. If Vector can win this argument with the Commerce and Electricity Commissions then the way will be open to any electricity consumer to invest in windmills, micro-hydro, biomass and PV systems using "net metering" that will credit them for the surplus energy they inject into line company networks. It may also encourage Vector to invest in Solar Water Heaters which will reduce energy usage on their lines and thereby make spare capacity available for other energy efficient ventures. I look forward to the day when lines companies realize their potential by releasing their self imposed shackles and embracing the concept of "intelligent distribution" and "vehicle-to-grid" systems that will really give electricity retailers some competition and bring prices down.
