Thread: alternate energy resources

We all can become energy independent if we just take the necessary steps to start the conversion process. Here is but one video on the possibilities of energy independence.

YouTube - How Skystream Works - back yard home wind power


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHB4z...eature=related part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0YxY...eature=related part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s75-l...eature=related part 3

Originally Posted by anonnymous

We all can become energy independent if we just take the necessary steps to start the conversion process. Here is but one video on the possibilities of energy independence.

YouTube - How Skystream Works - back yard home wind power


YouTube - How to build a home made wind generator part 1

YouTube - Part 2 how to make your own wind generator part 2

YouTube - How to build a home made wind generator part 3 part 3

So what is the upfront cost and payback time?

Originally Posted by Stinger

So what is the upfront cost and payback time?

For the skystream a 1000kwh system runs about 7000 minus 30% tax credits. The homemade turbine runs about 700 plus inverters and grid hookup 500. It all depends on what type system one wants to create. The main thing is you can start small and work your way into a complete systems or put up the cash and start out on top. This is but one method for there are many combinations that can be used to start on the path of energy independence.

Originally Posted by anonnymous

For the skystream a 1000kwh system runs about 7000 minus 30% tax credits.

From their own website

" Most US installations range from $12,000 - $18,000."

Forget tax credits, the COST is what it COST, that the government takes money from someone else and gives it to Skystream does not lower the COST of the system, someone else is just paying part of it for you and reciving no benifit. If these things can't be cost effective on their own the government has no busineses taking money from one person and giving to someone else so they can purchase one.


And how much of an average households electricity will it supply?

About 50% according to the website. But that requires an 8 mph wind just to start producing anything.

" If the wind speeds are below "cut-in speed" (8 mph) there will be no output from the generator and all of the needed power is purchased from the utility. "

I just checked weatherunderground. Between now and Saturday there are only two brief periods at noon on Wednesday and Thursday when the winds will go over that and only barely. The website says it needs 29 mph to give full output, that's almost tropical storm conditions to get sustained winds of 29 mph.

So my electric bill runs about $180 per month average. If this did as they claimed and cut my usage 50% that would be $90. If we take the median $15,000 to install that's 13.88 years to start getting a payback and that does not included the increase in my homeowners insurance or maintenance and parts over the years. And what is the expected life before it has to replaced entirely. Realistically this week at my house it might produce just a minimum current for only 5% of the time.

If I'm off somewhere please feel free to point it out but you gotta watch these outlandish claims some of these "renewable energy source" guys make.

Originally Posted by Stinger

From their own website

" Most US installations range from $12,000 - $18,000."
The system is not so complexed that one could not install it themselves and save.
Forget tax credits, the COST is what it COST, that the government takes money from someone else and gives it to Skystream does not lower the COST of the system, someone else is just paying part of it for you and reciving no benifit. If these things can't be cost effective on their own the government has no busineses taking money from one person and giving to someone else so they can purchase one.
Well why not take the credit on your taxes? Increased production will drive prices down. They are cost effective compared to your electric bill.

And how much of an average households electricity will it supply?

About 50% according to the website. But that requires an 8 mph wind just to start producing anything.
Thats with just one turbine.
" If the wind speeds are below "cut-in speed" (8 mph) there will be no output from the generator and all of the needed power is purchased from the utility. "
Correct but when the wind speed increases it does provide savings and during high winds can create excess power.
I just checked weatherunderground. Between now and Saturday there are only two brief periods at noon on Wednesday and Thursday when the winds will go over that and only barely. The website says it needs 29 mph to give full output, that's almost tropical storm conditions to get sustained winds of 29 mph.

So my electric bill runs about $180 per month average. If this did as they claimed and cut my usage 50% that would be $90. If we take the median $15,000 to install that's 13.88 years to start getting a payback and that does not included the increase in my homeowners insurance or maintenance and parts over the years. And what is the expected life before it has to replaced entirely. Realistically this week at my house it might produce just a minimum current for only 5% of the time.
At what point do you get a payback from the power company for all the years you use their grid?
If I'm off somewhere please feel free to point it out but you gotta watch these outlandish claims some of these "renewable energy source" guys make.

None of the claims are outlandish. As a matter of fact they are upfront with the data. I could find something wrong with any system but I think renewable energy is there and people smart enough to take advantage of these systems will see results that are more favorable than doing nothing and continuing to pay the power companies for energy that could be created by other means.

As I suggested, at this point there are alternatives and this is a step in the right direction.

The system is not so complexed that one could not install it themselves and save.

Well yes it is and I bet your local building code will require a license contrator and a licensed electrican to hook it up and if you don't use one the power company will not only cut you off you could be in violation of the law. The installation cost I gave you came from THEIR webpage FAQ. It is not disputable.

Well why not take the credit on your taxes? Increased production will drive prices down. They are cost effective compared to your electric bill.

How much does the company selling it get paid for it? THAT is the cost. That the government took some of the money from someone else does not lower the cost of the unit. Someone had to earn the money that the government then took and gave to you because you bought the thing, that is money that would have been spent on something else.

Thats with just one turbine.

That is from their webpage until windspeed hits 8 mph you are buying your electricity from the power company, and of course another turbine ups the cost even more.

Correct but when the wind speed increases it does provide savings and during high winds can create excess power.

About 4 hours the next five days where I live and 29 mph to get full output. They only claim a 50% reduction in what you purchase from the power company and that is best case.

At what point do you get a payback from the power company for all the years you use their grid?

Payback for what? You make no sense.

Originally Posted by anonnymous

None of the claims are outlandish. As a matter of fact they are upfront with the data. I could find something wrong with any system but I think renewable energy is there and people smart enough to take advantage of these systems will see results that are more favorable than doing nothing and continuing to pay the power companies for energy that could be created by other means.

As I suggested, at this point there are alternatives and this is a step in the right direction.

Well I think the numbers prove otherwise and you didn't refute any of them. A best case payback of almost 15 years is not very economically attractive is it. There was a story in the papers not too long ago tauting how a woman had solar panels installed on her house and how economical there were for here. Well you had to drill down in the story to find that she had recieved grants for them totally $40,000. The COST of them was $40,000 the payoff was 18.5 years and that again does not include the addtional homeowners insurance to insure them, maintenance or replacement even it they did last 18.5 years.

Hey I'm all for alternate energy but not pipe dreams like this or scheme where other people pay for YOUR "cheap" energy.

Originally Posted by Stinger

Well yes it is and I bet your local building code will require a license contrator and a licensed electrican to hook it up and if you don't use one the power company will not only cut you off you could be in violation of the law. The installation cost I gave you came from THEIR webpage FAQ. It is not disputable.
I am not disputing the cost on their web page. If you do not know an electrician who will inspect and sign off on your work then that is not my problem. Pay the full price.


How much does the company selling it get paid for it? THAT is the cost. That the government took some of the money from someone else does not lower the cost of the unit. Someone had to earn the money that the government then took and gave to you because you bought the thing, that is money that would have been spent on something else.
I am not disputing that either. I am saying that if the tax credit is available why not use it?



That is from their webpage until windspeed hits 8 mph you are buying your electricity from the power company, and of course another turbine ups the cost even more.
I did not imply that it would not. I am only suggesting that if one is not enough try two.


About 4 hours the next five days where I live and 29 mph to get full output. They only claim a 50% reduction in what you purchase from the power company and that is best case.
I am not disputing that either.


Payback for what? You make no sense.
Payback for your investment to the power company. It is like drinking beer. You pay to drink and afterwards you have nothing to show for it except a good time and some piss. Even though the price is high now it is still cost effective to implement, especially if you are young, and the next generation in your family could conceivably live energy independent.



Well I think the numbers prove otherwise and you didn't refute any of them. A best case payback of almost 15 years is not very economically attractive is it. There was a story in the papers not too long ago tauting how a woman had solar panels installed on her house and how economical there were for here. Well you had to drill down in the story to find that she had recieved grants for them totally $40,000. The COST of them was $40,000 the payoff was 18.5 years and that again does not include the addtional homeowners insurance to insure them, maintenance or replacement even it they did last 18.5 years.
Well it is if you plan to live there your entire life. I have lived here for over 30 years.
Hey I'm all for alternate energy but not pipe dreams like this or scheme where other people pay for YOUR "cheap" energy.

In your opinion it is a pipe dream or a scheme as you say but the point I was trying to make is that there are alternatives to continually feeding the power companies without any tangible return other than electricity used.

You and everyone of us are paying to keep our current system which has proven not only to be antiquated but at times and, as in the case of oil, quite unpredictable as to the final cost.

I am not suggesting that this is the final answer to our energy problems but it is a spoke in the wheel of alternatives.

We need to be less concerned with payback, as all things cost. The issue here is where the money will be flowing, who gains from your decisions, and what does it do for the environment around you, and ultimately, for the rest of the country if enough of a trend can be set to get widespread usage.

If it costs me 2000 bucks more a year to make us independent from oil and coal and uranium and the toxic waste they produce, I'd say that was cheap and money well spent.

Like anything, technology advances only in the light of the current trend. Take computers for example. When the desktop PC came out, driven by a 4hz 8086 processor and two 5 and a quarter floppy drives to load the operating system every time it was turned on never caught on and died out, we wouldn't even have the Internet. Now look at us.

If we set the course for alternate and renewable energy and let companies develop the technology, you won't be able to compare the power and effectiveness that we start out with over the highly advanced models that will be built 20 years into the future.

Here is an article that compares innovation and technology advances through trend setting, and how much the cost for so little seemed off the wall and pricey, that ended up with superior products with vastly superior capabilities for even less money.


Internet Enterprises: Tech Retrospective

But we must be willing to take the steps forward. If you notice, the prices from the 80's have been adjusted for inflation in brackets.

I'm all for setting up a wind electrical system and paying for it, once I own my own place one fine day. While those beginning systems won't be so advanced, I'll be supporting something that would make a positive difference over something as filthy as coal and nuclear waste.

More than worth it, imo.

We could be energy independent if the United States simply used the oil and natural gas resources in it's own territories.

How complicated is that?

Originally Posted by Stinger

So what is the upfront cost and payback time?

The upfront cost is pedaling that damn bike on those hot windless days to keep the fridge running to keep the beer cold because you're out there sweating your ass off pedaling on a hot windless day to keep the fridge running.

What I say is that we get all the alternative energy people out there pedalling on those hot windless days to generate enough power to drive their fifty inch plasma tv's and a dvd player so they can watch Jane Fonda's masterpiece, "The China Syndrome" which extols all the horrors of nuclear power....a movie where Jane never had to pedal to make the power run on a hot windless day to watch an old communist propaganda film.