All the more reason for me to invest in a personal windmill.

Sadly wind turbines don’t really scale down like PV panels. The energy produced by PV panels is a linear function of their surface area. For wind turbines, it scales with the square of the blade length.

▲

KaiserPro 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is true, but if you already have a battery, getting an extra 200-400w when the sun isn't shining is really useful. (for a UK based house. Not so sure about the USA.)

The cost isn't as good as solar though. a 1kw turbine is expensive.

▲

padjo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

They also need regular servicing and proper locating away from turbulence. Micro scale wind makes absolutely no sense economically.

	▲	janc_ 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Economic sense depends on individual/local circumstances also.

▲

MandieD 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Wow, that would take care of our usual home office base load (Germany, not using electricity for heating)

	▲	archi42 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's a siren call for us techies, but reality is less pretty than our fantasies of "cheap base load". I got an offer for a "essentially free" residential turbine including the pylon (8 to 10 meters, the legal limit for a "Kleinwindanlage") in SW Germany - just had to dismantle it and put it on my lawn. And of course pour a huge foundation [2x2m?] and have an accredited electrician do the necessary alterations. Nope. It didn't even produce enough electricity to offset the maintenance costs - no idea how I should offset the costs for moving it, even with the free capex. And I did the math about 3 years ago: Prices for both PV and batteries dropped a lot since then. For late fall/early spring I would be better off by adding a PV carport (2 cars). I could also finally automate charging my batteries while electricity is cheap during Dec/Jan, might even be worth bumping my existing battery from 28 kWh to 42 kWh. To be fair: The math might work out in the Northern Germany; but I would not bet on it.

▲

aidenn0 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Doesn't the area described by a turbine's motion scale with the square of the blade-length, so given a circular area covered by a turbine, the power will scale linearly with that area?

	▲	derriz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but you’re not paying for the area the blade covers - you’re paying for the blade. Simplifying (to an extreme) for the sake of illustration - a 20m blade costs twice as much as a 10m one but produces 4 times the energy. Obviously, cost scales more than linearly with blade length but it’s a bit like big O - the n^2 factor dominates. This is why wind turbines have been getting bigger and bigger. And why the cost of domestic or small-scale wind turbines remains stubbornly high despite the dramatic fall in the average cost per MW seen for wind turbines - as the falls are largely driven by the ability to manufacture larger and larger turbine blades. While falls in costs for solar PV can be seen at every scale.

▲

Rebelgecko 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

YMMV depending on where you live but for MOST people you get more bang for your buck with solar+batteries

	▲	beembeem 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Unlike solar, wind at the utility scale virtually always improves load factors, lcoe, and a host of other economics vs a personal installation. Generally utility scale solar buys cheap panels that aren't as energy dense as those purchased by rooftop consumers, so you could make the argument. However, the efficiency and energy density of the ever-growing turbines installed by utilities, particularly off-shore, are far more efficient than anything you would install yourself. E.g. average annual wind speed typically improves with altitude, and having a taller turbine can reach those larger sustained wind speeds. Whereas, utilities and consumers almost always install solar near-ish ground level and see the same sky, perhaps the utility installs in a sunnier corner of geography. Consumers potentially benefit from the shading of panels, and lower distribution costs.