Um, last year they told us that our rates are going up in Texas to pay for the power lines to the windmills. Don't you see? They don't produce enough dollars worth of electricity to pay for their own power lines or repair.

I saw the generator for one going through my little central Texas town this morning headed west. That means they are still erecting them. I suppose they are at least a temporary benefit to the state, even if they are a detriment in the long term. I notice that once they raise the rates, they never go down. We already have one of the highest rates in the country.

As for ugly, the only ones I've seen were in california and they were not pretty.

Trump built a glass and plastic tower on the north bank of the Chicago river. To many it also represents an "ugly monstrosity" but it won't last forever. Neither will windmills that serve humanity, rather than this monumental, narcissistic, phallic structure built by a windbag.

No energy source produces enough dollars worth of electricity before its installed and running. Someone has to pay for the lines out to the wind turbines and the company sure isn't going to eat that cost based upon projected future earnings. You're comparing apples and oranges, as they say.

If not for the BILLIONS of taxpayer subsidies via the U.S. Government there would not be one turbin built anywhere .

You cant convince me that if we put men on the moon over 40 years ago that we couldnt have developed a more suitable way to produce electricity by now.

The best place for these windmills in on the property of libs. Instead of taxpayers paying for these thing, we should let those who want them to put their money where their mouths are and support them. The fact is that if there were no government (ie: taxpayer) subsidies these things would be put up.

That's the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are willing to risk their own money for the chance of making money. Liberals want to force others to pay money for the unrealistic and unprofitable ideas that they have. Let's face it, the facts speak for themselves. Libs want the so-called "green energy." But, they want to force everyone to pay for it. How many libs do you know that have given up all the CO2 producing energy? None! They drive SUVs and fly private planes, just lik algore. That's why they aren't worth listening to. They don't practice what they preach.

And, yes, the windmills are certainly eyesores.

The best place for these windmills in on the property of libs. Instead of taxpayers paying for these thing

oh, I see, "only conservatives pay taxes"

what a load of utter BS.

The irony in the clean energy technologies like wind and solar is, when they kill the natural and wild planet or Earth's ecosystems for the not so clean energies, they kill the living, life giving physical body of Earth and her face or all the reasons mankind exits and breathes. Ecosystems and their plant and animal biodiversity are the creators and saviours of Earth's ecosystems, that provide mankind with all his "life-supporting services" or life itself. Killing ecosystems for dead fields of solar panels and windmills is as dead planet creating as the surface of Mars.

Solar and wind are only clean and green when used where man actually lives in developed or dead planet areas, like rooftops, shopping centers, buildings and parking lots. We cannot slather the entire Earth with the clean energies as this, alone, kills ecosystems, the climate, oxygen, the atmosphere, the entirety of Earth's biogeochemistry and all the reasons man breathes, including the creation of the very life zone of the Earth, her biosphere/ecosphere.

We must act intelligently with the so-called clean energies. If not, they become as deadly as any agent, including, thermonuclear war.

Yeah right, the nuclear power industry payed for every penny of investment that made it possible, and will pay for every millions of dollars to deal with it's waste. And Pheonix and Las Vegas have enough water to support their over population without a project called the Hoover dam, a Federal project, by the way.

Private industry has given us almost no progress without public investment in the last 100 years, and if you don't believe that, maybe you should stop posting on the federal government developed internet.

There are many of these wind gererators scattered about the vicinity of Red Bluff, CA. Each one seems to be on private property and for the benefit of the property owner. I see no problem with this at all.

Thanks to China solar panels are extremely cheap right now. With federal subsidies and a DIY install, they are competitive with coal and hydro and cheaper than wind and nuclear. I put 10KW on my rooftop and payback will be less than 8 years. Since then panels have fallen another 30% which would put payback less than 7 years, perhaps close to 6.

China's pricing is so cheap Obama is considering a 30% tariff so if you can, jump on them now.

Wind Generators alone are not the answer. A combination of Solar, Wind and Nuclear would work a little better. Tie all the systems on the grid together and each produce during their peak times. Wind Generators offshore is really the way to go. Almost constant source of wind and not in anyone's backyard. Also, these sources may be "green energy" but I assure you, there is nothing green about building and producing any of them.

China's pricing is so cheap Obama is considering a 30% tariff so if you can, jump on them now.

yep, that's thanks to chinese subsidies of their solar manufacturing plants to the tune of 30 billion a year.

Hundreds of off-shore HSWT in the UK are sinking & tilting into the Ocean...

Experts from Renewables UK, which represents wind farm developers, said it could
cost £50million to fix Britain's 336 turbines thought to be at risk.

But they are notoriously expensive, and large firms including BP and Royal Dutch
Shell have pulled out of the sector.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1265886/Sinking-turbines-cost-British-wind-farms-50million.html#ixzz1rR03tExk

We, as a global society, are only just now finally, FINALLY beginning to invest in renewable energy tech (despite knowing the pitfalls of fossil fuel reliance for 40 yrs). It will take time and a lot of money, and there will be dead ends and mistakes along the way, but we will manage it eventually.

My personal preference is for nuclear (which is not renewable but at least it's clean) as the backbone of our commercial energy grid. I also favor solar panels on every house (where practical) and fuel cell cars.

If we'd put the money into this that we put into oil exploration, extraction, and refining over the past 40 yrs, we'd be there by now. We put a man on the moon in under a decade. We can do this, but not if we listen to the naysayers. Cynicism never built anything.

I remember being assigned that book in high school, and although I was and remain a voracious bookworm, going through 'Wuthering Heights' was like having my teeth yanked without Novocaine - talk about an epic boring read.

Just based on that, they can napalm that valley, pave over the charred remains, and use it for landfill for all I care :D

Hundreds of off-shore HSWT in the UK are sinking & tilting into the Ocean...

Experts from Renewables UK, which represents wind farm developers, said it could
cost £50million to fix Britain's 336 turbines thought to be at risk.

hmm, a flaw caused by bad concrete, something like a far more costly flaw caused by bad concrete (among other things) in our own Gulf around two years or so ago? remember that little flaw, also brought to us by BP?

what's your point AC? that we should just "drill baby drill" and be very selective in our memories of what was costly?

danwill: Please take a remedial reading class and then you can begin to understand what you read. Libs are the ones who think windmills are great. I have no problem with that. But, why is it you want to force everyone else to pay for it? Like I said, conservatives put money where their mouths are. If it's a great idea they don't need to force anyone else to do it, they come up with it on their own and reap the rewards. Libs come up with ideas (and between you and me, we both know that they are lousy ideas) and want to force everyone to pay for them. How can you tell if something is a good idea or not? That's easy! If it is then a person would want to invest their own money and make money off of it. If it isn't, then they want to force others to pay for it so those others will share in the losses.

Paying taxes has nothing to do with it. Forcing others to pay taxes to pay for it is the point.

That's easy! If it is then a person would want to invest their own money and make money off of it

like integrated circuits (considered too costly for use by anyone except the government, without government investment for the first decade, it would likely have been several decades for them to take off)

like the internet, (also the source of al gore's "invented the internet" bit), the telcom companies wanted absolutely nothing to do with the beginnings of the net because they couldn't see how to make money off of it, al gore wrote and pushed for the legislation that forced them into the internet. if it hadn't been for that, the telecom companies would still be insisting that you could ONLY plug equipment made by them into THEIR lines.

it is a myth that only private investment spurs innovation. some projects are seen as too risky and expensive for private business. it's the utter, short-sighted blindness of "it all has to make money right from the start" that is causing this country to fall ever further behind in innovation and basic technology. private companies are spending ever less on basic, core research, while the rest of the world is spending ever more.

oh and witchrunner, I read the article that AC indicated, did you?

it sounds far more like you are the one severely lacking in comprehension.

all you do is spew mindless BS rhetoric

danwill,

Research methane hydrates, according to many sources, this source of energy contains about 2x the amount of carbon based energy ever discovered...

The USA is projected to have over 500+years of reserves contained in the US Continental Shelf...http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/NaturalGas/chapter3.pdf see

While the USA/Obama is chasing 'green dreams' and funding China. The WORLD is converting to NG. Visit Thailand, where they have been converting to NG for almost a decade. Qatar is now flying passenger jets, using NG based fuel...

The trick is to use the most efficient energy source and has the least environmental impact...

This will require using a mix of sources, NO one source is the answer...

Every site has its strengths and weakness for different energy sources. Use the source that supplies the needed energy, at the lowest environmental cost...

IMO - Convert to NG as a interm, energy source for the vehicles & transit systems...

Save the coal for steel production and crude oil for the chemical industry...

Research methane hydrates, according to many sources, this source of energy contains about 2x the amount of carbon based energy ever discovered...

methane hydrates, I believe also known as clathrates, indeed a large potential source of energy, but also known to be fairly unstable, making safe extraction difficult. nevertheless, I agree it is definitely worth further exploration and research into safe and effective extraction techniques.

The trick is to use the most efficient energy source and has the least environmental impact...

This will require using a mix of sources, NO one source is the answer...

I absolutely agree 100% with that, as far as wind power is concerned, I once heard a response to an individual asking if a wind turbine was a good idea for them, the response was "if you have patio furniture, then you don't have enough wind to make it worthwhile". very true that any one source is not "the" answer for everyone. that is unless the 'mr fusion home energy reactor' becomes a reality ;) (ref 'back to the future'). I won't be holding my breath for that one. I think solar, both small-scale photovoltaic (home) and thermal can be effective in the southern US, but further north becomes less so unless we can mass produce truly cheap cells.

IMO - Convert to NG as a interm, energy source for the vehicles & transit systems...

Save the coal for steel production and crude oil for the chemical industry...

I've been saying the same for years.

I also think we are going to wind up needing nuclear for baseline power. with the current fuel supplies, which include nearly everything now classified as high-level waste, and using pyroprocessing (which produces far less waste and is not suitable for weapons production) and using that in new gen4 breeder reactors which are not susceptible to the power-loss induced, catastrophic failures of fukishima, we would have a millenium of power using just what we already have mined and previously utilized in older reactors. we should also gradually phase out the current generation of operating reactors.

My father had degrees in electrical and nuclear engineering, during the 1950's...

He thought that man could solve the engineering problems associated with nuclear engineering. His concerns were human induced incidents and long-term storage - safety & cost...

The vast majority of US reactors will reach their service life limits during the next two+decades. Gradually phasing them out is not a option...

With NO 'long term' storage site and extreme cost associated with any option...

France has kicked their decommissioning storage problems, down the road by 50+years...

You can only recycle fuel-rods until their Plutonium levels exceed safe limits. The major problem is the millions of tonnes of reactor material that has become radioactive during operation & incidents...

The Fukushima reactors are still not contained and Japan is talking about 30+years. This number has been revised HIGHER, due to massive amounts of fuel melting through the containment vessels...

The UK incident site is still not cleaned-up after 60+years...

Sites in the EU have been closed to human activity FOREVER, due to radiation at incident sites...

Russia and the US Navy just dumps their mistakes into the World's Oceans...

The vast majority of these Nuclear Incidents, were due to HUMAN ERROR, not design or equipment failure...

While all these wonderful people want to keep the land exactly as it has been for the last 1000 years, are they willing to buy the land which makes up the scenic view ? Is Donald Trump willing to purchase his "scenic ocean view" so he can make a few more $million from the wealthy who will visit his resort ?

In both cases, the answer is, of course, no. Unless you are willing to pay for it, you do not own the rights to a view. As developers the world over have learned, just because you put up a 12 story building with a beautiful view of the lake/river/ocean/mountain/hills/moore/whatever, unless you own all of the rights to what you are viewing, there is nothing to prevent whoever does own those rights from putting up something you consider ugly right next to you.

You have to wonder, did other developers in Paris have any say on whether or not the Eiffel tower should be built ? Frankly, it is a rather stark and ugly structure, with real achitectural style, yet all of Paris is prevented from building anything which will prevent is from being the tallest structure.

AC, please don't include windscale, that was a disaster waiting to happen, something out of a contest to design the most unsafe nuclear reactor design conceivable. I mean really, didn't those engineers realize that graphite will burn if it gets hot enough? (as will the aluminum that they used for the isotope casings) so they design a graphite-moderated, AIR-COOLED reactor, and then proceed push it beyond the design limits... at least someone had the brains to insist on the air filters at the top of the exhaust stack (and the original designers fought against that)

You can only recycle fuel-rods until their Plutonium levels exceed safe limits

and breeders can easily burn the plutonium, in fact, it is the only way to permanently get rid of plutonium (short of waiting a couple billion years, the longest-lived isotope is 250 million years half-life)

Trump built a glass and plastic tower on the north bank of the Chicago river. To many it also represents an "ugly monstrosity" but it won't last forever. Neither will windmills that serve humanity, rather than this monumental, narcissistic, phallic structure built by a windbag that only serves himself.

posted #1.2 in error..sorry.

I'd venture most would live next door to a golf course over windmill 10 to 1.

Funny, Goof Nit! And you have to wonder if technology might someday harness all the hot air generated by windbags like The Donald to produce clean CO2 energy!

No kidding! The Bronte Society has as much real world relevance as, say, the Save the Spotted Owl Society or Friends of the Snail Darters. Ironic, isn't it, that practical, sensible solutions to our energy problems - a fundamental plank in the Liberal platform - might be undercut by what I call the Romantic Fringe, i.e., that wing of liberalism that cherishes all things cute, cuddly, and unsustainable. WGAF about the moors of Yorkshire, and how disappointed three long-dead (and scarcely-read) sisters would be at the 'degradation' of their beloved countryside!?

The ones we have are just as ugly and when they went on line our rates were raised, way back then.

Oil derricks are ugly, but they don't cause my electric bill to increase.

Oil derricks have nothing to do with base load power, so I don't know why they would cause your electricity bill to increase. Just because something is a source of energy doesn't mean it will somehow affect your electricity bill.

It is estimated that it will take 2,500 windmills to replace the power plants that are closing due to EPA nonsense. or, 16,000 solar panels. Unfortunately, the cheapest solar panels are made in China. And the lowest cost windmills are made in Europe, with millions in grants from Obama. 12 of the " green energy" companies that he gave billions to have filed bankruptcy, including the Fiscar plant, that made the electric cars in Finland, with our tax dollars.

I live in deep south Texas and there is a wind farm being constructed a few counties away from me. The peoces of the windmills come down here via truck (like 3 tractor trailers long) and train. They have a staging area for them right down the road from me. These things are HUGE! They are such amazing things to see. I never realized how big they were. I will drive to the wind farm to see them in action when it is finished. Hopefully it will bring down my electricity bill.

Chrissy, seeing the Wind Generators from the road as you drive by is not the same as standing next to one or inside it. People don't realize how massive they are. The towers being installed down there are 3 section - 80m. Currently we are building 5 section - 100m. Quite a bit bigger. Depending on the type of tower (if it is seismic), the base section alone can weigh anywhere from 106,000lbs to 154,000lbs.

The peoces of the windmills come down here via truck (like 3 tractor trailers long) and train. They have a staging area for them right down the road from me.

I have 3 windmill fields within 20 miles of me, and a 4th currently under construction. So far, we've had 3 rate increases to pay for the fields and they are only operational/sales production for about 1/4 of the time that was projected due to inadequate studies. Technical problems as well as the wind not being as strong as they wanted have the fields currently in operation being retrofitted with a different "wing" design have hampered the fields badly. The other problem we have is the problems due to the construction. The roads used for transportation of the pieces are worse then bad now. Constant use tore them down to being rutted lanes, and the companies are crying poverty now on something they agreed in writing to do, which is repair the roads after construction was completed. Since the matter is in court (bankruptcy reorganization) it looks like the county and state will be hook for over 20 million dollars of road repair.

I'm not a big fan of these big wind farms, but I'm not a detractor. It's just right now, people and companies are jumping on the "green" bandwagon without thinking things through properly. The problems here in Illinois is that a certain percentage of the states power has to come from green sources, and in order to do that, the relaxation of usage studies and feasibility standards was implemented. Now the state (I don't know about any federal dollars) is on the hook for the loan guarantees and that means people like myself (taxpayers) will have to make up the difference.

Considering I currently have 6 small windgenerators on the backside of my property and 36 solar panels on my property, I currently produce more power then I use. And I didn't look at it being green. I just did it after studying the finances and the fact that electric is always going up in my area in leap and bounds. And living in the country means that my electric may be out for days if it goes out because of weather. We only had 2 snowstorms this year, and I was without power (from the electric company lines) for 6 days just for 2 small storms. Due to my generators and panels, I still had the power I needed and still had enough to give a nearby neighbor enough power to give them the basics (state law bans me from running a more permanent electric line to them.) When the new pole barn goes up next month (with another 36 solar panels on the roof,) I will have enough power to sell back to the electric company for a profit.

Well that settles it then, put up the turbines!

"'And I pray one prayer--I repeat it till my tongue stiffens--Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you--haunt me, then! The murdered DO haunt their murderers, I believe. I know that ghosts HAVE wandered on earth. Be with me always--take any form--drive me mad! only DO not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you! Oh, God! it is unutterable! I CANNOT live without my life! I CANNOT live without my soul!'"
- Emily Bronte, Wuthering Heights, Ch. 16

I'm pretty sure growing grass tops it...

Man, that took me back to actually falling asleep in class reading this and drooling all over the book.

I always say it. We got to stop breeding.

Nah john, just a lie, like the rest of the eco-friendly baloney. They make electricity while the wind is blowing the right speed. Too slow, not enough energy, too fast, have to shut them down to prevent them from being damaged.

Surprisingly, yes. The 300' tall wind turbines near my house develop 1.65 mega watts continuously; each. So if that amount were divided evenly amongst 1,100 houses then each house would get 36 Kilowatt hours per day; that's more than enough.

So does this new source of energy reduce or increase your energy bill? Im curious.

Wind turbines are not shut down in high winds. Each turbine will have a braking mechanism to reduce torque and assure optimal tip speed ratio.

And just for the record, I am not some huge pro-wind guy (I prefer nuclear), but some of your statements are just so wrong I felt they needed to be corrected. Wind power has major hurdles to overcome and cannot be forgotten, but we at least need to be truthful about it.

So we are running out of oil, what is your suggestion to replace that energy source? You'll ultimately be long dead and you clearly just care about the here and now instead of looking at viable sources for the future and long term for my generation and those after. Way to go with your short minded thinking.

wsc2006 - "and you clearly just care about the here and now instead of looking at viable sources for the future and long term for my generation and those after. Way to go with your short minded thinking."

So, wsc2006, you're to lazy to get off your butt and help do it for yourself? You sound like the typical generation these days.. me me me me me me me!!!! Guess what, it's not about you, you nut! If you are so worried that you want to call someone else out like that then get off your arse and do something about it, do not expect anyone to take care of you. Talk about short minded thinking, this world owes you nothing, nada, zilch. Well, ok, maybe a good swift kick in your a$$!

Land based, Wind and solar farms are way more profitable than placing wind turbines "way out in the Ocean" as some of you say. You have to remember, if they are not on the continental shelf, then the waters are too rough and deep to make it profitable in any way, and too close to the edge of the shelf they can become unstable. Nuclear power is a good secondary source, but they can cause more harm to the planet and its Eco system in the long run, when we have to dispose of the waste material, than any good they do now.

No, i am not saying Nuclear power is bad, just that sometimes the end results do not justify the means. Just as i believe wind and solar farms are not perfect but combined together, they can help a great deal more now and help reduce the green house gases that will ultimately cause this planet to choke.

Wind is not free because you have to use money to build the machinery necessary to exploit it and convert it to electricity, and then you hafta spend more money to maintain the machinery. You seem to have no appreciation for what it truly takes to make and have electricity.

Not totally free you're right, but no fuel required for production. the fuel input is the wind force. no coal, no radioactive material, no gas. it seems to me that it's a pretty good deal

yes maintenance costs but not more than other power plants.

save the environment,

Every 3+megawatt HSWT uses 2+tonnes of 'rare earths' (RE), which China has supplied 97% of the worlds needs for the last TWO+DECADES...

Do you want to discuss the environmental damage caused by the mining & processing, of RE???

Also research the THOUSANDS of HSWT that are no longer supplying electricity, just killing Raptors and Bats, western USA...

Also research the HUNDREDS of off-shore HSWT in the UK that are sinking & tilting, into the ocean...

For a real hoot - research the HSWT in Hawaii that are not functional due to; maintenance cost and catastrophic parts failure. Their service life was less than 15+years...

Enviromentally friendly or safe - NOT

Cheap power source - NOT

Stable power source - NOT

BTY - We will not discuss the NOISE pollution and reported medical effects to animals & humans...

Who do you lobby for ?

mining is needed as well for Uranium, Coal, oil. with some serious left over after energy extraction.

Environmental effects from wind? sure some, but again no worse than the above . depleted Uranium needs stored thousands of years, usually near LA HAGUE, France, in an underground granite bedrock facility. God knows what will happen with that leftover. Coal hashes and air pollution? not happening?, and talk about mining there? oil slicks.

wind and solar are not perfect for sure, but it's not all that evil. and costs won't matter when we run out of other fuels.

"wind is free and forever. Nothing else is"

Technically wind is not free and forever, if the wind does not blow hard enough to power the blades of the turbine then it will not generate power. However, it is cheaper to produce solar panels and well, the sun will rise and set every single day. Yes, on a cloudy day the panels make less power, but they still make some. Even though most panels are less than 50% efficient they still produce a constant stream of electricity.

Wind will still be the same price in 10 years.... will coal,uranium, oil and natural gas? Wind is not the end all but it can work to help solve our energy problems.

canuck-1412024,

1. Ask the Hawaii developers of HSWT, about the wind and catastrophic failures. The AGW people are indicating, severe weather events are INCREASING in numbers & severity...

2. At the end of 2008, U.S. uranium reserves totaled 1,227 million pounds of U₃O₈ at a maximum forward cost (MFC) of up to $100 per pound U₃O₈ (Table 1). At up to $50 per pound U₃O₈, estimated reserves were 539 million pounds of U₃O₈. Based on average 1999-2008 consumption levels (uranium in fuel assemblies loaded into nuclear reactors), uranium reserves available at up to $100 per pound of U₃O₈ represented approximately 23 years worth of demand, while uranium reserves at up to $50 per pound of U₃O₈ represented about 10 years worth of demand... see http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/reserves/ures.html

3. The USA had 168+years of recoverable coal reserves. With Obama's Administration, INCREASING coal exports to China by 800%, the years of reserves has DECREASED. BTY - Coal is needed to produce steel and other products...

4. Dec 2010 the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) announced the USA had 284 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to power every American household’s electricity consumption, for over 73 years. The current price of NG is dropping like a rock...

5. The EIA has projected that the USA has 500+years of methane hydrates, in the US Continental Shelf.

It has also been estimated that gas hydrates would represent one hundred and fifty times the current reserves provided by natural gas (Ruppel 2007)... see http://www.ecu.edu/org/tcs/Docs/CRM61002009.pdf

Knowing the above information - Which energy source would you invest your future in???

IMO - Invest in NG/hydrates and save the coal & oil for the chemical/steel industry...

The Raptor deaths have resulted in hundreds of HSWT being removed in CA...

A September 2005 decision by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors passed a
plan currently being implemented, to protect birds in the
Altamont Pass, requiring that half the turbines be shut down each year in
November and December, and the other half shut down in January and February. In
addition, the 100-200 oldest and most dangerous turbines will be removed, and
the entire project must be repowered, with newer, larger turbines replacing the
smaller turbines...

reference - http://www.eoearth.org/article/Altamont_Pass%2C_California

I see we are of same mind except you appear to be way better at math than me.

Escalating capital costs were also highlighted in the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2010 report “Updated Capital Cost Estimates for Electricity Generation Plants“.

The US cost estimate for new nuclear power facilities was revised upwards from $3902/kW by 37% to a value of $5339/kW for 2011 by the EIA.

reference - http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.htmlI

In 2009, the published cost for 4 AP1000 reactors under construction in China was a total of $8 billion

reference - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

AC, I see you putting up plenty of attacks and not offering anything in the way of solutions

I withdraw the previous comment (after reading 1.21 and 1.22)

you are thinking about alternatives, and that is more than most of the naysayers on these boards can claim

Lets break down those numbers a bit shall we, $19 Million / 4,500 homes is $4,222 per home. Over a turbine lifespan of 20 years that's $211 per year. That of course doesn't include maintenance, interest, inflation, etc that would help/hinder the lifetime costs of a wind farm, so lets triple the cost just to be safe. Thats $633 per year per home, or about $53 per month, I'd happily take that offer.

Where are you getting that from, it doesn't pass my back of the napkin calculations? When they were playing with building a wind farm in my county recently (Which was shot down by the NIMBY crowd) the stated costs were $2 million (turbine, construction & power lines) per 1MW turbine, wind turbines don't produce a constant 1MW of course so lets assume they only produce & use power 30% of the time, I believe that would be 2,628 MWH per year, at a rate of $102.6 per MWH thats an income of ~$270,000 per year, that puts the payback period at ~7.5 years. I know I'm missing some cost items (parts, personnel) but I'm also missing inflation, power rate hikes, etc. Over all I think the calculation is probably close.

Max energy return for one square meter @ 90 degrees to the sun 230+watts...

Snow, rain, cloud cover, age, angle to sun-light, trees & other obstacles blocking the sun, and night fall, ALL decrease their output...

Most panels reach their service life in 25+years, then produce DECREASING levels of energy & INCREASING maintenance cost...

The electronics controlling the panels are very expensive to maintain. Most warranties end in 3 to 5+years...

If you want to run equipment with motors or high resistance loads. You need batteries or connection to the grid...

The Panels are the least expensive part and China appreciates the business...

BTY - Germany has been trying home solar panels for over 30+years. Last year they STOPPED, due to rising maintenance cost and a history of supplying only 5% of their rated power...

A combination of solar and wind is probably the more practical direction. Solar produces lots of energy on sunny days, very useful if you run an air conditioning system, and wind often produces power when it is cloudy/stormy out and sometimes at night when PV is producing little to no power. Wind does have some maintenance issues, but they are minimal (oil it once a year, simple checks). PV pannels have no maintenance, but they do loose a small amount of production per year (about 1% per year). So after 50 years they'll still be producing electricity, but only half of what they were when new. There is some issue with batteries where they are used for completely off grid approaches. But sans the batteries the only component other than the panels is the inverter, and they generally last decades when not hit by lightning, kept in a sweltering shed or otherwise abused.