Wondering about getting a 1-2m wind turbine for the side of the house. Website reckons it would pay for itself in 4-5 years. Was a bit worried it might put potential buyers off if we were to ever sell

Would a mini-wind turbine put you off buying a house?
Would you be more likely to buy?
Not care?

http://www.windsave.com/current.htm

Wondering about getting a 1-2m wind turbine for the side of the house. Website reckons it would pay for itself in 4-5 years. Was a bit worried it might put potential buyers off if we were to ever sell

Would a mini-wind turbine put you off buying a house?
Would you be more likely to buy?
Not care?

I'd be more likely to buy it, provided the searches were ok. I'd also be more likely to buy a house with solar panels.

yeah, it'd be cool.

where do you get them, do you have more info on them.

Check out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/ethical_man/default.stm
to see BBC Newsnight's Ethical Man deciding how to get a wind turbine.
You'd need planning permission.
These ones cost about £1500, although grants would reduce that to about £1000.
The company that makes them:
http://www.windsave.com/

You could pay a fair bit more to get one that could be linked to the mains and could earn you money for exporting electricity to the national grid.

i voted more likely - does this make me an 'imby'?

I think everybody has now become more conscious of alternative power sources - since the increase in the cost of our more conventional sources.

Any self generating source is a bonus in the current climate :thumbsup:

I would likely to buy it too, as long as it's not too noisy, and it doesn't cost me a lot to fix it. (Or indeed have contact numbers ready if I need to fix it.)

I wasn't sure whether the technologies were worth it. I kind of played with the solar panel idea for a bit too. You need to do some homework, cos some technologies are mis-interpreting the amount of energy it would save. There's an energy saving website somewhere.

If I was a serious eco-friendly person, I would buy it. I think if you decor the rest of the house with as equally environmentally-friendly things, at the same time keeping inline with the supposed market that your house will target. I don't see why you can't sell it.

Good luck. :)

It's probably going to be a big selling point in years to come, the eco-friendly house, and things like that will fetch a premium, so go for it!

Aside from that, who wouldn't want to have free electricity? Only a mad man would be put off buying because of that! I'd like to have solar panels put in on the roof - they are only like having another velux window as far as appearances are concerned, and one side of my roof gets lots of sun so it seems a waste not to have them. Wonder if you could get solar panels which were semi-transparent? They'd make a great roof for a conservatory.

It's probably going to be a big selling point in years to come, the eco-friendly house, and things like that will fetch a premium, so go for it!

Aside from that, who wouldn't want to have free electricity? Only a mad man would be put off buying because of that! I'd like to have solar panels put in on the roof - they are only like having another velux window as far as appearances are concerned, and one side of my roof gets lots of sun so it seems a waste not to have them. Wonder if you could get solar panels which were semi-transparent? They'd make a great roof for a conservatory.

Don’t think solar panels need sun. All they need is daylight. The CIS building in Manchester has been covered in them, and the big switch-on comes I think next week. They cost milllions, but the Co-op reckons they’ll pay for themselves in five years.

I've been thinking about doing exactly the same thing so it's interesting to see that the majority of people like the idea.

Can I ask how you would feel if a neighbour put up a wind turbine next door?

I think the council should cease the initiative and stick them up everywhere; much more pleasing than phone masts eh? Will never happen alas despite us living in the windiest country in europe.

:(

Just been to Heeley City Farm which has a wind turbine on a mast. Its about 2-3m, bigger than the one we're looking at.

Stood at the bottom of the mast I couldn't hear A THING!

I do have slight tinnitus though! My wife said she could just hear a swooshing, quiter than the rustling of the leaves on the tree.

The £1000 cost I'd mentioned is WITH the grant, but it DOES include installation!

Check out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/ethical_man/default.stm
to see BBC Newsnight's Ethical Man deciding how to get a wind turbine.
You'd need planning permission.
These ones cost about £1500, although grants would reduce that to about £1000.
The company that makes them:
http://www.windsave.com/

You could pay a fair bit more to get one that could be linked to the mains and could earn you money for exporting electricity to the national grid.
There was aprogramme on the TV awhile ago about building a house. A guy on there was actually selling his home generated electricity to the grid!
So I would say Yes!!

Definately.

We are currently looking into different types of energy efficiency.
Not that we're tree huggers, We just have strong reservations about feathering the House of Sauds' nest.

Wondering about getting a 1-2m wind turbine for the side of the house. Website reckons it would pay for itself in 4-5 years. Was a bit worried it might put potential buyers off if we were to ever sell

Would a mini-wind turbine put you off buying a house?
Would you be more likely to buy?
Not care?

http://www.windsave.com/current.htm

100%!

The only stumbling point would be it would (probably) require planning permission, which means dealing with the council:(.

Definately more likely to buy, I want to move out in the country and have a nice big 15MW turbine in the garden :hihi:

For sure I would! It would be a definited USP for me :thumbsup: .

Then my husband could put it to good use and sell energy back to the national grid ...

I actually know someone who wanted a small wind turbine on her roof, the council wouldn't let her put it up.

But a gigantic satelite dish was ok for nextdoor.

You gotta love the council.

Who deals with these things in the council? Do they have a policy on these sorts of things?

Definately, but at the moment it does require planning permission. But i think that there is a move to remove this, so anyone who is keen should be lobbying their mp now, and perhaps this extra stumbling block can be removed. It would also be great if new buildings were required to include some of these in the first place, as i am fairly sure they already are in switzerland.

Yes I'd definately see it as a plus to buying a property


Can I ask how you would feel if a neighbour put up a wind turbine next door?
I'd be impressed & try to find out where from, how much & other details :thumbsup:

Id have no problem with it, although the space most people have does put certain constraints on the size of the turbine. Sail boats have been using small turbines for some time so perhaps we could ask someone who sails what their experience of them was.

Definite plus for me, I become ever more concerned about our dependence on electricity (not to mention the bills!)

I'd die for a house with a turbine - would have to be a big one though. No actually any turbine would do.

babs

The neighbour would need planning permission though.

babs

someone is planning to put one up around the totlety area (my nannan lives there) and she has recieved a petition through to sign to stop them putting it up!

She said she is NOT signing it as she thinks it will look spectacular and its green!

Some people eh' what a bloody silly thing to have a petition for?!

If there were two similar houses on the market and one had a turbine I would definitely go for the one with the turbine.

My boyfriend is looking into turbines, ground source heat pumps, solar panels etc at the moment for his new house... I think the turbine would be best, its always blowing a gale at his house even when meersbrook is nice and still :D

does anyone know roughly the cost of a turbine for a regular home and a solar panel?

It may be childish of me but It would tip my decision in favour of the house if it had a turbine.

Windsave in scotland will be doing a complete system shortly which will plug straight into your current system, although individual turbines can be bought from about £350 if you feel confident about setting up a system yourself.
Solar panels, again depends on wether you can fit yourself, for an hot water system, Heavens solar in Mexborough can fit a solartwin system for £2500, or you can try Navitron on the web to obtain all the pieces you need.
Solar electricity in Britain isnt so cost effective at the moment but if your renovating and need a new roof anyway, there are firms that can provide solar tiles, that tie staight into the grid, and remember all of these things provide free power for years and years once fitted, so its worth pushing up the mortgage abit to fund them.

My heart says Yes, my head says 'wait for the engineer's survey'. :)

Also, I'm not sure about the physics, but I'd be interested to see whether anyone had modelled power outputs in 'complex' situations - either complicated, irregular layout of houses or places where there are already lots of turbines around.

In principle I think they're great ideas, but I still feel that before we go this way we should actually make more efforts to save energy.

Check out
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/ethical_man/default.stm
to see BBC Newsnight's Ethical Man deciding how to get a wind turbine.
You'd need planning permission.
These ones cost about £1500, although grants would reduce that to about £1000.
The company that makes them:
http://www.windsave.com/

You could pay a fair bit more to get one that could be linked to the mains and could earn you money for exporting electricity to the national grid.

exporting to the national grid would more likely end up costing you money - truth is, the national grid do not want you exporting, they want to sell you energy!! i'm in the business and the national grid normally want to make sure you CAN'T export!

best thing to do is work out your usage, your cost of electricity and expected rises - and then work out the payback yourself.

In principle I think they're great ideas, but I still feel that before we go this way we should actually make more efforts to save energy.

It took about 3 billion years for the planet to fix all the carbon in the atmosphere into the fuel we use today.
It has taken us about 300 years to release a very large ammount of that back into the atmosphere.
This planet creates, and it also takes back.
If we continue to burn Carbon we will poison ourselves, by returning to the atmosphere of the early Earth.
The only way forward is to use the power of the Sun, in such things as wind turbines, solar panels or the tides.
Another way could be the internal energy of the Earth itself.
All this would require a great deal of money being spent.
Whilst ever the short sighted capitalist is coining his money in from burning oil, we will not progress.
Too many powerful people have a vested interest in Oil, East and West alike for it to be an easy transition.

Presumably the wiring in your house has to be up to a certain standard in order to be suitable.

It took about 3 billion years for the planet to fix all the carbon in the atmosphere into the fuel we use today.
It has taken us about 300 years to release a very large ammount of that back into the atmosphere.
This planet creates, and it also takes back.
If we continue to burn Carbon we will poison ourselves, by returning to the atmosphere of the early Earth.
The only way forward is to use the power of the Sun, in such things as wind turbines, solar panels or the tides.
Another way could be the internal energy of the Earth itself.
All this would require a great deal of money being spent.
Whilst ever the short sighted capitalist is coining his money in from burning oil, we will not progress.
Too many powerful people have a vested interest in Oil, East and West alike for it to be an easy transition.

Agreed 100%

It took about 3 billion years for the planet to fix all the carbon in the atmosphere into the fuel we use today.
It has taken us about 300 years to release a very large ammount of that back into the atmosphere.
This planet creates, and it also takes back.
If we continue to burn Carbon we will poison ourselves, by returning to the atmosphere of the early Earth.
The only way forward is to use the power of the Sun, in such things as wind turbines, solar panels or the tides.
Another way could be the internal energy of the Earth itself.
All this would require a great deal of money being spent.
Whilst ever the short sighted capitalist is coining his money in from burning oil, we will not progress.
Too many powerful people have a vested interest in Oil, East and West alike for it to be an easy transition.

I wouldn't argue, but the bottom line is that we waste a lot of energy. I think one statistic I read said the renewables could generate 20% of our energy consumption over a period of a few years. But if we just look at that in terms of saving money or having more energy to burn up, we're misisng part of the point.

Teh amount of energy wasted in the UK is incredible - but while we have a 'get out of jail free' card - in the form of clean, cheap energy - we won't feel driven to save it. If we save energy, we save money, and reduce our impact on the environment.

Whilst moving over to renewables (and in the short term I think we may need nuclear power, but that's another thread) is a great and essential idea, there's little point in doing it if we're simply going to carry on expanding our use of energy - it's the energy equivalent of building extra lanes on motorways; it increases the capacity in the short term, but eventually we hit the same problem again.

I wouldn't argue, but the bottom line is that we waste a lot of energy. I think one statistic I read said the renewables could generate 20% of our energy consumption over a period of a few years. But if we just look at that in terms of saving money or having more energy to burn up, we're misisng part of the point.

Teh amount of energy wasted in the UK is incredible - but while we have a 'get out of jail free' card - in the form of clean, cheap energy - we won't feel driven to save it. If we save energy, we save money, and reduce our impact on the environment.

Whilst moving over to renewables (and in the short term I think we may need nuclear power, but that's another thread) is a great and essential idea, there's little point in doing it if we're simply going to carry on expanding our use of energy - it's the energy equivalent of building extra lanes on motorways; it increases the capacity in the short term, but eventually we hit the same problem again.

i can see your point - BUT - if we all used 100% renewable sources, then we could waste twice as much energy as we do today, and still have no impact on the environment!!!

so surely - renewable sources are better than simply saving energy?

When you think that, compared to the Sun we are a tiny speck, yet everything that has ever existed on Earth comes from the Sun's energy falling on this tiny speck.

If we could harness even a few percent of all the rest of the energy just dissipating into space our problems would be over for good.
The major stumbling block however is - how do we do it?

Solar collectors, and microwave the power down to the earth.

The problem with that is that it's actually pumping more energy into the system, which ultimately ends up as heat.

If you use renewables from within the system, there is no net change overall.

Yes I see that. We would just be pumping energy in. If we could find a way of using all low temperature energy such as that in the oceans (entropic I think it is called) then we would be on on our way.
When you think about it, even a temperature rise of even one degree in the sea represents a massine ammount of energy.
The trouble is, once again, how do we harness it?

a few notes. the council are binded to a national policy which encourages any move towards a renerwable source of energy and should approve turbines and solar panels virtually automatically. read this sheffield version of the government policy given to all councils (http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings/archive/strategic-planning--perf-mgt-/agenda-22nd-january-2004/renewable-energy). so there should be no reason why planning permission is refused.
blade1983, a nice try with the "get out of jail free" card, unfortunatly theres no such thing. for example if we commision a large turbine, it has to be BIG, and that needs concrete either for the base alone or for the base and the shaft. go research the carbon cost of 1 tonne of concrete. ouch!!!! either that or the manufacture and transport costs of the turbine itself would need to be offset blah blah blah.
cyclone, a good suggestion but the loss of energy through transmitting microwaves is massive, especially at the kind of distances your suggesting. not to mention the cooking of anything that goes near the beam. maybe in the future this will be a possibiliy but i suspect i might have had grandchildren who have died before it becomes reality.
nuclear, well, we all know the costs of that and only the crazy think thats good (note horizon being the puppet of the govenment last night).
in my opinion the only effective realistic short term solution is for every house in the country (ideally the world) to utilise its footprint with solar panels and turbines. with every house having its own power source, the national grid would become a backup system and the amount of energy lost (close to 50%) in transmitting the power over the vast distances from power station to homes would be (in comparrison) eliminated.
if the government spent the same amount of money they are proposing to spend on new power stations on a bulk purchase of solar panels and turbines, then the cost of them would be hugely reduced and many more householders could afford to purchase the (look to spain).
then if a house were to use more power than they could produce, it would be taken from the nearest available source (next door) and the transmission lost would be next to nothing for the whole country.
this is not to mention the addictive game of "watching the amp hours", a simple yet addictive pastime of seeing how much juice is coming and going from your batterys at a given time. when you have a tangible grip on how much energy is used by a particular activity, you automatically change your habbits accordingly.

oh and by the way, for me it would make no difference if a house i was buying had a turbine or not, because if it didnt, it wouldnt be long after the purchase before it did! :thumbsup:

so long as the microwave beam is properly focussed and your collector is high up to avoid most atmospheric losses then it should be very efficient.
It's not going to happen tomorrow though, hell, we might even get usable fusion first, it's only 25 years away right.

Sorry I have not read all the posts on this thread so I'm not in the information loop, but.... It would probably make me more keen to buy the house if it had a turbine. I love turbines in a nerdy kind of way. To see them out at sea or a field full of them makes me feel very excitable. :D