When Rena Wilson Jones and her husband, Drew, were building a house 10 years ago in a subdivision near the edge of Urbana, Illinois, they knew the property was likely to be windy, bordered as it was by open fields to the north and west. But they did not realize how fierce the winds would be until construction of their house was under way. In the decade that followed, the wind drove Wilson Jones crazy from November through April, she said, whipping across her yard and making it difficult to work in the garden. At times, it was hard to walk outside.
Eventually, the couple decided to capitalize on their affliction. Last summer, they installed a 17m wind turbine in their yard to draw electrical power from the wind.
They did the work themselves over a weekend, digging a hole for the foundation and raising the US$13,000 turbine with a winch on their Jeep. It was spinning by early September and their electricity bills dropped sharply, from US$90 to US$10 for last month -- one of the windier ones.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
"Now, the faster the wind goes, the happier I am," said Wilson Jones, a director of nursing at Community Blood Services of Illinois.
Until recently, wind turbines were used primarily by those who lived outside the range of local utility lines, or who wanted to live completely off the grid. But reductions in their size and cost, along with improvements in their efficiency, are allowing suburban homeowners with no dissident leanings to speak of to install them in growing numbers, with concerns over rising energy costs and global warming driving the demand.
Sales of wind turbines have been growing steadily since 1990, when the American Wind Energy Association, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, began tracking them.
Last year, about 7,000 small wind turbines -- defined as those that have a capacity of up to 100 kilowatts, roughly enough to power a large school -- were purchased in the US, according to the group, which said it expects sales to reach about 10,000 this year.
Residential turbines, which account for half those sales, are typically 10m to 30m tall, with outputs of 2 kilowatts to 10 kilowatts. They cost between US$12,000 and US$55,000, but in recent years, 19 states -- including California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Ohio -- have begun offering incentives and rebates that can cut purchase prices by up to 50 percent.
And last week, the US House of Representatives passed a bill that would help states provide grants and low-interest loans for residential turbines, as well as solar panels and geothermal heat pumps. It would also offer a 30 percent federal tax credit on turbine purchases, up to US$4,000. The Senate is now considering a similar measure.
A 10 kilowatt turbine in an area with an average wind speed of 19.3km per hour can lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to removing 1.3 cars from the road, according to the wind energy association. But for some, the financial savings made possible by turbines are at least as important.
Marc Schambers eliminated his payments to Southern California Edison after he installed a turbine in his backyard in the town of Phelan five years ago. Schambers, the owner of CleanMessage, a spam-filtering service, opted for an unusually tall 36m model because his electricity bills were as much as US$1,000 a month in the summer, he said, as he was paying to cool both his home office and his 167m2 house.
He has since paid off his US$25,000 investment -- the turbine cost US$46,000, but he received a US$21,000 rebate from the California Energy Commission -- and now produces more power than he can use. Since California is one of 23 states that require power companies to offer "net metering," by which customers receive credit for any extra power they generate, he comes out ahead.
"One of the top 10 pleasures in life is watching your electrical meter go backward," he said.
Schambers' neighbors apparently agree; he said he can see 20 turbines from his backyard.
Other parts of the country, too, offer ideal conditions for turbines: The Great Plains, for example, are the "Saudi Arabia of wind," according to Karl Bergey, the chairman and chief executive of Bergey Windpower, a turbine manufacturer in Norman, Oklahoma.
Some consumers have installed turbines in low-wind areas. In August, Curt and Christine Mann put up a turbine next to their Craftsman-style house in the Grant Park neighborhood of Atlanta, Georgia, despite an average wind speed of only 14.5km per hour, the minimum recommended by the wind energy association. (The group also says that home turbines should be at least 10m tall and surrounded by at least 0.4 hectares of land, free of any large obstructions like dense trees.)
So far, their turbine has led to only a modest reduction in electricity costs, from around US$95 to roughly US$75 a month and it could take up to 20 years at that rate to recoup their initial investment. But they were more interested in ecological benefits than financial ones, said Mann, a real estate developer whose company is called City Crest Holdings.
Local governments have put up roadblocks to the devices. A few towns, like Blowing Rock, North Carolina, have banned them outright because of their appearance, and others require homeowners to petition the local zoning board for a variance to exceed building height limits.
Some cities require letters of support from neighbors, which can be hard to obtain because some people believe turbines may threaten birds, reduce property values and make too much noise.
At Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area in California, it is estimated that between 1,700 to 4,700 birds are killed each year.
But Michael Daulton, director of conservation policy for the National Audubon Society, said it is not clear what effect individual wind turbines have on birds. The society suggests that homeowners learn whether they live close to a wildlife preserve that attracts a lot of birds or are situated on a bird migratory route -- as the Altamont wind farm is.
Turbines' effects on property values is not clear. Ryan Wiser, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said the effect of large wind farms on home values has been mixed and added that there are no studies covering small turbines. When calculating the sale price of a home with a turbine, some brokers value them as they would a swimming pool, adding half of the purchase and installation costs to a home's price.
The noise and shadows turbines make have resulted in some concerns. In July, residents of Beach Haven Terrace, New Jersey, sued a neighbor, saying that the noise from his 10m turbine exceeded 50 decibels (the sound level of light traffic or an average home) and that it cast "strobe-like shadows" on their property for several hours a day.
When Kurt Karpavich, a resident of Watertown, Connecticut, an affluent rural town in Litchfield County, sought a variance from the town to put up a 17m turbine behind his house last summer, a dozen neighbors signed a petition against it and placed signs reading "No to the Windmill" on their lawns.
Jacqueline and David Daddona, who live next to Karpavich, are concerned that his turbine will cast shadows on their house, attract lightning and mar their view of the Naugatuck Valley.
Others objected to the presence of a tower rising above the roofline.
"I'm not against the environment, but I just think there's a place for all this," the Daddonas said. "You shouldn't try to save a little bit on your electrical bill if it affects your neighbors."
Karpavich was granted the variance in early summer, but the Daddonas appealed the decision and sued the town planning and zoning appeals commission as well as Karpavich.
The various parties will meet next month in Watertown Superior Court. Karpavich hopes the legal wrangling is done by this winter so he can install the turbine -- the town's first -- in the spring.
"It's been a tough fight," Karpavich said. "But it's more of a crusade now."
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS