Scio Township residents take advantage of tax credits for renewable energy systems
Irwin Martin had considered on-site electrical power generation ever since he bought Walnut Hill Farm in 2003.
Located in Scio Township, the 11-acre farm sits on one of Washtenaw County’s highest points, and updrafts are a fact of life. A wind turbine to create current for his barn seemed like a natural fit.
Enticed by a 30 percent federal tax credit, Irwin Martin recently put up a wind turbine (seen at right) at his Scio Township farm. Ronald Ahrens | For AnnArbor.com
Martin says the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 made it more feasible to implement his idea. The act offers homeowners a 30-percent tax credit for the purchase of renewable energy systems.
“If I’m ever going to do it, I ought to do it now,” Martin found himself saying.
After several months spent choosing a wind turbine and finding a contractor to install it, Martin saw his Skystream 3.7 system erected atop a 70-foot mast and first heard the turbine’s faint hum on Dec. 12.
But before that, Martin - who serves on the township’s planning commission and land preservation committee - had to go through the process of getting a zoning variance. The existing law, which was designed with shortwave radio antennas in mind, prohibited free-standing structures of more than 50-feet.
That could change. Scio Township trustees are scheduled to vote on a proposed Wind Energy Conversion System ordinance on Feb. 23.
“Unless anybody has any strenuous objections, it will probably be passed,” says trustee David Read.
The ordinance will allow for roof-mounted systems reaching as high as 15 feet above an existing structure and for free-standing towers up to 70 feet tall. The towers must be on lots of at least 2.5 acres and must stand within one and a half times their own height of a property line or right of way. A 70-foot tower would be at least 105 feet from the boundary.
The so-called “shadow flicker” from the windmill’s blades will also be restricted. A building permit is required to erect a tower, according to the ordinance.
Martin’s tower is kept upright with the help of four guy wires. Each extends 45 feet from the and is anchored in concrete.
He says the sources he consulted estimate a 7-mile-per-hour average wind speed in Washtenaw County. The three curved blades of his sleek windmill automatically start to turn in winds of 8 miles per hour. The 7-foot-long blades are sculpted to catch the wind and keep the unit facing into shifting gusts.
After two months of operation, Martin calculates the daily yield has averaged 4.2 kilowatt hours. The range has been from zero kilowatts hours on calm days to 25 kilowatt hours on especially windy ones.
“Unfortunately there’s been more zeroes than 25s,” he says.
The savings is around $1 per day.
“Even with the tax credit, it’s hard to justify the expense,” he says of the approximately $14,000 outlay for the windmill. “Basically, you do it because you want to do something positive, to remove a few carbon atoms from the atmosphere.”
The current lets him operate the ceiling lights inside the barn and the well pump for a rental house on the property. A small equipment room in the barn is heated with electric coils embedded in the concrete floor.
The windmill’s output also helps to supply the requirements of the 1500-watt heater that keeps the water for his three horses from freezing.
And Martin says he notices he's more conscious than ever about shutting off the lights when they’re not needed.
The ‘net metering’ system at Irwin Martin’s barn. Ronald Ahrens | For AnnArbor.com
Meanwhile, in another part of Scio Township, Read had spent 11 years looking at alternative energy sources to provide electricity for his home. After consulting with the same contractor who put up Martin’s windmill, he decided the power requirements exceeded the wind turbine’s capability.
“I went down the solar route,” Read says.
Last November he flipped the switch on the 25-panel array atop his garage. Each panel is capable of producing 205 watts “on a perfect day,” he says. On the best days so far, he has seen output of 4000 watts - or four kilowatt hours - for several hours at a time.
The excess that isn’t consumed on site is fed back into the grid. A “net metering system,” like that at Martin’s barn, keeps track of how much credit the utility company will give.
Besides panels, Read’s system required only a minimum of additional specialized equipment and wiring. An inverter mounted on the outside of the garage changes the direct current streaming from the panels into alternating current for household use.
Read says his gross expenditure was about $35,000. But DTE immediately refunded 30 percent of that amount through its Solar Currents program.
And he still qualifies for the 30-percent federal tax credit on his 2009 return.
“That brings it down to $3 per watt,” he says.
Like Martin, Read also says part of his motivation is altruistic.
“It would be nice if we could get out ahead of the bandwagon with this and show that at least a few of us in Scio are doing our part to save energy.”
Ronald Ahrens is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
cbta2
Mon, Feb 22, 2010 : 4:41 p.m.
Irwin and Dave should put their systems together as the wind and the sun compliment each other nicely on a daily and seasonal basis. On cloudy days its windy, the sun shines in daytime and the wind blows 24 hours a day, in winter the winds are abundant and in summer the sun is abundant. In 1916, Charles Kettering developed the Delco-Light farm electric plant to electrify farms farms and remote homes, businesses, churches, and schools. In the ensuing years, GM aquired Delco-Light and they would go onto sell hundreds of thousands power plants. By 1929, their success created an entire industry with over 150 competitors selling similar equipment - including 13 in Michigan and Alfred Sloan, President of GM, estimated the potential market at 2.5 M. In fact General Motors and the other companies were selling home power plants in the market and suppling electricity to more rural homes than all of the electric utilities in the United States combined. In the early 1930's, several companies offered wind electric generators to eliminate or reduce fuel use. In the 1950's solar panels were advance by Bell Labs and would have fit in nicely. You have to love free market capitalism. The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 destroyed this industry and put up ugly wasteful power lines everywhere at twice the cost of a Delco-Light or powerful wind plant completely installed. The electric utilities are flat out monopolies - no competition and no risk - profits are guaranteed by law. How does that square with free enterprise economic principles. To make matters worse, the U.S. tax payer has subsidized nuclear energy via the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1946, favorable mining leases, low cost hydro power, from the public dams, for energy intensive uranium enrichment, excused them from liability in case of a "abnormal occurrance" (like Detroit Edison's near melt down of Enrico Fermi fast breeder reactor in Monroe) with the Price-Anderson Act in 1957, and provided massive subsidies to the 12 national laboratories since the Manhatten Project. If nuclear power plants are soooo safe, they won't mind if Price Anderson is repealed and the electric utilites can become a responsible member of society and buy liability insurance like every other citizen, business, or government entity. If nuclear power is so economic why haven't they sold one in 35 years and now need a "loan guarantee" so Georgia can build one. If Georgia is happy to have the new nuke and they are so clean we can send the nuclear waste to Georgia for permanent storage and no one will complain - especially Nevadans. More citizens should invest in clean energy technology and generate their own power instead of buying more equipment to use it. Good for you Irwin and Dave.
Danny
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 7:37 p.m.
I don't profess to be the sharpest knife in the drawer about alternative energy sources, however doesn't Geo thermal energy production make more sense in Michigan?
Adam Jaskiewicz
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.
krc, it has nothing to do with "government objections". It's a physical impossibility.
ann_arbor_guy
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 1:17 p.m.
I am happy to see someone taking the necessary steps to help reduce our dependencies on fossil fuels. If we all do our little bit for each of our homes we can collectively reduce our overall consumption. If there is anyone that believes that fossil fuels will be getting cheaper in future or that there is an indefinite supply; they are sadly mistaken. I would much rather see my tax money spent on something like this than another endless meaningless war over oil.
ScioReader
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:57 p.m.
that's the return during a relatively quiet wind season. these numbers are expected to go up significantly in spring and fall. the return is likely to be between 10 and 12 years. still, as noted, this is not done to save money, but to do something green.
skenney1384
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.
So, $14,000 expense after refunds and credits so save $1 a day. That's an ROI of just over 38 years....regardless of the minimal intended "good" done that's about as bright as one of the dim bulbs it would light.
Top Cat
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.
Since the "science" of man made global warming has now been debunked as a fraud, does it make sense to add to our deficit by giving generous tax credits for this?
ChelseaGirl
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 10:42 a.m.
Hmmm, my neighbor just put one of these up over the weekend in Sharon Township. Not so sure about it at this point since it hasnt moved all weekend with no wind. Very visable!
krc
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 10:38 a.m.
go to www.electrichome.net for a way to create nearly free energy. Only thing is, the gubmint objects.
Wayne Appleyard
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 9:24 a.m.
The combination of the Solar Currents program and the tax credits actually make solar a relatively good and relatively riskfree investment. The story did not tell the entire story. If the Solar Currents and tax credits reduced the cost of the solar to $3/ peak watt the final cost is then about $15,400. What the story didn't clearly explain is that DTE pays $11/kWhr produced for the next 20 years just for the REC(Renewable Energy Credit) or "green component of the power produced. This works out to about $640/year. In addition you get the full value of the power($.11/kWhr) either by using the power yourself or by feeding it into the grid and effectively running your meter backwards(netmetering), which amounts to another $640/year. This gives you a simple payback of 12 years, and income of $1,200/year for an additional 8 years beyond that. You can also consider it equivalent to buying 20 years of electricity at a fixed rate. Its a hedge against increases in electric costs which are sure to come, a form of risk management. Although the solar equipment is expensive, Michigan still has about 78% of the annual solar energy of places like Sacremento and Austin who have the largest solar installation programs. We also have considerably more solar than Germany has which is producing much of their power from the sun. Wayne Appleyard
xmo
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 8:48 a.m.
All of the "Green" stories are cute but they show that we really have nothing to replace our present form of power. So is doing something really better than doing nothing?
KJMClark
Mon, Feb 15, 2010 : 7:30 a.m.
This story is really frustrating. We have some excellent renewable energy opportunities in Michigan, but everyone looks in the wrong places. The right place is biomass, and the problem is that no one produces small biomass to energy systems except wood stoves. If we had an energy entrepreneurial culture here, it would make sense to look to biomass. Michigan has lousy solar opportunities. This isn't a knock on solar power or people who have installed it. If you look at the NREL maps or ASES maps, it's just not worth trying to put in solar here; the systems really don't pay off in their lifetimes. Likewise for wind. We have great wind resources on the coastlines and a few other places, but not in Washtenaw County. The NREL maps show the same thing as the solar maps. We do have small, but reasonable opportunities for hydro power, but even these require a large expenditure, in the form of a dam, that most people can't make. But those same maps show that biomass makes a lot of sense here. I think one problem is that many people think "liquid fuels" when they think of biomass. But we don't try to make liquid fuels from wind or solar - we make electricity. There's no reason we couldn't make electricity from burning biomass - that's done in Flint, for example. But who makes a small biomass power system? How many municipalities are using biomass systems to deal with woody wastes? No, trucking it to Flint doesn't count. But this website (http://www.powerscorecard.org/tech_detail.cfm?resource_id=1) points out that biomass is already the second biggest source of renewable power after hydro. And it produces electricity when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shining. So we have the manufacturing capacity to make biomass systems, we have the biomass, we have a need. Where are the systems? How much research is going on in wood gasification at UM and MSU? There were grants in ARRA for biomass projects; in states like Colorado and Arizona that don't have much wood!