Quiet wind-turbine comes to U.S. homes

October 27, 2008 7:51 AM PDT
Quiet wind-turbine comes to U.S. homes
by Martin LaMonica Font size Print E-mail Share 38 comments Yahoo! BuzzUpdated on February 6, 2009 with a correction. The original misstated the measurement for the company's technical specifications. It should be 14 meter per second wind, which is 31 miles per hour.

A home wind turbine already installed at 250 sites in Scotland is now being sold across the pond.

Cascade Engineering said Monday the Swift wind turbine, for homes and other buildings, is available in the U.S. and Canada.


(Credit: Cascade Engineering)
The Swift tries to set itself apart from existing small wind turbines with a design that reduces noise. Also, the turbine can be attached to a home, rather than to a free-standing pole or tower.

Like other wind turbines, the Swift has blades that turn and power a generator. But rather than the typical three blades, the Swift has five and a ring that goes around them. That "outer diffuser" ring cuts the noise level to 35 decibels and reduces vibration, according to the company.

The turbine, with a 7-foot diameter, also has two fins to direct the turbine to face the wind. It can turn 360 degrees and shut down if the wind is too high.

It can generate 1.5 kilowatts with 31 mile-per-hour wind (or 14 meters per second) and about 2,000 kilowatt-hours over a year, the company said. U.S. households typically consume between 6,500 and 10,000 kilowatt-hours in a year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

At a cost of $10,000 installed, it's a bit lower than the typical per-watt cost of solar electric panels. But state rebates, the cost of electricity, and the wind or solar resource make a big difference on the actual up-front cost. Cascade estimates the payback on the upfront cost can be as low as three years, but that it varies widely.


(Credit: Cascade Engineering)
Small wind recently benefited from the extension of renewable energy tax credits, which gives consumers a $1,000 tax credit for residential systems and $4,000 for commercial buildings.

Cascade, which is based in Grand Rapids, Mich., has installed 9 Swift turbines in the U.S. and has a backlog of 25 orders, according to Jessica Lehti, the company's senior product marketing manager.

The mix of customers is spit in half between residential and commercial customers. Even with the economic downturn, the company expects that it can sell to customers who purchase renewable energy products for both economic and environmental reasons.

Cascade, which specializes in plastics, has partnered with the Scotland-based Renewable Devices, which originally designed the Swift. Cascade is selling the product in the U.S.

The company says the turbine is best suited for places with average winds and needs to be placed two feet above the roofline.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Topics: WindTags: small wind,Swift wind turbine,3rd attemptShare: Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Yahoo! BuzzFacebook
Recent posts from Green Tech
Frugality rules among Cleantech Open finalists
Skyline Solar cuts deal with auto parts supplier
Solar really is getting cheaper, report says
CA jumps into eco-software market
Two-wheeled electrics at the Tokyo Motor Show
Lithium ion battery industry to boom with wind, solar power
Automakers to agree on standard for plug-in cars
Toyota looks to electric car business Related
Popular Mechanics awards highlight innovators
Texas completes $1 billion wind energy complex
GE: Solar business is our 'next wind'
Monster Turbine Pro earphones scream style
Plan connects U.S. grids to transport solar, wind
Start-up crunches data for home energy efficiency tips
Volvo promises a plug-in
Lotus designs an engine for hybrids Add a Comment (Log in or register) (38 Comments) prev 1 next by tbbxcnet October 27, 2008 9:16 AM PDT
I don't understand how this could possibly pay for itself in 3 years.

For a residential customer, it would take at least 12 years to recover the initial $10,000.

This uses the highest electric rates in the United States (Hawaii) at $0.3327* per kWh and output of 2000 kWh per year from the article. The $1000 federal credit and a matching $1000 state credit are included in the calculation.

Using rates from the mainland (Connecticut is highest at $0.1923* per kWh), it would take almost 21 years (including $2000 in total credits.) At the US average of $0.118* per kWh it would take more than 33 years.

For commercial customers, the payback is more than 8 years. This assumes $5000 in total credits ($4000 federal; $1000 state) and Hawaii's $0.3037* per kWh commercial rate. In Massachusetts (highest mainland rate of $0.1718* per kWh), the payback period is more than 14 years.

I love the idea of household wind and solar, but the idea of a 3-year payback is ridiculous.


*Rates from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
Reply to this comment by sythara October 27, 2008 9:42 AM PDT
The market is maturing, slowly.

In few years these will be available for $5k, later on even less. The key is for people to keep buying these so they can be produced in large numbers, thus lower cost.
by sanenazok October 27, 2008 10:02 AM PDT
@tbbxcent: Nobody wants your calculations since they represent reality. Everybody wants green tech at any cost regardless of how little actual utility is brought in.
by fgoldstein October 27, 2008 10:25 AM PDT
Depends on how you do the math. There are 8760 hours in a year. The turbine can put out 1.5 kW at 14 MPH. So if you installed this on a coastal hilltop where, for sake of argument, the wind never stopped, it would have a theoretical maximum output of 13140 kwhr/year. At the Connecticut rate, it's worth $2527/year. More in Hawaii.

They are more realistic in estimating a typical production of 2,000 kwhr/year, which is 15% of theoretical. At that rate it's a lousy investment. But this is early-adtopter stuff. It looks simple enough to be mass-produced for a fraction of the current price, maybe $1-2k (before markup). Professional installation probably costs a couple of thousand dollars, though a skilled DIY-er could probably do it. So as the retail price falls and the price of electricity rises, it potentially becomes worthwhile.
by ittesi259 October 27, 2008 12:35 PM PDT
Your being appalled at the calculations is right....but appliance manufacturers do it exactly the same way on the low end. When I walk into sears and it says how much an refrigerator will cost in electricity I laugh. At the bottom it says based on national average of 8.1 cents per kw/h. Thats great....but when my utitlity charges a tiered rate between 14-32 cents thats just false advertising. Or should be at least.
by J. Blow October 27, 2008 10:01 PM PDT
fgoldstein - even in the windy-est places it is only windy about 30% of the time so you need to reduce your calculaion by 70% - and that it at a minimum. It is rarely windy at night, when it is really hot out, or a number of other times - when you really need the power.

Wind - if the device was $500 and you could buy 10 of them it might make sense. $10 or even $5K doesn't make sense.

Btw, rebates, credits, etc are TAXES paid by everyone. Again, these aren't rebates, they are taxes.
by Cougar_911 January 22, 2009 8:40 PM PST
They use crazy tax rebates both state and federal to get the payback period to 3 years. Also the more energy you would use the more possible savings are available. Its true 3 years probably never happens but these days what ad agency tells us what to actually expect.
by Cougar_911 January 22, 2009 8:42 PM PST
They use crazy tax rebates both state and federal to get the payback period to 3 years. Also the more energy you would use the more possible savings are available. Its true 3 years probably never happens but these days what ad agency tells us what to actually expect.


Also I read somewhere I am trying to find it now that a small wind power company wnats to sell these or a similar product at Menards or Home Depot for $2,000.00 give it time its comin
by atici October 27, 2008 9:40 AM PDT
LOL, just another example of the reality distortion field created by green mania. I am only upset these zealots are allowed to waste taxpayer's money through a tax cut program. Ron Paul to the rescue!
Reply to this comment by bommai October 27, 2008 9:53 AM PDT
Early adopters have to sometime pay the price for the rest of the people and the society as a whole to benefit in the future. If you use the pay back equation all the time, we would not have ever built highways, or railroads, or even airports!!
Reply to this comment by tbbxcnet October 27, 2008 10:47 AM PDT
I love early adopters. I'm not one of them myself. They do support new technology and make things cheaper for everyone once economies of scale are realized. They get a great deal of happiness form being the first on their block have the latest thing. Good for them, Hurrah for the people who bought paid $2495 in 1975 for the first VCRs! I mean it.

Payback is important, though, if companies are selling things based on their economic benefits. To tell people that they will make their money back in 3 years when that is not remotely true is fraud. I object to anyone lying to me about the costs and benefits. I do admit that my analysis was very simple. Perhaps there are benefits that I have not included (decrease in pollution, reduction in days without power dues to storms, etc.) If we can quantify those, we may get a different payback result.

As sythara noted, this thing may only cost $5000 in 5 years. It might. Assuming electric rates jump to $0.30 per kWh and with $2000 in credits, the payback period drops to 5 years. This is much closer to their estimate. And if the thing lasts 20 years and requires no maintenance, the net benefit is $9000 ($2000 credit + $12,000 in energy saving - $5000 investment), or $450 per year. That's what they should be selling--not unreal payback numbers.

If there is a real economic net benefit (savings, reduced pollution, better standard of living, increased convenience or safety, etc.) then these are things worth doing. That includes highways, railroads, and airports. Otherwise, they are strictly political decisions. Which is fine, these are made all the time for a variety of reasons and are part of our way of doing things. If there is an economic benefit, show me. If it is a political choice, explain to me why I should support it.

If the price is right and the benefits are there, I'd love to have one of these on my roof.
by rtuinenburg October 27, 2008 9:58 AM PDT
Someone start an open source hardware project, $10k for this thing is ridiculous.
Reply to this comment by sanenazok October 27, 2008 10:01 AM PDT
This is what the politicians mean by "green collar jobs." Making windmills with $200 worth of materials and selling them to the government for $10K. I expect to see these all over government buildings in an Obama administration.
by Seaspray0 October 27, 2008 11:35 AM PDT
There are a few DIY wind generator websites available on the internet. One inlcudes a classic designed wind turban built from the front strut of an automobile for a few hundred dollars. If you have the equipment and are skilled in welding, grinding, fiberglassing, basic electronics, and woodworking, you too can build your own for less.
by gsmiller88 October 27, 2008 10:20 AM PDT
Unfortunately with the location I live, wind energy isn't a viable option because the mountains block the wind the majority of the time. Otherwise, I would have a whole slew of these babies out in the back yard (wallet permitting). Bring on cheaper solar panels!
Reply to this comment by Joe Real October 27, 2008 11:06 AM PDT
What I don't understand about these small (residential) wind turbines is that why they are illogically too expensive! The washing machine is more complex, has more parts, and more materials used than a small wind turbine. And yet, you can buy a good washing machine for about $200 and it would last you more than 10 years. Ours did! The only other thing that you would buy separately would be the inverter and you could get a nice one that lasts 10 years for only $250 for 2 KW capacity.

You tell me about economies of scale? Well the one or more types of residential wind turbines have been around for a long time now and economies of scale of the components has been done. Theoretically, if a certain efficient design can be mass produced like the washing machine, these 2 kW wind turbines, with installation and inverters included should not exceed $800. If you have the time, you can assemble your own small wind turbines right now, and the parts are cheap, it would literally cost you the price of a washing machine.

This only means that these residential wind turbine companies wanted a quicker pay-off, and they are a major impediment to renewable energy adoption. Show us an efficient wind turbine, and price it just at par with a washing machine, and there will be mass adoption and the company who produces that will be more than successful.
Reply to this comment by The1egend October 27, 2008 12:26 PM PDT
If it is mechanization and economies of scale that would make the product less expensive, then if businesses like WalMart, or Home Depot, or any other type that usually has large roofs wouldn't these make sense? If you could turn these commercial buildings into power generators as opposed to massive power users (a 200,000 ft retail center near my home has electric bills of over $10,000/month with no refrigeration units but that does include AC.) If you put them around the roofs of these types of buildings they could cut costs greatly, and possibly reduce the cost of the units themselves because of large orders. Possibly forcing the company to create better mechanization, and maybe easier installation packages.
by aZerogodist October 27, 2008 3:02 PM PDT
Also a washing machine has a lifespan of say 10 years, I pursume the wind-turbine has a simular life say before repair/upgrade, so if it took 20 years to pay for itself then it will never actually pay for itself before replacement, also one wouldn't be much use 2 or more being worth while, and then no way of directly storing the energy. But at least it a step in the right direction.
by Phil in MN October 27, 2008 11:22 AM PDT
In our windy part of the US this would not pay for itself in 10 years.1500 watts at 31 mph.....a nice lighting rod too ......
Reply to this comment by hackingbear October 27, 2008 11:29 AM PDT
This thing looks not particular advanced and like costing no more than $100 to manufacture (even in the States or Ireland, and not in China.) The street price should not be more than $2000 installed w/ electrical wiring. I guess either they just try to hype up the listing price or they try to fool us buying something more than what it is worth.
Reply to this comment by gudin October 27, 2008 11:46 AM PDT
Sheesh. All this anti-green tech sentiment.

What these calculations do not show is that in addition to the tax credits, there are also substantial state and federal grants to encourage doing this. Basically, at least 1/2 the cost (in NY). So if it's $5000 not 10, and you get the tax credit. . . suddenly it's not nearly as bad. (3 years is closer than it would appear)

The other side of the coin is that I personally think that spending some more now to give our children an actual livable environment is actually worth something. But I suppose some people would rather spend the extra money on a hummer. It's not just about saving money. Besides, even if it was 10 years, you have your house for longer than that, generally.

Early adopters pay a price, but they make everything better for everyone later. And in this case, the more early adopters there are, the better off everyone will be in a more direct and significant way.

Global Warming is a bit bigger of an issue than whether you can tape a tv show or watch a movie in HD. Tack that onto the trillions we spend on issues related to our strategic focus on the middle east, and the fact that many who live in that region are completely convinced that we are out to get them and concerned only for our own selfish consumption. . . . Seems to me anything that nudges us towards self-sufficiency benefits us strategically, militarily and economically. But then if you are a blind faith republican, I suppose you imagine the only thing important is whether the oil industry keeps making record profits at all costs.

It's MUCH better that our money flows directly to the selfish, to dictators and into the hands of those who hate us. That's just SO logical.
Reply to this comment by sflocal October 27, 2008 11:51 AM PDT
I have done quite a few electrical installs and even I balked at the $10K price. I can only presume that is on a worst-case scenario and it includes all equipment/wiring/labor. If this available as a do-it-yourself install, I'm sure it's much cheaper. Honestly, $10K? Ridiculous. It's no wonder why renewable energy is so slow. I can understand Solar being that way since the technology is still maturing but this is a windmill with an electric generator on it!
Reply to this comment by ghosford October 27, 2008 2:39 PM PDT
It is a non sequitur that because someone can build X in their garage, that it?s outrageous that store/business Y sells product X for a much higher price. I cannot claim to be an expert on anything this article talks about, but I just have one thing to say: If you can build a windmill like this for $200, why aren?t you out there making them and selling them for $500?

My wife likes to comment about the exorbitant price of pre-made Rice Krispy bars in the store. But just because you can throw together a batch for < $5 at home, doesn?t mean you could sell them to the public. Try making them in your home in the same way the store must, including nutrition information, packaging, food Good Manufacturing Practices, labor, ovens large enough to produce them to the scale required, etc., and I?ll bet it would cost you more per package than the store charges!

Perhaps you could get parts for a wind turbine like this for $200. But would it be a quality product that you can offer a warranty on, that would pay for your labor to assemble it, that would pay for the salaries, administrative and marketing activities you would need to sell sufficient quantities of this product? Oh, and what about the primary claim this product makes: that it is quiet enough to use on a home rooftop? Do you think they came up with the final design the first time? Would your $200 one be as quiet?

Then, the argument that this is just a "windmill with [a]...generator on it" assumes that all windmills are equal and the windmills of today should be just the same as windmills on your grandfather?s farm 50 years ago. I live in Iowa, and while I do see a few old-fashioned windmills still standing, I hardly ever see one turning. The modern-day, efficient windmills are even less mature than solar technology.

I say it again: if you can build and sell these for even $1,000 apiece, go into business; you?ll make a killing!
by Joe Real October 27, 2008 8:07 PM PDT
The high price tag compared to the cost would be precisely the reason why thousands of other companies will sprout offering one type of improvement or another.

For example, the egg-beater style wind turbines are more efficient than this one reported and are safe for the birds and less noisy than the wind itself, truly lower noise than ambient wind.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080910-pf-energy-ball.html

The cost of materials for all of these small wind turbines is very cheap, should be a fraction of the cost of washing machine, material for material. The problem now is that these companies know that there are rebates, and they are pricing it based on the rebates that you are going to get. So it is really attractive to build companies that make these small wind turbines. But because they are too greedy to price it where it will make sense, these turbines will not hit critical mass sale. And a lot of these companies will flop instead. If these thousands of companies will pool together, to create an automated fabrication plant, they can afford it, and will be able to produce wind turbines a lot cheaper than washing machines. You may not be profitable at all by selling too few machines at onerous prices, but you can have tremendous profits by selling lowest priced machines by the millions. And we know that these small wind turbines can be very very cheap, it is not rocket science, and all the parts should be cheaper than washing machines.

So here we are, with various companies getting greedy eyes from the tremendous potential profit because of the current rebates, thousands of these will sprung up. It would really be good if one of these companies would brave the waters to sell and install these small wind turbines at sub $1000 per kW capacity. They would make tremendous profits, because at that price, it would be free for all homeowners. The cost of production would be less than $200, and installation about $300, and inverter would be $250. If they sell these machines equal to the rebate it literally would cost the homeowners nothing, these companies would still be left with tremendous profit. There is still a problem though, not all places have wind strong enough to give you a good rebate.

In case you have good wind power potential, here's a place where you can buy many kinds of wind turbines and their components on the cheap, some as cheap as washing machines, literally:

http://www.magnet4less.com/index.php?cPath=8_83
by Vegaman_Dan October 27, 2008 11:53 AM PDT
The more of these types of solutions there are, the less demand there is made to the power infrastructure, which reduces the need for more power plants, and that helps to reduce the cost of those plants which providers are more than happy to pass on to consumers in higher rates.

BUT there is a caveat to this.

Those same power companies are expected to make $$$ in a given time. When they cannot, they have to raise rates. If the consumer demand is less, then they will simply charge the remaining consumers more to make up for it. Think it can't happen?

It does.

Washington State had a windstorm in Dec 2005. Many areas were without power for more than a week. That's a huge setback for the electric provider. No power to the consumer means no power used and they can't make money off that. Instead, they were able to lobby Washington State into allowing them to raise their rates to compensate for the missing expected funds. Yes, they could bill for power that they didn't deliver.

I love the idea of being more independant from the grid, or at least offsetting our dependency to it, but I don't for a minute think it will do anything to reduce the actual monthly bill. Not when companies can legally bill you for power that you *aren't* using.
Reply to this comment by ittesi259 October 27, 2008 12:38 PM PDT
Then you should take it up with your state government or it won't change.
by ghosford October 27, 2008 3:28 PM PDT
Dan, the windstorm you described did not bring down *demand* for the grid; it sharply extinguished the supply for a relatively short time. A relatively short-term outage (days) does nothing to affect the increasing demand, just the cost of overhead which increases relative to electricity "sales."

OTOH, increasing reliance on renewable energy does slightly bring down demand for the grid, and it does so over a long period of time (years instead of days). As you pointed out, a significant portion of electric rates is tied to utilities building more generating plants to meet the increasing demand. Therefore, a constant, minimal decrease in demand would, for the medium term (for example, 5-20 years), reduce utility costs, presumably freezing or decreasing the utility rates. And even freezing the utility rate would be better than increases.

Of course, if demand dropped sharply (e.g. 50%), I?m sure regulators would allow increases in rates to offset the economies of scale that the utilities would lose. However, that would seem to just increase the demand for renewable energy (and we could just all join hands and sing together that we no longer have to rely on non-renewable energy).
by rdupuy11 October 27, 2008 12:42 PM PDT
The 15% of theoretical is far more realistic than some of the estimates talked about here.

So what.

If you use that logic, you are a fish on a hook.

15% may be more realistic than even more false number, but 15% is probably not what you'll get.
You better do a wind study before you buy this thing.

You may get something closer to 2 to 3 percent of theoretical.

It may cost you more to maintain this thing per year than you ever get in savings. The dent in your electric bill may be so negligible that you don't even notice on a month to month basis.

Wind Power has been around for decades, and for most people, its the same fraud today as it was ten years ago.

If you are in an unusually consistently high windy area...and you aren't, you just think you are....but if you really were, you could consider a cheaper version of one of these things.
Reply to this comment by rdupuy11 October 27, 2008 12:57 PM PDT
@gudin

the problem is, just no matter how bad you want there to be an answer to those problems, and they are real problems, this is not the answer, for all but a tiny fraction.

If you are in the tiny minority that has almost hurricane force winds consistently blowing over the roof of your house 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then by all means, buy one of these things.

But most people will find this thing won't be spinning most of the time when they need electricity in the evenings after work. And when a storm finally hits to spin the thing, it may spin too hard and shut down for safety reasons instead.

Study after study has shown, these things produce power, when you don't need it, and don't produce power when you do, and overall, have loads of trouble running on any type of consistent basis.

Yes, granted, maybe if the taxpayer foots the majority of the bill, then the majority of the loss is on the taxpayers back, and not the homeowner...the homeowner just foots the rest of the loss.

THERE IS NO PAYBACK, EVER, NOT EVER...NOT IN 10 years not in 20, because for many people it simply doesn't produce power of any significance.

All I can say, is DO A WIND STUDY.

IF YOU DIDN'T DO A WIND STUDY, DON'T BUY.
Reply to this comment by tbbxcnet October 27, 2008 1:36 PM PDT
A quick look at wind resources by state from the Dept of Energy:

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp

White = low wind
Color = 12.5+ mph

In brief, Montana/North Dakota to Texas looks great. The west and northeast have sporadic strong winds. The southeast looks pretty still. Oh, and Alaska looks like a good candidate.
by grinningevild October 27, 2008 4:32 PM PDT
Hybrid cars don't pay for themselves either but they still sell well. Wonder how these fans are for birds? Wouldn't want to have to clean up a dead pigeon in front of my house every few days.
Reply to this comment by math_user October 27, 2008 7:31 PM PDT
If you go and read the specifications give by the company at http://www.renewabledevices.com, you will find the statement by the company that says "Of huge importance to all of us at Renewable Devices; our SWIFT Rooftop Wind Energy System? is of an environmentally sustainable ?harm neutral? design, which allows the SWIFT? to become carbon and energy positive within four years, when sited correctly (quantified by independent studies).". This does not agree with the statement reported in the article "Cascade estimates the payback on the upfront cost can be as low as three years". Being energy positive or paying back the investment are two different statements that should not be confused.
Reply to this comment by CITechnologies October 28, 2008 6:32 AM PDT
Perhaps the US and local governments should be investing in these instead of bailing out the banks that are robbing everyone. That way it benefits all people in the long run and they get a real return on their money so it really doesn't cost the tax payers all that much. Then not only does the government have lower electric bills resulting in less funding needs (yes I know they will still consume it somehow) but it would be a more realistic push to reduce the costs for the general public and would have a greater impact on the environment. Just think of how many government buildings and storage units they have.
Reply to this comment by HeavyJim October 31, 2008 12:10 AM PDT
I just wonder how many of the posters here who rave over these and other green technology actually have opened up their wallet and installed these things? Oh, and don't forget the batteries and other expense involved. someone also mentioned birds getting into them. Wonder how many environazis are protesting windows these kamakazi birds are killing themselves against each day. Find one all the time when it decides to attack my sliding glass door.
Reply to this comment by prickey November 19, 2008 10:02 AM PST
I am curious to get feedback on what the interest would be in a DIY kit for around $500? I have been researching starting up manufacturing of such an item, but I have naysayers telling me no one wants to build their own turbines. I disagree, but would be interested in other viewpoints.

Allowing for installation costs the total cost could go as high as $1,500. Keep in mind that a home built turbine would be rated a little less than the one in the article at 1 kw instead of 1.5 kw, and that will vary depend on wind speeds. However, once one wind turbine is installed, hookup of additional turbines becomes much less expensive, bringing the average cost down.

As someone pointed out, the wind does not blow all the time, but when you hook your turbine into your incoming electrical system (as federal law allows), when the wind does blow it can slow your meter down considerably. Depending on where you live, payback could be less than two years.
prickey2008@yahoo.com
Reply to this comment by xymox_or_bust February 5, 2009 5:00 PM PST
I would buy a kit for 1500, let put somethign together.
by ecoPedro January 8, 2009 4:09 PM PST
Decent article but it doesn't mention the other competitors in this space, like Mariah Power, whose 3 kW Windspire is also manufactured in the US and features a nicer design. They will be in Detroit at the Auto
Show charging a hybrid! http://mariahpower.com
Reply to this comment by margegeneverra February 10, 2009 7:11 AM PST
I'd love to use wind power, but the numbers just don't work. Not even close!

Even with an unreasonably optimistic estimate (free installation, zero percent borrowing cost) the numbers don't come close to working.

$10K price (assuming this includes installation?)
less $1K rebate

$9K cost

Assuming a kwh costs $.10 (mine currently costs $0.08), one needs 90,000 kwh recover the initial cost (not including the cost of borrowing the money).

If a site got the peak wind 50% of the time, generation would be 1.5 kw times 50% of 365 days time 24 hours, which equals 6570 kwh per year. That makes the payback 13 years (assuming no maintenance cost or breakdowns).

If installation costs were required the payback gets worse.
If one includes the cost of borrowing the initial $9K it gets much worse.
If one includes maintenance or other operation costs, it gets worse
If electric rates increase, it gets better, but not a lot.