> Then you need the wind to blow at a very specific angle of 10-15.
It misses the obvious improvement where the platform rotates. I guess this is necessary for their costs target, but I don't think anybody would build this on practice without it.
> $2,400/kW
Anyway, isn't solar cheaper than that nowadays? I think the entire framing of competing with it is flawed, this should be complementing solar to reduce battery costs.
I maintain that the power of an intermittent generator should be considered in terms of watt-hours per year. Which is of course just watts, but collapsing the time terms obscures that it's a mean value, which the Whr/yr refuses to do.
Perhaps we could go full acre-foot here, and use the kilowatt-day per year. So a 100,000kWday/yr installation can provide 2kW to 500 homes for a hundred days.
Those of you who are aesthetically repelled by batteries using amp-hours instead of joules will really hate this one. But it gets at the difference between maximum continuous power, and total energy delivered per installation.
So, big 'it depends'. Anywhere where the wind averages the working speed more often than the sun averages the working luminosity will make wind cheaper in relative terms, and vice versa for solar.
Not to negate anything mentioned in the sibling comment, but yes. A home solar installation in Australia is about AUD$1.5 per watt for a complete system (panels, inverter, cabling, installation, sign off, etc) before subsidies.
For comparison with the OP system, an average 6kw system producing 8Mwh per year, with a conservative 15 year lifespan works out to AUD$0.075 per kwh.
It misses the obvious improvement where the platform rotates. I guess this is necessary for their costs target, but I don't think anybody would build this on practice without it.
> $2,400/kW
Anyway, isn't solar cheaper than that nowadays? I think the entire framing of competing with it is flawed, this should be complementing solar to reduce battery costs.