-=> Quoting Jim Dunmyer to Day Brown <=-
 > Well, have given it some thought, but my land is in a deep ozark
 > hollow, and despite the lack of protection from the cold north
 > wind against the house that i see, I also see it is not suggested
 > as a preferable wind power site.  Dunno how important terrrain is
 > in wind site selection.
 JD> Terrain is extremely important. Potential wind power is based on the
 JD> CUBE of the wind speed, so a very small increase in average velocity
 JD> makes a huge difference in power output. That's why it's recommended
 JD> that you lean your budget towards a taller tower rather than a larger
 JD> capacity turbine; it'll nearly always be the better choice. 
 JD> Being in a valley might not be bad, depending. It's not unheard of for
 JD> a valley to form a "wind tunnel" effect, actually concentrating the
 JD> winds. Rule of thumb: you need close to 12 MPH average wind speed at
 JD> the hub of your turbine to be practical and cost-effective. 
Getting significantly above this canopy is not affordable.  The oak
and hickory are already at 15-20 meters, and grow about 25 cm/year.
On the upper end of the garden is a fine bench, about 30 meters
from the house.  My winter woodcutting policy has always been to
thin the woods to trees on 5-7 meter centers, and as the crown has
grown, there is now an area beneath it of fairly clear air some 10
meters from ground to the bottom of the canopy.
Given that design constriction, I'd like to see the cheapest thing
to construct, which at ground level would be easy to build, and as
the efficiency would suck, depend on an increase in swept area.
While the freestanding turbines I see on the west coast are highly
efficient, the additional cost to me of clearing 5 acres of ground
to take advantage of that does not look feasible.  
 
... ENDTIME: when computers finally get us completely organized.
--- Blue Wave v2.12 [NR]
---------------