First you have to know the load distribution for your house.
Then the windspeed distribution where you want to install your turbine.
Then how often you will accept/cope with no power from the turbine.

And then probably end up with a 5 or 6 kW model of some sort. Grid connection is the only way really.

And another thing (and I'm assuming you're already grid connected Billy-J), is that because we used to be off grid our electricity consumption, for a farm, was very very low @ around 5500kWhrs/yr. Last year,2012, our 11kW turbine, on an exposed 5m/s site, generated 24,850kW/hrs, we used only 4,097kW/hrs of that but still had to import another 1,712kW/hrs. Even though the turbine generates much more than our total usage, there are many days when we need to import - you'll never be self sufficient but given the right site a 5kW turbine like an Evance could be sufficient for a modest house - you'll still be importing something most days though and at around £25/30K it still may not be economic. Remember the smaller the turbine the windier the location needs to be. On our site an Evance 5kW wasn't economic but the Gaia was.

Hi Billy-J,
With a 5.7m/s AWS there's only one turbine to look at in the small class; Gaia IMO. Our neighbours have a C&F 15 and another a C&F 20 which are always turning BUT that don't mean they're producing anything. At lower AWS the Gaia is untouchable - and unless you've actually measured the wind speed, over say 18 months, then the 5.7 is only a guess.

We've had the Gaia for 2 years, never had any down time (but have had a few niggles but they only required me to press the reset button). Best month we did 4,200 kWhrs, worst 1100, yearly = 24-27,000kwHrs. Pays better than the sheep or the cows!

Turbine finance is a complete nightmere - Banks are not interested unless you want £1 million+ and then they want 2x the borrowed amount in security, but there are farm finance companies. Borrowing the money may make the project uneconomic on a 5.7m/s site? We financed ours by selling a satellite field (the field never made us any income just a scrap of extra grass). If you look at the amount/quality of land you can get for the price of a Gaia, then the Gaia has a better return (for us anyway). I'd say the risk is always there but it is probably a lot less than a bTB or Schmallenberg (spelling??) outbreak.

I'd happily answer any other questions if I can. It took me 2 years to choose a turbine and find an installer that I was happy with, planning was the easy bit - it's a jungle out there!

Candlemaker has a point.
We had to find a way to increase the farm income and looked at everything from B&B to Off-road driving days but the wind turbine (because of the Fits) was the most cost effective and least disruptive project. We didn't really want to buy a turbine but it was better than any other option by far.

Anyway, when you looked at it, having a £50K wind turbine with a guaranteed and indexed linked price for what it produces (we have an Export meter) does put the rollercoaster price we get for lambs in perspective. It just didn't make sense to buy more livestock. It's a disgrace that we have to farm the FIT to stay afloat rather than get a living from the sheep but that's another issue.

We looked at PV but the figures didn't add up even on the original highest FIT rate, also we didn't want to loose grass by ground mounting and the barn roof would need too much strengthening, also the weather station (on the barn roof) indicated that a turbine was better - more wind than sun!. This has subsequently been bourne out by friends down the road with a 30KW PV system, the Gaia has a better return. HOWEVER, there is no substitute for doing your homework as each site is different and you may be better off doing B&B!!.

Just apply for permission to do something significantly more obnoxious instead. Open windrows or anything else that'll put a dent in house values will suffice, then revert to the turbine when they get really whingey... Simples!

Seriously though, if people are against it on principle, that is fair enough, but when its only to protect their own interests, s0d them!

Windy - I can confirm this. The levy is -0.243p/kWh - and I put up my turbine in Nov 2008 so I don't even get the FiT....

So they are trying to pull as fast one....
I haven't had anything form SSE yet but I shall be replying something like "I do not accept this surcharge/levy and any deductions you make from the FIT rate of (29.3p/kWhr) will be charged interest at 5%APR, those deductions and interest will be recovered at a later date. If I have not received a written response within 14 days of the date of this letter then you are confirming that you accept this recovery process".
Probably won't help but at least I'll feel better - they never have replied to any previous letter!.

Posted By: windy lambIf I have not received a written response within 14 days of the date of this letter then you are confirming that you accept this recovery process

In contract law theer has to be an offer and acceptance, silence is not acceptance.
But worth doing anyway?

Posted By: windy lambSteamy - offer and acceptance; they offered to impose the levy, I choose not to accept!

Good man

Thanks Ted, I am once again grateful for your knowledge. And it saves me writing that letter.

jms has a very good point, if you are down south. You just need a bucket, sponge and some water to maintain your PV (the crows have taken a fancy to perching and pooing on our neighbour's set up!) and you could use the argument that the PV is a less intrusive renewable than the turbine so the Planners should look at it more sympathetically.
I have spoken to some other farming friends who have planning for 50kW ground mount, they are not proceeding because the return is not sufficient - they didn't go into details but it does rain a lot in Wales.

Yes, I thought that but they have got 5kW on the house and haven't been too impressed with them. I've not made descent hay here for four years and you need sun for that!

I think the farm PV figures stack up more if you use trackers but then planning becomes more difficult.

I fully support all sorts of renewable technologies, and am using several in our build, but the difference is mine won't impact negatively on my close neighbours. It really disheartens me when I see responses such as that of Jamster -

'Seriously though, if people are against it on principle, that is fair enough, but when its only to protect their own interests, s0d them!'.

Can someone explain to me why, when people are trying to protect the value of their homes, that most often they have worked very hard for, it's wrong and NIMBY-ism, but when a landowner is doing the same by trying to boost their income and increase value of their land (as anyone interested in buying the land would have the income too), then that's ok?

It's even worse, IMO, when a land owner who previously has no interest in environmental or sustainable issues suddenly starts sprouting 'green' verbose to justify loss of property value to their neighbours, when often the only driving factor is the income generated for them.

Sorry for the passionate response, but it touched a nerve!

There are many things we can all do to be more sustainable, it just seems that the only ways which are of any interest to many are the one's which will make the most money, which is fine - but don't say you're doing it for the environment (I know many people on here genuinely are interested in the sustainable side though). Suddenly, when there's money to be made, people conveniently forget they have neighbours.

I'm not saying wind turbines don't have their place - but sometimes it's good to see things from another perspective.

The reason money is used is because it is a token of transferable wealth (through an income stream, income on its own is not wealth). As someone who has studied (and still does) both renewables and environmental science, which includes a large slice of economics (economics is just the sum of human behaviour) I find it fascinating how we value nature. We tend not to put a very high price on it but accept that loss of green spaces has a very high cost. Price and cost are not the same thing.
It would be interesting if a local landowner who had a turbine refused got compensated by the objectors, say 10p/kWh on the energy bill of all that objected. It is then up to the objectors to either pay the price, reduce their usage or accept that some generation needs to be happen locally.
Real problem is that energy prices are too low and too removed from everyday life and any environmental changes are generally too slow, to uncertain and too far into the future. Personally I do not have a problem with climate/environmental change as we are very capable of adapting, the price will be high though. What I do have a problem with is the lack of interest by governments to actually do something positive about energy usage. There are large initiatives, but these tend to have artificial barriers placed in the way. We have the technology and knowledge to make the UK a very low carbon economy country, but we worry about house prices that are and are being kept artificially high.