I would argue against it. If you’re connected to the grid, and have filled in the considerable heap of paperwork, there are financial incentives. There’s also a “feel-good” factor that you are doing something constructive to limit greenhouse gas. But there’s more to it than this.
The energy you’re putting back into the grid is tiny; it’s not even metered. You get a donation from government based on the turbine size. Politicians are happy with this; it shows how much they love the environment.
However, once you’ve spent a considerable amount of money on your uninterruptible power supply and turbine, be careful. If
you connect to the grid, you've lost your independent power supply. You will be subject to the same power cuts and electrical spikes as everyone else.
If the grid ever receives significant amounts of power from micro-generators, it will need to increase its spinning reserve. An extra turbine or two will need to be kept in a state of readiness (spinning and synchronised, but generating no power) in case the wind drops. This will largely cancel out any greenhouse gas benefit.
The amount of power you can put back into the grid is minute, in any case. You should get a bigger feel-good factor by working independently from it – you don’t need to buy so much power. That’s real carbon dioxide reduction. And you’ll be ready for the power cuts.
Back to top