This is very controversial topic with only one inevitable result. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
Have you seen this device advertised, Power-Saver 1200? For about $300 you can save upwards of 30% on your residential energy bill.

This product is based on the claim that it adjusts your energy usage to reduce I2R losses and a low power factor. The cost savings of managing power factor and I2R losses is perfectly legitimate but the truth is neither applies to the common US household. The average household doesn’t see or recognize a low power factor, so the residential customer isn't charged for it, so eliminating it will not save you any money.

Typically the companies that sell these devices use a video showing a motor drawing significantly less amperage with the device (capacitors) connected. All true but very misleading to the residential power consumer. This demo and angle is overdramatized and dramatically misleading. Truth is, you buy this thing, install it, improve the power factor by some amount (they don't state the KVAR value of the device) and not only save nothing but incur the cost of the unit, installation and the required fuse. You will never save 5%, 10%, or "up to 30%. Utility companies in the US do not charges residential customers for low power factors and don’t measure such usage.

In the commercial markets the utility company will charge the cost of delivering demand energy plus the adjusted profit the markets and the public utility commissions will normally apply to high demand. This is how Power Factor applies in determining your bill based on how much extra current must be carried by the transmission lines during high demand. But the residential market doesn’t measure power factor in the utility billing process unless you possibly live in a commercial market and are a business client. Businesses, however, benefit greatly from power factor correction. The utility has a separate device attached to the meter to measure it but the meter itself still measures only "true power".

As for I2R losses if this device is mounted at the panel, it will not reduce I2R losses because the stored energy oscillates through the house wires between the inductors and capacitors. As this happens, current flows, and losses occur regardless.
I personally have tested now 4 devices and I have purchased a total of 7. I have sent several to professional testing facilities to be tested – everyone with the same conclusion. Additionally several were the exact same device repackaged and relabeled. All of course with a 100% guarantee unless you open the box. Ironically you need to open the box to see what’s in it. For the curious who want to maintain their money back option it apparently only houses a bank of capacitors and one actually had a pilot light in it which appeared to most likely eat more energy than it could possibly save.

In my opinion, do not be sucked into this “go green” with a Power Saver type device. Use your $300 to plant a few more trees around your home, take your kids to the park a few more times a year and simply turn off that light when you leave the room.

I’d like to be proven wrong and will immediately post my apology. I get emails, spam mails and claims about this device. Here’s my challenge, my electric usage is very consistent month to month, I don’t have AC and I never use the heater. Send me a unit, I’ll test it for one month and share with you my billing for the past few months, the current month I install the unit, then the following month without the unit. If my bill is reduced by greater than 10% I’ll retract my statements pay full price for your unit and praise your product. All data during the test phase, including my retraction if I am wrong, will be made public on this and other blog sites along with press. DyoCore will additionally pay you $1,000 for your time If the product proves to actually work with a proven saving of over 20%. This amount being midpoint in most of these product’s marketing data. To participate in my challenge email me at dave@dyocore.com.

Facts about True, Reactive, and Apparent power - http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_11/2.html

Every day brings new reports of tens of millions of Federal, state and private dollars being pumped into Alternative Energy initiatives. But very little appears to be popping up at our local stores in the form of solutions.

With a $4 to $6 billion budget deficit, is this the right time to experiment or fund companies with “ideas” opposed to products ready to use?

Companies are springing up from every direction with their hands out for free development money to break into the alternative energy market. But are they really trying to break into the market or just get some free money for a few years. I’d estimate that less than 2% off all funding will actually result in technologies that will be available to the end consumer that will actually “reduce” their current energy costs and just as important have a green impact on their lives. Whereas 70% of the funding dollars will actually produce products that will increase our costs as direct consumers and in the short term create more damage to our environment.

A recent stimulus bill, 21.5 billion into science and technology, is the largest R&D investment in our nation’s history with a promise from Obama’s office to continue to build on these by expanding budgets for key agencies and making permanent the federal R&D tax credit to encourage private-sector investment in innovation, and launching a major increase in funding to support this growth industry opportunity.

Maybe a few of these companies will hire some engineers and possibly ramp up for a product run but I’m very skeptical on how many actual companies will sustain to the point of a real product on the market. If the funding ran out today would these companies continue forward? I doubt it. America is a country of opportunity. Though grants and easy funding definitely qualify as an opportunity, I think they send the wrong message at the wrong time. I don’t even think it could be considered robbing Peter to pay Paul. It’s simply robbing Peter, the everyday taxpayer.

In my opinion if there is a “true” market and demand for “green” technology no stimulus money is needed, companies have all the incentive they need to build a good, reliable and cost effective product. That is the American way!

Recent DOE investment activity

U.S. DOE handing out $40M for two biorefinery projects

US DOE offering $33.8M for cellulose

U.S. gov't doles out another $23m for cellulosic ethanol

DOE putting up $114M for small-scale biorefineries

Bosch gets DOE funding for flex-fuel vehicle

U.S. DOE putting up $60M for solar thermal

and lots more...

“Renewable Energy for America” is an online tool to look at both existing and proposed alternative clean energy development facilities. The map, created by the NRDC, Natural Resources Defense Council, provides an overview of the enormous potential for alternative energy solutions that reduce global warming emissions, protect critical environmental values and push the US closer to energy independence.

To see the map, visit https://www .nrdc.org/energy/renewables/default.asp.

The site also offers a few State Profiles, an assortment of Energy Facts and general government involvement in Alternative Energy solutions. If you’re a Google Earth user you can download a free Google Earth-based report from NRDC that provides similar green energy mapping information overlaid on the Google Earth application.

Utility companies nationwide are jumping on the claim that YES they do. Of course this lends to benefit utility companies from both federal funds and higher energy bills for the consumer.

Some argue, utility providers, that they already have enough power for their communities and the creation or green energies only increases costs to produce and maintain power beyond the community demand.

In order to argue this point you need to understand a little about how Utility companies obtain their energy for distribution. Not all utility companies actually “produce” energy. Most energy is managed through the RTOs, Regional Transmission Organizations. These providers manage the operation of multiple interconnected independent power supply companies. The purpose of the RTO is to provide for a separation of generation and transmission and elimination of stacked rates. This very function eliminates the potential benefit from the distribution of lower cost produced energy. Why? Because energy is pooled and distributed at a fixed, negotiated contract rate on a national level. When someone creates and transmits solar energy in Texas though the RTO distribution chain the percentage is so nominal that the end consumer will only experience the difference in .0000001 of a penny if at all. The real effect is the local market in Texas where the power is being created will actually experience an increase due to the new costs associated in creating new energy. Additionally that same utility provider didn’t really create the previous energy it was providing to begin with and brokered its energy from the RTOs.

Is it justifiable for this local energy company to raise its rates? That’s where the real argument comes in. Prior to “Green”, the utility companies purchased their energy for distribution at a fixed negotiated price. Now the company has to budget millions in new technology, development and equipment. Though RTOs will distribute this energy they won’t pay a penny more for it and unless it can be produced at less cost than current methods there’s absolutely no cost benefit to the utility company.

In an ideal world most energy produced would come from Green technologies and this would reduce wholesale costs dramatically. But for now there is only a burden of increased costs to the end consumer.

Northwest Utilities Warn Green Energy May Raise Rates: http://news.opb.org/article/4611-northw ... ise-rates/

W(watt) ratings very rarely tell you how much power a turbine will produce. Most small turbines are advertised with a given W rating or output. For example, a turbine might be called 500W, 10 kW, 5 kW or 25 kW (1000 w = 1 Kw). The rating describes the rated capacity of the turbine at a particular wind speed. A 10 kW turbine might produce 10 kW at a 40 MPH wind speed. A 25 kW turbine might produce 25 kW at a 36 MPH wind speed. These numbers do not tell you how much power the turbine will produce at the average or more realistic wind speed at your location - or any location for that matter. There are few, if any, locations where small wind turbines will be installed where the average wind speed is 25 or 30 MPH. Most locations where small turbines will be installed have average wind speeds in the 4-10 MPH range.

Two 500 W turbines might also produce completely different power outputs due to the rotor diameter. One has a 4 foot diameter rotor and the other an 8 foot diameter rotor. Both have 500 W generators. The 8 foot turbine has twice the swept area of the 10 foot turbine. It will therefore produce twice the power of the smaller rotor turbine. The 500 W rating tells the prospective customer nothing about the turbine's capacity to produce electrical power.

Another factor to consider is what is considered a “Small” turbine. Most small turbines are anything but “Small” and require large mounting supports 20’ to 30’ high and could boast 10’ to 14’ diameter rotors. The start up speed for these units might be significantly above your average wind speed in your installation area.

Unfortunately, Watts is a key word in marketing a wind turbine to the general market. Some states and funding agencies require these ambiguous ratings. This only encourages manufacturers to attach large (less efficient) generators to small diameter rotors in order to secure a market and funding advantage. This practice both unfairly prejudices a particular turbine but misleads the consumer to spend more money on the wrong product for their needs.