AUG 19

First of all, a "propeller" is used to propel a vessel such as an airplane. Wind power generators have a "turbine". To say propeller is embarrassing. Even my 7th grade students know better.

This seems to be a wind turbine that utilizes lower wind speeds which have MUCH less energy than higher wind speeds. Don't forget that the energy increases with the square of the wind speed. Double wind speed - four times the energy. So, low speed may be more quiet, it also gives you much less wind power.

Secondly, a wind turbine's size is dependent on how much wind flows through it. To compare the huge wind turbines with the design shown in the video and insinuate that the small one is big enough is misleading. The larger ones shown create power for thousands of households, not just one.

To measure the size you need to measure rotor diameter or (in the case of this video) height by width. A turbine as shown with the width of 1 meter and height of 4 meters is equivalent to a horizontal axis turbine with rotor blades of 1.12 meters in length. Certainly not that big and it will LOOK much smaller once it is turning since you cannot see as much structure.

Additionally, this design also uses wind close to the ground which is more turbulent and less useful, plus the structure to hold the upper end creates additional turbulence and friction. One big benefit is that the generator is close to the ground and allows easy maintenance.

This said, a small horizontal axis turbine in a 20 mph wind will produce more wind power than the promoted turbine in a 10 mph wind even if it is twice as big.

I am glad that people are excited about wind power. I am not happy when I see promotions that are misleading or incorrect. This is not informing the public. This is advertising.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

P.S.: I thought birds got killed because they nested in the towers. That is not the case any more since the towers are single post structures with no nesting opportunities. I am not sure about the small fast turning ones though.

I always get excited when I see these units but then reality sets in.I had an official from Bright idea energy solution come to my house and a 10kw vertical turbine would cost $50,000 installed with no payback ever!! We only use $50-$100 electricity a month so we go with solar pv if tax incentives continue.

Karsten settle down, you're coming off as a tempermental individual.

Sorry you disagree with Karsten, but the analysis is right on.

BS is BS and that's not helpful in solving the energy problem.

Windspire told me in an e-mail about a month ago that it is developing a turbine for low wind speeds for 2009.

Fingers are crossed.

Karsten: You put the geek in Ecogeek. That's for sure. I think you're swinging at some shadows that aren't there, like the comparison between the HAWT and the VAWT. I didn't hear him say his little 1KW VAWT was a replacement for a 1500KW HAWT.

Jacob: He came across the same to me too.

Richard Parkman: 10KW? If your electric bill is $50-100/mo, that's probably twice what you need. If you just look at your usage bill, it would take about 50 years to save enough money off your electric bill to break even, but assuming your power company pays you to run the meter backwards, you'd break even in about half that time once you cash the checks from the utility company. That's not a very good deal though.

As for the Windspire, it's a nice looking unit but those prices are incredibly cheap for that much power. If it's for real, they'll have to seriously upgrade their manufacturing to keep up with demand.

The facts and figures are as clear as mud!

When this hit the news wires yesterday I was delighted as we are renovating our house in France and looking into solar as an option but right now it's just not financially viable.

We are blogging the renovation an discovery process and you can see from this group of posts http://www.montpillard.com/?cat=23 that I'm up and down as to what to do on an almost daily basis.

This "turbine" for us would be a better option in space, sighting and of course costs but there needs to be more CLEAR FACTS as what it costs (total) and what it produces in what conditions etc etc.

We are lucky that whatever we produce through "Alternative Energy" the French government will grant me .30€ per kW produced so the payback is far sooner than the 26 years I've worked out.

If anyone has any information to help and to add please feel free to contact me via the blog. Arhhhhhhh

I spoke with a representative of Mariah power and he said that 7k was never stated by any company official. Be careful before posting wildly optimistic figured with no source.

Geez, people, get off your high horses. Isn't having some alternative energy options for home use better than none? Just because it's not as efficient as the "big iron" (to borrow an old computer term) doesn't mean it's not useful. This is why a lot of people disdain the eco-movement. There are too many all or nothing types out there who pooh-pooh smaller efforts and think we should all be twig-eating, burlap-wearing, cave dwellers.

Incremental change may be too slow for you, but I prefer to see these things as progress, no matter how small. I'd personally love to have one of these in my yard, along with some solar panels on my roof. Costs will come down eventually, and I'm glad to see that innovation is continuing. We need to empower individuals as well as businesses to bring alternative energy into the mainstream.

Tula:

Don't be naive. There's nothing good about an alternative energy option that is nearly fraudulent. There is no free lunch. A turbine captures energy based on the cros-sectional area it "sees" and on the wind speed.

In the video, the spire turning at like 60-100 rpm *maybe* is generating 100w. Have you ever jumped on one of those bicycle generators at a science museum and tried to pedal hard enough to light up 2-3 lightbulbs? Maybe Lance Armstrong can sustain that output for more than a few minutes. That spire is not making much energy.

Something is better than nothing you say? Not if it costs 20k or more installed. You'd be much much better off spending that money on a solar pv syatem.

I would prefer a discussion of the points I raised, and not a discussion of the messenger's personality (which, if I may say, can hardly be judged by his comments alone). Let us discuss the message please. Unless you want to be considered a superficial person.

I would not call myself temperamental but rather passionate in regard to environmental issues. This statement has to be considered carefully though because, just like any baby is beautiful to its parents, I am most likely not the best judge for how I am perceived.

This said, I completely agree with the comment above. Not every move PERCEIVED as beneficial is actual a benefit and helps the movement. I can imagine huge backlashes to the alternative and clean energy movement if alternative energy solutions are installed with taxpayer money and then turn out to be completely bogus. That does no one a favor but those who want to stick with good old fossil fuels. If you want change against the mainstream you have to have you facts right. Because somebody will point out when you are a fake or are trying to pull as fast one.

Having "faith" in the good of people who sell green products won't cut it!

And now, until you know me better, let us discuss the merits of this "propeller" rather than my temperament.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less