Green Daily

Huh? The 10-20% figure appears to presume that the turbine generates its maximum 200 watt output all day, every day. Sadly, the article doesn't say what wind speed it needed to get 200 watts out of the turbine - but I've already guessed my house doesn't see these winds 24/7.

I'm particularly annoyed by just simplistic - and unqualified - statistics. A basic view of their numbers suggests "Hey - One $2K turbine takes care of 10-20% of my power bill, so for $10-$20K I can say good bye to the power company!" Of course, we all know it doesn't work that way - but we don't get the information needed to truly understand how it can work.

So what kind of experience can a typical homeowner expect from this turbine? That's the real, unanswered question.

Reply

I bet I could get 200 watts 24/7 where I live. Damn North Dakota winds.

Reply

I did find one article with some details.

This sort of garbage comes along all the time and I don't mind calling a spade a spade when I see it. Lots of details are missing but two things stand out in my mind. Its 36" in diameter (that's the main thing). It's to be roof mounted!

They claim it's unique because its 'gearless' - I should challenge anybody to show me a modern small wind turbine that is not 'gearless'! That's not unique. I don't see much unique about the machine other than it's strange appearance and the tail being a bit too short.

First problem - small swept area (36" diameter). They claim it will produce energy in a 3mph wind. If you do the math and work out the energy available in a 3mph wind for a machine of that diameter you find that - if it's a *perfect* wind turbine, about 1 Watt is available! In a 20mph wind, if its 'perfect' (no wind turbine is) about 150 Watts. Reality is going to be closer to half that.

Another problem... the roof of a house (especially in an urban or suburban environment) is a bad place for a wind turbine, it tends to be turbulent, wind speeds tend to be low. To be cost effective - wind turbines need to be well above buildings, trees, etc.

I think there are two possibilities here - either the folks behind this turbine don't know what they're talking about, or they're scam artists (that is my opinion) - these sorts of 'new inventions' come along all the time in wind power and it's frustrating - it's misleading to the public because they get so much press, and it gives small wind a bad name.

We are at a point in history when it's more important than ever to be using our resources wisely. When it comes to energy, we need to get the best bang for our buck. With wind power, that involves putting machines on windy sites, on tall towers. Wind energy makes good sense for urban/suburban places - it's accomplished by puttting large, utility scale machines on the very best sites and bringing that energy to the end user with the power grid! It does not involve lots of tiny roof mounted wind turbines. This stuff has been tried many times and it's well proven *not* to be cost effective or even close.

Here is a page of interest:
http://otherpower.com/bottom_line.shtml

Reply

I find 20 percent descend but with solar and wind combined, I would think you could get this around 50 percent, has anyone ever done a percent of home owners, watt intake, I know id you went all green, you would use less, we have tryed on our summer home and the smalls, wattage intake was less then 28 kw per month, now I want to tell you this is really very little. you have to go without the very systems that american has decided that were asscendly, so we must think beyoung the box, these are nice but they must go farther, much farther

Reply