Windtronics Honeywell Wind Turbine

Truly a thing of beauty. The Quad-Pod stand is a solid work of art rendered in aluminum with tolerances that would make NASA proud!

Too expensive, until they come up with something poor people can afford and make use of, that will be an innovation.

This is way too expensive. If this was a 1/5 of the price they would sell millions of these things. But as it stands it would take an ordinary family 10 years to make any money back on this.

It's a pity though, such a wonderful invention, that most people are never going to get a chance to use.

So, why can't they publish data? What the heck is "up to 1500Kw a year"? 1500/365/24 is 171WH, that's less than a cheap solar panel or a bicycle generator. And all that non-production for over 5 grand??? Get a cheap 10 blade PMA generator at 500W to 1600W and less weight (23 lbs) and less construction costs.....

@danlong - the question I have is how this compares to other wind power alternatives. If this marks an increase in efficiency in that segment, it's a good thing. I don't disagree with your comment, but maybe there's another side to the article? Just thinking out loud...

Who does the math for PopSci, a chimpanzee? "Up to 1500 kWh" means that's the effective maximum per year. I pay my local utility less than a dime a kWh base rate, but let's say you're hooked up to a criminally expensive source at $0.20 per kWh ... so your maximum return on investment is $300 per year. For a ten grand investment, it won't "pay for itself" for THIRTY YEARS, not the "5 to 10" PopSci states in the article. And that's only if the device operates at maximum efficiency for its entire lifespan and never requires any maintenance.

This device is a total boondoggle, and PopSci failed to actually analyze the sales claims they read in the Honeywell brochure.