Comments

The energy you get from wind is directly related to the size of your turbine (vertical footprint or diameter). Make it half as big, get half the harvest. HOWEVER it is exponentially related to wind speed. Use half as fast wind, get 1/4 the energy. While low speed wind turbines are nice to look at (certainly this one) they are not efficient to get a lot of energy. Unless you have good, low speed wind very often. Conventional vertical turbines may need a "push" but that is irrelevant when you can harvest the energy of higher speed winds. Vertical wind turbines are exposed to air close to the ground where it is turbulent and slower. Not efficient. I also wonder what this vertical turbine does in higher wind. No bracing or bearing on top. Will it fall over, rip out the top of your house or get damaged? White is the color of "high-tech", that is why it is white. I think. Why the heck is going off the grid green? It usually is much less energy efficient to live far away from anyone else. In conclusion, depending on your location and situation a horizontal axis wind turbine may get you more power for less money and less head aches. BTW, this is not the first vertical wind turbine that starts up in low speed winds. The first Savonius turbine (which does just that) was invented in 1922, a similar type even in 1745. I saw them on roof tops in Germany 30 years ago. I own a book about this type of wind motor written in 1989. Savonius rotors can still be found rusting away in fields in Vermont. They were not efficient types of turbines though. And maybe this gets posted now. Karsten -- http://www.polluteless.com Practical Advice to Pollute Less

Bud the Chud, I have asked this question before and never received an answer. Maybe you can: Show me one (just one) large, professional science organization that says that global climate change/warming is NOT happening and that humans have not at least partially a responsibility. You know, organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Not the opinions or measurements of individual scientists. You can find ANY opinion supported by a website or an individual scientist somewhere. Heck, you don't need to convince anyone before publishing anything on the web. I expect scientists to question the status quo and try to prove theories wrong. That is their job. Once they can prove it to be wrong and others can see and observe the evidence as well, the theory is changed. No, what I am looking for is the carefully phrased and peer-reviewed official statement of a professional science organization that will lose its credibility if it is wrong. You say global warming is not happening. Please don't be offended, but I do not trust you. Show me the professional organizations of the best scientists on this planet that support what you say. Just one. Karsten -- http://www.polluteless.com Practical Advice to Pollute Less

I have seen low-speed vertical axis wind turbines on roof tops 30 years ago. Some still sit in the country side here in VT rusting away. I own a book dedicated to this type that was written in 1989 ("Der Savonius Rotor"). According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savonius_wind_turbine) this type of rotor was invented in 1922, although a similar version exists since 1745. The model above is certainly NOT the first vertical axis turbine to start up at low wind speeds. It is prettier though. And I believe white is the color of choice to indicate "high-tech". Wind speed and enabling the use of the energy of higher winds is far more relevant than the size of the turbine and its look. Double the size of the turbine (the cross-section of the vertical turbine or the diameter of the rotor) and you get twice the energy. If you reduce the "vertical footprint" you reduce the exposure to the wind and gain less wind power. On the other hand, double the wind speed and you get four times the energy. There is nothing wrong with a motor giving a little push IF you get to use the energy-rich higher wind speeds. It pays you back multiple times. A smaller wind turbine designed to run in high winds may give you more energy than a larger one designed to run a lower wind speeds. And it may be cheaper too. Of course you may not have high winds often enough. You have to calculate the gain for the whole year. I would like to know what this turbine does when the wind picks up. Can it handle stronger winds? No wire bracing and a single bearing at the bottom. Pretty long lever I would say. Will it topple over or get damaged in a storm? Will it rip out of your roof? If it needs to be shut down in stronger winds it won't be using the wind that really has energy in it. Another disadvantage is the limited height. Good winds are high up. Winds close to the surface are slower and more turbulent. BTW, how the heck is going off the grid "green"? All is does is get people to live in places far from others and far from work. It is less efficient and pollutes more unless you don't mingle with others, work where you live, and don't need to go shopping ever. Karsten -- http://www.polluteless.com Practical Advice to Pollute Less

So it is basically fossil fuel powered, right? Considering some people from VT have built a land yacht 1n 1999 and reached speeds above 115 mph with wind power alone, using fossil fuels today to break a record is not that significant. (http://www.harborwatch.com/news/new_land_speed_record.htm) How about a record breaker powered by wood? That would be renewable and the technology developed might be meaningful and relevant in today's world. I don't know if such a racing class even exists. How about it Popular Science, putting some prize money out for such a challenge? Karsten -- http://www.polluteless.com Practical Advice to Pollute Less

I have a BIG problem with romantic thinkers when it comes engineering or science and that (unfortunately) includes many environmentalists. What is it that makes me unreasonable or too emotional (considering the urgency of our situation and the dumb decisions that are made, one of which you describe so well)? There are MANY environmentalists who have warned that ethanol production as it has been promoted would create havoc like it may begin to show now. What data shows that we have enough agricultural land to allow us to grow enough of any fuel crop to satisfy our current energy needs AND grow the same amount of food crops at the same prices? Are you one who has romantic dreams about tech-solutions that do not require habit changes while simultaneously calling me irrational and my words and actions "emoting"? Why would ANYONE care about ANY ethanol production if it was not for the "alarmists" (= people who are concerned about global climate change or energy shortages) you blame for other ethanol production? Nobody can take credit for the slow awakening of the world's population to those issues other than those "alarmists". BTW, part of the idea of scientific thinking is that one adjusts according to new data whether it is convenient or not. It is perfectly acceptable that data showing certain projects may cause more harm than good is considered before those projects are implemented. It would be a sign of poor reasoning if we ignored it. This said, I wish we would drop a few ideas we continue to use even though they have proven do more harm than good in the long run. Long term thinking is not our strength is seems. Popularity (and that includes MANY superficially "green" concepts) wins all too often. Karsten -- http://www.polluteless.com Practical Advice to Pollute Less