Windspire: 1 kW Wind Turbine for Your Backyard

Oh my god! I want it! It's a power-geek's wet dream! 10cents/kwh is 50% less than what I'm currently paying, so it's actually a pretty good deal in my opinion.

More information about the noise would be nice. Decibel levels arent enough; if it's 25d@5ft of screeching I don't think it will work in a crowded neighborhood; if it's pleasant then it will work.

Another difficult problem for wind turbines is that anyone in the shadow of the moving blades has to deal with a constantly moving shadow.

These two things while seemingly trivial have caused people to move away from near where the turbines are placed.

STROBE!

that was the word Iwas looking for!

anyway, there is a video at MetaEfficient of the turbine in action...but it isn't working right now.

More information about the noise would be nice. Decibel levels arent enough; if it's 25d@5ft of screeching I don't think it will work in a crowded neighborhood; if it's pleasant then it will work. Another difficult problem for wind turbines is that anyone in the shadow of the moving blades has to deal with a constantly moving shadow. These two things while seemingly trivial have caused people to move away from near where the turbines are placed.

Wind Power Myths vs. Facts

25dB is really low!

Louder than a whisper, but far quieter than a normal conversation!
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question124.htm

That and it produces AC directly, so no inverter required (?) so no extra cost .

very cool for certain locales like the guy who currently pays double the kWh rate. obviously wouldn't fly in very dense urban neighbourhoods (although perhaps rooftop?) but the suburbs and rural would be a cool fit. get past the zoning issues, cause there still are places that won't even allow solar panels on the roof, can't imagine them allowing this... fight the power.

I don't think you would get bad flicker shadow with this turbine, as there is not a large area moving through the light column.

What turned me off from this device was the power curve listed on their site. You need some serious wind to get the numbers they are talking about, wind that almost all of us are not going to get on the tiny little tower they put it on.

Also because it is so high, you are going to get a lot of wear and tear on the generator due to the large forces (from the wind) being applied to the top of the thing.

In short, don't expect much actual energy from this guy. If you want a home scale wind turbine that will produce a lot of power, you need to look to the tried and true multiple blade horizontal axis turbine, and then put it up on a bit tall tower.

It's nice to see that after coal has delivered a hundred years of electricity to power our homes, businesses, industry and contributed more than about anything else to making this the most advanced economy in the world, we can so quickly denigrate all that coal-powered electric generating plants have done by labeling them as they "pretty much suck."
While we certainly want to continuously try to develop other better ways to make electricity, I object to throwing out the baby quite yet. Not to mention the insanity of using natural gas in place of coal - or worse, imported oil, because of misguided media driven pseudo-science.
And if we were truly and honestly after the cheapest, cleanest and most environmentally friendly generation, we would remove the bias from discussing nuclear power.

They left out the part where you need a room full of lead acid batteries to store the electricity and converters from 12 volt to interface with your household current.

People always quote the lenght of time it will take to pay for itself, yet they fail to point out that few things in life actually pay for themselves. Invest in yourself!

Doesn't hurt to try it in different locations. Noise may be an issue, so a more rural test location my be in order. Where do they have them installed now?

These would be cool to have it would save money in the long run and help mother earth out a bit
even if these are too noisey just put about 20 of em out of the way and power the whole block

This is a joke for ignorant hippies to fall for. VAWTs are cool, but useless for power. It prey's on the ignorance that is so pervasive in the "tree hugger" community.

If you want something useful and real, check out otherpower.com, and fieldlines.com for info on why a VAWT is a stupid idea.

so my area has absolutely no alternative energy potential.. no wind, no sun ugh 4k seems like a trivial price to pay for the benefit but it would give me like 4 watts a day

A MARVELOUS PIECE OF WORK! OK, so maybe it does not solve the world's carbon energy crisis. It is a first step that shows unambiguously that meaningful power (1000 watts each) is possible without pollution, paying the man, or the regal blessings of our power industry & their paid scientist mouthpieces.

If nothing else, 3-4 could run the community center or local library in towns across the country and capture the imagination of it's citizens about what is now possible with renewables. It also shows how much free energy is around us. Maybe the local buildings could be modified to show how energy efficient modern construction can be. The whole thing could be off-the-grid right in the middle of town.

Here's one question: Why don't any artists step forth and paint this thing so it looks beautiful? It is a large, white canvas in a very public setting. This should be a perfect medium.

I would really like if they publish the related rpms vs. watts vs. wind speed graph on their products so we can determine the power we would receive rather their estimate yearly production.

If you want nuclear power you are just greedy

It's nice to see that after coal has delivered a hundred years of electricity to power our homes, businesses, industry and contributed more than about anything else to making this the most advanced economy in the world, we can so quickly denigrate all that coal-powered electric generating plants have done by labeling them as they "pretty much suck."

It's nice to see that after slave labor has delivered hundreds of years of human labor to build and maintain our homes, businesses, industry and contributed more than about anything else to making this the most advanced economy in the world, we can so quickly denigrate all that slave labor has done by labeling it as it "pretty much sucks."

pseudo-science

= the favorite buzzword of anti-environmental creeps

Re: "A MARVELOUS PIECE OF WORK! OK, so maybe it does not solve the world's carbon energy crisis. It is a first step that shows unambiguously that meaningful power (1000 watts each) is possible without pollution, paying the man, or the regal blessings of our power industry & their paid scientist mouthpieces"

Okay, someone correct my math then. 2000 KWh/year, I get about 5.5KWh/day, or about 230Wh/hour. In other words, output is 230W.

I think 1000W would be great. But that's just the headline. Using the figures from the article, it comes out to less than 25% of that.

math clarification (sort of): the rated power might be 1kw (in optimal wind of 25mph?) but the wind doesn't always blow to give a constant 1kw. their yearly power stats are for non-24hr wind (aka standard 12mph average)

yes 1880kwh/year /365=5.15kwh/day/24=214.6wh -but-
the average consumer doesn't use electricity at a constant rate all day. just add up all of your wh usage for a 24hr period then divide by 24. it probably won't be much past 180wh unless you are using a/c non-stop. or run a clothes dryer everyday. refrigerators don't even run all day.

look at your electric bill and see how many kwh you used in 30 days. i'm a relatively low level NYC consumer at 116kwh/30days=3.87kwh/day. this VAWT would suit my needs just fine.

but as stated in previous posts: no mention of the battery bank required to store the energy produced, so shame on Mariah Wind Power.

The average U.S. lifestyle consumes 1,550 watts. Assuming it meets the extremely optimistic performance specifications the average windmill output is 215 watts. We need 7.22 windmills per person, 29 windmills for a family of four.

We will need to install 6,290,000 units to match the output of one 1,500 MW nuclear plant with a 90% capacity factor.

Assuming a $400 cost for land, foundation, wiring, labor etc. the cost to replace one nuclear plant is $25.1 billion. If you want a modest level of reliability add about $10 billion for batteries, chargers and inverters.

But I doubt a plastic windmill is going to last 60 years, maybe 10 -20, so multiply accordingly.

One of our group's homeowners has a vertical axis wind generator that has cogenerated power with Los Angeles DWP since July 1983. These machines work. To see it go to: hppt://web.mac.com/solar.amigos
That this new wind generator is made largely of a plastic begs questions of UV degradation, life cycle costs to the environment, but otherwise actual experience with these machines has proven the design concept is solid. Batteries? grid-tie. The machine feeds the utility electric grid directly without batteries (spins the meter backwards). Even at our house we have a solar voltaic array that is 'direct drive', sans batteries, and not grid tied. It has powered our water pumping motors (swimming pool filtration, ponds, etc) and has paid for itself in energy saved for over 10 years now. We are home free.Questions are good, but there is no controversy here, it's not rocket science, and it leaves only the ignorant and the lug headed wondering. Upward and onwards!

You don't necessarily need a battery bank to make use of a wind turbine. Ontario has been promising "two-way" meters which will allow consumers to sell power back to the grid on the fly -- ie if your wind turbine produces more power than you're drawing your meter spins backwards and your neighbor down the street can be powered by your turbine.

I don't think they're available yet but it seems to be a fairly low-tech, low cost way to integrate wind power back into the system without forcing individuals to invest big bucks.

Hector -

Look up "Net Metering". Its a system where when you make more power than you use, instead of storing it in a battery you trade it back to the grid. When you need more than you are making, the grid pays you back.

I have a 2400 sq ft home and 1600 sq ft attached garage / workshop. I'm completely off grid. I have been looking for wind generators to compliment my system. I'm oft amazed at the absolute ignorance demonstrated by folks. Only a handful of the comments mentioned any actual personal use of alternative systems. I would concur with the use of nuclear. Most of the replies to my comment will reflect more ignorance there as well. The common theme here seems to be tying these things to a grid. Why, because batteries are as much a mess as nuclear? The grid allows flex in the power use. Wind is unpredictable, solar is unpredictable. I know, I use both. I go hug tree.

Yeh, about the only significant comments I agree with here are that this style of vertical column idea has been rejected many times before because of its asymetrical forces on the pivot causing higher breakdowns. And that this column is more fragile (UV) then tried and true horizontal blade design. It also requires more view blockage than traditional. My 750watt from arisolarwind costs 6 times less and can plug solar panels directly into it to complement it and it uses the latest magneto regenerative breaking for over-speed protection and quiet operation. Why pay more and get less? arisolarwind.com

As a person who is actively purchasing and installing wind and solar, I agree with those who say we shouldn't be talking down about our current methods of energy. They are, for the moment, cheaper and more efficient. Economically speaking, it is suicide to force people who cannot afford to make the switch, to make the switch. We must continue to work with oil/coal/nuclear for the near future. Alternative methods are good, but not great, yet. They are still terribly expensive and inefficient.

All the while, I cheer for $100 a barrel oil because it makes alternatives more viable WITHOUT hurting our economy dramatically. Regardless of what the tree huggers say, our dependence on fossil fuels is falling, and this is evident in the fact that our economy has not suffered a blip as oil nears $100 a barrel.

This is NOT an argument against alternatives, just how we talk about them. They are not going to be the lifesavers that many people think. It is very unlikely that reducing CO2 will alter global warming because most of the best discussions on the topic, the truly fair discussions, recognize warming is not simply driven by CO2.

We have to recognize that in a market driven economy, which is the best and most efficient economy, we have to develop alternatives to everything....even oil. Oil has, for years, been so plentiful and cheap there was no reason to think about using or developing anything else. Think of motorized transport. With the dawn of the industrial revolution, horses (which until then had been plentiful on a per person basis) were no longer efficient.

Addressing the needs of the alternative energy market must be done with truths, a focus on economics, and a focus on good science. I don't see alot of this taking place...but I do have the wherewithal to do my part, unlike many others.

Comparing one man's views - which happen to be pretty accurate and not obtuse in any way - with slavery, just because it makes a good analogy, is misdirection at its worst to avoid discussing a viable topic.

I've spent years studying the engineering and science of alternatives. I've got a Masters in Economics. Until recently, it's not made a lick of sense for the average person to invest in this stuff.

oh my gad i have question form sciens no one heloed me i want find some to help the question.
But you gus talking about the cars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!haha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My son was playing around with self made turbines of some kind and realized that we (as peoples) don't have to shell out the big bucks to go wind powered.There are many ways to build windmills and turbines-people have been doing it for years. So get creative!!! Use recycled materials. The greatest thing about being here now is that there is no right way and no wrong way. As usual, our generation insists on doing it our way. And don't forget, we get to sell the extra back to the utility company for a bonus.

$4 a watt, now it is comparable to solar. Great design though. Hopefully will go down with time. It is sad you need one of these in the city because it angers people to have a normal wind turbine.

Here's what this means in practical terms.

The advertisement is nameplate energy generation (optimal). According to EIA reference, the nameplate 2000 kWhr/year generation would be about 18% of an average household consumption. But, that's where the attraction ends.

Industry experience says that annual output from wind at best locations is 28% of nameplate. Worse yet, when you really need it, the Texas ERCOT only credits output at 8.7%. So, best case scenario on annual basis is generation of 560kWhr/year assuming it is positioned in a prime location. How many homeowners have that kind of wind position (sans trees)?

So, here's the breakeven payout, constant$:
for Eastern US $.10/kWhr, payback using 28% availability (best) is 89 years.
for Pac. NW US $.05/kWhr, payback using 28% availability (best) is 176 years.

For the average consumer, though, every taxpayer in the US will compensate the purchaser 30% in tax credits for the luddite approach.

I won't go into the grid impacts requiring active spinning makeup baseload in duplication.

I'm sticking with E=mc^2

Am interested in the Windspire VAWT. Does anyone have acess to actual consumer data as opposed to that reported by Mariah Power? Since it has built in monitoring of speed and power production, I would love to see actual installed data. Thanks.