Sorry nobody cares 😆💎👐

Wow...what a suprise🖕

I would like to buy a few! Sent this to my utility company a few years ago. "interesting" was about all i got out of them. PFT!

stop nickels and dimes people...

Just in case anyone is wondering what happened. Its breaks failed, an incredible rare occurrence. Bloomberg didn't even mention that wind turbines have breaks.

Please let me know where could I find a "science literate journalist." Thank you.

@@RealEngineering thanks i thought it was weird. They often shutdown when they have converted enough amount energy for the day/week

@@RealEngineering rare my ass you can see wind turbines on fire all over youtube. granted the breaks failing is a rare one but that much stress on the bearings from the vertical load would create massive amounts of heat.

Looking forward to your video! Always in depth and incredibly analytical bringing up things that aren't initially thought of!

Very true.

the main advantage is it look cooland take very little space

It also failed to mention how miniscule their efficiency is.

NGC1433 true but they can be more easaly fitted into the landscape

What is it's efficiency, and how does it compare against the conventional design? And how does the Total Cost of Ownership compare btn the two models?

Yeah looks more like a cheesy ad disguised as an informative video

Imagine a video labelled Quick take not turning out to be a documentary...

since they scale down well, would they be an option for small residential systems, such as a supplement to solar? My solar system is great but small due to size/location of my roof so i'd love to have some wind generation as well but everything i've looked at is either too large or too noisy to put on my house with neighbors homes only about 12' away. I'm looking at vertical axis possibilities now instead.

@@markdlondon Yep. These are a GREAT supplemental power source at household-minus scale. Especially to, for example, charge up a battery for a light in an isolated building, recharge a comms relay on a hill somewhere, power an emergency phone out in the wilderness. Think systems that require small power under adverse conditions. Close to the ground, arctic light conditions, etc. But expect 1/3 to 1/6 the power total you could have gotten from a similarly sized (but much taller) 'normal' horizontal wind turbine. Savonius' strength is very low maintenence, protection against high wind overspeed, and (some) function even under very low or turbulent winds. But inefficient, and weak.

es obvio.....

Thank you for providing the facts that should have been in the video. I guess the video was some Bloomberg reporter's excuse for a vacation in Iceland.

@@marvinkitfox3386 would a 'normal' turbine still be more efficient at the household scale?

Those are all talked about in the video Power and Efficiency don't matter her since the materials and way its built are so cheep. As it mentions these are much cheaper to produce than a conventional wind turbine. And for applicability these are being design to be put literately anywhere where there is wind. They can make them as big or as small as they want to fit whatever need.

@Yolou1024 You need to calculate the cost of enery produced with this and compare that to other electricity sources (LCOE - $/MWh). Power and efficiency are the two of the most important things in electricity production.

đeri662 No, actually you don’t. These are cheap, which overrides bitching about cost. Putting them WHERE they’re needed is a major boost because you don’t lose anything in transmission. Solar works with Solar Panels or giant Concentrating Solar mirror farms. Wind works with these small turbines or giant wind farms with huge towers. Hydro works with micro hydro turbines in a stream or the Hoover Dam.

@@Jkirk3279 Really? If this wind turbine costs 2,000 $ and it produces 10 MWh in it's lifetime, its LCOE (neglecting the discount rate and maintanance) is 200 $/MWh. If a large wind turbine costs 1,000,000 $ and it produces 10,000 MWh in it's life, its LCOE is 100 $/MWh. So despite the cheaper turbine, the electricity it produces is twice as expensive. You have to put them where wind speeds are sufficient, not anywhere. You can put a gas or coal power plant wherever you want.

The cost of these vs grid must be compared to the cost of installation of service. So in remote locations where miles of new lines might be needed, these can provide a savings. Solar and mixed power are of course also options, and as with the bus stop in the video they may also be installed just to attract attention. Can we just agree that everyone aside from me is wrong and stupid?

Cool but the onley thing you are saying !!! That the sice is way to ineficiant if you need 2 of Them to a AP/ hotspot and USB CHARDGING If i wanted 1 for my house to support my PV panels .. 48v .. i still need info about Watt !!!!! If you can't suppley Watt .. Then you are just a rambelin moron !!! Oooh this dates back to the greeks!!! Yes and!!! Who give a fuk. I want Watt M/s Volt .. other wise .. go blow hot air elswhere

Small versions of conventional wind turbines work just fine. They are used on sailing boats to charge batteries and to power illuminated road signs, weather stations etc.

@@ColinWatters REALY!!! How big is the on you talk about??

yes, we need specs, how do I know if I had to put 50 of these on my roof or just two?

That’s because the investor class is desperate to keep power generation centralised. How can you extract rent from someone who is self sufficient ?

It prevents over spine because the wind hits both the approaching and receding face. Basically it produces a lot of drag. Which is also one of it's biggest drawbacks. They are just not very efficient in fact they are one of the least efficient types. On the plus side they can be placed lower to the ground and last a lot longer. It also has the advantage of a shaft going all the way through thus adding greater stabilization. A good portion of the weight on an Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines is only stabilized on the back side. HAWT also get a bit of help because they generate a bit of lift perpendicular to the direction of air flow. This can have the effect of a positive feed back loop causing frequent over spin and a shorter life span for them.

diGritz1 That makes a lot of sense, thanks! I now understand the disadvantages of the design but not the disadvantages of the bladed turbines. Specifically the feedback you mentioned.

Melinda Green An HAWT is basically the same shape as a airplane prop which is basically a spinning wing and a wing generates lift. This effect is mostly dependent on the angle of attack of the blade and can be lessened to a degree but never eliminated. So the faster the blade turns the greater the lift it generates. This can put many different types of stress on the system as a whole but probably the most notable is the longitudinal forces placed on the shaft and housing. This is slight but the faster the blade turns the more this increases. Hence the feedback on the system and an increasing chance of over spin and/or overheating Admittedly this is less of a problem with high end HAWTs because they are mostly variable pitch as opposed to earlier models which are fixed. But given the higher cost and greater maintenance of the variable pitched types there is still a lot of the fixed pitched systems in use.

diGritz1 Another great answer. Thanks!

Also they work in choppy wind.

It certainly does away with transmission losses. Good thinking!

Yes, but economy of scale brings the prices down. A single large plant is easier and cheaper to build and maintain than thousands of small ones. Also any form of power generation can be distributed. The ideal solution would probably be 10-100MW mass produced modular nuclear reactors. With reasonable regulations and mass production costs could be orders of magnitude lower then anything we have now. Better designs (like the LFTR) are safe without the usual insane over-engineering, which makes them a lot cheaper too. The small modular design means that reactor block can be built in a factory, easily moved to anywhere and set up quickly. These are also ideal to power ships, unlike solar or wind.

You're not considering all factors. Single, large generators are vulnerable to attack and breakdown, cutting off service to hundreds of thousands. Small, plants (each city) maintaining it's own stations across neighborhoods is the best. Cities are not good places to live. The NWO wants to herd all of us into their slave cities..

They'll be buggered in Nigeria then!

***** I actually considered that to. That's why I think small to medium sized reactors are a good compromise. Now we have a lot of GW scale plants, those are often too big, but regulations drive plant sizes up, because a lot of the costs are per unit not per MW. Smaller plants near the consumers are better for several reasons. Cities have their pros and cons, and small cities are very different from huge ones. The biggest advantage of a city is that everything you need is relatively close. While we still have to physically go to places to do stuff, we need cities.

Democrats: "Wind turbines and solar energy are the way to go to produce cheap, reliable, and environment-friendly energy to meet world-wide needs and population growth." Republicans: "Let's bring back coals and buggies!"

Nothing to do with looks. The problem is regular turbines have to turn first to face the direction the wind is coming from.

That because they do much of anything except be useful,in location where maintenance is hard or no an option.

What you say is true, but human nature isn't going to change very quickly (certainly not in your lifetime), so you had better (quickly) get used to it.

The Boom Boom Room Great points as shown by the two ass clowns who spewed their negative Nancy childish wah wah behavior. to all negative people...just because the internet has afforded you the opportunity to voice your bullshit, it rarely means you should.

Lots of lovely irony there, "Scott Lambert", YOUR "negative Nancy childish wah wah behavior" IS "human nature". Windmill efficiency ALWAYS increases with size, and 600,000 of THESE started the Internet, and I designed it. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BICC-ISOLAN-Transceiver-Type-1110-With-SQE-Test-/201600254673

The Boom Boom Room i don't know much about wind energy. we don't get a lot here. i would like to ask why doesn't someone use a old fashioned centrifical governor to adjust angle of blades for high and low wind conditions. i also have a fix for vertical windmill over speed and effiency that i haven't seen.

The problem with the governor is simply that it is MORE mechanism. It IS possible to design a windmill that loses so much efficiency in overspeed conditions that it cannot really overspeed. Efficiency improves with SIZE. A small efficient windmill will destroy itself, just as will a large one. For personal use, an inefficient vertical axis windmill is probably the best choice. But what would you like it to do? Light a cigarette, perhaps?

minimum height? about 0.1mm, if you don't worry about the meatgrinder aspect of it on passers-by. This design thrives on erratic little gusts of variable wind coming at it from funny directions. I.e. ground turbulence is *fine*. It does not benefit from being high up in steady, strong winds. It does not like strong winds. Over about 20kt it actually *loses* power generation with increasing wind.

Yes it did, the problem is spinning out of control. They said conventional wind turbines only have about a three year lifespan in Iceland because of this reason.

@@Maxime_K-G look at real engineering's comment higher up.

I know! I never said I agree with this video! All I'm saying is that they did in fact talk about "one of wind turbines biggest problems" and how these turbines would supposably solve them.

@@Maxime_K-G They never said how, just that they will solve it.

@@R3lay0 The video said that it was because of their design.

@Nikos Nikos It has to do with drag, similar to terminal velocity of a falling body here on Earth. The drag is a force that increases with velocity and it is defined as D = ((V^2)/2)(s A c) where: "V" is velocity, "s" is density of air, "A" is the frontal area of the blades and "c" is the coefficient of drag that is dependent to the frontal shape. Because the convex blade has the same area as the concave blade their force cancels except for a small difference of "c", also that is why the blade spin. If the blades were flat it would not spin. And as the air velocity increases so does the drag. Hopefully this will help.

They avoid overspinning by being very INefficient. Power from incoming wind is roughly linear with wind speed. Air Friction from wind is roughly squared with wind speed. Hit one of these with a true hurricane force wind, and it will not spin *at al*, just try to fall over as if it was a cardboard cutout in the wind.

It's far from efficient.

@@markspc1 thank you

It is not efficient it is only robust.

This *IS* saving the world.

In Iceland, about 80% of the names given to people come from Paganism. People are frequently named Freyja, Loki, Oðinn and such.

A lightening capture generator would be his next project.

So what did he fixed?

Ragnar lothbrook ! =)

Gotta charge that hammer

Weird, since there are virtually no thunderstorms in Iceland.

Don't focus on the wrong part of the story, brother.

MakoRuu How appropriate that the God of thunder would be harnessing the power of the weather to create electricity. ' special thank to GOD the father gave the electric power thunder lightning to thomas edison... edison was invented electric from the kite with a key

Then the american god thing died due to education and it took decades for the people to grasp they were being conned....

learned about them in 1972 mother earth news

And that's why they are great for remote locations with only very little need for power.

What the fuck are GALLONS? Join the real world dude!

Kenneth Keen: Gallons are the standard unit of volume, except in many backward jurisdictions which have regressed to socialism. They use the sissywimp unit close to a quart. There is a psychologigal weakness which is assuaged by larger numbers. .(fuck)

kenneth keen They're still known as 44 gallon drums in metric countries, at least here in Australia they are.

There is a huge need for turbines that are safe for on top of buildings and next to houses. Apparently any kind of turbine only lasts about 3 years in Iceland before they tear themselves apart. Obviously the status quo is not workable in every situation.

Take away ALL the Massive subsidies the "prop type" receive , factor in 3 yr lifespan , high maintenance and installation cost and the Savonius wins hands down .

@@absabs7555 the large scale wind turbines work for large scale power production and are the most efficient by a large margin. These smaller wind turbines are no where near as efficient, BUT, they do have one big advantage. They are small, cheap, and quiet. This means they can be installed in populated areas without much trouble. So even though their efficiency is lower, if you get enough of them you can put them in populated areas to produce a decent amount of power. However, for large scale energy production, traditional wind power farms are definitely much more efficient.

You probably need about a thousand of these to compare

The applications are different. VAWT is for smaller applications like lighting a sign, charging a phone etc, while The real daddy of wind turbine is for motive power application. They can compliment each other, not replace themselves with one another. Let me tell you, VAWT will never be efficient though.

You misrepresnt the video. This is asolution for Iceland with too strong winds for conventional and sparsely populated such that generating small amounts of energy locally makes sense.

Check this out. If they can get this to work, birds would be a lot safer: newatlas.com/windstalk-concept/16647/

And I ran our Transistor Radio quiet nicely thank you !! 🤭

interesting mix of random technobabble. i could easily say that fan turbines aren't efficient as they only work as large scale..Are you measuring in watts? does the speed of the blades change the power rating? do you know what the area of the upright turbine is? and so can you calculate its power factor? if you are going to diss a product please provide the science.. Then i could work out if your argument has merit or if you are just trolling around thanks

No, I ONLY mentioned the Surface area of wind the respective systems come in contact with. The one thing you do not address.

What is conventional turbines please ?

the three bladed fans conventionally promoted but the tax payer funded virtue signalling 'industry'.

Im not saying you are wrong about the wind turbine power but where can i find that information . I always wanted green energy until i realized it wasnt 'practical ' if you know what i mean .

Six times more expensive than turbine blades.

DoctorMaxMoebius c

William Barnes , they do. Look into it, they have really small ones as well

Green-propaganda hahahahaha yes... great thank you. The thing is with Iceland. They are allready pretty green. Check out their Geothermalpowerplants..... They are almost Greenland ..... Actually I am disapointed with this video because I thought they would speak about a storage for energy when they have overproduction for the time when there is no wind.

That's basically what anyone with alternative power sources does, whether wind, solar, microhydro, or even diesel generators. The point was that VAWTs can be less efficient than HAWTs, and that both kinds tend to benefit from being much higher in the air flow for most other landscapes than Iceland.

True, but we have no numbers of output or efficiency, so it could be all for show.

Actually, HAWTs with enough diameter and tower height can be very cost-effective.

Parts of iceland get frequent air currents flowing across the bay, the coast line would benefit most from this.

This thing is icelandic superstition

You don't need a lot of energy for telecom equipment, a Wi-Fi base station, a USB charger, and the likes.

@@charonstyxferryman That's right, but the price for very little energy will be prohibitively high. It may be fine for isolated telecom towers, just like it's okay to put very expensive photovoltaic cells in orbit. The amount of power that can be extracted from a turbine varies with the sept area, and is also greatly affected by the height of the turbine. By making such a turbine twice as big, you would be able to extract 4 times the power for a given wind speed.

Energy is low but it is beautiful and fun.

Yup. It's little more than a commercial. (Hey, REAL Journalism is hard!)

geonerd Especially for trained journalists (they're just trained as publicists nowadays)

worked with a company that made great claims about their Savonious turbine. After two years they still could not produce net positive energy with it. Without real prices and specs these kinds of infomercials are useless.

But but you're missing the point, they're using an abandoned coal plant. lol and all their sketches are on hemp paper instead of that dirty unrenewable normal paper.

Considering the huge number of failures of the turbines being built by the "experts", if these will just operate long enough to recoup their capital cost, that's a win.

Less than half of what normal propeller/impeller windmills do. That has reasons based in physics, it is a hard limit, that is also why ships use propellers and we don't have these Mississippi steam ships with wheels any longer. Very poor energy performance.

40% as area-efficient, three times the cost per area. 7.5 times worse.

And then to add insult to injury, they show one on fire. Slanted Bloomberg fake news ...

The KW6 is independently tested to class 2, with a survival wind speed of 59.5 m/s. The KW6 model provides a Reference Annual Energy (RAE) of 8,949kWh at 5m/s. Pole height options range from 9 to 20m.

Can this design survive in Tornado Alley? Not necessarily a direct hit from a tornado, but say, 100mph winds?

If I were a Nuclear engineer, I would not have wasted my time building this. This is something, that my most junior level fabricator could build all alone with scissors, a hammer, and a two square foot place to sit, even though he cant sign his name yet. 😂. Some one trying to fleece a kickstarter.

I thought he'd gone to Hollywood ?

@@GaryMcKinnonUFO Yeah Thor never comes around here anymore after he made it big in Hollywood. What a douche

Well, they are nicer to their local spirits...

Um almost the entire wind industry has that's why we can say the design sucks. When you compare this design to damn near every other wind installation it does suck, and wind has it's own issues on top you idiots championing incredibly inefficient designs. Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more.

Berelore You would be the idiot, since you cannot comprehend English, and at the same time insult someone. ... I was going to 'explain' to you, but I have learned when coming across complete idiots like you, it's better just to say, 'fuck you'. So... fuck you.

Nice job. You've managed to use broken English in an attempt to sooth your ego instead of addressing the comment's content. To your original comment let me get out of my proverbial chair for a sec and list a few. The qr5 (or any other Darrieus really), the Windspire, the WePower, damn near any other VAWT, all of these are better generators than the Savonius. Yet all of these suffer their own problems when compared with the conventional HAWT. In fact, the only things the Savonius has going for it, compared to other VAWTs, is lower manufacturing cost and higher reliability, but it generates almost no electricity comparatively. Certainly has nothing on HAWTs in terms of $/kWh. Savonius types are better left as hydraulic pumps rather than electrical generators. Fuck you too.

Berelore Broken English? Heh heh. Berelore, are you really going to be one of those arrogant, idiotic assholes on the Internet that cannot comprehend, then argues from their own incomprehensiveness? QUOTE Berelore *"Um almost the entire wind industry has that's why we can say the design sucks."* Where did I say it did not suck? Which leads to: QUOTE Berelore *"When you compare this design to damn near every other wind installation it does suck, and wind has it's own issues on top you idiots championing incredibly inefficient designs."* Again, your reading comprehension sucks. Where did I compare anything? Say anything about wind? Where did I champion anything? And, speaking of English, review your words above. QUOTE Berelore *"Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more."* _Again_, ? BTW, *"2000 of them to get the same output", "cost 100 times more"* Cite your valid primary documentation to back up that last sentence. _Since you are too idiotic to understand English, my point was, for those that are just griping about the design for one reason or another, but have no valid or positive feedback,_ *"get out of your chair and do better".* ... I will not even bother to address your second post. If you want to be an arrogant, idiotic asshole, AND a Grammar Nazi, at least make sure your own writing is properly capitalized, punctuated, and that your sentence structure is correct. You don't even know how to make proper paragraphs. NOTE: This is KZfaq. If you actually think my English grammar, etc, is not good enough for YT, then _you_ should not post.

Holy shit the irony. First I said broken English because, among other things, you don't use a comma when attaching a subordinate clause after a main clause. Such as, "You would be the idiot, since you cannot comprehend English, and at the same time insult someone." Second, the statement "So many people saying, for one reason or another, the design is not good. Get out of your chair and do better." implies to native English speakers that you are not among the people who say the design is not good. Thus my assumption that you thought the design was good. Grammar is the least salient point in the entire comment, but it's all you've really addressed. "Where did I say it did not suck?" You implied it in your original comment. "Again, your reading comprehension sucks. Where did I compare anything? Say anything about wind? Where did I champion anything?" Well since this entire video is about a windmill design that you challenged people to "do better", can you see how someone might be under the impression that's what you were talking about? "Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more." It's an illustration of principle. Can't give their numbers because they haven't posted them, but assuming they are going to end up with typical Savonius numbers they will be about 4-5% efficient. If that's so then a factor of 20 probably isn't far off, not that it matters. "I will not even bother to address your second post." You mean the one where I laid out examples of people who have done better, and pointed out why people were entitled to gripe about it's poor design... K Since you are too idiotic to understand English, my point was, for those that are just griping about the design for one reason or another, but have no valid or positive feedback, "get out of your chair and do better". Since you seem to have a problem with English comprehension, I'll spell it out for you. People educated on the topic are griping because this puff piece seems to imply that this shitty windmill design is some miracle product that can solve all the problems of wind power. Those people are completely justified because they know better alternatives already exist, no chair exiting required. PS. "griping about the design" is valid feedback if the design sucks and they know why. For example, it has terrible efficiency, or "... all of these are better generators than the Savonius. Yet all of these suffer their own problems when compared with the conventional HAWT. In fact, the only things the Savonius has going for it, compared to other VAWTs, is lower manufacturing cost and higher reliability, but it generates almost no electricity comparatively. Certainly has nothing on HAWTs in terms of $/kWh. Savonius types are better left as hydraulic pumps rather than electrical generators."

Very likely, yes, but let's not forget that household cats kill far more birds than wind turbines.

@@tcl78 -Except cats dont usually kill birds of prey like Eagles and Kestrel many of which are protected species and fly on thermals then get caught in the pull of the air into the propeller arc. -Alot of bats are also killed by these.

That's what I was thinking. The blades also present a much more solid, visible profile so birds can avoid them.

I think birds are killed by big blades because of surprise and would easily avoid such compact turbines.

Those wind turbines you speak of are still much, much safer for the bird populations, and every other species of animal(including humans) than any coal plant.

Wind turbines are not a big problem in regards to bird death anyway. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Birds

The narrative should not be ' one or the other ' but of co-operation between all!!

Let us welcome the tourists into an eyesore of villages with those scrap drums rotating everywhere they look.

It's in the eye of the beholder. I'm not crazy about smoke stacks from coal power plants, air pollution and reduced lung capacity. To each his own but we need to do something pretty quick. FYI this "wind turbine" is nothing but lawn art. No power curve, no specs, no viable product.

@@solarwind907 It's true that smoke stacks are unsightly. but they don't cover large area's of the landscape. (an example) say your driving along in your car and you drive past some smoke stacks. you will see them while you are in that area and not again. however if you drive in the area of a wind farm you will see those wind turbines for miles and miles. but what's even more unsightly is wind farms where the wind turbines have reached their maximum lifespan. and have to see derelict wind turbines as far as the eye can see. because many of these energy companies take no responsibility for cleaning up what they left behind. maybe these energy companies should take a hint from something like wind mills. there are some of them that have been around for a hundred plus years. that still function with significantly less maintenance. I don't have all the answers but the way the energy companies are going about it right now doesn't seem to be highly efficient.

'Common sense' is often a bad guide :-) I like the design of vertical rotors too, but they are less efficient and the wind speed are lower at ground level. A modern three blade wind turbine is close to harvesting the theoretical possible 59 % of the kinetic energy in the air passing the circle swept by the blades. Fun fact: the power scales with the square of the diameter of that circle. Double the wingspan and you quadruple the output :-D

If you mount some net around it, then yes.

Interestingly, it has been found that bird strikes in conventional wind turbines can be significantly reduced by painting one of the three blades black.

It only goes after and strikes dumb birds. Darwin birds ...

No regular turbines on any roofs... The vibrations and problems in high winds is why this other kind of design makes sense. As far as I know those turbines on Jay Lenos garage worked out great.

😅😅😅

😅😅😅

Just had to hammer that home, didn't you?... :)

+Carl Street If you're referring to my double post, that was an accident. 😔

I'v heard the installation process is a... electrifying experience.

Paul Gracey vjgtyi

whats frp?

Some comments like this amaze me with there utter ignorance of the subject.

Brandon is right. Show us your stuff.

I can't help it!! I try so hard to overlook bad grammar and spelling. does, where, you're, Also, and than!

Since I don't see any numbers regarding output and wind speed, can you tell me why it's not efficient and doesn't scale up very well? All I see is that they used -smaller- versions at the bus stops.

Flying food? Like chicken?

Minor Heretic there's not high winds in a lot of areas of the world. This would be suitable for more places and would cover those areas where high winds do not exist. The three bladed turbines are in extremely poor design do your research and you'll see what I mean.

Consider some basic physics/aerodynamics relating to wind turbines. The power available in wind varies by the cube of the wind speed. Double the wind speed means eight times the available power. Half the wind speed, one-eighth the power. Therefore low wind sites are often not worth the energy investment in wind turbine hardware compared to solar, which would give a better energy return on energy invested. Another problem is turbulence. A wind turbine performs best with laminar air flow - the air molecules all traveling flat and straight and perpendicular to the turbine blade. A vertical axis turbine has two intrinsic efficiency problems. First, it always has vanes advancing into the wind, with the drag reducing the effect of the vanes going downwind. Second, it creates its own bubble of turbulence, reducing the effective wind speed. A third pragmatic problem is that vertical axis turbines are generally mounted near the ground where there is a lot of ground effect turbulence, further reducing effective wind speed. Add to this that wind speed goes up with height and a kiosk-mounted vertical axis turbine is a perfect storm of inefficiencies. I worked alongside some of the best wind turbine designers in the field for a number of years and they would have done almost anything for an extra half a percent of turbine efficiency. For reasons of basic physics and pragmatic reasons they were dedicated to the horizontal axis three-bladed turbine.

It looks to me that it isn't about R&D, but more like a low tech manufacturing company