That's a great recommendation! The Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series seems like an excellent choice for anyone looking for reliable and powerful home backup power. With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and versatile sockets, it's definitely worth considering. Plus, its waterproof technology and comprehensive protections make it perfect for outdoor adventures. Thanks for sharing!
As an engineer with wind turbine design experience, I can say this is false sales hype. The total wind energy input is decided by the maximum area swept by the turbine, it is therefore quite small. As a drag type turbine, its conversion efficiency must necessarily be below the maximum 59% Betz limit, and much smaller than that of a lift driven 3 bladed propellor turbine. The cost of this device will be much more than that of a structurally simpler and lighter 3-bladed propellor. which uses much less construction material. Its mounting immediately above the roof means it essentially has no mast, and that it is not installed high enough above the roof to capture sufficient free unobstructed wind flow. There is no way this device would cost effectively produce sufficient wind energy to justify its cost; it would simply be a white elephant, and a neighborhood eyesore continually pivoting like a weathercock towards the turbulent local wind direction, and not efficiently capturing the kinetic energy of even the turbulent local wind! Don't be misled by this sales hype !🥵 !
Yeah, I would like to see their published power curve for this device. It looks like a rip off. I also wonder how quiet it is. If it’s screwed to your roof, it’s going to transmit sound to you if there’s any sound to transmit. The last time I was in a house that had a little wind turbine on it, it sounded like they had ghosts. And if you’re really unlucky, of course, you’ll have a resonance problem and you will have screws backing their way out of your sheet rock. Well, thank you for your post.
I think this turbine was used for ships to move way faster than normal turbine thats what i saw tbh and u can google it . I also think based on that alone they made to think it can also work very well for air not only under water. it will be better once the new 3Rd printer that uses lighter materials which i saw been used for things like the new basketball 🏀
I looked this up and it doesn't seem very affordable compared to solar. However, for most areas, you need a permit to have wind installed on a roof, so a silent model would probably be the only option if you want wind. Also it has one big advantage over solar: Ameren (my local utility) has a net metering program tat gets zeroed out once a year which happens to be at the end of summer. This means that even if they owe you money they will just void that and remove any credits you earned from generating power in the summer. This means that you need a system that exceeds your average usage if you want a grid tied system where you don't have to pay the utilities. Wind, however, is more abundant in Autumn right after that reset date so depending on the cost might be better than solar or might work well as a hybrid system. Looking at the numbers: The "Liam F1 Mini Urban" model wind turbine costs around $5,450 + installation costs, goes on the roof, and generates no noise. It's based on the Archimedes screw and is advertised to produce an average of 1500 kwh per year with wind speeds of 5 m/s average, but will produce energy when wind is blowing as low as 2 m/s and nothing below that. This means that the advertised "average" will really depend on how windy your area is on average. Getting an anemometer first would be a good idea to determine what your average will actually be. You can buy one for less than $100, but unless you plan on writing down the numbers multiple times a day every day for a year you are better off spending a bit more on a model that can log historic data. You can then use that data to determine how suitable wind is for you. The average household in my uses 8,376 kwh a year. If we round up and assume you'd want 9,000 kwh and if we also assume each unit gives you an average of 1500 kwh a year you'd need 6 of these for a total cost of $32,700. A house that uses 9000 kwh a year will end up spending an average of $500+ a month so such a system would save $3000 a year meaning it would take 11 years for the system to be paid off assuming no maintainence is required.
sounds like your utility provider will put the zeroing for wind at mid autumn .. 11years at best for ROI is a bad deal, is there a tax deductible or something you left out? else solar is much better thanx to those
When I signed up for net metering with Ameren Illinois four years ago, I was given a choice of resetting October 1st or April 1st. To me it made the most sense to go with the April reset date. It has been my experience that having the build up of credit going into winter allows me to supplement natural gas forced air heating with electric quartz heaters. I would like to add a small wind turbine to my solar panels as a safety net to allow additional heater usage should I need to.
@@Mrbriangalvan , I have 4 P.M.A.s and each one is capable of making 1200 to 1800 watts each , One is hooked up to a V.A.W.T. One to a water wheel One to a bicycle One to a 42cc gas engine Then I have Solar Panels So I'm using Wind , Water, Sun , Human power and gasoline for backup , I also have a 2000watt Generac generator .
I first read about the Liam F1 turbine in 2014. There's a WaPo article about this from the same year. If it hasn't been commercialized properly in 9 years, I highly doubt if it delivers a fraction of what this video claims.
@@rakeshchander1178 The time stamp doesn't give any performance numbers. I live in West Texas and I would love a wind turbine that could provide for my house. So, I would be happy if this was a great product. But, after nine years I don't see them and we have wind farms here, perfect area for any wind power product.
9 yrs is a lifetime for computer tech upgrades/innovations, but 9 yrs is NOTHING for adopting a new energy source. Solar took a several decades to become more widely accepted, used and have costs reduced.
In 1 year from now you will never hear anything more about this. Products don't lose because of a failure of the idea, they lose to a failure of funding and public interest.
The need for this cheap source of energy can only be realized if the production is ramped up to flood the world and stop corporate driven governments from killing it off to protect their interests. Elon Musk!, please help us?
Why 15.000€. Isn't this only a couple of sheets of metal and a washing-machine brushles motor? With a converter and a battery this should not be more than 5.000€. With that price I would order it now.
This product produces very little power, and costs 5x per kW what solar panels cost. Unless you live somewhere that is super windy & cloudy all the time, it probably won't outperform solar panels. And with mechanical moving parts, it will need more maintenance.
It's not a mutually exclusive option. If you already have solar, you can install this as an adjunct. When it's bright and sunny, let solar be the primary source of energy. If it's cloudy, or windy overnight, then the turbine fills in what solar cannot do. Why the 'all-or-nothing' mindset?
was dumped by most engineers in the game years ago as just another fancy money grabber that produces very little not new at all i remember seeing prototypes of this a decade ago
With solar on a grid tied system you usually need to plan for more than your average usage because utilities like to zero out what they owe you at the end of summer right after peak power production. Wind, on the other hand, peaks in Autumn (at least in my area) so you might be able to get away with a smaller system. From what I read each one is supposed to average 1500 kwh a year when the average annual wind speed is 5 m/s. This translates to 11.18 mph which is higher than the average some states receive. Then again, increased height decreases obstacles so increases this average. You'd really need to put a good Anemometer on your roof for a year to know for sure what to expect in your area. This would not only tell you your average wind speed, but also when the wind peaks which you'd need to calculate against your local net metering rules to determine if you need a system larger than your usage. Assuming the listed averages are correct though, 6 of these units would produce an average of 9000 kwh a year at a cost of $32,700 - not including installation and shipping costs. This is actually fairly close to the price of a grid tied solar system. Maybe a bit more expensive, but certainly not 5 times the price unless you live in an area with very little wind. The real problem is that unlike solar systems most areas require a permit to have wind installed. They are more likely to approve a small system that doesn't produce noise which is probably why units like this can be more expensive than what we used to see. Regarding maintaince a solar panel needs to be maintained up to 4 times every year. They have to be cleaned because dust and leaves will reduce their ability to function. Heat also tends to damage them over time leading to gradually decreased returns. Interestingly, wind turbines need just as much maintainance. I guess the advantage here goes so solar though since you could technically just install a PVC pipe to the side of your house, run it to the roof, and have it spray over the panels to clean and cool them whenever you turn on a hose making the typical kind of maintainance in solar easier to plan for whereas wind turbines need to have the oil checked meaning you have to actually go up there onto your roof. So, not more maintainance, just more difficult maintainance.
@@Elliandr wrote, _"whereas wind turbines need to have the oil checked meaning you have to actually go up there onto your roof."_ You're talking about those massive 3-bladed industrial turbines, not the archimedes turbine in the video. Of the latter: **Lifespan and warranty** The standard warranty on the turbine is 2 years. At purchase you receive the warranty form. This should be filled in and handed to the producer (or agent / dealer, depending on where you get the warranty) to obtain standard warranty. Additionally, 18 years warranty can be purchased, bringing the total at 20 years. The wind turbine is expected to last 20 years, if properly maintained. You can obtain a maintenance contract / maintenance package at your agent. For more information please contact your agent, they can be found at the website. Despite the design of the wind turbine LIAM F1, which is completely mechanic and contains only two moving parts, these parts will wear over time. The axis of the blade is mounted with two ball bearings, as well as the shaft which makes it possible to “look for the wind”. The wear depends on the number of turns that the parts make. The number of rotations depends on the wind speed. Location of placement is therefore important. Theoretically, the bearings can endure 250,000 to 300,000 operating hours. Assuming 8000 hours per year, the bearings can last approximately 30 years. However, we recommend, depending on the circumstances, to replace the bearings after 10 to 20 years.
ya meanwhile in Ontario Canada last winter we went 35 days with no meaningful sunshine so pretty much useless in this part of the world for several months
@@BeyondPC yes I agree with you but fortunately we are blessed with a lot more sunny weather even in winter so solar is ok but it’s still not the bees knees so to speak , I get paid 12cents a kWh for what I don’t use which goes into the grid so my credit was $150 plus I get $28 credit from the gov each month so a small credit after my bill is payed which was $140 but on days when there’s no sun we have to turn on the auxiliary power for hot water which pushes your power bill up. 👍
@@kirkyorg7654 we are blessed with more sun here that’s for sure but there are times that we do get dull weather but to summarise the weather here it’s beautiful one day and perfect the one after😏👍
@@UbuteyAustralia lol ya makes me wonder what my dad was thinking when he was deciding to immigrate from the UK way back when, that between Australia and the frozen north Canada he chose the frozen north lol i blame my stepmothers family because they all went to Canada so we followed suit i have a feeling sun sand & surf would have been more my speed as even after 50+ years i still hate Canadian winters and the lack of an ocean in the middle of the country lol oh well that's life as they say lol
The device is simple because of all the hard work done prior building this simplified product and its related costs. If there is a mass adoption by govt implementation then yes price would drop down due to multiple players and competition in market.
@@rakeshsinghprs Hard work? This is a shape we've known about for hundreds of years... Yes, engineering went into making this but not as much as you think.
@@Tletna if it was so simple it would have been made by many intelligent people and would have used it for thousands of years now. Its looks simple until it's been created. Homo sapiens existed for 2-3 hundred thousand years and wheel was invented only 3500 BCE back. Its easy to replicate this engineered device only after it's been created but to engineer to it's perfection is what the hard work is.
@@rakeshsinghprshomo sapiens is somewhere 70 to 40 thousands of years, you are talking about homo sapiens sapiens which incudes Neanderthals and others
Something found on the web. These things are up there with those water out of thin air devices. It's a drag wind generator with no aerodynamic component increasing generation. This makes it effectively closer to a Savonious than to even a Darrieus turbine, which is to say close to the least effective common form of wind generation used for pumping water and the like. A two- or three-blade horizontal axis wind turbine and most Darrieus-style vertical axis wind turbines get an extra kick from aerodynamic lift, especially the HAWTs. It uses an awful lot of material for the amount it generates. All else being equal, you need to increase your swept area to get more energy from the wind. A two- or three-blade HAWT uses a very small amount of material to increase the swept area because swept area increases by the square when you have a circular swept area with an axis in the middle. This thing looks as if it would increase material required more than the swept area, which means its intrinsically limited to be tiny. There's no way to feather the thing except by turning it 180 degrees to the wind, which only partially reduces the wind load. This means that you can expect it to get blown over in high winds much more regularly than more sensible designs. They are idiots about installation. Their site shows these things mounted directly on rooftops. Anybody with any knowledge of the physics of laminar air flow knows that all else being equal, rooftops are really stupid places to put wind generators because the wind is slow and extremely turbulent there. Putting wind turbines on masts well above surrounding obstacles and in the clearest air possible is the only way to get economic amounts of electricity out unless you build your wind generator from spare parts you have in your shed as a hobby. They go down the path of dissing solar panels -- need maintenance!, don't work in the dark! -- and other types of wind generators -- kill birds! -- instead of publishing standard wind speed to power generation curves which every credible wind generator manufacturer does. And I say this having dug into the spec sheets and scientific papers on their website. This is two anti-patterns for the price of one.
They do actually publish efficiency curves for the turbines and they do not look good. 3m/s is the cut-in speed. If it's below that either it can't spin the generator or it just doesn't spin it fast enough to generate any sort of usable power. Even on their 1.5m model in order to get the 1500kWh/yr it would need to output 172ish Watt constantly 24/7. In order to generate that 172W it needs a wind speed of around 9m/s. So it needs constant wind of around 5bft or 20mph in order to get that advertised number. In order for it to reach it's rated output it needs wind speeds of 12.5m/s or just over 6bft or 25mph. Oh and it cuts out at 14m/s and self destructs at 35m/s. So it doesn't do anything below 3bft, it won't reach rated output until 6bft, it cuts out at 7bft, and it dies at anything over 11bft. That seems an awfully small window of operation. Oh and they apparently start at 10k euro, not including structural work to the roof, because it needs to withstand 3kN of load during normal operation and probably a lot more during storms.
The question that comes to mind is how these wind turbines stand up to winter climates, where heavy winds can often be accompanied by snow, sleet, freezing rain and temperatures below -25°C.
Green energy advocates never ask hard questions based on less than flawless laboratory conditions. Where I live winters are fairly mild but marked by rain during the day that gets just cold enough at night to freeze thus stopping things like wind turbines and coating them in thin layers of ice. It’s a genius design, there is no one answer to the problem. I just wish here at home we were not plagued by delusional idiots. Cali residents have an inability to imagine a world beyond La.
@@mikewaterfield3599 To your point about green energy sources, it seems that they're most effective the closer to the equator that you get. Where I live wind and hydro are probably the best sources of green energy, but wind is unreliable at certain times of the year. During the winter, there's plenty of wind; and it can make -25°C feel like -40°C when it's really howling. We get a fair amount of snow. Sometimes I even need to clear the snow from the roof to avoid it causing a collapse from all the weight. No doubt, any wind turbine would need to be cleared of that much snow; and even freezing rain will bring everything to a halt. What I'm wondering is just how difficult it is to maintain these turbines in wintery conditions; and how robust are they?
@@MickPsyphon solar certainly is, here in the US wind farms would make a great deal of sense in the Midwest except for winter. Personally I would go for nuclear power plants exclusively operated by the USN. Everything is a trade off.
@@mikewaterfield3599 Nuclear is the most reliable. I live within walking distance of a nuclear power plant. There's also a nuclear power plant about a 30 minute drive East on the highway, from my house; and the largest nuclear power plant in the world is about 2 ½ hours drive North West of my place. On top of all that, there are also numerous fossil fuel power plants all around my area. Despite all these sources of energy we still suffer from rolling brown-outs and power cutting out for less than a minute, every other week. We're constantly being told to conserve energy, while the bulk of the power generated in all these power plants is exported to New York State. That's why I'm looking for a fairly reliable supplemental source of energy.
Was thinking the same thing..."the fact that the Liam 1 is more advanced and better suited than blah blah is expected" I literally stopped at this sentence I'm good on to the next vid
No really, this is pretty good. One of the biggest reasons I've shy'd away from renewable energy was because of how bad it is, but this could actually work out. Not a fan of the price tag, but I'm gonna go build one of these today and I'll report back later.
I have seen this model before, then called the Archemedes wind turbine. Same promises, but could not deliver. Costed more than it will ever produce in energy.
At the price they're quoting it's unfeasible. But im'a go build one today with PVC, a curtain rod, some aluminum supports, and an alternator. Should run about 500 bucks if I do it right.
Next time you take content from another channel, perhaps consider asking first. At 1:22 you have used a considerable clip from a video on my channel without permission! And have given no credit or indication of doing so.
You will still need to either store the electricity in batteries or share it with the 'grid'. Sharing your unused electricity with the grid builds up credit which can be spent on electricity when your device's output is lower than what you require.
Looking at the output figures of the smaller generator, you aren't going to share anything with the grid, you will need a wind speed of 10m/s just to keep the lights on!
The deal with the power companies vary wildly. Effectively the power company doesn't walk to take on being a battery and having power when they don't need it either. Not saying the new deal in California is fair but neither is simple net metering.
@@arnauddechamps855 Where did you find this? To my knowledge it is not and wind speeds are usually measured 30 meters above ground. So unless you put the turbine on that height on an open field the wind speed will be lower.
This type of energy production (at least here in Western and Northern Europe) is very useful because solar panels do not give enough production during the winter period. And at those long nights you don't have sunshine either and in winter it's often cloudy (windy) weather. There this turbine comes in pretty handy. According to sources the average windspeed on my location here in the North of the Netherlands is about 7.5m/s, so it definitely can help out. When the wind is blowing, especially at night, and the temperature is cold, then turn on the convector heater or even store heat in a type of stone that can store heat for a long time, only when you have excessive power available. That would be ideal. I would love to buy one or two of these, and never have to worry about energy again. Also because in my country 'netting' is being abandoned.
The North Sea is definitely a windy location, but I think it is highly unlikely that you can achieve such wind speeds. The usual rule of thumb is 4 m/s for a good location, 5 m/s for a very good location, and 6 m/s for an extraordinary location. If you really thin about it, you should put up a mast and do measurement for at least 1 year.
a good video for a small chuckle. There is a reason why we install bigger an bigger Wind turbines on Land and Sea. A small turbine, low to the ground, thats only usable if a certain wind speed hits it, will not generate much energy. Also... if the neighbor build a new house or a single is in the Way, that alone can change the currents in the area, therefore affecting this small turbine. Today is a typical Day in November.... that turbine wouldnt even work because its less than 5m/s windspeed...... but solarpanels work fine, because they dont need a clear sky.... just light. Plus... the moving parts have to be checked regularly. If its silent, it means the Dynamo inside, that generates the energy, doesnt give much resistance. Low resistance, low energy production. Its not a good comparison but think of the old style dynamos on Bicycles. The faster you are, the more energy it generates... but that also means it gets louder. Its the same principle here. Sure that can be reduced if you use ball-bearings... but that are just more moving parts that can fail. They dont even give technical data beside the size and how much it allegedly generates. A proper advertisement would mention atleast the needed technical data.
good comparison to an old style dynamo, the one on my schwinn bike pressed against the front wheel. and the drag it created could be sensed while pedaling. having a light 'on' was a lot more pedaling effort. given that the spring -force pushing it against the tire was a constant un-changable pressure has me wonder if the drag it caused vs the light energy created was overkill. this all was back in the '50's. some time before re-chargable batt's. later on i changed the lite on my bike to one using c-cells.
In much of the USA, 5 m/s average is unlikely, but there are some areas that could average that speed. At that, you'd need to put it on a 30m pole and free of trees, buildings, terrain to get that average. 1,500 kWh all year is not much. Even at "expensive" kWh at $0.14/kWh, that is $210 annual payback. Simple Payback SPB in years at $5,000 installed cost would be 24 years. In my area its nice to have cheaper electricity a bit under $0.10/kWh, but then SPB is +33 years. What is important here is your eyeballs watching the video.
When you connect any alt power to a public grid for payback know that the local power Co credits you way less per KWH than what they sell back to you. LADWP (Los Angeles) for example credits about 2 cents per KWH for a grid tie system ( that folks pay up to $35/$40 grand) and sells back to you for full price whatever that is in your area (.12 to .20/KWH?)
5 metres per second is 11.2 miles per hour or 18 kilometres per hour. That's a pretty stiff breeze That we don't get very often even here on the coast of Nova Scotia.
What's also important here is understanding and thinking well. This isn't being presented as a universal solution. Where solar makes sense, use solar. Where solar is spotty but there's some wind, use both. Where it's cloudy most of the time but wind is present, this makes sense. The video said the turbine operates on *_as little as_* 5m/s, not that it requires an *_average_* of that velocity. And again, it's being presented as the one universal device that everyone, everywhere, at all times, should use exclusively. So, yes, to the video, eyeballs are important. But to the intelligent, they're understood as being important to every video on RUclips, not only this one. So, when you mention something universal as if it's particular, you're either being dishonest, or you simply don't understand why what you've said is 'a difference that makes no difference'. Thinking well is a *_skill._* As such, it can be learned about, practiced, and improved. 10/10 do recommend you look into this option.
In Hamburg, NY you could put one of these on a house and you could power a small city with the amount of wind we get here. Gusts are “only” peaking at around 40mph today, pretty calm out there.
A wind turbine can only extract energy from the wind that impinges on it's frontal area. And not all the energy that exists in that cross section of wind, at that. Even if this turbine could extract all the energy that impinges on it (It can't) it would be limited by it's frontal area. Add to that that solar panels have no moving parts and are therefore intrinsically longer lasting and it is no contest.
Yep, the next small form factor rooftop mounted scam. Solar is king. Prices are now few times lower than coal per watt installed capacity. On top of that solar panels are almost maintenance free and expected to last at least 25 years without significant degradation in efficiency and very possibly more than twice that. Wind has it's place but only the big commercial wind projects when installed in places that see constant winds in excess of 10m/s. These rooftop mounted flimsy turbines are nothing but a scam luring not very technically savvy people into spending their hard earned cash. I'll be surprised if any of these toys actually last more than an year when exposed to the elements. Do not buy!
solar suits battery storage as it can be made to deliver constant voltages, and the supply is fairly consistent. shade variations only. wind... has this strange thing about its variability, power going up on the cube... 100% correct. cant beat the frontal area of a turbine. any attempt to duct it, increase the area, simply stagnates the air and reduces efficiency... people like to think "ram air" and "venturis" work like this, fail to understand that they are closed systems... the air in an open system such as the wind, it simply skips AROUND the obstruction rather than speed up THROUGH it... its the same as pressure in a column of water... a funnel in the wind, the pressure at the smaller end is no higher than the column of air over it, the velocity no higher than the wind speed itself. there is no "venturi effect" unless all the air at the larger diameter is confined to only flow in the cone... and you cant do that out in the open air. cant beat betz, cant beat physics. adding extra surface like this just increases friction and reduces efficiency again. lucky to get 30% from even an optimised blade. good luck finding 59%... with the surface to frontal area this has, expect at best.... 0.59%! but what can be done is alter the way you extract the energy from the wind. batteries are stupid. generators are stupid. you cant match the load to the generator. its... complicated. if you compare a generator to the demonstration of lenz law, a magnet being dropped in a copper pipe, and start thinking about resistances if you were to cut a slit in that pipe... take that line of thought, do some maths with ohms, and suddenly it might make sense... wheres the heat, whats a load? wheres the work being done? what we should be doing instead? you just slam brakes on. make heat. proportional to the power in the wind and the turbine efficiency. wind speed increases, just apply more brake, more load, more heat... heat... heat... you dont need to use friction brakes, either. how did joule perform his initial experiments? the calorimeter? all you need is a load that can be applied and will still be capable of overpowering the turbine regardless of how high the windpseed is. and somewhere to DUMP the heat. STORE the heat. we keep throwing HEAT SINKS on everything and BLOW THE HEAT AWAY. we call the heat the LOSS when the heat runs EVERYTHING. what does heat do? can cook on heat. heat water. dry clothes. AC works by heating a fluid to cool a fluid... a lightbulb is just a heater driven to luminescence. electricity is convenient, thats all. we have grown accustomed to it. it doesnt mean its the best way to do things, its just easier... in most cases. in just about all cases i think of using electricity... its just heat. motors and a few other things here and there being minor exceptions. storing it as electricity? its stupid. nukes and coal plants run on heat. steam. the bigger the tank, the lower the losses through the walls... lot of energy in water. even more as it changes phase...
@@Trenchfoot1 : I don't have hands-on experience, but I think you have nailed it. Also, storage is key; save the surplus from ALL sources to use when needed. In some cases, the grid also has a part to play by making your surplus available elsewhere, and vice versa... but they are there to make money, they ain't a charity! There are also some lovely small-scale hydro setups, but they obviously only work for a small number of people.
Remember that wind turbines will only work where there's enough wind to produce what you need. Where I live, wind turbines just won't work. But up the mountains it will do just fine
Sounds and feels like a sales video. I'm open to the idea. and would much rather have a science and engineering discussion mixed with some sense of the fiscal dynamics and the situational applications. (meaning a practical and honest look at some of the advantages and the problems of getting a wind turbine to work across a variety of situations that a homeowner might face.)
Not like serious sales, more like scam. To harvest 1500 kWh per year I need 3 standard solar panels where I live. Less in southern europe or the US. Those 3 panels combined need 6 square meter of roof space and cost less than 500€. Small wind turbines may have it's merit as an addition to solar, if you are off grid. But it is considerable more expensive than solar.
One of the major issues with renewables is displayed so clearly in this video, companies are racing to to be the top and they'll never tell you about the options of integrating multiple renewable systems. I can see by integrating a combination of this system and a ground-source/air-source heat pump to a project managing to achieve off-grid energy security in areas where solar simply isn't feasible, it certainly puts a big dent in the masses of power required to run conventional electric heating.
As much as i like the idea of a smaller more compact wind gen and i can appriecate the balanced from both sides of the rotor. life span of the barings and as someone else mentioned what is the burnout speed, most modern wind gens need breaks to stop them when the wind gets up, also how many batteries are needed to store the potential power supplied?
This guy did his homework. Impressed he touched on the mini water turbine generator. Problem with a lot of these are harsh winters. Still glad to see the tech advancing.
This is a Northern European design. So I have a 34 KWh solar system with lithium batteries that cost about a third more than the big turbine of 20 KWh output, backed up with a 17 KWh generator. I run a five bedroom house and pool off this system. The thing is, like the sun, wind is also not consistent. This is not made clear here. So it's horses for courses. We live in Andalucía, Spain and get on average 320 days of wall to wall sun. In summer, very little wind so we will stick with our solar panels, thanks.
Exactly - leave wind turbines up to the professionals who can put them in sensible locations (off-shore) and make them big enough (20mW +) to make them worth-while.
On days of clouds interfering with solar power, weather patterns without sufficient winds also effect the efficiency of energy production. Every power source has its strengths and weaknesses in the process. By utilizing the best multiple sources available for your particular area, is it possible to offset consumption from the grid power. Install wind and solar energy together as a hybrid system. Or solar and hydro power systems together. Just don’t depend on one source of energy such as the utility grid. They also can fail at any time.
I am considering a vertical axis wind turbine that looks exactly like a tree, I call it : e-tree, the trunk of the e-tree is brown, the spinning blades are green, attached to the trunk of the e-tree are features of : wifi/mobile network, light and power outlet, to charge a car for example
Uh, ..... not all regions have measurable wind. I live in the deep South, where it is usually "dead calm" at my residential location. So, many of the "blanket/sales type" hype statements make you instantly lose credibility.
One problem I’ve verified (with solar panels), is the contractors make regulations that home-owners cannot install their own, then snatch a huge profit margin in a one day install. THEN STICK HOMEOWNERS WITH A 10-20-YEARS loan to pay off.. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is how it’s done with all green in America (let corporations price gouge). For example, the government was giving a good tax incentive to get solar panels, but the solar companies (I figured out) were calculating that into their open market pricing structure.. at the end of the day that corporation would end up with the profit, and the government incentive tax money, while the homeowner still gets his tax rebate the following year, not calculating the artificially increased pricing structure because the homeowner expects a rebate.. if we want Green to succeed, one thing we need are government regulations to enforce fair pricing for installs.
We keep coming up with ways to lower the costs of electrical consumption. What we do not concentrate on is, building components that require less energy for the same output.
agreed as every generation of new computer parts take more power to run so it is at the point where my relatively average computer not a huge gaming rig by any means puts out as much heat as my 750 watt micro heater can just imagine how much is generated by a high end rig
We have; cars get much better gas mileage than they did in the 60s-90s, lights use much less power and are just as bright(last longer too), kitchen and home appliances are far more energy efficient. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find things that havent gotten more energy efficient in the home or businesses that are in heavy use by most people(of course we are talking about 1st world). (as per Kirkyorg7654)Computers are one of the few things most people have that are going in the opposite direction, but that should change over time. Eventually a computer will be powerful enough that constant upgrading wont be necessary and then they can start making them more efficient..like the difference between a Car from the 1920s and a car from the 2020s.
That would work in the Columbia gorge with 10-40 mph winds in every back yard, Bridges and dams. Only the turbine doesn't need exposed. A larger static collector on the front end a a turbine like this has been suggested.
Solar panels as well as wind turbines vary in their ability to produce energy. Solar panels are dependant on the amount of sun that day, and of course, are useless at night. Wind Turbines are dependent on the wind. No wind, no energy production, Low wind, low energy production, high wind, max energy production, and unlike solar panels, works also at night. IMO, using both wind and solar should result in a more efficient system for producing energy.
I mean, you need to have the support for it grabbing the highest wind that can possibly come, or to shelter it below your roofline rather than let it crack off a hunk of your garage. Gantry loftage and patio stage lighting can get you a next-level erm...dunno, property value write-off?
Hey everyone, just a quick note, I invite you to check the data : The video says that the Liam F1 (diameter = 1.5m) can produce 1500 kwh/year with wind at 5 m/s, I have serious doubt about it. First let's compute the power of the wind : Pwind = 0.5 * p * a * v^3 With p : density of air (kg/m^3) = 1.225 kg/m^3 A : area of turbine (m^2) = 3.14 * 0.75^2 = 1.76 m^2 v : speed of wind (m/s) = 5 m/s So the power of the wind that will be put in liam F1 will be : Pwind = 135 W = 0.135 kW Number of hours in a year = 365*24 = 8760 hours So the energy of the wind in a year will be : Ewind = 0.135 * 8760 = 1184 kwh Wich is less than the 1500 kwh said in the video. Morover, the wind will not go at 5 m/s 24h/24 (by far), the efficiency of the F1 is not 100% (see Betz limit) and we should have energy loss due to storage, friction or stuff like that. I don't know where these 1500 kwh come from, if my reasoning is wrong, pls correct me, otherwise, it is unprofessional to tell these kind of numbers without quick verifications.
What if we decide to combine mini residential wind turbines with solar??? Then we can produce renewable energy all throughout the day. Just a suggestion!
Of course you can (and you far wouldnt be first with such system). Problem of these wind turbines is incoherent power output, as it can change from maximum to almost none in single minute, or even shorter time. Its problem for fotovoltaic too, but in branch of wind turbines, its a much bigger issue as intensity of wind is more random and changing more rapidly than sunshine. In other words, if you want wind turbine with more serious power output, you will have to somehow store energy harvested, because management of power grid will not allow you to let into grid those random peaks and voids of electricity. So with wind turbine since certain power otuput, you will need also own battery storage, which depend on batteries type cost quite a lot money (at least as much as turbine itself, but probably more), or clutch off turbine generator from turbine itself = you will not produce electricity quite often to cut off those power surges = your investition will not produce value quite often. There are also other approaches to solving of this problem. Some people store energy in form of small pump water dams (when they harvesting more electricity than its their actuall consumption, their system automatically start water pump which pumping water into higher water reservoir and once they need more energy than their micropowerplant producing, they start small water generator feed from water from that reservoir to produce more electricity). But again for such solution you need space for water reservoir, mechanization (water pump/water turbine, electric generator etc.), quite a lot of electronics and money = more investitions. Other approach is to store energy of that unstable power source as wind turbine in some flywheel, in form of kinetic energy, but its too complicated and expensive for ordinary people, same as that water dam before. Unfortunately, there are reasons why wind turbines arent so widespread as renewable energy source between people as fotovoltaic and this is it. It start to be economicaly reasonable only in much bigger dimensions (wind power parks etc.). I personaly think, it would be much better to adjust this type of turbine for water and developed some mini generator for small creeks. Such streams have also iregularities in their flow, but incomparable smaller than wind flows, so that need of complex and expensive solution of storaging of energy would fall off.
1500kwh per year is 4.1kwh per day average. Same average daily output of two 380 watt solar panels. Estimated cost of turbine is around $5500. Cost of a PALLET OF 30, 380watt solar panels, $3078(from a quick Google search). That's 15 times more power produced. Plus solar gives more power in the summer when we need it in Georgia. Maybe Kansas for winter if it doesn't turn into a frozen block of snow.
The design wraps like a Pinwheel, if you unwound and extended the fins you would find that the blades are at least 3 times longer than the diameter of the pinwheel. The total surface are is rather large so it will definitly catch more wind than you expect.
How does it hold up to hail or tornadic winds? Does it have a limiter on it so it doesn't overspin or can the unit take a hit from pea to golfball size hail???
This video really just seemed like an advertisement. Like the technology is ok but it seems like i would need 6 of these on my house in Canada. Which means solar should still be cheaper.
Can they be made small enough to fit on a roof, we need to make every home energy self-sufficient & cut ties with the stranglehold that big business currently has over us all, we need to get as many homes & businesses harnessing & storing it's own energy as possible.
So instead of relying on the "big business" that provides grid energy, you instead rely on companies that produce battery systems and energy generation devices alongside accessories and parts for them? That's a pretty ignorant and hypocritical approach.
@@LAndrewsChannel No, I buy the initial technology obviously because I can't make it myself but once bought I don't then spend the rest of my lifegiving over my hard earned money to big business, I produce all most if not all of my energy needs for free. If you're happy giving away all your hard earned money to big business then carry on doing so, it your money, you earned it. Personally I'd rather spend my hard earned money on other things.
@@GaryV-p3h So on what you'd "rather spend [your] hard earned money"? A TV? A car? A vacation? Everything you spend your "hard earned money" on will go partially or completely to "big business". A TV panel, a lithium battery, a microcontroller or jet fuel are all made by "big business" because the scale is the only thing that makes these affordable to most people. Without "big business" you won't be able to afford a lot of your things, like PV panels so saying crap like "big business bad" shows your ignorance on how the world works in this day and age.
*All practical tests show that small wind turbines hardly generate any electricity - and only at costs very significantly above 1$/kWh!* This is because there is hardly any wind near the ground, and it is also very gusty, which extremely reduces the service life of the systems. *With solar systems, you can reliably generate electricity for about 8-12 cents/kWh over a period of 25 years!*
I love how it looks like a decorative wind sculpture. If they get cheaper I can see these being a good compromise for people in neighborhoods that won't allow windmills or solar panels because of "the aesthetics."
"would be so much easier to install over solar panels." It would probably be better to install it adjacent to solar panels rather than over solar panels.
@@janos5555 "Go for solar, it is easier to install, cheaper and will produce 10 times as much energy." Unless you live in the specific northwest where sunshine is a rare event.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Yeah, and this accounts for maybe 2% of the global population. I live 53° North and still get over 1000kWh/kWp out of my solar panels.
@@janos5555 "I live 53° North and still get over 1000kWh/kWp out of my solar panels." I would be more impressed if you revealed the size of your solar panel array and whether that megawatt-hour is daily or annually or whatever. That far north you'll have a LOT of summer daylight (and very little winter daylight) but you'd need trackers since the sunlight is going to sweep nearly 270 degrees horizon to horizon each summer day.
No matter how well wind turbines are made, the wind doesn't blow 24/7 in most places. So you do need solar panels to enhance free energy for the days with no wind.
I live in South Africa so solar panels are a no-brainer (the sun is so bright in summer we exceed the panels rated capacity). Today for example, air speed is 2.5m/s - that's not even enough for the rated cut-in speed of 3.5m/s (the needed speed for the turbine to face the wind). The turbine is a nice idea but a long way from being commercially viable.
This turbine design has a large amount of surface area, surely this results in efficiency losses to parasitic drag? The most efficient manmade flying machine is a glider... they have long slender efficient wings; it is not surprising then that wind-farm turbines also have long slender efficient blades. All the marketing hype in the world will not alter the rules of physics!
I am sitting here watching this video and looking out my patio door. Not a leaf moving. Sure glad I got rid of my PV panels and got the Liam F1. I don't know what I will do with all this excess electricity I am not producing.
No it doesn't, depends on the type of day, storm's,winter, it comes up every day doesn't necessarily means,it appears,had winter's where we haven't seen the sun for day's,
The hailstorm we had last June shattered every single solar panel in the area. 100s of homes. Not only ly were the panels destroyed, roofs were damaged and has to be replaced.
Yet another poor performance turbine. I should know, as I designed many different turbine types for over 10 years and it's really difficult to create an efficient turbine that lasts more than a few years at best. Ridiculous claims, but they'll probably sell well due to good marketing.
@@jasonperry70 erosion... corrosion... high speed blades get a lot of abrasion from dust. low speed blades like this just dont work. just because its spinning doesnt mean anything... how much POWER is it making? thats the question. and you cant get any more force than the wind can apply on a given area. a pinwheel spins. it isnt doing anything but spinning. things stop spinning when you actually load them down and make them do work. you got rain. sun. exposure to elements 24/7. yep. bearings only last so long. then the generator... wiring. loads. outputs versus inputs. corrosion... switches... brakes... im not against wind though. all problems are solved with some thought.
For a wind turbine, "small size" means it will only catch the w ind that passes by in a very small circular area and hence produce only small power. Compare this chunk uf material with a 2-blade rotor of same diameter (which would certainly produce mure energy). Its ridiculous.
Really you need to compare the surface area of a 2 blade vs pinwheel design because surface area is what matters most. If you unwind the pinwheel you would find the surface area is deceptively large.
Based on typical wind speeds, the output from these wind turbines might only be about 1/3 the maximum power. Also, they cut out when wind exceeds certain speeds when they could be generating even more power. The cost for these is also ridiculously high since you would need a rooftop full of these to replace a rooftop of solar panels. It looks like the price could be around $1K-1.5K or less if mass produced. Of course, wind turbine efficiency would decrease as more units are placed closer together, and there isn't that much room on a roof, and most urban houses are on relatively small plots of land.
We should complement solar with wind, not replace it as it will help to charge the battery during evenings and thus helping you in keeping smaller battery.
@@Wisul I believe wind has a great role in the future of green energy. These particular wind turbines are way too expensive for the amount of energy they can produce, and they should be able to operate at near gale force. Japan has a design that is designed to work in near typhoon speed winds. Another problem for these turbines is that they are not efficient at low wind speeds, which in most areas, is most of the time.
What is the life expectancy? Why don't they state the actual output at a given wind speed. When you research solar panels, the output is clearly stated in volts, amps and max watt output. This makes it easy to size the system base on your requirements. I have been totally off grid for 6 years with solar as my primary source and wind as supplement. However I still need my backup generator if there are 3 or 4 days of rain.
For twice the price you can get a proper windmill that produce 10k - 27k kwh which means it can earn itself home quite a bit faster. Besides a family household spends between 3-6k kwh a year.
Solar provides power 365 days a year. True the output is best in bright sunshine, but even on an overcast day the panels still put out power. Wind on the other hand can die for days and even for weeks, plus few places offer a steady 5 metres a second.
This assumes that we all live where there is wind. Many of us live where most of the time there is little or no wind. It would take 100 years for this to pay for itself.
Missed 1 big thing about wind vs solar. Solar panels are virtually maintenence free (believe me as a guy thats been solar since 2012 , still have all but 1 still in service. Terbines have moving parts which require regular Maint. I had a wind turbine for 32 days before critical failure)
No, this will not replace solar cells. There is a minimum wind velocity. I tried a wind turbine near the ocean with a on shore breeze, but it failed. Mine only needed 2.5 m/s wind velocity. Couldn't get that reliably, was intermittent at best. Except for special locations, there is just not enough energy in the wind. Get a anemometer and check your wind speed before buying into this. Most likely you won't make the 5 m/s minimum. It's a very stiff breeze. Cheers.
Like the sun doesn't always shine for solar panels, the wind doesn't always blow (or hard enough) for wind turbines. However, MOST OF THE TIME, when there's no sun, there's wind. So a person really needs BOTH for constant income of power from nature.
This actually isn't bad. It's probably a very simple mechanism, it'll last a lot longer than solar. It's far more efficient, and compact. My only issue is the price tag of 5 grand for something I can put together by making a stop at menards and autozone. In fact, if NASA's new ionic thruster is applied, we could unlock permanently renewable energy. A 1:-1 conversion rate could be achieved.
How much gale is required to produce energy ? Technical details in detail are required for Viability of investment in the equipment. What is the life of equipment,
In the video, Michał Woźniak, an engineer with many years of experience in wind turbine design, criticizes the Liam F1 Urban Wind Turbine from The Archimedes company. He points out several significant flaws in this design: The small swept area of the blades limits the total wind energy input. As a drag-type turbine, its efficiency is below the maximum theoretical limit. It will be more expensive than simpler 3-bladed lift-based turbines. The low mounting height above the roof prevents capturing undisturbed wind flow. It will not be able to cost-effectively produce sufficient energy to justify its price. It will be an inefficient "white elephant" and an unsightly construction constantly pivoting like a weathervane. It will not effectively capture the kinetic energy even of the local turbulent wind. Engineer Woźniak believes the marketing promises about this turbine are exaggerated and untrue. His criticism is based on his extensive experience in wind turbine design. ruclips.net/video/45ojzyXaU_w/видео.htmlsi=u6alCuglR-7nUIlB
I'm not suggesting that these wind turbines aren't potentially an important element in a renewable energy environment BUT stating that solar panels are dependent upon clear skies while neglecting to acknowledge that wind turbines are similarly dependent upon having adequate wind (11+mph) is misleading. Comparing the "potential" power generated by a wind turbine (assuming constant adequate wind) while deprecating the potential input of solar is an unfair comparison. A combination of solar panels and wind turbines would likely be the best choice for most residential or commercial applications.
This horizontal helix turbine design should be much-much safer for birds, when compared to typical vertical open blade options and being silent, that will help everyone. Yes, I know there are other helical turbines on the market. The water is warm, innovators jump in!
Is the music in the background there so we should forget that these have been on the market for a long time but actually nowhere to be seen?!? Perhaps they don't work well or get broken?
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
Here are the Top 5 Wind Turbines to Make Your Home Power INDEPENDENT 👉👉 ruclips.net/video/EqCixxGKIVI/видео.html
That's a great recommendation! The Segway Portable PowerStation Cube Series seems like an excellent choice for anyone looking for reliable and powerful home backup power. With its massive capacity, fast recharging, and versatile sockets, it's definitely worth considering. Plus, its waterproof technology and comprehensive protections make it perfect for outdoor adventures. Thanks for sharing!
@@ARLGD ok bot
I am sorry
@@ijeomalinda1484 don't worry about it
@@morrow100wow
As an engineer with wind turbine design experience, I can say this is false sales hype. The total wind energy input is decided by the maximum area swept by the turbine, it is therefore quite small. As a drag type turbine, its conversion efficiency must necessarily be below the maximum 59% Betz limit, and much smaller than that of a lift driven 3 bladed propellor turbine. The cost of this device will be much more than that of a structurally simpler and lighter 3-bladed propellor. which uses much less construction material. Its mounting immediately above the roof means it essentially has no mast, and that it is not installed high enough above the roof to capture sufficient free unobstructed wind flow.
There is no way this device would cost effectively produce sufficient wind energy to justify its cost; it would simply be a white elephant, and a neighborhood eyesore continually pivoting like a weathercock towards the turbulent local wind direction, and not efficiently capturing the kinetic energy of even the turbulent local wind!
Don't be misled by this sales hype !🥵 !
Yeah, I would like to see their published power curve for this device.
It looks like a rip off. I also wonder how quiet it is. If it’s screwed to your roof, it’s going to transmit sound to you if there’s any sound to transmit.
The last time I was in a house that had a little wind turbine on it, it sounded like they had ghosts.
And if you’re really unlucky, of course, you’ll have a resonance problem and you will have screws backing their way out of your sheet rock.
Well, thank you for your post.
did you notice the video always tellls how bad other electric sources are? yeah, that's a tell tale it's a money grabbing scam
What about noise? I don’t care about efficiency as much as about noise.
@@evgenyzak2035 they don’t work, and they are noisy as well. Go to their website and look at the specifications. They are garbage.
I think this turbine was used for ships to move way faster than normal turbine thats what i saw tbh and u can google it . I also think based on that alone they made to think it can also work very well for air not only under water. it will be better once the new 3Rd printer that uses lighter materials which i saw been used for things like the new basketball 🏀
I looked this up and it doesn't seem very affordable compared to solar. However, for most areas, you need a permit to have wind installed on a roof, so a silent model would probably be the only option if you want wind. Also it has one big advantage over solar: Ameren (my local utility) has a net metering program tat gets zeroed out once a year which happens to be at the end of summer. This means that even if they owe you money they will just void that and remove any credits you earned from generating power in the summer. This means that you need a system that exceeds your average usage if you want a grid tied system where you don't have to pay the utilities. Wind, however, is more abundant in Autumn right after that reset date so depending on the cost might be better than solar or might work well as a hybrid system.
Looking at the numbers:
The "Liam F1 Mini Urban" model wind turbine costs around $5,450 + installation costs, goes on the roof, and generates no noise. It's based on the Archimedes screw and is advertised to produce an average of 1500 kwh per year with wind speeds of 5 m/s average, but will produce energy when wind is blowing as low as 2 m/s and nothing below that. This means that the advertised "average" will really depend on how windy your area is on average.
Getting an anemometer first would be a good idea to determine what your average will actually be. You can buy one for less than $100, but unless you plan on writing down the numbers multiple times a day every day for a year you are better off spending a bit more on a model that can log historic data. You can then use that data to determine how suitable wind is for you.
The average household in my uses 8,376 kwh a year. If we round up and assume you'd want 9,000 kwh and if we also assume each unit gives you an average of 1500 kwh a year you'd need 6 of these for a total cost of $32,700. A house that uses 9000 kwh a year will end up spending an average of $500+ a month so such a system would save $3000 a year meaning it would take 11 years for the system to be paid off assuming no maintainence is required.
sounds like your utility provider will put the zeroing for wind at mid autumn ..
11years at best for ROI is a bad deal, is there a tax deductible or something you left out? else solar is much better thanx to those
When I signed up for net metering with Ameren Illinois four years ago, I was given a choice of resetting October 1st or April 1st. To me it made the most sense to go with the April reset date. It has been my experience that having the build up of credit going into winter allows me to supplement natural gas forced air heating with electric quartz heaters. I would like to add a small wind turbine to my solar panels as a safety net to allow additional heater usage should I need to.
Who the heck wants 6 of these around your house. Ugh,
@@Mrbriangalvan ,
I have 4 P.M.A.s and each one is capable of making 1200 to 1800 watts each ,
One is hooked up to a V.A.W.T.
One to a water wheel
One to a bicycle
One to a 42cc gas engine
Then I have Solar Panels
So I'm using Wind , Water, Sun , Human power and gasoline for backup ,
I also have a 2000watt Generac generator .
Interesting but you overlook the fact that the cost will be reduced once the turbines are mass produced.
I first read about the Liam F1 turbine in 2014. There's a WaPo article about this from the same year. If it hasn't been commercialized properly in 9 years, I highly doubt if it delivers a fraction of what this video claims.
I found that same WaPo article, and I tend to agree with you. If it was even moderately good, we should have seen more news and interest about them.
3:43
@@rakeshchander1178
The time stamp doesn't give any performance numbers. I live in West Texas and I would love a wind turbine that could provide for my house. So, I would be happy if this was a great product. But, after nine years I don't see them and we have wind farms here, perfect area for any wind power product.
The video itself sounds like a marketing video.
9 yrs is a lifetime for computer tech upgrades/innovations, but 9 yrs is NOTHING for adopting a new energy source. Solar took a several decades to become more widely accepted, used and have costs reduced.
In 1 year from now you will never hear anything more about this. Products don't lose because of a failure of the idea, they lose to a failure of funding and public interest.
Or they’re bought out and the patents buried by competitors.
Or it's just pseudo-science bullshit
The need for this cheap source of energy can only be realized if the production is ramped up to flood the world and stop corporate driven governments from killing it off to protect their interests.
Elon Musk!, please help us?
this is avery old idea .. not new just died because it failed to live up to the hype
Why 15.000€. Isn't this only a couple of sheets of metal and a washing-machine brushles motor?
With a converter and a battery this should not be more than 5.000€. With that price I would order it now.
This product produces very little power, and costs 5x per kW what solar panels cost.
Unless you live somewhere that is super windy & cloudy all the time, it probably won't outperform solar panels.
And with mechanical moving parts, it will need more maintenance.
i wonder how it would perform in places like Canada where we have extreme winter weather ice storms etc...
It's not a mutually exclusive option. If you already have solar, you can install this as an adjunct. When it's bright and sunny, let solar be the primary source of energy. If it's cloudy, or windy overnight, then the turbine fills in what solar cannot do. Why the 'all-or-nothing' mindset?
was dumped by most engineers in the game years ago as just another fancy money grabber that produces very little not new at all i remember seeing prototypes of this a decade ago
With solar on a grid tied system you usually need to plan for more than your average usage because utilities like to zero out what they owe you at the end of summer right after peak power production. Wind, on the other hand, peaks in Autumn (at least in my area) so you might be able to get away with a smaller system.
From what I read each one is supposed to average 1500 kwh a year when the average annual wind speed is 5 m/s. This translates to 11.18 mph which is higher than the average some states receive. Then again, increased height decreases obstacles so increases this average. You'd really need to put a good Anemometer on your roof for a year to know for sure what to expect in your area. This would not only tell you your average wind speed, but also when the wind peaks which you'd need to calculate against your local net metering rules to determine if you need a system larger than your usage.
Assuming the listed averages are correct though, 6 of these units would produce an average of 9000 kwh a year at a cost of $32,700 - not including installation and shipping costs. This is actually fairly close to the price of a grid tied solar system. Maybe a bit more expensive, but certainly not 5 times the price unless you live in an area with very little wind.
The real problem is that unlike solar systems most areas require a permit to have wind installed. They are more likely to approve a small system that doesn't produce noise which is probably why units like this can be more expensive than what we used to see.
Regarding maintaince a solar panel needs to be maintained up to 4 times every year. They have to be cleaned because dust and leaves will reduce their ability to function. Heat also tends to damage them over time leading to gradually decreased returns. Interestingly, wind turbines need just as much maintainance. I guess the advantage here goes so solar though since you could technically just install a PVC pipe to the side of your house, run it to the roof, and have it spray over the panels to clean and cool them whenever you turn on a hose making the typical kind of maintainance in solar easier to plan for whereas wind turbines need to have the oil checked meaning you have to actually go up there onto your roof. So, not more maintainance, just more difficult maintainance.
@@Elliandr wrote, _"whereas wind turbines need to have the oil checked meaning you have to actually go up there onto your roof."_
You're talking about those massive 3-bladed industrial turbines, not the archimedes turbine in the video. Of the latter:
**Lifespan and warranty**
The standard warranty on the turbine is 2 years. At purchase you receive the warranty form. This should be filled in and handed to the producer (or agent / dealer, depending on where you get the warranty) to obtain standard warranty. Additionally, 18 years warranty can be purchased, bringing the total at 20 years. The wind turbine is expected to last 20 years, if properly maintained. You can obtain a maintenance contract / maintenance package at your agent. For more information please contact your agent, they can be found at the website.
Despite the design of the wind turbine LIAM F1, which is completely mechanic and contains only two moving parts, these parts will wear over time. The axis of the blade is mounted with two ball bearings, as well as the shaft which makes it possible to “look for the wind”. The wear depends on the number of turns that the parts make. The number of rotations depends on the wind speed. Location of placement is therefore important. Theoretically, the bearings can endure 250,000 to 300,000 operating hours. Assuming 8000 hours per year, the bearings can last approximately 30 years. However, we recommend, depending on the circumstances, to replace the bearings after 10 to 20 years.
My 24 solar panels created 1245 kwh for the month of aug -September 31 days and my use was 280 kwh So i think i will stick with my system 🤔👍
ya meanwhile in Ontario Canada last winter we went 35 days with no meaningful sunshine so pretty much useless in this part of the world for several months
In Tacoma WA we have roughly 5 straight months of clouds and rain each year. Solar would be fine in the summer but useless during the fall and winter.
@@BeyondPC yes I agree with you but fortunately we are blessed with a lot more sunny weather even in winter so solar is ok but it’s still not the bees knees so to speak , I get paid 12cents a kWh for what I don’t use which goes into the grid so my credit was $150 plus I get $28 credit from the gov each month so a small credit after my bill is payed which was $140 but on days when there’s no sun we have to turn on the auxiliary power for hot water which pushes your power bill up. 👍
@@kirkyorg7654 we are blessed with more sun here that’s for sure but there are times that we do get dull weather but to summarise the weather here it’s beautiful one day and perfect the one after😏👍
@@UbuteyAustralia lol ya makes me wonder what my dad was thinking when he was deciding to immigrate from the UK way back when, that between Australia and the frozen north Canada he chose the frozen north lol i blame my stepmothers family because they all went to Canada so we followed suit i have a feeling sun sand & surf would have been more my speed as even after 50+ years i still hate Canadian winters and the lack of an ocean in the middle of the country lol oh well that's life as they say lol
Why a simple device like this should cost 10000 -15000 dollars is ridiculous. Perhaps that is why no-one buys them?
The device is simple because of all the hard work done prior building this simplified product and its related costs. If there is a mass adoption by govt implementation then yes price would drop down due to multiple players and competition in market.
Can't wait for China to research and redesign this for sale at 300 dollars 😅
@@rakeshsinghprs Hard work? This is a shape we've known about for hundreds of years... Yes, engineering went into making this but not as much as you think.
@@Tletna if it was so simple it would have been made by many intelligent people and would have used it for thousands of years now. Its looks simple until it's been created. Homo sapiens existed for 2-3 hundred thousand years and wheel was invented only 3500 BCE back. Its easy to replicate this engineered device only after it's been created but to engineer to it's perfection is what the hard work is.
@@rakeshsinghprshomo sapiens is somewhere 70 to 40 thousands of years, you are talking about homo sapiens sapiens which incudes Neanderthals and others
You can't get more energy out of the wind than actually exists in the wind. "Fantastic" is the right word: fantasy output.
Something found on the web. These things are up there with those water out of thin air devices.
It's a drag wind generator with no aerodynamic component increasing generation. This makes it effectively closer to a Savonious than to even a Darrieus turbine, which is to say close to the least effective common form of wind generation used for pumping water and the like. A two- or three-blade horizontal axis wind turbine and most Darrieus-style vertical axis wind turbines get an extra kick from aerodynamic lift, especially the HAWTs.
It uses an awful lot of material for the amount it generates. All else being equal, you need to increase your swept area to get more energy from the wind. A two- or three-blade HAWT uses a very small amount of material to increase the swept area because swept area increases by the square when you have a circular swept area with an axis in the middle. This thing looks as if it would increase material required more than the swept area, which means its intrinsically limited to be tiny.
There's no way to feather the thing except by turning it 180 degrees to the wind, which only partially reduces the wind load. This means that you can expect it to get blown over in high winds much more regularly than more sensible designs.
They are idiots about installation. Their site shows these things mounted directly on rooftops. Anybody with any knowledge of the physics of laminar air flow knows that all else being equal, rooftops are really stupid places to put wind generators because the wind is slow and extremely turbulent there. Putting wind turbines on masts well above surrounding obstacles and in the clearest air possible is the only way to get economic amounts of electricity out unless you build your wind generator from spare parts you have in your shed as a hobby.
They go down the path of dissing solar panels -- need maintenance!, don't work in the dark! -- and other types of wind generators -- kill birds! -- instead of publishing standard wind speed to power generation curves which every credible wind generator manufacturer does. And I say this having dug into the spec sheets and scientific papers on their website. This is two anti-patterns for the price of one.
They do actually publish efficiency curves for the turbines and they do not look good.
3m/s is the cut-in speed. If it's below that either it can't spin the generator or it just doesn't spin it fast enough to generate any sort of usable power.
Even on their 1.5m model in order to get the 1500kWh/yr it would need to output 172ish Watt constantly 24/7.
In order to generate that 172W it needs a wind speed of around 9m/s. So it needs constant wind of around 5bft or 20mph in order to get that advertised number.
In order for it to reach it's rated output it needs wind speeds of 12.5m/s or just over 6bft or 25mph. Oh and it cuts out at 14m/s and self destructs at 35m/s.
So it doesn't do anything below 3bft, it won't reach rated output until 6bft, it cuts out at 7bft, and it dies at anything over 11bft.
That seems an awfully small window of operation.
Oh and they apparently start at 10k euro, not including structural work to the roof, because it needs to withstand 3kN of load during normal operation and probably a lot more during storms.
The question that comes to mind is how these wind turbines stand up to winter climates, where heavy winds can often be accompanied by snow, sleet, freezing rain and temperatures below -25°C.
Thats a good question. Never thought about that. I live in the never ending sun zone.
Green energy advocates never ask hard questions based on less than flawless laboratory conditions. Where I live winters are fairly mild but marked by rain during the day that gets just cold enough at night to freeze thus stopping things like wind turbines and coating them in thin layers of ice. It’s a genius design, there is no one answer to the problem. I just wish here at home we were not plagued by delusional idiots. Cali residents have an inability to imagine a world beyond La.
@@mikewaterfield3599
To your point about green energy sources, it seems that they're most effective the closer to the equator that you get.
Where I live wind and hydro are probably the best sources of green energy, but wind is unreliable at certain times of the year. During the winter, there's plenty of wind; and it can make -25°C feel like -40°C when it's really howling. We get a fair amount of snow. Sometimes I even need to clear the snow from the roof to avoid it causing a collapse from all the weight.
No doubt, any wind turbine would need to be cleared of that much snow; and even freezing rain will bring everything to a halt. What I'm wondering is just how difficult it is to maintain these turbines in wintery conditions; and how robust are they?
@@MickPsyphon solar certainly is, here in the US wind farms would make a great deal of sense in the Midwest except for winter. Personally I would go for nuclear power plants exclusively operated by the USN. Everything is a trade off.
@@mikewaterfield3599
Nuclear is the most reliable. I live within walking distance of a nuclear power plant. There's also a nuclear power plant about a 30 minute drive East on the highway, from my house; and the largest nuclear power plant in the world is about 2 ½ hours drive North West of my place.
On top of all that, there are also numerous fossil fuel power plants all around my area. Despite all these sources of energy we still suffer from rolling brown-outs and power cutting out for less than a minute, every other week. We're constantly being told to conserve energy, while the bulk of the power generated in all these power plants is exported to New York State.
That's why I'm looking for a fairly reliable supplemental source of energy.
Bit of ‘over selling’ going on here IMO. That guy never shut up about how ‘amazing’ it is and had no credible comparison data to prove it.
The video was awful and a pain to get through... hopeful for the technology tho
Was thinking the same thing..."the fact that the Liam 1 is more advanced and better suited than blah blah is expected" I literally stopped at this sentence I'm good on to the next vid
No really, this is pretty good. One of the biggest reasons I've shy'd away from renewable energy was because of how bad it is, but this could actually work out. Not a fan of the price tag, but I'm gonna go build one of these today and I'll report back later.
That "guy" is AI voice
😂
I have seen this model before, then called the Archemedes wind turbine. Same promises, but could not deliver. Costed more than it will ever produce in energy.
The video mentioned 10-years to pay for itself.
@@RichardHarlosYeah, that is wrong. They can say what ever they want.
At the price they're quoting it's unfeasible. But im'a go build one today with PVC, a curtain rod, some aluminum supports, and an alternator. Should run about 500 bucks if I do it right.
Next time you take content from another channel, perhaps consider asking first. At 1:22 you have used a considerable clip from a video on my channel without permission! And have given no credit or indication of doing so.
What's the output? What is the efficiency? All those words with none of the answers needed to evaluate it.
You will still need to either store the electricity in batteries or share it with the 'grid'. Sharing your unused electricity with the grid builds up credit which can be spent on electricity when your device's output is lower than what you require.
Except in places like Cali where the energy companies tax/charge you to death on it.
Looking at the output figures of the smaller generator, you aren't going to share anything with the grid, you will need a wind speed of 10m/s just to keep the lights on!
The deal with the power companies vary wildly. Effectively the power company doesn't walk to take on being a battery and having power when they don't need it either. Not saying the new deal in California is fair but neither is simple net metering.
5m/s equals 11.6 miles per hour.... even in my current location in a coastal town exposed to the monsoon, this is already extraordinary.
Correct, a location with wind speeds of 4 m/s is already considered a good location. Average speeds of 5 m/s are really rare.
the slowest avg wind speed in the US is 12.91 mph and it's in Delaware (no wonder Joe is slow)....
@@arnauddechamps855 Where did you find this? To my knowledge it is not and wind speeds are usually measured 30 meters above ground. So unless you put the turbine on that height on an open field the wind speed will be lower.
or 18km/h.
I have 48 solar panels that deliver electricity on days when the wind is not blowing. A combination of solar and wind would be the best solution.
This type of energy production (at least here in Western and Northern Europe) is very useful because solar panels do not give enough production during the winter period. And at those long nights you don't have sunshine either and in winter it's often cloudy (windy) weather. There this turbine comes in pretty handy. According to sources the average windspeed on my location here in the North of the Netherlands is about 7.5m/s, so it definitely can help out. When the wind is blowing, especially at night, and the temperature is cold, then turn on the convector heater or even store heat in a type of stone that can store heat for a long time, only when you have excessive power available. That would be ideal. I would love to buy one or two of these, and never have to worry about energy again. Also because in my country 'netting' is being abandoned.
The North Sea is definitely a windy location, but I think it is highly unlikely that you can achieve such wind speeds. The usual rule of thumb is 4 m/s for a good location, 5 m/s for a very good location, and 6 m/s for an extraordinary location. If you really thin about it, you should put up a mast and do measurement for at least 1 year.
Do you have one installed? If so, please post a link to your data so we can all confirm reality.
Thank you!
a good video for a small chuckle.
There is a reason why we install bigger an bigger Wind turbines on Land and Sea.
A small turbine, low to the ground, thats only usable if a certain wind speed hits it, will not generate much energy. Also... if the neighbor build a new house or a single is in the Way, that alone can change the currents in the area, therefore affecting this small turbine.
Today is a typical Day in November.... that turbine wouldnt even work because its less than 5m/s windspeed...... but solarpanels work fine, because they dont need a clear sky.... just light.
Plus... the moving parts have to be checked regularly. If its silent, it means the Dynamo inside, that generates the energy, doesnt give much resistance. Low resistance, low energy production.
Its not a good comparison but think of the old style dynamos on Bicycles. The faster you are, the more energy it generates... but that also means it gets louder. Its the same principle here. Sure that can be reduced if you use ball-bearings... but that are just more moving parts that can fail.
They dont even give technical data beside the size and how much it allegedly generates. A proper advertisement would mention atleast the needed technical data.
good comparison to an old style dynamo, the one on my schwinn bike pressed against the front wheel. and the drag it created could be sensed while pedaling.
having a light 'on' was a lot more pedaling effort.
given that the spring -force
pushing it against the tire was a constant un-changable pressure has me
wonder if the drag it caused vs the light energy created was overkill.
this all was back in the '50's. some time before re-chargable batt's.
later on i changed the lite on my bike to one using c-cells.
In much of the USA, 5 m/s average is unlikely, but there are some areas that could average that speed. At that, you'd need to put it on a 30m pole and free of trees, buildings, terrain to get that average. 1,500 kWh all year is not much. Even at "expensive" kWh at $0.14/kWh, that is $210 annual payback. Simple Payback SPB in years at $5,000 installed cost would be 24 years. In my area its nice to have cheaper electricity a bit under $0.10/kWh, but then SPB is +33 years.
What is important here is your eyeballs watching the video.
This is the answer.
When you connect any alt power to a public grid for payback know that the local power Co credits you way less per KWH than what they sell back to you. LADWP (Los Angeles) for example credits about 2 cents per KWH for a grid tie system ( that folks pay up to $35/$40 grand) and sells back to you for full price whatever that is in your area (.12 to .20/KWH?)
5 metres per second is 11.2 miles per hour or 18 kilometres per hour. That's a pretty stiff breeze That we don't get very often even here on the coast of Nova Scotia.
What's also important here is understanding and thinking well. This isn't being presented as a universal solution. Where solar makes sense, use solar. Where solar is spotty but there's some wind, use both. Where it's cloudy most of the time but wind is present, this makes sense.
The video said the turbine operates on *_as little as_* 5m/s, not that it requires an *_average_* of that velocity. And again, it's being presented as the one universal device that everyone, everywhere, at all times, should use exclusively.
So, yes, to the video, eyeballs are important. But to the intelligent, they're understood as being important to every video on RUclips, not only this one. So, when you mention something universal as if it's particular, you're either being dishonest, or you simply don't understand why what you've said is 'a difference that makes no difference'.
Thinking well is a *_skill._* As such, it can be learned about, practiced, and improved. 10/10 do recommend you look into this option.
30m is a tad high, anything above 80ft in the US needs a red blinky-light.
Thank goodness we can easily determine a detached impersonal robotic puff piece versus a real person delivering true information
In Hamburg, NY you could put one of these on a house and you could power a small city with the amount of wind we get here. Gusts are “only” peaking at around 40mph today, pretty calm out there.
Short term wind gusts are less relevant. Many hours of Steady 25 mph is needed. Few people actually have that, at their roof
Places like Patagonia,with heavy winds are suitable for this invention, thanks for the data from Argentina
A wind turbine can only extract energy from the wind that impinges on it's frontal area. And not all the energy that exists in that cross section of wind, at that. Even if this turbine could extract all the energy that impinges on it (It can't) it would be limited by it's frontal area. Add to that that solar panels have no moving parts and are therefore intrinsically longer lasting and it is no contest.
Yep, the next small form factor rooftop mounted scam. Solar is king. Prices are now few times lower than coal per watt installed capacity. On top of that solar panels are almost maintenance free and expected to last at least 25 years without significant degradation in efficiency and very possibly more than twice that. Wind has it's place but only the big commercial wind projects when installed in places that see constant winds in excess of 10m/s. These rooftop mounted flimsy turbines are nothing but a scam luring not very technically savvy people into spending their hard earned cash. I'll be surprised if any of these toys actually last more than an year when exposed to the elements. Do not buy!
Solar is only useful if you live somewhere with enough W/m2 of light to make them worth the cost (both money and CO2).
A diverse portfolio of energy generation would be better. How does solar do at night? Or during the winter?
solar suits battery storage as it can be made to deliver constant voltages, and the supply is fairly consistent. shade variations only.
wind... has this strange thing about its variability, power going up on the cube...
100% correct. cant beat the frontal area of a turbine. any attempt to duct it, increase the area, simply stagnates the air and reduces efficiency... people like to think "ram air" and "venturis" work like this, fail to understand that they are closed systems... the air in an open system such as the wind, it simply skips AROUND the obstruction rather than speed up THROUGH it... its the same as pressure in a column of water... a funnel in the wind, the pressure at the smaller end is no higher than the column of air over it, the velocity no higher than the wind speed itself. there is no "venturi effect" unless all the air at the larger diameter is confined to only flow in the cone... and you cant do that out in the open air.
cant beat betz, cant beat physics. adding extra surface like this just increases friction and reduces efficiency again. lucky to get 30% from even an optimised blade. good luck finding 59%... with the surface to frontal area this has, expect at best.... 0.59%!
but what can be done is alter the way you extract the energy from the wind.
batteries are stupid. generators are stupid. you cant match the load to the generator. its... complicated. if you compare a generator to the demonstration of lenz law, a magnet being dropped in a copper pipe, and start thinking about resistances if you were to cut a slit in that pipe... take that line of thought, do some maths with ohms, and suddenly it might make sense... wheres the heat, whats a load? wheres the work being done?
what we should be doing instead?
you just slam brakes on. make heat. proportional to the power in the wind and the turbine efficiency. wind speed increases, just apply more brake, more load, more heat... heat... heat... you dont need to use friction brakes, either. how did joule perform his initial experiments? the calorimeter? all you need is a load that can be applied and will still be capable of overpowering the turbine regardless of how high the windpseed is. and somewhere to DUMP the heat. STORE the heat.
we keep throwing HEAT SINKS on everything and BLOW THE HEAT AWAY. we call the heat the LOSS when the heat runs EVERYTHING.
what does heat do?
can cook on heat. heat water. dry clothes. AC works by heating a fluid to cool a fluid... a lightbulb is just a heater driven to luminescence. electricity is convenient, thats all. we have grown accustomed to it. it doesnt mean its the best way to do things, its just easier... in most cases. in just about all cases i think of using electricity... its just heat. motors and a few other things here and there being minor exceptions.
storing it as electricity? its stupid.
nukes and coal plants run on heat. steam.
the bigger the tank, the lower the losses through the walls... lot of energy in water. even more as it changes phase...
@@Trenchfoot1 : I don't have hands-on experience, but I think you have nailed it. Also, storage is key; save the surplus from ALL sources to use when needed. In some cases, the grid also has a part to play by making your surplus available elsewhere, and vice versa... but they are there to make money, they ain't a charity!
There are also some lovely small-scale hydro setups, but they obviously only work for a small number of people.
Remember that wind turbines will only work where there's enough wind to produce what you need. Where I live, wind turbines just won't work. But up the mountains it will do just fine
Sounds and feels like a sales video. I'm open to the idea. and would much rather have a science and engineering discussion mixed with some sense of the fiscal dynamics and the situational applications. (meaning a practical and honest look at some of the advantages and the problems of getting a wind turbine to work across a variety of situations that a homeowner might face.)
Not like serious sales, more like scam. To harvest 1500 kWh per year I need 3 standard solar panels where I live. Less in southern europe or the US. Those 3 panels combined need 6 square meter of roof space and cost less than 500€.
Small wind turbines may have it's merit as an addition to solar, if you are off grid. But it is considerable more expensive than solar.
One of the major issues with renewables is displayed so clearly in this video, companies are racing to to be the top and they'll never tell you about the options of integrating multiple renewable systems. I can see by integrating a combination of this system and a ground-source/air-source heat pump to a project managing to achieve off-grid energy security in areas where solar simply isn't feasible, it certainly puts a big dent in the masses of power required to run conventional electric heating.
As much as i like the idea of a smaller more compact wind gen and i can appriecate the balanced from both sides of the rotor. life span of the barings and as someone else mentioned what is the burnout speed, most modern wind gens need breaks to stop them when the wind gets up, also how many batteries are needed to store the potential power supplied?
This guy did his homework. Impressed he touched on the mini water turbine generator. Problem with a lot of these are harsh winters. Still glad to see the tech advancing.
Why can’t we just 3d print this?
You can. But the printer has to be very large, which is not common.
It would be heavy
Don't forget the generator and control system
Great to see new wind power the new way to go is this FUEL 😊
This is a Northern European design.
So I have a 34 KWh solar system with lithium batteries that cost about a third more than the big turbine of 20 KWh output, backed up with a 17 KWh generator. I run a five bedroom house and pool off this system. The thing is, like the sun, wind is also not consistent. This is not made clear here. So it's horses for courses. We live in Andalucía, Spain and get on average 320 days of wall to wall sun. In summer, very little wind so we will stick with our solar panels, thanks.
Exactly - leave wind turbines up to the professionals who can put them in sensible locations (off-shore) and make them big enough (20mW +) to make them worth-while.
On days of clouds interfering with solar power, weather patterns without sufficient winds also effect the efficiency of energy production. Every power source has its strengths and weaknesses in the process. By utilizing the best multiple sources available for your particular area, is it possible to offset consumption from the grid power. Install wind and solar energy together as a hybrid system. Or solar and hydro power systems together. Just don’t depend on one source of energy such as the utility grid. They also can fail at any time.
Sure, but how and where can we get one, at what price, how many watts can the small one produce.
It's all on their website.
I am considering a vertical axis wind turbine that looks exactly like a tree, I call it : e-tree,
the trunk of the e-tree is brown, the spinning blades are green,
attached to the trunk of the e-tree are features of : wifi/mobile network, light and power outlet, to charge a car for example
Yeah we need numbers
To capture optimum wind energy, mast must be erected very high which local council will not allow for households
Uh, ..... not all regions have measurable wind. I live in the deep South, where it is usually "dead calm" at my residential location. So, many of the "blanket/sales type" hype statements make you instantly lose credibility.
True
One problem I’ve verified (with solar panels), is the contractors make regulations that home-owners cannot install their own, then snatch a huge profit margin in a one day install. THEN STICK HOMEOWNERS WITH A 10-20-YEARS loan to pay off.. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is how it’s done with all green in America (let corporations price gouge). For example, the government was giving a good tax incentive to get solar panels, but the solar companies (I figured out) were calculating that into their open market pricing structure.. at the end of the day that corporation would end up with the profit, and the government incentive tax money, while the homeowner still gets his tax rebate the following year, not calculating the artificially increased pricing structure because the homeowner expects a rebate.. if we want Green to succeed, one thing we need are government regulations to enforce fair pricing for installs.
We keep coming up with ways to lower the costs of electrical consumption. What we do not concentrate on is, building components that require less energy for the same output.
agreed as every generation of new computer parts take more power to run so it is at the point where my relatively average computer not a huge gaming rig by any means puts out as much heat as my 750 watt micro heater can just imagine how much is generated by a high end rig
We have; cars get much better gas mileage than they did in the 60s-90s, lights use much less power and are just as bright(last longer too), kitchen and home appliances are far more energy efficient. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find things that havent gotten more energy efficient in the home or businesses that are in heavy use by most people(of course we are talking about 1st world).
(as per Kirkyorg7654)Computers are one of the few things most people have that are going in the opposite direction, but that should change over time. Eventually a computer will be powerful enough that constant upgrading wont be necessary and then they can start making them more efficient..like the difference between a Car from the 1920s and a car from the 2020s.
That would work in the Columbia gorge with 10-40 mph winds in every back yard, Bridges and dams. Only the turbine doesn't need exposed. A larger static collector on the front end a a turbine like this has been suggested.
Solar panels as well as wind turbines vary in their ability to produce energy.
Solar panels are dependant on the amount of sun that day, and of course, are useless at night.
Wind Turbines are dependent on the wind. No wind, no energy production, Low wind, low energy production, high wind, max energy production, and unlike solar panels, works also at night.
IMO, using both wind and solar should result in a more efficient system for producing energy.
Les agradeceré por su gentil información, en mi zona corre mucho viento y no tengo energía eléctrica de ninguna empresa.
5m/sec is 18kmh wind. I think the ave wind is 3 to 5. So I think I’d need about 20 on my roof.
I mean, you need to have the support for it grabbing the highest wind that can possibly come, or to shelter it below your roofline rather than let it crack off a hunk of your garage. Gantry loftage and patio stage lighting can get you a next-level erm...dunno, property value write-off?
Hey everyone, just a quick note, I invite you to check the data :
The video says that the Liam F1 (diameter = 1.5m) can produce 1500 kwh/year with wind at 5 m/s, I have serious doubt about it. First let's compute the power of the wind :
Pwind = 0.5 * p * a * v^3
With p : density of air (kg/m^3) = 1.225 kg/m^3
A : area of turbine (m^2) = 3.14 * 0.75^2 = 1.76 m^2
v : speed of wind (m/s) = 5 m/s
So the power of the wind that will be put in liam F1 will be :
Pwind = 135 W = 0.135 kW
Number of hours in a year = 365*24 = 8760 hours
So the energy of the wind in a year will be :
Ewind = 0.135 * 8760 = 1184 kwh
Wich is less than the 1500 kwh said in the video.
Morover, the wind will not go at 5 m/s 24h/24 (by far), the efficiency of the F1 is not 100% (see Betz limit) and we should have energy loss due to storage, friction or stuff like that.
I don't know where these 1500 kwh come from, if my reasoning is wrong, pls correct me, otherwise, it is unprofessional to tell these kind of numbers without quick verifications.
No, the rated power is at 12 m/s wind speed
What if we decide to combine mini residential wind turbines with solar??? Then we can produce renewable energy all throughout the day. Just a suggestion!
Of course you can (and you far wouldnt be first with such system). Problem of these wind turbines is incoherent power output, as it can change from maximum to almost none in single minute, or even shorter time. Its problem for fotovoltaic too, but in branch of wind turbines, its a much bigger issue as intensity of wind is more random and changing more rapidly than sunshine. In other words, if you want wind turbine with more serious power output, you will have to somehow store energy harvested, because management of power grid will not allow you to let into grid those random peaks and voids of electricity. So with wind turbine since certain power otuput, you will need also own battery storage, which depend on batteries type cost quite a lot money (at least as much as turbine itself, but probably more), or clutch off turbine generator from turbine itself = you will not produce electricity quite often to cut off those power surges = your investition will not produce value quite often. There are also other approaches to solving of this problem. Some people store energy in form of small pump water dams (when they harvesting more electricity than its their actuall consumption, their system automatically start water pump which pumping water into higher water reservoir and once they need more energy than their micropowerplant producing, they start small water generator feed from water from that reservoir to produce more electricity). But again for such solution you need space for water reservoir, mechanization (water pump/water turbine, electric generator etc.), quite a lot of electronics and money = more investitions. Other approach is to store energy of that unstable power source as wind turbine in some flywheel, in form of kinetic energy, but its too complicated and expensive for ordinary people, same as that water dam before. Unfortunately, there are reasons why wind turbines arent so widespread as renewable energy source between people as fotovoltaic and this is it. It start to be economicaly reasonable only in much bigger dimensions (wind power parks etc.). I personaly think, it would be much better to adjust this type of turbine for water and developed some mini generator for small creeks. Such streams have also iregularities in their flow, but incomparable smaller than wind flows, so that need of complex and expensive solution of storaging of energy would fall off.
1500kwh per year is 4.1kwh per day average. Same average daily output of two 380 watt solar panels. Estimated cost of turbine is around $5500. Cost of a PALLET OF 30, 380watt solar panels, $3078(from a quick Google search). That's 15 times more power produced. Plus solar gives more power in the summer when we need it in Georgia.
Maybe Kansas for winter if it doesn't turn into a frozen block of snow.
Takes a big set of blades to extract energy from wind...Swept area...These little guys might generate power in a hurricane...
The design wraps like a Pinwheel, if you unwound and extended the fins you would find that the blades are at least 3 times longer than the diameter of the pinwheel. The total surface are is rather large so it will definitly catch more wind than you expect.
As Sylvester said Is the swept area that maters, not the blade área. Energy is on the air that passes through. Look up for Betz limit.
How does it hold up to hail or tornadic winds? Does it have a limiter on it so it doesn't overspin or can the unit take a hit from pea to golfball size hail???
This video really just seemed like an advertisement. Like the technology is ok but it seems like i would need 6 of these on my house in Canada. Which means solar should still be cheaper.
I bet these will be available any day now. I'll just sit here and wait. Any. Day. Now.
Can they be made small enough to fit on a roof, we need to make every home energy self-sufficient & cut ties with the stranglehold that big business currently has over us all, we need to get as many homes & businesses harnessing & storing it's own energy as possible.
I'm working on it.
So instead of relying on the "big business" that provides grid energy, you instead rely on companies that produce battery systems and energy generation devices alongside accessories and parts for them? That's a pretty ignorant and hypocritical approach.
@@LAndrewsChannel No, I buy the initial technology obviously because I can't make it myself but once bought I don't then spend the rest of my lifegiving over my hard earned money to big business, I produce all most if not all of my energy needs for free. If you're happy giving away all your hard earned money to big business then carry on doing so, it your money, you earned it. Personally I'd rather spend my hard earned money on other things.
@@GaryV-p3h So on what you'd "rather spend [your] hard earned money"? A TV? A car? A vacation? Everything you spend your "hard earned money" on will go partially or completely to "big business". A TV panel, a lithium battery, a microcontroller or jet fuel are all made by "big business" because the scale is the only thing that makes these affordable to most people.
Without "big business" you won't be able to afford a lot of your things, like PV panels so saying crap like "big business bad" shows your ignorance on how the world works in this day and age.
*All practical tests show that small wind turbines hardly generate any electricity - and only at costs very significantly above 1$/kWh!*
This is because there is hardly any wind near the ground, and it is also very gusty, which extremely reduces the service life of the systems.
*With solar systems, you can reliably generate electricity for about 8-12 cents/kWh over a period of 25 years!*
Wonder how they would work in a ice or snow storm?
What a brilliant question! I was thinking these would be great, but it snows and we have ice storms in Midwest USA!
They will work about as well as solar panels will during a snow storm.......
I love how it looks like a decorative wind sculpture. If they get cheaper I can see these being a good compromise for people in neighborhoods that won't allow windmills or solar panels because of "the aesthetics."
These are "wind turbines" and would be allowed for the same reason.
I wonder if we have enough air movement to make this worth it. I think this is a great idea and would be so much easier to install over solar panels.
"would be so much easier to install over solar panels."
It would probably be better to install it adjacent to solar panels rather than over solar panels.
Installing solar panels is incredibly easy. Go for solar, it is easier to install, cheaper and will produce 10 times as much energy.
@@janos5555 "Go for solar, it is easier to install, cheaper and will produce 10 times as much energy."
Unless you live in the specific northwest where sunshine is a rare event.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Yeah, and this accounts for maybe 2% of the global population. I live 53° North and still get over 1000kWh/kWp out of my solar panels.
@@janos5555 "I live 53° North and still get over 1000kWh/kWp out of my solar panels."
I would be more impressed if you revealed the size of your solar panel array and whether that megawatt-hour is daily or annually or whatever. That far north you'll have a LOT of summer daylight (and very little winter daylight) but you'd need trackers since the sunlight is going to sweep nearly 270 degrees horizon to horizon each summer day.
No matter how well wind turbines are made, the wind doesn't blow 24/7 in most places. So you do need solar panels to enhance free energy for the days with no wind.
I live in South Africa so solar panels are a no-brainer (the sun is so bright in summer we exceed the panels rated capacity). Today for example, air speed is 2.5m/s - that's not even enough for the rated cut-in speed of 3.5m/s (the needed speed for the turbine to face the wind).
The turbine is a nice idea but a long way from being commercially viable.
If this is so good, why hasn't it taken over the world by now?
Sounds great. Problem is you still have to have a way of storing the energy and obviously Ev cars aren’t going to work because of the battery issues.
This turbine design has a large amount of surface area, surely this results in efficiency losses to parasitic drag? The most efficient manmade flying machine is a glider... they have long slender efficient wings; it is not surprising then that wind-farm turbines also have long slender efficient blades. All the marketing hype in the world will not alter the rules of physics!
we need a panel that harnesses the darkness of night😂😂😂😂😂
Sounds like perfect bs to me!
I am sitting here watching this video and looking out my patio door. Not a leaf moving. Sure glad I got rid of my PV panels and got the Liam F1. I don't know what I will do with all this excess electricity I am not producing.
lol
The sun makes an appearance every day, the wind is far less reliable.
No it doesn't, depends on the type of day, storm's,winter, it comes up every day doesn't necessarily means,it appears,had winter's where we haven't seen the sun for day's,
@@morrisanderson818 You still get solar power even when it is overcast. Many days there is ZERO wind.
The hailstorm we had last June shattered every single solar panel in the area. 100s of homes. Not only ly were the panels destroyed, roofs were damaged and has to be replaced.
Yet another poor performance turbine. I should know, as I designed many different turbine types for over 10 years and it's really difficult to create an efficient turbine that lasts more than a few years at best. Ridiculous claims, but they'll probably sell well due to good marketing.
Why don't they last? Is it the bearings?
@@jasonperry70 erosion... corrosion...
high speed blades get a lot of abrasion from dust.
low speed blades like this just dont work. just because its spinning doesnt mean anything... how much POWER is it making? thats the question. and you cant get any more force than the wind can apply on a given area. a pinwheel spins. it isnt doing anything but spinning. things stop spinning when you actually load them down and make them do work.
you got rain. sun. exposure to elements 24/7.
yep. bearings only last so long.
then the generator... wiring. loads. outputs versus inputs. corrosion... switches...
brakes...
im not against wind though. all problems are solved with some thought.
Put an actual load on this thing and I bet it barely spins, if at all.
Please send it to Pakistam a market of 250 million peoples having very costly energy and increasing prices daily.
In Pakistan you want solar. It's much cheaper.
For a wind turbine, "small size" means it will only catch the w ind that passes by in a very small circular area and hence produce only small power. Compare this chunk uf material with a 2-blade rotor of same diameter (which would certainly produce mure energy). Its ridiculous.
Really you need to compare the surface area of a 2 blade vs pinwheel design because surface area is what matters most. If you unwind the pinwheel you would find the surface area is deceptively large.
Based on typical wind speeds, the output from these wind turbines might only be about 1/3 the maximum power. Also, they cut out when wind exceeds certain speeds when they could be generating even more power. The cost for these is also ridiculously high since you would need a rooftop full of these to replace a rooftop of solar panels. It looks like the price could be around $1K-1.5K or less if mass produced. Of course, wind turbine efficiency would decrease as more units are placed closer together, and there isn't that much room on a roof, and most urban houses are on relatively small plots of land.
We should complement solar with wind, not replace it as it will help to charge the battery during evenings and thus helping you in keeping smaller battery.
@@Wisul I believe wind has a great role in the future of green energy. These particular wind turbines are way too expensive for the amount of energy they can produce, and they should be able to operate at near gale force. Japan has a design that is designed to work in near typhoon speed winds.
Another problem for these turbines is that they are not efficient at low wind speeds, which in most areas, is most of the time.
An attic vent was being used to show a wind turbine for renewable electricity.
Matt Risinger from Build RUclips Channel was seen in this video.
Guys, stop the Vs war. The good thing about energy is that you can unite sources. Why not this and + Solar.
The biggest advantage of Solar is no moving parts , little to no maintenance
What is the life expectancy? Why don't they state the actual output at a given wind speed. When you research solar panels, the output is clearly stated in volts, amps and max watt output. This makes it easy to size the system base on your requirements. I have been totally off grid for 6 years with solar as my primary source and wind as supplement. However I still need my backup generator if there are 3 or 4 days of rain.
For twice the price you can get a proper windmill that produce 10k - 27k kwh which means it can earn itself home quite a bit faster. Besides a family household spends between 3-6k kwh a year.
Solar provides power 365 days a year. True the output is best in bright sunshine, but even on an overcast day the panels still put out power. Wind on the other hand can die for days and even for weeks, plus few places offer a steady 5 metres a second.
It's very cool but one thing solar panels don't have is moving parts so it's a lot less maintenance intensive over the long run.
Thank you for sharing latest power Genator system
This assumes that we all live where there is wind. Many of us live where most of the time there is little or no wind. It would take 100 years for this to pay for itself.
Missed 1 big thing about wind vs solar. Solar panels are virtually maintenence free (believe me as a guy thats been solar since 2012 , still have all but 1 still in service. Terbines have moving parts which require regular Maint. I had a wind turbine for 32 days before critical failure)
In the UK you could use the mini to power an entire town, a couple of the big ones and we'd cover Europe with free power
No, this will not replace solar cells. There is a minimum wind velocity. I tried a wind turbine near the ocean with a on shore breeze, but it failed. Mine only needed 2.5 m/s wind velocity. Couldn't get that reliably, was intermittent at best. Except for special locations, there is just not enough energy in the wind. Get a anemometer and check your wind speed before buying into this. Most likely you won't make the 5 m/s minimum. It's a very stiff breeze. Cheers.
Like the sun doesn't always shine for solar panels, the wind doesn't always blow (or hard enough) for wind turbines. However, MOST OF THE TIME, when there's no sun, there's wind. So a person really needs BOTH for constant income of power from nature.
This actually isn't bad. It's probably a very simple mechanism, it'll last a lot longer than solar. It's far more efficient, and compact. My only issue is the price tag of 5 grand for something I can put together by making a stop at menards and autozone. In fact, if NASA's new ionic thruster is applied, we could unlock permanently renewable energy. A 1:-1 conversion rate could be achieved.
New stuff comes and goes.
I want one, beautiful and ideal companion for my solar for winter boost. Thanks!
This has been around for decades, first in South Korea, nearly silent, considerably less expensive and complex to maintain.
3:49 hydro power is popular in last “few” years! Are you kidding, they are quiet ancient! Been around for over a century now!
No stats given?
How much gale is required to produce energy ?
Technical details in detail are required for Viability of investment in the equipment.
What is the life of equipment,
Just one question... what do you do when the wind isn't blowing?
Currently Solar panel efficiency is 20% (only 20% sun light received converted). Once it reaches 90% efficiency there is no comparison.
In the video, Michał Woźniak, an engineer with many years of experience in wind turbine design, criticizes the Liam F1 Urban Wind Turbine from The Archimedes company. He points out several significant flaws in this design:
The small swept area of the blades limits the total wind energy input.
As a drag-type turbine, its efficiency is below the maximum theoretical limit.
It will be more expensive than simpler 3-bladed lift-based turbines.
The low mounting height above the roof prevents capturing undisturbed wind flow.
It will not be able to cost-effectively produce sufficient energy to justify its price.
It will be an inefficient "white elephant" and an unsightly construction constantly pivoting like a weathervane.
It will not effectively capture the kinetic energy even of the local turbulent wind.
Engineer Woźniak believes the marketing promises about this turbine are exaggerated and untrue. His criticism is based on his extensive experience in wind turbine design. ruclips.net/video/45ojzyXaU_w/видео.htmlsi=u6alCuglR-7nUIlB
LOL 0:12 That's not a wind turbine, it's an attic vent! 🤣🤣🤣
I'm not suggesting that these wind turbines aren't potentially an important element in a renewable energy environment BUT stating that solar panels are dependent upon clear skies while neglecting to acknowledge that wind turbines are similarly dependent upon having adequate wind (11+mph) is misleading. Comparing the "potential" power generated by a wind turbine (assuming constant adequate wind) while deprecating the potential input of solar is an unfair comparison. A combination of solar panels and wind turbines would likely be the best choice for most residential or commercial applications.
This horizontal helix turbine design should be much-much safer for birds, when compared to typical vertical open blade options and being silent, that will help everyone. Yes, I know there are other helical turbines on the market. The water is warm, innovators jump in!
How many birds per hour (bph) does this eat?
1.5 Meter model needs 5 M/Sec = approximately 15.3 Feet/Sec. wind speed, which is not the typical wind speed here at my NC location.
Is the music in the background there so we should forget that these have been on the market for a long time but actually nowhere to be seen?!? Perhaps they don't work well or get broken?