Energy Ball wind turbine captures energy for the home

As much as we prefer a good old-fashioned bird-killin' three blade wind turbine, apparently they cause a bit too much vibration and disturbance for regular home use. That's where the Energy Ball comes in, with its spherical shape that captures wind less obtrusively and yet more efficiently. At least that's what we're told, we're a bit short on details. We do know that it's in the prototype stages and was designed by Swedish company Home Energy, who claims their smallest Energy Ball can provide about 15% of the necessary energy to power the average Swedish home.

[Via Inhabitat]

[jordan @ Sep 6th 2008 12:56AM]

It makes more sense. With this rotating mass, you have a counter-balance on each side's opposite. Now, I'm sure that things can start going awry if debris damages one wing a bit. I really hope something like this can take off with a relatively inexpensive start-up cost.

[tha-don @ Sep 6th 2008 2:26AM]

well it looks like it has 6 blades, so if one breaks, then there will be vibrations of some multiple of 5 / rev. so all you'd have to do is lock the blade if you detect any of those vibrations (pretty much any that aren't a multiple of 6 / rev).

on another note, it looks sweet. i'd buy one even if it didn't work just to have a crazy spinning ball.

[Gerry @ Sep 6th 2008 10:36AM]

"Swedish company Home Energy, who claims their smallest Energy Ball can provide about 15% of the necessary energy to power the average Swedish home."

--- so that means it'll run a couple of 20watt light bulbs, a radio and a mini-fridge. Oooooo, color me not impressed....

[Poodles @ Jun 17th 2009 7:39PM]

That pic is taken at Schiphol, Amsterdam Airport. Why would a swedish company do that?

[Nick @ Sep 6th 2008 5:31PM]

Cool, that's Schiphol! :D Yup, the best background to promote this.

[Jay Howe @ Sep 21st 2008 9:13AM]

I am the VP of Sunrise Solar, I have an energy ball. I have the only one in the US at this time, it is a prototype for the US, We will have it on display at the TREIA, Renewable Energy Roundup in Fredricksburg, Tx this coming weekend.

There are some details I can share with the public, but there are some I am not at liberty to disclose until we get approvals from our distributor.

Currently the E-Ball is 500watts, based on wind in your area. Home Energy NL in Holland is working on a larger unit, that should be avalible mid year, next year details are still being worked out. The Energy Ball has been in place in Holland for three years, From what they tell us, Birds are not effected, at they see it as a soild sphere when it is moving.

Currently we do not have a price point yet, we are still working on assembly in the US, shipping costs for each unit etc...

we are guessing that it will sell for around the $4000 mark. but still yet undetermined. the larger Unit, coming next year will hopefully be $6000 mark. Again we are still working on all aspects of these units and look forward to all responses.

Have a great day.

Jay Howe
Vice President,
Sunrise Solar
www.solartexas.com

[Fanfoot @ Dec 2nd 2008 11:33PM]

Cool.

So the V100 can produce 500 watts. That's 0.5kW right. Or 0.5kWh per hour, 12kWh per day and maybe 360 kWh per month, assuming you have the required 14mph winds at all times, which you probably don't...

But if you do, this would be a reasonable percentage of your electricity. From:

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

it looks like the average US household in 2006 used 920kWh/mo, so this could be 40% of your energy usage. In California a kWh cost 12 cents on average, so that 360kWh would be worth maybe $43/mo. If the device costs $4000, it would pay off in about 8 years. Or sooner if your kWh usage is higher than whatever threshold in your area...

YMMV of course. But not crazy.

[Eric @ Sep 6th 2008 12:56AM]

Story is old, I saw it at Zollotech.com the other day http://zollotech.com/content/energy-ball-windmill-released-homes

[Eric @ Sep 6th 2008 12:58AM]

This story has been around for a few days, saw it at Zollotech.com http://zollotech.com/content/energy-ball-windmill-released-homes

[XenoX101 @ Sep 6th 2008 10:34AM]

A few days is old? That doesn't make sense unless you're an article paedophile.

[John @ Sep 6th 2008 1:10AM]

but how many birds does it kill? Smug bastards, always flying like they're so damn special. I want a home turbine that shows those winged jerks who's the king of the beasts, baby.

[andres @ Sep 6th 2008 1:46AM]

someone needs to build a wind turbine of swords

[CraigJ @ Sep 6th 2008 2:11AM]

We have lots of pigeons (flying rats). It would be worth installing these simply to kill the pigeons.

[WeberGunso @ Sep 6th 2008 6:35AM]

Hahahaha, yup that would be quite the solution. Just remember to reinforce the blades.

[GON @ Sep 6th 2008 1:39AM]

Wonderful Design.

[Haikibutsu @ Sep 6th 2008 1:47AM]

What annoys me is that some retards will make neighbors take these down because they are 'eyesores' or are 'ugly'

[Twitchy @ Sep 6th 2008 10:26AM]

I fear you may be right, but at least they are a heck of a lot better looking than their standard bladed cousins.

[BigD145 @ Sep 6th 2008 12:11PM]

They are far better looking than your standard nuclear reactor.

[Aguiluz @ Sep 6th 2008 1:48AM]

Epic Fail.

Back on topic:
The birds still can be killed by those blades, but to a lesser degree. :)

[robert @ Sep 6th 2008 1:48AM]

Well I wonder how many watts it actually produces?

[IronSmith @ Sep 6th 2008 2:10AM]

I read about turbines like this all the time. there are a few that work this way, and yes they are much more bird friendly, but not bird proof. They run at lower RPM's and start up at lower speeds and never get faster than a certain number of RPM's which makes them fairly safe and silent. I read some about a vertical turbine that works the same way as this one posted here and costs less than 5k USD complete.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9956965-1.html?tag=mncol;title

[El Guapo @ Sep 6th 2008 2:01AM]

Wind generators are not the answer.
1. They have to be stuck out in the open somewhere which makes them a phuckin eyesore.
2. If they have any sort of fast moving blades/turbine they WILL kill wild life.
3. To produce energy on any significant scale they have to built on huge scales taking up huge areas of land (or sea) which amplifies problems 1 & 2.

They are born from what no doubt seemed like a good idea at the time but is simplistic in its view and requires you to ignore the above significant problems.

Im not offering any alternatives here and I concede that, but that does not make the points any less valid. In short we need to find a genuinely more practical long term method of energy generation and wind turbines (at least in every form I’ve seen so far) just don’t cut it.

(cut it) hehe

[zenprime @ Sep 6th 2008 2:05AM]

Name me any form of energy production that isn't an eyesore, won't kill something and when built on a scale to satisfy the population wouldn't amplify those problems.

Personally I've got no clue.

[cesium @ Sep 6th 2008 2:12AM]

Eyesore to you maybe, but I know that I and many others (that I know) love the look of wind turbines

[CraigJ @ Sep 6th 2008 2:16AM]

1. isn't a problem with the device, it is a problem with attitude. Personally I'd rather look at a bunch of windmills than breathe fumes from burning oil and coal.
2. There are plenty of birds. The number of birds killed by these things is not statistically significant. If it makes you happy we can collect the carcasses and feed them to pigs. Problem solved.

[laughing boy @ Sep 6th 2008 2:53AM]

@ Sep 6th 2008 2:05AM

Name me any form of energy production that isn't an eyesore, won't kill something and when built on a scale to satisfy the population wouldn't amplify those problems.

Personally I've got no clue.

Here's a clue: coal and natural gas. Generating stations for coal and gas have a very small footprint and are still cheaper than wind and solar. The only thing they generate is harmless water vapor, harmless CO2 and sweet, sweet electricity.

As for this swirling ball, let's see the numbers (cost, KW's, etc.). If it saves people enough money to offset its costs without any government subsidies, they'll make a killing.

[El Guapo @ Sep 6th 2008 2:36AM]

@zenprime
I said i wasnt offering alternatives but if you must know im working on something involving naked amazons and treadmills.

@cesium
Any piece of engineering can be admired and I also am able to admire wind tubines. That does not mean they should be propegated everwhere. Its like bridges, some of them are stunning and are truly maginificeng examples of both engineering and art. That does mean i want my rivers cloggged up with bridges for every point where a road comes near a river.

[NovaLand @ Sep 6th 2008 5:42AM]

There's another swedish product that I knew were in development like 12 years ago. It works like a sail heading toward the wind, flapping like crazy. The worst it might do is bump into the bird like it's a car. It wont chop its head off. I dont know however if the product ever came to life.

[Fusiondog @ Sep 6th 2008 5:56AM]

You THINK they are an eyesore. Go out to your door and look up and down your street. I bet you will see a number of large wooden posts with wires draped from them. I think the case could be made that those are a much more significant eyesore than some compact home use turbines. When they make sense for lowering your power bill they will go up and you'll get used to them just like all those wooden posts you take for granted. And people will recall this sentiment you are parroting and it will be like the stories of the nay sayers who thought television was a fad.

[Surur @ Sep 6th 2008 5:26AM]

Are wind turbines any more eye sores than satellite dishes or street lights?

So 6 of the small ones means your house is energy independent? I say bring it on. Natural selection will take care of the birds. The biggest killers of birds are cats in any case. How about banning those instead.

[WeberGunso @ Sep 6th 2008 6:35AM]

To point 3:
I´m quoting:
1) "...and was designed by Swedish company Home Energy..."
2) "...who claims their smallest Energy Ball can provide about 15% of the necessary energy to power the average Swedish home."
As far as I know, the wind conditions of the Nordic lands are not aplyable to the rest of the world. As for central Europe it would be fiasco winds arent as far as strong and frecuent enough to even produce a mere 10% of a Household. And as for South America... forget it, very few places, being the best ones down to the Fire Lands. So we already have problems. These things arent a solution for more than few places on earth. We better continue researching until we get Fusion right and working.

[Evan @ Sep 6th 2008 8:15AM]

Re: taking up land

The post takes up, what, a square foot of land? Even large scale wind turbines can be distributed across farmers fields with minimal impact on the crop yield. In that respect, wind turbines are much better than solar power which consumes much more land.

[Pacey @ Sep 6th 2008 9:17AM]

Wind turbines have been around for a lot longer than people cared about looks...

they're called windmills.

Plenty of places outside the dense urban area still use them to some degree, so wind turbines will be more that accepted in those locations. I know some farmers that would gladly have 5 or 6 of these on there property if they didnt have an electric bill anymore.

[wonkydonkydotnet @ Sep 6th 2008 3:07PM]

@laughing boy:
"Here's a clue: coal and natural gas. Generating stations for coal and gas have a very small footprint and are still cheaper than wind and solar. The only thing they generate is harmless water vapor, harmless CO2 and sweet, sweet electricity."

What precisely are you smoking?

COAL powerplants are -clean-????????????????????????????????????

NO part of the coal power lifecycle is even REMOTELY clean.

The Only thing that would generate just H20, CO2 & power would be HYDROGEN-derived power.

[John B @ Sep 6th 2008 2:08AM]

First asshole, maybe. Take it to Slashdot where it belongs, jackass.

[jake @ Sep 6th 2008 2:24AM]

Adding to CraigJ
3. Not all large scale wind power requires large amounts of land or sea.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/mars-turbine.htm

(hopefully not repost)

[Dralion76 @ Sep 6th 2008 2:37AM]

What i can make of the fact sheets:

The V100 produces 500Wmax, costs +- 3000 euro starts to rotate at 2m/s (max 40m/s) 2100 rpm max
The V200 produces 2x500Wmax, costs +- 5500 euro starts to rotate at 3m/s (max 40m/s) 1050 rpm max

V100 is 1,1 meter in diamter, the V200 is 1,98m

both whitout the pole (additional cost is +- 1000 euro)

all taxes included.

[mojorocks @ Sep 7th 2008 9:47AM]

my head hurts...

[ssrat_ @ Sep 6th 2008 2:39AM]

The "overall" best bet is a combination of 3+ things

Solar
Wind
Geothermal
-solar water heater

The Geothermal system I read about (P.M?) a few years ago ran about 6K, ad that with the above 5K wind system, that way when it comes down to the expensive part, the solar panels you should only have to install a little at a time until you can afford to get to the max

Not practical for small houses/ apartments, but I can at least see using geothermal in the backyard, then if you can get permission for the windmill, you do that (place it on the roof decorated/covered so it looks like it belongs)

As long as you have everything hooked up properly first, it should just be a matter of waiting till the budget can be worked out.
That way there is not the 20K-30K financed outlay

[Syd @ Sep 6th 2008 2:48AM]

Swedish Meat Balls --> Swedish Energy Balls. I see a pattern here.

[Famous by Marital-Association @ Sep 6th 2008 2:52AM]

I'm not sure if many readers have even witnessed a large scale wind powered energy site, but they look a hell of a lot better than smoke stacks and depleted strip mines. However I'm all for Nuclear energy as well, being from Richland, WA (Home of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation) and most of the emphasis for generating power has shifted to windmills as they continue decommissioning the nuclear reactors.

I'm sad the see the reactors go, but each windmill is a sign that we are at least trying to move forward- even though it may not be the perfect method its one of the most cost effective and readily available options we've got today...

[Joe Maki @ Sep 6th 2008 6:07PM]

Nuclear has always been a short-sighted solution. Let our great grandchildren worry about the waste. It's that attitude that's gotten us into our current situation. Coal is filthy and acid rain was a terrible by product, but the earth will eventually clean it up (I'm not a coal advocate). Nuclear waste is a problem magnitudes greater. That's not even considering the other potential safety problems.

[El Guapo @ Sep 6th 2008 2:53AM]

@ CraigJ "Personally I'd rather look at a bunch of windmills than breathe fumes from burning oil and coal." Good point. And that is why is said "we need to find a genuinely more practical long term method of energy generation" or did you choose pretend that i didnt mention that.

@ jake Looks interesting. I had a very quick read but couulndt find info on how big one unit would be or how much energy it would produce. but think of this: now you would have thess things strung hundreds of meters into the air.
Its like hight tension power lines. nobody wants to have to look at them. At least no one ive ever heard of.

[Jeremy S @ Sep 6th 2008 3:48AM]

O, it looks like the Swedes are about to show off their balls...

[rento @ Sep 6th 2008 5:34AM]

Old.. TreHugger wins

[Marcin @ Sep 6th 2008 5:55AM]

the price is 4.523,522 dollar ! how many yares do you need to have this running before it is payable ?!?

[Crudelitas @ Sep 6th 2008 6:49AM]

With Energy becomming more and more expensive it would be quite the good idea to invest NOW that the Energy that you need to use to produce it is cheap..

But still it powers a SWEDISH House to up to 15%,so an American House would need about 10 of these to get the same effect (exaggerated ;) ).
Alternate Energy is something that if everyone would apply it would give us a very nice conversion from petrol Fuel to regenerative or bio-friendly Energy..
Just imagine everone was forced to cover the sunny side of his roof with solar panels that are paid by the Government.
Huge Investion,so the whole Panels are property of the Government until the have produced Energy worth the cost + 50% interest and then they are yours.

20 years later we do not have any energy issues anymore and people in africa can make money with an unlimited export resource:
SUNSHINE!

;)
yeah that is UTOPIAN ;)

[bartoron @ Sep 6th 2008 7:05AM]

ME NO SPEEKEE UR LANEGWIJ.

[Evan @ Sep 6th 2008 8:26AM]

Assuming it generates 2000kWh per year, it would take about 20 years to pay for itself. Not so good.

[Steve A. @ Sep 6th 2008 1:34PM]

In an area like Hawaii, where they currently pay $0.28 per kWh, the payoff is 8 years. Areas like Texas, where cost is around $0.16, the payback is 13 years - all depending on the local wind resources of course. Figuring the lifetime of the unit is 20+ years, and I know of some wind turbines lasting 40+ years, and if energy costs don't go up (ha), these unit already make financial sense without incentives. The problem is that most, shortsighted people don't like to think of return on investment in terms of a decade.