Energy Ball wind turbine captures energy for the home
By Paul Miller 
posted September 6th 2008 12:46AM
posted September 6th 2008 12:46AM
[Via Inhabitat]
posted September 6th 2008 12:46AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
@Crudelitas
What do you mean? Solar panels that are paid by the government? Where do you think the Gov. gets the money from? They'll print it ->Inflation -> Everyone pays for the investment.
It's a good idea, but solar power is not good enough yet (unfortunately). The panels need to be repaired too often :(
Wind turbines last longer :)
Why do I get the feeling there will be a knock off product sometime in the near future called Draftee-Ballz™...
Swedish, huh? That's Schiphol Airport, the Netherlands, in the background.
FAKE!!
Yes that's Schiphol airport, but the Energy Ball is designed by a Swedish company (Home Energy).
The only problem i have ever seen with wind is the fact that if you go outside there is not always wind blowing. The majority of people will not spend thousands of dollars on a product that only starts saving them money in 10 years. They would instead invest in better light bulbs and better habits because the money saved can be seen in the next bill or by the first year. I think products like this and solar cells need to get a lot cheaper before it can be used by the vast majority and really lower our electric bills. If only a solar roof with wind turbines was ready for mass market consumption.
What about maintence costs of solar panels: they need to be replaced rather quicklier than the turbines (specially these, since their design offers less resistence to the wind and thus it won't bend so easily). Also, Have you read the full article? It says it can start generating electricity at very low wind speeds. Even when there's no wind at all, its more efficient than solar panels: they can't generate considerable energy at night (1/2 a day), neither when the day's rainy or cloudy. In the end, it's a totally viable option.
i keep wondering why some people get all freaked out about things spinning around and killing a few birds... i'll guess the family cat kills more than the non-polluting blades. doesn't anyone remember the windmill? they've been around a hell of a long time and no-one seems to complain about them.
so if a bird is seen flying into one - it's one of two things. 1) it's either a really stupid bird and you are experiencing the darwin effect in action or 2) it's wanting to commit a form of green suicide protest because it's sick of all the pollution we've pumped into it's sky.
my opinion --- anything that gets this planet out of the world-wide pollution fiasco we've created for ourselves is worth trying. let a few feathers fly my friends... let a few feathers fly.
Swedish eh? Does that mean I'll have to put the damn thing together myself? :(
....where have I seen this design before...hmmmm......
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/807/10100332.JPG
Oh yeah, get ready for 20 flatpack boxes...
There are a few things I'd like to know before I get all willy-nilly about it.
1. How much is this home association-hater going to cost me?
2. How many watts can it put out and at what wind-speeds?
3. How much energy does the average Sweed use?
4. What is the average wind-speed in Sweden compared to that in the US?
5. When, oh when does Miley Cirus turn 18, and will-oh-will she pose nude for Playboy?
1. The big one costs 5300€, the small one 3000€.
2. t starts charging at 2 m/s and maxes out at 40 m/s.
3. Depends on where he lives. In the city where the flats/appartments are heated with water from a central plant about 5000Kwh, in the country side about 25000 Kwh/year. V200 produces about 12000 Kwh.
4. The average wind speed in Sweden varies a great deal depending on where you measure, but the coastal lines and the mountains are well in the average where wind power is cost effective.
As an example 23% of the energy used in Denmark is from wind, and Denmark is right next to the southern part of Sweden.
How this will translate to other countries I do not know, but Sweden (and Denmark) are both located in the "West wind area" (so is UK).
5. Who is that?
These things don't kill many birds; unfortunately the first big project in the American media's eye (in 1970's, California) was a disaster, near a nesting/migration area, when turbines were mounted downwind and on lattice towers (where birds built their nests--a recipe for bird-choppin' since birds tend to fly upwind to land). The reality of the big 3-bladed turbines is not that they kill birds, but bats are actually more affected when present--they chase blades to exhaustion.
The break-even point of over a decade (or 2) is pretty long, and there are other alternatives in small wind, like urban building-mounted 'fans' and helical or vertical setups...I'll believe MARS's viability when I see it working...
DFTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
V200 can produce about 50% of an average Swedish homes electric need. That translate to about 12000Kwh a year. At current rate of energy price in Sweden it will pay itself in about 4-5 years.
I'm getting one for sure!
Well, at least he lives up to his name.
This is for the eco-freaks who like their birds diced, not chopped.
You really want to make a killing on energy? Find a way to take all of that heat absorbed by the the shingles on your roof and covert it directly to power, then you could generate a bunch of power with a normal looking roof. Yea I know they got solar pannels for houses, but they can catch wind, get shattered by hail and storm debris that otherwise wouldn't do much to a shingle.
Will it charge my iPhone?
How about some actual, real-live FACTS:
Home Energy International, a DUTCH company, has a web site at http://www.home-energy.com/engels/welcome.htm
For news their expension last year into Sweden and Norway, see http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=49638
Aguiluz, how can you be killed to a lesser degree?
This notion that wind turbines murder birds is absolute bullshit. There have been numerous studies over the past few decades about this matter. Stop lying about it, Paul, you dumbfuck.
Read this:
http://www.awea.org/faq/sagrillo/swbirds.html
All sources referenced.
For the NATIONAL grid, right now I DO advocate nuclear plants HOWEVER, I would only build them in certain locations, probably placing 4-6 together since at the SAME TIME there should be a re-processing plant in the middle so that the waste is DRAMATICALLY lowwerde and made safer (plus re-usable I think?)
Yucca mountain NEEDS to have the largest re-processor in the world built there to actually DO something about the waste being "stored"
I STILL do not understand how there was no thought given to having the stuff re-processed BEFORE dumping it.
To do the plants properly you actually use eminent domain PROPERLY for once, since it is a security matter, and you make sure to surround it with 20ft concrete walls instead of easily broken wire fences
Of course while that is being done you do NOT stop supporting cleaner alternatives, but you make sure that the grid is a clean as possible until the rest can be brought online
This really should be thought of as a national security/WWII/public works project, designed to cut red tape,put thousands of people to work
Also looking oil replacement, there MUST be enough grid to support the use of all the electric powered cars and other transportation in the future
A lot of things have to come together for us not to be reliant on fossil fuels.
not only do we have to couple together several renewable sources and incorporate them into home but we have to improve our efficiency in using energy. The quoted 15% of a Swedish homes power requirement at the top of this article is directly effected by the equipment been used inside said home. I'm from England and here we are only just adopting low energy light bulbs, I don't know if the Swedes already use energy efficient equipment but if they don't this 15% could be more like 25%.
Several people here have mentioned that these turbines are ugly and a eyesore. Now I tend to agree with that point when it comes to the larger wind turbines. I don't want my countryside that is already shrinking due to more and more houses been built been spoiled by 100ft wind turbines that spoil the viewed for mile around. That said when you look at micro energy production in a urban enviroment I seen no problem.
this link shows a nice idea for incorporating solar power into the home with very little change to the appearance of the property. http://www.reuk.co.uk/Solar-Roof-Tiles.htm
Now if that were combined with a wind turbine built into the peak of every roof
please imagine the wind turbine shown here http://www.silentwindturbine.com/design.htm but instead of a vertical mounting it is horizontal and was built into the peak of the roof. (there is a better example by a American company trying to place horizontal wind turbines on high rise buildings in Chicago but my Google skills fail me)
I feel with the above two examples working together in a house hold that has energy efficient equipment you could see total independence from the national grid.
I have also read in the above comments that cost vs repayment is a concern. The plain answer to this if we don't ever start we wont ever achieve. Ok, so it takes 40 years to pay for installation once you figure in regular maintainance but thats at todays money standards. 20 years ago it took a 25 year mortgage to pay off a £25,000 house these days £25,000 is a 10 year loan. Also if everyone including housing developers jump on the bandwagon no one will want to buy a house that they have to pay for light and heating so you'll have to have free energy in order to sell your house just like double glazed windows and central heating is today.
average Swedish home?
I bet they don't have a decent power-hungry PC at home on average xD
MULTIPLICATION OF EFFECT--even for areas that have limited wind energy available
At first "breaking wind" it might appear that 15% of "average" power use for each home is a small number. How many of you would like to deduct 15% off your energy bill with a product that is not very expensive and pays itself back quicker than solar installations? (We just assume it does, perhaps without evidence).
Solar panels have to be manufactured in a high tech plant. A wind turbine is a very low tech project that can be stamped out and assembled en mass very easily. Installation would be easier and cheaper than solar as well. Then, you just "tap" it into your home with the same electronics as a solar panel. Or you could send the power back to the grid, and run your meter 15% slower.
The real advantage of this is the reduction of the necessity for more polluting power plants. If almost every home (that had sufficient wind power available) had one of these, this would produce an incredible "multiplication" effect. The average city could reduce their power-plant construction efforts by far more than 15%.
Not all areas have sufficient wind to power a turbine (well). I don't see that as a problem. All critics like to list "deficiencies" in their criticisms. That's not the point. The point is to get renewable ENERGY from every place you can. There is no single answer to energy.
Unless you want to go back to living like your ancestors did, a short, brutal painful life, than YOU need energy.
sanjosemike
@Joe Maki.
Your inaccurate about nuclear power affecting future generations forever. We have the technology to reduce the current nuclear waste volume by 90% and reduce its half-life to 100s-1000s years. That means we have to store it no longer than structures such as the Roman Coliseum have stood for and with modern technology and knowhow this is already being done successfully (Yucca Mountain is not what I am referring too. See WIPP, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, See "Power to Save the World" by Gwyneth Cravens and See how France is handling nuclear power.) So all we have to do is store is securly and let the radioactive materials take care of themselves and just as the Natural Terrestrial Radiation levels have safetly decreased century after century so will the man made radioactive materials.
The real issue that will affect future generations forever is the heavy metals and other highly dangerous materials used in batteries to store electricity for modern hybrid cars and storeing off-peak electricity from wind generation (~30% uptime max) and solar generation (~50% uptime max). These materials unlike radioactive materials will be deadly FOREVER.
That all being said I believe we need nuclear ( with ~95% uptime) for base load electricity demands supported by on-demand thermal, hydro, tidal, wind and solar. That's the real solution and its the right now solution. When the day comes for fusion and other futuristic sources of energy I will be the first person to pass the Nuclear Fission torch but today we need real answers and thats the only one minus oil and gas.
Take a look at www.allsmallwindturbines.com for a total overview of small wind turbines in the world.