{"id":52,"date":"2007-03-22T01:23:28","date_gmt":"2007-03-22T01:23:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.energyrefuge.com\/blog\/low-wind-turbine-two-designs\/"},"modified":"2017-09-05T17:56:03","modified_gmt":"2017-09-05T21:56:03","slug":"low-wind-turbine-two-designs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.energyrefuge.com\/blog\/low-wind-turbine-two-designs\/","title":{"rendered":"Low wind turbine: two designs"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"lowAt Hong Kong University, they are reporting this design<\/a>: lightweight, plastic, affordable. At the Sandia National Laboratories, they have come up with a completely different design<\/a>: larger with curved tips. The Hong Kong design is for individuals and businesses to install thus reducing their own carbon footprint. The Sandia design is intended to open up large low wind areas of the United States to cost-effective wind farms.
\n
\nThe Hong Kong design costs about $250 for 20 10″ diameter turbines. There are no specifications on how much power they could generate since it is all dependent on the speed of the wind, but I bet that $250 would get you enough power for all of the static load at every suburban home: alarm clocks, phone chargers, and maybe even a cable box or two. And the Hong Kong design is configurable in its shape so each home could make its own wind sculpture. And I am sure as demand increases and the price falls, they will come out in different colors. Maybe the black and gold of the Pittsburgh Steelers or of your favorite college team?<\/p>\n

There are good pictures and more detail at the following site <\/a>for the Hong Kong design.<\/p>\n

Which way should turbine design go? Smaller, lighter, cheaper? Or heavier and industrial? Leave your comments below.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Related Posts:<\/h3>