Comments by "Holger P." (@holger_p) on "Ziroth" channel.

Of course you can increase costs by factor 5 and 10 to get more energy. But not more energy per dollar.
1
On huge structure you have much more opportunities to create energy from wind. This design is explicitly intended for low/medium wind speed. It's kind of missuse if you first design something for decent wind and then you say "and now let's apply a lot of wind".
1
Sure it would, but this increases costs, needs electronics and more mechanical parts and raise the potential failure. When it costs 50% more, to gain 10% more, it might be not worth it.
1
@glynluff2595 No, that's a general timeless rule. Any research can lead to expensive results. You asked for "why it's missing now" and not "will it be mounted in one direction to all eternity."
1
@glynluff2595 Well, more complex things tend to fail earlier. So maybe the more complex more expensive structure, might have a shorter production period. The "keep it simple and stupid" is known as the Russian approach. They build simple things that last for eternity - or can be repaired with a string. Completly ineffectiv though. Also the modern wind-turbines have rotating heads. Butt all the cabling and all the weight has to go through this little whole in the axis. On Low rotation this is quiet stable (1 round per second maximum). Huge windmills have speed of maybe 5 rounds per minute. As smaller the thing is, as higher the speed. 100 turns per second and more is normal. This causes vibration and resonance of the structure. You know, like a marching band, marching in equal step over a bridge can bring the bridge to burst. And all this vibration, fixed on an axis will more likely send the vibration through the axis, which is only fixed in a sleeve. When something is mounted to a huge structure, the entire structure can stabilize the device.
1
@glynluff2595 He had covered this point, with showing there is a "majority" of wind direction. Same as solar panels, if not directed strictly south. Almost nobody adds a motor to turn it, to follow the sun. But the sun panels get little mirrors inside added, to redirect the light. That's what is done with the wind here too. Yes, this "major wind direction" is not applicable everywhere. But if you cover 80% efficiency at 80% of places it's enough.
1
@glynluff2595 You haven't heard the sun is changing position daily in an angle of 180 degrees ? I'm in central europe, and wind is coming 90% in an angle between West and North. A turbine covering this angle is completly sufficient. Monday we expect snow, my solar panels will be covered, stop working, and continue working when it melts away. Of course you can build such "structure" ! Just because brushing the snow would produce more energy, it's not always meaningful to install an automated brush on the device. it's simply too complicated. The extra gain is too small. In winter there is 7hours sunshine anyway only. People with an East-West Roof are in trouble with their solar panels. They have to install the double number of panels to get the same as the guys with a south roof. So turning structures is something people think of, Solar panel also cover only 90 Degrees of angle. I know one Architect who made his entire house rotate to save energy. Just turning is wintergarden and rooftop into the sun. So turning things is apoint also for solar. But it's an expensive point. It's the old optimization formular, effort vs. gain. Doubling the cost to have 20% more does not make sense. If you ever built something rotating with electric appliances in the rotating part, you will know you cannot use cabling. Unless the turn is engine controlled, and you avoid complete spins, so fixing one spot never to pass, to avoid twisting cables. If the turn is controlled with a wing, as in simple devices, you need electrical sliding contacts, not cables, but they are sensible to failure, people try to avoid them.
1
That's not a permanent state and the intermediate solution is called battery. Or you connect to a power network, cause 200km away, conditions might be different.
1
You have to compare it to a windmill, with it's size, dangers and vibrations. People search for a way to make wind usable "at home". Noise and vibrations are the biggest concerns, not so much the costs. Costs will decide about mass market or not.
1
@runeaanderaa6840 Do they claim it themselfes ? Well, they optimized for kwh per Dollar. It doesn't say anything about the total energy generated per device. And it's marketing, so I guess, with some prerequistites to area, terrain, wind condition the claims can be fullfilled. Just go to Norway, long dark winters, windy coastline, and it's more likely to outperform solar panels.
1
It's like somebody portraits a water damn, and you ask "what do we do in the desert". Of course this technology is intended for places with decent wind.
1
That's only a concern in certain parts of the world, and actually the same costs, also for solar. In the Sahara, Panels have to be cleaned from sand regular. In Europe, in relativly humid conditions, that's not a topic at all. Rain is cleaning panels, Storm is blowing free turbines.
1
@andrewnowson8766 Camping industry is huge worldwide. You just have to start somewhere. Car Top or Boat Top solution do have some potential. By experience we can say, sometimes you have to provide some technology, and people use it for something we never imagined before.
1