Sorry Gizmag but you\'re guilty of fuelling the bird/bat wind turbine death myth. How Stuff Works: \"Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of a percent (0.1%) of all \"unnatural\" bird deaths in the United States each year. \" http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

The question is: What is the cost difference between a large HAWT and the equivalent number of smaller VAWTs (to produce the same power output) The space required for VAWTs is much less, as is the environmental impact. VAWTs can also be installed on buildings much more acceptably. There are actually horizontal versions(if that is not a contradiction of terms). It would be good to compare the two different types (HAWT & VAWT) in the same location.

That\'s a nice piece of research. I wonder, though, how well it scales to larger numbers of units. Surely in a large close-spaced array the ones in the middle won\'t be getting as much wind.

World war 4 will be faught with sticks and Rocks Over the Placement of wind turbines . Have You heard the Phrase.... He stole the wind from my sails ?

Here we go again...
The current fashion of using the 1944 incompetent and very inefficient design of NASA is being called mature?
Anything but.
And this design is using less efficient configuration as reported here?
Less efficiency of low efficiency? How soon does it get to 0 efficiency like what happened in Canada causing a political revolution. They had 0 efficiency for 6 months due to icing.
Don\'t you think that it\'s time for certifying bodies to demand manufacturers to post efficiencies? Talking efficiencies here is talking nonsense. We need figures.
There needs to be a standard testing facility to determine efficiencies rather that forcing us to witness all these cackamamie designs ullustrating how deficient this generation is.
Don\'t forget, the honeywells can be stacked vertically and they are way more efficient.
Bill

How about giving up on wind already please.
Billions out of your pocket has already been spent to verify that, yes, just because it is greenwashed does not mean that it generates electricity you need.
Those of us over thirty knew this already but everybody needs to learn by experience.

Oh, give it a rest, Todd. The world is not going to build thousands of new nuclear reactors just because you like them. Most people \"over thirty\" are smarter than that.

Oh Todd, go back to faux news, so sad such ignorance in the year 2011 still exists, I call them flatlanders, bet he goes to church every Sunday and is a devout conservative too and man is not making the earth warmer right Todd? yep I am over thirty too

The other thing to look at in terms of land usage efficiency is what can be done with te land in between the devices. HAWTs allow for normal agriculture which is probably not as easy using the higher density VAWTs.
Todd, are you really that short-sighted? Do the terms \"closed loop\" or \"full circle\" mean anything to you? Have you managed to come up with a way to make nuclear completely failsafe and a way to process nuclear waste in to a non-toxic form (not just seal it in a container and store it in a third world country)?

Creating electricity with wind is certainly a \"neat\" pastime... large dollars in research keeps a bunch of people busy... and the constant discovery is that wind generation continues to be inefficient... and... produces a miniscule smattering of electricity... whereas... hydro power has been around for over a hundred years... is renewable... produces a larger share of electricity... but receives very little funding for research...

When do we seriously entertain the idea of applying a fair share of our funding toward hydro research? As soon as the novelty of wind power weras off?? I\'m just saying.....