Just a little more dangerous than the guys at Mythbusters. Looks like a little back of the envelope calculation, some quick CAD models, Google search, some what-if thoughts and presto - 'ready to rock' in their own words. No prototype, no testing, no thought of how the induced torque/momentum on the panels, etc. will be problematic. Cost points are speculated with no backing based on a bill-of-material for yet to be determined components. But hey, there are enough folks out there to buy into the big vision of it's easy, cheap and good for the Earth, that they may find some backing.

2000 watt hours, maybe. Inefficient design (tri-blades are best), poor placement (low to ground), and not capable of turning into the wind.
Another crowdsourcing boondoggle.

I think it would be good for when there is little or no sun light but the wind is still present. As mentioned, it would be also good at night time.

Well, I would dispute the 2000Watt output number.
Looking at the photo and using standard panel width of 3.5 feet, I estimate the blade portion of the unit covers a swept area of 12' X 1' or 1.11 M^2
Using the standard formula for Power available in the wind: 1/2 Air density X Swept area X Wind velocity^2 (all figures in metric) I get: 1.11 m^2 (12' X 1 = 12 sq feet swept area) 8.94 m/s (20MPH) Air density = 1.23 KG/M^3 power = 1/2 X 1.23 X 1.11 X 8.94^2 = 54 Watts
So theoretical maximum is 54 W. Considering this is a drag machine which operates at low efficiency and even the best machines operate at well below 100%... 2000 Watts is pure baloney.

It is hard to imagine this being a better approach than even a small tower with a standard type turbine attached. Savonious rotors are bad for power generation because of their low top speed and mounting them horizontally gets rid of their big advantage that they can accept wind from all directions. This is just a bad idea all around.

These things are not so hard to invent as long as no regard for real feasibility is given. Even large scale VAWT setups have infinite payback time: they will never pay the initial investment back.
With these things scale is a factor - as in small is less efficient. There is simply no way that these things will ever be financially sensible. And neither ecologically - the power created will simply be minimal.
The idea that a pair could light up street lamps is out of this world. Even if you are not aerodynamics specialist do a little research - you can get in the right ballpark quite easily.

I wish I would have thought of that, that's a great idea, on a existing platform. that and it would keep the birds off the cells.

Gotta love Ring's idea of mounting them "on existing infrastructure such as pipelines" (see caption on second image). Oh, the irony.
But seriously, the streetlamp application would work with LEDs.

More horse poop from CAD savvy young minds that haven't a clue of the physics behind their fiction.

The idea has potential in places where the wind often comes from a similar direction to the the sun (north here). The biggest problem I had with my solar powered house was when it was cloudy for a couple of weeks, and something like this would have helped. As mentioned, the wiring is already there which is a good thing for losses