Biomimic Helix Wind To Offer Financing

August 27th, 2009 by Susan Kraemer

[social_buttons]

In a first for small residential wind, the biomimicry-inspired turbine company Helix Wind has partnered with Atoll Financial Group to offer loans for its small helix-inspired wind turbines; so as to make installation of your own 50+ year supply of free energy just as easy as financing a car. Or solar.

In recent years, solar companies have come up with various ingenious ways around the upfront cost of DIY roof power, from renting (Power Purchase Agreements) to partnering with financing arms (like Sun Run), to simply adding extra property tax payments to your current mortgage (like Berkeley First).

(Of course, most monthly payments can be calibrated to come to about the same cost as the electricity bill you will no longer owe, so there is actually no extra expense really: it’s just a swap. But seeing that upfront cost can be prohibitive, even if you know how much cheaper it is than sticking with your utility over time)

Like solar systems, wind turbines also now get a 30% tax credit from Uncle Sam for making clean energy.

The aluminum and stainless steel Helix wind power systems cost about the same or a bit less than comparable sized solar systems: the 2.5 KW turbine, including tower, utility-tie inverter, utility switch box, hardware and installation components, costs about $15,000 installed, before the 30% tax credit.

A 5 KW grid-connected residential-scale system generally costs $20,000 to 25,000 to install. The smaller unit is 10 feet tall, and the bigger one 20 feet tall and each is mounted on another 10 feet or so of tower.

Individual batteries cost from $150 to $300 for a heavy-duty, 12 volt, 220 amp-hour, deep-cycle type. Larger capacity batteries, those with higher amp-hour ratings, cost more. A 110-volt, 220 amp-hour battery storage system, which includes a charge controller, costs at least $2,000.

You would need one 5 KW turbine if you use about 500 kwh a month (look on your electricity bill for “usage” to see what you’d need). If your average cost per kwh is $0.15 or higher it would be cheaper than utility electricity for you. (If your usage is higher than 5 kwh monthly, you can can string several of these as close as 6 feet apart, assuming your wind supply is good. )

While these turbines will start rotating (and therefor generating electricity) in breezes as little as 8 miles per hour, a good wind supply is more like a minimum of 14 mph. And turbulent and gusty wind or wind that frequently changes direction is ideal. The best setup is 30 feet apart to minimize shadowing and a reduction in power output, with consecutive turbines in a line perpendicular to the most predominant wind.

Other than good wind, you’ll also need an interconnection agreement with your local utility (you can check the net energy meeting regulations regulations in your state at http://www.awea.org/smallwind/states.html) and friendly neighbors and zoning that permits small wind turbine installation.

For off-grid rural sites this really would be a much cheaper option than bringing in electric connections to the regular grid which can cost as much as $20,000-$30,000 to cover even a quarter of a mile. And then you pay for that electricity for ever.

And your utility doesn’t supply you 100% clean renewable energy, like your own wind turbine will.

Image of a Helix at Burning Man by Ahlea Khadro

Via Cnet Greentech

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Tags: Atoll Financial Group, biomimicry, cheap wind turbines, fincing renewable energy, helix wind

About the Author

Susan Kraemer writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times. Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.

thabick

I didn’t mention above the renewable energy credits that people have been talking about. That, I imagine, is linked to a cap and trade system being implemented in the US. That would change my payoff calculations above. But enjoying a carbon-neutral lifestyle was already payoff enough for me.
thabick

I didn’t mention above the renewable energy credits that people have been talking about. That, I imagine, is linked to a cap and trade system being implemented in the US. That would change my payoff calculations above. But enjoying a carbon-neutral lifestyle was already payoff enough for me.
thabick

I do wish I could save even $75,000 over the next 25 years, but the solar savings won’t be anything like that for me unless the price of electricity goes up significantly from its current $.15/kwh. (The price is SURE to go up in 2011, after deregulation in Pennsylvania, but not clear by how much.)

I installed 5 months ago solar panels that are supposed to produce 5 megawatts per year. So far (in autumn and winter months) we’ve generated just under 2 megawatts. So the system seems to be about on target for generation. But 5000 x .15 = $750. So at current rates, it’ll take 22 years for me to get back my investment of $35,000 (minus PA Sunshine rebate of $11,500 plus Federal Tax Credit of $7050) = $16,450. That is, if electricity continues to be charged in my region at .15 per kwh, which it will not.

However, I am not complaining; I just want the figures to be clear for those interested. And I will get an incredibly generous rebate from Pennsylvania. I mean, I’m supposed to get one. It hasn’t shown up yet, and now 5 months after installation, they say they want to inspect the system again. I do imagine I’ll get the rebate some day, and the federal tax credit seems like a sure thing. Note that the 30% is taken AFTER any state rebates, so it’s 30% of $23,500 (=$7050).

And who would have thought that the year I installed solar panels would be a record-breaking snow dump in my area. I’ve shoveled off the panels three times so far. Not that it’s required, I just do that to maximize my yield. One could just wait for it to melt, but I like to see the generation continue on the sunny days after the big snows.

So one would need to be motivated by something other than finances at current electricity rates. And I am. It’s like purchasing a $16,500 science project or toy that has the benefit of clearly helping the environment while slowing paying me back. People (seem to) think nothing of spending $45,000 for a Lexus. I drive a gas-miser Geo Metro that I bought for $1,700. So it depends on how we choose to spend our disposable income. With the Lexus, the money drains out of your account and never comes back; with energy projects it goes out and then comes back

As for the stimulus effects of these rebates and tax credits, I’ve learned how that works. I stimulated the economy by putting out $35,000 in cash. Some day, maybe in a couple of months, I’ll get the $18,550 back. And I’ll spend that windfall on installing a geothermal (actually ground source) heating/cooling system to supplement my current gas-steam system.

I was interested in the wind turbines too (why not?) but have decided that wind power doesn’t make sense in my location.

Perhaps the best energy bang for buck is the very unexciting insulation. (I’ll get a $1,500 federal tax credit on that too, based on at least $5,000 in cost.) Just look at how fast the snow melts on your roof. If it melts quickly, you’re REALLY contributing to global warming–you’re heating up your neighborhood instead of your house! Another of my hobbies is to look at rooftops in the snow and see which ones have quickly melted, and which not. Many of the newly constructed townhouses are snow-free within a day or two. I guess buyers don’t notice this feature, since most people buy during the spring.

Maybe I’ll save a lot of money over the long term with my insulation, solar, and geothermal projects. I know that many people cannot afford these fancy wind, solar, and geothermal projects, but almost everyone can afford a few sheets of insulation. The payoff is amazingly fast.
thabick

I do wish I could save even $75,000 over the next 25 years, but the solar savings won’t be anything like that for me unless the price of electricity goes up significantly from its current $.15/kwh. (The price is SURE to go up in 2011, after deregulation in Pennsylvania, but not clear by how much.)

I installed 5 months ago solar panels that are supposed to produce 5 megawatts per year. So far (in autumn and winter months) we’ve generated just under 2 megawatts. So the system seems to be about on target for generation. But 5000 x .15 = $750. So at current rates, it’ll take 22 years for me to get back my investment of $35,000 (minus PA Sunshine rebate of $11,500 plus Federal Tax Credit of $7050) = $16,450. That is, if electricity continues to be charged in my region at .15 per kwh, which it will not.

However, I am not complaining; I just want the figures to be clear for those interested. And I will get an incredibly generous rebate from Pennsylvania. I mean, I’m supposed to get one. It hasn’t shown up yet, and now 5 months after installation, they say they want to inspect the system again. I do imagine I’ll get the rebate some day, and the federal tax credit seems like a sure thing. Note that the 30% is taken AFTER any state rebates, so it’s 30% of $23,500 (=$7050).

And who would have thought that the year I installed solar panels would be a record-breaking snow dump in my area. I’ve shoveled off the panels three times so far. Not that it’s required, I just do that to maximize my yield. One could just wait for it to melt, but I like to see the generation continue on the sunny days after the big snows.

So one would need to be motivated by something other than finances at current electricity rates. And I am. It’s like purchasing a $16,500 science project or toy that has the benefit of clearly helping the environment while slowing paying me back. People (seem to) think nothing of spending $45,000 for a Lexus. I drive a gas-miser Geo Metro that I bought for $1,700. So it depends on how we choose to spend our disposable income. With the Lexus, the money drains out of your account and never comes back; with energy projects it goes out and then comes back

As for the stimulus effects of these rebates and tax credits, I’ve learned how that works. I stimulated the economy by putting out $35,000 in cash. Some day, maybe in a couple of months, I’ll get the $18,550 back. And I’ll spend that windfall on installing a geothermal (actually ground source) heating/cooling system to supplement my current gas-steam system.

I was interested in the wind turbines too (why not?) but have decided that wind power doesn’t make sense in my location.

Perhaps the best energy bang for buck is the very unexciting insulation. (I’ll get a $1,500 federal tax credit on that too, based on at least $5,000 in cost.) Just look at how fast the snow melts on your roof. If it melts quickly, you’re REALLY contributing to global warming–you’re heating up your neighborhood instead of your house! Another of my hobbies is to look at rooftops in the snow and see which ones have quickly melted, and which not. Many of the newly constructed townhouses are snow-free within a day or two. I guess buyers don’t notice this feature, since most people buy during the spring.

Maybe I’ll save a lot of money over the long term with my insulation, solar, and geothermal projects. I know that many people cannot afford these fancy wind, solar, and geothermal projects, but almost everyone can afford a few sheets of insulation. The payoff is amazingly fast.
thabick

To those who say that subsidies for alternative energy allow some to participate while all pay the bill, thank you for paying my bill! I really appreciate it. However, we’re all paying for the subsidies given to fossil fuels. The wars we’re fighting are for fossil fuels, and the degradation of the environment due to fossil fuel emissions are also hidden costs of those forms of energy.
- http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer
  
  Good point. Not only that, but the $75,000-$500,000 we who install renewables don’t have to pay to our electric utility over the next 25 years, is freed up to be spent on each others businesses.
thabick

To those who say that subsidies for alternative energy allow some to participate while all pay the bill, thank you for paying my bill! I really appreciate it. However, we’re all paying for the subsidies given to fossil fuels. The wars we’re fighting are for fossil fuels, and the degradation of the environment due to fossil fuel emissions are also hidden costs of those forms of energy.
- http://cleantechnica.com/author/susan Susan Kraemer
  
  Good point. Not only that, but the $75,000-$500,000 we who install renewables don’t have to pay to our electric utility over the next 25 years, is freed up to be spent on each others businesses.
Jim

@ Rich Johnson:Clean coal,gas?There’s no such thing as clean coal,and were running out of gas.As for nuclear,maybe we can store some waste under your town.It should help with your heating bill,for about 2,000,000 years.If we took one quarter of the resources currently focused on oil,and moved it towards clean,free energy,we would have it within 10 years.
Jim

@ Rich Johnson:Clean coal,gas?There’s no such thing as clean coal,and were running out of gas.As for nuclear,maybe we can store some waste under your town.It should help with your heating bill,for about 2,000,000 years.If we took one quarter of the resources currently focused on oil,and moved it towards clean,free energy,we would have it within 10 years.
Richard Johnson

Wind power is the hot air that those who support putting these bird killing things all over the country

support. Each wind powered devise should be taxed to kill this industry Think and support clean coal power- gas power- and the atom power
Richard Johnson

Wind power is the hot air that those who support putting these bird killing things all over the country

support. Each wind powered devise should be taxed to kill this industry Think and support clean coal power- gas power- and the atom power
brad

Russ is right to be skeptical. His numbers are a little low, but the point is valid.

1) It’s important to differentiate between m/s and mph. 5 mph is slow and the Helix units don’t start producing electricity until 8mph (about 3.5m/s). 5m/s is pretty fast (about 11.2mph).

2) Don’t be distracted by “rated capacity”. It’s useless (at least until we settle on a single speed for its measurement across all turbines). The key turbine-specific factors (i.e. excluding wind speed) are swept area and efficiency. Swept area is reported; efficiency is claimed and, for most small turbines, has yet to be demonstrated. The latter is complicated further by the fact that efficiency diminishes somewhat as wind speed accelerates.

3) A similar version of the equation is:

0.6125 X (speed cubed) x 1.91 x (8,760 hrs/yr) x (1kW/1,000W) x (Swept Area) X (efficiency),

where 0.6125 is the constant used when speed is measured in m/s and 1.91 is a way to annualize wind power based on a Rayleigh distribution (given certain assumptions). The only factors that vary from one turbine to another are swept area and efficiency. Be suspicious of any small turbine efficiency claims above 20% at 4m/s and above 16% at 7m/s (15.7mph).
brad

Russ is right to be skeptical. His numbers are a little low, but the point is valid.

1) It’s important to differentiate between m/s and mph. 5 mph is slow and the Helix units don’t start producing electricity until 8mph (about 3.5m/s). 5m/s is pretty fast (about 11.2mph).

2) Don’t be distracted by “rated capacity”. It’s useless (at least until we settle on a single speed for its measurement across all turbines). The key turbine-specific factors (i.e. excluding wind speed) are swept area and efficiency. Swept area is reported; efficiency is claimed and, for most small turbines, has yet to be demonstrated. The latter is complicated further by the fact that efficiency diminishes somewhat as wind speed accelerates.

3) A similar version of the equation is:

0.6125 X (speed cubed) x 1.91 x (8,760 hrs/yr) x (1kW/1,000W) x (Swept Area) X (efficiency),

where 0.6125 is the constant used when speed is measured in m/s and 1.91 is a way to annualize wind power based on a Rayleigh distribution (given certain assumptions). The only factors that vary from one turbine to another are swept area and efficiency. Be suspicious of any small turbine efficiency claims above 20% at 4m/s and above 16% at 7m/s (15.7mph).
Susan Kraemer

Yes, a commercial windfarm is more efficient than small residential wind systems, but this is certainly better than the tiny rooftop-type turbines that I reviewed a few months ago: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/

This one is not intended for 5 mile an hour winds, Russ.

Just like you’d not blame the solar panel manufacturer if a solar roof in a forest failed to perform to spec, the company specifies 14 mph OR BETTER winds as a requirement.
Susan Kraemer

Yes, a commercial windfarm is more efficient than small residential wind systems, but this is certainly better than the tiny rooftop-type turbines that I reviewed a few months ago: http://cleantechnica.com/2009/07/29/small-wind-sucks-test-finds/

This one is not intended for 5 mile an hour winds, Russ.

Just like you’d not blame the solar panel manufacturer if a solar roof in a forest failed to perform to spec, the company specifies 14 mph OR BETTER winds as a requirement.
russ

Whether a turbine is a HAWT, VAWT or anything else there is only so much power in the wind. No magic will change that.

The formula for power available in the wind is Power (P) = 1/2 air density (D) * swept area (A) * wind velocity (V) cubed or P=1/2D*A*V cubed

Considering an air density of 1 –

For the S322 at 3.5 m/s that is 68 watts – at 5.5 m/s that is 265 watts and at 8.5 m/s that is 980 watts

Say your area has the national average wind speed of 5 m/s the S322 would provide 200 watts while at their rated wind speed of 6.3 m/s the output would be 399 watts.

The annual expected output for various speeds using a 35% capacity factor:

3.5 m/s = 210 kWh

5.0 m/s = 611 kWh

5.5 m/s = 813 kWh

6.3 m/s = 1222 kWh

8.5 m/s = 3003 kWh

Slight difference with ‘relatively small’ changes in wind velocity.

I stand corrected on one point – they do seem to use a capacity factor of 35% in determining the annual output which many parties do not.
russ

Whether a turbine is a HAWT, VAWT or anything else there is only so much power in the wind. No magic will change that.

The formula for power available in the wind is Power (P) = 1/2 air density (D) * swept area (A) * wind velocity (V) cubed or P=1/2D*A*V cubed

Considering an air density of 1 –

For the S322 at 3.5 m/s that is 68 watts – at 5.5 m/s that is 265 watts and at 8.5 m/s that is 980 watts

Say your area has the national average wind speed of 5 m/s the S322 would provide 200 watts while at their rated wind speed of 6.3 m/s the output would be 399 watts.

The annual expected output for various speeds using a 35% capacity factor:

3.5 m/s = 210 kWh

5.0 m/s = 611 kWh

5.5 m/s = 813 kWh

6.3 m/s = 1222 kWh

8.5 m/s = 3003 kWh

Slight difference with ‘relatively small’ changes in wind velocity.

I stand corrected on one point – they do seem to use a capacity factor of 35% in determining the annual output which many parties do not.
russ

@ Craig – I am totally against subsidies – they only distort the market place and allow losers to survive. They also allow some to participate while all pay the bill for them. Not many states have any surplus cash laying around for subsidies today anyway.

I am not talking about 5 mph winds – close to 5 m/s is the average across the US – a few places higher and many lower. To rate a machine a wind speed that exists a few places only makes sense if it is trying to make a turkey look good. 14 mph winds (annual average) is uncommon! Look at NRDC for that fact.

With PV or wind you are prepaying your electric bill for years to come – not a bad thing if it makes economic sense considering coming price escalations. Putting it on a long term mortgage and paying interest on that makes sense – I don’t think so!

There is zero track record for these turbines that I have seen – outside of their own records/review. There is not one positive outside third party review that I have seen – I am talking about NREL or a similar party – not testimonials. I have looked at most everything on the net regarding wind turbines.

Virtually all parties rate their machines on 100% availability – which this bunch does.

Am I aggressive? Not really, I hate to see a company trying to fool the public. Honeywell is another one that has come along today with someone saying great things – another dud to me.

The day I find wind that works in my location I buy it (providing it is cost effective)! I think it would be wonderful! 5 m/s wind annual average wind speed.
russ

@ Craig – I am totally against subsidies – they only distort the market place and allow losers to survive. They also allow some to participate while all pay the bill for them. Not many states have any surplus cash laying around for subsidies today anyway.

I am not talking about 5 mph winds – close to 5 m/s is the average across the US – a few places higher and many lower. To rate a machine a wind speed that exists a few places only makes sense if it is trying to make a turkey look good. 14 mph winds (annual average) is uncommon! Look at NRDC for that fact.

With PV or wind you are prepaying your electric bill for years to come – not a bad thing if it makes economic sense considering coming price escalations. Putting it on a long term mortgage and paying interest on that makes sense – I don’t think so!

There is zero track record for these turbines that I have seen – outside of their own records/review. There is not one positive outside third party review that I have seen – I am talking about NREL or a similar party – not testimonials. I have looked at most everything on the net regarding wind turbines.

Virtually all parties rate their machines on 100% availability – which this bunch does.

Am I aggressive? Not really, I hate to see a company trying to fool the public. Honeywell is another one that has come along today with someone saying great things – another dud to me.

The day I find wind that works in my location I buy it (providing it is cost effective)! I think it would be wonderful! 5 m/s wind annual average wind speed.
http://extremegreenvillage.com Bob

Honeywell Wind Turbine to be Sold at Ace Hardware Stores for $4,500

Isn’t this a much better deal for most homeowners?

I could be wrong of course but if the author of the article is going to write about a new wind ….. wouldn’t it be a responsible practice to also include other comparable products. Before I started reading this I thought it was some kind of useful innovation but as I read it seemed to be more just a product the is eccentric but not better.
http://extremegreenvillage.com Bob

Honeywell Wind Turbine to be Sold at Ace Hardware Stores for $4,500

Isn’t this a much better deal for most homeowners?

I could be wrong of course but if the author of the article is going to write about a new wind ….. wouldn’t it be a responsible practice to also include other comparable products. Before I started reading this I thought it was some kind of useful innovation but as I read it seemed to be more just a product the is eccentric but not better.
Pingback: Finally A Good Design! | Green Home MegaStore
http://greenhomemegastore.com Craig Hesser

A response to russ:

I think you are mixing things up a bit as well, including terminology.

The S322 is rated at 1000 kWhr/year at an average wind speed of 5,5 m/s, which is quite close to its minimum wind speed (3,5 m/s). The average rating speed used for the two residential units is 8,5 m/s, and the S322’s annual power production is 3’200 kWhr at that average speed (the source of their model number S322?).

Helix notes in their information that the S322 is best suited for “A site with adequate wind (greater than 14mph)…” 14 mph = 6,3 m/s

As far as payback is concerned, their information indicates 30 years is typical before any subsidies or other benefits. Rated speed gives 3200 kWhr/yr * $0.15/kWhr = $480/yr or $40/month. Not big business, but neither is solar at this level – it’s all a matter of scale.

Also, nobody said an off-grid solution was more efficient. What was said is that it is definitely a better solution when the grid is a mile or more away from your farm or residence. The cost to install the grid connection will be greater than the cost of the aeolian power installation, and you will still have to pay the electric company if you connect to the grid.

Another question for you, why are you so aggressive? First you try to make a technical and logical case for your point, and then you destroy your complete argument with inanities.

Final point: of course a windfarm is a better investment than a residential unit – IF you don’t get any additional subsidies or tax breaks. It’s really all a question of local benefits – for example, would you prefer to invest in a windfarm with whatever benefits it gets from regulation etc., or in a residential unit with no benefits? Of course, the windfarm wins hands down. But what if the residential unit purchaser gets as much as a 77% subsidy by the State of California (just read that somewhere)? That turns the tide significantly! You have to look at each case by itself. Then too, there are the payment terms. Who has $15000 or $25000 to invest in a windfarm today? It’s much more convenient to continue paying the “electric bill” – i.e. pay the investment through a long term loan – on a monthly basis and use any capital you might have for a new hybrid car. It’s greener, too!
http://greenhomemegastore.com Craig Hesser

A response to russ:

I think you are mixing things up a bit as well, including terminology.

The S322 is rated at 1000 kWhr/year at an average wind speed of 5,5 m/s, which is quite close to its minimum wind speed (3,5 m/s). The average rating speed used for the two residential units is 8,5 m/s, and the S322’s annual power production is 3’200 kWhr at that average speed (the source of their model number S322?).

Helix notes in their information that the S322 is best suited for “A site with adequate wind (greater than 14mph)…” 14 mph = 6,3 m/s

As far as payback is concerned, their information indicates 30 years is typical before any subsidies or other benefits. Rated speed gives 3200 kWhr/yr * $0.15/kWhr = $480/yr or $40/month. Not big business, but neither is solar at this level – it’s all a matter of scale.

Also, nobody said an off-grid solution was more efficient. What was said is that it is definitely a better solution when the grid is a mile or more away from your farm or residence. The cost to install the grid connection will be greater than the cost of the aeolian power installation, and you will still have to pay the electric company if you connect to the grid.

Another question for you, why are you so aggressive? First you try to make a technical and logical case for your point, and then you destroy your complete argument with inanities.

Final point: of course a windfarm is a better investment than a residential unit – IF you don’t get any additional subsidies or tax breaks. It’s really all a question of local benefits – for example, would you prefer to invest in a windfarm with whatever benefits it gets from regulation etc., or in a residential unit with no benefits? Of course, the windfarm wins hands down. But what if the residential unit purchaser gets as much as a 77% subsidy by the State of California (just read that somewhere)? That turns the tide significantly! You have to look at each case by itself. Then too, there are the payment terms. Who has $15000 or $25000 to invest in a windfarm today? It’s much more convenient to continue paying the “electric bill” – i.e. pay the investment through a long term loan – on a monthly basis and use any capital you might have for a new hybrid car. It’s greener, too!
russ

I like wind! But believe that 95% plus of the residential units are not a good deal for anyone but the supplier. Notice the attention Helix gives to incentives and subsidies.

The Helix S594 – In typical wind speeds of 5 m/s their 5 kW machine produces something like 1800 kWh per year (according to their own power curve) and not 500 kWh per month.

The S322 machine rated at 2.5 kW shows an estimated annual output of 1000 kWh (their own power curve). It is a little confusing as the rated output of 5 kW (wildly enhanced)for one machine is used and the cost of the smaller machine is used. If the thing puts out (as per their own chart which is enhanced) 1000 kW at 15 cents then your annual income is 150 USD. Long term payback! Like never never!

Grid tied systems are far more efficient – when you put batteries into it you lose something like 30 to 35% of the power generated.

Turbulent winds are best? Claimed by some but not shown as accurate by anyone to date.

If they are serious about being anything but a ripoff they should have the unit tested by the NREL. Not something Helix is interested in I suppose.

If you want wind power then invest in a windfarm! A better option for most.
russ

I like wind! But believe that 95% plus of the residential units are not a good deal for anyone but the supplier. Notice the attention Helix gives to incentives and subsidies.

The Helix S594 – In typical wind speeds of 5 m/s their 5 kW machine produces something like 1800 kWh per year (according to their own power curve) and not 500 kWh per month.

The S322 machine rated at 2.5 kW shows an estimated annual output of 1000 kWh (their own power curve). It is a little confusing as the rated output of 5 kW (wildly enhanced)for one machine is used and the cost of the smaller machine is used. If the thing puts out (as per their own chart which is enhanced) 1000 kW at 15 cents then your annual income is 150 USD. Long term payback! Like never never!

Grid tied systems are far more efficient – when you put batteries into it you lose something like 30 to 35% of the power generated.

Turbulent winds are best? Claimed by some but not shown as accurate by anyone to date.

If they are serious about being anything but a ripoff they should have the unit tested by the NREL. Not something Helix is interested in I suppose.

If you want wind power then invest in a windfarm! A better option for most.