Simply, aero efficiency is not as high, energy content of the lower winds is not as high, and you still have to lift off the rotor if a main bearing fails.  Not to mention there's more turbulence on the lower portion of the rotor.

Doesn't stop the UK guv from a major program. (Boondoggle in the name of regaining technological supremacy?)

If this is designed to fail i can't say, i sense this is credible but questionable research grasping for funds, because there are so many examples of vertical axis machines which worked but did not provide the necessary cost benefits to be successful.  In fact, there is no successful commercial application since the concept was evolved in France in the late 20's.

But hell, i think wind projects funded by BP and Shell should get priority, especially if the aim is to discredit wind, or make the UK the offshore god. Given BP and Shell's stellar track record in wind to date.

(No companies were harmed in the making of this comment, though the writer is going to get a shitload of shit for this.)  ((But that's why we let him comment on ET, Ed.))

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin