two:
It's obvious from the picture of the one OP design that the ejection tube is flexible and can be curved away from a prevailing wind. But beyond that, a moment's thought will produce a variety of ejection schemes including a smaller duplicate of the intake with optionally blocked apertures - why would you claim only one direction of outflow is available?
one:
The foundations necessary for the wind turbines in western Minnesota are massive concrete platforms poured to exacting requirements (they have to be dead level) due to the very high and dramatically variable (buffeting) wind loads placed on such structures even in normal operation - the idea that all you need is a deep hole is ludicrous, and what are you talking about with "guy wires"? You understand the propeller axis revolves 360, with the blades in vertical sweep a couple of meters from the pole, right?
Guy wires would be more useful with the caged tunnel setup, allowing a lighter and cheaper cage - as with the 300 meter towers used for communication relays. Remember, the weight and rigid support/orientation of precision moving turbine parts and their support motors, bearings, tracks, etc, is not way up off the ground as it is with propeller designs.
http://schwing.com/wind-farms-fill-the-sails-of-a-minnesota-concrete-pumper/ That's one.
On "two" I doubt the exit tube is flexible as it would buckle if you tried to bend it; but even is that were possible, there are 8 or so steel (painted yellow) support anchoring it to the ground visible in the post 3 photo - Impossible to move the exhaust direction even only 10 degrees in less than hour and very expensive to do so -
(keep a construction crew there 24/7 ?) and the wind , especially one blowing at their design speed of 2mph, can change its direction greatly in less than 10 minutes.
You are posting economic non-sense in this reply. Try again to show economic viability.
BTW, I don't claim only one direction of flow is available. In fact I noted the post 3 figure showing wind entering the machine from opposite sides at the same time is ridiculous - but which side it enters from can be "wind selected" but that duplication of mainly wind blocking structure is costly compared to a conventional wind machine small tail that automatically turns it directly into the wind. (Some very large machines do sense the wind direction and use a motor to turn.)
BTW2, a two or even one blade machine is slightly more efficient than the three blades used. They are used as their moment of inertia against rotation is nearly a constant. If it is not, changing direction induces stresses as the blade(s) rotate. This greater efficiency is partly why small prop air planes have only two propeller blades. Many blades are used when you are more interested in low speed torque than efficiency as in wind power farm water pump applications.
On one: Yes some low strength soils do require a massive weight base. I installed a North Wind generator for the US Coast Guard at their Norfolk VA station in sand. It was a test / demo - not intended to be economical as power company energy was available. Their main applications were off shore island light houses, where diesel generators run 24/7 and not just at idle speed even during the day as they get "clogged up" with carbon, if you do that. Some light-house stations can not even get their drums of diesel fuel deliver by transfer from delivery ship to its small boat, but must use helicopters for delivery from their large, expensive to operate, "cutter" ship. - This was back when gasoline was about $0.75 / gallon but their delivered diesel was at least $300 /gallon or >$1000 / gallon if a helicopter was used.
I.e. The wind machine + battery economy was great, without question as it allowed the diesel to be off when there was wind - i.e. almost always. The question was what was the expected down time each decade - that was the object of the Norfolk site test. I doubt the North Wind machine is still there, but that concrete cube in the beach sand still is, I'm sure. North Wind does not still seem to exist - I tried to find photo of the machine as it shed wind by rolling back to near horizontal. We choose this design as it is very reliable way to shed excessive wind power compared to more standard but more complex feathering of the props. - just a large coiled spring resisting roll back pivot so no failure modes exist except 100+ years of rusting. I went down from work ( at APL/JHU in Maryland) during near hurricane storm - saw it rolled back with spin axis less than 5 degrees off vertical but still slowly turning.
Yes, guy wires would need to attach at less than 1/4 the pole height and need their own massive anchor points - why they are not used, ever AFAIK.
Point you avoided was what is the cost of a massive block of concrete? Especially one that is with four corner steel tie-down bolt points but more than half just solid rocks dumped in for mass in central volume? - Compared to the expensive steel structure that can at least get that huge, mainly wind blocking structure to at least to twice the height of taller trees. Rock filled concrete base with < 1% of that steel in it than that new type wind machine would need.Rock filler is very cheap - I.e. cuts the cost of already cheap concrete base in half.
Try again, and keep in mind the question is about economics, not how large the torque resisting base block must be, even in sand.
Note also, when you do so, that a large steel base which can also resist strong wind from toppling that mainly wind blocking machine over is 10 or so times more costly than in-earth, half rocks filling concrete, except at the corner tie down points.
