What's the True Cost of Wind Energy?

For the identified Subsidies, (free land or tax credits come to mind) you could use a fair market value for the land as a proxy; Tax credits are more problematic as there are somany different schemes. When we compare US to European Industry Finances, We routinely use a ~28% social cost factor that European companies face that we don't. But we consider our manufacturing 24% disadvantaged to China based on our need to comply with US Federal safety health and environmental rules.

Perhaps its a wash- If the tax credit negates the cost of the environmental impact study for an installation here in US; And to build the same in China or someplace else that doesn't require such a study, then the credits might be seen to be actually "levelling the playing field."

Its difficult to get to apples to apples when the govt is involved, especially at multiple levels.

hope this helps

milo

Hello Milo,

Con grats are in order regarding your Milostone!

Next, I think that this subject would be a candidate for comparison regarding the :Reality Check, Regarding What Is and What Is Not "

GREEN VS ALMOST GREEN.

It seems to me that one must compute the materials used, methods of construction and of the ultimate cost of producing, installing, and bringing on line, lets say 100 of these industrial quality Wind Turbines, along with the associated equipment and materials and transmission lines to carry this energy 1000 miles.

This would be IMHO, a fair method of establishing that which we should consider "economy of scale.

This could provide us with a number that we can use to compare with the same overall cost with coal, bunker oil, and natural gas.

And we can compare this also against the costs to accomplish such things as the cleaning and scrubbing costs needed to bring the dirtier fuels into EPA compliance.

I think we need a little help from fellow contributors on this.

TMF

I'm not planning on going back to school to get a PHD in Economics , but the eceonomics of sustainability as you point out here and in your building materials thread have had me thinking about the proper way to accurately assess and compare technologies deployed.

My "free market bias tells me that the costs are the costs, but my engineering logic says that the mere dollar costing does not adequately reflect environmental and raw material production refining and recovery and impacts;

So i continue to think on these issues.

When I have an approach ready I'll let you know.

There are clearly impacts to construct, impacts to use, and impacts offset by greener rather than less green technologies; as well as impacts of end of lifecycle costs.

So we need to have more than a single column of factors to sum... for each technology if we are going to compare.

Thanks for your connection and congrats!

milo

What you need is a Value Formula.. i have more thoughts on this..

Chris

Please do not refrain from sharing your thoughts Chris, we need input from all corners to accurately reflect on the values each of place on the various subjects involved. Ex; one party might determine the loss of habitat for some particular bird as a negative value of 10 under every condition, while another may see the same loss as 3 as the condition only reflects a loss in a specific area as opposed to a very large area.

Thanks for your value formula idea!

TMF

When you reckon the costs, be sure to cost for repairs or maintenance.

I met a gentleman over christmas who had looked into installing a wind generator to power his hotel. The cost of a single repair job was estimated around $25,000 !!. Apparently a crane is required to get up there, etc etc. Complicated by lack of skilled personnel in his area, so someone would have to be flown in I guess. All in all, any mechanical failure could be a major setback in the cost department, depending on your location and availability of necessaries like cranes and turbine experts.

Artsmith, your point is a good one. The problem with a single one is lack of scale. I went to palm springs to investigate this technology for my industry several years ago, (there are hundreds of these on a couple of ridges) and the number that weren't working was staggering. But there were several companies in that area that did the maintenance and repair - they had economies of scale.

If you look at the example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Returns_to_scale but substitute maintenance on windgenerators for "sales of electricity" in the example it makes a good case.

But back to the specifics of palm springs, I'll bet one third of the installed equipment there was not in working order, only the newest, largest... were operable.

milo

Cost of building installation, cost of maintenance and repair, depreciation rate per year can all give true cost of Wind energy trough KWh actually produced.

With depreciation rate of 5%, it is intended that cost of building installation would be accumulated into fund for building new one in 20 years, so 1/20 of installation cost must be taken as cost per year, with planned maintenance and repair costs, and sum of these together with cost of running installation have to be divided by number of KWh planned to produce as minimum. All planed and not spent repair costs and electricity produced over planned minimum are considered to be extra profit for that year, and do not change planned cost of electricity for sale or internal use.

All costs have to be accounted when building installation and subsidy ignored, but where it is received and is tied to lowering cost of electricity for sale, it influence just sales price, not cost of producing it......

Now, I am also inventor who have invented Wind power stations that are far less costly to produce, cause no transportation or installation problems, maintenance and repair are cheap and simple (and they need repair much less). At same time, they need far weaker wind to start working and continue to work even in strong winds, are self directing and self regulated, make no infrasonic noises, and could withstand hurricanes as well, depending on strength of construction parts, if it is hurricane affected area. Because weaker wind could be used, there would be much more areas where it could be installed and used, and overall more electricity would be produced yearly, so price of electricity would be less. Installation can be calibrated on average wind speed in area, or still better on prevailing or most frequently occurring wind speed, so available wind power is used most effectively.

CR4 ADMIN: This post was edited to remove advertising outside the Commercial Space forum. Please review Section 14 of the CR4 Site FAQ about advertising.

Dear Henrik,

I am also interested in building a new type of wind turbine - a vertical axis turbine with low rotation speed but novel blades. I think the efficiency will only be high enough if it is built at large scale and that is a problem. Small scale turbines tend to have low efficiency due to low Reynolds number but I don't know how to get investment to build a large turbine without more evidence of its practicality.

I am a university researcher and I have contacts with investors so if you have some experimental evidence, we might be able to work together on turbines. What design are you using? How do you keep the cost low? If you are interested, plase send me an email on j.p.barton@lboro.ac.uk

Best Regards,

John

id like to hear about the generator in this new design!

"demonstration of practicality"

I vote for wind tunnel tests

Henrik

Can you elaborate your invention little more? If you want to send something privately my mail address is gsuhas@gmail.com. I would be interested.

All the best

gsuhas

If you have something unique, Denmark would be a good place to look for investors.

Investors in the United States would want you to have applied for US Patent protection for all of your unique ideas. When you have done this, then start contacting companies in the US.

Nolo Press in Berkeley California has some great books on how to file patents and protect your intellectual property as well as giving some sound business advice.

http://www.nolo.com/product.cfm/objectID/759C18EB-2F81-4984-B73D2591246ECC59/310/

Also see their book "Profit from your Idea" and others scroll down to the bottom at the above link.

Thank You on advice, I intend to do just that (patent it all first) but unfortunately patenting cost also :-((

Still, I am working on it right now, and I hope in few days process of patenting would began. Once it is verified that it is no >>previous art<< and is >>not obvious<< (eh, for this I really dont know what to think, as it is all obvious to me, and to all friends that have seen my models, but they at least admit they never tought about it that way), then I would show it on CR4, specially when first unit would be finalized and tested, so I can show concrete results.

But biggest advantage would be that far weaker wind can be used, so I need not worry about marketing.........

Hi....

Large capacity wind turbines are grid connected and are not put-up in isolation. You must have a wind farm possibly as large as possible for viability. Only smaller versions like toys can be put up anywhere for single use.

Costs usually comprise of :

1. Design & consultancy expenses.
2. Cost of nacelle assembly with blades.
3. Cost of tower...it can be steel lattice, tubular or concrete.
4. Cost of foundation and its designing charges.
5. Cost of control system with power transformers as well as power evacuation lines etc.
6. Cost of transportation to site, erection, installation, testing & commissioning with statutory expenses related to obtaining government licences & clearances from its various departments viz agriculture, environment, electrical safety etc.
7. Running expenses although there are no fuel costs.

Land cost is separate since it could be leased for a small sum.

Viability of wind power vis a vis conventional sources has always been debatable. Wind turbines destabilise the grid hence it is confined to less than 10% of capacity.

Anil Tiwari / Delhi

You are right in Your cost accounting, but cost of electricity produced depend on number of MWh produced, or planned to be produced as minimum per year for this location, and then using depreciation rate one has to find yearly cost that is >>spent<< in producing electricity. But, average quantity of wind power available at site could also be used as base of cost calculation, but then less produced electricity would cost more than planed production price, so it is better to take minimum available as more realistic and less prone to fluctuations..........

>>Wind turbines destabilise the grid......<<

Electricity produced is same as that of >>classic<< resources, at least it should be so.

Therefore it cannot >>destabilize<< Grid, just supplement it. Of course there should be control system implemented which would lessen production from Thermo centrals, at least those burning fossile fuels, as geothermals should be used constantly. Same goes for Atomic centrals that can increase or decrease production with demand. That way electricity produced by using Wind power just lessen expenditure of fossile fuels, and therefore also CO2 emisions and production of other polutants.

Restriction for use of Wind power come form iregularity of wind occurence and from minimal wind speed necesary to even start big capacity wind turbines. Further restriction is that contemporary wind power stations have to stop working in strong wind lest they suffer damage, so that much less wind is used........

If my wind power stations would be used instead, there would be much more places where wind could be used effectively, and since they are cheap they produce cheap electricity as well, beside being affordable for many more users.

What could >>destabilize<< Grid is price of electricity produced, which is still higher per MW produced than that produced by coal or gas burning power stations, but my wind power stations could change this drastically, and of course for better.......

I have plan to offer my windpower stations to Suzlon, if they are capable of drastic about turn in their production, specially if licenses paid are not amortized yet :-))

Regards from Zagreb, the capitol of Croatia, Europe!

Hi...to Zagreb,

India has a very high installed capacity in wind energy. The annual outputs achieved have however averaged to about 18% of installed capacity of the wind farm. In the best wind farms they've got 22%. The wind is slightly heavier in parts of Europe and hence can generate bit more power compared to the thin Indian air but it won't have a big overall effect. A greater effect will be due to higher average wind speeds. In Northern Europe the wind is really good. I do not have much of an idea about the Balkans but there too the wind should be very good with high windy sites available.

Next, wind turbines have induction generators which draw a heavy starting current. Maybe some electrical expert can explain better. It is not advisable to have a a large wind farm capacity in any utility grid.

Regards,

Anil Tiwari / Delhi

CR4 Admin - Post removed due to potential patent/copyright violation.

Henrik14,

I see your references to Your design, and would like to know more. I'm not a developer, but an enthusiast..still, if you care to share pictures, I would be interested.

Chris.

i waana see it tooo!

"I would say that wind in India is heavier because there is more humidity in air, so mass should be slightly greater, and with same speed it should give more energy."

Hello Henrick14

Apparently you suffer from a common misconception. Humidity (water vapor, molecular weight=18) in air makes air (dry average molecular weight=29) LIGHTER, not heavier, or LESS DENSE, not more dense. So higher humiditity would make a wind powered machine LESS efficient, not more efficient.

Hi...

Humidity only makes the air more lighter. My, my otherwise the clouds would not float up in sky or steam would'nt rise in the air niether would the barometer would fall before a strom !!!

Wind power is here to stay but its commercial viability continues to be subject to debates. I have poineered installation of very large size grid connected wind turbines in India as the country manager of TACKE WINDTECHNIK Gmbh & Co Kg. Thier turbines are still the best but no longer available in the market. Even in a large country like India land is in short supply. You will now have to look at Off-shore sites.

Anil Tiwari / New Delhi

During condensation process that goes on within clouds energy spent on evaporation is released and transfer of this energy on air molecules within cloud makes air inside lighter, IMHO. However, clouds tend to come down in absence of other sources of warm air going up, as water molecules form tiny droplets that grow bigger and at last fall like rain, sleet, snow or solid ice, depending if water drops fall trough much colder air or not.......

My wind power stations should be at least three times more effective than the best of >>classic<< type, therefore they could be smaller to produce same quantity of KWh. As they dont spend any electricity and could start work with 1/3 less speedy wind, and do not stop working even in strong wind, they should produce 3 to 5 times more electricity under same conditions.

I hope soon production of my wind power station would begin, I would be able to show concrete results and pictures of my windpower stations in work

One thing is certain, and this is that my wind power stations dont have any of problems that are present in other wind power stations, and since price would be less than half smaller, which should fall to 1/3 in big serial production, but are simple enough to be produced even in technology poor countries from cheap materials, they would be more affordable to use, and electricity produced shoul be far cheaper because of this also. I have talked once with some embassy officer of China and have explained benefits, so he told me when I start production I should inform him, then China would take 10 000 deevices for trial buy, and would of course be interested in buying license for production also if Croatia would not be able to produce enough to cover demand :-)) Price of instalation would be cca 1000 US $ per KWh in capacity installed, so if we take just 100 days of 10 hours per year, and 10 years production life, then price of KWh would be 10 US cents. You should agree that this is prudent calculation and perhaps overly pesimistic, but even this price should be at least halved when big seriall production start, and because of minimum of maintenance required, productive life could easyly be 5 times greater, which together give price of 1 US cent per KWh.....

For comparison, price of KWh in Croatia is 60 to 80 cents right now, and this from using >>dirty<< technology.

What You say is really news to me :-) While You correctly calculated water molecule weight (two Hydrogen atoms with weight approximately 1 and one Oxygen atom with weight 15.99) I dont know how could addition of water molecules can make air lighter since instead of free constituent atoms there is molecule that takes less space so more can be packed in same volume of air....... I know that O2 weights about 32, but air contain just 20% of O2, 0.008% of Hydrogen, 78% nitrogen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, ... Since weight of Nitrogen is just 14, then air mixture without water should weight around 18 also...... Statistically looking it is 4 times more probable that H2O, weight=18, would displace Nitrogen then heavier O2, therefore air containing water vapour should be heavier than one not containing it..........

But, perhaps I am wrong in my conclusions, or You were thinking of air containing hot steam which would really be lighter, or by transferring its energy would make air warmer an therefore lighter.....

I was however taught that air containing water vapour is heavier than one without it, and I would stick to what I know unless shown different proofs.......

That is the reason why clouds tend to come down, in absence of wind, and they would have to go up according to Your theory. That is what they told me how clouds form in first place, because heavier air comes down, and because water molecules tend to group together also....... :-)

I am rather old so perhaps things are different then what I was taught in Primary school at end of 50's, just like they taught us wrongly that by mixing Yellow, Red and Blue color we can get all other colors, while it is really Red, Green and Blue in optics...

Therefore I apologize if I am wrong and You are telling the truth as it stands........

could we see some examples of your super wind machine? any pictures or diagrams also how did you get the china order, do you have a prototype ready?

"I know that O2 weights about 32, but air contain just 20% of O2, 0.008% of Hydrogen, 78% nitrogen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, ... Since weight of Nitrogen is just 14, then air mixture without water should weight around 18"

All the sources I checked place the percentage of O₂ at just under 21%.

You have forgotten that, like Oxygen, Nitrogen is diatomic, so the molecular weight of Nitrogen (N₂) is 28, not 14. Ignoring all the other constituents below Argon, 0.21*32 + 0.78*28 +.0093*18= 28.7.

From here,

"I was however taught that air containing water vapour is heavier than one without it, and I would stick to what I know unless shown different proofs..."

You have placed an excellent example in the colors! You were taught wrong in both cases!

As the above source indicates, a mole of any ideal gas [or mixture of ideal gasses] always occupies the same volume [at a given temperature and pressure]. This means that every time a molecule of water vapor evaporates into a given volume of air (as from the ocean), some other molecule gets pushed out of that volume. Otherwise the pressure would increase (which is what pushes the other molecule away). Statistically, the molecule being pushed away is most likely Nitrogen, so a 28 is replaced with an 18, lowering the average molecular weight.

It is mostly the humidity, not the temperature, that makes tropical air rise to high altitudes, where it spreads toward the poles, carrying energy with it.

I stand corrected, You must be right!

Well 47 years from learning Chemistry in Primary school, surely tells on me.....:-((

Hope I would remember it next time.......

Still, if You consider tendency of H2O to agglomerate, then more than one water molecule is in close proximity so less total space is required, and greater weight is present, no?

I would say that if things work strictly as You wrote, then logically there would not be any H2O in air close to ground, is that not so? If You have seen fog coming from river and >>flowing<< among the bushes not so high above ground, then this empiric proof should show You there is something else that You did not have taken into consideration, what do You think?

Beside this, we all know about balones that are filled with hot air, which is surely dry, else we should fill them with steam instead? So Sun is not only heating water, is it? It is heating air also, and heated air is lighter than cold, even with same % of humidity, is that not so?

If it would be exactly as You told, all H2O molecules would have went to stratosphere, which is not case, is it?

As far as I know we cannot look on air as volume from which H2O molecule would push out some other molecules in order to take their space, as molecules in air travel fast and beat into one another, according to energy they have, else air would not be air, and it would not be able to become liquid or even solid.......

Same way H2O molecules with less energy are in liquid state, and one with more in gaseous state, while water could turn to ice also if energy (or temperature) is low.

Therefore I would say that molecules of water do not displace other molecules from air at all, but just add their energy trough colisions with other air gases to other molecules that then travel faster and colide more times in same time segment.....

That energy that beat into slower molecules that suround hot air pilon that form over some stony ground heated by Sun make air more voluminous with same number of elements in it, and because of this it appears as bubble in water, tending to go up...

At least this is how our Physics teacher explained Hot Air baloons functioning......

But what do I know, perhaps this were wrong explanation also?

Same thing has my father told me explaining how gliders fly for hours if they find those pilons of hot air going up, and they are never formed over water like lakes or rivers, and also not over green vegetation, and eagles and other big birds use them to fly without energy expenditure also..........

So, unless I hear more argumets, I shall stick to what I know, if You dont mind........

Regards,

Marijan Pollak

"Still, if You consider tendency of H2O to agglomerate, then more than one water molecule is in close proximity so less total space is required, and greater weight is present, no?"

Everything in my previous posts was referring to the gas laws, which only apply when the water is in the vapor stage. The vast majority of the air moving windmills in the places I have observed (mostly the US, Denmark, and Germany) was clear air, indicating that the water was in vapor form. If you can see the water as fog, clouds, rain, snow, etc., then the water is not entirely in vapor form, so the gas laws do not apply. Then the water is not in the form of individual molecules, but agglomerations accumulated on dust or other particles, and then yes, there will temporarily be added weight.

"I would say that if things work strictly as You wrote, then logically there would not be any H2O in air close to ground, is that not so?"

The velocity of gas molecules (the speed of sound) is so high, and in random directions, that even in the most violent of updrafts, water molecules will be moving down as well as up. If this were not the case, the Earth would have lost its water to space eons ago.

"Beside this, we all know about balones that are filled with hot air, which is surely dry..."

Wrong again! Hot air balloons are heated by burning compressed gases like propane. C₃H₈ + 5O₂ -> 3CO₂+ 4H₂O. Not Dry! Now 3/7*44+4/7*18=29, so without the heat, the burned propane (Carbon Dioxide and Water)would have virtually the same density as air. With the heat, the exhaust and nearby heated air rise rapidly to the top of the balloon, expelling colder, denser air around the periphery of the bottom.

"other molecules that then travel faster and colide more times in same time segment"

More collisions at higher speed means higher pressure, which will cause that air to expand (forcing molecules to leave the region), and cool as it expands.

"So, unless I hear more argumets, I shall stick to what I know, if You dont mind........"

Of course you are free to believe what you wish, but I DO mind, because it is physics that makes windmills work, not beliefs. I greatly fear that there are a lot more misconceptions in your windmill design (which, of course, I have not seen). An improvement of 10% in efficiency over current designs would be wonderful! As I read it, you claim an increase of 300%! If you can produce half of what you claim, you will be very rich very soon! Then you will be able to come visit and make me eat my words!

I have no much time, so I would answer just some of Your statements......

I know that molecules travel in all directions, but according to You, presence of H2O molecules in air make it lighter, not heavier, and lighter air tend to climb up, right?

That is why I told that according to Your theory logically all H2O molecules would end high over ground.......

In regard to hot air balones, burning of Propane is just one way to produce hot air, as same effect could be made if we use heated coils of wire, where electricity is used to heat them....... Perhaps my example is not practically feasible nor economic unless one has atomic reactor of small size to produce enough electricity (again so far impossible notion) or any other means for storing or producing great quantity of electricity....... Then surely effect would be same as in hot air produced by Propane?

>>More collisions at higher speed means higher pressure, which will cause that air to expand (forcing molecules to leave the region), and cool as it expands.<<

I admit I am no Physicist, but I would say expanding and cooling are caused by colision of high energy (hot) molecules with low energy molecules (cold), where energy is transmited in colisions and so formerly cold molecules start to colide more frequently by other radially more distant cold molecules, and each colision of hot molecule going outward push formerly cold molecule it has rammed into same direction, even if it get slowed down as much as cold gets faster.

Do You agree with this?

Yes, I know Physic is what makes windmill turn, and I know of theoreticall limit of ideall turbine, just I believe I have found big hole in that theory. Since I have made prototype of my turbines and they work as I expected, then practice is right and theory is wrong, or better I should say that for given parameters theory is correct, but in presence of other parameters it cannot work at all, so form of turbine have to be adjusted to new set of parameters. It would be all clear once I fill patent claim documentation and verify that such turbines were not invented before, about wich I am pretty sure since they would be in use othervise........

Also, Yes, I do hope to become rich pretty fast, while helping World to solve polution and Global warming problems at least in part :-))

As for comming to visit, that I dont expect as I am real couch potato and travel only if unavoidable, but I can call You to >>eat your words<< publicly on CR4 :-))

I would make sure that someplace on my wind power stations would be small table welded on saying: >>Invented by Marijan Pollak, patent Nr. 252282872<< or something similar with long list of patent numbers for each country.......:-))

All the best from Croatia, homeland of great Engineer Nikola Tesla!

Don't take my word for it - look it up! A simple Google search for 'Density of dry and moist air" brought up this and this, among others.

Pilots have to take this into account when calculating the load capacity of their aircraft. Fortunately, most places where the humidity is high are also at low altitude.

Fortunately for living organisms like ourselves, most of those water molecules that do reach high altitude coalesce into snowflakes and fall. If they fall into very dry air, the snowflakes will sublimate, otherwise they will either fall to the earth or into warmer air, where they will melt, and then either evaporate or fall as rain.

Of course it is possible to make other forms of hot air balloons than those powered by propane, but all the ones I've ever seen that were big enough to carry people, used propane. It is a fairly common, but dangerous, experiment to make a hot air balloon using a plastic garbage bag and birthday candles...

By definition. the temperature of a gas molecule is directly related to its kinetic energy, and therefore to its velocity. When a hot (high speed) molecule collides with a cool (low speed) one, Energy is always transferred from the hot one to the cool one, which is to say that the hot molecule is cooled and the cool molecule is warmed. This is known as the law of conservation of momentum.

I'm really happy to hear that you have built one or more prototypes! That puts you a BIG step ahead of most people with 'new' ideas. Now, have you done the measurements? How much power do you get out of the alternator (or generator, or pump, or...) for a given windspeed and windmill area?

And the best to you from the USA, where Nikola Tesla was able to do his most famous experiments!

My Dear Henrik14.

There are certain things that certainly make visible sense. Ex: two vessels are exactly the same size in shape and volume. One is filled with distilled water and the other is empty except for the local air that is present. Clearly the one that is filled with water is much heavier than the air only filled container. So therefore we can believe that even a little moisture in the air is going to make the local air heavier.

However:moisture is denser than air, and therefore when heated to the point that it becomes vaporized it expands and thus creates a far greater area than the much less dense than the "Air" thus creating a lighter volume and as it still contains some heat through the transition, and we all know that heat rises to the top of any example material, this hot molecular structure will rise above what has now reversed conditions, in that the expanded bubble is now lighter than the unexpanded local air.

This is how My Physics Instructor explained the phenomenon. The denser the material the greater it will expand when heated to the same temperature of less denser materials, and the more it expands the lighter it gets in relation to the surrounding materials (gases included). This of course all was related to the different weights what we have determined that a molecule of all natural gasses will weigh when separated from one another.

I choose to explain the phenomenon in this manner for the benefit of those who are monitoring this thread who may not be physicists.

Therefore, if we were simply spraying water droplets into the air space before a wind turbine and the moving air was carrying said droplets through the path that the surrounding air was traveling and much of said combined droplets and air were contacting the blades of the turbine, there certainly would be a denser condition created, but only as long as the droplets were available. After leaving the area of contact these droplets being being minuscule liquid components would be colder and thus denser than the air, but would also fall back to earth. Some of course will evaporate.

Where water conservation is involved we consider the sprinkling of water on plants to be some what inefficient in that some of the water is lost to evaporation as opposed to being returned back into the earth for immediate recycling.

As for your claims of 300% improvement over current methods, I can see that if you were to duct the air through the propellers and compress it as it moved through there would be gains, and the ratio of gains would be in direct relation to the expansion of the area impacted. There would be far less energy lost by the moving air being discharged off of the ends of the propellers along with the vortices that develop. Actually these vortices are likely to have an adverse impact wind turbines that are placed in close proximity to each other. These issues can all be evaluated by placing adequate sized models in wind tunnels.

TMF

Yes, I agree with You! But if some low entropy of kind (can we call it >>local<<?) is established and all molecules of air have same temperature then there would be no expansion nor verticall movement of air...... Hmm, not example for my case :(

Well, consider another thing, that previously evaporated molecules allready went up and there met cold of space, therefore lost energy and start falling down. It would be slow process, and since cold molecules comming down would also be slow, perhaps they can percolate between other molecules of air without disturbing them too much, or imagine that all air is cooled and because of this became denser. If air is denser, then it also weight more, I suppose?

Never mind, perhaps difference is not so great and it would have no consequence on effectiveness of wind power stations in India as compared to other places on Globe.

However, I have allways felt sea air as heavier than other, and I have had same feeling in India when I went there.....

As for Your conclusions, they are correct, air would be ducted and prior to this compresed. Princip of work is similar to >>water ram<< where there is pipe of big diameter first that progresively become more narrow put into stream of water facing direction from which water is comming with higher diameter, then on hidraulic principle we get water traveling much faster in smallest diameter of pipe, and so water is pushing itself up as high as 10m. I would do similar thing with air.........

Unfortunately You did not notice that I allways mention turbines, not propelers, even if propelers would also have benefited from rotation paralel to ground.

So, no vortices, at least not where theory assume they would be.....

Before I go and build wind tunnel, I would test it with SC TETRA CFD or some similar program that could simulate fluid flow trough any kind of device........

Speaking of such software, do anybody know some other, as capable but cheaper program? This one cost hefty 15 thousand US $ per year, as it is rented, not sold :-((

I get the impression that you are struggling with (or maybe against) the concepts of vapor pressure and molecular weight. Let me offer some anecdotes and experiments that you can perform yourself.

You can easily think of many different pure substances that may be stored in an unpressurised container, are liquid at room temperature, and that readily evaporate. Some may be purchased dissolved into a solvent, but that will not do. It should be pure.

Before reading any further, please make a list right now:

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

And now, my little anecdote:

Years ago I performed a simple experiment. I placed a short wide-mouth glass jar filled with about 1/4 inch of a pure liquid into a microwave oven. Brought it to a hard boil. Then I placed its lid on top without tightening. Restarted the oven (just a few seconds) until the liquid simmered and the lid rattled twice. Then I tightened the lid.

The jar now had a rather pure vapor content and very little nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc. Remember, it still has that liquid.

As it cooled, the lid curved inward - concave.

Vapor was condensing on the thin metal lid and dripping back down, cooling the glass. The liquid continued to simmer as the jar cooled.

It was really fun showing the room temperature jar to family and friends. I would place an ice cube on the lid and they would be amazed to see the liquid instantly begin to boil !

This is absolute proof that the molecules have a lower vapor pressure, and therefore are lighter than "air".

Gas molecules on both sides of the lid press on it proportional to their mass times velocity (the speed of sound at their temperature).

Fill a small glass jar totally with any one substance from your (above) list, close and tighten the excellent lid. Pump out some liquid. As you do this, the liquid will boil, drawing the temperature down. Note the vacuum/pressure gage. Eventually, the temperature will rise back to ambient.

Did I forget to mention the plumbing? ;-)

In any case, the absolute pressure inside is the vapor pressure of the molecules. Of course, that is dependent on temperature and molecular weight, which you can now calculate.

If molecules are much lighter than air, the lid will stay concave even after the jar returns to room temperature, and you will see a partial vacuum on the gauge.

If you haven't done it yet, try using water.

=======================================

If you reflect for a moment, you can think of many substances that are stored in a sturdy pressurised container. When you open the valve on one of these, the vapor escapes forcefully.

Obviously, both helium and hydrogen will be buoyant.

=======================================

You can easily think of pressurised containers that hold a product in both gaseous and liquid form at room temperature. Make a list now: ____________

________________________________________________

If you can do it safely: partially fill a foil party balloon with any of the (above) vapors, without stretching it taut. Let its temperature return to ambient.

If still filled only with vapor, and it weighs more than the empty balloon then this molecule has a higher vapor pressure than "air". The molecule weighs more.

What do think it means if the balloon rapidly deflates and the molecules revert to a liquid state?

Air Density and Airfoils

Henrik14, As you point out, the air over rivers and lakes is usually not good for gliding. This not because the air is still, it is because the air is more humid, lighter, and less dense. That reduces forces over the airfoil (glider wings), causing less lift and drag. The same reduction occurs on windmills.

Another effect of lakes and rivers is that ground air tends to move sideways to fill the void caused by rising humid air. This causes a curtain of lower pressure off to the side of the water.

The best environment for glider wings is dry (dense), cool (dense), rising air.

So if you want ideal conditions for windmills, look for the fastest, coolest, driest, and most smooth laminar air within reach. This is always found as high up as you can get above:

• ground heat (solar gain),
• vegetation (moisture),
• ground turbulence (trees & buildings)

"Since weight of Nitrogen is just 14,..."

No, 28, since N is a diatomic molecule.

"I would say that wind in India is heavier because there is more humidity in air, so mass should be slightly greater, and with same speed it should give more energy."

Just a minor point: Water vapor is less dense than the other gasses in air, so humid air is "lighter" than dry air. The decrease in density with increasing temperature, assuming India is warmer, would be more significant.

A less obvious cost

Baseline power generator plants like Coal and Nuclear cannot respond fast enough to variations in wind-power. (I heard somewhere that Geothermal output is best left running at a constant, so forget that also.)

The Tesla storage inverter system in Australia was constructed specifically to cover the instabilities of wind power generation, however in practice it covers any and all short term problems.

This storage inverter system has the fastest response time: covering abrupt supply loss, sags, frequency drops, phase shifts, etc; Well under one quarter cycle AC, just milliseconds.

However the system installed in Australia has a limited sustained output, and must immediately turn around and recharge the battery.

Fortunately, Aussie gas-fired turbines and/or hydropower can cover that issue easily. Their full-swing response time is way under six minutes.

As wind generators ramp up, these two alternative sources must reduce their output enough to fully cover an abrupt stoppage of wind. As wind generators ramp down, the alternative sources have to gradually raise output to fully cover an abrupt wind source startup.

Coal and Nuclear sources cover the difference.

As more wind-power infrastructure is planned, a proportional amount of gas-fired turbine must be prepared as well.

That is the often ignored cost of Wind Power: it ultimately reduces fuel consumption, but still requires an additional commensurate fossil fuel infrastructure and fast storage/generation for protection.

Almost all Non-conventional energies are costly. The reason is simple - the plant capaciites are very small and naturally they lose on the scale advantage.

Of all the NCES, wind energy is the most competetive in regions with > 200 m/s Wind velocity.

In some countries Co-Generaton is treated as NCES. In that case they are also competetive.

As for the real cost of Wind energy simply consider the following costs existing in your country without considering any of the Govt benefits :

1. Market value Land Cost ( Ignore subsidy / concession, if any offered by Govt)

2. Machine cost ( Without any Tax benefit / subsidy offered by Govt)

3. Foundaton and Installation Cost ( ~ about 10 % of machine cost)

4. Operation cost ( It varies depending on your wind farm capacity, labour cost, etc. )

5. Maintenace cost ( It will vary from 2 % to 15 % over 20 years)

5. Insurance cost ( ~ 1.5% of machine cost)

6. Depreciation ( It varies from country to country. Consider the normal Depreciation applicable for other machines. Do not consider the accelerated deprecaition benefits offered by some Govts for Tax saving purpose)

7. Finance cost for the Loan component ( Varies from country to country. Ignore the interest subsidy if any offered by Govt. Consider the normal loan interest offered to any other industry. Do not consider any concessional terms offered to NCES)

8.As for the Generation per year, you have to consider various factors like, Wind speed, Spread across the year, Grid availability, etc

This will give you the actual cost of Wind Energy.

In India, the approximate actual costs without any of the Government supports will be like this :

1. Wind - Rs.5.00 / unit ( For sites with > 25 % PLF)

2. Solar PV - Rs.18.00/ Unit

3. Baggase Co-Generation - Rs.5.00 / Unit

K.Periasamy

Guest, you and others have not included the costs for Attorney's and courts as well as the cost to investigate as well as defend the specific installation of any large scale wind farm. This is a real cost and mitigation expenses are often the straw that will determine weather or not the installation is even remotely viable.

I am not a GREENIE, nor a dedicated environmentalist. I do how ever see significant value in animal life, and certainly comprehend the opinions of radicals. One needs only to look to the sea, and the over fishing of various species to understand the wide spread effects of poor management practices.

I find it interesting that I received a memo from Mother Earth News regarding the studies and the great differences in the reporting and estimating the losses of wild life as the result of the installation of these wind turbines in locations where wild life frequently travels.

Via my many posts regarding wind turbine farms, many would believe that I oppose wind generated electricity, however this is not true. Wind generated electricity certainly does have it's place in our energy production crisis. My challenge is that I feel that the cart is being put before the horse. No electricity producing system that on it's best day cannot produce even 1/4 of its' designed production capability, requires maintenance and all of the supporting costs that must include the expense of transmission lines and their maintenance and other related equipment just to bring said energy to the grid and the maintenance also therefore required can possibly be considered as sustainable. The outrageous costs vs the economic return are overwhelmingly up side down.

This energy production method must be compared to other best managed practices for producing said energy on a complete cost per KWH that includes actual not discounted facts.

Example: by constructing more NG fired power stations, much closer to the end user, many miles of transmission lines will not even be needed to cross vast areas OF THIS NATION.. No doubt the NG pipelines will be replacing the high lines, however these pipelines will be underground and not exposed to destructive wind forces and ice storms. They also provide for expanded uses of this energy like for cooking and heating homes and businesses.

This direct use of the resource eliminates the efficiencies losses to convert it to electricity and then transmit this already less effective source along with the natural losses through the transmission process. The economies of scale where by huge discounts are provided for the mega user of this NG simply must be evaluated along with the likely achieved same economy of scale though the transmission of this same energy to the many thousands of other end users.

We are wrong to place NG in the same category as oil and coal. No one can really state with any reasonable certainty that we are living with a limited supply of this resource as no one can state just how long it will take ME and natural occurrences to replace that which we extract from any given location.

TooMuchFun

2 years ago I carried out research into a project here in NZ with the optimistic and definitive objective of providing viable economic data to support the wide-scale installation of wind turbines. "Aesthetics be damned", I said "wind is the way."

How devastated I was to learn the truth. Without substantial government (i.e. public tax payers) money, wind power is not economically feasible. With public money, they become an economic fallacy. While Council argue regarding consent processes to build Sports stadia (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0902/S00137.htm), roads and bridges (http://www.transit.govt.nz/projects/transmission-gully/timeline/), and I argue passionately about a 100mm change in facade height, this country's most beautiful and breathtaking natural vistas are polluted with the most grotesque structures imaginable. 100 metre tall behemoths that tower from the most prominent peaks of New Zealand and destroy the scenery for many miles around.

This sacrifice may be acceptable to some, but not to me. It is perchance bearable if we make the assumption that adequate power is derived from these carbuncles and obviate the construction of an equally ghastly coal-fired power station. But this sadly is not the case.

For a slightly over-balanced and slightly propaganda-oriented viewpoint see the following website. The figures are however correct.

http://www.windenergy-the-truth.com/

Thank you BabyGuinness!

You have provided definitive information that clearly supports the points of view that I have been posting for some time now. Maybe the folks that are hooked on this free wind energy, produced on an unlimited quantity by these gigantic monstrosities will bother to take a look at the irreversible damage to the beautiful landscape that they are supporting the destruction there of.

I find it to be a dispersible desire and almost unlimited quantity of absolute stupidity to screw up the great American west, all the way from some where in west Texas to some where in Canada with an energy production system that can only in it's best day produce 25% of its rated capability. Frankly the odds are better at shooting craps in a casino to produce a winning payoff betting the field.

I truly want every one who responds to these threads to consider the fact that a line should be drawn that objectively demonstrates ALL of the concerns regarding just how much this cheap energy will really cost. Not just the initial investment but the realistic impact on scenery, wild life , property values, and extensions that must be created just to bring this cheap energy to market. Find a scale numerically, that is agreeable for all, and determine by the numbers weather or not this is really a viable idea.

Dreaming is a wonderful thing but often waking up to reality is expensive and painful. Consider the billions of dollars that it will cost to erect all of these wind turbines and then consider the astronomical cost to un-do the adverse impact of this "great idea."

In my professional life I have found that attempting to accomplish something for less than it realistically must cost "ALWAYS ENDS UP COSTING MUCH MORE"

EX; a carpenter constructs a wall with out considering the associated things that must be incorporated into that wall. You loose the time and labor to constructed the wall in the first place. You now have also lost most of the material used to construct said wall. You now must absorb the labor to demolish said wall and now you start from scratch and construct said wall in the manner it should have been constructed in the first place. This is the sort of issue we will face if the Wind Turbine extravaganza may cost the American Public, presuming it fails to perform as well as the propaganda proposes.

I don't say that we should can the idea, but I say that we should take a real hard look at something that computer generation demonstrations may show us. Then attempt to draw comprehensible conclusions regarding weather or not we are willing to accept the consequences for what we are proposing.

There will be know free lunch!

TMF

Any good idea is not immune of people who would find stupidest way to implement it :-)) It is true that contemporary wind power stations are inefficient, expensive and prone to break easily. Infra sounds produced by wings do not help either, and to install them, lot of ground is devastated to gain access to site.

Putting such wind power stations on hilltops is necessity for catching stronger wind, as these behemoths cannot even start without wind that is strong enough. They even cannot start by themselves, so they use same electricity that they are supposed to produce, and cannot even be turned into wind automatically by wind itself....... They must stop in strong winds lest they break, too........

If I tell You there are wind power stations that have none of this problems, would You be interested?

I have invented such wind power stations, described in my other posts here, and I hope to start production soon, and could sell licenses on technology worldwide......

Beside other things, my wind power stations could be used for advertisements, or they can be painted as camouflage nets to become nearly invisible against background.....

Interested?

Hi Marijan,

Just catching up on things on this thread.

#1 Do you have a patent on this? I lost 3 that I was working on directly, and several others I was working on indirectly, meaning I was doing this on my own. I could not afford to pay for the expenses at the times involved. I did give Sikorsky 1 with no hidden or alternative motives forever, this was more of a safety issue and I see it in many of their products and makes me proud to see. I may not benefit monetarily, but I now many lives are saved each year! That is payment enough for me.

We are talking Alternative energies here now:

I am working on several different prospects, each of which can mean make or break for my neighbors staying warm.

#2 Do you have access to your Government access for cash, subsidies to provide you funding on this project? Or are you looking way beyond this and doing alone for monetary reasons or personal?

#3 I am not doubting your engineering skills, nor anything other than looking for maybe a push from the engineering world as to how to proceed with what you have and your design that you believe in.

I , based on my age, and being screwed out of so many patents in my past.

You have to protect yourself if you really want to keep this in the family so to speak.

So I would suggest you get in touch with a lawyer, one that you can TRUST!, God knows they are all liars, thieves, rancid evil people... OUCH! That hurt..

OK, serious, Have you built a prototype? If so, have you tested it? Have you really tested it??

If you have not built a prototype, have you created a POC?

One thing I have never shared with anyone, not even my wife, (she doesn't read what I do here), When I was 17, I was working on a device, I was driving a forklift for a company while I was in a band, one of the part owners was a 94 year old Nuclear Physicist. One day when he was in the office, I showed him and actually left him with several to scale drawings of an idea I had when I was a kid. He spent over 1/2 a day going through the pages. When I met up with him, he handed me back the drawings and we went into a small room, and said there is no reason this could not work. That was music to my ears!! I have not spoken of this since I was 17, and no one has yet to come up or done anything with this yet. Well, may not be 100% true, S3 and S4 may have and/or completed this. But not to my knowledge.

So I suggest you protect yourself, keep all of your notes, experimental info and make sure you DATE and TIME STAMP them!! If you have any prototypes, make sure they are documented as well and also date and time stamped.

I would love to see what you have, but you must get a patent on what it is you have. Or at least do something to protect yourself. And your life. Several years ago, locally here there are 2 guys missing that have yet to be found after being on the local news about an idea they stumbled on to. A few weeks after their airing, they disappeared. After several weeks, case unsolved and put to bed.

I can imagine there are many more people out there with alterior motives that want some "Technology" to not be out and about more than ever. In the case I spoke about, many speculations as to the OIL industry being involved in their demise.

Now we know the oil wells are tapped out and ,,, well , who knows where we go from here.

Fossil fuels are history, coal is running low, NG is running low, fuel cells seem to have taken a back seat-(requiring LP or NG), the only other viable gas is H2. A friend of mine blew up his garage 30 years ago while splitting this from water. He never did anything with it again.

One of the other threads I mentioned Tesla. The site seemed to take off on his pumps. I wasn;t even thinking or referring to his pump designs. The thread had to do with Wind-energy. How pumps came out of that is still a mystery to me.

He was the pioneer, and so much of what he did is still unknown since he didn't keep notes. Everything was in his head. Him, I still want to meet as Einstein and many others.

I guess what I really want to say to you is this: Depending on what you want to do with your technological design. Share with others, patent and live wealthy, or what ever.

Get a trustworthy lawyer, (maybe at the bottom of the sea, talk to Charlie!) file the papers, if you have a prototype to show and have tested (Major Plus!!) and the documentation that is date and time stamped with all of your notes. One thing to consider, STAY AWAY FROM ANY ADS YOU SEE ON TV TO HELP YOU PATENT ANY OF YOUR IDEAS! They are worse than the criminals we have still working at Wall Street and out banking industry here in the USA. (This is another Thread). Yet to be determined. If at all on this site with all of these great minds here.

There are some really brilliant minds here @ CR4 in the short term I have been here!

I have been very impressed.

Marijan, I wish you the best possible.

Jim

#1, working on it... Hardest was to find investor as everyone wanted to see it first. I also absolutely cannot afford it right now...... In regard to Your Sikorsky, that was not fair from people who used invention, they should have given at least symbolic money. I intend to charge 10% of market value of each unit produced for royalty, but since my wind power stations would be cheap, this 10% would tend to be small also.... As I plan with 50% of profit on production price, therefore 35% would be for factory, but actually much more since generator would be most expensive part that factory would also produce, and I dont hold patent on that.

#2, Government in my country only look how to collect taxes, and is extremely tight fisted when it should give money :-(( However we are preparing to join EU, so they are stimulating new production and green technologies. But I would let factory take care of it..... Actually, I plan to earn money, but not like Mr. Gates, and my first concern is lessening price of electricity as far as it go, and producing as much as possible, because any production can be less expensive (specially ones that use lot of electricity), so products would be more affordable, beside other benefits for households for cooking, light and heating. But most important would be, and specially when also my Solars start to be produced en mass, that cheap electricity would make economic use of my water condensation devices on agricultural scale. That way in poor countries that have mostly sunshine and wind, water could be provided to water crops, vineyards or orchards, and even growing grass for cattle would not be so bad. Therefore, it would be much more areas where food plants could be grown, which would feed at least billion starving humans and their livestock, so just as in Your case, many lives would be saved, first trough providing good water and next providing food.

#3 Yes, I am working on it, and have found lawyer that has specialized team of patent engineers that is willing to credit me with their services. But I learned hard way that I can trust no one, so I would first make preliminary protection myself, just to be safe, and if they do not attempt anything suspicious, I shall let them pay for patenting, after we made contract that would not be too much in their favour over mine :-)) I have made toy size prototype, and that has forced me to modify my original idea as in process of making it I realized that it could be more effective if built differently... I am sorry to disappoint You, but I am not familiar with that acronym ( POC ) at all, and am not willing to spend half an hour guessing what it may be. My father was also inventor, and I know from his stories how many things were stolen from him, and how many he has given free to People (we had Socialistic system while he was alive) without it affecting his pay in least.........

What has become of this old idea? Perhaps You can realize it now? I plan to open center for supporting of inventors, particularly with good simulation program that would be able to imitate all >>Real life<< conditions and all of their combinations, including extremes..... Hope we stay in touch!

Hmm, that is a problem with inventions that endanger some monopol position in industry or energy production. Did You know what was that exactly that they stumbled on? My father has invented something like perpetum mobile, but has built it and have shown only to me, and after sucessfuly demonstrating me that it work, he dismantled it and I have never seen it again, so probably he has squireled parts in different piles of junk he collected and repaired. He was afraid he would lost his life, and lives of family and neigbours also. I have my own ideas that need good software to test them, but this would wait till I have some money and free time on hand..

Yes, OIL industry would hate any cheap energy devices, and free energy would be worst of all for energy production sector of business....

That other thread and Tesla pumps, that was me also :-)) Somebody proposed using surplus electricity generated by wind for storing water into resrvoir and using this water to produce electricity again. I wrote that there would be benefits if wind power would be used directly for pumping water only, as then there is no need for regulation of speed while producing electricity, so stronger (therefore faster) wind would just pump water faster also, while quantity of water coming from reservoir would be regulated by pipe size, and therefore be constant. I reccomended Tesla turbine for both pumping of water and generation of electricity (separated, of course), and then Mr. Weldon started asking for proof of eficiency of tesla's pumps as he was expert for other type of pumps........

Yes, fortunately Tesla has had allmost all in his head, which helped when somebody set fire to his laboratory, but he has left tons of papers as well, now kept in his museum in Belgrade, which scientists of former Yugoslavia were studying 50+ years, but most they could not understand, and I guess most important things like free energy notes was appropriated by FBI that curiously cama just half an hour after he died in his hotel room after being run over by car that run away.......

Right. Now that You mention it, i invented very efficient financing system that actually build instalations and factories that process agriculturall waste, but can build windpower and solarpower stations as well, while earning excelent money for every Member of TDF (Technology Dissemination Fund), so it bring employment and turn garbage into money, solving ecologicall problems as well.......

I have ideas that could greatly save money to US gowernment and company(s) shareholders money, as well as preserve jobs of employees of factories that are closing, specially those in automobile industry. However, some connectrion to US government is required, if nothing else, I would contact US Embassy in my country.........

All the best,

Marijan Pollak, IT SA/SE 1st. Class, Instructor and Team Leader (retired)

Henrik, if you have a website to promote your wind and solar ideas, could you share the link with us? If you don't have one, creating one could go a long way toward getting your technology to be considered by potential investors.

If you have applied for patents already, it could show us drawings of what you are going to build and describe how it is that you wind and solar designs are more efficient than existing technology and how they could be built locally.

Meanwhile, folks who are not enamored with ground and off-shore based wind turbines might want to check out the CR4's "Windmill on a Kite" thread. The capture of wind energy at many thousands of feet up to 30,000 feet altitude using turbines under wings and rotorcraft (Makani Power and Sky WindPower) use small diameter tethers that should be barely visible and provide much higher capacity factors - triple that of the typical ground based wind farm.

Other potential players in the lower altitudes, but still above ground level are Magenn, Kitegen, TWIND and laddermill - the design of professor Ockels at Delft U, Netherlands. The devices of these other players would be much more visible to us landlubbers as they are intended to operate in lower altitudes of up to a few thousand feet.

Hm, I have domain but it is in Limbo right now despite fact I have paid for it till 2012.

So, till I find investor, it has to wait.

Just now I am in process of filling documentation for protection of intellectual property and patent application comes next. Have obtained support of one law company that is in patenting business, that is willing to credit me with their services.

After I am sure there is nothing that could be proclaimed as >>prior art<< and there is no expired patent that is exploiting same idea, then I would of course publish all here, and scalled down versions license to build would be symbolical, in no case more than 10% of cost of building it, excluding cost of generator, of course.

I am just suspicious of one clasification that is pretty much elastic (obvious technicall solution) and can steal right to patent it from me.........

Now, something surely cannot be termed as >>obvious<< if nobody has tought about it same way before, what do You think?

Mentioning >>Windmill on Kite<< reminded me I have seen it allready on Web, but also I believe this should be baloon in form of kite to be able to lift necesary equipment. But still it seems too unstable and unsafe solution: what happen when wind stop or change direction abruptly? That would be problem for avio trafic also.....

Anyhow, I would have to withdraw for some time to be able to do paperwork, and I find details that are still only in my head and not on paper (or in computer, that is!), so still need few days to submit first request for intelectuall property protection...

Regards,

Marijan Pollak

Large wind turbines seem to have evolved toward a single design. Three long blades form a large diameter rotor. The blades are rigid, big and heavy like an airliner wing, with a twist so that, over a range of air speeds, the local area airfoil has a reasonable angle to the local wind. Within that range, rotational speed is roughly proportional to the wind speed. Beyond that range of wind speeds, the blades tend to stall over much of their length. At high wind speeds, the rotor must be stopped, lest it overspeed and disintegrate. If it should fail, structurally, big, heavy pieces fly about, presenting a risk to people and property nearby. Gusts present asymmetrical forces which further complicate the design.

I submit that there is a better way. (I'd post a sketch, but I have difficulty doing it here) Consider that an airliner wing can be conceptually replaced, so to speak, with a number of small airplanes flying wingtip to wingtip. The rotor would have of a number of radial tubular spars. Strung along the spars are short airfoil sections which can rotate freely around the spar (no torsion loads on the spar). Each airfoil section (which can be molded foam or extuded plastic, cheap and light) has a trim tab which tends to align it at a suitable angle of attack (6 deg?) with the local airflow, "flying" independently of the adjacent sections. There is also a lift sensor (sensing the differential pressure beween the upper and lower sides of the airfoil) and a connection to the trim tab, and a means to override that control. In the simplest form (digital geeks can make it endlessly complicated), a simple bellows moves the tab, and the over-ride consists of a pneumatic signal in the spar (slight pressurization with air) which biases the neutral position of the bellows.

In the no-wind condition, everything is limp, with the rotor spars bending under the influence of gravity and the airfoil sections more or less aligned with the expected wind direction. With the first light winds, the airfoil sections, all of them, start lifting and the rotor turns. As the wind speed increases, the airfoil sections line up with the local wind, providing an optimal twist to the blade. ("Centrifugal force" straightens the spar) There comes a point where the designated maximum lift is sensed and the actuator (bellows) moves the tab, decreasing the angle of attack, so that the torque on the rotor is practically constant, even as the wind speed, and the rotor speed, varies. (If you like, it can be arranged to keep the rotational speed constant, instead) The spar is basically under tension. Dynamically, it's like swinging a chain around your head as compared with swinging a board around your head) If the rotational speed becomes excessive, signal the airfoil sections to reduce lift. In the extreme, lift can be zero, and the rotor is easily stopped. In the event of failure, the individual airfoil sections (low mass and density) fly around relatively harmlessly. The rotor is lighter and less expensive than one with the "brute force" huge rotor blades.

The concept developed when I was trying to improve helicopter rotor dynamics, making the rotor gust resistant. I tried to patent it about 40 years ago, but one of the helicopter manufactuers filed the day before with an interfering patent (we both claimed fluidic control options), and my (incompetent) patent agent gave up on it. so, the rotor concept is in the public domain.

The rotor can be used to power a boat, driving a propeller. In high winds, rotate the axis of the rotor (mounted on the mast head) from horizontal to almost vertical, so that it works like a gyroplane rotor. The resulting lift keeps the boat from capsizing and generally stabilizes it. Such a boat (they have been built, using a helicopter rotor) can sail directly into the wind as fast as it goes downwind or any other direction, basically hull speed.

The concept sounds more like a glorified windmill from the 40's, if I get the picture right in my head. The #1 issue is the added cost to the already expensive wind turbines now. I see an even bigger problem if we keep adding these to the grid that is already unable to handle what's on it now. Unless there is a huge battery bank that the turbines fill and power is taken from the batteries/capacitor banks to the grid so the power plants have the time to react to the sudden changes from the wind turbines fluctuating outputs. Or we could be looking at black outs like no other time in history. Look what happened a few years ago when they cascaded over a $12.00 relay.

I had similar idea before, and it was like pairs of wings that each hang on same horizontal axis. Without wind wings hang because horizontal pipe goes trough thicker part of wing profile, and when wind start it first push at wing that hangs vertically, like sail on the boat and as wind grow stronger wing began to fly trough it, assuming horizontal position. Since there are many pairs of wings one below another on same centrally placed spindle, but each pair is displaced by 10 to 30 degrees clockwise relative to upper one, thing resembles DNA strand with its double helix. Rotation direction is determined by the way thicker part of wing is facing, and wind can come from any direction. If vertical distance between pairs of wings is little greater than width of wing, then wings cannot beat one upon another. Wings in pair also should face in opposite directions, not same as in aeroplanes.

That way there is automatic speed regulation, as in fastest wind wings would present smallest profile to wind, and to facilitate this, attacking edge should also be edged, not round like in Aeroplane wings.

I wanted to make prototype, but never had time nor spare money for material :-((

In the meantime I got better idea on which I work right now....

Actually perhaps I could also finalize it as I have some good ideas that would prove usable for small wind power generators, giving practically free wings and solve some other problems at same time..:-))

I have found something similar that also looks like DNA strand, but there is no speed regulation at all, and it looks like same thing consisting pairs of spoons. Actually turbine that is used on anemometer, with its four half ball like cups, is an proven design, but also has no speed regulation, of course because it measure speed of wind.......

Hello esbuck,

I have better than general knowledge regarding propellers and just how they function, though I am not an aeronautical engineer. I understand well about angle of attack, air foil sections, and tip speeds that exceed the speed of sound.

I also understand the difficulty of finding strength to accomplish the desired shapes from assorted seemingly suitable materials. Then there is the fatigue factor that must be considered regarding those that may be suitable.

End the end, size ultimately becomes the limiting factor for most things engineered of our available building materials, no mater what it is.

I have read with interest that which you have entered as your thread reply. And I have come to this conclusion. Though that what you propose likely is quite workable, I find it to be extremely complicated in both function and design. This causes me to believe that it will simply make the whole concept of utilizing wind as a cheap or even viable electricity generating source totally impractical. Wind is already understood to be an unreliable source of energy. I either doesn't blow when you want it to or it blows too hard for the energy to be harnessed for production. And it can be destructive. All of the above leads to the issue that this method of energy production is far to expensive to even consider when there is a much more productive method available that is less costly and will produce energy at an efficiency rate of 99% vs the best that can be expected from moving air at about 25%.

Already this nation is bankrupt, throwing trillions of dollars at investment banks that are proven failures, filling the bank accounts of CE O's that are outrightly incompetent at their profession and rank among the greatest of all grifters. And throwing more trillions of dollars at the incompetently managed Automotive industry supervised by even more grifters, raking more millions right off the top.

The Govt. intervened with the Gambling industry, reducing the skimming of taxable profits from the top by a criminal element. They should take the same action against every industry that is in at least some method supported by stock holders and any investment funds that include retirement incomes for the public.

"Getting back to the True Cost of wind energy" as a method of reducing our reliance on foreign provided energy, The manufacturing of these wind turbines will likely be left to a few specialty companies, their erection will also be likely accomplished by a limited variety of trades. The big power system investors will add to their bag many more miles of transmission lines that could be avoided, and spread the cost around increasing the energy cost to everyone, including those who cannot afford it now. It will do very little to accomplish what the Utopian promoters say that it will. The very idea that we can stand to depend on this source to produce 20% of our electricity is insane.

The economic reality is that we will be increasing the puddle of public red ink by at least another 20%. AND: then will come the costs to society, the American Public, to mitigate the effects that go along with trying to get back that which we have destroyed, our scenery, flora and fauna, and peace of mind.

TooMuchFun

The picture was there when I hit submit.

Try one more time..........

Don't know if this will help:-

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/15743/How-to-insert-Graphics-into-your-Post-to-make-it-more-readable-or-interesting

Basically get the picture as a jpg somewhere on your computer:

click on the little green camera

click on browse

Search for your picture, and, click submit.

Blimey a recursive post.

... and if you don't see the little green camera, then download a copy of Firefox to use instead of your current browser.

TooMuchFun, "on his soap box again",

Years ago a President named Lyndon Johnson pushed support through Congress to straighten out the Kissimmee River that drains the state of Florida from Tavares In north central Florida to the Great Lake Okeechobee. "The purpose" to prevent against unwanted flooding caused by hurricane produced rain events.

As the result of this constructive effort, lands were drained, allowing more cattle to be produced, increasing the nitrogen that ultimately polluted the lake and the Everglades, waterfowl and other aquatic flora and fauna disappeared, and there is no evidence that this drainage was ever necessary.

Now we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars, both state and federal, to fill up this huge drainage ditch. Go figure.

This wind turbine promotion is just a lot more political hot air.

TooMuchFun

I like your logos "I ate an Apple and did not like it, so all fruit must be bad"

They call this comparing apples and oranges, I think were all wiser than your 4th grade logic.

I live in Florida and I agree about the effect on the everglades but how do you jump to wind power, which has no need to rebuild mother nature.. I just don't get this absurd link, what kind of engineer are you?

I am the sort of fella that sees a waste of money as a waste of money, I don't care weather it is wasted on spoiled apples or spoiled oranges, therefore, the waste "IS" relative and I see beyond your ability or willingness to note that this is just another effort by politico's to hide the stink on a pig with even more perfume. Not all Engineers are the"same", are you a stationary Engineer at a metropolitan sewage disposal or maybe a landfill!

TMF

"OH", I almost forgot to mention that Lyndon Johnson, a politico, was admired by Demo"s as one of our Greatest visionaries of his day. He also is known to have owned a great quantity of stock in the dredging company that got the job to straighten out the river. AND: he was from the great oil and natural gas state of TEXAS.

But there is so much crooked activity going on in our Legislature with one participant larding up the other in exchange for even more lard being spread around that our Govt. clearly qualifies as the most greasy in the world among 1st world nations.

Waste is waste, it really doesn't matter what the money is wasted on. You probably voted for Bill Clinton, our nations most embarrassing president .

TMF

You are right, of course.....

Whole problem stems from type of wind power stations used, as these ineffective installations require strong wind even to start, so in case weaker wind could be effectively used there would be at least 10 times more locations for installing wind power stations. Surely if even wind inside cities or in close proximity can be used, then there would be less need for heavy transmission lines.

Another way to solve this problem is to put lines underground, several meters down.

This way it would cause no permanent disruption of whatever is on surface.

After all, in US big cities, surely transmission lines are not above ground? I ask because I dont recall seeing such transmission lines in any movies, but perhaps they intentionally avoid displaying them?

I know such lines were hidden underground successfully at institute where I worked, and this has benefits as lines are always in dry place, much more frequently supported, wind cannot damage them, etc, etc.

I proposed robotic drilling machines that can construct armored concrete pipes to reach thermally active depths for taping heat, and bigger sized models that could construct tunnels automatically, and not only pipe shaped like it is normally done, if many movable drilling heads would be used instead one big, and actually whole swarm if such drilling robots could be used, each with its own part of plan for drilling, and they could be followed by robots that would spray concrete on walls, followed by others that would construct armature net, followed by concrete spraying type, then ones for next layer of wires and so on until units for smoothing walls dont finalize work. Everything would be executed with millimeter precision and there could be parallel pipes for transmission lines, air outlets and so on.......

Of course, drilling in living rock would be possible even without making reinforced concrete walls, just isolating walls to become water resistant, which would make tunnels cheaper.......

Such robotic machines could be used for making smaller >tunnels<< made out of water resistant concrete underground for transmission lines, even without much disturbance to surface, even including chambers where trafo stations would be situated, again in better place than out in the open.

By making it so, all problems You mentioned would be solved, save for cost, but cost of work of robotic machines is low anyhow....

Making of subways would be more easy, and also for big canalization systems, or water storage systems covering big areas, drainage diches, and some work on hydro power stations. Even big dams could be built by constructing them layer by layer of reinforced concrete, just programs for particular robots has to be changed........

What do You think of idea?

Regards, Marijan Pollak

I think it sounds exactly like what I was saying.

Tunneling these great distances is simply too expensive. European countries are the size of our States. Most of your cities are only a few kilometers apart. In fact often just on the other side of a mountain, or at the other end of a long valley. In our Western States, Cities and towns are often a 1/2 day drive away at high speeds on the interstate highway. This issue in Texas is not about electricity, or a shortage of this or any form of energy. It is solely about money.

THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF NATURAL GAS IN THIS COUNTRY. There is however an overwhelming quantity of Greed and stupidity and ignorance. Natural gas can readily be placed underground and generally is. Our nation is criss crossed with roads and highways. Most of them have fiber optic lines on both sides that completely fill up the right of ways.

To crossover these over crowded areas and even to parallel them with any new installation requires expensive directional boring. It is far less expensive to continue to install these transmission lines above ground. Texas has both oil and natural gas a plenty, and can get all they need from off shore and through shipping. If any State could be selected as needing Wind Generated Electricity the absolute least, it is Texas!

Henrik14, I suggest that you use GoogleEarth and have a good look at Texas and and learn a little about the history of Texas.

Your inventive ideas may be great but this issue is not about energy, it "IS ABOUT WASTING MONEY!"

TooMuchFun

you are economically correct with current boring technology.. but... there are other ideas that could be applied to increase the economics of the hole making, such as nuclear power, where the rock is melted out.. and used to cool the reactor as well. Its pure sci-fi, I know, but you if you don't attempt, you won't accomplish.

Chris

Hey, we cannot use atomic without causing radioactivity, and underground explosion could create only ball shaped reservoir, not tunels.......

Right, and don't forget, the last and best water reservoir is the groundwater. No matter how messed up it is already, if the atmospheric scene really blows, this will be the last drop. The last thing you want to be doing is contaminating that with radioactivity. Sorry Chris

I am sure it is not cheap, even with robotic drills and other robotic machines I mentioned, but point of discussion was to least upset state of affairs on surface.

As I am not US citizen nor live there, You probably are 100% right, and politicians are same any country or state, if You ask me..... What we have here is real >>Wild West<<. I agree that probably Texas dont need any other source of energy, if You look just consider energy supply. Unfortunately it was proven that benefits of using gas or oil to create electriity has price in devastated environment, so there is true price for it that whole world pay for.....

Anyhow, each of us is entitled to his/her opinion, but I would say we have met here to find way of living that would harm us and environment least..... We dont own this World, we only borrowed it from future generations, as somebody has said... Therefore we must think on our children, and which state of World would be in their life. We could dam all rivers and build cities all over the ground, but we need also to preserve Nature as it is nature that feeds us, clothes us, gives air to breathe and nourish our soul.

That is just my opinion, mind You :-) so dont get offended........

Your response is very clear and I am not offended in even the smallest way. I feel that what ever your technology is, if it really proves out to be as efficient as you indicate that it is, there likely will be places that can utilize it with out destroying flora, fauna and the scenery. Here in this country we categorise many different types of of land (topo) along with the flora and fauna that survive there as National Parks, lands to be preserved for future generations. They include the deserts, swamps, mountains, prairies and even sea shores and under water locations. In fact I think that this country preserves more of it's vacant land and sea areas than any other country in the world. And we pay millions of dollars to management and staff for salaries and millions more for the equipment to preserve said National Park Lands for our future generations.

There already exists many examples of the destruction of the above described areas through the installation of transmission lines and "Wind Turbines." And; there is no argument from me as to the fact that wind turbines do in fact produce electricity. However I have yet to read any response that counters my claim that wind turbine produced is economical. The plain fact is that it is not on large scales. No process that provides energy at barely 25% of its capability, and with out any possible continuous reliability, can be considered accountably viable. Frankly this investment, at this time, on this great a scale, with no better technology than is available to day is just pouring billions of dollars down a black hole. Our scientist, engineers, manufacturers and inventors are all looking to grab some of the trillions being made available to install and improve this technology. However the American Taxpayer cannot afford this almost unlimited financial burden. If the technology and the program was that viable, then private investors would readily be funding it through what we call venture capital. It isn't happening! The investors are cautious and do not see this as a safe investment.

I am still waiting for any responder to provide comments that "intelligently" counter this opinion. Just claiming that it is "Green" doesn't fly, as the documentation is unclear regarding the "TRUE OVERALL COSTS" TO THE PRESENT AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.

TooMuchFun

Relative to tunnels. Clearly, they are expensive, although some large cities already have extensive tunnels for water, power, etc. I understand the Norwegians did a study of the life-cycle costs of various transportation means, and they came to the conclusion that bridges are preferable to tunnels for crossing water but tunnels are desireable for crossing mountains. The logic, in each case, is that the resulting roadway is more level, so fuel costs are reduced.

Too henrik, esbruk and chris, I believe that the latest assorted group of comments have absolutely nothing to do with the thread "What is the true cost of Wind Energy. Why not take that discussion private, and conduct it among yourselves.

TMF

Um, with all due respect, it seems to me that You started it?

IMHO, post #47 is off topic also, and from Your complaints about government squandering money, I got inspiration to find a way to make this squandering less in present situation, while at same time helping people that are losing their jobs........

As they say on US television: >>You asked for it!<< :-))

However, I still think this would help US, even if it would not bring me single cent of profit..........

Actually Henrik14, I was right on the "Money" regarding our Govt wasting money on something that was not needed at that time and it is no different with these wind turbines to day. I simply showed that the stupid acts that we pay for to day, we may well be paying to disassemble and scrap in the future. Unfortunately the point blew right over your head. I have grown tired of this thread as it is no longer productive, "I will be moving on"!

TMF

hello Henrik .Excuse my english he is limited ,but I can understand your mail with a automatic traduction system.

I'm leaving in Belgium I'm a mechanician and I developpe a verticale turbine , I have see in your mail that you make also making one wind turbine ,can I have any detail from your work ,if you look at my avatar you can see wath I'm making .in one of your mesage you say that you have one colege in Croatie that can make generator ,will you answer me if it's generator with low rpm , I think that you must have the same problem at me the low revolution ,wath you can see at my avatar is my test turbine only making to contol of my idee work .haegeman_l@skynet.be

I have sent You email with perfunctory analyse of Your design and some suggestions for improvement. My system is similar but still not same, and use proposed changes also, just it is more effective as I use one additional naturall force to regulate speed as well.

Hope You would be interested in cooperation I offered You :-)

Regards,

Marijan Pollak

dear henrik you have see that the blades turn 1/2x at the rpm from the rotor In the conception from my turbine I will make something who can produce with low wind ,and this turbine have mutch power by low wind ,my problem is the generator my generator for this test turbine is to big and I will continue the test with a litle turbine it's not so expensif and I begin to know all about him if you have a answer about my question thank you henrik

luc

dear mister I'm looking for a low speed generator the power is 600watt and the rpm 80,for the moment I make test with a Ginlong generator 1800watt at 400 rpm I use a multiplicator with a ratio 7.8 so I thing I can not take all the energy from the wind ,I have to mutch inertia ,the test turbine is to litle and the turbine with this big alternator start only with 3.5m/sec its a model vertical with the blade who turn at 1/2 rpm that the rotor and the dimention from the test model is 180 cm large and 96 cm higth the 5 blades are now 60cm large .if sombody have one idee for me of the name where I can find this low speed generator?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-ixAoelEjM here you can see the test turbine at the ground with the 5 blade 84cm large

Dear Haegeman,

To get more speed with same or slower wind from Your turbine would solve Your problem?

If you have read my mail and apply what changes I suggested, You would be able to get more speed with same wind, I would say.....

1st. I concluded this wings are fixed, therefore cannot use all available wind. If they remain fixed, and be turned more radially outward, then they would use more wind, but that would be just on 180 degrees of circle, where wing turn in same direction as wind blows. However, if they remain fixed, on next 180 degrees wing would go against wind and therefore act as brake. So first Your wings has to get 90 degrees of freedom to turn, from radial to tangential position.

2nd. You would do better to make wing have aerodynamic profile, so when in tangential position and moving against the wind, wing/blade would actually fly trough wind, just like aeroplane wing, and reap some more speed/energy as result.

3rd. If You put axe of wing/blade rotation on one side instead in the middle, and put some weight on the other end parallel to axe of wing, best symmetrically on same distance from wing edge (simple steel pipe, same as used for making wing rotate 90 degrees as described, just shorter so it would not protrude out and You can close it in), then when speed become too high, turbine would start braking using centripetal force. Braking would be directly proportional to speed of rotation, which of course depend on speed of wind. I wonder what You now do in case wind become too strong? I would guess that those Anemometers measure wind speed and brake system when wind is too strong to stop. If You use my design, problems with >>Sail effect<< when blades are stopped in strong wind would be much less, since only one wing would not be able to present edge to wind stream, but this can also be done using some wire rope, weight and damper of flapping effect, activated by centrifugal force and put back in position using good old gravity force when system is not turning.

4th, to get still more energy from wind, You must use >>Venturi effect<< and for this there has to be another profile situated tangential in center of turbine, parallel with wings/blades. Profile must be same as profile of wing/blade so I would just put an inner circle of wings parallel to outer circle, but this has to be fixed in tangential position. Because of this, wing/blade turning into the wind would assume tangential position and wind would push on both sides of outer wing, and on outer side of fixed wing, therefore reaping some more kinetic power that we want to catch.

5th. Since system is circular, it does not matter from which direction wind is blowing, therefore You can take that tail off for start, it is superfluous. That would little diminish sail effect in strong wind also.

I use always what I have at hand and adapt system if I can get more electricity at same wind speed. So, squeeze this wind little more :-))

Regards,

Marijan Pollak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXezZvMMT28&feature=related

I think you have not good understand the technique from my system look at this first test it's not only a Savonius .

ok for the profile at the blades not for the first test but after well

my question is about a generateur 80 rpm 600watt have you please one idee

and give me please a picture at your model turbine ,here is my mail adresse haegeman_l@skynet.be

luc Haegeman

thank you for sharing. GA

you are right. should have marked mine off topic.

Chris

One area I did not see addressed is how 'green' is the manufacture, delivery, installation, use over the life cycle (maintenance including parts labor), and the decommissioning, dismantling, disposing of the facility in a 'green manner' at the end of its defined life cycle. Typical transmission to 'point of use' cost is still a real factor. If you can have a huge wind farm, and have an aluminum smelter local with local sources of bauxite and train or water service for ore and recycled aluminum cans, etc, and transport of ingots/product, you can save on the transmission cost if they can deal with the opportunistic nature of wind power.

Wind is not considered a 'continuous' but an 'opportunistic' source of energy. You might want to consider the 'fill in' cost of energy from other sources. Siteing wind stations is another cost. Environmental impact studies, legal costs because someone says it might repel a non-flying dodo bird or similar, ... etc. are all to be considered.

The whole life cycle cost is my prefered way to compare long term projects. The cost also includes 'benefit' recieved' ($, KWH, no/less green house gases, lack of contributing to global cooling or global warming).

Also, doing the economics with reasonable projections of interest, inflation, and bringing all moneys back to a basis using present or future value calculations give you a way to compare apples to applies.

And to throw cold water on it, there is always the law of un-intended concequences to deal with.

I applaud trying to look into the 'real cost'. Understanding projects at that level, especially when put in with good economic analysis, especially if you can economically quantify some of the non-economic benefits/costs. Put it all together and you have a way to truely compare the benefits or costs to society and potential investors.

Keep up the questioning!