Price construction of windturbines

Hello buzneg

As the size of the installed turbine unit increases, the costs of the installation increase markedly.

1. Land Footprint
2. Foundational strength
3. Turbine blade strength
4. Insurance requirements
5. Risk of bird strike
6. Site opportunities are reduced
7. Craneage
8. Gear complexity and strength
   
9. And more....some of which you list above.

Were you talking about the actual alternator unit costs only?

Vertical rotor systems are far cheaper to make, easier to install, easier to service too.

As you say, there is plenty of taxpayer subsidies a'going begging in the "alternative energy industry", and like yourself, I am certain that prices have been raised to take a much bigger piece of the available subsidy pie.

Kind Regards....

State line was and is a Florida Power & Light project in Washington and Oregon--Seattle City Light has contracted to buy some or all of the power--Seattle City Light web page claims construction cost to be at $2 million a MW--Within reasonable distance of $3.6 per 1.5MW.($2.4/MW)

Something interesting: John Day Dam output-in megawatts is twice that of Bonneville Dams'(Almost exactly twice) JJD-2160MW and Bonneville-1084.9MW.

The John Day Dam is upstream, two dams and has a height of 183'. Bonneville is 197' tall.

1075.1 MW difference--The Wind, White Salmon, Klickitat and the Dechutes rivers enter the Columbia after the John Day Dam. These are all substantial rivers and are not taken into consideration. The John Day Dam was built between 1959-1968. The Bonneville Dam was built from 1933-1943 for an output of 526,700MW and in 1974-1981 had a second power house built that more than doubled the output(558,200MW).

NOW--By Buznegs construction cost of $2.4 million a MW--This represents $2,580,2400 or my $2,150,200,000.

This is ONE dam and a conservative estimate and is based on technology differences of 1968 versus 1943 and 1981.

We could remodel/rebuild one dam and affect very little and there is enough potential gain to offset 10 huge wind farms. (based on 35%,out of the 30-35% figure published in the wiki info for state line)

100% grid penetration--Roll On Columbia Roll ON.

I think people should get a choice--If one wants wind power, they should get it and that's all, and they should be required to live where the generators are.

While what you say is probably correct the price rise is linear rather than exponential, as he is measuring per KW the price should be relatively static. Frankly it appears much cheaper to build lots of little turbines than one or two big ones.

it seems that household systems could drive the big power companies out of business!

I believe that if wind was really viable, what you stated would be true--I would have more than a couple myself. I really like money.

As for price of a Megawatt--That is published, whether true or not--$2 Million dollars a MW is what we WILL spend and it would be exactly what we would SAVE if we didn't build a wind generator of that capacity.

If there is power elsewhere--why wouldn't we try to glean it and what are we afraid of here?--Not erecting hundreds of thousands of wind turbines everywhere?

If they were a source of power 24hrs a day 7 days a week, that would be one thing, but they aren't. 30-35% at stateline in Washington and I don't know if that is time--maybe--or is it name plate capacity--maybe. Just because they are turning doesn't mean the output is at 100% capacity.

We need good solutions to our problems.

You must compare the total cost of the systems including fuel, maintenance etc over the length of the productive times for different systems.

When crude prices reach $2700 per barrel or coal becomes scares or whatever the wind farm will keep on producing for ¨free even if the governments start imposing Wind Tax.

The cost of many green programs seems to work better at generating greenbacks rather than mythical paybacks

conversion efficiency is considered, but simplicity it self is apparently hard to comprehend

-besides.. I have my own ideas for a 'competing green' system that would obviously be efficient all round

Please take a few minutes to see the Robinson Wind and Water turbines in action in the YouTube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NTbAz9GyHw

The Robinson Vertical Axis Wind and Water Turbine (RVAWT) is a tested and conceptually proven design that substantially increases the efficiency to cost ratio over any known existing wind or water turbine system.

The RVAWT is one of the solutions to help wean our world off the various polluting fossil fuels and the potentially dangerous nuclear power generation systems.

The RVAWT combines the benefits of a typical VAWT (see Fig 2) with a flipping panel system that was designed and patented over 100 years ago. (See below "Advantages of the RVAWT"). Over the years there have been numerous VAWTs with and without flipping panels systems patented, but all had one or more fatal flaws ending their chances for commercialization, due to low efficiency to cost ratios.

The RVAWT is currently patent pending with tested prototypes of both water and wind turbine designs. Our testing confirms the functionality and design concepts that we believe will not only capture a large portion of the wind and water energy market but captures "Kinetic Energy" from wind and water currents more cost efficiently than any other design ever commercially manufactured.

Numerous Individuals and I have spent countless hours over the last 1.5 years, building, evaluating, testing, researching and preparing the necessary documentation to patent and provide the results of our work thus far.

Not one person, over this period has yet to present me or my associates with any material facts or reasons why the RVAWT won't provide the benefits presented in this summary. After 4,000 years, we may just have come up with a better windmill.

The Two Basic Wind Turbine Configurations:

The basic wind energy conversion device is the wind turbine. Although various designs and configurations exist, these turbines are generally grouped into two types:

1.) Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine: (VAWT) in which the axis of rotation is vertical with respect to the ground (and roughly perpendicular to the wind stream).

2.) Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines: (HAWT) in which the axis of rotation is horizontal with respect to the ground (and roughly parallel to the wind stream.)

Brief Analysis of the RVAWT Design and Concept

The RVAWT concept and design has the benefits of a very large panel, much like the sail on a sailboat, capturing a significant amount of kinetic energy from either wind or water current in the windward direction of the spinning apparatus and a substantially lower amount of drag or resistance as the panels now in a parallel position to the wind, comes back against the wind on the leeward side of the system. The more aerodynamically designed the structural framing is, the less resistance on the overall system. The larger the panels and the more lightweight and aero the various components of the system are, the greater the power to cost ratio.

All other Vertical Axis Wind Turbine systems, the amount of energy obtained on the windward side is significantly diminished by the fixed panel as it comes back against the wind in the leeward position. There are numerous VAWT out there that have a similarly low efficiency to cost ratios due to the high level ratio of resistance. (See Page on various VAWTs for examples)

The existing Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine HAWT systems, I.E propeller style turbines that are being put up all over the world, have very thin blades in relation to their size that must go, first in a perpendicular direction to the wind. This alone creates major resistance and costs associated with keeping them in the appropriate position to the wind. The thin blades must also be placed at an angle diminishing its ability to capture a greater amount of kinetic energy from the wind or water. Secondly the blade tips spin at speeds of between 5 and 7 times the speed of the wind. In addition to the noise, the blade tips must be designed so to cut through the wind, necessitation the contouring of the blade to be in conflict with the capturing of the energy. Hence, you'll see the tips of the blades bending slightly backwards in higher wind situations placing a great amount of structural stress on the blades, transmissions and towers. Despite the angles of a blade throughout its length being highly engineered to achieve maximum performance, the minimum required sustainable wind speeds is approximately 13 mph for most of the commercial grade systems. This necessitates HAWTs only being used in areas where there are highly sustained winds and putting up with the very noisy effect of the blade speeds. 15 Mph wind speed x 6 = 90 Mph tip speed that relates to higher noises as wind speeds increase. Without tax and investment subsidies, this inventor believes that most of the current large Mw wind turbines around the world would not be installed.

The speed of the RVAWT at is farthest point from the spindle, can only be at or less then the speed of the wind. Larger systems would actually have a slower rate of spin than smaller units making larger systems even more environmentally friendly to wildlife.

The 1st Robinson Vertical Axis "Water" Turbine Prototype

Our water turbine can be used in both river and ocean currents for electrical generation, water pumping, salt water desalinization, as well as other applications. Its low cost and high output combines to achieve a new approach to energy production as no such system until now had the potential of achieving such high efficiency to cost ratios. The simplicity of our of systems' design, in relation to the manufacturing and engineering capabilities in today's world, should inspire this and future generations to use the vast ocean and rivers to provide the world with enough continual renewable energy to power much more than we could ever consume without having to pollute or place vast populations in harms way.

The test results from this small but powerful unit reached 300 lbs of force at 20 RPM in a 4.3 knot current. The turbine has 1.5' x 2.5' panels with a 4' rotational diameter. The turbine is now undergoing some relatively minor improvements to its hydrodynamic efficiency. The next test will be done on a larger boat, barge or fixed position that cannot be pushed by the power of the turbine, as the boat was actually pushed 6" inches to the side, displacing torque away from the load cell. We expect a minimum 25% improvement over the existing results. We will also be testing slightly narrower but taller panels, while keeping the same square footage as the existing panels, for a comparative analysis.

Joel Haas, PE and owner of Parametric Solution Inc., Jupiter, FL, a part owner of the water turbine project and his staff have provided invaluable expertise as well as assisted in the various water turbine tests done so far.

The Robinson Vertical Axis "Wind" Turbine Prototype

The original source of inspiration for the RVAWT, was from experiencing holding up a 4' x 8' x ¼" sheet of plywood in the South Florida trade winds as a teenager. The amount of force the wind has on the sheet of plywood was impressionable. A recent operational VAWT with fixed air foils and an old flipping panel VAWT prototype were the final inspirations for the project.

The advantages of the wind turbine are just as impressive as the water turbine (see attached "Advantages"). The simplicity of design, coupled with low manufacturing costs, should make this a system usable throughout much of the world where there are consistent winds of at least than 6 or 7 MPH. Many coastal areas, where most of the world inhabitants live, cannot utilize current wind turbine technologies because of the needed higher wind speeds. Our wind and water turbines should be able to energize many more communities around the world than existing VAWTs and HAWTs.

Most propeller (HAWT) turbines cannot operate in wind speeds of less than 10 to 12 MPH so the RVAWT will expand the geographical areas for wind power production by significant margins. Even though no full-size wind prototype has yet been built, our working model, shown above, functions just as a full scale system would. The next prototype will be a working prototype set up to either produce electricity to a residential or commercial property. Based on the engineering results thus far and an additional computerized engineering analysis, we will construct a wind turbine prototype large enough to provide enough electrical energy to run the typical modern household or a small industrial business. A site will be chosen in a moderate (low 3) wind zone where regulatory approvals are either guaranteed or not required so that we can evaluate, experiment and improve the system without interference. Some lucky homeowner or business owner will be chosen to get free energy in trade for allowing us to conduct our research and development under real time conditions.

Wind Power Production and Investment.

Just in the commercial grade category of wind power there are approximately 101,896 MW of worldwide production of electricity as of January 2008, up from 74,206 at the end of 2006 according to Wind Power Monthly and an annual report on Wind Power by the DOE in 2007. At approximately $1 million per MW, that is a total capital cost of $101,896,000,000 excluding significant amounts of upfront R&D costs to get to these levels. This, of course, does not include such applications as wind turbines on sailboats or the wide range of smaller turbines that homeowners may use to subsidize a portion of their electrical costs. Additionally, there are another estimated 32,000 MW or $32,000,000,000 of worldwide wind generation projects currently in various stages of development.

However, current wind power, like solar, is still not as inexpensive as various fossil fuels, nuclear, geothermal or hydropower. How the RVAWT competes is yet to be determined, however if the system is as cost efficient as we believe, we will be competitive and substantially less environmental effect.

Other than geothermal technology, which is not geographically available to most of the world, all three forms of power generation, fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro-power, potentially have various levels of detrimental effects to the environment, wildlife and human health.

Including subsidies, wind power is currently a very costly investment of at least twice the dollar per kWh as various fossil fuels and nuclear, with coal being the cheapest. However, tax revenues to the US Treasury from wind farms more than offset the cost of $0.021/kW production tax credit (PTC) granted to project owners, according to a recent report by the General Electric Company. Factor in the ability to trade off the carbon credits and one can understand why there are so many wind projects in the pipeline not only in the U.S. but worldwide since most other countries offer various tax incentives as well. It is reasonable, based on the various analysis and experimentation already done, that our system is going to be substantially more cost efficient than existing systems, we just don't know how much more yet.

Many governments, individuals, universities and companies around the world are performing vast amounts of research and development on a host of energy production related products. The products that eventually end up in the market place must have numerous beneficial attributes. Material abundance and costs, ease and costs of manufacturing, low installation costs and low maintenance costs all play vital roles in the long term acceptance and viability. We believe the design of the RVAWT embraces all these aspects and will be a market leader.

The Robinson Vertical Axis Wind and Water Turbines (RVAWT) are truly a competitive energy source to the fossil and nuclear industries that will additionally alter the course of the wind power industry away from monstrous HAWTs to smaller more manageable RVAWTs. These two attributes coupled with available carbon credits associated with world trade organizations mandates and the fact of the reduced need for tax and other subsidies will undoubtedly help to capture a significant and expanding market share for the RVAWTs. Electrical storage such as various types of batteries have undergone significant improvements in recent years and will assuredly help to provided a more consistent source of electrical energy between peak and non-peak hours. ZBB's Zess 50 & 500 and Plurian's storage technologies are examples.

Advantages of the RVAWT - Patent Pending

1. The RVAWT can be manufactured for use in both wind and water currents.

1. The RVAWT is omni-directional with silent operation. The directional changes in larger HAWT/Propeller Turbines to re-align with changing wind directions require additional computer controlled and noisy mechanical systems to actually make the adjustment. Most VAWT's including the Robinson, self-adjust automatically, requiring no additional mechanizes or computer control. Tip speeds on the larger HAWTs create a howling and whooshing sounds at higher wind speeds
2. The RVAWT can operate in 50% slower wind speeds, substantially improving the cost efficiency ratio and lowering transmission costs.
3. The RVAWT will work in as low as 4 MPH wind speeds. HAWT's generally require approximately 10 MPH wind speeds just to get them started for minimal operations
4. The RVAWT also has a much slower range of operating speeds, which should significantly lower the environmental impact on birds, fish and other wildlife.
5. The RVAWT can incorporate solar panels into both their residential and commercial power generation systems. This can significantly increase the output since the best current wind farm operates at 39% daily capacity and the best solar farm operates at 19% per daily capacity. Obviously the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun is shining only during the daytime.
6. The RVAWT houses all these components at ground level thereby eliminating huge manufacturing and maintenance costs associated with the HAWT design. With HAWTs, the transmission, the direction control mechanisms and the energy transfer components are all housed in the nacelle, typically between 250' to 450' above the ground.
7. The RVAWT is highly scalable. It could be easily manufactured to various sizes to suite specific applications. Due it's efficiency, the RVAWT would not necessitate massive turbines with 180' blades, as do HAWT's and will be able to be highly efficient at heights of less than 75'. Part of the reason HAWTs are so large is to capture the higher wind speeds, as you get higher off the ground.
8. High material and component manufacturing costs, component shortages, maintenance delays, including the lack of capable service providers and mechanical and electrical failures are all problems associated with the super HAWTs seen around the world. The dynamic structural forces on the huge systems are tremendous, creating various problems noted above and therefore detracting from their profitability. Without subsidies and carbon credits, it is unlikely that the current wind industry would have achieved the current level of Mega Watt (MW) production.
9. Due to the factors noted above, it is reasonable to conclude, in conjunction with its simplicity of design, lower material and manufacturing costs, lower installation and maintenance costs and higher efficiency to cost ratios, although a specific number has not yet been obtained, the RVAWT should be significantly more cost efficiency than other VAWTS and HAWTs currently in operation or planned.

Use of Funds

3 to 6 month forecast as of 07/15/2008

These costs are scheduled to achieve additional efficiency data via engineering and testing and provide professional marketing resources to acquire additional development capital in the amount of $10 million within a 6 to 9 month period.

* The costs associated with the engineering for the water turbine test, scaling and cost analysis is subject to a partnership arrangement not yet formalized for the water turbine project only. Joel Hass, PE of Parametric Solutions, Inc. of Jupiter, FL has agreed in principle to an ownership position and executive position with the company, not yet formed, to facilitate the design, production and sales of the Robinson Water Turbine in exchange for stock ownership.

**The cost associated with the full development and web hosting of www.endlessenergysolutions.com or a similar site will be provided by www.capps-llc.com and is predicated on an undetermined level of stock ownership by Shane McIntyre individually.

***The use of standard hydraulic struts may be implemented instead of hydraulic rotary actuated hinges depending on the engineering and fabrications costs, once the engineering is completed.

Accomplishments to Date:

1. Invention conceptualized in 12/2006

2. Built and refined multiple wind turbines prototypes from January thru March 2007.

This was done to prove the concept only and no output testing was done due to the

small size of the prototype.

3. Patent attorneys and inventor conducted voluminous amounts of research to

determine patentability from March to July 2007 and filed Provisional patent

07/13/2007. We believe that the intellectual property rights will be obtained.

4. A number of mechanical engineers evaluated the wind and water design and

believe it meets the various claims described in this writing and the prov. Patent

application. Contacts made between 07/2007 and 10/2007

5. Florida Atlantic University (FAU) asked the inventor to consider testing his design in

10/2007 in the Florida Gulfstream. The water turbine prototype was built specifically

for this purpose. We've been told, and news articles indicate that permitting has

delayed the program. No recent contact has been made necessitating self -testing.

6. A 4' rotational diameter Water Turbine prototype built between 10/2007 & 1/2008

7. Engineer (Joel Hass, PE of Parametric Solutions, Inc. Jupiter, FL hired to design test

methodology on 2/2008. Ph# (561) 747- 6107 x 102

8. The design, construction and 3 preliminary tests were made to attach the water

turbine to the testing platform and acquire results. Water turbine produced 300 lbs.

of force at 4.3 knots. Further testing is desired and we are expecting at least a 25%

gain in performance.

9. The final stages of a full patent search, claims identified and preparation was

completed. No fundamental patent issues were found.

10. Filed U.S. and International Patent – WIPO (World Intellectual Property

Organization- See Attached List) on 07/11/2008 by Richard J. Basile of St. Onge

Steward Johnston & Reens LLC, Stamford, CN Ph #(203) 324-6155

Use of Funds – Short Term Planning:

1. Additional Water Turbine testing - ASAP. Full digital test on stationary or barge type

platform. Estimated to produce 375 lbs of force, at 22 RPMs, in a 4.3 knot current.

2. The hinge on the wind turbines system is designed to incorporate a hydraulic rotary

actuators for dampening and controlling panel activity and stability at various wind speeds. Full engineering plans, for these hinges are still needed. The first wind prototype will probably be a standard hydraulic strut system or a mechanical cable system, depending on the cost to engineer and construct the hinges.

3. Build and test full size Wind Turbine(S). A larger test scale prototype will be built

4. using existing plans but will need only minimal engineering and electrical

5. components to have a full working prototype capable of reverse metering. We will

6. install a "working" prototype at some lucky homeowner property.

7. John Wilkes PA., Ft. Lauderdale, FL has been hired as the inventor's attorney to

create business structures – a holding company, Endless Energy Solutions LLC, with 3 to 4 subsidiaries each to manage, wind, water desalinization and misc. applications, respectively.

8. Obtain Engineering of full size commercial water turbine – Parametric Solutions to

provide plans and projections for the business plan and future development. Much of the engineering and testing of the water turbine can and will translate over to the wind turbine with a minimum of additional engineering required for the wind turbine.

9. Create Professional Business Plan, Power Point Presentation and Stock Offering with goal to raise $10 to $25 Million in venture capital within 3 to 6 months.

10. Joel Hass of Parametric Solutions has agreed to provide both management and

engineering in return for ownership within the water turbine subsidiary company. It

was the desire of the inventor to partnership in some manner with Mr. Hass due to

his past assistance and engineering expertise.

Specific Applications:

1. Electrical energy productions for individual property owners and for commercial wind

and water projects, such as the Florida Gulfstream could provide – a 4.3 knot deep water current running 24/7, 15 miles off the SE Florida coast as well as various rivers throughout the world. All wind zones areas throughout the world with category 3 and higher. Testing will be done in the high Zone 2 or low Zone 3 in those areas where the consistency of wind is higher. Standard propeller HAWT turbines required the highest Category 5 zone and therefore limit many geographic areas.

2. Water Desalinization is a much needed source for potable drinking water, as many

coastal areas are experiencing either fresh water pollution or salt water intrusion from coastal estuaries. The water turbine can provide the much needed energy to force salt water through the appropriate membranes and provide the electrical resources for recently refined electrical purification final stage processes .

3. Misc. applications such as self contained Electric producing mooring buoys for

Luxury Yachts and Sailboats. Wind propelled water and well pumping for rural potable water for both human and livestock consumption.

Other Vertical Axis Wind Turbines

Many VAWTs that have been at least prototyped. Some are actually in production but achieve similar cost efficiency ratios as typical propeller turbines. It appears the larger the system, the less cost efficient.

Every fixed wing has to come back against the wind, substantially lowering both the speed and power of the entire apparatus. Most of these are either Savonus, Darius, Helical styles.

The Robinson VAWT panels actually flips, each minimizing the drag as it comes back against the wind, thereby maximizing the power captured.

Counties protect under Patent Pending

PCT Contracting States - 03 July 2008

Name of State followed by the two-letter code and the Date on which State became bound by the PCT1

Albania AL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 October 1995

Algeria DZ2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 March 2000

Angola AO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 December 2007

Antigua and Barbuda AG . . . . . . . . 17 March 2000

Armenia AM2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Australia AU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 March 1980

Austria AT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 April 1979

Azerbaijan AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1995

Bahrain BH2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 March 2007

Barbados BB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 March 1985

Belarus BY2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Belgium BE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 December 1981

Belize BZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 June 2000

Benin BJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 February 1987

Bosnia and Herzegovina BA . . . . 7 September 1996

Botswana BW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 October 2003

Brazil BR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 April 1978

Bulgaria BG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 May 1984

Burkina Faso BF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 March 1989

Cameroon CM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Canada CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 January 1990

Central African Republic CF. . . . . 24 January 1978

Chad TD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

China CN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 January 1994

Colombia CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 February 2001

Comoros KM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 April 2005

Congo CG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Costa Rica CR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 August 1999

Côte d'Ivoire CI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 April 1991

Croatia HR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 July 1998

Cuba CU2 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 16 July 1996

Cyprus CY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 April 1998

Czech Republic CZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 January 1993

Republic of Korea KP . . . . . . . . . . . 8 July 1980

Denmark DK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 December 1978

Dominica DM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 August 1999

Dominican Republic DO. . . . . . . . . . 28 May 2007

Ecuador EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 May 2001

Egypt EG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 September 2003

El Salvador SV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 August 2006

Equatorial Guinea GQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 July 2001

Estonia EE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 August 1994

Finland FI3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 October 1980

France FR2, 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 February 1978

Gabon GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Gambia GM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 December 1997

Georgia GE2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Germany DE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Ghana GH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 February 1997

Greece GR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 October 1990

Grenada GD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 September 1998

Guatemala GT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 October 2006

Guinea GN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 May 1991

Guinea-Bissau GW . . . . . . . . . . 12 December 1997

Honduras HN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 June 2006

Hungary HU2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 June 1980

Iceland IS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 March 1995

India IN2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 December 1998

Indonesia ID2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 September 1997

Ireland IE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 August 1992

Israel IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 June 1996

Italy IT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 March 1985

Japan JP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 October 1978

Kazakhstan KZ2. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Kenya KE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 June 1994

Kyrgyzstan KG2. . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Lao People's Democratic

Republic LA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 June 2006

Latvia LV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 September 1993

Lesotho LS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 October 1995

Liberia LR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 August 1994

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya LY. . . . 15 September 2005

Liechtenstein LI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 March 1980

Lithuania LT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 July 1994

Luxembourg LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 April 1978

Madagascar MG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Malawi MW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Malaysia MY2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 August 2006

Mali ML . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 October 1984

Malta MT2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 March 2007

Mauritania MR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 April 1983

Mexico MX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 January 1995

Moldova MD2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Monaco MC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 June 1979

Mongolia MN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 May 1991

Montenegro ME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 June 2006

Morocco MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 October 1999

Mozambique MZ2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 May 2000

Namibia NA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 January 2004

Netherlands NL5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 July 1979

New Zealand NZ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 December 1992

Nicaragua NI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 March 2003

Niger NE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 March 1993

Nigeria NG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 May 2005

Norway NO3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 January 1980

Oman OM2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 October 2001

Papua New Guinea PG . . . . . . . . . . . 14 June 2003

Philippines PH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 August 2001

Poland PL3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1990

Portugal PT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 November 1992

Republic of Korea KR. . . . . . . . . . 10 August 1984

Romania RO2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 July 1979

Russian Federation RU2 . . . . . . . . 29 March 1978

Saint Kitts and Nevis KN . . . . . . 27 October 2005

Saint Lucia LC2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 August 1996

St Vincent and Grenadines VC2. 6 August 2002

San Marino SM. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 December 2004

Sao Tome and Principe ST . . . . . . . . . 3 July 2008

Senegal SN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Serbia RS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 February 1997

Seychelles SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 November 2002

Sierra Leone SL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 June 1997

Singapore SG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 February 1995

Slovakia SK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 January 1993

Slovenia SI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 March 1994

South Africa ZA2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 March 1999

Spain ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 November 1989

Sri Lanka LK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 February 1982

Sudan SD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 April 1984

Swaziland SZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 September 1994

Sweden SE3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 May 1978

Switzerland CH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Syrian Arab Republic SY . . . . . . . . . 26 June 2003

Tajikistan TJ2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

The former Yugoslav Republic

of Macedonia MK . . . . . . . . . . . 10 August 1995

Togo TG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

Trinidad and Tobago TT . . . . . . . . . 10 March 1994

Tunisia TN2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 December 2001

Turkey TR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 January 1996

Turkmenistan TM2. . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Uganda UG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 February 1995

Ukraine UA2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

United Arab Emirates AE . . . . . . . . . 10 March 1999

United Kingdom GB6. . . . . . . . . . 24 January 1978

United Republic of

Tanzania TZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 September 1999

United States US7, 8. . . 24 January 1978

Uzbekistan UZ2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 December 1991

Viet Nam VN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 March 1993

Zambia ZM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 November 2001

Zimbabwe ZW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 June 1997

(Total: 139 States)

1 All PCT Contracting States are bound by Chapter II of the PCT relating to the international preliminary examination.

2 With the declaration provided for in PCT Article 64(5).

3 With the declaration provided for in PCT Article 64(2)(a)(ii).

4 Including all Overseas Departments and Territories.

5 Ratification for the Kingdom in Europe, the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.

6 Extends to the Isle of Man.

7 With the declarations provided for in PCT Articles 64(3)(a) and 64(4)(a).

8 Extends to all areas for which the United States of America has international responsibility.

Gentlemen,

It is to be expected that low density energy sources are expensive to extract. In this regard wind, and solar will never be able to compete with hydro-electricity unless you are located in a desert or a plane. Many of the wind and solar installation will never return the energy that was spent to build and maintain them. They are an expense of energy. We have to burn oil to enjoy looking at them.

Be realistic, it is cheaper to burn the highly concentrated fuel that mother nature took billions of years to accumulate than to try to extract it as we go.

The problem is "What do we do when we run out?" and "how do we deal with the pollution meanwhile?"

Actually, the densest energy source is the nuclear energy. Like it or not the fission and eventually the fusion will be the energy source of the future and replace oil.

Meanwhile everything else is just playing around.

Marcot,

Your not keeping up with the times and your generalized statement I beleive are erroneous in relation to various geographic situation.

Venture capitalist are not putting large sums of money into such things as CSP in the Southwest U.S. because they think they will loose money.

The Florida Gulfstream produces power 24/7 and with the Robinson Water Turbine design, I beleive it will compete with fossil and nuclear if you take into consideration all aspects of the cost of production including all liabilities.

People are literally sick and tired of breathing air polution from coal and oil powerplants. When they raise your taxes to pay medicare costs that is a partion of the total cost assciated with burning fossils. How is your socialized medcial system is Canada doing.

You wrote:"The Florida Gulfstream produces power 24/7 and with the Robinson Water Turbine design"

That sounds like a water project. Read correctly my comment, I said that hydro-electric is OK. It is one of the densest source of energy available. I have great faith in anything that use water as the source because it is a concentrated energy source.

Wind and solar are the ones that have an energy density too low to compete and even pay back. At the end of the day, if an energy station does not produce more energy than it took to make the equipment and maintain it, we are just burning more oil. It might make the politico look good but it is a waste of energy.

That being said, I am an active developer and user of alternative energy and efficient use of what we have. I simply do not agree with doing anything to look good when it doesn't help.

Hey Marcot,

Both Nanosolar and eSolar have raised a trememdous amount of money for solar so I'm not sure that such investment would be made for the pure tax incentives and carbon credits. Perhaps I'm wrong. Each month that goes by new research, development and ideas are occuring. Fossil fuels have had their share of tax incentives as well.

My wind tubine should be able to complete as well, since it is both more efficient at capturing the kinetic energy and works in less than 1/2 the wind speeds. Exactly how much more efficent it is over existing systems we just don't know yet.

I hope that you are right but at the present low energy cost, it is unlikely that it will pay for itself when you include everything needed to make it work for many years.

For the moment, and for many years to come, the wind and solar electrical energy seem to be only viable when nothing else other than a diesel generator is available to produce electricity.

Solar energy is good to provide partial heating for water and building. The only way to get fully supplied is by reducing consumption. This will only come main stream when energy will be sold for its real cost.

We do not take into account the pollution cost of oil or its cost of replacement. Eventually this will come and oil will be at $500 per barrel. Then, your small windmill will be enough to supply a home mostly because we will have learned the importance of insulating our home and keeping the thermostat at a decent temperature. The 1/2 hour long hot showers will be a thing of the past.

If we plan to use the energy as it comes from the sun (wind is solar energy), we will have to learn to be as nimble as all the other animals. The solar energy density is too low to sustain our present way of life. The only other alternative to oil are hydro-electricity and nuclear energy weather we like it or not.

I met with another potential investor today and the same old crap. I'm in the catch 22 position of needing engineering to get us to the magical cost per kWt number but need the money to get the engineering done. They suggested finding an engineer who would be able to do the engineering for equity in the company. Anybody know any body with this type of talent and time?

If you look at the physics, this design is superior, from a potential cost efficiency aspect, to any wind and water turbine that I've every seen. If a sail can propell a large sailboat, it can surely creat power. If I'm correct, this project could be very profitable.

Check out the prototypes again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NTbAz9GyHw

Looks interesting except that it is not likely to scale up elegantly. It will be very difficult to move planes like the ones you use when they will have the many square meters of surface needed to capture enough KW to pay for themselves. This is why windmills get bigger and bigger. Larger units are more likely to pay for themselves.

You should concentrate on the water version. There are many places where people could use them along a river without building a dam. In water, the surfaces will be smaller due to the higher energy concentration and the higher torque available will allow for a lower speed of the turbine. This will be an advantage because the aerodynamics of your concept is not good enough for fast speed. You will get all kind of end effects, drag, and cavitation if you operate this turbine at high speed. Your concept is an improved version of the paddle wheel but is inferior to a well designed propeller. For low cost, simple applications, single family application, you might have a chance. There are enough people who have access to some river to sell a few units a year and maybe maintain a small business. It is certainly interesting for remote locations where there is no utility company. There you are competing against diesel generators.

Check out companies that manufacture micro-turbines. Look at how they are doing. Your venture is likely to go about the same. Your strength is that you don't need a dam because it is not very expensive to have a relatively large surface operated at low power density. Other turbines are more expensive to manufacture and are kept small. To reach useful power, a dam is needed to get the necessary pressure to spin the blades rapidly. Your design should be safer for fish and people than fast rotating blades. You will need some protections from drifting trees and boats... Water applications are simpler as the speed of the water is usually much more constant than wind. This will allow you to use a simple synchronous generator with a voltage regulator to produce some AC power. Start by stripping a gas electric generator off its engine and couple it to a gearbox connected to your turbine. This will give a quick (inexpensive) way to get a feel for the sizing required.

Concentrate on a small market where your product will shine. Forget about mass production for now. Your son might do that some day... For now, think hunting camps and Indian reserves.

Good luck

My engineer beleives much like you but for different reasons. Competition is much greater in wind so from a business standpoint going to the less competitive market is probably wiser. We are going to go in the direction the money lead us in.

I'm not sure that my system would not scale up gracefully. You can't see it in the wind turbine video, but there is a panel control system in place. Larger systems will incorporate an even more advanced patent pending panel control system so we believe that we have overcome the structural torgue issues created by larger panels. Unlike a propeller turbine whose tips run 5 to 7 times faster than the wind speed, the panel speeds will not exceed the wind speed so we're not to afraid of higher wind speeds, except as they get up to what I call catastophic levels. 55 Mph +/- I think that Florida doesn't have any turbines for two reasons. To low of a wind speed zone and hurricanes. My system will work here along the coast assuming I can protect the system during hurricanes. It would be a good place to test a prototype to prove its efficiency and operating stability as the wind speed range is wide but the average is low to mediaum along the coasts. I would uninstall it during a hurricane.

most hydro rated output is near their actual output, because the water flow is quite consistant. Most Hydro runs the generator at 70%-90% capacity, whereas most wind turbines are at 30-35% efficiency. It has to do with how the cost of the generator balances with the cost of the turbine, and the variations in windspeed or water flow. The actual output is a much better number to use then the rated. It's like how they say gasoline engines are 25% efficient - at what load? This makes me think that at peak efficency engines are 25%. In normal driving the ideal load is rarely met, so I don't dissbelieve when someone says they're 8% efficient. You can see that even the Ontario Standard Offer program uses the rated output to calculate the cost per kW, a very bad number to use, it does not equal revenue like the actual output does.

Can anyone comment on Plasma Waste Conversion and the use of syngas produced through this process? Seems like a sustainable (and nearly renewable) process while having the ability to reduce landfill volume.

The process, as I understand it, does not involve incineration and does not produce toxic compounds, rather an inert slag-like material and useable syngas. The syngas can be used to power gas turbines, etc.

Westinghouse, for one, manufactures PWGs (Plasma Waste Gasifiers)

A.T.

Versus pinwheels with slender stalks--lithe against the gentle breeze and silent when unopposed or when hell is unleashed. Meek and they shall inherit the earth--for awhile.

Now that is funny! Well, maybe not. Never mind, it's just the freon talking.

That study was conducted by the people who sell windmills. Did you expect them to include all the costs? Since when do you believe salesmen? If this is true, why do we need to give grant to wind farms operators to give them a chance to eventually get a payback?

Where is the rest of the money going? It might not be to pay for the energy to power the drill that work on the fondation but somebody has to pay for the drill, a good part of its price is the energy that was used to produce it and extract the steel from the earth. Did they take into account the energy needed to feed the drill operator? He has to be sustained too. One calorie of food requires ten calories of energy to produce. That is not included in the study.

My point is that it is easy to make study say what you want. The real test is when you look at the final result and see when you are making money without all the grants to the MFG and site operators. Grants are not free, somebody had to work to earn this money. This is also an energy expense. An industry that needs grant to survive is not a producer, it is a consumer. Unfortunately we have too many consumers in this world.

Open up your eyes. We need to work on technologies that give a positive balance. Not black holes kept alive by govs grants (our money).

how much power does a $3.6 million coal plant put out?

Buzneg.

You obviously have placed me in the oil cartel group and take anything I say negatively. You are wrong!

Your question doesn't supply enough data to derive a precise answer. It depends on the technology used in the plant. at $3.6 millions, it will be a very small plant but it will be producing many times more electricity than a similarly priced wind farm. The reason is simple. Coal is a very concentrated energy source. It takes less money to convert it to electricity than a low density energy source like the wind. If this basic engineering concept eludes you, well, I cannot help you.

I am a proponent of REAL replacement energy. As an engineer, I always make sure that my projects produce a benefit to society.

I have also developed energy reduction devices for my home. I always keep a scientific approach in order to evaluate if the outcome is worth it. When the payback is more than ten years, I consider that it is not worth the trouble.

My point in this whole discussion is that one must not waste his talent and energy working on technologies that will not be viable for another twenty years. There are equipment and techniques that can be developed right now that will make a difference.

Lets work on those first.

I know coals better I just want to compair it with wind. From wikipedia

"Present construction costs, as of 2004, run to US$1,300 per kilowatt, or $650 million for a 500 MWe unit."

So that's $1,300 for coal vs $7200, or possibly even $3000/kW AAO for large windfarms. A difference that should be investigated is that the plant needs to be feed coal. Remember wind energy is much newer then coal, and the price is high from due to the governments.

Buzneg. You said, "So that's $1,300 for coal vs $7200, or possibly even $3000/kW AAO for large wind farms."

This means that the cost of energy will have to quadruple (maybe double for very large installation) before windmills are beginning to make money. Get ready to pay $10-16 per gallon of gas before breaking even with your windmill.

The alternative is for the cost of wind farm to be cut in four per KW produced. This is very difficult to do as the wind technology is maturing. It is a sophisticated industry with a relatively good economy of scale already. Price will improve but it will take a long time before it will be competitive and it will only be achieved on very large units.

Meanwhile, enough pressure on the coal and gas plants operators will force them to clean up their acts and reduce emission to a fraction of todays'. This will make the cost of energy increase but that is what we need anyway to make money with wind farms. We are always the ones paying the bill...

Meanwhile there are other areas where the small guys like us can invest our time and energy. I have used energy saving techniques at my home that have cut my energy bill by a few percent a year in the face of increasing demand from my teenage kids.

I use a geothermal heat pump with supplementary heat recovery coils to produce hot water and heat up my swimming pool using the heat dumped by the AC. My comfort level has increased while my consumption has decreased. This is the type of technology that has to be pushed. We are wasting too much energy around here. Our consumption is not sustainable. The solution is not to increase the energy supply but to reduce the losses.

There could be many nice small business making good money doing this kind of modifications.

Think green "intelligently" like a real engineer. Do not fall for the politicos' propaganda. Look at the mess they created with ethanol.

I believe that my design does have the potential to be very cost efficient. The key is how much should and will it cost to find out. The design is so simply that I beleive that it warrants investigation. If instead of producing system that are high costs just to make them barely viable, why not produce a design that could be mass produced effectively making them viable alternatives to other power generation sources. Smaller is generally better when it comes to mass production, material costs and maintenance and these could be made cheaply. I'm talking about the wind. Take some time and really study this thing.

I've invented several other products but none warranted further research and development and I never wasted time on them. I'm obviously convinced that we need to find out just how efficent this design can be.

You are correct. Mass production reduces cost and small units are more likely to be mass produced. The problem is that small units are not viable where electricity is already available.

Lets do a quick calculation on a 10KW unit. This could be used by a fair amount of people with large lots.

The real production of this unit will be around 3KWh all year long. This gives you 3 *365 * 24 = 26280 KWh a year. At $0.08 per KWh we get $2102 of electricity a year.

Assuming that the maintenance is done only twice a year, half a day at a time we have about 2 * $250.

How much will the tower cost to keep the windmill up? at least $2000 plus installation of about $2000.

Anything exposed to the elements that doesn't pay for itself within five years is a big risk. I have observed small installation in my area and heven seen one run for five years yet. Maybe other people are more lucky.

This menas that you bugjet is 5 * ($2102 -$500) = $8100 - $4000 for the tower = $4100 for the 10KW generator, impeller, electrical installation, and the inverter. You also need either a battery bank to store the peaks or a special meter nad disconnect switch to sell to the utility company.

Can you do all of this for $4100? Without a grant? (money from my pocket)

Don't take only my word for it. Here is a real case senario. Lets see it it will produce for 25 years as promissed by the manufacturer.

--------------------------------------------------------

The $40,000 ballpark price for the Bergey Windpower Co.'s 10-kilowatt generator, including a power inverter and installation, is a big enough bite to discourage anyone, especially those who may not know how long they plan to live in the same place. [ Note: Mr. Sansome received a rebate of ~ $20,000 from the California Energy Commission. ]

Sansome has figured that his windmill will pay for itself in six to eight years. The life of the gadget is estimated to be 25 to 30 years, which equals a lot of free energy over a long period of time.

Southern California Edison representative Laura Rudison estimated more conservatively the span of time before the average homeowner would break even.

"When you really run the numbers, it may be 12 or 15 years," she said. [ if you ignore the CEC rebate ]
---------------------------------

Once again; I am for intelligent use of resources and against jumping into anything at any cost.

Sorry Got distracted - had to put some food on the table.

I'm in real estate in Florida so I'm having to really hussle.

FYI: In Florida (summer time) I'm personally using 2250 kWt per month, 65 -75 kWt per day, approx $.11 per Kwt. to cool (1 zone) a newer 1900 sq foot 3 story townhouse. We'er here 24/7 with a full 3+ computer, 2 network printers office (15' x 22') on the 1st floor.

I'm hoping that I can build the entire system for less than $8100. We're not going to require a tower. More like a stand combination electronics cover.

We don't need to get our system so high up. The HAWTs go up high chasing the higher wind speeds.

It will be pretty simple to manufacture. The only real non off the shelf products will be the hydraulics and transmission but the parts of the transmission should be readily available.

Hello skiprob

Please remember that Florida is the lightning capital of the world.

Ensure that any high structures are properly designed, with Earth mats, driven Earth Electrodes, and Lightning conductors to prevent damage to persons and/or equipment.

Kind Regards....

not bad topic.

Go Figure, I have an engineering firm currently negociating a JV on the water turbine portion of the design. If you all were able to read my business plan and see the Youtube video the prototype is there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NTbAz9GyHw

Can anybody fiqure out for me how much kW per hr that small prototype would produce based on following data. I'm pretty sure that I can get close to 500 lbs of force at 25 RPM from a 4.3 knot currrent with just a few minor modifcations to increase the hydrodynamic efficiency of the existing design shown in the above video.

The load cell was attached inline to the brake pads, of a floating Harley Davison front disc brake system, centered right at 6" from the wind turbines center shaft. In this experiment the boat was to small as it's front was pushed to the side 6" to 8" as each power point was reached and we still registered over 300 lbs. Just think if we had 5 panels instead of just the 3 as shown in the video. FYI: The system panels are made of 1/4" thick marine plastic 1.5' wide x 2.5 tall with a 4' rotational diameter. So it's quite powerful for it's size. I use a 1" solid steel shaft and 1.5" x 3/4" small diameter aerodynamic air foil shaped steal tubing for the structural arms holding the panels with stainless steel door hinges from Home Depot.

Your math is poor, that's where your confusion stems from.