Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Tyrannical · **#121** by **Tyrannical** » May 12, 2010 2:02 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Tyrannical wrote:If we spent half the money wasted on Global Warming BS on nuclear engineering, we'd have the energy crisis solved through nuclear.

While I don't share your estimation of global warming and wonder where you get your statistic, I do agree that nuclear power is the way forward.

Are you aware that Climatologists are 95% certain that human activity is a significant cause to Global warming?
I get my statistics from that place.

Quite aware of it, thanks. You called it BS, didn't you?

Yes, a random guess I pulled out of my butt.
But with $Billions spent every year with the potential of hundreds of $Billions spent every year, I'm quite confident a fraction of that expenditure into nuclear research would pay large dividends in safety and plant design efficiency. Probably not enough to get fusion working though :think:

The_Metatron · **#122** by **The_Metatron** » May 12, 2010 2:07 pm

Yeah, I suspect fusion may be a ways off.

newolder · **#123** by **newolder** » May 12, 2010 2:17 pm

See also:

7th May 2010: A bladeless wind turbine whose only rotating component is a turbine/driveshaft could generate power at a cost comparable to coal-fired power plants, according to its developers at Solar Aero. The New Hampshire-based company recently announced its patent on the Fuller wind turbine, which is an improvement on a patent issued to Nikola Tesla in 1913.

10 kilowatts, over a 'wide range' of wind speeds, it claims...
physorg source

Tyrannical · **#124** by **Tyrannical** » May 12, 2010 2:25 pm

newolder wrote:See also:
7th May 2010: A bladeless wind turbine whose only rotating component is a turbine/driveshaft could generate power at a cost comparable to coal-fired power plants, according to its developers at Solar Aero. The New Hampshire-based company recently announced its patent on the Fuller wind turbine, which is an improvement on a patent issued to Nikola Tesla in 1913.

10 kilowatts, over a 'wide range' of wind speeds, it claims...
physorg source

Great, so they should just build them since they are competitive with a coal power plant. If it is a good deal, you don't need any laws, tax breaks, or government assistance to get going.

The_Metatron · **#125** by **The_Metatron** » May 12, 2010 2:56 pm

I wasn't the first to question this design's stated capacity. Lengould100 from the physorg site had this question:

My first question is "Under what conditions exactly could the pictured unit generate 10 kw?" It appears to have an intake area of approx. max. 0.5 meter x 0.5 meter = 0.25 sq meter, or 0.025 sq. meters per kw. A modern bladed HAWT, presumeably operating near the BETZ limit for the typical wind conditions experienced in the field, can extract 1.5 MW (1500 kw) from a circular disc of diameter 120 meters, area about 10,000 sq meters. That's 10,000/1,500 = 6.6 sq. meters per kw. So how does this unit extract energy from wind 300 times more efficiently? I MIGHT grant the Tesla turbine a capability to operate 2 or 3 x more efficiently than a bladed turbine, but 300 times more? Not very likely. There's some fudging going on somewhere here.

This unit - 0.025 sq. meters per kw.
State-of-art HAWT 6.6 sq. meters per kw

The only difference between this design and a standard squirrel cage fan is the stack of discs that intersect what would simply be the blades of a squirrel cage rotor. The only purpose I can see would be to increase the backpressure of the air on its way through the cage. Once a packet of air has imparted its energy to the blade, it would have to be forced between the discs to escape through the middle of the disc pack to the exhaust port of the assembly. Any aerodynamics experts here? I would think this would slow down the rotation imparted to the rotor for a given amount of input air.

I smell bullshit.

newolder · **#126** by **newolder** » May 12, 2010 3:13 pm

The_Metatron wrote:...

I smell bullshit.

Me too. I've just estimated 500 watts per m2 as the (total) power in a 10m/s wind (unless you also freeze the stuff to 0 Kelvin in the process!). I'd need to see a demonstration before going any further with this. Apologies for not checking first. :doh:

theropod · **#127** by **theropod** » May 12, 2010 10:25 pm

BETZ LAW

I call bullshit on the claimed output of the turbine shown.

RS

GT2211 · **#128** by **GT2211** » May 13, 2010 7:50 am

The_Metatron wrote:Yeah, I suspect fusion may be a ways off.

Oh really? :grin:

Tyrannical · **#129** by **Tyrannical** » May 13, 2010 7:58 am

GT2211 wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:Yeah, I suspect fusion may be a ways off.

Oh really?

Fusion is easy. Helium + fission

Just stand a ways back :lol:

Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Re: Is wind energy a viable energy solution?

Who is online