Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: [hreg] Cool turbine video

Expand Messages
  • Gary Beck
    if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big additonal drag and
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 5, 2009

      if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big additonal drag and lateral wind loads to the support structure.

       

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
      Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:03 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [hreg] Cool turbine video

       

      I hope this hasn't already been posted :) The video is neat.

      Turbine based design seems a lot better to me , although I think there
      is still a lot more they can do with this. I think it will follow the
      evolution of the airplane as the industry matures.

      http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/31/new-wind-turbine-could-dramatically-increase-generation-efficien/

    • Jay Ring
      The diameter is smaller; that is the whole point of this design. Drag is an increasing function of extracted energy. This a physical consequence of extracting
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 5, 2009
        The diameter is smaller; that is the whole point of this design.

        Drag is an increasing function of extracted energy. This a physical
        consequence of extracting energy.

        The design is (claimed to be) self aligning, so lateral loads are
        minimal.

        I don't have any idea what the weight the cowling is, but it looks
        like it would be a lot less, if the scale in the video is to believed.

        I'm still a little more interested in the vertical-axis designs (as a
        personal interest), but it's hard to imagine beating the efficiency of
        the type of turbine this is based on. At least with current technology.





        --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Beck" <eco@...> wrote:
        >
        > if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the
        > cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big
        > additonal drag and lateral wind loads to the support structure.
        >
        >
        >
        > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        > Jay Ring
        > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:03 PM
        > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [hreg] Cool turbine video
        >
        >
        >
        > I hope this hasn't already been posted :) The video is neat.
        >
        > Turbine based design seems a lot better to me , although I think there
        > is still a lot more they can do with this. I think it will follow the
        > evolution of the airplane as the industry matures.
        >
        > http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/31/new-wind-turbine-could-dramatica
        > lly-increase-generation-efficien/
        >
      • Kevin Conlin
        That link is not working for me, am I missing something? I get an automobile news page? Kevin Conlin Solarcraft, Inc. 4007-C Greenbriar Drive Stafford, TX
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 5, 2009

          That link is not working for me, am I missing something?  I get an automobile news page?

           

          Kevin Conlin

          Solarcraft, Inc.

          4007-C Greenbriar Drive

          Stafford, TX 77477

          Local (281) 340-1224

          Toll Free (877) 340-1224

          Fax (281) 340-1230

          Cell (281) 960-8979

          kconlin@...

          www.solarcraft.net

           


          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
          Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:57 AM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [hreg] Re: Cool turbine video

           

          The diameter is smaller; that is the whole point of this design.

          Drag is an increasing function of extracted energy. This a physical
          consequence of extracting energy.

          The design is (claimed to be) self aligning, so lateral loads are
          minimal.

          I don't have any idea what the weight the cowling is, but it looks
          like it would be a lot less, if the scale in the video is to believed.

          I'm still a little more interested in the vertical-axis designs (as a
          personal interest), but it's hard to imagine beating the efficiency of
          the type of turbine this is based on. At least with current technology.

          --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Gary Beck" <eco@...> wrote:

          >
          > if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the
          > cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big
          > additonal drag and lateral wind loads to the support structure.
          >
          >
          >
          > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com
          [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of
          > Jay Ring
          > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:03 PM
          > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
          > Subject: [hreg] Cool turbine video
          >
          >
          >
          > I hope this hasn't already been posted :) The video is neat.
          >
          > Turbine based design seems a lot better to me , although I think there
          > is still a lot more they can do with this. I think it will follow the
          > evolution of the airplane as the industry matures.
          >
          >
          href="http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/31/new-wind-turbine-could-dramatica">http://www.autoblog green.com/ 2008/12/31/ new-wind- turbine-could- dramatica
          > lly-increase- generation- efficien/
          >

        • Kevin Conlin
          I agree. After viewing the video, many of the facts they present aren t. I don t see any practical way the concept can be commercialized. The video sounds
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 5, 2009

            I agree.  After viewing the video, many of the “facts” they present aren’t. I don’t see any practical way the concept can be commercialized.  The video sounds as if the current technology is hopelessly outdated, when in fact it works quite well and is cost competitive with conventional power generation.  For example, the reason current turbines are located away from populated areas isn’t because the turbines explode as depicted, but simply that’s where the best wind is.

             

            Given that renewables are “hot” right now, there is never a shortage of people trying to raise funding with often misleading “information”. Gary is right, they ignore the huge cost of their extra hardware, or the massive tower that would be required to support it. They also ignore that transportation of the blades is not really a big deal, but they would have you believe it is near impossible, and it is much cheaper to assemble a complex shroud in mid air than it is to hang a turbine blade.

             

            As the group curmudgeon, I don’t believe the design is practical on a large scale.

             

            Kevin Conlin

            Solarcraft, Inc.

            4007-C Greenbriar Drive

            Stafford, TX 77477

            Local (281) 340-1224

            Toll Free (877) 340-1224

            Fax (281) 340-1230

            Cell (281) 960-8979

            kconlin@...

            www.solarcraft.net

             


            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Beck
            Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:38 AM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Cool turbine video

             

            if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big additonal drag and lateral wind loads to the support structure.

             

            From: hreg@yahoogroups. com [mailto:hreg@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
            Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:03 PM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
            Subject: [hreg] Cool turbine video

             

            I hope this hasn't already been posted :) The video is neat.

            Turbine based design seems a lot better to me , although I think there
            is still a lot more they can do with this. I think it will follow the
            evolution of the airplane as the industry matures.

            http://www.autoblog green.com/ 2008/12/31/ new-wind- turbine-could- dramatically- increase- generation- efficien/

          • Jay Ring
            You agree? With what? The cowl looks smaller and the structure is self-aligning so drag should be a non-issue. Did I miss something? I don t know if you can
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 5, 2009
              You agree? With what? The cowl looks smaller and the structure is
              self-aligning so drag should be a non-issue. Did I miss something?

              I don't know if you can get more skeptical than I am; I embrace the
              term with pride! That is my intellectual starting point.

              However - "curmudgeon", as you no doubt know, means old, stubborn, and
              set in their ways. Therefore, all progress, technological or
              otherwise, depends on ignoring them! :)

              I don't see any problem commercializing them, other than incurring
              another round of start up costs (drawings, fixtures, molds, tooling).
              Nothing in the design (that I can see) is difficult to fabricate.

              I could be wrong, but I imagine the cowl will be constructed on the
              ground and then hoisted onto the support, as opposed to constructed in
              mid air.

              I am not sure what makes you think there will be a huge cost for extra
              hardware. The massive tower you are worried about is required for any
              wind turbine. They already build them and they are pretty good at it.

              Component count wise, it may have more sub-components, but they are
              smaller and should be easier to fabricate without a custom fabrication
              facility. I doubt either of us can give a really accurate per-unit
              cost on either one. However, I would guess the cost would be within a
              factor of three.

              Current technology isn't that bad, I don't think the tone of the video
              was that at all. That certainly doesn't mean it can't be improved
              though. What we have now is certainly not the best that is possible.
              Turbines are more efficient than propellers. That is why we use them
              on virtually every other fluid-flow design (water, steam, rocket). I
              imagine this will eventually work it's way into wind, even if this
              exact project is not the one to develop it.

              Have a good one!





              --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Conlin" <kconlin@...> wrote:
              >
              > I agree. After viewing the video, many of the "facts" they present
              aren't.
              > I don't see any practical way the concept can be commercialized.
              The video
              > sounds as if the current technology is hopelessly outdated, when in
              fact it
              > works quite well and is cost competitive with conventional power
              generation.
              > For example, the reason current turbines are located away from populated
              > areas isn't because the turbines explode as depicted, but simply that's
              > where the best wind is.
              >
              >
              >
              > Given that renewables are "hot" right now, there is never a shortage of
              > people trying to raise funding with often misleading "information".
              Gary is
              > right, they ignore the huge cost of their extra hardware, or the massive
              > tower that would be required to support it. They also ignore that
              > transportation of the blades is not really a big deal, but they
              would have
              > you believe it is near impossible, and it is much cheaper to assemble a
              > complex shroud in mid air than it is to hang a turbine blade.
              >
              >
              >
              > As the group curmudgeon, I don't believe the design is practical on
              a large
              > scale.
              >
              >
              >
              > Kevin Conlin
              >
              > Solarcraft, Inc.
              >
              > 4007-C Greenbriar Drive
              >
              > Stafford, TX 77477
              >
              > Local (281) 340-1224
              >
              > Toll Free (877) 340-1224
              >
              > Fax (281) 340-1230
              >
              > Cell (281) 960-8979
              >
              > kconlin@...
              >
              > www.solarcraft.net
              >
              >
              >
              > _____
              >
              > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of Gary
              > Beck
              > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:38 AM
              > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [hreg] Cool turbine video
              >
              >
              >
              > if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the
              > cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big
              additonal
              > drag and lateral wind loads to the support structure.
              >
              >
              >
              > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
              Of Jay
              > Ring
              > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:03 PM
              > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: [hreg] Cool turbine video
              >
              >
              >
              > I hope this hasn't already been posted :) The video is neat.
              >
              > Turbine based design seems a lot better to me , although I think there
              > is still a lot more they can do with this. I think it will follow the
              > evolution of the airplane as the industry matures.
              >
              > http://www.autoblog
              >
              <http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/31/new-wind-turbine-could-dramatically
              > -increase-generation-efficien/>
              >
              green.com/2008/12/31/new-wind-turbine-could-dramatically-increase-generation
              > -efficien/
              >
            • Shafer, Mark B
              Thanks Jay for your input. The safety features are a big selling point. Wind farms have to go through environmental studies to show there is no adverse effect
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 5, 2009

                Thanks Jay for your input. 

                 

                The safety features are a big selling point.  Wind farms have to go through environmental studies to show there is no adverse effect on migratory birds – if this is less threatening to birds – installation might be expedited. 

                 

                Easier transport is good.

                 

                Assembling on the ground will save money. 

                 

                I’ve got a windy site already – I’d love to see a “Homeowners” version.

                 

                 

                 

                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
                Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:21 PM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [hreg] Re: Cool turbine video

                 

                You agree? With what? The cowl looks smaller and the structure is
                self-aligning so drag should be a non-issue. Did I miss something?

                I don't know if you can get more skeptical than I am; I embrace the
                term with pride! That is my intellectual starting point.

                However - "curmudgeon", as you no doubt know, means old, stubborn, and
                set in their ways. Therefore, all progress, technological or
                otherwise, depends on ignoring them! :)

                I don't see any problem commercializing them, other than incurring
                another round of start up costs (drawings, fixtures, molds, tooling).
                Nothing in the design (that I can see) is difficult to fabricate.

                I could be wrong, but I imagine the cowl will be constructed on the
                ground and then hoisted onto the support, as opposed to constructed in
                mid air.

                I am not sure what makes you think there will be a huge cost for extra
                hardware. The massive tower you are worried about is required for any
                wind turbine. They already build them and they are pretty good at it.

                Component count wise, it may have more sub-components, but they are
                smaller and should be easier to fabricate without a custom fabrication
                facility. I doubt either of us can give a really accurate per-unit
                cost on either one. However, I would guess the cost would be within a
                factor of three.

                Current technology isn't that bad, I don't think the tone of the video
                was that at all. That certainly doesn't mean it can't be improved
                though. What we have now is certainly not the best that is possible.
                Turbines are more efficient than propellers. That is why we use them
                on virtually every other fluid-flow design (water, steam, rocket). I
                imagine this will eventually work it's way into wind, even if this
                exact project is not the one to develop it.

                Have a good one!

                --- In hreg@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Conlin" <kconlin@...> wrote:

                >
                > I agree. After viewing the video, many of the "facts" they
                present
                aren't.
                > I don't see any practical way the concept can be commercialized.
                The video
                > sounds as if the current technology is hopelessly outdated, when in
                fact it
                > works quite well and is cost competitive with conventional power
                generation.
                > For example, the reason current turbines are located away from populated
                > areas isn't because the turbines explode as depicted, but simply that's
                > where the best wind is.
                >
                >
                >
                > Given that renewables are "hot" right now, there is never a
                shortage of
                > people trying to raise funding with often misleading "information".
                Gary is
                > right, they ignore the huge cost of their extra hardware, or the massive
                > tower that would be required to support it. They also ignore that
                > transportation of the blades is not really a big deal, but they
                would have
                > you believe it is near impossible, and it is much cheaper to assemble a
                > complex shroud in mid air than it is to hang a turbine blade.
                >
                >
                >
                > As the group curmudgeon, I don't believe the design is practical on
                a large
                > scale.
                >
                >
                >
                > Kevin Conlin
                >
                > Solarcraft, Inc.
                >
                > 4007-C Greenbriar Drive
                >
                > Stafford, TX 77477
                >
                > Local (281) 340-1224
                >
                > Toll Free (877) 340-1224
                >
                > Fax (281) 340-1230
                >
                > Cell (281) 960-8979
                >
                > kconlin@...
                >
                > www.solarcraft.net
                >
                >
                >
                > _____
                >
                > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of Gary
                > Beck
                > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:38 AM
                > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [hreg] Cool turbine video
                >
                >
                >
                > if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the
                > cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big
                additonal
                > drag and lateral wind loads to the support structure.
                >
                >
                >
                > From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                Of Jay
                > Ring
                > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:03 PM
                > To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [hreg] Cool turbine video
                >
                >
                >
                > I hope this hasn't already been posted :) The video is neat.
                >
                > Turbine based design seems a lot better to me , although I think there
                > is still a lot more they can do with this. I think it will follow the
                > evolution of the airplane as the industry matures.
                >
                > http://www.autoblog
                >
                <http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/12/31/new-wind-turbine-could-dramatically
                > -increase-generation-efficien/>
                >
                green.com/2008/12/31/new-wind-turbine-could-dramatically-increase-generation
                > -efficien/
                >

              • Kevin Conlin
                Please see my replies below.. Kevin Conlin Solarcraft, Inc. 4007-C Greenbriar Drive Stafford, TX 77477 Local (281) 340-1224 Toll Free (877) 340-1224 Fax (281)
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 5, 2009

                  Please see my replies below….

                   

                  Kevin Conlin

                  Solarcraft, Inc.

                  4007-C Greenbriar Drive

                  Stafford, TX 77477

                  Local (281) 340-1224

                  Toll Free (877) 340-1224

                  Fax (281) 340-1230

                  Cell (281) 960-8979

                  kconlin@...

                  www.solarcraft.net

                   


                  From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jay Ring
                  Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 4:21 PM
                  To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [hreg] Re: Cool turbine video

                   

                  You agree? With what? The cowl looks smaller and the structure is
                  self-aligning so drag should be a non-issue. Did I miss something? I agree with Gary ’s comments, the video did not address the key issues of scaling the technology.  It addressed the alleged shortcomings of current turbine designs, but not the potential pitfalls of theirs.  Try putting a cowl around a 5MW turbine, which is the current generation.

                  I don't know if you can get more skeptical than I am; I embrace the
                  term with pride! That is my intellectual starting point. Good for you.

                  However - "curmudgeon" , as you no doubt know, means old, stubborn, and
                  set in their ways. Therefore, all progress, technological or
                  otherwise, depends on ignoring them! :) That’s your interpretation. The humorous label is mine because I’ve been around the solar industry for over 30 years, and 95% of the supposed technological advances I have seen promoted for both wind and solar did not come to pass for practical reasons. Considering my company introduced several new products last year that I designed that were very successful, and I have several patents pending, I don’t think it’s accurate to label me as ignoring or opposing advancing technology. You may also review the article I wrote that was just published in Remote magazine, and maybe download the paper I presented last year at the Entelec conference before you jump to that conclusion. Why don’t you peruse my website and let me know what solar company does a better job of packaging industrial, stand alone systems than we do. www.solarcraft.net

                  I don't see any problem commercializing them, other than incurring
                  another round of start up costs (drawings, fixtures, molds, tooling).
                  Nothing in the design (that I can see) is difficult to fabricate. I don’t agree.

                  I could be wrong, but I imagine the cowl will be constructed on the
                  ground and then hoisted onto the support, as opposed to constructed in
                  mid air.

                  I am not sure what makes you think there will be a huge cost for extra
                  hardware. The massive tower you are worried about is required for any
                  wind turbine. They already build them and they are pretty good at it. No, the design that was proposed has a much greater mass than just turbine blades, and if it is in fact capturing more wind, then the dynamic loads on the structure will be greater as well. The aperture of the cowl still has to capture the same amount of wind or more. It has two stage vanes as well as a multi bladed turbine and all the other ancillary hardware inside, and a 5MW generator will still require all of it’s ancillary hardware, power conditioning electronics, etc…those costs stay the same.  The computer graphics totally ignored the actual mechanical structures that would be required to structurally support such a large system.

                  Component count wise, it may have more sub-components, but they are
                  smaller and should be easier to fabricate without a custom fabrication
                  facility. I doubt either of us can give a really accurate per-unit
                  cost on either one. However, I would guess the cost would be within a
                  factor of three. Those cowl and vane designs are hugely custom, and anyone who thinks they can be easily fabricated in any metal shop will be proven wrong. 3X the number of parts for a lower cost? Don’t think so.

                  Current technology isn't that bad, I don't think the tone of the video
                  was that at all. I strongly disagree on that point, the limitations of current technology were overstated and exaggerated. That certainly doesn't mean it can't be improved
                  though. What we have now is certainly not the best that is possible.
                  Turbines are more efficient than propellers. That is why we use them
                  on virtually every other fluid-flow design (water, steam, rocket). I
                  imagine this will eventually work it's way into wind, even if this
                  exact project is not the one to develop it. What works at a small scale and high speed isn’t necessarily easy to scale up, and multiple small turbines are necessarily cheaper than one big one. The opposite is true because your fixed costs, such as high voltage infrastructure, are still the same.

                  It’s a sure thing that turbine technology will continue to improve, and a set of turbines was recently erected in Dubai that uses a wedge shaped building to help direct the wind into the turbines, but it remains to be seen if the improved performance justified the extra costs. The concept would be better adapted to tidal and river flow power generation in my opinion.

                  Have a good one!

                  --- In hreg@yahoogroups. com, "Kevin Conlin" <kconlin@... > wrote:

                  >
                  > I agree. After viewing the video, many of the "facts" they
                  present
                  aren't.
                  > I don't see any practical way the concept can be commercialized.
                  The video
                  > sounds as if the current technology is hopelessly outdated, when in
                  fact it
                  > works quite well and is cost competitive with conventional power
                  generation.
                  > For example, the reason current turbines are located away from populated
                  > areas isn't because the turbines explode as depicted, but simply that's
                  > where the best wind is.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Given that renewables are "hot" right now, there is never a
                  shortage of
                  > people trying to raise funding with often misleading "information" .
                  Gary is
                  > right, they ignore the huge cost of their extra hardware, or the massive
                  > tower that would be required to support it. They also ignore that
                  > transportation of the blades is not really a big deal, but they
                  would have
                  > you believe it is near impossible, and it is much cheaper to assemble a
                  > complex shroud in mid air than it is to hang a turbine blade.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > As the group curmudgeon, I don't believe the design is practical on
                  a large
                  > scale.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Kevin Conlin
                  >
                  > Solarcraft, Inc.
                  >
                  > 4007-C Greenbriar Drive
                  >
                  > Stafford ,
                  w:st="on">TX 77477
                  >
                  > Local (281) 340-1224
                  >
                  > Toll Free (877) 340-1224
                  >
                  > Fax (281) 340-1230
                  >
                  > Cell (281) 960-8979
                  >
                  > kconlin@...
                  >
                  > www.solarcraft. net
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > _____
                  >
                  > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                  [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
                  Of Gary
                  > Beck
                  > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:38 AM
                  > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                  > Subject: RE: [hreg] Cool turbine video
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > if this is intended for the blade diameter of a 2 MW wind turbine, the
                  > cowling would need to be just huge. It would add weight plus big
                  additonal
                  > drag and lateral wind loads to the support structure.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > From: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                  [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf
                  Of Jay
                  > Ring
                  > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:03 PM
                  > To: hreg@yahoogroups. com
                  > Subject: [hreg] Cool turbine video
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I hope this hasn't already been posted :) The video is neat.
                  >
                  > Turbine based design seems a lot better to me , although I think there
                  > is still a lot more they can do with this. I think it will follow the
                  > evolution of the airplane as the industry matures.
                  >
                  > http://www.autoblog
                  >
                  <http://www.autoblog green.com/ 2008/12/31/ new-wind- turbine-could- dramatically
                  > -increase-generatio n-efficien/ >
                  >
                  green.com/2008/ 12/31/new- wind-turbine- could-dramatical ly-increase- generation
                  > -efficien/
                  >

                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.