Video: Copying the jet engine to create a more efficient wind turbine

probe

http://www.technologyreview.com/video/?vid=159

Keeks

If you read the article you will will see that they currently only have a test running in a wind tunnel and the next step is to build a test machine of 10 Kilowatts.

That would be the reason it is smaller and can fit on one truck.

It is only a baby machine. It is years (decades) away from producing anything commercial

probe

Keeks wrote: »

If you read the article you will will see that they currently only have a test running in a wind tunnel and the next step is to build a test machine of 10 Kilowatts.

That would be the reason it is smaller and can fit on one truck.

It is only a baby machine. It is years (decades) away from producing anything commercial

It fits in a truck because of the shape of the blades - it has lots of small blades - rather than 3 monster blades. The Vestas V.82 (which is one of their lower powered units) http://www.vestas.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fEN%2fBrochures%2fProductBrochureV821_65_UK.pdf
blade diameter is 82 m - ie about as high as a 25 story building.

The target machine will be one MW - http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21737/?a=f

There would be no point in producing a production machine of 10 kW for sale to electricity utilities. Or comparing the trucking size of the 10 kW prototype machine with a commercial wind turbine in a video. MIT is not known for producing fraudulent content to promote commercial ventures. It does not sound as if it is "decades away" if you read the article carefully.

wazzoraybelle

Would seem like a great alternative, At first glance I would think they will be much noisier than the traditional ones.

Keeks

probe wrote: »

blade diameter is 82 m - ie about as high as a 25 story building.

But the blades length is not 82m. It is only 40. Still a large but not as large as you make it out to be.

And i still stand by by decades (or at least 1) prediction. Reasons being is economics. As it is a new technology it will have no history and as such customers will be reluctant to purchase untried and tested products.

If you look at what they have to do.

1)They will have to build their 10kw machine.
2) run it for a period of time to test
3) study the results of the test
4) Build the next version
5) go back to step 2

All of this takes time.

Siemens recently installed a Test machine of Direct-drive technology in a traditional wind turbine. They are going to run the tests for 2 years, and then make a decision on whether it is commercial viable or not.

And then it will probably be another 2 years before mass productions models will appear.

http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/press/press-releases/renewable-energy/2008/ERE200807048.htm


Having said all that, personally I don't think this Jet Engine turbine will ever be commercially available. Nice Idea but I think it will run into a lot technically problems.

baldieman

Seems to me there trying to break the laws of physics.
The potential energy available in the wind is directly related to the area of the sweep of the blades.
(eg. 5m long blade = 5 x 3.142sq)
according to Betz law the maximum usable energy available is 59.3%
Modern large wind turbines are about 25% efficient. The basic principle may be more efficient, but unless they make these machines as big as the sweep area of a regular turbine, it aint gona work.

probe

Clueless idiots. The guys at www.flodesign.org or www.mit.edu obviously never heard of Albert Betz.

Perhaps someone might email them and tell them that are wasting their time and money!

Keeks

probe wrote: »

Clueless idiots. The guys at www.flodesign.org or www.mit.edu obviously never heard of Albert Betz.

Perhaps someone might email them and tell them that are wasting their time and money!

Didn't realise you knew me so well. I am a clueless idiot who knows nothing about turbine design.

All we can do, is base our opinions on what was presented to us. There was no technical data in the article, so all we can do is base our opinions and what we know in physics.

Now, MIT, from what i can see have Nothing to do with this product. They just had an article about a company trying a new design of turbine. Nothing else.

And as for flodesign. Their turbine website is restricted so i can't get any technical data of their design.

Now you might think i am knocking it, but I will stand over what I said before, Nice idea but don't ever see it being commercially available.

probe

Keeks wrote: »

Didn't realise you knew me so well. I am a clueless idiot who knows nothing about turbine design.

I'm referring to flodesign and the MIT journal as "clueless idiots" (plural)!

All we can do, is base our opinions on what was presented to us. There was no technical data in the article, so all we can do is base our opinions and what we know in physics.

You are "rubbishing" the idea without having done, or being able to perform a "due diligence" exercise because as you admit you don't have access to the technical data.

Is it not needless, unhelpful negativity to suggest that it is decades away? Before long you might end up with journalists writing stories about this, using the "decades away" line and it will become a "fact" before long in the general public's mind. This in turn could make it more difficult for them to get funding. Not to mention putting them off basing their European operations in Ireland - all they would have to do is a google search to find out what a negative place Ireland is!

BendiBus

probe wrote: »

Is it not needless, unhelpful negativity to suggest that it is decades away?

Much better to suggest it's imminent, fail to deliver, make the public lose faith, and have them give up altogether on renewable energy. :rolleyes:

probe

BendiBus wrote: »

Much better to suggest it's imminent, fail to deliver, make the public lose faith, and have them give up altogether on renewable energy. :rolleyes:

Who suggested that it was "imminent" please? I simply linked to the video presentation for people's information. Watch it if you wish and draw your own conclusions.

There are ordinary, honest, people here who are open to green issues. They are either interested in a posting (and might want to discuss an aspect of same) or they are not and they move on.

And there are "mafiosi", who have an agenda and are no doubt paid by somebody or some entity to attack and discredit content, because they perceive it as going against their vested interests in some way.

Keeks

probe wrote: »

You are "rubbishing" the idea without having done, or being able to perform a "due diligence" exercise because as you admit you don't have access to the technical data.

I didn't "rubbish" the idea. I just offered an "Opinion" based on what I know from my education and professionl experience.

Opinions are allowed here (rightly or wrongly still TBD)

You presented the article, and I offered an opinion, based what was in the article. What is wrong with that?

If you know something more about it, them please enlighten us. I am eager to hear more. But as usual, you tend to attack the poster and not the post, and tend to blame "conspiracy" bull for anybody that offers a different viewpoint to yours.

If i have something that is inaccurate, please tell me.

And please retract your "mafiosi" comment as it seems you are the only one who isn't interested in discussing the topic but rather attacking the posters.

Capt'n Midnight

probe wrote: »

Clueless idiots. The guys at www.flodesign.org or www.mit.edu obviously never heard of Albert Betz.

Perhaps someone might email them and tell them that are wasting their time and money!

there is nothing new under the sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89olienne_Boll%C3%A9e

The Éolienne Bollée is an unusual wind turbine, unique for having a stator and a rotor, as a water turbine has. The eponymous invention was first patented in 1868 by Ernest Sylvain Bollée in France. A further patent dated 1885 differed mainly in two ways. First, in how the turbine was turned to face the wind and second, an improvement which increased the flow of wind through the turbine was added. The turbines built according to the 1885 patent that were commercially successful.

so what if a wind turbine only removes 25% of the power available to it, it's not as if the other 75% is costing you anything.

what matters more is how efficiently it generates electricity for the cost of installation and maintainance. Ducted fans are more efficient but you need more material to make them and there is a higher wind loading and so you need stronger towers which needs more material. BTW the back of their turbine looks like the old ends of a Boeing 707 engine (late 1950's), which wern't known for being quiet and don't seem to be used on modern jets anymore for some reason

http://www.air-and-space.com/19881002%20Mojave/880965%20707-321%20N37681%20General%20Electric%20engine%20nacelle%20right%20rear%20l.jpg - different bigger picture

zod

what I got was that the new design could use the surrounding air without having to include it in the swept area, hence breaking betz law.

"The shroud is shaped so that it guides this relatively fast-moving outside air into the area just behind the rotors. The fast-moving air speeds up the slow-moving air, creating an area of low pressure behind the turbine blades that sucks more air through them."

But this is not my field .. seems MIT were impressed enough to award them 200K .. which they would hardly do for an old design?

probe

Keeks wrote: »

And please retract your "mafiosi" comment as it seems you are the only one who isn't interested in discussing the topic but rather attacking the posters.

The "mafiosi" sentence was not related to anything you posted. I don't suspect that you work for Vestas or some other conventional wind turbine manufacturer, who might have a vested interest in making this technology sound as if it was "decades away" - concerned perhaps that it would put off wind farm investors from buying your products.