Remember me
▼ Content

Renewable Energy


Renewable Energy30-10-2018 02:30
Zero Carbon Emissions
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?
30-10-2018 04:08
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(217)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
.....fully costed and feasible answer?


Not that I've seen.

I'm not that well informed on the subject, but I don't recall seeing such a thing. Lot's of partial answers, but nothing that I've seen seemed both feasible and complete that included costs.

Keeping the lights on all the time using only renewables would be really hard even with lots of battery capacity, especially if most transportation and space heating is electrified. Would have to way overbuild "nameplate capacity" so as to be able to get through cloudy windless periods. Who pays for the overbuild?

Don't know how places like Fairbanks would get through the winter months.

Including nuclear or CCS baseload would make things easier. Except for France, nuclear is unpopular and expensive. CCS remains unproven and seems like it'll be expensive.

To me, cutting CO2 emissions in half is straightforward once there is a cost attached to CO2 emissions. Beyond that it gets harder. The last 10% really hard and maybe not necessary or even a good idea.
30-10-2018 10:15
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

Edited on 30-10-2018 10:15
31-10-2018 23:09
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.
01-11-2018 02:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.

Heh. A raptor is faster than any hummingbird.


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2018 10:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.
01-11-2018 15:39
Jeffvw
★☆☆☆☆
(58)
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?

There are only two zero emissions power sources that are cost effective; nuclear and hydro. Solar and wind are intermittent and therefore will not be useful until someone discovers a way to economically store power (batteries are currently 5x more expensive that they need to be to compete with natural gas). Nuclear is only cost effective if it is allowed to run 7x24, so it is not compatible with wind and solar.

From and technical and economic standpoint, the best thing to do is use nuclear for all of your baseload, and hydro for everything else. Nuclear has the disadvantage of being feared and therefore overregulated, which makes it more expensive than it needs to be. Hydro also has lots of opposition and does not work well in deserts and very flat locations.

Intermittent power sources such as wind and solar have the disadvantage of needing 100% backup from Natural gas (or some other source that can respond quickly to rapid changes in solar output such as drops caused by clouds), hence they simply add cost to a system. It is cheaper to have an efficient natural gas plant running 85% of the time than to have solar running 25% of the time with a backup quick ramping inefficient natural gas plant running 64% of the time.

If you are concerned about price and zero emissions, push for nuclear and hydro and avoid intermittent power sources. Also remember that natural gas has less CO2 emissions than coal.
01-11-2018 17:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The Parrot Killer
01-11-2018 17:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?
01-11-2018 17:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-11-2018 17:51
01-11-2018 18:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


I know it is weird. And a prilinary result but very promising.

The point of measurement is before the wind has driven the turbine but after it has done all the turns before entering it and been swept sideways by the director vanes that induce the spin.
01-11-2018 19:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


I know it is weird. And a prilinary result but very promising.

The point of measurement is before the wind has driven the turbine but after it has done all the turns before entering it and been swept sideways by the director vanes that induce the spin.

That's fine, but differential measurements require two points of measurement, not one.
What really counts for efficiency anyway is the wattage produced for a given wind speed.
What counts for flexibility is the range of available wind speed the device is capable of using to produce power (up to the point of destruction of the device of course!).

Since traditional wind turbines have a limited flexibility, but very good efficiency (due to the use of large propellers), your machine might have a different kind of sales pitch than just simple efficiency.

Have you been able to get it to produce power yet? I assume you have some figures in this area by now.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 01-11-2018 19:20
02-11-2018 12:41
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Zero Carbon Emissions wrote:
I am an average I'll informed individual, that has heard a lot of discussion about electricity prices, future demand, solar, wind, coal, batteries, coal power and gas.
But I don't understand how we achieve zero emissions and I believe this is the target we should be aiming for.
Solar and wind are essential but incomplete, how do we supplement these sources at night when the wind isn't blowing.
Has away got an fully costed and feasible answer?


As it happens yes;

http://basicwindtec.webstarts.com/

I am looking for investors/partners to make thic commercial.

Should make electricty at less than 4p/kWhr.

That particular setup is horribly inefficient. Improvements could be made but turning the wind 90 degrees knocks somewhere like half the efficiency off.

You CAN improve that but not by much. The way it works is to compress the incoming air to increase the air velocity through the turbine. This makes it even more reliant upon wind speed than a normal very large diameter three bladed present day windmill.

The reason they supposedly changed from the multiblade windmills to the present type is because they were getting a lot of bird deaths of the most important and smallest population birds such as large eagles and such.

The point they missed - those new windmills are HUGE. The wingspan of them is about as wide as the US White House or the English House of Parliments. They may LOOK like they are turning slow but they are not. The tip speeds in a wind necessary for generating electricity near capacity is 200 mph. That is so fast that these new windmills are actually killing more raptors. Even hummingbirds cannot dodge the tips.

More importantly perhaps is that they are generating an aerodynamic noise at the ends of the blade that is so loud that at nighttime they kill the insectivorous bats. This in turn has totally changed the environment around these windmills. And because they are not in continuous operation the new environment is not and cannot stabilize. These things are even worse for the environment than the old smaller diameter blades.


The present 3 blded turbines dream of getting to 25% efficency.

The results from my basic prototype suggest that it may be possible to get a higher efficency than that.

The only place I have a pressure sensor in it is the rain water outlet which has a U bend trap to stop the wind escaping out through the rain water outlet.

The level of the water in it will be pushed about by pressure differentials across the turbine compared to the general outside air.

When it is running the pressure differential s zero. Even when gusts come and go the pressure is unchanged. This means that the wind passing he structure on the outside is sucking the air out as much as the wind is driving the air in.

It is possible that the efficency will be spectacularly high compared to existing designs.

That is, however, not really important. The figure that matters is the cost per kWhr. The energy in wind power is proportionat to the cube of the velocity. So if the design I have needs 50% more power that would be a slight increase in wind speed. The benefits of not having to shut down in high winds are more than enough to make it better.

That the design is cheap and easy to maintain is the real reason why it will be sucessful.

If the pressure differential is zero than how can it be running?


The suction effect from the wind going past the sides of the structure creates a low pressure zone behind the cowl. This or the speed it is going past the water in the u bend makes the air pressure lower.

Or ?


Okay, but that's pressure differential the innards of the machine depends on to extract energy from, isn't it?

This may seem a bit nit picky, but it's the kind of question you're going to have to answer in order to sell the concept for this machine. Just beware of the 'zero pressure differential' phrase. It's not correct. The use of it can torpedo your sales pitch.

It's going to difficult enough to break into the wind generator biz with a machine that is so different from the giant propeller systems now in use.


I know it is weird. And a prilinary result but very promising.

The point of measurement is before the wind has driven the turbine but after it has done all the turns before entering it and been swept sideways by the director vanes that induce the spin.

That's fine, but differential measurements require two points of measurement, not one.
What really counts for efficiency anyway is the wattage produced for a given wind speed.
What counts for flexibility is the range of available wind speed the device is capable of using to produce power (up to the point of destruction of the device of course!).

Since traditional wind turbines have a limited flexibility, but very good efficiency (due to the use of large propellers), your machine might have a different kind of sales pitch than just simple efficiency.

Have you been able to get it to produce power yet? I assume you have some figures in this area by now.


Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.
02-11-2018 19:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-11-2018 19:12
02-11-2018 19:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.
03-11-2018 02:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5875)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.


Business experience can help you find the investors you need. Considering the current mood of the UK, there should be several such business folk around. Finding them is only the first part, and is something only you can really do. Try to hobnob with richer folks to get names.

The first sale YOU will have to make. You have to convince your business partner that what he is getting into is worthwhile financially. Fortunately, it's only one sale. (I know how engineers HATE doing sales
)


The Parrot Killer
07-11-2018 23:59
Wake
★★★★★
(3417)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.


Tim, real windy places have average wind speeds of around 12 mph. The southern end of Great Britain and the area around the North Sea might be slightly faster but not much.
08-11-2018 12:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1250)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Between work, no wind, more work and the poor materials/build quality of the thing I will need to build a better on out of steel to get any sort of reasonable technical specs. I learn't a lot and had to do it to get such understanding.

The intention is to build a 6kW version which should work at 6kW in any wind speed over 10m/s, about 22mph. Costing(guess) £12,000 to build plus installation/ground works costs.

What panics me is the next bit. So I build a wind turbine that does all this, produces electrcity cheaper than burning coal, what next?

I really need somebody who is in line to take it onwards once I pass that hurdle.


How much does the current one produce? Have you measured it at various wind speeds? Are you using a test load, or just hooking it up to your own daily loads?

I have no idea what your material costs and permits costs are going to be, so I assume you have accounted for that in your 12000 pound estimate.

Assuming you can build and get the thing to produce electricity cheaper than coal (whatever your local price for coal is there), and you pass that hurdle, why do you need someone else? Do you need help marketing, or in engineering? Investors? Someone in government? Who is this 'somebody' you have in mind?


The somebody would be sme sort of business man or woman.

I don't think I am the right man to run a reasonable big (well medium) company. Just don't have the experience. So I need investment but even more importantly I need business experience.


Tim, real windy places have average wind speeds of around 12 mph. The southern end of Great Britain and the area around the North Sea might be slightly faster but not much.


That is at a low close to the ground height. The wind turbines you see are up on heigh poles for a reason.




Join the debate Renewable Energy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 03:19
My list of recommended renewable energy technologies2706-10-2017 22:17
Reversing Climate Change with Renewable Energy Sources4610-01-2017 03:31
Shale gas alone is not the answer – but neither is renewable energy026-09-2013 04:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact