Posted on 01/30/2008 12:47:01 PM PST by Uncledave
It may resemble a giant rotary washing line, but it might just help Britain meet its hugely ambitious new wind energy targets. At least that's the claim of the company developing a novel "vertical axis" wind turbine dubbed the Aerogenerator.
The 144-metre high V-shaped structure would be mounted offshore and capable of generating up to 9 megawatts of electricity, roughly three times as much power as a conventional turbine of equivalent size. Switching to such a design could ensure that thousands fewer turbines would be needed in order to meet the government's new wind power target, says Theo Bird, founder of Windpower, the Blyth-based firm behind the new turbine.
As unique as it may sound, the Aerogenerator is in fact just the latest addition to a family of wind turbines that generate power through a rotating vertical shaft as opposed to the horizontal shafts of the more familiar windmill design.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
VAWT again...
So - I’m used to seeing output described in terms of how many homes it can provide for - percent of a city or such. Not sure what 9 MW can do.
9 megawatts should be enough to power 3600 typical homes.
Using the boats in the pic as a reference, it appears that it is flippin’ huge.
We need more R&D — and less money thrown at subsidizing the implementation of suboptimal technologies. The panic is hugely wasteful.
Now, this is the kind of forward thinking design and development work we need. Suppose Teddy will vote some money to build one off Hyannis? 9MW ought to be enough to keep his scotch chilled...
Ya know...maybe...just maybe, we’ll have to get used to some of the results of suboptimal solutions as we move toward replacing oil as a primary energy source. Maybe the birds will have to find new migratory paths. Maybe the noise will lead to new soundproofing methods for sturctures built nearby. Maybe we haven’t reached the full limit of technological advances with these energy sources.
It’s pretty safe to say that we need to be doing a lot of many things, not just a few of some. IMO, we’d ought to cheer this one on, and see where it leads.
Or 36 goremansions
The suboptimal technologies I was referring to are the existing ones. Clearly, if this new design works as well as stated; then the existing ones are suboptimal.
The insane panic about AWG is causing us to throw many billions of dollars subsidizing the full-scale implementation of various “green energy” technologies. If we wern’t in a panic, there would be more money spent on R&D and less on subsidizing (or mandating) suboptimal technologies.
I fully agree that we should be trying many things — and, by far, the most cost-effective way to do that is by R&D into many technologies; rather than throwing massive subsidies to “solutions” that will require perpetual subsidies. I am cheering this design on (as well as R&D into several other technologies that have great potential.)
This offshore turbine concept has no aesthetic or noise impact issues and I'd imagine minimal bird problems compared to onshore projects.
In off-peak ours, maybe, but in peak hours, 9 MW is enough for maybe 1000 homes.
The article says nothing about this particular design's ability (or as I suspect, inability) to feather in high winds and storms. (Not to mention hurricanes.)
The article also states it is more expensive to maintain a generator/transmission system that is 150 feet (or more) above ground. How much more expensive is it to maintain when it is offshore?
I think the fair comparison would be offshore VAWT vs. offshore HAWT
Please see my post 10, wherein I attempt to clarify things.
(FWIW, “Swimmer” seems to think there’s a problem with windmill aesthetics.)
You have described a boondoggle. Political solutions to economic problems often yield boondoggles. We are in store for many boondoggles. Boondoggles in the public sector tend to live forevery unfortunately. In the private sector, investment is lost but lessons are learned.
I'm not buying that...
I haven't seen too many homes in the real world that draw an average of 9 Kw, even during peak hours.
Like is said, MAYBE. In reality you have to have enough “spinning reserve” (a term for partially loaded generators even though fully loaded is the most efficient) to handle load surges.
9 megaWatt hours = 5.075913173 barrels of oil.
To generate 9 megaWatt hours of electricity from oil, you would probably need about 12 barrels of oil.
Here’s a handy-dandy converter:
Well, 9 MW is less half a percent of the output from one 2000-MW nuclear reactor.
I also notice that the article very carefuly avoids mentionning cost. Generally, big wind turbines cost about $5 per peak watt. And of course, they don't produce peak power 24/7. Whereas the output of a thermal generator can stay at peak for days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.