Novel wind turbine designs

OssianSmyth

In this thread, let's have a look at alternative wind turbine designs to the large propeller type.

A small, quiet, vertical wind turbine suitable for urban environments. $5,000 for 1.2KW max. I don't know what the average output would be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2EonAJA4bM

Then have a look at this proposed Dutch wind generator with no moving parts that relies on the movement of ionised particles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqksCHWROBU

A Kite that generates electricity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSHH_djn94

Any others?

Macha

I'm not sure whether this qualifies but there have been some breakthroughs in turbines for low wind areas. These could be really significant in ensuring a good geographical spread of wind turbines, which would take the pressure off the grid. With these turbines, we wouldn't have to build so many transmission lines and have to transport huge amounts of wind energy around our energy system:

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/ges-new-8216brilliant-wind-turbine-for-low-wind-sites/11754

OssianSmyth

Apple filed a patent in 2011 for a wind turbine with a combined system for storing energy in a fluid, to make the power output less variable.

ted1

The first one is a darius type turbine, nothing new there in fact there is one in the side of the dublin cork motorway

OssianSmyth

1938 "Electricity from mighty wind towers"

paddy147

OssianSmyth wrote: »

1938 "Electricity from mighty wind towers"

Could you imagine the objections to those bad boys...:pac::pac::D

Capt'n Midnight

paddy147 wrote: »

Could you imagine the objections to those bad boys...:pac::pac::D

They use a lot of material

The modern three blade turbine is a trade off, but one which the blades themselves can have a lift to drag ratio of up to 120:1 which reduces the load on the tower.


Though I do like the "wind always blowing about 1,000 foot from ground"




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2122762/Airborne-power-generator-produce-energy-1-000-feet.html
Daily Mail so things like the cost of Helium and how to recover the power aren't mentioned

OssianSmyth

Japanese wind lens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQexzNg_e9A

recedite

The Japanese wind lens increases the effective diameter of the turbine.
To compare like with like, they should compare the power output of a standard 3 blade design having a diameter the same as the outer diameter of the wind lens.

Capt'n Midnight

recedite wrote: »

The Japanese wind lens increases the effective diameter of the turbine.
To compare like with like, they should compare the power output of a standard 3 blade design having a diameter the same as the outer diameter of the wind lens.

And since the Japanese turbine uses twice as many blades you'd expect it to be able to harvest twice the power per swept area too.

There is a reason the Mil-26 has 8 rotor blades and the Bell only needs 2.

Links to larger image

OssianSmyth

Three more novel wind turbine designs for your perusal:

Inflatable floating turbine

2Kg portable folding microturbine

Spiral-shaped silent domestic turbine

http://www.gizmag.com/the-archimedes-liam-f1-urban-wind-turbine/32263/

DIY pitch controlled furling

Phill Ewinn

http://inhabitat.com/micro-wind-turbines-small-size-big-impact/micro-wind-turbines-motorwind-motorwave-hong-kong-wind-power-clean-energy-lucien-gambarota-2/


Micro wind turbines. Bit like solar panels. Lots of them linked together is the trick.

Car turbines...never gonna win the conservation of energy argument though.

Phill Ewinn

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Micro wind turbines. Bit like solar panels. Lots of them linked together is the trick.

Same concept with a Savonius type.
From Graeme Attey

I'd suspect these are just novelty though.
Can't beat a 3 blade HAWT in moderate clean air for cost versus return.
A lot of these promo videos could benefit from an ammeter readout with the turbine under load.

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

I'd suspect these are just novelty though.
Can't beat a 3 blade HAWT in moderate clean air for cost versus return.
A lot of these promo videos could benefit from an ammeter readout with the turbine under load.

The benefit of roof tip is that the roof channels air into them so some channelling of wind.

but of course they are completely useless if the wind changes direction and is blowing from the side of the house

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Kite turbines

the show stopper for these might be third party insurance in case there is turbulence and the kite nose dives into someone.

gctest50

The new taller towers might slow down the novel stuff for a bit ?

Vestas has already received firm orders for over fifty turbines using the LDST technology.

The LDST will be available in 137 meters for the V126-3.3 MW and 141.5 meters for the V117-3.3 MW

http://www.poweronline.com/doc/new-tower-enables-increased-power-production-at-low-wind-sites-0001

They would look very impressive

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The benefit of roof tip is that the roof channels air into them so some chanelling of wind.

but of course they are completely useless if the wind changes direction and is blowing from the side of the house

Turbulence would be what I was thinking, although the Savonius types favour it more than most. Low rev. generators are a pain. I'll wait for the field results.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

the show stopper for these might be third party insurance in case there is turbulence and the kite nose dives into someone.

Well the logistics of taking off and landing a Spruce Goose wing with a net return of energy and a robot rugged enough to steer and anchor it I think might be a significant hurdle too.

Forgot about this one.



Horizontal Helical Darius (concept)

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Forgot about this one.bitat.com/wp-content/uploads/windfreeways.jpg[/IMG]

Horizontal Helical Darius (concept)

Here's a few more, can't seem to find the one I was looking for which is a mental ~2kW variable pitch VAWT

Sail, no Betz Limit

Wind powered vehicle.


Ideal VAWT (minimal reverse buffeting). Blue arrow is wind direction.

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Ideal VAWT (minimal reverse buffeting). Blue arrow is wind direction.

it's not ideal

some tug boats use something similar, but curved

http://articles.maritimepropulsion.com/author/Backwell.aspx?page=8

but no matter which way you do it, a Vertical axis means you have drag from the rotor advancing into the wind, and it's a v squared thing, or you have to shield part of the rotor which reduces you wind collection area / means you have to use a lot more material to construct it


BTW the aneometer that uses half spheres spins at exactly 1/3rd of the wind speed, for real world numbers on vertial axis

now remember the kinetic energy of wind is half m v squared so the aneometer would only extract one ninth of the energy

Paul Gipe

Yeah the gearing will introduce 30% mechanical losses. I've seen some riding on magnets instead of bearings to reduce this. Either way VAWTs are pointless ornaments. The thread is "novel designs" though not "which one is these has any practical application where you might rely on it being useful." If it was then propellers would be the ticket. And anything on a roof would be .

Paul Gipe wrote:

"Vertical Axis Wind Turbines

February 7, 2013 Paul Gipe.

FloWind: The World’s Most Successful VAWT (Vertical Axis Wind Turbine)


Note: The following is an excerpt from my, (Paul Gipe), 2009 book Wind Energy Basics Revised: A Guide to Home- and Community-scale Wind Energy Systems. I am reprinting it here because of the constant re-invention of Darrieus or Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTs) and the presentation of these devices as though nothing like them has gone before. The data presented here is from actual performance records collected by the state of California.


The most successful VAWT in history was that developed by FloWind in the early 1980s. Using what has become a rather conventional two-blade phi-configuration or “eggbeater” Darrieus, FloWind installed more than 500 turbines in California’s Altamont and Tehachapi passes.

By the end of 1985, FloWind, an American manufacturer, had installed 95 MW of its signature product. For comparison, that’s equivalent to more than 15,000 of Quiet Revolution’s sleek 5-meter (16-foot) diameter turbine.Installation of a FloWind 17-meter Darrieus turbine in the Tehachapi Pass in 1984.

At their most productive in 1987, FloWind’s fleet generated 100 million kilowatt-hours—enough electricity for nearly 20,000 California homes. No VAWT manufacturer to this day has ever come close to rivaling that accomplishment. On any windy day in Tehachapi during the late 1980s, the sun could be seen glinting over hundreds of Flowind’s turbines spinning atop Cameron Ridge.

However, generation began collapsing as serial failures in the joints between the sections of extruded aluminum blades overwhelmed the American company. By the late 1990s, FloWind was generating one-tenth the electricity it had in 1987. By the end of 2004 nearly all of FloWind’s Tehachapi turbines had been removed and sold for scrap. Some relics were still standing in the Altamont pass in 2003, though they too were slated for removal.

By the time the last of FloWind's turbines were taken out of service, the fleet of Darrieus turbines had generated a lifetime total of nearly one billion kWh. It is unlikely that any VAWT will ever come close to that record.

The wind industry worldwide learned a lot from the FloWind experience. FloWind proved without a doubt that VAWTs could reliably generate commercial quantities of electricity—at least for a decade. But FloWind’s aggressive marketing and high power ratings have tainted vertical-axis technology ever since. Much of today’s cynicism about new VAWTs derives from FloWind’s hype about its turbines and its manipulation of power ratings.



FloWind’s turbines were large commercial wind turbines of the day. They built two models: a 17-meter and 19-meter version. The 17-meter turbine, for example, was about 17 times the size of the architecturally dramatic Quiet Revolution QR5.

Characteristic of FloWind’s marketing, and that of other Darrieus turbines of the day, including DAF-Indal, and VAWTPower, was the turbines’ high power ratings. FloWind’s 17-meter model was rated at 142 kW at a wind speed of 38 mph (17 m/s), their 19-meter model was rated at 250 kW at a wind speed of 44 mph (~20 m/s). For comparison, that’s a Force 8 or “fresh gale” on the Beaufort scale. Translation: That’s so windy no one in their right mind wants to be outside.

To understand these power ratings, it’s necessary to look at the area swept by the eggbeater-shaped rotor. FloWind’s 17-meter model swept 260 m2, equivalent to a conventional wind turbine 18 meters (60 ft) in diameter. The 19-meter model swept 340 m2, equivalent to a conventional wind turbine 21 meters (70 ft) in diameter. Today, turbines of this size are considered small commercial turbines.FloWind 17-meter Darrieus turbine on Cameron Ridge during the 1990s.pi Pass in 1984.

For comparison, a conventional wind turbine 18 meters in diameter would typically be rated at 100 kW, and a 21-meter turbine would be rated at 150 kW. Thus, the FloWind turbines were overrated in comparison to their peers by at least 50%.

The high ratings of the FloWind machines translate into a specific capacity 546 W/m2 for the 17-meter model and an incredible 735 W/m2 for the 19-meter model.

Another way of saying this is that the 17-meter model had a specific area of 1.8 m2/kW and the 19-meter model a specific area of 1.4 m2/kW. Conventional turbines of the day swept 2.5 m2 for every kW of generator capacity.

That FloWind was greatly overstating the potential performance of its turbine was reflected in its average capacity factor, a measure of performance relative to the size of the turbine’s generator. The capacity factor of FloWind’s turbines never exceeded 12 percent on average and was often less than 10 percent at a time when conventional wind turbines were delivering twice that.



Why were FloWind’s power ratings so high? Wind turbines of that era were often sold to uninformed investors who compared wind turbine prices based on the cost per kilowatt of installed capacity. FloWind’s aggressive power ratings enabled them to charge far more for their turbines than they were worth. FloWind’s turbines were never truly in the 150 kW or 250 kW size class, but that’s what they charged their investors.

Despite these outlandish power ratings, FloWind’s Darrieus designs turned in a respectable performance relative to the area of the wind stream swept by the two-blade rotor. During good years, Flowind’s machines would generate 500 to 600 kWh/m2/year, competitive with conventional wind turbines of the day.

FloWind Darrieus turbines seen on the Cameron Ridge during the annual Windmill-Wildflower hike in the Tehachapi Pass in the 1980s.

The bottom line: FloWind’s Darrieus turbines operated for about a decade generating millions of kilowatt-hours, and in doing so delivered respectable performance until fatigue and design weaknesses led to increasing unreliability and they were removed. FloWind’s turbines, when in regular service, delivered about the same performance as nearby conventional wind turbines relative to their swept area, but performed poorly in comparison to their inflated power ratings.

Because of scale effects, it is unlikely that the small wind turbines of the modern VAWT revival will approach the historical performance of FloWind’s large wind turbines."

I fancy this setup myself for long-term storage with the reservoir feeding back to the source via a Pelton Wheel.



I still haven't looked at the practicalities fully yet.

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

I fancy this setup myself for long-term storage with the reservoir feeding back to the source via a Pelton Wheel.


I still haven't looked at the practicalities fully yet.

fan means lots of torque which is what you want if directly pumping water

then again generators are only a few % of the cost of a turbine


let's imagine the water tank is 5m average from ground and 4m internal diameter and height then there's 201m3 of water

mgh is 201,000Kg x 9.81m/s2 x 5m = 9,860,000 J

= 2.7 KWh +/-

Which generators? Diesel turbines?...factor upkeep...
The southern star is ~turbine no. 6 on my agenda. I'll have a collection of axial flux versions before that. There's only so much electrons you can put in batteries at any one time, Yeah the lecky turbines could divert to an electric pump for significantly less expense, I just like the Southern Star.
My last 6 month "lecky bill" was 16kWh not including laundry or power tools.
2.7kWh will do fine ( :rolleyes: assuming a 100% efficient hydro turbine...that's about €0.60 budget per use at the going peak rate..ah yeah, no bother :pac:), it's a backup and a water source, it can be fitted with a half-head overflow to the Pelton, so it's "pay as you go", it can also take a feed from rain-water harvest if I compromise on height somewhere. Lot's of logistics to figure before I go near it as a notion all the same.

Wind Wandler

OssianSmyth

French wind startup to make turbines that look like trees




http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-blend-into-the-scenery-141230.htm

Ah my favourite thread of chocolate teapots has returned. :pac:

Link

Counter rotating blades turn the commutator against the "stator".

I'm betting the additional material cost outweighs the production increase.

Link

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Ah my favourite thread of chocolate teapots has returned. :pac:

Actually there have been recent improvements in chocolate teapots.

http://www.nestle.ie/innovation/behindthescenesatnestle/makingachocolateteapot

What we discovered was the most important questions to answer were what was the right thickness of the chocolate walls and how big should be the size of the spout and top hole. If the walls were too thin, we found that they would collapse before the tea could be brewed. If the hole was too small, the condensation would cause the walls to melt too quickly, making the drink not tea but hot chocolate...

the original from 2008 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/kitchenscience/exp/how-useless-is-a-chocolate-teapot/

Capt'n Midnight

OssianSmyth wrote: »

French wind startup to make turbines that look like trees

http://www.altenergymag.com/stories/2014/12/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-blend-into-the-scenery/875

The 36-foot-tall steel structure is perfect for urban environments, where a conventional wind turbine might not fit.

Seventy-two artificial leaves that work as micro-turbines adorn the branches and spin silently on a vertical axis. Cables and generators have been integrated into the leaves and branches in a way that puts them out of sight and sound.
...

At the moment, each tree has a power output estimated at 3.1 kW.

But how much do they cost each and what's the payback time ??

Outkast_IRE

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.altenergymag.com/stories/2014/12/tree-shaped-wind-turbines-blend-into-the-scenery/875But how much do they cost each and what's the payback time ??

Also would they not be very dangerous to birds and animals ?

wrote:

At the moment, each tree has a power output estimated at 3.1 kW

:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But how much do they cost each and what's the payback time ??

You'd be lucky if ever.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Also would they not be very dangerous to birds and animals ?

Nope. Only the useful ones are harmful to creatures. The ones who's blades spin faster than the wind and produce real power.

Japanese hybrid wind & tidal.
Link

It sank. ...twice...

Capt'n Midnight

Typical Cost breakdown of wind turbine






Items of note - Almost all the costs are the same.

Generator 3% , so rare earth shortages aren't a show stopper, the transformer and power converters cost more.

Pitch/ Yaw System - not all the novelty designs have mechanisms to handle variable speed wind or to idle in storms - and that means you need to spend a lot more making it stronger.

Development cost 2% - one advantage of dealing with a mature product and economies of scale.


Blades 16% - this is really the main one that alternatives might change, but usually at the expense of ducts or fans that cost more and have more wind loading so you have to pay more for the tower and civil works and possibly gearbox. Add development costs and insurance etc.

Size matters with wind. Cheapest way to get a production increase is more swept area and height into clean non-turbulent air. So while these ducted turbines may produce more than a comparative blade diameter of a traditional HAWT. It's a lot more economical build a simple design higher and put bigger blades on it.

Capt'n Midnight

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Size matters with wind. Cheapest way to get a production increase is more swept area and height into clean non-turbulent air. So while these ducted turbines may produce more than a comparative blade diameter of a traditional HAWT. It's a lot more economical build a simple design higher and put bigger blades on it.

Ducts, stators, increasing the number of blades, using a second set of blades rotating the other way will all increase efficiency at which you can power you can extract from a given diameter.

But Bentz' Law means you can't ever extract more than 16/27ths of the wind energy over the area you capture.

Making longer thinner blades will increase the diameter you can extract power from.

OK there are lots of other effects like fans having higher torque , but if you consider optimising for a particular wind speed then to bridge the gap between a good 80% efficient three blade wind turbine and a novel design that reached 100% of theoretical efficiency you'd only have to make the three blades 11% longer.

Two blades would of course be even more efficient and several single bladed designs have been used but three blades seems to be the best compromise given that more vibration means you need to spend more on the tower. Though offshore means you need to stand up to waves so perhaps we may see two blades in use there some time.

Siemens are installing whole rotors these days, rather than a blade at a time.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

we may see two blades in use there some time.

Ta-da!



Link

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

...how much do they cost each and what's the payback time ??

Here's a good one for a vertical darrieus.
......no idea how they managed to spend £48K on that lemon. A Proven WT6000 / Kingspan KW6 is £30K with groundworks.

recedite

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Sail, no Betz Limit

Is that true though, no Betz limit for a sail? I'm not sure "a sail" and "a blade" are all that different to each other in principle?

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Link

"....the other end is held aloft by a balloon"
What could possibly go wrong!
Still, it looks pretty.

recedite

recedite wrote: »

Is that true though, no Betz limit for a sail? I'm not sure "a sail" and "a blade" are all that different to each other in principle?

Sails are subject to the Betz limit. That particular turbine I don't know. Blades rely heavily on the low pressure in their wake to create lift. Tbh most of these designs are vastly over-rated and unsubstantiated.
I wouldn't touch a turbine that hasn't published a power curve with a cut-in windspeed ~3.5m/s and producing decent power @ > 5m/s.
The whole industry is infected with unrealistic claims. The power ratings of turbines are for max. RPM, a lot of the Chinese derive this from hurricane strength wind.
I generally find TED a reliable source so could be worth investigating. That it's a linear based kinetic generator and not a rotary or towing force may have a part to play. It may even rely on stalling the wind to reset the spring.
I'd happily put a Hugh Piggott Design side by side any of these and expect his rugged wooden blades on a car wheel hub turning a hand wound alternator to out-perform most the aforementioned of a comparable scale when it matters and furl when it's already probably finished charging.

recedite wrote: »

Still, it looks pretty.

That hill in the background looks a bit Photoshopped to me.

recedite

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

I generally find TED a reliable source..

Thats what I was thinking; surely he would not be able to spout some marketing BS on a Ted talk and then receive a round of applause. But then again... He mentioned several times that it was derived from a sail, not that it acted as one. As it keeps jumping from side to side, it must be stalling the wind in position A, then moving to position B. Hence "in theory" it may not be subject to the Betz limit, but the back and forth movement must be creating worse inefficiencies. The turbulence and the violent battering of the structure would probably be terrible in a large scale version.

Saphon

Here's a closer look at the prototype.



2.3 times more efficient than a rotor. Looks like it's pumping rams from various offsets of the dish...probably riding on a ball joint.

Saphon wrote:

Instead of blades rotating, a sail-shaped body moves back and forth with the wind current, converting its kinetic energy into mechanical energy to move pistons. The movement of the pistons creates hydraulic pressure that can either be stored in a hydraulic accumulator or converted to electricity through a hydraulic motor and generator. The aerodynamic shape means drag force becomes the driving force of the system while the lift force becomes almost nil.

recedite

It seems more like a fluttering parachute than a sail. The stresses on the structural frame of a large scale version would probably be enormous.

Jim Martin

Million pound 80 Metre Wind Turbine collapses in County Tyrone!

http://www.demotix.com/news/6579490/million-pound-80-metre-wind-turbine-collapses-county-tyrone#media-6579454

Looks like the market crashed too. :pac:
Only worth £500, 000 here.
£2, 000, 000 here.

Better result than Fukushima anyways.

Debunked

But wait there's more! Now the hybrid chocy-pot...complete with ground facing PV panels...and a graph!!

Gone Bust
All torque and no electrons.


The Pitch: Apples vs Oranges

The Truth