World's most efficient wind turbine?

[DogDipstick]

What do you guys think about variable pitch kite windmill generators? Any first hand experiences?


( Lol Inquiring minds want to know^^^)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine



Wind is very strong up over 1-200 ft. It is a thought I have had before. We have an old windmill, hasnt worked in years over at the mill. Pumphouse.


I always wanted to rebuild it for ... providence.

 

[Ianhill]

For a fixed setup thats working along side solar with some storage to fill in the blanks it could work for many year's all landbased for easy maintenance and upgrades if needed.

With a well calculated power demand and a mix bag system that covers your needs be excellect to power a small building middle of no where that gets good wind and light like a lighthouse.

 

[Hillhater]

These are all “fantasie” ideas that work to a limited extent...
..But are totally impractical for real world applications.
Even the established commercial 3-5+ MW three bladed wind turbine generators have a limited application and will fade away as they age and more sensible power generation becomes established .

 

[topspeed]

Then there is ANEW which claims 74% efficiency:

Try to distinguish between claims, credible claims, and facts. Everything in the alternative energy sector makes much more sense when you do.

I am just wondering how a company that has operated since 1989 can advertise 74% efficiency...if it is not true.

Maybe you should wonder why everybody isn't using their tech.

I know why they aren't using them....it creates 74% only at 5.25 m/s wind.....and has just 10 year warranty for the blades.

 

[Chalo]

Maybe you should wonder why everybody isn't using their tech.

I know why they aren't using them....it creates 74% only at 5.25 m/s wind.....and has just 10 year warranty for the blades.

One of two conjectures verified.

 

[topspeed]

Maybe you should wonder why everybody isn't using their tech.

I know why they aren't using them....it creates 74% only at 5.25 m/s wind.....and has just 10 year warranty for the blades.

One of two conjectures verified.

Which one ?

 

[Generator]

https://flowerturbines.com/

https://youtu.be/IivHyVao7os Delivers power at 1.2 m/s

They have raised more than $7 million till date. Just wondering, what are your thoughts?

Earlier I shared Ducted wind turbine video from Winergy https://youtu.be/fLXyD3haLRM, which claimed they produce power at 1 m/s depending on size.

Flower turbine guys saying they can do at 1.2 m/s, which is world record. Expert comments?

 

[Hillhater]

Nothing new there..
...its just a version of the Savonius turbine design...as old as the wind power industry.
...i wonder why no one has bothered to use it commercially ?? :wink:

 

[Jim Subzero]

Factlet: 1 m/s is about equal to 1 parsec/eon, which is more cosmic and inspiring.

 

[topspeed]

1 m/s has very little energy...the gail wind that brought water on the streets of New York was peaking 62 m/s second...that has 37.44 times more energy than 10 m/s wind.

 

[Cephalotus]

Theoretical maximum efficency of a wind turbine is 16/27 or ca. 59%, this is physic and impossible to surpass (Betz's law)

Typical 3 blade rotors are able to reach around 30% efficiency.

A wind turbie 5 times better is impossible.

In reality this design will have a much lower efficency. The starting speed has no positive influence on efficency (except at starting speed, which is irrelvenat, becaue at 1m/s the absolute gain is next to zero), in reality the faster the rotor the higher the efficency and slow speed starters usually are the slowest and worst in efficency.

The reason why 3 balde rotors are more common than 2 balde rotors is only for mechanical reasons.

 

[topspeed]

Theoretical maximum efficency of a wind turbine is 16/27 or ca. 59%, this is physic and impossible to surpass (Betz's law)

Typical 3 blade rotors are able to reach around 30% efficiency.

A wind turbie 5 times better is impossible.

In reality this design will have a much lower efficency. The starting speed has no positive influence on efficency (except at starting speed, which is irrelvenat, becaue at 1m/s the absolute gain is next to zero), in reality the faster the rotor the higher the efficency and slow speed starters usually are the slowest and worst in efficency.

The reason why 3 balde rotors are more common than 2 balde rotors is only for mechanical reasons.

That is almost true, but Betz limit have to readjusted in the case of H-Darrieus type of vawt wind turbine.

 

[Chalo]

Theoretical maximum efficency of a wind turbine is 16/27 or ca. 59%, this is physic and impossible to surpass (Betz's law)

That is almost true, but Betz limit have to readjusted in the case of H-Darrieus type of vawt wind turbine.

What makes you think that?

 

[neilho]

VAWTs suffer from load reversal, once every rev. Fatigue, fatigue, fatigue.

Every line of commercial VAWT ever manufactured has had fatal structural failures, but it doesn't keep the uninitiated from reinventing the flat tire.

 

[ynot]

https://winergy.xyz/

Video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hxX8r7FrCQ

Have not read through the comments here, my life is not that long.
Looking at the blades, they fall into the category of drag turbine blades, they generate no lift and are brute force low speed machines quite a lot of torque but low revs. Sure ducting increases their efficiency but they are on a tech level with the American standard windmill that you see on rural farm house and stock watering wells.
In the early 1980's I built about 600 turbines using a 48 inch two bladed prop made from a 2x4 they outperformed anything that video showed. If there was any future in drag machines the wind industry would be all over it as the blades are very cheap to make.

 

[topspeed]

VAWTs suffer from load reversal, once every rev. Fatigue, fatigue, fatigue.

Every line of commercial VAWT ever manufactured has had fatal structural failures, but it doesn't keep the uninitiated from reinventing the flat tire.

So does HAWT..as the gravity pulls the blade down...when it goes down....and up...this is why they last only 10-20 years top.

VAWts have lasted 800 years now..the best ones.

 

[topspeed]

Theoretical maximum efficency of a wind turbine is 16/27 or ca. 59%, this is physic and impossible to surpass (Betz's law)

Typical 3 blade rotors are able to reach around 30% efficiency.

A wind turbie 5 times better is impossible.

In reality this design will have a much lower efficency. The starting speed has no positive influence on efficency (except at starting speed, which is irrelvenat, becaue at 1m/s the absolute gain is next to zero), in reality the faster the rotor the higher the efficency and slow speed starters usually are the slowest and worst in efficency.

The reason why 3 balde rotors are more common than 2 balde rotors is only for mechanical reasons.

What might those reasons be ? University data tells that 1 blade would be the best...in VAWTs at least.

 

[topspeed]

I found very very interesting link to a book...which describes that current HAWT wind turbines record was made with material the nazis used to develope.

https://books.google.fi/books?id=cjulDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT127&lpg=PT127&dq=Ventimotor&source=bl&ots=Ju07uVU-_K&sig=ACfU3U31jTHqLBdxPWFBT5WNxAebZvLgTQ&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1_L3-o_j4AhXxkIsKHTSPD0UQ6AF6BAgoEAM#v=onepage&q=Ventimotor&f=false

I am not saying it is not ok...but wondering why a better solution cannot be implemented ?

Here are some pieces of evidence:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799978_Darrieus_vertical_axis_wind_turbine_for_power_generation_I_Assessment_of_Darrieus_VAWT_configurations

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/vawts-replace-hawts/

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/753/2/022056/pdf.

 

[Cephalotus]

That is almost true, but Betz limit have to readjusted in the case of H-Darrieus type of vawt wind turbine.

Nope. If you remove more of 59% of the wind's energy the air mass after the wind turbine (no matter the design) becomes so slow that it would block more air to enter the turbine like a wall.

 

[ynot]

The only valid criteria for wind energy is not efficiency, it is cost per unit energy (watt) delivered to the load.
Of course this has to be moderated by safety and pollution in the manufacturing and, the end of life disposal.
When the source of the energy is free, it matters not if you are collecting 1% or 110%, all that matters is the cost of the power derived from the machine.
There has been so much engineering and study into wind turbines over the last 200 years, that though Savonius rotors and Darreius rotors are cool to see, they appear not to be cost effective.
There was a large Savonius machine just east of Spokane beside Hwy 90, drove past it many times over the years, never saw it spinning.

 

[BalorNG]

The only valid criteria for wind energy is not efficiency, it is cost per unit energy (watt) delivered to the load.
Of course this has to be moderated by safety and pollution in the manufacturing and, the end of life disposal.
When the source of the energy is free, it matters not if you are collecting 1% or 110%, all that matters is the cost of the power derived from the machine.
There has been so much engineering and study into wind turbines over the last 200 years, that though Savonius rotors and Darreius rotors are cool to see, they appear not to be cost effective.
There was a large Savonius machine just east of Spokane beside Hwy 90, drove past it many times over the years, never saw it spinning.

That's a false dichotomy - because a more efficient turbine will produce more watts for a, say, given size in the same winds. I think that's called 'swept area'?
Greater size means more material, more land cost, higher cost of installation, maintenance etc.

Otoh, if a turbine that is 5% more efficient costs 100% more and more expencive to maintain as well - that's quite a different story.

What we have here is 'concentrated wind' - kinda like 'concentrated solar'. It does not really allow to harvest more energy from a given *structure size* - vice versa actually.

What I *think* is best benefit of such a structure is ability to install 'shutters' to ensure it does not see too MUCH wind load, and maintain desired output without using brakes which can fail and lead to destruction (shutters is much simpler).

 

[Ianhill]

[youtube]7JH1_ZKV7t4[/youtube]

Its rc drones vs windturbines forgive me but it does show that the amount of lift the blades create lowers the power input needed showing the effectivness that lift creates when additional input is added e.g from a powered motor or the wind.

 

[ynot]

The only valid criteria for wind energy is not efficiency, it is cost per unit energy (watt) delivered to the load.
Of course this has to be moderated by safety and pollution in the manufacturing and, the end of life disposal.
When the source of the energy is free, it matters not if you are collecting 1% or 110%, all that matters is the cost of the power derived from the machine.
There has been so much engineering and study into wind turbines over the last 200 years, that though Savonius rotors and Darreius rotors are cool to see, they appear not to be cost effective.
There was a large Savonius machine just east of Spokane beside Hwy 90, drove past it many times over the years, never saw it spinning.

That's a false dichotomy - because a more efficient turbine will produce more watts for a, say, given size in the same winds. I think that's called 'swept area'?
Greater size means more material, more land cost, higher cost of installation, maintenance etc.

Otoh, if a turbine that is 5% more efficient costs 100% more and more expencive to maintain as well - that's quite a different story.

Nothing false about it, if you can build a smaller unit that delivers more or equal power than a larger unit, then it should cost less per watt delivered to the load. Spending a million dollars more to build a turbine which is 20% more efficient raises the cost of the power delivered more than is likely ever to be recovered.
Wind energy is free, the machinery needed to turn the energy into useful power is only practical if the power returned can pay for the machinery in a reasonable period, leaving the balance of its useable life to spin out low cost power.
Trust me if there is a gizmo that can deliver power at a lower cost the big boys would be all over it.
Back when I was building turbines have sat in on many meetings with major developers and they are hunting for ways to get a bigger bang for their buck.

 

[Ianhill]

Company's care for profits and operate in a ruthless fashion rather save some coin than humans from extinction why would they pick inferior tech or choice an expensive alternative that makes less of that magic coin ?

 

[ynot]

Company's care for profits and operate in a ruthless fashion rather save some coin than humans from extinction why would they pick inferior tech or choice an expensive alternative that makes less of that magic coin ?

We are just fortunate that companies are able to profit well from solar wind and batteries.
Musk has shown us that building and marketing EV's can also be rather profitable.
Likewise let us hope that manufacturers of ebikes and other battery powered transportation will prove to be profitable also.
Am new to electric bikes but built my electric garden tractor about 11 years ago.