Discussions

« Back 1 [2]

This discussion relates to Technology Review's article A Design for Cheaper Wind Power .

• 
  bieniekm
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  12/02/2008 04:56 PM

  Windpower for America

  Has anyone contacted the Picken's Plan people with information of this product? It seem to me that this technology is right up their alley.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  dmtk
  

  Posts:
  9

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  12/03/2008 03:09 AM

  How will this design scale?

  They talk about 10 kW prototype and a possible 1 MW turbines. What about even larger turbines of more than 3 MW or lets say 5-10 MW which are needed for large scale (off-shore) wind farms?

  Rate this comment:
• 
  Siphon
  

  Posts:
  146

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  12/04/2008 09:33 AM

  Disadvantage

  This design is interesting but has at least one important disadvantage: much lower swept area. That means less energy harvest per turbine. Personally, I expect more from small improvements on the tried and true multi MW three bladed windmills, rather than a radical departure from it. Tubercles, variable coil generators, laser optics, longer blades, bigger hub height. That sort of stuff.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  dans_world
  

  Posts:
  1

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  12/19/2008 10:37 PM

  how does the title related to the article?

  The technology sounds interesting but the article is a little misguided in my humble opinion.
  
  How does this discussion about changing blade technologies lead to a halving of the costs? It seems to be a pretty wild assumption to say that this blade design with equivalent power output will cut costs that dramatically...

  Rate this comment:
• 
  tsunamiswami
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  01/22/2009 09:03 AM

  The misinformed

  There are so many misinformed comments on this thread.
  
  1) The article never stated that the air leaving the system was going faster (or even the same speed) as the air entering. In fact, it says precisely that the "faster" outside air is "mixed" with the slower "inside" air leaving the center cowl containing the turbine. If you think it through, this can only be done because of the cowled design keeping the air mass being used to spin the turbine confined and then allowing entry of some of the faster outside air (remember, it's faster than the air hitting the turbine "because" the turbine slowed it down") to actually create a suction.
  
  2) Cost per system. How presumptuous to not believe that these systems can be manufactured at a cost/unit energy less than current air blade designs. Where have you been for the past say.... 50 years!
  
  3) Spacing - Doesn't it makes sense that if these systems aren't deflecting air to the sides that systems could be placed closer together?
  
  Who is writing these comments? And what about the genius quoting on the laws of physics? While I'm not sure FlowDesigns has "broken" any laws, at the same time clearly this commenter has not kept up with his history and read about all those that seemingly had "broken" the laws of physics and now we adhere to the laws these rebels have written.
  
  You know the old saying - Those who can will! Those who can't... will continue to wine about the former.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  abby111
  

  Posts:
  10

  Avg Rating:
  

  

  Reply

  02/26/2009 04:19 AM

  good share

  a good share keep on posting.
  here i also have a good share:
  tradestead
  
  there are many kinds of beautiful and lovely electronic product.

  Rate this comment:
• 
  pogostick
  

  Posts:
  1

  Reply

  11/20/2009 06:10 PM

  Flo Design

  The DAWT re-visited. Indeed an innovative new configuration. But food for thought and perhaps some science controversy. note the inventors claims (copied verbatim from WIPO patent)
  
  8. An axial flow wind turbine comprising: a. an aerodynamically contoured turbine shroud with an inlet; {sic}.....
  
  d. means for consistently exceeding the Betz limit for operational efficiency of the axial flow wind turbine, wherein the means comprises
  
  full speed ahead..good luck

  Rate this comment:

« Back 1 [2]