Wind Lens 3 times more efficient than conventional turbines

[walker 0]

Hi all

Newly developed wind lens technology is three times more efficient than conventional un-enshrouded prop type turbines making it cheaper and more efficient than any other energy supply source. An looks set to replace Nuclear in Japan.

This is a game changer people.

Japanese Innovation Could Make Wind Power Cheaper Than Nuclear

Eric Limer | 11:18 am, August 31st, 2011

After the damage caused by the Fukushima disaster, it only makes sense that Japan turn its resources to trying to find another efficient form of clean energy besides nuclear. Research into wind turbine development may have lead to a solution with stunning potential. Wind lenses, brims that go around the outside of a turbine’s blades, can double or even triple the turbine’s power output, bringing wind farms in line with the efficiency and output of nuclear power, without the danger of a meltdown.The wind lens was developed at Kyushu University, where prototypes are already in use. The wind lense works by creating a pocket of low pressure in front of the turbine. As a result, air rushes to the low pressure point, conveniently enough, right through the turbine, increasing the speed of the turbine and ultimately, the amount of power that is put out...

http://www.geekosystem.com/japanese-wind-power/

As always follow the link to the original text in full

The concept takes the same principles of the difference in power transmission that made the Turbofan more efficient than the conventional prop plane.

The design is also eminently suited to both home use and industrial scale sea based energy supply.

ifF-MOuzM_s

With this one simple innovation, replacing the worlds polluting power systems such as Nuclear and Fossil fuels has now become a no brainer.

Kind Regards walker

Edited August 31, 2011 by walker

[Maio 293]

INteresting... If Japan will adopt this, I'm sure others will follow soon . Germany comes to mind.

Or we will do what we do best and continue to burn fuel and f up our world.

[PELHAM 10]

Looks good but what happens when the wind doesn't blow for a week?

There are wind turbines where I live and they sometimes don't move for days on end. If we end up with a large static high pressure covering the entire country, as has happened several times in recent years, whats the backup?

[Flash Thunder 10]

On water there's a lot more wind than on dry land.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/258137main_glb-sumwin-press.jpg

Im still waiting for more efficient solar cells and hydrogen fusion advancements.

But for now we need to start setting up Grid 2.0 its foundation being Wind, Solar, Hydrogen and Biomass.

[dmarkwick 261]

Looks good but what happens when the wind doesn't blow for a week?

There are wind turbines where I live and they sometimes don't move for days on end. If we end up with a large static high pressure covering the entire country, as has happened several times in recent years, whats the backup?

Wind turbines should be dual-purpose, each one should have a solar panel on top. I mean, when the wind doesn't blow it's usually sunny right? :)

Even better idea, make the blades out of solar panel :D

[soul_assassin 1750]

Good idea even though the principle in which it works is as old as the Wright brothers. Makes you wonder why none thought of this before. But walker, instead of posting some drama sensationalist tabloid news articles, something that would have been more appropriate:

http://www.riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/windeng/en_aboutus_detail04_01.html

http://www.riam.kyushu-u.ac.jp/windeng/en_aboutus_detail04.html

[raynor 0]

Wind turbines should be dual-purpose, each one should have a solar panel on top. I mean, when the wind doesn't blow it's usually sunny right? :)

Even better idea, make the blades out of solar panel :D

Solar Panels are not a viable source. What would be is having a wind farm next to a solar farm. That way if the sun is out there is the power of the sun to make steam and run a turbine.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

INteresting... If Japan will adopt this, I'm sure others will follow soon . Germany comes to mind.

Or we will do what we do best and continue to burn fuel and f up our world.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

"The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted."

Edited September 1, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[Wolfrug 0]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

FFS, it's not the bloody global warming that's the problem, it's our messed up fossil-fuel/growth based economy. Living green isn't just about saving the rain forests or preventing the melting of the ice caps or whatever: it's about cutting down on our consumption (fossil fuels and everything else, since everything consumes fossil fuels).

New more effective wind turbine technology is an unallayed positive, stop bringing up your OWN alarmist bullshit on a thread that's about alternative energy. :mad:

Regards,

Wolfrug

[[frl]myke 14]

Whatever solutions come up, people are the main remaining problem. Iremember seeing a reportage about offshore wind powerplant in the northern sea of germany. Well, power produced there have to be transported across the country where it is needed, obviously by high power cables above ground (don't know correct english term but i guess you know what i mean), Now guess the reaction of the people which lived near such a planned high power route? "Oh, it completely destroys our nice looking surrounding, we wouldn't never accept such a thing standing near at our place."

And this was very short after Fukushima.

[PELHAM 10]

Japan and the UK are fortunate to have large coastal areas to put these things. What do land locked countries and places like Germany, with a relatively small coastal area do?

I think the idea of going totally green is admirable but I bet they end up buying in nuclear power from the French to back it all up lol. We in the UK do that already - there are cables from France bringing in power from nuclear sources.

I would love to see how going totally green would work from just a practical sense. All these thousands of square miles of turbines, wave power doo-dads, and solar panels will cost a fortune to build and maintain and no one wants any of it near their homes.

If the government offerred to replace my roof with solar panels and add a small wind turbine free of charge I would love it. If they were to do that to every house there would not be a need for wind farms etc and we could all use and share the energy back into the national grid.

I think the power companies would oppose it though lol. They need a way to keep us paying.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Looks good but what happens when the wind doesn't blow for a week?

There are wind turbines where I live and they sometimes don't move for days on end. If we end up with a large static high pressure covering the entire country, as has happened several times in recent years, whats the backup?

When the wind does not blow use the exess energy stored when you did not need it

On the matter of no wind blowing as described above by PELHAM, he is within this narrow case correct but! this is a subject most people including PELHAM misunderstand, because in general our day to day experience of the supply of energy as a finite sum in the form of electricity we extract from finite fossil fuels which we turn off when we are not using it as it costs us money!

We already store excess energy

Lots of energy that is created for national grids is not used! And gets stored in hydro electric projects where they work in reverse pumping energy uphill; that is inefficient too! Except that throwing the energy away is even more inefficient.

Much of the time the power stations are turned off; obviously that makes them less efficient but when you have a finite and declining source of energy it becomes more profitable to only turn them on when you need them.

BUT! With a solution that is near infinite and not declining it is more economic to run your energy source all the time and store the excess energy for latter use, eg. when the wind does not blow!

That is why aluminium is largely produced in places where there is an excess of energy; such as out of the way hydroelectric locations way back in the backwoods. Where the cost of supplying the electricity to the market is more expensive than using the energy to smelt aluminum via electrolysis.

No shortage of energy

In fact there is NO ENERGY CRYSIS! What there is; is a crisis of energy transport and SUPPLY! Largely caused by an over reliance on the the fossil fuel economy to transport a fossil fuel. As we increasingly shift to the hydrogen transport supply model the energy supply crisis will disappear. It is as inevitable as water flowing down hill.

In fact there is an abundance of energy in the world millions of times more than we need. Via Geothermal, Wind and Solar power. We just do not use much of it yet; owing to the entrenched economic and political power of the oligopoly fossil fuel industry. As the Hydrogen energy transport system begins to take hold, that monopoly oil blockade on the supply of transportable energy to the worlds economies will die out.

Do not mix up efficiency with profitablility

You use Deep Sea Wind power to crack Hydrogen yes I know it is less efficient than having the wind turbine next to the house but being less efficient does not make it less profitable! This is the principle of the cash cow. Once you have built an energy production method that does not rely on a finite declining source, any excess energy that you produce eg at night or when there is no demand is essentially FREE! So you put that to work and the cost of energy you are producing then is significantly below the cost of producing any other form or energy. In the case of Deep Sea Wind any nation can place wind turbines out there even landlocked nations.

Past Peak Oil

Remember we are now past peak oil, the price of oil Quadrupled in the last ten years. It is believed we past Peak oil in 2006. Demand now outstrips supply and the rate at which new oil sources are found is declining and affordable supply will run out in a short time as little as ten years; in less than a generation it will disappear.

Energy is actually abundant

Other sources are far more abundant, take this as an example; one could set up a Hydrogen factory in New Zealand, Hawaii or Iceland and produce more than enough to make those locations the Saudi Arabia of the Hydrogen fuel economy. You would be using Hydrogen to fuel their distribution network and then fuel a nations power stations and homes and cars.

Deep Sea Wind is the most useful energy source

IMHO I think Deep Sea Wind is far more useful and profitable for the following reasons:

Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Hydrogen Fuel Cells make the most useful transportable energy source. They are very efficient weight to energy production wise. Rechargable. And they can be used to fuel an infinity of different devices from cars to computer lap tops and mobile phones.

Unified Supply

No more 3 fuel pumps at fuel station and making sure you do not put diesel in your gas car or vis versa. No more inneficiently supporting mutiple power station designs.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells can be used to unify the portable energy supply market. The same battery suplies your car or your mobile phone.

Non poluting

Hydrogen fuel cells and a hydrogen fuel economy is non poluting.

Distribution

On the matter of distribution you just fill up gas bags and float them to the location towing them behind a boat with compressed gas stored on-board. Heck make the gas bags self driving UAVs. You are not bothered about an explosion it takes place high up in the sky away from people. You have them dock at an offshore pump station pump the gas down deflate the bags fold them up and send them back.

Additional income sources

You use the wind turbine platforms as a fish farms. Send the fish back towing gas bags, bring back stuff to help feed the fish, same as they do with tuna nowadays. The protein production is an extra income source.

You refine down the sodium and other metals and chlorine for industrial use and that is another income source.

You use the platforms for sea bottom dredge mining to provid yet another source of income.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 1, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

It's a very nice dream Walker but I do understand the mechanics of electricity supply - I used to work for the National Grid in the UK. I have visited nearly every powerstation and major substation in England and I know intimately how electricity gets from generator to consumer.

In the UK there is no capacity to store excess energy on the scale required. If the wind turbines stopped turning the lights would go out. Now if you had the hydrogen fueled powerstations you talk of, fine. In reality, it's likely that everyone is going to need a few nuclear powerstations to pick up the slack. Some like Germany will talk green and buy nuclear from their neighbours.

Your ideas are fine in principle but it's a very complex and costly system to fund and setup. The other problem is strategic defence. If you have all your power coming from some platform floating somewhere in the world how do you defend it? 1 submarine attack and it's game over. So you would still need some sort of land based generation scheme that is easier to defend.

For the foreseeable future I see a mix of green, nuclear and fossil. Not ideal but we live in a complex world.

[walker 0]

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

"The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted."

Hi all

On the matter the author of Roy W. Spencer author of the heavily disputed report that Hans Ludwig quotes, his scientific credentials are somewhat questionable by the fact he is a Creationist and signatory to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming". I quote:

"We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

As always follow the link to the original article in ful

As to the science, the actual paper

Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains

the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change.

Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is

largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing,

probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and

likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite

and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While

the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of

lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we

find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy

in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that

atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due

primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in

satellite radiative budget observations.

My Emphasis in the abstract

does not support the view that the article writer James Taylor makes. In point of fact James Taylor admits he only compared it to the most extreme end of the global warming papers, obviously in order to make it seem like something that it was not.

Kind Regards walker

[st_dux 26]

While this new technology looks promising, I do not foresee wind power ever fully supplanting more reliable energy sources (e.g., nuclear).

[Daniel 0]

Offshore wind farms should have tidal generators built into their foundations = reliable energy in the absence of wind. Does that sound plausible?

[walker 0]

Hi Daniel

Off Shore is different prospect to Deep Sea Wind and Power. You are not fixed to the sea bed, so no Tidal flow energy to deal with unless you sea bed tether and gather energy from using some form of flotation resistance. Also with Off Shore using a cable to transmit straight to the National Grid is a more economic solution.

Cables to a Deep Sea Wind and Power generation system would not be as profitable as producing hydrogen as the transportable fuel storage medium. Also consider the idea behind the Hydrogen Economy is to cause a step change in energy supply and breaking us out of the fossil fuel decline.

In reply to PELHAM

On the matter of energy storage in the UK we use Dinorwig Power Station precisely for the purpose of storing energy in the UK. With your professed knowledge of the UK power industry I am surprised you did not know about this strategic energy asset.

However you seem to be missing my point: Hydrogen is the storage medium I and everyone else is saying to use for excess energy from Deep Sea Wind and Power. So your Wind does not blow every day point is moot.

With regard to defense of strategic assets. You make multiple platforms not a single one as you seem to think, they are no less defensible than any other strategic energy supply asset. And we have only to consider the threat of the straights of Hormuz or the Suez Canal War to realize that fossil fuels are far more vulnerable than green energy. As to Nuclear err Fukushima.

Personally I see Hydrogen production as being an open market. In fact if you think about it, it is not a national asset being beyond national borders and the countries continental shelf and so can only be taxed at point of supply. So the tax benefits are enormous for any Deep See Wind produced Hydrogen supply industry! No More being taxed by the people who's ground you dig the fossil fuel from or paying for the rights to dig it up, and large amounts of the passage taxes would disappear too other than for the land locked nations.

On the matter of dreams, I was suggesting additional income sources from such a facility, hardly dreamy just sensible.

Kind Regards walker

Edited September 1, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

I know all about Dinorwig and have been there several times.

My original statement was:

"In the UK there is no capacity to store excess energy on the scale required."

Your own quoted Wiki article states:

"Once running, the station can provide power for up to 6 hours before running out of water."

I was surprised it was so little myself! (Not sure that is correct as it pumps it back to the top during the process?)

We would need 1000 Dinorwigs to store enough energy should a long term static high pressure occur. Carry on dreaming Walker lol.

Edited September 1, 2011 by PELHAM

[walker 0]

Hi all

PELHAM Why use Dinorwigs when one can simply use Hydrogen Gas cracked from seawater to store the energy? Dinorwig and Hydrogen gas cracked from water are just Potential Energy (PE) stores.

I can also quote myself:

...However you seem to be missing my point: Hydrogen is the storage medium I and everyone else is saying to use for excess energy from Deep Sea Wind and Power. So your Wind does not blow every day point is moot...

Note the bit that is emphasized in bold.

The excess wind energy is used to crack Hydrogen from salt water which you store like any other fuel in tanks, gasometers, gas bottles, Hydrogen fuel cells etc.

I realise it is a paradigm shift but it should not be beyond you to understand that the excess energy is stored in the form of Hydrogen. If you cannot understand this I will think some what less of you.

Kind Regards walker

[PELHAM 10]

Well if it's viable I would agree with you.

But.....will there actually be enough excess energy from wind turbines? Will it be commercially viable to extract hydrogen by this method etc etc there are many, many questions still to answer. Quite often in this debate you find people have nice sounding ideas but the facts don't actually stack up.

Also this:

Hydrogen from salt water which you store like any other fuel in tanks, gasometers, gas bottles, Hydrogen fuel cells etc.

is partially nonsense. The storage problems associated with hydrogen are well known. It cannot be stored like any other fuel because of it's energy / density ratio. It is precisely the difficulty of storing hydrogen that has limited it's use in the past and the scientific research is still not complete and a good technological solution is still not available.

To store the equivalent volume of hydrogen in a gasometer to replace methane (I'm talking energy equivalents by volume here) you would need 4 times (probably more) the capacity. The reason you dont see hydrogen cars on the market yet is because with current technology the hydrogen storage system would weigh half as much as the car.

Its universally accepted that to use hydrogen it must be intensely pressurised to several hundred atmospheres and stored in a pressure vessel. In liquid form, hydrogen can only be stored under cryogenic temperatures. These options are not practical for everyday use.

One alternative is metal hydrides. These materials have good energy density by volume, although their energy density by weight is often worse than the leading hydrocarbon fuels. This technology is still in it's infancy.

You seem to believe you are replacing like with like - that is not the case.

Keep on dreaming Walker.

Edited September 1, 2011 by PELHAM

[stgn 39]

Hi all

On the matter the author of Roy W. Spencer author of the heavily disputed report that Hans Ludwig quotes, his scientific credentials are somewhat questionable by the fact he is a Creationist and signatory to the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation's "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming". I quote:

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

As always follow the link to the original article in ful

As to the science, the actual paper

My Emphasis in the abstract

does not support the view that the article writer James Taylor makes. In point of fact James Taylor admits he only compared it to the most extreme end of the global warming papers, obviously in order to make it seem like something that it was not.

Kind Regards walker

Nice ad hominem to start with :rolleyes:

Second: Reading the paper, how does it not cast doubt about climate models accuracy and dependability, both the high sensitivity models and the low sensitivity models?

STGN

Edited September 4, 2011 by STGN
Clarification I hope?

[ryguy 10]

Second reading the paper how does it not cast doubt about climate models accuracy and dependability, both the high sensitivity models and the low sensitivity models?

wat...

[dysta 10]

There's only a solution for the future energy: the fusion.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

wat...

What?

Living green isn't just about....ZZZZZzzzzzZZZ

Yeah, living green is so cost effective and practical.

7OabYImeDSc

Edited September 2, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[Daniel 0]

What?

"wat" as in "some of us have no idea what STGN just said".

But I guess it was aimed at Walker anyway.

Hi Daniel

Off Shore is different prospect to Deep Sea Wind and Power. You are not fixed to the sea bed, so no Tidal flow energy to deal with unless you sea bed tether and gather energy from using some form of flotation resistance. Also with Off Shore using a cable to transmit straight to the National Grid is a more economic solution.

Cables to a Deep Sea Wind and Power generation system would not be as profitable as producing hydrogen as the transportable fuel storage medium. Also consider the idea behind the Hydrogen Economy is to cause a step change in energy supply and breaking us out of the fossil fuel decline.

Cheers Walker, I appreciate the reply. I wasn't aware offshore-type windfarms weren't actually on the seabed.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Daniel