What do you guys think about this turbine? I'm interested in all your thoughts! Also, check out the incredible AMD Threadripper Pro 7000 WX-Series Processors here: amd.chrd.ly/Ziroth #ad
Maybe in 20 years we will deploy them in the open ocean. If fusion doesn't take of, this will be the most abundant energy form we can get decades later.
I'm not convinced that this design is all that great. Maybe it is more cost effective than the existing offshore turbine but it's not really impressive. If stronger winds can be harnessed at higher elevation, it may be better to focus on bringing the windmill up, using a wing/kite holding an array of turbines? As an added bonus it would automatically lift the turbines out of harm's way when stronger winds bring rough waters. If only I had a Threadripper CPU to run some simulations ;-)
2:16 - if this video is meant to be watched by the average viewer use please use the units the average people are familiar with. Ask you grandma what a speed of 10 m/s would mean and if 32 m/s is fast or not, ask for their impression and not a recalculation. I have a feeling what 100 km / h means cause you can open a cars window and put you hand in the air flow. But I would need to do the math to get behind m/s which would mean 27 m/s If you would have use 115 km / h instead of 32 m/s I would have had a better feeling and even better for the 259 km / h instead of 72 m/s If the turbine is any good the first investor who had bought the product will buy thousands more if the costs are lower, maintenance and investments are lower and the equation of production is better than the current ones. I would not invest in any of shore thing soon which is that different cause it tooks us ages to get where we are right now and none of those are floating. And the floating topic adds another point of complexity like the cable tied connection to the under sea grid. Just one of the differences where difference means a potential risk or challenge compared to the current ones. Many have lost fortunes to get where we are. And you might now german engineering quite well, so maybe it is time for you to take a lesson in history or engineering history if you are able to unsolve the shattered dreams of scientist who had gotten a government funding by germany to build one of the first big wind turbines for commercial use, even though for todays scale it might feel like a tiny one. Fully funded it went into a complete desaster within weeks rather than months. Search for "GROWIAN" or "GRO WI AN" an acronym for "Groß Windkraft Anlage" or big scale wind turbine. This was the biggest failure and desaster for german wind turbine production cause the turbine never achieved any of the designed goals and was only good as an example how to not develope such product. Therefore the float one has to proof a lot more than just 1 rotor running under ideal circumstances close to shore (for easy repairs) for just months or a couple of years cause the investments needed are so big that these have to last 2 decades and more to be profitable. And that is the real challenge for any new tech to outperform the previous financially and reliable over a full product life cycle and even beyond considering how easy it could be to repower such site after 20 years of usage.
Yeah thats a fact but if they do manage to make it work. It seems to be less comples than traditional turbines. If its generates similar amount of energy per investment dollar its worth it. And it possibly can do more as it suppose to have more uptime.
Define "one"! As a non-engineer, I'd say that design is an asymmetrical duel-blade rotor Plus, everything looks great in CGI - do we have a real-life model?
I think its referring to the single unit that it is formed from, which they say helps reduce manufacturing costs. Lots of footage of their prototypes in the video! I agree though - CGI always looks easier than reality!
There is 1000 of these companies making CGI videos and harvesting government money and then they run, away with the money... Until they have demonstrated it works with actual full scale windmill consider it to be a scam, because the chance is 99% that it is.
Only needs one of the 999 to shape the world. Without all the experiments there would be less innovation... kudos to the people who dream big and are prepared to dedicate their lives to their dreams.
One of the most exciting aspects of this design is ease of assembly and maintenance. Being able to attach and assemble the entire rotor and generator near the surface of the water is huge. And then being able to just pull it down again to work on it. But now you say they are looking at more conventional flotation platforms. It would be a pity to lose disability to rotate it up and down for service.
The new base seems to be more about housing a rotation axis for the tilt than removing the variable tilt (it is the main feature after all) while being more stable in waves.
One interesting aspect with this design is that high wind loads will be putting the tower in tension , rather than pushing it sideways with a cantilever force, so you can have a much more lightweight tower structure, as steel is excellent at resisting tension but needs a lot more engineering to resist a cantilevering force.
? so there will be no force perpendicular to the tower in high winds? the tower will be sailing along at the wind speed if your analysis is correct. The tower must hold the rotor against the wind, therefore there will be bending forces on the tower. (described by you as "cantilevering force"). The "engineering" as you describe it, for steel to resist bending forces is well understood and not at all a technical challenge. Interesting that you assume the tower will be built from steel and steel alone. An assumption that ought to be challenged.
as someone who did math/homework estimating wind turbine prodution on my location, i want to correct some stuff i noticed on wind frequency it's not that majority of power is produced on slow winds, it's the wind speed frequency, low winds could be just junk energy and won't give much, anything below 10~5m/s range is junk energy production, definitly high winds are better for energy production, but because they have less frequency then they can't rely on them for constant energy production, but some wind farms definity will disconnect some percentage of the wind farm to keep the energy stable, but above a certain speed most wind turbines that are optimized to spin at certain high frequency mid-range speeds won't be efficient and could spin out of control, so they are disabled so this wind turbine design looks promising in theory, but as pointed out, it's yet have to be seen if the design can handle sea water, swells and waves.
I didn't understood that chart, it seemed like a probability distribution of the different speeds but the Y axis has values up to 0.09 are all those values supposed to add up to one? as in 100%
Any generation of LIFT will direct air downward, this is simple Newtonian physics. If it dose that ENOUGH to be of any impact is the questions, I am doubtful. But the clearly strongest selling point of the system is the simplicity and lack of pitch control. Also it seems obvious to me that the generator should be placed in or near the float with a strait shaft running down the mast or even being the mast as this will lighten the structure hugely. The biggest issue will be at what MINIMUM windspeed the system can operate in, this is where modern turbines are trying to operate at to get higher capacity factors.
I'm dubious about the claim that reducing the wind wake can "suck in" fast air from above the wind farm. The slow air still has to go somewhere, contrary to what the graphic at 8:58 suggests. At best you can spread it out to 5 times as wide and 1/5th as high as the blade disk of the wind turbine or so. Yes, it will help in the case where the next turbine downwind is _exactly_ in the path of another turbine, but now it will actually reduce wind speeds when the next turbine is within that 5 blade disk wide wake, making wake problems 5 times as likely to happen. And after 5 consecutive turbines have sucked in and spread out the wake, you're back to about the same wake height as before. But maybe this is just a cost saving measure as well. 5 times as likely wake effects of 1/5th the strength will reduce the _maximum_ dynamic load from wake turbulence to 1/5th. I just wonder if wake turbulence adds that much of a load compared to natural air turbulence in rough seas.
Since the used wind has been slowed (energy extracted) by the rotor, that slowed wake flow takes up a larger downwind volume than you suggest, further reducing any wake avoidance on downwind rotors
Complicated but the rotor will have sucked energy out of the air so will affect surrounding turbines to some extent. Needs a lot of modelling and real world testing. A way to go with this. Similar to perovskites and solar. It takes a lot to unseat the king
A - How does it self-orient if it's offset from its point of anchor? B - How does it sustain high waves with the turbine in a vertical orientation? That's going to be a LOT of vertical movement shoving and jerking on the generator body. C - The could increase the power generation by putting wave energy accumulators along the anchoring structure.
The sea is a harsh mistress. Weather conditions can be extreme and need not be frequent to be destructive. What would happen if a spinning rotor were knocked down and hit the water? I suspect the rotors would need to be cheap enough to be considered occasionally disposable.
Just happened in New England. Project on hold. Doing environmental studies on microplastics. The environmentalist are the ones shutting down the green project.
I’m old enough to remember them saying with Hydro-electric power they’ll be producing so much they will not be charging you for using it. Reality is the energy companies will charge the highest price they can to get profit for their shareholders regardless of the production costs.
So they've been around since 2018, and in 6 years, and with outside funding, they haven't made a single scale model to prove their concept? Even though they said themselves it'd be much cheaper than normal turbines. We just have to take their word for all the claims they make based on their own 'projections'. Also its weird to me that they dont seem too open to having it independently tested by an unbiassed party, even though if that party could prove the claims were accurate they'd make billions off selling the technology. While i hope it works, I just dont buy any of this.
These things always have some risk, but they are definitely doing some interesting work. They have some scale models which are shown in the video, but from what I understand there is only so much you can learn from them due to scaling laws - such as with the Reynolds number. Thanks for your comment!
I'm with you on this. They have the time and money to put a patent and promotion in place, but not weld together some old oil barrels, scaffold, a dynamo and propeller to make a working concept proof? Alarm bells in my head...
@@ZirothTechthanks for the response. and i did like the video, it was very well made and explained. And I do appreciate you putting new ideas out there. But I just think if you're a company who makes extraordinary claims, and you have the resources to prove everything you've said, but you dont, that you're probably hiding something. I get the impression they'll go the route of countless other startups and make huge claims, get investors to give them tons of money, then they cash out and the company dissapears. Its following the exact same pattern as so many failed silicon valley tech startups.
I think it's actually symmetrical, it just looks that way in some of the images. I think the shape is straight rotor with the tips bent back from the direction of rotation.
I think it actually points into the wind. This is what causes it to lift itself up as the wind speed increases. If it was pointing away from the wind, then increasing wind strength would knock it over rather than up. The idea has appeal, but as with all modern technology the devil is in the detail. I see stability as the major issue. At high wind speed the rotor is acting like an auto gyro. The “lift” this produces will be acting downwards along the pylon. Balancing this, while still allowing the freedom of movement needed for the device to track the wind, will be a hard nut to crack, IMO. I’ll be interested to see if this concept progresses further. Fingers crossed!
As long as it could swivel to face the wind if on land, where there is that weight beneath the rotor on water, on land, it could be a variable tether, producing electricity in the same way as a kite generator does.
@@q.e.d.9112Yeah it definitely looks like it is supposed to point towards the main direction of the wind. Yet how they going to manage that when ocean wind is so chaotic? I get the appeal. Cheaper, even if it isn't even ideal design. The great thing about green energy is that the sun and earth over produce! Effiency doesn't really matter if you can make a ton more.
Really appreciate that you reached out to an expert! These sort of videos become way more interesting when there's a bit of qualified discussion and not just promo material
Being able to handle high winds without using brakes or computer pitch control would eliminate most of the catastrophic failures we've seen on 3 blade turbines and all of the downtime we see when these systems need to be serviced.
I think a Brake mechanism will still be needed to safe servicing, though It might need to be less beefy if it's only used in that context rather then in response to high wind.
@@kennethferland5579 I think you mean a spindle lock. Brakes are for slowing things down but a spindle lock is just for stopping things turning and is infinitely cheaper.
Economics of electricity generation are largely determined by the concentration of energy and the cost of fuel. Higher concentration (pressure, temperature, speed etc) = higher efficiency. Low concentration requires more concrete and steel. Therefore a valid economics measure is MW generated per weight of materials (concrete, steel etc). Wind as a "fuel" is free. Extracting energy from it is expensive.
Floating wind has so much potential and there's so much work to be done. A stormy sea is tremendous at smashing stuff up and this was the end of wave power snakes.
blades on large turbines already get pretty high mach at the tips. I wonder if at high wind speeds this could have issues with the advancing rotor breaking the sound barrier when the winds are high, it's at its max rpm, and the blade is near horizontal.
Çünkü bilim halka indi, TH-cam sayesinde… fakat bir dezavantajı var, derinlemesine gözlemlemeyen ve yorumlamayan birey, olayı çözdüğünü sanıp hemen TH-cam’a bir şeyler yüklüyor…😢
That you put the word CHEAP in Donald Trump all-caps is weird. The word _unlimited_ is stranger though as it shows a lack of understanding of time or entropy.
This insanity of a so-called breakthrough becoming landfill due to another breakthrough has to stop. All of this "renewable" nonsense is totally dependent on fossil fuel - from mining, manufacture, deployment and commissioning.
As others have mentioned the passive functionality - it's response to high winds - has an appeal. I assume that the developer is relying on this to avoid the need for pitch control: that's where my scepticism would lie. Two other points which are important: the swept disc is always at an inclination to the wind, reducing output straight away. I think that gives it a serious handicap; single and twin bladed designs are vulnerable to destructive vibration about an axis parallel to the blades. This could kill the project
m/s is for someone working in the industry. In layman's terms put the value in km/h so the rest of us can understand it without pausing the video to translate it.
One big reason of why rotors usually have three blades is the constant inertia to rotate around the vertical axis. With two blade it rotates easier when they are vertical as when they are horizontal. That causes some issues. Also making a 200 m blade is more complex than 100m ones to have the same diameter. I think it is just paper ware.
Precisely ! Side Load on the shaft will be on again , off again due to wind gradient . Much fatigue going to happen . Also gyroscopic load of a large spinning mass trying to bob about . Not going to work .
The weight is going to be under water, or at least partially under water. It should be pretty well damped against sideways swings. I'd be more worried that waves would push/pull on the weight and swing the mast to beyond vertical (at which point it will tip over).
@@Pystro Buoyancy of the weight (its overall SG) will be one of the variables to play with. No reason the winch couldn't be dynamic - if only for heavy sea conditions the cyclic loading would be reasonable over lifetime. A dynamic winch might also be able to help with broadside stability, allowing the turbine lift to assist with righting.
I think its a good system to harvest the mechanical energy for appliences, because the direction is already in a vertical position. With some automotive parts of a differential, the windmill can swing around and still give propulsion in your desired direction. 72 m/s is such fast, its a great idea.
A stability solution for high seas may be in fixing 10 or so units on a a large square submersed space frame, this borrows from an off shore drilling rigs ability to stay still on wild seas.
Thanks.. great idea. another advantage is no thub thub from the blades passing the tower. I like that it bows to the sea and wind. I am wondering if you put this on top of a boat mast and drove an underwater propeller, how fast would it go in various wind directions and speeds. would recommend a more pinnate prop to reduce drag where there no torque produced. I would also consider using sail cloth for the wing to reduce cost, weight and ease of replacement. Keep up the good work.
Okay, but how are you getting the energy on shore from far off shore, thats the biggest cost in offshore and moving it further out would increase that cost.
and you now have deal with a turbine that is rising and falling with the tide while the whole unit is rotating significantly more with the wind. Typically the more moving parts the more ware and tear. The further out the more expensive to maintain.
@@Finderskeepers. I really hope Quaise Energy's plan works out, which is basically using a fricking 10MW laser to drill down 10 - 20km to get geothermal anywhere in the world. It would solves so many problems with net 0 at least on the electricity side. 24/7 365 energy with relative easy integration with thermal energy storage to increase output within peek hours. We will just have to see if it's economically viable though, basically if each well costs much more than $100 million no one is going to invest in it even though in the long term it's a boon still, because that still is over a 10 year ROI the cost of a natural gas power plant assuming each well is 30MW thermal. The wells will apparently last 100 years so in the long term it's still a great long term investment so if governments step in to reduce the cost to be competitive with natural gas over a 5 year period and making that money back over a longer period of time say 20 - 30 years it could be popular with private involvement.
@@Etheoma Geothermal already exists and only need to go 400m not 10km. The deeper the larger the temp. variance = more energy. Its sounds great using lasers but I see a lot of unknown issues. I will never knock advancement or triers so I wish them well. Tidal is what I am hoping to see a breakthrough with. The moon isnt going anywhere and the tide goes in and out twice a day every day. Solar and wind would be even more viable if we could find a way to store the energy. Jeep have a very interesting water powered engine that ICE engines could easily be converted to. The pressurised water system is a viable was to store energy. Already I see shenanigans in the carbon credits market. Corporate influence at a political level is to high around the world put particularly in the States. Because of the method to calculate Value there will always be a bias for quick income and shortermism with the lowest income risk which is what ultimately underpins your valid point about ROI.
@@Finderskeepers. Erm I think your talking about superficial geothermal where your only looking for temps of 25C or so for which you only need to go to 50 - 400m mostly for heat pumps or there are other ways you can use such water directly. Even in places close to fault lines 400m is not going to get you far unless you are literally right ontop of a pocket of magma when we are talking about electrical generation. Even in Iceland the variance is massive between borehole depth between 100 - 2,200 meters where those 100 meter ones are where there are natural water aquifers which go much deeper and Island is the best place in the world to do geothermal and even they have to go down as far as 2,200m to reliably get geothermal. 3km elsewhere is not rare and to get lower heat wells, and Quaise wants to do supercritical geothermal, which requires well temps in excess of 370C anywhere in the world hence the reason for such depths. Personally I don't see any issues arising that will be show stoppers, if they give up on supercritical steam it will be pretty plain sailing considering even here in the UK which is one of the worst places in the world to do geothermal you can get 130C temps at 5.5km although at that point you are talking about like 1 or 2MW per well and you would need 100s of wells to get anywhere close to a real power plant. Where as if your getting super critical steam 30MW is easy and 10's of wells will add up to a real power plants output.
@@Etheoma Im more concerned about the unexpected effects. No one expected carbon emissions to be an issue yet here we are. Im thinking along the lines of how dams have had unexpected outcomes and thats far easier to predict and much better understood than lava flows 10km down. The North Atlantic drift is what keeps the UK's climate so mild and its slowing down due the glacier melt from Greenland and Arctic ice sheets and not because its cold water but because its fresh water . The effects of global warming could be having a significant impact much sooner than we think. We keep messing with nature thinking we know better, mad cow disease is another example. Probability told us we were overdue a pandemic yet there was minimal preparation. We got off lightly, what would ebola of done and thats what really scared the scientists at 1st, Covid had a very similar cell structure but we dont hear that in the news even now. Huge extraction of energy from basically the earths core concern me. I acknowledge I am being very cautious but I think we have to be. One threat that concerns me that it could easily impact and that is slowly happening as we speak is a flipping of the magnetic poles. Its already effecting satellites in orbit. A mass extraction of energy I assume would have a cooling effect, that would slow down thermal currents and without knowing exactly how and what the core is made off its hard to predict and thats against a background of not predicting what damming a river will do.
Makes a lot of sense to me. Does the wake effect offer an added benefit of cooling the ocean surface? Would be easy to test. Put some thermometers' in the water where the downdraft is most intense. As the angle of attack changes the thermometers could be spooled in or out on a tether keeping them in the sweet spot. Also, encouraging corals and sea life to congregate on the submerged components is a huge bonus.
MY VERTICAL TURBINE IS EVEN BETTER, 4 PANELS SPINNING ON A VERTICAL AXEL, IT HAS A BOX FRAME, EACH SIDE IS HALF BLOCKED BY A PANEL TO STOP THE WIND PUSHING THE WRONG WAY.
4:35 you can't just assume they are all going to be in a straight line down-wind from one another.. the air goes somewhere, and it's hardly getting compressed, it's getting blown down then flattened out, so all adjacent ones behind it and to the sides are getting that turbulence. You can't just magic it away and show it stopping at each turbine, lmao.. Why model the normal ones in 3D, then show these in simplified 2D. Also I have serious reservations about a turbine that has to pitch-up to save itself, if the stronger the wind is, the harder it can force it to pitch-down.. less surface area, yes, but also higher wind speeds and front-surface exposure into those winds.. forcing it back down then the wind catches the prop again, then pulled down even harder?
>he stronger the wind is, the harder it can force it to pitch-down.. No - the stronger the wind is, the more it will pitch up: the same force that's pulling the air downwards to the surface of the sea is trying to pitch up the turbine. That's why you need that weight. Without the weight it would pitch up too much even in calm wind.
You've done a good job of hitting the highlights but would need a deeper dive into the engineering to formulate an opinion. As for the possibility of a mitigated wake, this would have value for onshore windfarms but the ocean is so vast, it's difficult to see the benefit. For the record, a general rule of thumb is to separate turbines by at least 1.5X rotor diameter so the wind has time to heal before hitting the downwind machine. Something I kept waiting to hear was the coefficient of power for the monoblade and how the Cp degrades with changes in the angle of attack. At the end of the day, there's no way this system will have equivalent efficiency of a traditional horizontal axis offshore turbine, so the benefits have to come from the lower CapEx amortized over time. The ocean is also a very harsh environment, so creating a machine that can withstand these conditions and reliably transfer the generated energy to shore is a challenge not to be underestimated.
it won't be implemented. Reason is it is much too cheap by comparison, and compenies like Heerema and other stakeholders can't earn as much money as 'classical' generators. And, boys and girls, wind energy is not about the environment, it is about big money
200m rotor, on something floating in the North Atlantic, which sometimes gets 80'/24m waves ( "rogue" waves, from constructive-interference between combined waves ), strikes me as .. "optimistic". To me it seems that sticking the things *away* from rogue waves would be saner? but that negates the whole point of the things.. ESA mapped rogue-waves, by satellite, iirc.. I wonder if there is some areas of the ocean which just have less of them, or less of the big ones?
1 pic showed the turbines facing 1 direction, like soldiers in a row-shoulder to shoulder. If the wind direction changes 90°, do the turbines turn 90°? Like soldiers in a column, each looking forward @ the back of the soldier's head in front? Is there a turbine "wake" problem then? Blades are a major problem. There are 1000s of junked blades, broken, split, cracked & un-recycled. The cause is fatigue. Also, possible sun damage to the fiberglass. This design requires a 600 foot blade. How are blade failures going to be reduced? Or, to put it another way, how is blade life going to be greatly increased? Then there's the tree huggers & animal rights' activists concerned about aviary life being sliced. No one here's trying to be a downer. Just mentioning questions/concerns, as is the case with any project, especially innovative untested--(full scale, real life?) ones. Hope you find genuine success for the masses as well as the big boys.
As a wind energy researcher, I like certain features of this idea, but it seems there is one major aspect common to most 2-blade rotors, either missing or not mentioned - so I won't mention that aspect either (sorry). But anyway, I'm seeing quite a few common symptoms in wannabe, always-in-the-future, wind energy promotions that go nowhere. First, that logo representing swirling wind, is a consistent hallmark of a future-failed wind energy concept - just sayin' - they all use it. Next, despite promoting this design, with all that funding, they don't show us a working prototype of that design, at any scale, but instead. at 6:48, have a version mounted on a small tower that happens to be standing in shallow water - why not just do it on land at that point? Why not build a prototype of their actual floating design? Hmmmm... 72 m/s = 161 mph. OK so they first say their new, untested, "barrel" device will withstand winds of 161 miles per hour, while yet still producing power. Now this is a bold statement to make in wind energy, or in marine engineering for that matter. 161 miles per hour is a category 5 hurricane - as bad as it gets. And this turbine is said to keep on producing power in a catego0ry 5 hurricane. But later in the video, we're told they've given up on this "barrel" design because they decided it might be challenged in big waves. I guess they just figured out that a 161 mph wind would entail big waves. It's OK, don't worry, still later in the video they go back to promoting the old "barrel" design. It is just so symptomatic to make absurd claims like this in the field of wannabe wind energy, populated by people who have never had mother nature blow their turbines to smithereens. Sure, your untested idea will magically withstand winds that no previous marine structure could. All the beginners think like that. Mission-creep: They keep talking about reducing the wake effect of upwind units on downwind units in floating windfarms, as a (the?) main advantage, but still can't show us a single actual unit even floating, let alone operating. But forget seeing even a small model working - now it's all about the untested wake "theory", and how many more units they can pack into a windfarm - uh-huh, sure. Apparently, they have no real proof of this wake factor either. Typical. And with all that funding, they can't even show you a small-scale model that works - something that could be built in a garage, for a few hundred bucks. So at 8:23, they suddenly throw away everything said up until that point, and basically admit the design they have been talking about would have problems with waves, and they are now instead considering a completely different type of base, using four vertical floating interconnected cylinders, of which they briefly show someone else's model in a tank, saying "the barrel design" (that has been the subject of the entire video thusfar), "is more from an older iteration" - huh? OK so with no further explanation of how, why, or what this new iteration they are suddenly now talking about even is? How does this entirely new, yet unshown, base, fit into a design that consisted mostly of the old base they had been showing us? The old base was 90% of the invention. If they have a new design, why is this video about the old design? OK so the rest of the video goes back to showing the old (now obsolete?) design. Mission-creep again: Suddenly, with no explanation of how or why, they diverge into extreme trendy-buzzword excuse-land, and their next new goal is "3-printing" and "biodiversity", showing a hunk of concrete with holes in it, to attract fish, as their new breakthrough? Yeah, sure, just change the subject to a different topic, and hope potential investors won't notice. Well, some investors are subject to emotion-based "reasoning" too. Then at 8:50, they show truck testing of what appears to be a single 1.5 meter rotor, while talking of a (future, of course) project involving ten 12 kW, 6-meter rotors. Like they're really gonna do that, when they can't build even a tiny single working model of their supposed (and ever-changing) design. Like they even really could do that. I think it might be too much for them. Prescient how, at 11:24 they admit it might just "evolve" into a regular old wind turbine on a pole - in other words ignore everything you've just heard up until that point. :)
Alas, the ocean environment has an almost infinite capacity for destroying things. Assuming these remote turbines survive and require zero or at least infrequent maintenance, the needs of the long-range power-transmission system - cables, etc - may well negate any advantages gained by the innovative design. No, I'm not an engineer, just a grumpy sceptic who learned long ago that energy is always, ALWAYS going to be expensive. Even if the generation of that energy somehow became absolutely free, companies would simply hike the cost of providing it with unfair tariffs and enormous daily "standing charges" (what a scam!) to ensure that the wealthy continue to pay through the nose to heat their luxurious swimming pools, and the poor remain huddled in blankets because they can't afford to heat their homes. As I write this (in the cold, wet, grey, gloomy, miserable north of England) I really am wrapped in a blanket. It's June and, typically for Britain, still wintry. Despite the marvellous claims of the electricity-supply companies about green energy, renewables, carbon-neutral shenanigans and the joys of eco-friendly power generation, I haven't been able to heat my home (or have hot running water) since 2009. I can't afford heating of any kind, so it's a blanket and a woolly hat for me. Fancy turbines make great video subjects, but no amount of aerodynamic research or epoxy-carbon-aramid-fibre composites will stop my teeth chattering.
Thanks for a very informative video. It for sure gives me hope for my children and their children's future:). Is there any calculated life cycle emission gCO2/Kwh for this energy source? (From drawing to recycling). Maybe possible for you to include this KPI in all your videos about new energy sources? I am thinking that it is always good to see where they are in respect to all the other energy sources. Keep up the good work and continue bringing awareness and knowledge in this area.
Wake is a technical term for the turbulance in a flow caused by it passing over any object or from an object moving through a fluid. It applies in both air and water.
He have a degrees in Aerodynamics, Engineering and Philosophy? Taking an average of 5 years of graduation per subject, this genius took 15 years to complete his education. Something doesn't calculate, I guess just another garage mechanic with what he imagines is a great idea. We have seen such characters hundreds of times and nothing comes of the revolutionary projects they have initiated.
I see a few major problems here. The obvious one is that a single-piece blade limits the turbines to half the diameter of conventional ones so you need about 4x as many turbines for the same power not counting any other factors. just increasing the length of a single blade to make up for it isn't trivial. I also wonder how they plan to deal with the sideways overturning moment. because it acts like an autogyro the advancing blade makes much more lift than the retreating one without cyclic pitch control and/or significant blade flapping, trying to tip the tower over sideways. Cyclic pitch or blade flapping would dramatically reduce the working lifetime compared to conventional wind turbines, which would kind of defeat the purpose. This design also puts the main bearing in tension with significant side loads that are always in the same direction, which makes the bearing much more expensive and dramatically reduces it's lifetime compared to simple compression in normal wind turbines.
It's a total joke. 95% of the wind blows right past the blades. You have 10-12 mph hour wind. Clear your mind and forget what you thought was correct. I started fresh and ended up with a totally new design that produces lots of current at low wind speed. I crossed a Piper Cub, a jet turbine, and a wind surfer. You have to know how to sail a sail boat.
That's technically a two bladed turbine, designed as a single blade, which doesn't give any significant benefit, but a lot of disadvantages. Conventional pitch control isn't very problematic, and has multiple significant to huge advantages over tilting the whole construction. The "uniblade" design makes the issues with making and transporting big turbines with that design as bad as conventional turbine designs with twice the rotor diameter, Will the wind be directed downwards? Sure, typically yes, slightly at least. Will that increase net power generation compared to just utilizing the wind in the best ways we know, and/or decrease cost of the power generated? Definitely no! There's no free lunch in physics, if you redirect the flow you're not utilizing the energy in the wind as efficiently as you could have, and can't "gather" and focus airflow from way above the turbines that way.
‘Ease of assembly and maintenance and Cheap.’ At sea? The sea is so unpredictable and unyielding. Ask any person with a moored boat how long it takes for barnacles to form and foul the hull. Check out the building and maintenance costs of structures at sea. ‘Sea’ and ‘cheap’ are mutually exclusive terms. Nothing cheap about a wind turbine or recyclable.
It looks very simple/efficient when they are small, but if we're talking 200m blades, then it becomes a large construction. If such a large tower is tilted at different angles and lifted by the rotating blades I imagine this will put tremendous stress on the materials. The inside components must also deal with the angle movement. I'm no engineer, so maybe these are non-issues, but I expect that the challenges exponentially increase when scaling up, similar to traditional wind turbines. Nonetheless I think it's very interesting and useful to try out alternatives. After all, in the long run we'll need a massive scale of energy production.
You didn't sawR it. That's not schooled English. It's a Bad Diction Rhotic Habit. NOT lawR drawR drawRing withdrawRal awRinspiring NOT asdaR pastaR bananaR pizzaR cinemaR sofaR mediaR dataR NOT lisaR emmaR santaR NOT kenyaR canadaR viaR americaR.
Is the reduced wake proven and tested, you are talking about it as it is!? How it would tilt up and down if it is not mounted on sideways barrel instead od 4 upright barrels? It would either be more complex = more money and less reliability or it would not tilt. If sideways barrel is "old" design and new one is 4 upright barrels and you know this, why would you use the "old" design in majority of the video!? If high wind speed operation is not important why do you mention it so much!? If it is important why it looks so small on your graph? If you deploy thousands of these and use sea life promoting anchors how would that impact all sea life, one that it promotes and probably creates more of, and others which is not promoted? Looking at it from physics perspective you can not "pull" the wind as you have said in this video, if I am wrong please explain to me how would you pull the wind !? ....
Nope. Wind isn't the answer no matter how it's collected. Wind is free power though fickle, but the means to collect and store that power is far from cheap or sustainable. Power plants need to produce in rain or shine, hot or cold, storm or calm, 24/7/365. What can provide that? It's not solar, not wind. Hydroelectric does, geothermal does, nuclear does. Nuclear power plants are the easiest and least expensive of the three to build. Hydroelectric dams are major undertakings, but can provide power for centuries. Geothermal plants can also provide long term continuous power but they do generate a lot of heat. And heat is how nuclear plants work. I mention heat generation because we are dumping so much residual heat into our atmosphere that we could very well boil our oceans in another 400 years. While solar and wind don't generate much heat, they rely on chemical storage of electrical charge. The chemicals/ metals used in the storage batteries are eventually consumed and have to be recycled. Recycling that material is cost intensive. Not recycling that material means we will eventually run out of the materials to make those batteries and the poisonous, reactive waste will have to be stored some place safe.
A 200 metre blade? That's huge! Seems impossible to make it strong enough. Could easily make a 10 metre prototype. Why haven't they? Probably hoping to get some of those 'green energy' dollars/pounds that are so popular, first.
My Engineering experience finds a 200 Meter device, a Bit of a stretch with current Materials technology. 🤨 Perhaps they can prove me wrong! 🤔 I won't hold my breath! 😁 Mike in San Diego. 🌞🎸🚀🖖
I have to wonder if we are about to see a transition from vertical-mast, 3-bladed turbines to variable-angle tilted masts with a 2-blade turbine - akin to how aviation shifted away from biplanes to monoplanes once the technology allowed monoplanes to be strong and light enough. Though I do wonder if using the mast tilting instead of variable-pitch blades is more efficient? The "downwind" traveling blade will generate less (or no) lift depending upon wind and turbine wing speeds.
I suspect there are some critical limitations to this system but it will nevertheless be cheaper to install and maintain. I predict it'll be highly situational at first, but may give rise to tapping some specific geographic as well as economic potentials. For example, it could end up being more approachable to small and privately-owned operations, and this would fill up the secondary source of sea wind power, which is now seen as niche in the (already established behemoth and money-hungry) industry, but is actually much more dominant in reality and wildly underestimated. In my eyes the survivability is the biggest factor of success and the actual assembly incl. the turbine formation and power transfer. Turbine wake is not that important, because we ought not compare the existing systems directly, because they don't compete for the same resource pool in geographic terms.
1. Power of wind is the cube of wind speed, so the maximal output comes not from maximal speeds, but 1.5-2 times higher speeds in the Weibull distribution. 2. I’d advise putting the turbines in alternating order with each adjacent one operating at different altitude, and the turbines being able to change its rotor tilt not only by tilting the tower, but also only its upper segment. In this way some of turbines will lower themselves to the ground at higher winds, while others will elevate themselves, as a way to diminish interference.
No, that's not an uniblade. It's an asymetric dual-blade rotor. Uniblade rotors do exist already, are used by French operator EdF in Greece, and show much higher performances.
I appreciate all new designs that utilize Nature's clean infinite energies. If only everyone had sufficient amounts of constant wind. But where it exists, the power of intermittent wind must be paired with sufficient storage and distribution, which will add costs. I can see some possible problems with stability/longevity with this design which can only be properly addressed with several linked working demonstration models out on the real waves.
Wind is not a good way to genertae electrcity for a griod system. This is well known for a number of reasons. Intermittent, so needs back up as well, blowing the cheap claim to pieces. Is asynchronous so unable to balance supply and demand. No inertia. No reactive power contribution. There are others but that's enough to be going on with. It is really a bad situation that politicians who decide that we should use them are so ignorant of the defiiciencies. just because a device can generate electricity doesn't mean it's a good idea for a grid and are a simple replacement for conventional generators, they are not and never will be.
Your diagram showing windspeed and using this to justify your statement that most wind power comes at lower velocities is not helpful. Wind energy is to the cube of velocity. So wind at 20km/h has 8x the energy of that at 10km/h
Innovation always needs the blinkers to be removed. How many have been built to date? If none why, if this design has been on the table since 2018? R and D is fine, as the pressures are on the table for results NOW.
"Energy much cheaper". Yes, for the energy companies. NOT for the consumer. As always. Anyway, this turbine reminds me of a helicopter auto-rotating. Quite clever idea.
Air doesn’t get sucked into things in straight lines quite unlike exhausted air which will form into rivers of moving air. Rather inlet air comes in from the river of supply air which is the wind; there is no way wind can be sucked down from higher altitudes as in the graphic because that is not the lowest energy path. If that were not the case then helicopters would affect aircraft above them which they don’t although they certainly affect everything under them.
I've built barrel ships, barrels float good, I feel like these should be rings, not because I think it'll make more power, but I think it will be safer, in the case they tip too low. That way they don't slap and smack, they slide and roll, and should for the same tipping reason, have floatation in the ring.
Ocean-based windmills are much more expensive than land-based. And they set up vibrations in the water that are very disruptive to wildlife. Nuclear power is infinitely better.
I wonder how reliable the bearings will be. Conventional WT has two load directions but this requires at least three some asymmetrical and they have to be able to change progressively. Now put that in sea environment and ask it to work for 20 years...I bet it can't be done reliably
All wind turbines are limited to a maximum theoretical coefficient of power ,known as the Betz limit. No wind turbine can convert more than 59.3% of the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical energy turning a rotor.
you do not need a gondol - that is an advantage. Two blade turbines rotate faster than three blades - so that is also an advantage. There will be an invisible air pillow. And this 'pillow' will be shaped uneven squeezed between the sea and the rotating blades. This 'air pillow' is not evenly distributed (as with standing three-blade turbines), This will also make the power uneven that can cause a bending in the hub. (but it is not easy to estimate how large the difference is between the lower and the higher part of the blade.
Sorry, but energy is never 'unlimited' and a significant part of the cost of ocean based wind is the energy transport and the installation and maintenance costs. But build one first then lets talk actual costs. Right now they are just making claims but without any actual evidence. Build just one real one, install it, then we can talk.
I feel this work but it can change weather effect. Air flow but on large scale it can effect how the wind move below. I might be over thinking. One reason desert can turn into forest. Which reduce heat level.
It's neither cheap, insane nor unlimited. It may be an improvement of the expensive and environmentally damaging wind farms. Plus you don't explain how it actually works.
Just the continued search for better more efficient energy production is exciting. Thank God for inventors otherwise we’d still be swinging in the trees. I like the simplicity of this design very much.
Fascinating concept. The two challenges that I see are dynamic effects of wave motion on the rotating joint. None of the simulations are looking at 5m waves inputs. Second is the challenge of laying lines further out to sea. Admittedly this is a smaller challenge
There's no any info about self -start speed, time to rotate by the wind, tower negative effects and so on. Where are numbers the lowest and the highest working speed? So many questions...
I guess making a more vertical rise with angled prop is out of the question. You address water based use, what about land...you forgot to mention how they work on land and potential decapitations...come on man...be thorough
Whatever its claimed efficiency it is always going to be less than 100 percent. I had a rationalist once explain to me the manner in which the forgoing is able to be proven. Embarrasing for the claimant always.
reminds me a bit of the really efficient asymmetrical rotorblades for drones that reduce noise by a lot. anyways, im just a sucker for passive functionality, that thing can turn into the wind and manage its blades pitch without any motors or computers and sensors and crap. its a winner in my book. on land you could even put the generator at the bottom and just have an axle running up to the top, meaning you would have hardly any weight at the top.(relatively speaking) honestly... im pretty sure i could build something like that behind my house. just a steel frame, rotor on top, generator on the bottom, having it articulate and rotate at the bottom is the hard part, but hardly impossible. man, i cant wait for retirement, there are so many concepts i want to play around with.
Try being yourself, resist cleches such as "but, more on that later" & "so, what of the future". Also its two blades made in one unit, if it was one blade it would have a counter weight for balance both rotating around the shaft.
You have good content but using words like "insane" and "unlimited" in the title sound like B-class clickbaits thus making the video much less appealing
Wone blade? Lost on me. A sailer, I am sure the wind is better up high. Dangerous to sail or motor about, amongst tall structures that might be driven into but to having a leaning wabbling twin winged high energy lawn mower ready to decapitate anything taller than I am.
What do you guys think about this turbine? I'm interested in all your thoughts! Also, check out the incredible AMD Threadripper Pro 7000 WX-Series Processors here: amd.chrd.ly/Ziroth #ad
Maybe in 20 years we will deploy them in the open ocean. If fusion doesn't take of, this will be the most abundant energy form we can get decades later.
I'm not convinced that this design is all that great. Maybe it is more cost effective than the existing offshore turbine but it's not really impressive. If stronger winds can be harnessed at higher elevation, it may be better to focus on bringing the windmill up, using a wing/kite holding an array of turbines? As an added bonus it would automatically lift the turbines out of harm's way when stronger winds bring rough waters. If only I had a Threadripper CPU to run some simulations ;-)
What about those chains that anchor them to the ocean floor? Won't they kill some whales?
2:16 - if this video is meant to be watched by the average viewer use please use the units the average people are familiar with.
Ask you grandma what a speed of 10 m/s would mean and if 32 m/s is fast or not, ask for their impression and not a recalculation.
I have a feeling what 100 km / h means cause you can open a cars window and put you hand in the air flow.
But I would need to do the math to get behind m/s which would mean 27 m/s
If you would have use 115 km / h instead of 32 m/s I would have had a better feeling
and even better for the 259 km / h instead of 72 m/s
If the turbine is any good the first investor who had bought the product will buy thousands more if the costs are lower, maintenance and investments are lower and the equation of production is better than the current ones.
I would not invest in any of shore thing soon which is that different cause it tooks us ages to get where we are right now and none of those are floating.
And the floating topic adds another point of complexity like the cable tied connection to the under sea grid. Just one of the differences where difference means a potential risk or challenge compared to the current ones. Many have lost fortunes to get where we are.
And you might now german engineering quite well, so maybe it is time for you to take a lesson in history or engineering history if you are able to unsolve the shattered dreams of scientist who had gotten a government funding by germany to build one of the first big wind turbines for commercial use, even though for todays scale it might feel like a tiny one.
Fully funded it went into a complete desaster within weeks rather than months. Search for "GROWIAN" or "GRO WI AN" an acronym for "Groß Windkraft Anlage" or big scale wind turbine. This was the biggest failure and desaster for german wind turbine production cause the turbine never achieved any of the designed goals and was only good as an example how to not develope such product.
Therefore the float one has to proof a lot more than just 1 rotor running under ideal circumstances close to shore (for easy repairs) for just months or a couple of years cause the investments needed are so big that these have to last 2 decades and more to be profitable. And that is the real challenge for any new tech to outperform the previous financially and reliable over a full product life cycle and even beyond considering how easy it could be to repower such site after 20 years of usage.
I would be curious if floating turbine bases could double as wave energy generators.
Projects that haven't been built are infinitely less costly than stuff that exists in the real world. True fact.
Big deal... Sitting in a mudhole while doing nothing is the cheapest way to live... Do that then... We're moving on...
Not investing in new tech means spending infinity doing the same thing without advancing. It's not good to be a Luddite.
Yeah thats a fact but if they do manage to make it work. It seems to be less comples than traditional turbines. If its generates similar amount of energy per investment dollar its worth it. And it possibly can do more as it suppose to have more uptime.
Yep.
Disagree. You can waste more money to useless Case study or Theoretical project then on physical proof of concept.
Define "one"!
As a non-engineer, I'd say that design is an asymmetrical duel-blade rotor
Plus, everything looks great in CGI - do we have a real-life model?
I think its referring to the single unit that it is formed from, which they say helps reduce manufacturing costs. Lots of footage of their prototypes in the video! I agree though - CGI always looks easier than reality!
@@ZirothTechso a single piece two blade rotor to be precise
It is symmetrical though💀
I don't think it's asymmetrical. It just looks asymmetrical because of perspective in some of these animations.
@@ZirothTech One piece compared to 3 separate blades, a hub and a whole lot of gears and motors to change the blade pitch.
There is 1000 of these companies making CGI videos and harvesting government money and then they run, away with the money... Until they have demonstrated it works with actual full scale windmill consider it to be a scam, because the chance is 99% that it is.
Only needs one of the 999 to shape the world. Without all the experiments there would be less innovation... kudos to the people who dream big and are prepared to dedicate their lives to their dreams.
@@TBOBrightonandHove I have a dream to lay miss universe. On the other note, this turbine looks interesting.
Damn, got to promote AMD congrats broo.
Thanks man, I couldn't believe it either!
Yes, this is the first yt channel I've seen with such in video promotion of AMD!👍
i was shocketh
One of the most exciting aspects of this design is ease of assembly and maintenance. Being able to attach and assemble the entire rotor and generator near the surface of the water is huge. And then being able to just pull it down again to work on it. But now you say they are looking at more conventional flotation platforms. It would be a pity to lose disability to rotate it up and down for service.
The new base seems to be more about housing a rotation axis for the tilt than removing the variable tilt (it is the main feature after all) while being more stable in waves.
@@_larkin_321 To sum up, I'd say is about addressing real life problems as opposed to lab conditions.
The most interisting is their tensigrity column design. That is the design that could save a lot of cost.
One interesting aspect with this design is that high wind loads will be putting the tower in tension , rather than pushing it sideways with a cantilever force, so you can have a much more lightweight tower structure, as steel is excellent at resisting tension but needs a lot more engineering to resist a cantilevering force.
? so there will be no force perpendicular to the tower in high winds? the tower will be sailing along at the wind speed if your analysis is correct. The tower must hold the rotor against the wind, therefore there will be bending forces on the tower. (described by you as "cantilevering force").
The "engineering" as you describe it, for steel to resist bending forces is well understood and not at all a technical challenge.
Interesting that you assume the tower will be built from steel and steel alone. An assumption that ought to be challenged.
as someone who did math/homework estimating wind turbine prodution on my location, i want to correct some stuff i noticed on wind frequency
it's not that majority of power is produced on slow winds, it's the wind speed frequency, low winds could be just junk energy and won't give much, anything below 10~5m/s range is junk energy production, definitly high winds are better for energy production, but because they have less frequency then they can't rely on them for constant energy production, but some wind farms definity will disconnect some percentage of the wind farm to keep the energy stable, but above a certain speed most wind turbines that are optimized to spin at certain high frequency mid-range speeds won't be efficient and could spin out of control, so they are disabled
so this wind turbine design looks promising in theory, but as pointed out, it's yet have to be seen if the design can handle sea water, swells and waves.
I didn't understood that chart, it seemed like a probability distribution of the different speeds but the Y axis has values up to 0.09 are all those values supposed to add up to one? as in 100%
Your description of how an auto gyro works is incorrect. The blades operate like a wing. They do not draw it up from below.
Any generation of LIFT will direct air downward, this is simple Newtonian physics. If it dose that ENOUGH to be of any impact is the questions, I am doubtful. But the clearly strongest selling point of the system is the simplicity and lack of pitch control. Also it seems obvious to me that the generator should be placed in or near the float with a strait shaft running down the mast or even being the mast as this will lighten the structure hugely. The biggest issue will be at what MINIMUM windspeed the system can operate in, this is where modern turbines are trying to operate at to get higher capacity factors.
I'm dubious about the claim that reducing the wind wake can "suck in" fast air from above the wind farm. The slow air still has to go somewhere, contrary to what the graphic at 8:58 suggests. At best you can spread it out to 5 times as wide and 1/5th as high as the blade disk of the wind turbine or so. Yes, it will help in the case where the next turbine downwind is _exactly_ in the path of another turbine, but now it will actually reduce wind speeds when the next turbine is within that 5 blade disk wide wake, making wake problems 5 times as likely to happen. And after 5 consecutive turbines have sucked in and spread out the wake, you're back to about the same wake height as before.
But maybe this is just a cost saving measure as well. 5 times as likely wake effects of 1/5th the strength will reduce the _maximum_ dynamic load from wake turbulence to 1/5th. I just wonder if wake turbulence adds that much of a load compared to natural air turbulence in rough seas.
Ground effect lift think about it.
@@Barskor1 Good point.
Since the used wind has been slowed (energy extracted) by the rotor, that slowed wake flow takes up a larger downwind volume than you suggest, further reducing any wake avoidance on downwind rotors
Complicated but the rotor will have sucked energy out of the air so will affect surrounding turbines to some extent. Needs a lot of modelling and real world testing. A way to go with this. Similar to perovskites and solar. It takes a lot to unseat the king
A - How does it self-orient if it's offset from its point of anchor?
B - How does it sustain high waves with the turbine in a vertical orientation? That's going to be a LOT of vertical movement shoving and jerking on the generator body.
C - The could increase the power generation by putting wave energy accumulators along the anchoring structure.
Answer to ‘A’. The tower self-orients by reacting to the wind like a windvane.
A simply does.
B make it big
C probably would defeat the value of the design
The sea is a harsh mistress. Weather conditions can be extreme and need not be frequent to be destructive. What would happen if a spinning rotor were knocked down and hit the water? I suspect the rotors would need to be cheap enough to be considered occasionally disposable.
Just happened in New England. Project on hold. Doing environmental studies on microplastics. The environmentalist are the ones shutting down the green project.
First impressions - looks a good idea - interested in updates.
I’m old enough to remember them saying with Hydro-electric power they’ll be producing so much they will not be charging you for using it. Reality is the energy companies will charge the highest price they can to get profit for their shareholders regardless of the production costs.
I believe you are referring to nuclear energy
Science and politics must be studied apart first...
So they've been around since 2018, and in 6 years, and with outside funding, they haven't made a single scale model to prove their concept? Even though they said themselves it'd be much cheaper than normal turbines.
We just have to take their word for all the claims they make based on their own 'projections'.
Also its weird to me that they dont seem too open to having it independently tested by an unbiassed party, even though if that party could prove the claims were accurate they'd make billions off selling the technology.
While i hope it works, I just dont buy any of this.
These things always have some risk, but they are definitely doing some interesting work. They have some scale models which are shown in the video, but from what I understand there is only so much you can learn from them due to scaling laws - such as with the Reynolds number. Thanks for your comment!
I'm with you on this. They have the time and money to put a patent and promotion in place, but not weld together some old oil barrels, scaffold, a dynamo and propeller to make a working concept proof? Alarm bells in my head...
@@ZirothTechthanks for the response. and i did like the video, it was very well made and explained. And I do appreciate you putting new ideas out there.
But I just think if you're a company who makes extraordinary claims, and you have the resources to prove everything you've said, but you dont, that you're probably hiding something.
I get the impression they'll go the route of countless other startups and make huge claims, get investors to give them tons of money, then they cash out and the company dissapears. Its following the exact same pattern as so many failed silicon valley tech startups.
It’s an asymmetrical 2 blade rotor, add a gimbal at bottom to point away from the direction of wind and use on land or water.
I think it's actually symmetrical, it just looks that way in some of the images. I think the shape is straight rotor with the tips bent back from the direction of rotation.
"and use on land or water." It looks like it's too short to be used on land. At least without a much taller pole to get it above ground turbulence.
I think it actually points into the wind. This is what causes it to lift itself up as the wind speed increases. If it was pointing away from the wind, then increasing wind strength would knock it over rather than up.
The idea has appeal, but as with all modern technology the devil is in the detail. I see stability as the major issue. At high wind speed the rotor is acting like an auto gyro. The “lift” this produces will be acting downwards along the pylon. Balancing this, while still allowing the freedom of movement needed for the device to track the wind, will be a hard nut to crack, IMO. I’ll be interested to see if this concept progresses further. Fingers crossed!
As long as it could swivel to face the wind if on land, where there is that weight beneath the rotor on water, on land, it could be a variable tether, producing electricity in the same way as a kite generator does.
@@q.e.d.9112Yeah it definitely looks like it is supposed to point towards the main direction of the wind. Yet how they going to manage that when ocean wind is so chaotic?
I get the appeal. Cheaper, even if it isn't even ideal design.
The great thing about green energy is that the sun and earth over produce! Effiency doesn't really matter if you can make a ton more.
Really appreciate that you reached out to an expert! These sort of videos become way more interesting when there's a bit of qualified discussion and not just promo material
Being able to handle high winds without using brakes or computer pitch control would eliminate most of the catastrophic failures we've seen on 3 blade turbines and all of the downtime we see when these systems need to be serviced.
I think a Brake mechanism will still be needed to safe servicing, though It might need to be less beefy if it's only used in that context rather then in response to high wind.
@@kennethferland5579 I think you mean a spindle lock. Brakes are for slowing things down but a spindle lock is just for stopping things turning and is infinitely cheaper.
Economics of electricity generation are largely determined by the concentration of energy and the cost of fuel. Higher concentration (pressure, temperature, speed etc) = higher efficiency. Low concentration requires more concrete and steel. Therefore a valid economics measure is MW generated per weight of materials (concrete, steel etc). Wind as a "fuel" is free. Extracting energy from it is expensive.
Floating wind has so much potential and there's so much work to be done. A stormy sea is tremendous at smashing stuff up and this was the end of wave power snakes.
"Floating wind" really? is there more than one type of wind - like maybe sinking wind? why has no-one told me this before?
blades on large turbines already get pretty high mach at the tips. I wonder if at high wind speeds this could have issues with the advancing rotor breaking the sound barrier when the winds are high, it's at its max rpm, and the blade is near horizontal.
Jam packed with a lot of very innovative ideas. I hope it works out & they produce 1,000s of them.
Real wind shifts back and forth 15 degrees or so ... wind tunnels can't simulate that. This is how a gyroplane operates but it needs high wind speeds.
Yeah, it'd be impossible to put the model in the wind tunnel on a table that can turn back and forth. Some things man wasn't meant to know.
Nowadays everything on TH-cam is going to be revolutionary. 😅
My GOD man! you have revolutionized the comments section! 😉
Çünkü bilim halka indi, TH-cam sayesinde…
fakat bir dezavantajı var, derinlemesine gözlemlemeyen ve yorumlamayan birey, olayı çözdüğünü sanıp hemen TH-cam’a bir şeyler yüklüyor…😢
Every time I see an AI generated stock photo I wish you had just run more video of you talking.
Conducting generated electricity from a moving to a static base may be inhibitive.
Why?
0:59 Those pencil drawings are lit.
That you put the word CHEAP in Donald Trump all-caps is weird.
The word _unlimited_ is stranger though as it shows a lack of understanding of time or entropy.
This insanity of a so-called breakthrough becoming landfill due to another breakthrough has to stop. All of this "renewable" nonsense is totally dependent on fossil fuel - from mining, manufacture, deployment and commissioning.
❌ There is no way AMD sponsored this video😒
Since when AMD sponsors TH-cam videos ⁉️🤷♀️
As others have mentioned the passive functionality - it's response to high winds - has an appeal. I assume that the developer is relying on this to avoid the need for pitch control: that's where my scepticism would lie. Two other points which are important:
the swept disc is always at an inclination to the wind, reducing output straight away. I think that gives it a serious handicap;
single and twin bladed designs are vulnerable to destructive vibration about an axis parallel to the blades. This could kill the project
m/s is for someone working in the industry. In layman's terms put the value in km/h so the rest of us can understand it without pausing the video to translate it.
"I spoke to experts, and Touchwind." Oooh that's a burn
One big reason of why rotors usually have three blades is the constant inertia to rotate around the vertical axis. With two blade it rotates easier when they are vertical as when they are horizontal. That causes some issues.
Also making a 200 m blade is more complex than 100m ones to have the same diameter.
I think it is just paper ware.
Precisely ! Side Load on the shaft will be on again , off again due to wind gradient . Much fatigue going to happen . Also gyroscopic load of a large spinning mass trying to bob about . Not going to work .
@@57greyghost yes that bobbing and huge gyro load instinctively feels hard to manage
Great Idea. My concern is that weight on a cable. I have visions of that weight swinging around in heavy weather.
The weight is going to be under water, or at least partially under water. It should be pretty well damped against sideways swings. I'd be more worried that waves would push/pull on the weight and swing the mast to beyond vertical (at which point it will tip over).
@@Pystro Buoyancy of the weight (its overall SG) will be one of the variables to play with. No reason the winch couldn't be dynamic - if only for heavy sea conditions the cyclic loading would be reasonable over lifetime. A dynamic winch might also be able to help with broadside stability, allowing the turbine lift to assist with righting.
I think its a good system to harvest the mechanical energy for appliences, because the direction is already in a vertical position. With some automotive parts of a differential, the windmill can swing around and still give propulsion in your desired direction. 72 m/s is such fast, its a great idea.
A stability solution for high seas may be in fixing 10 or so units on a a large square submersed space frame, this borrows from an off shore drilling rigs ability to stay still on wild seas.
There are many operational morphologies for shallow water (
you should mention that the threadripper allows someone to run multiple gpu's at full data bandwidth, unlike regular CPU's
11:28 Only time will tell. Or I. I will tell also.
Thanks.. great idea. another advantage is no thub thub from the blades passing the tower. I like that it bows to the sea and wind. I am wondering if you put this on top of a boat mast and drove an underwater propeller, how fast would it go in various wind directions and speeds. would recommend a more pinnate prop to reduce drag where there no torque produced. I would also consider using sail cloth for the wing to reduce cost, weight and ease of replacement.
Keep up the good work.
Okay, but how are you getting the energy on shore from far off shore, thats the biggest cost in offshore and moving it further out would increase that cost.
and you now have deal with a turbine that is rising and falling with the tide while the whole unit is rotating significantly more with the wind. Typically the more moving parts the more ware and tear. The further out the more expensive to maintain.
@@Finderskeepers. I really hope Quaise Energy's plan works out, which is basically using a fricking 10MW laser to drill down 10 - 20km to get geothermal anywhere in the world.
It would solves so many problems with net 0 at least on the electricity side. 24/7 365 energy with relative easy integration with thermal energy storage to increase output within peek hours.
We will just have to see if it's economically viable though, basically if each well costs much more than $100 million no one is going to invest in it even though in the long term it's a boon still, because that still is over a 10 year ROI the cost of a natural gas power plant assuming each well is 30MW thermal.
The wells will apparently last 100 years so in the long term it's still a great long term investment so if governments step in to reduce the cost to be competitive with natural gas over a 5 year period and making that money back over a longer period of time say 20 - 30 years it could be popular with private involvement.
@@Etheoma Geothermal already exists and only need to go 400m not 10km. The deeper the larger the temp. variance = more energy. Its sounds great using lasers but I see a lot of unknown issues. I will never knock advancement or triers so I wish them well.
Tidal is what I am hoping to see a breakthrough with. The moon isnt going anywhere and the tide goes in and out twice a day every day.
Solar and wind would be even more viable if we could find a way to store the energy. Jeep have a very interesting water powered engine that ICE engines could easily be converted to. The pressurised water system is a viable was to store energy.
Already I see shenanigans in the carbon credits market. Corporate influence at a political level is to high around the world put particularly in the States.
Because of the method to calculate Value there will always be a bias for quick income and shortermism with the lowest income risk which is what ultimately underpins your valid point about ROI.
@@Finderskeepers. Erm I think your talking about superficial geothermal where your only looking for temps of 25C or so for which you only need to go to 50 - 400m mostly for heat pumps or there are other ways you can use such water directly. Even in places close to fault lines 400m is not going to get you far unless you are literally right ontop of a pocket of magma when we are talking about electrical generation.
Even in Iceland the variance is massive between borehole depth between 100 - 2,200 meters where those 100 meter ones are where there are natural water aquifers which go much deeper and Island is the best place in the world to do geothermal and even they have to go down as far as 2,200m to reliably get geothermal.
3km elsewhere is not rare and to get lower heat wells, and Quaise wants to do supercritical geothermal, which requires well temps in excess of 370C anywhere in the world hence the reason for such depths.
Personally I don't see any issues arising that will be show stoppers, if they give up on supercritical steam it will be pretty plain sailing considering even here in the UK which is one of the worst places in the world to do geothermal you can get 130C temps at 5.5km although at that point you are talking about like 1 or 2MW per well and you would need 100s of wells to get anywhere close to a real power plant.
Where as if your getting super critical steam 30MW is easy and 10's of wells will add up to a real power plants output.
@@Etheoma Im more concerned about the unexpected effects. No one expected carbon emissions to be an issue yet here we are. Im thinking along the lines of how dams have had unexpected outcomes and thats far easier to predict and much better understood than lava flows 10km down.
The North Atlantic drift is what keeps the UK's climate so mild and its slowing down due the glacier melt from Greenland and Arctic ice sheets and not because its cold water but because its fresh water . The effects of global warming could be having a significant impact much sooner than we think. We keep messing with nature thinking we know better, mad cow disease is another example. Probability told us we were overdue a pandemic yet there was minimal preparation. We got off lightly, what would ebola of done and thats what really scared the scientists at 1st, Covid had a very similar cell structure but we dont hear that in the news even now.
Huge extraction of energy from basically the earths core concern me. I acknowledge I am being very cautious but I think we have to be. One threat that concerns me that it could easily impact and that is slowly happening as we speak is a flipping of the magnetic poles. Its already effecting satellites in orbit. A mass extraction of energy I assume would have a cooling effect, that would slow down thermal currents and without knowing exactly how and what the core is made off its hard to predict and thats against a background of not predicting what damming a river will do.
I understand how gyrocopters work, but im not sure how that applies to this turbine tipping up in high wind passively
Its downwind so as forces increase it will tilt up. Better look into stability in crosswinds. It may spin itself underwater.
@@MadRat70 It weathervanes.
Makes a lot of sense to me. Does the wake effect offer an added benefit of cooling the ocean surface? Would be easy to test. Put some thermometers' in the water where the downdraft is most intense. As the angle of attack changes the thermometers could be spooled in or out on a tether keeping them in the sweet spot. Also, encouraging corals and sea life to congregate on the submerged components is a huge bonus.
MY VERTICAL TURBINE IS EVEN BETTER, 4 PANELS SPINNING ON A VERTICAL AXEL, IT HAS A BOX FRAME, EACH SIDE IS HALF BLOCKED BY A PANEL TO STOP THE WIND PUSHING THE WRONG WAY.
That would really well at the edge of building roof as it would catch the current then deflect it back under the blades.
Brilliant system.
Very innovative - would love to see some hard cost numbers and some realworld testing .
Cheers
4:35 you can't just assume they are all going to be in a straight line down-wind from one another.. the air goes somewhere, and it's hardly getting compressed, it's getting blown down then flattened out, so all adjacent ones behind it and to the sides are getting that turbulence. You can't just magic it away and show it stopping at each turbine, lmao.. Why model the normal ones in 3D, then show these in simplified 2D. Also I have serious reservations about a turbine that has to pitch-up to save itself, if the stronger the wind is, the harder it can force it to pitch-down.. less surface area, yes, but also higher wind speeds and front-surface exposure into those winds.. forcing it back down then the wind catches the prop again, then pulled down even harder?
>he stronger the wind is, the harder it can force it to pitch-down..
No - the stronger the wind is, the more it will pitch up: the same force that's pulling the air downwards to the surface of the sea is trying to pitch up the turbine. That's why you need that weight. Without the weight it would pitch up too much even in calm wind.
You've done a good job of hitting the highlights but would need a deeper dive into the engineering to formulate an opinion. As for the possibility of a mitigated wake, this would have value for onshore windfarms but the ocean is so vast, it's difficult to see the benefit. For the record, a general rule of thumb is to separate turbines by at least 1.5X rotor diameter so the wind has time to heal before hitting the downwind machine. Something I kept waiting to hear was the coefficient of power for the monoblade and how the Cp degrades with changes in the angle of attack. At the end of the day, there's no way this system will have equivalent efficiency of a traditional horizontal axis offshore turbine, so the benefits have to come from the lower CapEx amortized over time. The ocean is also a very harsh environment, so creating a machine that can withstand these conditions and reliably transfer the generated energy to shore is a challenge not to be underestimated.
it won't be implemented. Reason is it is much too cheap by comparison, and compenies like Heerema and other stakeholders can't earn as much money as 'classical' generators. And, boys and girls, wind energy is not about the environment, it is about big money
200m rotor, on something floating in the North Atlantic, which sometimes gets 80'/24m waves
( "rogue" waves, from constructive-interference between combined waves ),
strikes me as .. "optimistic".
To me it seems that sticking the things *away* from rogue waves would be saner?
but that negates the whole point of the things..
ESA mapped rogue-waves, by satellite, iirc..
I wonder if there is some areas of the ocean which just have less of them, or less of the big ones?
1 pic showed the turbines facing 1 direction, like soldiers in a row-shoulder to shoulder. If the wind direction changes 90°, do the turbines turn 90°? Like soldiers in a column, each looking forward @ the back of the soldier's head in front? Is there a turbine "wake" problem then? Blades are a major problem. There are 1000s of junked blades, broken, split, cracked & un-recycled. The cause is fatigue. Also, possible sun damage to the fiberglass. This design requires a 600 foot blade. How are blade failures going to be reduced? Or, to put it another way, how is blade life going to be greatly increased? Then there's the tree huggers & animal rights' activists concerned about aviary life being sliced. No one here's trying to be a downer. Just mentioning questions/concerns, as is the case with any project, especially innovative untested--(full scale, real life?) ones. Hope you find genuine success for the masses as well as the big boys.
As a wind energy researcher, I like certain features of this idea, but it seems there is one major aspect common to most 2-blade rotors, either missing or not mentioned - so I won't mention that aspect either (sorry). But anyway, I'm seeing quite a few common symptoms in wannabe, always-in-the-future, wind energy promotions that go nowhere. First, that logo representing swirling wind, is a consistent hallmark of a future-failed wind energy concept - just sayin' - they all use it. Next, despite promoting this design, with all that funding, they don't show us a working prototype of that design, at any scale, but instead. at 6:48, have a version mounted on a small tower that happens to be standing in shallow water - why not just do it on land at that point? Why not build a prototype of their actual floating design? Hmmmm...
72 m/s = 161 mph. OK so they first say their new, untested, "barrel" device will withstand winds of 161 miles per hour, while yet still producing power. Now this is a bold statement to make in wind energy, or in marine engineering for that matter. 161 miles per hour is a category 5 hurricane - as bad as it gets. And this turbine is said to keep on producing power in a catego0ry 5 hurricane. But later in the video, we're told they've given up on this "barrel" design because they decided it might be challenged in big waves. I guess they just figured out that a 161 mph wind would entail big waves. It's OK, don't worry, still later in the video they go back to promoting the old "barrel" design. It is just so symptomatic to make absurd claims like this in the field of wannabe wind energy, populated by people who have never had mother nature blow their turbines to smithereens. Sure, your untested idea will magically withstand winds that no previous marine structure could. All the beginners think like that.
Mission-creep: They keep talking about reducing the wake effect of upwind units on downwind units in floating windfarms, as a (the?) main advantage, but still can't show us a single actual unit even floating, let alone operating. But forget seeing even a small model working - now it's all about the untested wake "theory", and how many more units they can pack into a windfarm - uh-huh, sure. Apparently, they have no real proof of this wake factor either. Typical. And with all that funding, they can't even show you a small-scale model that works - something that could be built in a garage, for a few hundred bucks.
So at 8:23, they suddenly throw away everything said up until that point, and basically admit the design they have been talking about would have problems with waves, and they are now instead considering a completely different type of base, using four vertical floating interconnected cylinders, of which they briefly show someone else's model in a tank, saying "the barrel design" (that has been the subject of the entire video thusfar), "is more from an older iteration" - huh? OK so with no further explanation of how, why, or what this new iteration they are suddenly now talking about even is? How does this entirely new, yet unshown, base, fit into a design that consisted mostly of the old base they had been showing us? The old base was 90% of the invention. If they have a new design, why is this video about the old design? OK so the rest of the video goes back to showing the old (now obsolete?) design. Mission-creep again: Suddenly, with no explanation of how or why, they diverge into extreme trendy-buzzword excuse-land, and their next new goal is "3-printing" and "biodiversity", showing a hunk of concrete with holes in it, to attract fish, as their new breakthrough? Yeah, sure, just change the subject to a different topic, and hope potential investors won't notice. Well, some investors are subject to emotion-based "reasoning" too. Then at 8:50, they show truck testing of what appears to be a single 1.5 meter rotor, while talking of a (future, of course) project involving ten 12 kW, 6-meter rotors. Like they're really gonna do that, when they can't build even a tiny single working model of their supposed (and ever-changing) design. Like they even really could do that. I think it might be too much for them.
Prescient how, at 11:24 they admit it might just "evolve" into a regular old wind turbine on a pole - in other words ignore everything you've just heard up until that point. :)
Alas, the ocean environment has an almost infinite capacity for destroying things. Assuming these remote turbines survive and require zero or at least infrequent maintenance, the needs of the long-range power-transmission system - cables, etc - may well negate any advantages gained by the innovative design.
No, I'm not an engineer, just a grumpy sceptic who learned long ago that energy is always, ALWAYS going to be expensive. Even if the generation of that energy somehow became absolutely free, companies would simply hike the cost of providing it with unfair tariffs and enormous daily "standing charges" (what a scam!) to ensure that the wealthy continue to pay through the nose to heat their luxurious swimming pools, and the poor remain huddled in blankets because they can't afford to heat their homes.
As I write this (in the cold, wet, grey, gloomy, miserable north of England) I really am wrapped in a blanket. It's June and, typically for Britain, still wintry. Despite the marvellous claims of the electricity-supply companies about green energy, renewables, carbon-neutral shenanigans and the joys of eco-friendly power generation, I haven't been able to heat my home (or have hot running water) since 2009.
I can't afford heating of any kind, so it's a blanket and a woolly hat for me. Fancy turbines make great video subjects, but no amount of aerodynamic research or epoxy-carbon-aramid-fibre composites will stop my teeth chattering.
Thanks for a very informative video. It for sure gives me hope for my children and their children's future:). Is there any calculated life cycle emission gCO2/Kwh for this energy source? (From drawing to recycling). Maybe possible for you to include this KPI in all your videos about new energy sources? I am thinking that it is always good to see where they are in respect to all the other energy sources. Keep up the good work and continue bringing awareness and knowledge in this area.
4:20 ""This is known as the wake of the turbine", a technical term ?
I don't understand the question.
Wake is a technical term for the turbulance in a flow caused by it passing over any object or from an object moving through a fluid. It applies in both air and water.
He have a degrees in Aerodynamics, Engineering and Philosophy? Taking an average of 5 years of graduation per subject, this genius took 15 years to complete his education. Something doesn't calculate, I guess just another garage mechanic with what he imagines is a great idea. We have seen such characters hundreds of times and nothing comes of the revolutionary projects they have initiated.
I see a few major problems here.
The obvious one is that a single-piece blade limits the turbines to half the diameter of conventional ones so you need about 4x as many turbines for the same power not counting any other factors. just increasing the length of a single blade to make up for it isn't trivial.
I also wonder how they plan to deal with the sideways overturning moment. because it acts like an autogyro the advancing blade makes much more lift than the retreating one without cyclic pitch control and/or significant blade flapping, trying to tip the tower over sideways. Cyclic pitch or blade flapping would dramatically reduce the working lifetime compared to conventional wind turbines, which would kind of defeat the purpose.
This design also puts the main bearing in tension with significant side loads that are always in the same direction, which makes the bearing much more expensive and dramatically reduces it's lifetime compared to simple compression in normal wind turbines.
It's a total joke. 95% of the wind blows right past the blades. You have 10-12 mph hour wind. Clear your mind and forget what you thought was correct. I started fresh and ended up with a totally new design that produces lots of current at low wind speed. I crossed a Piper Cub, a jet turbine, and a wind surfer. You have to know how to sail a sail boat.
the AI graphical calculator that has seen better days...has seen better days. i'm a fan of phoning it in. but that was pretty damn terrible.
That's technically a two bladed turbine, designed as a single blade, which doesn't give any significant benefit, but a lot of disadvantages. Conventional pitch control isn't very problematic, and has multiple significant to huge advantages over tilting the whole construction. The "uniblade" design makes the issues with making and transporting big turbines with that design as bad as conventional turbine designs with twice the rotor diameter,
Will the wind be directed downwards? Sure, typically yes, slightly at least. Will that increase net power generation compared to just utilizing the wind in the best ways we know, and/or decrease cost of the power generated? Definitely no! There's no free lunch in physics, if you redirect the flow you're not utilizing the energy in the wind as efficiently as you could have, and can't "gather" and focus airflow from way above the turbines that way.
‘Ease of assembly and maintenance and Cheap.’ At sea? The sea is so unpredictable and unyielding. Ask any person with a moored boat how long it takes for barnacles to form and foul the hull. Check out the building and maintenance costs of structures at sea. ‘Sea’ and ‘cheap’ are mutually exclusive terms. Nothing cheap about a wind turbine or recyclable.
It looks very simple/efficient when they are small, but if we're talking 200m blades, then it becomes a large construction. If such a large tower is tilted at different angles and lifted by the rotating blades I imagine this will put tremendous stress on the materials. The inside components must also deal with the angle movement.
I'm no engineer, so maybe these are non-issues, but I expect that the challenges exponentially increase when scaling up, similar to traditional wind turbines.
Nonetheless I think it's very interesting and useful to try out alternatives. After all, in the long run we'll need a massive scale of energy production.
You didn't sawR it.
That's not schooled English.
It's a Bad Diction Rhotic Habit.
NOT lawR drawR drawRing withdrawRal awRinspiring NOT asdaR pastaR bananaR pizzaR cinemaR sofaR mediaR dataR NOT lisaR emmaR santaR NOT kenyaR canadaR viaR americaR.
Is the reduced wake proven and tested, you are talking about it as it is!?
How it would tilt up and down if it is not mounted on sideways barrel instead od 4 upright barrels? It would either be more complex = more money and less reliability or it would not tilt.
If sideways barrel is "old" design and new one is 4 upright barrels and you know this, why would you use the "old" design in majority of the video!?
If high wind speed operation is not important why do you mention it so much!? If it is important why it looks so small on your graph?
If you deploy thousands of these and use sea life promoting anchors how would that impact all sea life, one that it promotes and probably creates more of, and others which is not promoted?
Looking at it from physics perspective you can not "pull" the wind as you have said in this video, if I am wrong please explain to me how would you pull the wind !?
....
Nope. Wind isn't the answer no matter how it's collected. Wind is free power though fickle, but the means to collect and store that power is far from cheap or sustainable. Power plants need to produce in rain or shine, hot or cold, storm or calm, 24/7/365. What can provide that? It's not solar, not wind. Hydroelectric does, geothermal does, nuclear does. Nuclear power plants are the easiest and least expensive of the three to build. Hydroelectric dams are major undertakings, but can provide power for centuries. Geothermal plants can also provide long term continuous power but they do generate a lot of heat. And heat is how nuclear plants work. I mention heat generation because we are dumping so much residual heat into our atmosphere that we could very well boil our oceans in another 400 years. While solar and wind don't generate much heat, they rely on chemical storage of electrical charge. The chemicals/ metals used in the storage batteries are eventually consumed and have to be recycled. Recycling that material is cost intensive. Not recycling that material means we will eventually run out of the materials to make those batteries and the poisonous, reactive waste will have to be stored some place safe.
A 200 metre blade? That's huge! Seems impossible to make it strong enough. Could easily make a 10 metre prototype. Why haven't they? Probably hoping to get some of those 'green energy' dollars/pounds that are so popular, first.
My Engineering experience finds a 200 Meter device, a Bit of a stretch with current Materials technology. 🤨
Perhaps they can prove me wrong! 🤔
I won't hold my breath! 😁
Mike in San Diego. 🌞🎸🚀🖖
I have to wonder if we are about to see a transition from vertical-mast, 3-bladed turbines to variable-angle tilted masts with a 2-blade turbine - akin to how aviation shifted away from biplanes to monoplanes once the technology allowed monoplanes to be strong and light enough.
Though I do wonder if using the mast tilting instead of variable-pitch blades is more efficient? The "downwind" traveling blade will generate less (or no) lift depending upon wind and turbine wing speeds.
I suspect there are some critical limitations to this system but it will nevertheless be cheaper to install and maintain.
I predict it'll be highly situational at first, but may give rise to tapping some specific geographic as well as economic potentials. For example, it could end up being more approachable to small and privately-owned operations, and this would fill up the secondary source of sea wind power, which is now seen as niche in the (already established behemoth and money-hungry) industry, but is actually much more dominant in reality and wildly underestimated.
In my eyes the survivability is the biggest factor of success and the actual assembly incl. the turbine formation and power transfer. Turbine wake is not that important, because we ought not compare the existing systems directly, because they don't compete for the same resource pool in geographic terms.
Ehh. The only problem is the 2 blade gyroscopic force isn't uniform and causes the windmill to shake.
1. Power of wind is the cube of wind speed, so the maximal output comes not from maximal speeds, but 1.5-2 times higher speeds in the Weibull distribution.
2. I’d advise putting the turbines in alternating order with each adjacent one operating at different altitude, and the turbines being able to change its rotor tilt not only by tilting the tower, but also only its upper segment. In this way some of turbines will lower themselves to the ground at higher winds, while others will elevate themselves, as a way to diminish interference.
No, that's not an uniblade. It's an asymetric dual-blade rotor. Uniblade rotors do exist already, are used by French operator EdF in Greece, and show much higher performances.
I appreciate all new designs that utilize Nature's clean infinite energies. If only everyone had sufficient amounts of constant wind. But where it exists, the power of intermittent wind must be paired with sufficient storage and distribution, which will add costs.
I can see some possible problems with stability/longevity with this design which can only be properly addressed with several linked working demonstration models out on the real waves.
Careful.. busted incoming...
Wind is not a good way to genertae electrcity for a griod system. This is well known for a number of reasons.
Intermittent, so needs back up as well, blowing the cheap claim to pieces.
Is asynchronous so unable to balance supply and demand.
No inertia.
No reactive power contribution.
There are others but that's enough to be going on with.
It is really a bad situation that politicians who decide that we should use them are so ignorant of the defiiciencies.
just because a device can generate electricity doesn't mean it's a good idea for a grid and are a simple replacement for conventional generators, they are not and never will be.
Your diagram showing windspeed and using this to justify your statement that most wind power comes at lower velocities is not helpful. Wind energy is to the cube of velocity. So wind at 20km/h has 8x the energy of that at 10km/h
Innovation always needs the blinkers to be removed. How many have been built to date? If none why, if this design has been on the table since 2018? R and D is fine, as the pressures are on the table for results NOW.
"Energy much cheaper". Yes, for the energy companies. NOT for the consumer. As always.
Anyway, this turbine reminds me of a helicopter auto-rotating. Quite clever idea.
Air doesn’t get sucked into things in straight lines quite unlike exhausted air which will form into rivers of moving air. Rather inlet air comes in from the river of supply air which is the wind; there is no way wind can be sucked down from higher altitudes as in the graphic because that is not the lowest energy path. If that were not the case then helicopters would affect aircraft above them which they don’t although they certainly affect everything under them.
I've built barrel ships, barrels float good, I feel like these should be rings, not because I think it'll make more power, but I think it will be safer, in the case they tip too low. That way they don't slap and smack, they slide and roll, and should for the same tipping reason, have floatation in the ring.
Ocean-based windmills are much more expensive than land-based. And they set up vibrations in the water that are very disruptive to wildlife. Nuclear power is infinitely better.
I wonder how reliable the bearings will be. Conventional WT has two load directions but this requires at least three some asymmetrical and they have to be able to change progressively. Now put that in sea environment and ask it to work for 20 years...I bet it can't be done reliably
All wind turbines are limited to a maximum theoretical coefficient of power ,known as the Betz limit. No wind turbine can convert more than 59.3% of the kinetic energy of the wind into mechanical energy turning a rotor.
you do not need a gondol - that is an advantage. Two blade turbines rotate faster than three blades - so that is also an advantage. There will be an invisible air pillow. And this 'pillow' will be shaped uneven squeezed between the sea and the rotating blades. This 'air pillow' is not evenly distributed (as with standing three-blade turbines), This will also make the power uneven that can cause a bending in the hub. (but it is not easy to estimate how large the difference is between the lower and the higher part of the blade.
Have shared on Meta watched your wonderful interview with Imogen Bhogal. Have subscribed. Good luck with the PhD and with your TH-cam channel
Sorry, but energy is never 'unlimited' and a significant part of the cost of ocean based wind is the energy transport and the installation and maintenance costs. But build one first then lets talk actual costs. Right now they are just making claims but without any actual evidence. Build just one real one, install it, then we can talk.
I feel this work but it can change weather effect. Air flow but on large scale it can effect how the wind move below. I might be over thinking. One reason desert can turn into forest. Which reduce heat level.
It's neither cheap, insane nor unlimited. It may be an improvement of the expensive and environmentally damaging wind farms. Plus you don't explain how it actually works.
Just the continued search for better more efficient energy production is exciting. Thank God for inventors otherwise we’d still be swinging in the trees. I like the simplicity of this design very much.
Fascinating concept. The two challenges that I see are dynamic effects of wave motion on the rotating joint. None of the simulations are looking at 5m waves inputs. Second is the challenge of laying lines further out to sea. Admittedly this is a smaller challenge
There's no any info about self -start speed, time to rotate by the wind, tower negative effects and so on.
Where are numbers the lowest and the highest working speed?
So many questions...
I guess making a more vertical rise with angled prop is out of the question. You address water based use, what about land...you forgot to mention how they work on land and potential decapitations...come on man...be thorough
Whatever its claimed efficiency it is always going to be less than 100 percent. I had a rationalist once explain to me the manner in which the forgoing is able to be proven. Embarrasing for the claimant always.
reminds me a bit of the really efficient asymmetrical rotorblades for drones that reduce noise by a lot.
anyways, im just a sucker for passive functionality, that thing can turn into the wind and manage its blades pitch without any motors or computers and sensors and crap. its a winner in my book.
on land you could even put the generator at the bottom and just have an axle running up to the top, meaning you would have hardly any weight at the top.(relatively speaking)
honestly... im pretty sure i could build something like that behind my house. just a steel frame, rotor on top, generator on the bottom, having it articulate and rotate at the bottom is the hard part, but hardly impossible. man, i cant wait for retirement, there are so many concepts i want to play around with.
I think it's symmetric.
Try being yourself, resist cleches such as "but, more on that later" & "so, what of the future". Also its two blades made in one unit, if it was one blade it would have a counter weight for balance both rotating around the shaft.
You have good content but using words like "insane" and "unlimited" in the title sound like B-class clickbaits thus making the video much less appealing
Spoiler: There will NEVER be cheap energy…it may be cheap to harness, but fat cat power corporations will never sell it cheap to consumers.
Wone blade? Lost on me. A sailer, I am sure the wind is better up high. Dangerous to sail or motor about, amongst tall structures that might be driven into but to having a leaning wabbling twin winged high energy lawn mower ready to decapitate anything taller than I am.