We have some exciting news! We’re launching channel Memberships for just $0.99 a month. You’ll get access to members-only posts and videos, live Q&As with Bloomberg reporters, business trivia, badges, emojis and more. Join us: th-cam.com/users/bloombergjoin
This a poorly researched and misleading video. Showing a wind turbine on fire, and not adequately explaining what happened is criminal. Send science literate journalists for these kind of topics Bloomberg
Just in case anyone is wondering what happened. Its breaks failed, an incredible rare occurrence. Bloomberg didn't even mention that wind turbines have breaks.
@@RealEngineering rare my ass you can see wind turbines on fire all over youtube. granted the breaks failing is a rare one but that much stress on the bearings from the vertical load would create massive amounts of heat.
These are Savonius type vertical turbines. Disadvantages: generates less than 50% the power from same wind area. scales down quite well, but does *not* scale up very well. Largest practical size is MUCH smaller than conventional bladed rotors. Handles low winds well. handles variable wind speed and direction VERY well. but gains no benefit at high wind speeds. at all! Uses between 50% more to 4000% more material to construct, for a given wind area. i.e. They are *great* for near-the-ground small-power systems. Especially in inaccessible locations where maintenance is not a viable option. And utterly useless for grid power generation.
since they scale down well, would they be an option for small residential systems, such as a supplement to solar? My solar system is great but small due to size/location of my roof so i'd love to have some wind generation as well but everything i've looked at is either too large or too noisy to put on my house with neighbors homes only about 12' away. I'm looking at vertical axis possibilities now instead.
@@markdlondon Yep. These are a GREAT supplemental power source at household-minus scale. Especially to, for example, charge up a battery for a light in an isolated building, recharge a comms relay on a hill somewhere, power an emergency phone out in the wilderness. Think systems that require small power under adverse conditions. Close to the ground, arctic light conditions, etc. But expect 1/3 to 1/6 the power total you could have gotten from a similarly sized (but much taller) 'normal' horizontal wind turbine. Savonius' strength is very low maintenence, protection against high wind overspeed, and (some) function even under very low or turbulent winds. But inefficient, and weak.
Thank you for providing the facts that should have been in the video. I guess the video was some Bloomberg reporter's excuse for a vacation in Iceland.
The video failed to mention a major advantage of this type of turbine - it works with wind from any direction with no need for reorientation as wind shifts.
Those are all talked about in the video Power and Efficiency don't matter her since the materials and way its built are so cheep. As it mentions these are much cheaper to produce than a conventional wind turbine. And for applicability these are being design to be put literately anywhere where there is wind. They can make them as big or as small as they want to fit whatever need.
@Yolou1024 You need to calculate the cost of enery produced with this and compare that to other electricity sources (LCOE - $/MWh). Power and efficiency are the two of the most important things in electricity production.
đeri662 No, actually you don’t. These are cheap, which overrides bitching about cost. Putting them WHERE they’re needed is a major boost because you don’t lose anything in transmission. Solar works with Solar Panels or giant Concentrating Solar mirror farms. Wind works with these small turbines or giant wind farms with huge towers. Hydro works with micro hydro turbines in a stream or the Hoover Dam.
@@Jkirk3279 Really? If this wind turbine costs 2,000 $ and it produces 10 MWh in it's lifetime, its LCOE (neglecting the discount rate and maintanance) is 200 $/MWh. If a large wind turbine costs 1,000,000 $ and it produces 10,000 MWh in it's life, its LCOE is 100 $/MWh. So despite the cheaper turbine, the electricity it produces is twice as expensive. You have to put them where wind speeds are sufficient, not anywhere. You can put a gas or coal power plant wherever you want.
The cost of these vs grid must be compared to the cost of installation of service. So in remote locations where miles of new lines might be needed, these can provide a savings. Solar and mixed power are of course also options, and as with the bus stop in the video they may also be installed just to attract attention. Can we just agree that everyone aside from me is wrong and stupid?
Yes, but economy of scale brings the prices down. A single large plant is easier and cheaper to build and maintain than thousands of small ones. Also any form of power generation can be distributed. The ideal solution would probably be 10-100MW mass produced modular nuclear reactors. With reasonable regulations and mass production costs could be orders of magnitude lower then anything we have now. Better designs (like the LFTR) are safe without the usual insane over-engineering, which makes them a lot cheaper too. The small modular design means that reactor block can be built in a factory, easily moved to anywhere and set up quickly. These are also ideal to power ships, unlike solar or wind.
You're not considering all factors. Single, large generators are vulnerable to attack and breakdown, cutting off service to hundreds of thousands. Small, plants (each city) maintaining it's own stations across neighborhoods is the best. Cities are not good places to live. The NWO wants to herd all of us into their slave cities..
***** I actually considered that to. That's why I think small to medium sized reactors are a good compromise. Now we have a lot of GW scale plants, those are often too big, but regulations drive plant sizes up, because a lot of the costs are per unit not per MW. Smaller plants near the consumers are better for several reasons. Cities have their pros and cons, and small cities are very different from huge ones. The biggest advantage of a city is that everything you need is relatively close. While we still have to physically go to places to do stuff, we need cities.
When I first got into wind energy as a hobby a few years ago, I thought people would be nicer. It seems everyone is so competitive and negative. Not these guys in the video, but example of comments below. I made my first wind turbine, (as a hobby as a novice, and for the fun of it) and people posted a lot of negative things. It was far from perfect. I would give it a 2 from 1-10, laugh, but it was my first try. People think they are going to reinvent something in the turbine biz, that no once else knows, so I feel it has created this weird negative environment. We are all working towards the same goal, and people who do these kinds of businesses, usually it is because they have a passion for it. If one has ideas on how to make things better, just give them the idea, don't brag about it. Don't make fun of them. I love the person out side of the kitchen, as the chef works 12 hours to make a great meal, they sit on the couch, take a bite and say, I could have done better. But the point is, you didn't do better because you didn't do anything. This guys has a business, a team, he is making an effort, and doing amazing. I love the design. And I am sure it is just going to get better. People, please, be nice, be kind, and keep it positive. Otherwise you are just advertising that you are not happy in your own life. And last, if you ever come to St. Louis Mo USA, please visit out 1920s speakeasy, dinner theater. The Boom Boom Room STL
What you say is true, but human nature isn't going to change very quickly (certainly not in your lifetime), so you had better (quickly) get used to it.
The Boom Boom Room Great points as shown by the two ass clowns who spewed their negative Nancy childish wah wah behavior. to all negative people...just because the internet has afforded you the opportunity to voice your bullshit, it rarely means you should.
Lots of lovely irony there, "Scott Lambert", YOUR "negative Nancy childish wah wah behavior" IS "human nature". Windmill efficiency ALWAYS increases with size, and 600,000 of THESE started the Internet, and I designed it. www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BICC-ISOLAN-Transceiver-Type-1110-With-SQE-Test-/201600254673
The Boom Boom Room i don't know much about wind energy. we don't get a lot here. i would like to ask why doesn't someone use a old fashioned centrifical governor to adjust angle of blades for high and low wind conditions. i also have a fix for vertical windmill over speed and effiency that i haven't seen.
The problem with the governor is simply that it is MORE mechanism. It IS possible to design a windmill that loses so much efficiency in overspeed conditions that it cannot really overspeed. Efficiency improves with SIZE. A small efficient windmill will destroy itself, just as will a large one. For personal use, an inefficient vertical axis windmill is probably the best choice. But what would you like it to do? Light a cigarette, perhaps?
People don't understand, the idea isn't for these to replace convetional wind turbines. They function more like solar panels, you can make lot's of them and put them everywhere you need a little bit of power. Though I have to admit they mislead us a bit in the video comparing the turbines to big, conventional wind turbines, as though they would replace them. They only hinted at their real purpose by showing us the bus stop and weather station.
Cool but the onley thing you are saying !!! That the sice is way to ineficiant if you need 2 of Them to a AP/ hotspot and USB CHARDGING If i wanted 1 for my house to support my PV panels .. 48v .. i still need info about Watt !!!!! If you can't suppley Watt .. Then you are just a rambelin moron !!! Oooh this dates back to the greeks!!! Yes and!!! Who give a fuk. I want Watt M/s Volt .. other wise .. go blow hot air elswhere
Small versions of conventional wind turbines work just fine. They are used on sailing boats to charge batteries and to power illuminated road signs, weather stations etc.
It prevents over spine because the wind hits both the approaching and receding face. Basically it produces a lot of drag. Which is also one of it's biggest drawbacks. They are just not very efficient in fact they are one of the least efficient types. On the plus side they can be placed lower to the ground and last a lot longer. It also has the advantage of a shaft going all the way through thus adding greater stabilization. A good portion of the weight on an Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines is only stabilized on the back side. HAWT also get a bit of help because they generate a bit of lift perpendicular to the direction of air flow. This can have the effect of a positive feed back loop causing frequent over spin and a shorter life span for them.
diGritz1 That makes a lot of sense, thanks! I now understand the disadvantages of the design but not the disadvantages of the bladed turbines. Specifically the feedback you mentioned.
Melinda Green An HAWT is basically the same shape as a airplane prop which is basically a spinning wing and a wing generates lift. This effect is mostly dependent on the angle of attack of the blade and can be lessened to a degree but never eliminated. So the faster the blade turns the greater the lift it generates. This can put many different types of stress on the system as a whole but probably the most notable is the longitudinal forces placed on the shaft and housing. This is slight but the faster the blade turns the more this increases. Hence the feedback on the system and an increasing chance of over spin and/or overheating Admittedly this is less of a problem with high end HAWTs because they are mostly variable pitch as opposed to earlier models which are fixed. But given the higher cost and greater maintenance of the variable pitched types there is still a lot of the fixed pitched systems in use.
Democrats: "Wind turbines and solar energy are the way to go to produce cheap, reliable, and environment-friendly energy to meet world-wide needs and population growth." Republicans: "Let's bring back coals and buggies!"
The power available to these is 50% of the profile cross section of the blade unit. The power available to conventional turbines is 3.41 x the length of the blade squared. These are fine for phone batteries, and a couple of LEDs. They cannot provide serious power (not that conventional fans do either) But be honest in reporting these things.
interesting mix of random technobabble. i could easily say that fan turbines aren't efficient as they only work as large scale..Are you measuring in watts? does the speed of the blades change the power rating? do you know what the area of the upright turbine is? and so can you calculate its power factor? if you are going to diss a product please provide the science.. Then i could work out if your argument has merit or if you are just trolling around thanks
Im not saying you are wrong about the wind turbine power but where can i find that information . I always wanted green energy until i realized it wasnt 'practical ' if you know what i mean .
@Nikos Nikos It has to do with drag, similar to terminal velocity of a falling body here on Earth. The drag is a force that increases with velocity and it is defined as D = ((V^2)/2)(s A c) where: "V" is velocity, "s" is density of air, "A" is the frontal area of the blades and "c" is the coefficient of drag that is dependent to the frontal shape. Because the convex blade has the same area as the concave blade their force cancels except for a small difference of "c", also that is why the blade spin. If the blades were flat it would not spin. And as the air velocity increases so does the drag. Hopefully this will help.
They avoid overspinning by being very INefficient. Power from incoming wind is roughly linear with wind speed. Air Friction from wind is roughly squared with wind speed. Hit one of these with a true hurricane force wind, and it will not spin *at al*, just try to fall over as if it was a cardboard cutout in the wind.
Yes it did, the problem is spinning out of control. They said conventional wind turbines only have about a three year lifespan in Iceland because of this reason.
I know! I never said I agree with this video! All I'm saying is that they did in fact talk about "one of wind turbines biggest problems" and how these turbines would supposably solve them.
Overhyped nonsense. Savonius-like turbines have been around for a long time and have been shown to be inefficient compared to devices that depend more on lift than drag. That's why the world's best turbines have converged on the prop types.
There is a huge need for turbines that are safe for on top of buildings and next to houses. Apparently any kind of turbine only lasts about 3 years in Iceland before they tear themselves apart. Obviously the status quo is not workable in every situation.
Take away ALL the Massive subsidies the "prop type" receive , factor in 3 yr lifespan , high maintenance and installation cost and the Savonius wins hands down .
@@absabs7555 the large scale wind turbines work for large scale power production and are the most efficient by a large margin. These smaller wind turbines are no where near as efficient, BUT, they do have one big advantage. They are small, cheap, and quiet. This means they can be installed in populated areas without much trouble. So even though their efficiency is lower, if you get enough of them you can put them in populated areas to produce a decent amount of power. However, for large scale energy production, traditional wind power farms are definitely much more efficient.
This video was not about why old style turbines catch fire, most of them are falling into disrepair anyway, but this is about progress like going from a buggy wheel to rubber tires. Hats off to the innovators, we should concern ourselves with 50 to 100 years down the road. Not worry about repairing old school.
You didnt talk about the real breakthrough with this design. Having a propeller that works no matter what direction the wind is coming from. Thats huge.
They must have pretty constant wind to be able to mount them so low. Usually, you have to put turbines high to avoid non-laminar airflow - the ground itself acts as a friction force, disrupting the energy, not to mention trees and houses.
Green-propaganda hahahahaha yes... great thank you. The thing is with Iceland. They are allready pretty green. Check out their Geothermalpowerplants..... They are almost Greenland ..... Actually I am disapointed with this video because I thought they would speak about a storage for energy when they have overproduction for the time when there is no wind.
That's basically what anyone with alternative power sources does, whether wind, solar, microhydro, or even diesel generators. The point was that VAWTs can be less efficient than HAWTs, and that both kinds tend to benefit from being much higher in the air flow for most other landscapes than Iceland.
Many comments here about efficiency. The real issue is about practicality and total cost of operation versus power generation. So what if it's less efficient if it is cheaper to build, operate and install. Without subsidies, the huge wind turbines are a disaster financially. They cost millions of dollars EACH by the time they are built, transported and installed, and how long can they be relied upon? How long until they generate enough power just to pay for themselves and their maintenance much less make a profit? Keep working on this concept. It has a great deal of merit.
How efficient is a wind turbine design where half the turbine area is moving into the wind, counteracting the other half which is moving away from the wind? The only reason it works at all is because the back side of each blade is curved to slightly reduce its friction as it moves into the wind.
minimum height? about 0.1mm, if you don't worry about the meatgrinder aspect of it on passers-by. This design thrives on erratic little gusts of variable wind coming at it from funny directions. I.e. ground turbulence is *fine*. It does not benefit from being high up in steady, strong winds. It does not like strong winds. Over about 20kt it actually *loses* power generation with increasing wind.
Apples and oranges! You're comparing a generator suitable for some electronics at a bus shelter with one that supplies electricity to thousands of homes. It's pretty obvious they have different designs.
NREL National Renewable Energy Labs (US) stopped all testing on VAWTs because of inefficiency, unreliability and high cost of maintenance. I live close to an NREL test site near Boulder, CO. There are many standard 3 blade designs that undergo testing. As a hobby, I did a lot of research into renewable energy, especially wind turbines. Despite looking cool, I discovered that the VAWTs were essentially worthless.
Kenneth Keen: Gallons are the standard unit of volume, except in many backward jurisdictions which have regressed to socialism. They use the sissywimp unit close to a quart. There is a psychologigal weakness which is assuaged by larger numbers. .(fuck)
MakoRuu How appropriate that the God of thunder would be harnessing the power of the weather to create electricity. ' special thank to GOD the father gave the electric power thunder lightning to thomas edison... edison was invented electric from the kite with a key
Thanks Bloomberg, another gem from your media team. Why do Icelanders speak better English than New Yorkers, Floridians, and Londoners? It's damn embarrassing...these gentlemen definitely will get my money when I venture out to build out a property. It makes total sense to convert dollars into land and energy goods.
The applications are different. VAWT is for smaller applications like lighting a sign, charging a phone etc, while The real daddy of wind turbine is for motive power application. They can compliment each other, not replace themselves with one another. Let me tell you, VAWT will never be efficient though.
You misrepresnt the video. This is asolution for Iceland with too strong winds for conventional and sparsely populated such that generating small amounts of energy locally makes sense.
worked with a company that made great claims about their Savonious turbine. After two years they still could not produce net positive energy with it. Without real prices and specs these kinds of infomercials are useless.
But but you're missing the point, they're using an abandoned coal plant. lol and all their sketches are on hemp paper instead of that dirty unrenewable normal paper.
Considering the huge number of failures of the turbines being built by the "experts", if these will just operate long enough to recoup their capital cost, that's a win.
I wish they had really explained why that shape protected against over spin in high winds. Just saying the shape gave rise to the protection was hand waving.
Once the lighting systems around the world adapt to a low voltage/wattage system these types of wind turbines can power the simple lighting tasks while the power grid can be utilized for the really heavy work. Lots of power gets used and goes wasted just for simple lighting.
Like he said nothing new. I've produced one very similar myself and yes they do prevent over spin from high winds. When it reaches a certain RPM it creates a Vortex around it that blocks the wind in a way like a giant drum wood. The faster it spins the less likely it is able to spend because it becomes less aerodynamic efficient for rotation. At a certain point it literally just fights itself and becomes a cylinder. This is simply only my experience with these types of designs. To see this company grow would be excellent
@@charonstyxferryman That's right, but the price for very little energy will be prohibitively high. It may be fine for isolated telecom towers, just like it's okay to put very expensive photovoltaic cells in orbit. The amount of power that can be extracted from a turbine varies with the sept area, and is also greatly affected by the height of the turbine. By making such a turbine twice as big, you would be able to extract 4 times the power for a given wind speed.
One of the biggest problems to overcome with wind power solutions, besides property devaluation, is their contribution to noise pollution. If you're hypersensitive to the wave lengths that's produced by wind turbines then it's very serious if you live near a wind farm or even a single small one such that a neighbor might have in their yard. You might come to hate them for not only their constant whoomph, whoomph, whoomph but also the subsonic vibrations called ' infrasound' that you don't hear but FEEL. It's not just your sleep and peace of mind that's getting disturbed. It's the kind of noise that will irritate you 24/7 when they are operational. It's even worse than living near an airport or railway tracks. Their kind of noise pollution is typically intermittent and might be easily ignored. But if you're susceptible to them, wind turbines produce vibrations that may constantly rattle your bones, teeth and internal organs. The World Health Organization is getting involved too. WHO, which has not published any detailed guidelines regarding wind turbine noises, will be releasing environmental noise guidelines for the European region and the US in the near future. My Acoustical Engineer brother in law has had a successful career for almost 2 decades fighting for the little guy, people in rural towns where corporations have invaded to erect nearby giant monstrosities which not only are eye sores but disturb one's peace but and may also contribute to a variety of health problems in humans and animals. One particular health problem is miscarriages both animal and human. Wind power might be a viable alternative to fossil fuels but it might also be detrimental to our mental and physical health.
First let me say I am all for any alternative energy design or source that actually works and can pay for itself. Sadly, this one falls way short. This video is very short on detail which means the facts they have (if any) are not very supportive of their design. Anyone with a design that is very good has many facts and figures to support their design. The efficiency of Savonius rotor wind turbines has never proven to be very good though they do perform better in low wind. That's why you see the very large three bladed propeller designs in wind farms instead. Yes, the Savonius rotors "function" in low wind but that does not mean they generate much power in low wind. These windmills are for low power requirements and if you listened to the video they were providing power for very low powered functions. This design also leaves me questioning everything about it. A quick read of Savonius rotor design and performance testing shows that two blades and end caps are the most efficient designs. Another very important consideration not mentioned in the video is a site survey for average wind speed at height. Without knowing this the rest of it is fluff.
Um almost the entire wind industry has that's why we can say the design sucks. When you compare this design to damn near every other wind installation it does suck, and wind has it's own issues on top you idiots championing incredibly inefficient designs. Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more.
Berelore You would be the idiot, since you cannot comprehend English, and at the same time insult someone. ... I was going to 'explain' to you, but I have learned when coming across complete idiots like you, it's better just to say, 'fuck you'. So... fuck you.
Nice job. You've managed to use broken English in an attempt to sooth your ego instead of addressing the comment's content. To your original comment let me get out of my proverbial chair for a sec and list a few. The qr5 (or any other Darrieus really), the Windspire, the WePower, damn near any other VAWT, all of these are better generators than the Savonius. Yet all of these suffer their own problems when compared with the conventional HAWT. In fact, the only things the Savonius has going for it, compared to other VAWTs, is lower manufacturing cost and higher reliability, but it generates almost no electricity comparatively. Certainly has nothing on HAWTs in terms of $/kWh. Savonius types are better left as hydraulic pumps rather than electrical generators. Fuck you too.
Berelore Broken English? Heh heh. Berelore, are you really going to be one of those arrogant, idiotic assholes on the Internet that cannot comprehend, then argues from their own incomprehensiveness? QUOTE Berelore *"Um almost the entire wind industry has that's why we can say the design sucks."* Where did I say it did not suck? Which leads to: QUOTE Berelore *"When you compare this design to damn near every other wind installation it does suck, and wind has it's own issues on top you idiots championing incredibly inefficient designs."* Again, your reading comprehension sucks. Where did I compare anything? Say anything about wind? Where did I champion anything? And, speaking of English, review your words above. QUOTE Berelore *"Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more."* _Again_, ? BTW, *"2000 of them to get the same output", "cost 100 times more"* Cite your valid primary documentation to back up that last sentence. _Since you are too idiotic to understand English, my point was, for those that are just griping about the design for one reason or another, but have no valid or positive feedback,_ *"get out of your chair and do better".* ... I will not even bother to address your second post. If you want to be an arrogant, idiotic asshole, AND a Grammar Nazi, at least make sure your own writing is properly capitalized, punctuated, and that your sentence structure is correct. You don't even know how to make proper paragraphs. NOTE: This is TH-cam. If you actually think my English grammar, etc, is not good enough for YT, then _you_ should not post.
Holy shit the irony. First I said broken English because, among other things, you don't use a comma when attaching a subordinate clause after a main clause. Such as, "You would be the idiot, since you cannot comprehend English, and at the same time insult someone." Second, the statement "So many people saying, for one reason or another, the design is not good. Get out of your chair and do better." implies to native English speakers that you are not among the people who say the design is not good. Thus my assumption that you thought the design was good. Grammar is the least salient point in the entire comment, but it's all you've really addressed. "Where did I say it did not suck?" You implied it in your original comment. "Again, your reading comprehension sucks. Where did I compare anything? Say anything about wind? Where did I champion anything?" Well since this entire video is about a windmill design that you challenged people to "do better", can you see how someone might be under the impression that's what you were talking about? "Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more." It's an illustration of principle. Can't give their numbers because they haven't posted them, but assuming they are going to end up with typical Savonius numbers they will be about 4-5% efficient. If that's so then a factor of 20 probably isn't far off, not that it matters. "I will not even bother to address your second post." You mean the one where I laid out examples of people who have done better, and pointed out why people were entitled to gripe about it's poor design... K Since you are too idiotic to understand English, my point was, for those that are just griping about the design for one reason or another, but have no valid or positive feedback, "get out of your chair and do better". Since you seem to have a problem with English comprehension, I'll spell it out for you. People educated on the topic are griping because this puff piece seems to imply that this shitty windmill design is some miracle product that can solve all the problems of wind power. Those people are completely justified because they know better alternatives already exist, no chair exiting required. PS. "griping about the design" is valid feedback if the design sucks and they know why. For example, it has terrible efficiency, or "... all of these are better generators than the Savonius. Yet all of these suffer their own problems when compared with the conventional HAWT. In fact, the only things the Savonius has going for it, compared to other VAWTs, is lower manufacturing cost and higher reliability, but it generates almost no electricity comparatively. Certainly has nothing on HAWTs in terms of $/kWh. Savonius types are better left as hydraulic pumps rather than electrical generators."
Usually, I look at absolutely nothing with a Bloomberg label attached to it, but I did drive 75 miles oneway to see one of these design turbines in use in 1973 in Volent Pennsylvania.
Less than half of what normal propeller/impeller windmills do. That has reasons based in physics, it is a hard limit, that is also why ships use propellers and we don't have these Mississippi steam ships with wheels any longer. Very poor energy performance.
This is a crappy Savonius turbine, the least efficient form of wind generator. It's not a solution, it's a multiply tried failure except for the most trivial of power needs. It's been around for thousands of years in one form or another. There is nothing innovative about it.
Horizontal axis wind turbine has peak power coefficient ~45%, compared to theoretical max of 59.3%. Aerodynamically optimised Savonius is about ~18%. No problem in a great wind resource, not so great anywhere else. And that's quite a cross section of steel for a small turbine. Kingspan KW6 is built to Class 1, survival speed 70 m/s, and is a proven technology.
The KW6 is independently tested to class 2, with a survival wind speed of 59.5 m/s. The KW6 model provides a Reference Annual Energy (RAE) of 8,949kWh at 5m/s. Pole height options range from 9 to 20m.
Given the lack of technical details in this video, I thought I would leave some details for those interested. The wind production range is between ~7 km/hr to 180 km/hr. It operates at just under 35 dB, it’s unidirectional and has a quoted 30 year lifetime. The IceWind CW-1000 (residential model) wind turbine provides users with 1000W at 36 km/hr. The wind turbines are built using carbon fiber, stainless steel and aircraft grade aluminum products. The technology is still in field testing trails (over 7 years), so not currently commercial.
@@tcl78 -Except cats dont usually kill birds of prey like Eagles and Kestrel many of which are protected species and fly on thermals then get caught in the pull of the air into the propeller arc. -Alot of bats are also killed by these.
One of wind powers biggest problems? One of all vertical axis wind turbines inherent design problems, is that they're only capable of producing power on 1/2 the swept area of the blades. This is because only 1/2 of the blades are ever oriented perpendicular to the wind at any time while the other half is coming around against the wind. So vertical axis designs will never be able to compete with the efficiencies of horizontal turbines. That is the biggest problem they face and the inconvenient truth. BTW, I once invested several thousand dollars in a new, promising vertical axis turbine. That money is long-gone with the wind!
The basic concepts are sound - low start up speed, self governing at high speed, multi-directional and the vertical axis means the generator can be at ground level. The downside is that with this setup - like the old half drum format, the energy produced is the force of one half minus the resistance of the other. Also the wind flow is very messy around the vanes.
VAWT (vertical axis wind turbines) first patented in the 1930's have never been successful at grinding corn, pumping water, making electricity, whatever. Its an ornament, and an interesting way to make a small amount of energy. Its a fun science project. This design, and any other vertical design, will never harness productive wind power thats antwhere close to a good HAWT (horizontal axis wind turbine). If it did, the utility companies would use them. That's why no professional successful companies are selling them. This is not new design or technology.
Not correct. VAWT has been in use in Syria longer than the usa land of wooden huts was even in existence.......VAWT and HAWT have no significant differences in principle. Wind does not prefer one to the other.
The differences would be to how wind stresses the bearing points over time, and how well those resist wear when stressed by capricious wind directions and speeds. Imho, the HAWT units with both ends of the axle bracing the blade assembly, would be the most durable, and best able to handle capricious wind/weather loads. HAWT's could also, feasibly, be running generation units mounted at both ends of the axle, instead of just one gen at one end...even multiple gens belt-run off the axle itself, if engineered right.
I beg to differ. HAWT works in very low wind speeds and is unidirectional. Both lacking in VAWT. Also, HAWT cannot overspin, so it does not require clutching braking nor pitch control to accommodate high winds. HAWT is also safer for birds and produces less noise.
I am considering a vertical axis wind turbine that looks exactly like a tree, I call it : e-tree, the trunk of the e-tree is brown, the spinning blades are green, attached to the trunk of the e-tree are features of : wifi/mobile network, light and power outlet, to charge a car for example
Those wind turbines you speak of are still much, much safer for the bird populations, and every other species of animal(including humans) than any coal plant.
It is not even close to being a new idea. Google Savonius turbine. The Savonius wind turbine was invented by the Finnish engineer Sigurd Johannes Savonius in 1922. The Savonious gets less efficient the higher the wind speed goes. It is fine for low speed things like water pumping or low power needs, but is very low efficiency compared to conventional turbines. The fact that it starts spinning in low wind is useless, because there is nearly no usable power in low wind speeds. The power available in wind goes up as the cube of the windspeed, so doubling the windspeed gives you 8 times as much power. 7.5 minutes of 8mph wind is worth 1 hour of 4mph wind is worth 8 hours of 2mph. BTW this is not even close to windpower's biggest problem, storing electricity for when you need it is.
I saw the Bloomberg icon and thought that this is really something worth watching. As somebody who has some experience in this field I have to say that this video presents nothing new to the experts.
If I were a Nuclear engineer, I would not have wasted my time building this. This is something, that my most junior level fabricator could build all alone with scissors, a hammer, and a two square foot place to sit, even though he cant sign his name yet. 😂. Some one trying to fleece a kickstarter.
Studying Mechanical Engineering, am also working on a vertical axis wind turbine as my final project, I have only just began and I think it will be pretty cool.
These are a very silly idea from an engineering perspective: woefully inefficient in use of both available wind power and construction materials, but he does make a valid point re: the design. There are several around my area and they are quite captivating to watch, much more so than a propeller on a stick. If the alternative is to not bother, then inefficient is still better than nothing. But as a real-world, large-scale energy solution, don't be fooled.
Thanks for the comment, but please tell us non-engineers your reasons. Are they over-engineered (too much material), or too small, or will they NEVER be as efficient as the 3-blade horizontal type? (Even though they last longer & apparently don't burn out in high winds so often)
Tony G As Alex said, the biggest problem is essentially that the blades have to push back into the wind for half of their rotation, creating drag and losing momentum and power. In ball park figures, they work out to be about half as efficient as a standard design and there is no way to avoid this problem. It's just physics. The other problem is that if the turbine is designed for optimal efficiency, the highest stress occurs in the weakest points which requires additional engineering that add cost and further reduce efficiency. And this is on top of an already more complicated starting design. For instance, the wind is perpendicular to the shaft which would cause it to bend off its axis and wobble like a spinning top that's losing speed until it falls apart. So you then need two mounting points rather than one, create a bigger frame, use more materials and block some of the wind in the process. It's just a big series of backwards steps.
+scarcesense If they're about half as efficient as a standard design, but cost way less, are significantly more durable, and take up way less space, then wouldn't planting twice the amount of them still be a win economically? Not trying to be a smartass, I'm asking with genuine curiosity.
Awesome inquiry! The blades have two sides, so it's all in the shape of the blades. Look at this turbine head on and ask yourself what you see. Like looking at a ball, you don't see the entire thing at once. At any given moment, you can only see certain sections of each blade (one blade can go unseen entirely). Imagine the wind blows in the direction you're looking. Like you, the wind only "sees" one side of this turbine and can only "see" certain sections of each blade (again, one blade can go unseen entirely). The shape of the blades allows one side to "gather" wind (the concave face of the blade), while the other side resists the wind, acting like a kind of natural brake (the convex side of the blade). Think of each blade as having a couple of purposed in a "cycle" (gathering, null, or braking). The force of the wind acts simultaneously on the gathering side of a blade and the braking side of the adjacent blade. To optimize the turbine speed (set the "speed limit"), the trick is, then, to design these turbines with just enough braking potential to resist the gathering potential without bringing the thing to a halt or spinning in the other direction. Configure the system to use a turbine that has a relatively low "speed limit" and you'll have sufficient electrical service on even the calmest days.
Ok i agree with that netzoned, everything deserve a mention, i should have said if we are still using old tech and nothing revolutionary then it shouldnt be put on a pedestal as something groundbreaking
They are placed high for the necessary propeller clearance. No energy source will ever beat nuclear for efficiency, reliability and safety...that's right... safety! Get over it.
Hippies were using oil barrels and car alternators to make things like this, back in the sixties (see Whole Earth Catalog). I suspect that in most places solar panels will do a better job at a lower cost. Your comparison with megawatt turbines is naive in the extreme as this tech is too aerodynamically inefficient to scale up to that size. However, in Iceland, in winter, I can imagine that a low maintenance VAWT might well beat out solar in the micro generation field.
Modern HAWT’s resist wind extremely well with pitch control, tip brakes and shaft brakes. Savonius can only achieve a TSR of 1, while HAWT can go much higher. VAWT is feasible only for small loads, because of their low scalability and efficiency.
'Common sense' is often a bad guide :-) I like the design of vertical rotors too, but they are less efficient and the wind speed are lower at ground level. A modern three blade wind turbine is close to harvesting the theoretical possible 59 % of the kinetic energy in the air passing the circle swept by the blades. Fun fact: the power scales with the square of the diameter of that circle. Double the wingspan and you quadruple the output :-D
The comparison made here is not very good. The cheap but inefficient savonius will perhaps work much better in Iceland, and other high latitude areas with unstable prevailing wind direction. The failed common Horizontal Axis turbines shown in the video are huge, and were designed for less difficult circumstances at lower latitudes with winds more predictable. Those commercially available units generally do have the ability to ride out storms, but are so large that sometimes they cannot reduce pitch and turn into the wind fast enough to save themselves from overspeeding.
Interestingly, it has been found that bird strikes in conventional wind turbines can be significantly reduced by painting one of the three blades black.
Great, now how big do they hav to be to generate grid levels of power? Look at the bus stop, two big units to power a wifi hotspot and phone charger? How friggin' big would they have to be to power a whole home? Or a neighbourhood?
The main problem that needs to be addressed isn't overspin. Conventional three bladed prop designs address this with brakes and blade tilt adjustment mechanisms. (Overspin in a properly functioning wind turbine cannot cause a nacelle fire.) The main problem that is not being addressed is bird and bat mortality due to collisions with high speed blade tips.
@@VividBoricua well that's always the same argument that doesn't stand up to the issue. yes cats kill a lot of birds each year, but what kind of birds are we talking about? small birds with a big population or big birds like an eagle with smaller populations? well wind turbines are an issue for big birds.
This windmill isn't nearly big enough to even produce 1% of the energy output of a regular big windmill. This is a nice toy at best, but nowhere near capable of producing any serious power. Only big windmills kill large birds, small windturbines of any design hardly kill any bird because of the higher speed involved.
This turbine may look cool but its not efficient and dose not scale up very well. Its only practical for powering tiny things like phones ware you don't care that your wasting a lot of potential energy. Also the increased lifespan has more to do with the generator and bearings chosen then the blade design.
Since I don't see any numbers regarding output and wind speed, can you tell me why it's not efficient and doesn't scale up very well? All I see is that they used -smaller- versions at the bus stops.
The world is better with such *wonderful inventions !* I hope they build up a very nice supplier chain for this wind turbine. Scale up production and sales.
We have some exciting news! We’re launching channel Memberships for just $0.99 a month. You’ll get access to members-only posts and videos, live Q&As with Bloomberg reporters, business trivia, badges, emojis and more.
Join us: th-cam.com/users/bloombergjoin
Sorry nobody cares 😆💎👐
Wow...what a suprise🖕
I would like to buy a few!
Sent this to my utility company a few years ago.
"interesting" was about all i got out of them. PFT!
stop nickels and dimes people...
This a poorly researched and misleading video. Showing a wind turbine on fire, and not adequately explaining what happened is criminal. Send science literate journalists for these kind of topics Bloomberg
Just in case anyone is wondering what happened. Its breaks failed, an incredible rare occurrence. Bloomberg didn't even mention that wind turbines have breaks.
Please let me know where could I find a "science literate journalist." Thank you.
@@RealEngineering thanks i thought it was weird. They often shutdown when they have converted enough amount energy for the day/week
@@RealEngineering rare my ass you can see wind turbines on fire all over youtube. granted the breaks failing is a rare one but that much stress on the bearings from the vertical load would create massive amounts of heat.
Looking forward to your video! Always in depth and incredibly analytical bringing up things that aren't initially thought of!
These are Savonius type vertical turbines.
Disadvantages:
generates less than 50% the power from same wind area.
scales down quite well, but does *not* scale up very well. Largest practical size is MUCH smaller than conventional bladed rotors.
Handles low winds well. handles variable wind speed and direction VERY well. but gains no benefit at high wind speeds. at all!
Uses between 50% more to 4000% more material to construct, for a given wind area.
i.e.
They are *great* for near-the-ground small-power systems. Especially in inaccessible locations where maintenance is not a viable option.
And utterly useless for grid power generation.
since they scale down well, would they be an option for small residential systems, such as a supplement to solar? My solar system is great but small due to size/location of my roof so i'd love to have some wind generation as well but everything i've looked at is either too large or too noisy to put on my house with neighbors homes only about 12' away. I'm looking at vertical axis possibilities now instead.
@@markdlondon Yep. These are a GREAT supplemental power source at household-minus scale. Especially to, for example, charge up a battery for a light in an isolated building, recharge a comms relay on a hill somewhere, power an emergency phone out in the wilderness.
Think systems that require small power under adverse conditions. Close to the ground, arctic light conditions, etc. But expect 1/3 to 1/6 the power total you could have gotten from a similarly sized (but much taller) 'normal' horizontal wind turbine.
Savonius' strength is very low maintenence, protection against high wind overspeed, and (some) function even under very low or turbulent winds. But inefficient, and weak.
es obvio.....
Thank you for providing the facts that should have been in the video. I guess the video was some Bloomberg reporter's excuse for a vacation in Iceland.
@@marvinkitfox3386 would a 'normal' turbine still be more efficient at the household scale?
No real information in this video. Efficiency, capabilities not thing.
Yeah looks more like a cheesy ad disguised as an informative video
Imagine a video labelled Quick take not turning out to be a documentary...
The video failed to mention a major advantage of this type of turbine - it works with wind from any direction with no need for reorientation as wind shifts.
Very true.
the main advantage is it look cooland take very little space
It also failed to mention how miniscule their efficiency is.
NGC1433 true but they can be more easaly fitted into the landscape
What is it's efficiency, and how does it compare against the conventional design?
And how does the Total Cost of Ownership compare btn the two models?
Bloomberg sure didn't overwhelm us with technical details
Oh, we are making a video about an energy solution? Let's not talk about efficiency, power, cost, applicability ...
Those are all talked about in the video
Power and Efficiency don't matter her since the materials and way its built are so cheep.
As it mentions these are much cheaper to produce than a conventional wind turbine.
And for applicability these are being design to be put literately anywhere where there is wind. They can make them as big or as small as they want to fit whatever need.
@Yolou1024 You need to calculate the cost of enery produced with this and compare that to other electricity sources (LCOE - $/MWh). Power and efficiency are the two of the most important things in electricity production.
đeri662
No, actually you don’t.
These are cheap, which overrides bitching about cost.
Putting them WHERE they’re needed is a major boost because you don’t lose anything in transmission.
Solar works with Solar Panels or giant Concentrating Solar mirror farms.
Wind works with these small turbines or giant wind farms with huge towers.
Hydro works with micro hydro turbines in a stream or the Hoover Dam.
@@Jkirk3279 Really? If this wind turbine costs 2,000 $ and it produces 10 MWh in it's lifetime, its LCOE (neglecting the discount rate and maintanance) is 200 $/MWh. If a large wind turbine costs 1,000,000 $ and it produces 10,000 MWh in it's life, its LCOE is 100 $/MWh. So despite the cheaper turbine, the electricity it produces is twice as expensive.
You have to put them where wind speeds are sufficient, not anywhere. You can put a gas or coal power plant wherever you want.
The cost of these vs grid must be compared to the cost of installation of service. So in remote locations where miles of new lines might be needed, these can provide a savings. Solar and mixed power are of course also options, and as with the bus stop in the video they may also be installed just to attract attention. Can we just agree that everyone aside from me is wrong and stupid?
Good idea. Small distributed power generation is more robust than large centralized systems that corporations prefer.
It certainly does away with transmission losses. Good thinking!
Yes, but economy of scale brings the prices down. A single large plant is easier and cheaper to build and maintain than thousands of small ones. Also any form of power generation can be distributed. The ideal solution would probably be 10-100MW mass produced modular nuclear reactors. With reasonable regulations and mass production costs could be orders of magnitude lower then anything we have now. Better designs (like the LFTR) are safe without the usual insane over-engineering, which makes them a lot cheaper too. The small modular design means that reactor block can be built in a factory, easily moved to anywhere and set up quickly. These are also ideal to power ships, unlike solar or wind.
You're not considering all factors. Single, large generators are vulnerable to attack and breakdown, cutting off service to hundreds of thousands. Small, plants (each city) maintaining it's own stations across neighborhoods is the best. Cities are not good places to live. The NWO wants to herd all of us into their slave cities..
They'll be buggered in Nigeria then!
*****
I actually considered that to. That's why I think small to medium sized reactors are a good compromise. Now we have a lot of GW scale plants, those are often too big, but regulations drive plant sizes up, because a lot of the costs are per unit not per MW. Smaller plants near the consumers are better for several reasons.
Cities have their pros and cons, and small cities are very different from huge ones. The biggest advantage of a city is that everything you need is relatively close. While we still have to physically go to places to do stuff, we need cities.
When I first got into wind energy as a hobby a few years ago, I thought people would be nicer. It seems everyone is so competitive and negative. Not these guys in the video, but example of comments below. I made my first wind turbine, (as a hobby as a novice, and for the fun of it) and people posted a lot of negative things. It was far from perfect. I would give it a 2 from 1-10, laugh, but it was my first try. People think they are going to reinvent something in the turbine biz, that no once else knows, so I feel it has created this weird negative environment. We are all working towards the same goal, and people who do these kinds of businesses, usually it is because they have a passion for it. If one has ideas on how to make things better, just give them the idea, don't brag about it. Don't make fun of them. I love the person out side of the kitchen, as the chef works 12 hours to make a great meal, they sit on the couch, take a bite and say, I could have done better. But the point is, you didn't do better because you didn't do anything. This guys has a business, a team, he is making an effort, and doing amazing. I love the design. And I am sure it is just going to get better. People, please, be nice, be kind, and keep it positive. Otherwise you are just advertising that you are not happy in your own life. And last, if you ever come to St. Louis Mo USA, please visit out 1920s speakeasy, dinner theater. The Boom Boom Room STL
What you say is true, but human nature isn't going to change very quickly (certainly not in your lifetime), so you had better (quickly) get used to it.
The Boom Boom Room Great points as shown by the two ass clowns who spewed their negative Nancy childish wah wah behavior. to all negative people...just because the internet has afforded you the opportunity to voice your bullshit, it rarely means you should.
Lots of lovely irony there, "Scott Lambert",
YOUR "negative Nancy childish wah wah behavior" IS "human nature".
Windmill efficiency ALWAYS increases with size, and 600,000 of THESE started the Internet, and I designed it.
www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BICC-ISOLAN-Transceiver-Type-1110-With-SQE-Test-/201600254673
The Boom Boom Room i don't know much about wind energy. we don't get a lot here. i would like to ask why doesn't someone use a old fashioned centrifical governor to adjust angle of blades for high and low wind conditions. i also have a fix for vertical windmill over speed and effiency that i haven't seen.
The problem with the governor is simply that it is MORE mechanism.
It IS possible to design a windmill that loses so much efficiency in overspeed conditions that it cannot really overspeed.
Efficiency improves with SIZE. A small efficient windmill will destroy itself, just as will a large one.
For personal use, an inefficient vertical axis windmill is probably the best choice.
But what would you like it to do? Light a cigarette, perhaps?
People don't understand, the idea isn't for these to replace convetional wind turbines. They function more like solar panels, you can make lot's of them and put them everywhere you need a little bit of power. Though I have to admit they mislead us a bit in the video comparing the turbines to big, conventional wind turbines, as though they would replace them. They only hinted at their real purpose by showing us the bus stop and weather station.
Cool but the onley thing you are saying !!! That the sice is way to ineficiant if you need 2 of Them to a AP/ hotspot and USB CHARDGING
If i wanted 1 for my house to support my PV panels .. 48v .. i still need info about Watt !!!!! If you can't suppley Watt ..
Then you are just a rambelin moron !!! Oooh this dates back to the greeks!!! Yes and!!! Who give a fuk.
I want Watt M/s Volt .. other wise .. go blow hot air elswhere
Small versions of conventional wind turbines work just fine. They are used on sailing boats to charge batteries and to power illuminated road signs, weather stations etc.
@@ColinWatters REALY!!! How big is the on you talk about??
yes, we need specs, how do I know if I had to put 50 of these on my roof or just two?
That’s because the investor class is desperate to keep power generation centralised. How can you extract rent from someone who is self sufficient ?
How does this design avoid the dangers of high winds? It's claimed in the video but not explained.
It prevents over spine because the wind hits both the approaching and receding face. Basically it produces a lot of drag. Which is also one of it's biggest drawbacks. They are just not very efficient in fact they are one of the least efficient types. On the plus side they can be placed lower to the ground and last a lot longer. It also has the advantage of a shaft going all the way through thus adding greater stabilization. A good portion of the weight on an Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines is only stabilized on the back side.
HAWT also get a bit of help because they generate a bit of lift perpendicular to the direction of air flow. This can have the effect of a positive feed back loop causing frequent over spin and a shorter life span for them.
diGritz1
That makes a lot of sense, thanks! I now understand the disadvantages of the design but not the disadvantages of the bladed turbines. Specifically the feedback you mentioned.
Melinda Green An HAWT is basically the same shape as a airplane prop which is basically a spinning wing and a wing generates lift. This effect is mostly dependent on the angle of attack of the blade and can be lessened to a degree but never eliminated. So the faster the blade turns the greater the lift it generates.
This can put many different types of stress on the system as a whole but probably the most notable is the longitudinal forces placed on the shaft and housing. This is slight but the faster the blade turns the more this increases. Hence the feedback on the system and an increasing chance of over spin and/or overheating
Admittedly this is less of a problem with high end HAWTs because they are mostly variable pitch as opposed to earlier models which are fixed. But given the higher cost and greater maintenance of the variable pitched types there is still a lot of the fixed pitched systems in use.
diGritz1
Another great answer. Thanks!
Also they work in choppy wind.
That told us little about nothing.
That because they do much of anything except be useful,in location where maintenance is hard or no an option.
“Bloomberg why did you replace our power grid with vertical wind turbines?”
“Well, they just look cool 😎”
Democrats: "Wind turbines and solar energy are the way to go to produce cheap, reliable, and environment-friendly energy to meet world-wide needs and population growth."
Republicans: "Let's bring back coals and buggies!"
Nothing to do with looks. The problem is regular turbines have to turn first to face the direction the wind is coming from.
The power available to these is 50% of the profile cross section of the blade unit.
The power available to conventional turbines is 3.41 x the length of the blade squared.
These are fine for phone batteries, and a couple of LEDs.
They cannot provide serious power (not that conventional fans do either)
But be honest in reporting these things.
interesting mix of random technobabble. i could easily say that fan turbines aren't efficient as they only work as large scale..Are you measuring in watts? does the speed of the blades change the power rating? do you know what the area of the upright turbine is? and so can you calculate its power factor?
if you are going to diss a product please provide the science.. Then i could work out if your argument has merit or if you are just trolling around
thanks
No, I ONLY mentioned the Surface area of wind the respective systems come in contact with.
The one thing you do not address.
What is conventional turbines please ?
the three bladed fans conventionally promoted but the tax payer funded virtue signalling 'industry'.
Im not saying you are wrong about the wind turbine power but where can i find that information . I always wanted green energy until i realized it wasnt 'practical ' if you know what i mean .
How does it avoid overspinning? Why is this design efficient?
@Nikos Nikos It has to do with drag, similar to terminal velocity of a falling body here on Earth.
The drag is a force that increases with velocity and it is defined as
D = ((V^2)/2)(s A c) where: "V" is velocity, "s" is density of air, "A" is the frontal area of the blades and "c" is the coefficient of drag that is dependent to the frontal shape.
Because the convex blade has the same area as the concave blade their force cancels except for a small difference of "c", also that is why the blade spin. If the blades were flat it would not spin.
And as the air velocity increases so does the drag.
Hopefully this will help.
They avoid overspinning by being very INefficient.
Power from incoming wind is roughly linear with wind speed.
Air Friction from wind is roughly squared with wind speed.
Hit one of these with a true hurricane force wind, and it will not spin *at al*, just try to fall over as if it was a cardboard cutout in the wind.
It's far from efficient.
@@markspc1 thank you
It is not efficient it is only robust.
The video never said how they solved one of wind turbines biggest problems! Booooooo
Yes it did, the problem is spinning out of control. They said conventional wind turbines only have about a three year lifespan in Iceland because of this reason.
@@Maxime_K-G look at real engineering's comment higher up.
I know! I never said I agree with this video! All I'm saying is that they did in fact talk about "one of wind turbines biggest problems" and how these turbines would supposably solve them.
@@Maxime_K-G They never said how, just that they will solve it.
@@R3lay0 The video said that it was because of their design.
Overhyped nonsense.
Savonius-like turbines have been around for a long time and have been shown to be inefficient compared to devices that depend more on lift than drag. That's why the world's best turbines have converged on the prop types.
There is a huge need for turbines that are safe for on top of buildings and next to houses. Apparently any kind of turbine only lasts about 3 years in Iceland before they tear themselves apart. Obviously the status quo is not workable in every situation.
Take away ALL the Massive subsidies the "prop type" receive , factor in 3 yr lifespan , high maintenance and installation cost and the Savonius wins hands down .
@@absabs7555 the large scale wind turbines work for large scale power production and are the most efficient by a large margin.
These smaller wind turbines are no where near as efficient, BUT, they do have one big advantage. They are small, cheap, and quiet. This means they can be installed in populated areas without much trouble. So even though their efficiency is lower, if you get enough of them you can put them in populated areas to produce a decent amount of power.
However, for large scale energy production, traditional wind power farms are definitely much more efficient.
so this is what Thor does when he is not saving the world
This *IS* saving the world.
In Iceland, about 80% of the names given to people come from Paganism. People are frequently named Freyja, Loki, Oðinn and such.
A lightening capture generator would be his next project.
So what did he fixed?
Ragnar lothbrook ! =)
This video was not about why old style turbines catch fire, most of them are falling into disrepair anyway, but this is about progress like going from a buggy wheel to rubber tires. Hats off to the innovators, we should concern ourselves with 50 to 100 years down the road. Not worry about repairing old school.
You didnt talk about the real breakthrough with this design. Having a propeller that works no matter what direction the wind is coming from. Thats huge.
I'm guessing this would seriously cut down on the number of birds killed by windmills too.
Check this out. If they can get this to work, birds would be a lot safer:
newatlas.com/windstalk-concept/16647/
This type of fan blade is optimized for weak winds. In low winds, the fan blade can still rotate and has high sensitivity. Thank you for sharing.
They must have pretty constant wind to be able to mount them so low. Usually, you have to put turbines high to avoid non-laminar airflow - the ground itself acts as a friction force, disrupting the energy, not to mention trees and houses.
Green-propaganda hahahahaha yes... great thank you. The thing is with Iceland. They are allready pretty green. Check out their Geothermalpowerplants..... They are almost Greenland .....
Actually I am disapointed with this video because I thought they would speak about a storage for energy when they have overproduction for the time when there is no wind.
That's basically what anyone with alternative power sources does, whether wind, solar, microhydro, or even diesel generators. The point was that VAWTs can be less efficient than HAWTs, and that both kinds tend to benefit from being much higher in the air flow for most other landscapes than Iceland.
True, but we have no numbers of output or efficiency, so it could be all for show.
Actually, HAWTs with enough diameter and tower height can be very cost-effective.
Parts of iceland get frequent air currents flowing across the bay, the coast line would benefit most from this.
Great job, Thor & team. Iceland, friends of the Earth!!
DoctorMaxMoebius c
Many comments here about efficiency. The real issue is about practicality and total cost of operation versus power generation. So what if it's less efficient if it is cheaper to build, operate and install. Without subsidies, the huge wind turbines are a disaster financially. They cost millions of dollars EACH by the time they are built, transported and installed, and how long can they be relied upon? How long until they generate enough power just to pay for themselves and their maintenance much less make a profit? Keep working on this concept. It has a great deal of merit.
What a load of guff. Didn’t even explain how they solved the overspeed problem, which isn’t actually a problem with properly designed turbines anyway.
And then to add insult to injury, they show one on fire. Slanted Bloomberg fake news ...
seriously lacking in any details! Size? power output? voltage? windspeeds? price?
Six times more expensive than turbine blades.
How efficient is a wind turbine design where half the turbine area is moving into the wind, counteracting the other half which is moving away from the wind? The only reason it works at all is because the back side of each blade is curved to slightly reduce its friction as it moves into the wind.
How high above the ground can this be installed (minimum hight).?
What is it's power output and cost?
minimum height? about 0.1mm, if you don't worry about the meatgrinder aspect of it on passers-by.
This design thrives on erratic little gusts of variable wind coming at it from funny directions. I.e. ground turbulence is *fine*.
It does not benefit from being high up in steady, strong winds. It does not like strong winds. Over about 20kt it actually *loses* power generation with increasing wind.
Apples and oranges! You're comparing a generator suitable for some electronics at a bus shelter with one that supplies electricity to thousands of homes. It's pretty obvious they have different designs.
NREL National Renewable Energy Labs (US) stopped all testing on VAWTs because of inefficiency, unreliability and high cost of maintenance. I live close to an NREL test site near Boulder, CO. There are many standard 3 blade designs that undergo testing. As a hobby, I did a lot of research into renewable energy, especially wind turbines. Despite looking cool, I discovered that the VAWTs were essentially worthless.
Savonius wind turbine has been around a long time: usually made from 44-gallon (US 55 gallon) drums cut in half...
learned about them in 1972 mother earth news
And that's why they are great for remote locations with only very little need for power.
What the fuck are GALLONS? Join the real world dude!
Kenneth Keen: Gallons are the standard unit of volume, except in many backward jurisdictions which have regressed to socialism. They use the sissywimp unit close to a quart. There is a psychologigal weakness which is assuaged by larger numbers. .(fuck)
kenneth keen They're still known as 44 gallon drums in metric countries, at least here in Australia they are.
0:16 "powering an advertising board" - another example of smart tech powering complete BS
My kids and I made one of these like a decade ago out of two ten speed wheels, some 6" pvc, some screws, a car alternator and a wooden frame.
And I ran our Transistor Radio quiet nicely thank you !! 🤭
How appropriate that the God of thunder would be harnessing the power of the weather to create electricity.
Gotta charge that hammer
Weird, since there are virtually no thunderstorms in Iceland.
Don't focus on the wrong part of the story, brother.
MakoRuu
How appropriate that the God of thunder would be harnessing the power of the weather to create electricity.
'
special thank to GOD the father gave the electric power thunder lightning to thomas edison...
edison was invented electric from the kite with a key
Then the american god thing died due to education and it took decades for the people to grasp they were being conned....
They should make some for sailboats, camping vans, etc.
William Barnes , they do. Look into it, they have really small ones as well
Thanks Bloomberg, another gem from your media team. Why do Icelanders speak better English than New Yorkers, Floridians, and Londoners? It's damn embarrassing...these gentlemen definitely will get my money when I venture out to build out a property. It makes total sense to convert dollars into land and energy goods.
Are you kidding? You compare this VAWT toy to utility scale wind turbines?
You probably need about a thousand of these to compare
The applications are different. VAWT is for smaller applications like lighting a sign, charging a phone etc, while The real daddy of wind turbine is for motive power application. They can compliment each other, not replace themselves with one another. Let me tell you, VAWT will never be efficient though.
You misrepresnt the video. This is asolution for Iceland with too strong winds for conventional and sparsely populated such that generating small amounts of energy locally makes sense.
Not one word about efficiency or scalability. dud article
Yup. It's little more than a commercial.
(Hey, REAL Journalism is hard!)
geonerd
Especially for trained journalists (they're just trained as publicists nowadays)
worked with a company that made great claims about their Savonious turbine. After two years they still could not produce net positive energy with it. Without real prices and specs these kinds of infomercials are useless.
But but you're missing the point, they're using an abandoned coal plant. lol and all their sketches are on hemp paper instead of that dirty unrenewable normal paper.
Considering the huge number of failures of the turbines being built by the "experts", if these will just operate long enough to recoup their capital cost, that's a win.
I wish they had really explained why that shape protected against over spin in high winds. Just saying the shape gave rise to the protection was hand waving.
Once the lighting systems around the world adapt to a low voltage/wattage system these types of wind turbines can power the simple lighting tasks while the power grid can be utilized for the really heavy work. Lots of power gets used and goes wasted just for simple lighting.
Like he said nothing new. I've produced one very similar myself and yes they do prevent over spin from high winds. When it reaches a certain RPM it creates a Vortex around it that blocks the wind in a way like a giant drum wood. The faster it spins the less likely it is able to spend because it becomes less aerodynamic efficient for rotation. At a certain point it literally just fights itself and becomes a cylinder. This is simply only my experience with these types of designs. To see this company grow would be excellent
Can this design survive in Tornado Alley? Not necessarily a direct hit from a tornado, but say, 100mph winds?
Wow it's so obvious that is the better design wind in any direction at any speed and so simple it's been there all along.
That "green energy technology" has been in use at least 100 years. The old "Savonius rotor" is an advanced version of this three blade rotor.
No word on the energy production capacity. That is because it is, by nature, very low!
This thing is icelandic superstition
You don't need a lot of energy for telecom equipment, a Wi-Fi base station, a USB charger, and the likes.
@@charonstyxferryman That's right, but the price for very little energy will be prohibitively high. It may be fine for isolated telecom towers, just like it's okay to put very expensive photovoltaic cells in orbit. The amount of power that can be extracted from a turbine varies with the sept area, and is also greatly affected by the height of the turbine. By making such a turbine twice as big, you would be able to extract 4 times the power for a given wind speed.
Energy is low but it is beautiful and fun.
One of the biggest problems to overcome with wind power solutions, besides property devaluation, is their contribution to noise pollution. If you're hypersensitive to the wave lengths that's produced by wind turbines then it's very serious if you live near a wind farm or even a single small one such that a neighbor might have in their yard. You might come to hate them for not only their constant whoomph, whoomph, whoomph but also the subsonic vibrations called ' infrasound' that you don't hear but FEEL.
It's not just your sleep and peace of mind that's getting disturbed. It's the kind of noise that will irritate you 24/7 when they are operational. It's even worse than living near an airport or railway tracks. Their kind of noise pollution is typically intermittent and might be easily ignored. But if you're susceptible to them, wind turbines produce vibrations that may constantly rattle your bones, teeth and internal organs.
The World Health Organization is getting involved too. WHO, which has not published any detailed guidelines regarding wind turbine noises, will be releasing environmental noise guidelines for the European region and the US in the near future.
My Acoustical Engineer brother in law has had a successful career for almost 2 decades fighting for the little guy, people in rural towns where corporations have invaded to erect nearby giant monstrosities which not only are eye sores but disturb one's peace but and may also contribute to a variety of health problems in humans and animals. One particular health problem is miscarriages both animal and human. Wind power might be a viable alternative to fossil fuels but it might also be detrimental to our mental and physical health.
First let me say I am all for any alternative energy design or source that actually works and can pay for itself. Sadly, this one falls way short. This video is very short on detail which means the facts they have (if any) are not very supportive of their design. Anyone with a design that is very good has many facts and figures to support their design. The efficiency of Savonius rotor wind turbines has never proven to be very good though they do perform better in low wind. That's why you see the very large three bladed propeller designs in wind farms instead. Yes, the Savonius rotors "function" in low wind but that does not mean they generate much power in low wind. These windmills are for low power requirements and if you listened to the video they were providing power for very low powered functions. This design also leaves me questioning everything about it. A quick read of Savonius rotor design and performance testing shows that two blades and end caps are the most efficient designs.
Another very important consideration not mentioned in the video is a site survey for average wind speed at height. Without knowing this the rest of it is fluff.
So many people saying, for one reason or another, the design is not good.
Get out of your chair and do better.
Um almost the entire wind industry has that's why we can say the design sucks. When you compare this design to damn near every other wind installation it does suck, and wind has it's own issues on top you idiots championing incredibly inefficient designs. Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more.
Berelore
You would be the idiot, since you cannot comprehend English, and at the same time insult someone. ... I was going to 'explain' to you, but I have learned when coming across complete idiots like you, it's better just to say, 'fuck you'. So... fuck you.
Nice job. You've managed to use broken English in an attempt to sooth your ego instead of addressing the comment's content.
To your original comment let me get out of my proverbial chair for a sec and list a few. The qr5 (or any other Darrieus really), the Windspire, the WePower, damn near any other VAWT, all of these are better generators than the Savonius. Yet all of these suffer their own problems when compared with the conventional HAWT.
In fact, the only things the Savonius has going for it, compared to other VAWTs, is lower manufacturing cost and higher reliability, but it generates almost no electricity comparatively. Certainly has nothing on HAWTs in terms of $/kWh. Savonius types are better left as hydraulic pumps rather than electrical generators. Fuck you too.
Berelore
Broken English? Heh heh. Berelore, are you really going to be one of those arrogant, idiotic assholes on the Internet that cannot comprehend, then argues from their own incomprehensiveness?
QUOTE Berelore
*"Um almost the entire wind industry has that's why we can say the design sucks."*
Where did I say it did not suck? Which leads to:
QUOTE Berelore
*"When you compare this design to damn near every other wind installation it does suck, and wind has it's own issues on top you idiots championing incredibly inefficient designs."*
Again, your reading comprehension sucks. Where did I compare anything? Say anything about wind? Where did I champion anything? And, speaking of English, review your words above.
QUOTE Berelore
*"Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more."*
_Again_, ?
BTW, *"2000 of them to get the same output", "cost 100 times more"*
Cite your valid primary documentation to back up that last sentence.
_Since you are too idiotic to understand English, my point was, for those that are just griping about the design for one reason or another, but have no valid or positive feedback,_ *"get out of your chair and do better".* ... I will not even bother to address your second post.
If you want to be an arrogant, idiotic asshole, AND a Grammar Nazi, at least make sure your own writing is properly capitalized, punctuated, and that your sentence structure is correct. You don't even know how to make proper paragraphs.
NOTE: This is TH-cam. If you actually think my English grammar, etc, is not good enough for YT, then _you_ should not post.
Holy shit the irony. First I said broken English because, among other things, you don't use a comma when attaching a subordinate clause after a main clause. Such as, "You would be the idiot, since you cannot comprehend English, and at the same time insult someone."
Second, the statement "So many people saying, for one reason or another, the design is not good.
Get out of your chair and do better." implies to native English speakers that you are not among the people who say the design is not good. Thus my assumption that you thought the design was good.
Grammar is the least salient point in the entire comment, but it's all you've really addressed.
"Where did I say it did not suck?"
You implied it in your original comment.
"Again, your reading comprehension sucks. Where did I compare anything?
Say anything about wind? Where did I champion anything?"
Well since this entire video is about a windmill design that you challenged people to "do better", can you see how someone might be under the impression that's what you were talking about?
"Who cares if it's cheap if you have to build 2000 of them to get the same output as one that only cost 100 times more."
It's an illustration of principle. Can't give their numbers because they haven't posted them, but assuming they are going to end up with typical Savonius numbers they will be about 4-5% efficient. If that's so then a factor of 20 probably isn't far off, not that it matters.
"I will not even bother to address your second post." You mean the one where I laid out examples of people who have done better, and pointed out why people were entitled to gripe about it's poor design... K
Since you are too idiotic to understand English, my point was, for those that are just griping about the design for one reason or another, but have no valid or positive feedback, "get out of your chair and do better".
Since you seem to have a problem with English comprehension, I'll spell it out for you. People educated on the topic are griping because this puff piece seems to imply that this shitty windmill design is some miracle product that can solve all the problems of wind power. Those people are completely justified because they know better alternatives already exist, no chair exiting required.
PS. "griping about the design" is valid feedback if the design sucks and they know why. For example, it has terrible efficiency, or "... all of these are better
generators than the Savonius. Yet all of these suffer their own
problems when compared with the conventional HAWT.
In fact, the only things the Savonius has going for it, compared to
other VAWTs, is lower manufacturing cost and higher reliability, but it
generates almost no electricity comparatively. Certainly has nothing on
HAWTs in terms of $/kWh. Savonius types are better left as hydraulic
pumps rather than electrical generators."
Usually, I look at absolutely nothing with a Bloomberg label attached to it, but I did drive 75 miles oneway to see one of these design turbines in use in 1973 in Volent Pennsylvania.
How much power do they generate compared to a "normal" wind turbine?? Difference in cost? Operation? Maintenance? I want information!
Less than half of what normal propeller/impeller windmills do. That has reasons based in physics, it is a hard limit, that is also why ships use propellers and we don't have these Mississippi steam ships with wheels any longer. Very poor energy performance.
40% as area-efficient, three times the cost per area. 7.5 times worse.
This is a crappy Savonius turbine, the least efficient form of wind generator. It's not a solution, it's a multiply tried failure except for the most trivial of power needs. It's been around for thousands of years in one form or another. There is nothing innovative about it.
It looks to me that it isn't about R&D, but more like a low tech manufacturing company
Excellent. Power generation doesn't always have to be huge mega-watt projects, this is great!
Horizontal axis wind turbine has peak power coefficient ~45%, compared to theoretical max of 59.3%. Aerodynamically optimised Savonius is about ~18%. No problem in a great wind resource, not so great anywhere else. And that's quite a cross section of steel for a small turbine. Kingspan KW6 is built to Class 1, survival speed 70 m/s, and is a proven technology.
The KW6 is independently tested to class 2, with a survival wind speed of 59.5 m/s.
The KW6 model provides a Reference Annual Energy (RAE) of 8,949kWh at 5m/s. Pole height options range from 9 to 20m.
Nice to see Thor settled in Reykjavik Iceland instead of Norway
I thought he'd gone to Hollywood ?
@@GaryMcKinnonUFO Yeah Thor never comes around here anymore after he made it big in Hollywood. What a douche
Well, they are nicer to their local spirits...
Given the lack of technical details in this video, I thought I would leave some details for those interested. The wind production range is between ~7 km/hr to 180 km/hr. It operates at just under 35 dB, it’s unidirectional and has a quoted 30 year lifetime. The IceWind CW-1000 (residential model) wind turbine provides users with 1000W at 36 km/hr. The wind turbines are built using carbon fiber, stainless steel and aircraft grade aluminum products. The technology is still in field testing trails (over 7 years), so not currently commercial.
At least they got to go to Iceland
Maybe the vertical nature of the turbine will reduce the bird kill.
Very likely, yes, but let's not forget that household cats kill far more birds than wind turbines.
@@tcl78 -Except cats dont usually kill birds of prey like Eagles and Kestrel many of which are protected species and fly on thermals then get caught in the pull of the air into the propeller arc.
-Alot of bats are also killed by these.
Put 5 or 6 on each rooftop and serve 3 purposes, your off the grid. Power for your grow lights, and food processor for flying food.
Flying food? Like chicken?
"Inventing new technology"..?
Umm call it what it is old technology rebranded and refined
One of wind powers biggest problems?
One of all vertical axis wind turbines inherent design problems, is that they're only capable of producing power on 1/2 the swept area of the blades.
This is because only 1/2 of the blades are ever oriented perpendicular to the wind at any time while the other half is coming around against the wind.
So vertical axis designs will never be able to compete with the efficiencies of horizontal turbines.
That is the biggest problem they face and the inconvenient truth.
BTW, I once invested several thousand dollars in a new, promising vertical axis turbine. That money is long-gone with the wind!
I love the rugged design that real looks like it would hold up well to stresses and a high duty cycle. I wish the company every success.
2:41 - Did he say, "We've been ice-o-lated for a long time..." ??? Haha!
Would like a business update as this is 4 years old and now ancient history
The basic concepts are sound - low start up speed, self governing at high speed, multi-directional and the vertical axis means the generator can be at ground level.
The downside is that with this setup - like the old half drum format, the energy produced is the force of one half minus the resistance of the other. Also the wind flow is very messy around the vanes.
VAWT (vertical axis wind turbines) first patented in the 1930's have never been successful at grinding corn, pumping water, making electricity, whatever. Its an ornament, and an interesting way to make a small amount of energy. Its a fun science project. This design, and any other vertical design, will never harness productive wind power thats antwhere close to a good HAWT (horizontal axis wind turbine). If it did, the utility companies would use them. That's why no professional successful companies are selling them. This is not new design or technology.
Not correct. VAWT has been in use in Syria longer than the usa land of wooden huts was even in existence.......VAWT and HAWT have no significant differences in principle. Wind does not prefer one to the other.
Something's up. Reeks of CIA psyops ridiculousness.
The differences would be to how wind stresses the bearing points over time, and how well those resist wear when stressed by capricious wind directions and speeds.
Imho, the HAWT units with both ends of the axle bracing the blade assembly, would be the most durable, and best able to handle capricious wind/weather loads. HAWT's could also, feasibly, be running generation units mounted at both ends of the axle, instead of just one gen at one end...even multiple gens belt-run off the axle itself, if engineered right.
I beg to differ. HAWT works in very low wind speeds and is unidirectional. Both lacking in VAWT. Also, HAWT cannot overspin, so it does not require clutching braking nor pitch control to accommodate high winds. HAWT is also safer for birds and produces less noise.
You talke too much give me speciation, price
So disappointed on the content.... turbine does look cool though.
I am considering a vertical axis wind turbine that looks exactly like a tree, I call it : e-tree,
the trunk of the e-tree is brown, the spinning blades are green,
attached to the trunk of the e-tree are features of : wifi/mobile network, light and power outlet, to charge a car for example
Maybe the design might be easier on the bird population? The spinnings appear to be much less lethal.
That's what I was thinking. The blades also present a much more solid, visible profile so birds can avoid them.
I think birds are killed by big blades because of surprise and would easily avoid such compact turbines.
Those wind turbines you speak of are still much, much safer for the bird populations, and every other species of animal(including humans) than any coal plant.
Wind turbines are not a big problem in regards to bird death anyway. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Birds
The narrative should not be ' one or the other ' but of co-operation between all!!
It is not even close to being a new idea. Google Savonius turbine. The Savonius wind turbine was invented by the Finnish engineer Sigurd Johannes Savonius in 1922. The Savonious gets less efficient the higher the wind speed goes. It is fine for low speed things like water pumping or low power needs, but is very low efficiency compared to conventional turbines. The fact that it starts spinning in low wind is useless, because there is nearly no usable power in low wind speeds. The power available in wind goes up as the cube of the windspeed, so doubling the windspeed gives you 8 times as much power. 7.5 minutes of 8mph wind is worth 1 hour of 4mph wind is worth 8 hours of 2mph.
BTW this is not even close to windpower's biggest problem, storing electricity for when you need it is.
I saw the Bloomberg icon and thought that this is really something worth watching. As somebody who has some experience in this field I have to say that this video presents nothing new to the experts.
Savonious Rotors have been around for years. Split an oil drum
Let us welcome the tourists into an eyesore of villages with those scrap drums rotating everywhere they look.
Nuclear engineer: it was around since like the Persian empire or something
If I were a Nuclear engineer, I would not have wasted my time building this. This is something, that my most junior level fabricator could build all alone with scissors, a hammer, and a two square foot place to sit, even though he cant sign his name yet. 😂. Some one trying to fleece a kickstarter.
Studying Mechanical Engineering, am also working on a vertical axis wind turbine as my final project, I have only just began and I think it will be pretty cool.
Type Thunderfoot !!
And you will see that this whole startup is a scam. He does a really great job and in depth.
Nonsense! Vertical axis wind turbines have been around since ancient times. Nothing new here.
The only time Bloomberg allows comments and they fk it up. Nice job.
These are a very silly idea from an engineering perspective: woefully inefficient in use of both available wind power and construction materials, but he does make a valid point re: the design. There are several around my area and they are quite captivating to watch, much more so than a propeller on a stick. If the alternative is to not bother, then inefficient is still better than nothing. But as a real-world, large-scale energy solution, don't be fooled.
birds probably dont try to fly threw these either.
Thanks for the comment, but please tell us non-engineers your reasons. Are they over-engineered (too much material), or too small, or will they NEVER be as efficient as the 3-blade horizontal type? (Even though they last longer & apparently don't burn out in high winds so often)
Tony G
As Alex said, the biggest problem is essentially that the blades have to push back into the wind for half of their rotation, creating drag and losing momentum and power. In ball park figures, they work out to be about half as efficient as a standard design and there is no way to avoid this problem. It's just physics.
The other problem is that if the turbine is designed for optimal efficiency, the highest stress occurs in the weakest points which requires additional engineering that add cost and further reduce efficiency. And this is on top of an already more complicated starting design. For instance, the wind is perpendicular to the shaft which would cause it to bend off its axis and wobble like a spinning top that's losing speed until it falls apart. So you then need two mounting points rather than one, create a bigger frame, use more materials and block some of the wind in the process. It's just a big series of backwards steps.
+scarcesense If they're about half as efficient as a standard design, but cost way less, are significantly more durable, and take up way less space, then wouldn't planting twice the amount of them still be a win economically? Not trying to be a smartass, I'm asking with genuine curiosity.
You never explained how the design protects from over spin.
Awesome inquiry!
The blades have two sides, so it's all in the shape of the blades. Look at this turbine head on and ask yourself what you see. Like looking at a ball, you don't see the entire thing at once. At any given moment, you can only see certain sections of each blade (one blade can go unseen entirely). Imagine the wind blows in the direction you're looking. Like you, the wind only "sees" one side of this turbine and can only "see" certain sections of each blade (again, one blade can go unseen entirely).
The shape of the blades allows one side to "gather" wind (the concave face of the blade), while the other side resists the wind, acting like a kind of natural brake (the convex side of the blade). Think of each blade as having a couple of purposed in a "cycle" (gathering, null, or braking). The force of the wind acts simultaneously on the gathering side of a blade and the braking side of the adjacent blade.
To optimize the turbine speed (set the "speed limit"), the trick is, then, to design these turbines with just enough braking potential to resist the gathering potential without bringing the thing to a halt or spinning in the other direction. Configure the system to use a turbine that has a relatively low "speed limit" and you'll have sufficient electrical service on even the calmest days.
i think if it has a mechanical brake its nothing worth talking about
Vatsyayana
Everything is worth talking about. You design something better.
Ok i agree with that netzoned, everything deserve a mention, i should have said if we are still using old tech and nothing revolutionary then it shouldnt be put on a pedestal as something groundbreaking
Yes. The ol' two, or more, brains thing, because sometimes, someone can just say something 'off the cuff' that can spark an idea from another.
They are placed high for the necessary propeller clearance. No energy source will ever beat nuclear for efficiency, reliability and safety...that's right... safety! Get over it.
Hippies were using oil barrels and car alternators to make things like this, back in the sixties (see Whole Earth Catalog). I suspect that in most places solar panels will do a better job at a lower cost. Your comparison with megawatt turbines is naive in the extreme as this tech is too aerodynamically inefficient to scale up to that size.
However, in Iceland, in winter, I can imagine that a low maintenance VAWT might well beat out solar in the micro generation field.
*File this one with "SOLAR FRICKIN' ROADWAYS!!!" and "WaterSeer."*
Modern HAWT’s resist wind extremely well with pitch control, tip brakes and shaft brakes. Savonius can only achieve a TSR of 1, while HAWT can go much higher. VAWT is feasible only for small loads, because of their low scalability and efficiency.
However Darrieus rotor can be more efficient than Savonius.
Have always thought vertical wind turbines were more useful.
'Common sense' is often a bad guide :-)
I like the design of vertical rotors too, but they are less efficient and the wind speed are lower at ground level.
A modern three blade wind turbine is close to harvesting the theoretical possible 59 % of the kinetic energy in the air passing the circle swept by the blades.
Fun fact: the power scales with the square of the diameter of that circle. Double the wingspan and you quadruple the output :-D
The comparison made here is not very good. The cheap but inefficient savonius will perhaps work much better in Iceland, and other high latitude areas with unstable prevailing wind direction. The failed common Horizontal Axis turbines shown in the video are huge, and were designed for less difficult circumstances at lower latitudes with winds more predictable. Those commercially available units generally do have the ability to ride out storms, but are so large that sometimes they cannot reduce pitch and turn into the wind fast enough to save themselves from overspeeding.
Paul Gracey vjgtyi
.......I'm 82 and it reminds me of a toy that was around when I was a little kid.
I had this idea 20 years ago..Except my design is far superior...
That's NOT what She said ...
@@fjb4932 What? are you talking about...
Looks like they would probably reduce bird strikes as well.
I've created a solar powered wind turbine. It totally kicks ass!
Most importantly....can it save birds?
If you mount some net around it, then yes.
Interestingly, it has been found that bird strikes in conventional wind turbines can be significantly reduced by painting one of the three blades black.
It only goes after and strikes dumb birds. Darwin birds ...
Great, now how big do they hav to be to generate grid levels of power?
Look at the bus stop, two big units to power a wifi hotspot and phone charger? How friggin' big would they have to be to power a whole home? Or a neighbourhood?
The main problem that needs to be addressed isn't overspin. Conventional three bladed prop designs address this with brakes and blade tilt adjustment mechanisms. (Overspin in a properly functioning wind turbine cannot cause a nacelle fire.) The main problem that is not being addressed is bird and bat mortality due to collisions with high speed blade tips.
This versus a windmill would less likely kill a bat or a bird
More birds die from cats per year than will ever die to wind turbines
@@VividBoricua well that's always the same argument that doesn't stand up to the issue. yes cats kill a lot of birds each year, but what kind of birds are we talking about? small birds with a big population or big birds like an eagle with smaller populations? well wind turbines are an issue for big birds.
This windmill isn't nearly big enough to even produce 1% of the energy output of a regular big windmill. This is a nice toy at best, but nowhere near capable of producing any serious power. Only big windmills kill large birds, small windturbines of any design hardly kill any bird because of the higher speed involved.
This turbine may look cool but its not efficient and dose not scale up very well.
Its only practical for powering tiny things like phones ware you don't care that your wasting a lot of potential energy.
Also the increased lifespan has more to do with the generator and bearings chosen then the blade design.
Some comments like this amaze me with there utter ignorance of the subject.
Brandon is right. Show us your stuff.
I can't help it!! I try so hard to overlook bad grammar and spelling. does, where, you're, Also, and than!
Since I don't see any numbers regarding output and wind speed, can you tell me why it's not efficient and doesn't scale up very well? All I see is that they used -smaller- versions at the bus stops.
0:56 it actually dates back to 2900 BC in India. Persia was just late.
Imagine if they added a few of these to all the pylons throughout the UK.
I want one on a hat!
I want one on my car to power my phone
When you see the tower. you wonder why they don't mount two ? This is the way forward great stuff!
and why not four? it will be more space efficient.
Anugrah Setiawan Indeed
Quieter than normal turbines, an advantage when there are neighbours.
Justwantahover Instead of huge turbines we could we a lot more of these. One of these and a couple of solar panels could run a fair battery bank.
Quieter and less bird strikes.
I was stationed in Iceland in the early 80s. Nice country; people are oddballs. The wind blows like hell up there.
Also, the guy's name is THOR!!!
Aaannndd seathor
@@SONUYADAV-mo3ng Saethor*
The world is better with such *wonderful inventions !*
I hope they build up a very nice supplier chain for this wind turbine. Scale up production and sales.
A composite construction seems to be better suited. This looks like a proof of concept and I think it could be made a lot more efficient.