Vertical Axis Wind Turbine With Push and Pull 374
Sterling D. Allan writes "After 10 years of prototyping, wind tunnel testing, patenting, and tweaking, Ron Taylor of Cheyenne (windy) Wyoming is ready to take his vertical axis wind turbine into commercial production. Design creates pull on the back side contributing to 40%+ wind conversion efficiencies. Because it spins at wind speed, it doesn't kill birds, and it runs more quietly. It also doesn't need to be installed as high, and it can withstand significantly higher winds (can generate in winds up to 70 mph, compared to ~54 mph tops for propeller designs). Generating costs estimated at 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, putting it in the lead pocket-book-wise not just of wind and solar, but of conventional power as well. Production prototype completion expected in 5-7 months."
Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Safer to birds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Birds don't move at wind speed. Sounds like a recipe for a collision!
For some values of "ready" (Score:5, Insightful)
Now being the old fuddy duddy I am (at the tender age of 21) I'm obviously using an old and outdated definition for "ready for commercial production." See, the definition I'm using is one where the prototyping stage is over, and these things are being made in some factory and are about to be sold to companies/people. Now obviously not being up-to-date with the latest definitions, I was quite excited when I read it was ready, only to have my hopes dashed by the end of the summary.
Why don't you call us old-timers when you actually have a commercial product?
Worse than that (Score:5, Insightful)
So that little argument is rubbish.
Actually, the whole article is not too bad overall, we certainly see worse in real papers (eg the Guardian's coverage of that hydrogen atom fraud).
Re:Note to critics and skeptics (Score:3, Insightful)
So your point is?
Re:Could be useful for microgrids (Score:4, Insightful)
no more "Open Source Energy" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Note to critics and skeptics (Score:2, Insightful)
If the design is so revolutionary, more financially viable than conventional power, and better for the environment, then no doubt they'll make a killing financially whether they patent it or not, as they're the experts and have the lead on manufacturing it. Why bury it under years worth of patent protection, instead of releasing it to all and saving the planet?
does not kill birds ? (Score:3, Insightful)
just a visual observation, and probably they threw some chickens into their grinder before they claimed that.
Besides being an asshole critic, I really appreciate the aspect of renewable energy paired with not being a traditional meatgrinder
fact: did you guys know that costa rica is only using wind and water power? In fact we produce as much from these sources that CR exports energy to neighbouring countries; clean energy. In fact, while still considered a developing country, electricity coverage is the best in central AM, technically you have electricity everywhere. For US/European readers it is probably normal, but when you drive around in Panama/Nicaragua you canappreciate grid coverage here.
OK, water energy creates some mess with the environment in some cases especially when you have wetlands, because dams can affect these in a bad way, but still better than burning coal or radiating, etc.
Re:Could be useful for microgrids (Score:3, Insightful)
While that may be true in the US, I think you'll find that Wind gets a lot of governmental support in the EU, especially Germany and Britain.
It makes sense, if you think about it. As far north as most of the EU is, Solar isn't as promising for the EU as it is for the US.
Re:Sorry... (Score:4, Insightful)
But my question is, if it has a patent pending, why don't they publish? I thought that the whole reason for patents was to encourage people to publish their inventions. If the patent is pending, what's the risk?
As Silly as that sounds... (Score:3, Insightful)
About six months past I read in a German paper that in the North where the windmill parks have changed the local climate (http://www.msr.uni-bremen.de/werner/rw/RWOffshor
Re:Flawed (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but it looks like a big propeller: the spokes that the wind is pushing on only cover a small part of that circular area at any given time. The rest is clear air.
Re:Put on side of skyscrapers (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm--this type of wind turbine could be perfect for the space on top of the planned Freedom Tower in New York Ciy that designers plan to install wind turbines inside that space. It would definitely be less threat to birds flying nearby and the noise level will be substantially lower, too.
Re:Picked up by mainstream press (Score:4, Insightful)
They're all just regurgitating the same story/press release that originated at the Jackson Hole Star Tribune and was passed along to the AP. All this is is an advertisement for venture capital, the same as the last couple you submitted. Both you and Slashdot should be ashamed at running these adds. as if they were news.
Re:More modern turbines (almost) don't kill birds (Score:2, Insightful)
While I can appreciate what you said, I would argue quite strongly against most of the people you describe being "environmentalists".
I do not believe preserving your property values and aesthetic appeal qualify one to be an "environmentalist".
sails != visual pollution (Score:2, Insightful)
It's strange that the sight of sails on boats moving laterally is ok and actually thought attractive by most people, but the sight of sails rotating disturbs some people.