- #1
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
Sounds pretty good:
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/16/8...s-wind-turbines-shake-to-generate-electricity
I like this particular idea a lot. With no blades, these take up much less space, and the claims about them being 50% less expensive to make, and lower maintenance, seems completely plausible. They would be a good design for powering cold outposts that are frequently overcast, but windy. The thing I would most like to find out about them at this point is how they're affected by snow. Ever since I experienced Minnesota, I've been mulling over the idea of a device to generate extra electricity from the cold winter winds, which is when you need it the most there. The trouble with every idea I had was clogging from snow and ice build up. These look like they'd shake it off.
I am not sure the claim they "only" capture 30% less energy than a bladed turbine is plausible. I have the feeling, 'On a good day, they can capture as much as 10% of a regular turbine,' would have been more accurate. Depends on how they're comparing them. Regardless, they strike me as the sort of design that would become cheaper and cheaper to manufacture the longer they had to work out the bugs and streamline the process.
Vortex claims that energy produced by its turbines will cost around 40 percent less than energy made from wind turbines that are operating today. A large part of that cost reduction comes from maintenance — since the Vortex doesn't have moving parts or gears, it should last longer and it won't require periodic lubrication. The simpler design also means that manufacturing costs are about half that of a traditional wind turbine (those massive blades are expensive). That said, Vortex tells Wired that its bladeless design captures around 30 percent less energy than a regular turbine. The company does note, however, that it's possible to fit more of the Vortex models in the same area. And, as a bonus, the bladeless turbines are silent.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/16/8...s-wind-turbines-shake-to-generate-electricity
I like this particular idea a lot. With no blades, these take up much less space, and the claims about them being 50% less expensive to make, and lower maintenance, seems completely plausible. They would be a good design for powering cold outposts that are frequently overcast, but windy. The thing I would most like to find out about them at this point is how they're affected by snow. Ever since I experienced Minnesota, I've been mulling over the idea of a device to generate extra electricity from the cold winter winds, which is when you need it the most there. The trouble with every idea I had was clogging from snow and ice build up. These look like they'd shake it off.
I am not sure the claim they "only" capture 30% less energy than a bladed turbine is plausible. I have the feeling, 'On a good day, they can capture as much as 10% of a regular turbine,' would have been more accurate. Depends on how they're comparing them. Regardless, they strike me as the sort of design that would become cheaper and cheaper to manufacture the longer they had to work out the bugs and streamline the process.