A wind energy idea

I wasn’t too sure where to put this... I was going to add more ideas and put it general conversation but I was afraid it might not get the right people looking at it so I will put this one separate. Now this may be a totally useless idea or one that has been out there but I didn’t find it so maybe my search wording was off.

Hybrid wind energy.-
What I mean by this is use artificially created wind to spin the turbines. They have those machines that can duplicate hurricane strength winds. It does not have to be that machine specifically just one that can generate substantial wind. What if you had a tunnel like structure with rows of mills inside and the machine on the end somewhere to generate the wind? Here is where I lack the knowledge to know if this is a good idea or not and need others input.

Assumptions:
A few mills could generate enough power to cover the use of the machine to create the wind. The rest would be extra energy.
The wind tunnel effect, with the blades spinning should keep them moving constantly at the desired rate creating a more predictable energy output.
Faster/stronger winds = better energy output rate
Blades wont need to be as large.
Malleable design.
Danger to wild life like bats will be avoided
Landscape wont be as disturbed.

Doubts-
Would the cost of construction be worth it? Would the longer term energy production be enough to justify it?
Would it create enough energy in general or would it take more to power the artificially created wind making it useless?
I can’t believe that there is nothing else out there like this or that no one has thought of this and there has to be a reason that it is not used.


Thanks for any input.

In theory, you would use more energy creating the wind than you could harness from it. So you'd actually lose power. But...

There are plenty of locations where the wind is plentiful and constant. There are certainly better designs to be foudn for the technology to harness that wind.

In fact, a couple of years ago, I believe it was Popular Science that had a brief mention of microturbines that could be painted onto a surface. Image a downtown core where available surfaces generate power just using the wind that tunnels between skyscrapers. Couple that with transparent solar panels over existing windows, and regular solar panels on the spacers between windows (which typically are made to look like windows anyway).

I don't think the generation of wind is necessary. We just need to get better at catching what's already there.

Thanks. That's what I was thinking. I just wasn't sure if eventually with a reasonable amount of turbines if it would eventually reach a point where the output would be greater.

reply to post by DetectiveT


You cannot make more energy than is used creating the wind, its simply impossible. Each turbine turned slows the wind so the next turbine turns slower. I think your trying to build the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

If you were the first to invent it, you would be a worldwide hero, solving all our energy needs.

Look at the Bahrain world trade center, quite impressive. I will post a pic when I get the chance. Hmmm, won't let me selcect image. Oh well, here is link en.wikipedia.org...:Bahrain_World_Trade_Center_from_below.jpg

I don't remember if there is also solar on this or not. There was a documentary about the building of it a couple years ago. I guess it was quite tricky getting the blades up and installed on a non-windy day. A danish engineer was in charge and it was a very interesting show.

reply to post by nightbringr


No not a perpetual motion machine. Here is how I was thinking of it. It was wrong which is why I said I didn't have the tech knowledge to begin with. I'm just going to use arbitrary numbers to make it simple.

The cost to run the machine is 100
Each turbine creates somewhere between 6-10
It would take 10-20 to help power the machine or conversely you could use an outside source. This is just to calculate if it took more to run it or not.
If the structure held 50 turbines it would leave 30-40 turbines creating extra energy.

You see I thought that not only would a wind tunnel type scenario strengthen the wind but the rotation of the bladesspinning at higher rates would create more energy . There would be nothing perpetual about it.

You really need to read:
en.wikipedia.org...

Seriously, for the last time it wasn't intended to be a perpetual motion machine. I even said it took an outside power source.

Originally posted by DetectiveT
No not a perpetual motion machine.

Actually this idea of greater output than input is exactly a perpetual motion machine:

Thanks. That's what I was thinking. I just wasn't sure if eventually with a reasonable amount of turbines if it would eventually reach a point where the output would be greater.

It's also referred to as "over-unity" meaning you get more out than you put in. You may not have intended to describe perpetual motion, but that's what you ended up doing, perhaps unintentionally.

reply to post by DetectiveT


That's a cool idea.
But it's kinda like driving one electric motor with another electric motor; shaft-to-shaft mechanical linkage.

Whatever energy created by the slave motor is quickly used-up to drive the master motor; unless one can increase out-put greater than the in-put ratio.

Which is why storing/utilizing usable amps is so # expensive.

Changing out-put ratio can be manipulated by using two different sized v-belt pulleys. Putting a larger pulley on the master motor than the slave motor will generate more out-put than in-put...but, how to separate the circuit?

utube has a hole slew of nifty videos...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yeah, it was uninentional. What I was thinking was that you know how on an otherwise mildly windy day you get the wind tunnel effect where some locations feel like a hurricane? I was sort of wondering if it would be possible to create that effect artificially to increase the initial wind of the machine to gain an increase in output.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You may not have intended to describe perpetual motion, but that's what you ended up doing, perhaps unintentionally.

Exactly.

You are trying to get more output than input. Sorry, its not going to happen, many, many brilliant minds have trying to come out with this, and its simply impossible. By definition, you are trying to build the equivilant of a perpetual motion machine. You would do well to read the Wikipedia article to understand why it will not work.

Originally posted by DetectiveT
Yeah, it was uninentional. What I was thinking was that you know how on an otherwise mildly windy day you get the wind tunnel effect where some locations feel like a hurricane? I was sort of wondering if it would be possible to create that effect artificially to increase the initial wind of the machine to gain an increase in output.

I figured it was unintentional!

One related idea would be to take wind from a larger area and focus it into a smaller area. This video portrays such a concept where the outer part of the turbine is a larger area which "funnels" the wind into a smaller area where it will have higher velocity:

Wind Turbine That Funnels The Wind.

This idea might especially have merits in areas where ordinary wind speeds are too low for efficient windmill operation.

However this is not an optimal design. The funnel should be stationary, as rotating the funnel wastes energy. But this was the first video of the funnel concept I happened to find in a quick search.

Am I wrong in thinking that Chicago should be a world leader in wind power production? Wouldn't it be a great boon to their claim of the name "The Windy City"? (And maybe take attention away from any other suggested origins of that name?)

The alleys and roads between tall buildings do actually have the effect of increasing wind speeds through downtown cores of cities. In some areas, there are even dangerous down-drafts created by exactly this situation. In Calgary, one piece of controversial "art" was put in place specifically to counteract that effect. On one pedestrian road downtown, giant artificial "trees" were put up to break up the air coming down the side of the Banker's Hall towers. I call these artificial trees "Plastic Forks" for a reason I think will be obvious. (Note that I've never really tried to embed an image before... so if this doesn't work... well, I'll work that out.)



If, rather than diffusing the gusts of air coming down the sides, we were to channel it through turbines, I think we would see the effect you're looking for. Add that to turbines just in the spaces between buildings, and you could get some great energy collection. In fact, many Canadian cities now have the elevated walkways (Calgary has "+15") that allow you to go from one building to the next without going outside. (I don't actually travel much, so I have no idea if this is a worldwide thing, or just due to how freakin' cold it can get here.) You could probably apply the same idea to wind turbines, by suspending them between buildings. Then there's no extra input required.

reply to post by CrikeyMagnet


Yeah, that's really the effect I was going for. Instead of just the windmills funneling the air create a larger outer structure that would somehow foster the drafts just like Chicago's landscape does. Essentially windmill wind tunnels. I would think, although I'm not sure, if you could spin a smaller amount of windmills faster your production would be better than a large field spinning at a much slower rate. I like your idea about using Chicago's landscape though. I have no idea how possible it would be but it sounds good.

reply to post by DetectiveT


I am also not an expert. I just play one on TV.

There are many places out in un populated areas to put turbine farms. The city is no place for such things.
In the city you will have high liability risks if one of those things go out of control.

Any body who has traveled Nevada has seen soooo much wasted land. No houses or roads. Perfect places to put solar arrays. Plus when you get to long flat places the wind is quite high. So there is no reason you can't have both solar arrays and wind turbines on the same land.

But then again there's the startup costs.

Originally posted by samkent
There are many places out in un populated areas to put turbine farms. The city is no place for such things.
In the city you will have high liability risks if one of those things go out of control.

Any body who has traveled Nevada has seen soooo much wasted land. No houses or roads. Perfect places to put solar arrays. Plus when you get to long flat places the wind is quite high. So there is no reason you can't have both solar arrays and wind turbines on the same land.

But then again there's the startup costs.

I disagree on two points...

1) "The city is no place for such things." Much of the cost for electricity comes from the creation and upkeep of infrastructure required for transmission of it. It makes sense to generate electricity close to where it will be used to decrease the transmission costs. I would agree that the downtown cores could do without the noise of wind turbines... but that could be a different challenge. (Time to introduce silent turbines!!)

2) "So there is no reason you can't have both solar arrays and wind turbines on the same land." - True to a certain extent... but you won't get full capacity from your solar panels if the sky is blocked by windmills. so using the current popular tech of 150 foot tall towers with triple bladed 30-foot radius, and tightly packed into high-wind areas, you lose an unacceptable amount of sunlight. Also, the areas that are great for wind (I am reminded of the Pincher Creek area in Alberta, where it can be hard to get out of your car to take pictures of the wind farm.) may not be great for large surface area solar panels (which can act like sails, as anyone who has carried a sheet of plywood can attest to.) I think current solar panel technology would lose too many panels to heavy wind... cutting down the cost effectiveness. However! If the blades on the wind turbine were also solar collectors... that could do some good. Also, I've heard the vertical axis wind turbines... (is there a better name for those?) are much more efficient. Depending on design, they could actually block more light, though.

I don't know if I'd call empty land wasted. It's nice to have places that show no signs of human habitation. Hmmm... maybe I should go North again. Somewhere above the tree line.

What I have wondered is - who has determined that the vertical turbine is more efficient than the horizontal one?

take a tube, cut it in half lengthways and reverse one half so that it looks (end-on) like a large S shape. Place a central rod down the middle and you have one of those shop signs which go around in the wind but on its side. To me, that would be quite a good wind catcher and place it in long lines it would spin and generate electricity be like wave motion generators. Not sure if I have explained it well enough.

explaining it another way, horizontal wind turbines would be like ships propellers but elongated/stretched out into a central rod with a screw thread running along it that the wind turns as it hits the side of the screw thread. The generator would be at one/both ends of the central rod. These could be placed at the top of a hill or rise and would catch the wind as it came over the top and be much less invasive or noisy than giant wind turbines.

Just my idea anyway... I know nothing about this at all!
Q



Why/how is the current batch of wind turbines more efficient than

The OP makes a brilliant point and i could not agree more with it