> Re: Problem no. 1: Global warming -- Solution: Wind Power Supergrid --
> enough WIND energy in Oklahoma to fuel the nations cars but Death-Rag
> wants Exxon to cum in his mouth.
>
>
http://www.seic.okstate.edu/owpi/Policymkr/library/paper1.pdf
> "... In 1998, Texas' energy production profile looked similar to
> Oklahoma's, dominated by coal and gas, although nuclear power
> accounted for nearly 10%% of their electricity generation. By the end
> of 2001, Texas had over 1,000 MW of generating capacity from wind
> energy facilities, surpassing hydroelectric capacities in the state
> [6]. Texas achieved this rapid growth in the wind energy industry by
> implementing a renewable portfolio standards coupled with green energy
> credits that could be traded on a market basis. In their deregulation
> legislation, Texas set a target for 2,000 MW of renewable energy
> capacity by 2009. For each megawatt-hour generated, the producer
> receives a credit, which can then be sold to other energy producers in
> the state. This creates a new market, and the early results have been
> promising. By some estimates, nearly $2 billion in new business
> investment will come to Texas as a result of renewable energy
> resources development [7]. With Oklahoma ranking among the top 10
> states in potential wind energy, there is no reason a similar success
> story cannot occur here. ..."
>
>
http://www.seic.okstate.edu/owpi/WindRes/neuralnetwork.htmhttp://www.seic.okstate...
>
> On Jan 27, 6:36 pm, kdth...@
yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Where I live we have a lots of wind. I've seen all kinds of windmills
>> put up over the years, of different types. Storms come along and tweek
>> them and then they are dead. There's no way to protect them from high
>> winds.
> HAWT?
>
> Vertical-Axis versus Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines
>
> I just completed a spreadsheet which allows inputting to windspeed at
> 10 meter height and calculates the power of a novel-design VAWT
> windtower.
>
> There are several sets of assumptions:
>
> (1) That the tower goes to normal hub height of known horizontal axis
> turbines, i.e., 50 meters tall, 163 feet from ground to eves, a 16
> story building.
> (2) That the tower could be extended to the height of the top of the
> swept area of the rotors of a 50 meter HAWT, that is, 90 meters, a 30
> story building.
> (3) The diameter is first assumed to be similar dimensions to a common
> grain storage silo, 30 feet, by both heights.
> (4) Multiples 2x, 3x and 4x diameter dimensions are also
> simultaniously computed for both heights.
> (5) Betz Law .59 max production is included by removing 41%% of the
> swept area power off the top in all calculations.
>
> Here are some documents which describe some of the tower designs:
> [url]
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Introduction_01.html[/url]
> [url]
http://h2-pv.us/wind/Big_01.html[/url]
> [url]
http://h2-pv.us/wind/strip_mining/strip_mining.html[/url]
> [url]
http://h2-pv.us/wind/towers_prior_art/towers_prior_art.html[/url]
>
> The first one is dated 22-jan-06, meaning this device is now
> unpatentable based on 1 year publication without application taken. It
> is in the public domain and I stand to make no more profits off
> developing it than anyone else. This is not a scam for investment. I'm
> busy with other projects and tossed this one out just to change the
> paradigm.
>
> The spreadsheets are here:
> [url]
http://H2-PV.us/1/Eagle_Roost.sxc[/url]
> [url]
http://H2-PV.us/1/Eagle_Roost.xls[/url]
>
> They are essentially the same. The ".sxc" version is
OpenOffice.org
> freeware compatible, the ".xls" is monopoly office compatible with
> Excel for the freedom-impaired.
>
> There's two numbers highlighted in yellow background. One you don't
> touch unless you really really need to recompute air pressure density
> for someplace not at sea level.
>
> The second one is the master input for the spreadsheet and calls on
> that other variable, so messing with one changes everything else.
>
> The MILES PER HOUR cell is preset to 10 miles per hour winds
> initially, at 10 meters height under normal location siting
> conditions. At ten miles per hour high power generators do not budge.
> They have so much weight that the wind force cannot start them moving.
>
> This tower -- called Eagle's Roost because it is bird friendly, with
> no moving parts outside -- would be operating at 10 miles per hour.
>
> It is impossible to foresee the exact power production, but it would
> be over 25%% up to maybe 50%% of the figures shown as SUM for the 1st
> stack and second stack. That means it would be putting into the grid
> between 16 to 33 kilowatts in the stack up to hub height, and if full
> height the 2nd stack would be inputting between 30 to 60 more.
>
> The wider diameter towers at bottom, which are still inside the
> diameters of standard silo grainary buildings, show alternatively
> that 132 or additionally 260 kilowatts more kilowatts would be feeding
> the grid.
>
> Normally, after subtracting Betz from Swept area the net 34%%
> efficiency gensets turn out to be 59%% efficient, with losses from
> resistance, friction and reactance being the big leeches.
>
> I am at least justified in saying that 25%% to 50%% efficient is
> plausible by that standard.
>
> What is different between regular gensets and this concept is there
> are NO gears, no crankshaft, so friction is minimalized. There's no
> reason to assume resistence or reactance is any higher either.
>
> There are stacked generators. At higher levels, one per segment, at
> lower-wind lower-levels, perhaps two or three layers are ganged to one
> generator. That means the lower stack is six or five generators
> stacked on individual stories, and their individual ratings would be
> summed. The lighter gensets have lower mass inertia to overcome and
> therefore move more freely under lower wind force.
>
> The EFFECTIVE wind speed is 1.8 times actual windspeed, and that means
> that the force available, although smaller, focuses on a much lighter
> target.
>
> At higher winds, the kinds that normally produce the nameplate rated
> power of HAWTs, the tower out-produces them.
>
> This page, table three shows the windspeed and actual production of
> several real HAWTs.
> [url]
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/rea_issues/
> wind.html#t3[/url]
>
> At 20 mph winds based on 10 meter height measure, not one of the HAWTs
> has gotten into it's main production range yet.
>
> At 25.9 mph based on 10 meter height measure, 11.6 m/s, the lowest
> speed in the table, the VAWT is outproducing the rated power of the
> best HAWT at only HUB HEIGHT in the 120 foot diameter version. The 30
> foot diameter double stacked full height is out-producing three of the
> five of the HAWTs.
>
> The 120 foot diameter model is approaching 4 megawatts fed into the
> grid at the same engineering efficiency expectations of 59%% after
> deducting Betz' Tithe.
>
> At 35.3 mph, at 10 meters, 38 mph at hub height, the best of the HAWTs
> is producing 1.65 MW, but the littlest half-height tower is feeding
> 1.3 MW. The 32 story building, with no moving parts outside is
> selling 11.7 megawatts of electricity at the same height, same wind.
> That's seven times as much NET GRID power from the VAWT as the HAWT.
>
> Because we all agree that power smoothing is desirable, some gensets
> in the tower can be dedicated to making pure DC from homopolar
> generators and electrolyzing water for hydrogen fuel cells. The
> hydrogen economy is going to be needing a 10:1 ratio of power going
> into electrolysis compared to what goes into the grid for electric
> consumption. These towers can generate AC and DC simultaneously.
>
> Redesign of the gensets to make DC high current instead of AC actually
> reduces lots of weight, reduces inertia, reduces complexity. All you
> have to do is get a copper disc spinning over a bed of permanent
> magnets and you output pure DC. NO coils, no gears, no crankshaft.
>
> So. Who wants to find my mistakes in the spreadsheet, if any, or
> dispute my logic?
>
> The tower itself is a cylinder, an extremely strong shape. The
> combination of exterior shell plus several additional concentric
> circular layers inside adds to the stability. The exterior is made of
> repetition of modules around a circle, then repetition of layers
> stacked one on top of the next. The exterior modules are made of
> exactly four planes meeting at defined angles -- there is no mystery
> at all how to build these things. A prototype out of plywood is easily
> fabricated. Wind tunnel models are a piece of cake.
>
> If I was making them, I would use some FRP, fiber-reinforced-plastic,
> maybe engineered bundles of fibers including some carbon fibers, some
> fiberglass, some cheap PVA. Then the modules can be winched up easily
> by local labor, instead of specialists who use giant cranes and travel
> state-to-state.
>
> Likewise the gensets. All repetition of small modules which can be
> fabricated in thousands of locations from here to Bangladesh. If one
> stack layer goes offline for maintenance, the rest keep producing,
> with hardly a blip to the total production until one part can be
> swapped out for another. Irising the windows shuts down any layer
> independently.
>
> That's my challenge. Pick it to pieces.
