Bladeless wind turbine

Bladeless wind turbine

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2_5K4kmnsL4
asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/energy/palm-trees-sway-wind-turbine-design
what-if.xkcd.com/29/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
web.archive.org/web/20160513113534/http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#fc72fc344508
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtlpSY47XNAhWh7IMKHQCeDekQFghGMAU&url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/At-Fukushima-meltdown-deaths-top-tsunami-toll/articleshow/31818324.cms&usg=AFQjCNG-JkkoOl3rSisaCV_exiCwh8lccg&bvm=bv.124817099,d.aXo
twitter.com/AnonBabble

wouldnt it be more efficient to have them much closer together?

explain

How do they work? I can't see this being more efficient than a three blade windmill

...

less moving parts - less wear
just a thought

Here you go.
youtube.com/watch?v=2_5K4kmnsL4

Less butthurt people complaining about "ugly" windmills

There would probably be more wear on the one part that does move though so more frequent maintenance. Plus less power generated probably.

Riiiight

So instead of thin windmills we're gonna go with wobbling sticks....

just looking at this thing tells you its easier to install therefore a cheaper acquistition
its one part compared to how many with the blade variant?
and that one part might be also easier to replace
but im not an engineer

Hope it's durable because you're going to have all kinds of animals and birds of prey perching on top of every one of those. I guess you could solve that by placing vertical pigeon spikes on them, but then the naturefags are going to complain. On the other hand, will an eagle sitting on it affect its energy generation?

Actually lesser maintenance, no bearrings . Lesser parts that move.

30% less generated energy though
50% less costs

So it's going to be producing barely any energy if the wind speed isn't within a few m/s of the natural frequency of the stick? What a trash idea.

>Using wind
>Not using nuclear

These scare me. I don't know why. That frightens me more.

Embrace fission until solar panels aren't shit, then try to move onto fusion after 50 years.

It works, its better than traditional ones but who cares? nuclear is the only option

topkek

BLADELESS FREAKING WINDMILLS

> then try to move onto fusion after 50 years.
more like 150 years

Wind turbines are a meme.
Wave power on the other hand...

Huh so they're not even windmills they just sway back and forth in the wind. That's kinda neat.

underrated

so their inspiration was a structure that collapsed

yeah sounds like a good idea

imagine a 400 feet tall version of this and imagine the level of force applied to the bottom of the structure when it's all shaking violently

Just being boring:

The exact shape of turbines are found by optimization around some predefined shapes, using a certain algorithm. There are possibilities to have super-efficient wind mills that have some crazy fractal-like shape, but we just don't know.

What a meme. The future of wind energy is HUGE FUCKING wind turbines. Scaling laws are favorable to making em' huge. Like 200 meter blades huge

asme.org/engineering-topics/articles/energy/palm-trees-sway-wind-turbine-design

But is it worth it? Less area intercepted = less power

Though wind power does not have much of a future cause solar is gonna eat it. Solar is getting fucking cheap

>Though wind power does not have much of a future cause solar is gonna eat it. Solar is getting fucking cheap

lets coat the whole wind turbine construct with solarcells even the blades

I dunno... I heard that producing and maintaining these wind turbines and solar panels uses a large amount of non-renewable resources, ironically making them inefficient and wasteful.

EROI is positive so once we have enough renewables we can make em with all renewable.

Wind costs less and doesn't require as many technicians

Then you heard wrong

You are correct

How would windmill upkeep require more resources exactly?

when will we just go nuclear and stop relying on gimmick tech.

this sort of tech literally only works on earth, and under specific conditions.

just fuckign go nuclear. shit, if you want to, you could literally pop a small reactor in your backpack. but nooooo, people ar elike "we must put kinetic reliant generators everywhere, and stop funding nuclear technology.

give me my fkn gundams already

Why hasn't anyone done this? It's probably not very effecient a return on their investment and power generated compared to traditional dedicated solar cells right?

Most people in Sup Forums says to use the nuclear power, but I got one question:

What should we do with the nuclear waste ?

windy places != places that are crazy sunny

Probably because solar panels don't work well when pointed at the horizon.

>What should we do with the nuclear waste ?

Build a fucking wall out of it to keep Mexicans out.

Toss it in the Mariana Trench. Water is pretty much the best radiation insulator we've got. Nothing important lives down there. Nobody will ever come in contact with it. It will just sit down there until it either decays or is absorbed into the Earth's crust.

But there will inevitably be some retarded hippie that says "Blobfish are people too!" and throws a wrench into things. So we'll keep having people die in coal mining accidents and polluting the atmosphere because some faggots care about possibly irradiating a small amount of fish nobody gives a fuck about.

And before you reply to this post, read this[1] so you understand how innocuous the idea is

[1] what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Well these elements come from the earth to begin with, it seems like putting them in a central location far away from man and animals might be a net gain for the environment overall.

There is a lot of energy left in "nuclear waste". We should recycle such "waste" and reuse it in the plants.

i don't see a reason for them to not be closer either, dunno how they work but if wind is suppose to just go through them, making a whole wall of them would make more sense.

you're a pussy, so it makes sense they would

>solar is gonna eat it
this, the sun produces more energy that gets absorbed by earth then we can use, altho we might want to supplement with wind, since no sun at night means no power

We really should be using gen 4 reactors with breeder reactors either on site or within a reasonable distance. That way spent fuel can be reprocessed into usable fuel again. This can continue for several cycles until the fuel is actually spent.

...

Some retards already though of that. It's a fucking stupid idea.

inhabitat.com/scientists-develop-solar-powered-wind-turbine/

Hahahahahaha

spins itself clean when it rains, brilliant

FUND IT

Fuck nuclear dawg. Fucking dangerous as fuck and messy. I like solar better.

>Fucking dangerous
This meme again.

or we could just solve the world energy problem and use nuclear.

>dangerous
literally the safest non-renewable energy source, and currently the most efficient energy source. we'll be using fusion long before we deplete the world's supply of uranium

there's unused land all around the fucking windmill, you could just put fucking panels down there.

>messy
coal gives out more radiation

but what about achieving maximum levels of SYNERGY


No but seriously, a better idea would be to put the solar panels somewhere where it's actually sunny.

>where it's actually sunny.
it'll produce energy even if it's cloudy, just not as much. but if you're going to make some shitty meme device to use space for energy, you might aswell just use the space around the windmill.

I'm going to make windmills out of a raspberri pi, shipping containers, and blades made from recycled pallets.
moni plx.

I feel like it would be bizzare to see these rocking around in the distance.

>using the same idea from a bridge that falls down

what protect this thing from doing the same thing? what re the conditions for it

A lot less mass
Planning on it moving like that
It's also not bridge shaped and is sticking directly out of the ground

This

>Lets all use this expensive and hard to make thing with also dangerous waste

naaah

Probably "dangerous" because you're only familiar with reactors designed and built close to half a century ago.
This is what computers looked like around the time construction began on Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

I think it's safe to say technology and nuclear theory has come a long way since then.

More advanced computers doesn't make radiation any less dangerous you mong.
Solar is infinitely more safe than radiation machines.
Every house should have solar panels installed. Personally, I think it's a matter of national security and should be installed with government money. Literally 1% of the yearly military spending could see every occupied structure have adequate solar panels installed.
Much better money spent than paying for radiation poisoning or oil terrorist funding. Go to hell asshole! Solar for Prosperity and Solidarity.

...

why is that wind turbine casting two shadows ?

looks like a field of dicks, lol

Because you want a strong and light material for the blades in particular. Not a fucking solar cell that doesn't orient itself towards the sun.

Government oversight is also still lax and the companies involved usually successfully lobby that it remains so.

And most of the severe costs (safe storage of waste for xxxxx years - in presumably a somewhat guarded storage, plus guarding nuclear materials transports and air space security and all that) remain "outsourced" to the public. Let the operators pay these expenses in full...

Yeah, radiation is still radiation.
But that's like saying flying in a jet built in the 60's is just as dangerous as flying in one built today.

Falling out of the sky from a mile up and several hundred MPH will still kill you either way.
We're just a hell of a lot better at preventing that from happening in the first place today than 50 years ago.

...

Fuck off neckbeard. It's still fucking dumb to have centralized power generation ie single point of failure, susceptible to natural disaster, terrorist attack, operator error, accidents etc etc etc etc. A distributed system just works better. So unless you're going to recommend microreactors everywhere then solar is just simply superior to anything we have today (given enough scale).
Solar > Nuclear.
And solar is better than it was. And is more easily utilized in a distributed system.

I actually have a small nuclear reactor that powers my house. It's weird how easy it is to set one up desu

I get weird readings sometimes that make me think I might be getting radiated but nothing's happened so far and I don't have to pay the Jews at TVA

>or oil terrorist funding
Majority of US's oil import comes from Canada..

I agree in a general sense on your views on solar, but I think the gov should just offer some incentive and let the free market work it out.
There is still a problem of storing is energy somewhere too..

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>oil terrorist funding
>majority of US oil import comes from Canada

Pick two.
Yep, the oil industry here are literal terrorists. Completely obliterating ecosystems and the environment. Oil sands are literally the most egregious method of obtaining oil, it is environmental terrorism.
t. Canadian

Thought it was a flettner rotor

Disappointed that its not

>but I think the gov should just offer some incentive and let the free market work it out.
I think national "infrastructure" (roads, railways, electrical grid and power generation... but actually also some of the basic business infrastructure like telecommunication and postal services) work should simply be fully done by the government, not on a profit motive but on a set of regulations that pays for a mountain road and some terabytes of internet infrastructure (not per person, just trunk lines to the general place) to a random hamlet as long as it has x people per y area.

Privatizing these basics almost never worked out too well here at least, whereas everything worked quite okay when it was all government run.

now you're just moving the goal posts to label anything you don't like as "terrorism"

Stop terrorizing me with your opinions!

I agree with you, not everything needs to be privatized.
But my point about the incentive was say for the government to offer rebates for buying solar panels, or some sort of loan program (for qualified people of course)

Yo FUCK nuclear FUCK coal and FUUUCK oil. God damn rich asss old fart white ddues run that shit. Solar, wind and every eother clean energy is way better. NUCLEAR FUCKING MAKES RADIOACTIVE WASTE. Piece of crap bullshit, Chernobyl, and japan fucked people up, That never woulda happened with wind or solar!!

They've also made protesters and detractors "disappear" with regard to the huge pipelines they want to put in. Oil companies have done more damage to Canada in both land and law than any terrorist could have ever dreamed.

Space based solar + microwave lasers is the last answer for power generation

>Chernobyl,
How many people do you think died ?
How many people do you think got cancer? (compared to natural cancer occurrences)

The answer is surprisingly low.

But , put your money where your mouth is and buy solar panels and just stfu.

Got a source for such a bold claim ?
Or maybe just put random words in "quotations"

How many animals do you thing died?! UCK You

>nuclear is bad
>Chernobyl killed people!!!

Yet you never hear anyone bring up this shit

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster

again moving goal posts.

How many animals have you eaten today ?
Chicken is my favorite.

>raising animals to slaughter is the same as poisoning millions of acres of environment so badly that it's literally impossible for life to be sustained

Found the (((Shill))).

>one animal has more value than another
at least be consistent.

The tar sands wouldn't exist if there was no need for oil, they exist because people like you and I have a need for oil and oil based products.

>163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011
>Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year
>Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths.
>America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths.

So not only does wind produce way less power, it also kills way more people. Remind me why wind isn't banned again?

web.archive.org/web/20160513113534/http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/#fc72fc344508

They exist because of greed, period.
And you're a (((Shill))) obviously. Go get cucked some more.

>But my point about the incentive was say for the government to offer rebates for buying solar panels, or some sort of loan program (for qualified people of course)
I can't see this helping here.

Once we determine that solar power is part of the national power infrastructure, IMO the government should be in charge of deploying it and the corresponding "smart" power grid backbone with the necessary distribution and control systems and sources and sinks and all that.

All the cost and effort spent on redundant planning, finding companies with the required skills and devices to get the right degree of efficiency, then all the bureaucracy related to verifying and paying subsidies can be saved, as can be a lot of costs related to building the grid itself.

Of course off grid solar like the highly efficient solar "warm water" panels should probably be only subsidized (though maybe simply required unless you file good reasons not to need them), because these are belonging purely to a house, not a piece of national infrastructure.

hear-hear!

Solar will be part of the solution, but it won't be the only solution.
The change is already happening where renewables are generating more and more power.

But a fundamental problem is that they cannot just turned up to 11 and generate more power when supply spikes,
coal/gas plants can do is easily and quickly, so I imagine they will be around for a while longer at the very least to deal with situations like that.

Of course we need to dig up the earth to make lots of batteries and other possible exotic materials to make solar panels.

I think overall they will have a benefit on the environment, but they aren't nearly as clean as people make them out to be.

>In the 2011 tsunami-earthquake, 1,607 lives were lost in Fukushima. Overall, the double natural disasters killed 15,884 people and left 2,636 still unaccounted for. Surging water from the tsunami blew out the cooling system at the plant causing the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjtlpSY47XNAhWh7IMKHQCeDekQFghGMAU&url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/At-Fukushima-meltdown-deaths-top-tsunami-toll/articleshow/31818324.cms&usg=AFQjCNG-JkkoOl3rSisaCV_exiCwh8lccg&bvm=bv.124817099,d.aXo

We need to go Thorium

>Once we determine that solar power is part of the national power infrastructure,
It won't be, just like the government doesn't control the wiring in your home.
It is too small scale to bother with such fine control.

There will be regulations/safety stuff and thats about it.

>then all the bureaucracy related to verifying and paying subsidies can be saved
lots of subsidies already exist for lots of various things, their implementation isn't nearly as plagued as you make it out to be.
Besides pick a side of the fence, either the government is incompetent and can't issue rebates for solar panels OR government can run the entire power grid just fine, you can't go both ways here.

It will be affected by the eagles freedom and work less because it doesn't want a 24 hours a day work for 7 weeks, it will gather the other windmills to start a riot against the government and it will result in nothing because they can't fucking move.

>Physical and psychological fatigue were the causes of 2,973 deaths in the three hardest hit prefectures of Iwate, Miyagi and Fukushima, out of which 1,660 deaths were in Fukushima alone.

You do know that those deaths came from the forced evacuation of the area, not from radiation, right ?

wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011
You do know those deaths were caused by... well I don't know? Why don't you tell us how those deaths happened. Do you know?

Yet no one died from the nuclear reactor.... Through an earthquake and a tsunami, not a single person died from the nuclear reactor directly. Really puts how nuclear safety into perspective. We can protect people from nuclear radiation and explosions better than we can protect them from natural disasters.