14 Aug 2009
This is very good news, as you will gather if you read the following. I have sent this info to Vestas, over a year ago - probably twice - but never had any reply. This is the latest edition, but the facts CAN never change, because they are Arith-metic, Geo-metric, and physical.
"Wind Info" -
It is quite possible to get several Whole percent of cost returned - annually - from a SENSIBLE design of Turbine-ALTERNATOR Device. I stress "Alternator", to highlight the fact that reference to such is never made in talk of "renewable-energy" and "windfarms", etc.
A fat lot of use is a turbine without an alternator ! hence I call the complete thing a "TAD" ?
Current (80m high) "Windfarm technology" - at an annual return of a
Small fraction of 1% of its cost
can ammount to no more than a. politically motivated publicity stunt,
( while we quietly "go nuclear" )
Data from public meeting at Llandeilo, uk July 2005
Cost of farm -------------- 160M Euro
Annual return from energy supplied ------- 220k Euro
Meanwhile swea.co.uk will have us believe that they provide a return of 200 to 300% p.a. !! - and it seems that they get away with this. Not like it's Serious fraud, or anything like that of course, just a little well - how shall we say - "over enthusiastic to save the world" - so long as the "Funding" is there, of course ! Why invest in anything else ! ?
There are two simple ( but not to find !! ) reasons which account - very well - for the disparity in these figures i.e. C 5% (from a sensible design) cf C 0.13%
Look away now, if you think it will be easy to find them !
1) TADs have an unusual "Economy of Size",
The cost of facing a given area of weather, is necklace-shaped function of (log) SIZE of the TADs deployed, because the two components (T and A) have Opposite "Economiy of Size".
One T to replace 4 of half the diameter will require 8 times the quantity of materials (of any one of the 4) to make. The cost of 1/4 as many turbines of twice the diameter, is therefore DOUBLE that of the 4 times as many which they replace.
One A of 4 times the thro'put, costs only twice as much as any one of the 4 which it replaces, in my experience. Cost of A's is therefore HALVED by doubling the diameter of the TADs. (and making 1/4 as many)
Lowest farm-cost ocurrs around sizes where the Ts costs about the same as the As. This happens
at around 0.5 to 1m diameter !!
(for a very effective design) - which Just Happens, to be a very convenient size. See .jpg herewith.
Current (80m high) "technology" runs at constant revs. which wastes high winds, causing the power taken from the wind to be more or less "pro-rata" with windspeed. They still manage to be wiping-out the last few Golden Eagles in Italy, though, so "that's quite useful if you farm sheep" I guess.
The power taken from the wind, by a TAD running at a speed which varies to suit the wind, ( instead of changing the angle of the "blades" (wings)) is cubicly related to windspeed.
About 3780 of the TADs pictured herewith face the same area of weather as one 40m diameterr "1 MW turbine", supply 380 kW from 11 m/s wind (Actual result - which was also indicated by design "numerical model") and 1.8 MWatt from 18 m/s wind ( indicated by the same model) .
Totat weight is about 1/5 that of the (1000 tonne ?!) block of concrete ALONE to which the monster is bolted !!
This translates to several Whole percent of cost returned p.a. in very many sites
The TADs can hang one below another (possibly on a common chassis of thin stainless steel sheet). Columns of them can then be suspended from a catenery cable to a suitable high object such as a "power pylon", or indeed can hang within the volume of the pylon itself. A low-voltage line would need to be added to the the pylons. They will also go perfectly in a "Tadfrey" atop the house.
N.B. If you look on metropolismag.com homepage, (May 2009) you will see that 3 french designers/Architects have been awarded a prize merely for suggesting this !!
They don't own a useful TAD design, and, it seems, are quite unfamiliar with "Power pylons", so it isn't much of a advert for my suggestion, which I know would actually be an economic benefit, rather than an expensive cosmetic exercise posing as one..
If half of the energy supplied by a system returning, for instance, 5% p.a. of its cost, is used to extend the system, then it will double in size, value, and output, with the passing of each
100/2.5 x logn(double, 2), or about 28 years.
Substituting even as much as 1% for the 5, we can see that there is no possibility of growth without continuous INPUT from elsewhere but the wind. I.e it is not a net energy supply At All !!
Sadly, "councillors" find this little arithametic homework "too much to struggle through" and prefer to simply hand over our cash to "Vestas" and "Gamesa" - for instance - to go and further crucify the Earth. Then, I take it, they go party with "Vestas" and "Gamesa" - Drink long green drinks and feel good about themselves. What do you rekon ?
G. Gilbert Vaughan