Why not any reference to vertical wind turbines? These are coming along very nicely and can be used in urban areas. Mounted on roofs or free standing, a 1 Kwt turbine can run around $4,000. and supply a third to half of a normal day's usage of electricity. ABC's Extreme Makeover installed one in Indiana, looked nice in the neighborhood and produced less than 30 decibels of noise. Parks and recreation areas can absorb these units for power needs in amongst the trees.
Posted by peter at May 30, 2009 09:45 PM
Vertical wind turbines are definitely a good idea. I first read about them from a post by A Siegel. Check out the artist's picture of putting one of these under the Golden Gate Bridge.
Posted by Mary at May 30, 2009 10:15 PMMary,
Where is the profit in slowing the cancerous growth of energy usage? As the charming executives of ENRON, who chortled about "Granny sitting in the dark" if she couldn't pay her energy bills illustrate, saving money is not even perceptible as a niggling, annoying rumor needing to be crushed by the mighty energy Godz. The FUTURE? Who the Hell do you think I am, Nostradamus?
You can't steal more money if you're saving money. Ergo, DAMN the Global Climate Change whiners! Ramming Speed! That glacier doesn't stand a chance. Oh, and Captain, have the luxury lifeboats prepared.
And BTW, good one Peter! I agree. Vertical turbines are one of the "thousand points of lighting" we need to practice. It's obvious that distributive energy production is the most intelligent solution. Let's hope Secretary Chu is not depending on lobbyists for ideas.
Posted by DeminNewJ at May 31, 2009 07:49 AMVertical-axis turbines aren't that much use for large-scale electricity production as they tend to be mounted near the ground or on rooftops where wind speeds are low and irregular. The big fan-style wind turbines are mounted high up to make the best use of steady wind undisturbed by large structures nearby. A VA turbine will be more massive than a hub-blade fan system and this costs more in terms of tower construction if it is to be located high enough up to make the most use of the windflow.
As for roof-mounting a wind turbine, remember that most US freestanding homes do not have reinforced roofs designed with mounting points to handle the sideloads of any sort of turbine whether vertical-axis or conventional. The extra structural work needed will add to the cost of any such home installation.
I have seen vertical Savonius rotors fitted on top of a block of flats (apartments) in Bradford, England. They are used to pump water through solar heating panels to supply the flats with hot water and assist in space heating. Electrically-powered pumps take over during the times when there isn't enough wind to do the job.
Posted by Robert Sneddon at May 31, 2009 08:09 AMIt's obvious that vertical wouldn't be the direction for massive production of electricity. My mention was for personal/private use by individuals maybe some small companies/apartments. Blend vertical with some solar to reduce ones dependence on the grid, no storage system needed. Just allow your production to go out on the grid, then when solar goes quiet at night. Wind energy can supplement your energy needs, at a much lower cost than solar.
This product doesn't require the massive swing of the traditional wind turbine, nor the eye sore of that same turbine. It would look just like a telephone poll with a vertical fan assembly. They can also be artistically designed for appearance sakes. Profiles can be maybe six/seven feet across by 15 to 30 feet tall.
Posted by peter at May 31, 2009 08:44 AMFolks -- I hate to rain on the parade, but 'distributed power' via wind or solar production is not going to get us where we need to go. A typical wind power farm produces around 2 Watt/meter squared. The mean energy use per capita in the US is ~10kW. That means we would need 5000 square meters of wind turbines per person to satisfy energy needs via wind only. Photovoltaic solar power is better, but not by enough to solve this basic problem -- typical PV systems produce about 10-15 Watt/meter squared on average. That means 700-1000 square meters per person covered by solar panels.
Unless we are willing to cover huge areas of the country with panels or wind farms, these solutions will just be nibbling at the edges of our energy needs.
As for nuclear power, on average (over several countries) it is on par in terms of cost with coal or oil. And it has a far smaller carbon footprint, of course. (Including the footprint associated with plant construction/mining).
See "Sustainable energy-- without the hot air" -- by David MacKay. (Google it -- it's free on the internet)
Posted by Gary Queen of Scots at May 31, 2009 03:33 PMI agree with the sentiment of sustainability; but if we want a good outcome we need to be a little more intellectually honest.
"large, complex, centralized systems are always more expensive than smaller, more distributed systems..." It was wrong in the case of refining - which is why Rockefeller made a fortune driving his competitors out of business. It was wrong in the case of steelmaking. Mao proposed that each peasant have a steel plant in his back yard. That was a disaster. And it's wrong when it comes to nuclear energy because the chief costs are in containment and controls. The cost of the former scales sublinearly with generating capacity (^2/3.) The latter is about the same regardless of scale. So there are big returns to scale in nuclear power generation.
If one is doing solar or wind, then distributed systems can decrease distribution costs. But if the mechanisms require maintenance, it can drive up the costs of maintaining them.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Gary on this. If you want to live in a 100 sf house with five other people, eat nothing but boiled rice, walk to every place you ever go, and use your entire annual income to buy a cheap pocket knife, then keep pissing on nuclear power. Because that's where we'll be in a hundred years without it. If you want to settle for a standard of living a little better than than, it's more constructive to try to develop conditions under which nuclear power is safe and cost effective.
Posted by Steve at June 2, 2009 07:50 PM