Because even 100 times wind power could compete with fusion, which is known to work we just haven't got it up and running yet.

Sweet. Now we can power this 60-watt light bulb!

Nice that this is about physical design and not use of exotic materials or something like that.

But I also want to think that the low pressure areas behind the blades of wind turbines have already been blamed for bird and bat deaths. So this design, which would cause larger areas of even lower pressure behind the turbines might get a lot of resistance from some environmental groups.

That being said, I keep thinking about buying a plot of land and using a windmill for limited power generation. So this is a nice step for my plans.

that doesn't look like a standard wind turbine to me

It has grown tentacles and raped an anime schoolgirl.

FTFA: NOTE: Some major wind projects like the proposed TWE Carbon Valley project in Wyoming are already pricing in significantly lower than coal power -- $80 per MWh for wind versus $90 per MWh for coal -- and that is without government subsidies using today's wind turbine technology.

Found this interesting. Yes I understand about needing base load power.

Yeah, I installed a 12 volt wind turbine to charge my battery packs in my SHTF shelter, but then I took an arrow in the knee and lost my enthusiasm for it all.

The_Homeless_Guy: Asa Phelps: that doesn't look like a standard wind turbine to me

The one is the photo is some sort of artist render and I'm not sure how the heck it would even work (I get the concept, but think that with friction/etc. it would be impractical). The actual turbines form the lab in Japan are more traditional looking.

Also, as I said before, none of the japanese prototypes are full size. I still think that this "lens" technique won't work well for large turbines (too much weight, wind loading etc.) but will likely be good for small turbines. I could see getting one for a country house.

i think you'd have issues with flexing

Gee just what we need.....another idea for a very fragile and easily disrupted power generation and distribution scheme.

Why oh why arent we burying everything under meters of concrete and then under the footers of very large buildings?

A ring of fission reactors buried hundreds of feet down around a major city and manned by the marines would be about the most bullet proof grid you can imagine. When fusion becomes available you refit the underground stations one at a time.

In the extremely unlikely event of a melt down you let the damn thing melt through the floor and pour concrete down the hole till its full. Or you can use one of the melt-down proof designs that the Chinese are working on.

The point is that a big storm, volcanic eruption, river flooding, or even a war is not going to touch hardened deep shaft installations, and they dont need to be hundreds of miles from the customer.

archichris: The point is that a big storm, volcanic eruption, river flooding, or even a war is not going to touch hardened deep shaft installations, and they dont need to be hundreds of miles from the customer.

How are you going to cool a reactor like that?

Ecliptic: The problem being that when wind speed = 0 the now 3x better coefficient of efficiency is still multiplied by 0?

This. There are times the wind is calm, therefore it is pointless to try and generate energy when the wind is not calm.

MrEricSir: Don't people realize that wind power might blow the earth off its orbit?

That is total bullcrap. Everybody knows the wind is what makes the Earth rotate -- if we harvest wind energy, we'll eventually stop the Earth from spinning.

moreta: Snarfangel: According to the story, if the new technology pans out we only have to cover an area a quarter of the size of Alaska to get all of our power from wind. That sounds feasible.


Then you have no idea just how big Alaska is.
[www.birds-eye-view.alaska.edu image 525x336]

To be fair, we could carpet wyoming in wind turbines and probably achieve something similar. It's not like they have much more than wind in Wyoming anyway.

moreta: Snarfangel: According to the story, if the new technology pans out we only have to cover an area a quarter of the size of Alaska to get all of our power from wind. That sounds feasible.


Then you have no idea just how big Alaska is.
[www.birds-eye-view.alaska.edu image 525x336]

nice graphic, thanks !!


"Let's say we developed just 20 percent of those wind resources - 170,000 square miles (440,000 km2) or an area roughly 1/4 the size of Alaska - we could produce a whopping 8.7 billion megawatt hours of electricity each year (based on a theoretical conversion of six 1.5 MW turbines per km2 and an average output of 25 percent. (1.5 MW x 365 days x 24 hrs x 25% = 3,285 MWh's).
(1/3rd of our current usage)"

FFS
does no one do the math??????
FFS
440,000 KM2?!!!
6 turbine per KM2 = 2,640,000 turbines.
REALLLY ??????
bwahahahah

should we build some?
sure, of course
do we want 2,640,000 over such a large area?
did they include the needed power transmission infrastructure?
did they include the number of people who be annoyed by the sound?

anyways, talk about a gigantic public works project

/these people are crazy

moreta: Snarfangel: According to the story, if the new technology pans out we only have to cover an area a quarter of the size of Alaska to get all of our power from wind. That sounds feasible.


Then you have no idea just how big Alaska is.
[www.birds-eye-view.alaska.edu image 525x336]

therefore ~ 1/20th of the lower 48 would be covered with wind turbines

Nuclear energy becomes more expensive every year, solar and wind cost less every year. It's ridicules that the US government is subsidizing tens of billions in loans to the nuclear energy industry and practically nothing to solar and wind.

If the government is to invest we should invest in clean energy that isn't going to cost more and more.

Snarfangel: /My personal belief is there is a better than even chance that natural gas will provide a good portion of near-term power until liquid fluoride thorium reactors come online. Fusion may come online after mid-century -- the joke I heard is "Fusion is the energy of the future, and always will be!" -- but I'm not sure where the economics will be compared to LFTR, since thorium is cheap as dirt.

thorium is AWESOMENESS
and fusion? bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaa

they used to predict that fusion was 20 years away.
they have been predicting that fusion is 20 years away for over 6 decades now.

IF only they had invested all that research money into LFTRs. We would be done using fossil fuels already and have saved the planet. sigh

I remember way back when the show West wing was on, there was an episode and the president has a briefing on energy policy and some adviser guy shows a map of the US showing the area needed to make solar feasible. A big red square in the country.
Then I thought to myself I wonder if someone made a similar map of the area taken up by every roof of every building in the country, what would that look like.
/Soon I will have my own wind and solar but I will never have my own nuclear.
//Scalable is better in some ways.