Wind Power vs. Solar

Martyn1981

Reed_Richards said:

"The train now arriving at Crazy Town...."  Here is an example of a "bladeless aerogenerator".  https://www.whatsorb.com/energy/vortex-bladeless-providing-wind-energy-without-blades?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7ouo1M-p8AIV5OjtCh2cugJeEAAYAyAAEgL0FfD_BwE .  Now I have no idea if these are real and, if so, if they are economically manufacturable but in the picture they are very close-packed. 

If you only think in terms of wind turbines then of course what you say about packing them close together is correct because wind turbines create turbulent air and turbulent air won't drive a wind turbine.  But the idea that the only form of aerogenerator is a wind turbine is challenged in the above link.  So if I'm crazy at least I'm not alone. 

Nobody said there aren't other forms of wind generator, such as the bladeless designs. I've been following this tech for over 5 years. But you've repeatedly asserted that you want to maximise generation, and that won't happen with these bladeless designs, v's the large HAWT's, so please don't twist what you have been saying. I'm structuring my responses around the largest energy generation that is possible, and that of course requires it to be economical. You previously wanted maximum generation, and are now suggesting less efficient bladeless designs, which would appear to mean less generation!

If you want some 'opinions' then you may find Smegal's interesting on the Navitron forum, as he's, dare I say, an expert on wind generation. He gives a lengthy post on the re-emergence of this technology, or for a far shorter comment, see pdf27's post, just a melting chocolate teapot, and his scientific posts (he's a nuclear engineer) are always exceptional.

Recent re-emergence on the subject in Mch 2021

Good vibrations: bladeless turbines could bring wind power to your home



So, again, if you think that the layout of conventional HAWT's is wrong, then please supply your proof that you know better.
If you still belief that wind farm planners and engineers don't carry out work to maximise the energy production (subject to any planning restrictions) that can be economically achieved, then provide your evidence.
If you honestly think that your alternative, wave based, solutions (for example) are better, then again supply some evidence.
If you believe/know that this bladeless design works economically, and will generate more energy (economically) than conventional WT's, then state that, don't just point to the existence of technology in order to obfuscate.
But why keep throwing out wild claims?

Lastly, don't you think it's incredibly weird, and rude, to make all of these 'unusual' claims about wind farms, wind technology, and the science and engineers behind them, based, it seems, entirely on your personal belief that they are all wrong, and you are right?

mnbvcxz

Martyn1981 said:

mnbvcxz said:

£30,000 of solar nearly always outperforms £30,000 of small wind wind turbine at less risk too. You lose money but less money.

Not sure why you'd say that. Small and large PPA solar systems have been profitable now for 5yrs+.

Hmm, still not entirely convinced I'm afraid. In some specific cases yes certainly. For most people posting here, even if they have some empty south facing land with prexisting three phase electricity not really. 

It is getting steadily closer though.

But I don't think it has overcome the rule that if you consistently use lots of electricity during summer days solar will do you well, if you don't it won't.

So far the market aggrees. Solar in the uk is a tenth of the peak a few years ago. The economics may yet tip back but not yet. People building unsubsidized solar exists but its not attracting that many people. When you see every farmer covering their barn roofs again then you will know we are over the tipping point.

Of course if inflation takes off those hedged with solar will look rather smarter than me and do well....

Reed_Richards

Martyn1981 said:

So, again, if you think that the layout of conventional HAWT's is wrong, then please supply your proof that you know better.

I have never stated nor even suggested this.  I'm really sorry, @Martyn1981, that you seem to be getting so het up by, to my perspective, misinterpreting what I have written because I respect your opinions.    

Lets think about solar PV panels for a minute.  These are typically 15% to 22% efficient.  But you can put them right next to each other without any harmful effects.  In fact because they are angled you can achieve a greater area of solar panels on your roof than the area of ground below.  So if there is any scope for efficiency improvements you want to improve on the 15% to 22% of the individual panels.

Now wind turbines are up to 50% efficient but in a wind farm you have to space them far apart.  I understand that the 50% figure is not far off the theoretical limit so if there is any scope for a significant improvement in efficiency it would have to come from working out how to increase the area density.  There is very little incentive to do this so long as you can site wind farms offshore or on large tracts of open country.  So yes, wind farms are fine, they are every bit as efficient as you need them to be.

Now suppose you want a wind generator on your roof or in your garden.  In this context the area efficiency becomes a key factor, you might be satisfied with non-turbine aerogenerators that are individually less efficient in generation than a wind turbine but which could be packed close together.  Non-turbine aerogenerators exist; I believe it is worth considering whether they could be used in a domestic context and I don't see this as a weird or rude claim.  In fact it is so obvious that you can find a plethora of crackpots and fraudsters with aerogenerator claims.  And doubtless others that work but which could never be economic.  But whilst an expert can debunk these, that doesn't mean that it will never be possible.        

QrizB

Reed_Richards said:

Now wind turbines are up to 50% efficient but in a wind farm you have to space them far apart.  I understand that the 50% figure is not far off the theoretical limit so if there is any scope for a significant improvement in efficiency it would have to come from working out how to increase the area density.

You seem to be referring to the 59.26% Betz limit: https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?&article=4865&context=ujmm

This is a theoretical maximum that can not be met, only aspired to.

Now suppose you want a wind generator on your roof or in your garden.  In this context the area efficiency becomes a key factor, you might be satisfied with non-turbine aerogenerators that are individually less efficient in generation than a wind turbine but which could be packed close together.  Non-turbine aerogenerators exist; I believe it is worth considering whether they could be used in a domestic context and I don't see this as a weird or rude claim.  In fact it is so obvious that you can find a plethora of crackpots and fraudsters with aerogenerator claims.  And doubtless others that work but which could never be economic.  But whilst an expert can debunk these, that doesn't mean that it will never be possible.        

It's not clear to me how choosing a less-efficient technology will result in a more efficient result, but I wish you good luck with your investigations. Please let us know how you get on! 

ABrass

Reed_Richards said:

Martyn1981 said:

So, again, if you think that the layout of conventional HAWT's is wrong, then please supply your proof that you know better.

I have never stated nor even suggested this.  I'm really sorry, @Martyn1981, that you seem to be getting so het up by, to my perspective, misinterpreting what I have written because I respect your opinions.    

Lets think about solar PV panels for a minute.  These are typically 15% to 22% efficient.  But you can put them right next to each other without any harmful effects.  In fact because they are angled you can achieve a greater area of solar panels on your roof than the area of ground below.  So if there is any scope for efficiency improvements you want to improve on the 15% to 22% of the individual panels.

Now wind turbines are up to 50% efficient but in a wind farm you have to space them far apart.  I understand that the 50% figure is not far off the theoretical limit so if there is any scope for a significant improvement in efficiency it would have to come from working out how to increase the area density.  There is very little incentive to do this so long as you can site wind farms offshore or on large tracts of open country.  So yes, wind farms are fine, they are every bit as efficient as you need them to be.

Now suppose you want a wind generator on your roof or in your garden.  In this context the area efficiency becomes a key factor, you might be satisfied with non-turbine aerogenerators that are individually less efficient in generation than a wind turbine but which could be packed close together.  Non-turbine aerogenerators exist; I believe it is worth considering whether they could be used in a domestic context and I don't see this as a weird or rude claim.  In fact it is so obvious that you can find a plethora of crackpots and fraudsters with aerogenerator claims.  And doubtless others that work but which could never be economic.  But whilst an expert can debunk these, that doesn't mean that it will never be possible.        

Except you don't really care about the efficiency of the wind alternator, no matter what form it is, for a domestic install. I doubt that it's really of interest for an industrial installation either. It's a rather odd concept for wind power as unlike solar the supply comes horizontally so you're never theoretically limited (ok, so maybe after the first 20km it falls off), you can just keep going higher to have more wind available.

What matters is the cost efficiency of whichever system you're looking at. It doesn't matter if your turbines are 50% efficient or 60% efficient or 5% efficient if they don't come close to breaking even financially.

At the moment there aren't any  that make sense for home use, except maybe in some seriously niche situations. If you can find some that can break even that'd be really interesting, please share it if you do.

Martyn1981

Reed_Richards said:

Martyn1981 said:

So, again, if you think that the layout of conventional HAWT's is wrong, then please supply your proof that you know better.

I have never stated nor even suggested this.  I'm really sorry, @Martyn1981, that you seem to be getting so het up by, to my perspective, misinterpreting what I have written because I respect your opinions.    

Lets think about solar PV panels for a minute.  These are typically 15% to 22% efficient.  But you can put them right next to each other without any harmful effects.  In fact because they are angled you can achieve a greater area of solar panels on your roof than the area of ground below.  So if there is any scope for efficiency improvements you want to improve on the 15% to 22% of the individual panels.

Now wind turbines are up to 50% efficient but in a wind farm you have to space them far apart.  I understand that the 50% figure is not far off the theoretical limit so if there is any scope for a significant improvement in efficiency it would have to come from working out how to increase the area density.  There is very little incentive to do this so long as you can site wind farms offshore or on large tracts of open country.  So yes, wind farms are fine, they are every bit as efficient as you need them to be.

Now suppose you want a wind generator on your roof or in your garden.  In this context the area efficiency becomes a key factor, you might be satisfied with non-turbine aerogenerators that are individually less efficient in generation than a wind turbine but which could be packed close together.  Non-turbine aerogenerators exist; I believe it is worth considering whether they could be used in a domestic context and I don't see this as a weird or rude claim.  In fact it is so obvious that you can find a plethora of crackpots and fraudsters with aerogenerator claims.  And doubtless others that work but which could never be economic.  But whilst an expert can debunk these, that doesn't mean that it will never be possible.        

Actually here you suggest that the layout of HAWT's is sub optimal, and that 'co-operative' WT's would do better in your opinion. So please explain how you plan to get WT's that co-operate instead of competing?

Reed_Richards said:

I cannot help but think that current wind turbines are based on windmills and if you had a windmill then you could mill all the grain in the area so didn't need another one for a few miles.  Thus the turbines in wind farms are placed far enough apart that they don't interact whereas what you need for maximum efficiency are turbines that are closely spaced but interact in a co-operative manner so you don't lose most of the wind energy passing by.  You don't see small water-driven turbines in the middle of a wide river, you dam the river and drive the turbine with the entire flow.  However a co-operative array of small turbines along the ridge of your roof seems to be an idea that only exists in my head so far.

And here again, you suggest that WT's should be placed closer together, but that 'nobody has even begun to work out how that might be achieved'. Not only completely false, but also extremely rude too, since you've just dismissed the work of many, as being non existent.

Reed_Richards said:

Martyn1981 said;

Have to say I'm a bit confused by that. Are you suggesting that they work co-operatively, as I understood it to be the exact opposite, and that they have to be placed apart to stop the turbulence from one affecting another, and also because they will reduce the power of the wind behind them.

What I am saying is that wind turbines are glorified windmills; windmills are standalone entities.  Because wind turbines have to be spaced far apart you waste a huge amount of the potential wind energy and will continue to do so until someone works out how to make wind turbines that can be closely spaced.  I think in order to do that the individual turbines would have to work cooperatively but AFAIK nobody has even begun to work out how that might be achieved.  

Next you suggest your alternative to WT's, in an attempt to continue claiming that the current tech and layout is wrong:

Reed_Richards said:

So don't use turbines, use some other form of wind power extractor.  If "bobbers" can extract power from waves that goes to show that you don't have to have the circular motion of a turbine, that's just the easy option.  

And then you changed course, pretending that the existence of other types of WT's had been denied by me (or others?)

Reed_Richards said:

  But the idea that the only form of aerogenerator is a wind turbine is challenged in the above link.  So if I'm crazy at least I'm not alone. 

I shall assume that you didn't respond to the other points I raised, because you can't support the claims that I challenged.




Now, please don't think I'm getting het up, as you put it. I love the subject of WT's, and am happy to discuss, but we shouldn't waste our time on false claims about the technology nor the people working in the industry. We (I'll assume you know as little about wind energy and WT's as myself) shouldn't be 'telling' people how it should be, and what 'they' are doing wrong. We should trust that they do know what they are talking about, and that technological improvements will come from the people that have a scientific and engineering background in this field. I'm not going to question a brain scientist on neurological issues, nor tell a rocket surgeon 'what you should be doing mate is this', are you?

Moving on to your PV explanation, you say that they can be packed together. Yes, of course, so long as they are not placed so as to interfere with other rows of panels. I explained this to you previously. The exact same applies to WT's, there is a limit to how close they can be packed together so as to prevent them impacting on others. The experts know this, even if you doubt that, whilst you simultaneously defeat your own argument.

On to your efficiency, and yes WT's can approach 50% efficiency in optimal conditions, and exceed 50% capacity factor (off-shore), but you want to reduce that efficiency by packing more together, to increase total yield, despite apparently failing to understand that in doing so, your costs will rise, and the efficiency of each individual WT will fall.

As to your comments about crackpots and fraudsters, and the suggestion that a solution may one day arrive, that's fine, it may, or it may not, but how exactly does that support your claims today that WT's and their layout is not optimal? Unless you can point to proof, evidence, test results etc etc ..... then how exactly does any of this support your claims today that the WT's and wind farm layouts, are sub optimal?

By all means chat about theoreticals, and I'll happily join you, the subject is fascinating, though so far, wholly disappointing and depressing (for me). But these arguments of yours are, if not wholly, then pretty damn close to nonsensical, as you seem to be confusing theoretical ideas, many of them yours, to working technology, and then claiming that the working technology is inferior.

By all means find a domestic wind generator and sing its praises, but they have to be economical first. There's no point having a 59.3% efficient wind generator if it is entirely uneconomic, however, having a 20% efficient domestic WT would be fine ....... if it was economic, the efficiency is only relevent, if the technology is economic to use in that situation. Back to your PV efficiency, why don't you (and I) have far more efficient multi junction PV cells on our roofs ...... likes what they does in space ......... could it have anything to do with the economics, perchance, or is the PV industry also wrong in the technology they use, and the way it is deployed?

Reed_Richards

The reason that you can select quotes from my different posts and throw them back at me as not being self-consistent is because I have been paying attention to other people's comments, have improved my understanding and have changed some of my opinions. 

Martyn1981

Reed_Richards said:

The reason that you can select quotes from my different posts and throw them back at me as not being self-consistent is because I have been paying attention to other people's comments, have improved my understanding and have changed some of my opinions. 

That's great to hear, and it's nice also that you now say you have revised your position, rather than denying you held the earlier one. Had you said you'd changed your mind, I wouldn't have had to respond to you with your statements (hardly select) proving what you'd said.

And in fairness I had noticed you'd slowly changed your story. I'd compare your original claims that WT's and their placement are wrong, to 'the Loch Ness Monster exists'. Whereas your revised position suggesting that there are a plethora of such claims from fraudsters and crackpots, but a better solution may be found, is probably more akin to 'there is no evidence proving 100% that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist'.

But joking aside, I suppose your real position (now), is that there could be a black swan event. [A term based on the faulty assumption that all swans were white, since all that had been discovered by the Western World were white, rather than a scientific reason why they had to be white ...... and along comes the Aussie swan to teach us a valueable lesson.]

However, in this situation, whilst there may be the possibility of a black swan event, science has not been ignored, and a vast amount of research, time and energy has gone into perfecting WT's and their placement.


But back to your main issue, as I understand it, is that you want to maximise energy harvesting from any given location. So can I ask you the same question again please, as an honest answer from you, would probably answer your question on WT's ....

Why don't you (and I) have far more efficient multi junction PV cells on our roofs ...... likes what they does in space ......... could it have anything to do with the economics, perchance, or is the PV industry also wrong in the technology they use, and the way it is deployed?

Reed_Richards

Actually if have changed my story from "The Loch Ness Monster exists" to "Wouldn't it be great if the Loch Ness Monster really did exist".  Unfortunately you, @Martyn1981,  keep misinterpreting this as "Monsters are everywhere".

Throughout I have been entirely focused on whether I can usefully harvest wind energy on my property.  Accepted wisdom is that a wind turbine on the roof is too noisy, and too low.  But planning constraints, particularly the rule about proximity to the boundary, would make it very difficult to place one in my garden.  So clutching at straws i have looked to see if there are other means of harvesting wind energy and it seems there might be (but nothing I have found is currently available in a domestic version).

Meanwhile in passing I made the observation that on a wind farm, most of the wind passing through does nothing useful in providing energy.  Here in the UK we have plenty of exposed moorland and vast quantities of offshore sea so it's not an issue.  On my house I would probably position my mythical silent aerogenerators at intervals along the ridge of my roof and put up with the fact that they might be less efficient when the wind direction is aligned to the ridge.

PVs are a triumph of making something that should not work as a solar panel (silicon, an indirect band-gap semiconductor) work very efficiently.  And it is the material of choice because it is cheap.  Gallium Arsenide (or some other III/V semiconductor) would be way more efficient but vastly more expensive so it will never fly.  Maybe one day someone will work out how to make an OLED TV run backwards as an electricity generator and we will see a step up in affordable solar panel efficiency.

Martyn1981

Reed_Richards said:

Actually if have changed my story from "The Loch Ness Monster exists" to "Wouldn't it be great if the Loch Ness Monster really did exist".  Unfortunately you, @Martyn1981,  keep misinterpreting this as "Monsters are everywhere".

Brill, I think your hope that the Loch Ness Monster does/did exist is a good compromise, and that's where I think you now are.

Just a shame that you started off claiming that your monster ideas were better than existing tech, and that the scientists/engineers had never researched this.

Maybe we can both agree that wishing for a monster is a good thing, but whilst we are waiting for our wishes to come true, we should continue down the current path of deploying the best technology, in the best way, and not suggest that the 'experts' are wrong.

I do hope you get to install some form of wind generation on your property (though I'm less and less hopeful for mine), but I still don't think you should disregard their economic viability, as your money would probably be better off invested in a large, efficient, and cost effective wind farm, than producing a small amount of energy, at a very high and uneconomic cost, with no hope of the technology ever progressing to a cost effective solution.

I'm going to take your repeated dodging of the question about why you didn't choose to spend £m's on more efficient PV technology for your house, to maximise generation, as a quiet acceptance/understanding finally, that the technology and its deployment has to maximise generation economically, not simply maximise generation*. It's really not that difficult when we think about it, even fun, perhaps.

[Edit - * Actually, thinking about it, that's not completely fair, I think your comments about PV, and the more expensive types, does acknowledge that that technology needs to be economical. So from there, just apply that reasoning to WT's and wind farms, and I suspect you'll find that they aren't spread out too much, but correctly, in order to maximise economic generation. Otherwise they would be wasting money on longer cable lengths, access roads, sea bed preparation, etc, etc, and failing to maximise returns on the land/sea bed area that they have leased, (subject of course to any planning constraints regarding the spacing of on-shore WT's.) Occam's razor would suggest that the wind farm designers/developers are actually far, far better than you at maximising the efficiency and economics of each site, but I will admit that I admire your self confidence in continuing to believe that they are wrong. M.]