We could have resolved this in '04
Posted on 11/25/2009 9:23:06 PM PST by neverdem
They’re still ugly and I would not want my local hospital to have to rely on wind “energy” for round-the-clock operations.
They’re running on one nut?
I look at those contraptions and think sliced and diced birds.
We could have resolved this in '04
That arrangement works fine if the wind is always coming from the same direction. If you put all of them on a big lazy susan and rotated it so the array was always pointing into the wind, maybe that would work :)
Why not Dale Earnhart Jr?
Libs would laugh the idea if drafting out of the room as a worldwide solution it it was Earnhart, but put a bicycler on the face of it and it is our energy salvation
a kernal of truth wrapped in enviroclaptrap
It aint gonna work.
In their model EVERYONE’S a winner.
Silly journalists/engineers/students: "new" is for something ...errrm, ugh, well, not old.
Mother Earth had plans for small scale vertical turbines back in the late 1960s/early1970s.
They also had plans for longitudinal turbines of the same basic design, laid flat on its side, and mounted lengthwise along the ridge of a roof.
Elephants in the room. Land mass and the wind dont always blow.
I propose we build the darn things on Whittlesey and Dibaris property.
Bournoulli shake his head.
but at what cost to production value?
A horizontally ducted system on top onf a building would be more aesthetically pleasing and most likely more efficient because the air is ducted.
I still dont think you can get your money out of it unless you can sell dreams to folks
. In fact, using a new mathematical model they developed from the Glendora data, the researchers found that arranging the VAWT arrays just like schools of fish produced the best results. Such tightly packed VAWT arrays can produce as much electricity as conventional windmills, all while using as little as one-hundredth of the land area. “I don’t think I expected to see as great an improvement in the land use,” says Whittlesey.
The study revealed that the most efficient arrangement involved alternating the rotational direction of the turbines: a clockwise rotation in the lead turbine, say, with two counterclockwise rotators next in line, followed by three clockwise rotators, and so on.
“these things have all been done in the study of cavetation”
Wouldn't they be storing energy for such times - and/or, not be the only energy source, but supplemental.
As for home use - If cap and trade goes through and they control your thermostat - there will a lot of folk who would dearly love some of these in their back yard.
You are proposing added cost for autonomy.
And thats all these systems are good for at the moment.
When the Govts done you wont even have autonomy, just the added cost.
It’s another scam in the subsidized wind power industry. To date, VAWTs must be built much larger and more expensively than HAWTs to produce the same amp-hours of power.
As for building horizontal axis turbines on my own windy properties, NIMBYs, shut up! You won’t stop me. You’ll all be out of revenues and resources soon and shouldn’t have made so many enemies with your anti-property-rights, socialistic, free-traitor, anti-family, anti-American ways.
Nag about one of my wind turbines, and the next ones will be built with gigantic, scary, wooshing rotor spans right next to the roads! There’s US Code against your invasions of property rights, and our lawyers will take your future communistic/fascistic revenues away for your meddling!
I go through this OVER and OVER with FReepers.
IT IS NOT EFFECIENT. Can it give you the personal edge? Yes, but it is not efficient
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.