I have long been an advocate of VAWTs, despite the knowledge they are inherently less efficient. The fact they work at lower wind speeds and give engineers and designers the possibility of producing electricity at a lower net cost per MW/hour over their lifetime is most appealing.
@@kitemanmusic tbh i think wind turbines are irrelevant and a waste. If fusion fully breaks through we will have clean and seemingly endless power generation. All these do is just pollute more since most materials cant even be recycled and have a short lifespan. Great “green” energy
Fascinating idea. Having worked on large traditional VAWTs I can tell you that they suffer from fully reversing loads on the blades. This raises the issue of material fatigue cracking at the connections to the central shaft. This is not a problem with HAWT since the loads are always in the same basic direction. By tilting the vertical axis in the wind, the fatigue load may be reduced. I'd like to see some analysis of this. Thanks for this post.
So the problem is in the connection to the shaft. A simple solution would be to install a shock absorber kinda rigid spring at the connections to absorb the stress.
@@pravinsmart So, a hinge joint with spring and shock absorber may mess up the aerodynamics of the foils by changing their angle slightly. Interesting idea, though.
I assume VAWT designs are inherently safer than the HAWT as the gearing and generators mechanisms are at ground level ensuring an escape in the event of a fire and removing the need for a weight budget for the generator and associated equipment.
This was a really encouraging video! I especially liked the idea of the counter rotating vertical axis setup - nearly a power output doubler? Would think that using 1 bearing would be expensive if the vertical axis turbine gets really tall, so there are likely limitations there.
It looks very interesting. The cost per kWh doesn't provide the full picture. The bit of power a VAWT can generate during low wind is most valuable as it reduces the need for storage.
Really hope this works. There will be engineering problems. The blades are unequally loaded as they rotate, so produce vibration. They can’t feather into the wind. Also you missed, perhaps, the main point of the counter rotating blades, these put little or no rotation force on the base. But, good presentation, keep it coming
This seems like a real winner. There are so many advantages that the problem of bearings seems insignificant. Wouldn't several less expensive bearings perform just as well as one high-load bearing?
I was wondering what the point of counter-rotation was until you explained that one is connected to the shaft and the other to the housing. So the generator spins twice as fast! lol So simple it's genius!! 😄
It would probably also help minimize gyroscopic forces that would come into play when the wind changes direction and/or force, causing the tower to re-orient itself.
Thank you. That was very interesting and informative. Thank you too for non- intrusive music over voice. Music over voice spoils many videos, it's not needed at all.
This was fascinating content. It sounds like first principles of engineering are being applied here. Through this video I learned that present and future HAWT design and R&D holds great promise for economic efficiency and reliability. This is a good day.
They are such a simpler design and having all the important stuff at the bottom makes so much more sense from a maintenance perspective. The super large classic ones seem like trying to move heaven and earth just to get something to that scale. So many forces working against the design it's ridiculous.
I have a 1kw vertical Axis windmill. It's pretty amazing. It is fairly simple one but it produces power easily. Much simpler construction. It makes home small version windmills easy for a home owner.
@@elizabethwinsor-strumpetqueen under light wind 50 to 100 watts is normal. Under medium wind it averages 300watts. If it's a really good strong wind it may get 700watts that is fairly normal. 1kw may be possible in ideal conditions but its not the norm when it comes to wind. They always advertise the max, you rarely get the max though
That is very very cool. If it works it could solve the Intermittance of even offshore wind turbines. 45-60% efficiency well when it goes past usually 2 km an Hr they have to shut the vertical ones down to avoid destroying them.
I think this represents the next generation of wind power. I've never thought the horizontal axis systems were inherently robust and VAWTs are much more so. I am curious how they will tolerate extreme conditions, for instance heavy icing or perhaps even worse, wind speeds up to 250 kph. Surely these have been considered by the designers. Will the towers tilt so far over the blades hit the water? What about extreme sea states? 20 meter tall waves must be designed for; how does a floating and tilting design tolerate that? I'm excited to see innovations in renewable energy because they translate into ever cheaper energy production.
Yes the vertical axis is such a better design. Couldn't quite make out the description of the difference in the turbine materials. Presumably ships wouldn't be able to pass through a grid of these - did you say they would be connected by a series of platforms or something? Also would like to know what sort of insulation would be used in the cabling with consideration of the dangerously high greenhouse gas presently used. All very exciting. Thank you for the information.
You are right, although ships passing through a grid of wind turbines might be a bad idea anyway. On the other hand, with the tilted blades the lower one is horizontal or close to it, and the size of this turbine suggests there may be enough clearance for ships to pass under the blades... if absolutely necessary.
About the shipping issue. If one of these new turbines really can deliver 40 MW we would need about 165,000 of them to cover the entire world's consumption of energy. Judging by the illustrations there should be room for about 6 of them per km2. So less than 30,000 km2 (about 11,500 sq miles) would be enough. That's less than 0.0001% of the world's oceans. I'm sure we can live with shipping exclusion zones of that size. But that's just theory of course, there is no way we're going to replace all our energy sources with these turbines.
Can I ask a question. You know those self winding watches, what if you made that mechanism large and put a long stick on it with wind blocks on top. When the wind blows it would lean and bounce back winding or turning the generator/ clock winder? What do you think?
I don't know the details about maintenance but this is a Norwegian company. We do have some experience putting machinery into and under the sea here so I assume they have thought of that.
@@TheShootist I so agree that we probably could do with more nuclear plants. But we need to diversify, we can not afford to rely too much on one energy source. We need to diversify as much as possible for security reasons. Statsitically nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest power sources we have. It has a bad reputation mainly because on the few occasions something goes wrong it goes terribly wrong. But what if there's a war? Or how about sabotage? And perhaps most important, how about securing fuel supplies. The big oil producers have used and still use their control over supplies to gain leverage over the rest of the world and you can be sure the uranium producers will do the same if the world becomes too dependent on nuclear power.
Cool! You gave us cost per kwh but I'm curious about cost per square meter of surface (wind field) for initial installation. Too early to tell, but that will be a selling point for small communities in a more decentralized production environment. (More generators per square km than horizontal axis generators means more units, so, how do the unit costs stack up?)
I'm guessing the area requirements from the pictures and it seems each 40 MW turbine would need about 200,000 m2 of space. So about 0.2 KW per square meter. I can' find where the video mention the cost so you'll have to do the rest of the math yourself.
I have thought that the current design of W.T's seems completely upside down. A mass at the top of a thin column? Place the generator at the lower end and drive it via a shaft; like a rear wheel drive car!
If a low centre of gravity is so important, why isn't the generator for the conventional windmill put to the bottom? They could have an axis in the inside of the windmill pole using a 90 degree angle gears.
Good clear explanations, thank you, You could speak more slowly though! Vertical axis turbines have advantages in keeping weight/CoG and maintenance work low, and in not needing to turn to face the wind. And (did you say?) need not be exactly vertical. What is the advantage of counter-rotating turbines on the same shaft? That system would mean some very heavy rotating parts.
Counter-rotating doubles the speed! Think of two cars passing each other, each moving at 30 mph. Passing speed 60 mph. No complicated gearing. Rotor and stator both rotate, in opposite directions. This system could be used on HAWT as well. Gears instead of counter-rotating blades.
@@kitemanmusic Increasing the speed is not of itself greatly useful. But counter-rotating blades substantially reduce the forces that want to cause the whole device to rotate. Anchoroing the device to stop it rotating is not an insignificant issue.
You mention spinning the rotor one direction and the stator the opposite. And the potential issue of bearings between them. But how do you get this electrical power ashore? Obviously the underwater cabling needs some sort of rotating connector. Even the biggest conventional generators with their slip rings are limited to just a couple hundred ampere. The losses in trying to push a few MW through some form of mechanical slip rings is a problem that needs to be solved.
"Obviously the underwater cabling needs some sort of rotating connector." The base, where the underwater cables are attached, doesn't rotate. The inner solid shaft and the outer hollow shaft rotate in opposite directions relative to the base.
This sounds good. Thaks fopr the video. :-) I wonder what became of the dutch approach with no movable parts. (Solid state) Could that technology work on water or does it only work on land?
Many great ideas have "gone to sea and died". the salt water marine operating zone is among the toughest on earth, mid and long term. If you go there, waterproof or as close to it is your friend! FR
This suggests a mix of HAWTs and VAWTS would be best. I believe there is room for refinement in both cases. I daresay two sets of turbine blades on a single HAWT mast can be tried.
Horizontal wind turbines are like the old Nuclear power facilities, not the best solution but made popular in spite of their flaws. I’d be interested to compare shed vortices on both designs in the interest of effects on avian wildlife …
VAWT has a great future for floating turbines. These could be mass produced at minimum costs even though each turbine produces less power than HAWT. Cabling and connectors still a problem as they will be further from continental shores. They could also be linked to floating Solar farms to even out wind patterns!
Very intersting. But if the many advantages so greatly outweigh the disadvantages, why aren't more companies investing their time and money in what seems to be very innovative technology?
Great video! I loved the content - no nonsense, knowledgeable, to the point, great delivery, good background music, etc! You have to subscribe if you're a sensible person. The only thing I saw that you could do better was your background - maybe some CGI or something else. Either way - very happy with the content!
Ecological impact to the sea and navigation issues, must be improved for any of these power sources, seems a decreasing level of confidence as these will cause a negative impact as the density of the installation increase, other forms of energy will be better especially considering the transmission and storage issues...
Vertical axis wind turbines have been discussed for decades. If it is such a great idea you should have no problem finding the investors necessary to build a commercial scale project.
@efficency: I learned about the wind turbine theory that vertical axis wind turbines can convert more wind energy into electricity than all horizontal axis wind turbines can do under same circumstances, thats why these turbines are so wide spread. @no gear: Today most modern wind turbines (Enercon or Siemens Gamesa) miss a gear, their axis drives directly the generator on the same shaft and use power electronic to rectify it and generate a synthetic sinus synchronized with power grids AC phase & frequency e.g. 50Hz or 60Hz.
For any wind energy production I prefer engineering with rosey. She explain much better on wind energy. VAWT IS GOOD ON PAPER. please show one VAWT commercial installation till date.
will it provide base power load on demand?if not how will the energy be stored?battery technology has a long way to go,in South Australia the govt purchased a battery pack from tesla i believe that it powered 20k homes for 30 minutes,hardly a lighrening success I think it cost was one billion$.
That's an interesting idea. There has been some promising new development in hydrogen technology in Korea recently and if it works as well as it seems, we have an efficient way to make hydrogen directly from sea water.
Wind Energy's "BIGGEST" problem isn't efficiency, heck, the Germans turn them off when they could produce more than normal (just ask Denmark). The biggest problem is the microplastic (which is bad) and anti-wear coating (also bad) wearing out by tonnes, yes tonnes, from each blade (and there are how many turbines worldwide?) every year.
I think they will find ways to circumvent these problems. It’s a new beginning, trial and error. There are good engineers working on solutions. As they would say, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
@@barracuda861 They've been around for a few decades now though, and let alone recognition of the enormous toll on emissions ... there is no recognition, there are still no solutions. Rome wasn't built in a day, but Rome also wasn't actively destroying everything that propped it up (at least not at first).
Lenz 2 vawts take advatage by pressing the wind in between the blades and the hub, giving a PULL action for the airfoils.. AND a PUSH from the back side of the blade. sso ya, if they made them as big you'd be gaining almost twice the output... and not kill birds at the same time
Since the turbine blades are so radically shaped, it looks to me that it will only rotate when it's tilted. I asked the designer about that in an email a month ago and am still waiting for an answer. The vawt market has had MANY fraudulent claims in the past, and I'm sceptical on this design also.
Just looking at it I would think that the tilt is basically part of the wing shape. So either it won't rotate when vertical or else efficiency would be severely diminished. But I doubt that will matter all that much because I'm sure they're designed to naturally want to orient at an angle, especially if there is wind blowing on them.
Yikes! So much complication. I've built VAWTs for over 50 years. My turbines all compress air and I convert that potential energy into usable work ON THE GROUND. My machines use one moving part on the turbine, two moving parts on the pump and a check valve. Can't get much simpler than that. I run the compressed air through a variety of end-use engines IN MY SHOP to create usable working power.
Making generation towers floating at sea 400 meters tall is ridiculous, whilst claiming zero emissions. How do you make such massive structures without huge energy expenditures? The most efficient way to produce energy is to consume less.
Presumably the turbines always slope away from the wind. If so, they need to be able to tilt in the opposite direction sometimes. This means that each one needs more area to operate (a big circle), so reducing the number of turbines in a given area
But every engineering project can be improved upon. Maybe different blade designs, different bearing assemblies, and such. I think we are off to a good start just years late. If back in the 70’s Jimmy Carter could have moved us into it sooner, but fossil fuel companies made it so he couldn’t by pushing congress to maintain status quo.
At sea there's hardly ever no wind. For the next 20 years or so, the times there's no wind can be covered by saving gas turbine generators in "mothballs" and running them for the few hours each year when the wind isn't blowing hard enough. Don't forget solar power works when there's no wind.
Nuclear alternately produces too much or too little power because demand varies but nuclear output is the same 24/7. This means it needs lots of storage, or a backup generator that can be turned on and off quickly. It's also WAY more expensive that solar + wind + batteries. AND it takes longer to build.
I'll give you a tip for shooting a video. The composition looks more pleasant if you can place your eyes higher - not in the middle of the frame. Likewise, sideways, so that your face is clearly to the left or right. Third, it would be great if you could enliven your speech more with your body language. Now mostly your lips move and you don't move in any way. This is the first video of yours that I started watching and at first I really thought that the image in the video is artificial reality.
Great video, good science and engineering but have hard time with accent, I suggest partnership with Sam Evans at "The Electric Viking" to reach a bigger audience
What about all the birds that will be killed by these spinning death machines. Also If a bird hits it and breaks something it falls apart into the ocean.
So your pre-prototype idea is bigger, more powerful, cheaper, more efficient than those, build by the thousands, sixth generation wind turbines. The idea mostly is, the prototype mostly isn't.
I understand the moral dilemma of people whom want a better GREEN solution to solve energy demands with less pollution--YET even with the entire EARTH covered in solar panels--it could not power the needs of California; so in VAWT--the rules are the same--"efficiency" is all relative to common sense---you need these GREEN ideas to be more cost effective and more efficient. The current glide path to coming up with new technology is not working fast enough to over the demands of the new world--i.e. we can't invent effective components greater than consumption and storage needs of the growing world. Therefore so many countries forces their people to over pay for energy creation (i.e. your taxes) instead of realization of how much oil, nuclear, coal (this so called dirty energy) it takes to make a storage batter (for example) and to make these GREEN ideas cheaper than OIL; the size and scope is GINORMOUS and will produce more negatives than positives--but ALL governments dont care they have been sold a bag of goods that simple MATH (no physics, engineering, or quantum mathematics) can answer. WE could fill ever square inch of the earth with these and still not, I repeat NOT have the power needed for the global population. UNTIL such technologies can become more efficient and cost effective to coal and oil/gasoline...nuclear even, we spin our wheels with dumping BILLIONS into our oceans, on once fertile fields, in the hopium aspects I'm GREEN---see, oops TRILLIONs wasted in tax money in the hopium trade you can't tell me I used more of my carbon footprint to obtain these GREEN components equal to more than 10 million cars produced and then consumed operationally for 10 years. That's still the simple math problem one can't overcome.
I have long been an advocate of VAWTs, despite the knowledge they are inherently less efficient. The fact they work at lower wind speeds and give engineers and designers the possibility of producing electricity at a lower net cost per MW/hour over their lifetime is most appealing.
Do they work at higher windspeeds? Blades can't be feathered?
@@kitemanmusic tbh i think wind turbines are irrelevant and a waste. If fusion fully breaks through we will have clean and seemingly endless power generation. All these do is just pollute more since most materials cant even be recycled and have a short lifespan. Great “green” energy
@@arixmotions it never makes sense to put all your eggs in one basket, especially In a basket which does not currently exist.
@@arixmotionsTry holding your breath until it happens.
I'm 66, and got tired of waiting.
So you propose we supply energy to the country with a hypothetical source of energy?
Fascinating idea. Having worked on large traditional VAWTs I can tell you that they suffer from fully reversing loads on the blades. This raises the issue of material fatigue cracking at the connections to the central shaft. This is not a problem with HAWT since the loads are always in the same basic direction. By tilting the vertical axis in the wind, the fatigue load may be reduced. I'd like to see some analysis of this. Thanks for this post.
So the problem is in the connection to the shaft. A simple solution would be to install a shock absorber kinda rigid spring at the connections to absorb the stress.
@@pravinsmart So, a hinge joint with spring and shock absorber may mess up the aerodynamics of the foils by changing their angle slightly. Interesting idea, though.
I assume VAWT designs are inherently safer than the HAWT as the gearing and generators mechanisms are at ground level ensuring an escape in the event of a fire and removing the need for a weight budget for the generator and associated equipment.
Brilliant, a real breakthrough. Thank you
Your channel has moved into my top10...
You sir are articulate, concise, extremely knowledgeable and most importantly... on point! Thank you
This was a really encouraging video! I especially liked the idea of the counter rotating vertical axis setup - nearly a power output doubler? Would think that using 1 bearing would be expensive if the vertical axis turbine gets really tall, so there are likely limitations there.
It looks very interesting. The cost per kWh doesn't provide the full picture. The bit of power a VAWT can generate during low wind is most valuable as it reduces the need for storage.
Really hope this works.
There will be engineering problems.
The blades are unequally loaded as they rotate, so produce vibration.
They can’t feather into the wind.
Also you missed, perhaps, the main point of the counter rotating blades, these put little or no rotation force on the base.
But, good presentation, keep it coming
I don't think he missed the counterrotating advantage of not having a lot of torque at the bottom.
That is something I would love to see in the near future!
Well made video, great analysis, I was about to ignore it glad I didn't. Keep up the great work.
This seems like a real winner. There are so many advantages that the problem of bearings seems insignificant. Wouldn't several less expensive bearings perform just as well as one high-load bearing?
you are forgetting the extra stress the vertical turbines are exposed to.
Best of luck and thanks for sharing!
I was wondering what the point of counter-rotation was until you explained that one is connected to the shaft and the other to the housing. So the generator spins twice as fast! lol So simple it's genius!! 😄
It would probably also help minimize gyroscopic forces that would come into play when the wind changes direction and/or force, causing the tower to re-orient itself.
Wonder video, great work & research. Didn't skip a single second.
Thanks! Glad that you liked it.
Thank you. That was very interesting and informative. Thank you too for non- intrusive music over voice. Music over voice spoils many videos, it's not needed at all.
excellent work, thank you for sharing.
Excellent analysis of this fascinating new technology,thanks
great video, thanks for sharing with us
This was fascinating content. It sounds like first principles of engineering are being applied here. Through this video I learned that present and future HAWT design and R&D holds great promise for economic efficiency and reliability. This is a good day.
Very information/data rich presentation. I would like to see state of art VAWT’s pursued aggressively.
They are such a simpler design and having all the important stuff at the bottom makes so much more sense from a maintenance perspective. The super large classic ones seem like trying to move heaven and earth just to get something to that scale. So many forces working against the design it's ridiculous.
Interesting concept. Leaning small VAWTs have been around for many years actually.
Loved your analysis 😄
Very informative. Thanks.
Thank you Sir for an excellent video
Glad you liked it
Abishek, great video. Very interesting and well presented. Look forward to hearing more
ขอแสดงความยินดี และ ขอให้ประสบความสำเร็จครับ
I have a 1kw vertical Axis windmill. It's pretty amazing. It is fairly simple one but it produces power easily. Much simpler construction. It makes home small version windmills easy for a home owner.
How much power do you make
@@elizabethwinsor-strumpetqueen under light wind 50 to 100 watts is normal. Under medium wind it averages 300watts. If it's a really good strong wind it may get 700watts that is fairly normal. 1kw may be possible in ideal conditions but its not the norm when it comes to wind. They always advertise the max, you rarely get the max though
What is its size?
great video, hope to see more like this in the future !
watching from south of Brazil. 🇧🇷
Advanced Technology&engineering about wind power explained in depth. Thanks for this useful video !!!
Thanks for the video. It was interesting and kept my attention.
That is very very cool. If it works it could solve the Intermittance of even offshore wind turbines. 45-60% efficiency well when it goes past usually 2 km an Hr they have to shut the vertical ones down to avoid destroying them.
👍🏻 This is great infrastructure for both oceans - USA, UK, France, Germany.
Good video , thanks . Hope these projects will make it .
I think this represents the next generation of wind power. I've never thought the horizontal axis systems were inherently robust and VAWTs are much more so. I am curious how they will tolerate extreme conditions, for instance heavy icing or perhaps even worse, wind speeds up to 250 kph. Surely these have been considered by the designers. Will the towers tilt so far over the blades hit the water? What about extreme sea states? 20 meter tall waves must be designed for; how does a floating and tilting design tolerate that? I'm excited to see innovations in renewable energy because they translate into ever cheaper energy production.
Yes the vertical axis is such a better design. Couldn't quite make out the description of the difference in the turbine materials. Presumably ships wouldn't be able to pass through a grid of these - did you say they would be connected by a series of platforms or something? Also would like to know what sort of insulation would be used in the cabling with consideration of the dangerously high greenhouse gas presently used. All very exciting. Thank you for the information.
You are right, although ships passing through a grid of wind turbines might be a bad idea anyway.
On the other hand, with the tilted blades the lower one is horizontal or close to it, and the size of this turbine suggests there may be enough clearance for ships to pass under the blades... if absolutely necessary.
About the shipping issue. If one of these new turbines really can deliver 40 MW we would need about 165,000 of them to cover the entire world's consumption of energy. Judging by the illustrations there should be room for about 6 of them per km2. So less than 30,000 km2 (about 11,500 sq miles) would be enough. That's less than 0.0001% of the world's oceans. I'm sure we can live with shipping exclusion zones of that size.
But that's just theory of course, there is no way we're going to replace all our energy sources with these turbines.
Thank you 🙂
Can I ask a question. You know those self winding watches, what if you made that mechanism large and put a long stick on it with wind blocks on top. When the wind blows it would lean and bounce back winding or turning the generator/ clock winder? What do you think?
Great content, I really like the info.
Presentation is a little mee.
Like the dry clear eyes guy.
Monotone.
absolutely fascinating
The contra-rotating blades are a good idea, but a draw-back in the diagram @7:41. The generator is underwater! Maintenance nightmare!
Build more fission plants.
I don't know the details about maintenance but this is a Norwegian company. We do have some experience putting machinery into and under the sea here so I assume they have thought of that.
@@TheShootist I so agree that we probably could do with more nuclear plants. But we need to diversify, we can not afford to rely too much on one energy source. We need to diversify as much as possible for security reasons. Statsitically nuclear power is one of the safest and cleanest power sources we have. It has a bad reputation mainly because on the few occasions something goes wrong it goes terribly wrong. But what if there's a war? Or how about sabotage? And perhaps most important, how about securing fuel supplies. The big oil producers have used and still use their control over supplies to gain leverage over the rest of the world and you can be sure the uranium producers will do the same if the world becomes too dependent on nuclear power.
The wind ! It blows for free 😎
Nice video, thank you.
We're all pulling for you.
Cool! You gave us cost per kwh but I'm curious about cost per square meter of surface (wind field) for initial installation. Too early to tell, but that will be a selling point for small communities in a more decentralized production environment. (More generators per square km than horizontal axis generators means more units, so, how do the unit costs stack up?)
I'm guessing the area requirements from the pictures and it seems each 40 MW turbine would need about 200,000 m2 of space. So about 0.2 KW per square meter. I can' find where the video mention the cost so you'll have to do the rest of the math yourself.
Very good design. Cant wait to see it in action :D Will it withstand supertsunamies?
*VERY GOOD VIDEO* this got you a Sub...!!!
Great video, very well presented. Thanks
Glad that you liked the video!
I have thought that the current design of W.T's seems completely upside down.
A mass at the top of a thin column?
Place the generator at the lower end and drive it via a shaft; like a rear wheel drive car!
If a low centre of gravity is so important, why isn't the generator for the conventional windmill put to the bottom? They could have an axis in the inside of the windmill pole using a 90 degree angle gears.
Good clear explanations, thank you, You could speak more slowly though!
Vertical axis turbines have advantages in keeping weight/CoG and maintenance work low, and in not needing to turn to face the wind. And (did you say?) need not be exactly vertical.
What is the advantage of counter-rotating turbines on the same shaft? That system would mean some very heavy rotating parts.
Counter-rotating doubles the speed! Think of two cars passing each other, each moving at 30 mph. Passing speed 60 mph. No complicated gearing. Rotor and stator both rotate, in opposite directions.
This system could be used on HAWT as well. Gears instead of counter-rotating blades.
@@kitemanmusic Increasing the speed is not of itself greatly useful. But counter-rotating blades substantially reduce the forces that want to cause the whole device to rotate. Anchoroing the device to stop it rotating is not an insignificant issue.
You mention spinning the rotor one direction and the stator the opposite. And the potential issue of bearings between them. But how do you get this electrical power ashore? Obviously the underwater cabling needs some sort of rotating connector. Even the biggest conventional generators with their slip rings are limited to just a couple hundred ampere. The losses in trying to push a few MW through some form of mechanical slip rings is a problem that needs to be solved.
"Obviously the underwater cabling needs some sort of rotating connector."
The base, where the underwater cables are attached, doesn't rotate. The inner solid shaft and the outer hollow shaft rotate in opposite directions relative to the base.
This sounds good. Thaks fopr the video. :-)
I wonder what became of the dutch approach with no movable parts. (Solid state)
Could that technology work on water or does it only work on land?
Many great ideas have "gone to sea and died". the salt water marine operating zone is among the toughest on earth, mid and long term. If you go there, waterproof or as close to it is your friend! FR
This suggests a mix of HAWTs and VAWTS would be best. I believe there is room for refinement in both cases. I daresay two sets of turbine blades on a single HAWT mast can be tried.
Horizontal wind turbines are like the old Nuclear power facilities, not the best solution but made popular in spite of their flaws. I’d be interested to compare shed vortices on both designs in the interest of effects on avian wildlife …
Can I ask another question. When a Tesla is going a reasonable 75 mph, how far can you really go on 1 charge?
VAWT has a great future for floating turbines. These could be mass produced at minimum costs even though each turbine produces less power than HAWT. Cabling and connectors still a problem as they will be further from continental shores. They could also be linked to floating Solar farms to even out wind patterns!
What if we forget about cost and only concentrated on efficiency and power output. What technology would we have then?
Very intersting. But if the many advantages so greatly outweigh the disadvantages, why aren't more companies investing their time and money in what seems to be very innovative technology?
yess, finally
Great video! I loved the content - no nonsense, knowledgeable, to the point, great delivery, good background music, etc! You have to subscribe if you're a sensible person. The only thing I saw that you could do better was your background - maybe some CGI or something else. Either way - very happy with the content!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I say forget about the large oversized commercial when turbines when the smaller ones is what the common Man couldn't put on his homestead
Ecological impact to the sea and navigation issues, must be improved for any of these power sources, seems a decreasing level of confidence as these will cause a negative impact as the density of the installation increase, other forms of energy will be better especially considering the transmission and storage issues...
Vertical axis wind turbines have been discussed for decades. If it is such a great idea you should have no problem finding the investors necessary to build a commercial scale project.
@efficency: I learned about the wind turbine theory that vertical axis wind turbines can convert more wind energy into electricity than all horizontal axis wind turbines can do under same circumstances, thats why these turbines are so wide spread.
@no gear: Today most modern wind turbines (Enercon or Siemens Gamesa) miss a gear, their axis drives directly the generator on the same shaft and use power electronic to rectify it and generate a synthetic sinus synchronized with power grids AC phase & frequency e.g. 50Hz or 60Hz.
I think this design can be submerged in case of emergencies.
That's an interesting idea. The ability to submerge the turbine would be a good way to protect it from hurricanes/typhoons.
For any wind energy production I prefer engineering with rosey. She explain much better on wind energy. VAWT IS GOOD ON PAPER. please show one VAWT commercial installation till date.
off shore wind tubines need to put the generator high up out of the sea spray.
How do you renew the wind?
Credibility requires coherence.
What do you mean by this question? Wind is caused by unequal heating of various parts of the earth's surface by the sun.
will it provide base power load on demand?if not how will the energy be stored?battery technology has a long way to go,in South Australia the govt purchased a battery pack from tesla i believe that it powered 20k homes for 30 minutes,hardly a lighrening success I think it cost was one billion$.
Why not mount both of them on a single Axis?
what if it is combined with hydrogen production.
That's an interesting idea. There has been some promising new development in hydrogen technology in Korea recently and if it works as well as it seems, we have an efficient way to make hydrogen directly from sea water.
Wind Energy's "BIGGEST" problem isn't efficiency, heck, the Germans turn them off when they could produce more than normal (just ask Denmark).
The biggest problem is the microplastic (which is bad) and anti-wear coating (also bad) wearing out by tonnes, yes tonnes, from each blade (and there are how many turbines worldwide?) every year.
I think they will find ways to circumvent these problems. It’s a new beginning, trial and error. There are good engineers working on solutions. As they would say, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Excellent comment!
@@barracuda861 They've been around for a few decades now though, and let alone recognition of the enormous toll on emissions ... there is no recognition, there are still no solutions.
Rome wasn't built in a day, but Rome also wasn't actively destroying everything that propped it up (at least not at first).
Wait till the end of the day
Where's all your deep geothermal energy videos?
Very cute, wind power, clean, haha, ok....
Lenz 2 vawts take advatage by pressing the wind in between the blades and the hub, giving a PULL action for the airfoils.. AND a PUSH from the back side of the blade. sso ya, if they made them as big you'd be gaining almost twice the output... and not kill birds at the same time
Since the turbine blades are so radically shaped, it looks to me that it will only rotate when it's tilted. I asked the designer about that in an email a month ago and am still waiting for an answer.
The vawt market has had MANY fraudulent claims in the past, and I'm sceptical on this design also.
Just looking at it I would think that the tilt is basically part of the wing shape. So either it won't rotate when vertical or else efficiency would be severely diminished. But I doubt that will matter all that much because I'm sure they're designed to naturally want to orient at an angle, especially if there is wind blowing on them.
The thing is that wind speeds up the higher you go
Yes, and this is why the more power generated wind farms are on mountains ranges.
Yikes! So much complication. I've built VAWTs for over 50 years. My turbines all compress air and I convert that potential energy into usable work ON THE GROUND. My machines use one moving part on the turbine, two moving parts on the pump and a check valve. Can't get much simpler than that. I run the compressed air through a variety of end-use engines IN MY SHOP to create usable working power.
Clean? They sure dirty up the skyline.
They don't pollute as much as you do.
$50/MWh D: Holy crap, almost feels like they forgot a digit.
So.....how much OIL is contained in these new miracle fans??
Making generation towers floating at sea 400 meters tall is ridiculous, whilst claiming zero emissions. How do you make such massive structures without huge energy expenditures?
The most efficient way to produce energy is to consume less.
No doubt brilliant. Would suggest that you speak slower as US English speakers do speak slower with less tonal.
I have no problem. You can slow him down if you wish
Click on the cog wheel setting. You can slow down the voice speed.
Presumably the turbines always slope away from the wind. If so, they need to be able to tilt in the opposite direction sometimes. This means that each one needs more area to operate (a big circle), so reducing the number of turbines in a given area
Vertical wind turbines aren’t the least bit new. They’re all over
But every engineering project can be improved upon. Maybe different blade designs, different bearing assemblies, and such. I think we are off to a good start just years late. If back in the 70’s Jimmy Carter could have moved us into it sooner, but fossil fuel companies made it so he couldn’t by pushing congress to maintain status quo.
Other than the fact that if there is no wind = no power.
At sea there's hardly ever no wind.
For the next 20 years or so, the times there's no wind can be covered by saving gas turbine generators in "mothballs" and running them for the few hours each year when the wind isn't blowing hard enough.
Don't forget solar power works when there's no wind.
LoL, clean
Interesting but I nuclear kills all the best features here and it runs without sun or wind 24-7 ..no storage needed
Nuclear alternately produces too much or too little power because demand varies but nuclear output is the same 24/7. This means it needs lots of storage, or a backup generator that can be turned on and off quickly. It's also WAY more expensive that solar + wind + batteries. AND it takes longer to build.
Limitless? Click bait title.
I'll give you a tip for shooting a video. The composition looks more pleasant if you can place your eyes higher - not in the middle of the frame. Likewise, sideways, so that your face is clearly to the left or right. Third, it would be great if you could enliven your speech more with your body language. Now mostly your lips move and you don't move in any way. This is the first video of yours that I started watching and at first I really thought that the image in the video is artificial reality.
May improve video with less face time and longer illistration time
Thanks for the advice..
💫
Great video, good science and engineering but have hard time with accent, I suggest partnership with Sam Evans at "The Electric Viking" to reach a bigger audience
What about all the birds that will be killed by these spinning death machines. Also If a bird hits it and breaks something it falls apart into the ocean.
Fish have to eat also.
So your pre-prototype idea is bigger, more powerful, cheaper, more efficient than those, build by the thousands, sixth generation wind turbines. The idea mostly is, the prototype mostly isn't.
I understand the moral dilemma of people whom want a better GREEN solution to solve energy demands with less pollution--YET even with the entire EARTH covered in solar panels--it could not power the needs of California; so in VAWT--the rules are the same--"efficiency" is all relative to common sense---you need these GREEN ideas to be more cost effective and more efficient. The current glide path to coming up with new technology is not working fast enough to over the demands of the new world--i.e. we can't invent effective components greater than consumption and storage needs of the growing world. Therefore so many countries forces their people to over pay for energy creation (i.e. your taxes) instead of realization of how much oil, nuclear, coal (this so called dirty energy) it takes to make a storage batter (for example) and to make these GREEN ideas cheaper than OIL; the size and scope is GINORMOUS and will produce more negatives than positives--but ALL governments dont care they have been sold a bag of goods that simple MATH (no physics, engineering, or quantum mathematics) can answer. WE could fill ever square inch of the earth with these and still not, I repeat NOT have the power needed for the global population. UNTIL such technologies can become more efficient and cost effective to coal and oil/gasoline...nuclear even, we spin our wheels with dumping BILLIONS into our oceans, on once fertile fields, in the hopium aspects I'm GREEN---see, oops TRILLIONs wasted in tax money in the hopium trade you can't tell me I used more of my carbon footprint to obtain these GREEN components equal to more than 10 million cars produced and then consumed operationally for 10 years. That's still the simple math problem one can't overcome.
When there is NO wind it will not produce a single Watt on electricity: 300 x 0 = 0