I have simply pointed-out some physical realities. If someone should happen to “dissagree”, this will not change those realities.

As for “Roadmap 2050 report” I don’t know anything about it. You tell me. Are they “all wrong” ? Wrong about what ? I would be very interested if you can let me know why you think that I am saying that they are “all wrong”. I am not “saying things” I am pointing-out things which we all know to be true.

Are you saying they are all wrong?

http://www.roadmap2050.eu/downloads.html

It is the Area, however that we are making use of. For those not quite up to speed on such technical stuff, maybe I sould point out that Area is not the same thing as Volume, and that is why it has a different name. If we double the size of the object – a “turbine” for instance – then we will require Eight times (2 x 2 x 2) the weight of materials to build it, but it will face only Four (2 x 2 (hope I’m not going too fast) times the Area of wind. The cost per square metre doubles if we double the size. But it’s not ALL bad news. The one Alternator of 4 times the rating, costs about half as much as the 4 which it replaces (in the original size “turbines”). So by doubling the size,(and making one for every previous 5) the Alternator bill halves. There must therefore exist some size where the T costs about the same as the A. 1 Wad each, for instance. Cost of TAD = 1 + 1 which is 2 Wads.

Either doubling size to replace 4, or halving size and building 4 times as many, will increase the cost to 2.5 Wads. Doing the same again will give 4.25 Wads

then 8.125, 16.0625 Wads, and so on.

The size where the T costs about the same as the A turns out – after some 15 years of persistent research Effort, to be around One metre diameter. 1m.

Just under this size and the required coupling-ratio becomes 1:1 !

This, plus the 3 other reasons below, accounts for why current (80m high) “technology” is a completely un-self-sustaining approx. 1/40 the %p.a. of cost returned that is available from a design which is aware of these facts.

Fact 2)

2 modes of operation.

Constant rps – “modern turbines” progressively wastes the higher winds, which takles power in a pretty-much “pro-rata” relationship to windspeed

and

Constant pitch (rps vary to suit wind) which takes power in a very much cubic relation to windspeed

e.g Twice the windspeed 2 x 2 x 2 – 8 times the power taken.

3) The Betz limit for a rotor placed directly in an wind. (Windspeed reduces to diverge around it)

4) Weathercocking and Windshear on very large structures.