Let me stick up the link for those who might want to dive deeper into some of the renewable energy issues.

http://www.wind-works.org/index.html

Over the years the two-blade turbines became the industry standard. Clearly that is because one gets the most electricity for the least amount of money. That is the statistic that counts.

I keep seeing these photoshopped ideas appear, but like Hans says, they just fade away.

I’m not saying that we should not try new ideas. Not saying that at all. But I would suggest that we not get excited about a new design until someone has shown that it works and that it is competitive. A few drawings and a strong verbal argument is not enough.

There is this saying: “exceptional claims require exceptional prove.” You turn this around and say it is up to me to disprove the design.

The added value of a newspaper, a blog or other news medium is that some context is provided and some plausibility checks are carried out. That is not the same as automatically rejecting new ideas, as you seem to suggest. A critical approach is indeed (a bit) more work than just paraphrasing a press release. Well, being good in what you do requires work.

Did you expect me to criticize this turbine design based on the faults and fate of old, failed designs?

Not all designs are equal, and as is the case with all technology, there was a time when wind turbines were not viable.

How do you know that this design is the same as the older compression designs?

I was just reporting the invention of a new design.

Some people are willing to go to the trouble of digging up dirt on these things, but, it really is a lot of trouble, and information about whether or not technologies are vapourware takes a while to surface, so we will have to find out later if it is.

You can also share an example of your work, if you please so that I can learn from it.

I never understand why RE journalists and bloggers are so uncritical of these vapourware firms. Is it their lack of background knowledge? Their enthusiasm for a possible silver bullet technology? Laziness? Or is it that nowadays rephrasing a press-release is already considered to be good journalism because it is at least not copying directly?

I don’t want to be mean to Nicholas, but I am a bit frustrated with these kind of uncritical articles.

The problem at Altamont was partially due to grid structure rather than monopod towers. Grid towers gave raptors places to perch while watching for prey on the ground, and then the birds would launch through the lower to the ground and harder to see fast rotating blades.

—

Something to note – those turbines at Altamont Pass were installed about 30 years ago and they have provided almost free electricity after their 20 year payoff. Newer turbines are better designed to be longer lasting and require less maintenance. No one should be surprised if they give us 20 or more years of close-to-free electricity. (Remember, no fuel required.)

We currently price wind power at $0.05/kWh. But if you give wind turbines credit for up to 40 years output the price is really more like $0.025/kWh. And that price is fixed over the 40 years, it will not rise appreciably with inflation or increases in fuel prices. Installing wind today locks in very cheap electricity for decades.

Five cents at 3% inflation over 40 years rises to over eight cents.

Eight vs. two and a half.

Thanks for putting the bird issue into context. It would not be a bad idea to do the same for the wind compression.

The last 15 years I have seen countless varieties of the funnel design come up in the RE media. All of the companies pushing these designs disappeared without a trace.

It is not that hard to google “wind compression” or “wind turbine funnel design” or to find a wind energy expert and ask some questions.