Comments on: Taller, Stronger Wind Turbines From Concrete

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 01:45:00 +0000

Great link – may not be economical ATM, but looks like some promising research.

@ZShahan3:disqus – Potential article? (Also news worthy – apparently they were recently acquired by google…)

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 01:41:00 +0000

Added benefit – the new wind turbines in the Altamont Pass wind farm (aka the taller wind turbines) are also significantly more bird friendly!

Just FYI for people who dislike Wind for “environmental” reasons. :Insert eye-roll here:

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 25 May 2013 14:21:00 +0000

Even building a prototype and proving it works does not mean a solution will take off. Look at OTEC, the US gov build a prototype in HA and proved it work. But not one want to spent the funds needed to build a full scale plant.

I like the kite idea, Google dropped some cash because they believe also. I like the generation on the ground (yo-yo) version better, like keeping more on the ground. Less noise. But there are a couple issues. Thing FAA, those cables require restriction air space, and radar impact. They already want to limit where a short 1000 foot tower goes, think how they will fell about a kite flying at 10-20k feet.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sat, 25 May 2013 04:58:00 +0000

Look, you do not know that this device is cheaper. There aren’t any producing electricity.

Learn to tell the difference between reality and wishing.

I’m done with this one.

By: disqus_ooeOMumBe6

disqus_ooeOMumBe6 — Fri, 24 May 2013 22:08:00 +0000

P.S. someone liked my link

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/24/google-buys-makani-wind-power-kite-power-company/

By: disqus_ooeOMumBe6

disqus_ooeOMumBe6 — Fri, 24 May 2013 21:55:00 +0000

No. I post a link to a firm that looks like it is going to make the original article redundant which I thought everyone would be interested in especially as it’s clean, innovative and cheaper than the current solution and I get “It’s not proven technology therefore we won’t consider it” which is an attitude I don’t agree with. In my opinion, the best attitude for an engineer is to keep asking questions like “why do we need this?” and “Is there a better solution to this problem?”. Sometimes we can’t see how to improve matters, but by asking the questions we are at least thinking about improving matters which is what we as engineers need to do.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 24 May 2013 19:13:00 +0000

Just arguing for the fun of arguing?

By: disqus_ooeOMumBe6

disqus_ooeOMumBe6 — Fri, 24 May 2013 18:42:00 +0000

At what point does technology become “proven”?

I would have thought that was when it was shown to do what it was designed to do. In this case when electricity is generated by their method then their technology is “proven”

OK, it hasn’t quite got into being delivered to customers yet but the basic idea is “Proven”.

To paraphrase the original question “Why does a turbine need a tower to sit upon when it can use a tethered kite (or something else) instead?” Technology doesn’t sit still.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 24 May 2013 16:31:00 +0000

We gotta’ get back to work on that space elevator thing.

I’m getting tired of taking the stairs….

By: Ronald Brak

Ronald Brak — Fri, 24 May 2013 16:26:00 +0000

It’s not the same thing, but steel transmission towers in the US apparently have an estimated lifespan of 100 years and their footings 80 years. South Australia’s steel and concrete stobie poles have a lifespan of about 80 years, but tragically are considered to be impractical beyond 36 meters, making them unsuitable for both wind turbine and space elevator construction.

By: ThomasGerke

ThomasGerke — Fri, 24 May 2013 08:42:00 +0000

Well, it certainly displays a lack of academic awareness & cooperation… or an inability to do basic research.

Here’s a german language TV documentary about the construction of a E-126 (back in 2010 I think).

(Minute 21 is also kinda cool )

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Fri, 24 May 2013 07:54:00 +0000

we have covered wooden wind turbines. i almost mentioned it in the intro. http://cleantechnica.com/2012/10/18/99-natural-timber-tower-provides-wind-power/

By: Hans

Hans — Fri, 24 May 2013 07:48:00 +0000

I think it is American arrogance: If it is new to the US it must be new to the world.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 24 May 2013 04:58:00 +0000

Do you understand that until they turn ideas and test flights into proven technology that they cannot replace something that has been proven to work?

The big point –

1) There is technology which has been proven. We can take the best of that and put it to use.

2) There are ideas which are interesting but until they actually are proven they have no practical value.

By: disqus_ooeOMumBe6

disqus_ooeOMumBe6 — Fri, 24 May 2013 04:52:00 +0000

My question was intended to be rhetorical. Yes, the current best is a wind turbine “mounted on a tall tower” but this firm (who I don’t have any links with) have got rid of the concrete/steel tower and replaced it with a simple tether to a kite which has the turbines mounted on it. Videos on their site (I believe) show actual flights rather than just mock-ups. By extending/retracting the tether, they can take advantage of different winds at different heights during the day which is what you can’t do with a fixed tower.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 24 May 2013 02:14:00 +0000

beat me to it.

keep in mind this is the marketing department for a US collage. They really should employ someone to do some basic editing before making fools of themselves.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 23 May 2013 23:43:00 +0000

Bob is so on point here. In the work of engineering there is the “best solution to date” and then their is research into other options. The best solution can be different for different constraints. But so far the best for wind power is three blade horizontal axis wind turbine on tall towers.
Well research and dreams. You never know whenwhat the next great solution will be. But be sure it will take effort way past a you-tube video of a mock-up.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 23 May 2013 22:44:00 +0000

Sorry. That is not a statement for how much they are selling electricity. That’s a projection of what they might be able to sell electricity for if things work out as they hope. That problematic “if” stuff.

Let’s circle back –

“Why do you need a tower?

“Because to date no one has demonstrated a cheaper way to turn wind into electricity than a horizontal axis wind turbine, mounted way up high where the wind is strong and clean.”

By: disqus_ooeOMumBe6

disqus_ooeOMumBe6 — Thu, 23 May 2013 22:19:00 +0000

From their FAQ:-

Makani estimates that the cost of energy will generally be about half the cost of conventional wind.

By: ThomasGerke

ThomasGerke — Thu, 23 May 2013 22:11:00 +0000

Very curious news, since companies like Enercon have been using mass produced segmented concrete towers for years. They just opened another plant in Austria to produce 200 towers for 2-3 MW turbines with hub hights of 80-130 meters.

Hope this isn’t a bummer for those students… but steel towers are not at all common IMHO.
Building 100+ meter large wooden towers is the new thing.