Sheerwind - alternative to wind turbines?

DaisyBumbleroot · 12/12/13 - 02:53

A friend of mine posted this to facebook http://sheerwind.com/technology/how-does-it-work

The operate on very low wind speeds (1mph), no moving parts outside and are shorter so should keep nimbys happier,

Some more blurb:

SheerWind’s INVELOX wind energy system captures the breeze from an above ground portal and funnels the wind through a tapering passageway that naturally accelerates its flow. This kinetic energy drives the INVELOX generator that operates at ground level. INVELOX has the following advantages:

Costs less than 1 cent per KWH, making it competitive with natural gas and hydroelectric powered generation
Requires no government subsidies to be profitable
Reduces operating cost by 50% of current wind turbine technology
Minimizes environment, animal, bird and human impact
- See more at: http://sheerwind.com/technology/how-does-it-work#sthash.abnAe7t7.dpuf

Could this be a viable alternative to wind turbines?

Si_Crewe · 12/12/13 - 03:03

It doesn't exactly look like the most elegant of constructions.
It's a honking great contraption which can only turn a fairly small wind turbine.

Smiley433 · 12/12/13 - 13:57

Those "vertical" wind turbines look better than the sheerwind technology. Although that's just from an aesthetics point of view, I don't know if they would be any better off from an efficiency angle.

I wonder why the vertical technology didn't take off.

Elyan · 12/12/13 - 14:31

The problem with a lot of these renewable energy devices is they are unpredictable from an output perspective. The energy provider doesn't know from one hour to the next what sort of output he's going to get from them. He may be getting a low output, so turns up output form his gas or coal power stations, then all of a sudden he starts getting power from his wind turbines - and it's difficult to immediately turn down output from the others.

All in all they are a complete pain in the arse to the people in the business of providing energy. The only attractive thing about them is the carbon tax exemptions.

bobcar · 12/12/13 - 15:00

Elyan wrote: »

The problem with a lot of these renewable energy devices is they are unpredictable from an output perspective. The energy provider doesn't know from one hour to the next what sort of output he's going to get from them. He may be getting a low output, so turns up output form his gas or coal power stations, then all of a sudden he starts getting power from his wind turbines - and it's difficult to immediately turn down output from the others.

All in all they are a complete pain in the arse to the people in the business of providing energy. The only attractive thing about them is the carbon tax exemptions.

Yes because we all know that inconvenience to the suppliers is more important than the affects of climate change. We could transfer that to other areas such as the NHS, it's be much more convenient to kill off the patients rather than have to treat them.

Sigurd · 12/12/13 - 15:23

The Sheerwind device seems to be still at a fairly experimental stage, so it's hard to know what to make of it. Some of the claims made for it seem distinctly optimistic, though, such as, "Invelox wind turbine claims 600% advantage in energy output."

Someone on another forum commented, "My biggest problem with it is that no one outside of SheerWind has been allowed to test the system." Maybe it is the revolutionary approach to wind generation that it's claimed to be, but I think that remains unproven.

DiscoPants · 12/12/13 - 15:32

Looks like birds could get chewed up in it! Plus it's ugly, the tall wind turbines look much better

Sigurd · 12/12/13 - 15:35

DiscoPants wrote: »

Looks like birds could get chewed up in it! Plus it's ugly, the tall wind turbines look much better

Actually one of its advantages is touted as NO Eagles Will Be Harmed. I don't know if there's any truth in that, though.

Shrike · 12/12/13 - 15:53

IF it does what is claimed I can see a great advantage in it only needing low wind speeds - currently we're having to site turbines in very windy places then transmit the power to where its needed (thus reducing power due to transmission losses). This looks like it would work at lower elevations so could generate power in cities and industrial zones, so we wouldn't need to cover our hills and mountains with turbines.

Mind you if they aren't letting independent tests be done I'm very sceptical to say the least.

DaisyBumbleroot · 13/12/13 - 03:12

Elyan wrote: »

The problem with a lot of these renewable energy devices is they are unpredictable from an output perspective. The energy provider doesn't know from one hour to the next what sort of output he's going to get from them. He may be getting a low output, so turns up output form his gas or coal power stations, then all of a sudden he starts getting power from his wind turbines - and it's difficult to immediately turn down output from the others.

All in all they are a complete pain in the arse to the people in the business of providing energy. The only attractive thing about them is the carbon tax exemptions.

I did not know this!

Shrike wrote: »

IF it does what is claimed I can see a great advantage in it only needing low wind speeds - currently we're having to site turbines in very windy places then transmit the power to where its needed (thus reducing power due to transmission losses). This looks like it would work at lower elevations so could generate power in cities and industrial zones, so we wouldn't need to cover our hills and mountains with turbines.

Mind you if they aren't letting independent tests be done I'm very sceptical to say the least.

This is what I thought was good about it, they could be scaled in size and disguised a lot better than the normal turbines.

Smiley433 · 13/12/13 - 05:03

I'm sure I got this link from a recent thread on this forum, but here is the "real time" energy production for the UK including a breakdown by Coal, Nuclear, Wind, Gas, etc.

Nilrem · 13/12/13 - 10:56

bobcar wrote: »

Yes because we all know that inconvenience to the suppliers is more important than the affects of climate change. We could transfer that to other areas such as the NHS, it's be much more convenient to kill off the patients rather than have to treat them.

Well lets put it this way.

If the source is unreliable (which wind is, very), and you've got no realistic way to store enough energy to cover that unreliability (which we don't, and there is no current way to do it), you end up needing back up power sources.

To put it another way, these "green" systems tend to rely on some quite dirty and inefficient traditional systems to make up for when they (as they often are) are unable to provide the power needed.

So for the wind turbines you tend to have backup systems like fast gas turbines which are quite inefficient compared to other gas turbines, but can be spun up to fill the inevitable gap in power production very quickly (IIRC minutes).

So by putting in wind turbines and pretending that they work well, you do away with some for the more efficient (and cleaner) gas turbines (which take an hour+ to spin up and need to run for several hours to reach efficiency), and instead have some fairly useless (and ugly) sops to the greens which require dirtier backup sources to keep the lights on.

If you're worried about the climate give up your car, and turn your computer off, it'll have a more positive effect than installing a wind turbine.

DaisyBumbleroot · 13/12/13 - 12:32

Nilrem wrote: »

Well lets put it this way.

If the source is unreliable (which wind is, very), and you've got no realistic way to store enough energy to cover that unreliability (which we don't, and there is no current way to do it), you end up needing back up power sources.

To put it another way, these "green" systems tend to rely on some quite dirty and inefficient traditional systems to make up for when they (as they often are) are unable to provide the power needed.

So for the wind turbines you tend to have backup systems like fast gas turbines which are quite inefficient compared to other gas turbines, but can be spun up to fill the inevitable gap in power production very quickly (IIRC minutes).

So by putting in wind turbines and pretending that they work well, you do away with some for the more efficient (and cleaner) gas turbines (which take an hour+ to spin up and need to run for several hours to reach efficiency), and instead have some fairly useless (and ugly) sops to the greens which require dirtier backup sources to keep the lights on.

If you're worried about the climate give up your car, and turn your computer off, it'll have a more positive effect than installing a wind turbine.

I never understand why it HAS to be one or the other. Ok, so green energy at the moment can not replace dirty energy. But it has a place alongside coal surely?

Say a row of new houses being built has a joint ground source heat pump system and their own individual solar panels, sure that can't provide all the energy a house needs, but it will provide some, and even if it's just 20% of what a house needs that's 20% off their bill for usage - obviously not including standing charge, but still, in this climate of rising energy costs who is going to balk at that?

So if these Sheerwind tunnels can also add to (not necissarily replace) the energy being produced then surely that is good?

Hey there!

Quick Links

Sheerwind - alternative to wind turbines?

Comments