Maximizing Wind Turbine Efficiency: Is Redirecting Wind Worth the Cost?

In summary: If he documented the reasons for rejection in an email...In summary, it's difficult to redirect wind with inexpensive objects, wind turbines are large and require a lot of resources to build, and it's difficult to steer a funnel system.
  • #1
Axel Zakurov
1
0
I was wondering if placing something (cheap) in front of a wind turbine to redirect more wind towards it would be worth it or should I just place more (expensive) turbines?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You should assume that designers of wind turbine farms have explored every possible way to make things more efficient. If they don't use it, then it doesn't work or the cost is more than the benefit.
 
  • #3
Provide a drawing of your ideas. How would it deal with the fact that the wind changes direction?
 
  • #4
They do sometimes place objects in front of turbines to deflect the air... Turbines are frequently placed on natural ridges that deflect air up into the turbine.
 
  • #5
I guess that you are imagining something like a giant cone that diverts a larger cross section of air into a smaller cross section where a turbine is.
You should consider just how large wind turbine blades are. A blade might be 116 ft long. They sweep over a huge area of air. But since the blades are relatively narrow, they require less resources to build than what is needed to construct something the size of the area that they sweep. If you consider some kind of "air dam" that diverts air into the swept area of a turbine, it would have to be huge. Since it has to actually cover the surface area, unlike the turbine blades, it would take a huge amount of resources to build.
 
  • #6
Khashishi said:
Since it has to actually cover the surface area, unlike the turbine blades, it would take a huge amount of resources to build.

Not only that, but it needs to swing with the turbine to always face the wind direction.
 
  • #7
It's not clear to me that a funnel of diameter D feeding a turbine of diameter d would be better than just a turbine of diameter D.

I addition it's easy to feather a turbine when the wind gets too strong.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #8
Axel Zakurov said:
I was wondering if placing something (cheap) in front of a wind turbine to redirect more wind towards it would be worth it or should I just place more (expensive) turbines?
 
  • #9
I am currently building my own wind turbine.
I am using a funnel design to increase air speed.
There seems to be a lot of different answers on this subject if it really works. Does anyone know for sure?
I am also trying to use the exhaust air without creating back pressure in another funnel and reversing wind 180 back to the other side of the turbine.
I am in the early stages of fabricating and would like to have some input.
 
  • #10
Why do you suppose that the big commercial wind farms don't do it like you plan?
 
  • #11
Thanks, but that's another question.
This entire circle of wind energy is shrouded with a lot of opinions without any real facts or reasearch.
If the wind farms have tried this I am unaware.
Can you link me to a website that would show they have tried thus or even reasearched the possibialities.
 
  • #12
Axel Zakurov said:
I was wondering if placing something (cheap) in front of a wind turbine to redirect more wind towards it would be worth it or should I just place more (expensive) turbines?

Better to invest in LNG or diesel generators. Petroleum products are going to be cheap and plentiful for the foreseeable future.
 
  • #13
An optimal turbine design for free air would be different for a design that works best in a 'funnel'. You could make things worse.
Also, how were you expecting to steer any such funnel system? I see that using longer blades has already been suggested.
Larry Payton said:
I am also trying to use the exhaust air without creating back pressure
Is that possible? In the end, you still have to remove the air that has passed through the turbine and that requires some Power, however you achieve it. I guess you could argue the fact that the turbines in jet engines use multiple stages as a support for your basic idea but, again, there is the steering problem, which is not present in aircraft propulsion.
 
  • #14
Larry Payton said:
Thanks, but that's another question.
This entire circle of wind energy is shrouded with a lot of opinions without any real facts or reasearch.
If the wind farms have tried this I am unaware.
Can you link me to a website that would show they have tried thus or even reasearched the possibialities.

No and that's my point. Don't you think that if there was any reasonable way to do it better that they would have done it?

In today's world, we have so many smart people that it is really difficult to have a truly original idea. I need to constantly remind myself that the reason I don't see my "original" ideas implemented, is not that nobody else thought of them but more likely that someone else thought of the idea and rejected it. If he documented the reasons for rejection in an email to his boss, I'll never find the email.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #15
anorlunda said:
No and that's my point. Don't you think that if there was any reasonable way to do it better that they would have done it?

In today's world, we have so many smart people that it is really difficult to have a truly original idea. I need to constantly remind myself that the reason I don't see my "original" ideas implemented, is not that nobody else thought of them but more likely that someone else thought of the idea and rejected it. If he documented the reasons for rejection in an email to his boss, I'll never find the email.
The business of Aerodynamics is extremely complicated and not at all intuitive. Designing turbine blades and aircraft wings are very similar exercises. How many enthusiastic experimenters would ever have come up with the efficient wing designs on modern airliners? It's always fun to experiment but building a series of turbine blade designs is really not easy for the home constructor (unless you have a large 3D printer?) I think that using designs that have already been proven is the way to go. Photos of existing designs would give you a good idea of optimum pitch and aspect for the blades. (I'm suggesting a bit of industrial espionage.) Use the benefits of someone else's R and D.
 
  • #16
sophiecentaur said:
The business of Aerodynamics is extremely complicated and not at all intuitive. Designing turbine blades and aircraft wings are very similar exercises. How many enthusiastic experimenters would ever have come up with the efficient wing designs on modern airliners? It's always fun to experiment but building a series of turbine blade designs is really not easy for the home constructor (unless you have a large 3D printer?) I think that using designs that have already been proven is the way to go. Photos of existing designs would give you a good idea of optimum pitch and aspect for the blades. (I'm suggesting a bit of industrial espionage.) Use the benefits of someone else's R and D.
sophiecentaur said:
The business of Aerodynamics is extremely complicated and not at all intuitive. Designing turbine blades and aircraft wings are very similar exercises. How many enthusiastic experimenters would ever have come up with the efficient wing designs on modern airliners? It's always fun to experiment but building a series of turbine blade designs is really not easy for the home constructor (unless you have a large 3D printer?) I think that using designs that have already been proven is the way to go. Photos of existing designs would give you a good idea of optimum pitch and aspect for the blades. (I'm suggesting a bit of industrial espionage.) Use the benefits of someone else's R and D.
 
  • #17
I am in the crane rental business and have help erect many wind turbines, so I see a d hear a lot.
Maybe in high wind area you are right but I don't think so in low wind areas.
I am actually building one no just talking about it!
 
  • #18
Larry Payton said:
I am actually building one no just talking about it!
I'm not sure what your 'high wind area' comment was referring to in your quote from my post. Was it my comments about wings? But the same requirement for efficiency is there with wind turbines.
To be fair, I have installed one. so I am not just talking about it. But it was out of a box.
'Talking about it' is what theoreticians do a lot of. And they can be 'right' about a lot of things - and someone who builds something doesn't always get it to work in the way they hoped. A good bit of theory can prevent that problem. As you are in close contact with various designs of blade, it should he possible for you to take some useful measurements. What construction technique are you planning for the blades?
 
  • #19
Devil's Advocate:

"If no one else is doing it, well then, it's not worth attempting. After all, there is no way that anyone could ever come up with an original, practical idea that someone else hasn't already come up with..."

Except that's not true.

:: soapbox on ::

The Wright Brothers did not invent flight, wings, or the airplane - they invented a modification of the wing, and some other innovations that allowed flight to work well enough that it became practical after further refinements, and innovations. At the time, few people thought that manned-flight was even possible. Not bad for a couple of bicycle shop owners, eh?

The "Wizard of Menlo Park" brought to the world light without fire - Mr Edison was considered a crackpot by many, because he announced that he was inventing the electric light before he had a working proto-type. While an open flame was the source of home lighting for most of his contemporaries, I would hazard a bet that you don't even know anyone who lights their home primarily from some form of oil or gas lantern. The list of failed proto-types was extensive, and impressive in it's scope of filament materials. One day, he tried Tungsten, and history was made.

I am not a historian, and I haven't the rote memory to spout off a long list of people throughout history that came upon a revolutionary idea while they were struggling to perfect something that was considered by others to be impossible... but I assure you that the list is extensive, and covers (nearly?) every branch of the physical sciences.

It's not always the destination - sometimes the journey is what matters, because it offers us an opportunity to choose a new path, when we have that "Eureka!" moment. (Which is another success story about an innovative way to measure the volume of an irregular solid...)

Do not be intimidated by nay-sayers. Don't let ANYONE tell you that it can't be done, unless they can PROVE to you that it has been attempted, and there is documentation to look at, to understand WHY it failed. And if your idea is a variation, then it's up to you, not anyone else, to decide if the lesson of failure for their attempt applies to your idea.

Sometimes the journey to failure teaches us lessons that lead to success in other ventures. If you are enjoying the journey, then just stick to it, until you see a better goal. There is no shame in tacking into the wind, when you have that Eureka moment.

On the other hand, don't let yourself get lost in a project that has minimal opportunity of a short-term positive outcome. Long term projects have a way of consuming people, who later look back at their lives and wonder where the years went... In other words, don't forget to have a life, and enjoy your family and friends along the way.

:: soapbox off ::
 
  • #20
Blank_Stare said:
Don't let ANYONE tell you that it can't be done,
That can be a recipe for wasting an awful lot of time and money. Repeating someone else's mistakes when one could have read about it and understood why it went wrong can be a pointless exercise. Life's too short to repeat past errors - unless you just like making things that don't work.

For every Wright Brother or Edison there are thousands of people who tried things and failed (died). Also, you are quoting from the technological distant past. Early on in a field it is less difficult to make a breakthrough. Aerodynamics is a very technical subject and the probability of a kitchen table top advance is very low. Even if something happens to work a bit better, the experimenter will not know why.
There is no need to be defensive when experienced people preach caution - I know there is a romance in the idea of 'proving everybody wrong' but those events are getting more and more rare as Science advances.
If you pick your field of study, one can still achieve 'firsts', though. One day, a lucky(?) amateur astronomer may be the one to spot the asteroid that will wipe out the Earth.
 
  • #21
You misquoted me (truncated my sentence, to make it mean something I did not intend it to mean). What I actually said was:
"Don't let ANYONE tell you that it can't be done, unless they can PROVE to you that it has been attempted, and there is documentation to look at, to understand WHY it failed."

That would be gathering evidence, in order to test, or form a hypothesis, right?

I didn't say to ignore advice, I said to ignore nay-sayers. If there is good evidence, it should be considered, of course, regardless of where it leads. Those offering advice based on evidence are not nay-sayers, as I understand the slang.

There have always been a disproportionately larger number of failures, than successes, preceding any innovation... well, maybe 'always" is too strong a word, but you get the point. That is not, in itself, a reason not to try. If it were, we would still be living in caves, and hunting with sticks and stones.

While the maturity of an industry is definitely a factor to be considered when predicting success in the field, it does not always accurately scale down to the individual. Individuals just have a way of surprising us, by looking at things from a different perspective - one that allows them to come up with a new idea. In fact, I would venture to say that any successful invention or innovation, when looked at statistically, would be considered an anomaly.

People have been painting caves for tens of thousands of years - but there are new advances in paint technology every few years - go figure.

Advances in hover crafting are largely based on the same principles the Wright Brothers worked with.

The desire to create a better, cooler, more efficient light source motivated innovators to create cost-effective LEDs for home lighting - and the electric lighting industry is roughly as old as the Wright Brothers Gliders are. By your reasoning, there was no reason for those innovators to make the attempt.

Finally, I don't think I was getting "defensive". If I came across that way, I apologize. All I am trying to say is that there will always be resistance to any new idea, and that resistance should not , in itself, be the reason not to pursue an idea. Only when presented with factual or experimental evidence that your idea is not viable, should you consider giving up, and even then, not until you have weighed the evidence, and decided that it is directly relevant to your idea(s).

Until then, stick to your guns!

I'd like to know more about the OP's design concepts. To be fair, they might be pure crap, or they might be revolutionary - but without more information, we don't have any way to compare them to the evidence and data available, in order to form an opinion.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters
  • #22
Well, let's examine the whole sentence.
Blank_Stare said:
. Don't let ANYONE tell you that it can't be done, unless they can PROVE to you that it has been attempted,
It's still the wrong way round. It's up to the person with the idea to prove that it has legs and not up to others to try to prove it won't work. That's a general principle in Science. If something is presented on PF and elsewhere then it's judged on what can be read. If it isn't supported by theory or evidence then it is fair game for people to "nay say" it. Anything that's 'just an idea' can expect a bumpy ride unless someone reads it who happens to have some information to support it.
 
  • #23
sophiecentaur said:
The business of Aerodynamics is extremely complicated and not at all intuitive. Designing turbine blades and aircraft wings are very similar exercises. How many enthusiastic experimenters would ever have come up with the efficient wing designs on modern airliners? It's always fun to experiment but building a series of turbine blade designs is really not easy for the home constructor (unless you have a large 3D printer?) I think that using designs that have already been proven is the way to go. Photos of existing designs would give you a good idea of optimum pitch and aspect for the blades. (I'm suggesting a bit of industrial espionage.) Use the benefits of someone else's R and D.
 
  • #24
sophiecentaur said:
I'm not sure what your 'high wind area' comment was referring to in your quote from my post. Was it my comments about wings? But the same requirement for efficiency is there with wind turbines.
To be fair, I have installed one. so I am not just talking about it. But it was out of a box.
'Talking about it' is what theoreticians do a lot of. And they can be 'right' about a lot of things - and someone who builds something doesn't always get it to work in the way they hoped. A good bit of theory can prevent that problem. As you are in close contact with various designs of blade, it should he possible for you to take some useful measurements. What construction technique are you planning for the blades?
Someone said don't you think if there was a better way they would be doing it, well NO I don't because the government is involved it by giving tax breaks.
So the bottom line of the current wind turbines is based on government subsisted programs and tax breaks.
 
  • #25
sophiecentaur said:
Well, let's examine the whole sentence.
It's still the wrong way round. It's up to the person with the idea to prove that it has legs and not up to others to try to prove it won't work. That's a general principle in Science. If something is presented on PF and elsewhere then it's judged on what can be read. If it isn't supported by theory or evidence then it is fair game for people to "nay say" it. Anything that's 'just an idea' can expect a bumpy ride unless someone reads it who happens to have some information to support it.

Nope. False premise.

Your general principal of science does not necessarily apply when it comes to what does or does not motivate a particular private individual's creativity. We are talking about human emotions, and motivations, not a controlled scientific experiment. You can not regulate someone's creativity.

If you want to talk me out of trying to create something, the burden of evidence is on you. If you present nothing to back-up your argument against my idea, you are just a nay-sayer. Nay-sayers are notorious for squelching creativity in others, and that's why I chimed in.

I don't think any private individual needs to get permission, or the blessings of others in order to pursue a dream, on their own time, and on their own dime, in the privacy of their own home or workshop. They don't have to have a theory or evidence to justify pursuing a personal dream. It's not my job to prove to anyone that I have a good idea, unless I intend to include them. Life doesn't work that way.

On the other hand, as soon as it is no longer a private endeavor, the rules definitely change...

I don't have to prove to anyone that my idea has worth, unless I am trying to find investors or other participants. Then the only people I have to convince are the investors or potential participants. In that case, a lack of convincing evidence to support an idea would definitely deserve a bumpy road. Until I am trying to persuade others to substantially participate in my hair-brained schemes, however, they are just that - mine.

If however, someone does come along and supports my ideas, well, that's wonderful!

Furthermore, I don't think that nay-sayers should be silenced. Just "tuned-out". Unless they can back up their argument, in which case I no longer consider them a nay-sayer - I would then consider them a valuable contributor. Occasionally, a nay-sayer will say something that sparks an idea, either for or against the goal - so we don't really need to silence them. Perhaps "A grain of salt", is more like it.

Yes, PF is designed to be friendly to nay-saying. (...and believe it or not, I think that's a good thing.)
Yes, people can and will nay-say, here, and almost everywhere else where free discussion is allowed. What I am saying is, that guarding yourself against having your creativity squelched by them is important.

No, the OP does not have to give heed to nay-sayers, (but valuable contributors should be given due consideration).
My point, in fact, was that they should not give heed to nay-sayers - they should follow their dreams, or their heart, whichever phrase you prefer.
They are also not obligated to reply to them.

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, but if you would like to continue this discussion, let's start a new thread, or take it to personal messages - I don't see that we are contributing anything of value to the subject of this thread.

Let's get back to the OP's design - I'd really like to see what they have in mind, chips fall where they may.
 
  • #26
I am new to this and I think I replied to the wrong person, sorry and thank you very much for you input.
I am really looking for someone who know about this for some guidance.
 
  • #27
Blank_Stare said:
Your general principal of science does not necessarily apply when it comes to what does or does not motivate a particular private individual's creativity.
I agree that this is getting to be a side track but I have to ask why anyone would post information about a project that they are contemplating or engaged on if they don't want a critique of their ideas. Amongst some rather unspecific 'nay saying' there are some perfectly good reasons given for using a different approach. The past experience of others is always a good thing to pay attention to, surely. Even Newton acknowledged that and he had an ego as big as a house.
You really don't need to act as the OP's lawyer about this, you know.
 
  • #28
sophiecentaur said:
I agree that this is getting to be a side track but I have to ask why anyone would post information about a project that they are contemplating or engaged on if they don't want a critique of their ideas. Amongst some rather unspecific 'nay saying' there are some perfectly good reasons given for using a different approach. The past experience of others is always a good thing to pay attention to, surely. Even Newton acknowledged that and he had an ego as big as a house.
You really don't need to act as the OP's lawyer about this, you know.

I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, but if you would like to continue this discussion, let's start a new thread, or take it to personal messages - I don't see that we are contributing anything of value to the subject of this thread.
 
  • #29
Larry Payton said:
Someone said don't you think if there was a better way they would be doing it, well NO I don't because the government is involved it by giving tax breaks.
So the bottom line of the current wind turbines is based on government subsisted programs and tax breaks.
Those comments do apply to domestic and On-Grid applications but there are many other uses (lower power) for turbines and they are far more suitable for personal experimentation. There is no government incentive for small systems, afaik, so no uninformed bias there.
 
  • #30
Larry Payton said:
Someone said don't you think if there was a better way they would be doing it, well NO I don't because the government is involved it by giving tax breaks.
So the bottom line of the current wind turbines is based on government subsisted programs and tax breaks.
Larry, can you guide me to finding more information about the tax breaks that you are referring to?

Thanks
 
  • #31
Most countries that have a subsidy base it on the amount of electricity generated so it's in the interests of the wind farm developer to generate as much as possible. So it's not subsidies that stop developers installing larger turbines. Most new onshore turbines in the UK are 120-136m tall. Larger turbines are available (190m) but they aren't normally used onshore due to the impact on the landscape. They are however used offshore. If you use big turbines you need fewer of them and fewer foundations, cables etc so the capital cost per MW is lower. There are lots of reasons why developers would like to install bigger turbines.
 
  • #32
It's not too late to be asking the OP what kW rating alternator is being planned. There are two threads progressing, unaware of each other and in parallel, I think. Comments about one do not apply to the other.
 

1. How does redirecting wind affect the efficiency of wind turbines?

Redirecting wind can significantly increase the efficiency of wind turbines. By redirecting the wind towards the blades at a more optimal angle, the turbines are able to capture more energy from the wind, resulting in higher power output.

2. Is redirecting wind worth the cost for wind turbine efficiency?

The answer to this question depends on various factors such as the location of the wind turbine, the cost of the redirecting mechanism, and the expected increase in efficiency. In some cases, the cost may outweigh the benefits, while in others it may be a worthwhile investment.

3. How much of an efficiency increase can be expected from redirecting wind?

The increase in efficiency from redirecting wind can vary depending on the design of the wind turbine and the effectiveness of the redirecting mechanism. However, studies have shown that it can result in an efficiency increase of up to 20%.

4. What are the potential drawbacks of redirecting wind for wind turbine efficiency?

One potential drawback is the initial cost of installing the redirecting mechanism. In addition, if the mechanism is not properly designed or maintained, it can cause damage to the wind turbine and decrease efficiency. There may also be additional maintenance costs associated with the mechanism.

5. Are there any alternative methods for maximizing wind turbine efficiency besides redirecting wind?

Yes, there are other methods for increasing wind turbine efficiency, such as using more efficient blade designs, optimizing the placement of turbines, and implementing advanced control systems. These methods may also be more cost-effective than redirecting wind in some cases.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
4
Views
805
  • General Engineering
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
944
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
26
Views
11K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
8
Views
6K
Back
Top