Gravitational Vortex Power Plant is Safe for Fish
by Christine Lepisto, Berlin 
on 06. 2.07
While trying to find a method for aerating water without energy input, Austrian engineer Franz Zotlöterer stumbled across the idea of a mini-power plant which is simple to construct and has a turbine efficiency of 80% but which is safe for fish due to low turbine speed and improves water quality by oxygenation. Needless to say, he quickly applied for the patents. The technology can be applied with water drop as little as 0.7 meters. Zotlöterer's website suggests an idyllic installation along a modern stream that has had its meanders rudely obliterated in the interest of human civilization. His vision is to restore the health of the running water to where it was before human intervention led to reduced oxygenation due to laminar flows--while winning power at the same time.
Zotlöterer describes the many advantages of the gravitational vortex turbine power plant:
- At the discharge of the vortex, contaminants are evenly distributed through the water, which is also oxygenated, leading to improved efficiency of natural micro-organisms to decompose the contamints: hence, cleaner water downstream.
- The increased contact area between the water and air results in better cooling evaporation during the warm season, and a perimeter of ice insulates the water in the cold season--all the while the turbine continues gently turning out the Watts.
- The temperature self-regulation capacity of the water is further enhanced by the concentration of the densest water at the middle of the vortex. Since water is densest at 4°C, water which is warmer than 4°C tends to be cooled when it is pulled into the vortex and cooler water is warmed by the mixing which the vortex causes.* Biodiversity downstream is enhanced by the stabler temperatures.
In the prototype installation, the water drop is 1.6 meters, with a flow of 1.3 m3/second, but the utilized water is 1 m3/s flow with 1.3 meters drop. The vortex basin has a diameter of 5.5 meters. In the first year of operation, the plant has yielded 50,000 kWatt-hours of electricity--with efficiency of around 73%, a little lower than the theoretical 80% achievable efficiency due to the use of smaller generator for ease of operation. The cost for installation was about €40,000 after about 40% subsidy. At close to 1$/watt capacity, that is a sweet point that may make this technology a viable alternative energy. If the claims that the turbine has little negative impact or is even beneficial for wildlife can be supported, this would be interesting for anyone with a home sitting on a hill near a stream. One more arrow in the alternative quiver. If you happen to be passing by Wildgansstraße in Obergrafendorf, Austria, stop by and take a look.
* Such claims make one's phys-chem truth-o-meter peg the red, but a little mental experiment suggests the claim may be true: imagine the standard stream, flowing in a straight path. The water flows very smoothly, with some "laminar effects" as the water at the bottom is slowed by friction with the streambed and subsequent layers above are slowed by friction with the next lower layer. The densest water (4°C) sinks to the bottom in this model, and the temperature gradient from the bottom to the top of the stream reduces the heat exchange efficiency of this "warm" bottom water with the air-cooled surface layer. Any TH eco-modellers have feedback on the benefits/disadvantages of promoting vortex activity along streams, or the effect such a turbine might have on fish?
via ::gravitationswirbel (German only)
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Anyone else notice the typical mistake of telling us how many kilowatts it's produced in a year? Do they mean kilowatt-hours? If so then it puts out maybe a continuous 5 kilowatts, enough to light 50 incandescent lightbulbs. Not too bad, if you could put them all up and down a stream. Probably not too good for salmon though.
==author's note:==
Thank you for your kind and gentle editorial remark, it is corrected: 50,000 kW-hrs per year. Enough to power 14 average Austrian households 5 average American households. Not too bad.
Sounds a lot like the ideas of Viktor Shauberger
just plain awesome!
I think a similar vortex design could be done with directing the air flow to a VAWT (vertical axis wind turbine). If so, the VAWT would fuction with a much greater volume of air. I think the basic difference between the water vortex and the wind vortex method is that the catchment portion for the wind must itself be able to revolve so as always to face in the direction of the wind.
In other words, the air scoop would be on one side of the VAWT but would have to be able to revolve around the same axial point (in accordance with the change in the wind) as the the axis for the turbine blades themselves. This means that the air scoop portion would have to have a large fin or tail opposite to the side of the wind scoop and this tail (with a curvature to opposite to the curvature of the scoop) would act like the tail of a weather vane and keep the scoop positioned into the wind.
adrianakau2aol.com
Even though this post made my brain hurt due to its syntax hilarities, the idea of water habitations that serve to generate power and oxygenation is crucial. This, coupled with solar arrays, and rooftop windmills could revolutionize consumer of-grid power generation, which, as an ancillary benefit, first generates power and then filters home-based water supplies.
Kudos
Must be tested under conditions of flood-flow to see if the spillway erodes on the downstream side and causes collapse from the loss of support over time.
Ideally this should be installed in storm sewers and concrete lined basins of urbanized areas first because in that capacity the device can also be made to serve as flood flow detention device, without any worries about downstream erosion or bank collapse.
A bar screen and debris collection system would be needed to prevent sticks and litter from plugging up the turbine and that resulting in overspill and erosion.
That again takes us back to the urban, not the natural setting.,
what if someone fell into the vortex it would be a death trap if left open as in the pictures
===auth. note===
Mention was left out of the article, but the picture shows the basin prior to installation of the turbine. You can see that it is much more well protected in the full installation:
wirbelkraftwerk
I see a spillway to protect from flood conditions. Of course, drought would lead to sub-optimum operation too, but nothing's perfect. Maybe some kind ofmetering in periods of low flow.
So how do the fish get past it upstream?
ok.. how much? and where do i order one?
congratulations you invented a waterwheel
Sounds a lot like the ideas of Viktor Shauberger
Thats exactly what I thought when I read the article.
Interesting that it has come out of Austria as well.
There seems to be a rash of companies commercialising (or at least promoting) technologies that seem to be based on Schauberger's ideas - usually out in the "free energy" world (like Steorn) or in the biomimicry world (like Pax Scientific).
I'll get around to writing up all of these one day - its an interesting area if you are curious about fringe science...
What about the pressure drop over the turbine.. in certain cases the fish can pass through just fine, however, the pressure drop causes them to explode almost instantly. Any Ideas?
Would it be possible to make smaller versions of these things in cities, namely in storm drains, sewers, and other waterways? It might not supply much electricty, but it might help lighten the load. Imagine a whole bank of these things in a sewage treatment plant...
The current prototype pumps out 50,000kw so this would only power about 5 homes in the US. The upside to it is that it is quite cheap to build one at a cost of about $50k (roughly). So at $10k per house, and the average house spending $1050 bucks per year, a unit would be paid off in under 10 years. That ain’t bad. Plus its clean. However, this is only a prototype. You also have to wonder how much it can be improved.
There are many applications this could be used for that do not involve streams and would not harm wildlife. This concept could be utilized anywhere water is stored and flushed out, such as water treatment plants or even water towers. If the full potential of this concept were realized this concept could even work on a smaller scale within sewage systems and underground piping. Even public pools could use this technology to recover evergy when draining the pool. This concept could really take off if people bacame really inventive and considered the distance water travels before it is redirected back into our waterways.
Regarding the "*" text at the bottom, cold water is more dense than warm water, so warm water is in contact with the air in a river, with the colder, denser water at the bottom.
If it's true laminar flow, the velocity of the water at the interface with the river bed is zero. However, river beds are rough, so in practice this is not the case.
This is why the temperature in the sea gets colder the deeper you get. Well, one of them.
Regards...
This is just speculation, but it looks to me like the turbine has a relatively small diameter compared to the pond diameter. The turbine is also reported in the german link site to be a slow moving turbine, not a fish blender. In any case, I assume fish would avoid the turbine movement and swim along the edges of the pool, which could be viable in both upstream and downstream directions. But I really like the thinking of the commenter who suggests getting this out of nature and onto the multiplicity of water handling pathways in the human infrastructure, where it might be more offset than energy win, but would be an asset to an overall energy management scheme.
Excellent idea. It reminds me of the romans (greeks?) in their use of nature. I think 'simple' solutions like this are the wave of the future.
People need to change the way they think about things so we can get more ideas like this up and running.
But since necessity mother of invention and everyone is on their `oil orgy` it's been a bit hard to get _real_ attention to alternative energy.
Things are slowly starting to change but I don't think enough people (or media outlets) are taking the issue seriously enough yet.
As Gerry says, it's a revival of another great Austrian,Viktor Schauberger, ideas. I think with Schauberger vortex generator design it could produce even more energy.
Indeed a clever way of using already available running water.
There has been a product out on the market for over ten years, a mini-hydro generator that works on the same principles and happens to look almost identical (it is called the PowerPal www.powerpal.com/lowhead.html ), and which is small and portable. I have been considering buying one for seven years now, but my seasonal running creek has been low and unpredictable these past four years. They are relatively cheap but sold mostly in the Thirld World. Anyone considering such a vortex ssytem should look into this product since it is as easy and quick to set up as PV panels or a small wind turbine.
ml needs to study earth science again. The density of water peaks at +4°C, and goes down as temperature either increases or decreases. When the water freezes, the density drops again. It's the density peak at +4 which causes the twice-annual turnover of waters in temperate-zone lakes.
Also, ocean waters get warmer with depth. Sea water is slightly compressible, and the energy of compression turns into heat. Sea temperatures must be compensated for pressure.
This is a great application for tidal energy. Vast amounts of energy flow over the coast daily.
Viktor Shauberger came up with this yrs ago. He powered his house with a simple incarnation of this, you people didnt listen then and only know since it is becoming a priority all of a sudden it is good information. This kind of stuff pisses me off, simply because it shows who really weilds political power. Its a shame really. NOt to mention the water also benefits by movement and regenerization. Its a win win situation for everybody.
Franz,
I see that you say 5.5 meters is the diameter of
the vortex basin , but you do not give the depth of the vortex basin ! In the picture showing the turbine blade in the water
it looks like the blades are barely covered !! Am I right in guessing that the vortex basin is fairly shallow in depth ?
Doesn't work for me brother. I live in Vegas and unless you can vortex sand, the casinos will still have to power their neon with oil.
Kmuzu
===auth. note===
Uh, hello? Vegas? Ever heard of solar power? Geothermal? Wind whipping across acres of otherwise little-used land? I bet there is enough energy there for the harvesting to power the LED-designs which will make neon look like buggy whips on the casino of the future? Who will be the first to build it?
This vortex is supposed to do two things: harvest the power of falling water and aerate the water. I see no reason why it won't do both, but as an aquariust I'm concerned that somebody thinks more aeration is what a stream needs. Most streams are already choked with algae and putting more air in the water will just create a algal bloom with fish/plant die offs for a couple cycles till it balances out. It's feasible for use, but you will do a lot of work downstream to accommodate it for years to come if you really care about the wildlife.
very interested in this style, any scientific backup studies to prove power claims? Are patents only for Austria or other countries as well? Have any similar projects been tried in North America? Have access to perfect site, existing 2.7 m dam, low head by normal standards, avg mean flow of 3cm/s. With good proof of claims, may be willing to build a North American example. Possible ideas, not all water from supply has to be used allowing normal fish migration through normal creek bed, this also allows for higher than usable flows to bypass. Spill way before vortex can be constructed as a fish ladder to lower elevation, natural avoidance of mechanical in water would make a large percentage of fish to choose the alternate route rather than the turbine even if it is friendly. Congrats, now lets get on with some real data that can be proven so the rest of us can get on board with real projects
received some very interesting replies from Sepp Hassleburg. Thank you
I hope their engineering is better than their math!
E40,000 after a 40% subsidy is about Euro 66,666 before subsidy.
Which would be US91,252 at today's rates.
50,000 kwh/year = 5.7kw continuous.
So the cost is US$16 /installed watt, not the US1/watt claimed.
I'm not sure, but I believe that US$10/watt is typical for generation capacity e.g. from wind, but those numbers might be out of date.
Lets assume they were borrowing at the generous rate of 6% over 20 years. That would mean payments of 8000/year, which would mean a cost of 16c/kwh and I understand that the best US wind is running about 4.5c/kwh (again, that number might be out of date, and is for large installations, smaller alternative power I would expect to be about double that).
I don't have numbers for in-stream hydro power , which would be the direct competitor.
So .... it looks like a nice idea, and might have some application where there is adequate water flow, but these numbers suggest it would be an expensive solution.
- Mitra
i was just browsing for some alternative energy sources for a presentation, think this is a great idea. so many ways it can be improved and so many ways it can be applyied. top notch tho! gud luck wiv it!
How about the other extreme? I am working on a system that has a low flow rate, and uses vorticies to enhance efficiency.
I'm talking about a small head of water, and water pressure of up to 1 bar, with a flow rate of maybe 9 meters per minute. I'm currently building a small conical Schauberger turbine to test, and wonder if this system could be scaled down to a similar scale?
Also, where could I find a slightly more detailed plan of this system. My interests are purely experimental. Many thanks.
This is great idea. We nee more of this ideas.
I wonder if the system will work with steam, Can vortex chamber works like presure/temperature to velocity converte?
Isn't Las Vegas powered by that big Hydro Dam in the Grand Canyon?
TDC
Maybe use fuel generators as a backup ?
Good idea, ok may be historical in some ways, but hey there are few original ideas world wide, so 10 points for bringing a good idea up...
Wind can be used 24/7, but to get that you would have to generate that some how...
A german company built a solar thermal tower in spain, some time back...
principle is, you heat a large tower(say min 400m), include an apron just above the ground, that will increase the heating action, and use turbines of a type to generate power from the wind flow...It works 24/7 as the heating of the concrete used in the tower, will take longer than a few nights, to cool....(cant remember what the figures, about cooling, where but i expect it would take a while to stop, if ever)
Other than size, how is this different from current hydro-electric systems powering cities around the world?
I don't see magical energy here since there is an existing energy input. (Ignoring the numbers) It's simply converting some of the energy in the moving water into electrical energy. Now, if we could take some of that electricity and use it to drive a water pump to pump the water through the vortex to generate even more electricity, then we'd have something Schauberger and other wishful thinkers could sell to anyone who'd listen.
AndyD,
That sounds great. If you invent a perpetual motion machine, I bet you will get a lot of interest. In the mean time, I guess we will have to harvest energy where we find it. That "magical energy" does sound good though.
Viktor Shauberger...........author should have given credit to the original thinker....although good to see production!
Just a little hint: the links have apparently changed, since you get a 404 error. According to the engineer's name mentioned in the article, this should be the actual URL:
wasserwirbeltechnik
Found it via
http://www.ecodesign-beispiele.at/data/art/200_3.php
which gives other (Austrian) addresses that offer ecological solutions.
By the way (@downhill): The waterdepth was given with 1,6 m in the article (5.4 feet), if I'm not mistaken.
@mitra: I agree the math was a bit confounding, but one thing is not quite right in your part, either. Since a US-investor would hardly order his concrete in Austria, costs have to be converted using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), with is estimated to be around 1.2 USD per EUR. Actual cost probably depends a lot on the site, local conditions (construction is suffering in the US currently, might give you better bargains), and # of repetitions (learning effect). My guess is, the system is cheap only if implemented during a renovation of the waterway when it is part of a greater total of constructive measures (eg. new flood protection, a new sewage plant inlet etc.).
@charles: blooming of algae REDUCES available oxygen in the water, due to oversupply of nutrients. If a stream contains too much of those, it needs more oxygen to be able to dispose of them. This means airation is not the problem, although the considerations you mentioned should be evaluated during the design of any system interfering with the existing waterflow (and almost never is being done).
simply rocks!
As currently presented at the minimum of 1 cubic meter of water per second is equal to 264.17 gallons per second or 15,850 gallons per minute or 951,019 gallons an hour or 22,824,465 gallons a day or the equivalent of 7 acre lake with an average depth of 10 ft.
Applications seem limited to locations with adiquate water supply that is replenished faster than drained and don't run dry.
This is unique in that it takes advantage of the force of a vortex, a force of nature that should increase power output for a given flow.
A sink drain vortex spins one way in northern hemisphere, and the opposite in southern hemisphere. It won't spin much at all near the equator.
The pictured installation was designed for the northern hemisphere, as it will create an artificial vortex that spins counter-clockwise so as not to fight nature. If installed in the southern hemisphere, both the pool and rotor would need redesign.
Great design I would love to see some plans.
Anyone have links to Patents etc ?