Colossal Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine Proposed

Maglev will require power, and I can't imagine the efficiency gain would match the extra power consumed.

Gigawatts instantly makes me think of doc from back to the future pulling out his hair do to the impossibility.

"1.21 gigawatts"

Any chance a stiff breeze or a power outage (ironically enough) could knock it over? Forgive me, I'm an idiot.

Maybe 3 or 4 of these big things would appease the NIMBYs better than a windfarm of dozens of older-style windturbines? It's certainly better looking than a sky full of smog.

Also, is there any chance these could be mounted at sea, or take in tidal energy?

I bet the thing is super quiet without any metal transmission of power, not that the original ones were all that loud.

Is it possible to use solar cells on the surface of the turbine or blades to collect even more energy? Is there any such hybrid tech out there?

Holy crap that's massive. But I can see the point on it being cheaper and take up less space so being even more ecofriendly then the turbines in use now. Now if only it would actually be built.

I wonder if this is the same company that cut and run on 4 different maglev trains. This seems like an AWESOME idea and so did the maglev trains.. in 02 I thought I'd be riding one to norfolk right now to go to the club but it didn't work out.

Very unlikely. Although I don't know which company you are talking about, the only one I trust is transrapid. The areas of expertise are very different, so I doubt "Maglev wind turbine technologies" makes trains.

(oh, and the phrase "cut and run" really rubs me the wrong way),

I'm so glad there will be minimal "fiction losses"...

You know, just because maglev trains have had problems, does not indicate that the primary fault lies with the company.

There is a great deal of conflict in the maglev train industry and a huge amount of fighting and legal wrangling required to get one built.

The real issue is the lack of motivation on the part of the political entities which should have made such trains happen and instead wound up blocking them.

The best ideas often do not come to the public market due to the prevailing economic and political status quo and those who toady to it.

i wonder if this can be brought to kuwait since they are facing alot of difficulties supplying power to country that is 10% only occupied, huh

this is very cool, the goverment should also have interest free loans for people that want to put solar panels on there roofs

I'd do a big "wait and see" on this. I don't like being such a skeptic but the claims they make sound a little off. Is bearing friction really such a big impediment to wind power viability?

I want to see one built.

Mike

I worry about migrating birds getting killed, like salmon do at hydro electric dams.

When the wind-turbine is stopped, where does the energy for the magnets and/or air cushion come from? This thing has got to require real activation-energy.

Hi.

I'm a bit confused. The technology uses is supposed to be MagLev, AKA Magnetic Levitation. Your text says that the turbine is suspended on a "cushion of air." That's air bearing technology. When I went to the manufacturers site, it appears the turbine is suspended by magnetism, MagLev.

Which is it?

Tenaya

MAGLEV is cool. I am lukewarm at best about a single power station this big. I like redundancy, and this doesn't have any. I'd rather see three 300m units. Utilities use sets-of-three for a reason, the design works. Two units can be up while the third is under maintenance. If all three are up and one goes down, the reduction in available power is only 33 percent compared to the single large unit. Why not take advantage of tried-and-true utility experience?

one gigawatt of energy?? try one gigawatt of power. 1 watt = 1 joule/sec. Joules are the unit for energy, or at least one of them.

Pleeeeeese! Let’s set the record straight on completely misleading and patently false press releases put forth by self promoting wind power hucksters.

The information reprinted here from the company website states that the device is: 6) Rated at 1gW per unit*. The “*” asterisk denotes that this power output is “rated at maximum wind velocity”. Well what is the maximum wind velocity? They don’t state that information outright; but they do say at item 16) “Operates in wind speeds exceeding 40m/sec. (80 mph).” Ok, let’s use 80 mph as the wind speed needed to produce 1 billion watts of rated power. By the way, “Rated Power” means that the device produces 1 billion watts of power at any given point in time. If it operates continuously for 1 hour at the rated speed it will have produced 1gWh of power or 1 billion watt hours of power.

A vertical axis wind turbine as presented in the illustration, rated at 1gW of power in 80 mph winds calculates to be approximately 1243’ tall by 800’ in diameter. The colossal scale represented in the drawing it appears is just about right assuming a generous 38% total mechanical/wind efficiency. Unfortunately, the wind doesn’t blow 80 mph anywhere a ridiculous monstrosity such as this would presume to be useful; maglev or no maglev.

Further confusing the issue, the same page of the company website states that the device will produce approximately 1GWh each. That means either the device will operate at rated capacity just 1 hour per year, (remember 1 billion watts for 1 hour = 1 GWh), or it never performs at rated capacity and the 1GWh stated is an accumulation of much lesser performance over the 8760 hours contained in 365 days at 24 hours a day.

How much lesser performance? Well the calculations are pretty clear; in real world winds of 8 mph, to produce a maximum annual total power of 1GWh from a gigantic swept area of about one million sq.ft means the device is only 4.4% efficient and actually works only .05 % of the time available.

That means an accumulated total of only 18 days out of the year would the thing actually turn, (if the tremendous mass turns at all in 8 mph winds). At that wind speed the turning rate would only be 0.28 rpm or just about as fast as a brisk jog around its perimeter. If it turns any faster, it would make more power that the author claims; and I doubt that’s the case. It appears he’s trying to overstate his case rather than understate it.

The likelihood is that he/she intentionally misstated the truth of the matter or is ignorant of the math. Never mind the unexplained concept of a linear generator connected to a rotating wind mill. Is that supposed to be efficient or just another wild concept to further confuse unknowledgeable readers?

In case you’re wondering, 1 gWh of annual power production is not necessarily a large number; individual commercial wind turbines do it regularly. What’s egregiously misleading about the publication is their bold statement that 1 gWh of power is supposed to support the needs of 750,000 homes. Average power consumption of U.S. homes is around 9,500 kwh per year. If you divide 1 gWh by 9500 kWh you get a total of about 105,263 homes served. That’s a far cry from 750,000. It takes about 7.13 GWh of annual power production to serve 750k American homes.

So what’s the point? It’s that the nonsense represented by this so called press release is either a blatant lie or more likely the responsible party is as foolish as the false information he offers as fact. Also, who do we supposed the author is trying to impress? Certainly it’s not knowledgeable investors who can see right through the false façade. I suspect it’s the author who’s most impressed with the grandeur of his scheme and wishes everyone else to believe as he does. Get real! SS.

Pleeeeeese! Let’s set the record straight on completely misleading and patently false press releases put forth by self promoting wind power hucksters.

The information reprinted here from the company website states that the device is: 6) Rated at 1gW per unit*. The “*” asterisk denotes that this power output is “rated at maximum wind velocity”. Well what is the maximum wind velocity? They don’t state that information outright; but they do say at item 16) “Operates in wind speeds exceeding 40m/sec. (80 mph).” Ok, let’s use 80 mph as the wind speed needed to produce 1 billion watts of rated power. By the way, “Rated Power” means that the device produces 1 billion watts of power at any given point in time. If it operates continuously for 1 hour at the rated speed it will have produced 1gWh of power or 1 billion watt hours of power.

A vertical axis wind turbine as presented in the illustration, rated at 1gW of power in 80 mph winds calculates to be approximately 1243’ tall by 800’ in diameter. The colossal scale represented in the drawing it appears is just about right assuming a generous 38% total mechanical/wind efficiency. Unfortunately, the wind doesn’t blow 80 mph anywhere a ridiculous monstrosity such as this would presume to be useful; maglev or no maglev.

Further confusing the issue, the same page of the company website states that the device will produce approximately 1GWh each. That means either the device will operate at rated capacity just 1 hour per year, (remember 1 billion watts for 1 hour = 1 GWh), or it never performs at rated capacity and the 1GWh stated is an accumulation of much lesser performance over the 8760 hours contained in 365 days at 24 hours a day.

How much lesser performance? Well the calculations are pretty clear; in real world winds of 8 mph, to produce a maximum annual total power of 1GWh from a gigantic swept area of about one million sq.ft means the device is only 4.4% efficient and actually works only .05 % of the time available.

That means an accumulated total of only 18 days out of the year would the thing actually turn, (if the tremendous mass turns at all in 8 mph winds). At that wind speed the turning rate would only be 0.28 rpm or just about as fast as a brisk jog around its perimeter. If it turns any faster, it would make more power that the author claims; and I doubt that’s the case. It appears he’s trying to overstate his case rather than understate it.

The likelihood is that he/she intentionally misstated the truth of the matter or is ignorant of the math. Never mind the unexplained concept of a linear generator connected to a rotating wind mill. Is that supposed to be efficient or just another wild concept to further confuse unknowledgeable readers?

In case you’re wondering, 1 gWh of annual power production is not necessarily a large number; individual commercial wind turbines do it regularly. What’s egregiously misleading about the publication is their bold statement that 1 gWh of power is supposed to support the needs of 750,000 homes. Average power consumption of U.S. homes is around 9,500 kwh per year. If you divide 1 gWh by 9500 kWh you get a total of about 105,263 homes served. That’s a far cry from 750,000. It takes about 7.13 GWh of annual power production to serve 750k American homes.

So what’s the point? It’s that the nonsense represented by this so called press release is either a blatant lie or more likely the responsible party is as foolish as the false information he offers as fact. Also, who do we supposed the author is trying to impress? Certainly it’s not knowledgeable investors who can see right through the false façade. I suspect it’s the author who’s most impressed with the grandeur of his scheme and wishes everyone else to believe as he does. Get real! SS.

Agreed that the site is very self-promoting and likely misleading - and I certainly don't buy into all their claims. There is a lot of meaningless garbage there that detracts from the credibility of the whole concept, unfortunately. However, there are some aspects that seem plausible (if overstated):

* No need to convert one direction of motion to another, as in a conventional wind turbine.
* It could work the same as regenerative braking on cars and buses to generate power; many fewer moving parts and mechanical friction eliminated.
* It would certainly require external power to get it started.
* To say that it operates in wind speeds exceeding 80kph only means just that; it may also also operate in less.
* The company promises 1GWh at maximum wind velocity, but does not specify what that is.

The company promises a lot of ridiculous nonsense, like that it comes with a helicopter pad - what on earth does that have to do with anything? They also say it will not harm animal life.

In short, the company is very short on specifics, very long on promises, but the concept certainly bears investigating. We should pay our universities to research the concept, and to build a proof-of-concept version if it looks possible.

"When the wind-turbine is stopped, where does the energy for the magnets and/or air cushion come from? This thing has got to require real activation-energy."

No problem. Usually is like that with other energy production methods, you need an activation energy. The important is that the energy you invest is less than the one you generate.
The activation-energy could be obtained from traditional sources in the beginning and once working, the turbine could divert some energy to "uatomainteinance"

I believe that one of the reasons they're making the device so big is to take advantage of winds that occur over a thousand feet off the ground. The reason for the shape is to counter the tendency for winds at higher altitudes to head in different directions than winds close to the ground. On the other hand, I thought you had to go a lot higher to take advantage of those winds.

If you had a 1000 meter tall structure floating in the air a few thousand feet up, you could float the device, and raise or lower the whole darn thing on a power tether to find wherever the wind was blowing. On the other hand, do you want something that big intentionally throwing itself into the wind thousands of feet above your neighborhood?

I think that the basic idea is good but the design might be improved:

1. Section off each level perhaps 20 or 40 feet high per section so that the devices becomes multiple wind generators instead of only one. This should enable individual sections to undergo repair while other sections are operating.

2. Equipt each section with moveable blades that would work by facing the wide side to pick up wind force and narrow side going against the wind on the opposite side of the spin. This should increase efficiency.

3. Use very strong materials at the center with lighter weight materials for each individual sector going outward.

4. Try a central blade design where blades could radiate out from the center but as spinning occurs, the individual blades could be rotated horizontally on the up rotation into the wind.

The designs should be tried out on a smaller scale, perhaps a hundred foot model to see if it would work well with or without magnetic bearings. We will never know until we experiment with one. The design is actually promising for commercial type VAWT's (vertical axis wind generators) but perhaps went a little too extreme in size.

There is presently a Russian design that has a double VAWT, one VAWT nested but joined on the top of a second one with alternating blades (blades on the top VWAT are set to the spaces on the lower VWAT).

The difference for the much bigger design would be to make the individual VAWT's of sufficient size to permit them to operate independently of each other, yet to use the same basic vertical axis at the center so that greater heights and wind speeds could be attained.

The Chinese have done some studies on high altitude wind generators and have found that air density decreases do affect the design so there may actually be a difference in efficiency due to altitude. www.chinahummer.cn/english offers a high altitude design.

This proposal is probably a take off from the design for one of the rotating buildings presented for Dubai a few months ago.

adrianakau2aol.com

I have to eat crow and admit that my math was wrong in the previous post. Unfortunately for the Maglev bunch the error was not in their favor.

9500kWh = 9,500,000.00 (1)watt hours (9500 kW x 1000 watts/kW = 9,500,000.00 kW/hour).

1 gWh = 1,000,000,000.00 (1)watt hours (one billion watts)

1gWh/9500kWh = 10,526.3 homes served annually not 105,263 homes as stated.(1,000,000,000/9,500,000 = 10,526.3)

I mistakenly divided 1 billion watts by 9,500 instead of 9,500,000 watts which is what 9500kW actually is.

The point is, my screw up in the math notation further illustrates the fallacy of the data shown by the Maglev people. My on the fly calculations were flawed because I didn't reduce all the power symbols to common watts before dividing. What excuse do the maglev promoters have for overstating the homes served in their prepared press release numbers by 750 %?

We are all fallible; including me and the Maglev people. But the total lack of credibility in their numbers reeks of intentional deception.

I have to eat crow and admit that my math was wrong in the previous post. Unfortunately for the Maglev bunch the error was not in their favor.

9500kWh = 9,500,000.00 (1)watt hours (9500 kW x 1000 watts/kW = 9,500,000.00 kW/hour).

1 gWh = 1,000,000,000.00 (1)watt hours (one billion watts)

1gWh/9500kWh = 10,526.3 homes served annually not 105,263 homes as stated.(1,000,000,000/9,500,000 = 10,526.3)

I mistakenly divided 1 billion watts by 9,500 instead of 9,500,000 watts which is what 9500kW actually is.

The point is, my screw up in the math notation further illustrates the fallacy of the data shown by the Maglev people. My on the fly calculations were flawed because I didn't reduce all the power symbols to common watts before dividing. What excuse do the maglev promoters have for overstating the homes served in their prepared press release numbers by 750 %?

We are all fallible; including me and the Maglev people. But the total lack of credibility in their numbers is suspect.

Effing unbelievable!!! Theses idiots (MegLev) don't know WTF thery're talking about.

Unfortunately, I cannot wow anyone with my incredible mathematical equations...however, I am with Knee High on his/her comment about the concern over migrating birds getting sucked into this thing and obliterated. Out here in the Bay Area, CA, we are already seeing hundreds of migrating hawks being killed by our wind turbines on the Altamont Pass. It would be nice if these engineers could, at the same time, come up with a plan that would deter or prevent birds from flying into these GINORMOUS contraptions. I mean, birds pretty much HAVE to fly, and some do so at night, making it even more difficult for them to see. Two cents.

simspeed
American home 9500kWh per day, not per hour.
Wind turbine produce 1GWh per hour :-)

Sorry Tom, but that's not what I said. The average American home uses 9500 kWh/year as I stated. Their website states this unit produces 1GWh annually but also says it's rated at 1GW. The two statements conflict as I illustrated above.

It needs fins and glowing lights

If birds can miss a building, I think they can miss this.

maybe if american homes REDUCED their energy consumption, these new technologies would have a chance...all this talk about sustainability, renewable energy, etc and never is the word conservation mentioned...what are we trying to sustain here?...the planet or our level of consumption with a small side-kick to ecology?

Hey Adrian,

I have read many a poem that you have written on REA and also some comments here on T.H. I was wondering are you in the R.E. business??
and are you in the States?? Maybe looking for outside advise on new turbine project I'm currently working on in NC.
Shoot an e-mail to me if you can mhanks7@earthlnk.net
cheers,
Marty

Bravo. Excellent post.

The energy required for bearings in most cases is slight. Pick up your bicycle and spin the tire. Keeps going a long time. I have felt bearings on large heavy shafts while in operation and if every thing is OK the bearing is near the surrounding air temperature, meaning little energy is being absorbed. The savings of a magnetic bearing is a fraction of 1%. The reason for magnetic bearings or air bearings is high speed. Then they are the best solution. While they could be used on wind generators it would be a waste of money.

Does this mean my braces will get pulled off my face when I walk by one?

At first glance the windturbine looks like a variation of the savonius type windturbine. The aerodynamic efficiency of savonius windturbines is very low. Frictionless bearings will not make up for this.

the phrase "cut and run" also rubs me the wrong way.

Guess I am a die-hard optimist. Hundreds of years ago
great minds were designing "flying machines, helicopters", that we now laugh about. Now, there are those who can only scorn, poke fault with other's attempts to harness the wind. Yes, they may fail and be ridiculed. Einstein once said: "Imagination is more important than knowledge".

Interesting.... those who ridiculed early attempts with
flght, I am sure, would be the first in line to experience
modern flight around the world, or into space.

I would be the last person to criticize anyone's attempts
to build a "dream wind power plant". I remember when
my dad mounted a small windmill on the roof of the barn,
that provided 6V power to a battery in the basement,
that gave our old house a few hours light each night.

Now, I can mount a unit that will provide 5K on the
same barn, 65 years later. Who will be laughing 65
years from now??? But then, being that human beings
are the "ultimate virus" - "cancer" of the earth, the
earth may not require electrical power for much longer.

Yes, I have always been an optimist, however, there
are growing signs that world society is racing towards
big enviromental and population created problems. We
desperately need to harness wind energy. Here in
Southern Alberta, Canada, there is enough wind to
supply the whole world, if harnessed properly. 50kmh
winds are usually a daily factor along the eastside of Rockies. Imagine the power to create these winds.

Pretty Cool! I wonder if it incorporates the newest technology that my small home hybrid solar-wind turbine has. My ARI-600 750watt turbine has CPU controlled magneto regenerative breaking for over-speed protection and built-in solar charge controller for my four solar panels. Got it at arisolarwind.com If it doesn't, I wonder what it uses for over-speed protection?

Hi
I do not know this is the right place to ask or not but I would like to ask.
I am from Top of the world Nepal and even the second larget water resources in the world. Thus I am looking for the Hydro Power Turbine. If you have pls send me a short for the fourther discussion.
Thank
Rds
Phanindra

Levitation is not "Motion" but rather "Reaction," so the saying "For every action there is an equal reaction."

To test this I made two "Ring" magnates from sheet magnate material used for
signs on cars. It worked and it was able to hold levitated 25Xs it's weight.

Using the Halbock Array principle, no power is required to levitate the structure. I recommend clicking the link in the lead-in at the top of this page for more information, or google "Halbock Array."

This is not only doable, but is being done in China.

(Does anyone else, besides me, feel like they are living the Tortoise & the Hair story?)

I'm not going to check your figures (the ones complaining) on the power and such cuz I'm allergic to figures ;) but I'm guessing any errors that you might be finding are likely from laziness and translation errors. These are Chinese guys. Probably a translator/website designer typed the website info and he's not really understanding everything clearly as he might think. My buest guess.