Recent Comment
Share
In the last few weeks it's become obvious that the demand for wind power is skyrocketing. Manufacturers can't build enough turbines to fill orders, and waiting lists are already years long. So something's going right in Wind. But the CEO of FloDesign Wind, Stanely Kowalski thinks things could be going even better. Using FloDesign's expertise in aircraft engines, he hopes to completely re-invent the wind turbine...and make them three times more efficient while he's at it.
Even better, he says that, since his turbines can be made through more traditional means, they could simultaneously increase demand for and production of wind turbines.
EG: Your new turbines seem to have some significant advantages over traditional turbines. Why is it that, in the last ten years of wind development, no one else has built turbines like this?
SK: First, we believe it’s because the market is well served and mature. Meaning, traditional turbines provide the most economical renewable option and perform well. Second, it takes significant funding to design and build a large-scale unit. Third, there have been prior attempts that have not worked out.
EG: What makes FloDesign the best company to design these new turbines?
SK: We have used the enabling technology in the wind turbine in numerous other products. Our team has used the same technology on the Gulf Stream, Boeing and Sikorsky aircraft. We have based our design on fundamental, engineering principles and have conducted the studies to show our design is financially feasible
EG: Is FloDesign working on a full-scale prototype for demonstration of the technology?
SK: Yes, we plan to build a 12ft diameter. 10KW unit.
EG: Have you put any thought into who would manufacture these marvelous new turbines and how soon the could start?
SK: Current wind turbine designs require custom equipment for both fabrication and transport. This results in long lead times for delivery and custom manufacturing plants and rising costs. Our design uses standard manufacturing techniques used around the world. Our blades are shorter and stubbier resulting in simplified fabrication, i.e. extrusion. Our components are limited in size to fit in shipping containers. FloDesign Wind Turbine Corp. is seeking international distribution partnerships. We plan to align with distributors from around the world to manufacture and sell our design. Thus, we hope to meet the world’s wind power needs through rapid deployment.
EG: You just raised $500,000 for FloDesign's wind turbine project. Where is that money going to help the most?
SK: We plan to develop the prototype unit. Once we have qualified the performance curves, we can scale to the larger sizes with confidence.
EG: When is the soonest that you think we could see these turbines generating grid electricity?
SK: Our plan calls for a running unit in less than 2 years.
EG: When and why did FloDesign decide that they could move from designing airplane engines and non-lethal weapons to designing wind turbines? Did concern for the environment influence that decision?
SK: I would like to believe that concern for the environment played a role, however, it was serendipitous. We were working on a shrouded propulsion system that revealed unprecedented performance. We then thought, "what would happen if we used the shroud to draw energy out of the prop." It worked.
Hits: 12449
Comments (24)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Ben, April 17, 2008
Wind farms don't destroy habitat! No one's going to mow down a forest to build one, because there's not a lot of wind there. The places where there's wind - plains and offshore - allow building them without destroying a thing. Their ground footprint is tiny, so no wildlife on the plains is going to be disturbed, and no modern wind generators are a serious threat to birds because the blades turn very slowly. (Hopefully these FloDesign turbines provide some other sort of protection to birds, but since they're smaller and contained, I imagine birds will easily avoid them.)
Solar on roofs is indeed great, but it's not enough, and massive solar stations have the potential to cause far more habitat destruction than wind farms do.
Solar on roofs is indeed great, but it's not enough, and massive solar stations have the potential to cause far more habitat destruction than wind farms do.
-
- +0
-
-
written by kerry bradshaw, April 17, 2008
Making wind three times more efficient is impossible, but still wouldn't help this primitive and basically useless technology.
The problem with wind power, aside from the fact that it is a horrible blight on our environment, is thta it can only produce small amounts of unreliabel, uncontrollable electricty, mostly at times when it's not needed. This means that its costs are actually double - it cannot meet next years new peak demand and so other, controllable power generators must be built. Wind power has no place in the 21st century anymore than it did in the last century. It is truly an oxymoron that
is being pushed by greedy utilities like FPL an others.
The problem with wind power, aside from the fact that it is a horrible blight on our environment, is thta it can only produce small amounts of unreliabel, uncontrollable electricty, mostly at times when it's not needed. This means that its costs are actually double - it cannot meet next years new peak demand and so other, controllable power generators must be built. Wind power has no place in the 21st century anymore than it did in the last century. It is truly an oxymoron that
is being pushed by greedy utilities like FPL an others.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 17, 2008
Huh?
Please back up your rather unusual opinion on relative harm with some data. Explain how taking up very, very small amounts of land for wind towers in any way approaches the problems caused by excess CO2.
And please review the existing bird death data before posting that incorrect information again.
(Hint: there's lots of good data. With just a little Googling you can set yourself straight.)
Please back up your rather unusual opinion on relative harm with some data. Explain how taking up very, very small amounts of land for wind towers in any way approaches the problems caused by excess CO2.
And please review the existing bird death data before posting that incorrect information again.
(Hint: there's lots of good data. With just a little Googling you can set yourself straight.)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dan, April 17, 2008
How much habitat and wildlife will there be if global warming continues at this rate.
Here in NW Nebraska and SW South Dakota, the only water available for wildlife and livestock is from stock tanks. Every small pond has been completely dry for nearly 4 years due to drought.
This would be an ideal place for wind power as the winds have also increased drastically.
I would think bird losses would be much higher due to solar power. When the pigeons poop all over the power panels, people will get rid of them in any means necessary.
Here in NW Nebraska and SW South Dakota, the only water available for wildlife and livestock is from stock tanks. Every small pond has been completely dry for nearly 4 years due to drought.
This would be an ideal place for wind power as the winds have also increased drastically.
I would think bird losses would be much higher due to solar power. When the pigeons poop all over the power panels, people will get rid of them in any means necessary.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Gary Grass, April 17, 2008
This Kowalski guys gets around - first he's the main character in Streetcar Named Desire, now he's designing wind turbines. Twelve step program must've done wonders! :)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 17, 2008
Some non-wind turbine bird death data...
Glass Windows : 100 to 900 million per year
House Cats: 100 Million per year
Automobiles / Trucks : 50 to 100 Million per year
Oil and Gas Extraction: 1 to 2 million per year
Hunting: 100 million per year
Some wind turbine bird death data...
Vermont
11 modern turbines at forested site near Searsburg – June through October, 1996 – Zero bird fatalities recorded.
Minnesota
200 turbine site at Buffalo Ridge – Surveys conducted 1997-2002 – 53 bird fatalities, one raptor. (That's about 0.25 bird deaths per turbine during a 5 year period.)
California
237 older and 11 modern turbines at Montezuma Hills, near the Sacramento River – 2 years of surveys – 10 raptors, 2 songbirds, 1 duck.
Canada
133 modern turbines at forested site on the Gaspe, Le Nordais, Quebec – Survey of 26 turbines over two migration seasons – Zero bird fatalities recorded.
Here's where to find more data....
http://www.currykerlinger.com/studies.htm
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, April 17, 2008
Kerry, here's the problem with your opinion...
People with money to invest in energy production, including major utility companies, greatly disagree with you and are installing wind at an accelerating rate.
Now you know very well that they have armies of engineers and financial experts combing the data prior to spending all that money.
People with money to invest in energy production, including major utility companies, greatly disagree with you and are installing wind at an accelerating rate.
Now you know very well that they have armies of engineers and financial experts combing the data prior to spending all that money.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Daniel, April 17, 2008
How does FloDesign plan to deal with the patents that other corporations already have on shrouded turbines?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian Green, April 18, 2008
Before I'm willing to believe all that has been claimed regarding these new wind turbines, I'd like to see some built and longevity studies done on both generation yields and maintenance costs. Once there's a fair amount of data supporting the claims, I'm all for it. Until then, I'm still happy to see more solar, geothermal, wave, and wind generation provided in their current forms.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Danno, April 18, 2008
I think it's hilarious that no matter what idea comes along, some extremist treehugger will poop on any idea that doesn't involve humanity reverting to living like primitive nomads.
Even if wind power isn't THE answer, it's lightyears better than coal or oil, so the bird-loving naysayers need to chill the F out. :P
I personally think this is awesome and shows real promise to change wind power radically. To those that say this is impossible, you need to read up on their web site to see why its different. It's not only possible, it's provable and just a matter of time before it catches on.
Even if wind power isn't THE answer, it's lightyears better than coal or oil, so the bird-loving naysayers need to chill the F out. :P
I personally think this is awesome and shows real promise to change wind power radically. To those that say this is impossible, you need to read up on their web site to see why its different. It's not only possible, it's provable and just a matter of time before it catches on.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Colin, April 18, 2008
To the ney-sayers:
Wind is not the answer, a combination of renewable sources is our only hope, we cannot rely on ONE technology to get us out of this energy crisis. This technology promises much higher efficiency, this is a very good thing however it is not the solution it is only part of the solution.
I also feel that too much emphasis is being put on increased capacity, we need to promote efficiency more than anything. By reducing current peak loading levels we effectively build more capacity (do more with what you already have). Green power generation is great and should overtake traditional sources however reducing current demand is also ESSENTIAL. It is cheaper to increase efficiency than to build new power plants.
Wind is not the answer, a combination of renewable sources is our only hope, we cannot rely on ONE technology to get us out of this energy crisis. This technology promises much higher efficiency, this is a very good thing however it is not the solution it is only part of the solution.
I also feel that too much emphasis is being put on increased capacity, we need to promote efficiency more than anything. By reducing current peak loading levels we effectively build more capacity (do more with what you already have). Green power generation is great and should overtake traditional sources however reducing current demand is also ESSENTIAL. It is cheaper to increase efficiency than to build new power plants.
-
- +0
-
-
written by D Barber, April 19, 2008
Question: for small scale generation such as a personal home, is it more efficient to generate using a 12 volt system and then convert to 120 volt or to generate directly using 120 volt generator?
12 volts especially combined with LED lighting can produce all the light need for a home. 12 volt motors are available that can run most appliances so the only demand for higher voltage is for heat generating units such as the kitchen range.
Any advice will be welcome.
12 volts especially combined with LED lighting can produce all the light need for a home. 12 volt motors are available that can run most appliances so the only demand for higher voltage is for heat generating units such as the kitchen range.
Any advice will be welcome.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Wheelsofire, April 19, 2008
In the UK a whole bunch of city folk,the type who move to the country and complain about agricultural smells. Their city cousins,led by some well-known right wing folk, have mounted and run an hysterical hste campaign against wind-turbines.
Seemingly impervious to facts,they continually put out disinformation,and try to diss wind by claiming it is unreliable and can never replace other generation methods.
Here in Ireland our landscape is as beautiful as any in Britain,and we have plenty of windmills.
One funny thing about these people too; a lot of them believe in nukes as the solution.
When they are not denying climate change.
So Tim Bradshaw,where do you get your info?
Seemingly impervious to facts,they continually put out disinformation,and try to diss wind by claiming it is unreliable and can never replace other generation methods.
Here in Ireland our landscape is as beautiful as any in Britain,and we have plenty of windmills.
One funny thing about these people too; a lot of them believe in nukes as the solution.
When they are not denying climate change.
So Tim Bradshaw,where do you get your info?
-
- +0
-
-
written by frisbee, April 19, 2008
D. Barber, I think high voltage (120 V) is needed in order not to loose to much energy in transportation of electricity to our homes. If you generate electricity near your own house I guess 12 V would be fine.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dan Bejinariu, April 19, 2008
I sugest you to make a structure who guide the wind from upper part to down in a long tube. This tube you can fixed on a wall of a block. After my calculation the speed of the wind increase becouse of difference of potential and the atmosphere presure. Inside the tube you can fix the engine at the lower extremity. This solve two major problems. First increse the speed of the wind and second you don't have to destroy habitat to build them.
Dan Bejinariu mechanical engineer Pascani- Romania
Dan Bejinariu mechanical engineer Pascani- Romania
-
- +0
-
-
written by frisbee, April 19, 2008
Sounds and looks amazing. Really hope this will work out in reality.
Just one precaution: how about bird safety? If airflow is being sucked in (as explained on the video), this turbine might actually suck birds in as well, perhaps like plane turbines.
If this effect is not too dramatic, efficiency is higher, building and transportation are really that much easier, I would want this technology to concur the world!
To everyone saying wind is not practical because of fluctuations in wind speed: remember electricity can be stored in many different ways and shortage of wind for a week won't be a problem at all as long as total energy production is met with a maximum of about 30 percent wind power.
Just one precaution: how about bird safety? If airflow is being sucked in (as explained on the video), this turbine might actually suck birds in as well, perhaps like plane turbines.
If this effect is not too dramatic, efficiency is higher, building and transportation are really that much easier, I would want this technology to concur the world!
To everyone saying wind is not practical because of fluctuations in wind speed: remember electricity can be stored in many different ways and shortage of wind for a week won't be a problem at all as long as total energy production is met with a maximum of about 30 percent wind power.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dandarius, April 19, 2008
We came to this blog article tracking this new technology - thank you for posting your interview. Reading the comments from individuals who wish to kill solutions before they are even born reminded us why we are launching our project with some serious upgrades in tone and content around the definition of "sustainability" - human beings need to address the psychological problems associated with the need to destroy - we have found in our many years involved with various branches of the sustainability movement (tree of life) that many who scream out for solutions and change are the first ones to bash down any ideas that come forth - like one of your posters said, "I think it's hilarious that no matter what idea comes along, some extremist treehugger will poop on any idea that doesn't involve humanity reverting to living like primitive nomads."
We need a "climate change" in our heads and hearts - long term solutions cannot be implemented from a place of panic and fear - which is what motivates many into environmental awareness. This new technology with these wind turbines is awesome and worthy of investment. Humanity is rising to the occasion that the environmentalists have invited them to and it is time for them to examine their own lack of content in regards to solutions and obvious personal problems that keep them addicted to bashing any solutions that come forth. Big applause to FloDesign from the Interdependent Project team.
We need a "climate change" in our heads and hearts - long term solutions cannot be implemented from a place of panic and fear - which is what motivates many into environmental awareness. This new technology with these wind turbines is awesome and worthy of investment. Humanity is rising to the occasion that the environmentalists have invited them to and it is time for them to examine their own lack of content in regards to solutions and obvious personal problems that keep them addicted to bashing any solutions that come forth. Big applause to FloDesign from the Interdependent Project team.
-
- +0
-
-
written by KENNY, April 20, 2008
I think the major obstacle to progress in alternative energy sources has been the " magic bullet " mindset --- i e --- looking for one big answer to solve the problem ---- when it is becoming apparent that a number of small -- but effective solutions can get the job done --- and we all can play a roll in REDUCING DEMAND for energy needs --- my wife and I live in a 100 year old hospital that was converted to senior housing and because it is on the HISTORIC REGISTER the contractor had to abide by very strict rules to maintain the original appearence of the building ---- this meant keeping the 30 inch by 5 ft high windows --- and yes --- he put in modern thermopane replacement units --- but was not permitted to add storm windows for winter use ( northern indiana ) --- so this past winter I tried an idea I found on the internet --- of apply bubble wrap to the inside of all the windows which was supposed to cut heat transfer/ loss approx 50% --- and it worked --- and it still permitted plenty of light to pass thru our windows --- these apartments are total electric and also have what I consider one of the most inefficient heating systems ever invented -- the " electric furnace " which is nothing more than a giant space heater that blows hot air thru ductwork --- so we replaced that with 3 electric oil filled radiators found at garage sales etc --- and closed off the bedroom and slept at nite under down filled comforters --- and so far --- we are still at our $ 80.00 a month level billing rate we started at 3 years ago --- even though the cost of our electricity has risen from 6 cents a K/H to 10 cents per K/H--- so next winter I plan to double or triple the bubble wrap on our windows ---- and I am in the process of cleaning up a pair of 30 year old SCHWINN 5 speed bikes I found at a garage sale for 10 bucks that we can use safely because we CHOSE to live in a small town--- and by the way --- we have to economize since all we have is our social security income --- and that also means taking responsibilty for staying in the best health as possible --- and staying out of doctors offices and hospitals -- and that is a real challenge when you are in your 70s ---------- peace kenny
-
- +0
-
-
written by ralph, April 20, 2008
hmm, interesting. anyone know what the previous failures with this technology were?
to d barber:
any steps of power transformtion will involve losses due to inefficiencies, so if possible its better to generate at the level you want to use it. given a free choice id use 120 cause you wont need as thick wires (since an increase in volts means a decrease in amps) so itd be cheaper to install.
i think theres probably better forums for this kindof question though - try http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/
to d barber:
any steps of power transformtion will involve losses due to inefficiencies, so if possible its better to generate at the level you want to use it. given a free choice id use 120 cause you wont need as thick wires (since an increase in volts means a decrease in amps) so itd be cheaper to install.
i think theres probably better forums for this kindof question though - try http://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/
-
- +0
-
-
written by Doug, April 21, 2008
I am currently an assembler employed by a company making 3 bladed HAWTS. We have evaluated the claims from FLOWDESIGN, and have confirmed the performance claims. It works. It also appears to address the majority of the maintenance issues of HAWTS. The only reason they might not get to market is because of insufficient funding. They will need a ton of money to get this to market. I can tell you that these guys have put the fear of god into our management. HAWTS have been around for 100 years. I predict that all turbines will look like FLOWDSIGNS IN 20 years. Especially when their patents run out.
-
- +0
-
-
written by tiffiney, June 05, 2008
you idiots that are against wind power don't see how the American sandard of living is decreasing and the Middle Eastern countries are getting rich.
some of you idiots are actually blaming Pres. Bush for high gas prices. remember the "war for oil" ???? how much oil are we getting from Iraq??? ZERO
USA has the tech-know how to get wind,solar,nuclear power going. compared to oil emissions, these power sources are 1% bad.
we progressives need to wake up.
some of you idiots are actually blaming Pres. Bush for high gas prices. remember the "war for oil" ???? how much oil are we getting from Iraq??? ZERO
USA has the tech-know how to get wind,solar,nuclear power going. compared to oil emissions, these power sources are 1% bad.
we progressives need to wake up.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Ari, December 04, 2008
1. This turbine looks very promising.
2. It will not "suck" birds out of the air. It is not a powered devive. Quite the contrary, the wind powers is, so a bird has about as much chance of being sucked into it as you have of being sucked into a sewer on a dry day. A bird would need to fly directly *into* what looks to it like a solid object (a bird cannot see through a spinning turbine) rather than flying through open air and suddenly getting chopped in half my a giant prop blade (as might occur with a prop-style wind turbine).
3. There is no requirement that energy must come from wind source ONLY mentioned in this article. So why are people acting as if that is a point that even has to be made? Obviously some regions have lots of sun, some have lots of wind, some have lots of water flow, some have lots of tides, some have geothermal, etc.
4. Regarding patents and rights, Kowalski is not new to this game. He is an inventor. His turbine's shroud is very different from the other shrouds that have been proposed for wind turbines, and it draws on his experience designing jet engines for the top aircraft manufacturers in the world.
2. It will not "suck" birds out of the air. It is not a powered devive. Quite the contrary, the wind powers is, so a bird has about as much chance of being sucked into it as you have of being sucked into a sewer on a dry day. A bird would need to fly directly *into* what looks to it like a solid object (a bird cannot see through a spinning turbine) rather than flying through open air and suddenly getting chopped in half my a giant prop blade (as might occur with a prop-style wind turbine).
3. There is no requirement that energy must come from wind source ONLY mentioned in this article. So why are people acting as if that is a point that even has to be made? Obviously some regions have lots of sun, some have lots of wind, some have lots of water flow, some have lots of tides, some have geothermal, etc.
4. Regarding patents and rights, Kowalski is not new to this game. He is an inventor. His turbine's shroud is very different from the other shrouds that have been proposed for wind turbines, and it draws on his experience designing jet engines for the top aircraft manufacturers in the world.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
They're very clean, sure, but habitat destruction is FAR worse than CO2 emissions.
Solar is great because we don't really need to build anything else. We just stick 'em on a roof and it's done.
So what I'm saying is, wind is NOT the answer. Seeing these massive wind farms killing birds and destroying habitat is not my idea of green. Sorry.