DEC 01

FloDesign, a Massachusetts based engineering firm, has designed a new wind turbine that deviates from the standard windmill in a compelling way. Its main feature is a stationary piece in front that directs wind into the spinning blades. Overall, the machine looks more like a jet engine than a wind turbine and it packs quite a punch as well – a FloDesign turbine can generate as much power as a conventional turbine twice its size.

FloDeisgn has a long list of reasons why its devices are superior to the status quo. At the top of that list is efficiency – regular turbines only capture around half of the energy stored in the wind that hits them. This is because they deflect a lot of that wind around them. The FloDesign turbine, on the other hand, sucks in that wind and utilizes much more of its energy. From a practical perspective, the smaller turbines require less material to build, are easier to install (as one example, the entire turbine could be packed onto a standard 18 wheeler, as opposed to turbine blades that require incredibly oversized flatbeds) and take up less land. Check out their rock music-infused promotional video.

They claim that their design also helps solve the NIMBY problem, because people don’t have to see the huge spinning blades from miles around. I am dubious that NIMBY participants will adore large, stationary structures that much more than large, moving structures, but this design does address one often overlooked issue: when wind turbines are built near workplaces, people often have to endure ceaseless oscillation of light and shadow, which can drive them nuts. These turbines solve that problem.

Prototypes are scheduled for testing over the next year or so. If all goes well, we could be seeing wind farms with these things soon afterwards. If these turbines can be successfully implemented, their significance should not be underestimated. The land and money needed to build a 1 GW wind farm could be used instead to build a 2-3 GW wind farm. We sometimes think that wind can only work if we build bigger, bigger bigger. FloDesign argues that, using some clever aerodynamics, we can squeeze more juice out of smaller, smaller, smaller.

Via Cleantechnica, MIT Technology Review

Comments (9)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Magnulus, December 01, 2008

Isn't this the exact same wind turbine Hank wrote about a few times previous? Old news until they actually go into full-scale production.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Yes... it is.
written by David Keech, December 01, 2008

We've been watching this one for a while now.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1476/
http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1332/73/

Call us again when they are ready to ship something. That's the next point when this will be "news".

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I was wondering about that..
written by Loosely_coupled, December 01, 2008

I've seen this many times, I figured it HAD to have been mentioned on ecogeek before now, right? Whats the deal.. too many 'cooks in the kitchen' ?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by gsmolk, December 01, 2008

One potential problem is that the funnel might exacerbate the number of shredded tweets (shredded birds) which is a problem with all wind generators; although the very large ones rotate slowly enough to minimize this problem. The smallest birds could be the most vulnerable and a fine mesh( actually any mesh) parabolic screen would defeat the purpose of the funnel and add sig. cost. Have the inventors tackled this problem? Can any one think of or already has a workable deflector that does not lower efficiency?

GES
Salvo Planetae Supprima Lex Esto
the Safty of the Planet Is the Highest Law

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Material Cost & Size/W?
written by Carl, December 01, 2008

I don't see how they would make a 1MW unit. For rooftop installations, this makes sense, but I don't see how this could compete with large 3-blade open turbines. Power is proportional to the square of rotor diameter, so a 100m turbine is equivalent to 100 10m turbines. Plus power is related to the cube of wind speed, and there is a big difference from being 100m higher off the ground. It seems from the pictures, there is a lot of material required per meter of rotor diameter. Even with a 50% improvement in efficiency, I don't see how these (looks like around 10m diameter) could compete with the 100m
propellers.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

@gsmolk
written by Arif, December 01, 2008

The bird problem is not as serious as you think. All that is necessary is that the turbine blades are able to repeatedly manage the impact forces. Due to centrifugal force, the shredded birds will head towards the generator shroud. A good design would have a bird parts collector, so that feathers, liquid waste, flesh and bones could be concentrated. A fermentation stage could convert the shredded birds into a commercially viable fertilizer and or food source.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Clinch, December 02, 2008

@ Arif
Guenious

• 
• +0
• 
• 

noise?
written by SolarDaveC, December 02, 2008

The comparison to a jet engine makes me wonder how loud these are. The regular turbines can be pretty loud when operating close to peak power; if they're claiming to solve the NIMBY problem, let's hope they didn't forget to keep operation quiet!

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by john, December 03, 2008

I'm sure they can be stacked too. Where currently only one conventional turbine can be placed per tower

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment