With all the
wacky unconventional proposals we've seen people come up with for generating electricity in an environmentally friendly manner, is it really so outrageous to think that giant, man-made tornadoes could be harnessed to power a small city? Well that's exactly the idea being floated around the University of Western Ontario these days, which is currently testing a scale model of retired refinery engineer Louis Michaud's patented vortex engine -- a machine fueled by excess power plant heat that uses the physics of convection inherent in rising air to drive electricity-producing turbines. In its most grandiose realization, the engine (inventor's rendition pictured above) would be 200 meters in diameter and generate a 'clean' (debris-free) tornado stretching 20 kilometers into the sky able to coax 20 megawatts each out of ten independent turbines. Obviously the main concern about the anticipated $60 million project -- which would reportedly operate at just a quarter of the cost of a coal-based facility, even before taking into account the $20 million saved on a cooling tower by the participating power plant -- is that the tornado could somehow escape its confines and wreak havoc on nearby communities. Still, with all the advantages this scheme seems to offer, we're certainly willing to give it a chance -- after all, a 'malfunctioning vortex engine' is a lot less scary than a potential disaster at one of the many nuke plants dotting our landscape.
[Via
UberReview]
posted Aug 1st 2007 2:30PM
Yes, all those meltdowns constantly occurring in all the countries with nuclear power are troublesome.
//this is why we're still on coal
My thoughts exactly. I mean, that part about the nukes was just a cheapshot.
Also, to the writer: When nuke plants have an accident, it's usually not quite as severe as "24" would have you believe.
"When nuke plants have an accident, it's usually not quite as severe as "24" would have you believe."
Of course, when a severe accident *does* happen, the surrounding area becomes inhabitable for a few thousand years, whereas even the worst tornadoes don't last more than a few hours...
What the hell are you talking about! Whereabouts are these 'meltdowns' always occuring? What a typical clueless middle America comment!
Ummm - Chernobyl anybody???
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmens/is_200604/ai_n16377068
I think he's referring to Chernobyl, and possibly to the city of Pripyat. But he probably doesn't know about Pripyat......
Anyhow, he probably also doesn't know that not only did Chernobyl have so many things go wrong at one time (on an un-authorized experiment, no less), it was also a cheapie design, called "partial containment", that didn't enclose the reactor in another building, like we (generally, as far as I know) do in the US. Why do you think Three Mile Island wasn't actually that bad? It was sealed off from the atmosphere. Chernobyl reactor 4 was not. End of story.
Also, not many people realize that other reactors at Chernobyl were actually still producing power until the year 2000, and there are still workers there decommissioning it.
Anyway, basic understanding of what you're talking about is good.
Chris,
you might want to try a little sarcasm on for size.
Everyone else seemed to get it.
Typical.
Bingo, glad somebody said it. It's the whole NIMBY mentality that causes power problems here in the US - as well as preventing cell towers from going up. Ignorance causes NIMBY-ism, so to speak.
Stat-wise, nuclear power is even safer than coal power plants, if you look at the deaths per megawatt (or some type of measurement).
Properly designed and built nuclear power plants are extremely reliable and have emergency system after emergency system, as well as multiple failsafes that basically make a serious accident just about impossible.
Remember 3 mile island? What happened there - that's right, it fixed itself. Please read that again - fixed itself.
Show:
Chernobyl only killed 56 people (plus about 4000 indirectly through cancer and other side effects) and it was about as bad of a failure mode as is possible for a nuclear plant. Sure it was terrible, but imagine if the three gorges dam in China collapsed, we'd be looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths, dwarfing Chernobyl. Or closer to home, what if Hoover dam burst? Would we then abandon hydroelectric power?
This better be a power plant opition in the next Sim City.
Also a disaster - don't they already have tornados programmed in?
With a disaster option as well? :D
In all seriousness, this is a much more environmentally friendly choice, especially for the cost. It costs less and doesn't pollute the environment. That's pretty awesome.
Of course you have the downside of disaster, a tornado off the "leash," however this is far less dangerous than a radioactive meltdown or oil spill. I'm sure there could be safety mechanisms to help reduce the damage done by "escaped" tornadoes like building an array of concrete walls around the perimeter of the power plant to help dampen the tornado's fury until it was almost just fast winds and nothing more by the time it reached any civilization.
Edgore, the reason Daft wants it as a power plant option is because it could also be a disaster option. If memory serves me correctly -- since I haven't played since SimCity 3000 in a few years -- if you choose the Solar-Microwave facility, your city is prone to occasional mishaps where the beam misses the plant and hits the nearby neighborhood.
@Matt
Damn straight. But SimCity aside this thing is awesome.
That reminds me, when will EA come with a new SimCity? SimCity 4 is real great and all, but it could use some better graphics, pedestrian mode (walking in the game), more ways to increase your city's income (besides legalizing gambling), and more types of buildings (like middle schools, amusement park, malls, and whatnot), and make the cities area as big or little as you want.
If SimCity 5 could do that, that would be awesome. If it comes that is. Still no word from EA.
Whats the problem with Solar Energy? The damn things fit on your rooftop. Lets get some solar tax breaks already.
Mo problem as such, but hugely expensive and inefficent to do on a large scale, plus the manufacturing process is enviromentally dubious. I agree with your main point though, if people want to install their own 'green' power systems, there should be more incentives. Here in the UK (not sure about where you are) excess electricity can be sold back to the grid.
Solar energy is just not viable in terrestrial applications. The power density is just too low for mainstream applications.
Power here in the US can be sold back to the company but they will only give you wholesale rates which is not a whole lot.
Nuclear is the way to go if we can get the environmentalists off our back. They are already trying to eliminate one of the cleanest forms of power, hydroelectric.
err....
what about the effect this will have on weather patterns...you think people complain about changing weather patterns now! I can't even begin to imagine what this would do. Any meteorologists out there?
The exaggerated effect on the planet's meteorological patterns will be nothing short of staggering. The dramtic delta in vector forces of the jet stream combined with the influx of lower atmosphere particulates is sure to destabilize the smallest, yet most catalytic, pockets of windiness.
I'm not a meteorologist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
COULD one of these escape? I would think that if it left the generator, it would fizzle out without the source of heat that created it.
As for a runnaway tornado, I don't know if that is possible. If I'm understanding it right, the power source for the tornado is within the complex. Wouldn't that mean that if the tornado left the confines that it would be without a power source and would disipate on it's own? Who knows.
I think that "-E" hit the nail on the head with the problem of not knowing the impact it would have on weather conditions. That could create more inviromental problems then some of the things today's tree huggers protest over.
Well, at least it gives a plot for some new B-movies.
Looks like a giant Orbo.
See, they needed wind not magnets.
Interesting idea, but as _E pointed out a vortex stretching 20km into the sky is bound to screw with weather patterns in some way.
cool tech
If the tornado is outside (which as I understand, it is), then I'd be less concerned about runaway tornadoes, then I would be about one constantly running tornado messing with the natural convection air streams, and causing, tornadoes, typhoons, and hurricanes elsewhere in the world.
We understand so little about the weather, I wouldn't feel safe with man made tornadoes impacting the controlled chaos that is nature.
i'm gonna write a screenplay where the tornado is hit by lightning and becomes self aware, and goes on a killing spree. Roland emmerich set to direct.
Believe they already did something similar to this. It was called Atomic Twister. They show it on TBS every now and again. Has Zack from Saved By The Bell on there. It is the pinnacle of his acting career.
Mike
And There's your next Power Plant disaster movie!
Tourists Magnet!
More like tourist vacuum...
The "worst case scenario" (design and management) for a nuclear power plant occurred at Chernobyl in the 80's. Does anyone want to guess how many deaths are attributable to that incident? . . . Less than 75. Check it out. There are 200 deaths per year in the USA from "natural gas". People's fear of nuclear energy (health and environment) is unfounded (ask the citizen's of France). But, what the heck . . . so we don't offend the scaremongers - let's try "tornado power"!
There are 75 deaths directly related to the disaster at Chernobyl- but how many people died because of it years later?
Not to mention, the Soviet Union didn't exactly handle the situation as good as they might have... not evacuating the city and all until their parade was over.
56 direct deaths
4,000 extra deaths due to cancer
4,000 thyroid cancer cases among children diagnosed by 2002
I'm not attacking the USSR, or socialism, before someone goes on a spree about the Cold War being over. Just saying they didn't handle it well.
I totally agree... I'm curious how nuclear power got such a bad rap. Was it the nuclear arms race? Well-placed propaganda by companies and industries with a stake in coal, oil, and natural gas? Or was it all Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?
From what I've read and heard recently, improvements in Nuclear power generation technologies have rendered 'meltdowns' virtually if not totally impossible. When managed correctly, waste from plants poses no immediate risk and likely little to no future risk, especially when compared to traditional power generation. Sure, renewable energy should be the final destination, but is nuclear really that bad an option to bridge the gap?
I heard a story on NPR yesterday about a single line in the latest Energy bill that could (or would) allow for the federal guarantee of loans for nuclear plant construction. For some insight on the matter, the reporter conducted interviews with residents of a small town in New England that was near a power plant. Those who didn't mind or even enjoyed the presence of the plant (enjoyed in terms of realizing the benefits to the local community in terms of taxes and jobs) backed up their opinions with facts. Those who were opposed expressed uneducated, subjective fears, using terms like 'meltdown' and 'lime green'. Yet somehow these subjective viewpoints continue to guide policy.
Cultural resistance to innovation and technological improvement has led to the downfall of more than one civilization.
According to the IAEA Final Report (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/) , 4000 cases (as of 2002) of childhood thyroid cancer (NOT deaths) can be attributed to Chernobyl - which was/is very treatable (less than 1% mortality and normal life expectancy). Trust me, I was shocked to read the report a few years ago as a Master of Public Health student. I remember as a child in the late 80's that "Chernobyl was going to cause tens of thousands of deaths, mutated babies, and infertile adults" (according to the media) - but that simply turned out not to be true. The more substantial negative public health impact can be traced to disinformation and impact on the psyche of the area. Can you imagine "waiting" for some horrible tragedy that never came to pass?
Yeah...it isn't like being a kid with cancer is tough or anything like that...after all, they could have been dead sooner, right? Think positive!
4000 kids with cancer is barely a blip on the radar screen. Let's party!
It's a twiiiiissster!!
I hate how people have such a problem with us using nuclear power. I wouldnt care if those same people didnt also fight for the right of iran to use nuclear power, and the waste to bomb isreal.
File this under extremely cool. And a little scary.
So instead of a steam engine or stirling engine to generate power from waste heat, he wants to build a vortex to drive wind turbines?
It seems perfectly fine, thermodynamically, but I'd like to know where they see the efficiency heading, and why they think designing and building these things would be better than well-understood methods.
The fact that the article and the inventor completely ignore every other means of reclaiming waste heat isn't particularly surprising, but it doesn't instill any hope in the technology.
Sounds like a cool effect in search of a problem.
Its not a "green" technology, it requires heat from another power plant. It is just a way of extracting even more energy from coal, natural gas, or nuclear.
@JD
Yeah, knowing the facts is a good thing. I remember in high school being told that the Chernobyl death count was in the thousands, and thus, nuclear power = ftl.
Interesting bit of information, though, considering that the real number was more around 56 (total number of deaths related to the incident as of 2004).
http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm
Could this be used to change the climate as well? When we get a typhoon in Japan temparature is usually dropped about 7 - 8 degrees Celsius for a wide area (several hundreds kilometer radius). This will be useful in my poor hot country Thailand.
... Yes!, thanks for your Comment, Sweet!! =) ;-)
This is going to kill a lot of birds. They'll just be flying along, then *fulp*, they're sucked but in a "random" vortex. They won't see it coming because there'll be no atmospheric indications that one is going to form. Hopefully though, this will only kill those damn Canadian geese, because those things are mean and the poop EVERYWHERE!
that's suppose to be "sucked up" not "sucked but." I don't know what happened there. I was thinking "up" but I must be a little out of it today.
Sweet, now countries can start throwing tornadoes at one another. Can't wait till they figure out how to make hell fire rain from the skies :D.
But in all seriousness, I wouldn't want to live next to that power plant.
This thing is scwheet! They should make a disaster movie outta' this. I have no idea what the plot should be, but it's gotta' have Samuel L. Jackson in it. . . .
I'm tired of these motherf***ing tornadoes on this motherf***ing plain! :O
With Nuclear ( Nucular as our fearless leader is want to say) it isn't just about the meltdowns and other potential disasters, it is also the waste products. Finding an agreeable way to dispose of waste that will be toxic for thousands of years seems to be a major problem now (Not In My Back Yard!) and would be exacerbated by ramped up nuclear power production. Not that I disagree with nuclear power this is definitely a problem that needs to be considered. Would there be any waste products output by this vortex? Debris free means no 2x4's stuck in telephone poles thankfully.
Nearly all forms of energy production have hazardous byproducts. Coal power plants actually produce more "radioactive" waste (due to the larger volumes) than nuclear power plants. (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html)
Nuclear "waste" can be drastically reduced by several new technologies (reprocessing, etc). Yucca Mountain has already been commissioned as a safe, long-term solution to storage. I just wish the American people were not so frightened of nuclear power. We are on the brink of a global energy crisis - have a viable alternative energy source - yet people are pushing for insufficient (solar, wind & hybrid cars) or theoretical (man-made vortexes!) solutions. I hope we wake up soon - before it is too late . . . maybe when gas is $20/gallon.
Oh please. Come on, it would take more energy to create a man made tornado than it could produce.
For tornadoes to happen in nature, we are talking about 2000 joules or more of energy to create a one minute baby tornado. The energy in violent storms can exceed 6000 joules, and even then the ability to sustain a rotating updraft is difficult, much less to sustain a tornado. If one understands the amount of energy it takes to make a long lived tornado, you would also realize it doesn't make it's own energy, it takes energy to keep it spinning. And this idea of it breaking free, they don't keep going on their own, tornadoes require constant energy to keep going, thousands of joules of it, if no energy is supplied to the tornado, it dies rapidly. Tornado Tim
You're missing the point. Once started with an artificial heat source the system becomes self-sustaining (with the help of the tangentail air inlets) in the presence of warm air such as over the equatorial ocean or artificially provided warm air from the waste heat of a conventional power plant. So the energy is harvested from existing heat sources (after the initial system start-up). There is no one claiming that it creates new energy or has greater than 100% efficiency). Just that it can tap existing sources of heat energy and convert it to a more usable form (at about 15% efficiency according to Mr. Michaud's writings).
EA gave the franchise to a company other than Maxis so they could keep dropping awesome titles like TheSims Expansion Pack 253: We Gave Up Naming This Garbage Years Ago and Nobody Noticed!
Meanwhile Spore is becomming this decade's Duke Nukem Forever.
SimCity Societies will be released on November 13.
Every major US city needs about 10 or 12 of these, right along the flight path into the airport. Really fun since they're debris-free, they're invisible!
we have free energy now, the game is up.
http://www.steorn.com
Please polish your bearingz.
Nuclear power might not be an option. There's a uranium shortage.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.html
Hope you don't live nearby with a maniacal pissed ex that works at the place.
Please don't harp on nuclear technology. It's the only reliable form of power we have, and with today's technology it's almost completely clean. Pebble-bed reactors (none of which have been built in the US because everyone is irrationally afraid of the word "nuclear" nowadays) contain the nuclear fuel in "pebbles" of lead, so that the usable heat still escapes and creates energy, but the radiation is contained. Even if you blew up the dome that holds the reactor, nuclear fallout would be almost nothing because of the lead pebbles. If only we could convince the public to not have a knee-jerk negative reaction to nuclear power...
Correction, the pebbles are graphite-based, not lead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
hey for everyone shouting for a more practical examination of nuclear energy, i don't see anyone talking about (total life cycle) cost per MW. i read a very well researched article by the renowned Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute available at www.rmi.org which makes the case that the long term capital, operating, safety, waste management, risk minimization, etc of nuclear does not make it worth constructing new plants in relation to other better options (that are, surprise, surprise, ultimately solar driven such as wind, photovoltaics, etc)
Well London is already in tornoado alley, so I don't see how it could make that much of a difference if UWO's tornado escapes.
This would make a sweet weapon, shooting tornadoes at your enemy like bullets out of an ak47..
Aren't we missing the most likely effect of an artificially sustained conduit to Oz? This would undoubtedly lead to a massive invasion of flying monkeys.
Why does everyone keep mentioning Chernobyl? That is like mentioning your brother's beat up corsair when talking about the problems involved with racing cars.
Chernobyl was a plant that was constructed as fast as possible and as cheaply as possible to compete with the US during the middle of the Cold War. It doesn't even have a containment building. All plants throughout the world (except test reactors, which there are less than 20 in the US, mostly at top science universities) have containment buildings surrounding the primary loop (the radioactive part). The containment buildings are constructed of at least 4-5 feet of super-hard concrete, and reinforced with an outrageous amount of steel re-bar every 12" on center. If this wasn't enough, the entire inner face of the building is clad with 1" thick steel (Thus why they cost so much to build). The containment buildings are so strong that you could fly a fully-loaded 747 directly into one, and the worst you could possibly do is perhaps crack the building.
There has only been one bonafide meltdown in the US, and that was at 1 of the 3 reactors of 3 Mile Island (the other two still operate normally today). Not a single bit of radiation has been proven to have been released. And, if there was any actually released, the amount was so insignificant that it is less than the amount you receive on a normal basis from eating/drinking items such as bananas and beer (both are irradiated before they reach store shelves and have the most amount of radiation of any common household edibles).
Solar Energy is very expensive and very inefficient.
That's why environmentalists are selling it to Africa and taking the cheap coal to use in the west.
hey viko, do you believe in goblins too?
decentralized power generation is much more efficient as it doesn't need large, expensive, dangerous central plants or have transmission losses. integrating PV panels into buildings adds only nominal construction costs. do some homework, redneck.
whoops, meant spaz-ek, noto viko
Here is a better option.
I think everyone will approve.
http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Fusion using boron with very little radiation.
I totally agree that this is dangerous. It will completely ruin the weather systems all over the world; just like the thousands of natural tornadoes all over the world cause global warming, penguin death and sinking of ships in the bermuda triangle.
Assuming that one power plant will have enough power in its waste heat to seriously effect weather systems is kind of naïve..
That being said. A large tornado on the loose will certainly be more dangerous (more deaths and destruction over a larger area) than a nuclear accident with any modern reactor.
I cant tell if you are being facetious or not.
If the tornado somehow escaped it confines it would quickly dissipate as it no longer has a source of energy.
Talk about a no-fly zone though!
See this link: http://vortexengine.ca/index.shtml
The vortex is contained(1) and is produced by convection. And, from my understanding, this invention appears viable and appears that it might very well have an acceptable environmental impact; however, drawing in and lofting particles (as someone else here mentioned) could be a significant issue. As for man-made tornados 'on the loose', once the power source is gone the vortex decay would be rapid and I have the understanding that this (horizontal lauch of a vortex) would not happen with the AVM (see (1)).
There are other inventions that are similar to the Atm. Vortex Engine (AVM) that are (from what I have read in the past) 'slated' for implimentation (China is looking into this type technology).
Peace, D.
Seems like a lot of people took exception to the "better than a nuclear plant" comment at the end. Most responses were regarding safety issues, and only referencing Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. A more complete (though still partial) list can be found here:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001457.html
Even admitting plants are safe - usually - the question of waste disposal remains. One commentor wrote "When managed correctly, waste from plants poses no immediate risk and likely little to no future risk." Emphasis being on 'when managed correctly', of course. Keep in mind that high-level waste fuel (e.g. plutonium) remains toxic for up to 100,000 years. Anyone care to go on record saying we can safely transport and store ever-growing amounts of radioactive materials and keep them safe from natural disaster, terrorist attack etc., for 100 years, let alone 100,000?
Well air travel will be more fun when an air traffic control snafu sends your 747 too close to the 200m wide, 10 mile tall invisible and permanent tornado...