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 August 1st 2007 2:30PM
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...