New wind turbines at least 30% more efficient, Earth one step closer to salvation

Still addicted to oil like the rest of the world? You might reconsider wind power rehab now that a startup called ExRo has developed turbines that it says are consistently 30% -- and in some situations as much as 100% -- more efficient than the standard kind. The traditionally-used mechanical transmissions have been replaced with an inexpensive electric alternative that can adapt to changes in wind speed more efficiently. Also, many small generators are used instead of a large one, so the turbines can be customized in production to suit the intended installation site. If this is the real deal, it beats the 0.1% increase we saw in solar cell efficiency a few months ago, and those Maglev uber-turbines are still on the horizon. Hey Sun -- jealous yet?

[Via DailyTech]

[Leo @ Nov 20th 2008 8:36AM]

I was under the impression the Sun's heating was the cause of wind? So why would it be jealous? Silly Engadget.

[Rik @ Nov 20th 2008 10:23AM]

Hehe, true... but don't expect EG to know it.

[Samuel Axon @ Nov 20th 2008 10:40AM]

It was a joke that directly addressed the Sun as if it were a person with feelings, so I would expect that instead to be your first and foremost criticism as a crusader for truth -- but touch� nonetheless, my good man!

[jamax @ Nov 20th 2008 10:49AM]

i guess..
wind power? as opposed to .. solar power?

the sun might be jealous about wind power potentially getting the limelight, i suppose.

[leo @ Nov 20th 2008 2:23PM]

someone stole my name

[acme @ Nov 21st 2008 8:25AM]

the turbines are great we get it, but no need to get java involved in the mudslinging...

[EMoShunz @ Nov 20th 2008 8:37AM]

this is awesome. if those new ultracapacitor technologies come out soon, this type of thing may just allow all-electric cars to put nails in the coffins of gas and hydrogen.

[Samboini @ Nov 20th 2008 11:36AM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression was that the power generated by a windfarm during the course of its lifetime never exceeds that of the energy required to construct the farm. This is not good.

[schmitty338 @ Nov 20th 2008 12:01PM]

@Samboini, where did you hear that? On the internets? everybody knows everything you hear on teh internets is true.

in the US, windfarms generate over 18,000MW of electricity, enough for 4.9 millions american homes (according to wiki). Germany has even more at over 20,000MW. So you are saying that it took more energy to built these windfarms than it takes to power 5 million american homes for, say, 10 years? (they will last longer than that even).

That's F**king ridiculous...I really wish people would research a little and assess the reality of what they are saying before spreading false information.

[Samboini @ Nov 20th 2008 1:10PM]

schmitty338, so you are taking into account the energy required to extract the ore, process it into its respective elements, fabricate the pieces and then assemble? I work in the civil construction industry and I have a good grasp of the massive amounts of energy such projects take; you dont just stick the thing in the ground and all is done. There are huge amounts of energy involved in excavating and landscaping such large quantities of soil, in addition to all the pit and duct works required to facilitate the electrical distribution.

Referring to your question, as it happens one of my friends works in the renewable industry sector, more specifically wind. I would imagine he is fairly knowledgable about the subject. Additionally, one of my relative owns his own contracting business, so to hear it from two different sources is no fluke.

And you obviously overlooked the fact where I said "correct me if I'm wrong" before going off on one. I did find minor amusement in you enquiring to where I had obtained my information, just after you posted facts copied off Wikipedia, the source of all things correct...

[jorvay @ Nov 20th 2008 2:29PM]

Samboni,
All of those costs are reflected in the total cost of the wind farm. Unless you are suggesting that wind turbine manufacturers like GE and Vesta are selling turbines below manufacturing costs...
You're friend may work in the industry, but I'll bring in more direct source for data: me. My civil engineering undergraduate thesis looked at installing a single turbine on the waterfront of a major Canadian city. Wind conditions of the site were considered to be good, but not exceptional, and the assumption was made that one kilometre of transmission lines would be required to connect the turbine to the city's grid. I won't bore you with all the details, but at a borrowing rate of 9% per anum, the single turbine would have broken even in approximately 19.5 years when compared to the average cost of energy production in the region. The turbine under consideration has a design life of 20 years. So this was an adequate break-even scenario, if only barely. However, if you construct a wind farm, the economies of scale are staggering and there's more emphasis on finding a location with prime wind conditions. Plus a 9% interest rate is extremely conservative, especially with the weakening markets. Realistically, it'd be hard not to produce a positively-influencing wind generation project.

You want to talk about breaking even? Look at the true life-cycle costs of a nuclear generation facility. I can appreciate the need for a clean, powerful, steady base load, but it sure doesn't come cheap.

[schmitty338 @ Nov 21st 2008 1:16PM]

Haha...thanks for the backup Jorvay! I was too lazy/apathetic to respond in kind.

On a side note, I'm assuming you are referring to the wind turbine by Ontario Place in TO? If so, I can see that from my apartment window (26th floor) and I love it....it looks clean and awesome, especially when it rotates in response to wind changes.

[Dave @ Nov 20th 2008 8:39AM]

...and the Sun was all like, "I make the wind, too, son."

[maveric101 @ Nov 20th 2008 10:34PM]

everything but geothermal is powered by the sun.

[Maestro @ Nov 20th 2008 8:43AM]

So the company says 30-100% more efficient. Are these claimed backed up by any independent labs?

[Magallanes @ Nov 20th 2008 10:06AM]

Good point, vendor fact about their own products usually are BS or far away to the reality.

[Silby @ Nov 20th 2008 2:59PM]

If you look at the original article at Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21666/?a=f) it clarifies this point.

In certain locations, the power output can be increased by 50-100% using this turbine as compared to other generators currently in use. This is because even in varying wind speeds, this turbine can still produce power (very high and very low wind speeds). Normal generators are optimized for a specific speed and if varied from that speed, power output goes down, even if the wind speed increases. That is how they claim a higher efficiency.

[notYou @ Nov 20th 2008 9:05AM]

Great, but they're still 0% efficient when there's no wind blowing.

Oh, and please stop with the "addicted to oil" mantra:

ad⋅dic⋅tion: the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

None of which applies to my or your _chosen_ consumption of a readily available (but politically restricted!) commodity.

[TRLK @ Nov 20th 2008 9:08AM]

Ever heard of 'batteries'?
Besides, there are more ways of storing energy for when the wind doesn't blow/sun doesn't shine...

[iceman2929 @ Nov 20th 2008 9:22AM]

i would disagree with your claim of it not being an addiction. I dare you to try to stop using anything and everything that was made with oil! We ARE enslaved to a habit of using oil to produce/allow us to produce/transport allmost everything around us. It would be impossible to stop using oil, at least in the short run. Im not saying that it is a horrible thing, just that it is dangerous to be so reliant on a single, non-renewable source. Diversification is key.

[willy the impeached @ Nov 20th 2008 9:53AM]

Well I disagree with your disagreement. There are alternative sources of energy, coal, nuclear, etc. But we choose to use oil because it is cheap and very efficient. Think of the entire process, A hole is drilled in some desert on the other side of the world, oil is extracted, shipped around the world, processed and refined, shipped again and delivered to your gas station all for what is it now $2? We can't get milk out of a cow on a farm 50 miles away for less than $3.
Oil is a choice. And you are of course pro-choice, right commie buddy?

[MU_Shadow @ Nov 20th 2008 3:22PM]

@willy the impeached.. Wow I've never looked at it like that. Scew OPEC all the greed is in the DFA!

[KJVONLY @ Nov 20th 2008 4:40PM]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=6795&menuItemId=10317&view=PICHEADLINESUMMARY&grid=F7&targetRule=15

read some of this guys stuff

[foneguy2 @ Nov 20th 2008 9:36AM]

I'm not addicted to oil... my car is.

[Big Wizz @ Nov 20th 2008 9:35AM]

Not to worry, some folks will still bitch about the turbines "blocking the natural beauty of {insert local scenery here}."

[jorvay @ Nov 20th 2008 11:42AM]

And rightfully so! Wind turbines are ugly scars on this beautiful earth. Coal-fire and nuclear plants are pristinely perfect and should be a feature at every national park.

[CraziestGadgets.com @ Nov 20th 2008 9:46AM]

the sun says: wind power blows

[Chris @ Nov 20th 2008 9:46AM]

Did anyone ever think of having dozens of small turbines on a free standing pole with each turbine facing different directions?

[hohmes @ Nov 20th 2008 9:51AM]

Most wind turbines rotate for top efficiency no matter the wind direction.

[Gervin @ Nov 20th 2008 10:11AM]

What's great is that no one realizes that with enough wind-farms, you'll still screw up the weather.

Wind Turbines provide resistance to wind currents. Put enough of these turbine farms in the way and you permantly change the air currents of the earth. Just goes to show, enough of anything, even GREEN tech, is a bad thing.

Nope... nuclear reactors are the way for now... until we can build huge solar power collecting sails in space and beam the energy back to earth as microwaves.

[rcappo @ Nov 20th 2008 10:28AM]

We've cut down enough trees that were previously slowing down the wind that a few of these shouldn't matter. Plus there is still a lot of area that the wind would flow around. It's the jet stream way up high and pressure systems that control most of the weather.

And slowing down the wind wouldn't be such a bad idea, but humans won't be able to do it.

[Shinigami @ Nov 20th 2008 10:48AM]

How about putting a wind turbine in place of every tree that gets cut down? On the same spot. That shouldn't matter much to wind and will provide enough electricity for the whole planet and even more... knowing just how many trees get chopped down per year...

[RikF @ Nov 20th 2008 11:21AM]

My God - you have a point! We are all doomed! ANd what about the tall buildings that we have? Mountains? HIlls? People? For the sake of life on earth everyone lie down! Your air resistance when standing is killing the planet! Unless...

Unless the major wind currents are far higher than these turbines (buildings... trees... etc.)

I hope, for your sake, you were being sarcastic.

[RG @ Nov 20th 2008 12:05PM]

Got to love the interweb where anybody can say anything, including me ;)
Like this:
I asked everybody in my street to park their cars on the driveway outside instead of in the garage. My street is now warmer.

[Nibbler @ Nov 20th 2008 1:18PM]

They've done studies and farms down range of windfarms have less rain. Popular mechanics or science covered it at one point, maybe a year ago.

[jorvay @ Nov 20th 2008 4:50PM]

@Nibbler
"they" do a lot of studies that say a lot of things. Plus, PopSci and PopMech are weak at best. As a former bike mechanic, I cringe at how idiotic their coverage of any new bike technology is.
Let's go with these studies for a second though and assume that downwind farms get less rain. Four key questions that need to be answered:
1) Who performed the study? Real scientists or special interest groups?
2) Is there less rain hitting those farms than other farms that don't have wind turbines upwind, or are these farms getting less rain than before the turbines were built. The latter is credible while the former would lead into my next question:
3) Correlation or causality? Did the turbines cause there to be less rain falling on down-wind farmland, or do good wind turbine sites (i.e. good wind conditions) also tend to be lower-rainfall sites?
4) Assuming that the turbines are actually causing these rain issues, what would happen to those downwind farms if there was a nuclear or coal-fire electricity plant in place of the turbines?

The last one is key for all those that trash the environmental benefits of wind energy: it's not about wind turbines being perfect, it's about them being better than the existing practical alternatives.

[Austin @ Nov 20th 2008 10:19AM]

Its great but we still need diversity.

[Shinigami @ Nov 20th 2008 10:50AM]

A wind generator sitting on a dam generator with solar cells on top of it?

[TIMMAH! @ Nov 20th 2008 10:56AM]

How about solar cell cladding for the blades. Heck they're out in the sun all day anyways...

[Slick @ Nov 20th 2008 5:18PM]

Ever hear of NOT putting all your eggs in one basket? Energy Diversity is needed not only to drive the 'Green' movement, but also adds a great deal to a country's national defense. Today, wind got a big jump. Woot!

[sam @ Nov 20th 2008 6:15PM]

This is great and all, but I don't understand how it differs from - say - Enercon's existing wind turbines, which have been commercially available for many years. (http://www.enercon.de) These are 'direct-drive, variable-speed' systems without 'mechanical transmissions' (gearboxes) and claim the corresponding efficiency and reduced-maintenance benefits. I don't think that's the only firm already making these, either.

What's the difference? Or is this just a case of a press-release claiming something is new and comparing it against the worst old technology so as to get high figures for improvement, when really it's only a slight - or no - improvement over existing technology that uses very similar ideas to everyone else?

[Joe @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:19AM]

OKAY PEOPLE - for REAL renewable energy news and not this watered down undocumented bullshit go to renewableenergyworld.com

[Joe @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:19AM]

“YEAH, this is a whack whickity whack report. Would you invest in these guys? The website sucks and I would guess field results would too. 30% better, NO F****ING WAY. The sun and all solar power is not jealous. Try installing wind in your urban neighborhood.”

[Joe @ Nov 22nd 2008 1:21AM]

geothermal is powered by the sun too dude.

[Glenn @ Jan 29th 2009 11:58AM]

Hey Guys,
I am very interested in any energy saving or energy producing technologies for my business and home. I am not mechanically inclined to understand the technical aspect of renewable energy and frankly you might as well tell me in Japanese.

I do have the drive and social consciousness to want to convert my life style and business to it.

I am researching any alternative power sources for my catering company. Presently I use a tremendous amount of electricity. I have a Walk-in Refrigerator/Freezer, 5 freezers, air conditioners, heater and all this in 100 plus year old buildings. Entergy and a Green consultant have audited my business and have made suggestions that were fairly obvious to even me.

With the tax incentives for Solar Power I do seem to be able to get any conclusive answers to how it will effect the cost. It seems like it will be cost prohibitive, although I have been made aware of a business oriented solar power panels that are more effective and are geared towards businesses.

In regards to energy or trash (disposable and renewable eating utensils) , a sharp increase in the cost and initial out put of monies makes it very difficult for a small company that has had so many financial hardships after Katrina and Gustave. My properorties were spared physical damage but the financial damage was great. Gustave took 1 month of business and 1.5 months, no cash flow.

I have always had the plan to be Green with renewable and recycled products and use, before Katrina.I had a young kitchen assistant interested in Environmental issues and charged him with the task of researching the development of a restaurant coop that would produce bio diesel for their delivery vehicles. This was victim to Katrina.
If anyone knows of a research group or organization that would be interested in sponsoring the test pilot of energy conversion, I would offer my company. Please let me know and thank you for your time.

To the winner an unbelievable reward dinner will be created in your honor ! Billy will attest to the meal.

Captaincook04