Talk-Polywell.org

Tornado power for the masses?


http://vortexengine.ca/english.shtml

Also seen on Gizmag website.

50kW pilot plant in Manzanares, Spain, seen from a point 8 km to the South

http://www.enviromission.com.au/EVM/con ... yover.html

Not exactly ideal size to fit in the back yard.

What are the dimensions and footprint of a Solar Tower power station?
Solar Tower power station dimensions and footprint are both demand and site specific.
EnviroMission has improved the original concept design where the Solar Tower envisaged for the site at
Buronga, New South Wales had a collector area of approximately 5 Kilometres in diameter, a tower
1000 metres tall and 130 metres in diameter.
Enhancements to the technology have created flexibility and scalability in both design parameters and
output. Output can now be tailored to meet the demand profile of the utility.

Forming a vortex will tend to destabilise the air column rather than encourage it due to the flow discontinuity at the top of the flow* and not having it ducted, like Enviromission's tests, will, clearly, be less efficient in any case. So one way or another, it would be a huge device because it is a very low power density.

Besides, a vortex forms in the atmosphere due to two horizontal sheets of air passing across each other at a differential speed, and the consequent mixing that goes on. It doesn't all spin up from air rushing in from just one layer, like the Gizmag summary suggests.

*either chimney or 'tornado' - in a real tornado the flow exits at the top into a layer of air moving at a relative velocity across it with respect to where it entered at the bottom, and this is why it forms in the first place

The inventor, Louis Marc Michaud , Sarnia, (CA), has put together a very comprehensive website, though. He clearly believes in it. Also impressive is that his successful patent applications appear to be all pro se and he fought his case against initial rejections well.

Now need to see a prototype generating any power. The resistance to the flow in the process of generating power will throttle the flow. How big does it need to be, for how little power/resistance generated?

chris, that project you cited is not using the vortex. The vortex would be much smaller for higher output. NBF has some more information:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/12/peter- ... .html#more

The point made was that a ducted flow would be better at generating power than a vortex, but it is already very low energy density.

No evidence yet that this vortex design can generate power. Whereas the ducted version has demonstrated power generation.

chrismb wrote:The point made was that a ducted flow would be better at generating power than a vortex, but it is already very low energy density.

No evidence yet that this vortex design can generate power. Whereas the ducted version has demonstrated power generation.

You can bootstrap a rough estimate of a nuke plant at twentyfive watt per square meter asumin one square kilometres of land for a plant so it's saying it's comparable to the nukes???

paperburn1 wrote:You can bootstrap a rough estimate of a nuke plant at twentyfive watt per square meter asumin one square kilometres of land for a plant so it's saying it's comparable to the nukes???

??

Typical Nuclear station; 1,000 acres = ~3GW, 20,000 GWh/year (~75% operating time)

Proposed(unproven) Arizona Enviromission station; 5,500 acres = 200MW ... and unknown Wh/year (% operating?)

Energy density [by area] no better than 1.5% of nuke station ....

chrismb wrote:

paperburn1 wrote:You can bootstrap a rough estimate of a nuke plant at twentyfive watt per square meter asumin one square kilometres of land for a plant so it's saying it's comparable to the nukes???

??

Typical Nuclear station; 1,000 acres = ~3GW, 20,000 GWh/year (~75% operating time)

Proposed(unproven) Arizona Enviromission station; 5,500 acres = 200MW ... and unknown Wh/year (% operating?)

Energy density [by area] no better than 1.5% of nuke station ....

That makes better sense. How did I screw that up? I'm tired I guess.

I think their marketing it as a more efficient version of solar where the heat is used as the warm air source vs being converted directly into electricity or to heat steam.

chrismb wrote:
Proposed(unproven) Arizona Enviromission station; 5,500 acres = 200MW ... and unknown Wh/year (% operating?)

Energy density [by area] no better than 1.5% of nuke station ....

Well, I dont think that Environmission can be compared to the vortex thingy if it works as advertized. The latter would work with any source of warm air, also wasteheat from an nuke and would cool that down to -60 (from what I understand).

Skipjack wrote:

chrismb wrote:
Proposed(unproven) Arizona Enviromission station; 5,500 acres = 200MW ... and unknown Wh/year (% operating?)

Energy density [by area] no better than 1.5% of nuke station ....

Well, I dont think that Environmission can be compared to the vortex thingy if it works as advertized. The latter would work with any source of warm air, also wasteheat from an nuke and would cool that down to -60 (from what I understand).

I am asolar freak and without a magic black box I do not see it working like that. You would need warm air above ambient T to get this to work. IMHO but on the other hand I am the same guy that blew the power per square meter calculations

Skipjack wrote:

chrismb wrote:
Proposed(unproven) Arizona Enviromission station; 5,500 acres = 200MW ... and unknown Wh/year (% operating?)

Energy density [by area] no better than 1.5% of nuke station ....

Well, I dont think that Environmission can be compared to the vortex thingy if it works as advertized. The latter would work with any source of warm air, also wasteheat from an nuke and would cool that down to -60 (from what I understand).

does nto sound very good to me. Typical solar power plant designs, require about 5 acres per megawatt of generating capacity. For example, a 200 MW thermal trough plant in west Texas would require about 1,000 acres of land. Likewise, a 30 MW thin-film PV array in central Texas would require about 168 acres. This plant is using 5000 acres for 200 Mw plant.

Might have some use in Tornado alley, not as a way to generate electricity, but a safe way to control storms. If it's high enough and strong enough, keep'm away from populated areas and restrain'm from moving around.

paperburn1 wrote:does nto sound very good to me. Typical solar power plant designs, require about 5 acres per megawatt of generating capacity. For example, a 200 MW thermal trough plant in west Texas would require about 1,000 acres of land. Likewise, a 30 MW thin-film PV array in central Texas would require about 168 acres. This plant is using 5000 acres for 200 Mw plant.

Aaargh, people, read! This is NOT the 5000 acres powerplant!
This is a new design that is also not limited to solar (any heat source works) and would work with lower temperatures (less above ambient) due to the "virtual chimney" effect that equals a tower of 10000 meters height.
The numbers you quote are for a competing design by Environmission, a different and unlrelated company, from what I understand.
All that is of course if their design works as advertised. I dont quite understand how that is supposed to work, but I am willing to be convinced.

Skipjack wrote:

paperburn1 wrote:does nto sound very good to me. Typical solar power plant designs, require about 5 acres per megawatt of generating capacity. For example, a 200 MW thermal trough plant in west Texas would require about 1,000 acres of land. Likewise, a 30 MW thin-film PV array in central Texas would require about 168 acres. This plant is using 5000 acres for 200 Mw plant.

Aaargh, people, read! This is NOT the 5000 acres powerplant!
This is a new design that is also not limited to solar (any heat source works) and would work with lower temperatures (less above ambient) due to the "virtual chimney" effect that equals a tower of 10000 meters height.
The numbers you quote are for a competing design by Environmission, a different and unlrelated company, from what I understand.
All that is of course if their design works as advertised. I dont quite understand how that is supposed to work, but I am willing to be convinced.

Further research and things are starting to gel here. They are going to use the temp drop of the atmosphere to power a vortex attached to the top of a tower. You get a degree or two per thousand feet you go up. In their theory that the air should rise faster than the temp drop and the surplus energy can drive the vortex even higher and stronger and as the base of the vortex is still attached to the tower/ generator assembly. The only stopper I can see is wind shear the higher you go up. that is the same phenomonum that breaks up hurricanes here on the coast.

paperburn1 wrote:

Skipjack wrote:

paperburn1 wrote:does nto sound very good to me. Typical solar power plant designs, require about 5 acres per megawatt of generating capacity. For example, a 200 MW thermal trough plant in west Texas would require about 1,000 acres of land. Likewise, a 30 MW thin-film PV array in central Texas would require about 168 acres. This plant is using 5000 acres for 200 Mw plant.

Aaargh, people, read! This is NOT the 5000 acres powerplant!
This is a new design that is also not limited to solar (any heat source works) and would work with lower temperatures (less above ambient) due to the "virtual chimney" effect that equals a tower of 10000 meters height.
The numbers you quote are for a competing design by Environmission, a different and unlrelated company, from what I understand.
All that is of course if their design works as advertised. I dont quite understand how that is supposed to work, but I am willing to be convinced.

Further research and things are starting to gel here. They are going to use the temp drop of the atmosphere to power a vortex attached to the top of a tower. You get a degree or two per thousand feet you go up. In their theory that the air should rise faster than the temp drop and the surplus energy can drive the vortex even higher and stronger and as the base of the vortex is still attached to the tower/ generator assembly. The only stopper I can see is wind shear the higher you go up. that is the same phenomonum that breaks up hurricanes here on the coast.

Yeah, I get all that, but I am not so sure whether that will work as advertised. I mean, if the vortex is supposed to do work, wouldnt that counteract the vortex enough to stop it?