
The Future of Wind Turbines? No Blades (2015) - PeterRodwell
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/future-wind-turbines-no-blades/
======
apichat
From wikipedia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_Bladeless](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_Bladeless)

>> In late 2016 and after validating the technology on computational
simulations and tech demonstrators, the company reached the prototype stage
with a geometry that can harness a nice amount of energy from the wind with
this principle. On this stage Vortex was able to apply for funding from the
Horizon 2020 for research and innovation programme of the European
Commission.[19] Being the greatest funding that the company had, Vortex built
a big wind tunnel for testing their turbines (the tallest wind tunnel in
Spain) and started the development of their patented concept of an oscillating
alternator with tuning system. On this phase, the company won the "Seal of
Excellence" of the H2020 programme.[20]

>> All along 2017, the company kept developing their alternator and tuning
system. Since this technology is considered as new in many aspects intervening
(geometry, movement, energy conversion system), it has been a harder
development than the company expected. The collaboration on this stage of the
Microgravity Institute of the Technical University of Madrid and the European
University of Madrid, alongside CDTI, Altair, Birdlife and BSC were the key to
obtain a feasible technology that can harness energy from the wind on this
particular way. In this year the company obtained the "Innovation SME" seal of
the Spanish government.[21]

>> In 2018 the company started to plan the industrialisation of their
aerogenerators. On this point the company faced many problems due to the lack
of feasible industrial processes to mass-produce some of the pieces that use
Vortex technology. The geometry and the materials were almost definitive on
this stage so the company started a certification process for their current
prototypes and obtained the ISO 9001. This certification is a regular process
for every wind turbine in the European and American market but the normative
is written for blades based turbines or rotating turbines, so the normative
may need to be rewritten in order to certify Vortex devices as wind
generators.[citation needed]

>> The goals of the company for the future are to obtain the certification
needed to start selling, to set up a feasible method of production and
logistics of shipping so they can start commercializing first Vortex turbines
for 2020.[2]

------
einpoklum
Vortex had been Busted in 2017 already:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9VjJ1e1nIY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9VjJ1e1nIY)

Apparently, they seem to be disingenuous about the state of their technology
and their fundraising strategy. It seems there are no working prototypes which
produce a reasonable amount of power.

However - I'm not certain about this myself - I'm not a mechanical/power
systems engineer.

------
knolan
It’s a nice idea and I’m glad to see it investigated, however the efficiency
of kinetic energy generation from a regular turbine is always going to be
greater.

Oscillation from vortex shedding behind a cylinder depends on separation of
slow moving air and the subsequent imbalance in lift on either side. You’re
using some of the kinetic energy of the flow to induce the vortex shedding.

A regular turbine on the other hand uses very efficient airfoils where you can
at attempt to maintain laminar flow and maximise energy extraction.

I see this technology as being great for energy harvesting on existing
infrastructure. Put vibrational energy harvesters on pylons and poles in windy
areas and you could power traffic lights, street lights etc.

~~~
kebman
Will this be safer for bird life?

~~~
luc4sdreyer
The risk that wind turbines pose to birds is already very small. Wind farms
kill 440 thousand birds per year. Meanwhile, building windows kill about 500
million, and cats another 500 million. A standard wind turbine kills 4.27
birds per year, so of course you shouldn't build a massive wind farm in an
area with endangered birds.

Outside of that case, what if the whole US was powered by wind energy? That
would mean 315333 wind turbines, causing 1.34 million bird deaths per year.
That's still negligible compared to cats, windows, hunting or communication
towers.

sources:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_p...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Birds)

The US uses 473 GW on average, A standard wind turbine produces 1.5MW.
473000/1.5 = 315333.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Consumption_by_source)

~~~
fruktstav
It’s not all about numbers. Wind turbines kill rare, and threatened species,
such as birds of prey and bats. Cats and window accidents mostly kill very
common species.

~~~
plorg
...which is why, as the parent states, they shouldn't be built in the habitats
or flight paths of endangered species. Environmental impact studies are now a
routine part of the wind farm development process, and have been for over a
decade.

------
PeterStuer
It is claimed that the oscillating pillar creates no audible sound, making it
attractive in rural communities sensitive to noise pollution. I hope they are
right but remain fairly skeptical on whether this will hold outside clean lab
settings, especially when the constructs age and wear.

------
adrianN
I skeptical that this system can scale to decent power output. A 100W
conventional turbine is not a threat to birds either, because it's tiny.
Modern wind turbines produce something like 10MW. That's 100000 times more
power. Even small residential turbines are in the kilowatt range.

~~~
atoav
And the bird threatening factor of one wind turbine compares to one cat (at
least in Germany).

~~~
kgabis
Cats don't kill large migratory birds. But wind turbines do.

~~~
shakna
There was a 2007 legal case that, though the jury ended in deadlock (as to
whether or not the shooting of a cat was legal), suggests that cats do in fact
kill migratory birds. Stevenson v Galvestone, I believe.

~~~
j88439h84
That's interesting, and I'm curious why someone would know this. Are you in
the field?

~~~
shakna
I started getting cluster headaches a couple years ago, so it isn't true
anymore, but I used to have a photographic memory. Useful for picking up lots
of entirely useless information.

~~~
j88439h84
I see. Thanks for sharing that.

------
k5hp
In one of their videos [1] the mast can be seen vibrating at a high intensity.
There is for sure lots of tension in the material produced, I wonder how
durable the masts are. I have the feeling they would instantly break during a
storm.

Wind turbines have pitch control to reduce the speed of the rotor and blades.
This allows wind turbines to survive most storms. I don't see an equivalent
control mechanism with Vortex Bladeless masts.

[1] [https://youtu.be/Mf-gps4r2L0](https://youtu.be/Mf-gps4r2L0)

~~~
kieranmaine
From their FAQ
([https://vortexbladeless.com/faq/#question6](https://vortexbladeless.com/faq/#question6)):

"Vortex wind turbines are designed to have high performance with most common
wind speeds (between 3-12 m/s) and to has a quick response to turbulent
airflows changes.

If wind velocity exceeds the device’s working threshold, it will stop by
itself due to physics principles."

------
barbegal
I can't see how this design improves over a traditional three bladed turbine.
Kinetic energy is still extracted from a large moving structural element and
the forces involved will be much larger to generate the same amount of energy.
Turbines are extremely efficient in extracting large amounts of energy while
using the lightest weight components.

~~~
dbrgn
According to the company:

\- It's cheaper per KWh (they claim 40%, IIRC, but that was in 2015)

\- It requires less maintenance (no moving parts)

\- It doesn't kill birds

\- It's silent (no frequencies >20 Hz)

\- It's 30% less efficient than a blade design but you can put twice as many
in the same area

\- It doesn't cause the alternating light/shadow effects that huge blades do

~~~
barbegal
I'm skeptical about the cheaper per KWh. A 100W conventional turbine can be
purchased for around $200 and has 3 blades around 50 cm in length. The 100W
vortex device is 2.7m tall and I doubt can be purchased for less than $600
since the structure is much wider and weighs around 3 times more. 14kg vs 5kg
for a conventional turbine.

A 100W conventional turbine also only has a couple of moving parts, won't kill
birds and is effectively silent. I'm unsure on wether these claims are still
true as the device scales up. A device 100m or so tall will have a fast
velocity at the tip perhaps as much as 50m/s at a few Hz which is similar to
the blade tip speed of a conventional turbine thus having similar potential to
kill birds and make noise.

~~~
einpoklum
While I also doubt their claims - the price you want to look at is :

(purchase + installation) / average_life_span + maintenance per time unit

So, even at triple the cost it could still be worthwhile.

------
choeger
With this article being four years old, it is safe to assume they did not meet
their economic goals, right?

Nevertheless, technology like this might still be useful in very special
environments. As an extreme example, consider Mars. Completely different
economical conditions.

~~~
kieranmaine
Curent status of the project -
[https://vortexbladeless.com/faq/#question10](https://vortexbladeless.com/faq/#question10)

They still appear to be updating the website at least.

~~~
VMG
wish they would update it to not hijack browser scrolling

------
timka
Well, bladeless low-speed generator's been around for some years already. It's
directly driven, i.e. no multiplier too

[http://d.intellect-labs.com/our-projects/88-slow-
generator.h...](http://d.intellect-labs.com/our-projects/88-slow-
generator.html)

------
hannob
A few days ago there was already another article here about new wind tech, I
could repeat my comment [1].

tl;dr looking at historic patterns I've seen many new forms of wind energy,
they all didn't make it. What stays successful is doing almost the same thing
more efficient and at larger scale.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895000](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20895000)

~~~
realusername
> tl;dr looking at historic patterns I've seen many new forms of wind energy,
> they all didn't make it. What stays successful is doing almost the same
> thing more efficient and at larger scale.

This is the main reason:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law).
Wind turbines are already very close to max efficiency, the only thing you can
do is make them bigger and cheaper.

~~~
einpoklum
Betz' law is not a restriction. The challenge isn't extraction of more of the
energy. The challenges are:

* Production cost $ * Production cost in terms of resources (e.g. renewable organic materials vs metal, rare earth etc.) * Maintenance $ * Complexity of maintenance * Necessary area / turbine * Necessary area / turbine * Necessary volume / turbine * Noise level * Usability in extreme environmental conditions

... and maybe other things I've missed.

~~~
realusername
That's still a big restriction, other technologies could have a breakthrough
which makes them 10x more efficient, this will never happen with wind
turbines.

~~~
einpoklum
We're talking about harnessing wind power. There is no "10x more efficient".

------
dang
Discussed at the time:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555293](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9555293)

------
Gustomaximus
Would there be efficiencies in combining this with a 3 blade fan? Your already
putting a mast up, could you include this as part of the mast?

~~~
kieranmaine
The actual mast is lightweight and and wouldn't be able to support anything.
Also it seems the foundations wouldn't be able to support a traditional wind
turnbine:

"Instead of the usual tower, nacelle and blades, our device has only a mast
made of lightweight materials over a base. This reduces the usage of raw
materials and the need for a deeper foundation."

On the upside it must make for easier deployment, opening up more areas to
installation.

~~~
Gustomaximus
I was thinking more wrapping this around a standard 3 blade fan mast. So the
structural integrity is there but your taking advantage of an existing
structure (obviously with some modification to suit) to generate additional
power. This additional lower while maybe not as efficient as the fans, it
might be cost effective since the base structure is there and systems to
collect the power.

------
nf8nnfufuu
The Future (2015) - well, we live in the future and these turbines are nowhere
to be seen :-(

~~~
fourthark
The other future.

------
mrfusion
Wouldn’t these be ideal to address a rooftop or backyard market?

