China Makes Huge Breakthrough in Wind Power Technology

[jpak]

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4217

Chinese developers unveiled the world’s first full-permanent magnetic levitation (Maglev) wind power generator at the Wind Power Asia Exhibition 2006 held June 28 in Beijing, according to Xinhua News. Regarded as a key breakthrough in the evolution of global wind power technology—and a notable advance in independent intellectual property rights in China—the generator was jointly developed by Guangzhou Energy Research Institute under China’s Academy of Sciences and by Guangzhou Zhongke Hengyuan Energy Science & Technology Co., Ltd.

The Maglev generator is expected to boost wind energy generating capacity by as much as 20 percent over traditional wind turbines. This would effectively cut the operational expenses of wind farms by up to half, keeping the overall cost of wind power under 0.4 yuan ($US 5 cents), according to Guokun Li, the chief scientific developer of the new technology. Further, the Maglev is able to utilize winds with starting speeds as low as 1.5 meters per second (m/s), and cut-in speeds of 3 m/s, the chief of Zhongke Energy was quoted as saying at the exhibition. When compared with the operational hours of existing wind turbines, the new technology will add an additional 1,000 hours of operation annually to wind power plants in areas with an average wind speed of 3 m/s.

Xinhua News reports that more than 70 million households in China lack access to electricity, with most of them living in areas unconnected to power grids. The widely scattered nature of rural localities makes it difficult to supply grid-based power to these areas. The use of the full-permanent Maglav generator could potentially fill the power void in these locations by harnessing low-speed wind resources that were previously untappable.

With an increasing number of Chinese and international investors joining the global booming wind power market, the technology is expected to create new opportunities in low-wind-speed areas worldwide such as mountain regions, islands, observatories, and television transfer stations. In addition, the Maglev generator will be able to provide roadside lighting along highways by utilizing the airflow generated from vehicles passing by, said Xinhua News.

<more>

[Deja Q]

1. Who owns the patent on wind?

BP. Exxon? Shell?

They all blow a lot of hot air... :rofl:

[salinen]

2. Gates

[havocmom]

3. The fact that they haven't managed to meter sunshine and wind

is the very reason we don't have substantial solor and wind generated power in the US.

[ThomCat]

5. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly right.

If they could own it or put a metered price tag on it there would be a lot more technology out there taking advantage of it.

[ThomCat]

4. This is great!

I don't know how restricted this technology will be, but if these wind turbines become common we might start seeing a lot more clean energy at a much lower cost.

We need more clean energy breakthroughs.

[skids]

6. Details are scant on this news article...

It's been making the rounds. One would assume that the units are VAWTs. As to just how much removing friction from the equation really adds, and whether these claims are to be believed, I'll leave to speculation.

The real breakthrough would not be in the maglev itself, but in developing an ultra-low-rpm gearless genset. Though progress is being made by various vendors on that front, and it is not rocket science by today's standards what with permalloy and NeBFe magnets readily available, it's not quite there yet.

Now, an experienced metalworker with their own CAD machine can put together a low-cogging low-rpm genset fairly easily assuming they obtained some relatively thick NeBFe material pre-formed into a ring or disk, with a high pole pitch imprinted (or imprint it themselves with an electromagnetic assembly -- the curie point is within reach of a stovetop range.) Those aren't too horribly hard to find -- magnet vendors are all over ebay.

The work that really needs doing is a fully integrated plan for mass production (sourcing assembly, etc.) Hence why a gearless set is important -- less parts involved. Something like a 50W, 7mph roofmount VAWT should be achievable for under $50 retail (as an example, sizing of course can vary.) Those that make micro-wind turbines, though, are so far from finding themselves in a competitive market (good demand, plenty of customers) that it may be a while before we see such a creation.

There is a U.S. claiming to have a maglev VAWT:

http://mag-wind.com/

...however as I said above, I'd do a side-by-side comparison with something that doesn't have maglev, to see whether any premium would be worth it.

[suziedemocrat]

7. I LOVE that wind mill!!

Thanks for the link. I bookmarked it for when I (someday hopefully) build my off-the-grid house!!

[skids]

12. Well, if you don't have to cost-optimize...

...I seem to recall seeing a comment from someone at Krystal Planet saying they will be distributing them. They do a lot of the more trendy oddball systems -- they even announced they will distribute these if/when they become a reality:

http://magenn.com

[eppur_se_muova]

10. NeBFe? You mean NdBFe? Neon doesn't form any magnetic alloys. nt

[skids]

11. Yep, my thinko, sorry. n/t

[phantom power]

13. That mag-wind product looks pretty neat.

[Gregorian]

15. I'm a metalworker with CAD.

I just don't see the motor/generator side as being the weak link. Where the loss comes in, in my weak opinion, is the source. There has to be wind. And where is it windy all of the time? And where is it windy even half of the time? There is another aspect to the idea that is less than stellar, and that is the energy cost of manufacture. I like Nanotech's idea of printing solar cells. The minute we start laying up wind vanes, or machining them, we are moving away from the elegant and energy cheap process of simply printing photovoltaics.

But maybe this is part of the process of evolution. I suppose once we get off the petroleum, the cost of energy won't be so high, and we can begin to entertain more complicated ideas. Like geared transmission production.

The bottom line is, we have it easier than it's ever going to be. And that's why change is difficult. But we're on the verge of the new energy conversion sources.

It's going to take a multiplicity of overlapping processes to fill the void that petroleum leaves.

You know, there's one thing I don't think people realize. Petroleum, as a basic building block for products, is so important in our manufacturing of nearly everything in our lives, that even with alternative energy sources, we are still going to need great quantities of it. This is why I think people are just dreaming, when it comes to the reality of getting away from petroleum.

(Hey, I didn't say overpopulation. It took real strength.)

[skids]

17. Photovoltaics are indeed very elegant.

Anything solid state is, really.

However diversification is a good thing, to get one over the occasional string of cloudy days.

And wind can be elegant, too: one in a winter climate might put up a windmill with the intent to use the power only when the wind blows -- to heat the house. Now, with current fuel prices making heat much less expensive than electricity, that may seem a waste, but such an arangement would provide heat exactly when it is needed -- when winter crosswinds are pulling air through the house. The elegance in this is that there's nearly nothing on the electronic ends required for such a setup, just a matched load fed directly from the AC, thus reducing the total energy input for the construction.

[Gregorian]

19. Hydronics.

With little more than solar collectors and tubing imbedded in the floor, hydronics can be extremely efficient. I'm impatiently selling my house, and waiting to move on to the next place, where I intend to design a hydronic system. What I like about solar is it transcends the site. Many places don't see wind. I lived in a windy location last time, but there is almost no wind on my present site.

Energy is the big playing field now. I'm too out of practice to be a serious contender, I think. But this is a field that is going to absolutely explode. From Tesla motors types of companies, to Nanotech solar.

It's way overdue.

[mccoyn]

27. Wouldn't work where I grew up.

I grew up on the east side of Lake Michigan. The lake effect weather meant it was very cloudy from November until Feburary. Now, I know there is still some solar energy, but the bigger problem is snow. It snowed every single day, which would mean I have to clear the snow off the solar collecters every single day. What else did the lake effect bring? Wind.

Also, a hydronics system would have to store energy to use at night, right? Thats when most heat is lost and there is no sunlight to provide replacement heating.

[orwell]

8. But...

...how could these "stupid commies" invent something like this. I thought we were number 1...

At least we make much better laser guided bombs...

[jpak]

21. Magical **levitating** windmills????

Mystical power indeed...

:evilgrin:

[applegrove]

9. Too bad the USA isn't interested in being ahead in technology. Much

easier for big oil to just buy the GOP and get the contracts for war. There truly is nothing inherently wondrous about how corporations make money...the wonders come from the people/visionaries..

It's always best to add a little humanity to ones plans. Otherwise you end up spending 200 Billion on a war that only hurts people..while somebody else is putting their money into new technologies. Who will be around in 50 years? Haliburton..or these people who invented the best wind turbine?

[Ezlivin]

14. When will they be available at China Mart?

Just askin'...

[w4rma]

16. This could have been an American patent. Too bad Repukes set up roadblocks

to American alternative energy scientists.

[farmbo]

18. Well look what happened while we were trying to secure Iraq's oil...

...Chineese scientists-- not ours-- have locked up windpower technology.

Thanks George!

:grr:

[Chipster]

20. Challenge to the Scientific Community

As we go through the energy crisis, we'll see a lot of strange things, not the least of which is snake oil. But historically, snake oil purveyors eschew scientific scrutiny. These guys are ones to watch because they are seeking it. Are our thermodynamic "laws" subject to exception? It's rather an unusual gambit, but they explain their rationale quite amiably at:

http://www.steorn.net/media/downloads/steorn_webmovie_medium.mov

To check them out, see: www.steorn.net

[hunter]

22. I wasn't aware that bearings were the weak point in wind technology...

There is so much about this article that is absurd. The reason we don't capture much energy from low speed wind is that there is not a lot of energy in it to be captured. The power in the wind grows with the cube of the wind speed. That's the first thing you must account for when you design your turbine and it's not something you can describe in simple linear terms such a percentages. The description of this system in your post has no meaning other than "yeah, this might be better." Essentially it is a very large waste of words.

[jpak]

23. But essentially frictionless bearings in the hub of a wind turbine

would allow much more of that wind energy to be extracted at low wind speeds.

It also allows you to install these turbines in areas not usually considered prime wind sites.

Which is why this is significant...

[hunter]

24. Again, there isn't a lot of energy t be extracted.

Adding that "1,000 hours of operation annually" doesn't mean a lot without the numbers. You need to see the power curves.

[hunter]

25. A nice little wind tutorial...

http://www.iesd.dmu.ac.uk/wind_energy/wetc111.html

Assuming a standard atmosphere with density at 1.225kg/s :

          Wind speed m/s     Power W/m squared

               5.0                76.6
              10.0               612.5
              15.0              2067.2
              20.0              4900.0
              25.0              9570.3

The power curve of a "500 kW" turbine might look like this:



There's simply not a lot of energy to be had at low wind speeds. You might get more energy by simply attaching solar panels to shell of the generator than by any improvements in bearings or control systems.

Of much more importance is the energy extracted from higher wind speeds. Generally the maximum energy rating is determined by the structural strength of the system. At higher wind speeds the overall energy extraction efficiency of the system must be reduced to limit stresses on the system which would exceed the capacity of the components. An unrestrained turbine can easily tear itself apart. At even higher wind speeds the system must be shut down. In the graph above the system starts to spill wind energy at 14 m/s and it begins to shut down at 24 m/s.

[skids]

26. It's a matter of bursty versus stable power.

The question is how long do those high power bursts last?

Personally I think this chinese maglev stuff is mostly hype, but there's something to be said for lowering spinup speeds. Yes you can generate 8 times the power in the same amount of time at 6mph than you can at 3mph, but if your wind only picks up to 6mph two hours each day you come out ahead.

In order for low-speed wind to become attractive though turbine prices (and construction carbon footprint) have to come way down. Even still, however, there are circumstances where they are already attractive -- in remote power applications where your options are a windmill, burying a mile of cable, or buying way more solar panels or batteries than should be needed for a load of that size to compensate for weather.

BTW, the upper end of the curve is under attack as well, see tmawind.com for a vawt that can really take a beating.

[hunter]

28. The engineering of these things is not trivial...

Thanks for the tmawind.com link.

The biggest problem with wind generators optimized for lower speed winds is that they tend not to be tough enough to survive higher winds.

You could build a wind turbine that looked something like those delicate human powered airplanes which would very efficiently capture energy from low speed winds, but it would be ripped apart by higher speed winds.

What we really need for wind power to be more attractive is for turbines to be mass produced on the same sort of scale that automobiles are. Taking inflation into account, the cost of automobiles has fallen very significantly in the last twenty or thirty years, even as the quality has improved. These same sorts of manufacturing skills need to be applied to wind generators.

[skids]

29. Could not agree more on that last point.

I disagree about the "flimsiness" argument. There is no inherent structural law that says low-speed wind turbines would be flimsy. As a baseline to work up from, all that is needed is the right genset design (low-rpm PM genset with negligible cogging torque and low magnetic hysterisis loss) applied to the same systems used now for high speed winds.

Though personally I have a preference for VAWTs over the HAWTs that most people sell.

On the mass manufacturing angle, I could not agree more. Technologically, a turbine and a fan are approximately equivalent products, yet fans are cheap, turbines expensive. The difference is mass manufacturing (specifically a lack of application of industrial/operational engineering to the problem.)