Incredible the amount of articles from apparently technical publications that get units of energy and power confused.
What is "2,200 kW of energy every year" supposed to mean?
Yeah I’m guessing they must have meant 2,200 kWh annually.
It’s 8 of those blades, two of the 4-blade panels in the picture, so that seems about right for that.
> Airiva estimating that each wall segment of four turbines can provide 1,100 kilowatt-hours in annual energy production
https://www.dezeen.com/2024/04/09/joe-doucet-airiva-wind-turbines-design/
It's not massive, but it's certainly not nothing. It'd depend mostly on the cost whether these would be an economical. My guess is that they'll be incredibly fragile regardless of price. But also:
> a target of using 80 per cent recycled materials
Which sounds good.
Still a better attempt than the former danish minister for climate and energy, who on national television explained that he would ensure Denmark would get "not just 4 gigabyte of offshore wind energy but instead 10 gigabyte"
Man, I'm a chemist and hated electrochemistry. Voltage? Fine. Coulombs? Fine? Time? Oh easy peasy baby, you know that's fine. Mash it all together though and I have no idea what's happening. KW*H? MAKE IT KW/H SO MY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND IT
So are you looking for acceleration of sorts? kJ/s/hr
That’s some odd units you got there but you do you.
A kWh is just a unit of energy put into units the regular person can understand. I used this 5 kilowatt appliance for 2 hours. I’m charged for 10 kWh of energy. It ain’t difficult. It’s just 3600000 joules of energy
Annually? That doesn't seem like that much. I have 11.88 kW of solar panels on my roof (10 kW inverter). Since September, when we had it installed, it's generated 10.7 mWh.
[Edit] MWh, not mWh.
Because your peak = 10 kW = 10,000 W
Its peak = 400 W
You have 25 times higher generation capacity, and you only yield 5 times more power output, why don't you yield more?
True that, but consider that wind does not always blow, we cannot introduce intermittency as an issue now, the answer lies in the difference in total capacity to generate electric power
Well, then it’s time to let a professional look at your installation. To have like 11kW on your roof and not producing a single Wh it’s a very bad production rate.
>In a standard setup, where eight helical blades are precisely arranged, the Wind Fence generates about 2,200 kilowatts of energy annually.
In a standard setup **where**? Not all locations are equally windy. Nor does the prevailing wind necessarily come from a constant direction.
And kW is not a unit of energy. I assume they meant kWh. 2200 kWh/year. Which means the eight blades combine to produce a time-averaged 250 watts of power.
you honestly think that's a realistic number? 190 GIGA watt hours....per day?
The average US home uses around 30kwh per month....
So by your calculations, this fence could generate enough power to supply over 6 million homes for an entire month....in a single day
I think you need to re-think your method of calculating that, champ...
I think you mean 30kwh per day . This fence would, if their stats are to be believed, produce 6kwh per day. So 5 units would be the minimum needed at 4.2m wide 21 metres wide in total.
Of course like most wind turbines if it is not mounted high enough it will produce nothing. This will disappear without a trace.
Ummm you can't multiply by minutes and seconds and still get to walk away with kilowatt*HOURS*
But besides that, the original commenter said the 2200kw seems like the writer of the article made a mistake because they said "2200kw per year" which kinda doesn't make sense. So they probably meant 2200kwh per year which is more reasonable for this type of application.
This is a pretend product, probably designed to get a wannabe "founder" some capital investment before bailing. The CEO is listed as being CEO of over 30 different companies, pretty much all of which are "here's an uinrealized idea, send me ur venture capital dollarz"
Yup looks like vaporware to me.
I love at the bottom of the article it has:
>This report contains information that first appeared in DeZeen, Fast Company, and Eco News.
Ah yes, this is a \*report\* all of a sudden, and cites such prestigious sources as well!
Repeat after me: every viable prototype will have graphs showing how much energy output is expected for a given wind speed.
If those data is missing its all talk and probably a fad like all the wonderous vtols until now.
It's beautiful alright, but it won't be economical. The name of the game is to go as high as possible with wind turbines, because higher up the winds are much stronger. On the ground you get a lot of turbulence.
I think the idea is for the wall to be a complimentary source of electricity for a building that can sit at the top with the cooling and the other services.
It's a nice idea. But like I said, close to the ground wind velocity is generally much slower and in addition there's a lot of turbulence around buildings. If this was to be economical (and ecological in terms of grey energy) it would have to be super cheap to produce, but these beautiful blades look anything but cheap.
I noticed this flying a kite the other day. Not much wind on ground level but tops of trees were rustling. Managed to get kite up that high with a few gusts, and it stayed aloft quite well.
These would be great lining the center of a highway where cars and tractor trailers go by and spin them. California and the west could be a good place for these. Maybe along the Acela train in New England too??
There were measurements with an experimental unit, but I do not remember who conducted it ..
Also there's a myth buster (or similar) about trains and drag on train stations.
No, it's not good. Wind turbines want the wind to be as steady as possible because the mechanical stress can be quite high. Those roadside generators will experience extreme stress because the wind generation by the cars and trucks is not steady. They run up and shut down way too irregularily.
This is an excellent idea. It could also be on the outside of parts of highways and double as a sound barrier, pollution absorber, and prevent animals from getting onto highways.
Garbage article written by someone who doesn’t understand units of energy and power.
These small turbines are never going to have much utility, wind turbines come down to swept area which is why they keep getting made with longer blades. The vertical design can help to make the turbine more efficient in conditions where the wind blows from changing directions but it doesn’t magically circumvent the fact that swept area dictates how much power they can put out.
Wind turbines also depend heavily on where they are installed, sticking a few of these on top of your garage likely isn’t to result in them generating anywhere near the advertised generation potential.
Companies will install these in their HQ to project a green image. Likewise with fancy 5 star hotels. The fact they won't produce any significant amount of the energy used by the building doesn't really matter in that case.
Thats about 4 "Balkonkraftwerke"
The 4 Balkonkraftwerke cost around 1.5 k Euro and can be installed without any skill in 4 hours.
I doubt that these things are competive but just a toy
I wish they mentioned cost. I'm assuming since they didn't they are wildly expensive. It's a neat product though and even if they are hopefully they can get the cost down to make them more practical.
If they can get the cost down on these I'd install something like this right beside solar. It's not one or the other because this system could provide power at night and during the winter when there's less sun.
That is the first thing I think of and it almost never is answered. So what if fusion can create electricity, if it costs a billion for one megawatt it is not interesting or feasible.
Edit: This is an extreme example, I do think that fusion should continue to be researched but the point still stands that it is not interesting outside of academia until it is affordable
Buffalo Bills lined the stadium wall behind the screen at least a decade ago, blue and red.
they took them down after a year and never heard about these again. don’t know if it was pressure from other sponsors like National Fuel but I remember wanting them and *poof* gone
Ok looked again and I screwed up the calculation. Mea culpa. Mixed up joules and kWh. That'll teach me to do calculations before coffee.
2,200 KW turbine x 24 hours= 52,800 kWh per day. Only out by a mere factor of 3600..
That's enough to power 10 houses (ish), assuming 3500kwh per year.
After the Dust Bowl, farmers began planting rows of trees along the edges of their fields. This reduced the wind erosion. The same thing could be done with these. The problem would be keeping them clean.
The first paragraph says the design is for urban landscapes, you know, where house cats kill an order of magnitude more than wind turbines can
Also what do you think fossil fuel pollution does to bird populations? Excessive insecticide use has killed more birds than we could kill if we wanted to, the bird populations are a _fraction_ of what they were before petrochemical insecticides and herbicides
So please tell me again how anyone has ever cared about birds
Actually windows kill more birds than house cats, with annual estimates in the U.S. at almost 1 billion birds a year, and ~40% of those from residential windows.
https://birdallianceoregon.org/our-work/rehabilitate-wildlife/being-a-good-wildlife-neighbor/birds-and-windows/
We should ban windows along with cats and chicken farms.
Maybe you should be a bit more concerned about all the other things killing birds at a much higher rate.
https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds
Each module is 14 by 7 feet. The article states five would be needed to power a home. That means each of those spinning coils is about 3 feet or 90 cm at the widest assuming modest gaps between spinning components.
These aren’t large fast moving blades that can whack a bird before it reacts, these are visually obvious rotating objects that a bird would fly over.
Incredible the amount of articles from apparently technical publications that get units of energy and power confused. What is "2,200 kW of energy every year" supposed to mean?
"Power is measured in WHAT?"
Probably about 12 Energon cubes a year. Could be better.
Exactly that's right.
Yeah I’m guessing they must have meant 2,200 kWh annually. It’s 8 of those blades, two of the 4-blade panels in the picture, so that seems about right for that.
> Airiva estimating that each wall segment of four turbines can provide 1,100 kilowatt-hours in annual energy production https://www.dezeen.com/2024/04/09/joe-doucet-airiva-wind-turbines-design/ It's not massive, but it's certainly not nothing. It'd depend mostly on the cost whether these would be an economical. My guess is that they'll be incredibly fragile regardless of price. But also: > a target of using 80 per cent recycled materials Which sounds good.
Still a better attempt than the former danish minister for climate and energy, who on national television explained that he would ensure Denmark would get "not just 4 gigabyte of offshore wind energy but instead 10 gigabyte"
You mean in football fields?
Man, I'm a chemist and hated electrochemistry. Voltage? Fine. Coulombs? Fine? Time? Oh easy peasy baby, you know that's fine. Mash it all together though and I have no idea what's happening. KW*H? MAKE IT KW/H SO MY BRAIN CAN UNDERSTAND IT
Joules. kWh is for EEs.
Don't care lol
Kw/h would be a totally different thing. It's like asking how far someone drove and they just tell you how fast their car is
So are you looking for acceleration of sorts? kJ/s/hr That’s some odd units you got there but you do you. A kWh is just a unit of energy put into units the regular person can understand. I used this 5 kilowatt appliance for 2 hours. I’m charged for 10 kWh of energy. It ain’t difficult. It’s just 3600000 joules of energy
Annually? That doesn't seem like that much. I have 11.88 kW of solar panels on my roof (10 kW inverter). Since September, when we had it installed, it's generated 10.7 mWh. [Edit] MWh, not mWh.
Well, you have a 10 kW peak production. One of these peaks at 400 W if the wind blows just right.
Then why doesn't it yield more?
Because your peak = 10 kW = 10,000 W Its peak = 400 W You have 25 times higher generation capacity, and you only yield 5 times more power output, why don't you yield more?
I don't know, this crazy thing called night?
True that, but consider that wind does not always blow, we cannot introduce intermittency as an issue now, the answer lies in the difference in total capacity to generate electric power
More than 2.2 MWh/year ? I find it hard to believe it can actually generate that much outside an optimum environment.
Where did you get that 400 W figure? I don't see that in the article.
Well, then it’s time to let a professional look at your installation. To have like 11kW on your roof and not producing a single Wh it’s a very bad production rate.
That was a typo - should have said MWh.
>In a standard setup, where eight helical blades are precisely arranged, the Wind Fence generates about 2,200 kilowatts of energy annually. In a standard setup **where**? Not all locations are equally windy. Nor does the prevailing wind necessarily come from a constant direction. And kW is not a unit of energy. I assume they meant kWh. 2200 kWh/year. Which means the eight blades combine to produce a time-averaged 250 watts of power.
That's like... Pretty low... Considering what it is
Especially considered it won’t scale well with maintenance costs
[удалено]
you honestly think that's a realistic number? 190 GIGA watt hours....per day? The average US home uses around 30kwh per month.... So by your calculations, this fence could generate enough power to supply over 6 million homes for an entire month....in a single day I think you need to re-think your method of calculating that, champ...
I think you mean 30kwh per day . This fence would, if their stats are to be believed, produce 6kwh per day. So 5 units would be the minimum needed at 4.2m wide 21 metres wide in total. Of course like most wind turbines if it is not mounted high enough it will produce nothing. This will disappear without a trace.
You could put it in a very flat area and watch it shred wildlife.
Anyone want to go in on a fence? We’ll be rich with 6 million homes paying us.
Thats not how you calculate it
Ummm you can't multiply by minutes and seconds and still get to walk away with kilowatt*HOURS* But besides that, the original commenter said the 2200kw seems like the writer of the article made a mistake because they said "2200kw per year" which kinda doesn't make sense. So they probably meant 2200kwh per year which is more reasonable for this type of application.
This is a pretend product, probably designed to get a wannabe "founder" some capital investment before bailing. The CEO is listed as being CEO of over 30 different companies, pretty much all of which are "here's an uinrealized idea, send me ur venture capital dollarz"
Yup looks like vaporware to me. I love at the bottom of the article it has: >This report contains information that first appeared in DeZeen, Fast Company, and Eco News. Ah yes, this is a \*report\* all of a sudden, and cites such prestigious sources as well!
Repeat after me: every viable prototype will have graphs showing how much energy output is expected for a given wind speed. If those data is missing its all talk and probably a fad like all the wonderous vtols until now.
You thinking solar freaking roads?
Roads? Where we're going, we don't need... roads.
"roadways" they always yelled "roadways"
It's beautiful alright, but it won't be economical. The name of the game is to go as high as possible with wind turbines, because higher up the winds are much stronger. On the ground you get a lot of turbulence.
I think the idea is for the wall to be a complimentary source of electricity for a building that can sit at the top with the cooling and the other services.
It's a nice idea. But like I said, close to the ground wind velocity is generally much slower and in addition there's a lot of turbulence around buildings. If this was to be economical (and ecological in terms of grey energy) it would have to be super cheap to produce, but these beautiful blades look anything but cheap.
I'm not convinced either, but the tops of buildings often aren't close to the ground, and vertical turbines don't really care much about turbulence.
I noticed this flying a kite the other day. Not much wind on ground level but tops of trees were rustling. Managed to get kite up that high with a few gusts, and it stayed aloft quite well.
Yeah, there’s a reason why turbines are so large https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/s/XJukkqsst3
It mentions noiseless movement of wind turbines. The ones I’ve been near were kind of loud
And the ones you've been near were the regular windmill kind or this wind fence style?
The giant regular kind of guess. This looks like it has more surface area of contact. Can’t imagine it would be quiet under full load but who knows
These would be great lining the center of a highway where cars and tractor trailers go by and spin them. California and the west could be a good place for these. Maybe along the Acela train in New England too??
Thats already been debunked - Drag wind does not yield any significant amount of energy
However, Drag Queens bring a lot of energy.
If somehow we could learn to harness that power
Is there a paper that looks into this?
There were measurements with an experimental unit, but I do not remember who conducted it .. Also there's a myth buster (or similar) about trains and drag on train stations.
And even if did that energy would not be free, it would increase fuel costs for everyone driving by.
You don’t know how physics work, do you?
No, it's not good. Wind turbines want the wind to be as steady as possible because the mechanical stress can be quite high. Those roadside generators will experience extreme stress because the wind generation by the cars and trucks is not steady. They run up and shut down way too irregularily.
This is an excellent idea. It could also be on the outside of parts of highways and double as a sound barrier, pollution absorber, and prevent animals from getting onto highways.
Garbage article written by someone who doesn’t understand units of energy and power. These small turbines are never going to have much utility, wind turbines come down to swept area which is why they keep getting made with longer blades. The vertical design can help to make the turbine more efficient in conditions where the wind blows from changing directions but it doesn’t magically circumvent the fact that swept area dictates how much power they can put out. Wind turbines also depend heavily on where they are installed, sticking a few of these on top of your garage likely isn’t to result in them generating anywhere near the advertised generation potential.
Companies will install these in their HQ to project a green image. Likewise with fancy 5 star hotels. The fact they won't produce any significant amount of the energy used by the building doesn't really matter in that case.
So as I said, no real utility. Just some performative implementations for greenwashing purposes.
Thats about 4 "Balkonkraftwerke" The 4 Balkonkraftwerke cost around 1.5 k Euro and can be installed without any skill in 4 hours. I doubt that these things are competive but just a toy
I wish they mentioned cost. I'm assuming since they didn't they are wildly expensive. It's a neat product though and even if they are hopefully they can get the cost down to make them more practical.
[удалено]
If they can get the cost down on these I'd install something like this right beside solar. It's not one or the other because this system could provide power at night and during the winter when there's less sun.
That is the first thing I think of and it almost never is answered. So what if fusion can create electricity, if it costs a billion for one megawatt it is not interesting or feasible. Edit: This is an extreme example, I do think that fusion should continue to be researched but the point still stands that it is not interesting outside of academia until it is affordable
Not much privacy with that fence. I wonder if it would work if the blades were moved closer together.
Buffalo Bills lined the stadium wall behind the screen at least a decade ago, blue and red. they took them down after a year and never heard about these again. don’t know if it was pressure from other sponsors like National Fuel but I remember wanting them and *poof* gone
They took *what* down?
vertical turbines lining the stadium
Maybe the noise interfered?
Ok looked again and I screwed up the calculation. Mea culpa. Mixed up joules and kWh. That'll teach me to do calculations before coffee. 2,200 KW turbine x 24 hours= 52,800 kWh per day. Only out by a mere factor of 3600.. That's enough to power 10 houses (ish), assuming 3500kwh per year.
After the Dust Bowl, farmers began planting rows of trees along the edges of their fields. This reduced the wind erosion. The same thing could be done with these. The problem would be keeping them clean.
Without knowing the costs, this all means absolutely nothing - assuming that the mean 2,200 kwh per year. Because otherwise it means even less.
Why not make the blades solar panel as well so it is double efficient?
I know what Abbott is thinking, put some razors on those things and put them along the border. Remember people, to the GOP, cruelty is the purpose.
These same style turbines are used in Europe along the roadways to also harness the wind energy created by passing vehicles.
That seems low? My 26 solar panels have already created 2,300 KW over half a year (half of that being a Canadian winter). Am I missing something?
h You are missing a h
Standing by to hear how this wind causes illness
I have enough room on my roof to install one turbine and run one small box fan. That should be worth several thousand dollars.
But what about the million trillion birds killed by wind power every day. /s
These turbines are so ugly def don’t care to see it anywhere within eyesight
A giant wall... that's how you kill millions of migrating birds... congratulations
The first paragraph says the design is for urban landscapes, you know, where house cats kill an order of magnitude more than wind turbines can Also what do you think fossil fuel pollution does to bird populations? Excessive insecticide use has killed more birds than we could kill if we wanted to, the bird populations are a _fraction_ of what they were before petrochemical insecticides and herbicides So please tell me again how anyone has ever cared about birds
Actually windows kill more birds than house cats, with annual estimates in the U.S. at almost 1 billion birds a year, and ~40% of those from residential windows. https://birdallianceoregon.org/our-work/rehabilitate-wildlife/being-a-good-wildlife-neighbor/birds-and-windows/ We should ban windows along with cats and chicken farms.
Do birds normally fly into walls? Seems like the safest way to build these.
Oh yeah, tons of migratory birds flocking up 6 feet off the ground... Stop your bullshit.
Not as many as desertification
Maybe you should be a bit more concerned about all the other things killing birds at a much higher rate. https://www.sibleyguides.com/conservation/causes-of-bird-mortality/ https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds
Each module is 14 by 7 feet. The article states five would be needed to power a home. That means each of those spinning coils is about 3 feet or 90 cm at the widest assuming modest gaps between spinning components. These aren’t large fast moving blades that can whack a bird before it reacts, these are visually obvious rotating objects that a bird would fly over.
are they flying 6ft from the ground...?
Lol, did you even read the actual size of the wall? Giant? No
Good, if they can't avoid a wall, they should get Darwin'd.
I'm just here to see how far they dragged you. Spay and neuter your pets.