Norway plans the world's most powerful wind turbine

a rotor with a span of 1/7th of a kilometer.

Now if we can just cover the earth's surface with these, our energy problems should disappear...

So only 37,000 dollars per house.
These windmills better last at least 50 years, or they will never be paid for.

One would think that increasing the height of the rotor would be more cost-effective than increasing the size of the rotor, since wind speed goes up by about 1mph for every 10 yards or so of elevation.

So for example, if they doubled the height, but left the rotor the same size, then you would expect about another 14-16 mph wind speed, thus giving significantly better energy...probably double or triple on average, in fact, since the bottom half of the rotor's swing is currently barely above ground/sea level with the model seen in that picture...if you doubled the height, the bottom would experience average wind speeds equal or greater than what the top currently experiences...since momentum of wind goes up quadratically with speed, this means that doubling the average wind speed hitting the rotor represents a ~4 fold increase in energy potential...

But in order to get a 4-fold increase in energy from a change in rotor design, you would need to have double the radius/diameter of the rotor, which represents a significant increase in mass of the rotor and therefore increase in wear and tear on the generator.

On the other hand, doubling the height is relatively "low tech" compared to building a bigger rotor or bigger generator which can work while carrying the extra weight.

So again, to me, after a certain limit, it makes more sense to invest more in a much taller POLE than to invest in a bigger rotor...

tpb, I had the same calculation. Assume then that at about $35,000 per house, and a $200/mo electric bill, it would take 13+ years to pay it off. That's not including maintenance on the rotor or the infrastructure that would take to access it in the open ocean, and supporting the power lines that would have to be draped on the seafloor to land....this is all still a very expensive proposition.

So it comes out to about $2 per watt, when the wind is blowing strong enough, but not too strong. Maybe "production" will cut that cost figure in half. It doesn't say if that is the installed cost, or just the cost to make one. Interesting intro line, they "hope it will increase profitability". I take that to mean they are not today, even with Norway's electric rates.
One of the big issues with these is reliability, the bill for a service call can buy a few of those houses.
Like I tell all the unquestioning followers of the "alternative energy panacea", if it were that easy and made that much sense, we'd be doing it already. Still I hope that progress is made.

Well, as far as "alternative energy" goes, we KNOW that geothermal is doable and makes sense given recent published articles even on this very site, the only reason they won't do it is because then they woudln't be able to charge as much for power.

We also have Methan Hydrate. According to a program I saw on discovery yesterday, Methane Hydrate is estimated to represent as much as ten times as much energy as all other fossil fuels in earth's history combined...

Sadly, I think the AGW con-game has served only to hinder the development of new energy supplies, rather than encouraging or enhancing those developments.

The problem with these huge wind turbines is the extremity of the rotor quickly reaches the speed of sound which creates vibrations that lead to catastrophes, I wonder what they did to fix that

a rotor with a span of 1/7th of a kilometer.

Now if we can just cover the earth's surface with these, our energy problems should disappear...

Just don't fly around in your electric powered ultralight:)

The problem with these huge wind turbines is the extremity of the rotor quickly reaches the speed of sound which creates vibrations that lead to catastrophes, I wonder what they did to fix that

I never thought of the speed of the rotor, it turns out that one 475 feet, almost 150 meters in diameter means the tips would be supersonic even at 50 RPM so you have to go 40 RPM or under unless you can eliminate the extra drag associated with supersonic turbulence. So if the generator had to be going 4000 RPM to be efficient you will end up with a 1 to 100 ratio gearbox, that would represent a lot of wear right there.

I never thought of the speed of the rotor, it turns out that one 475 feet, almost 150 meters in diameter means the tips would be supersonic even at 50 RPM so you have to go 40 RPM or under unless you can eliminate the extra drag associated with supersonic turbulence. So if the generator had to be going 4000 RPM to be efficient you will end up with a 1 to 100 ratio gearbox, that would represent a lot of wear right there.

In other words, half the rotor diameter at double the height would definitely be cheaper to make, longer lasting, and more efficient with higher max energy potential...

thanks...

the bigger they are the harder they fall. we need smarter wind power not bigger.

So only 37,000 dollars per house.
These windmills better last at least 50 years, or they will never be paid for.

Calculating the payback time based on the cost of the prototype is ridiculous. Generally speaking, the costs decline rather sharply when any device is manufactured in any sort of quantity.

Or did you think this was about building only one turbine and powering 2000 homes?

Wind turbines are designed to spin at 16 rpms max for the most part and the generators ay 1800.

There are not only turbines with the horizontal axis:
http://en.wikiped..._turbine

Put small, in the mall bought turbines, on the city rooftops, that's high and windy, or between buildings, or using up-drafts ..

Well, as far as "alternative energy" goes, we KNOW that geothermal is doable and makes sense given recent published articles even on this very site, the only reason they won't do it is because then they woudln't be able to charge as much for power.

We also have Methan Hydrate. According to a program I saw on discovery yesterday, Methane Hydrate is estimated to represent as much as ten times as much energy as all other fossil fuels in earth's history combined...

Sadly, I think the AGW con-game has served only to hinder the development of new energy supplies, rather than encouraging or enhancing those developments.

Methane hydrates are viable sources but they have to be mined from the bottom of the ocean and still produce CO2. We can't just ignore alternate means of producing energy, like the laser fusion work going on, that may beat the magnetic confinement dudes, if that happens, it's a whole different story.

One windturbine with 10-megawatt supply power to 2,000 homes.

What if you build 1000 of this windturbines?! Lets say that we count 50% of losses during transportation and lower winds and so on...

Then you even have 5000 Mw of power! And power for 1 000 000 homes. Even the costs of each turbine will drop in the coming years.