digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

THE MAGLEV: The Super-powered Magnetic Wind Turbine

inhabitat.com — 1 Maglev wind turbine, which uses full-permanent magnets to nearly eliminate friction by "floating" the blades above the base could power up to 750,000 homes. According to developers, the technology is capable of scaling to massive sizes, and the ability to generate power with winds as slow as three miles per hour.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • thedr9wningman, on 11/27/2007, -2/+29This could change the world for the better.
    • CiXeL, on 11/27/2007, -12/+3it wont matter. we'll have a nuclear exchange with china before this gets off the ground.
    • geddon, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12It's unfortunate that the richest country in the world is not only the worst polluter but also the least supportive of environmental technologies such as this. We could solve the whole damn middle eastern crisis by purchasing each providence one of these damn things.
      • GawtMilk, on 11/27/2007, -3/+2The relationship between GDP and pollution is a positive trend. Our pollution is dealt with cleanly though, our landfills are maintained so that they aren't hurting the environment. In fact, our land fills are also methane bottling plants which make the land fills self-reliant, also powering nearby homes and businesses. Plus, we're definitely not the "least supportive" of things like this...America has lots more wind, hydroelectric and solar power than anywhere else in the world.

        Not only that, but robbing the Middle East's oil companies of money wouldn't "solve the crisis", it would incite more people to join gangs and put warlords back into an authority position...since when did poverty fix problems?
        • MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2So you'd be OK with your kids swimming in a pond next to a landfill?
    • inkyblue2, on 11/27/2007, -6/+5not to mention answer many important scientific questions.

      birds: will they blend?
    • KamikazeeDriver, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2"This could change the world for the better."

      And in tomorrows news, this technology was bought out buy a huge corporation and now sits in an abandoned warehouse.
  • FireAtWill, on 11/27/2007, -6/+26How much energy would go into the creation of the magnet itself? Not to disparage it all, just an interesting thing to consider!
    • helixed, on 11/27/2007, -13/+5The article said they were permanent magnets, so none...
      • monkeyman08854, on 11/27/2007, -3/+4Helixed, he said "the creation of the magnet itself." This is very different from operating energy of the magnets. It is true that using permanent solid magnets would increase energy efficiency, however, he is asking how much energy is expended to create the windmill itself. This is a very important factor. If the amount of energy expended creating the windmill summed with the amount of energy used to maintain the windmill is greater than the amount of energy the windmill would produce then it is not efficient.
      • Lunarbunny, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5Um, I believe rare-earth magnets like neodymium use at least electromagnets to magnetize the material if not heat. A good bit of energy could go into the magnetization of neodymium magnets large enough for use in this turbine.
      • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7Neodymium magnets need to be charged. The special material is first heated and then put into a high magnetic field which rearranges the magnetic domains in the material and when the material cools the magnetic domains are frozen in place thus making the material as a whole a powerful magnet since the magnetic domains are then lined up.
      • dinostabOMG, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3Okay, helixed is mistaken - but don't digg him down because the responses he's elicited are good.
    • inkyblue2, on 11/27/2007, -0/+10good question in general, but i'm going to guess that if it took anything approaching 500 gigawatt-years of energy (the theoretical lifetime output based on the article) to make the magnets, they wouldn't be building a factory for these things. :)
    • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+16Given it can generate up to a gigawatt of electricity and will run for 500 years - I think the energy cost in creating the magnets is inconsequential. I daresay the energy required to pull coal out of the ground would be comparable. :p
      • nastajus, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3What happens after 500 years? Rust? Demagnetization?
        • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+18I'm pretty sure it spins off, rolls down the hill and destroys the 750,000 homes.
    • sponeil, on 11/27/2007, -0/+8That question is pretty much moot. From TFA: "The estimated cost of building this colossal structure is $53 million." Obviously, that includes the cost of the energy needed to create the magnets. If you look at how much energy they produce, and how low the maintenance costs are on them, they seem like a no-brainer. Another good quote from TFA: "the company claims that it will be able to deliver clean power for less than one cent per kilowatt hour with this new technology". Given the frictionless aspect, I don't really doubt it.
      • avengingturnip, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Promises...promises...So far they are building 5 kW units. Only 5 kW.
    • databoy, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6How much energy is needed to construct a nuclear power station and how much does it cost to process the waste? MAGLEV would be considerably cheaper than a nuclear power station.
      • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3Don't digg him down, he's right, by a LONG way. From Wikipedia:
        "In 2006, Business Week magazine stated, "...,the [US] industry is aiming to build new plants for $1,500 to $2,000 per kilowatt of capacity,...". However, they also added, "Trouble is, the cheapest plants built recently, all outside the U.S., have cost more than $2,000 per kilowatt."[17]"

        That's $2b for a gigawatt nuclear power plant. Admittedly nuclear provides consistent power where this wind turbine would fluctuate a little - but when you're talking costs in a factor of near 40 times dearer the comparison just isn't there. Nuclear is NOT a cheap option, or even a particularly clean one.
    • MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2I don't know how much energy is required to build one, but I highly doubt it's more than what it takes to power 750k homes for 20+ years.
  • noahhoward, on 11/27/2007, -2/+65When I was 16 I thought of doing this... my damn physics teacher told me it wasn't feasible, thanks buddy. Good to see it coming about.
    • Justice101, on 11/27/2007, -9/+2Is it possible that you could incorporate a vacuum around the suspended part to further reduce the forces of friction. Or is that not feasible either?
      • noahhoward, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7You mean vacuum like the one in space? I'm not sure how you'd go about it but I would guess that what you saved in friction you'd lose maintaining a vacuum.
        • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5This would do you no good. It would merely complicate your mechanics. Plus how are you going to put a vacuum around something that much extrude through the casing of the vacuum without having a seal? The seal would create more friction than you are saving. To have a vacuum around a system you would need the system completely enclosed with the transmission of power being delivered through magnetic distribution through the case such as a transformer passes flux through air or other mediums to transmit the power to the other coil in the transformer.
        • IareKEVLAR, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4I was going through the tree, thinking of this the entire time, hoping that I would get to be the one to break the news to Justice101, but you beat me to it. Well played.
      • Justice101, on 11/27/2007, -3/+2What if you somehow found a way to use a plasma window to keep the vacuum in? Then you wouldn't have to worry about keeping the apparatus attached to the thingy causing friction.
    • desu43fnoc, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7Well, then you wouldn't have any air for the wind energy to flow through. The basic premise of this is to USE air friction, not block it out.

      You silly joker you...
    • avatarpalin, on 11/27/2007, -2/+2He could of been right, you know what technology was like in the 70's? VCR's that had the word BETA written on them. A game console machine that promised invaders from Space attempting to take over the earth and what they gave you was a series of multicolored blocks. I'm not surprised that the earth's atmosphere of the time was slow ad sluggish similar to the 70's wood-paneled station wagon.

      Noo I'm pretty sure if you had tried to build structure such as this during the 70's it would only be able to be maintained by people getting around in pastel blues and pinks. They would only have a short life span and you would be faced with constant resource problems given that your workers would be leaving to got carrousel...

      Or Alderan

      ..Because his uncle Owen and aunt Beru were burnt.

      ...So your Teacher was right, show some respect, for gods sake his parents were just burnt..
    • bluetrevian, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Same here I was so happy to see that someone finally acted upon this. Wonder if my drawings of skyscrapers will come true next... =P Cause those were seriously pimp.
  • zekt, on 11/27/2007, -7/+6So, if you have opposing magnets which float the turbine, how is that likely to interfere with the magnet and coil that is responsible for the electricity generation?
    • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -1/+7Actually it wont cause much of a problem at all since the magnetic flux from a magnet is dissipated in a short distance. The placement of the coils and magnets will be most likely placed halfway up or at the top. Possibly even driven elsewhere. I sure wish they would take one of these generator systems and hook it up using the concept that circumnavigates Lenzes law. I am interested in this since I am currently working on a generator that should do something you will all hate. Or at least those that put all their faith into physics.
      • phaed, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4Good luck buddy. You're gonna need it.
        • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Thank you. I hope you will all be here to digg it up when I release the plans to the world.
      • inkyblue2, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9if by "something you will all hate" you mean "crazy half-baked pseudoscientific ideas served with a side of condescension" then by jove, i think your digg comment generator is a rousing success.
      • dinostabOMG, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3When will that be? Wow us.
      • MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1Faith in physics? It's math. Math is proof. There is no faith required.
        • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1I have no faith in physics to be all knowing since where did we come from? If you use math to prove existence you have broken math since reality is a closed system which cannot create itself as you cannot imagine yourself into existence.
          • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1"I have no faith in physics to be all knowing since where did we come from?"

            The big bang.
    • soulpiercer7, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5magnetic fields are inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them so their interaction on these scales is negligible.
      • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Well said my friend.
      • theblacknight, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4That is not correct. Magnetic monopoles do not exist (at least not that we know of). The magnetic field of a magnet (not too close to the magnet) is that of a dipole, falling off as r^-3. For the setup given alternating adjacent magnets, the field falls off even faster. I had a maglev train problem on one of my physics exams....maybe if I'd gotten it right I'd remember the exponent. Either way, the interaction on these scales is indeed negligible.
        • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Your statement does not even pertain to what we were talking about. Please go read another book and leave digg alone.
    • databoy, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1Vertically driven alternators are self contained devices. The EMF is generated at the small gap between the rotor and the stator. Google for EMF and alternator construction. There are plenty of professional electrical sites which will explain an alternator to the layman. If they generate the power at 440hz (NATO standard) the alternator will be a lot smaller than the 50/60hz standard.
  • bwpayne, on 11/27/2007, -5/+17Damn those things are huge...

    SHWOOM........ SHWOOM............... SHWOOOM
  • cindylauper, on 11/27/2007, -10/+21 gigawatt...I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 1.1
    • cindylauper, on 11/27/2007, -3/+31.21...sad that I can't bury my own comment
      • K3ITHK, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1Sorry, didn't show yours when I replied.
    • K3ITHK, on 11/27/2007, -2/+71.21
    • dinostabOMG, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3I think the unit you're looking for is jiggawatts, also.
  • HHP2K, on 11/27/2007, -14/+4Sadly, the thing isn't as aesthetically pleasing as a windmill.. it looks like an alien command center. I don't know how well the public would receive this.
    • FixToTheMax, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6Not like windmills are aesthetically pleasing in the first place. The drive to Palmdale always sends me through deserts of windmills, but honestly they will most likely be put in similar places...where the public rarely sees them.

      Good for this technology though, efficiency like this is the exact thing that we need.
    • crackhammer, on 11/27/2007, -1/+18You had me at "Alien Command Center"
    • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7I hope people understand that cheap electricity is a good thing and they should appreciate it. Its like winning a million dollars but having an ugly guy deliver it to you. Would you really turn down the million dollars? I bet a lot of our society would since they turn down good things all the time just because their lack of knowledge about the product or even the person.
    • IareKEVLAR, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7The public wouldn't give a ***** how ugly it is, Americans MIGHT, but with the prices of energy going up, a renewable option would be extremely popular.
    • dinostabOMG, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3I'm someone who doesn't take that kind of consideration lightly, but come on - this is certainly one of those cases where it's a very, very secondary issue.
    • WaltDismal, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1The websites shows one of these right outside a city. But what people don't realize is that these create noise and the rumbling is hard to filter out of homes. Just as homes outside an airport have noise problems. Second, placing one in the path of the prevailing winds would block cooling winds from part of the city. So the best place for one is far in the country.
    • whyufail, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Are you kidding me? I wish more structures looked like alien command centers!
    • MWeather, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3It looks better than a coal plant.
  • cnot3, on 11/27/2007, -19/+6Why would we invest in crazy ***** like this when we have clean, efficient nuclear power already available. Oh yeah: hippies.
    • mithrasinvictus, on 11/27/2007, -5/+3and maybe all the new terrorists that bush is creating
    • videographer, on 11/27/2007, -2/+11Well, I'm sure you won't be opposed to us burying a few tons of nuclear waste in your backyard then, right? Got a pool? We could use that too.
      • EuphopiaB, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4Nuclear is not that horrible. The power/waste ratio is incredible, though even if that small amount can be avoided it should. Also, having more distributed power stations is better for safety and security of the grid.
    • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5You my friend are more irrational than a crazed woman.
  • TridenTBoy, on 11/27/2007, -9/+7Well this is great in all if it ACTUALLY WORKS.
    • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4It would actually work. They have something small of this scale already on most homes. But they are not magnetically floated. Magnetically floating it isn't a huge problem. This is actually quite easy and some have thought of it before but most say nay to those who make simple ideas that are seen as too good to be true. Screw the nay sayers you freaking punks. Sorry I just hate nay sayers.
  • K3ITHK, on 11/27/2007, -7/+10Dupe:
    http://digg.com/hardware/Colossal_One_Gigawatt_Mag ...
  • latrosicarius, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2anti gravityy
  • TaintedBlu, on 11/27/2007, -5/+20I can't wait to see that on my skyline...
    Seriously, thats the fugliest thing I've ever seen... I would love one installed in my city, honestly, I would. But the rest of the public would not. Its too ugly!
    Actually, this is Seattle, so maybe they would...
    • clnydk, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Remember those 3D lamps that turn by the heat of the internal bulb?
      Paint a 3D skyline on it, that rotates, clouds and blue skies. It would fade into the background...?
      • omegaworks, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4Cool idea! I bet you could even make it do something like run a flipbook-style movie on the rotating blades. I bet cities could offset the costs of construction by using it as a huge advertising space.
    • SoundScape, on 11/27/2007, -1/+5I disagree. There are far uglier buildings that do nothing but house office cubicles. At least these will be serving an honourable purpose.
    • qpn6ph9q, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9I think nuclear reactors and shale oil mines are uglier
      • init100, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Nuclear reactors are not ugly. Coal power plants on the other hand...
    • rolf, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3Paraphrased to: "Not in my backyard!"

      Buddy, global warming will be in everybody's backyard. Sure, put that behemoth in my backyard. If it makes noise, put it a little away, perhaps group a bunch of them together in a field a mile or so from the suburbs, I don't care if I see them or not.
    • moletimer, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0They're better looking than power stations, plus with the added benefit of not destroying the world.
    • Spoomeister, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Seconded, from another Seattleite. When you have people downtown bitching about views and skylines, and that getting in the way of needed transportation and affordable housing projects, this here would never work. Stick a field of these things somewhere north of Spokane, though, and we might be talkin...
    • friedman420, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1no one has suggested putting them at sea.
  • TomPlansMedia, on 11/27/2007, -10/+1ive seen this on digg like three times
    • dinostabOMG, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3You are truly the elite digger.
    • PlasmaFlux, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3congratulations. would you like a prize?
  • Mageling, on 11/27/2007, -4/+10You could double it as an amusement ride. Cha-ching
  • forcedfx, on 11/27/2007, -1/+12Let me know when the first industrial version is built and running. With all the articles I read about power generation breakthroughs I'm becoming cynical.
    • soulpiercer7, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6it's being built. they already broke ground.
      • xtc46, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5no they broke ground on the plant that will build this. They haven't built one yet.
    • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2RTFA and go to China to look at them.
    • qpn6ph9q, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3There have been a spate of these things, yes, but I think its less about hype and more about breaking the dependence on oil; and for this I am happy to wade through mountains of hype.
    • amoro99, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Debbie Downer?? Is that you??
  • crackhammer, on 11/27/2007, -1/+24We just need to combine this with a Glade Plug In - I smell world harmony...
  • avnerlevit, on 11/27/2007, -4/+12If one breaks down.... Some of the 750.000 home owners *may* be pissed.
    • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -0/+12You mean like if a power plant crapped out right now? I think this stuff happens already but I am pretty sure they know how to get around a plant crapping out. Or you just lose power for a bit:)
      • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -2/+6Better still, nuclear power plant craps out, fails, explodes... 750,000 home owners dead, not pissed. Brilliant! ;)
        (and yes I know current reactor technology is practically incapable of meltdown)
        • stoanhart, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6So then your comment is pretty pointless, huh?
          • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2He was pointing out something using sarcasm as you possibly were in making a half baked insult.:)
          • SomGuye, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1He's been playing too much SimCity.
      • databoy, on 11/27/2007, -4/+1Do you think so? Have you heard of bacteria living in liquid sodium. (6000 degrees C)? You will not find it on the net; an electrical engineer who worked in a nuclear power station told me about it.
    • DeFex, on 11/27/2007, -0/+7i know what, that could put all the power plants together on a grid! then if one fails the others coulkd take up the load.
      send me millions of dollars for my brilliant invention!. ...what do you mean it was invented the day after the power plant :(
    • cornerback42, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Last time I checked every power source we use in the US, has some sort of limitations or has one possible way of going out at any given time.
  • TheSkinsFactory, on 11/27/2007, -1/+4There may be hope for us yet. Great article.
  • i4mt3hwin, on 11/27/2007, -9/+1Nuclear Power > .
  • Pinkertinkle, on 11/27/2007, -2/+7God damn chinese and their green power.
    • xptoast, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1They got bamboo too. Rush hour anyone?
    • databoy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2God damn Yanks, their pollution and dirty power. Just don't bring your ideologies to Australia. We just kicked out of politics George W's deputy sheriff Little Johnny.
    • init100, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1If green power is so ugly, why don't you channel the smoke from your coal power plants into your living room?
  • soulpiercer7, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9with the power this thing will generate, it will pay itself back in an incredibly short amount of time and generate huge profits. We need some of these here in the states.
  • JoeKickass, on 11/27/2007, -4/+3I logged in just to say what I don't think anyone said yet.

    If this huge thing is held up by equally huge magnets, wouldn't the fields created be somewhat of a hazard to a passerby who gets sucked into it by his cellphone or belt buckle?

    I know they are extremely careful about MRI's because of this very reason and the turbine sounds like it is several orders of magnitude stronger than an MRI...
    • Pinkertinkle, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2They would prolly cordon it off so you can't take a stroll next to it.
    • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2No. Time to learn a little about magnetics.
    • databoy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+0No, Google is your best friend. Fero fluid is used in high end tweeters (loudspeakers) for cooling and voice coil efficiency. You are talking about a magnetic gap of 2mm or less.
    • xtc46, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1it says it requires 100 acres, im guessing they took the space needed for 2 to be next to each other into consideration in that number.
  • groonk, on 11/27/2007, -0/+9omfg The Future is here and it has sharpened fast spinning blades!
    • OhROFL, on 11/27/2007, -0/+6I think this turbine has SIX blades. Take that Gillette Fusion!
  • DeFex, on 11/27/2007, -5/+4this company is a scam.
  • DashingLeech, on 11/27/2007, -1/+6I do think this is really cool, but I'm looking at the math in the ad. So a single existing standard wind turbine requires 64 acres? Seems a bit large. That works out to about 5600 square feet of turbine space per household, using their 500,000 houses the 1000 turbines would feed. That's a lot more space than the houses take up on average, even in fairly low density single family neighbourhoods. Am I right then that powering a city using standard wind turbines takes up more space than the city itself does? Or is their (or my) math screwy? I'm not an urban planner so I've never done the math on this before. If so, it seems silly to be pushing wind power until they get something like this MAGLEV or similar technologies in place. Doubling our footprint on the landscape is hardly saving the environment.
    • torontoliam, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2I think you got the calculation right. Another related point is that their comparison with standard turbines in flawed. You can't can't the all of the land that a wind farm takes up when in reality, the land can be used for pasture land except for the small percentage that is taken up by the tower foundation and maintenance roads.
      • nastajus, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Huh?

        You can't can't the all. I got lost after that.
    • grumpyrain, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3> Doubling our footprint on the landscape is hardly saving the environment.
      Open cut coal mines are hardly small either. The wind turbines themselves don't actually take up that much space, but they are built with reasonable difference between them to minimise interference in wind patterns. 95+% of the land can still be used for existing agricultural activities. The lease on the land paid by the utility companies also provides a handy diversification income for the farmers.
  • quizzoid, on 11/27/2007, -7/+2IANAE (I Am Not An Engineer), but....

    1) In a conventional windmill, what percentage of the potential power is lost through friction of the blades against the base? IMHO, it is likely a very small percentage. Friction of air against the blades, yes. Blades against the base, not so much.

    2) I fail to see how eliminating friction between the blades and the base would have anything to do with the wear and tear and maintenance on the generator.

    3) It seems to me that it is necessary to adjust the pitch of the blades, even with this "revolutionary" design. That means that a very complex (and therefore heavy) blade assembly is going to have to be magnetically levitated.

    4) Don't we need magnets in the base AND in the rotating blade assembly for the levitation to work? That means lots more HEAVY magnets in the rotating blade assembly.

    5) Generate power my butt. This thing is going to consume energy just to suspend the blade assembly.

    MAG-LEV trains? Sure. Linear Induction Motors on roller-coasters? You bet. MAG-LEV windmills? Um, no. Not so much.
    • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3Vertical mount fans with ball-bearings and oil to lubricate them,
      vs
      Horizontal turbine floated in free air with magnetics.

      You're a moron if you fail to see how there is far less friction in this design, and how it reduces wear and tear maintenance costs. And once the damn magnets are made, that's it - no more energy required. The magnets are just there and working. Compared to pretty much every other type of power plant, this one looks like it would have the lowest maintenance costs by a long way.
    • databoy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+0You aint no electrical engineer, Google for professional construction on alternators. All they have done is to use conventional technologies and used a magnetic field instead of ball bearings. Get 2 cheap magnets and put north pole to north pole at 1mm gap. There is a considerable repulsive magnetic force. Now contain that magnet force where the ball bearings should be. Nothing complex. The cost of the MAGLEV will be recouped because the ball bearings will never have to be replaced.
    • SoundScape, on 11/27/2007, -3/+1Neither of the above comments have read quizzoid properly. He was talking about the wear and tear ON THE GENERATOR.
      And he said nothing of the magnets consuming power. He said the blade assembly would consume power, assuming (correctly) that the blades would need adjusting to suit changing conditions.

      RTFC.
      • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+11) In a conventional windmill, what percentage of the potential power is lost through friction of the blades against the base? IMHO, it is likely a very small percentage. Friction of air against the blades, yes. Blades against the base, not so much.

        I did - that is specifically talking about the bearings or maglev mechanism. KTHXBYE.
  • digginamish, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Someone with some math skills will have to help me with this, but I don't understand why they use the 1:1000 number when it should be 50% higher if the number of homes is 50% higher. Add to that the 1:640 ratio in space use and you should end up somewhere closer to 2500 x more efficient.
    The last question will be: If this never appears in real life is it because of conspiratorial sinking, or was it just a pipe dream in the first place?
  • H0tKarl, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Unless I missed something, it looks like the only thing unique about this is that it uses magnets instead of roller bearings. Since probably less than 1% of a wind turbines energy taken by the friction generated by the bearings, there isn't much room for improvement.
    • HappyScrappy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3Yeah, they're trying to make up the rest of the improvement in hype.
  • HappyScrappy, on 11/27/2007, -1/+2Fake as hell. They admit the devices they actually make are 1/1000th the size of this.
  • kaban, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0So.. $611 billion = power for 8.5 *billion* households? I find that hard to believe. Seems too easy. :(
  • databoy, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1There is nothing in the article to write home about. If you have never worked in the electrical industry, Google for the fundamentals of power generation, power distribution, ball bearings and magnets. Conventional technologies are at work. There is nothing in this project which has never been done before. Only the scale of the turbine is huge. Do you honestly think that electrical engineers are that stupid that they will build a large turbine without building a scale model first?
  • xtc46, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1They don't include the cost to transport the energy or store the energy. Those are significant as well. Great if the turbine lasts 500 years, but if there is a $1B battery pack that needs to be replaced monthly, there is an issue.
    • Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Probably because the cost to transport the energy is similar to any other power plant. Storage (I imagine) would be similar to solar - no new technology at work there. This is direct power generation though - no heating of water to turn a turbine - just turn the turbine.
      • ours, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Actually, you could build one of these closer to the energy consumption, therefore saving energy loss due to transport.
        • xtc46, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1you could, but you would have people screaming about NIMBY issues before you could even break ground. people want renewable energy as long as they dont have to see or hear it.
        • init100, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Sanely constructed power grids use a very high transport voltage, and thus do not lose too much energy even over fairly long distances. In Sweden, we have a north-south divide, as all our hydro power plants are in the north, while most consumers are in the south. Thus we have a long distance (~1000 km) power transport system to take the electricity from the hydro power plants to the consumers. And since they operate at 400 kV, the losses are not that large.
  • Barbarino, on 11/27/2007, -2/+5Come on dig, no 1.1 Jigawatt jokes?
    • itspuddingtime, on 11/27/2007, -1/+31.21
    • HappyScrappy, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3How do two people make the same mistake?

      cindylauper above beat you to it.
  • ptwob311, on 11/27/2007, -1/+0seems like a great idea, but they are HUGE. also, as populations grow where are we going to place enough of these things to actually power a large city? Or how would we integrate them into already heavily populated areas?
    • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1I'd imagine you'd do it in the exact same way you would a coal or nuclear plant. Both of which have larger footprints.
  • thetron, on 11/27/2007, -2/+1They copied this from Seaquest DSV. In an episode there was an structure that looked very similar
    • thirdstage, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0I don't recall the structure, but the name Maglev was used in seaQuest for the name of the elevator the crew would move around in.
  • jabberwolf, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Um anyone know the amount of energy it would take to levitate the huge mf-ing thing ?!?!?!?

    Nice idea, too bad its based on fiction.
    • aluminumpork, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2They're permanent magnets, once magnetized, no more power is required.
    • MWeather, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Not to mention they're already building one.
  • webXL, on 11/27/2007, -0/+5Fishy numbers in the article: 400 million yuan invested in the plant to produce 400-5,000 watt turbines, yet a large gigawat turbine would cost 53 million dollars.

    400 million Chinese yuan = 53.8872 million U.S. dollars

    http://www.google.com/search?q=400+million+yuan&ie ...

    Also, to go from 1000 watts to one gigawatt, you need increase output by a factor of 1 MILLION (Mr. Bigglesworth). Seems like they have a long way to go before they can claim success.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/prim ...
  • DigitalWorld, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Finally, a way to produce the 1.1 Gigawatts needed to power my Delorean, shy of plutonium and lightning.
    • MALONN, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2wtf...three people have now typed 1.1 and unless DigitalWorld did this intentionally, it seems Digg hates BTTF
    • Bulk70, on 11/27/2007, -0/+4Great scott :(
  • nroose, on 11/27/2007, -1/+3I think this is a hoax.

    I followed a couple of links and found a press release announcing that a Mr Blow was joining the company! Perhaps they think he can bring the breeze.
  • TonyTheTerrible, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1whoa
  • automan, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2They should paint the face of the mainframe from Tron on it in pieces, so when it turns, it makes the face.
  • guinnessstout, on 11/27/2007, -1/+1Old duplicate, buried.
  • jamdogg, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1"Psychic Spies from China Try'na steal your minds elations......" - RHCP
  • diggonaut, on 11/27/2007, -0/+0Ugly giant white monster in the center of a beautiful landscape. Yeah, nice as hell
  • es58, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I was just logging in to submit this article, and thought I'd check the list of top entries, and there it was. sounds real good
  • whyufail, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Ahem.
    1.21 GIGAWATTS!

    There! Finally! Somebody had to get it right!
  • nickymouse, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Let China built one, if it works. We can order 50 of them. Let them take the risk. I'm a eco-conservative, so I'm all for things that produce cheap power and help the environment.
  • skiddles, on 11/27/2007, -1/+0Actually the design is probably more eco friendly than the current prop design that we have west of Chicago even if they were not gigantic and levitated on magnets.
    You don't have to worry about wind direction.
    You don't have to have blades that are structurally as strong to support its own weight.
    You could probably build it so that it was not as serious a hazard to birds.
  • moletimer, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1I'm pretty sure oil tycoons aren't gonna like this. Screw em. If this thing goes ahead, hopefully there will be an end to oil wars. Emphasis on the *hopefully*
  • Spetz, on 11/27/2007, -0/+1Fact remains though, unstable renewables like this can currently only provide 20% of the power required in a Network. A larger percentage would destabilise the network, potentially causing blackouts/brownouts. We still need nuclear to supply the base load.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.