Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Living Inside A Giant Wind Turbine 246

Posted by Hemos from the new-and-interesting-ideas dept.
A reader writes: "New Scientist has an article about buildings that incorporate numerous wind turbines. These neat office blocks can generate much of the own energy and the design of the building actually makes them more power efficient that regular turbines."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Living Inside A Giant Wind Turbine More

Living Inside A Giant Wind Turbine

Comments Filter:

  • Ha ha (Score:3, Funny)

    by phoon12 ( 244785 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:21AM (#2298445)
    And you think that your job blows?

  • David (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Spikelalala ( 521517 )
    It seems it would only really be workable with really big buildings. In light of recent events how many people are going to be happy working in tall buildings?
    • The added efficiency of this design, over that of a typical wind power farm is derived primarily from the curvature of the buildings between which the fans are placed. How cost effective is ti to construct curved buildings? There are certain efficiencies gained with regard to interior area of such a structure, but those benefits are lost due to the rectangular block layout of the cities in which the building sould be constructed. Even with the greater efficiency of the turbines, would the Return of Investment of such a structure have an even remotely reasonable horison, given the added cost of the constructuin (not only of the turbines but if the curved structure)? It doesn't seem so.

      --CTH

      • Curved Struture costs are no high (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        These types of buildings are not uncommon in NYC, I know of abot a half dozen. Ever seen Superman 3?

        The construction costs are not particularly high, as the arch of the building (even inverted) allows greater flexibility and strength on the curved side.

    • Re:David (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tenman ( 247215 )
      We have already commitments with the leasing company that will be rebuilding the twin towers. We have very little doubt that they will be attacked like that again, and the next structures that they build will be able to handle a much stronger impact. so when you ask


      how many people are going to be happy working in tall buildings?


      i know of plenty... and it would be great if the energy bill was already taken care of... you know?

      • I don't think the strength of the towers was a problem. Engineers have stated that they believe the WTC handled the impacts very well. However, the fire supression system and the materials used to build the central core of the building could not handle a fire caused by the thousands of gallons of jet fuel. I think slashdot already had a link to the cryptome [cryptome.org] article about it.

    • Re:David (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Herschel Cohen ( 568 )
      If the twin towers were to appear tomorrow, I would gladly work there.

      I cannot say I was really attached to NYC, until Tuesday morning seeing the attack from a bus window approaching the city.

      I finally made it in Wednesday and would have been back on Thursday had I not had a previous appointment. Though I am not critical there is just no way I will not try to be in every day I can.

      On the other comment - the wind turbines may require a large building, but the heat retention in Manhattan might make the air cooling a positive factor with respect to summer air conditioning. The latter is very expensive in both energy consumption and charges. Moreover, sites are not locked into grids, since lower Manhattan is not set out in that manner.

  • No good (Score:5, Funny)

    by BillyGoatThree ( 324006 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:21AM (#2298450)
    It'll never take off.
    • "this shit will never fly"

      "the shit just shit the fan"

      • Re:brings new meaning to old cliches... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lizrd ( 69275 ) <adam.bump@us> on Friday September 14, 2001 @11:21AM (#2298784) Homepage
        Speaking of "the shit just hit the fan", what is thins going do to urban pidgeon populations? Them damned things make enough of a mess without being chopped into pieces and spread across the city by giant fan blades. Bird bisection is a well known problem in the case of rural turbine installations, but the carcasses are generally eaten by foxes and other small carnivores. In an urban setting the mess created could become a significant problem.

        When I was in college I had a job working as a custodian. Picking up discarded cigarette butts and soda cans outside of the building was bad enough work. I can't even imagine having the job of picking up bird bits from the sidewalk.

        • 1) Rats live large.

          2) Point to the dead pigeons and cry "And ye shall ask and ye shall receive!" and write how food surpluses for the homeless are at all time highs...

          3) I'm not worried about pigeon bits all over the ground, I'm worried about pigeon bits all over *me*. Imagine going out on a date (yeah, it's a stretch, at least in my case) and you're walking in the moonlight and *splllaaaaattttt*, you both get pigeoned. The good thing would be you could invite her over to your rat's nest to clean up...

        • Speaking of birds getting diced, does anyone know where I could find that video clip of dead chickens getting dropped into a jet turbine at 1000 frames per second? It's perhaps one of the creepiest but coolest things ever...
  • ...would anyone really want to live or work right next to a 30 meter diameter turbine? I wouldn't.
  • 'When The Sleeper Wakes' had a picture of these.

  • Cool! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by MatthewLovelace ( 465003 )
    As a side affect, you might get cheap air conditioning. No more worries about hot stuffy offices. Probably no more "sick building" problems either.

  • Noise? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ^Z ( 86325 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:25AM (#2298470) Homepage Journal
    AFAIK, wind turbines generate considerable low-frequency noise. Unless this problem is seriously addressed, such a building would be somehow uncomfortable.
    Though, wind flowing through a thight agglomeration of skyscrapers generates noise anyway %-)

  • Hot Air (Score:3, Funny)

    by tomknight ( 190939 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:25AM (#2298472) Journal
    Finally a use for all the hot air my PHB produces.....

  • What about high winds? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BillyGoatThree ( 324006 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:26AM (#2298479)
    What happens during tornado/hurricane/santa-ana-style winds? Sure, they can turn the props off (although won't they break?) but what about the shape of the building "focussing" the wind down near the ground?
    • The pitch of the props can be adjusted to have a minimum crossection, and can be made strong enough for any wind speed lower than that necessary to destroy the building.

      Buildings focus the wind anyway- it's a major concern in many buildings. Careful design near the ground will obviate the problem. Arguably this building may be less problematical in this regard- the building will be slowing the air rather than just diverting it around the outside.

    • Re:What about high winds? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      wind turbine systems have 2 modes of "off" as you speak.

      A breaking system that locks it in place or a gear system that rotates the blades to 90Deg angle to the wind causing them to not even want to rotate, then engage the breaking system. even the small residential systems have these. My regeerative windmill (uses 100V line voltage to excite the field) trop the blades to nuetral and engages a brake when house current drops to eliminate backfeeds and ensure safety.

  • The article mentioned cooling effects. Does this mean that we'll get giant snow generators in the winter?

    • Hum. Maybe that will finally keep my overclocked system from crashing...
      Me! Me! Can I put my ATX Tower open in front of it?
    • Better than snow generators -- the buildings will want to bend on windy days, since the cooling will be localized to the turbine side... Now there's a fun engineering problem!
    • Damn, you've foiled COBRA's plot for a new weather machine!

      GO JOE!
    • Don't know where they got this statement from:
      turbines have a dramtic colling effect on the structure.

      This is not true. The turbines would actuall warm the structure. The turbines could only cool the structure if they were self-propelled by some fuel, but the turbines actually slow do the wind. In fact for maximum thermo-dynamic power transfer, the wind flowing through would be losing at least 50% of its umph....

      The above statement leads be to believe that nobody is really taking this seriously.
      • I'm not an expert, but perhaps the cooling effect would be from the fact that the structure is shaped to draw in more wind (as opposed to traditional buildings, which some have commented are usually designed to *reduce* the amount of wind).

        Maybe the cooling effect of the extra wind between the structures would counter the heating effect of sucking the energy out of the wind?

        Stuart.

  • Renewable Energy - esp. Wind Turbines (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm a great fan.

  • Noise and Density (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ghoti ( 60903 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:28AM (#2298491) Homepage
    So they say the street noise would make the noise of the generators less of a problem. But they also want to build these into apartment buildings - where during the night at least, people will want things to be quiet. Do they turn them off in the night?

    I am also wondering about the output of these things. Since they can't be turned to face the wind, I guess you can only use them where you have a more or less steady wind in one main direction. I am not sure this is really useful in many places. And then, you need a lot of free space around such a building, otherwise you won't get a lot of wind into the propellers in the first place. So I'm not really sure if this is such a hot idea.
    • A lot of places have a prevailing wind direction. In Britain, where this research seem to originate, the prevailing winds are from the SW. According to the article, the shape of the buildings means that the turbines don't need to be turned to face the wind.

      I don't think that you need a lot of space around buildings. There are many city buildings that are badly designed, and as you walk around a corner, you can often almost get bowled over by a blast of wind. I've noticed in particular when I visit Toronto during winter that it often feels at least 10C cooler than outside the down town core, and I credit that to the winds blasting through the streets between the buildings - obviously there is plenty of wind.

  • what about energy from heat rising? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NeMon'ess ( 160583 ) <flinxmid AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:28AM (#2298492) Homepage Journal
    In nearly every multistory building today, ventilator systems have to keep the higher floors from getting too warm because heat rises. A system should be designed to take the warm air from all the floors and pass it through turbines before it exits the roof. I'm sure it would not be as efficient as what this article suggests, placing turbines into the exterior of the structure, but it would save some electricity costs.

    As far as this article is concerned, I don't see this design going into the replacement for the WTC. Buildings today are carefully designed to obstruct as little wind as possible. Having giant turbines between two buildings over an avenue would place massive forces on the buildings. It's hard enough designing skyscrapers, I doubt the designers are keen to add extra force to compensate for.

    • In nearly every multistory building today, ventilator systems have to keep the higher floors from getting too warm because heat rises. A system should be designed to take the warm air from all the floors and pass it through turbines before it exits the roof. ...... it would save some electricity costs.


      Placing a turbine in the flow of the hot air would just slow it down. In order to compensate for this you would have to apply even more power into the intake fans blowing cool air into the buildings. Because the motors and power systems aren't 100% efficient, the total efficiency goes down and you consume even more power.


      Willy

    • A system should be designed to take the warm air from all the floors and pass it through turbines before it exits the roof

      There is an article [discover.com] on Discover's website about a similar technology for gleaning energy from very limited heat sources, such as roof-top solar collectors or even waste heat. It uses Ammonia because of the lower boiling point.

      This scenario isn't specifically mentioned (actually, the article is about powering an air conditioning system with solar heat), but I can imagine that this would be a good application.

  • Sort of disgusting to mention... (Score:4, Funny)

    by weslocke ( 240386 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:30AM (#2298499)
    But what about one of the other problems with turbine generated power? Namely birds being killed by flying through the path of the turbines. Can you imagine sitting at a redlight beside one of these buildings and suddenly having the front half of a pigeon land on your windshield?

    • Hum... First of all, these are turbines/windmills, not fans. They do not run on electricity to provide wind, so that they turn rather slowly; and also, most birds can beat natural wind, so they won't be sucked in!
    • I walk by a phone company microwave tower nearly everyday, it's right next to the street, and there's always pigeon parts laying around (decaying wings, decapitated heads, claws, etc) - Don't know what causes it, probably not being radiated by microwave energy - maybe old birds are attracted to high places to kick off. Dunno.

      Ewwwww!

      • Well, you won't catch me spending a lot of time in front of a microwave transceiver.

        Microwave ovens are optimized to heat water, but other types of microwaves (used in communications) can still do that too. Plus, I don't know what effect such high power levels would have (besides heating) but there might be some.

        Good enough reason to be careful!

    • This is more of a problem than this post's humor highlights. I live in Portland Oregon and there are several nests of endangered peregrine falcons downtown. Environmentalists would claim that these turbines could potentially kill these few remaining nesting birds.

      Proposed wind-powered generator farms in the Columbia Gorge (a lot of wind, world class sailboarding) have been axed after fears of endangered birds getting whacked by the big blades.

      Nice idea, but it won't happen.

  • If not, I'm sure some Ex-US-President allready ordered :-)
    And I also would like one of them.
  • So how exactly could this idea be implemented on building built in areas with eartquakes? The design I saw on the article invites disaster: IANAEE, but I think the turbine in at least that design could be shaken enough to fall in a big earthquake, producing serious damage.
    • This comes from Britain: they don't earthquakes of any consequence. Renewable forms of energy are all only appropriate to certain parts of the world. For example, this might not be appropriate in California, but solar energy that is, isn't really appropriate in Britain ;)

  • Great idea, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gazbo ( 517111 )
    This is an excellent idea; office blocks have to be some of the most power hungry buildings there are, and this could really cut down on energy/natural resource usage, pollution etc.
    I would have to imagine that even once maintenance is taken care of, the energy savings this could make would quickly pay for the initial setup cost.

    My only concern is the noise - the article suggests that noise may be damped by insulation, however given that rural turbines are criticised for noise pollution, I suspect that the effect of sound insulation is still not going to be enough to make it a pleasant working environment. When the small fridge in the corner of our office starts whirring occasionally (solved by a swift kick) that tiny noise soon becomes irritating. Imagine even a supposedly acceptable but constant hum all day, every day. This could really have a bad effect on the nerves of workers inside the building.
    • In a rural setting, one expects quiet, in an urban setting one expects noise. Consequently put a turbine inthe country and people will complain about the noise, put one in the city, and they probably won't notice the noise.
    • In response to your noise comment, have you ever worked in an office... Say one with computers? It takes shutting them all off, or wearing noise cancellation headphones (which are cool as hell BTW) to realize how noisy it is around you. Even at home if you run your computers all the time, everything is making noise.

      I don't think it's the constant stuff (like computer fans) that's the big problem, but when it changes to something more irritating, or even different. We can get used to the fans.

      Multiply the noise by 100 like in a computer lab, and then even the small amount of noise each machine makes combines with the rest until you cannot even hear someone talk next to you...

      Plus I agree with the reply above... Rural areas are supposed to be quiet, while no one expects the city to be quiet.
    • unfortunatly you have tons of people in the office that are making just as much noise as the fridge/turbines. And the problem w/them is that you can't solve it w/a swift kick ;-)

      "yooooou have my stapler..." :)
  • What about doing a building like this to replace the WTC?

    It would make a statement for energy efficiency, reducing dependence on foreign energy, and reducing global warming.
  • maybe they could also supply wings so the building could fly away before the airplane hits in it.
    • Hey Tom,

      You know that was in bad taste -- I know you aren't serious because I looked at your webpage but a lot of the kids on slashdot have no idea and are pretty ignorant.

      I'm not calling you a troll, it was even mildly funny -- just in poor taste.

      -dave
  • *WHEN* we rebuild the World Trade Center, it would be a great idea to incorporate this technology.

    Imagine having these turbines up around the 150th floor of the new, curved, 21st century World Trade Center... just the prototype in the article.

    *That* would show our financial resiliancy, and usher in a newer, evolved skyline for Manhattan in the modern era. The towers were impressive before, but the pinnacle of 1969 architecture. This building could be a tribute to the people of New York, the people of America, the people of the world, AND to the Earth itself, being enviro-friendly enough to generate much of its own power!

  • Drowning out? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rkischuk ( 463111 )
    Traffic in cities would also drown out most of the noise, he suggests.

    Right. And I would suggest he's wrong. Traffic might still be the prevailing noise, but I sincerely doubt that the sound signals are such that the sum of the sounds will be the same as the traffic by itself. It may not be overtly noticable, but this would increase the baseline noise in the city.

  • Effect on Local Climate (Score:2, Insightful)

    by morbid ( 4258 )
    What I would like to know is, if we adopt wind turbines wholesale, what the effect will be on the local climate?
    A good wind turbine takes up to 45% of the kinetic energy out of the wind. In built up areas, just think, the lower winds would result in increased build-up of pollution from vehicles.
    What will it do to weather patterns if we significantly alter the flow of air around the place?
    The presence of wind generators near vehicles will result in the vehicles having to expend more energy to displace the air around them since the wind turbines will be causing extra resistance. Since no system is 100% efficient, more energy will have to be expended by the vehicles than is reclaimed from the turbines.
    What will happen to passers-by if one sheds a blade?
    Will any country ever build buildings that large again in light of recent events in the USA?

    This isn't a troll or flame. I would just like some answers...
    • "A good wind turbine takes up to 45% of the kinetic energy out of the wind. In built up areas, just think, the lower winds would result in increased build-up of pollution from vehicles. "

      I think that the good wind turbine would take 45% of the wind that hits it. The wind hitting the turbine would only be a small percentage of the total wind in the area, so I dont think it would make an appreciable difference. There would still be plenty of wind going around the turbines, over them, under them, etc. I'm not sure about this though, I could be wrong.

      "Will any country ever build buildings that large again in light of recent events in the USA? "

      I think this is an irrational fear. As horrible as tuesday's events were, it didnt have anything to do with the height of the building itself. I dont think it will stop anyone from building huge buildings, or at least, it shouldnt stop anyone.

      -J5K

    • Well buildings will already cause these effects, except with the kinetic energy transformed into unharnessed heat and sound.

      As the article said urban areas only have ~ 2/3 of rural winds, due to exactly this effect.

      You have a reasonable point about large buildings, especially given recent advances in communications. However it is likely that a number of large building will continue to be built, at least in the medium term.
  • The article mentions trouble with the noise...now, in rural areas it may not be a concern so it might not be addressed by current technology.
    I know that there are headsets that regulate noise by creating a 180 degree out-of-phase wave that sums with the incoming sounds to produce silence...could some sort of similar technology be employed to at least dampen the high frequency emissions?
  • What about the constant flow of pigeon bits flying out of the thing?

  • A new paradigm (Score:5, Funny)

    by brain damage ( 222855 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:37AM (#2298542)
    Wind turbines in rural areas are often criticised for detracting from the landscape and for generating noise pollution. Stankovic says noise insulation around the turbines could dampen sound. Traffic in cities would also drown out most of the noise, he suggests.

    Engineer 1: Wind power is such a good resource, I wish there was some way for us to tap into it.

    Enginner 2: Yeah, but they are loud and ugly and they piss people off. Where can we put them?

    Engineer 1: Hmmm, good point. Wait, how about in the middle of a city? They are already ugly and loud, nobody would ever know the difference.

    Engineer 2: That's a great idea. We could even incorporate them into the buildings themselves. We'll call it a new paradigm. I've always wanted to use that word.

    • Or... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @11:26AM (#2298818)
      Government official: Damn, we're paying too much for all this social housing. How can we make more money off of poor people?

      Engineer: I know, make them live in power stations.

      • Social security official: If only we could reduce the number of recipients, the system might just work.

        Engineer: How about putting rotating blades right into the buildings where they live and work?

  • Problems (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Kallahar ( 227430 )
    Several problems with this idea:
    1) Take the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, they have a skybridge between them that has to be flexible since the towers move independently. The wind turbines would have to do the same on their buildings.

    2) Traffic would not "drown out" the noise. The sound of the turbines would simply add to the overall noise of the city. Especially inside the buildings.

    I still think its a great idea to use various means of generating electricity rather than relying on a few huge sources though!

    • Wind turbine noise - myth dispelled (Score:4, Informative)

      by Black Perl ( 12686 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @11:19AM (#2298768)
      Traffic would not "drown out" the noise. The sound of the turbines would simply add to the overall noise of the city. Especially inside the buildings.

      Why do people think these are going to be loud? Perhaps because people are used to hearing the word "turbines" in the context of jet engines? These are not jet engines. They're not even electric fans. No roar, no hum, not even the whoosh of air. Perhaps an occasional squeak due to bearings that need to be oiled. That's about it.

      • You have been to a wind generation farm up close, have you?

        These things do make nose--white noise--like really big electric fans. As with an electric fan, the noise isn't so much from the motor (unless it is in bad shape) but from the distrbance of air around the blades.

  • New World Trade Center...... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .nokrog.> on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:38AM (#2298545)
    I believe this would be a great design for a New World Trade Center. It's beautiful, energy efficient and large. Definitely almost looks like the WTC (twin tower type design....). It would also prevent power outages from taking out your whole building. It would be a great way to get people and companies to put offices in these buildings.....advertised free or discounted electricity.

    I do not fear working in a tall skyscraper because working in a tall building is not what killed these people. I believe it would be impossible to build something that can take the force of these type of blasts. If you do fear working in these type of buildings, well then the terrorists have already won. They want you to be afraid of them and you need to be strong and show them you are not afraid of them.
    • my opinion is to leave the area of the WTC (more or less) free space with a wall with all names of those who died, maybe above that on a second level a second wall for the brave fireworkers and policemen.
      • That was my original thought, but, I have to agree with the people posting here. Build a New World Trade Center... what could better show that we will *NOT* accept this kind of behavior, that we are strong in every sense of the word, and we will live on, no matter what.

        But a memorial in the lobby would definitely be a good thing.

    • Maybe it doesn't reflect a terrorist victory if we use prudence. I think a typical engineering attitude is: build/use it without considering how hard it is to clean up.

      And this ranges from everything from DDT to asbestos to nuclear power (I'm pro-fission) and now, tragically, gigantic archiecture.

      I think engineers need to consider not only how to MAKE something, but how to DISPOSE of it when it is either a) obsolete, or b) accidentally destroyed.

      Given this, is it prudent to make such large and frail structures? Maybe the next world trade center should be a several dozen smaller buildings in the midwest?

      ...or underground: 1000 years from now all investment bankers all look like Morlok or CHUD (or molepeople, a la hans moleman :).

  • Dead on arrival (Score:3, Funny)

    by rkischuk ( 463111 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:39AM (#2298552)
    You know this proposal's gone the moment GreenPeace realizes what happens to pigeons when they get near this thing...

  • Another idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kallahar ( 227430 ) <kallahar@quickwired.com> on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:41AM (#2298565) Homepage
    We all know that buildings sway a lot (several feet at the top). We also all know that electricity can be generated by piezoelectric strips that bend. Has anyone tried running a long piezoelectric strip up a building?

    I know they were able to generate electricity from the rising and falling of waves by using piezoelectrics, maybe the same idea would work here.

    Travis

  • Efficiency of 1 large fan vs many small fans (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hexx ( 108181 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:42AM (#2298568)
    It seems to me that 1 large fan could have a catastrophic failure - while thousands of small fans in the same space would greatly limit that possibility.


    Furethermore I believe multiple small fans would be more efficient. Now, IANAAE (I am not an aeronautical engineer) but the total airflow through a large fan's housing is much greater than the amount of airflow that actually pushes the fan (obvious). Many small fans could fill that area more completely and harvest more of the total airflow.


    Any thoughts?

    • Re:Efficiency of 1 large fan vs many small fans (Score:5, Informative)

      by DJerman ( 12424 ) <djerman@pobox.com> on Friday September 14, 2001 @11:01AM (#2298671)
      Multiple fans mean multiple inspections & failures. An array of 100 3-meter fans would probably cause more problems than one well-maintained 30 meter fan, and cost more than a nuclear pile in the basement :-).

      w/r/t the spillage problem, you could do this more simply with one large multivaned turbine.

      The problem is that a design that maximizes use of the airflow means more minimum drag (when the fans are feathered to spill air). If you're too efficient you make a sail that drags your building s over.

      • Multiple fans mean multiple inspections & failures. An array of 100 3-meter fans would probably cause more problems than one well-maintained 30 meter fan, and cost more than a nuclear pile in the basement :-).

        This is not necessarily a problem. Look at lightbulbs. Many small bulbs is better than one large one - until a certain number fail there is no need to replace any.

        Furthermore, some fans (like better the cooling fans in my cases) spin for years on end without failure - and are cheap!


        w/r/t the spillage problem, you could do this more simply with one large multivaned turbine.

        Yes, but this increases the mass of the fan and makes a catastrophic failure even moreso... Imagine a 2 ton 100RPM fan breaking out of it's enclosure in downtown Chicago.

        • This is not necessarily a problem. Look at lightbulbs. Many small bulbs is better than one large one - until a certain number fail there is no need to replace any.


          On the other hand, one large bulb is better than many small ones - One 100W bulb is typically brighter than two 50W bulbs.

      • Can the total drag of such a system exceed the total drag a simple unadorned building experiences? (My intuition says no, but I'd be very interested to hear I was wrong...)
    • But! Could many small fans really fill that area more completely though? Sure, if all you had to worry about was the fans themselves, but you're going to need support structure and connections to generators, etc. I would estimate that you'll get more coverage with one big rotor than a bunch of little ones once you take into account all the stuff that needs to go along with the rotors. Also, don't you gain efficiency when you can use one electrical generator instead of many?

    • As far as the efficiency of several small fans vs. one large fan, there are several factors that would come into play. However, there are a couple key factors that I see:


      1. Fluid Losses - these are the same as pressure loss in a pipe or through an orifice, like a showerhead. Losses occur mainly near the boundary of the channel (i.e. the rim of the pipe / vent), and several small fans would have far more rim area than one single large fan. This would reduce the total air flow passing throught the generator, as well as the energy obtained (losses = friction = heat transferred to the vents, rather than kinetic energy transferred to the vanes of the turbines).


      2. Mechanical friction in several small fans vs. a single large fan. I would suspect that it would be easier and more effective to maintain good running order of a large-scale lubrication system for a single fan than for several small fans. Over time, and a large number of fans, the losses from friction would rob energy and the cost of maintenance could be prohibitive.


      Now, this is really only hand-waving - it's been about 5 years since I took fluid mechanics, and about the same since various other physics, but these strike me as significant when looking at large-scale power generation.


      Ed Barsalou


      Disclaimer: I've forgotten most of my real engineering education.

    • Furethermore I believe multiple small fans would be more efficient. Now, IANAAE (I am not an aeronautical engineer) but the total airflow through a large fan's housing is much greater than the amount of airflow that actually pushes the fan (obvious)

      Nope.

      It's not just the air that touches the blade that pushes it. It's also the air behind that air, pushing that air, for a considerable distance. (Like back to the point where the next blade will catch it when its turn comes around.)

      Fluid dynamics is non-obvious.
  • I'd love to have a building like that in TX. The uncertain "cooling effect" could save millions over the life of the structure in air conditioning costs, which is arguably more than 75% of electrical costs in TX during the summer months, and our summer is about 7 months long.

    I'd like to see a triangular design, because rather than just one bank of turbines, you could have 3, by only adding one more building. Of course, only two faces could run at a time without creating a stalemate pressure system in the center, but even that should be more than just one face produces, and would get the benefits of turbines that spin to face the wind direction.

    • Again, no cooling effect. These are adding wind, they are sucking it up and converting it too electricity. Remember the 1st law, conservation of energy.

      Dreaming that these things would have a cooling effect is like believing the following:

      If you're on a sailboat and blow into the sales, you theoretically move the boat a little bit.

      • Bad analogy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @12:07PM (#2299086)
        Really, conservation of energy supports the idea of the turbine cooling the building. Or at least the air passing thru the turbine. The turbine is outputting energy in the form of electricity. Where did that energy come from? Primarily the kinetic energy of the wind. Since heat is pretty much a specialized type of kinetic energy, it's not hard to imagine that the turbine would extract some amount of heat from the air.

        I'm not an expert in the field, and I can imagine the opposite happening too. The turbine would take kinetic energy out of the air and convert it to both heat in the air and energy in the turbine. But neither case would violate the conservation of energy.
    • Well, a circle of n buildings would have n turbines, all in slightly different directions so that there would always be several turbines aimed pretty well into the wind.

      The engineers say 1 turbine (column between buildings) can cater for 20% (overall) of those two buildings energy. With a ring of buildings, you can generate 40% (overall) of the energy required.

      The picture depicted what looked like a 60 storey building, which ain't bad for the UK, where the tallest building is only about 800ft. A circle of 8 of them (The Octagon), with fatter buildings than those depicted in the pictures could hold nearly 50,000 workers, possibly more.

      50,000 workers, each of whom uses up 1kW/h, means that the 8 turbine columns could generate 10 - 20MW/h.

  • I visited a large wind turbine in Norfolk in the UK. The local paper had a story on the front page about the sun's reflection on the blades causing one of the locals to have epileptic fits.

    Seems all technological advances have their drawbacks if you look hard enough!!

  • Not only for high buildings. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Saggi ( 462624 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @10:58AM (#2298653) Homepage
    This is really interesting - this is the sort of research that makes me happy to hear about. A lot points out the killing of birds, noise etc. but in reality most of these issues are already being addressed in research. Here in Denmark we have some of the largest windmill parks in the world. One just outside the capital Copenhagen is generating 3% of all the energy used by the city.

    But this could be used on low ground as well. I'm doing some parachuting and when landing you always have to stay clear of buildings. A large hangar could easily produce turbulence up to 300 yards away. If this was a set of urban buildings 4-5 stores high, placed in the correct direction, you could actually place the wind turbine in the end, or in a tunnel connected to the end of the building, to move the turbine it-self away to minimize noise. Great potentials...

    Birds... well use a grid or net of some sort.

    In time (20-100 years from now) we need to be using 100% pure energy, like wind and sun, fission (when it comes) etc... This is not something we can choose not to! We are running out of fossil fuels, and it will be in our lifetime. (At least I plan to live for some years to come).

    Copenhagen/Middelgrunden:
    http://www.windpower. dk/news/webcam.htm
  • they can reverse power flow and use them as big fans to keep city dwellers cool.
  • Using the new Wind Panel design the new Word Trade Center welcomes the US into the next generation of self sustaning cities.

    Never before has an office complex given power back to their host city. Now thanks to the rapid removal of the old structures energy efficient structures are taking their place.

    Truly, this is a NEW New York.
  • This design depends on having two towers, which must increase cost, I'd expect. What if a single tower had a couple of "floors" at the top to house some horizontally mounted turbines (of a diameter almost equal to the width of the building)? You might also be able to (partially?) shield them from view.

  • Cost of curves? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Friday September 14, 2001 @11:33AM (#2298859)
    What was that bull about it possibly being more difficult to have such a structure built due to the cost of having to have precise curve? I see strangely shaped building all over the place that are that way for nothing more than aesthetics (sp?). Straight, curved, pyramid or just plain weird, would you want to work in a building that was not laid out precisely? Aren't the tallest buildings in the world (in Singapore?) round, and don't they have a crosswalk that vaguely resembles the cross-struts in the articles concept picture?

    Not only do I see this as an excellent idea, but if I owned the Sears Towers in Chicago I would investigate the possibility of such an addition (to provide crosswalks AND power).

  • Interesting thought here from a non-engineer:
    If the buildings experience side effects of unintentional cooling, perhaps this design is, thus, best suited for a warmer environment.

    This makes me wonder therefore if there are a variety of possible energy-saving building designs - that are best suited for different environments. What can work best in a given environment to use renewable energy resources? Is there research going on in this area?

  • A few problems. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sunking2 ( 521698 )
    We used to build giant wind turbines (read big windmills) for electricity until we sold off that business in the late 80s, I believe to a Swedish company. There was a case where we had a very large turbine(believe it was one of the largest in the world at the time) set up in the midwest. One day, an old ladies house just all of a sudden collapsed. This house was on a hill something like 5 miles away, and it was strucurally fine. As it turned out, the natural sound waves that were produces by the slow spinning blades happened to be just the right frequency to cause the house to collapse. Who would have thunk? Obviously, no one.

    The moral of the story is nothing is free and totally clean. Everything has a side effect. It wouldn't be such a good thing to place one of these in a city and then 6 months later have a dozen buildings 5 miles away go toppling down. The idea is great, but that doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close