Colossal Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine Proposed

Less than one cent per kilowatt hour!

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/colossal_magnet.php

Colossal Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine Proposed
by Justin Thomas, Virginia on 07.27.07



It's a vision of a magnetically levitated wind turbine that can generate one gigawatt of energy (enough to power 750,000 homes). This is the device proposed by a new Arizona-based company, MagLev Wind Turbine Technologies. The company claims that it can deliver clean power for less than cent per kilowatt hour using this wind turbine.



Magnetic levitation is a very efficient method of capturing wind energy. The blades of the turbine are suspended on a cushion of air, and the energy is directed to linear generators with minimal fiction losses. But the big advantage with maglev is that it reduces maintenance costs, and increases the lifespan of the generator.

The company also points out that building a single huge turbine like this reduces construction and maintenance costs, and it requires less land space than hundreds of conventional turbines. The company is headed by Ed Mazur, a researcher of variable renewable energy sources since 1981 and inventor of the magnetic levitation wind turbine.

China already has Maglev wind turbines in operation, see: The World's First "Magnetic Levitation" Wind Turbines Unveiled in China.

This article by WorldChanging goes into the technical details of using maglev in wind turbines.

Web site: MagLev Wind Turbine Technologies

the wind does not always blow here. So, (as usual) I wonder what those 750,000 homes will be using to power themselves on windless days.

Ever hear of batteries or their equivalent?

Lead acid batteries only store about a kilowatt-hour each. You'd need 30 or more of them to supply power for just one average home for one day. Plus, when you account for the electricity needed to charge those batteries when it is supplied from the grid, the figure of 750,000 homes drops to maybe 1/3rd of that in the most optimistic scenario. Not to mention the added cost of call it 32 batteries at $44 each, plus inverter, times even just 250,000 homes: $400 million dollars APART from the cost of the turbine.

Anyway, I'm more interested in how much investment this company claims would be required to build these things. It's easy to put together a pitch that sounds good, less so to do one that actually works.

The Tesla already comes equipped with V2G capability from AC Propulsion. Pacific Gas and Electric has demonstrated the concept with a plug-in hybrid Prius. Gaining the acceptance of auto manufacturers and grid operators should not prove too difficult since both stand to gain:

Vehicle to Grid

Putting More Wind on the Wire with V2G

V2G is handy for a little top-off on peak demand--NOT for supplying an entire area with power when the wind isn't blowing.

this is the killer app that is rapidly emerging, and will transform
the alternative energy paradigm.

Great discussion of this from Amory Lovins, here-
listen to the transportation lecture:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php

Or evaluating the environmental impact of manufacturing a terawatt-hour scale battery bank? Or the costs of maintaining one? Or the cost of recycling spent batteries every few years?

but is the electricity that is created in a regular power plant used immediately or is some of it stored?
If stored, then the same thing could be done with a turbine.

Plus, your initial question assumes that the turbine is the only source of electricity and that when it is down, other sources would not pick up the slack.
That's what a grid is for, isn't it?

Regarding redundant generation, I guess the question is: what "other sources" are you thinking of?

To explain where I'm coming from: I believe that all fossil-based energy needs to be eliminated, in order to save as much of our biosphere as possible over the next century (And I'm not real sure how much can be saved).

Unfortunately, this really needs to start happening on a large scale now, and as cheaply as possible. I happen to be one of the "pro-nuclear" cohort on this forum, who think that the logistics, physics, economics, etc, of the situation we're in pretty much dictate that nuclear power is the best tool we have to displace fossil-based energy sources, in the time we have available.

On the other hand, I'm also one of the "doomers," and so I'm not exactly sure we have any time available.

Regarding "battery-like" mass energy storage for grids, the most likely (or least unlikely, depending on your view) might be Vanadium redox fuel cell chemistry. It appears to be relatively cheap per terawatt-hour of storage. At least, it looks economically conceivable on paper. The main issue I see with it is that you really have two requirements: you need to store lots of energy, but you also need to be able to release that energy very quickly: at high wattage. The release-rate is governed by how many ion-exchange membranes you have, and those are not so cheap. They're also the parts that wear out, requiring regular replacement. So, it's not clear to me that these things can scale to the required wattage, economically.

I also wonder about the environmental issues surrounding billions of gallons of vanadium salts. Although, I've been told it's relatively benign stuff, as such things go.

To explain where I'm coming from: I believe that all fossil-based energy needs to be eliminated, in order to save as much of our biosphere as possible over the next century (And I'm not real sure how much can be saved).

I'm more of a doomer as well, based on what I learned about ecology in college and grad school. Although I am of the mind that nuclear is the only scalable option available now to try and save as much of the biosphere as possible while we work on other potential options, the biosphere horse is ALREADY out of the barn and we're stuck arguing not over who SHOULD HAVE closed the door, but how we ARE GOING to close the door. My experience with Federal agencies has me thinking we'll keep even that moving along at the traditional glacial pace unless we get decisive intervention from Congress, which isn't going to happen either. I kinda figure biodiversity and unique habitat types that currently exist are richer, perhaps much so, than will be left when I'm an old man.

with wind power.

In the Northwest and Northeast, hydro-power (stored behind dams) can also be used to balance grid loads from large scale wind farms.

No real need for large battery systems...

to distribute power generation and use. The advantage of a grid allows large power generation to be distributed as demand dictates as a function of source and load. It may not be windy in your area but it may be windy in other areas... and although not particularly efficient, surplus energy could be used to pump water into dammed reservoirs or to spin massive maglev flywheels, or some other industrial scale chemical energy storage medium. But by far, the most efficient means of utilizing energy generation is distributing it to the intended load on a preexisting interstate based power grid.

by batteries or their equivalent.
Guess others didn't quite get it.
Thanks for the information.

Somewhere in the US, the wind is ALWAYS blowing. The fallacy of this argument applied to alternative power is that it should be a single solution. The fact is that no EXISTING power source is a single solution.

Wind Power can work in concert with hydro-electric. And when these aren't working well, the nuclear reactors and coal plants can ramp up their production. The idea is to try to minimize the use of coal and nuclear.

When solar and wind are overproducing, the ideal solution is to turn down the coal and nuclear. But it is feasible to do hydro storage at remote sites via the grid.

throughout the day, as the turbine spins it winds a rubber band, when the wind stops it unwinds, turning the turbine again to continue power generation.

I'm kidding of course.

This forum needs a little levity.

I will try and find out where it is and go see it next time I am back there.

Peace. Will. Prevail.

Edward Mazur (1946-) - Polish businessman, connected in 2005 by Polish persecutors with the 1998 murder of Polish chief of police, Marek Papała. One of the 25 richest Poles in 2003, he has a dual Polish-American citizenship. Apprehended in USA in 2006; on 20 July 2007 he was found innocent by American courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mazur

proclaiming a private citizen a "murderer" when he has been found not guilty at trial (NOT "innocent, BTW"). Libel is not nice.

How many of these are going to be built in the next five years?

The next twenty?

An exajoule's worth?

Why don't we all just keep burning fossil fuels while we wait to see if it will really work?

Here is the picture of another cool levitation device, dating from 1968:



These pictures are so predictive.

http://www.magturbine.com/

Not sure if all this is true but, here's what the website says:

The Competitive Advantages of the MAGLEV WIND TURBINE


1) Uses all wind energy
2) Cost 50-75% less to build
3) Requires less time to build
4) Standardized engineering to ease construction and duplication
5) Generate more electricity for less
6) Rated at 1gW per unit*
7) Require less maintenance
8) Command substantial premium at resale
9) Major components at ground level
10) Permanent crane
11) Helicopter pad
12) Permanent Weather station
13) Longer life span (500 years structure, 100 years LSM/LSG, 50 years turbine blades
14) No decommissioning
15) Operates in low and high speed wind
16) operates in wind speeds exceeding 40m/sec. (80mph)
17) One year (ROI)
18) Greater profit potential
19) 100% year over year growth for 10 years possible
20) 500% margins possible for 5 years
21) Require considerably less land
22) Will not harm animal life
23) Reduce green house gasses
24) Reduce the use of fossil fuels and pollution
25) Reduce cancer causing carcinogens
by 50% in 10 years
26) No toxic spills
27) Create energy independence
28) Create enterprise zones
29) Create new jobs
30 ) Create new tax base
31) Establish science and learning centers
at sites
32) Conserve natural resources
33) Insure national security

accd to the website:

"Since the Maglev wind turbine blades capture all the wind, it is possible to generate electricity for less than one cent per kilowatt hour."

Too good to be true?

I mean, <1Cent per kilowatt hour is insane.

Yes, too good to be true. Don't go by the manufacturer's stats, particularly when they're trying to drum up investors.

Our Five Year Mission

At the end of the fourth year, a template for the standardization in construction will allow a IGW Maglev Power Plant to be commissioned monthly.

Strategic Vision

Maglev Wind Turbines will generate 25% of the U.S. and world’s power needs by 2020.

mind blowing if true.

honey, fire up the tesla roadster!