BF2S Forums Solar wind bridge - concept (Solar & Wind)

m3thod wrote:

well consider bridges that cross valleys, the funnelling on the land will force the wind to travel down the valley so direction is no longer a problem and secondly the funneling effect will accelerate wind speed and thus maximising turbine efficiency (\o/ GCSE geog)

We need a geography nerd to explain this in more detail i.e. ted4mods.

You've only gotta drive across one (for those in the UK, know of the one crossing lake Hollingworth on the m62) the cross wind is very apparent as the wind is forced downwards through the valley and if this engineering and mafs is correct a lot of free energy is going to waste.

a good idea in some cases

Only if the wind blows in exactly the right direction. Otherwise it will be turbulent, useless and well above the bridge.
Load factor of turbines is bad enough, restricting them to a few degrees out of 360 would be total fail.

Dilbert_X wrote:

m3thod wrote:

well consider bridges that cross valleys, the funnelling on the land will force the wind to travel down the valley so direction is no longer a problem and secondly the funneling effect will accelerate wind speed and thus maximising turbine efficiency (\o/ GCSE geog)

We need a geography nerd to explain this in more detail i.e. ted4mods.

You've only gotta drive across one (for those in the UK, know of the one crossing lake Hollingworth on the m62) the cross wind is very apparent as the wind is forced downwards through the valley and if this engineering and mafs is correct a lot of free energy is going to waste.

a good idea in some cases

Only if the wind blows in exactly the right direction. Otherwise it will be turbulent, useless and well above the bridge.
Load factor of turbines is bad enough, restricting them to a few degrees out of 360 would be total fail.

Also, to capture energy, surely some of that force has to be directed in the direction of the wind, like if the area the blades cover was solid, but less so. Meaning some crazy sidewaysey bendy forces on the bridge.
But I'm sure it can be resolved, it's not like they have to fill the fucking bridge up, a few on every bridge built form now on, would make a pretty big difference.

liquidat0r wrote:

Ah, so not actual solar wind.

If you build that bridge to the moon...

FloppY_ wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

liquidat0r wrote:

Ah, so not actual solar wind.

If you build that bridge to the moon...

But.... what about rotation of the earth and movement of the moon?

Move the moon into a geosynchronous orbit first.

On a serious note though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
With a large enough asteroid, you could plant a lot of wind generators and solar panels along its length.
And outside the atmosphere even sails to catch the solar wind, much to liquidator's joy!

globefish23 wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

If you build that bridge to the moon...

But.... what about rotation of the earth and movement of the moon?

Move the moon into a geosynchronous orbit first.

On a serious note though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
With a large enough asteroid, you could plant a lot of wind generators and solar panels along its length.
And outside the atmosphere even sails to catch the solar wind, much to liquidator's joy!

inb4 "unforseen consequences"
(e.g. earth getting slightly pulled in it's orbit around the sun)

PrivateVendetta wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

m3thod wrote:

well consider bridges that cross valleys, the funnelling on the land will force the wind to travel down the valley so direction is no longer a problem and secondly the funneling effect will accelerate wind speed and thus maximising turbine efficiency (\o/ GCSE geog)

We need a geography nerd to explain this in more detail i.e. ted4mods.

You've only gotta drive across one (for those in the UK, know of the one crossing lake Hollingworth on the m62) the cross wind is very apparent as the wind is forced downwards through the valley and if this engineering and mafs is correct a lot of free energy is going to waste.

a good idea in some cases

Only if the wind blows in exactly the right direction. Otherwise it will be turbulent, useless and well above the bridge.
Load factor of turbines is bad enough, restricting them to a few degrees out of 360 would be total fail.

Also, to capture energy, surely some of that force has to be directed in the direction of the wind, like if the area the blades cover was solid, but less so. Meaning some crazy sidewaysey bendy forces on the bridge.
But I'm sure it can be resolved, it's not like they have to fill the fucking bridge up, a few on every bridge built form now on, would make a pretty big difference.

exactly my point with helical turbines, those can capture wind blowing in any direction and are a lot less "solid" per say. also "they do not create as much stress on the support structure."

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

pics:



also in france quebec

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2011-02-08 06:24:13)

Trotskygrad wrote:

PrivateVendetta wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Only if the wind blows in exactly the right direction. Otherwise it will be turbulent, useless and well above the bridge.
Load factor of turbines is bad enough, restricting them to a few degrees out of 360 would be total fail.

Also, to capture energy, surely some of that force has to be directed in the direction of the wind, like if the area the blades cover was solid, but less so. Meaning some crazy sidewaysey bendy forces on the bridge.
But I'm sure it can be resolved, it's not like they have to fill the fucking bridge up, a few on every bridge built form now on, would make a pretty big difference.

exactly my point with helical turbines, those can capture wind blowing in any direction and are a lot less "solid" per say. also "they do not create as much stress on the support structure."

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

pics:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … urbine.JPG

also in france quebec

Airborne = superior!

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

Trotskygrad wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

exactly my point with helical turbines, those can capture wind blowing in any direction and are a lot less "solid" per say. also "they do not create as much stress on the support structure."

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

pics:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … urbine.JPG

also in france quebec

Airborne = superior!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_wind_turbine
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/2907 … genera.png

but you can't put those under a bridge m8

Those helix turbines would be quite pointless under a bridge tbh... better to just put them on flat land no?

Trotskygrad wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

but you can't put those under a bridge m8

Those helix turbines would be quite pointless under a bridge tbh... better to just put them on flat land no?

not really, they address all the problems with HAWTs (Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbine, perv), such as load on support structure and efficiency at non-direct angles

Oh now I get it... the top could be mounted to the underside of the bridge cutting the need for a centre column

Dilbert_X wrote:

m3thod wrote:

well consider bridges that cross valleys, the funnelling on the land will force the wind to travel down the valley so direction is no longer a problem and secondly the funneling effect will accelerate wind speed and thus maximising turbine efficiency (\o/ GCSE geog)

We need a geography nerd to explain this in more detail i.e. ted4mods.

You've only gotta drive across one (for those in the UK, know of the one crossing lake Hollingworth on the m62) the cross wind is very apparent as the wind is forced downwards through the valley and if this engineering and mafs is correct a lot of free energy is going to waste.

a good idea in some cases

Only if the wind blows in exactly the right direction. Otherwise it will be turbulent, useless and well above the bridge.
Load factor of turbines is bad enough, restricting them to a few degrees out of 360 would be total fail.

Yep. Unless the turbines are getting hit precisely on the nose much of the energy is wasted with inefficient buffeting. A few degrees off and you lose up to 70% of the potential energy.

This is one of those 'feel good' projects that is pointless.

FatherTed wrote:

It would be best suited to coastal valleys i think, inland the wind direction is harder to predict. Nice bit of thinking though.

Inland works too, if placed in valleys/plains where the wind always comes down the mountains from the same direction.
Or place them on the mountains themselves, where especially on the ridges the winds always move the same direction.

This is at 1902m above sea level in the middle of the European Alps (I lived there, down in the valley a few years ago):

They have heated rotor blades to prevent ice on them and automatically shut down when wind speeds are too high.

Pug wrote:

About a year ago, my town put up big wind turbines and the environmentalists freaked about bird kills.  I imagine putting the blades up where birds like to roost isn't going to be very popular with them.

I've just read an article where a German biologist and environmentalist says that only 1-2 collisions of birds with wind turbines occur each year in Germany, as opposed to millions which die in road traffic.
Also, most birds are not frightened by the moving shadows, some keep a distance of several hundred meters and only few species of birds and bats are endangered, if the location isn't carefully selected (e.g. in or near wood, next to bodies of water).
http://www.wind-energie.de/fileadmin/do … _Flyer.pdf

RDMC wrote:

UnkleRukus wrote:

Solid idea, why hasn't this been used yet.

Because windmills and windfarms actually cost more for the energy they create than conventional methods, and actually harm the planet more to make than they actually save in their short lifespan?