Follow this blog:
RSS

In the lab, pursuing a more intelligent wind turbine

By | November 23, 2010, 8:01 AM PST

University researchers are working hard to improve the design of the wind turbine.

In 2008 and for the first time, new wind turbine power generation capacity topped new coal-fired capacity in the U.S. The growth of the nascent wind power market only promises to drive down costs in the future, but engineers say the design of the wind turbine itself could use an upgrade.

One problem is that the turbine is designed to work best under one wind condition: steady. Mother Nature, of course, rarely lets that happen.

So researchers at Syracuse University are testing intelligent systems-based active flow control methods to allow large turbines to better handle naturally-occurring gusts, turbulence, wakes and shear.

With support from the U.S. Department of Energy and the University of Minnesota Wind Energy Consortium, researchers Guannan Wang, Basman El Hadidi, Jakub Walczak, Mark Glauser and Hiroshi Higuchi are using their technology to estimate the flow conditions over the blade surfaces from surface measurements.

By feeding the information to an intelligent controller, they can implement real-time actuation on the blades to control the airflow and increase the overall efficiency of the wind turbine system.

The result, according to their simulations: allowing a turbine to have a wider operational range with the same rated power output. What’s more, the flow separation may help reduce noise and vibration.

Meanwhile, researchers at the University of Minnesota are investigating how to reduce drag on wind turbine blades.

To reduce the effect, the researchers are implementing tiny grooves — described as triangular “riblets,” just 40 to 225 microns deep — by scoring them into the coating on the blade.

The researchers – Roger Arndt, Leonardo Chamorro and Fotis Sotiropoulos — are testing various groove geometries on the airfoil surfaces of a 2.5-megawatt turbine, in both simulations and the wind tunnel.

The concept of “riblets” is hardly new, but it’s not yet been applied to turbine blades. Conventional thinking grouped wind turbine blades with airplane wings, but it turns out that the peculiarities of the job — turbulence near the ground, a different blade design — means turbine blades require a different approach to drag reduction.

According to the researchers, the riblets will increase wind turbine efficiency by about 3 percent.

Both ideas were presented this week at the 63rd annual American Physical Society Division of Fluid Dynamics meeting in Long Beach, Calif.

Photo: Vestas

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
6
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: In the lab, pursuing a more intelligent wind turbine
Bat mortality is just one of the dirty little secrets about wind turbines. They kill migrating raptors, too, and they get located in less than optimum areas (with respect to both efficiency and environmental damage) because of politics and corporate greed. Big subsidies and tax incentives feather corporate nests at the expense of the taxpayer.

These industrial monstrosities can be a terrible nuisance to people living nearby and do nothing to benefit the environment on account of the so-called "green credits" that they generate, which allow other polluters to pollute more, simply by ponying up some cash.

Just another example of corporate America taking advantage of the well meaning but clueless environmentalists. A tree hugger is no match for a corporate suit when it comes to subterfuge.
Posted by omb00900@...
24th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: In the lab, pursuing a more intelligent wind turbine
Please put a reference for the claim about wind power capacity outstripping coal power capacity. And furthermore, it is not possible to equate the two, is it? Talking about a capacity that only works for less than 50% of the time is not the same as talking about capacity that is working 95 or more% of the time. When people write without making the distinctions clear, there are grounds to suspect a bias operating in their writing. The public is owed an absolutely truthful reporting from journalists. This MUST mean adding a sentence about relative capacity and while you are at it, explain to public what Capacity Factor means, please.

The previous commenter refers to "clueless environmentalists"... A major reason why they are clueless is because journalists are not held to account for their inaccurate and biased and inadequately informed presentations of 'news' about energy. I hope that by taking the time to present a Comment here, it will have an impact on the awareness and dedication of the writers for Smart Planet about energy.
Posted by Caroline Webb
24th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: In the lab, pursuing a more intelligent wind turbine
Nice artical, thanks for the info.
To Caroline, read the artical, there has been more new Wind, vs new coal, not there is more. And yes more detail would be nice, for that read the New york Time 2 page spread, isn SmartPlanet we get mini articals.
To OMB, get a grip, bat mortality, would you prefer coal...I think you are one of the uninformed tree huggers you are crying about.
Posted by CharlesG1970
24th Nov 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: In the lab, pursuing a more intelligent wind turbine
2. Caroline Webb 11/24/10 says: "Please put a reference for the claim about wind power capacity outstripping coal power capacity. And furthermore, it is not possible to equate the two, is it? Talking about a capacity that only works for less than 50% of the time is not the same as talking about capacity that is working 95% or more of the time."

Caroline, there are several mistakes in the report not just one. The one you pick up about wind power load factor (the average proportion of the time that the wind blows) is very, very pertinent. By the way, even in windy offshore places this is generously estimated at 33%, not 50% as you suggest.

However the main howler in the report is the nonsense phrase: "In 2008 and for the first time new wind turbine power generation capacity topped new coal-fired capacity in the U.S."

You are right to ask the journalist for a source for this information but my point is that even if it turns out to be technically true in some contorted sense of the word ?new?, it is still meaningless. The amount of new coal capacity installed versus the amount of new wind power capacity installed tells us absolutely nothing at all. It simply reflects public funding policy (essentially pro-wind and anti-coal) over the past few years.

However the claim as written is very dangerous: a casual reading of the sentence could easily leave the reader with the nice warm feeling that in some sense wind capacity has now (at last, phew!) overtaken coal capacity ? a milestone long wished-for by the eco-enthusiasts.

This is all nonsense of course. Total installed US wind capacity is around 35GW. Only a proportion of that is offshore but, even at a generous average load factor of 33%, that would mean around 10GW of deliveredelectric power . This is a minor contribution (15%) compared with the total delivered electric power from coal capacity which in the US is around 227GW (and that minor contribution has been achieved only with a gigantic infusion of taxpayers? money). And if, as we should, we compare wind power with all conventional generating resources in the US (not just coal), that percentage contribution from wind power falls to a negligible 7%.

Even that calculation does not take into account the fact that wind power, because it is unpredictably variable, has to be backed by expensive standby conventional generating equipment, further increasing its effective cost. And finally there is also the little matter that the windy areas are mostly far from the grid necessitating huge additional investment in power transmission facilities plus additional losses in transmission.

Taking all such considerations into account, wind power is at least a factor of 3 more expensive than coal. It is nowhere near becoming cost efficient with coal despite 30 years of development. But of course eco-enthusiasts don?t care about our electricity bills being tripled or more because they think they are saving the planet ? even though US emissions will be dwarfed by the rest of the world, particularly China, who are definitely not participating in this eco-scam.
Posted by cosserat@...
24th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: In the lab, pursuing a more intelligent wind turbine
Guys, I hate the current run to wind scam, but, the reference is to NEW capacity not to TOTAL installed capacity. It is probably correct as it is almost impossible to build a new coal plant now.

"..., new wind turbine power generation capacity topped new coal-fired capacity in the U.S."

The real problem will be when wind exceeds 20% of our generating capacity and there is not enough backup to prevent blackouts when the wind calms. We will need to build 1 gigawat of backup for every gigawat of wind generation!! This will more than triple our energy costs finishing off what is left of our economy.
Posted by KuhnKat
24th Nov 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: In the lab, pursuing a more intelligent wind turbine
"In 2008 and for the first time, new wind turbine power generation
capacity topped new coal-fired capacity in the U.S." Gee, I thought
this kind of rampant economic silliness was only possible in centrally
planned communist economies...
Posted by tthor
29th Nov 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!