US University develops wind turbines that generate about 5 TIMES as much energy as usual (PHOTO)

Published: September 10th, 2012 at 4:56 pm ET


Title: Cleveland State University wind turbines at Progressive Field are overachievers
Source: The Plain Dealer
Author:  Karen Farkas
Date: Sept 3, 2012

The wind turbines attached to that distinctive plastic corkscrew atop Progressive Field are overachievers.

The four mounted turbines are generating more than 4.5 times as much energy than if the turbines were standing alone, according to data collected by Cleveland State University.


Source: Thomas Ondrey, The Plain Dealer

In a quarterly technical performance report submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy on July 30, [Majid Rashidi, the chairman of CSU’s department of engineering technology who developed the system] reported that at a wind speed of 11 miles per hour the tower’s four turbines generated 1,288 watts of energy, compared to a combined 200 watts of energy that would be generated by four stand-alone turbines, as calculated by turbine manufacturer [6.44 times as much as conventional turbines].

A wind speed of 18 miles per hour generated 6,143 watts of energy from CSU’s tower structure, compared to 1,412 from four stand-alone turbines. The report said the results, from April 1 through June 30, show the average electrical power generated by the spiral turbine was 4.64 times as much as conventional turbines.

“That is what the spiral does to the wind,” Rashidi said. “It funnels more air.”


h/t Anonymous tips

Published: September 10th, 2012 at 4:56 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. University Study: Wind and solar can fully power the electric grid 99.9% of time… at same cost we pay now — “These results break the conventional wisdom” -Professor December 12, 2012
  2. Nuclear-funded Obama on Nuclear-sponsored Daily Show: Nuclear forgotten as component in energy future — Oil, gas, wind, solar all mentioned… same as at debates (VIDEO) October 19, 2012
  3. Chicago Tribune: Nuclear plants are paying customers to use power February 8, 2013
  4. Gov’t publishes model of WIPP radioactive plume — Plutonium and americium transported to northwest after wind shift — At times in direction of nearby Carlsbad (MAP) March 16, 2014
  5. “Emergency situation” as fractures suspected at nuclear reactor — Ten U.S. plants may use same component — “Likely to reignite a debate over the risks of nuclear energy” -Financial Times August 10, 2012

23 comments to US University develops wind turbines that generate about 5 TIMES as much energy as usual (PHOTO)

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Hats off to Progressive Field's new turbine!

  • TheWorldIsFüküd

    Nope dont like it. Id rather have cancer and wastelands of massive proportion than clean, recyclable air. The inventor of this product is an a**hole (kidding of course).

    NOPE much rather have Nuclear Power. Oh how joyous Nuclear makes me feel inside. God I love how ceasium just ruins my heart and destroys my tissues. Wind is boring all it does is cool me off when Im hot. I mean really who wants that?

  • Lee Binder

    awesome awesome awesome! Hopefully the prototype does not fall apart, blow away etc. This has more than potential to be revolutionary. MAHALO +E-NENEWS!

  • Sol Man

    If a future, then it is only to be in alternatives to nuclear and C- based technologies. We choose life.

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Innovations like this will speed the end of nuclear.

  • Urban27

    Well good work. But the comparing is not really possible to make. There is this large spiral building. I assume it has something to do with the whole thing. Making wind more easy to catch. This building is then a part of the wind turbine too.
    So the normal comparing between two turbines is to measure the areas they are collecting and the power (watts) they can perform at a certain wind. But as this building is a part of the wind collecting area, it must be in the calculation.
    Such a building is also expensive to build. And actually the best comparing between two systems would be W per $.

  • aigeezer aigeezer

    Great to see, Admin. It's especially good to see it coming from "the Ohio heartland" so it will be less likely to draw scorn as some furrin commie pinko plot. Coal is still king in Ohio though. Perhaps change is in the air.,0,7736824.story

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    Great to see new ideas being developed!
    But a conventional turbine (propeller on a stick) generated 2000 W/ piece back in 2009…the newest generation produces up to 5000 W per turbine.
    But still, great that people dedicate their brain to this rather than yesterday's cancer machines…

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      Oh, I just checked. They have a new one which generates up to 7500 W… 🙂
      Link is in english!

      • m a x l i

        Sit down and calm down, BreadAndButter and replace W by kW! It's all a thousand times more! Now, better drink a bucket of valium!

        • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

          "… the tower’s four turbines generated 1,288 watts of energy, compared to a combined 200 watts of energy that would be generated by four stand-alone turbines"

          I still feel 7500 W (or 7,5 KW) is quite good in comparison? No?


          • m a x l i

            You may be getting confused by the use of commas "," in numbers in an anglo-saxon context. Look at the five lines of your last comment! There you use "," in two different meanings. Anglo-saxons use a "decimal point", where some others use a comma. For example:
            German: 7500W=7,5kW (or alternatively: 7.500W=7,5kW)
            English: 7,500W=7.5kW
            It's confusing, isn't it?

            Now look at the picture of that innovative spiral-windturbine thing! The whole structure is maybe 10 meters high and 10 meters wide (estimated from the size of 1 rotor.) That means a wind-catching area of 100 square meters.

            That conventional wind turbine in your link is far, far bigger. (Go to details>details>technical data!) There you have: Rotor diameter: 127 meters, "swept area" (that's simply the area of circle of 127 meters diameter): 12,668 square meters.

            So we have to compare 100 square meters to 12 thousand square meters. The conventional turbine is "harvesting" more than a hundred times more wind. So it is no surprise it delivers 7,580 kW (7thousand5hundred80 kW or 7.58 Megawatts).

            Alles klar?

            Simplified rule of thumb:
            Household: 1 kW
            Windturbine: 1 MW
            Coal/Nuclear power plant: 1 GW

            By the way: I do not understand, what the advantage of the new design could be. Maybe it is better at low wind speeds (which you have close to the ground or in tight places in built-up areas) than the conventional design.

            • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

              Hi Maxli, no confusion here at all…my point is: why to build 4 tiny turbines on a complicated structure when building a propeller on a pole is so much more effective? Read the comments under the original article, one sez: "However, as a professional wind turbine engineer, I tell you that this concept or any concept that channels the wind is *far* more expensive than a simple wind turbine with just the blades. If you want to get more power from your turbine, make the blades a longer and the generator bigger."

              The structure in the pic is supposed to generate 40.000 KWh a year ,"enough to power 4 homes", according to the article.
              10.000 KWh per home per year?
              That's obscene…..

              • m a x l i

                No confusion here at all? Very funny!

                A few comments back you give us a link where it says:
                7,580 kW (which is an alternative way of expressing 7580 kW)
                You call it here:
                7500 W
                which would be about a thousand times less

                In the original enenews-article it says:
                40,000 (which is an alternative way of expressing 40000)
                You call it here:
                which is exactly one-thousand times less, because 40.000 equals 40

                Before you want me to read additional comments anywhere (I already had a look there), I recommend you first read my comment properly. Read it three times!
                If that doesn't help, maybe you should see an optician, so you will be able to see the difference between a comma and a point. If that doesn't help, I give up!

  • TheBigPicture TheBigPicture

    Also, if a wind turbine malfunctions, it won't spew Iodine-131, Cesium-137, Strontium-90, Uranium, and Plutonium-239 onto everything.

  • Mack Mack

    A smart energy policy would be to invest/build the wind turbines in the U.S.'s windiest cities.

    Here's a list of 101 windiest U.S. cities:

    And since high-rise-buildings and skyscrapers utilize 40% of U.S. energy, impose a moratorium on building any more high-rises and skyscrapers.

    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      Agreed on the wind turbines, Mack!
      Highrise buildings though are not necessarily bad, imho. Their energy consumption depends on what's in them (office / bank with huge servers / air condition / outdated lighting? Bad. Apartments? Ok.)
      A big advantage of high(er) buildings is the small surface of precious land they use and the shared use of centralized energy / water supply.