Eredwen, BJ and I only debated the general concept. Although, not being an engineer I was pleasantly surprised to discover that my unconventional interpretation of the relevant physics had been proved correct by a university professor. BJ did consider the concept was valid for islands in the tradewinds.

I haven’t taken the idea any further because, while my brain is good at spotting the similarities between problems and solutions in disperate fields, its not much good at building things.

However, this idea was partly inspired by a very simple wind ornament so a proof of concept prototype wouldn’t be expensive or time sonsuming to build for somebody with carpentry and/or mechanical skills. I get the impression you live in Christchurch too. Since it’s not money that’s needed but practical skills perhaps you could contact me via the email link on my website and we could connect this idea with people who make use of it. I really think it has potential for the developing world and in situations where someone already has an inverter.

If my understanding of the aerodymics of the “blade” design is correct it should produce high torque at low RPM, which is what is needed to use the most abundant wind speeds, and tend to stall at higher rpms so that it wont have a problem with storms and windgusts. The most important question that a proof of concept prototype is needed to answer is whether the lack of efficiency is exceeded by the lack of capital cost.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

This subject is being discussed on The Visible Hand
http://tvhe.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/is-nationals-energy-policy-ideological-spite/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Incidentally, those that favour new “Think Big” fossil fuel etc generation have said nothing about the inefficiency of long lines to transport the electricity produced … and the associated power losses en route.

Also I understand that the most efficient use of (our non renewable) fossil fuels is to produce HEAT, (and NOT to produce heat solely for the purpose of converting it into electricity.) Presumably smaller-scale amounts of electricity could be produced as a bi-product of heat production for appropriate purposes? … possibly from all sorts of sources that have not been tapped yet.

This leads to the desirability of electricity lines and meters that allow, and measure, the flow of electricity both ways (in and out of our factories and homes)… eg power from my efficient windmill can be shared when I don’t need it…

Both of these suggest that a “think smaller and more local” is a better way for us to approach the future.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Kevyn,

That sounds good!

Are you and BJ getting on with the design etc ?

I’d willingly join you as a serious, but rather “small” investor, and could bring others with me.

e

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

John-ston,

I always thought I was an idealogue, but from your last post, I reckon you surpass me.

What happens when the resource is limited by natural factors (for example, the amount of land), but is essential for human survival (for example food). Do rational consumers simply eat less food because of the price signals, or do they revert to stealing and war (resulting ina a breakdown of your precious markets)?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Jarrod Diamond’s book “Collapseâ€?. It’s a study of various collapsed civilizations.

They *all* ran out of one or more physical resources.

Trees and agricultural land being the two key ones. Deforestation and salinifaction due to over-irrigation were common civilization-killers. Then there’s annihilation of fisheries stocks.”

Icehawk, the reason why those civilisations ran out of resources was because they had no markets. Had Easter Island had a market, the price of wood would have increased and the demand would have decreased in response. People would have used the price signals to increase the production of wood, and had Easter Island had strong property rights, then people would have been further encouraged to plant trees. Had Ur had a market, people would have been far more conservative in their use of water and would have planted far more appropriately.

Indeed, I would suggest that Diamond’s book is a perfect example of the Tragedy of the Commons; when you let people own and use things collectively, they tend to stop thinking logically and tend to use resources far more excessively. We are seeing this in Canterbury with its water resources; there is essentially no ownership of the water and so no price signals to tell farmers, you are using too much water, please stop.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Eredwen, Some time ago BJ and I had a discussion about house rooftop wind generators. There is a way to make this viable, but it does mean avoiding the propellor method entirely, and copying some aeerodynamic principals used for cooling the radiators on formula race cars. If a stack of vertical axis wind turbines is layed on it’s side along the roof ridgeline it will naturally experience the venturi effect. Mounting a “wing” above the VAWT will amplify the venturi effect effectively doubling the wind speed. The major advantages are the large swept area exposed to the wind irrespective of wind direction, the ability to spread the load evenly across the entire building frame and foundations, and the lower cost due to smaller bearing loads and not needing a tower or resource consent, although a building permit would be needed.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

… as joanna said at the start of this thread:

( joanna Says: August 14th, 2008 at 7:12 pm )
I am surprised there isn’t more of a move towards personal electricity generation in NZ. I am staying in Adelaide at the moment …

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Where is our VISION ?

Wind generators do not have to be BIG.

Windflow Technology Ltd is a Kiwi enterprise, now producing smaller, two bladed windmills that will have less visual impact. Designed and made in AotearoaNZ (Cantebury), they are easier to transport, so can be situated in less conspicuous places.

Obviously we can move to even smaller generation (on each individual roof? in each street? in a housing cluster?) and we can move to small scale water generation etc etc … ETC !

“Oh Ye of little faith!” (… or of little imagination?)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

dear sweetdisorder.
How naiive you are.
Green politics are the only sane politics in the REAL world. What is your REAL world…. the world of hollow men and secret agendas and robbing from the poor to feed the rich.
Nat policies are not sustainable they line the pockets of a few and the devil takes the rest.
There is nothing cutsie about green policies. Adhere to Green principles and you will save heaps of money… Your disposable income increases.
Have you been brainwashed or seduced by glossy advertising?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Damn NIMBY’s, we have plenty of windmills here in the manawatu, enough to generate several times our cities needs, I can see them all over the hills around palmy, they are much more attractive than the bare grass with sheep grazing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BluePeter Says:
August 14th, 2008 at 10:00 pm

> Large sectors of the green movement actually have their origins in a quite different body of thinking. They are to be found in the writings of those hostile to modern industry, which was seen as destroying the integrity of nature – essentially a romantic, conservative reaction to industrialism. This threat explains why so many greens are either hostile to science and technology, or at least ambivalent about them.

But it doesn’t explain why a lot of us are not hostile to science, and use science to decide whether any given technology is a good idea or not.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The reason that NZ flirts with shortages every summer is not surprising. The electricity supply now operates as a pseudo-market where security of supply is only an issue for this half hour, not for the next six months.

The Nats are a bit crazy on this one. The real problem will be that should there be more power thermal stations built, they will mostly be gas fired, and then our electriity will be subject to the same lunacy the other countries face, like a 35% price increase in one year.

The best thing to do with electricity would be to include it as a resource in the RMA, so we can decide as a country how we want to divvy out our juice.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“..Owen McShane (9:47 am): Name me a physical resource that has ever run out…â€?’

Owen, if you are honestly interested in this (as opposed to merely tryng to score points) then I suggest you read Jarrod Diamond’s book “Collapse”. It’s a study of various collapsed civilizations.

They *all* ran out of one or more physical resources.

Trees and agricultural land being the two key ones. Deforestation and salinifaction due to over-irrigation were common civilization-killers. Then there’s annihilation of fisheries stocks.

Of course usually it’s not about completely exhausting a resource. It’s about using up so much that the scarcity of the resouce becomes a disaster. Peak Oil isn’t about us running out of oil. It’s about oil supplies dwindling.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BluePeter,

“Sums up the problems I have with the tired, hippy60s Green movement.”

Please stop characterizing all Greens as hippy60s who are hostile to science and technology. It’s untrue and unfair.

The Green movement has many strands. One of the strongest is a scientific strand based around the cold hard logic of limited resources and exponential economic growth.

I’m a Green with a MSc. There are quite a lot of us with post-grad degrees in science. There are also a lot of us working in technology firms.

It is true the Green movement also includes an anti-industrial strand – IMHO they are the intellectual heirs of the Morris “Arts & Crafts” Aesthetic movement. But (a) that’s not incompatible with the scientific strand and (b) that’s not all there is to the Greens.

I joined the Green Party after reading in a Sunday newspaper Augie Auer’s press release about how anthropic global warming was a myth. His claims disagreed with things I’d heard so I got curious as to who was right. I looked stuff up, traced his sources (he didn’t give references but it turned out he was quoting a guy called Fred Singer and Singer did), and I built a little math model of what he was saying. When I’d crunched the numbers I decided that the world needed to be protected from such misleading and deceptive pseudo-science. So I joined the Green Party.

I’m no romantic. I joined the Greens because I’m a cold-hearted realist with a science background who can do the maths and who is concerned about what kind of world we’re going to leave for my kids.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

get responses by email

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

How about a compromise!

We ban ALL carbon based new generation capability, but mandate that wherever a non-depleatable energy source (e.g. wind, wave, wate) can be used economically resource consent WILL NOT BE REQUIRED to establish the associated tgenerating capability.

What this means, is that it a 500 turbine wind-farm on the Makara hills is economically viable it gets built, and people work their way around the disruption. If there is a predicatble impact on peoples’ personal economies through lower house values, the business case has to take into account the purchase of all properties at pre-announcement prices by the investor, with them having the ability to demolish the properties, or sell at whatever price the market will pay. (Worth noting that houses next to runways still get boiught and sold!)

How does that stack up against renewable energy source policies?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BP

“This threat explains why so many greens are either hostile to science and technology, or at least ambivalent about them.”

Not such a great Guardian article after all if that’s it’s best conclusion in the face of the evidence that Greens around the world have been at the forefront of pushing for renewable energy technology, clean transport technology, green architecture, energy efficient whiteware, non-toxic agriculture (yep, that involves science and technology as well) etc.

The real issue is about sustainability i.e. are the techological solutions one is looking at appropriate and sustainable. If not, how can they be made to be?

Being anti-GE or anti-fossil fuelled power stations is not, IMHO, due to a hostility to science and technology but a well-placed concern that technologies be appropriate to the aims sought and sustainable for our environment-dependent lifestyles.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

owen has a very narrow/tunnel -like perspective..

he is/has been also a receiver of funds from the exxon-mobil-funded climate-change denial front-groups..

..(as he peddles that message..)

..so..i mean..as a proven oil company/climate-change denial pimp..

..why should we pay any heed at all to anything he says..?

(cover your eyes..!..joy..!..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

clean air..?..clean water..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)