Slow Chat II

Lounge
122

Coming from a guy who purports to be involved with wind energy for years now, yet is perplexed by the fact that a too-small generator can only make large amounts of power for a short period before overheating, leading to the revelation that a larger generator is needed, (not to mention the realization that Chinese alternators are unable to sustain even their rated output before overheating).

These two videos document the adventure of a guy who took the trouble to build a water wheel, then found his generator was getting too hot, so he bought a larger capacity generator, but it wasn’t enough, and he still needs a larger generator:

(2) Powering An Old Mill - 1.5 Kw Lake District Overshot Waterwheel Project Part 2 - YouTube

(2) Powering An Old Mill - 1.5 Kw Lake District Overshot Waterwheel Project Part 3 - YouTube

Maybe you still can’t understand that a larger generator has more capacity. How about trucks: Can you understand how a larger truck with a larger motor can carry more than a smaller truck?

I’ve been pointing out how almost none of the “news” stories turn out to be true, due to the orgasmic level of excitement AWE people undergo every time anything kite-related, or flettner-rotor-related, or hydrogen-related, or really ANYTHING-related, that “sounds” like a breakthrough, gets published. The message is, stop falling all over yourself for every bit of publicity and figure out the basics of what you think you are doing.

Yeah, keywords: “seem to be” and “test facility”.

As far as this large CO2 system that is still not working, maybe they should have built a smaller one to start. Gee, ya think? (Because “You have to test things first if you want to try something new.”)

So, Mr. Windbag, I honestly don’t think your post added anything to the discussion, but some unnecessary bad vibes. If you don’t really have anything to say, you don’t need to post.

123

Pierre: Keywords: “If They Work As Claimed”
IF THEY WORK AS CLAIMED, they will solve the entire intermittency problem with both wind and solar, changing the entire world, and it will likely have NOTHING TO DO WITH AWE. What makes you think such a complicated system would be a better choice than simple batteries for such a small amount of energy storage that needs to be turned on and off at repeated intervals? Why do people always want to combine the latest unproven technology with their own pet idea, hoping to rescue their pet idea that doesn’t work so well?

Note: two weeks ago we had a supposed fusion breakthrough (remember?). I just had another call from London asking me if I was convinced yet. I told them I’m good at speaking in front of groups and would be happy to champion their cause, BUT, all I still see, after attending two conference zoom calls, is still nothing but a bunch of talk.

That Fusion article from “Interesting Engineering” was pulled the next day (which I have never seen happen). That “fusion breakthrough” was supposed to make all other forms of energy generation instantly obsolete, IF IT WORKS AS CLAIMED.

My point is, virtually NONE of these “press-release breakthroughs” WORK AS CLAIMED.
And if one ever does, it is probably NOT going to make kite-reeling suddenly work out! :slight_smile:

124

I split the comments starting from Slow Chat II - #116 by dougselsam from CO2 Battery - #6 by Windy_Skies as they are mostly off-topic from the topic, which I perceive to be about CO2 batteries, their benefits and drawbacks, and the company linked and its chances of success, where it is trivial to point out and is not specific to this innovation, and therefore does not add to the conversation, that chances of complete success are often low and things need time to come into existence.

I also don’t think it is about using low radius loops or the like.

125

Nice deflection. The question about generators was an invitation to talk about different generator types, efficiencies, possible cooling methods, and so on. You claim to know something about some common generator types so that is a question to allow you to display that knowledge. I’ll watch the videos later.

Anyway, the complete quote was:

You must be talking about some different place than this. Or maybe just about Pierre as only he seems to initiate talking about those things. It seems to be mostly you getting that exited endlessly repeating your same tired talking points. Please start a new topic so you can develop the topic better, and can then link to it instead of having to repeat the topic in every new topic you see, and me having to move or delete it.

126

I hope that in an AWE forum, I am not the only one to initiate kite-related discussions.

Furthermore it seems to me that discussions and even prototypes about Flettner-related-rotors have been mentioned in the AWE field (see Omnidea curves).

And some hydrogen-related discussions have been initiated by other than myself in the forum.

1 Like
127

That was my single topic on that, 4 years ago, while still seeming to have some relevance to AWE. One person on here keeps talking about the subject continuously while still being wrong about basic things like the achievable round trip efficiency, and no deep displayed insight into the subject. One would think if they were actually interested in the topic instead of using it as an excuse to rant, they would try to learn more about it.

Contrast that to my approach where I linked research papers and so on.

Hydrogen as storage, and really all other energy storage topics, are not that relevant to this forum, other than questions like, where can I order it today, how much is installation and maintenance, how long is it going to work for, and so on. Worry about making your AWES first, after that you can find an available energy storage solution that makes sense.

You especially don’t want to be a first mover on something like an unproven energy storage solution when your own AWES is also still unproven. You want to remove risks and unknowns, not add to them.

128

There is now a new Energy Storage - AWESystems Forum category. I’ll move some topics. Let me know if you think other topics should be moved.

129

In my opinion, this new category should be autonomous and detached from
Engineering category. But you’ve probably considered it.

130

I was the one who put it under Engineering as most discussions so far were quite technical. I guess we could move it though…

131

I think it is the same general idea as the electronics and generators categories. You’re not designing your own batteries or resistors while you are trying to develop your proof of concept. That might come in the future when you have an electrical engineer to help you, or it might not. You are not designing the thing, but you are selecting it. I think the category is fine where it is, but if it isn’t, at least now there is a category.

132

The point is, if you purport to know ANYTHING about wind energy, there are two (2) essential parts:

  1. The working aerodynamic surfaces (blades) to convert the kinetic energy in the wind to rotation
  2. The generator, to convert that rotation to electricity.

These forums are populated with people who understand neither - basically know-nothings.
We’ve all seen the highly-insistent level of (no) knowledge displayed here by some of the people associated with the last forum. I guess we’re still waiting for anything they said to happen, right?

The frustrating thing is the people who are drawn to wanting to run a forum, and control what everyone says, does not seem to be consistent with having any real knowledge of the subject matter. This ruins the forums. It seems to be consistent over time.

I do not think what Pierre posted about CO2 turbines is relevant to the short-cycle intermittency of a reeling cycle for the reasons I cited:

  1. Gas turbines for power plant peaking take about 10 minutes minimum to start up. They like to just be run at one speed.
  2. Such a complicated setup seems like way overkill for the relatively small amount of energy in a single cycle, whereas batteries and/or capacitors might be more appropriate;
  3. Despite 15 years (not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of people) of supposed development, there is no kite-reeling system in regular operation, let alone a collection of them to coordinate;
  4. The CO2 turbine idea (which sounds like something I read about many years ago) seems to be still just a relatively unproven idea.
  5. IF TRUE, if the CO2 turbine idea turns out to be a valid economical solution for energy storage, then, like the fusion idea in that IE article that was pulled the next day, it would completely change everything, in this case making it possible to completely power the world with wind and solar, which is not practical now.
  6. At that point, to cite a misapplication to a short-cycle intermittency such as kite-reeling is like getting excited about a robot that can do anything, saying “wow, it could tie my shoes!”.

Other than that, I’m sure my words are mostly wasted in this audience of a small handful of super-gullible, wet-behind-the-ears, highly-indoctrinated, unquestioning tinkerers and dreamers just throwing uneducated ideas out there.

But I DO think it is important to make the point that one more online article written by similar know-nothings is meaningless and, while we all like to see our names in print, it is not a substitute for having a valid durable and economical energy solution. It’s just fluff, and almost always amounts to just more unfulfilled promises that never come true.

133

This argument is not relevant. There is no AWES in use, whether it’s reeling or flygen or whatever. So kite-reeling is not specially debunked.

134

Whether kite-reeling has 100% debunked itself yet was not my point. My points were that your assertions that:

  1. CO2 turbines might make a good match to smooth the intermittency of a kite-reeling system is mistargeted;
    and
  2. That coordinating the timing of multiple kite-reeling units would be used to make the total output more consistent might be irrelevant, if it turns out that kite-reeling itself is not an economical and durable energy solution in the first place. In other words, it is putting the cart ahead of the horse. It’s a few steps ahead of what needs to be done to get kite-reeling working out at this point in time. :slight_smile:
135

Not sure, considering a single CO2 battery for a farm of utility-scale reeling kites. But you definitely have information about CO2 battery that no one has. Thank you for sharing it.

136

Hello Tallak,
By linking the importance of AWE to that presumed of global warming, you attribute to it a level of value which should encourage researchers to comply with the initial goals: to capture more powerful and regular high altitude winds, and additionally sweep a very large surface.

I would agree but rather for reasons of resources and economy: there is a huge reservoir of wind energy a few hundred meters from the ground. AWE can in theory exploit them. So we will eventually get there, whatever the importance of global warming.

But these goals should be consistent (in my opinion) with the means implemented to reach these altitudes. Things are getting complicated, but we’re not at the end of the game yet.

1 Like
137

Hi Doug,
You have two options:

  1. these people are not that smart, and in this case, smarter people could solve AWE;

  2. the second possibility is less encouraging, because it would imply that these people are actually smart, which would lead to the non-viability of AWE (for electricity production). This is what Mike Barnard asserted.

Which of the two options do you choose? Or do you propose a third way?

1 Like
138

@dougselsam shouldnt you rather promote something you believe in?

139

Yes Tallak, and one essential thing is to recognize bullshit when you see it. That’s RULE 1 in the alternative wind energy space. Because 99% of it is just plain provably wrong. Seems like AWE people don’t have that gene. They are infinitely gullible, infinitely prone to indoctrination and being utterly bullshitted. Unable to follow a simple analysis of feasibility. We see it every day. Somehow, no matter how great the “news of the future” sounds, when it becomes “news of the past”, it turns out to never be true. I keep pointing out one bullshit thing after another, but only a few people seem to see it. If all these people are so smart, and so right about anything, let alone everything, why is there STILL nothing running after 15 years of this complete bullshit?

140

Are you then saying that we are gullible to still be here pursuing AWE?

You are entitled to have your own opinion on that if you think so, and I would still consider it useful to have you in the forum if that was true.

I think that there are some basics that are repeating thenselves:

  • people arent inherently smart and figure things out. A smart person in the wrong place can arrive at stupid conclusions. Sometimes its about chemistry, like Lennon-McCartney. Or it can be about a good team. What makes people perform is hard to quantify
  • AWE is just a very hard problem to solve. Maybe the most telling sign that someone does not have much to contribute, if they say AWE is easy. That is a terrible starting point.
  • Because somone failed doesn’t mean the next person will also fail (though with enough failures, one might start to conclude that succeeding is statistically unlikely)

Fortunately, I am still optimistic about AWE. The space is largely unexplored in my opinion. And everything looks fine on paper. So that gives me reason to think it is still worthwhile looking for answers. I may add also that the gravity of doing AWE is probably bigger for me who is convinced that global warming will harm the world in the not too distant future. So just a small glimpse of hope is enough to keep on going.

If I was only seeing this from the business side, and did not believe global warming was a factor, I probably may conclude that so many people would not all fail at something relatively feasible and the likelyhood of a cheaper technology appearing before AWE was indeed, large.

1 Like
141

That is so lame. I was exactly on-topic. A CO2 turbine. The concept of a CO2 turbine is not new. I heard of it long ago. The idea that every press-release breakthrough could somehow “rescue” AWE, or wind energy in general, is also not new. And trying to negate or eliminate any sensible discussion in online chat groups is also not new. If that’s your best contribution to wind energy - moving a comment from its proper topic to some nebulous “other” topic, that’s pretty sad, and by this point, pretty much par for the course.