General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNew Bladeless Wind Generators...
From brightside news:"Now, a fresh approach is gaining attention. A bladeless wind turbine, designed by the Spanish startup Vortex Bladeless, uses a vibrating upright cylinder to harvest wind power. Nicknamed “the Skybrator” by the internet due to its shape and motion, this invention skips the blades, oils, and gears entirely. Instead, it turns wind into power through a well-known but rarely used concept: vortex shedding.
Vortex shedding happens when wind moves past a tall, cylinder-like structure. This motion causes the structure to sway back and forth. The Vortex turbine captures that motion and turns it into electricity using an alternator at its base."
It's quieter. Birds will be safe. It can work with light breezes, and changes in wind direction as well. Plus w/o the blades' width it can fit into more places.
So it's more versatile.
Sounds good to me. 🌬
(oooops, dbl posted)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)Other than that, a good money sink for gullible investors.
"Vibrating upright cylinder"?? Nah, best not go there...
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,438 posts)electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)nuetral in tone about my lack of knowledge of physics.
.
NutmegYankee
(16,438 posts)Something that vibrates is just not going to produce the kind of energy a huge three blade machine twisting a generator can produce. And size really matters in three blade windmills since the diameter has a doubling relationship to power output. And wind speed is a cubic function.
Contrast that rapid power growth with scale to an object vibrating a few inches side to side.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)which you just made an apt comparison....
It's how you pointed out my lack of physics knowledge - with the phrase
"that's not how physics works". To me it sounded a bit dismissive .
If you said, "The physics won't work."; it sounds neutral about my lack of knowledge.
It's, imho, a subtle distinction.
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 26, 2025, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)
at least in any meaningful sense. Note that the technical paper they wrote on the thing and the promotional bumph don't even mention power output (a telling omission).
It apparently "works" by generating vortex turbulence downstream of the throbbing shaft (sorry) which makes it swing back and forth. Such a method is inherently very inefficient as most of the wind's energy is dissipated as heat in such turbulence leaving little to be converted to electricity.
There are, and in all likelihood to continue, compelling reasons why virtually all wind farms have the conventional three-blade, horizontal axis turbines, the bottom line being that they work better in power output, longevity, and cost than the alternatives.
These "new" wind generator concoctions come along periodically in various flavors and disappear after a while because they offer nothing of value except to maybe line the promoter's pockets.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)And wasn't offended.
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,501 posts)Lots more cost per watt.
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)Which I guess is why they don't mention either cost or Watts.
brush
(60,772 posts)vertical blades encased in a vertical cylinder that can be high as your like, thus very versatile as well as easy to plug right into the power grid. I considered one for my backyard over solar panels.
This whip method seems sort of like wave energy, which presents the problem of transporting the power generated into the grid.
I dunno, if its power generation is spotty, maybe explore other means.
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)from solar panels (assuming you have good sun exposure) than you will from any vertical wind turbine (and blades enclosed in a tube seem even more problematical than the typical vertical type). One of the big rubs against vertical turbines is that they are typically located close to the ground where wind quality (mainly speed and smoothness) are poor (smoothness being the opposite of turbulence which is to be avoided as much as possible). This problem is doubly bad in built-up areas where buildings create even more turbulence and reduce wind speed.
Once again, where are the wind farms utilizing vertical turbines - few and far between.
brush
(60,772 posts)IMO can be fitted in a field of many closer together than the huge blade towers, and they are not enclosed in a vertical tube. The blades are vertical but not enclosed. It's a vertical structure supported on the corners with all four sides open to the wind and free to turn for power generation.
You've never seen one? They're not limited to backyards with fences that cut the wind.
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)generated by any wind turbine is directly related to the wind "swept area" or IOWs, the amount of wind that reacts with the turbine to produce power. If you want large swept area and therefore large power, you need large blades no matter what type of turbine it is. This precludes placing the turbines closely together as well as being close together results in shielding (from the wind) of the downwind units.
There is no free lunch in wind turbine design or deployment - all you can do is make the best of what technology is available and the three blade horizontal axis turbine, placed in appropriately windy locations, is the best we now have. There are no good reasons for going with anything different.
Also, I have no idea what good encasing the blades in a tube does. All it does AFAIK would be to introduce additional turbulence and frictional (i.e. wind velocity drop) losses.
brush
(60,772 posts)Disaffected
(5,785 posts)What's the difference? Sounds like you are actually referring to the Darius or Savonius vertical turbines(?).
brush
(60,772 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 27, 2025, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)
sdes on the corners with the vertical blades, as high as you like, open to wind to turn and generate power on a field of them designed to position them in such a way that they do not block each other downwind. Repeat, not enclosed in a vertical tube, which makes no sense.
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)"There've been backyard vertical windpower generators for years. No vibrating whip action but...
Reply to Disaffected (Reply #1)
Sat Jul 26, 2025, 06:31 PM
vertical blades encased in a vertical cylinder that can be high as your like, thus very versatile as well as easy to plug right into the power grid. I considered one for my backyard over solar panels.
This whip method seems sort of like wave energy, which presents the problem of transporting the power generated into the grid.
I dunno, if its power generation is spotty, maybe explore other means."
..............
Is this "other poster" in the room with us now?
brush
(60,772 posts)
MineralMan
(149,580 posts)After a while, they were no longer rotating, so must have been taken out of service. I do remember seeing them working though in the 70s and 80s.
I had a small one, constructed of half barrels, in my yard. It drove an automobile alternator that charge a 12V battery array. It worked fine, but wasn't as efficient as the traditional blades on my other wind generator.
But that was all experimental in the late 70s and early 80s. I was messing around with that stuff at the time.
Disaffected
(5,785 posts)is the blade fatigue stress that occurs each revolution as the blades go from tension while rotating with the wind to compression as they rotate back into the wind. I dunno, that could have been one of the factors that shut down the Tehachapi farm.
I was into wind turbine building myself - biggest was a 3 blade HWAT 13' in diameter driving a 3ph PM motor to alternator conversion.
MineralMan
(149,580 posts)I waxwriting for Mother Earth News at the time. So, there was always a reason to try a new design.
One of my favorite projects was a solar boiling water solar unit that included a sun-following reflector that focused on a pipe. I found an affordable 1 RPDay synchronous motor I could use to rotate the long parabolic reflector. If the sun was up, it would boil water at a moderate flow speed. All components were off-the-shelf.
Deuxcents
(23,289 posts)
SWBTATTReg
(25,527 posts)
The Madcap
(1,345 posts)Sorry for that. In poor taste.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)But idk whether your "again" refers to the nickname, or to the actual seemingly questionable invention itself.
I'd never heard of it before.
The Madcap
(1,345 posts)I had read it first.
mahatmakanejeeves
(65,963 posts)Is this something I want in my browser history?
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)
Goonch
(3,946 posts)
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)
ihaveaquestion
(3,881 posts)electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)ihaveaquestion
(3,881 posts)electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)A friend and I met up in Flagstaff, rented a car and went off to visit the Navajo and Hopi Nations, and other places.
Tuscon area I'd expect them. 👍
Maru Kitteh
(30,420 posts)It’s a galactic tampon, extra slim.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)Disaffected
(5,785 posts)or absorbent. 
The Madcap
(1,345 posts)Too bad wind can't be passively turned into static electricity and then harnessed.
mahina
(19,947 posts)And they have been in use for at least 20 years that I know of. The first one I learned of here is on Saunders Hall at University of Hawaii Mānoa.
I’m always glad to learn more and appreciate your posting it anyway
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)
TnDem
(1,165 posts)Wind power is a great concept, but sucks in practical terms. The sheer waste of HUGE wind blades at the end of their life is awful.
Solid fiberglass...massive in size in landfills, and they never degrade. They are worse than plastic.
These vibrating types were featured recently and they produce a very tiny bit of electricity to their customers. The worst part is that folks think they are doing a good thing ecologically when advocating for them, but they never understand that the cost to produce, install, and maintain them leaves a much larger carbon footprint than the devices ever will produce....Then you are left with the dilapidated waste when the turbines eventually fail.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)I wonder if the used blades could be repurposed into some kind structural element in some kind of of building capacity. Since just reading about fiberglass which i actually never knew how it is made despite the obvious clue (der!) in the name itself. Saying how durable it Is. But after all it's exposure maybe too much integrity is lost.
Just taking a guess!
TnDem
(1,165 posts)The degradation of the blades are mainly due to the sun exposure, (which makes them brittle and "crazed"
, and stress cracks from flexing.
CentralMass
(16,370 posts)TnDem
(1,165 posts)It's a fluff piece with no specifics about the peripheral costs of these things...It never goes into detail about the carbon needed to manufacture, truck it to the site, erect it, constant maintenance on it, the birds and wildlife it kills...
Finally what to do with tens of thousands of 100 foot pieces of non-degradable fiberglass blades that last millenia because they sit in long trenches and won't rot.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)CentralMass
(16,370 posts)Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) established an approach to manufacturing wind turbine blades, employing a thermoplastic resin system. These thermoplastic resins allow for the recycling of wind turbine blades and also reduce the energy required to manufacture blades.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)TnDem
(1,165 posts)Is another pie-in-the-sky joke...Most plastics are not recoverable, even though people feel good about putting them in the recycle bin. Much of it is simply mixed with garbage and taken straight to the landfill anyway.
Plus it takes massive amounts of carbon to transport and melt/recycle the plastic resins. That negates the small amount of energy they produce.
CentralMass
(16,370 posts)You anti- winderss are something.
"The UK's wind power plants significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions by displacing electricity generation from fossil fuels. Here's a summary of the impact:
* Zero Emissions at Point of Generation: Wind turbines themselves produce no CO2 when generating electricity.
* Significant Displacement of Fossil Fuels: Every unit of electricity generated by wind reduces the need for fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, directly lowering overall emissions from the power sector.
* Low Lifecycle Emissions: While there are emissions associated with the manufacturing, construction, operation, and decommissioning of wind turbines, these are very small compared to the emissions saved over their operational lifespan. Studies show wind energy has one of the lowest lifecycle carbon footprints of any energy source, typically around 0.011 - 0.015 kgCO2e/kWh, which is less than 2.5% of the estimated life cycle emissions from a natural gas plant.
* Substantial Carbon Savings:
* The carbon saved throughout a wind turbine's lifespan can be up to 50 times greater than the emissions from its manufacture, construction, operation, and decommissioning.
* An average wind turbine can offset approximately 1,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, which is equivalent to removing 500 petrol cars from the road annually.
* Switching from coal-fired generation to wind power can reduce carbon emissions from energy production by more than 99%.
* Overall Impact on UK Emissions: Wind power has been crucial in reducing the UK's greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions from the power sector since 1990.
It's important to note that while wind power is incredibly effective at reducing emissions, challenges remain, such as ensuring grid infrastructure can handle the increasing amount of renewable energy and avoiding curtailment (wasting wind power due to grid bottlenecks)."
thought crime
(568 posts)I guess there is a lot of misinformation out there.
There is an inherent issue with recycling plastics because the crosslink sites on the old plastic are already occupied.
So, there is an intrinsic structural integrity compromise with any new polymer (or monomer before the reaction).
There has been work using metathetic chemistry to "force" a reactable site on the recycled plastic. But, it's been at least a year since I heard anything new on that front.
Any plastic requiring reasonable tensile strength can't use more than a percent or 2 of recycle.
Recycling plastic is more myth than real.
CentralMass
(16,370 posts)Researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) established an approach to manufacturing wind turbine blades, employing a thermoplastic resin system. These thermoplastic resins allow for the recycling of wind turbine blades and also reduce the energy required to manufacture blades.
NickB79
(20,006 posts)If you don't believe it, argue with Science Daily.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240516122608.htm
That's according to a new peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand -- which also shows within six months a turbine can generate all the energy consumed across its life-cycle.
1) They don't produce NEAR enough kilowatts per unit for the carbon they use...It seems some sources like to start the clock on these things as though they came fully installed, with no carbon to produce it in the first place.
2) They are an environmental nightmare when they are ready to be decommissioned....Again, conveniently not mentioned.
thought crime
(568 posts)mahina
(19,947 posts)How do fossil fuels pencil out with the externalized costs considered, as well as subsidies?
Thanks. Cheers.
But then some people don't want that because of land condemnation to build lakes,...TVA has produced trillions of megawatts since the late 1930's.
mahina
(19,947 posts)What are your objections to solar power?
I like solar, and I think it has a realistic path to creating a relief system for parts of the grid. However, solar has some issues as well. here are a few.
1) Solar has the same cost to benefit issues that wind or other renewables have. The carbon it takes to produce, ship and maintain the solar panels are rarely factored into the total cost. As you know, they don't just magically spring into existence, but there is a back loaded carbon cost that needs to be considered...If they lasted forever, that would be one thing...But they don't and then:
2) The degradation of the cells...The solar panels themselves have a built in lifespan and then they have to be discarded and start fresh all over again. The same thing that happens to our little solar panels on garden lights, happens on a larger scale on solar farms; i.e: the panels are basically cooked by the sun. The silicone covering becomes clouded and UV damaged, and then the output suffers. Then the entire thing has to be trashed and a new panel installed...More cost and more carbon to build, transport and maintain a new panel.
The problem is that all of this has to be thought out scientifically with no agenda. If a person uses feelz, emotion and confirmation bias to judge a problem, then obvious issues are ignored. That's the problem with many of the renewables.
mahina
(19,947 posts)How do you calculate these non-immacculate technologies against burning oil and coal?
I just read a “skeptic” ask Chip Fletcher Ph.D., who had posted about skyrocketing ocean temperatures and fossil fuels: what is the salinity of the ocean then?”
As if to say, I disregard your footnoted research. As if today’s world ocean temperatures could be gathered and delivered with ease.
“Go do different research for me to then dismiss.” Whatever you do, dont make any progress. These guys…as we say here, no can, dis kine.
TnDem
(1,165 posts)Although, the carbon emissions from US automobiles has GREATLY reduced in my lifetime. Lithium Ion is a great technology, but it has upside costs too like the carbon that it takes to mine, produce and maintain the batteries in vehicles. Then there is disposal.
Nuclear is the best option for grid production and is an endless supply. There are costs, but pound for pound, the rods last a long time and are much easier to deal with than ten million cracked fiberglass windmill blades. The propaganda against nuclear has been strong through. I remember watching The China Syndrome when I was a young man and being totally anti-nuclear...But that's why you carefully regulate that industry. With careful regulation it is the best overall option.
Also, regarding carbon...This is something people like to stick their fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalaaaaa" about when it is brought up, but here we go.
China and India don't give a rats ass about carbon emissions and they never will, yet the US has to toe the line on carbon emissions, which kills our job creation. These two counties alone spew billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere ...Since we all live on the same planet, this brings me to my famous quotation:
"There aren't any no pissing ends of a swimming pool"
ancianita
(41,187 posts)
LudwigPastorius
(13,056 posts)
Sogo
(6,495 posts)It's great to see advancements, but let me make a couple of things clear, turbines are NOT a threat to birds. Birds are much more threatened by high rise buildings with mirrored windows and by cats....Furthermore, wind turbines do NOT produce noise! Those ideas are fake news!!
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)(the buildings are the problem for the birds not the other way around)
progree
(12,147 posts)spike jones
(1,922 posts)electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)spike jones
(1,922 posts)
Figarosmom
(7,276 posts)On end? Aren't there enough phallic buildings around that wenow have to add this too?
I think the turbines are beautiful.
electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)of whst to do with such big non renewable blade pieces afterwards. I'd never thought of that
NNadir
(36,223 posts)The rate of acceleration of extreme global heating, as represented by the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide, has been rising about as fast as hype about so called "renewable energy," on which trillions of dollars have been squandered in the last 10 years for no result with respect to the use of fossil fuels:
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
The popular enthusiasm for so called "renewable energy" began soaking hundreds of billions of dollars per year in the early 21st century.
Nevertheless, one can show that the rise in concentrations is roughly quadratic.
That should tell people something, but regrettably it doesn't.
The reactionary enthusiasm for so called "renewable energy" - which was largely abandoned in the 19th century for a reason - was never about attacking fossil fuels. It was always about attacking nuclear energy, a form of energy put to work by some of the finest minds of the 20th century and surely the last best hope of saving that which has not yet been destroyed, and perhaps even restoring that which can be restored.
So called "renewable energy" depends on access to fossil fuels, and has had no effect on their increasing utilization. The land and mass intensity - and carbon intensity - of this stuff is appalling.
ancianita
(41,187 posts)So called "renewable energy" depends on access to fossil fuels, and has had no effect on their increasing utilization. The land and mass intensity - and carbon intensity - of this stuff is appalling.
LAS14
(15,278 posts)electric_blue68
(22,705 posts)thought crime
(568 posts)No excuses. We have a huge set of solutions to obtain near limitless energy from ocean winds and the sun. Conversion to hydrogen fuel as required. We just need the buildout.
TnDem
(1,165 posts)Then costs billions of tons of carbon to produce and billions more to maintain and finally dispose of the junk that will never rot in a landfill....All for a tiny savings when "buildout" is done and the windmill is finally decommissioned.
thought crime
(568 posts)Everything I read says the carbon payback is quick and the operation lifespan is long.
Example from an Aussie government site:
The carbon payback period varies for offshore wind turbines depending on factors like type and location. Studies have worked out the payback period for offshore wind turbines to be from 5 to 12 months. Offshore turbines can generate clean energy for decades with little emissions. This offsets any carbon produced during their manufacture.
Turbine manufacturers are trying to create 100% recyclable blades for use worldwide. A few examples of this are:
• Siemens Gamesa commencing production of 100 per cent recyclable wind blades for offshore wind usage
• Vestas developing a new method to recycle old epoxy-based wind turbine blades. By using a new chemical process, they can break down epoxy resin into base materials for further use
• several other manufacturers have pledged to produce zero waste wind turbines by 2030.
https://www.dcceew.gov.au/energy/renewable/offshore-wind/offshore-wind-facts#offshore-wind-farms-will-be-fully-decommissioned-at-the-end-of-their-life
So, what is your proposed solution?
mahina
(19,947 posts)Great question!