satguru
|
I haven't seen the test results yet, but the important factor is they are wind generators. What is done with the wind afterwards is pretty academic as it is a finite resource, and the laws of conservation of energy (unlike photovoltaics, which can improve with new chemicals just as batteries have in the past) means you can't get more power out than goes in, plus the huge costs of hardware and distribution. The electricity required to run existing and new wind generators is often as much as generated, meaning the small amount of power (7-20% max output) created by wind is pretty much neutralised from the motors turning them to the wind and the brakes. The new ionic generators will remove the moving part elements, so won't actually suck up as much power, but however you do it you can't convert more energy from intermittent moving air than it provides, just as you can't with the similar hydroelectric. The advantages of water is it flows constantly, wind never can so won't be able to provide a genuine power source, neither can sun as power is needed 24/7 and anything which generates it needs a constant power source. Windmills are 3000 years old, and the reason they were abandoned so long ago till now is they had proved primitive and inefficient since the industrial revolution, and making them a little better can't change that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaneless_ion_wind_generator Reply #1. Sep 11 11, 6:28 PM |
daymare
|
Not certain about large scale but the one we had reduced the amount of dusting I had to do....so I am all for them. Reply #2. Sep 11 11, 6:50 PM |
|
|