Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

lughnasadh OP t1_it33btf wrote

Submission Statements

Rooftop wind power is a sector that has seen many false starts and dodgy claims over the years. Is Aeromine any different? It looks like there may be reason to be cautiously optimistic.

I can see this solution often failing on NIMBY planning permission grounds. It seems a thing most neighbors would love to object to. It could still find lots of use cases however. Particularly in remote, rural, or particularly windy locations.

35

Fun-Satisfaction-889 t1_it34ymk wrote

Love the concept. I wonder how it would scale with size (eg. one the size of a classic wind turbine).

69

scipio42 t1_it38h7j wrote

I have a rooftop patio, this would be very cool, but I'd love to have some validation that I'm not going to be cleaning up bird remains on the regular.

6

FuturologyBot t1_it399in wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:


Submission Statements

Rooftop wind power is a sector that has seen many false starts and dodgy claims over the years. Is Aeromine any different? It looks like there may be reason to be cautiously optimistic.

I can see this solution often failing on NIMBY planning permission grounds. It seems a thing most neighbors would love to object to. It could still find lots of use cases however. Particularly in remote, rural, or particularly windy locations.


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y92bcf/aeromine_says_they_have_solved_many_of_the/it33btf/

1

OneOverTwoEqualsZero t1_it3c2j6 wrote

They’re stationary, so it looks like they won’t thwack birds out of the air, but they create a negative pressure vacuum so hopefully they don’t suck the birds down and clog the internal machinery

13

DukeOfGeek t1_it3fa9m wrote

Seems like it might be good for buildings along coastlines.

13

Raphaello_Werner t1_it3i1uy wrote

The answer is in the article. Traditional big windmills come pretty close to the Betz limit, these things dont. The good thing is, that they dont claim to revolutionize the established technology. It is a new market and it looks promising although the optics are a huge deal for architects and cityplaners…but who cares in a industiral area

95

ShadowController t1_it3lnbv wrote

DuPont is testing these at their warehouses, which is a promising indication it’s not all just a PR stunt.

164

DumasThePharaoh t1_it3lot0 wrote

Just put a solar panel on top of them for max power!

24

fireandbass t1_it3lx6w wrote

Heck, there is even some flat space on the top of these where you could put solar panels!

80

shotgun_ninja t1_it3ow02 wrote

Ah, my mistake. I still think chicken wire is a good solution, especially since you can't really see it from like 10ft away, and the openings are so wide it'd have a negligible impact on wind resistance and velocity.

1

AlbertaChuck t1_it3oyf5 wrote

This looks a lot better than the bird murdering giant windmill eye sores.

−33

AlbertaChuck t1_it3rwm1 wrote

Feel free to go to one of the larger sites, see for yourself. Vertical turbines like these are much better for the environment. Not just preventing bird kill, but less overall impact (less steel, transportation energy costs, fibreglass blades, etc).

−8

wag3slav3 t1_it3rxvf wrote

Yeah, the windmills kill like 100,000 birds. Cat's kill 100x more but these clowns don't seem to give a shit about useless cats vs shit that also generates power and lets us move off of massively polluting forms of energy.

14

RipThrotes t1_it3up4x wrote

I think you have to space them out because they take wind from all directions, so maybe not rows and rows the way solar panels are set up- but perhaps stacks and stacks? Or spaced as efficiently as possible?

As a quick example, if you have two units east-west of one another, wind from the west hits one but not the other, same goes for wind from the easy. Either way, I think you get my point.

Edit: I hadn't read the article and thought they spun but in a small footprint. Have read, very wrong. Point still stands, maybe stacked?

There don't appear to be any of these that exist, only renderings and the power warehouse rendering has solar panels on it.

23

lanclos t1_it3uyw2 wrote

If I had a small version of this that generated 100-200 watts I'd be happy. That'd be enough to let my house break even at night.

29

MistLynx t1_it4021h wrote

If you reinforce the housing you could also use them to mount solar panels on without needing to mount them directly to the roof giving you even more power and still have access to your roof to say have an AC unit under the solar.

1

nichishor t1_it46jo7 wrote

I' m very curious about the output of smaller scale ones.

4

AlbertaChuck t1_it47f55 wrote

The idiots that “roll coal” need to have their vehicles seized. I dislike windmills because they are WAY less beneficial for the environment than most people think, and there are better alternatives (like this product).

0

SpectralMagic t1_it4a705 wrote

Waiting on the hybrid for maximum efficiency 🧠 Also interested in using the heat to boil a fluid to rotate yet another engine 🧠🧠 Someone must put me on the creators board of big energy, if you're going to rob investors atleast make it sound cool

−8

JBloodthorn t1_it4b7jj wrote

The blades at the top look like a standard Savonius Turbine, but they are stationary.

The actual turbine is below them, and rotates around the same axis that the air is moving.

3

dustwindy t1_it4lt9j wrote

I got halfway through the description thinking it said 'Aerosmith'

1

underthingy t1_it4nvxl wrote

"a machine for producing continuous power in which a wheel or rotor, typically fitted with vanes, is made to revolve by a fast-moving flow of water, steam, gas, air, or other fluid."

So it's a rotor, powered by air, that's generating power? Pretty much the definition of wind turbine.

−6

underthingy t1_it4tng4 wrote

That wasnt an argument though. Language is important and you made the same claim (it's not a wind turbine) in multiple comments.

If no one corrects you, other people might believe you and start parroting it.

>versus the conventional wind turbine.

Had you used this phrasing or similar in your other comments we wouldn't be having this conversation.

−2

Vtguy802812 t1_it4vq5z wrote

It’d be cool if they could make a small horizontal version of this to act like a spoiler on a car to sustain the battery while driving.

−3

exipheas t1_it4yad2 wrote

Due to efficiency losses you will generate more drag than you would get electricity back to power the vehicle. Perpetual motion machines haven't been invented yet.

13

Alias_The_J t1_it4ycwv wrote

An interesting idea, but I'd love to see power curve data for different wind directions; from what I can tell (and my admittedly layperson knowledge), it looks like the electricity produced would drop off very quickly even from ~15 degree deviations from the ideal wind direction.

4

Vtguy802812 t1_it55yab wrote

Not perpetual motion. Just enough energy created to increase range. Ie you drive 50 miles, but produce enough from wind to charge the battery enough to go an extra 10.

Perhaps some day wind and/or photovoltaic cells could effectively increase battery range enough to offset the costs both financially and physically.

−4

grassytoes t1_it59uic wrote

But it's not recouping anything. Like they said, the energy you would lose from the drag is more than the energy you'd get out of it. Even if it were 100% efficient, all it would do is not slow you down.

8

Vtguy802812 t1_it5bwfb wrote

Hence why: “IT’D BE COOL”

Right now it is not feasible, perhaps one day someone will find a way to manage the drag.

It’s an theory that is being tested and studied. Look at EOEL or the Ventomobile or the Lotus Nemesis.

−4

grassytoes t1_it5ml1l wrote

Yes, it'd be cool, but it's not ever feasible. Not now, not with any future tech. It goes against the conservation of energy. If it worked, it would have to be a magical turbine that put out more energy than the kinetic energy it got from the wind.

The only reason regular wind turbines are useful is because the kinetic energy from natural wind is free. So we can convert a part of that to electrical energy. The car examples you gave use this free wind energy.

A turbine on the back of a car would be getting all of it's kinetic wind energy by slowing the car down and converting a portion of that lost energy to electricity.

7

OrcOfDoom t1_it5ott8 wrote

I wonder if this can be used to help pull heat from things also.

Like, let's say you have it pull the hot air from a bank of ac units, or refrigeration, or something like that. If the ambient air it is pulling is hotter than the low pressure air created, you should have even more energy, no?

I can imagine that the cheap fan would have low heat tolerance, but I'm not talking about something like restaurant exhaust. Just increasing the cooling of an ac unit should help lower energy costs.

6

zoinkability t1_it5q6h1 wrote

It would violate the laws of physics. Over 100% of the power it generates would be coming from… the battery it is feeding power back to, with a whole lot of losses due to friction, etc. It is simply not possible and no amount of “it would be cool” will ever make it possible.

3

Mobile-Ground-2226 t1_it5r7m6 wrote

If it's motionless then what is the vertical axis turbine inside the shroud/assembly doing to make power?

0

few t1_it5w4t7 wrote

They don't take wind from all directions.

I expect they're relying on wind being higher coming over the edge of large buildings, and stacking wouldn't work very well.

5

EvelcyclopS t1_it5yoer wrote

Things that move need maintenance.added costs add up, become obsolete, rust away and become white elephants.

Also ugly as fuck

−4

growlybeard t1_it62r54 wrote

It's motionless in the sense that it doesn't rotate like traditional turbines or vertical axis turbines. The structure vibrates and somehow they capture the energy from it. Kinda like comparing a circular saw to an oscillating saw but for generating power.

Ok NVM I went and read the article (shame on me) and there is a turbine it's just hidden from the surface.

I thought this was a different type that does exactly what my explanation was suggesting.

Here is what I thought we were talking about: https://vortexbladeless.com/technology/

2

fongboi97 t1_it65nha wrote

No moving parts? Less wear and tear …is it cost effective! Looks like an eyesore but might be a new norm if it works!

1

PermaDerpFace t1_it6d3xo wrote

This kind of stuff is the only thing that gives me any hope

2

Koakie t1_it6jjhq wrote

There is still a turbine. But its built in the base. The shape of the thing creates low pressure and pulls air up through the base.

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/628d17032d7bf45b1f456f6f/b09c6e9b-3188-4c83-9152-fa3887978487/standalone+unit.jpg

Here is another design which pulls air through it, with a turbine in a tube. https://ip.sandia.gov/images/tech/2.png

Or how they can connect multiple air ducts to a single turbine https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTV9wMkd5CFzHrGmrxKyoD2baWr-IxTcRbecQ&usqp=CAU

There are no "external" moving parts is what they mean. Like a regular turbine spinning huge blades.

If they find a way to generate energy by just blowing wind along a few copper coils, let me know.

4

goocheroo t1_it6qe8w wrote

What do you with something like this when a hurricane is headed your way?

2

Viper_63 t1_it6sgwe wrote

>As with traditional wind turbines, size is key.

>On the other hand, they don't create the noise

>and Aeromine places a relatively small, cheap internal propeller (perhaps 36 inches/91 cm in diameter) in that tube to run a generator

>So what are the downsides? Well, these things need to be installed in spots where the wind direction is pretty constant, because they don't angle themselves to catch a breeze – and they probably never will, since they're designed to be such a cost-conscious machine.

So instead of low-frequency noise they create high-frequency noise, they are less efficient than traditional ones, and they don't even work when the wind is coming in from the wrong direction. On top of that they look like oversized rooftop AC units.

If I had a dime for every project pushing the "this is going to work so much better than traditional wind turbines"-angle and promising that no, this time it's going to be different, really bro just trust me, all we need to do is complicate a very simply design to make it more affordable and efficient I would have a lot of dimes. Maybe even some dollars.

I mean, solar panel output might vary by daytime and cloudcover, but it usually doesn't change all that much due to the sun unexpectedly rising in the north. Solar panels also don't need as much maintenance, and there's not a whole lot that can break, apart from the panel itself. And I don't think birds and instects tend to nest in or on solar panels all that much. Below, maybe.

2

WaitformeBumblebee t1_it6w4qv wrote

5 kW turbine for a 3 sqm area? Apart from sporadic and localized gale winds I don't see much potential wind power to harvest in just 3sqm, much less in the kW range. I'm very skeptical of these claims.

3

T1res1as t1_it6xjuq wrote

Are they noisy? Windmills tend to make noise when in operation. The big ones have this annoying pulsating swoosh when the blades move.

Natural noises like running water or wind through trees is ok. But any sort of rythmic noise from say a spinning turbine quickly becomes unbearable since you can’t help but hyperfocus on the annoyance

1

Cap_Milton t1_it75lcd wrote

Considering architecture, art, music, people's knowledge of nature, community-building, faith and trust in our own senses, etc., we've been devolving for quite a long time, my friend. Just because time passes and you can type on a screen doesn't necessarily mean progress.

1

el__gato__loco t1_it78y37 wrote

Build them into highway pillars and bridge supports.

1

noping_dafuq_out t1_it79zlc wrote

"Operating more or less silently" and "motionless" are red flags for me.

0

disruptioncoin t1_it8r4ke wrote

He didn't put a comma after faith, it was part of the "faith and trust in our own senses" part. However I'm not quite sure what he means by that. But it doesn't sound like he's talking about religion

1

T1res1as t1_itg8l53 wrote

Some places in Norway has wind turbines on top of hills and the noise drives local people mad. Soundproofing the house is good but you also want to enjoy the silence in your yard as well. These are rural locations so people are used to the silence there. Kinda why they moved there.

The natural environment is also a big part of the ”people soul” in Norway, so messing up the mountains with windmills is a trauma.

Ideally it should look a bit like this outside your door: https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brudeferd_i_Hardanger

Maybe with a grocery store for convenienxe sake, but kinda hidden to so it does not stand out.

Ofc land based mills are cheaper to both build and maintain than off shore ones. Which is where much of the problem lies.

1

losthalo7 t1_itgaf9v wrote

> The turbine is enclosed so probably not noisy on the outside of the building.

As for the Norwegians, I wasn't making any particular recommendations for their power needs - how much electrical power does one need while rowing around on a beautiful fjord anyway? That looks pretty relaxing.

2

T1res1as t1_itger88 wrote

Sitting in your 1800sqft single home (built in the 80s so insulation is a bit meh) in the winter, watching Netflix with the fjord outside and your electric car charging in the garage is surprisingly energy intensive.

Sure you got a couple heat pumps installed 5 years ago, but it still sucks up juice to heat the place up

Everyone wants cheap power, but not in their back yard. The landscape is for instagram posted peak hikes in nature as every good norwegian does, not for windmills. They kinda ruin it visually speaking.

1