Mini-Tornadoes For Generating Electricity

cylonlover writes "Tornadoes generally evoke the destructive force of nature at its most awesome. However, what if all that power could be harnessed to produce cheaper and more efficient electricity? This is just what Canadian engineer Louis Michaud proposes to achieve, with an invention dubbed the 'Atmospheric Vortex Engine' (or AVE). It works by introducing warm air into a circular station, whereupon the difference in temperature between this heated air and the atmosphere above creates a vortex – or controlled tornado, which in turn drives multiple wind turbines in order to create electricity. The vortex could be shut down by simply turning off the source of warm air. Michaud's company, AVEtec Energy Corporation, reports that the system produces no carbon emissions, nor requires energy storage to function, and that further to this, the cost of energy generated could potentially be as low as US$0.03 per kilowatt hour."

Comments

Warm Air.

[BradleyUffner]

And where does the power from heating the air come from?

Re:Warm Air.

[Ironhandx]

Geo-thermal vents spring to mind, amongst other things, such as using this technique along with the exhaust from a nuclear reactor to increase its power output.

Re:Warm Air.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, let's create controlled tornadoes in the immediate vicinity of nuclear reactors.
What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Warm Air.

[amRadioHed]

What could possibly get wrong when an puny, artificial tornado that will dissipate as soon as it is removed from its source is created in proximity to a reactor sheltered within a dome strong enough to withstand even the strongest natural tornadoes? I'm thinking absolutely nothing.

Re:Warm Air.

[fyngyrz]

Tornados are inherently driven by DC electric, viz. an amp or two through a potential of several million volts. The circuit consists of rain laying down charge, the tornado picking it up and returning it to the cloud.

This kind of thinking is why people England had to set up Australia as a penal colony. Oh, Mick, you know you shouldn't make things up. We told yer and we told yer. Now say toodles to yer mum, and onto the freighter wit yer. Time fer a new life where yer can't hurt nobody no more.

Re:Warm Air.

[yndrd1984]

But we already do that in the ocean and it does work (even if it isn't that impressive).

Re:Warm Air.

[mysidia]

Sure... but the original argument of $0.03 / kwH. Is very similar to the idea of having a perpetual motion machine, or "harnessing free energy from the vacuum"; with a new label stamped on it.

The use of geothermal heat makes sense, in which case it's just Geothermal power, or "Power produced by tapping exhaust heat" which requires more energy than suggested, and there are already other Geothermal power production methods.... so this is of benefit, only if more efficient, or it can harness exhaust heat that cannot be harnessed through other methods more safely/efficiently.

Re:Warm Air.

[crutchy]

no actually Thomas Andrews knew that the Titanic was sinkable... it was the stupid greedy corporates (like Bruce Ismay) who had absolutely no ounce of technical clue about them that assumed the Titanic was unsinkable

often is the case with many man-made (and even some natural) disasters that those with the power to prevent such event are warned by those with knowhow (such as engineers) and are routinely ignored in the name of profit margins, bureacracy or politics.... as much a problem today as it was in 1912, unfortunately

Re: Warm Air.

[crutchy]

you don't need to run a ship into an iceberg or perform a complex computer simulation to ensure a ship can withstand an iceberg... there are certain industries that require testing of everything, such as civil aviation, but engineers are trained to make conservative assumptions and simplifications based on material data, generic empirical testing, past experience with what works and what fails, as well as common sense (also more recently legal risk has become a significant factor in an increasing level of conservativity in engineering decisions). engineers sign off on their work, legally certifying their design as safe in accordance with whatever standards they reference, so despite assumptions and simplifications there is no implication that what engineers do is questionable; engineers make things work, and for things to work they also have to be affordable, and not everything can be tested to the nth degree.

the engineers who designed the titanic knew it was safe within the intended limits of its operation. unfortunately, while engineers can recommend safety measures and precautions, they can't prevent the idiot factor (if you try to idiot-proof something, someone will invent a better idiot). engineers have limited power to stop business managers ordering the removal of lifeboats or politicizing critical design decisions (fortunately engineers have much more clout when it comes to issues that have direct safety implications, with fairly strong representative organisations to support them). the titanic was as safe as a ship could be designed at the time (structurally it was actually built much stronger, with much higher safety margins due to uncertainties such as materials, than modern ships). it was really actually a testament to the engineers that the ship held up for as long as it did.

the Titanic was a human disaster, not a technical or engineering disaster; the ship was designed to carry more lifeboats than it did, and Thomas Andrews (chief design engineer for the Titanic) originally wanted watertight bulkheads up to B deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_%28shipbuilder%29#RMS_Titanic) but as often still happens today, profit (and other) motives carry more weight than any kind of technical logic or safety considerations.

if something is designed by engineers, you can be reasonably sure that it will be safe for its design life, but it may be a little more expensive than something designed by accountants. consumers nowadays can be easily mislead by clever marketing into thinking that something designed by accountants will be as safe as if it were designed by engineers. if they only knew the difference in the ethics of accountants and engineers they might shudder at the thought of an accountant designing anything and pay the extra money for the assurance offered by something that has been properly engineered.

Interesting

[Janek Kozicki]

ok, I assume that the cost of heating that air at bottom is already calculated in. This would mean that this AVE is pulling energy out of atmosphere (thin air, yeah), which means decreasing the air temperature. Because gas stores energy using kinetic energy of its molecules (temperature). This would mean that AVE will produce energy exploiting the global warming effect. Doubly cool solution. Even if I doubt global warming, I was always thinking, that the hotter it is, the more energy we have, the more power to us (skpping the floods of some coastal regions). I wasn't however sure how to exploit this energy. Well, perhaps AVE is the answer...

Re:Interesting

[h4rr4r]

Either way it would reduce reliance on fossil fuel. If you have a coal burning power plant making X megawatts and you can get another Y megawatts for "free" that means either less peaking plants need to be run or X can be reduced by some amount by burning less fuel.

Re:No Carbon Emissions?

[yotto]

Ah.

The heat required to get the mini-tornado started would be provided by a temporary heat source, such as a heater, or steam. However, AVEtec states that once the vortex is thus established, the continuous heat could then be provided by a more sustainable source – such as waste industrial heat or warm seawater.

Seems a little hand-wavey, and I'd still like to see how "potential" this 3 cents per kilowatt hour prediction is.

But the idea of parking one over a geothermal vent or floating them on the ocean tethered to already-existing wind turbines seems less ludicrous to me now.

Energy from nothing...

[pitchpipe]

Energy from nothing and chicks for free. That ain't workin'.

Re:No Carbon Emissions?

[Dasher42]

You don't need a geothermal vent. A large number of mirrors and a receiver filled with molten salts is itself already a proven technology. Concentrated solar thermal chimneys are actually part of the basis of this design, and they've been generating megawatts for decades in sunnier parts of the world.

We should have been using this technology already, but skewed money comparisons that ignore pollution and military expenditures make oil *seem* cheaper than these, which it really isn't overall.

http://www.csp-world.com/tags/khi-solar-one

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is an old idea ...

[timholman]

Google "Tornado Turbine" and look for the January 1977 issue of Popular Science. This idea has been around for a long, long time. Back then, the idea was to take advantage of solar heating of the tower to drive the vortex. I've seen similar ideas that were supposed to take advantage of natural pressure / temperature differentials along cliffs and mountains, etc. None have ever been made to work in any practical way.

When someone fails to check the prior art and starts trumpeting about his or her re-invention of the wheel, then you can just about discount the claims from the start. Why should anyone trust the opinion of an engineer who can't even be bothered to do any background research?

Link

[sugarmotor]

Popsci opened up their archives a while ago. http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=FgEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=78&query=1977%20Tornado%20Turbine

Re:No Carbon Emissions?

[Dasher42]

Because you pay for the cost of keeping oil supply under control not at the gas pump, but through taxes, yet you pay for it all the same, because other energy supplies would not oblige the military to defend the interests of oil companies.

But ...

[PPH]

... think of the ecosystem as a whole.

If you tap the energy of tornadoes to generate power, it will reduce their remaining energy. Tap enough energy and they might become nearly extinct. If this happens, mobile homes, with no remaining natural predators, will multiply out of control.

Re:Rain shadow creator?

[c0lo]

It's all self contained, it's not like its using 'real' thunderstorms out in the 'wild'. It won't effect the outside world at all realistically.

Self-contained you say... Won't affect, eh? TFA quote:

the vortex could be 50 m in diameter at its base and extend up to the tropopause

Re: Congress, obviously!

[almechist]

And where does the power from heating the air come from?

Congress! Where else? Studies have shown that multiple tornadoes worth of hot air can at times be generated by even a single congressperson, it's just a matter of finding the right one. Yeah, I lost the link to those studies, but hey, you know it's true.