Sun Apr 29, 2012, 12:33 PM
Motown_Johnny (15,461 posts)
Corkscrew Wind Turbine Now Powering Cleveland Indians Stadium
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/13/cleveland-indians-wind-turbine-corkscrew/
^snip^ This is an interesting one. A newly patented ‘corkscrew’ wind turbine designed by Cleveland State University (CSU) mechanical engineering professor Dr. Majid Rashidi is now helping to power the Cleveland Indians’ stadium. It was put in place about one week ago. What’s up with the corkscrew design? I’ll let Dr. Rashidi explain: “The easiest way to explain it is this: there are two wind turbines hanging on both sides of the spiral,” Dr. Rashidi says. “When air passes by the spiral, it gently deflects the wind towards the turbines to power them. If the spiral were not there, the air molecules would typically miss the turbines entirely.” And this isn’t the Cleveland Indians’ first groundbreaking renewable energy project. The Indians was also the first Major League Baseball (MLB) team to incorporate solar panels into its stadium design, which it did back in 2007.
|
18 replies, 3043 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| Motown_Johnny | Apr 2012 | OP | |
| CrispyQ | Apr 2012 | #1 | |
| roody | Apr 2012 | #2 | |
| tclambert | Apr 2012 | #8 | |
| crayfish | May 2012 | #16 | |
| Dragonfli | Apr 2012 | #3 | |
| Motown_Johnny | Apr 2012 | #4 | |
| Dragonfli | Apr 2012 | #7 | |
| kristopher | Apr 2012 | #6 | |
| HopeHoops | Apr 2012 | #5 | |
| crayfish | Apr 2012 | #9 | |
| Lucky Luciano | Apr 2012 | #10 | |
| Motown_Johnny | Apr 2012 | #12 | |
| crayfish | May 2012 | #14 | |
| Motown_Johnny | May 2012 | #17 | |
| crayfish | May 2012 | #18 | |
| eppur_se_muova | May 2012 | #13 | |
| crayfish | May 2012 | #15 | |
| DainBramaged | Apr 2012 | #11 |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Original post)
Sun Apr 29, 2012, 01:47 PM
CrispyQ (16,038 posts)
1. Click on the link for the cool photo!
|
k&r
|
Response to Motown_Johnny (Original post)
Sun Apr 29, 2012, 03:32 PM
roody (7,500 posts)
2. Fantastic. Now if they could just
|
get rid of their racist name.
|
Response to roody (Reply #2)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 07:14 PM
tclambert (5,532 posts)
8. How about the Cleveland Pakistanis?
Response to roody (Reply #2)
Tue May 1, 2012, 04:14 PM
crayfish (55 posts)
16. I'm 3/4 Cherokee, I don't find the name offensive in any way.
|
|
Response to Motown_Johnny (Original post)
Sun Apr 29, 2012, 04:24 PM
Dragonfli (5,051 posts)
3. That is an interesting design for a VAWT, you can buy some that are similar
|
They do not, as far as I know redirect flow towards turbines at each end as this one does, but rather turn the vertical axis it'self which is geared directly to a generator.
http://www.helixwind.com/en/product.php There are others, I just happened to remember the name of this one. |
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 10:46 AM
Motown_Johnny (15,461 posts)
4. those are what I was researching when I ran across this
|
Well, similar to those. I am curious about smaller ones that can be installed at home. I searched for something like "corkscrew wind turbines" and found that story. |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #4)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:25 PM
Dragonfli (5,051 posts)
7. I was considering one of these for my home before my health and money disappeared
|
http://www.urbangreenenergy.com/uge-products
The smaller ones look affordable, as to how well they work, your guess is as good as mine. The literature looks good but I don't know anybody that has tried one to ask how well they work. I do know you should do a wind survey to find out where on your property it should be placed, also if there is not enough wind it may not be a good value. I once had visions of a mixture of solar and wind that could take me off the grid (grid=coal mostly), perhaps my money and health will return and I will get a chance to engineer something along those lines. |
Response to Dragonfli (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:15 PM
kristopher (21,283 posts)
6. It looks to me that it has 4 HAWTs fed by the corkscrew windscreen.
|
Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 01:16 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) "“The easiest way to explain it is this: there are two wind turbines hanging on both sides of the spiral,” Dr. Rashidi says. “When air passes by the spiral, it gently deflects the wind towards the turbines to power them. If the spiral were not there, the air molecules would typically miss the turbines entirely.”
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/19hFH) Rashidi's description is ambiguous because he used the adjective "both"; it would have been more clear if he'd said "each". The photo confirms that there are two turbines on one side so it is pretty clear the unit has 4 small HAWTs. It is very unlikely you will ever see this design in widespread use. |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Original post)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:13 AM
HopeHoops (47,675 posts)
5. Someone not far from me has a double-helix wind screw. Damn does that thing spin!
Response to Motown_Johnny (Original post)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 08:05 PM
crayfish (55 posts)
9. Well, every little bit helps, I suppose, but 25000 kWh/year is about enough to leep 2 dozen
|
100 watt light bulbs going...maybe the headline should say "powering one of the bathrooms"
|
Response to crayfish (Reply #9)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:19 PM
Lucky Luciano (5,168 posts)
10. Is that not 25 megawatts? Sounds like a lot, but I am no expert. nt
Response to crayfish (Reply #9)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:37 PM
Motown_Johnny (15,461 posts)
12. I think your math is off
|
Last edited Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:42 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilowatt_hour
^snip^ Confusion of kilowatt hours and kilowatts The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed. Power therefore has the unit watts, which is joules per second. A unit of energy is kilowatt hour. For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h), 0.1 kilowatt hour, or 360 kJ. This same amount of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours, or a 50-watt bulb for 2 hours. A power station would be rated in multiples of watts, but its annual energy sales would be in multiples of watt hours. A kilowatt hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 MJ. Power units measure the rate of energy per unit time. Many compound units for rates explicitly mention units of time, for example, miles per hour, kilometers per hour, dollars per hour. Kilowatt hours are a product of power and time, not a rate of change of power with time. Terms such as watts per hour are often misused. Watts per hour (W/h) is a unit of a change of power per hour. It might be used to characterize the ramp-up behavior of power plants. For example, a power plant that reaches a power output of 1 MW from 0 MW in 15 minutes has a ramp-up rate of 4 MW/h. Hydroelectric power plants have a very high ramp-up rate, which makes them particularly useful in peak load and emergency situations. Major energy production or consumption is often expressed as terawatt hours(TWh) for a given period that is often a calendar year or financial year. One terawatt hour is equal to a sustained power of approximately 114 megawatts for a period of one year. As you can see a 100 watt light bulb uses 0.1 kilowatt hour per hour. So a couple dozen would use 2.4 kilowatt hours per hour. Even if we round up to 2.5 we still need to divide that by 25,000 to get the 10,000 hours that those bulbs can be run on wind power. With 365.25 days in a year and 24 hours in a day that means there are only 8766 hours in the year. Since you could run them for 10,000 hours a year that means that burning them 24/7/365 would still only use up 87.66% of the wind power being generated. There are only 81 home games in a baseball season and they tend to last just a few hours. We can round that up to 5 hours per game just for convenience. The stadium could also be used for concerts, and other events, so lets double that. Call it 160 days of usage times five hours a day for a nice even 800 hours a year. Now since each bulb uses 0.1 kWh I come up with 312.5 100 watt bulbs that can be run off wind power {(25000 / 0.1) / 800}. More than a couple dozen, a few hundred (unless my math is off). Edit To Add: Welcome to DU !!! |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #12)
Tue May 1, 2012, 04:05 PM
crayfish (55 posts)
14. Thanks...I appreciate the welcome. May I "show my work" on the numbers?
|
Last edited Tue May 1, 2012, 04:09 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) If I make a mistake, please point it out:
I will stick to whole numbers and avoid scientific notation to keep it a bit more easy to follow, 25,000 kWh = 25,000,000 Wh there are 8766 hours per year so 25000000 Wh/year is 25000000/8766 Wh/h, or ~2850 watts. If they're 100 watt bulbs, it looks like 28 1/2 of them would use up those 2850 watts. My original guesstimate of a couple dozen was a bit optimistic. edit to add I should probably have made it more clear I was figuring based on the lights left on 24/7/365 |
Response to crayfish (Reply #14)
Tue May 1, 2012, 05:45 PM
Motown_Johnny (15,461 posts)
17. That works (sorta)
|
I think running them 24/7/365 when the stadium only has 81 home games a season is a bit of a stretch but I can see where you are coming from.
I am going to go back and copy a little bit more of the article for you. ^snip^ While the new corkscrew wind turbine, projected to generate 25,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year, isn’t expected to make a huge dent in the stadium’s need for power from other sources, that’s not its main purpose. “It is an educational statement for the younger generation,” Dr. Rashidi says. “What the ballpark is doing is to have kids from elementary school through high school see that we are being innovative and trying to design something that can have an impact on the economy around the country.” I think that explains things better than I can. |
Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #17)
Tue May 1, 2012, 08:59 PM
crayfish (55 posts)
18. Yes, I think it's a great concept demonstration...I just rankled a bit at the title of the article
|
that seemed to suggest it was some kind of major contributor to the energy needs of the place. I looked back at the 2011 electric bills for my small residence (totally on the grid, member of a co-op with cost well under a dime per kWh)...we converted about 20,000 kWh of generated electricity into heat. My small contribution to global warming...
shrug |
Response to crayfish (Reply #9)
Tue May 1, 2012, 08:11 AM
eppur_se_muova (20,761 posts)
13. 25,000 kWh = 25 MWh
|
You were trying not to double-count the thousands multipliers, and overdid it.
|
Response to eppur_se_muova (Reply #13)
Tue May 1, 2012, 04:06 PM
crayfish (55 posts)
15. Please see my reply to motown johnny, if I bungled it, let me know what I did wrong!
|
thanks
|
Response to Motown_Johnny (Original post)
Mon Apr 30, 2012, 11:23 PM
DainBramaged (37,836 posts)

