A small change turbo-charges vertical-axis wind turbine efficiency 200%

A small change turbo-charges vertical-axis wind turbine efficiency 200%
👇👇 Buy something and support The Electric Viking Store 👇👇
shop.theelectricviking.com/
Size guide and other help for the store 👇
theelectricviking.com/the-ele...
🔔 Subscribe and hit the notification bell! ► / @electricviking
Join me on Patreon ► / theelectricviking
Join as a member in The Electric Viking KZbin►
/ @electricviking
Members-only videos (see videos before anyone else)►
• Members-only videos
👇 Please donate here for Shanna (Viking's wife) if you can 👇
gofund.me/ef6650d7
See what happened to Shanna:
• Stage 4 can go to hell...
The Electric Viking on other platforms:
Rumble ► rumble.com/c/TheElectricViking
Facebook page ► / theelectricvikingfb
Facebook group ► / theevfbgroup
Twitter ► / theevking
Instagram ► / theelectricvking
Pinterest ► / theelectricviking
Telegram ► t.me/theelectricviking
TikTok ► / theelectricviking
👇 See more about me 👇
• You've been asking; he...
👇 My Bali trip 👇
• I went to Indonesia an...
👇 Video about My Skateboard 👇
• EASIEST & cheapest way...
👇 Subscribe to my kids channel 👇
tinyurl.com/subscribetojackan...
See more videos:
Chinese EV maker reveals the Humanoid Robots that will replace humans
• Chinese EV maker revea...
Musk says Tesla's investment in self driving cars will be over $10B this year
• Musk says Tesla's inve...
World’s Largest Tesla Supercharger site is a HUGE virtual power plant
• World’s Largest Tesla ...
Tesla’s Chief Designer responds to claims that $25,000 Model 2 is DEAD
• Tesla’s Chief Designer...
Tesla transports sold electric cars to customers using Electric Semi's
• Tesla transports sold ...
Toyota magical-state battery 'mass production' only enough for 0.1% of Toyota cars
• Toyota magical-state b...
BYD reveal new cheaper LFP Blade battery with 27% higher energy density
• BYD reveal new cheaper...
The U.S. says Chinese imports destroyed 2 million American jobs
• The U.S. says Chinese ...
Lucid is slashing prices on growing inventory stock by up to $30,000
• Lucid is slashing pric...
#windturbine #windturbines #renewableenergy
👇Reference to the news/charts & videos used in this video:
interestingengineering.com/en...
This channel may use some copyrighted materials without specific authorization of the owner; but content used here falls under the “Fair Use” Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976.
Allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Contact us for any copyright issues. If you want a credit of any footage we are using, please let us know.
Website: theelectricviking.com/contact/
Email: [e-mail]

[@ch94086]

The main reason vertical axis turbines are not used for power generation is the cost per kWh. Power is related to the square of the rotor diameter in a HAWT, while VWATs scale more linearly. Also wind speed on the ground is way less than 200m up on a tower, and power is related to the cube of wind speed. The efficiency doesn’t matter. It’s cost, cross sectional area, and wind speed. The VAWTs can’t compete, so that why they are not used, and why small wind is mostly not used.

[@chillfluencer]

In short: their efficiency is way lower than the one of horizontal axis turbines.

[@rvanbeau2009]

In california energy is so expensive that wind still makes sense but regulation restricts their use in residential properties on many properties where solar is allowed.

[@concinnus]

@@chillfluencer Well you could call it cost efficiency or lifecycle efficiency, but efficiency of a device is generally understood to mean power efficiency, which is not the issue.

[@mariahhov]

You are speaking of the current VAWTs, but is it the same if they now output twice the power? Put them on a tall pole (same as the HAWTs) except instead of only half the swept area high up, the whole swept area is high up.

[@tgdomnemo5052]

​@@chillfluencer COSTefficiency ?

[@chillfluencer]

The theoretical maximum efficiency of any turbine is ~59%, also known as the Betz Limit. Most horizontal axis turbines extract ~50% of the energy from the wind that passes through the rotor area. Vertical axis turbines on the other hand only have a maximum efficiency of 35 to 40%.

[@michaelnurse9089]

Except these ones might be closer to 50% as well now, making them suitable for small installations.

[@GRAHAMAUS]

200% is impressive, but it's not "orders of magnitude" better, as you state. An order of magnitude has a specific meaning, it doesn't just mean "lots better".

[@MichaelF350]

Yes, an order of magnitude is 10x, 2 orders is 100x, etc

[@danncorbit3623]

@@MichaelF350 It can also mean powers of 2 or powers of e. The idea is an exponential improvement

[@MegaHorse7]

We have a lot more wind than sun in Ireland.

[@ivannavi8154]

You have Guiness power, and that beats everything...

[@Gobhumi]

Vertical-axis wind turbine is now far more efficient. time to make a complete shift to vertical. this tech should be on homes along with solar panels, the one two win. lets get off the grid and everyone become self energy efficient and energy secure. This tech breakthrough is very likely to have been achieved using AI. thanks for the good news Electric Viking!

[@tomtxtx9617]

Unfortunately, vertical doesn't scale well - at least so far.

[@eclecticcyclist]

From theory simple VWTs were only 50% of the efficiency of HAWTs therefore this new technology only brings them level, so does not mean a complete shift. VAWTs may have an advantage ynder some wind conditions but large HAWTs still have an dvantage bang for buck since they sweep a larger area with less hardware.

[@KhanR1-qm2xi]

All new build homes should be required to be net zero with solar and vertical access wind turbines with battery storage so homeowners can produce their own electricity and not be slaves to the electric utility companies.

[@darthsirrius]

Great video and great news! Side note, "American football pitch," had me in stitches lol.

[@electricviking]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@philjimmybob5650]

200% efficiency increase compared to what? The old original straight blade type of vertical axis turbine blade?

[@TerryHickey-xt4mf]

compared to? and in relation to? my question exactly. There needed to be a reference point.

[@RWBHere]

Vertical axis machines have their place, of course, but one fundamental fact is that they will need to be raised so that the centre height of the blades is similar to the axis height of a horizontal axis turbine in order to avail themselves of the same inherent wind energy. And a second fact is that wind energy is available from a swept area/volume of wind, so the size and mass of a vertical axis turbine would very likely be greater than a horizontal axis machine for a similar output power.

[@miket2067]

I'm looking at a synopsis of the paper in the screenshot at the beginning of this video. Couple of observations: (1) it has nothing to do with "tuning the blade angles" of individual turbines. It's all about the fact that VAWTs can be packed more closely together than HAWTs because of their reduced wake turbulence. (2) the efficiency gain is for the wind farm as a whole, and is 15% not 200% Are you talking about a different paper than the one shown? A link in the notes would be helpful.

[@kkarllwt]

You forgot sams claim of' order of magnitude' improvement. Sam just makes thing up.

[@steveperrins9482]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYSkfqWlrZKajdEsi=Ml9_c5S8peiKc21D

[@VideoMazk]

Now I'm sure about telling KZbin to not recommend (show) this channel anymore. This has basically been a nothing video.

[@JoeyBlogs007]

Genetic algorithms are very useful for optimisation.

[@Hybridog]

They are, and sometimes the reults they produce are, um weird. A researcher used genetic algorithms a number of years ago to design a large structural beam for the International Space Station. it was just a design exercise. The results were a bit startling after the software "bred" a new beam. •••••The giant beam looked like a human leg bone.••••• My brain went klunk when I saw this.

[@jlamm2223443]

I think the Viking has it wrong in that the efficiency he is talking about is the Power derived from space, making vertical good when you have a confined space available for harvest. But for power companies, the important factor is Power harvested per dollar spent to make the turbine, and the other style sweeps a much larger area for a larger total harvest of power even though the percentage of power for the area swept is less.

[@myronp243]

We have both at our university, they don't rotate as much as the standard designs.

[@gazzaguru2]

200% “increase” is 3X of course.

[@CajunMusings]

All computer simulated ....of course.....and we all know the simulations ALWAYS match reality...

[@TrueBluePlus]

Just curious where do you research to get the latest technology updates? As I'm a renewables Engineer, great & informative vidz as always!

[@Madonsteamrailways]

The new form of wind turbine looks very much more efficient than the three pronged monsters that live in the sea around the British coast!! There’s no such thing as a beautiful wind turbine, but they do beautiful things to the environment.

[@eish3291]

Looks like these vertical turbines are more suited for installation on high buildings where the wind speed will be stronger than closer to the ground.

[@jimthain8777]

I have a feeling that what is being compared by most people is apples and oranges. Let me explain. As far as I can tell from what I've seen of both of these technologies, the only thing they really have in common is that they are trying to extract energy from wind. They work at different scales. So horizontal wind turbines are best if they big, tall, and can access maximum wind speeds. (Basically we should be building them in bodies of water and on mountain tops where the wind is least impeded and fastest.) On the other hand other types of wind turbines create electricity at much slower wind speeds, and can work in places where the wind is much slower, and more turbulent. So the key to these "slow wind" turbines is small size, and light components. The lighter the components of these other kinds of turbines, the better. So basically you want to make them out of, say, Bamboo, or Balsa wood, anything strong that reduces weight, and you DON"T want to make them too big either. They need very little energy to turn them and they make power, because they would be small, and light, and thus cheap to build their "efficiency" is less important than something that is large and expensive. Also small light things can be built and deployed in large numbers pretty much everywhere, another difference from large horizontal turbines. Basically you could build and deploy possibly hundreds of small vertical turbines for the cost of one large horizontal turbine. These are the reasons I don't see the comparison between the two technologies, and why I feel comparing them is like comparing apples and water melons. I really think these are two different ways of utilizing the same resource. Is my understanding of these technologies flawed, or are they really very different the way I think they are?

[@louietuna8091]

One key to vertical axis wind turbines is using Mag Lev technology to create low friction bearings in the hub center point for rotation. Oh, and they also need to be 200 feet in the air.

[@Really2950]

Great content, thanks

[@electricviking]

Much appreciated!

[@jalexand007]

I have been saying verticals makes more since or some of these other multidirectional ones.

[@Radio_FM_3123]

VAWT is relative easier to install because it is near ground but for the same reason, the wind is weaker than high up above ground, thus it is less efficient.

[@jeffjwatts]

Vertical Axis turbines were far less efficient than horizontal axis turbines. So how do these compare? Are they onpar with Horizontal turbines?

[@sparkysho-ze7nm]

Depends on where u put them ( patentable idea in head)

[@TheTanman412]

Amazing. Imagine if Disneyland originally had built their Spinning Teacup ride Vertically instead of Horizontally. Would’ve had Hindenburg-level mechanical failures. It makes so much more sense to work with gravity, rather than against, and rotate horizontally.

[@jimbo92107]

Similar shape change should also improve hydro electric power production, and maybe even boat props.

[@ForbiddenPlanetB]

Someone uses a large black vertical turbine near where I live. I can't comment on its efficiency, obviously, but in an area of outstanding natural beauty its most obvious feature is its aesthetic compared to a huge standard wind turbine painted white.

[@larzlarz1140]

Sam, you’re listening to hype, but ignoring thermodynamics. Vertical wind turbines are already 50-60% efficient. Increasing their efficiency by 200% would mean they they are 150-180% thermodynamically efficient, which is impossible. 100% efficiency is the theoretical maximum, but because of friction and waste heat generation, none will ever go above 95%. And horizontal turbines are already 70% efficient. That is why EVERYONE uses horizontal turbines. The best that vertical turbines will ever be able to do is 25% more output than our existing horizontal turbines. This is not an increase in “orders of magnitude”. My bet is that in 20 years, when existing horizontal turbines are aging out, vertical turbines will still make up less than 50% of total installed turbines.

[@ovidiumoro5470]

They can increase 200% in efficiency if they are made în China!😂

[@yorkyone2143]

Vertical wind turbines can be more densely installed within an array than horizontal ones, as they effect airflow on other turbines less than horizontal turbines meaning more turbines per wind farm. Everyone uses horizontal turbines now because they had not fixed excessive vibrations that caused structural problems. Until now...

[@simotronic]

Obviously you can't have a system that's 200% efficient. But. You can increase an existing efficiency by 200%. If, for example, the existing efficiency was 40%, doubling it implies it becomes 80% efficient. So my first question is how is the efficiency of a fan measured? Let's assume you have a wind tunnel that you can measure the volumetric airflow and the thrust that it generates. That air thrust is passing over the vertical wind turbine and you are measuring the power generated. Perhaps now you have a measure of the power being captured? As others have stated, the area footprint is of significance in terms of energy being captured.

[@neon1718]

​@simotronic Wouldn't increase by 100% double and increasing by 200% triple the efficiency. Which is what OP was saying and how he got from 50% to 150%

[@irri4662]

Can you do a video on the top 4 efficient turbine configurations with cost breakdown. 🙏 please

[@robertcampbell6521]

One thing for certain this bloke always makes me chuckle😂😂 The electric clown

[@steenpedersen8526]

The easiest thing in the world would be to criticise without a single argument.

[@douglaswatt1582]

You're a trolling clown

[@JacobBohmeDK]

Show us the powercurve, and give us a price! My guess is, it is rubbish. Solar and HAWT are hard to beat.

[@michaelnitake2534]

Why not make VWAT taller to capture the high winds at altitude like the HAWT?

[@ralphpremici7632]

I like the ridgeblade

[@mrmawson2438]

Wind chimes have been out for a long time also

[@christopherj2231]

Interesting...good video.

[@electricviking]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@fargom54]

Sam: a 200% improvement (i.e. 3x) is not even one order of magnitude improvement. An order of magnitude would be 10x better. FYI. Thanks. Interesting finding on the turbines.

[@kkarllwt]

Don't confuse sam with facts.

[@ancientwisdom-ty4nb]

Rivers flow continuously. Instead of unreliable wind turbines y not make them vertical so the more reliable flow of rivers move d blades

[@mikemotorbike4283]

We must remember it is a necessary requirement for inventors to promote their product by featuring its novel innovation and distinct design evolution. This is to secure investor interest by answering the question, "What makes your product better than the competition?". The investor has to read beyond the hyperbole, which to be honest is cut 'n' paste here, and to incorporate A.I. seems strategically edgy. I will offer that there is a known concern with turbine electronics located at water level. A real investor would have to perform due diligence involving deeper research into financial background, legal etc. beyond the mission scope of this booster video.

[@John-FourteenSix]

Other than a 200% improvement, I have literally no idea what you said… So why do I want one?

[@jacobsoby3910]

I'm still confused... You have lots of examples of vertical turbines, but no specific examples of before and after... Was one of them the research result or is it just a theory?

[@danncorbit3623]

Are there commercial implementations of this idea? Is there independent verification of the claims?

[@KhanR1-qm2xi]

The problem is that homeowner restrictions make them difficult for homeowners to use. Many laws require the homeowner to have at least an acre lot which makes having a small vertical access wind turbine impossible for most homeowners.

[@chriswise1232]

Agreed. I had a fair amount of hoops to jump through in order to get my solar array online. The requirements for ANY size of wind turbine basically made them financially unfeasible.

[@ForbiddenPlanetB]

That's interesting because someone has recently installed a huge vertical turbine to the rear of their property near me. I was impressed how it nestled into such a small space compared to the impossibility a usual common turbine would have been there, even if they could have overcome planning restrictions in an area of outstanding beauty like this. Moreover, they painted it black, which appears to further camouflage it.

[@Larsbor]

Didnt some american solve this with another profile of the wings that stabilizes the flow so it dont spinn out of controll.

[@mariahhov]

You are getting your percentage and orders of magnitude confused. 200% is 2 times the output so the same order of magnitude. It would have to be 10 times more output to be an order of magnitude better.

[@3drocket]

Looks like the turbine at 0:30 is going backwards with the sharp end of the blade going forwards. Maybe the video is reversed by mistake.

[@andrewjamez]

I'd wager that a vertical would use less materials to produce and could ba made more recyclable than giant conventional turbines

[@Ryan-ff2db]

These will never be used in urban settings unless they're on the top of large buildings. At ground level wind is rarely strong enough to make it worth it, even in rural settings. Inside cities they will be worthless and will never come close to breaking even on cost. These may work at scale but very few homeowners would benefit from this. I know, I looked into this when I set up solar at my house and the math was pointless even on 5 acres. A 200 percent increase still wouldn't have made it viable.

[@cristerhelin8532]

Sorry, forgot to paste the VAWT-HAWT test link: kzbin.info/www/bejne/haCYnHqrhpVqsMU

[@patrickleahy590]

Wind turbines are best placed offshore

[@patrickbeck4062]

Not sure you know what "orders of magnitude" means

[@Madonsteamrailways]

Perhaps the more efficient wind turbines will make it possible to have LAND wind farms in England!!

[@RWBHere]

Ait's a law of Physics, Sam; a vertical axis wind turbine can never be 'orders of magnitude' more efficient than horizontal axis turbines. To explain: Suppose a mediocre horizontal axis wind turbine is 20% efficient, meaning that for every kilowatt of wind energy is converted into 200 Watts of electricity. Only one order of magnitude more efficiency would require it to be 200% efficient - giving twice the output power of the input power; one kilowatt of wind energy would give 2 kilowatts of electricity. This is clearly impossible. If it were just two orders of magnitude better, it would have to produce 20 kilowatts from 1 kilowatt of wind energy. This is now ludicrously impossible. Maybe the new designs could be 10% more efficient than a horizontal axis turbine, making it maybe 55% to 60% efficient, since the best currently deployed turbines are theoretically between 45% and 50% efficient. I would like to hear what improvements could be gleaned if similar techniques are applied to horizontal axis wind turbines.

[@RWBHere]

*It's a law of Physics.... (My browser doesn't allow edits on KZbin.)

[@neildolan7177]

If only we would increase the efficiency of solar by 200%.

[@emmanuelgutierrez8616]

I've seen vertical turbines claim amazing efficiencies over the years but the commercial installers still use the horizontal type still.... So what's up?

[@kkarllwt]

Smart people know how to spend their money

[@briancampbell179]

Genetic algorithms have been around for a long time. They are clever, but not AI.

[@Grze9898]

Math says 200% ,=x2, with vertical axis have efficiently very low , 5%

[@user-nf7tt2uo1r]

Gotta say....nuclear keeps looking better.

[@lystfiskerlars]

It actually is. BS that is. Look up the Betz limit. There isn't 200% to gain.

[@LittleBoobsLover]

why almost all these small wind turbines are scams? xd Why people still believes in holy grail? If they put these types of wind turbines, they can barely charge their phones and of course in the scenario that they have super wind all the time.

[@cristerhelin8532]

Hi Sam, I am sorry to say but someone has been lying to you about Vertical Axis Wind Turbines. They do have some advantages compared to HAWT when it comes to small scale wind energy plants, but not when it comes to energy effiency. I think you need to go back to study the physical laws that applies to wind turbines. You can start your studies here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law. And here is a video presenting independent test results on small scale wind turbines (VAWT and HAWT). P.S. Most of the VAWT examples in your video are Chinese models, proven to be hoaxes when it comes to alleged power output.

[@mrmawson2438]

Cheers mate

[@rvanbeau2009]

So many repetitive phrases in this.

[@johnmiranda2307]

Propellers work well for pushing air, but not for absorbing the energy of the wind.

[@iko3]

Did you address your comment about leaving youtube if Tesla laid off employees yet? A little humility goes a long way.

[@kelvinfaulkner3183]

I think he said if Tesla laid off tens of thousands at their Texas factory (which was the claim in the news article) he would close his channel. The layoffs at Texas are not happening.

[@douglaswatt1582]

Trolling

[@mrmawson2438]

Hello mate

[@nunocatarino1290]

The “game changing” expression is way overused in KZbin, and usually puts me off. I watched the video because I like your videos in general, but I suggest you avoid these overstating expressions and just let you videos speak for themselves. Otherwise, keep up the good work you’re doing and amazing frequency of videos!

[@JoeyBlogs007]

Good power option for Ukraine.

[@mrmawson2438]

My uncle can make them wind sculptures

[@sb5580]

Almost all vawt efforts have failed for various reasons. They just can't scale up in size for mechanical reasons. Mostly they show up as stock pumping scams. Sam is way off the mark here. I challenge anyone to find a successful VAWT project or company anywhere that is still in use.

[@universeisundernoobligatio3283]

30 / 40 years ago vertical wind mills were the future of wind, evryone tried them. They were proven again and again to be a poor choice. All the vertical turbines the Viking shows are all installed as a decoration.

[@runeaanderaa6840]

BS

[@Ria-hx8nl]

You make it sound like solar is dirt cheap. It's definitely not cheap for the average person to fully replace their annual energy consumption with solar.

[@danparish1344]

These videos are so annoying. Which one is the new design? Are these just random different turbines?

[@kkarllwt]

None, yes

[@ivannavi8154]

The 12 Volt Viking hasn't mentioned the "T" word for days after the sacking of 14000 employees. So we've changed the narrative to turbines now. WIRED magazine in their business section just reported on the huge reduction in demand for EVs in Europe and the US. Perhaps the Viking could explain why that is so after telling us ever since he started this channel that ICE cars are finished.

[@douglaswatt1582]

Your clueless trolling unfortunately is not finished either but the Sun is setting on internal combustion so why don't you buy a big gas guzzling truck? Since you have such nostalgia for this antiquated ancient and inefficient technology, please go invest a s*** ton of money in it and report back to us about your cost of operation in a few years.

[@ivannavi8154]

@@douglaswatt1582 Well, if you're looking for vehicle history over a number of years I can give you one example. I have had "inefficient gas guzzling" (your words) vehicles since 1965. Maintenance has been minimal cost as I'm a qualified mechanic and do all the work myself. My 1962 Mk2 Land Rover had 485,000 miles on the clock when I eventually sold it to a farmer friend. It never even had the head off, just normal servicing, some brakes, a couple of universal joints, a clutch, tyres, globes, etc. It's still going and he uses it most days getting around the farm, loves the simplicity of it. My 2 current cars, one is 29 years old and the other is 18. Nearly a million miles between them. The sun is not setting on ICE vehicles mate, just spend a few years in Africa and the Middle East like I have, breathe in the stench of poverty and see the haphazard electrical infrastructure and you'll understand that most of these unfortunate people will never even see an EV let alone be able to afford one. You're viewing the world from a wealthy white country point of view. I'm not against EVs by the way, I'm keeping an eye on the Renault 5 and Golf E. Keeping older cars for 25 or 30 years and well maintained is less damaging to the environment than going through 5 or 6 EVs in the same period. My neighbour is on his 3rd EV in 9 years. His first one (Tesla) isn't on the register anymore, it's been deregistered and scrapped. He made enquiries, the battery died at just under 6 years. Build an EV that has an alternative electrical source other than a toxic 500 kg battery and I'll order one tomorrow.

[@brendanpells912]

We know you're not that interested in wind energy because Tesla doesn't make wind turbines.

[@ConstanceCox]

You must have a douchebag company.

[@neildolan7177]

Being on the Sun belt does not guarantee sufficient power to keep the lights on. Just because solar is cheap does not mean it's the best. Solar panels are very inefficient.

[@Kepiwhoo]

Maybe you should check out Tony Seba

[@-Madison562-CHECK-MY-PROFILE]

*I think I'm addicted to social media. Who's with me? 😄* 👇