backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 58 comment(s) - last by tapa.. on Nov 30 at 10:27 AM


A prototype of one of ExRo's stacks showcases the company's new electric transmission. The improvement could make wind power 50 percent more efficient over the course of a year.  (Source: ExRo)

A rendering of the stack illustrates how two rings of rotating magnets connect to the shaft (blue) generate power by passing coils (green and red). These coils can be selectively turned on and off by the electric transmission. Multiple stacks can be collected to a single shaft for better performance.  (Source: ExRo)
New wind generator design takes advantage of an advanced electrical transmission to decrease cost while boosting performance

While the costs of solar power have continually dropped over the past couple decades, wind power has only decreased slightly in cost, owing to a relative lack of sources of improvement.  Much of the wind power research has focused on either building larger turbines which are naturally more cost effective or trying to fit turbines into new areas.  Few looked to reinvent the base structure of the turbine.

Startup ExRo is not your average wind power company, though.  This think-outside-the-box firm has reinvented one of the most basic components of wind turbines -- the generator.  Its new design promises up to 50 percent more efficiency and lower production costs as well.

Ordinary wind power generators have an optimal rate which is fine tuned to local average wind conditions.  When the wind is blowing at this speed, the turbine produces electricity at an outstanding efficiency of around 90 percent.  However, when the wind blows faster or slower the efficiency significantly decreases. This is a major cause of why wind power is more expensive than coal, which burns in plants with turbines that turn at steady rates, maintaining the higher efficiency.

In the past, some have tried blades that change pitch to catch more or less wind and maintain a steady pace.  Others have used mechanical transmissions.  However, these components tend to be expensive, raise maintenance costs, and only help so much.

The new generator scraps the mechanical transmission, replacing it with an electrical one.  The new transmission still requires a bit of blade pitching when winds are extremely high.  However, it is able to extend the peak efficiency range significantly, balancing gusts and lulls, and producing, over the course of the year, up to 50 percent more power.

Ed Nowicki, a professor of electrical engineering at the University of Calgary who consulted on the project said some locations could even see their power output double.

The generator is relatively standard in basic design, with magnets attached to a rotating shaft that create a current as they pass stationary copper coils arranged around the shaft.  In a normal generator all the coils are switched on.  When turning too slowly, this can cause excess resistance, decreasing the generator efficiency.

The coils on ExRo's generator are not on by default, but are controlled electronically based on wind speed.  At lower speeds only a couple coils are on, producing optimal efficiency, and as speeds ramp up, more coils are turned on to harvest the energy of the wind at peak efficiency.

The generator also sports another improvement.  Typically in order to generate more power at top speeds, you need more coils via a very large diameter generator.  However, such generators are very hard to get moving and more expensive.  The ExRo generator instead uses multiple small-diameter generators to produce an equivalent effect.  It calls each of these mini-generators stacks.  In addition to being able to harvest more wind power and change speed faster thanks to its small diameter, the design allows for easy customization on the production line for local wind conditions by adding or removing stacks.

While some other companies have tested multi-stack designs, these required multiple mechanical transmissions, which added too much weight and effectively negated much of the benefits.  By switching to an inexpensive electric transmission, ExRo was able to finally offer an effective version of this solution.

ExRo estimates that a utility employing its new generator will make 57 percent more money from a turbine over the course of a year.  These estimates come from scale models.  The company plans to test a small 5 kW turbine in the field later this year.  The company then plans to aggressively ramp up to megawatt-scale designs, at which point it will release finalized efficiency figures. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Pharagraph 3??
By Suntan on 11/19/2008 3:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
Would be nice to have some citation for the figures in paragraph 3.

90% efficient? Based on what metric? Just the work being put into the generator by the shaft, or based on some theoretical efficiency of the blades as well?

I highly doubt the entire setup, from wind to powerline, is ever 90% efficient.

Don’t mean to be anal, but it's articles like these that eviro-DBs point to when arguing that wind power can be 90% efficient compared to coal or natural gas fired turbines. When the reality is somewhat different.

-Suntan




RE: Pharagraph 3??
By 3DoubleD on 11/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pharagraph 3??
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/19/2008 4:41:54 PM , Rating: 5
The source article cites 90 percent shaft to line efficiency. Please read the sources attached to the article if you have questions about metrics.

I think the important point here is that this development will provide one of the most substantial increases to wind power efficiency in many years.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Samus on 11/19/2008 5:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think it'd be kinda cool for automotive purpose as well. It took Tesla/Bosch two years to develope a transmission that could handle the torque of the electric motor in the Roadster. It wouldn't even need a machanical gearbox if it were integrated into the motor itself. Very cool idea.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By kontorotsui on 11/20/2008 7:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it'd be kinda cool for automotive purpose as well. It took Tesla/Bosch two years to develope a transmission that could handle the torque of the electric motor in the Roadster. It wouldn't even need a machanical gearbox if it were integrated into the motor itself. Very cool idea.


The latest Roadsters don't have gearboxes anymore.
A pity that electric sportscar jewel is probably going to disappear in the flow of the time.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By GaryJohnson on 11/19/2008 6:41:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Please read the sources attached to the article if you have questions about metrics.

When did DailyTech turn into DailyVague?


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Suntan on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Doormat on 11/19/2008 10:53:46 PM , Rating: 4
Isn't that what all DT is? Rewriting press releases?


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By whiskerwill on 11/20/2008 2:15:22 AM , Rating: 3
There are some good stories here, and stuff you can't find elsewhere, or here first at least. This isn't one of them though.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By porkpie on 11/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pharagraph 3??
By pjpizza on 11/20/2008 6:16:25 AM , Rating: 4
Jeeze guys...

First of all, if you look at the majority of "Tech News" websites, most of the news IS from freakin’ press releases... HOW ELSE DO YOU FIGUR ANYBODY WOULD KNOW ABOUT THESE THINGS HAPPENING?

And another thing, the article states 90% efficiency. Why argue with that? If you don't have any hard fact's to why NOT that would be possible, then it's just hot air (or hot keys...).
This is from an article I just found on the web, dated from 2003:
"Compared to other machines, electric motors are very efficient, typically 95% for a 90 kW high efficiency motor. "
So if typically an electric motor can achieve 95% efficiency, why can't we get 90% from the blades to transmission lines. And don't give me some half assed comment about there being losses in every energy conversion. I want hard numbers...


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By theapparition on 11/20/2008 8:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
Because discussing efficiency without any hard facts for comparison purposes is irresponsible at best.......intentionally misinforming because of an agenda at worst.

Shaft to line efficiency may approach 90% in that design, which sounds great and all. However, that is only valid when the props are rotating at optimal speed. But what about total wind energy efficiency? Wind to prop efficiency at most can be 59% (Betz limit). Most modern optimized designs have an efficiency of 25-35%, and using the 90% conversion efficiency drops that down to 22-32% wind-electricity efficiency. Keep in mind that is still only valid for optimal wind speed. When wind speed changes, the energy efficiency drops. Variable prop geometry helps, but there is still an optimal range that is the theoretical maximum efficiency.

The transmission talked about in the article only serves to help boost realistic efficiency toward those maximum levels. That is a good thing. But to somehow sugar coat the idea that wind gets 90% efficiency is misleading. Wind, right now, gets an average of 5% total efficiency in optimal areas OVER TIME. That's because the wind doesn't blow constantly (if at all), and any excess energy produced gets discarded. This transmission may increase that to 8%, or even 10%. But that is a far cry from the 30-50% efficiencies that other competing sources of electricity generation are getting over the same amount of time.

I don't like when articles are intentionally written (not even Mick's, but the source article), to deceive the public to invest into their company and solutions, preying on the uninformed's "green" obsession.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By pjpizza on 11/20/2008 8:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the facts :)


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By Suntan on 11/20/2008 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And another thing, the article states 90% efficiency. Why argue with that? If you don't have any hard fact's to why NOT that would be possible, then it's just hot air (or hot keys...).


I know a guy that can fly.

Now unless you can provide me hard facts that the guy I know can’t fly, sit down shut up and accept the fact that the guy I know can fly…

Seems pretty silly doesn’t it? Yet it’s the same thing you are asking us to do.

The argument is not that we think anyone is outright lying, the argument is that efficiency calculations are completely based on how they are referenced. A generator could possibly be 90% efficient if a person is only talking about the power being put directly into spinning the armature inside the stator and comparing it to the theoretical output the generator could produce if it was 100% efficient, but that leaves out the real world issues of bearing friction in the bearings supporting the shafts, gear lash friction in the gearbox driving the shafts, etc. etc.

Not to mention the secondary parasitic power drain from things like cooling the electronics needed to control the system or run the motors needed to adjust the blades to keep them facing into the wind, etc. etc. Admittedly these secondary draws are minor, but they would affect an efficiency rating by a good degree if a person where looking at a frame of reference that encompassed all the energy being put into the entire wind tower instead of just the frame of reference of just the power going into the armature of the generator.

Now, I will admit that for the most part all these things will tend to equal out if a person is talking about similar windmills and just the generator designs would be swapped, but the issue is that someone with little understanding of the real world requirements would just cut this “90%” efficient figure out of this article and compare it to some figure like “40%” efficient claimed in some article about a gas fired plant and come to a conclusion that windmills must be better. The only problem is that the analysis of the gas fired plant might have taken into account the inefficiencies of burning the coal (the actual heat transferred from the incomplete burning compared to burning it all at its theoretical HHV, the amount of energy actually transferred to the boiler compared to the amount lost as exhaust heat, the amount of energy actually transferred from the steam to the turbine blades and finally the amount of energy lost in bearing friction of the turbine/generator assembly.

Anyway, sorry I actually asked for more information. Next time I’ll try and do what you do in life, …blindly accept whatever someone tells me.

-Suntan


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By pjpizza on 11/21/2008 3:01:52 AM , Rating: 2
Alright flamegirl, take a time out and stop rolling your eyes. theapparition already answered my question.


RE: Pharagraph 3??
By tapa on 11/30/2008 10:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that this turbine's overall efficiency is only better than competition because it expands the range of wind speeds for normal operation. That 90% figure probably refers to the generator. And 90% isn't high for electrical machines.


Is this really new?
By PrinceGaz on 11/19/2008 3:55:50 PM , Rating: 3
The idea of adjusting the effective field-strength for optimal efficiency in traction motors has been around (and in use) for decades. At low speeds you use maximum field strength (the equivalent of a low gear) and at high speeds you use a much weaker field (the equivalent of a high gear). This allows the motor to work optimally across a wide range of speeds with a relatively steady voltage and current, by keeping the back emf generated by the motor at near the ideal level regardless of speed.

Back in the 1950's and 60's before modern electronic control systems were available, this field-strength switching was essential to the efficient transfer of power from the engine to the wheels of diesel-electric locomotives.

Thats basically what this wind-turbine alternator (or generator) is doing-- adjusting the field strength by opening or closing connections to windings, but in this case to keep the speed constant but increase the back emf generated by the motor, as the wind increases. Seems like fairly basic stuff which I'm surprised wasn't being used.




RE: Is this really new?
By Murloc on 11/19/2008 4:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't you propose this then? XD
I think it needed some developing for this application, maybe they are working on it from a long time but didn't want to tell everyone what they're doing.