Welcome to PatsFans.com

Am I smart for thiking about stuff like this...

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by mcgraw_wv, Nov 7, 2008.

  1. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I, on my completely own idea thought of a way to generate power via a whirlpool rather than falling water ( standard Hydro-electric ) but this idea was already thought up already and was nominated for the ENERGY GLOBE AWARD?

    Directory:Zotloterer Gravitational Vortex Power Plant - PESWiki

    I always think of things... before I even research it, and I was thinking, man a whirlpool doesn't need much a drop to generate power as the earth gravity will pull the water in a circle fairly quick, if we can harness it to generate power...

    So then I searched, and I found someone already did it...

    Now where my idea comes in to make his Idea bigger, is that since you need very little drop in water fall, meaning the height of water on entrance to the height of the water on exit ( 0.7 meters acording to his site ) could you not multi stack these whirlpool generators into an array of electric generation. You should in theory be able to continually add whirlpools for ever if given enough run time between each. and elevation requirements.

    So for example starting with a water fall of 500 feet, you could daisy chain like 220 of these generators together to produce insane amount of free, pollution free energy.

    500 feet = 150 meters

    0.7 meter fall rate needed to produce this whirlpool generator means you can stack 220 of these generators in a silo liek design that just keeps spinning these generators.

    Over a year, this 1 generator produced 50,000 kWatt-hours of electricity * 220 = 110,000,000 kwatt-hours of electricity a year or 110,000 Mega Watts a year.

    Each generator costs roughly 51,100.00 dollars, but when building in bulk we should see some major savings for a guess of half the price per generator. 26,000 * 220 = 5.72 Million dollars to build.

    Now, let's compare this to Nuclear power, first I can't find rough cost estimates for building a nuclear power plant, but I found that the US is looking to build more power plants in the "$2,000 / kwatt hour range" Which means in order to produce 1 kwatt the total cost of a plant is 2,000 * the amount it can generate.

    Virginia has a few Nuclear Power Plants, and one of their main ones generate 1,700 Mega watts. That's 1,700,000 kwatts. That's a total cost of 3,400,000,000. If I have all the right info that's roughly a 3.4 Billion dollar price tag on a Nuclear Power Plant. Which sounds about right.

    Now a Nuclear Power Plant generates ALOT more power, 1700 Mega Watts, and the Whirlpool only generates 110,000 a year / 365 days / 24 hours = 12.5 Mega watts. so it would take building 136 of these whirlpool generators to equal the output of a nuclear power plant, which typically powers 400,000 homes. The cost of build 136 of these whirlpool silo generators would be 6.95 Million dollars.

    By some rough Math, for the same 3 Trillion dollars, you can build 432 whirlpool silo generators, generating 12.5 each for total hourly output of 5,400 Mega Watts. Roughly 3.2 times more energy than 1 Nuclear Power plant. The best part is you have that power evenly distributed 432 times throughout the power grid giving you no single Large fail point. No waste, No Carbon, pure clean re-useable energy.

    So why aren't we doing this?


    I understand that building 432 of these will only power 1.5 million homes, and it seems as though where would we find that many rivers with a 500 drop off point... But if you look at the top link, the amount of water needed through that channel is nothing compared to a large river. Imagine a project like Hover Damn, with it's amount of water, and drop level, you could build 200 whirlpool silos right there...
  2. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,801
    Likes Received:
    421
    Ratings:
    +900 / 7 / -17

    #87 Jersey

    Enviromentalists are all over any change to the natural flow of water ... and with good reason. Projects like those take years to even get off the drawing board and the initial expense is often to high to follow up on the plans.
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    Isn't this already called a "dam"?

    or are you talking about converting a waterfall?
  4. Born_a_Patriot

    Born_a_Patriot PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    9
    Ratings:
    +9 / 0 / -0

    Methods for harnessing the undulating action of waves to generate usable energy. From research and development to presently implemented solutions that harness the power of waves for energy production
    Directory:Ocean Wave Energy - PESWiki
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,834
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    More than anything I am excited that energy possibilities like these will be explored under an Obama Presidency.

    Dick Cheney will not be running the "Energy Task Force" behind closed doors making record profits for big oil.


    We wil move ahead, people! and THAT is exciting!
  6. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    could you in theory use suction or gravity to bring the water back to the top somehow? and this would make it constantly moving?
  7. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,511
    Likes Received:
    135
    Ratings:
    +344 / 3 / -13

    Some baby boomer already thought of this....;)
  8. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,801
    Likes Received:
    421
    Ratings:
    +900 / 7 / -17

    #87 Jersey


    Nobody has yet designed a way to have 100% energy transfer ... Energy is not created or destroyed only transferred albiet with loss(transfers) to areas that are unproductive. The first person to create an energy transfer system with 100% perpetual transfer will become rich beyond imagination. Years ago they thought coal did this but no dice because their is heat/friction energy transfer loss along the way.
  9. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    it would be funny if it was completely obvious when it was discovered.

    the first person to discover it could be a wanted man as there are many who don't want to see free energy developed for the betterment of humanity
  10. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,801
    Likes Received:
    421
    Ratings:
    +900 / 7 / -17

    #87 Jersey


    when I was younger there was always rumors about the Germans & Russians having patents for stuff that was too good to be true ... like tires that last forever. We believed that then ... not sure how true it was.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,384
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +443 / 6 / -9

    Yeah, and some guy in a bar always told you that GM had a car that got 200 miles per gallon, locked away in a vault...

    Well, it sounds like this differs from standard hydro in employing the circular motion on the way down.... sorta like a series of big flush toilets, with a turbine powered by each one, as the water seeks the bottom...

    I dunno. Seems like it would come down to the math; how much energy in the final analysis is added, over just pouring the water from turbine to turbine? Seems like after the initial speed of the water is captured by the first whirlpool or turbine, it can only drive really slow turbines. Just guessing by visualizing... and cuz I'm lazy.

    What am I missing? Other than the whole concept?
  12. MrBigglesWorth

    MrBigglesWorth Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,338
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    ya but gravity is gravity on falling water.
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,384
    Likes Received:
    252
    Ratings:
    +443 / 6 / -9

    I guess... how do dams work now? Do they spin one turbine then feed the water out the bottom? Or does the water fall to successive lower turbines?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>