F’ing Windmills 



It is good to see FRIAMers enthusiastically holding forth on another area of 
their whimsy – the effectiveness of wind turbine arrays.   Wind Energy can 
provide a significant contribution to our energy supply.   Understanding it 
helps.   Commenters might be interested in the first seminal paper, Energy 
Effectiveness of Arrays of Wind Energy Collection Systems, (1976), by a clown, 
name of Lissaman.   This paper has been referenced and improved upon many times 
in the last 30 years. The most recent revision, by the same author, appears in 
the book, Wind Turbine Technology, published by NASA, and reprinted by ASME in 
2009.   It’s ancient, but the principles, and our planetary boundary layer have 
not changed. 





  

The article in Science Magazine is an example of bad science reporting, 
illustrating the red neck passion to simplify subtle issues into easily 
understandable syllogisms (see contemporary Republican politics).   The 
reporter discusses “new” vertical axis machines!   The Darrieus Vertical Axis 
Wind Turbine was new in 1971, while the Savonius VAWT goes back to 1931.   So 
much for the writer’s research!   That history is in most encyclopedias.   In 
1976,   I gave a paper at the International Wind Energy Congress in Cambridge , 
England , funded by US DOE, noting that the then new VAWTs were not cost 
effective compared with the propeller type. I think that’s still true.   The 
FRIAM response seems a little like superficial science; thinking things that 
“look like” or “sound like” something are that thing.   An intelligent, but 
untutored, opinion may be interesting in philosophy, it usually isn’t in 
science. 





  

FRIAM is supposed to be a place where knowledgeable folks can share it.   For 
those interested:   





  

On complex terrain there are locations that have strong flows.   This is a 
function of topography and wind direction.   One would like to install Wind 
Energy Collection Systems at these locations.   Usually space is limited, so 
some WECS units will be in wind shadows, sometimes.   The array can be designed 
to maximize the annual energy capture.   This requires annual detailed wind 
records, a model to compute the flow over complex terrain and a turbine model 
describing the turbulent wake and its dissipation -- indeed a complicated 
process well suited to modern computers, and dependent   still on poorly known 
fluid physics, especially atmospheric turbulence.     





  

The economic trade enters next, where costs are reconciled with the reduced 
revenue of units in dense arrays.     From hence cometh the most effective 
array – not always the max. capture case. And, because costs are time variant, 
different each year!   The ideas are simple, the execution exceeding tiresome!  
 





  

In the dark ages of wind energy, with funding from SBIR and DOE, Lissaman and 
Quinlan developed, and AeroVironment marketed, a software model, AVENU, by 
which one could take a contour map of a site, define a wind speed and 
direction, place multiple turbines on it and compute the total energy capture, 
including interference.   One could then drag the turbines to putatively better 
locations, and observe the effect.   Easy on a computer, not so in the cruel 
world!     I always thought that the verb “drag” was especially vivid here, 
having actually, with a cursing crew, moved 30-ton turbines by dragging them 
from one piece of California low  desert to another. 





  

We sold the software here and abroad for $25,000 a crack, including a free Mac 
II, since our European customers were PC operators.   It was not a successful 
product financially, but has been used extensively in array design for the last 
30 years. 





  

I have not read my friend John Dabiri’s Caltech report, but have put in a call 
to chat to him.   I taught wind turbine stuff at Caltech to grad classes when 
John was in grade school, and expect that his will be an excellent 
contribution.   I will report on same to FRIAM when I have studied the paper 
itself. 





  

My title, “f’ing”, referred to “flocking”, certainly a very interesting 
phenomenon, as is the other possible adjective.   One can achieve favorable 
array interference in water, air or on land.   I have made technical 
contributions to all: wet, dry and dirty flocking.   The conclusions are 
sometimes surprising.   For example, in a Vee formation of migrating geese the 
leader, at the tip of the Vee, experiences the most favorable interference.   
It’s nothing like “breaking the trail”, the magical anthropomorphical 
explanation!     Since I published this in 1970, folks have asked why the 
strongest Alpha animal would take the easiest position. 





  

  My reply is, “They ain’t Boy Scouts!   If you were the strongest member of 
the team, wouldn’t you take the easiest job?” 





  

  I would, and do, as does every FRIAMer who employs a gardener! 



Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures 

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA 
tel:(505)983-7728 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Reply via email to