Also consider circulation controlled airfoils: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbosail>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 8:50 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Free Shipping > > From: Robert Lynn > > Wind turbines on the ship would probably make more sense, as > at least they will work in any wind direction (even travelling straight > into the wind), as well as in port. > > I agree that wind turbines make way more sense than sails or even kites, > but they too are not cost-competitive will oil at $100 or less. > > In fact oil would need to go above $200 before wind makes sense in terms > of no-subsidy operation. However ! that will happen, no question ... and > "sooner-rather-than-later," given the power and greed of OPEC/Big-Oil. > > There is a very-windy test area for turbines nearby, and they have every > type imaginable to cross-compare. I haven't seen the firm data, but from > having visited there numerous times in all wind conditions, and talking to > the techies - there is clearly one superior design, and it would be ideal > for ships. It always seems to be doing the best especially in light wind. > > It is vertical axis, but with straight and surprisingly thin airfoils. The > curved airfoils do far worse. The one pictured below is similar; and it is > fairly low cost. In coastal areas, this device blows solar panels away, so > to speak, in terms of fast pay-back. The noise is inescapable ... but not > all that unpleasant (the sound of $aving$ - as they say). > > <http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9956965-54.html> > > However, subsidies are needed with this one too, in 2012 and beyond. > > But the underlying premise for wind and solar, in general, is that oil > will reach $200/barrel within a decade. At that time, the early adopters > will look like prophets - unless LENR comes along first. > > Jones > >
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
