Comments on: COULD TORNADOES POWER YOUR HOUSE?

By: chaser101

chaser101 — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:28:51 +0000

awesome tornado. Probably an F4 or something. And it looks like its gonna cross the road.

By: yew

yew — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 03:16:58 +0000

The artical is now dated. The brief descriptive text was not articulate. The atmospheric physics and themodynamic basis is the relevant way to understand rising air outward from a rotating planet. Aviation pilot training requires knowing the level of atmospheric physics that would suffice for appreciation of the Michaud work that is well patented now. A vortex can be created by a firestorm, like the fire east of Los Angeles this 2009 summer. A dust devil is an air vortex also. The Vortex Engine is termed such that work is obtainable from the energy innervating the vortex flow that transfers industrial heat or a geophysical heat in soil or water outward to the cold edge of the planet atmosphere. This AVE has efficiency closer to themodynamic ideal then anything you can compare to. Sadi Carnot.The necessary minimum size prototype might be underway, but i know of nothing going on now. The idea in itself is as acceptable as hydropower dam fluid gravitational directed. This writer is very laymen, FYI.

By: Bryce

Bryce — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:39:51 +0000

This will be very cool if the heat is just a starter and more energy can be captured than is needed in heat. As a native Kansan, this idea strikes me as perhaps not the wisest. There seem to be more variables out in an unsecured environment than could happen in a reactor.

By: There’s a storm blowin’ up, a whopper. Just speakin’ the vernacular of the peasantry. « Economic Objectorvism

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:47:54 +0000

[...] found via Inhabitat: The Atmospheric Vortex Engine! Add this to the list with Skysails and Flying Electric Generators. [...]

By: loyd

loyd — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:18:27 +0000

i find it interesting the excitement this post created. the concept of using heat to power wind turbines is nothing new. sure, tornadoes are cool things, I grew up in Oklahoma and have chased them, but I don’t think they are an energy solution.

Overall people don’t seem to get it. One, we have to use LESS. No one is saying it, but on average it will have to be true in the future. Americans consume twice, TWICE as much compared to Europeans and Japanese. And compared to the rest of the world, well don’t get me started. Two, (to respond to some myths posted here) nuclear energy IS SAFE, especially compared with the 30,000 annual deaths caused by coal plants in the US. Nuclear reactors in the US have never had the safety issues compared with Russia and other countries (Three Mile Island caused no serious injuries) and safety and security regulations have been improving steadily. Also, disposal concerns are small compared with “carbon capture” schemes currently circulating legislative bodies. Finally, renewable energy costs more. At current prices, there would have to be a 50% tax placed on coal-derived energy to make wind and nuclear sources competitive. In the long run, these higher costs will be recouped in the form of decreased health care spending and environmental clean-up. If you call your local power producer, many will allow you to pay a slightly higher price to purchase renewable energy. Even 1% can help.

Point blank, ride a bike, plant a tree, and buy (more expensive) renewable energy–your children will thank you.

By: J

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:00:21 +0000

wow talk about the other side of the spectrum!! you see wind turbines and you see pretty green landscapes, a shining blue sky and whirling turbine blades dancing in the sun. and then there’s this picture of a tornado…dark, ominious, deadly…fascinating. I have to say, that picture alone is enough to make me shudder- can’t we find a happier tornado as the poster child for this new energy source?? the idea of encouraging and making tornadoes is well…almost pretentious don’t you think?? does human kind really have the where-with-all to harness tornadoes? If we can’t trust nuclear power plants, I’m not sure we should trust harnassed tornadoes.

By: David Waring

David Waring — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:59:37 +0000

i wonder why they wouldn’t be able to do it on a small scale. Won’t a small tornado be effective if the turbines are small? maybe even have more smaller ones than fewer big ones, that could be easier to control.

By: James

James — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:35:57 +0000

Persoanlly, I would rather my energy come from natural free-range tornados and not these test tube GMO tornados.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:37:53 +0000

As far as I could tell from another article I read (Which unfortunately I can’t find) the “tornado” is created in containment unit of some sort.

I guess the idea of using tornado’s for power is somewhat scary, but the idea of controlling nuclear explosions is even worse in my opinion.

I’m not sure if this will ever work, but you definitely have to applaud Michaud for thinking WAY out of the box. This is Mad Scientist type stuff we’re talking about right here.

By: Elepski

Elepski — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:27:10 +0000

That is a great idea… if it is contained… like in a structure.. and they feed it heat to keep the cycle running… why not have the option to slow it down with a cold air feed.. like a throttle.. to avoid that breakout scenario they described

By: Kate

Kate — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:52:03 +0000

I was only yesterday sitting in my friend’s car, watching the power and force the wind had on moving my hand as I floated it out of the window. I immediately raised the debate to him why the earth’s natural elements: earth, wind, fire and water are not the simple key to renewable energy sources.

This is a marvellous resource, if a little utopian in its present state. It will be worthy for us to follow the development of this idea, to see if it really can work and contribute on a large scale.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:36:32 +0000

Fight climate change through climate change!

By: Nick Simpson

Nick Simpson — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:27:43 +0000

Happy days – if you keep it under control, you increase energy supply. If you don’t, you decrease demand…

Kidding…

By: Sheldon

Sheldon — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:43:57 +0000

I’ve always wondered where the boundary is of using the renewable earth resources, wind, wave, solar etc before they start to have an effect on the earth. Conservation of energy basically states that there is no such thing as a free lunch so even things like wave energy extraction will remove energy from the waves. Using normally destructive weather conditions to our advantage might not be a bad thing but as a species we have a habit of not spotting knock-ons until the last moment.
Now, this appears to be extending the principle to creating our own weather conditions to enhance renewable energy sources (in the above case wind), how big can it be before it starts affecting the local or even global weather systems?
Sounds a bit extreme but my one car can hardly harm anyone can it?

By: John biggs

John biggs — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:32:25 +0000

wow…….this is one of the most amazing ideas I’ve seen. I just saw the discovery show last night on Megastructures, and this is right up there with unbelievable but amazing feats of engineering. If this could be used to cool the planet, power cities, and reduce emissions all at the same time, and still be safe, then we should create a new Planetary Nobel award for ideas that save the planet. If Mr. Michaud is looking for consulting help, I”m available.