Man-made 'tethered tornadoes' touted as a viable power source

With all the wacky unconventional proposals we've seen people come up with for generating electricity in an environmentally friendly manner, is it really so outrageous to think that giant, man-made tornadoes could be harnessed to power a small city? Well that's exactly the idea being floated around the University of Western Ontario these days, which is currently testing a scale model of retired refinery engineer Louis Michaud's patented vortex engine -- a machine fueled by excess power plant heat that uses the physics of convection inherent in rising air to drive electricity-producing turbines. In its most grandiose realization, the engine (inventor's rendition pictured above) would be 200 meters in diameter and generate a 'clean' (debris-free) tornado stretching 20 kilometers into the sky able to coax 20 megawatts each out of ten independent turbines. Obviously the main concern about the anticipated $60 million project -- which would reportedly operate at just a quarter of the cost of a coal-based facility, even before taking into account the $20 million saved on a cooling tower by the participating power plant -- is that the tornado could somehow escape its confines and wreak havoc on nearby communities. Still, with all the advantages this scheme seems to offer, we're certainly willing to give it a chance -- after all, a 'malfunctioning vortex engine' is a lot less scary than a potential disaster at one of the many nuke plants dotting our landscape.

[Via UberReview]

[coffee @ Aug 1st 2007 2:38PM]

Yes, all those meltdowns constantly occurring in all the countries with nuclear power are troublesome.

//this is why we're still on coal

[suntiger @ Aug 1st 2007 3:11PM]

My thoughts exactly. I mean, that part about the nukes was just a cheapshot.

Also, to the writer: When nuke plants have an accident, it's usually not quite as severe as "24" would have you believe.

[Ignacio @ Aug 1st 2007 3:21PM]

"When nuke plants have an accident, it's usually not quite as severe as "24" would have you believe."

Of course, when a severe accident *does* happen, the surrounding area becomes inhabitable for a few thousand years, whereas even the worst tornadoes don't last more than a few hours...

[Chris @ Aug 1st 2007 3:28PM]

What the hell are you talking about! Whereabouts are these 'meltdowns' always occuring? What a typical clueless middle America comment!

[SHow @ Aug 1st 2007 3:33PM]

Ummm - Chernobyl anybody???

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmens/is_200604/ai_n16377068

[JD @ Aug 1st 2007 3:40PM]

I think he's referring to Chernobyl, and possibly to the city of Pripyat. But he probably doesn't know about Pripyat......

Anyhow, he probably also doesn't know that not only did Chernobyl have so many things go wrong at one time (on an un-authorized experiment, no less), it was also a cheapie design, called "partial containment", that didn't enclose the reactor in another building, like we (generally, as far as I know) do in the US. Why do you think Three Mile Island wasn't actually that bad? It was sealed off from the atmosphere. Chernobyl reactor 4 was not. End of story.

Also, not many people realize that other reactors at Chernobyl were actually still producing power until the year 2000, and there are still workers there decommissioning it.

Anyway, basic understanding of what you're talking about is good.

[coffee @ Aug 1st 2007 3:41PM]

Chris,

you might want to try a little sarcasm on for size.
Everyone else seemed to get it.

Typical.

[paul34 @ Aug 1st 2007 4:22PM]

Bingo, glad somebody said it. It's the whole NIMBY mentality that causes power problems here in the US - as well as preventing cell towers from going up. Ignorance causes NIMBY-ism, so to speak.

Stat-wise, nuclear power is even safer than coal power plants, if you look at the deaths per megawatt (or some type of measurement).

Properly designed and built nuclear power plants are extremely reliable and have emergency system after emergency system, as well as multiple failsafes that basically make a serious accident just about impossible.

Remember 3 mile island? What happened there - that's right, it fixed itself. Please read that again - fixed itself.

[Danny @ Aug 1st 2007 7:01PM]

Show:
Chernobyl only killed 56 people (plus about 4000 indirectly through cancer and other side effects) and it was about as bad of a failure mode as is possible for a nuclear plant. Sure it was terrible, but imagine if the three gorges dam in China collapsed, we'd be looking at hundreds of thousands of deaths, dwarfing Chernobyl. Or closer to home, what if Hoover dam burst? Would we then abandon hydroelectric power?

[daft werk @ Aug 1st 2007 2:38PM]

This better be a power plant opition in the next Sim City.

[edgore @ Aug 1st 2007 2:44PM]

Also a disaster - don't they already have tornados programmed in?

[SiLo @ Aug 1st 2007 2:52PM]

With a disaster option as well? :D

In all seriousness, this is a much more environmentally friendly choice, especially for the cost. It costs less and doesn't pollute the environment. That's pretty awesome.

Of course you have the downside of disaster, a tornado off the "leash," however this is far less dangerous than a radioactive meltdown or oil spill. I'm sure there could be safety mechanisms to help reduce the damage done by "escaped" tornadoes like building an array of concrete walls around the perimeter of the power plant to help dampen the tornado's fury until it was almost just fast winds and nothing more by the time it reached any civilization.

[Matt @ Aug 1st 2007 2:55PM]

Edgore, the reason Daft wants it as a power plant option is because it could also be a disaster option. If memory serves me correctly -- since I haven't played since SimCity 3000 in a few years -- if you choose the Solar-Microwave facility, your city is prone to occasional mishaps where the beam misses the plant and hits the nearby neighborhood.

[daft werk @ Aug 1st 2007 2:58PM]

@Matt

Damn straight. But SimCity aside this thing is awesome.

[michael @ Aug 1st 2007 4:53PM]

That reminds me, when will EA come with a new SimCity? SimCity 4 is real great and all, but it could use some better graphics, pedestrian mode (walking in the game), more ways to increase your city's income (besides legalizing gambling), and more types of buildings (like middle schools, amusement park, malls, and whatnot), and make the cities area as big or little as you want.

If SimCity 5 could do that, that would be awesome. If it comes that is. Still no word from EA.

[Je2037 @ Aug 1st 2007 2:45PM]

Whats the problem with Solar Energy? The damn things fit on your rooftop. Lets get some solar tax breaks already.

[Mike @ Aug 2nd 2007 10:58AM]

Mo problem as such, but hugely expensive and inefficent to do on a large scale, plus the manufacturing process is enviromentally dubious. I agree with your main point though, if people want to install their own 'green' power systems, there should be more incentives. Here in the UK (not sure about where you are) excess electricity can be sold back to the grid.

[macona @ Aug 2nd 2007 3:43PM]

Solar energy is just not viable in terrestrial applications. The power density is just too low for mainstream applications.

Power here in the US can be sold back to the company but they will only give you wholesale rates which is not a whole lot.

Nuclear is the way to go if we can get the environmentalists off our back. They are already trying to eliminate one of the cleanest forms of power, hydroelectric.

[-E @ Aug 1st 2007 2:47PM]

err....
what about the effect this will have on weather patterns...you think people complain about changing weather patterns now! I can't even begin to imagine what this would do. Any meteorologists out there?

[NHAnimator @ Aug 1st 2007 3:09PM]

The exaggerated effect on the planet's meteorological patterns will be nothing short of staggering. The dramtic delta in vector forces of the jet stream combined with the influx of lower atmosphere particulates is sure to destabilize the smallest, yet most catalytic, pockets of windiness.

I'm not a meteorologist. But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Samuel McConnell @ Aug 1st 2007 3:38PM]

COULD one of these escape? I would think that if it left the generator, it would fizzle out without the source of heat that created it.

[Zach @ Aug 1st 2007 2:51PM]

As for a runnaway tornado, I don't know if that is possible. If I'm understanding it right, the power source for the tornado is within the complex. Wouldn't that mean that if the tornado left the confines that it would be without a power source and would disipate on it's own? Who knows.

I think that "-E" hit the nail on the head with the problem of not knowing the impact it would have on weather conditions. That could create more inviromental problems then some of the things today's tree huggers protest over.

[paul34 @ Aug 1st 2007 4:24PM]

Well, at least it gives a plot for some new B-movies.

[alanjc @ Aug 1st 2007 2:58PM]

Looks like a giant Orbo.

See, they needed wind not magnets.

[peshue @ Aug 1st 2007 2:57PM]

Interesting idea, but as _E pointed out a vortex stretching 20km into the sky is bound to screw with weather patterns in some way.

[Sarvesh @ Aug 1st 2007 2:59PM]

cool tech

[Tim Shannon @ Aug 1st 2007 3:09PM]

If the tornado is outside (which as I understand, it is), then I'd be less concerned about runaway tornadoes, then I would be about one constantly running tornado messing with the natural convection air streams, and causing, tornadoes, typhoons, and hurricanes elsewhere in the world.

We understand so little about the weather, I wouldn't feel safe with man made tornadoes impacting the controlled chaos that is nature.

[Boynamedsue @ Aug 1st 2007 3:03PM]

i'm gonna write a screenplay where the tornado is hit by lightning and becomes self aware, and goes on a killing spree. Roland emmerich set to direct.

[Mike @ Aug 1st 2007 3:28PM]

Believe they already did something similar to this. It was called Atomic Twister. They show it on TBS every now and again. Has Zack from Saved By The Bell on there. It is the pinnacle of his acting career.

Mike

[Mitch R. @ Aug 1st 2007 3:25PM]

And There's your next Power Plant disaster movie!

[Kowalski @ Aug 1st 2007 4:21PM]

Tourists Magnet!

[Emor8t @ Aug 1st 2007 4:02PM]

More like tourist vacuum...

[Neuhofel @ Aug 1st 2007 3:12PM]

The "worst case scenario" (design and management) for a nuclear power plant occurred at Chernobyl in the 80's. Does anyone want to guess how many deaths are attributable to that incident? . . . Less than 75. Check it out. There are 200 deaths per year in the USA from "natural gas". People's fear of nuclear energy (health and environment) is unfounded (ask the citizen's of France). But, what the heck . . . so we don't offend the scaremongers - let's try "tornado power"!

[Eric @ Aug 1st 2007 3:21PM]

There are 75 deaths directly related to the disaster at Chernobyl- but how many people died because of it years later?

Not to mention, the Soviet Union didn't exactly handle the situation as good as they might have... not evacuating the city and all until their parade was over.

56 direct deaths
4,000 extra deaths due to cancer
4,000 thyroid cancer cases among children diagnosed by 2002

I'm not attacking the USSR, or socialism, before someone goes on a spree about the Cold War being over. Just saying they didn't handle it well.

[Forrest @ Aug 1st 2007 3:43PM]

I totally agree... I'm curious how nuclear power got such a bad rap. Was it the nuclear arms race? Well-placed propaganda by companies and industries with a stake in coal, oil, and natural gas? Or was it all Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?

From what I've read and heard recently, improvements in Nuclear power generation technologies have rendered 'meltdowns' virtually if not totally impossible. When managed correctly, waste from plants poses no immediate risk and likely little to no future risk, especially when compared to traditional power generation. Sure, renewable energy should be the final destination, but is nuclear really that bad an option to bridge the gap?

I heard a story on NPR yesterday about a single line in the latest Energy bill that could (or would) allow for the federal guarantee of loans for nuclear plant construction. For some insight on the matter, the reporter conducted interviews with residents of a small town in New England that was near a power plant. Those who didn't mind or even enjoyed the presence of the plant (enjoyed in terms of realizing the benefits to the local community in terms of taxes and jobs) backed up their opinions with facts. Those who were opposed expressed uneducated, subjective fears, using terms like 'meltdown' and 'lime green'. Yet somehow these subjective viewpoints continue to guide policy.

Cultural resistance to innovation and technological improvement has led to the downfall of more than one civilization.

[Neuhofel @ Aug 1st 2007 3:46PM]

According to the IAEA Final Report (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/Chernobyl/) , 4000 cases (as of 2002) of childhood thyroid cancer (NOT deaths) can be attributed to Chernobyl - which was/is very treatable (less than 1% mortality and normal life expectancy). Trust me, I was shocked to read the report a few years ago as a Master of Public Health student. I remember as a child in the late 80's that "Chernobyl was going to cause tens of thousands of deaths, mutated babies, and infertile adults" (according to the media) - but that simply turned out not to be true. The more substantial negative public health impact can be traced to disinformation and impact on the psyche of the area. Can you imagine "waiting" for some horrible tragedy that never came to pass?

[johnzilla @ Aug 1st 2007 4:04PM]

Yeah...it isn't like being a kid with cancer is tough or anything like that...after all, they could have been dead sooner, right? Think positive!

4000 kids with cancer is barely a blip on the radar screen. Let's party!

[Neebs @ Aug 1st 2007 3:12PM]

It's a twiiiiissster!!

[Durandal @ Aug 1st 2007 3:22PM]

I hate how people have such a problem with us using nuclear power. I wouldnt care if those same people didnt also fight for the right of iran to use nuclear power, and the waste to bomb isreal.

[murray @ Aug 1st 2007 3:26PM]

File this under extremely cool. And a little scary.

[roc ingersol @ Aug 1st 2007 3:29PM]

So instead of a steam engine or stirling engine to generate power from waste heat, he wants to build a vortex to drive wind turbines?

It seems perfectly fine, thermodynamically, but I'd like to know where they see the efficiency heading, and why they think designing and building these things would be better than well-understood methods.

The fact that the article and the inventor completely ignore every other means of reclaiming waste heat isn't particularly surprising, but it doesn't instill any hope in the technology.

Sounds like a cool effect in search of a problem.

[Pat @ Aug 9th 2007 10:00PM]

Its not a "green" technology, it requires heat from another power plant. It is just a way of extracting even more energy from coal, natural gas, or nuclear.

[ePants @ Aug 1st 2007 7:10PM]

@JD

Yeah, knowing the facts is a good thing. I remember in high school being told that the Chernobyl death count was in the thousands, and thus, nuclear power = ftl.

Interesting bit of information, though, considering that the real number was more around 56 (total number of deaths related to the incident as of 2004).

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

[Choppy @ Aug 5th 2007 9:01AM]

Could this be used to change the climate as well? When we get a typhoon in Japan temparature is usually dropped about 7 - 8 degrees Celsius for a wide area (several hundreds kilometer radius). This will be useful in my poor hot country Thailand.

[Kowalski @ Aug 1st 2007 4:50PM]

... Yes!, thanks for your Comment, Sweet!! =) ;-)

[Brian @ Aug 1st 2007 4:05PM]

This is going to kill a lot of birds. They'll just be flying along, then *fulp*, they're sucked but in a "random" vortex. They won't see it coming because there'll be no atmospheric indications that one is going to form. Hopefully though, this will only kill those damn Canadian geese, because those things are mean and the poop EVERYWHERE!

[Brian @ Aug 1st 2007 4:07PM]

that's suppose to be "sucked up" not "sucked but." I don't know what happened there. I was thinking "up" but I must be a little out of it today.

[Ellianth @ Aug 1st 2007 4:08PM]

Sweet, now countries can start throwing tornadoes at one another. Can't wait till they figure out how to make hell fire rain from the skies :D.

But in all seriousness, I wouldn't want to live next to that power plant.

[david @ Aug 1st 2007 4:42PM]

This thing is scwheet! They should make a disaster movie outta' this. I have no idea what the plot should be, but it's gotta' have Samuel L. Jackson in it. . . .

[Ignatius @ Aug 1st 2007 9:39PM]

I'm tired of these motherf***ing tornadoes on this motherf***ing plain! :O