TreeHugger.com: World's First Building-Integrated Wind Turbines
THE HOLE THING
· 2 years ago
One complex eliminating 55.000 kilos of carbon emissions annually. This is one beautiful statistic. Hopefully many more new buildings around the world will have wind turbines and follow suit. It's good news like this that makes our environmental outlook a little more hopeful. Louise
Macz
· 2 years ago
How long before people start complaining about the bird strikes?
Patrick
· 2 years ago
Stationary structures like telephone poles, radio towers, high voltage towers and skyscrapers cause far more bird deaths than windmills. That is not just because there are more stationary structures (like sky scrapers) than there are moving ones (like windmills) it is also because the sound and visual movement generated by a windmill can warn birds before they hit the tower, nacelle or blades. Sky scrapers offer confusing environments of clear and mirrored glass which confuses birds and few tall structures are visible to birds at night. I can’t see the turbines on this building causing more bird strikes, but I think you’re right and I’m sure whatever deaths would normally be attributed to the towers themselves will all be blamed on the turbines.
Tony
· 2 years ago
Imagine also lacing the windows and exterior with solar paneling.
Misanthropic Scott
· 2 years ago
Many birds and bats also migrate at night and above tree level, thus thinking they're safe from collisions. They're as likely to hit the post (or building in this case) as the windmill itself.
Still, far more birds will die from global climate disruption than from windmills. This is a great move!
Too bad we couldn't get the design for New York's freedom tower with windmills incorporated. That design was rejected. And, yes, it's a very windy site.
Ann E. Mouse
· 2 years ago
And, of course, cat owners and cat apologists will continue to be in denial, but owned and feral cats will kill millions of birds in the US; many times more than wind turbines, structures, power lines and global warming combined.
BenE
· 2 years ago
Wow, did anybody else see this as a some kind of ironic joke from Saudi Arabia's little brother Bahrain? I mean, everyone knows it was Saudies who destroyed the towers in New York. Someone went and build better twin towers and they even are so blunt about it that they are calling it the WTC!!!
Preston
· 2 years ago
Hey Justin, thanks for including my site in your via. I'm going to be anxious to hear about this year's testing and whether there is any noise or vibration from the turbines. I can only imagine how cool it looks from inside the bridges looking at the turbines and the ocean. Crazy!
Blah
· 2 years ago
FYI, there are buildings called "WTC" in many cities throughout the world, the ones in NYC were just the most famous.
This picture looks fake, have I misread something? Good idea anyway.
subcorpus
· 2 years ago
11 to 15 percent savings seems minimal to the radical change in aesthetics ...
but am sure its a good start to a great trend ...
friend
· 2 years ago
Finally, form and function. Very impressive design.
Toby
· 2 years ago
I wonder if Savonius-style turbines would be a better fit between two towers. It'd make for a nice Nausicaa-like effect, too.
Timetrvlr
· 2 years ago
This concept has been around for a while but no one wanted to be the first to try it. I see this building as a test bed for integrated turbines. I think architects all over the world will be watching the studies of this and we will see more of this design in future projects. A big "thumbs up" to the designers!
cccc
· 2 years ago
Of course, Tony, I do dream of this.
Because it will become reality is what makes me so, so happy.
What a great story and I will be sure to spam it.
Everyone, please join me.
MrJ
· 2 years ago
Awesome! Now the next obvious step is for Hollywood to film a fight scene for an upcoming action flick on top of those bridges using the turbines as a dramatic backdrop...
myung jong
· 2 years ago
who made?
anonymoustroll
· 2 years ago
It's a good idea, but a bad design. Fortunately, it'll never see the light of day. Here's what's wrong with it:
- generator can not pivot into the wind; only effective when the wind is blowing in two of four general directions
- blades are not shrouded; you gain an extra 10% to 15% of efficiency with a ducted design
- rotating mass mounted at the center of a beam connected laterally to load bearing structures. The harmonics on this thing will be astounding.
- these blades won't even produce enough energy to power the building.
- liability issues: yes, Virginia, occasionally wind generators fail (actually, they tend to fail dramatically a lot more often than you might think).
- do you want to be the one with the "corner office" next to the big motion sickness generator? (lowers property value of the structure supporting it). Can you say "bad investment capital feng shui"? Very good; I knew you could.
The Naib
· 2 years ago
While these look amazing, and I am sure they will pump out a fair amount of power, they are not going to be very efficient.
Look at the two towers, they cut off 50% of all available wind, and because the turbines can not turn that means they can't use another any but one of the available wind directions efficiently so they will only work well when the wind is blowing right at them, and then because they are stuck between two big buildings and because they are so close together the backwash from the blades themselves will put a lot of stress on the machines. Expect them to be a service nightmare, and never really pay themselves off.
Buildings do a rather poor job of "funneling" wind, as the wind does go towards one spot, but its very turbulent wind, swirling and turning making it harder for wind turbines to capture it efficiently. You want laminar flow where the wind is in a horizontal column. This cuts down on stress on your machine and means that turbine is getting wind hit the entire part of its blade at the same time.
I am a full supporter of wind, but I have yet to see a wind turbine + building setup that looks like its worth it. Wind turbines belong in the wind, that means wind farms, that means tall towers, and that often means offshore, or ridge-top.
Covering the building with solar panels would have been a better option in my opinion. Or mounting a traditional wind turbine on a large poll off the roof. (then of course you have to deal with vibration transfer, but I am sure they could figure it out)
Jay Tee
· 2 years ago
fake, obviously photoshopped
Grandjester
· 2 years ago
Read the article people! It says SUCESSFULLY INSTALLED and note the PREVAILING ONSHORE winds. If you are going to poo-poo something at least read what you are commenting on.
sarah miller
· 2 years ago
WOW- "Chicken Littles" everywhere!!!
the sky is falling,
"it can't be built, "
"it'll never happen"
"it can't rotate, so it can only get 25% of the wind"
All Comments
One complex eliminating 55.000 kilos of carbon emissions annually. This is one beautiful statistic. Hopefully many more new buildings around the world will have wind turbines and follow suit. It's good news like this that makes our environmental outlook a little more hopeful. Louise
How long before people start complaining about the bird strikes?
Stationary structures like telephone poles, radio towers, high voltage towers and skyscrapers cause far more bird deaths than windmills. That is not just because there are more stationary structures (like sky scrapers) than there are moving ones (like windmills) it is also because the sound and visual movement generated by a windmill can warn birds before they hit the tower, nacelle or blades. Sky scrapers offer confusing environments of clear and mirrored glass which confuses birds and few tall structures are visible to birds at night. I can’t see the turbines on this building causing more bird strikes, but I think you’re right and I’m sure whatever deaths would normally be attributed to the towers themselves will all be blamed on the turbines.
Imagine also lacing the windows and exterior with solar paneling.
Many birds and bats also migrate at night and above tree level, thus thinking they're safe from collisions. They're as likely to hit the post (or building in this case) as the windmill itself.
Still, far more birds will die from global climate disruption than from windmills. This is a great move!
Too bad we couldn't get the design for New York's freedom tower with windmills incorporated. That design was rejected. And, yes, it's a very windy site.
And, of course, cat owners and cat apologists will continue to be in denial, but owned and feral cats will kill millions of birds in the US; many times more than wind turbines, structures, power lines and global warming combined.
Wow, did anybody else see this as a some kind of ironic joke from Saudi Arabia's little brother Bahrain? I mean, everyone knows it was Saudies who destroyed the towers in New York. Someone went and build better twin towers and they even are so blunt about it that they are calling it the WTC!!!
Hey Justin, thanks for including my site in your via. I'm going to be anxious to hear about this year's testing and whether there is any noise or vibration from the turbines. I can only imagine how cool it looks from inside the bridges looking at the turbines and the ocean. Crazy!
FYI, there are buildings called "WTC" in many cities throughout the world, the ones in NYC were just the most famous.
check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center...>
This picture looks fake, have I misread something? Good idea anyway.
11 to 15 percent savings seems minimal to the radical change in aesthetics ...
but am sure its a good start to a great trend ...
Finally, form and function. Very impressive design.
I wonder if Savonius-style turbines would be a better fit between two towers. It'd make for a nice Nausicaa-like effect, too.
This concept has been around for a while but no one wanted to be the first to try it. I see this building as a test bed for integrated turbines. I think architects all over the world will be watching the studies of this and we will see more of this design in future projects. A big "thumbs up" to the designers!
Of course, Tony, I do dream of this.
Because it will become reality is what makes me so, so happy.
What a great story and I will be sure to spam it.
Everyone, please join me.
Awesome! Now the next obvious step is for Hollywood to film a fight scene for an upcoming action flick on top of those bridges using the turbines as a dramatic backdrop...
who made?
It's a good idea, but a bad design. Fortunately, it'll never see the light of day. Here's what's wrong with it:
- generator can not pivot into the wind; only effective when the wind is blowing in two of four general directions
- blades are not shrouded; you gain an extra 10% to 15% of efficiency with a ducted design
- rotating mass mounted at the center of a beam connected laterally to load bearing structures. The harmonics on this thing will be astounding.
- these blades won't even produce enough energy to power the building.
- liability issues: yes, Virginia, occasionally wind generators fail (actually, they tend to fail dramatically a lot more often than you might think).
- do you want to be the one with the "corner office" next to the big motion sickness generator? (lowers property value of the structure supporting it). Can you say "bad investment capital feng shui"? Very good; I knew you could.
While these look amazing, and I am sure they will pump out a fair amount of power, they are not going to be very efficient.
Look at the two towers, they cut off 50% of all available wind, and because the turbines can not turn that means they can't use another any but one of the available wind directions efficiently so they will only work well when the wind is blowing right at them, and then because they are stuck between two big buildings and because they are so close together the backwash from the blades themselves will put a lot of stress on the machines. Expect them to be a service nightmare, and never really pay themselves off.
Buildings do a rather poor job of "funneling" wind, as the wind does go towards one spot, but its very turbulent wind, swirling and turning making it harder for wind turbines to capture it efficiently. You want laminar flow where the wind is in a horizontal column. This cuts down on stress on your machine and means that turbine is getting wind hit the entire part of its blade at the same time.
I am a full supporter of wind, but I have yet to see a wind turbine + building setup that looks like its worth it. Wind turbines belong in the wind, that means wind farms, that means tall towers, and that often means offshore, or ridge-top.
Covering the building with solar panels would have been a better option in my opinion. Or mounting a traditional wind turbine on a large poll off the roof. (then of course you have to deal with vibration transfer, but I am sure they could figure it out)
fake, obviously photoshopped
Read the article people! It says SUCESSFULLY INSTALLED and note the PREVAILING ONSHORE winds. If you are going to poo-poo something at least read what you are commenting on.
WOW- "Chicken Littles" everywhere!!!
the sky is falling,
"it can't be built, "
"it'll never happen"
"it can't rotate, so it can only get 25% of the wind"
DID YOU CRITICS EVEN READ THE ARTICLE??????
IT HAS BEEN BUILT!
THE BUILDING LOOKS BEAUTIFUL AND FUNCTIONAL!
CONSTANT OFFSHORE WIND!
don't listen to the critics... this building is
HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!!