Bucking the Tide in Small Wind
Although I’m bearish on small wind generally, I have to say that I’m impressed with the work that my friend Dan Bates, CEO of WindStream Technologies, has done in this space; I hope you’ll check out the video linked below. Based on a conversation he and I had on the phone yesterday, he writes:
Hi Craig, I want to thank you for your kind words of support the other day. This has been an incredibly tough time for me and the company but we will get through it. Have a look at this video I put together of what we have accomplished. I am very proud of my team and could not have done it without them.
Holy mackerel, Dan, that’s just beautiful! I’m proud to know you, both for what you’ve accomplished and the guts you’ve shown in the process. I have every confidence that you will, in fact, get through it.
That’s a clever idea. How it will work out long term and whether it makes economic sense I don’t know, but it looks as though it could make sense in area where connection to the grid is not an option.
I was unable to find out how all the rotors were interconnected. I suppose the most obvious way would be for each to have a miniature permanent magnet generator, rectify the output of each, and parallel the outputs. That way if any one of them failed the others would not be affected.
Dan Bates typifies the very best qualities we should all admire in a person. Dan is a member of an elite global club of inspirational innovators prepared to take risks and persevere with their idea’s irrespective of positive commercial outcomes and performance expectations being guaranteed.
Keep up the good work Dan and the best of luck to you and your team as you continue to develop innovative wind energy solutions.
As an innovator in the same space as Dan and also involved in new format small scale wind generation technology, I do see serious design deficiencies in Dan’s prototype technology though that will preclude it from becoming commercially viable which is the key determinant in evaluating technological innovation is this globally competitive era.
Despite that being said, successful outcomes stem from continuous critical analysis refinement and perseverance by innovators and this is the point of time that Dan finds himself at with this project.
We should all keep an eye on Dan as he moves forward though and I expect we will ultimately see some of his great ideas crystalize into great products we can all benefit from.
In think Lawrence nailed it when he states the difference between a concept and something which can become commercially viable.
We are living through a period of great change and transition.
Unfortunately, we are still judging new technology with the political/ philosophical ideologies formulated in an older era, and no longer appropriate or helpful when assessing future merits.
As the gap between political philosophy and dogma, and the expansion of new technology widens, huge numbers of people will cling passionately to older concepts, in a effort to remain comprehend the transition.
This doesn’t just apply to the followers of populists like Donald Trump, but also to the rabidly passionate advocates of the left and extreme environmental movement. Both are seeking to fit new challenges into old formulae.
Never has the size and scale of transition been so complex. The challenges are daunting, and almost beyond human comprehension.
When humans feel overwhelmed, it only natural for one of two reactions to occur. There’s the ‘head in the sand’ approach. This is a desire to pretend everything will be ok, as long as simplistic solutions are sought and old remedies applied.
The other approach is to cry ‘havoc’ and prepare for an exciting apocalypse which will reduce transitional problems to a simple basis to fit an older political/philosophical concept.
In fact, neither need occur. The transitional changes occurring will not produce a brave new utopia, nor an apocalypse.
If managed correctly, technology can effect ‘transition’ as a beneficial, continuous process of evolution only mildly disruptive.
The changes which will occur, will not necessarily be compatible with any “grand plan’ or ideology. That’s the way it is with ‘evolution’, not everything that succeeds does so because it has a ‘moral’ or even beneficial purpose. It’s more a kind of crap shoot, where the dice fall where they can survive.
No new technology can prosper in isolation, a vast host of complex equations must be satisfied before widespread adoption can occur.
Trying to force round pegs into square holes may satisfy the very human need for control, ( especially among the powerless) but it’s counter-productive.