Vertical CO2 WIND ENERGY at 3, 6 & 12 m/s

( By; Brad Guth / IEIS   update; September 25, 2004 )

The ongoing update (need-to-know learning curve) to this page is: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/co2-windpower-03.htm

Formula No.6 has finally been replaced by No.7

However, I'm still not at all certain of what had been influencing my previous work (lack of connected brain cells for certain, otherwise just too much or perhaps insufficient medications), towards my developing a workable formula for this vertical wind power estimation. From time to time I've gone back through something that must have made sense at the time, yet even I'm at a loss. So, I've erased all of the previous formula and having replaced such clutter with the following that seems to hold true. Though the final compensation or conversion factor (/184) is what's most likely to be adjusted in the near future.

I'll start by referring to this latest effort as formula No.7

Pd x A x (1+V)[2] x M x 3.6^3 x Eff / 184 = watts per hour

Pd = Pressure differential in psi
A = Power turbine area (- hub) net area in m2
V = Velocity of in m/s (1+V)[2] accommodates pressure differential
M = Mass of the atmosphere at altitude (nighttime adds < 7%)
3.6^3 merely accounts for an hours worth of volumetric flow
Eff = turbine conversion efficiency (typically I've used 35%)
184 = 735/4 in order to convert output into watts/hr

(nighttime [midnight] CO2/N2 density at 5 km I've based this upon 66 kg/m3)

Because this formula is still of my work in progress, I'm not entirely certain that it's all there is to realize, unless my estimates of density and volume of throughput are incorrect or just the formula is lacking it's final polish (more likely than not), I somehow think that even that of obtaining half the calculated energy is somewhat considerable energy. Most certainly there is ample kinetic energy to be had, where at even substantially lesser bar differential and of reduced velocity of throughput, we're still quite capable of delivering those spare electrons. And BTW; such compressed CO2 represents a nearly hydrostatic power turbine concept that's going to be somewhat better off than 35% efficient.

A 1 km tall version that offers 17,000 m2 turbine a flow rate of 6 m/s = 21.8 GW

A 100 meter tall version at offering 300 m2 turbine and a flow of 3 m/s = 12.5 MW.

A short 10 meter tower version offering 18 m2 turbine and a flow of 1 m/s = 18 kw.

From some previous work, I've created preliminary images of just this sort of vertical wind tunnel/tower or vertical venturi turbine power generator.

First of all;  you'll still need to bear with me, firstly by not thinking about all that hot CO2 atmosphere as being such an entirely bad and nasty sort of thing and, secondly by giving myself another break, as hopefully this page progresses itself into somewhat better results. Therefore, how about starting yourself off with reconsidering CO2 as just a highly viable energy resource of somewhat nifty differentials and, somewhat more like that of an efficient ocean that's merely less dense (as much as 1/10th water) than of a sea water environment, except only that it's far better (especially for airship applications and even super as for obtaining CO/O2 as your on-the-fly resource of fuel, as that's somewhat like cruising a ship through a sea of fuel oil, except that the O2 [oxidiser] is in there as well).

Because of what all that CO2 accomplishes as for buoyancy as well as for what it's shear density does for otherwise protecting Venus from cosmic and solar flare radiation, and deflecting meteors and/or of such a terrific Vt factor of making for anything that gets through nearly harmless, plus what one can otherwise accomplish with it's vertical pressure differentials, not to mention efficient thermal convection attributes. Since you and I already know without question that it's damn hot up there, so what?; If you have for yourself ample energy resources (much of which being extracted and/or sourced directly from all that toasty CO2), then nearly all is well with your hot world (especially well suited if you're trying to avoid human contact or worse yet, avoiding infections from a really stupid race of extremely arrogant as well as potentially lethal fools of Earth).

On planet Venus, if your elevation is 5 km, that atmospheric density of mostly CO2 is something like at least 50+ times greater then Earth's thin atmosphere (density being all together different from pressure and, a nighttime that should offer somewhat greater atmospheric density due to being of less temperature. Where even a slight drop in temperature represents a great deal of barometric impact and subsequently more density. I've located some research indicating the sealevel or ground zero level pressure being as great as 96 bar). Thus, as I extrapolate or reverse engineer from that very same Earthly 1 MW/m2/year turbine rotor performance (that's based upon an Earth year at 6 m/s) should equal at the very least 54 MW/m2/year (hourly that's worth 5.8 kw/m2) or perhaps more likely from the penefits of CO2 becoming a turbine energy potential of 100+ MW/m2/year.

Even though absolute accuracies in place of my errors should not become the issue at this point, if you feel I'm being the least bit incorrect or misleading about Venus CO2 being roughly 50+ times more effective (based upon the site altitude of 5 km and roughly 75 bar atmospheric pressure, as such worthy density from that mostly CO2 residing at roughly 600 K nighttime), then I'm open for such corrections. Your more correct input is my command and, I'll see that you get the credits.

(Remember that we're talking about nearly hydrostatic qualities)

You and I already know that horizontal surface winds of Venus, such as at 5 km, are merely 1 to 2 m/s and, even though 2 m/s of toasty CO2 is by itself a rather substantial kinetic energy resource, that's merely a stiff breeze and not of the least bit related as to anything that's of vertical potential, more so important as backed by a rather good deal of pressure offset being 4+bar/km as easily captured within a vertical column shaft/tube or that of a whole lot better yet is within any true venturi cooling like tower, as engineered for creating a nearly hydrodynamic wind-column generating environment, which I believe could easily induce 12+m/s (that's at least 4 times the working energy of 6 m/s).

Regarding CO2 as a truly credible vertical wind power;  Especially vertically speaking and actually, regarding the theoretical upper limits of 59% kinetic energy conversion as from wind (taken from Earth's atmosphere) may not be quite accurate, nor all there is for such applied on Venus. Once taking into account the availability from all that vertical pressure differential and, now how about our basing that energy resource upon a nearly hydrostatic torque generated by applying that 4+bar/m2 (that's 60 psi as calculated from a 1 km offset, where each m2 turbine/rotor area can create or affect 42 tonnes of force and, of any 100 meter rotor now afford 310 metric kilotonnes worth per total rotor area impact, as being some sort of serious potential for delivering megatorque), as even at nearly zero vertical wind speed, say 0.1 m/s, there is still these obvious tonnes of worthy pressure differential which will in fact cause a power turbine (even that of a piss poor one), to turn (in fact, it'll be damn impossible to keep that rotor from turning), even if the number of blades and subsequent power being taken would have otherwise stopped or at least seriously diminished a purely horizontal wind powered application, as opposed to such dense CO2 vertical winds being nearly hydrodynamic worthy.

Do try to remember;  Any of this vertical CO2 wind and substantial pressure differential offset potential is not even an option on Earth and, especially not the least bit likely on Mars at a mere 0.007 bar worth of damn cold CO2, as Mars is a total energy washout unless we could locate such a wind-turbine into a worthy Mars jet-stream of 100+m/s. As for constructing any 100 km or even a 1000 km vertical venturi, this would still offer at best 0.007 bar, which still is nearly nothing whatsoever. Even of Earth's 1 bar would require 100+ km worth of vertical venturi tower plus several km across the top, which still wouldn't develop 1% of what I'm talking about with the 1 km power station of Venus.

Regarding Venus; how about something perfectly natural, such as situated within a large towering volcanic like vent, exactly like the one located just South of downtown "GUTH Venus No.1", where there's certainly ample room within for literally a dozen of such 100 meter turbines (each delivering that absolute minimal 50 MW or, I'm still thinking more likely the 120+MW is what's obtainable per 100 meter rotor). That vertical vent consideration looks as though it could be offering 1 km worth of column rise (perhaps more if you were to accept Wizard David's 225 meter/pixel calculations). A base opening or two in order to allow the atmospheric pressure inlet/access is not as such rocket science. As on Earth, especially whenever there are barometric changes, such naturally formed caves offer somewhat vertical shafts that accommodate winds exceeding 10+m/s (like Jewel and Lechuguilla) and, just imagine what a little intentional improvement in their base openings would accomplish, remembering that 10+m/s of CO2 wind would be seriously knocking your socks off and/or generating some sort of serious gigawatts worth of energy.


With this sort of natural (unlimited/renewable) energy resource at hand, the Olympic interplanetary sport on Venus could easily become Ice Hocky, even if that's in the form of frozen H2O2. Otherwise a relatively small roof top venturi power unit per residence that's accommodating a 10 meter rotor/turbine and functioning from a pathetic 0.1 bar differential, this apparatus could be accomplishing far more than is necessary from a mere 3 m/s of vertical flow. Sorry folks, that's one hell of a lot of ice cold Venus beer, air conditioning and CO2-->CO/O2 to boot.

Here's access to that somewhat limited but otherwise perfectly good steam turbine consumption calculator ("WASP") from Katmar Software, though I soon discovered this calculator was internally limited to 50 Bar exhaust, I selected levels as based upon a temperature of 544 K at 54/50 Bar (that's a 4 bar differential), then opted for a 35% Turbine Efficiency and finally applied various turbine power outputs until I leveled off at roughly 72 GW and, guess what folks, that's fully saturated (essentially requiring 13.1^6 kg/s of wet steam) as being somewhat equal in mass as to those same kg/s of applied CO2 @66 kg/m3 (based upon 12 m/s worth having to pass 16,537.5 m2). Therefore, still not trying as to being all that accurate, none the less, I've again modified upon my previous #5 formula in order to share this latest tid bit of reverse formula engineering, which I now believe this is becoming closer to the upper potential of what that 4+Bar/km has to offer. By they way, that "WASP" steam formula indicates a 7K temperature drop, which somewhat coincided with the 7K/km as the Venus atmosphere offers by other estimates (though I'm thinking the nighttime may deliver 10K/km), so I don't know if that's such a good thing or not, just seems somewhat interesting that we have such a close match.

Because this creation of an entirely new formula is still in the +/- works phase, don't become all that astonished or "I told you so" if it gets revised a few dozen more times, as I'm still looking for others willing (that means you) or at least interested in submitting their better and likely more correct ideas. Unfortunately, such others don't seem to have a clue, as so far there's not been all that much out there except a whole lot of empty space, sort of another black hole of whatever represents the humanity of astronomy and physics.

I have not yet bothered with applying any temperature offset advantage, as with that issue being a good 8+K/km differential, which is just about exactly 1K more than what the steam turbine temperature differential was for the selected 4 bar pressure drop, so at least something is getting pretty darn close to reality. I expect some additional details as to the rate of expansion of CO2, as for understanding what's happening over this 1 km vertical distance may become significant as well as for creating any revisions to the inlet/outlet ratios and/or venturi attributes that should be tailored for the situation at hand.


Realizing upon what one might accomplish with even a little such energy options plus, of what all that toasty hot CO2 has to offer besides it's pressure and thermal differentials, as well as CO/O2 as fuel, such as for a great deal of solar flare radiation shielding offering sufficient mass, then how about just in the way of otherwise accomplishing a little artificial thermal heat-exchanging via simple mechanical compression and subsequently efficient heat transfer.

I do believe one needs fairly little if any imagination nor "rocket science" and certainly nothing of radio as to their figuring out exactly how to go about improving an enclosed or whatever habitat environment. I would have to imagine their highest priority, once any greenhouse event was taking place (be that a relatively slight transformation over thousands of years), this priority was to devise upon something that's going to keep beer cold, especially if the planet is getting hotter by their very long day and not cooling off all that much by night, then obtaining cold beer is perhaps far more important then anything else.

Once that's been accomplished (cold beer in hand), then of whatever other habitat revisions and environmental considerations will naturally be forthcoming, like further engineering upon that massive airship in order to take advantage of the truly massive buoyancy as well as so that it operates itself upon mostly CO2-->CO/O2, as how otherwise are you to be getting yourself and your family of lizardets from GUTH Venus-1 to either sunset home site #2 or #3 (as situated at 180 degrees, that trip representing a good airship journey of nearly 20,000 km). Certainly you're not trekking off on foot through those death valley lowlands of smoking hot Venus, as that would be really stupid as well as extremely inefficient (somewhat like trying to swim [under water, against the tide] to Hawaii).

Considering the enormous efficiency and ease by which airships of all sizes could easily navigate through that atmospheric ocean of toasty CO2. Actually folks, it's not nearly so hot in that pitch black nighttime as for being near to those clouds and, even somewhat cold for any nocturnal lizard type traveling via airship above them. Where likely being cold blooded, those lizard folks may actually have to turn up their CO/O2 furnace and/or feedback some of their engine exhaust heat just to stay warm, especially if someone wants to accomplish anything astronomy, which clearly represents having to cruise above those nighttime clouds.


Accessing and getting more H2O, that's just the ticket

Being that various chemical and element extraction processing is so freaking simple and bloody efficient on Venus. A great deal is accomplished via vacuum cracking and through utilizing of ambient thermal energy for distillation, where this may take as little as 1% the energy required as on Earth, all because the required heat is already naturally ambient and as for one's pulling a rather substantial vacuum is not even the slightest issue. Thereby distillation could be taking but 1% of the same energy requirements as on Earth for doing the similar job, where clearly this represent that from having a little such vertical wind energy certainly can go a very long ways towards making yourself (as a nocturnal lizard type might require) a respectable home on an otherwise thoroughly nasty planet, at least sufficiently hot and nasty as far as most Earth humans are concerned.

According to a growing number of our qualified NASA engineers;  having such an abundance of natural energy resources (including that mostly CO2 atmosphere) means absolutely everything. In fact, it's the entire "can do" and "mission possible" picture for sustauining life, as with such available energies (especially when you have the mass quantities as Venus offers), you can manipulate your way upon sorting and even cultivating all sorts of other natural elements and then, simply go about extracting tonnes of BTU's or rather VTU's, plus obtain whatever chemicals and prime elements your cold blooded heart could desire, thereby producing and storing nearly any number of usable items (like CO, O2, N2 and then subsequently from your airships gathering H2SO4 from those clouds, you then obtain plain old H2O, process to produce H2O2 and then naturally creating volumes of H2 for best airship buoyancy as well as for best ever thermal insulation against whatever ambient thermal conduction factors). Obviously all of this is for ultimately accommodating your survival, as surely none of this is of much worth if you're so thoroughly toasted dead. So, perhaps unlike nearly all of our complacent NASA research wizards, incentives such as living or not, these greenhouse factors could have played a relatively vital role or two in the planetary and species evolution of Venus.


I'm trying once again to filter out some of my disappointment and sheer anger as towards pro-NASA types and of their devotion for supporting "damage control", as well as perhaps a little or a lot of "spin" and even disinformation on behalf of their close associations with Lord NASA or NASA's boss NSA/DoD. My "Soap Opera" on this subject is only worth a read if you actually give a damn about much of anything, as otherwise your pagan God (NASA/NSA/DoD) is and will always be entirely right for you, even if tall buildings must fall and the shuttle you're on is being utilized by Phantom Works as a thermal sensor array test bed.

Fair warning;  Don't get me started as to returning the favor.
The INDEX page: GUTH Venus (with loads of updates)
alternate URL's: http://guthvenus.tripod.com  and  http://geocities.com/bradguth
Copyright © 2000/2003 - Brad E. Guth
GUTH Venus: All Rights Reserved
Webmaster: Brad Guth - Brad Guth / IEIS   ~  1-253-8576061
created: August 16, 2002

Brad Guth / IEIS IEIS-Brad@Juno.com