Problem in understanding of a text

[ali_dd]

What is the meaning of the following sentences? The Wells turbine consumes the fossil fuel or not?!

This causes higher energy efficiency in the VTB than the CTB. Therefore, the VTB Wells turbine is cleaner than the CTB Wells turbine because the amount of fossil fuels consumption and air pollution is much lower without any resulting loss in the amount of electrical energy generated.

VTB=variable thickness blade
CTB=constant thickness blade

I don't understand the following sentences:

because the amount of fossil fuels consumption and air pollution is much lower without any resulting loss in the amount of electrical energy generated.

In fact, noted the Wells turbine does not consume the fossil fuels!!!

But, the use of Wells turbine is one way to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Is there any way to relate consuption of fossil fuels to the VTB and CTB?

Thanks.

 

[SoothingDave]

Where is this text from?

 

[Lynxear]

First of all, if this statement is from a technical paper, it is not well written:

Therefore, the VTB Wells turbine is cleaner than the CTB Wells turbine because the amount of fossil fuels consumption and air pollution is much lower without any resulting loss in the amount of electrical energy generated.

I did a little digging on the subject and this turbine is used in converting wave action to electricity. You are right... this turbine does not use fossil fuels, but it would replace (to a small extent) methods of generating electricity that does use fossil fuels, coal fired generators for example. So by this replacement, the electricity overall has less pollution and fossil fuel consumption in the world would be less.

Now another problem with that statement is that it is a comparison between two different designs of the turbine blades, VTB and CTB, for the Wells Turbine. There would be NO difference in fossil fuel consumption at all since no fossil fuels are used in either design. In addition, there would be no change to the the pollution created for the same reason. There may be efficiencies that are greater in one design over another which produce more electricity, but that has no effect on fuel consumption and pollution as there is none produced in the first place.

I have seen through my searches on the subject that someone was consulting WordReference.com during the writing of this technical paper.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=vtb+ctb+site:forum.wordreference.com&ei=DbSAWZqeLMWujwPlurPwBQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=1600&bih=723

I suppose the paper was written by someone else and that person is definitely not a native English speaker.

 

[SoothingDave]

The efficiency difference would account for a savings in fossil fuels not used. It's a rather convoluted way of thinking.

If the higher efficiency VTB design made more electricity than the other design for the same input of (wave power?), then to make the equivalent amount of electricity with traditional fossil fuels, it would require more fossil fuels. Therefore, by not using them, they are saved.

 

[Lynxear]

Well that would be significant if this was a viable technology rivaling fossil fuel generated electricity. I doubt though that this turbine , interesting though it may be, generates a millionth of one percent of Earth's energy needs, if that. So even a 10 percent increase of one vane design over another would be negligible.

Anyway, the writer is not communicating this very well. At least from the snippet we have seen. From those references I looked at and this question:

Is there any way to relate consuption of fossil fuels to the VTB and CTB?

My guess we are seeing a post from the author of the paper.