Harnessing High Altitude Wind Power

jakosc writes "The Economist has an interesting article about increasing the efficiency of wind-powered generators by turning them into flying wind farms. These tethered generators would harness high speed jet stream winds above 15,000 ft and in theory could give outputs of 40MW per generator (PDF). The developer's website has more details of some of the safety, technological, and economic issues."

Comments

Dupe.

[frakir]

Not only is this a dupe (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/ 04/2142232) but there are much better ideas.
Check http://www.magenn.com/ for example. And much less dangerous.

Re:Dupe.

[florescent_beige]

I'm happen to be an expert in aircraft structures and based on what I said in the original thread, I really wonder if they know what they are talking about. The Economist article talks about aluminum tethers and from what I can tell such cables would be physically impossible. That is basic stuff to get wrong.

Secondly, a winged platform with horizontal-axis turbines would make more sense. Their helicopter-ish layout uses a lot of rotor structure to present a little area to the airflow. You cannot tilt the platform to present more rotor area to the airflow because the lift vector has to be parallel to the anchor cables where they attach to the vehicle. Those cables which will be nearly vertical, that is basic catenary physics and there is nothing you can do about it unless you use other lift vehicles to hold the tether up (the way high-altitude kites work.)

Thirdly, the jet stream meanders around. Are they thinking about moving the turbines to follow the jet stream? How would that work? Would they move their restricted airspace region to follow them? And what kind of ground station would be massive enough to bear the large forces this thing generates and be portable enough to drive on roads?

Fourthly, it will have either be certified by the FAA or will have to fly over uninhabited areas. Flying things crash, they always crash, and a 10 kilometer cable whipping down on you from the sky is a nasty thought. Certification has killed more than a few projects that otherwise seemed like good ideas.

I'm not saying it's all impossible. Just unlikely.

Re:now i've seen it all

[zippthorne]

The problem is that the people who find them unattractive or noisy (noisy?? I live near one, i've never heard it. The highway on the other hand...) are the same people who want to get rid of coal (because of the soot), oil (because of the carbon), Hydroelectric (because of the fishes), nuclear (because of the bomb), solar-dynamic (because of the 7-years bad luck), and probably have some kind of cockamamie objection to geothermal, too.

These are the same people that move in near airports (because of the low-prices) and then complain about the noise and occasional fuel dump. THAT'S WHY THE PRICES WERE LOW. The airport's been there for 80 years, so you had to know what you were getting yourself into.

I'm a GW skeptic, but I'm all about buying efficient devices and trying alternative energy, especially if a non-governmental organization has found a way actually make something profitable. I get disheartened and disillusioned with "environmentalism" when the very people clamoring for alternative energy are the ones shooting down the projects.

We should have some kind of survey, and have people check off the kinds of power they don't want near them, and if they check off too many items, they're not allowed to talk.