Slashdot Mirror


The Highest-Flying Wind Turbine

Daniel_Stuckey writes: "In far-flung rural Alaska, where electricity can cost as much as $1 per kilowatt hour — more than 10 times the national average, according to the New York Times — a wind turbine encased in a giant helium balloon is about to break a world record. The Bouyant Air Turbine (BAT) is about to be floated 1,000 feet into the air in the name of cleaner, cheaper, and mobile energy. That single airborne grouper—it's sort of a hybrid of a blimp, a kite, and a turbine—will power over a dozen homes. The BAT is the brainchild of Altaeros, a company founded by MIT alumni, and, if everything goes according to plan, it's going to be the highest-flying power generator in history. Since winds blow stronger and more consistently the higher above the ground you go, and the hovering BAT harnesses that gale and sends electricity down to earth through the high-strength tethers that also hold the machine steady. "

97 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Helium by Kardos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This can never scale due to helium scarcity. While even low-quality helium would undoubtedly work for this application, the quantities required to build these at scale would drive the price through the roof.

    1. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While Hydrogen is significantly more dangerous, depending on the overall cost and possible ways to limit the dangers, it may be an option.

    2. Re:Helium by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Informative
      You're correct about the helium scarcity, but a wind sail generator such as this could probably be modified to produce it's own heated air to stay aloft, a technology already in widespread use in ballooning.

      If you check out one article this week, make it this one... these things are crafty cool.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Helium by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While Hydrogen is significantly more dangerous ...

      These are unmanned. So even if a tiny fraction burn up (due to lightning or whatever), I don't see how that would be much of a problem. Hydrogen burns very quickly, so would be consumed before it hit the ground. Just make sure they are tethered so they don't fall on a populated area.

    4. Re:Helium by skovnymfe · · Score: 5, Funny

      There must be somewhere in Alaska where there aren't any people around. There must be.

    5. Re:Helium by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      While Hydrogen is significantly more dangerous, depending on the overall cost and possible ways to limit the dangers, it may be an option.

      I for one welcome the gargantuan exploding lawnmowers to our skies.

    6. Re:Helium by Dan+East · · Score: 2

      This system isn't designed for general or widespread use. The article specifically mentions industrial and construction use, and the artist's rendition shows them in use at a bridge construction site. So it would be in place of diesel generators and the like, and launched only when needed daily as weather permits to save money over using expensive diesel.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    7. Re:Helium by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      1 - Replace the battery with an electrolytic generator.
      2 - Store part of the hydrogen on the top.
      3 - Replace the electric cable with a tube that pumps water up and hydrogen down.

    8. Re:Helium by IJ+Hull · · Score: 5, Informative

      Search for "hydrogen cooled electrical generator" .. you statement 'Hydrogen and electrical generation generally do not mix' is really really wrong. Don't like giving GE free adds, but.. http://www.ge-energy.com/produ...

    9. Re:Helium by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While Hydrogen is significantly more dangerous ...

      These are unmanned. So even if a tiny fraction burn up (due to lightning or whatever), I don't see how that would be much of a problem. Hydrogen burns very quickly, so would be consumed before it hit the ground. Just make sure they are tethered so they don't fall on a populated area.

      Just add a parachute pack lashed to the bottom. The balloon burns, the weight causes the parachute to rotate to above the falling structure and an altimeter deploys the parachute before it hits the ground.

      You could make this pretty reliable if you separate the hydrogen lifting cells from the turbine/parachute system so an incineration would just involve attaching new balloons and sending the whole thing back up.

    10. Re:Helium by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Up high in the atmosphere you could easily harvest enough water from the air to keep the thing self-sufficient.

    11. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen leaks easily and every electrical contact in the generation systems is a potential ignition point. Plus others. While they might not be prohibitive risks, it might still be better to avoid them.

      Use part of the electricity generated to maintain hot air? Air gap insulation and other reduced weight methods?

    12. Re:Helium by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it. Somebody please mod this guy above up.
      The first time I saw bright red hydrogen gas canisters was in a turbine hall full of 1960s vintage siemens turbines.

    13. Re:Helium by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      As I mentioned on Soylent, you only need a little helium to get it off the ground in the first place, then it can generate its own hydrogen or hot air to keep itself aloft for extended periods.

    14. Re:Helium by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      a) From the pictures it doesn't look like it goes high enough for a parachute to be effective.
      b) If there's a fire I'd assume that the parachute would be compromised by the heat.

    15. Re:Helium by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Not really. Just properly grounding the thing would fix that.

    16. Re:Helium by es330td · · Score: 1

      Just make sure they are tethered so they don't fall on a populated area.

      The only reason these are necessary is that the residents live in sparsly populated areas. If more people lived there the infrastructure cost of traditional electric delivery would be justifiable. From TFA, a turbine could power "dozens" of homes. In the biggest state in the US, a dozen homes is a rounding error in population density.

    17. Re:Helium by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Hydrogen leaks easily

      But less easily than helium through non-metallic materials. Even a party balloon will hold hydrogen for days. This thing will have less permeable material, and a much higher volume/surface ratio, so it should be able to stay up for weeks before needing a hydrogen top up. It might even be able to make its own H2 by collecting condensation and doing electrolysis.

      every electrical contact in the generation systems is a potential ignition point.

      It is suspended in a gale force wind. It is extremely unlikely that the hydrogen slowly diffusing through the covering will build up enough to ignite.

    18. Re:Helium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Helium is not scarce at all. It is the second most abundant element there is. Currently (on Earth) there is 3000 metric tons produced annually, with 78% of the global supply existing within the United States.

    19. Re:Helium by jb11 · · Score: 3, Informative

      a) From the pictures it doesn't look like it goes high enough for a parachute to be effective.

      It says that they will be floating at 1000ft. I believe you can deploy a parachute down to a couple hundred feet.

    20. Re:Helium by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The only reason these are necessary is that the residents live in sparsly populated areas.

      They are deployed first where electricity is $1/kwh, but if they can be scaled up and mass produced, we could use them everywhere. If you go up high enough, you can almost always find strong winds. Unlike many other renewables, these could be used for steady baseload power. There is a lot of potential for this technology.

    21. Re:Helium by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Well that's the idea of working around the hydrogen. You offset the hydrogen cells so they're expendable and under heat release the gas quickly, away from the turbine. The parachute gets enough aerodynamics so when it falls it acts like a drogue and pulls itself above the turbine before deploying.

    22. Re:Helium by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Is that because hydrogen is diatomic, and thus always bigger than monoatomic helium even though the atoms themselves are smaller? Or does it have something to do with helium's inertness?

    23. Re:Helium by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Well as its doesn't carry any passengers there should not be a huge problem - though NIBYS can be strange. People complained about fuel cell powered buses in London and quoted the Hindenburg as an example of why the buses where not safe.

    24. Re:Helium by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Interesting. Is that because hydrogen is diatomic, and thus always bigger than monoatomic helium even though the atoms themselves are smaller?

      Basically, yes. H2 has a bigger radius than monoatomic helium. But H2 can be absorbed into metal, embrittling the metal in the process. The electrons will disassociate, and the protons can then drift through the metal and diffuse out the other side. So if the container is metal, the H2 will leak out faster, otherwise the helium will.

      Disclaimer: I am a programmer, not a chemist. So if you are building a blimp or hydrogen storage facility, you might want to double check all of this.

    25. Re:Helium by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I guess you could make it work, but for safety systems you want things to be a simple as they can be so there's less chances for it to go wrong.

    26. Re:Helium by recharged95 · · Score: 1

      Helium mixes with any bladder material out there today. Sure low quality helium will work, but it needs to be 100% helium on the inside--that will be a nightmare to manage.

      Also the carbon footprint to mine all that helium and make all that high tech cable more or less than the power it puts out over a year? My guess it it's actually inefficient. Mind that the weather issues this thing screams out (i.e. can be used in 1% of the world's normal conditions).

      Cool concept? Yes. Looks cool? Yep. VC hyped holy grail? MIT? Yep. Yep. Beneficial? Likely not. Costs? Likely $$$ in the O&M.

      What's easier and cheaper and more robust to maintain: a building structure, boat or a airplane/aerial? In that order... and that's why we have windmill structures.

    27. Re:Helium by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Probably out in those places with no electricity....

    28. Re:Helium by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      /me Eagerly awaits the article I should read this week.

    29. Re:Helium by evilviper · · Score: 1

      While Hydrogen is significantly more dangerous, depending on the overall cost and possible ways to limit the dangers, it may be an option.

      I don't know why everyone seems to think hydrogen and helium are the only gases lighter than air.

      Natural gas is dirt cheap in the US, and is extremely buoyant.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    30. Re:Helium by camg188 · · Score: 1

      Wind turbines and birds generally do not mix

      I thought this turbine was designed to be tethered 1000 feet up. Do birds fly that high?

    31. Re:Helium by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Other renewables are used for baseload, too.
      Seems you are mixing up baseload with something else.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re:Helium by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A little math:
      1000 feet are roughly 300 yards.

      Why should birds not fly that high? And what exactly do you want to imply with that question?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    33. Re:Helium by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      As long as you're generating energy, hot air is an option.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  2. Re:hm... by sunking2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    No. Every single person involved in this is an idiot.

  3. Re:hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    No. It didn't occur to ANY of those MIT alumni, their backers, their consultants, or anyone.

    You are literally the first person to mention it.

    They'd be f***ed without slashdot.

  4. Re:About to break a world record! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They claim it is the highest flying power generator, but conveniently omit the ISS.

  5. Lightning surge by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    And when lightning strikes one of these babies, you get a nice surge of 1.21 Jigawatts.

    Being more serious, I think this is a really good idea, but I would think big storms would be the biggest problems for these things. Of course, FTA:

    "The largest barrier to implementation right now is the need for a product that is reliable in all weather conditions for long periods of time,"

    1. Re:Lightning surge by zerosomething · · Score: 1

      gigawatts is power... joules is energy

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvesting_lightning_energy 5 billion joules in single bolt of lightning

      You haven't seen the movie have you? sigh...

      --
      It all starts at 0
  6. Re:hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    yes, and the answer is - high voltage

  7. Ummm.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    So helium is free in Alaska? Last I checked, helium is so expensive that $1 a Kwh is going to be cheaper than keeping that thing filled.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Ummm.... by voodoo+cheesecake · · Score: 1

      I won't comment on whether or not this will work, but in bush Alaska that $1 per Kilowatt Hour is during the prosperous warm times when the fuel to run the diesel generators doesn't have be flow in because of pack ice or a fuel barge delayed because the Coast Guard is holding it for repairs. Now imagine sitting way out on the Aleutian chain where it blows like hell for long periods of time and barges ice over. I once had to wait, through a fuel rationing for a month, for fuel in the middle of winter. One year fuel had to be flown in to McGrath in the interior - gasoline was going for $12 a gallon. Last year, the a town along the inside passage (panhandle) froze over. They were without power for over a month because of the record snow.

      Now, I don't know (don't care to fact check helium cost at the moment), but I would compare that to the cost of keeping communities from freezing to death.

  8. Why helium? by skovnymfe · · Score: 2

    Why not hot air? Surely they can mount an electric heat generator if it's going to be producing the stuff anyway. Then they can also regulate the balloons altitude on the fly.

    1. Re:Why helium? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      If the ambient temperature is lower, it makes it even more effective.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Why helium? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      wait until some asshole shoots it with a rifle

      Assuming it's a small community with few visitors, and assuming that community benefits significantly from this thing (in terms of cost-savings), the odds of this happening might not be that bad.

      The energy-distribution guys who they're putting out of business might be tempted, I guess.

    3. Re:Why helium? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      It's makes it the SAME effective.

      You need to get X degrees above the ambient temperature, which is what your starting air will be...

      Heating cold air to warm and keeping it there is pretty much the same as heating warm air to hot...

    4. Re:Why helium? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      Why not hot air? Surely they can mount an electric heat generator if it's going to be producing the stuff anyway. Then they can also regulate the balloons altitude on the fly.

      The generators and equipment will get hot. The real problem will be getting rid of the heat. Putting the radiators in the airbag might be all that is needed.

  9. Re:About to break a world record! by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    What about the Voyager spacecraft the left the solar system a few months ago?

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
  10. Re:About to break a world record! by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is the ISS flying? Nope. It's not lighter than air either. Apples & Oranges.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  11. Squealeth like a piggy by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    "Not in my backyard!" squealeth the rich in Hollywood and Martha's Vinypard.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  12. Re:hm... by Calinous · · Score: 1

    This electrical cable can function as a tether. Maybe a steel cored, twisted aluminium strands cable (as used in medium and voltage transmission) would offer both low electric resistance, high strength, high reliability, ...
    (P.S. I have small lengths of that kind of cable at home. It's probably overkill for a 10-houses sized balloon, but it can be built in smaller gauges)

  13. Re:About to break a world record! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Voyager leave the solar system every month. The solar system is a ever-growing boundary.

  14. All you need to know by BobK65 · · Score: 1

    about the lunacy of flying turbines has been discussed in several articles by John Brignell over the course of many years. Here is one of them. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/c...

    1. Re:All you need to know by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      And yet this team of MIT alumni is still going ahead with their project after 18 months of research and $1.3 million spent. Funny that.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:All you need to know by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Oops. The project is due to last 18 months. Well, we'll see then, then.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  15. inaccurate by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "Since winds blow stronger and more consistently the higher above the ground you go"
    Not true. Eventually you'll hit space.

    1. Re:inaccurate by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      Solar wind dude.

    2. Re:inaccurate by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you count "solar wind" vs power generation. If you include photo-electric potential, the solar wind is very strong, power generation wise, and because of the low gravity and turbulence environment, you can make huge structures to capture it very efficiently.

  16. Not happy with killing birds, eh. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Let's see if we can net a few planes also.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  17. Four seconds by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    All this means is that it takes four seconds (5 GJ / 1.21 GW) to travel through time.

  18. It's a bird. It's a plane. by tepples · · Score: 1

    And after LexCorp has killed birds and planes, this means Mr. Luthor can finally get rid of Cal Elwood, Clark Kent, or whatever that "superman" is calling himself today.

  19. hmph by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 2

    yeah sure... let's just bash it before it gets anywhere.... so many planes and birds in the fucking frozen deserts of Alaska.... let's go oil mmurica!!

  20. Re:About to break a world record! by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    Voyager leave the solar system every month. The solar system is a ever-growing boundary.

    It's not leaving, it's fleeing the solar system which is obviously trying to chase it down.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  21. Re:About to break a world record! by Thanshin · · Score: 1

    Neither apples nor oranges are lighter than air.

  22. You can get higher by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    You can even get higher if you use staged balloons. At some point, the cable gets too heavy to support its own weight. If you use multiple stages in the cable, you can make it much longer and therefore catch more wind. I don't know what the optimum altitude for such a balloon is (at some point the reduced air density would make the efficiency decrease with altitude). This principle was already demonstrated with staged sailplanes.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:You can get higher by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you want it to go higher, you're going to need to make the cable longer. If the cable gets longer, the conductors are going to have to get thicker. Barring room-temperature superconductors, making it go higher is probably not practical.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Smells like something? by angularbanjo · · Score: 1

    All I hear are 'breaking' and 'wind' in the same sentence

  24. Re:Already posted to Soylent News by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    Links are always nice. Since I'm linking to SN, I'll also shout out to Pipedot, S'qute and Technocrat.

  25. Retarded ... or is it 1 April already ?! by fygment · · Score: 1

    The technology of blimps is fraught with challenges not least of which are helium's availability, ground interaction (including launch, landing, and tethering/shelter on ground) and a sensitivity to weather. I've worked with a stream-lined tethered blimp 20' long with a camera and radar payload. In 20 knots of wind, the bugger had to be brought down ... not trivial. The whole operation worked best, and safest, in NO WIND. So, the idea of using a tethered high air resistance blimp to supply very little power (~ a dozen homes?!) is ... intellectually challenged. Awesome engineering challenge ... but just dumb.

    Plus, what is the BS about 'clean air'. A common wind turbine, on the ground, is just as efficient ... more so, if you account for the demanding infrastructure to support a blimp.

    Afterthought: This has to be a military project and the whole Alaska thing is just to give it palatable civilian visibility. You could maybe make a use case for disaster relief or remote military ops ... no you can't even do that 'cause if you could get this dumbass set up in to a location then you could get a generator and fuel in as well, that any idiot could operate and run with minimal supervision. Oh and any enemy wanting to take out your power or know where you are would just find and shoot down the flippin' blimp and then you ... crap! ... who the hell came up with such a seriously flawed concept???? Not MIT, it must be TIM as in a couple of yahoos at TIM Horton's doughnut shop. Is this an early April 1st post?

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
    1. Re:Retarded ... or is it 1 April already ?! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      And, as Tigger told Piglet, you just can't argue with a word like "fraught."

      Alaska has different efficiencies than the continental US. Getting a construction crew up there to make a ground based windmill is expensive. Basing anything large in the Alaska soil is expensive, if not impossible in the Permafrost. Fuel costs (away from the pipeline) are high due to transport costs.

    2. Re:Retarded ... or is it 1 April already ?! by Ardipithecus · · Score: 1

      Most sensible comment so far. Sorry no mod points.

  26. Re:About to break a world record! by camperdave · · Score: 2

    Voyager isn't flying.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  27. Keep going higher by F34nor · · Score: 2
  28. Interview by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    A journalist interviewed the wind turbine. His funniest comment was "I'm so high right now!".

    1. Re:Interview by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Next stop: Colorado's Rocky Mountains.

  29. There is the high-flying sun by mikewas · · Score: 1

    Highest flying? The sun is an "energy generator", and it is quite a bit higher than any blimp/kite/turbine will be.

    --

    "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." --Napoleon Bonaparte
  30. Re:hm... by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

    No, only the people investing in this are idiots, the ones collecting the money are quite clever.

      Its really difficult to imagine that this is cheaper per power output than a conventional generator. the balloon is big, fragile and probably limited lifetime. Subject to weather, ice, lightning, etc. The supports are not at all trivial - picture holding a balloon on a windy day - the wind X tether will tend to push the balloon downwards - this will significantly limit the max wind speed where this can be used. At the same time the tethers need to resist the torque of the turbine - or it needs counter-rotating blades which are less efficient and more complex. You need a large clear area or if the balloon deflates it could land on something doing damage. If multiple balloons are close to each other, a very stiff multi-point support is needed or they will collide if the winds shift. That still doesn't solve the strong wind problem listed above, so the tethers need to have a system to reel in the balloons when bad weather is predicted. The higher wind speed is nice, but its difficult to imagine building one of these that is anywhere near the scale of a large modern windmill.

    This is just a dumb idea.

    There are very strong winds very high up (30,000'), but the long tethers cause all sorts of problems - and you need a huge clear area around the supports. (imaging dropping 20 kilometers of ultra-strong cable across a city.........(buses, trains etc.....)

  31. Combine it... by BobMcD · · Score: 1

    It's an interesting idea by itself, but it occurs to me you could also combine the platform's capabilities with other needs: e.g. cell towers.

    Imagine if every ugly tower was instead a floating power plant...

  32. Don't forget Google... by ryanmt · · Score: 1

    Google bought Makani, which endeavors to produce a kite generator which provides a far larger 'effective' surface to capture wind energy. It is also entirely safe (glider), and doesn't use our precious helium up. Google will get it done... http://www.google.com/makani/

  33. Re:About to break a world record! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    I knew they had problems with the aerodynamic drag, having to raise the orbit every now and then, but apparently it never occurred to them to turn off the wind turbine to alleviate this problem.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  34. Re:That's a kite? No. THIS is a kite! by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    Big things cost more. There's probably an optimal size.

  35. Yay, progress by musth · · Score: 1

    And thus, technology continues to uglify the world.

  36. If only Alaska had oil or gaz! by Novogrudok · · Score: 1

    Then maybe it could just burn some of it to generate electricity?

  37. Combined power by phorm · · Score: 1

    If you're going to stick these in the air, why not join them with something like solar energy as well? I believe there are some decently efficient lightweight modern solar panels, so you could have a combined fan/solar source. Since it's floating, it should be above most sources of shadow etc.

  38. Re:hm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Maybe a steel cored, twisted aluminium strands cable

    It'll probably just be steel and more steel. If it's a kite string it's going to be doing a lot of flexing and handling even more tension, both its weight and the pull on the kiteblimpgenerator.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  39. Re:hm... by Wootery · · Score: 2

    Ahh, Slashdot: where the few ACs who (might) actually have a point are sure to make up for it by just being assholes for no apparent reason.

  40. you're making zombie Robber Goddard angry... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that'll never work.

    Fine, you found them out. This is actually just a stalking horse for materials testing for MIT's secret space elemavator protect. All the nerds are going to rapture to outer space to get away from the rest of us dangerously crazy motherfuckers.

    Slashdot sure does seem to have a lot of New York Times Editorial writers.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  41. read your NOTAMs, bitches! by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    Aerostats are a real thing. They have the normal aircraft warning lights.
    This one time, an unalert pilot managed to hit the lottery and fly into the tether line of an aerostat. Darwin ensued (better formatted for easier reading here). One time. Ever. I'm not too concerned about those odds. Don't drink & fly. Alaska has enough bush pilots go missing already, who's going to notice one more?

    What do we do now sir?
    We die.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  42. Refutation by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    probably limited lifetime - so don't diesel generators, especially if you're using them for prime power.
    Big - not a problem in remote areas
    Fragile - Remember Bigalow? The guy designing/building Inflatable space stations? A ballon doesn't have to be fragile if you build it out of the right materials.

    Expense - part of the reason for the $1/kwh electricity is the cost of moving diesel into the area. Often it has to be flown in! If the turbine system can avoid fuel having to be brought in that way, it's a massive saved expense.
    Supports aren't trivial: Agreed; but do they cost more than the pad & structure you'd want for the diesel generators?
    Wind x tether pushing down - could be by design, designed around, - if the wind is strong enough to push the generator down into less windy conditions, obviously the unit is getting enough wind to produce maximum power.
    Multiple close balloons - engineering issue for the specific site.
    Reeling in system - not too hard today.
    Dropping cable across a city - You do realize that these are intended for remote sites, right? If the need is big enough or the development dense enough, you go with other means of power production, such as more traditional wind turbines.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  43. The Biefeld–Brown effect by GuruMuhk · · Score: 1

    Why not using the Biefeld–Brown effect instead of helium ?

  44. Military needs... by Firethorn · · Score: 2

    Oh and any enemy wanting to take out your power or know where you are would just find and shoot down the flippin' blimp and then you ...

    ... fire up your diesel generator?

    The military is already flying blimps in combat zones, typically sensor platforms to give good 'eye in the sky' intel for a base and it's surrounding area. Also, it's more difficult than you think to target something that's pretty far up in the sky, and if insurgents/terrorists have that capability I'm more worried about them targetting manned aircraft with that capability than trying to take out a floating generator.

    Meanwhile getting diesel fuel to bases located within combat zones is expensive and dangerous. To the point that something like this would be justified at the point it's avoided it's mass in diesel fuel burned, which shouldn't take all that long, really.

    Back on the civilian side, same concept with remote Alaska needs - some areas the diesel fuel needs to be flown in, and that's rather expensive.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  45. Vacuum by stoploss · · Score: 1

    This discussion prompted me to finally investigate what is involved to accomplish the logical conclusion to lighter-than-air flight: vacuum airships (spoiler alert: materials science state of the art means it's currently science fiction).

    However, this made me wonder about the possibility of using a reduced pressure airship filled with helium or hydrogen. Not a vacuum, but with the lift gas pressure such that the propensity to leak was in equilibrium with the atmosphere. This would require material support similar to a vacuum airship, but the lift gas pressure would mean that the stress/strain on the lift gas containment would be reduced compared to a true vacuum airship. Perhaps still presently unfeasible, but it would represent an intermediate step.

    No doubt others have explored this rather thoroughly before. Anyway, fun thought experiment.

    1. Re:Vacuum by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      ... the logical conclusion to lighter-than-air flight: vacuum airships

      Vacuum, of course, has less mass than either H2 or He. But mass is the wrong way to look at it. You should be looking at "bouyancy". H2 is half the weight of helium, so twice as good, right? Wrong. H2 is 7% the mass of air, so it gives a buoyancy of 93%. Helium gives a buoyancy of 86%. So that is only a 7% difference in lifting capacity. Vacuum gives a buoyancy of 100%, but that is only 7% better than H2. All the problems that come with maintaining the vacuum, and dealing with the pressure difference, is not going to be worth it for just a 7% gain. This is the reason that vacuum airships have never been built, and likely never will.

  46. Re:Jigawatts... by ko7 · · Score: 1

    Is that a Pam Anderson reference?

  47. Re:hm... by Wootery · · Score: 1

    And which terms are onerous, exactly?

  48. Re:About to break a world record! by chihowa · · Score: 1

    Orbit is just an extreme example of ballistic flight, so you could say that the ISS is flying.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  49. and for a bonus by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    Palin can see Russia from the balloon.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.