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. "

27 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 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...

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

  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. Re:hm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    yes, and the answer is - high voltage

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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!!

  11. 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.
  12. 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!
  13. Keep going higher by F34nor · · Score: 2
  14. 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.

  15. 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