World wide wind potential (using only conventional wind technology) exceeds our current energy needs by many times. However, that is merely the potential of wind near the ground, at 80 to 100 meters.
Most wind energy is in the jet stream, miles over our heads. No one is going to build a tower that high to support a wind turbine; cost alone would prohibit that. But we can use flying energy generators -- turbines supported by kites or balloons or what amounts to stationary helicopters. The latter technology (stationary helicopters supporting wind turbines) has actually been demonstrated briefly, and has been claimed in peer reviewed research to be ready for commercial implementation (PDF). Questions like net energy, metal fatigue, stability, transformers and power loss have all been answered -- at least on paper. (Net energy at really high altitudes is higher than with either kites or helium balloons -- due to wasted energy on the downward part of the cycle with kite systems, and drag with balloon systems.)
According to the corporation developing this technology, Sky WindPower, they can put together a system out of commercially available products that will provide wind electricity (at a profit) for 2 cents per kWh -- competitive with current fossil fuel generation.
Now of course, being ready on paper, even when combined with a very brief proof of concept demonstration, is not the same as being ready to deploy commercially. Quite sensibly they are seeking to put together a demonstration project, both to work out any bugs, and to demonstrate that the economics pan out in practice. (Naturally, a smaller than optimum project will produce more expensive power. The key here will be to deliver power at the predicted cost, then show that the same methodology and assumptions predict the 2 cent cost when scaled up.)
Normally I like to spend my time showing that already proven technology can solve our problems, that the obstacles to a sustainable society are political, not technical or even micro-economic. But this has such huge potential, hundreds of times current world energy (not just electricity) consumption and seems so close to being ready, that I really hope people will pay more attention to it.
The turbines to tap this energy are more expensive than ground level ones, but faster winds mean you get many times the peak energy from flying turbine than you could from a ground based one the same size, and you get close to that peak energy more often. In other words capacity is higher, and you tap more of that capacity besides. The steadier power means you have more reliable, higher quality power besides. In some areas, in some months you can get 90 percent capacity utilization without storage. More to the point, the amount of storage needed to turn Flying Energy Generators (FEGS) into sources of baseload quality electricity are much smaller than for ground based wind farms.
They are not without problems, of course. Putting up generators at this height means we have to ban aviation wherever they are installed. But to put the problem in perspective, if FEGS were to provide 100 percent of U.S. energy, we would have to ban airplanes from 1/400th of U.S. airspace. Aviation is already interdicted from that much of U.S. airspace for various reasons -- including our failed "war on drugs." This is a much more important purpose. We are going to have to reduce the number of flights worldwide anyway due to warming effects from water vapor and NxOx emitted at stratospheric levels. You could argue that discouraging air travel is a feature rather than a bug -- except of course that the demands on airspace are too small to actually discourage any air travel.
I'm not saying at this point we should start pouring billions into the things. But a demonstration project somewhere where air traffic is already interdicted should be a priority for government funding. And hopefully, if such a project is funded, private investors will pay close attention to the results. I would add that if I were a venture capitalist interested in high risk/high return projects I would seriously consider funding such a demonstration in return for a substantial stake in the company -- after, of course, doing very close analysis of both the technology and the company.
The Wind Kids: How high school students helped bring a wind farm to Milford, Utah
One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’
Comments
View as Flat
15NBen Posted 12:27 pm
16 May 2007
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 1:37 pm
16 May 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:40 pm
16 May 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:33 pm
16 May 2007
I think enough of the advantage to be practical could be attained with 1000 foot ground based machines.
The stationary helicopter designs would need to be deployed on reels so they could be brought down into shelter in storms. Not a big technological problem, but I wonder how it would effect the cost.
The great feature of higher wind speeds is that the power available goes up with the cube of the wind speed. So twice the wind speed, 8 times the power. 100 mile winds in the jetstream, compared to 20 mile speeds at the surface. 125 times the power from the same sized blades.
Steadier winds yield a lot more kwh per machine per year and need a lot less backup power or storage.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:36 pm
16 May 2007
The one advantage of lower heights in not interfering with aviation. With lower heights, you need to put lights on anything over 500 feet, and notify any local airports, but planes can still fly in the area. The developers of balloon generators claim they will release a commercial product this year. That is quite a claim.
Given that they have done nothing but short demonstrations, it is not quite believable. Normally products like this have working prototypes, extensive tests in a controlled environments, then a beta test. To go directly from simulation and proof of concept to commercial product with no steps in between is tough to believe.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 4:54 pm
16 May 2007
which implies a very large energy flux per m2 swept by a turbine.
However, on the downside, the jet stream changes course, often by hundreds of miles or more,
so FEGs would either need to microwave power to the ground station
(with an auto self-destruct built in for malfunction)
or be installed on tethers in great numbers to allow for redundancy while yielding the target output.
With the latter set up, each would require its sole use of a landing site, crew, monitoring gear, etc.
Which factors appears to pose some major technical & logistical issues.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
scatter Posted 11:25 pm
16 May 2007
But you're absolutely correct that the jet stream meanders around a lot (although i don't know how rapidly). I guess you'd have to reel them in before they swing too far from the base station and then reel out another neighbouring one.
Jetstreams can be 100s of miles wide and a few miles deep so routing aircraft around them shouldn't be too difficult.
There are some big engineering obstacles out there but they shouldn't be insurmountable. I like this idea.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:43 am
17 May 2007
Coal is offensive to Grist, yet populating the sky with huge and dangerous wind-copters that could fall on small pets is appealing to them.
Go figure...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Billhook Posted 1:44 am
17 May 2007
yes you're right.
I meant to write cable-tethers, which of course would add significant weight, with many thousands of feet of wire large enough to avoid significant transmission losses.
But whether the alternative, of powerful air to ground microwave energy beams, would ever get licensed seems rather questionable.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:49 am
17 May 2007
But you are getting much higher power and higher capacity than you can closer to the ground. If you follow the link to Sky WindPower then follow the link to the wind resources, you will see what I mean.
However the jet stream does tend to move seasonally. There are two ways to handle this. One is to choose spots in summer and winter locations.
Another takes advantage of the fact that these are flying devices. Land them occasionally, and truck them to a new location. You can move the generators and tethers; only bases, electrical connections and support facilities need to redundant. You can move a portion of a wind farm at a time, and use storage to prevent power shortages during the moves. If you read the scientific paper this is one of the proposals.
Even failing that, you will have plenty of locations where you can get at least 50% capacity utilization all year round. I'm going to bet the 2 cents per kWh estimate may be valid as long as the percent of the grid supplied remains small, but will rise to 3 cents or 4 Cents per kWh if you want it to dominate the grid. But that is still in the range of fossil fuels, and less expensive than wind at 80 meters.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:50 am
17 May 2007
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 3:52 am
17 May 2007
The 4.0 kW unit will enter production this year, with another 7 more models in the pipeline which will be released within the next four years.
They're pretty cool looking, and according to the company, they are "less expensive per unit of actual electrical energy output than competing wind power systems."
Interesting anyways...
Permalink
basline Posted 3:56 am
17 May 2007
My gut tells me to get a little nervous at the prospect of considering generating major amounts of electricity from wind 15k ft up. While I am sure that the impact is less substantial at lower attitudes, it still is a little scary. I know that harnessing the scale of terajoules, or potentially even petajoules, of wind energy is likely a small percentage of the entire system, but tinkering with wind patterns seems like a bad place for unintended consequences.
I don't have time at the moment to read the paper Gar linked to and really look at the numbers, but the impacts on wind circulation has often jumped out at me as a potential concern. Have any members of the collective Grist brain trust seen anything starting to look at potential impacts on wind patterns or circulation? I know its a long shot, as it be really complicated to try and factor in other impacts on wind circulation from climate change, but it seems important.
Permalink
basline Posted 4:10 am
17 May 2007
to save some googling for the btu fans
1000 petajoules = 1 exajoule
about 1.05 exajoule = 1 quad btu
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:46 am
17 May 2007
Magenn Power has a device called M.A.R.S. Wind Power Anywhere generator which is a helium-lofted wind turbine able to produce 4 kw of energy by virtue of the high altitudes so accessed..
<endquote>
Yes. I will note some difference aside the from the helium lift:
1000 feet, rather than 15,000 feet.
Fewer aviation problems-- they need lights, but aviation does not need to be banned.
As they admit less efficient than helicopter systems, but they claim lower expense makes up for it.
They are now talking delivery in 2008, and cost of 3 to 5 per watt of capacity--less than 20 cents per kWh. In other words they are keeping with small wind and diesel, not industrial size farms. (Which fair enough. There are plenty of isolated villages in poor nations where 20 cents per kWh electrcity beats the 25 cents per kWh electricity they currently get from diesels or the 30 cents per kWh they could get from todays solar cells.)
Lastly they have scheduled shipping without having finished testing:
From their FAQ
What field testing have you done on the MARS to establish its reliability?
We have tested all individual components. Three important, and well documented, test areas from our airship research and development have included validation of the envelope structure, aerodynamics (Magnus effect) and more recently the best blade to drum configuration. MARS units will undergo extensive field testing before they are put into full production.
That seems really optimistic. Of course they are scheduled to do a full test on an assembled model. But it seems like they are assuming they find zero problems. It also seems like they are going to do a pretty cursory test. Shouldn't they run a system in real world conditions for a year before they start selling it? I'm sure they'll do accelerated wind tunnel tests or something, but I really believe in real world tests prior to large scale deployment.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:19 pm
03 Aug 2008
At 5 miles up the wind is 10 times the velocity as on a tower mounted wind machine, verified in these baloon sounding tests. 10 times the velocity and a 1 mw wind machine turns into a 1000 mw wind machine.
These wind power kites could be deployed offshore from anchored ships designed for grid power generation, plugged in with underwater cable.
Offshore the kites would be safe from interfering with ground based facilities, they could be lowered onto the water and retrieved at sea.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 3:53 pm
03 Aug 2008
First, though, expect to see water vapor suddenly acknowledged as a greenhouse gas, This will happen as soon as we cut CO2 enough to put downward pressure on human living standards.
This is a Collectivist boot. This is a Collectivist boot on your neck. Any questions?
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 3:58 pm
03 Aug 2008
Cat lovers hate Earth.
The infernal wind machine might help in the war on pets.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:15 pm
03 Aug 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 9:40 pm
03 Aug 2008
Get serious! Do any of you ever think we'll have flying wind copters?
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 12:15 am
04 Aug 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:50 am
04 Aug 2008
Aviation is the big hurdle, not technology. These will fly in the coveted air space of gas guzzling airlines and the air force.
Installing this on ships first as a motive power source to replace oil, then transitioning to a grid power source. That would prove the technology offshore where the aviation lobby would have a harder time killing it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:49 am
04 Aug 2008
But I honestly don't see 30,000 foot tethers as realistic.....
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:15 am
04 Aug 2008
Power transmission line and tether in one. High voltage DC could come right through into a buried grid system.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:32 am
04 Aug 2008
But again, I don't think the aviation industry would be the problem, as that is just a relatively simple airspace management issue. And the "kites" wouldn't be moving very fast, if at all.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:22 am
04 Aug 2008
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 3:50 am
04 Aug 2008
LOL
Brian will foil his nefarious petscapades. Not to worry.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:12 am
04 Aug 2008
And you can guffaw at them all you want. The numbers add up, and there have been short term demonstrations. That does not mean they will work, but sure as hell is justification for doing a demonstration project.
But of course if you don't think about it, is sounds silly, so just don't spend any time on it. You know like that silly idea someone had a while back about selling tiny individual computers to people instead of constantly making bigger ones people could share. I knew some of the old IBM guys. They had a real horselaugh over that idea - referred contemptuously to people who wanted to substitute "toys" for real computers. When they finally decided to get into the "toy" business I remember how they laughed at a sucker named Bill Gates who gave them a low price on the O.S. as long as he had continued rights to market a version of it to makers of competing "toys". As though the market for "toys" would ever be big enough for that to make a difference. (Yep, I'm old enough to tells this story first hand - though part of it was pure luck - I was taught my first computer class by a guy who was just teach for the pleasure of reaching the next generation. His main job was at IBM. But everyone in the class got treated first hand to the classic IBM attitude towards the "toys". )
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:21 am
04 Aug 2008
So I am not saying I am opposed to some entrepreneur pursing this, I am just saying that from my view it doesn't sound realistic.
You say they are helicopters, not kites. Well, the atmosphere is awfully thin at 30,000 feet. To my knowledge, no rotary wing aircraft can operate at that altitude.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 4:26 pm
04 Aug 2008
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 10:37 pm
04 Aug 2008
Il faut cultiver notre jardin.
Permalink