High Altitude Wind Power

[donrhummy]

"The Economist has an interesting article about increasing the efficiency of wind-powered generators by turning them into flying wind farms ( http://economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8952080 ). These tethered generators would harness high speed jet stream winds above 15,000 ft and in theory could give outputs of 40MW per generator. ( http://globalecology.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/home/dge_visit_committee_2-2007/Harnessing%20High%20Altitude%20Wind%20Power%20IEEE%20TEC%20Paper.pdf - links to a pdf) The developer's website has more details of some of the safety, technological and economic issues." ( http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm )

[Roody]

Another imaginative idea -- impractical now, but it will look more feasible when reasonable carbon taxes are imposed in the near future.

Another reason I'm less gloom&doomish than many onthis board is that I think some of these technological fixes really will come into play sometime soon.

[Golf XRay Tango]

I think the aviation community would have a big problem with this idea, because a tethered station would move around quite a bit compared to a rigid tower, and the tether would be completely invisible.

It is true though that the winds aloft are significantly more powerful, and more reliable than surface winds. It would be nice to harness them somehow.

[wahoonc]

I think the aviation community would have a big problem with this idea, because a tethered station would move around quite a bit compared to a rigid tower, and the tether would be completely invisible.

It is true though that the winds aloft are significantly more powerful, and more reliable than surface winds. It would be nice to harness them somehow.

Yeah but there won't BE any aircraft in the future...they use too much fuel:D On a more serious note...they could just do a No Fly Zone like they currently have around DC and most of the military installations.

Aaron:)

[bragi]

this would solve the shredded-bird problem, too... (As far as I know, birds don't fly at 15,000 ft.)

[donrhummy]

this would solve the shredded-bird problem, too... (As far as I know, birds don't fly at 15,000 ft.)

Actually, according to all the studies done, there is no such problem. The birds learn to avoid the windmills pretty quickly, aside from the fact that the blades actually move very slowly.

[krazygluon]

I question the energy costs of the lighter-than-air substances required to keep them aloft.

Helium don't grow on trees and most large helium aircraft leak to some extent.

[spiderbike]

Another imaginative idea -- impractical now, but it will look more feasible when reasonable carbon taxes are imposed in the near future.

Another reason I'm less gloom&doomish than many onthis board is that I think some of these technological fixes really will come into play sometime soon.


Does carbon cause temperature change? the juries still out

bike commuting is good for smart growth, and allowing the poor and minorities to compete for jobs.

[Roody]

Does carbon cause temperature change? the juries still out

bike commuting is good for smart growth, and allowing the poor and minorities to compete for jobs.
Sorry, the verdict on carbon is in, and it's also pretty well established that even rich white people can learn to ride bikes. It's basketball they have trouble with! ;)

[Sir Lunch-a-lot]

I question the energy costs of the lighter-than-air substances required to keep them aloft.

Helium don't grow on trees and most large helium aircraft leak to some extent.


Well, why don't they just rig it up like a kite? No helium required! I suppose that would be trickier just because if the wind shifts suddenly, there might be the possibility that the craft could not correct, and would fall from the sky.

How about... Hydrogen! That's not dangerous at all! :p

[donrhummy]

I question the energy costs of the lighter-than-air substances required to keep them aloft.

Helium don't grow on trees and most large helium aircraft leak to some extent.

Not sure how they envision it staying afloat at low enough energy costs so that the amount of energy you can produce is always much more than that required to keep that thing up there.

Still, the potential is pretty exciting. One nice thing about high altitude versus low altitude is that there's always wind.

[supcom]

I think the aviation community would have a big problem with this idea, because a tethered station would move around quite a bit compared to a rigid tower, and the tether would be completely invisible.

It is true though that the winds aloft are significantly more powerful, and more reliable than surface winds. It would be nice to harness them somehow.

Tethered helium filled blimps (probably not the correct term) have been used in West Texas to carry radars for border surveillance. It's no more danger to aviation than large radio towers.

[cerewa]

It's no more danger to aviation than large radio towers.


a tethered station would move around quite a bit compared to a rigid tower, and the tether would be completely invisible.

If the airspace is set off-limits to other users, as Sky Windpower proposes, then I don't see any safety problem.

[Golf XRay Tango]

Large towers still kill plenty of pilots.

Keep in mind the biggest tower in the world is only 1600' above ground, or 1900' above sea level. It is also fixed in place and very visible. I can see it from my house, 30km away :-)

If you put a floating power station on a 20,000' tether, it's going to move around quite a lot, over a very large area, and be completely invisible to pilots. Airspace restrictions don't really work in this case. They work when they cover large highly visible areas like military installations, not pinpoint, completely invisible stations.

You might get better bang for the buck mounting a 1,000' tether at the top of a high mountain, as long as there is a populated area nearby to use the power.

[Golf XRay Tango]

Yeah but there won't BE any aircraft in the future...they use too much fuel:D


Hey, my aircraft doesn't use any fuel. It's not very reliable as transportation though :)

[lyeinyoureye]

Airspace restrictions don't really work in this case. They work when they cover large highly visible areas like military installations, not pinpoint, completely invisible stations.

So restricted airspace is usually violated?