![Altaeros_Wind_Turbine_Wide[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/altaeros_wind_turbine_wide1.jpg?quality=83)
From NCAR, some wind pie in the sky.
A mother lode of wind power
Mapping the potential to harvest high-altitude wind
May 28, 2014 | What if all the energy needed by society existed just a mile or two above our heads? That’s the question raised by researchers in an emerging field known as airborne wind energy, which envisions using devices that might look like parachutes or gliders to capture electricity from the strong, steady winds that blow well above the surface in certain regions.
While logistical challenges and environmental questions remain, scientists at NCAR, the University of Delaware, and the energy firm DNV GL have begun examining where the strongest winds are and how much electricity they might be able to generate.
Their key finding: winds that blow from the surface to a height of 3,000 meters (nearly 10,000 feet) appear to offer the potential to generate more than 7.5 terawatts—more than triple the average global electricity demand of 2.4 terawatts (as of 2012, according to the study). Among the areas where such winds are strongest: the U.S. Great Plains, coastal regions along the Horn of Africa, and large stretches of the tropical oceans.
This type of research could prove critical if airborne wind energy takes off. The growing industry now includes more than 20 startups worldwide, exploring various designs for devices that could be tethered to ground stations and then raised or lowered to capture the most suitable winds at any point in time.
“From an engineering point of view, this is really complicated,” said NCAR scientist Luca Delle Monache, a co-author of a new study examining these issues. “But it could greatly increase the use of renewable energy and move the U.S. toward the goal of energy independence.”
To estimate the potential of airborne wind energy, Delle Monache, with Cristina Archer at the University of Delaware and Daran Rife at DNV GL, turned to an NCAR data set known as Climate Four Dimensional Data Assimilation. It blends computer modeling and measurements to create a retrospective analysis of the hourly, three-dimensional global atmosphere for the years 1985–2005.
The research team looked for various types of wind speed maxima, including recurring features known as low-level jets. Such jets can be ideal for energy because their speed and density is as high or higher than jets at higher elevations that would be beyond the reach of tethered wind devices. They also blow more steadily than winds captured by conventional wind turbines near the surface, potentially offering a more reliable source of energy.
Low-level jets blowing at 30-50 miles per hour or more can be found at several locations worldwide, often close to mountainous terrain or to persistent atmospheric features that help focus and channel wind. One of the strongest low-level jets on Earth flows from the Gulf of Mexico north across the Great Plains.
A study by the scientists, published last month in Renewable Energy, focused on winds in January and July. The team is now looking for additional funding to provide a more complete picture of the potential of higher-level winds. Their main goals are to estimate the strength of the winds year round and to build an interface that would enable users to explore the strength of the winds over specific regions.
“It’s important to understand the magnitude of this resource and what might be possible,” Delle Monache said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cables.htm
All you need to know about why airborne generators won’t work can be summed up in one word – cables. John Brignell has been pointing this out for about as long as it has been coming up – why it still gets an airing I don’t know.
“You’re thinking we cannot land on the Sun, but maybe we could go at night.”
Huh? Do you know how cold it is on the dark side of the Sun?
Their key finding: winds that blow from the surface to a height of 3,000 meters (nearly 10,000 feet) appear to offer the potential to generate more than 7.5 terawatts—more than triple the average global electricity demand of 2.4 terawatts (as of 2012, according to the study).
This is the same airspace that most of private aviation and a lot of regional commercial aviation use for cruising altitudes, around the world. All aircraft take-offs and landings (commercial and private aviation) use this airspace. The tether cables for this energy kiting scheme would be lethal hazards for all aviation. Think about that, the next time you board a plane…..
I have a better idea. The mass-energy equivalence of just one stalk of asparagus could power Rhode Island for 3 weeks.
Asparagus power to the people!
I read a few years ago about using parasail-like kites to supplement the engine power of ships. I believe several ships were equiped and tested. Anyone heard anything about it recently? One thing that struck me was that by controlling the shape of the foil by rigging lines, just like a parachutist does, the kite coul dbe made to follow a vertical figure-8 pattern in front of the ship. Apparently this results in more pull (lift) from the kite.
GnomePirate, that is question I’ve been pondering for years, god only knows what could happen, but I’m betting we won’t like it.
Bill Marsh says:
August 14, 2014 at 11:16 am
So, if they start sucking all this energy out of the jet streams, wouldn’t that affect the wind pattern and subsequently the weather, if not directly beneath the turbines, but ‘downstream’, possibly in other countries?
Whoa, I was thinking essentially the same thing.
I guess these folks just aren’t considering what will happen if they “break wind”!!
rayvandune says:
August 14, 2014 at 11:58 am
There has been a lot of interest in wind-assisted shipping, but I don’t know the outcome of the parasail design experiment.
More conventional designs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/science/earth/cargo-ship-designers-turn-to-wind-to-cut-cost-and-emissions.html
http://gcaptain.com/wind-power-return-commercial-shipping/
Alleged experiment with a parafoil kite from 2007:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2007/12/27/wind-assisted-shipping/
Instead of helium or hydrogen filled lift bags, they could use hot air balloons fueled by propane or methane.
CO2 is good. Its keeps us warm and feeds the plants we eat.
joelobryan says:
August 14, 2014 at 12:04 pm
How about fusing H into He instead of using the light gases to fill bags?
The engineering complexity of this just boggles the mind. After looking at the Google Makani system and a few minutes of thought, I can immediately see the following needs/concerns:
* First, they need to be defined as airworthy by someone
* Multiple high strength, flexible tethers (for redundancy); single tethers risk loss of unit and damage downrange from a crash
* Multiple tether systems will have to not tangle
* Lift capacity needed to overcome main unit weight, plus weight of all (redundant) tethers
* Energy transfer cable (assuming we can’t just “beam” it to a receptor array on Earth) must also have adequate support and strain relief, thus probably needs its own support structure (could be combined as with Makani)
* Tethers & cables must be capable of withstanding some level of tornado force winds (200 MPH or greater), which will further impact the lift capacity calculation; the higher the unit flies, the quicker must be the response to ground the systems in a “wind farm” when bad weather approaches
* Energy transfer system may also need to have some degree of redundancy
* Lift capacity must also be capable of overcoming wind forces on the tethers & power cables
* Ground-level power connection to the grid would likely need special design to accommodate the high input rates, as well as a rapid reversal of full production to small consumption during landing operations for maintenance or severe weather
* Tethers have to be attached to “something,” so anchorages would need to be made or formed (could we use some sort of connection to a mass of bedrock?); anchorages and ground stations, (e.g., Makani’s) need to be secured and monitored
* Risk management or insurance (or liability waiver/government backing) needed to address a potential system failure that results in catastrophic crash, potentially in a densely populated location (i.e., proximate to areas of greatest demand demand)
* Launching logistics: location needed near point of assembly/manufacture or, alternatively, a means to “transport” an airborne unit over significant distances or, alternatively, multiple points of assembly & manufacture near intended launching point & final unit position (talk about NIMBY opposition!)
* Tethers & power cables also pose significant hazard potential for drones (love ’em or hate ’em), hot air balloons & other dirigibles, recreational aircraft (e.g., ultra-lights), parachutists, law enforcement and other low-flying aircraft (agricultural)
* Risk to protected and migratory species of birds unclear (as in the past with traditional wind turbines)
I guess I have to wonder what the energy source would be for long-term sustainable lift production.
BTW, if someone comes up with big units that are incompatible with routine capture and release operations due to severe weather or other needs, who here is interested in taking on the “mile-high maintenance” job?
Build a better barrage balloon and the world will crash a plane to your door.
Just when you begin to think that green energy proposals can’t get any stupider… and then this fricken idea comes along. But don’t worry, the same guys that brought us Solyndra are certain to form a start-up company in order to be the recipient of more Government largess.
Maybe I’ll invest… /sarc
Why do all these yokels avoid the obvious solution in plain sight?
All the energy we need , or will ever need,is actually residing in spent uranium storage pools around the country. That “nuclear waste” stil contains more than 98% of the energy it contained before it fueled a nuclear reactor for 4 or more years. Build (completely safe) fast reactors to extract most of the remaining energy and the estimates are that this will provide all the power this country needs for 1000 years. And it won’t affect any wind patterns, etc.
i have to laugh,all this fuss about removing what is essentially an inert substance from miles under the ground whose major byproduct appears to be a trace gas that increases plant growth,and the solution is to extract energy from dynamic systems that influence the biosphere ,wind ,solar ,wave and tidal energy. you really could not make it up,absolute ******* morons.
Dave says:
August 14, 2014 at 12:10 pm
Just when you begin to think that green energy proposals can’t get any stupider… and then this fricken idea comes along. But don’t worry, the same guys that brought us Solyndra are certain to form a start-up company in order to be the recipient of more Government largess.
Maybe I’ll invest… /sarc
Good idea – get in while the subsidies are high, take a profit, and sell.
I’m in.
John Brignell of Number Watch has never been keen on this:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cables.htm
The nonsense that will not go away.
Ive been giving this some thought. Why not enclose the Sun to Mars orbit in a gigantic ‘Dyson Sphere’ and cover the ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ of the sphere with solar panels. That should generate more than enough energy to meet our needs foor quite some time. Impractical you say? No more impractical than this harebrained scheme.
If you extract a significant portion of wind energy, you will seriously alter wind patterns. Let’s
see some research on that side-effect before proceeding.
Engineering issues aside, you cannot GET energy without taking it. removing energy from the jet streams could have repercussions with precipitation patterns.
Bill Marsh says:
August 14, 2014 at 11:16 am
So, if they start sucking all this energy out of the jet streams, wouldn’t that affect the wind pattern and subsequently the weather
Global calming, the next great extinction.
Some of these folks obviously have a lot of ignorance about our nation’s energy system :
“From an engineering point of view, this is really complicated,” said NCAR scientist Luca Delle Monache, a co-author of a new study examining these issues. “But it could greatly increase the use of renewable energy and move the U.S. toward the goal of energy independence.”
We have no “energy dependence” except for oil, and these wind machines can’t produce anything but electricity, which cannot replace oil (at this time, or anytime soon). Wind power can
have no effect on energy independence. Sen Max Baucus made the same stupid claim years ago when he was christening a wind turbine.
Sounds like a great plan! I think I have the perfect name for this wonderful system. We could call it ” SKYNET”.
i may not be near clever enough but I think of a conductor extending from a mile above all the way to the earth as problematic. It would be a natural path for grounding clouds (Basically a carrie for lightning). A conductor large enough to carry the regular amperage plus lightning strikes would be pretty substantial and then the conversion equipment on the ground would have to be able of surviving the strikes. If they haven’t thought this far ahead (maybe they have and there are very interessting solutions they can share) it’s premature to be touting the potential.
I think a fleet of these should be moored directly above NCAR, wired to NCAR and then all other power sources to NCAR should be cut. I also believe personal experience is often the best teacher.