Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumloudsue
(14,087 posts)If it really works with that kind of efficiency, that would be so exceptional! In fact, I want one.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The winds at 1,000-2,000' aren't all that much stronger than surface winds and fixed turbines are typically installed in optimum locations like on a long, high ridge. I suspect fixed turbines are going to have much more efficient impellers and generators due to the weight restrictions of going airborne. However, there are several advantages which make this system very attractive for a number of applications.
AdHocSolver
(2,561 posts)The problem I see with this system is with thunderstorms.
How would updrafts, downdrafts, and lightning be dealt with?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The worst turbulence will be found high aloft or in certain mountainous terrain and I've gotten smoother rides in my normally aspirated bug smasher than you'll get on any commercial flight. But in general the air gets smoother and more predictable the higher you go.
I see this more as a fair weather thing.
tclambert
(11,087 posts)so thing would fly free until eventually crashing. In other words, if lightning threatens, reel the thing in. Or defend it with a ring of golfers.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)AdHocSolver
(2,561 posts)Large companies stifle and suppress innovation.
K and R.
byronius
(7,401 posts)High enough, I suppose, would be the answer. I was hoping they would mention it.
nilram
(2,894 posts)Where they say,
"For the first time, affordable wind energy can be deployed to the furthest points of the earth."
This kid already deployed affordable wind energy in Niger.
https://www.ted.com/talks/william_kamkwamba_how_i_harnessed_the_wind
If they'd said "affordable, large-wattage wind energy," I'd have no issue. Looks to be potentially awesome for disaster relief.