Hi-altitude wind turbines 1

[BigInch]

I'm not exactly sure how these get power to ground level, or what happens when the wind stops, but well ... here they are,

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energy.html

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[jmw]

See discussions on Numberwatch:

http://pub41.bravenet.com/forum/3444295554/show/809937

,

http://pub41.bravenet.com/forum/3444295554/show/808219

,

http://pub41.bravenet.com/forum/3444295554/show/804620

The difference between flying kites and flying wind turbines is in where the generators are.
Of course, the enxt question is, how close can these kites be one to another? and hence how much power can be generated per square kilometer?

Interestingly one way kites can be really beneficial is where they are used to augement fossil fuel power for vessels where the power of the wind is again used to propel the vessel but his time, using kites rather than sails and for all the best reasons.... getting the kites to higher altitudes where higher wind speeds are possible.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[dalcazar]

Interesting and innovative, but useless. As mentioned the area each one takes up is large, but also they become the same as a hose that is left on the ground and turned on full blast, you don't know where it's going to go next, all you know is that you don't want to be anywhere near it.

This idea basically puts it's entire swept semi-sphere of airspace out of comission, and the power they can harness is still only the area of the kite, so their ratio to power vs swept area is abismally low. This as opposed to the swept area of a wind turbine which is stationary and much more effective.