Gar,
What seems like a more practical variation of this technology is
described in The New Yorker of May 17, 2010.
Gene
On Jun 3, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Gar Lipow wrote:
> Normally when I write about efficiency, renewable energy and
> technology I discuss solid stuff we know how to do today. But this
> post is about what is literally blue sky technology. One reason I'm
> making an exception is that everything except an actual inexpensive
> test has been completed to determine practicality. Given that a lot of
> serious people think it is practical, and that determining whether
> they are right or wrong is so inexpensive I think the fact that the
> final tests are not happening says something about our social
> structure. If you find the following post interesting, you might
> consider following the links and commenting in the post (registering
> with Grist if you have not already).
>
> http://www.grist.org/article/wind-electricity-cheaper-and-more-reliable-than-coal-from-flying-wind-gener
>
> A tiny url link in case email breaks the direct Grist Link
>
> http://tinyurl.com/FlyingWindTurbines
>
> Wind electricity from flying energy generators cheaper and more
> reliable than coal? by Gar W. Lipow
> Grist 30-May-2010 (that date is actually the first draft, not when published).
>
> Technology that might provide clean electricity that is cheaper and
> more reliable than coal is ready for testing. Some of the world's
> leading scientists think it will work. So why aren't we spending a few
> million (not billion but million) dollars to find out?
>
> The basic idea: wind blows harder and more constantly at high
> altitudes where aircraft fly than over the tops of towers we install
> wind turbines on today. Attach wind turbines to tethered helicopters
> and we can generate many times the energy of conventional turbines. We
> can use the tethers both to send electricity to the helicopter to keep
> it in the air, and to draw electricity back down to the ground from
> the flying generators. The electricity needed to run the helicopters
> is trivial compared to what we get back.
>
> Sounds nuts, doesn't it? But a proof-of-concept toy version
> demonstrated net energy at less than 500 feet back in 1986, when
> Professor Bryan Roberts tested his first "GyroMill". With today's
> aerospace technology and ability to create ultra-strong electrically
> conductive fiber, Sky WindPower Corporation believes their modern
> Flying Energy Generators (FEGs) based on the same principles are ready
> to produce electricity at 15,000 to 33,000 feet. They have designed a
> 250 KW proof-of-feasibility prototype they are ready to test if they
> can get the funding. Scientists and engineers inside and outside of
> Sky WindPower have jointly produced a peer reviewed paper, Harnessing
> High Altitude Wind Power, that makes a convincing case for their
> system.
>
> Sky WindPower, and outside reviewers claim cost per MW of peak
> capacity is lower than conventional systems, and that FEGS operate at
> double or triple the capacity of conventional wind power. If true this
> would result in per kWh costs lower than generation costs for coal
> electricity.
>
> There are other advantages as well. At 15,000 to 33,000 feet flying
> generators pose little or no danger to birds and bats and insects. If
> these systems work, they can operate in locations where conventional
> wind farms are impractical, meaning they can be placed much closer to
> transmission than today's wind farms. Similarly the high capacity
> utilization (up to 92%) means comparatively small amounts of storage
> can let FEGs deliver baseload, load following, and perhaps even some
> peaking power. There are objections, but if you follow the link to Sky
> WindPower and to the peer reviewed pdf, you will find most of them
> rebutted.
>
> So what is stopping this from being tested? After all, a number of
> venture capitalists (including Google) are interested in the concept.
> It is a chicken/egg problem, caused by the interaction of two
> problems, neither of which would be fatal alone, but which together
> are show stoppers. The first problem is: even though we have models
> and strong evidence on paper these will work, we can't really know how
> successful they will be until we try them. Years ago engineers called
> this the smoke test. "Turn it on and see if it smokes". By itself this
> is not a big problem. Venture capitalists do risk funding an initial
> prototype on occasion, though they much prefer to invest after a
> prototype is up and running.
>
> But the second problem with FEGs is that at heights of 10,000 to
> 33,000 feet, you have to ban aviation from wherever you locate
> generation. In essence FEGs displace air traffic. The U.S. displaces
> aviation from various locations for all sorts of purposes: defense
> bases, the war on some drugs, and the war on terra. I'd say that clean
> inexpensive electricity is a far better reason to exclude aviation
> from a small area than the motive behind most of our current U.S.
> no-fly zones.
>
> But consider how those two problems interact. If you were a venture
> capitalist how willing would you be to risk money on a prototype that
> not only might not work, but would be very difficult to permit sites
> for if it did work? Similarly, nobody is going to take on a political
> battle to set up procedures for licensing FEGS without knowing if they
> are technically feasible or not. This is a perfect case for a
> government funding to break the chicken-egg deadlock. Compared to
> other Federal energy R&D expenditures, the scale is small. Pay for the
> production of a prototype, plus rental of a rural airport that is in
> big enough financial trouble to be willing to shut down on successive
> weekends in return for a generous fee. Cho could probably find the
> funding inside DOE if he thought it worthwhile, maybe within existing
> research programs. If anyone reading this has DOE contacts they might
> want to mention this to them.
>
> At any rate, if I were in the U.S. DOE or in an equivalent agency in
> any nation within the latitudes where FEGS could work, I would take a
> serious look at the technology to decide if it was worth spending a
> few million dollars to test a prototype. At the very least I would
> allocate some staff time for an initial review. If it passed that
> review, I would allocate resources to rigorously evaluate it, and if
> it passed that evaluation then I would strongly consider funding it.
>
> Sky Windpower's technology is not the only high altitude wind system
> under development; though I think it is the best. Gary Rondeau wrote
> an excellent post on the technology and players for the Energy
> Collective: High Altitude Wind Power - A Review . Anyone looking into
> this will want to consider them all. But I think anyone investigating
> will find Sky WindPower's system is the most mature technology, has
> the lowest cost per kWh, and has biggest short and long term potential
> of any high altitude wind energy system.
>
> References
>
> Sky Wind Power Corporation
> http://www.skywindpower.com
>
> Picture of first GyroMill in operation in 1986
> http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/Aust-test.htm
>
> Harnessing High Altitude Wind Power by Bryan W. Roberts, Ken Caldeira,
> M. Elizabeth Cannon et. al.
> http://www.jp-petit.org/ENERGIES_DOUCES/eolienne_cerf_volant/eolienne_cerf_volant.pdf
>
> High Altitude Wind Power - A Review by Gary Rondeau
> http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/60297
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
