OrionWorks wrote:
CNN.COM Article on future flying wind farms.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/31/sky.turbines/index.html
http://tinyurl.com/2lqyyr
This describes the SkyWindPower device that we have discussed here
before. I think this is more practical and promising than the
LadderMill approach for the following reasons:
* The device stays at a high altitude, rather than continuously
climbing and descending.
* The power is transmitted to the ground electrically rather than mechanically.
* The tether can be lighter -- I think. Most of the mechanical energy
of the wind converts to electricity.
* The device can power itself up to altitude, and adjust its position
as needed, by reversing the flow of electricity to the turbine
propellers instead of from them. So even if there are no low-altitude
winds on the day you launch it, it can reach high altitude.
The authors estimate that it would take 43 groups of 600 of these
"FEGs" to power the U.S. 1 FEG produces 20 MW, so that's 12 GW per
group and 516 GW total. That's about right. I do not think 12 GW
groups would be cost effective for many rural locations. For example,
the whole of North Dakota has only 4.8 GW of peak electric generator
capacity. See:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/north_dakota.html
I expect you could put all 600 groups in North Dakota with room to
spare, and they would operate at peak efficiency, but they do not
need 516 GW up there. Like most super-large scale wind power grids,
this would work best with HTSC power transmission.
- Jed
