I'd love to see the weight of a five thousand foot cable.
post
How come the 131 foot altitude in the headline is never mentioned in the article? These turbine operates at 4,921 feet, a number that makes a lot more sense when you convert it to metric, 1.5 km. The article is littered with these odd imperial measurements that should have just been left as nice round metric numbers, or least re-rounded after conversion. 130 feet would have read better, but the original number was 40 m.
It's not that hard to comprehend both measurement systems. Both are valid and it's up to the author to choose how they want to express their figures. You can send them a complaint if you want, but complaining about their measurements here isn't going to change anything.
Posting them around rich people's private airfields would improve their footprint even further.
I am guessing that the 131 feet come from the size of the turbine (60m x 40m x 40m)... The article is extremely poorly written
The wind at 32,000 ft is 200 times stronger than the wind at the surface?
Ummm... 10 knots * 200 = 2000 knots. I don't think so lol.
A lot of strange numbers in this article that bring its accuracy into question.
No mention of the weight of a 1 and 1/2 km wire that is also suitable to anchor this thing in place. Or are they going to float batteries and bring them down to discharge?
I can't be arsed to dig up the equation, but it may mean that the wind has 200 times more usable energy, which I think is a cube function of its speed. Wouldn't be 2000 knots in that case
Ummm… 10 knots * 200 = 2000 knots. I don’t think so lol.
First of all, kinetic energy scales with the square of an objects velocity.
Second, since we're talking about a continuous stream of fluid instead of a single object, increasing the air speed not only increases the enegy per unit mass of air, but also the number of units of air per second that pass through the turbine. Which means that the amount of energy extracted scales by the cube of the wind speed.
https://kpenergy.in/blog/calculating-power-output-of-wind-turbines
So, more like going from 10 knots to 60.
they gonna use magsafe connectors for wireless transmission, duh.
You’re starting to sound like a chatbot now, MagSafe connectors aren’t wireless. That’s the point!
(I know you’re probably not a chatbot)
what’s the magnet phone charger with no metal contacts called then?
that’s what i meant…
em dash em dash
Maybe it means the kinetic energy of the wind, which I believe scales against its velocity-squared?
I'm thinking it's about consistency. 10kts 10% of the time vs average 150kts 100% of the time (the math is a little off but we're in hypothetical estimates already)
It'd be interesting to see the cost efficiency of that versus traditional wind turbines over the expected lifespan of both.
Yes it's odd to see an article about electricity generation technology that doesn't even have a speculative 'levelised cost of energy' as they call it. That is lifecycle expected average $/MWh.
I guess its a very early prototype. and maybe China doesn't care to much about LCOE.
These are a massive liability every storm. You have to winch them down and get them into a blisteringly massive hangar that can hold them. Then get them set back up after. Every. Single. Storm.
Furthermore, you don't save on land use, as you need the massive, expensive hangar for each right at their base.
Ground-based wind-turbines just feather their blades and lock their gearbox. Very simple.
- Operational altitude: 4,921 feet
So precise - Weight: Under 2,204 pounds
Um... so 2,203 pounds?
Altitude: 1500 meters
Weight: Under 1000kg
Makes so much more sense that it was originally in metric but looks weird translated to imperial.
They should've went with football fields instead, and weight in washing machines
It's because the precision is overstated in the conversion to imperial. If they're going to convert units they could at least give the correct significant digits. It should have read (if one insists on not just leaving it in metric):
- Operational altitude: nearly 1 mile (1.5km)
- Weight: Under 1 ton (imperial or metric. Take your pick, it hardly matter.)
Cool. How do they perform maintenance?
If it's tethered, the tether can winch it down to ladder truck range.
That or helicopter.
That'd be my guess as well. How big must that winch be to wind in 4000 feet, though?
Helicopter would be far too dangerous, I reckon.
Playing with https://telecom.samm.com/cable-reel-calculator, it seems like you could probably fit a reel or two on a trailer?
I seem to remember the current wind turbines need some specialized trucks for maintenance too, this doesn't seem like it's need much more - but I'm not an engineer!
I bet if these get used that soon after there will be new extreme maintenance videos that make those cell towers look like nothing. Probably some guy hanging from a powered cable climbing device, showing the things on the ground getting smaller and smaller, occasionally taking a puff from an asthma inhaler because they were told an oxygen tank would cause weight issues (it's actually about financial issues), until enough people die that they realize it's cheaper to pay for oxygen than training new workers.
Is anyone else getting aeon flux vibs?
Does it have batteries on board? How does it connect the power to the grid? O_o
I read an article about it a while ago, and that said it'd be tethered to the ground, and power would be transfered through the tether.
The voltage being sent down would have to be really high to avoid loss going through such a long and probably thin cable. Like the difference in voltage loss going through a 100' romex cable of 10-gauge wire with 12v DC vs 120v AC - you just can't do it with 12v DC because the loss is far too high, but it's no problem with 120v AC.
Magnify those losses times 500 for your 5000' cable... maybe you need a 5000v line... then you have a dangerous high-voltage line flying around in the air. High-voltage transmission lines can arc to ground if they find a path, even though they're insulated wires.
But I guess those guys probably know about that stuff too.
It's obviously attached with wires. It can't just float around and generate energy.
You say obviously but I don't see how tethering a loose object with 5000ft of live wire is "obviously" safe
If only there was a giant cable it was tethered to that could also carry electricity.
Through a HV cable run to the ground, along with the cable to anchor it.
This is an extremely promising innovation, and company plans on bigger designs already. But the total cost has to include an automated roof opening shelter for storms, that can open and close in medium winds before the high winds come. This makes the ground footprint higher than traditional turbines, even if agriculture can be done when there is no storm and roof is open. Perhaps 4 thethering strong cables could permit it to survive a cat 1 hurricane when hugging ground without a roof, but it is more weight to lift normally.
Lot's of birds will be shredded
Have data to prove that? Because existing wind turbines hardly kill any birds. That's oil lobby shit leaking through.
You know, I was skeptical that birds even got up that high.
Turns out this thing is actually far too low.

Incidentally, also why the other wind turbine bird death stories are largely horseshit.
Those studies gave a wide range for the number of birds that die in wind turbine collisions each year: from 140,000 up to 679,000. The numbers are likely to be higher today, because many more wind farms have been built in the past decade.
Those numbers are not insignificant, but they represent a tiny fraction of the birds killed annually in other ways, like flying into buildings or caught by prowling house cats, which past studies have estimated kill up to 988 million and 4 billion birds each year, respectively. Other studies have shown that many more birds—between 12 and 64 million each year—are killed in the U.S. by power lines, which connect wind and other types of energy facilities to people who use the electricity.
I wonder if the way they tested it to get those higher numbers was something like finding a field where birds were roosting with windmills present, then fire off some massive fireworks at night and assume any bird that died did so because of the windmills.
Assuming they didn't just pull the numbers out of their ass and actually designed a bad faith experiment that could inflate bird deaths.
doesn't this use elevations compared to sea level? while the elevation of this turbine is compared to local ground level

all 67 comments