• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Windmills In The Sky

Will the slipstream windmill idea be used or ignored?

  • Used - eventually....

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ignored

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've seen this story before - but do you think the idea will actually get used or ignored?

Windmills in the Sky
A bold plan to tap the jet stream and boost our nation's energy supply
By Michael Behar

Wind power is the world´s fastest-growing energy source. Existing capacity worldwide is approaching 50,000 megawatts-roughly equivalent to that of 50 nuclear power plants. But there are problems with this seemingly benign wellspring of pollution-free electricity. Aside from being noisy, the whirling turbines interfere with television reception and are generally considered terrestrial eyesores rendered useless when the wind stops. Bryan Roberts, an engineer at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, has a solution: Instead of erecting wind turbines on the ground, float them in the jet stream, a screamingly fast current of air that circles the globe, fluctuating between altitudes of 15,000 and 45,000 feet.

Roberts has partnered with three other engineers to form Sky WindPower, a San Diego, California-based start-up that is developing something it calls a Flying Electric Generator (FEG). As Roberts envisions it, huge squadrons of airborne FEGs will hover in the jet stream like giant kites. Winds of up to 200 miles an hour will spin rotors on the FEGs, generating an electrical current that´s transmitted along superstrong tethers to ground stations linked to the utility grid.You might have 600 of them, each producing 20 megawatts, he says. They could generate enough power for two Chicago-size cities

In the next two years, Sky WindPower intends to build a working 200-kilowatt version and fly it in a remote area in the U.S., provided the Federal Aviation Administration will grant the com-pany permission to do so. We´ve done all the designs, sizing, weights and costs, Roberts says. Now we just need $4 million to build the prototype.

1. THE FLYING FARM
The FEGs will be clustered in 200-square-mile aerial wind farms. Each turbine will be constructed from typical aircraft materials-carbon fiber, aluminum and fiberglass-and weigh 45,000 pounds. The FEGs will feature four 130-foot-diameter rotors engineered to both generate electricity and control the aircraft.

2. DUAL-PURPOSE TETHER
The FEG will be fixed to a three-inch-thick tether that moors each craft to a winch at the ground station. The tether will conduct 20,000 volts through two insulated aluminum filaments, wrapped around a core of Vectran, a high-strength, lightweight fiber used in everything from tennis-racket strings to the airbags that cushion NASA spacecraft.

3. CATCHING AIR
On liftoff, the FEGs will function like helicopters. Electricity from the ground station will spin the rotors horizontally, carrying the craft upward. Once near the jet stream, the rotors will be tilted upward roughly 40 degrees, producing less lift but more torque for spinning the turbines.

4. FINE-TUNING
The FEGs will be outfitted with computer-aided pitch control. As the jet stream fluctuates in speed, an onboard system will adjust the FEG´s vertical stabilizers, tilting the rotors upward or downward to optimize their angle in the wind.

Source:
https://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2005-11/windmills-sky/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignored, unfortunately. People these days are not pioneering enough, they do not have the patience to allow a project like this to come into fruition. They want it NOW, NOW NOW!
 
Don't think people will appreciated having there Tv receptions messed around with too.

Good for having in the sky though because ones on the ground just take more space in the counrtyside and there has tobelots of ground ones to generate enough power. Will be good if these can generate more power than ground ones.
 
rjmrjmrjm said:
Ignored, unfortunately. People these days are not pioneering enough, they do not have the patience to allow a project like this to come into fruition. They want it NOW, NOW NOW!

S'true, I do.

What with all our utility bills going up here in the UK due to most of the electricity coming from oil (oh, and gas is a by product of drilling for oil as well apparently) - we could use a cheap renewable source of electricity.
 
As Roberts envisions it, huge squadrons of airborne FEGs will hover in the jet stream like giant kites. Winds of up to 200 miles an hour will spin rotors on the FEGs, generating an electrical current that’s transmitted along superstrong tethers to ground stations linked to the utility grid. “You might have 600 of them, each producing 20 megawatts,” he says. “They could generate enough power for two Chicago-size cities.”
 
Three problems
- the kites have too be far enough apart that they don't get tangled together; this means 600 widely separated kite turbines with dangling strings occupying air traffic space- you couldn't even fly a helicopter in that region. No helicopter ambulances, no cop chases, no eye-in-the sky.

-the electricity has to come down a high tension wire from the jet-stream; a potential hazard in itself, and difficult to do technically.

-kite turbines will be a little on the heavy side, and may cause damage when they come down accidentally.
Ouch.

Still, they might be useful in deserted regions or something...
 
I don't have a problem with wind turbines, they no less spoil the view than pylons and if we can sput up with them, then whats the problem?
 
eburacum said:
Three problems
- the kites have too be far enough apart that they don't get tangled together; this means 600 widely separated kite turbines with dangling strings occupying air traffic space- you couldn't even fly a helicopter in that region. No helicopter ambulances, no cop chases, no eye-in-the sky.

-the electricity has to come down a high tension wire from the jet-stream; a potential hazard in itself, and difficult to do technically.

-kite turbines will be a little on the heavy side, and may cause damage when they come down accidentally.
Ouch.

Still, they might be useful in deserted regions or something...

For the wire thing surley they could use Wireless technology?
 
Re the post made by Eburacum;

1. THE FLYING FARM
The FEGs will be clustered in 200-square-mile aerial wind farms. Each turbine will be constructed from typical aircraft materials—carbon fiber, aluminum and fiberglass—and weigh 45,000 pounds. The FEGs will feature four 130-foot-diameter rotors engineered to both generate electricity and control the aircraft.

2. DUAL-PURPOSE TETHER
The FEG will be fixed to a three-inch-thick tether that moors each craft to a winch at the ground station. The tether will conduct 20,000 volts through two insulated aluminum filaments, wrapped around a core of Vectran, a high-strength, lightweight fiber used in everything from tennis-racket strings to the airbags that cushion NASA spacecraft.
 
coldelephant said:
Re the post made by Eburacum;

1. THE FLYING FARM
The FEGs will be clustered in 200-square-mile aerial wind farms. Each turbine will be constructed from typical aircraft materials—carbon fiber, aluminum and fiberglass—and weigh 45,000 pounds. The FEGs will feature four 130-foot-diameter rotors engineered to both generate electricity and control the aircraft.

2. DUAL-PURPOSE TETHER
The FEG will be fixed to a three-inch-thick tether that moors each craft to a winch at the ground station. The tether will conduct 20,000 volts through two insulated aluminum filaments, wrapped around a core of Vectran, a high-strength, lightweight fiber used in everything from tennis-racket strings to the airbags that cushion NASA spacecraft.

Damn! Might make the sky not look so good but it's good for creating energy.
 
MaxMolyneux wrote: -
Damn! Might make the sky not look so good but it's good for creating energy


Yeah - the 200-square-mile bits of sky, although you might not see much as the 'farms' would be flying at

between altitudes of 15,000 and 45,000 feet

;)
 
The view isn't all that important if they're sited over unpopulated areas (which they'd have to be) - that said, 200 square miles is one and a half times the size of Malta, so even if it's hovering at between 3 and 9 miles it'll still be somewhat visible ;).

Dumb question - how would they get them up there in the first place?
 
stuneville wrote:-
Dumb question - how would they get them up there in the first place?

Not a dumb question at all, the article I put the link to didn't say how the structures would be floated up into the jet steam, Im not altogether sure if the reference made to floating was just aluding to an impression the author had at the back of their head.

I was just wondering though ('scuse my ignorance).

If a Boeng 747 or 757 passenger jet is really big but when is really really high up looks like a little speck in the sky, would these structures not look smaller than they are when they are really really high up in the sky?

Also, do passenger jets fly in the jet stream?
 
coldelephant said:
If a Boeng 747 or 757 passenger jet is really big but when is really really high up looks like a little speck in the sky, would these structures not look smaller than they are when they are really really high up in the sky?
Yes, but a single jet plane takes up a tiny fraction of the visible sky - a 200 square mile block of them, even with gaps in between, would (I imagine) be rather like looking through a fly screen - it could even behave like a giant parasol (makes you wonder what effect that would have on the eco-system below).
coldelephant said:
Also, do passenger jets fly in the jet stream?
Yes, if the jet stream is going the same way as they are. It's at about 30,000 feet (it's a pretty narrow band though, IIRC).

[edit]Actually, there's more than one - interesting article about them here.
 
A sad sign of the times that we live in, but I can't help thinking that they'd be a target for terrorists.

One suicide bomber on a microlight flying into the cable, and BLAM! the power for two cities goes down. Would fighter patrols be needed?

On the other hand, maybe theses superstrong cables can withstand explosions - in which case they might prove useful as 'fly-paper', eliminating terrorists one by one as they try in vain to destroy them... :twisted:
 
Unless they were flanked by barrage balloons. Tried and tested technology - new problems don't necessarily need a new solution, after all.
 
coldelephant said:
MaxMolyneux wrote: -
Damn! Might make the sky not look so good but it's good for creating energy


Yeah - the 200-square-mile bits of sky, although you might not see much as the 'farms' would be flying at

You mean I wouldn't see as many as the farms wwould of these things?

Can these things fly over cities as well? Would Planes have these things on Radar so they can avoid crashing into them as well?
 
Yer great idea, although.....all you would need to do to take over the coutry would be to fly past the strings with a pair of hydrolicc cutters and voila no power at all.
 
pintquaff said:
Yer great idea, although.....all you would need to do to take over the coutry would be to fly past the strings with a pair of hydrolicc cutters and voila no power at all.

Then we'll get to see some sky after they crash from the sky. 8)

Thing is they crash into anything in the way like living things, which is bad if they lose the power to stay in the air.
 
Original article repaired and reposted.
 
Sky WindPower is still in existence and still promoting their airborne generator platforms. A December 2018 Executive Summary can be viewed via the link on the compary's homepage:

https://www.skywindpower.com
 
Back
Top