Jet Stream Kites Could Power New York City 263
Damien1972 writes to tell us that researchers from the Carnegie Institution and California State University claim that a fleet of kites could harvest enough energy to run New York and other major cities, especially if they are affected by polar jet streams. "Using 28 years of data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction and the Department of Energy, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and Cristina Archer of California State University, Chico compiled the first global survey of wind energy available at high altitudes in the atmosphere. They found that the regions best suited for harvesting this energy align with population centers in the eastern U.S. and East Asia, although they note that 'fluctuating wind strength still presents a challenge for exploiting this energy source on a large scale.'"
Re:How is this going to impact the aircraft? (Score:3, Informative)
OMG Think of the planes! (Score:5, Informative)
I see comment after comment like "What about teh airplanzes!?!" but such comments come from a severe lack of understanding of controlled airspace.
See, while it's true that the Eastern seaboard is one of the busiest airspaces in the world, it's also one of the most tightly controlled. Airspace is commonly restricted to 18,000 feet, above which *all* airspace is controlled. (It's called "class A(lpha) airspace at/above 18,000 ft) The only effect this would have on air traffic is that ATC would redirect commercial flights around the kites, which isn't particularly hard to do.
As a pilot myself, I've many times been diverted around hazards such as other planes, mountains, and even UAVs. (Un-manned Aeronautical vehicles, being tested by the military)
And obviously, these wouldn't be assembled on the instrument approach path for O'Hare airport. This makes the whole "Teh planezes are fallingz" as exciting a story as "Teh Internetz iz failingz" due to lack of router memory.
In short, it's just not a significant issue.
Re:Cool... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, there are a number of species of geese that have been observed flying long distances at over 30,000 feet. Granted, not many birds are likely to be dumb enough to fly headfirst into a kite....
Re:MASS (Score:4, Informative)
Clearly if you had INVESTIGATED the proposal, you would know that it does not involve lifting turbines. The kite is flown in a circular or figure-8 motion. On the ground, a generator extracts energy from the rotating tether. There are already test sites.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/saul_griffith_on_kites_as_the_future_of_renewable_energy.html [ted.com]
Re:Call Charlie Brown - we've got a kite-eating tr (Score:3, Informative)
The power is generated on the ground. The kite simply moves cables in a circular or figure-8 pattern.
FTFA: "Several technologies have been proposed to harvest these high altitude winds, including tethered, kite-like turbines that would be floated to the altitude of the jet streams at an altitude of 20,000-50,000 feet and transmit up to 40 megawatts of electricity to the ground via the tether."
It sounds a little like they are talking about creating "kite-like turbines that would be floated to the altitude of the jet streams" ... and then they would "transmit up to 40 megawatts of electricity to the ground via the tether". I am not sure where you are getting the ground-based power generation from. It isn't mentioned anywhere in the article.
Re:OMG Think of the planes! (Score:4, Informative)
Sure it may not be a problem for your airplane, but what about for the tens of thousands of flying cars that will be filling the sky over the major cities?
Flying cars will be regulated by the FAA. You have to be an FAA-licensed pilot to fly one. That's why the guys actually making these a reality [terafugia.com] don't call it a "flying car" but rather a "roadable airplane".
And when flying over a big city, you are almost 100% in heavily controlled airspace. For example, take a look at the online aviation map [skyvector.com] and punch in KBOS at the right. You'll see a pilot's map of the Boston area.
Now, see all those circles made by thick, blue lines? Those are the lines of demarcation for class B(ravo) airspace - under RADAR control, you must have permission to enter, and your plane MUST be equipped with the appropriate equipment - or they come after you with guns, if necessary. As you can see, almost all of Boston is underneath this heavily controlled airspace - most cities are.
So don't think that just any old Tom, Dick, and Harry can get in a plane and start buzzing around without hard time afterwards.
In case you are curious, controlled airspace looks like an upside-down layer-cake, starting from the airport. For (usually) 5 miles away from the airport, the control is from the top of the "cake" down to the surface. You'll see something like 70/SFC within the inner circle, meaning that the ceiling is 7,000 feet, the floor is the ground. Then, further out, you'll see so mething like 70/15, meaning ceiling 7,000, floor 1500 feet.
Bigger airports go higher (Ex: KSFO ceiling is 10,000 ft) and further out. And the entire area is under the control of "approach control", called class E(cho) airspace, which is still RADAR controlled, but you don't need permission to enter. It's more advisory.
And basically every pilot I've flown with going virtually anywhere takes advantage of these advisories, called "flight following".
Re:Major side benefit (Score:5, Informative)
> Um, they could have threatened nuclear war for violating the UN charter.
Another poster has already ridiculed you over the silly notion that the UN has the capability to nuke anyone. I want to ridicule you over an even more obvious problem. We have a veto. That is the problem with the UN, it was designed to ensure nothing actually got done. The fricking French have a veto.
And besides, Saddam was in flagrant violation of an sackful of UN Resolutions and they couldn't be stirred to react. So the worst case scenario is they could have attempted to pass a sternly worded Resolution against the US... which we would have vetoed. And had Bush been in a mood to demonstrate the uselessness of the UN he could have instructed our Ambassador to let em pass their silly Resolution and then walked to the nearest lectern and said "Screw em, they refuse to enforce the decade old Resolutions against Saddam so they can sit and spin while I ignore this one as well."
In the end that is the problem with the UN, everyone designing it knew they were designing a Parliment of Tyrants so they made sure it was toothless, thus turning it into a mostly harmless masturbatorium. Yes, really. Do the math; Far more than half the nation states in the UN were and still are obviously unfree but political correctness demands one nation one vote thus Evil must carry the day. Thus it was rendered ineffectual.
Re:Call Charlie Brown - we've got a kite-eating tr (Score:2, Informative)