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.'"
Lightning Capital (Score:5, Funny)
Ben Franklin, eat your heart out.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed. Now it will be called the shadiest place on Earth.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Major side benefit (Score:5, Funny)
Great defense against incoming jetliners as the kites get sucked into engines, either from terrorists or major campaign donors out for a spin in Air Force One.
It'll be like the ending of Mary Poppins, only it never ends! Let's go fly a kite, up to the highest height...
Re:Major side benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
Great defense against incoming jetliners as the kites get sucked into engines, either from terrorists or major campaign donors out for a spin in Air Force One.
America circa 1960: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
America circa 2009: "OMG terrorists!"
Honestly, will we ever get our national cojones back?
(not that I think kite-power is necessarily a realistic idea, I'm just tired of the knee-jerk genuflection towards our new Al Quaeda overlords)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, will we ever get our national cojones back?
I would think that, having blown off the UN to invade half of the middle east, some might say we have too many cojones...
Re:Major side benefit (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, will we ever get our national cojones back?
I would think that, having blown off the UN to invade half of the middle east, some might say we have too many cojones...
Yeah that took "balls". What are they going to do...pass a non-binding resolution to some day send us a strongly worded letter.
Hilarious!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Um, they could have threatened nuclear war for violating the UN charter.
My god, I haven't laughed so hard in days.
Are they going to launch a strike from the secret UN base in a dormant volcano? Or perhaps the huge fleet of UN satellites in orbit armed to the teeth and ready to pounce on the slightest transgression!!
If you recall, the German invasion of Belgium was enough to get the British into World War I
I was not aware the british were the UN.
likewise, the invasion of Poland started World War II in Europe.
Wow, that was started by the U.N. too? I guess the books I read were all wet! Thank god we had you along to tell us the true chronicles of Captian UN, hive-mind savior of humanity with the first strike Fist Of Great Justice!
Ha!
Re: (Score:2)
Are they going to launch a strike from the secret UN base in a dormant volcano? Or perhaps the huge fleet of UN satellites in orbit armed to the teeth and ready to pounce on the slightest transgression!!
No. In the grand scheme of things, the Security Council could have voted to kick the USA out of the UN and demand a withdrawal from Iraq. You have nuclear armed Europe (France and the UK, and the Germans could always get them), Russia, and China. In other words, the UN could have done to the USA what it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you recall, the German invasion of Belgium was enough to get the British into World War I, and likewise, the invasion of Poland started World War II in Europe.
Yes, but not Austria or Czechoslovakia. Hitler wanted too much, too fast.
Oh, and congratulations for godwinning an article about kites.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and congratulations for godwinning an article about kites.
too .... much ... history channel for me.....
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: (Score:2)
Does anyone know what "the other things" were?
I've always wondered.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the explanation. I feel better. I admit the rice and Texas thing was a little weird.
Mind you, it WAS the '60s. (And they say if you remember the 60s, you weren't really there ... and I wasn't, I was rather little - actually about 7 when he made that speech, just 14 years old when they stepped onto the moon - now I'm 54 and nobody's been back for 40 years. I am sad. Where are your dreams, oh Americans? Must you be out dreamed by the Chinese? The Japanese? New Zealand maybe? Come ON!)
Re:Major side benefit (Score:5, Insightful)
> America circa 2009: "OMG terrorists!"
Eh? Dunno about you but the Air Force One gag included made it pretty clear to me the original poster was making a joke out of it, which is the correct response.
> Honestly, will we ever get our national cojones back?
Forget the cojones, how about some sanity and common sense?
Now getting back to the topic......
Look folks, this isn't rocket science. Modern civilization isn't possible without large quantities of energy in some form. The current situation is clearly unsustainable, depending on oil from places that hate our guts and use our dollars to destroy our civilization is insane. Ok, if we can agree on that we can move to the question of what should replace foreign oil. And it is a pretty short list:
1. More domestic production. Nice short term solution, I support it even; but Drill, Baby Drill! ain't nothing but a stopgap measure at best.
2. Something Green. Ok, this kite thing is typical of the category. Pie in the sky, impractical, decades away and will cost multiples what we pay for energy now. Assuming it can even be made to work at all. Again, if one of these notions eventually pans out, great. For the record I'm all for Unicorns and kittens too. But do we really need to put all our hopes on one of these miracles arriving in time to save us?
Especially in light of the hate enviros start heaping on any alternative source that begins to become practical? Hydro? NO! Already got nutter enviros against geothermal. How in the wide wide world of sports can an enviro be against geothermal! There are other reasons it hasn't become commonplace, but environmental concerns? Got enviros lining up against large scale solar. Wind turbines, besides Sen. Kennedy not wanting to see em off HIS beachfront, are noisy, ugly and kill birds. Oh no, wind isn't green enough. And we are laughing now about kites but if actual production started lighting up the grid you can bet enviros would have objections and they wouldn't be joking. And laughing at THEM gets you branded a 'hater' who wants to destroy the precious earth.
I think we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion: By the time a green tech gets into actual production it isn't green anymore. The real world at work? Or perhaps we need to understand the underlying truth. Greens don't want us to find innovative new sources of energy to continue our lifestyle, they want to make energy scarce so as to reshape our society along lines THEY find more pleasing. We aren't to get a vote in this, we aren't even supposed to know we have other options because we can't be trusted to make the 'correct' choice.
And meanwhile, while we sit around and beat off over the latest green tech fresh from some research project we actually DO NOTHING other than continue to send cash to help destabilize the middle east a little more.
3. We build the crap out of modern safe designs for fission plants and let that hold us until fusion finally gets into production.
Re:Major side benefit (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget the cojones, how about some sanity and common sense?
Now getting back to the topic......
Look folks, this isn't rocket science...
Damn, where are my mod points when I need them? I'll have to settle for putting you on the friends list.
In the interests of brevity you probably omitted the possibility that the greenie-green haters you reference may actually prefer to keep themselves in the public eye as some form of environmental elite. This wouldn't last if green solutions become mainstream, they'd be just like anybody else.
It's extremely annoying to a revolutionary when the establishment gives into their demands without a fight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Major side benefit (Score:5, Interesting)
Greens don't want us to find innovative new sources of energy to continue our lifestyle, they want to make energy scarce so as to reshape our society along lines THEY find more pleasing.
It's important to be aware the puritans are NOT green, although they have managed to hijack the green movement for the past couple of decades. The only thing that has kept them going is the impracticality of most genuine green tech. They are under siege within the movement now, and over the course of the next couple of decades will become a footnote to history, precisely because most people are in favour of sustainable solutions to the power generation problem and are, of course, not puritans.
They are not puritans for a very simple reason: puritanism is not sustainable. The only way the puritans can impose themselves on the world is if no green technology actually works. Unfortunately everything from solar to wind is coming along nicely, and even nuclear and clean coal are talked about seriously.
So don't make the mistake of confusing the puritans with the greens. The puritans are on the way out. The greens are finally coming back from the debacle of the early '70's, when formerly scientific organizations like Greenpeace became marketing shills for the puritans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Major side benefit (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion: By the time a green tech gets into actual production it isn't green anymore. The real world at work?
Yeah, to a large extent, I think it is the real world at work. Nothing is free, and I don't mean that in terms of money. I mean anything that we use to "create" energy isn't really creating energy. Energy doesn't get created, it just gets collected, harnessed, and transfered. So pretty much anything we do to "create" energy will actually mean taking energy out of the environment somehow. That means it's going to have some kind of environmental impact.
So part of the problem is that these "greens" that you talk about, the people who want zero environmental impact, are people who want a free lunch and have no idea how the world works. They're utopianists. They're the same people who have some imagined model of government/economics that they think will solve all the world's problems. Hint: it's basically a big commune where we all share and everyone is always nice to each other.
They're also the people who 20 years ago thought the most important think for school children was "self esteem". They're the same people who think that if you just "be yourself", then people will like you, and that being honest and saying what you feel will solve all of your personal problems. They're the same sort of people who 40 years ago thought that love and freedom for tradition and social norms would fix the world.
They're children who think that all of our problems have simple and perfect solutions, and given a strategy to address certain problem, once they've discovered a down-side, they decide that it's complete unacceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's still not "creating" energy any more than burning coal is. It's a different way in which energy is stored in the arrangement of matter, which makes it fuel. Of course, that means you have to gather the fuel and expend it to get the energy. The fuel is bound to be limited (even if the end is not yet in sight) and there is bound to be some kind of waste byproduct which must then be somehow disposed of.
Not to say that some of these solutions aren't better or worse than others. Maybe we'll actually be
Re: (Score:2)
Dude: Word
+1
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we have enough evidence to draw a conclusion: By the time a green tech gets into actual production it isn't green anymore. The real world at work? Or perhaps we need to understand the underlying truth. Greens don't want us to find innovative new sources of energy to continue our lifestyle, they want to make energy scarce so as to reshape our society along lines THEY find more pleasing. We aren't to get a vote in this, we aren't even supposed to know we have other options because we can't be trusted to make the 'correct' choice.
Here's my explanation for that: that block of people you've just damned for being inconsistent hypocrites, are not a single uniform group.
That is, the people in favour of wind turbines, are still in favour of wind turbines. They're "environmentalists" in the sense that they want sustainable power sources.
The people who oppose wind turbines likely couldn't care less about sustainable power. They care about the pretty view on their favourite countryside hike. They're "environmentalists" in the sense that that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Really? Name one.
Didn't I name enough in the original post?
I remember when hydroelectric was still hailed as almost an ultimate green tech, "Free energy from water!" Before the whinging about fish, before the land use issues, etc. These days it is considered as anything but green.
I remember when ethanol was THE replacement for gas. Actually try to make a few million gallons of the stuff and the problems become apparent enough for even a green idiot to see. Although I saw the problem a decade ago.
Odd thought -- alternative, NYC style eco energy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I've got a nice hot, sunny Outback where you can use.
Hey hang on mate, that's our... that's our...
uh, never mind, carry on then.
Re: (Score:2)
> I feel like you have something against people who are as you refer to them "nutter enviros"
Because they a) aren't living in reality and b) lie in that they refuse to discuss their actual goals making rational discourse impossible. If I'm right that Greens ACTUALLY want to disassemble our energy consuming civilization but only speak of their actual goals when they think they are talking amongst themselves it makes it kinda pointless to argue whether an energy source is practical, safe, etc since they o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best solution would be to simply spread the load a little bit.
Every energy source has it's draw backs, but they're all specific and different problems unique to the energy source. Combustion fuels create waste gasses like CO2. Nuclear creates toxic waste. Dams create huge flooded areas. Solar casts shadows over ecosystems reliant on sunlight. Wind kills birds. If we use a spread of different sources, each problem remains relatively minor and not widespread.
Our problem seems to be putting our faith into
Re:Major side benefit (Score:4, Insightful)
1920 OMG Commies
1930 OMG Fascists
1940 OMG Fascists
1950 OMG Commies
1960 OMG Commies
1970 OMG Commies
1980 OMG Japan
1990 OMG Iraq
2000 OMG Muslims
Basically, the US has always had a national fear to attack. Independent thought is rare and independent action even rarer in the US.
Now shut up and go watch the TV.
Re:Major side benefit (Score:5, Funny)
2006 OMG Ponies!!!
Eat your heart out, Ben Franklin! (Score:2)
How is this going to impact the aircraft? (Score:2, Insightful)
New York already has the most congested airways in the country, and possibly in the world. If these kites are at 30,000 feet, and most commercial airplanes fly around 35,000 feet, how are we not going to have a bunch of severed kites everywhere?
Or is this just "Let's Dream [slashdot.org] a Dream" Day [slashdot.org] on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you mean. But they'd still have to drop at least three lines to the ground -- and likely even more -- so the kite doesn't sway unpredictably.
This, plus the radius around which there could potentially be falling debris, or severance, leads me to wonder whether this wishful thinking, or something that could seriously be commercialized.
As a counterpoint, wouldn't it be easier to install turbines in the ocean and harvest tidal forces?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New York already has the most congested airways in the country, and possibly in the world. If these kites are at 30,000 feet, and most commercial airplanes fly around 35,000 feet, how are we not going to have a bunch of severed kites everywhere?
Um, I dunno ... maybe fly them somewhere else and run a cable to the grid?
All together now ... (Score:5, Interesting)
With 2K for turbines and wires,
we can build a generating flyer.
With a line to the ground,
it's a turbine in flight!
With a bolt holding tight
to the string of the kite!
Let's go fly a kite
Up to the highest height
Let's go fly a kite
And send it soaring
Up through the atmosphere
Up where the air is clear
Oh, let's go fly a kite!
Re: (Score:2)
Pure awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Came in here for this.
Left smiling.
Thank you, sir.
Hrmm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Got me thinkin'.
I suppose the "fluctuating flow" problem could be circumvented by using helium bags to get the kites aloft initially, combined with a spooled tether.
When the jet-stream is coming close, the bags are filled and the kite spooled to the proper altitude. Once the jet-stream is sufficient to keep the kite aloft, the bags are deflated and stowed. When the jet-stream is predicted to be moving out of the area, the bags are re-inflated until there is no more reason to keep it aloft, at which time it spooled back in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about waste?
Ok, I admit SOME helium will escape bags right through the material, but everything else can be pumped/compressed right back into on-board tanks as the bags are deflated and mechanically stowed.
As far as escaping gas from bullet-holes and such (something blimps are often subject to) these things would be far too high for collisions or bullets (except for a short period during descent/ascent).
On-board Hydrogen generator powered by the kite itself, maybe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking just the opposite. When I hear about fluctuating flow, I keep thinking there must be a way to turn this to our advantage. Here's my idea...
You start with a good-sized counterweight. I don't know exactly how big -- that would depend on all sorts of variables. Anyway, you set it up with gears and pulleys and whatnot such that the wind lifts it up when it blows, and drops it down when it stops. A slight variation on this would be to ratchet the counterweight up to a considerable height, which wo
Call Charlie Brown - we've got a kite-eating tree! (Score:4, Insightful)
The heck with backup power sources -- who covers the liability when 6 miles of power-transmitting cable come crashing to the ground? And how much wind does it take to support the weight of 6 mile long high voltage wire?
Re: (Score:2)
The power is generated on the ground. The kite simply moves cables in a circular or figure-8 pattern.
Why does everyone assume they have found the show stopping problem that the people who have been working on this for years have overlooked? These people aren't amateur inventors asking for start-up capital. This system is well researched and proven to work (although I'm not sure there are any test sites working at jet stream altitudes, yet). The problem with airplanes is trivial - no-fly zones aren't
Re: (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 grou
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Power line (Score:5, Insightful)
A kite which can support a 30,000 foot electric line? I'm thinking there are some serious engineering challenges there. Probably involving unobtanium and other exotic materials.
Environmental issues? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Environmental issues? (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when you pull that much energy out of the jetstream?
"That much energy" is not really all that much energy actually. At best we could only hope to extract a billionth of a percent or less, with current technology and for at least a little while to come still.
It's similar to the scale of the effect of humanity putting many large heavy city sized boats on our oceans. This does not displace enough water for there to be any measurable effect on the water line at shore. The fractions are just too small to need to worry about for now.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when you pull that much energy out of the jetstream? Does it change global air circulation? Do you get climate changes throughout the world?
At worst, you'll slightly change the weather pattern downwind.
Don't forget, cities are already artificial wind breaks that alter weather patterns.
With that in mind, there is so much energy in wind that we couldn't begin to take out enough to make an appreciable dent in the flows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somewhere in the amazon jungle a butterfly has to flap it's wings a lot harder.
To be a more serious the amounts of energy involved in moving this air about are similar to that released by nearly every nuclear weapon on the planet going off at once. That's a LOT of kites to start dragging in that much energy, we really are talking about the effect of slowing down a hurricane by sneezing against the wind.
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: (Score:2, Funny)
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?
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: (Score:2)
You know you got modded funny, but it does make me wonder. Anytime I hear about something like this, I want to know what the impact is of removing that much energy.
I am by no means as educated as some of the engineers and physicists that frequent this website, but isn't there going to be some sort of consequence of removing that much energy from a system?
Nuclear creates energy in ways
Sim City 2000 (Score:2)
Launch a solar panel and beam the energy down to earth.
Have you been to Burningman? (Score:4, Funny)
I am asking because if you had, you would be laughing like I am right now. Powerful winds tear through everything that has even the tiniest bit of slack. At ground level. Tarps rip to pieces, grommets are completely useless. Shelters fly away into the playa, women's clothes break free and take on their own. Oh, well, I am getting distracted.
TFA's description is much more vague than ones I've seen in science fiction.
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.
Well, I am proposing building flying cities maintained by giant robots. We can use the high altitude, jets streams and clear skies to harvest clear solar and wind energy.
Here's my proof of concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_in_the_Sky [wikipedia.org]
Yeah, amazing design (Score:2)
I heard the kites were shaped like pies.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard the kites were shaped like pies.
I heard they were shapped like cakes.
Pipe dreams (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you need one of those special converters to plug into the sun, stupid!
MetaTag: "Whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:2)
I don't know for certain, but I think it involves a portly Philadelphian and a key...
OOOPS!!!! Isn't there a problem? (Score:2)
With the news that the winds are dying down?
http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090610-winds-are-dying-down-study-suggests.html [livescience.com]
Oh well....I guess they could always fly them over Washington, DC.
Added benefit: better climate (Score:2)
The more we put energy in the atmosphere, either directly or by greenhouse gases, the worse the weather will be: more violent storms, more planes downed by catastrophically worse weather and so on.
If we take some energy out of the atmosphere and prevent more greenhouse gases to be released as a side effect, I am all in.
Nobody Pays For Anything In New York City (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a nice idea in theory.
It's an obviously stupid idea.
Whoever though it up just wants attention, money, or both.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen some TED videos about this.
Two questions :-
Control line drag, 30,000ft induces a lot of delay etc. Where is the computer and control equipment? On the ground will not the control delay crash the kite. Aloft, how do we get enough power up to the motors controlling the kite.
Conversion to electricity. I see no way to efficiently generate power from a kite. If I have constant pull on the line how do I transfer that to rotation without letting out line?
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the dreaded Kite Krash when the winds die.
Imagine a whirling blade structure auto rotating down into (insert nightmare scenario here).
Then how many 12 year olds will it take to run into the wind to pull it back again when the winds return?
Re:Cool... (Score:5, Insightful)
No doubt a fleet of electricity generating kites are going to cost a pretty penny.
Why is there "no doubt" about this? Is there some reason why kites have to be very expensive?
Second, why would you invest in a new technology when there are other (probably more-efficient) green technologies.
For the same reason you invested in the other green technologies even when there were older technologies already available then -- because it was a promising idea.
Now isn't the time to start innovating from scratch with the global recession.
Now is exactly the time. A few technological "game changers" could be just what it takes to boost us out of recession.
Lastly, where are going to put them, in the plains of the Midwest?
Sure, why not? Or any other place that has wind at 30,000 feet and isn't in anybody's flight path.
What happens when the kites start interfering with birds and such?
Not many birds fly at 30,000 feet, Einstein.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Why is there "no doubt" about this? Is there some reason why kites have to be very expensive?
I'm'a go out on a limb here and guess the OP read the article and you didn't. I'd suggest you look at the part in which they talk about how very, very expensive it would be.
Not many birds fly at 30,000 feet, Einstein.
That's true, but I'm fairly sure that very few birds fly higher. Which means (try to stay with me) they fly below the kites. Now, I'm no Einstein myself, but I'm given to understand that the tethers connecting the kites to the ground would probably be made of matter, rather than a magical material that holds kites in place but lets birds
Re: (Score:2)
Not many birds fly at 30,000 feet, Einstein.
Small nitpick: Presumably these kites will have cables reaching all the way down to the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But first off, where are we going to get the money to start buying kites? No doubt a fleet of electricity generating kites are going to cost a pretty penny. Second, why would you invest in a new technology when there are other (probably more-efficient) green technologies.
Ok, what - exactly what - is greener than a kite? Or a longer established technology? (cries, weeps bitter tears.)
On the gripping hand, you could have miniature wind turbines attached to the kite, perhaps tap the electrostatic potential between kite and ground (lots of moving air to add or remove charge) and you wouldn't really need to worry about lightning if you designed the thing to vapourise on a strike.
And they'd be pretty too. I'd vote for the Man in the Moon pattern myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, what - exactly what - is greener than a kite?
Is that a trick question? What color is the kite?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And mountains...
----
My ID is prime base 21, is yours?
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't windmills been doing this for centuries?
Yep. That's how Don Quixote got into the Guiness book of World Records for reaching 30,000 feet.
Re: (Score:2)
Have any of these jackasses considered the consequences of removing all this kinetic energy from those streams? What happens when you harness all that energy and slow down that wind? I'm no genius, but I'm betting the results could be very very bad.
Ok, just checking here -- if you have the A,Q,J,10,9 do you draw another card or fold?
Re: (Score:2)
presumably, there'll be a no fly zone around the plant. Not terribly remarkable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you are not a pilot or a kite flyer?
Work out just how much load is on a line 30,000ft in the air. Now do some calcs based on a light plane hitting that line.
Basically the light plane is going to get cut in half and maybe take down one or two kites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the ones that fly into it.
Next question...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The article mentioned tethered turbines.
I criticized the journalists, apparently appropriately.
Even with turbines on the ground, we're talking massive tethers with a pretty high probability of substantial damage and/or loss of life if 20,000 feet plus of it comes crashing down, and that doesn't even depend on a mechanical failure, it could be a steering failure.
Even if you put the turbine on the ground, it's still a spectacularly useless idea. Call it flamebait if you will, I don't have the time to craft po
Re: (Score:2)
You could call the first one launched "The Sword Of Damocles"!
Tie it to the ground with the Gordian knot?
Re: (Score:2)
Worldwide we use something on the order of 10^20 J energy per year. Fortunately the sun pumps out 10^31 J per day, a decent proportion of which actually hits us as it subtends a solid angle of about .5 degrees at this distance.
There may be some cause for concern with power sources that could drain from the angular momentum of the earth, such as tidal power... or maybe even this kite idea? I'm speculating here, but the earth's angular momentum with respect to its center is only on the order of 10^23 J and
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly amazed at the negitive comments about this suggestion, it reminds me of the story of the first cave man to see fire, who ran far away scared the gods were going to burn him up. Where is the spirit of giving an inovative technology a go... Where is the spirit of adventure, I guess the "greatest nation on earth" tm has lost its mojo... No wonder all the top US research scientist are moving to other countries... Well oll the better for the rest of the planet...
Save this soapbox for when people complain about sending glorified suicide attempters to Mars. When attempting to change things for the environment's sake, sometimes it's important to take into account what might happen to the environment. Google up "Tire Reef" for an example of a great idea that never asked "What about..."
Now, if they were trying to fly massive kites over New York just to see if they could, THEN I would have to agree with you.