"High-altitude winds between 1,640 and 3,281 feet (500 and 10,000 meters) above the ground are stronger and steadier than surface winds. These winds are abundant, widely available, and carbon-free.

"The physics of wind power makes this resource extremely valuable. “When wind speed doubles, the energy it carries increases eightfold, triple the speed, and you have 27 times the energy,” explained Gong Zeqi "

      • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        What matters is scalability and how much material and cost you need to produce per energy unit. Kites (either parasails or fixed wing) are much simpler, can be scaled up too, and you only need a simple cable that pulls the generator’s winch. Overall kites seem much more efficient to scale up.

      • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 days ago

        How so, when skysails talks about “Venyo harnesses the power of high-altitude winds with speeds of 13 m/s and a continuous output of up to 200 kW.” while the S1500 is featured with “Inside this duct are 12 turbine-generator sets, each rated at 100 kW.”?
        It’s more like factor 5-6.

        • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          Their v2 product produces about 5kw at much lower altitude (weaker 9m/s winds). 13m/s is a big ask. They don’t go as high as 1000m. I was comparing to their v2 product instead of the 200w theoretical max of their v1 product. But the blimp may not produce 1.2mw all the time either.

          • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            Yah, we need to have them running to get real numbers.
            I find both approaches promising.
            Ways to make electric energy available without burning fossil fuel are good.

    • titanicx@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      That looks complicated and frankly kind of stupid. Imagine trying to get something like that working without having an engineer standing by that can get everything fixed once it crashes down or something else like that happens.

      • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        Fair, but please name one single way to generate that kind of electrical power that can be fixed by a layperson in case something crashes.

        • titanicx@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          At least the Chinese version doesn’t rely on as many moving parts to keep it aloft. And a complicated mechanical system to produce a flight path. The blimp itself is complicated, but it’s not a kite.

          • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 days ago

            In the end the TCO (per kWh) will play a major role, especially for big installations and for smaller ones the price floor.
            I suppose a helium filled blimp with 12 turbines will be more pricey than a kite with a generator. If the kite fills your need, pick that.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        IDK, the benefit to the goofy kite design is that the aerial portion is far simpler - and there’s no massive energized cable hanging in the air. It’s a little… non-conventional, but it’s a great deal less complicated than floating a massive generator like the chinese solution. Downside is presumably lower energy density per unit, but the reduction in operational footprint might make the two designs competitive. It’s good people are exploring both options!

        • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          The simpler design might lead to lower prices per kWh, which will in the end play a role together with reliability, e.g min/avg power output, durability, outages.
          I find it impressive how creative engineers get. Let’s hope for a third option ;)

  • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    I assume they have designed these in a way that doesn’t adversely impact migratory birds

      • bss03@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        The tether / power transmission line does pass through potential flight paths, tho.

        Still, I imagine the impact to be even less than ground-based turbines.

      • turmacar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Some very few do, not sure if they’re in China though.

        “Windfarms hurt birds” is 90+% fossil fuel propaganda though. Yes birds run into windmills, they also run into skyscrapers and houses and antennas and planes.

        We should of course look for ways to mitigate that. We should not just pretend smokestacks do no harm and not develop renewable energy projects.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Very interesting development. Especially that it can be deployed in disaster zones to provide energy - if there is a strong foundation to anchor it, probably.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        You are aware that a ship lays several times the depth in chain on the ground as weight. And the chain is much heavier as the tether will be, or it would not really get up high. And the distance between ship and ground is rather fixed, while the windmill blimp is in a rather floating position.

        No, I think a bunch of heavy duty ground anchoring is necessary here.

        On the other hand, as the Chinese are rather good at planning important things like that, I could imagine them to set up some anchor points ahead: Bury a large lump of concrete somewhere in the city. Maybe use it as an open place in a park, where nobody would notice that instead of a layer of stones it is actually going a few meters deep. Have a metal trapdor in the center where you can hook up a blimp to a connection below, and have a way to plug the power into the local grid. If catastrophy happens, drop off the blimp, blow it up and send it skywards. The park should give more than enough space to set it up.

  • Random_Character_A@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    I’d be more interested about the cable that is going to bring all that power to the ground level. With traditional tech that would weigh a shit-ton. Light weight generator would be easy peasy compared to that.

  • Jikiya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Cities are going to start looking like San Fransokyo (Big Hero 6) soon. Seems like an excellent idea though. If it really gets pursued, I wonder how it will interact with air travel, since I would imagine you would need no fly zones around these, at least at a certain height.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Finally the stupid floating jet engine looking turbines from Big Hero 6, except IRL they actually look good.

  • Naich@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 days ago

    This looks like a good way to bring power to a remote area, and China has lots of those.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Very cool, and definitely worth switching too where it makes sense.

    But there is no mention of cost, so it probably won’t be cost competitive with regular wind for a while, which sucks.

    But the silver lining is that this is among the first of this type of power generation, and it will only get better and more efficient as the tech is built upon.

    • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      They did mention 30% cost savings. (these claims are easy to exaggerate though) While already useful scale, the advantages would grow with higher scale and high volume automated production.

    • BigFig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      And Africa, and South America, and the middle east, and Europe. Don’t pretend the rest of the world isn’t still burning fossil fuels it’s not just the US

      • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 days ago

        USA is pretty much the biggest country actively fighting against better methods in favor of fossil fuels, so I’d say it’s an accurate statement

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          Meanwhile, large chunks of the world still use coal as their primary power source. Hell, Germany’s coal share is higher than the US’.

          Source

          USA is pretty much the biggest country actively fighting against better methods in favor of fossil fuels, so I’d say it’s an accurate statement

          From how darkly colored the countries are, the countries actively fighting against better methods are China, India, and South Africa, among others. Unless of course you don’t consider running coal as your primary power source ‘actively fighting against better methods’.

          • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t consider that, indeed. Bonus points for reading comprehension.

            USA is the only country where I hear the president say that green needs to go and fossil fuels are the way to go.

            Showing a snapshot of coal usage also makes no sense in this context. A country cannot just drop fossil fuel from one day to the next. If you check relevant data, you’ll see that the share of green fuel is actually rising in China.

            Sadly, the industry is still very corrupt, where USA is he prime example, with the president is pretty much admitting to it publicly.

            • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Showing a snapshot of coal usage also makes no sense in this context.

              It’s the most tangible way to show who and who is not taking this seriously. Power generation used to be heavily coal in every country. The countries who have replaced it with better power generation sources are taking things much more seriously than the others.

              USA is the only country where I hear the president say that green needs to go and fossil fuels are the way to go.

              Meanwhile, Germany’s on-lining coal plants. Actions >>>>> words

              You know who is taking things seriously? France. They are kicking fucking ass. And it’s because they went nuclear, where they get 70% of their power.

              Source

              you’ll see that the share of green fuel is actually rising in China

              Praising China for green fuel while their primary power generation is coal is fucking wild. It’s certainly better they are improving things, but until they do, everyone else with a better shade deserves more praise than you are giving China. Give that praise to France, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

              • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 days ago

                adding over 1tw of solar per year deserves a lot of praise. That they make everything for the world requires more power. Focusing on this is usually a pretext for doing much less energy transition work than China does.

                • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 days ago

                  Focusing on this is usually a pretext for doing much less energy transition work than China does.

                  Please redirect praise from China to countries who actually deserve it; like France, Sweden, Norway, and Finland. It’s just fucking wild to praise China, a country that gets most of their power from coal, for doing well on power generation while shitting on a country that has done more than them.

    • fartographer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Fossil fuels are from shit the dinos ate, like plants and other dumb crap. The belief that coal-rollers are cool enough to burn liquid dinosaurs is easily the single biggest lie of the oil industry.

      Closely followed by -gestures wildly-