The S1500 floating turbine’s operating altitude is 4,921 feet above ground level, where wind speed moves about three times faster than at the surface. The advantage of this altitude (also referred to as vertical slice) can result in a power output up to 27 times higher than a conventional ground-based wind turbine of similar capacity.
The capacity to generate one megawatt of electrical power (MW) with the S1500 system is comparable in size to what small wind power turbines normally generate (a conventional 328-foot-tall wind turbine), while the footprint of the S1500 system is significantly smaller. This amazing power density shows the efficiency benefits of being able to access high altitude wind power resources by new and innovative airborne platforms.
69 Comments
mercano@lemmy.world · 85 pts · 189d
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.
essell@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 189d
is it 131ft long? 🤔
7isanoddnumber@sh.itjust.works · 14 pts · 188d
Probably because the article was AI generated, if I had to guess.
W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 13 pts · 188d
RaoulDook@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 188d
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.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 32 pts · 189d
I'd love to see the weight of a five thousand foot cable.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 189d
at least 2 breeding heifers
Kraiden@piefed.social · 12 pts · 188d
African or European heifers?
Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works · 10 pts · 188d
How many big macs are thos?
W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 188d
I don’t know ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 188d
2"Ø UHMWPE rope has a breaking strength of ~375000lbs weighs 94lbs per 100' so about 4700lbs for 5000'
That said I have know idea if 2"Ø is the correct diameter rope to anchor one of these balloons.
Source: RightRope.com
edit: I was originally planning on adding in the weight of a high voltage transmission cable, but I'm on my phone and feeling lazy, maybe some one else will feel more inspired than I.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 5 pts · 188d
If you’re adding two strand #2 AWG wire it’s about a half pound per foot so another 2500lbs which means the floating windmill has to support 7200 lbs in addition to the weight of itself.
Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 188d
From the article the turbine unit weighs 2204lbs so that's ~9400 lbs total. Omni calculator says you need 348,436 standard 11" party balloons or 3,979,252 litres of helium to get off the ground and 423,779 party balloons to reach 1.5km altitude.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 2 pts · 188d
It can’t weigh 2,204lbs if it floats it should weigh approximately -7,200lbs if it’s going to carry the cable and rope.
Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 188d
I'm assuming that's the weight of the turbine without helium in the balloon.
SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world · 3 pts · 188d
So it would be even lighter if you filled it with hydrogen?
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 188d
Which would be the way to go, since no humans are on board and it’s probably not made out of s aluminum doped cotton.
GenosseFlosse@feddit.org · 2 pts · 188d
Could you not add wings for additional lift?
nucleative@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 188d
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?
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 30 pts · 188d
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.
nucleative@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 188d
Didn't think about the possibility of a kinetic energy unit, thanks for the insight
DoubleDongle@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 188d
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
turdburglar@piefed.social · 8 pts · 188d
they gonna use magsafe connectors for wireless transmission, duh.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 188d
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)
turdburglar@piefed.social · 1 pts · 187d
what’s the magnet phone charger with no metal contacts called then?
that’s what i meant…
em dash em dash
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 187d
Qi? Maybe Apple reused the term for the phone charger too, but it was originally for the MacBook pros, then later MacBook airs, and the whole line, besides an annoying usb c only model or two.
That’s annoying as hell if they did that.
My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 188d
Maybe it means the kinetic energy of the wind, which I believe scales against its velocity-squared?
XeroxCool@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 188d
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)
RamRabbit@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 189d
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.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 189d
Still better than coal
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 188d
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/utility-scale/texas-hailstorm-damages-thousands-of-solar-panels-at-350-mw-farm/
bob_lemon@feddit.org · 3 pts · 187d
altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 23 pts · 188d
Posting them around rich people's private airfields would improve their footprint even further.
ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth · 17 pts · 188d
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
Jolteon@lemmy.zip · 10 pts · 188d
It'd be interesting to see the cost efficiency of that versus traditional wind turbines over the expected lifespan of both.
bryndos@fedia.io · 13 pts · 188d
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.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 189d
Cool. How do they perform maintenance?
murmelade@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 189d
Just throw a dart at it and wait for it to come down.
empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 14 pts · 189d
If it's tethered, the tether can winch it down to ladder truck range.
That or helicopter.
Almacca@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 188d
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.
5too@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 188d
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!
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 188d
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.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 189d
Unfortunately, I could not find a link to the manual.
tleb@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 189d
Does it have batteries on board? How does it connect the power to the grid? O_o
MBech@feddit.dk · 19 pts · 189d
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.
RaoulDook@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 188d
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.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 188d
Depending on how the turbine is set up, it could generate AC power instead of DC. I believe they even have several options on how to do this.
Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 188d
If only there was a giant cable it was tethered to that could also carry electricity.
Nindelofocho@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 187d
USB-C
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 189d
It's obviously attached with wires. It can't just float around and generate energy.
tleb@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 188d
You say obviously but I don't see how tethering a loose object with 5000ft of live wire is "obviously" safe
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 188d
We're surrounded by live wire all the time. They're insulated, it's fine.
meco03211@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 188d
Oh. That makes it better.
Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 188d
Our houses has loads of live wires, we know how to do it safely nowadays.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 1 pts · 188d
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 188d
Through a HV cable run to the ground, along with the cable to anchor it.
stringere@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 188d
So precise
Um... so 2,203 pounds?
FjordDan@lemmy.zip · 18 pts · 188d
Altitude: 1500 meters
Weight: Under 1000kg
stringere@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 188d
Makes so much more sense that it was originally in metric but looks weird translated to imperial.
Trilogy3452@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 188d
They should've went with football fields instead, and weight in washing machines
stringere@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 188d
Or when you need really impressive numbers for weight: oak leaves.
Maple leaves in Canada. Ha ha just kidding because they use metric like the rest of the civilised world.
Wolf314159@startrek.website · 1 pts · 187d
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):
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 188d
Is anyone else getting aeon flux vibs?
Rooster326@programming.dev · 1 pts · 188d
Feeling like like Hindenburg up in here
humanspiral@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 188d
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.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 189d
somegeek@programming.dev · -11 pts · 188d
Lot's of birds will be shredded
chronicledmonocle@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 188d
Have data to prove that? Because existing wind turbines hardly kill any birds. That's oil lobby shit leaking through.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 188d
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.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 188d
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.
WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 185d
doesn't this use elevations compared to sea level? while the elevation of this turbine is compared to local ground level