Windy_Skies | 2021-03-01 11:54:32 UTC | #1 [b][/b][b][/b][b][/b][b][/b] ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-01 12:25:00 UTC | #2 [quote="tallakt, post:1, topic:1608"] **Efficiency**: I think the KiteGoodness number is quite good to describe this. Unfortunately I could not find the source for this right now. [/quote] A search for *goodness*, *kite*, and *tether* gave me these results. The first few talk about *goodness of fit*: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/9/2367/htm https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jesus-Lago/publication/307593772_Periodic_Optimal_Control_and_Model_Predictive_Control_of_a_Tethered_Kite_for_Airborne_Wind_Energy/links/57cbf16808ae59825184659a/Periodic-Optimal-Control-and-Model-Predictive-Control-of-a-Tethered-Kite-for-Airborne-Wind-Energy.pdf >https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/we.2343 LiDAR‐based characterization of mid‐altitude wind conditions for airborne wind energy systems) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0091184 https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/research/RAF-Historical-Society-Journals/Journal-54.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e540e7fb9d1816038da0314/t/5f21edad94f7832d9b1a31bf/1596059082636/Rewiring_America_Field_Manual.pdf Book by Saul Griffith: >In the meantime, however, the wind industry at large also made historic strides, and is now routinely deploying turbines at 4–5¢/kWh. In 2020, Makani shut down due to this evaporated advantage. The technology and execution were sound, but the industry found its own way to slash costs, just by the improvements that come deploying at massive scale. Despite the fact that Makani’s technology didn’t win the cost battle, it was part of an enormous movement and ecosystem of global innovators responsible for driving down costs and making wind, solar, and batteries competitive with fossil fuels. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/717149.pdf >AIR FORCE CAMBRIDGE RESEARCH LABORATORIES S L. G. HANSCOM FIELD, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS Proceedings, Sixth AFCRL Scientific Balloon Symposium ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-01 12:44:59 UTC | #3 [ FibreTrac 1500 MacGregor's Fibre Rope crane](https://youtu.be/k4KrS9adeEU?t=186) >low tension spooling and storage significant increase in rope lifetime @rschmehl: Do some yoyo designs have this? Are there drawbacks? Perhaps doing this would make it easier to add more kite tethers to the drive shaft? ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-03-01 15:00:52 UTC | #4 [quote="Windy_Skies, post:2, topic:1610"] The technology and execution were sound, but the industry found its own way to slash costs, just by the improvements that come deploying at massive scale. Despite the fact that Makani’s technology didn’t win the cost battle, [/quote] Seems to me the technology, as implemented, just didn't work well. Are we pretending it was just off by a few cents, and otherwise worked fine? If so it would be in use today, since costs could be cut over time in this as well. Sheesh! ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-02 10:20:46 UTC | #5 https://appliedecologistsblog.com/2021/03/02/editors-choice-583-eagle-fatalities-are-reduced-by-automated-curtailment-of-wind-turbines/ ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-02 10:42:58 UTC | #6 https://www.reddit.com/r/CFD/comments/lvpuya/i_just_published_the_first_validated_version_of/ [quote] In late 2018, I became curious about biological flight. To sate this curiosity, I wanted to computationally simulate some flapping wing fliers. I quickly realized I had two options: 1. Spend thousands of dollars on a closed-source CFD program, which would take hours to solve a simple case. 2. Try to learn someone else's open-source, unsteady solver written in a language I didn't know, and using a framework that is overly complicated for my use case. Neither of these seemed like the right choice. Thankfully, my friend, Peter Sharpe, had just released his own open-source aerodynamics solver: AeroSandbox. With his blessing, I have used AeroSandbox as a jumping-off point to develop a solver package capable of unsteady simulations. Through the combined efforts of Peter Sharpe, Suhas Kodali, and me, Ptera Software was born. It is the only easy-to-use, open-source, and actively-maintained UVLM package I know capable of analyzing flapping wing flight. Moreover, it's written in Python, is well documented, and is well tested. With your help, I hope we will increase the open-source community's interest and understanding of biological flight. [/quote] ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-02 10:29:33 UTC | #7 https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/lvk0vb/p_silly_bot_to_watch_my_backyard_and_detect/ ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-05 13:33:37 UTC | #9 https://www.altenergymag.com/news/2021/03/04/efficient-motors-deliver-30-reduction-in-net-solar-energy-system-costs-a-new-report-finds-/34687 ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-05 13:42:28 UTC | #10 https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions-search?data-check-lvl-1%5B2%5D=Affordable+and+clean+energy ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-05 13:55:08 UTC | #11 https://vimeo.com/386198203 Witt Subsea Feasibility Study Video_31st Jan 2019 ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-05 14:23:23 UTC | #12 https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/joulia-twinline ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-05 14:30:15 UTC | #13 https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/kite-turbines https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/enerkite-ek200 https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/wind-energy-2-0 https://solarimpulse.com/efficient-solutions/skypull-airborne-wind-energy ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-09 15:47:51 UTC | #14 https://www.reddit.com/r/AerospaceEngineering/comments/m14gwx/the_wearable_glider_is_getting_simpler/ ------------------------- tallakt | 2021-03-09 16:43:27 UTC | #15 This one may well be the future of AWE ;) ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-21 10:51:42 UTC | #16 https://www.reddit.com/r/RenewableEnergy/comments/m6afce/good_vibrations_bladeless_turbines_could_bring/graalp4/ ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-03-21 11:21:49 UTC | #17 https://www.esi-africa.com/news/nigerian-solar-systems-provider-commits-to-recycling-batteries/ ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-04-10 22:26:49 UTC | #18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDGguSKRiQY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4fklg-JOG4 ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-04-27 17:27:55 UTC | #19 Some discussion on the benefits and drawbacks of VAWTs and HAWTs: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/mzn7cy/new_research_has_found_that_the_vertical_turbine/ ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-02 08:25:09 UTC | #20 https://www.windpowerengineering.com/vertical-axis-wind-turbines-deserve-a-second-look-says-inventor/ > An idea from the geodesic dome struck him: use pairs of cables that cross so they form triangles with the blade. It was Buckminster Fuller’s idea for his dome. It uses a pattern of self bracing triangles for maximum structural advantage. “I manipulated the cables in many configurations until I came across what I thought, was the correct number of cables crossing at the right locations,” says Lux. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-02 15:32:14 UTC | #21 Like Led Zeppelin said, "The Song Remains the Same". :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-02 16:03:47 UTC | #22 Hi Doug, Yes! https://www.luxwindpower.com/wind-turbine > ## **+** Advantages > > • The blade and cross cable system eliminates or reduces all problems associated with previous Vertical Axis Wind turbines including reduced vibrations, torque ripple and premature blade failure. The power output is improved, especially in low winds, by using an advanced blade profile and by building a rotor with a larger swept area. This is practical because the blade and cable system is light in weight and therefore relatively inexpensive. The ½ cost analysis includes this larger swept area. > > • The tower at the bottom of the rotor is short but the equator of the rotor, on megawatt machines, is as high or higher than the hubs of conventional turbines, therefore, taking advantage of higher wind speeds that occur at higher elevations. > > • All of the mechanical and electrical components are at ground level. This makes it easier to erect and also reduces maintenance costs and also makes it a more practical vertical axis wind turbine for residential areas. > > • A yaw system is not required because this turbine accepts wind from all directions. > > • The blades do not need to be pitched, which eliminates the need for the large diameter slewing bearings, retainers and hydraulic components. The blade speed and power output is controlled by aerodynamic stall. > > • According to Dr. John Dabiri at Stanford University, counter rotating Vertical Axis Wind Turbines can be spaced closer together than conventional Horizontal Axis Wind Turbines https://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.3656.pdf. This is advantageous because most high wind speed sites are already occupied by widely spaced conventional wind turbines. > > • The blades on the prototypes are made from aluminum, which are extruded at relatively low costs. However, since the blades experience only small deflections, they could be made from a wide range of materials or a combination of materials. Conventional wind turbine blades have large deflections, therefore, their material selection is limited. > > • The blade profile is constant from one end to the other. Manufacturing this blade is much easier than manufacturing the conventional wind turbine blade, which has a profile that changes in width and curvature along its entire length. > > • The blades can be made in sections and assembled like tent poles. This is possible because the blades are always in compression, unlike all other wind turbine blades that change from tension to compression through each cycle. The blade sections are easy to transport and assemble. I think you've heard of Dr. Dabiri before, and also VAWT :wink:. That said if we keep talking about AWES, then why not VAWT? One of the points of the last posts is the higher density assumption for a VAWT farm: maybe some deductions could be drawn for AWE ... ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-02 18:52:32 UTC | #23 [quote="PierreB, post:22, topic:1610"] I think you’ve heard of Dr. Dabiri before [/quote] Hi Pierre: All I can say is: Blah blah blah blah blah - yup heard it all before as we know. People in wind energy know better when they see "research" such as Dabiri's. Endless attempts to "rescue" bad wind turbine designs. It is academic beard-stroking versus practical experience. One demands results, the other merely seeks additional funding. Always an excuse. Why are vertical-axis turbines never placed on a tall tower? Why does a Dabiri talk of placing smaller **vertical-axis** turbines between regular turbines at a windfarm, without comparing his concept to placing small **horizontal-axis** turbines between existing large turbines at a windfarm? To me it is one more case of "grasping at straws" to try and "rescue" long-disproven or at least ill-advised configurations. A shell-game to dupe people who refuse to think it through. It gets worse - there are still crackpots promoting (200% solidity!) Savonius turbines out there. I sat with the founders of Kleiner Perkins trying to explain why their "Flowdesign" (later called "Ogin") turbines with a funnel would not work out. They maintained "This time it's different" because their particular "Professor Crackpot" told them their new version of the old bad design would suddenly be better than the state-of-the-art, due to some minor contours added to the inside of their funnel. I tried to point out that the reason large-scale wind energy was even viable was the low solidity of the rotor, which required far less material engineered to withstand a 100 mph+ wind, and how could they realistically plan to build giant 100% solidity funnels around utility-scale wind turbines(?!?!?!), and what would they make them from(?!?!?!?!) and how much material might it take(?!?!?!?!) and how much might these giant funnels weigh(?!?!?!?), how much might they cost(?!?!?!?!?), how could they possibly support such monstrosities while maintaining the ability to aim(?!?!?!?!?). They have no answer except Professor Crackpot said some added swirly contours inside the funnels would be so great that nothing else (normal facts) would matter. You can say the same for hydrogen as energy storage or as a fuel. Compared to batteries that give back 90% of the energy put in, hydrogen loses so much during electrolysis, compression or liquification, and recovery, that there is literally almost no energy returned at the end, but that doesn't stop people from saying it is the answer. Elon Musk begs to differ. Seems like an emotional derangement syndrome where facts just don't matter, while the lemmings run toward the cliff. A big part of it is if investors don't bother to understand what they are investing in, there is unlimited funding available from people who know accounting but not science or engineering. Same shizzle, different day - the song remains the same! :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-02 22:48:08 UTC | #24 [quote="dougselsam, post:23, topic:1610"] Why does a Dabiri talk of placing smaller **vertical-axis** turbines between regular turbines at a windfarm, without comparing his concept to placing small **horizontal-axis** turbines between existing large turbines at a windfarm? [/quote] https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.3656.pdf > Table 1. Comparison of VAWT and HAWT power density. The power density is calculated as > the turbine rated power divided by the area of the circular footprint swept by the turbine rotor > blades when rotated in yaw by 360 degrees. > Turbine Type Rated Power (MW) Rotor Diameter (m) Power Density (W/m2) > VAWT 0.0012 1.2 1061 > HAWT 2.5 100 318 > HAWT 3.0 112 304 ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-03 00:42:26 UTC | #25 This is from the reference cited: "Whereas modern wind farms consisting of HAWTs produce 2 to 3 watts of power per square meter of land area, these field tests indicate that **power densities *an order of magnitude greater* can potentially be achieved** by arranging VAWTs in layouts that enable them to extract energy from adjacent wakes and from above the wind farm." Pierre, in wind energy, there has never been a shortage of clueless people who spew never-ending nonsense promoting "alternative" designs for wind turbines. There is only so much power going through a given area or volume, and extracting any of it slows the wind, clogging the entire volume or area with dead air, causing the wind to go around rather than through that volume or area, making further extraction more difficult. I'd say if this guy were accurate, you'd definitely see windfarms using his concept by now, since any developer would obviously jump at the chance to get 10 times the output from the same land area. Not sure about "table 1" but I've never heard of anyone calculating power density in this manner that "appears" to favor vertical-axis turbines. Whacky stuff. Wind energy is a brutal sport that quickly determines winners and losers by destroying the losers, either physically, or financially. As I've pointed out many times, wind energy is a magnet for crackpots, (and AWE is a neodymium super-magnet) since **the wind is invisible, so people can imagine it doing whatever they wish**, except their "wish" is seldom accurate or pertinent. I really regretted posting on this topic the first time after I looked up when I was done and found I had wasted something like 45 minutes trying to explain, once again, the folly of Dabiri or anyone else promoting inaccurate information based on half-truths. He actually makes little-to-no sense whatsoever, and I doubt if you can find any person in the **actual** wind energy industry who takes him the least bit seriously. Who is installing his BS today, anyone? Why not, because he's so smart and they are so dumb? I'm sorry but after the Altaeros charade, MIT is losing credibility with me. Good talkers can make almost anything sound reasonable to people who don't know any better, but the acid test is whether someone can separate fact from fantasy and real useful levels of economic output from fictional contrivances that only sound good "on-paper" to inexperienced newbies who don't know any better and are not adept at applying simple logic to outrageous statements and exaggerated claims. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-05 00:03:15 UTC | #26 A difficult secondary use (farming) could result from a high density of small VAWT. In the other hand perhaps VAWT could be interesting if some structural features are studied to reach scaling more than any HAWT while the implementation is facilitated, above all offshore. See below the available publication confirming some favorable structural features: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276078069_Darrieus_vertical_axis_wind_turbine_for_power_generation_II_Challenges_in_HAWT_and_the_opportunity_of_multi-megawatt_Darrieus_VAWT_development I have maybe some structural ideas for large VAWT offshore, in combination with some other quoted elements [above](https://forum.awesystems.info/t/slow-chat/1610/20). ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-05 13:59:57 UTC | #27 [quote="PierreB, post:26, topic:1610"] A difficult secondary use (farming) could result from a high density of small VAWT. In the other hand perhaps VAWT could be interesting if some structural features are studied to reach scaling more than any HAWT while the implementation is facilitated, above all offshore. [/quote] Hi Pierre: I would think farming under conventional windfarms would be fairly straightforward. I think farmers in the midwest already enjoy turbines in their fields as an additional "crop". If anything, having a bunch of Dabiri vertical-axis turbines littering the ground below the regular turbines would prevent farming, rather than facilitating farming. As a wind inventor, of course I share your urge to leave no stone unturned, including vertical-axis designs of various sorts. Ideas for better designs need to be tried out, not just talked about in vague terms. Things can look really good on paper, but have major problems when actually built and run. That is why we do not see any vertical-axis machines in windfarms today. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-06 19:19:06 UTC | #28 Page 564 from the [link above](https://forum.awesystems.info/t/slow-chat/1610/26): > The blades are made in pieces, and are joint using Crystic Crestomer 1152 PA, which is a carbon and glass fibers adhesive. The design, which is not applicable for HAWT, lowers the costs in manufacturing and transportation compared to a one-piece blade. Below there is also an analysis of the potential of scaling for VAWT offshore: https://www.evwind.es/2012/07/31/offshore-wind-energy-vertical-axis-wind-turbines/20634 I think that perhaps the rotary part of a giant VAWT could be a carousel, allowing to benefit from both higher speed for the generator, and a more resistant and stable rotary basis, as shown on the sketch below: ![Wind dome with a central mast|389x500](upload://rlmYbEdqxxW1pCriFLAD3M5uWGZ.png) ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-06 22:58:11 UTC | #29 Hello Pierre: What you describe has long been one of my favorite pet configurations - agreed. Wish I could build and run one of every idea that comes to my mind! Still, let's remember all of the inherent detractive aspects of VAWTs. No matter how much we may imagine rescuing the concept, there are basic reasons why we seldom see one running. Higher cost, more material, lower efficiency, slower rotation, strong bending forces on the blades, reversing twice with every rotation, etc., etc., etc. You know the drill. Still, those of us with "enquiring minds" can't quite let go of possibilities! It is though, always funny to see the next PhD run through the gauntlet of promoting one more weak attempt to save the verticals, not comprehending any of these basic facts to start with. :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-07 06:55:27 UTC | #30 [quote="dougselsam, post:29, topic:1610"] reversing twice with every rotation [/quote] Hi Doug, roughly the same with SuperTurbine (tm) and other tilted autogyro-like machines. ------------------------- Rodread | 2021-05-07 07:36:50 UTC | #31 With a tip speed ratio >5 and a hollow axis >span - apparent wind stays fairly constant across the blade on a tilted autogyro ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-07 08:25:22 UTC | #32 [quote="dougselsam, post:29, topic:1610"] Higher cost, more material, lower efficiency, slower rotation, strong bending forces on the blades, reversing twice with every rotation, etc., etc., etc. [/quote] So, why not HAWT arranged on a geodesic dome, reputed to be one of the most solid structures in relation to its weight? The dome rotates according to wind direction: ![dôme portant des éoliennes|295x252](upload://4BsyOtCuAV0q0haMwy3Ov8y9HOk.png) The objective is to overcome the distances imposed by separate units due to changes in wind direction, while also harnessing high altitude winds for HAWT settled in the top. A wind farm still takes up too much space. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-07 15:32:29 UTC | #33 [quote="PierreB, post:30, topic:1610"] Hi Doug, roughly the same with SuperTurbine ™ and other tilted autogyro-like machines. [/quote] Hi Pierre: The main forces on a blade stay fairly constant for a propeller-type rotor, hollow or not, compared to cross-axis reversing forces on a VAWT, which, added to the slower rotation requiring more blade surface, is why their blades can often require so much more material to accomplish the same energy extraction, depending on the exact design. Would-be designers can keep their head buried in the sand, or figure out why there are essentially near-zero working vertical-axis machines out there, compared to the vast multitude of regular machines. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-07 15:41:43 UTC | #34 [quote="PierreB, post:32, topic:1610"] So, why not HAWT arranged on a geodesic dome, reputed to be one of the most solid structures in relation to its weight? The dome rotates according to wind direction: ![dôme portant des éoliennes|295x252](upload://4BsyOtCuAV0q0haMwy3Ov8y9HOk) The objective is to overcome the distances imposed by separate units due to changes in wind direction, while also harnessing high altitude winds for HAWT settled in the top. A wind farm still takes up too much space. [/quote] Many such structures could be worth a try. There have been several multi-turbine support structures built and run in the past. Seems like conflicting resonant frequencies are the problem they end up having. Many windfarms are in predominantly unidirectional wind resources. The turbines are still spaced for best economic return. I think they place as many turbines as they can while still getting good performance. Overcrowding of turbines negatively affects performance by creating large volumes of stagnant air. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-07 19:31:58 UTC | #35 [quote="dougselsam, post:34, topic:1610"] Overcrowding of turbines negatively affects performance by creating large volumes of stagnant air. [/quote] On https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344902649_So_many_decisions_to_make_so_little_time page 61: ![image|353x500](upload://mDiFdy0ysaS3cDSpXKtJMvZ5Usg.jpeg) On the picture above, all wind turbines face the wind. There is no turbines downwind. So they can fill the space. There is an orientation system rotating the full rack. On the dome, the wind turbines share the frontal airspace in a similar way. So according to a preliminary approach, there is no wind shadow on the wind turbines behind, a little like for SuperTurbine (tm) where all rotors harness "fresh" wind. I think a dome could be easier to use than the rack above, above all concerning wind changes. ------------------------- gordon_sp | 2021-05-08 12:17:32 UTC | #36 The problem with a geodesic support is that the turbines must be mounted on a cantilever arm to avoid hitting the dome. This problem gets worse towards the top of the dome where the cantilever is longer and wind forces are greater. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-08 12:33:05 UTC | #37 [quote="dougselsam, post:33, topic:1610"] The main forces on a blade stay fairly constant for a propeller-type rotor, hollow or not [/quote] Yes for a HAWT, but for a tilted rotor of type autogyro the advancing blade undergoes more relative wind than the retreating blade. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-08 12:43:42 UTC | #38 Perhaps by modifying the mesh, allowing the insertion of wind turbines. Indeed, if we install cantilever arms, we lose the possible structural advantage of the dome. Another problem is the wind shadow caused by the structure. That's why I might come back to the VAWT dome (see [above](https://forum.awesystems.info/t/slow-chat/1610/28)). ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-05-08 17:20:02 UTC | #39 https://www.reddit.com/r/manufacturing/comments/n7bsnk/where_do_firsttime_entrepreneurs_inventors_go_to/gxddgz3/ ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-10 14:12:23 UTC | #40 [quote="PierreB, post:37, topic:1610"] Yes for a HAWT, but for a tilted rotor of type autogyro the advancing blade undergoes more relative wind than the retreating blade. [/quote] Pierre: true enough, there is a variation, but that is nothing compared to a vertical-axis turbine which undergoes a complete reversal of forces 2x per rotation, with the main forces being perpendicular to the blade, no less. OMG! "Hello, may I thpeak with Profethor Crackpot pleathe? Thir, we have an emergenthy!" ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-10 16:37:06 UTC | #41 Doug: it is not for nothing that De la Cierva invented flapping hinges in order to solve the dissymmetry of lift, preventing the blades from breaking. Concerning VAWT I think there is some possibility for giant installations (about 1000 meters diameter and more) lengthening the rotation time, such like the device on the sketch below: https://www.maxwindpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/3newVAWT.pdf The too low density in a farm of HAWT is a crucial problem. If giant VAWT are implementable the density issue can be solved, at least for offshore wind turbines: a single VAWT becomes like a farm of HAWT whose units are scattered over too large areas. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-10 17:05:33 UTC | #42 [quote="PierreB, post:41, topic:1610"] The too low density in a farm of HAWT is a crucial problem. [/quote] Hi again Pierre: Of course "everyone" knows about the variations on blades. Even the very large regular horizontal-axis machines face a pulsation of blade loading (wind speed) due to the wind gradient and their huge size. Low wind speeds at the lower heights at the bottom of the circle, high wind speeds at the top of the travel path. Even the wind direction can vary with height. Now when you say "the too-low density in a farm of HAWT is **a crucial problem**", well maybe you should get a job with a wind energy developer moving the turbines closer together, or adding smaller turbines in between. See if they will listen. Why choose long-disproven vertical-axis turbines though? Because Dabiri says so? Let's realize the reason for towers is to place turbines higher in the wind gradient. If we add smaller turbines below, it is equivalent in some ways to raising "ground level" to a higher height. Which is like lowering the tower height of the regular large turbines. Adding turbines below would slow the wind down there. The result might be to mix slower air into the wind the larger turbines receive, possibly negating any advantage to adding the smaller turbines. A large part of the wind energy industry involves "repowering" windfarms, which means plucking out the old, smaller turbines and replaciing them with modern larger turbines. I've never heard of a repowering effort that left the old, smaller turbines in place. Why might that be? I've wondered myself what harm it does to leave the old turbines in place. Probably a lot of it has to do with visual clutter, how many turbines they have a permit for, how difficult it would be to get approval for adding a higher number of turbines, etc. Then again they might have figured out that smaller turbines below would not add to total energy capture. Do current engineers and scientists have no idea what they are doing, and they should be tuned into our chat groups to get a clue from us smart people? Should they be hanging on Dabiri's every misguided notion? Well, maybe. Or maybe windfarm developers **do** know their art fairly well, and it is Dabiri and our chat groups don't really understand the subject matter very well. :) ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-10 22:13:18 UTC | #43 Doug, as soon as we speak about VAWT, you evoke the works of Dabiri by a sort of Pavlovian reflex. My previous messages are not about the arrangement of Dr. Dabiri but, among several things, about a large diameter carousel VAWT. For example if a 1000 meters diameter and 150 meters high VAWT is implementable, it would harness a frontal airspace of 150,000 m² (even perhaps almost two times as the leeward row is far enough from the first row) , by using less than 1 km² sea use. Spacing requirement means that in 1 km² only one or two 15,000 m² HAWT can be implemented. According to the current state of the art wind energy cannot compete with fossil fuels or nuclear energy, because of their too low density, in addition to their intermittence. So we should examine some other possibilities. Yes, "the too low density in a farm of HAWT is a crucial problem." On the other hand if alpha and omega are in the relative success of wind farms as they exist, then we should stop all those innovations that have little or no market reality such as AWE and multi-rotor structures. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-11 00:02:47 UTC | #44 [quote="PierreB, post:43, topic:1610"] Doug, as soon as we speak about VAWT, you evoke the works of Dabiri by a sort of Pavlovian reflex. [/quote] Well Pierre, you echo some Dabiri assumptions that I believe are questionable. The specific text I replied to was "The too low density in a farm of HAWT is a crucial problem." Funny, I've never heard that before from any knowledgeable wind energy person, but Dabiri seems to agree. Like I mentioned, I am not aware of anyone in the wind energy industry taking Dabiri seriously. This is reminiscent of some know-it-all with a PhD on the radio a few years ago who derisively claimed that most of the energy was obviously slipping through HAWT rotors due to the blade spacing. He obviously did not know the first thing about wind energy, yet believed he knew far better than actual turbine designers, with his naive, beginner-esque, first impression, 100% wrong "observation", on the level of something a first-grader might say, before the basics of wind energy were explained to him. Here's another one for you. I've often mentioned this particular university project that forced air through a Savonius turbine in a wind tunnel, and published the favorable results. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228818185_Development_of_Optimum_Design_Configuration_and_Performance_for_Vertical_Axis_Wind_Turbine Did he really improve the Savonius concept? Hard to say, but he could have doubled the unimpressive performance of a Savonius, and it would not matter - they would still be the worst performing type of turbine known. While I point out the dismal track record of vertical-axis machines for the purpose of informing people who really are not well-educated in wind energy, that doesn't mean I'm not also attracted to the same types of designs you point out, including giant vertical-axis machines. I've thought of most of them for years. Remember "Laddermill"? Just one more idea I originally thought of. With regard to offshore, you may remember I was recently granted two (2) patents that cover most designs for floating offshore wind installations. The popular "spar-buoy" floating wind turbine foundation is just one of the many floating designs being promoted, covered by my patents. The reason these patents were granted was because it was determined that I was indeed the original inventor of the single-turbine-on-a-buoy concept. So I'm pretty happy to see my original idea now changing the world, but I have further ideas, including many of the vertical-axis configurations we commonly read about, some of which you have mentioned. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-11 05:02:45 UTC | #45 Many people are protesting against the various impacts of wind turbines. The low density due to the need for spacing between units contributes to their scattering over very large areas. And it is difficult to conceive of a HAWT unit of the size of a small thermal power plant. On the other hand, configurations of giant VAWT carousels could perhaps allow it. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-11 14:59:31 UTC | #46 [quote="PierreB, post:45, topic:1610"] The low density due to the need for spacing between units contributes to their scattering over very large areas. [/quote] Well Pierre, When I start to consider such structures, I note factors such as 1) How to support blades at a speed of 4 times the wind speed, so in a 30 mph wind, your blades are traveling at 120 MPH. 2) 4 G's of centrifugal force, even at a 1-mile diameter 3) How big, How heavy? How to support against centrifugal force and the reversing wind force? 4) Blades only effective during portions of the travel 5) Possible shielding of downwind blade by upwind blades 6) suboptimal blade performance even at the most effective portions of the circle, due to no camber 7) Tunnels or bridges to get inside the circle? Here are pictures of rows of turbines in Tehachapi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehachapi_Pass_wind_farm#/media/File:Kluft-photo-Tehachapi-Wind-Farm-Feb-2008-Img_0437.jpg The rows are spaced apart enough to allow fresh wind to dilute the expanding, slow-moving wakes of the previous row. I agree that a mega-large rotating structure sounds good in some ways, but someone would have to provide sufficient details of something workable. To just pick a few factors "out of the air", without a complete analysis is how the "Professor Crackpots" of the world like to operate. But you can't just pick out a few favorable aspects to consider - the whole picture must be examined. I like the "idea" of coming up with this "idea", but at some point, we would need a complete "idea" to consider, not just an idea for an idea. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-11 15:34:58 UTC | #47 Hi Doug, I don't tell that a giant VAWT carousel will work, but we can examine it. Centrifugal force $F = m v²/r$ where m is the moving mass, v is the tangential speed, r is the radius. When the radius is 10 times higher, centrifugal force is 10 times lesser. So a large diameter is a significant factor for a lower centrifugal force. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/centrifugal-force I think Tehachapi Pass wind farm is for predominant wind, allowing low spacing between the turbines in the same row. This is not possible for many other wind farms where all wind directions are more or less considered. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-11 18:02:12 UTC | #48 Pierre: Yeah I was going to say, check my math. I got 4.5 m/s^2 and too quickly thought 4.5 G's (sounded a bit high at that size) - wrong - more like half a G, sorry about that. Thanks for the link to the calculator. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-11 22:57:07 UTC | #49 Doug, I am examining your other observations: although they are relevant, I think some problems can be solved. I will try to detail later. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-12 01:22:23 UTC | #50 [quote="PierreB, post:47, topic:1610"] a giant VAWT carousel will work [/quote] Pierre: I'd surmise such a thing would "work", Believe it or not, I spend a good amount of time thinking of such configurations myself. It's what happens when you suffer from CSIS: (Can't Stop Inventing Shit). Oh wait, I think my mommy said it should be "Can't Stop Inventing STUFF". (Can't stop inventing FLUFF?) (Marshmallow Fluff?) As I've always maintained, there are a myriad (million?) ways to extract SOME energy from the wind, at SOME cost. The idea is to do it less expensively than competing wind systems or energy sources in general. I mean, dude, riding a bicycle across the country will "work" but how many people want to bother? What about blindfolded with a guide dog? Maybe a tricycle? It *could* "work"... Competing with the airlines? Probably not. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-12 06:10:40 UTC | #51 Doug, the complete quote is: [quote="PierreB, post:47, topic:1610"] I don’t tell that a giant VAWT carousel will work, but we can examine it. [/quote] If a giant VAWT carousel is feasible, the power/km² would increase drastically compared to a farm of HAWT whose unities are largely spaced due to wind change requirement. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-12 12:18:51 UTC | #52 [quote="PierreB, post:51, topic:1610"] If a giant VAWT carousel is feasible, the power/km² would increase drastically compared to a farm of HAWT whose unities are largely spaced due to wind change requirement. [/quote] Hi Pierre: OK I was figuring for a carousel one (1) mile across (diameter). So you've got 3.14 miles of blades traveling in a circle. How many miles of blades are working at any moment? Maybe half of them? Many blades will be traveling upwind, downwind, etc. Then you have a circular mile of emptiness inside - how many rows of turbines could fit in that same area? How many turbines would fit in the unused corners of one square mile of land not taken up by the circle? Then also consider whatever physical structure it would take to support over 3 miles of blades traveling at 120 mph, and extract the power. It would be interesting to run some hypothetical numbers on power produced, material required, etc., and compare it to a square mile of regular windfarm. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-12 15:53:38 UTC | #53 [quote="dougselsam, post:52, topic:1610"] Then you have a circular mile of emptiness inside - how many rows of turbines could fit in that same area? [/quote] The question is the frontal airspace as swept area. For a VAWT of one mile diameter with blades of 1/8 mile height (see the [document](https://forum.awesystems.info/t/slow-chat/1610/41) I attached above), the swept area is one rectangle of 1 mile x 1/8 mile. But as such a diameter corresponds roughly to the distance of two rows in a HAWT farm in such a way that the second row is not too penalized by the wind shadow of the first row. The same for a VAWT when the diameter is huge. So the rectangle is roughly multiplied by two. Knowing the coefficient of power of a VAWT is about 0.35-0.4 against 0.45-0.5 for a HAWT whatever the dimensions, you can calculate how many 15 MW HAWT you have to implement in order to achieve the power of a VAWT of one mile x 0.125 mile (and almost 2 times). Then you have to calculate the spacing requirement due to all wind direction possibility. The land use will be far higher. I think @Massimo has well studied carousels of any dimensions, until GW range. I only propose replacing kites with vertical blades. Carousels could scale in any dimensions, not HAWT because of the tower, and the weight of the generator in altitude. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-12 15:52:14 UTC | #54 [quote="PierreB, post:53, topic:1610"] to achieve the power of a VAWT of one mile x 0.8 mile (almost 2 times) [/quote] Hello Pierre: I think you mean one mile x 0.125 miles. 1/8th of a mile = .125 miles. I'd say let's acknowledge the edges of the circle will probably not contribute much, if any, power, which may be one reason for the lower overall Cp of vertical-axis machines. The other reason might be the non-cambered blades which have to be designed to accept wind from both sides of the airfoils. Regarding the "armchair-genius" link you provided: Note the requirement for the "floating" blades to travel over 100 MPH in the water. That would sap a lot (all?) of the power, if it is even possible. Anyway, have you calculated how many regular turbines it would take to achieve the same output as the mile-across-circle vertical-axis turbine? ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-12 19:02:24 UTC | #55 [quote="dougselsam, post:54, topic:1610"] I think you mean one mile x 0.125 miles. 1/8th of a mile = .125 miles. [/quote] Hi Doug, yes: I just corrected. [quote="dougselsam, post:54, topic:1610"] the lower overall Cp of vertical-axis machines [/quote] Yes, this is well known, so the whole calculation takes into account of the lower efficiency of VAWT. [quote="dougselsam, post:54, topic:1610"] Regarding the “armchair-genius” link you provided: Note the requirement for the “floating” blades to travel over 100 MPH in the water. That would sap a lot (all?) of the power, if it is even possible. [/quote] On the description there is air cushion between the reservoir of water under the blade and the water of the sea. But there is no detail about how air cushion would work. I agree that this point is questionable but it concerns only an use of the carousel as flywheel, not the carousel by itself. Moreover the generator is settled in the center: so as the angular speed is very low, big gear would be required. [quote="dougselsam, post:54, topic:1610"] Anyway, have you calculated how many regular turbines it would take to achieve the same output as the mile-across-circle vertical-axis turbine? [/quote] The solidity could be about .1 or .2. If it is .2, the whole blades would cover one mile X 0.125 mile/5. So it is sure that for an equal power this VAWT carousel would use far more material than HAWT. But in the same time it would use far less land/sea area, and likely less anchors. Below is how a blade could be: https://www.oceanbirdwallenius.com/the-vessel/ ![image|690x453](upload://ksr1d1Q4MKu8zS4u5Ol6ZcQeh94.jpeg) ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-12 19:02:43 UTC | #56 [quote="PierreB, post:55, topic:1610"] The solidity could be about .1 or .2 [/quote] Yes whereas the solidity of HAWTs can be 0.02. But I was not asking about rotor solidity. I was asking how many regular wind turbines it would take to equal the output of such a hypothetical, mile-wide, 1/8 mile tall, vertical-axis wind carousel turbine? I think you mentioned Haliad X from GE? How many of them to equal the 1 x .125 mile carousel? By the way, I like that OceanBird ship design. Telescoping sails - seems like a nice idea!. If those sails were a wind turbine rotor, it would be a high-solidity, low efficiency water-pumper. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-12 20:03:30 UTC | #57 [quote="dougselsam, post:56, topic:1610"] Yes whereas the solidity of HAWTs can be 0.02. [/quote] Yes, but only at the tip blade, and about 0.1 for the whole blade (there is more width and material close to the root). A VAWT can also achieve 0.1. [quote="dougselsam, post:56, topic:1610"] I think you mentioned Haliad X from GE? How many of them to equal the 1 x .125 mile carousel? [/quote] Very approximate calculation: Swept area of 1 x .125 VAWT carousel: about 320,000 m²; power = about 80 MW (perhaps far more by taking account of the leeward row which is far enough from the upwind row, so the power of about 6.6 Haliad); Cp = 0.4; sea use = a square of 2.56 km², so density is 31 MW / km². Swept area of Haliad: 38,000 m²; power = 12 MW; Cp = 0.5; density: less than one unity / km² due to the spacing requirement in all directions (due to wind changes in all directions) of more than 5 widths (rotor diameter 220 m), so about 10 MW / km². Blades would be more narrow that the sails on the photo, and should be connected with cables in order to reinforce them. See also some comparisons on: https://www.maxwindpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/4windfarms.pdf ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-12 20:27:42 UTC | #58 [quote="PierreB, post:57, topic:1610"] the power of about 6.6 Haliad [/quote] OK I'm thinking it would be cheaper to install 7 or even 10 Haliads than to build such a 1-mile ring of blades standing 600 feet tall, traveling at over 100 MPH.. What do you think? ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-13 06:32:43 UTC | #59 Sure, but the question can be: you have only n km² for the complete installation. And each time we double the diameter and the height of the blades (keeping the diameter/height ratio of about 8, allowing the leeward row to be more efficient, perhaps like the second row of a correctly spaced HAWT farm) the power is multiplied per 4... Below is an article (see 1 about "extremely wide VAWT (a low rotor-aspect-ratio)") from Peter Allen Sharp you well know: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/vawts-replace-hawts/ ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-13 13:38:08 UTC | #60 Pierre: Wind Harverst International never got any traction with their vertical-axis designs. Peter Sharp, who also suffersfRom CSIS (can't stop inventing shit) has a lot of interesting ideas, but like most armchair inventors, presents a partial picture, mostly mentioning hypothetical advantages. Unfortunately he does not build realistically well-developed prototypes, but, like Santos from the previous forum, more concentrates on simple, miniature, paper-and-string "talking-point-demo" projects that are easy to build, but only show a bare essence of a possibility for future more comprehensive development by someone more serious about, for example incorporating an actual generator, sufficient construction to withstand a real wind resource, overspeed control, etc. What you're doing is just reciting the long list of "talking point-insistence" by vertical-axis advocates, who are never short of "why won't anyone listen to me?" type "reasoning" but who can never come up with even a single house powered by their "highly-advanced", "why won't you listen to me" insistence on listing all the various brainstorming ideas they can come up with to "prove" the world is just not "getting it" with regard to why vertical-axis "are really" the answer. The same dynamic can be found in other fields, from architecture to engineering to economics, where there will always be someone insisting that the most disproven notions "are really" the "only" answer. At some point, the cartoon character of "Profethor Crackpot", "thpraying thaliva ath he thpeakth", cometh to mind - he ith not rethtricted to wind energy - he ith everywhere!. Look up "Mass MegaWatts" run by a friend of mine. Well-intentioned, and like Wind Harvest, good to know someone tried, but it just never went anywhere. :))) ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-13 16:21:51 UTC | #61 Hi Doug: I try to see if some scheme can work. For example concerning Dabiri's VAWT farm I already indicated (on the old forum) that even if the principle works, the multitude of small VAWT would be far more expensive than a regular farm of HAWT. Perhaps also you remember how I debunked the principle of active lift for VAWT as I pointed the incoherence of the sketches and the explains, beside the principle itself. Numerous schemes comprising VAWT inventions can be debunked on the paper. Hoping to gain a few percentages in order to approach HAWT efficiency is not a good idea. On the other hand, the idea of ​​the carousel deserves (in my opinion) to be dug, because it affects a weak point of HAWT: the lack of scalability (what are 15 or 20 MW beside GW scale of gas or nuclear power plants?) combined with the low density per km². And what do you think of the evolution of AWE? ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-13 17:33:10 UTC | #62 [quote="PierreB, post:61, topic:1610"] Perhaps also you remember how I debunked the principle of active lift for VAWT as I pointed the incoherence of the sketches and the explains, beside the principle itself [/quote] Hi Pierre! I must admit I do not remember what the term "actve lift" referred to in the context you mention. I also agree with you that giant vertical-axis machines seem like a compelling possibility, but also play devil's advocate when I see nobody looking at the downsides. Still, the concept does seem worthy of consideration and perhaps a few teams giving it an actual try rather than just talk-talk-talking about it. AWE? I need to get back to more active status. So many unexplored possibilities! Right now it seems to me most of the big-name, big-money players have eliminated themselves in a Darwinian sense, (they quietly go away) and the last (dying?) gasp in the current popular consciousness is kite-reeling, which always sounds so good, but is still not powering anyone's home, as far as I know. I guess everyone is now supposed to wait as these reeling systems go into "production" and get shipped to a small number of volunteer-guinea-pig "customers". The numbers cited always sound tantalizing, but then we wake up and it was "just a dream"? Time will tell I guess, but we've been saying that for a decade now. We must remember, there are a million ways to get some energy from the wind at some cost, but is any given idea an actual reliable system capable of becoming an economic winner? ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-14 06:54:18 UTC | #63 [quote="dougselsam, post:62, topic:1610"] I do not remember what the term “actve lift” referred to in the context you mention. [/quote] In the old forum: http://www.energykitesystems.net/AirborneWindEnergy/Forum/AWES27143to27192.html (27143 to 27192) and http://www.energykitesystems.net/AirborneWindEnergy/Forum/AWES27092to27142.html (27092 to 27142): a long discussion about "Active Lift Turbine VAWT" and "The gear which does not rotate", ALT = Active Lift Turbine. It is not easy to found the whole discussion but there are some complete messages on these pages. The link for all old messages is http://www.energykitesystems.net/AirborneWindEnergy/OldForumArchive.html. Beside it I think some concepts turn around VAWT carousel such like KiteGen carousel, but with kites. Also I mentioned and linked a study but it is mainly focused about how benefit from a flywheel effect, not the giant VAWT carousel by itself. A possible secondary advantage would be the possibility of blades having the same (reversible as you point) profile on its whole height, allowing an easier building and the possibility to segment them in order to facilitate transport. But also some disadvantages can occur. Making deeper analysis and above all small then bigger prototypes would help to understand better if this can be a solution. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-05-14 09:55:44 UTC | #64 [quote="dougselsam, post:62, topic:1610"] Time will tell [/quote] Regarding AWE in its current form I fear that time has already given its verdict. Now maybe some principles from AWE could help regular (ground-based) wind energy to progress. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-05-14 14:48:05 UTC | #65 [quote="PierreB, post:63, topic:1610"] a long discussion about “Active Lift Turbine VAWT” and “The gear which does not rotate”, ALT = Active Lift Turbine. [/quote] OK Pierre I looked it up - yeah, yeah, active lift. I guess it means adjusting the blades of a vertical-axis wind turbine in real time as they transit a circular path - an old idea, and the typical attempt to do this involves adding a tail to the vertical-axis turbine so it can "know" the wind direction. Of course it could be accomplished by other means. This is the first typical knee-jerk adjustment to try and "rescue" the vertical-axis concept. It's like extolling the virtues of a two-wheel vehicle, but then adding more wheels to "stabilize" it. Like making a protein milkshake to lose weight, then adding lots of ice-cream at the last minute to make it taste good. Interesting concept, but note how we are first drawn into exploring the vertical-axis space with individual aspects such as "doesn't need to aim - responds to wind from any direction". But as the problems are pointed out, they change their tune: "Oh, well if you **really** want it to work well, we have to make it change its configuration in real time due to the wind direction." So you start out saying even though it spins slower, needs way more material, breaks down all the time, never emerges as a winner, but, its advantage is being simple and able to respond to wind from any direction without the need to aim, then the first thing they do is negate that single advantage - now it still has most of the bad features, but it gives up its single stated "good" feature - now it needs to "aim". Professor Crackpot tripping over his own feet? Maybe he left his brain at home that day. Anyway, yes it does seem like continually aiming the blades for optimal power extraction at any point would be advantageous. Even the big horizontal-axis turbines adjust the pitch of the blades continuously. But what I see is that addressing the weak points of vertical-axis turbines involves throwing away whatever stated redeeming (good) qualities originally used to convince anyone to try them in the first place. Step 1) Use this design because of the simplicity. Step 2) Throw away the simplicity so it "works better". Oh well, it is an interesting topic. :) ------------------------- Rodread | 2021-05-14 19:47:25 UTC | #66 Just add a bunch of little winglets to the vertical blades Winglets in the horizontal plane (like plane wings) would add lift to the structure when it rotates But only when... Could help lower ground support drag ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-05-14 22:56:09 UTC | #67 This looks like a @JoeFaust list, last edited in 2013: [quote] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_airborne_wind_energy_organizations#List_potentials: ## List potentials: * Beuth Hochschule für Technik Berlin * California Institute of Technology, Caltech * California State University, Chico * California State University, Sacramento VideoSrProj * Cape Peninsula University of Technology South Africa M3830 * Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) * EAGLE * Chalmers University * Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel wiki * ETH, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich * Energieerzeugung mit Flugdrachen * KiteSA KITESA KITES Kite Information and Technology Exchange Society * Kite Power Coop. CEO: Rod Read * K.U. Leuven Leuven Kite Power Group, Belgium * ERC HighWind * Kyoto University * LiTH in Sweden: * Loughborough University * National Open University of Nigeria NOUN * Nautilabs, project robokite * New York University. Zhang Lab * Polytechnic Torino - Italy * Purdue University * Princeton University * Rowan University * EHAWK * Royal Institute of Technology of Sweden * Russian Academy of Sciences * Research Institute of Mechanical Engineering Problems, St. Petersburg, Russia * RMIT University * Sheffield University * Stanford University * SwissKitePower | Team | GenLnk * FHNW, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland * EMPA * ETH * Tampere University of Technology, Finland * TU Delft Kitepower * Technische Universiteit Delft * TU Delft University, Netherlands * ASSET Institute * TU Kaiserslautern, Germany * TU Munich, Windward Energy * TU Munich, Green Wings * TUM | Greenwing | unternehmertum * Union H.S.: Tod Heiles * University of Bari * University of Cambridge * University of Heidelberg; * Ruprecht-Karl University of Heidelberg * Interdisciplinary Center for Scientific Computing (IWR) * University of Grenoble * University of Groningen * University of Ibadan * University of Joseph Fourier, France * University of Limerick * University of Maine * University of Oulu * University of Sussex * CCNR * University of Texas, Austin * University of Wuppertal * Uppsala University * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * Washington State University * WPI KPTeam * Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) * The UPWIND Energy Research Group * Consortia, holding companies, * KiteLab Group (KG) * NOKE Srl Not Only Karma Energy * WOW Over 130 partners. WOW SpA, a holding company * WOW W3 Investment Ltd. * WOW - WIND OPERATIONS WORLDWIDE CORP. * WOW America * AWEC * Daidalos Fund * Upper WindPower * Kite Energy, Wayne German, owner. _________ * IP only * FlygenKite * AWE training, education, job preparation, pilot training * Kite Pilot School * 2nd Generation Wind * 3Tier _ * Advanced Rotorcraft Technology * AeroEolica * AEOLICARUS Project * Aeroíx * Aerology Lab * Airbine * AirborneWindEnergy * Airborne Wind Energy Labs, Leonid Goldstein * AirPlay * Alstom (Switzerland) * Altius Wind Energy * Altaeros Energies * Alula Energy * Ampyx Power * Assystems * Atena Engineering Gmbh * Austin Technology Incubator * Avian Energy * Baseload Energy * Boeing * CMNA | CMNA Power * CyberKite * Clipper WindPower * Crosswind Power Systems * Dave Lang & Associates * DESERTEC project * EAGLE * Eco Hydrogen Limited * EnergyBird * EnergyKiteSystems * Energy Potential AB * EnerKite GmbH * Fatronik * Festo * Flexor Energy Company * Flight Research Institute (F.R.I.) of Washington * Free Rotor * German Airborne Wind Turbine * Golden Spiral Turbine * Hardensoft International Limited * Hawaii Consulting Group * HeliKites * HeliWind * Heli Wind Power ROTO Project * HighestWind * Honeywell * Isentropic * Joby Energy * KiteEnergy * KiteEnergySystems * Kite For Sail, LLC Pacific Sky Power * Kite Gen Research * KITEnrg * Kite Power * KiteBot * KiteGen * KiteLab (Europe) * KiteLab, Ilwaco, WA * KiteLab, Los Angeles, CA * KiteLab, Nigeria * KiteNav * KiteMill * Kitenergy (no double "e") * Kite Power Solutions, Ltd. * KiteSailing * KiteShip * KiteTech Energy Systems Limited * KiteTug * KitVes+ * k Power * Laboratori D'Envol * Laddermill * LEDshift * Magenn Power * Makani Power (Google [x] purchased) * Modelway * NASA * NTS Energie, Nature Transport System (NTS) * NAWT * Oméga Sails * Omnidea * OrthoKiteBunch (OKB) * Pacific Power Sails * Pacific Sky Power * Pavana Dynamics (formerly Red Kite Wind Energy) * Peter Lynn Kites, Ltd. * Roderick Read * Rolls-Royce Pic * SAAB AB * School of Tethered Flight * Seaglider Stephane Rousson * Seedwings * Selsam * Sequoia Automation * Sikorsky * SkyHigh, SkyHigh Fund * SkyMill * SkyMill Power * SkyMill Energy * SkyWind * Sky WindPower * SkySails * SkySails Power * Soaren * SpiralAirFoil, Inc. * SVMtec * Tech Ranch Austin (AWE Biz Incubator) * TEKS * Tether Applications Incorporated * Tethered Airfoil Research and Development group (TARAD * Tethered Airfoils * Tethered Aviation * Tethered Flight * Tethered Flight School * Tethered Flight Technology Consortium * Tethered Turbines * Tethered Wings * Twind® * UpWind * USWindlab * Util * Velocity Cubed Technologies * VisVentis * WindLift * Wingship Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. * April 2009: Establishment of Wingship Heavy Industries Corp. (WHI) a subsidiary company of Wingship Technology Corp. (WST) for production * WindMapper Pro * WindMueller Aerology Lab * Windswept and Interesting Limited * Windward Energy * Xerces Blue * ZapKites * UEK Corporation * Minesto [/quote] From this I found this picture: ![image|390x293](upload://vTOAX4PF4XsYERwfidw2H3n2vrp.jpeg) And more in the pictures tab at: http://www.seaglider.fr/Seaglider/Seaglider_History.html Related: https://forum.awesystems.info/t/the-unav-a-wind-powered-uav-for-ocean-monitoring-performance-control-and-validation/1422 ------------- -------------------- This list is probably better: http://www.energykitesystems.net/OEMs.html ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-06-15 22:27:59 UTC | #68 I keep wondering what is the latest with such active kite energy systems as Skysails and Minesto... Googleizing "Skysails", I found this in "News" from 2 days ago! You can find out all about Makani, Altaeros, KPS, and kPower! (First time I've seen kPower mentioned pretty much anywhere, ever) - did you know it is an LLC? Did you know KPS stands (stood) for Kite Power **Solutions**? Got some extra money? https://www.mccourier.com/airborne-wind-energy-awe-systems-market-introducing-new-industry-dynamics-through-swot-analysis-2021-ampyx-power-e-kite-netherlands-bv-enerkite-gmbh-altaeros-energies/ Clicking on the links led to A2Z Market Research: quote below: **Some of the Top companies Influencing in this Market includes:** Ampyx Power, E-Kite Netherlands BV, EnerKite GmbH, Altaeros Energies, eWind Solutions, Kite Power Solutions, Ltd., Kite Gen Research, Makani Power, SkySails GmbH & Co. KG, Windlift LLC, Twingtec AG, Omnidea, Lda, Kitenergy S.r.l., kPower LLC click on links to buy this cutting-edge report! (Someone should "report" this company as a ripoff!) More "idiots, idiots, idiots"... The song remains the same :) ------------------------- tallakt | 2021-06-19 11:51:14 UTC | #69 Funny E-Kite is on the list but not Kitemill. At least from my point of view we should at least be of similar importance? Not to mention the mention of kPower LLC over Kitemill which seems just absurd. I guess Makanis influence is dwindling these days as well… I’ll pass on this report for now ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-06-19 14:57:50 UTC | #70 Hello Tallak: Thanks for reading my post. I hope you caught the flavor of sarcasm. I'm continually amazed at the results when you search for AWE news, these "reports" offered for, in this case, $6000 or so, when all the information must be years out of date. So many articles, usually written by girls or just kids under some assignment, are so clueless they don't even know which companies are in business anymore versus having given up years ago. They read like plagiarized school assignments by some bored kid with a deadline to get in some fake report by the weekend, then have a paywall of thousands of dollars, a la Dr. Peter Harrop's group. The blind leading the gullible? Does anyone actually buy these reports? Anyway I just thought it was funny. Wiind energy humor: gotta find it where you can... :) Update: today, a couple of days later, I am unable to pull up the article from the link. It just doesn't load anymore. Maybe someone else noticed it was just silly and took it down? Who knows, the internet can act weird sometimes... ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-06-19 19:39:42 UTC | #71 7 views as of now on YouTube: # Zhonglu High Altitude Wind Power System Trial on Site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCeNSMqS7YI [quote] https://www.sohu.com/a/466597324_120988576 # Zhonglu Co., Ltd. joins hands with the central state-owned enterprise China Energy Construction to target high-altitude wind power industrialization strategic cooperation # 2021-05-15 15:09 Shanghai Securities News China Securities Network News Zhonglu Co., Ltd. and China Energy Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "China Energy Construction") signed an agreement in Beijing on the 14th to carry out strategic cooperation on the industrialization of high-altitude wind power generation. This signing shows that Zhonglu has been committed to the development of high-altitude wind energy technology for many years and has won the support of my country's leading central enterprises in the field of energy construction, which will help the company further adjust its industrial structure and extend its main business to new energy construction new tracks. The cooperation agreement signed by the two parties focuses on the development of high-altitude wind power projects in all aspects, mainly including strengthening high-altitude wind power generation policy research and standard cooperation; relying on the company's existing 2.5MW high-altitude wind power test power station in Wuhu, strengthening high-altitude wind power technology cooperation and solving technical obstacles , To create conditions for the construction and grid connection of high-altitude wind power demonstration projects; strengthen cooperation in the manufacture of high-altitude wind power generation equipment; strengthen cooperation in high-altitude wind power demonstration projects, take advantage of the integration of China's energy construction, investment and construction, and cooperate to promote the company's Jixi 100MW high-altitude wind power generation The station demonstration project was completed and landed. It is understood that Song Hailiang, Secretary of the Party Committee and Chairman of Energy China, Wen Bin, Director of the Information Division of the High-tech Department of the Ministry of Science and Technology, and Wu Yun, Deputy General Manager of Energy China, went to Wuhu, Anhui on March 13 this year. Wuhu High-altitude Wind Energy Test Power Station, Umbrella Ladder Test R&D Center, and Production Test Base, and conducted in-depth exchanges with Zhonglu on the development and application of high-altitude wind energy power generation technology and mutually beneficial cooperation. Song Hailiang pointed out that it is necessary to conscientiously implement the "four revolutions, one cooperation" new energy security strategy proposed by the Party Central Committee and achieve the goal of "carbon peak and carbon neutrality". Technical support and innovation leadership are indispensable. He expects that the high-altitude wind power generation technology of Zhonglu can go from scientific research and experiment to vector production and application, and then go to the center of the stage of new energy development. Zhonglu has paid attention to new energy projects earlier. After investing and merging into Guangdong High-altitude Wind Energy Technology Co., Ltd. in 2014, it has been committed to in-depth technical research and development of 300-10,000-meter high-altitude wind power projects and power plant pilot trials, etc., and strive to improve the traditional The low-domain wind power generation has the disadvantages of high construction cost and low wind energy utilization rate. The high-altitude wind energy resources are efficiently converted to electric energy, and the power generation cost is also comparable to the on-grid power price of thermal power. It is reported that the high-altitude wind energy power generation technology uses the industry's unique parachute ladder structure to absorb high-altitude wind energy, drives the ground hoist and gear box to rotate through cables, and converts the wind energy into mechanical energy. Finally, the mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy through ground power generation equipment. Stable and continuous power generation is characterized by environmental protection, high wind energy utilization, and significant economic benefits. Compared with traditional wind power, the umbrella-ladder combined high-altitude wind power generation technology has many advantages such as environmental protection advantages, high stability, smart peak shaving and long-term continuous power generation. According to Chen Shan, Chairman of Zhonglu Co., Ltd., Zhonglu High-altitude Wind Energy Jixi 100MW Power Station was officially approved by the Energy Bureau of the Anhui Provincial Development and Reform Commission in August 2017. On April 18 last year, the company restarted the non-public offering of A shares to raise funds. The construction of this power station project was revised in February this year, and the non-public stock issuance plan was revised, and it has now entered the due diligence stage of various intermediary agencies. He pointed out that after the successful signing of the contract, both parties will effectively and pragmatically promote the implementation of the project in accordance with the relevant provisions of the agreement. The company will actively develop core technology cooperation with China Energy Construction, leverage their respective advantages in technology, capital, talents, management, market and resources, and focus on the development of high-altitude wind power industry standards, technology research and development, complete equipment manufacturing, and engineering project development, etc. To establish a partnership to promote the development and industrialization of high-altitude wind power generation technology, and strive for the early completion of high-altitude wind power generation demonstration projects and grid-connected power generation. (Ding Jinling) [/quote] [quote] ![be1d-iprtayz6842320|580x330](upload://jqy9LQeqLT0uetn45PwXriMdQMo.jpeg) https://finance.sina.com.cn/roll/2020-02-19/doc-iimxxstf2690815.shtml # Due to funding problems, China's first high-altitude wind power project has stalled # February 19, 2020 12:40 [Interface News](https://www.jiemian.com/article/4002773.html) [![](https://n.sinaimg.cn/finance/cece9e13/20210209/2021_rl_gif.gif)](https://finance.sina.cn/event/2021rili/pcjoin.shtml?position=pc_article_titlegif)[Sina Finance APP](https://finance.sina.com.cn/mobile/comfinanceweb.shtml?source=cjzhengwen04)[Reduce font size](javascript:;)[Enlarge the font](javascript:;)[Favorites](javascript:;)[Weibo](javascript:;)[Wechat](javascript:;)[share it](javascript:;) Original title: China's first high-altitude wind power project has stalled due to funding issues ![](https://n.sinaimg.cn/spider2020219/110/w580h330/20200219/be1d-iprtayz6842320.jpg) Reporter | Xi Jinghua There is no need to build towers and blades, and the power generation device is floated into the air in a manner similar to flying a kite to generate power. This is China's first high-altitude wind power project planned and constructed in Jixi, Anhui. However, due to funding problems, this project has stalled. On February 18, [Zhonglu](http://finance.sina.com.cn/realstock/company/sh600818/nc.shtml)Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhonglu Co., Ltd., 600818.SH) issued an announcement stating that the Jixi High-altitude Wind Power Project could not be completed as scheduled due to the large funding gap of the project and the difficulty in financing. The project is the first large-scale and commercial construction project of high-altitude wind power in China. The total construction scale is 100 MW. It is developed and constructed by Jixi Middle Road High-altitude Wind Power Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Zhonglu Co., Ltd., with a total investment of 790 million yuan. In August 2017, the Jixi High-altitude Wind Power Project was approved by the Anhui Provincial Development and Reform Commission and was implemented in phases. Zhonglu shares plans to install two 5 MW high-altitude wind energy generating units developed by Guangdong Gaoaltitude Wind Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Guangdong Gaoaltitude Wind Energy) with an installed capacity of 10 MW in the first phase of the project. In January 2018, the first phase of the project started in Jinsha Town, Jixi, Anhui. The construction of the main building project is planned to be completed by the end of November 2019. The project will be completed by the end of March 2020. The commissioning and grid-connected power generation will be completed in the first half of 2020, and the electricity will be merged into the State Grid. . On April 16, 2019, Zhonglu adjusted the estimated budget for the first phase of the project from 93 million yuan to 175 million yuan. As of June 18 of that year, the project had invested a total of approximately 19.12 million yuan, accounting for 10.93% of the estimated budget for the first phase of the project. Up to now, the project has only completed the structural topping of the pile foundation and electric control building of the first phase of the main plant. The announcement stated that the high-altitude wind energy project is an internationally leading cutting-edge technology, and the project has a greater demand for follow-up funds. Since the project entered the design and construction, Zhonglu has been under greater financial pressure, and the project construction and commissioned processing equipment have come to a standstill. As of the third quarter of 2019, Zhonglu's book currency funds amounted to 28,165,800 yuan, a decrease of 83.69% from the beginning of the year. Due to bank loans, Zhonglu's book short-term loan amount was 79 million yuan, a decrease of 41.48% from the beginning of the year. Zhonglu said that in addition to financial pressure, the Jixi high-altitude wind energy project is also affected by factors such as the project's ground mechanical system is a non-standard customized product, and the processing technology is special, and the supplier needs a long time to schedule special production and testing. High-altitude wind energy is a kind of renewable clean energy with huge reserves and widespread distribution. Its theoretical power generation time exceeds 95%, and the annual power generation time can be as high as 6500 hours. Compared with traditional wind power, high-altitude wind power is mostly based on kite flying and multi-kites in series, which captures better wind resources. The power generation cost is about 1/3 of traditional wind power, and it covers an area of ​​only 1/30, and eliminates noise problems. The impact on the environment is small. In 2013, there was an international upsurge of investment in high-altitude wind power, and technology research and development capabilities were basically based in North America, Europe, and Germany. However, large-scale commercial use has not yet been achieved. In November 2009, Guangdong High-altitude Wind Energy settled in Guangzhou. According to the information from Tianyan Check, Guangdong High-altitude Wind Energy is the first domestic enterprise with mid-to-high-altitude wind power generation technology. In December 2014, Zhonglu Co., Ltd. invested 40.491 million yuan in Guangdong Gaokong Wind Energy and increased its holdings. After the transaction is completed, Zhonglu shares hold 58.04% of the shares of Guangdong Gaokong Wind Energy. On December 4 of that year, Zhonglu also issued a non-public share offering plan, which planned to raise 2.5 billion yuan to invest in the construction of a 400 MW high-altitude wind power project and to supplement working capital. The plan announcement shows that the high-altitude wind power generation system developed by Zhonglu is an umbrella-ladder combination high-altitude wind power generation system, which is mainly composed of an air part, a ground part and system control. The air system is composed of one or several power parachutes and several balanced parachutes; the ground system It is mainly composed of generator, hoist (drum and reverse rotation motor) and universal pulley; the umbrellas, the working umbrella and the hoist are connected by light and high-strength cables. In 2015, Guangdong High-altitude Wind Energy's high-altitude wind energy demonstration power station project in Wuhu County, Anhui Province was operated. From May 4th to July 12th, 2015, it carried out nine flying power generation operations. The operating altitude is between 132 meters and 488 meters, and the cumulative power generation time of the equipment is 53 hours, with a total power generation of 31,000 kWh. In 2016, the National Development and Reform Commission and the National Energy Administration issued the "Energy Technology Revolution and Innovation Action (2016-2030)", which clearly carried out research on key technologies of large-scale high-altitude wind turbines. According to the plan, a complete set of wind power generation technologies at an altitude of 200 meters to 300 meters will be formed in 2020, and will be applied and promoted in 2030. Zhonglu Co., Ltd. is the parent company of Forever Bicycle. According to the information from Tianyancha, Zhonglu Co., Ltd. was formerly known as Shanghai Bicycle Factory. It acquired permanent shares in July 2001. Its main business is the production and sales of bicycles, parts, mopeds and other special vehicles and other bicycle-related products. The performance pre-loss announcement shows that in 2019, Zhonglu shares are expected to lose 60 million to 80 million yuan. Zhonglu shares stated that the reason for the performance loss was the rapid changes in the shared bicycle market and the shrinking of the sports industry market, which resulted in the inability to collect the relevant accounts receivable in time and the inventory pressure, based on which accounts receivable and inventory impairment losses were calculated. **Guangdong High-altitude Wind Energy has also been at a loss. From 2016 to 2018, losses were 25.225 million yuan, 23.937 million yuan and 24.65 million yuan respectively.** [/quote] Website of Guandong High Altitude WindPower Technology Ltd. http://www.gdgkfn.com/ [quote] https://www.cmes.org/News/TechNews/2017216/1487237082491_1.html ### Wind power generation at an altitude of 10,000 meters "blows into" China share to:0 ![che2|500x345](upload://5UCNR3tK4rZBFVg5wsB4a5pevM9.jpeg) Schematic diagram of kite-type high-altitude wind turbine simulation my country is a country with large resources, but few people have noticed that my country is also a country with high-altitude wind energy. Earlier this year, US media reported that scientists are trying to use high-altitude wind power to power New York City. Using this technology, scientists will collect wind energy from an altitude of 10,000 meters. In fact, the high-altitude wind energy density in my country's Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shandong regions is much greater than that of New York, the highest in the world. Wind power is the fastest growing energy industry in the world today, and it has grown at an annual rate of 30% for 10 years. However, the current use of wind energy is limited to low altitudes of tens of meters to 100 meters, and its major drawback is that it is not constant and reliable. At an altitude of several kilometers to 10,000 meters, not only the wind speed is greater, but also the wind is stable, and the period of the year without wind is less than 5%. Experts generally believe that high-altitude wind energy is hundreds of times higher than the ground. Ken Caldera, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Stanford University, believes that the total energy contained in wind is 100 times the total energy required by people on Earth, but most of the wind energy is located high in the sky. Brian Roberts, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia, said that at altitudes of 4,600 meters to 10,000 meters, the airflow is strong and stable, making it an ideal aerial wind power plant. Although it sounds beautiful, it is obviously impossible to make a turbine as high as 10,000 meters. At present, many developed countries are developing high-altitude wind power technology. Recently, at the 2009 Clean Energy International Summit Forum in Dongying, Shandong, Dr. Zhang Jianjun, Chairman of California Tianfeng Co., Ltd., introduced his own research and development of high-altitude wind power technology, and revealed that China's first high-altitude wind power demonstration project will be established in Guangdong Province. **High-altitude wind power around the world When the** energy crisis broke out in the 1970s, various high-altitude wind power designs continued to emerge. The U.S. Department of Energy once carried out a high-altitude wind power project, but in the 1980s, officials of the Department of Energy embezzled funds for other purposes, which eventually caused it to die. However, research on high-altitude wind power in developed countries has not stopped. According to the reporter's understanding, there are currently two main ways to structure high-altitude wind power. The first is to build a power station in the air, and then transport it to the ground through cables; the second is similar to flying a "kite", which generates mechanical energy through stretching, which is then converted into electrical energy by a generator. Dutch scientists put a typical kite into the sky. In 2008, according to the British "Guardian" report, scientists from the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands put a kite with an area of ​​10 square meters into an altitude of 1,000 meters. The kite was finally produced by pulling the rope connected to the ground generator. 10 kilowatts of electricity. The researchers also designed a trapezoidal power station composed of numerous kites that can generate 100 megawatts of current. Compared with the kite in the Netherlands, the installation in Italy is more like a "carousel" for flying kites. According to Italian media reports, in 2007, Italy launched the KiteGen plan for kite wind generators. The power generation principle of the device is that a 500-800-meter-high kite drives a turntable on the ground to rotate in a magnetic field to generate electricity under the action of wind. The researchers estimated through calculations that a turntable with a diameter of 1,600 meters and a kite with a diameter of 2,000 square meters can generate up to 1 million kilowatts, which is equivalent to 1/30 of the current electricity in Italy. While Italy was actively building carousel kites, the United States also launched the "High-altitude Windmill" program. In this plan, generators and other major power generation equipment all follow the kite and fly into the air driven by wind turbines, and finally hover at an altitude of 10,000 meters. Here, the strong airflow of nearly 320 kilometers per hour blows the windmill blades to generate electricity, and then the electrical energy is transmitted to the ground at a high voltage of 20,000 volts by cables. Experts say that 300 of these power-generating kites are enough to supply the electricity needs of the entire city of Chicago. In addition, there are many ideas about kite power generation around the world. Such as Canada's "airship windmill", Germany's roof small household kite power station and so on. According to calculations, the construction costs and power generation costs of these high-altitude wind power are far lower than fossil fuels and conventional low-altitude wind power. Almost everyone calls it "an energy revolution." However, the fact is that some foreign research has stopped due to lack of financial support. For example, although the "high-altitude windmill field" has been successfully tested in the ground wind tunnel, it is still coldly treated by investors. George Douglas, a spokesperson for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, pointed out: "We are now largely focused on projects that can be commercialized quickly." At present, several companies in the United States and Italy are continuing the development of high-altitude wind motors, and they have taken the lead in the market. The American company Magenn expects to sell 2 to 4 working prototypes in 2010. Experts point out that the speed at which the technology enters the market depends on how much investment will be made. If funds are sufficient, the kite power station is likely to enter the commercial operation stage within 5 years. **High-altitude power generation landing in China The** east coast of North America and the coastal areas of China are excellent high-altitude wind resource areas. According to the reporter's understanding, the wind density of the most advanced ground-based wind power plants is less than 1 kW/m2. In the vicinity of the jet stream over New York, the wind density can reach 16 kW/m2; the average wind density in most areas at an altitude of 10,000 meters above China’s land is more than 5 kW/m2, while the wind density near the upper jet stream over the Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Lu area It can even reach 30 kilowatts/square meter, the highest in the world. Zhang Xiuzhi, a researcher at the National Climate Center of the China Meteorological Administration, pointed out that Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Shandong are excellent areas for using high-altitude wind energy. Zhang Jianjun said that this is also one of the reasons why he returned to China to apply high-altitude wind power technology. Zhang Jianjun was born in Meizhou City, Guangdong Province. He graduated from the Department of Electronics of Sun Yat-Sen University, and later obtained a doctorate degree in the United States. He served as the technical director of several companies in the United States and holds a number of invention patents. In 2005, he started his own business, founded Tianfeng Company in California, and invented a new type of high-altitude wind power technology called "Tianfeng Technology." This is also a kind of "kite" high-altitude wind power technology. According to his introduction to the "Science Times" reporter, the main principle of Tianfeng technology is to make the kite rise with the help of the wind like a glider, and the generated pulling force pulls the cable to drive the generator to generate electricity; when the kite rises to the maximum height, the control system adjusts the kite. The angle of the wings allows it to use its own gravity to descend. Then power up again, and so on. Zhang Jianjun pointed out that this high-altitude wind power technology has two major technical difficulties, one is materials, and the other is control technology. First of all, in order to send the kite to the sky by the wind, the kite must be made of ultra-light materials, while having the characteristics of high strength and corrosion resistance. The material he finally chose was not developed until the last two years. Although the selected cable is lighter than water, it has high strength and is fully resistant to cutting. Although the principle of high-altitude wind power is simple, the specific control technology is extremely complex and sophisticated. Through several years of research, Zhang Jianjun, who has a background in electronics, has made a breakthrough in control technology. In the end, the three sets of prototypes with different powers independently developed by Tianfeng in the United States can not only operate normally under typhoons and storms; through tests under various weather conditions, Zhang Jianjun also found that they are similar to existing high-altitude wind power technologies abroad. Compared with Tianfeng technology, it is more stable and can be operated at high and low altitudes. Zhang Jianjun said that compared with traditional wind power, the investment cost of high-altitude wind power is about 1/3 to 1/2 of that of conventional wind power. Less affected. However, the high altitude within its range must be forbidden to fly. At present, the technology has been favored by investment companies, and commercial development will be carried out in China. The person in charge of the investment company said that the main reason for his investment in this technology is an innovative technology with pricing power and core competitiveness. Recently, Zhang Jianjun has been very busy. He is establishing Guangdong High-altitude Wind Energy Technology Co., Ltd. in Guangdong, intending to gradually move American companies to China. At the same time, the first high-altitude wind energy research center and wind tunnel laboratory will be established in Guangdong, and the first 100,000-kilowatt high-altitude wind power generation system will be built in Guangdong. He revealed that the power generation cost of a 100,000-kilowatt system is about 0.2 yuan/kWh. In addition, if all goes well, during the Shanghai World Expo next year, Tianfeng's first prototype in China will officially meet with the public. [/quote] [quote] http://money.finance.sina.com.cn/corp/view/vCB_AllBulletinDetail.php?stockid=600818&id=7060536 5 According to the “Company Law” and the “Articles of Association,” the profit distribution plan for the reporting period reviewed by the board of directors or the plan for capitalization of public reserves, and audited by Lixin Certified Public Accountants (general special partnership), the company will become a listed company in 2020 Shareholders’ net profit is RMB 96,133,553.22, of which the parent company’s net profit is RMB 85,087,099.21, and the statutory surplus reserve is RMB 8,508,709.92 with 10%, plus the parent company’s undistributed profit at the beginning of the year is RMB 155,046,619.55. At the end of 2020, the parent company’s cumulative profit available for distribution to shareholders is RMB 242,671,462.85. As the investment in high-altitude wind power projects requires a large amount of capital, according to the "Articles of Association", it is customary to pay cash dividends every three years, and the cumulative distribution of profits in cash shall not be less than the average annual net attributable to shareholders of listed companies realized in the last three years. 30% of the profit, according to the current arrangement of dividends every 3 years in the company's articles of association, the company will carry out cumulative dividends for 2019, 2020, and 2021 in 2022. For this reason, it is recommended not to distribute profits to shareholders this year, nor to transfer capital reserves. [/quote] [quote] https://xueqiu.com/7152431860/177704351 ![178f19063df8d7c3fd1de74f.png!800|690x275](upload://p2eywrLRDy0BXcSccDp8JFma63k.jpeg) The annual report disclosed that the company raised funds from non-public issuance of shares to renew the high-altitude wind energy power station Jixi project. It has signed relevant agreements with securities sponsors and underwriters, and will actively prepare materials and submit project declarations to the China Securities Regulatory Commission. [/quote] [quote] * http://www.energykitesystems.net/SkyWind/index.html [quote] * **http://www.awec2010.com/public/presentations/zou_jack.pdf** Guandong High Altitude WindPower Technology Ltd. (spelling on part of a slide) Guangdong High Altitude WindPower Technology Ltd. (spelling on type on same slide) * Careful of the page's translation challenges: http://www.dltcedu.org/index_5/html/80245.shtml * [WO2010129124 (A3) - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR UMBRELLA POWER GENERATION](http://wo.espacenet.com/w/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20110616&DB=wo.espacenet.com&locale=en_GB&CC=WO&NR=2010129124A3&KC=A3&ND=8) * **http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AirborneWindEnergy/message/4157** * http://www.energykitesystems.net/GuandongHAWPT.html Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology, LTD. Dr. Zhang Jianjun, general manager. [/quote] @JoeFaust [/quote] [quote] https://min.news/en/economy/fefa9dbd9734a4d14e10b16ae868cb1f.html **Towards differentiation** Obviously, Zhonglu shares no longer want to increase investment in the bicycle industry, but just want to use it to stabilize the basic market. As early as 7 years ago, the company was telling another grand story-high-altitude wind energy. In 2014, Zhonglu Co., Ltd. (600818.SH) acquired and increased its capital at a cost of 70 million yuan to take over the high-altitude wind energy company under the actual controller Chen Rong. At that time, the company had been established for 6 years, had no income and continued to lose money. Zhonglu shares stated that the company has developed and mastered the most cutting-edge power generation technology-"Tianfeng" wind power technology. This technology can make up for the shortcomings of the current mature power generation technology, with high efficiency and low investment cost, which is perfect. It has been invested in high-altitude wind energy for many years, and the company has not seen any gains. The subsidiary loses tens of millions of yuan each year, which has become a drag on the company's performance. Moreover, with the current financial strength and profitability of Zhonglu shares, it is difficult to support long-term investment in the industry. Since 2020, the company has been promoting fixed growth, and plans to raise 950 million yuan to invest in high-altitude power generation projects. So far, it has not been finalized yet. Six years ago, the company also planned to raise 2.5 billion yuan for a 400-megawatt high-altitude wind power project, but the project was terminated because it had not received approval from the competent authority. In 2018, Zhonglu also planned to acquire 100% equity of Shanghai Yuemu (the parent company of Membrane Family) for a consideration of 5.6 billion yuan (later downgraded to 4 billion yuan) to transform into a cosmetics company. The major asset reorganization lasted more than a year and finally fell through. Shanghai Phoenix has tasted the sweetness of returning to the main business of bicycles. In 2020, the company will continue to consolidate its main business. By issuing shares and paying cash, it will acquire 100% equity of Tianjin Aysec, Tianjin Tianren and 49% equity of Phoenix Bicycle for a consideration of 952 million yuan, which is expected to further strengthen the company's bicycle industry. Market Competitiveness. [/quote] ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-06-19 18:58:00 UTC | #72 [quote="dougselsam, post:70, topic:1610"] they don’t even know which companies are in business [/quote] Sometimes it is not easy to know it: [quote="Rodread, post:1, topic:243"] **Defunct companies** Guangdong High-Altitude Wind Power Technology, LTD (using umbrellas or parachutes) [/quote] Maybe it's a comeback https://forum.awesystems.info/t/zhonglu-high-altitude-wind-power-technology/1692. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-06-21 17:12:51 UTC | #73 [quote] https://www.windpowerengineering.com/vertical-axis-wind-turbine-technology-continues-improve/ **A solution: The Super Turbine and how it works** Over ten years of R&D in the VAWT industry has led to the Super Turbine, a type of large wind turbine. The Super Turbine, developed by 2014, has low power-generation costs, and easy installation and maintenance. At its core is an extension of the “active real-time pitch attack angle regulation” technology which has been verified by experiments. We think it could lead a revolution in current large, wind-turbine industry. ![image|690x300](upload://y1JsDYtWkvr7Qd0b208Df8fgmss.jpeg) [/quote] ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-08-27 20:24:46 UTC | #74 https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6836201325898813441/ Finally AWE succeeds... ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-08-27 20:24:46 UTC | #75 [quote="PierreB, post:74, topic:1610"] Finally AWE succeeds… [/quote] Pierre: Succeeds at what? What do you mean? ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-08-27 20:24:46 UTC | #76 [quote="dougselsam, post:75, topic:1610"] Pierre: Succeeds at what? What do you mean? [/quote] ...succeeds to announce a new board of directors. ------------------------- Tom | 2021-08-27 20:24:46 UTC | #77 They are so unremarkable, I forgot they even existed. [Edit: They may be amazing, I just haven't heard of it] ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-08-27 20:25:21 UTC | #78 Decidedly it's the season of great successes for AWE: just previously [success in announcing a new board of directors](https://forum.awesystems.info/t/twingtec-update/989/5) for TwingTec, and now success in launching a new website... ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-08-27 20:25:21 UTC | #79 What this "industry" needs is more teams "renting office space" and publishing "group-selfies" on the internet, more "research" into "artificial intelligence" and especially, announcing more 3-D printed components! Also it would be nice if we could increase the number of teams pursuing "kite-reeling", the great underrepresented "industry" sector. Also, it would be helpful if the "industry" could "silence" any people asking any unwanted questions, like, if a highly-funded AWE "company" announces sales and shipping of AWE systems from a big factory, any pesky followup questions of how the system(s) are (is) working must be silenced! ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-08-27 20:28:37 UTC | #80 [quote="PierreB, post:74, topic:1610"] Finally AWE succeeds… [/quote] [quote="PierreB, post:78, topic:1610"] Decidedly it’s the season of great successes for AWE [/quote] This fits better in this slow chat topic. ------------------------- Rodread | 2021-08-28 08:02:25 UTC | #81 renting office space” , more “research” into “artificial intelligence” and more 3-D printed components Yay I scored 3 ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-08-28 19:37:24 UTC | #82 Oh did I forget, "more people fixated on controlling what others say online, to move or delete any post addressing reality versus fantasy." ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-08-28 21:50:18 UTC | #83 [quote="dougselsam, post:82, topic:1610"] more people fixated on controlling [/quote] Failing to have AWES in automatically controlled operation, we have at least a well controlled AWE forum. This is in addition to AWE recent successes … ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-16 18:12:22 UTC | #85 I can't access the ResearchGate discussion. I tried to archive it, with [limited succes](https://web.archive.org/web/20210916113826/https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_nuclear_power_have_a_future_or_will_new_technologies_of_renewable_energy_be_developed_in_the_energy_sector) Anyway, sources needed. I'm not sure if I care all that much about his "true recycling". I care about this: [quote] https://lbre.stanford.edu/pssistanford-recycling/frequently-asked-questions/frequently-asked-questions-benefits-recycling One ton of recycled plastic saves 5,774 Kwh of energy, 16.3 barrels of oil, 98 million BTU's of energy, and 30 cubic yards of landfill space.[/quote] [quote="Alex Kralj, post:84, topic:1610"] Bottom line: plastics are not recyclable materials, none (**real, economical**) has ever been demonstrated to my knowledge. [/quote] You can say that about anything, until you can't. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-16 14:31:57 UTC | #86 On second thought, [that discussion](https://web.archive.org/web/20210916140230/https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_nuclear_power_have_a_future_or_will_new_technologies_of_renewable_energy_be_developed_in_the_energy_sector/34) is a complete waste of time. Climate change deniers with strong opinions going against people with better critical thinking skills who are also mostly not experts. I can't trust anything anyone says there without doing my own research. I would have hoped ResearchGate had better standards. It could do with some moderation. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-09-18 11:04:57 UTC | #87 [quote="Windy_Skies, post:85, topic:1610"] I can’t access the ResearchGate discussion. I tried to archive it, with [limited succes ](https://web.archive.org/web/20210916113826/https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_nuclear_power_have_a_future_or_will_new_technologies_of_renewable_energy_be_developed_in_the_energy_sector) [/quote] Perhaps opening an account to have access to ResearchGate can be required (although your second link seems to open more the discussion). For that a peer-reviewed publication can be required. Have you that? [quote="Windy_Skies, post:86, topic:1610"] Climate change deniers with strong opinions going against people with better critical thinking skills who are also mostly not experts. [/quote] True, although the majority of contributors to ResearchGate have peer-reviewed publications, which is the first criterion of the quality of expert which takes on its full meaning when the field of expertise applies to the subject considered. I think your second link provides more access to the discussion. I precise Alex Kralj (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ales-Kralj) favors IPCC reports and has a lot peer-reviewed publications and a high impact of 56.33. The discussion is complex and the IPCC reports are not the first concerns. [quote="Windy_Skies, post:85, topic:1610"] You can say that about anything, until you can’t. [/quote] Who is you? It is quotes; not directly what I say. [quote="Windy_Skies, post:86, topic:1610"] It could do with some moderation. [/quote] Offer them your services. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-09-16 17:10:01 UTC | #88 [quote="Windy_Skies, post:86, topic:1610"] On second thought, [that discussion ](https://web.archive.org/web/20210916140230/https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_nuclear_power_have_a_future_or_will_new_technologies_of_renewable_energy_be_developed_in_the_energy_sector/34) is a complete waste of time. [/quote] I take your advice into account and withdraw my post with the quotes. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-16 17:31:18 UTC | #89 No, ResearchGate thinks I'm a bot. I don't care to prove them right or wrong. [quote="PierreB, post:87, topic:1610"] precise [/quote] The French *preciser* != the English *precise*. A better phrase here would be *I'll point out that...* [quote="PierreB, post:87, topic:1610"] Who is you? [/quote] I rarely use anything other than the [generic you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you) on this forum. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-09-16 18:55:22 UTC | #90 [quote="Windy_Skies, post:85, topic:1610"] [quote="Alex Kralj, post:84, topic:1610"] Bottom line: plastics are not recyclable materials, none (**real, economical**) has ever been demonstrated to my knowledge. [/quote] You can say that about anything, until you can’t. [/quote] You have re-edited your post, mentioning the name of the author I quoted instead of my name. [quote="Windy_Skies, post:89, topic:1610"] [quote="PierreB, post:87, topic:1610"] Who is you? [/quote] I rarely use anything other than the [generic you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you) on this forum. [/quote] You have to re-edit this post as well. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-16 19:41:38 UTC | #91 I have edited my comment, for your benefit, not re-edited it. I'm not following or don't agree I should edit my last comment. It clarifies my writing style, and answers your question, again for your benefit. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-09-17 16:06:06 UTC | #92 The facts on plastics recycling here in the U.S. are: 1) The real reason was litter control - the drink industry went from returnable glass bottles that were washed then re-used, to disposable plastic containers that could not be returned for re-use, so people threw them out the car windows, making an increasing mess on the sides of the road. That was when controlling litter was combined with supposed energy savings from recycling plastic to implement recycling programs with dedicated return sites that took up valuable real estate and labor to run. China was willing to take all our recycling "waste" because they had the cheap labor required to sort the stuff, and lower standards for their products so the lower-quality of recycled plastic was OK with them. Even so, it took time, money, and machinery to transport the waste to ports, load it on ships, burn fuel to sail to China, pay to unload it and ground-transport it to a point of use, labor to sort and use, energy to melt down... 2) A few years ago, China decided they had had enough of our waste plastic - their labor costs had risen, and they were increasingly pressured to improve product quality, therefore they lost interest in our waste as a resource. 3) Today, much if not most "recycled" plastic containers end up in landfills after all the paperwork and rebates are finished. Nobody wants them. 4) It's well-known among those who pay attention that consumer recycling does not really save resources, but in fact uses more resources, burning more fossil fuels to run the program than it saves. - again, the real driving force is removal of litter from roadsides. If a bottle on the side of the road is worth a few cents to return, there will be some down-and-out person who will collect them to earn a few dollars to get through the day, maybe buy some food or more drugs. Meanwhile the expenses of the recycling program, starting with the time taken, the cost of the recycling "bins", the cost of the real estate for the recycling centers, the amount of gasoline and diesel burned to cart all this trash around town in multiple steps, the labor to have the recycling stations manned and responsive to every homeless person who shows up with a trash-bag full of bottles and cans that must be sorted, counted, and paid for, the fuel to bring the "recycled" plastic to the final destinations, which is usually a landfill - the funny thing is, it's gone from "don't be a litterbug" to "we're saving the world from global warming", but the facts don't bear out the hype - the "recycled" bottles are seldom even recycled these days, just thrown away like most everything else, making the entire complicated "recycling" system a fraud, and a waste of time and money except for helping to keep the roadsides free of plastic bottles and aluminum cans. Silica (glass) and Aluminum are the first and second most abundant elements in the Earth's crust, so they are very cheap to produce in bulk, whereby it is just not usually very economical to recycle every bottle and can, although large metal objects (scrap metal) are still economical to recycle, ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-09-17 21:31:01 UTC | #93 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downcycling https://oceana.org/blog/recycling-myth-month-plastic-bottle-you-thought-you-recycled-may-have-been-downcycled-instead ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-17 22:25:18 UTC | #94 But we're not trying to solve plastic recycling here. I think more concrete questions, that will yield more concrete answers, are: you're using a lot of this UHMWPE rope, how can you use less of it (see Kitewinder's and Ampyx's testing for example), are there alternatives, and what can you do with it when it becomes unusable? ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-09-17 22:57:12 UTC | #95 All this indicates that the flexible synthetic fabric wings, after short-term use, above all in crosswind operation, will go to the incinerator, as for UHMWPE rope but after a longer use. It is therefore a burning problem (if I may say so) for the ecological aspect of the whole, and which must be considered. Keep in mind that an AWES is not kitesurfing, as it involves a continuous use. So a rigid wing, preferentially in recyclable material like aluminum, can be a solution for this issue. Of course, all this only matters if one persists in aiming for commercialization. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-18 10:51:28 UTC | #96 This analysis of yours is too perfunctory to be of any use. ------------------------- PierreB | 2021-09-18 11:19:00 UTC | #97 [quote="Windy_Skies, post:89, topic:1610"] No, ResearchGate thinks I’m a bot. I don’t care to prove them right or wrong. [/quote] That is all your problem. Almost all the experts are on ResearchGate, which does not mean that all members of ResearchGate are necessarily experts. On the other hand, we can be sure that those who are refused by ResearchGate are not and never will be experts, especially those who don't care about their advice. ------------------------- tallakt | 2021-09-18 19:50:43 UTC | #98 Did you consider SciHub? I am not really against pirating papers. Getting access to papers is like CD records in the nineties, SciHub is the Napster of academic publications ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-18 20:27:18 UTC | #99 Me? Yes, I use SciHub, and LibGen, and... I'm very happy for their existence. I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing without them. ------------------------- Windy_Skies | 2021-09-19 10:22:55 UTC | #100 https://www.businessinsider.com/fossil-fuel-companies-spend-millions-to-promote-individual-responsibility-2021-3 ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-09-21 17:02:58 UTC | #101 I think the lesson here is real concerns for a clean planet are often outweighed by the clean & green fluff-hype, designed to overcome logic in well-meaning people through emotional appeal disguised as facts. It does indeed pay be somewhat skeptical of such claims and to do a little independent research, ask what may sometimes be uncomfortable questions, and possibly pull back the cover on feel-good fantasy, to get a glimpse of reality. It has often been observed that when "all" of the "experts" "agree" on some topic, that in itself can often be a negative indicator, preceding an unexpected paradigm shift. ------------------------- dougselsam | 2021-11-06 04:59:07 UTC | #102 This is like theater of the absurd. Cart ahead of the horse. As I've often said, AWE is like the proverbial 3 blind men trying to describe an elephant - except for one pesky detail - in this case there is no elephant (viable AWE system). Well over a decade of this endless busy-body activity "what if this?" and "what if that?". The biggest psychological factor I see is people with too much time on their hands suffering from global warming derangement syndrome. Step one would be powering a single home, not these endless promises to power hundreds or thousands of homes "next year". To me, it is a great comedy. Oh well you've gotta get SOMETHING out of it - at least we can maybe appreciate the humor. The other consistently frustrating thing about most every article TRYING to discuss AWE is the "authors" know even less about AWE than the supposed practitioners. Half the articles I read still mention long-abandoned projects like Altaeros and Makani as though they are still in play! It's all just one big echo chamber of ignorance! Less than worthless. :) -------------------------