Hi @rschmehl ,
In the introduction:
AWE systems are still in the development phase, with only a few systems in
operation with launching customers.
Just after:
Testing of these prototypes and theoretical
conceptualizations suggest that the emerging technology could have multiple benefits
over conventional wind turbines.
In 3.1:
Conventional wind turbines can also pose risks to the public (e.g., ice throw resulting
from ice build-up on the moving blades, and on rare occasions, blade throw, tower topple,
or fire) [61]. However, these safety risks do not seem to influence public responses to wind
turbines, or at least it is not discussed in the wind energy literature.
In 3.2:
For wind turbines, research has found that visual impacts and changes to the
landscape strongly correlate with lower support for proposed projects and negative
attitudes towards existing wind developments [23]. The effect of visual impacts on
attitudes often depends on how disturbed people are by the wind turbines, resulting in a
stronger correlation between visual impacts and negative attitudes when annoyance
levels are higher. Given the research on wind turbines, it is essential to investigate how
the public perceives the visibility of AWE and how that influences their attitudes and
responses to the technology. Just because the AWE field judges the visibility of AWE as
low, it does not mean that the public experiences low visual impacts.
Conventional wind turbines can also pose risks to the public (e.g., ice throw resulting
from ice build-up on the moving blades, and on rare occasions, blade throw, tower topple,
or fire) [61]. However, these safety risks do not seem to influence public responses to wind
turbines, or at least it is not discussed in the wind energy literature. The public might see
the safety of AWE more critically because, in contrast to wind turbines, there is a lack of
research on the risks of continuous, long-term operation of AWE systems as they have not
been operated over extended periods yet. Moreover, a flying system might seem more
hazardous than an entirely ground-based energy system.
In 4. Conclusions and Recommendations
Airborne wind energy (AWE) is an emerging renewable energy technology that
harvests higher-altitude winds (300-600m above the ground) with automatically
controlled kites. Like other renewables, AWE will interact with people and nature.
My feeling is that AWE field is sometimes integrated into renewable energies including conventional wind turbines, in spite of the fact that wind turbines are widely used, unlike AWES, what you mention by indicating the development phase of this technology. Nevertheless, there is still a few ambiguities I quoted and which it would be possible to escape by modifying the preprint plan.
So (for me) it appears that sections 1, 2 and 3 (so almost all the preprint) could form a first theoretical part. A second experimental part would be suitable and would relate several tests of several architectures (rigid and flexible kite, pumping mode, flygen, rotary devices, networked multi-anchored installations…); the different (small devices, utility-scale) market aims; then public responses by surveys after seeing the AWES in operation. Now relating Kitewinder tests and public responses seems to be a first possibility.