Hi Pierre: Keywords: “cost-effective” and “seem”.
Logically, IF someone DID have the knowledge and skill to reliably and consistently harness wind energy from the jet stream, or just higher than existing wind turbines, or even at a similar height to existing wind turbines, they would also be able to build a smaller system. Whether you want to talk about “how many homes” you “could” power, or just cite an output in kW, MW, or as some extreme promises do, GW or TW, ANY number multiplied by zero is still zero.
Current and past AWE promise-makers remain unable to create any automated system capable of ANY power output, NO MATTER HOW SMALL. It doesn’t matter if you are talking about powering a hamster cage, there is nothing developed that can be set up and allowed to run without human operators, on a daily or regular basis, as a tower-mounted turbine can routinely and reliably accomplish.
And as for “cost-effective”, nobody expects early prototypes to be cost-effective. Costs can likely be lowered with further development, once something is seen to “work”.
I think it was ten (10) years ago now that I had declared to the kite-reelers “OK, time’s up! You’ve failed to demonstrate basic reliable operation!” Since then, not much has changed. The only reason people can still be convinced that any current AWE approach remains promising IS THIS VERY EXCUSE of system size as a stumbling block. It’s just an excuse. Its believable by many, because it serves to DISTRACT attention from the fact that here is NO scale at which ANY current AWE promise-maker can produce any reliable system capable of producing reliable, daily wind power on its own.
Stepping back, this is nothing new, although it is more extreme. I’ve pointed out how even PhD “researchers” have promoted Savonius turbines as a serious energy solution based on placing them in wind tunnels, even though “real wind people” already know they are not so great, so forget about “credentials”. But at least Savonius turbine can be set up and actually run for some period of time, producing some energy.
I’ve also even come up with what I fondly call “The Professor Crackpot Syndrome” with a list of symptoms, one of which is “We’ve got to build it big, or nobody will take us seriously!”
These are all excuses. In wannabe wind energy, the devices and characters change, but the story remains the same: none has eclipsed regular turbines yet. But at least many alternative turbines have been set up and run for up to years at a time. They may lack output, cost too much, or break apart in strong winds, but at least they can work for a while. With AWE, no system has been demonstrated to be useful for ANY purpose whatsoever, even to the point of just being able to run unattended for more than a few minutes. The ide that any existing system could be set up and run unattended for, say, a month, is mysteriously missing. And the excuse revolves around being not big enough, but that is just emotion taking over for reasoning. Reasoning says a small system could be reliably running IF the promise-makers were capable of designing a reliable system at any size.
in the end, the conversation turns into just one more waste of mental energy, trying to tell wannabe wind energy innovator people who claim to have a superior approach to wind energy that they would need to move beyond mere promises, and demonstrate reliable operation, or a system useful for any purpose.
They can’t power a single home, yet talk endless of their next, larger machine. Oh well, it is what it is. An excuse, based on a diversion from logic. The syndrome has always been there - some people “get it”. some people don’t, and in wind energy, by far MOST people don’t. It;s always been that way, probably always will. 