Your comment is quite irrelevant and not supported from A to Z.
This is an unsupported statement.
Yes I can.
I have not seen a single example, apart a non AWE player on
Crosswind flight drags very strong, very thin, very long tethers at high speeds. Mast concepts expect low attachment points to avoid unnecessary forces acting on the masts. They claim this as an advantage. However, this means that the high-speed tethers are moving low to the ground near the attachment point, and failure conditions would cause the tether to sweep across the ground. This creates a high-risk situation for people working in wind farms for whatever reason. It’s unlikely that this would create conditions amenable to secondary uses of the ground between wind generators. And it’s unlikely that this would be acceptable to workers’ safety and insurance organizations, requiring temporary shutdowns of numbers of the devices in order to service a single one of them. As collateral, tether length is typically the minimum safe spacing for generation devices, as Makani recognizes, but Kitegen does not in their publicly available literature.
You are wrong from A to Z. @katieschaef’s wing and other AWES from other companies already fly more or less reliably. But any secondary use under a long tether moving fast at low elevation angle is not possible, whatever the degree of reliability of the kite, and I’m not even talking about a kite network, but only a crosswind kite with its tether.
There is no point in trying to solve common engineering problems when on arrival you are sure you do not have a viable system. Do not start building your house if you know you will not go beyond the foundations, and also I challenge you to build it under the trajectory at low elevation angle of an AWES crosswind. It is not for nothing that the Enerkite team in AWECBerlin2013 asked spectators not to be below the path of their AWES which was however small in scale.
You confuse the statement such like the last I repeat again and again with the whole analysis from the 59 Land and Space used.pdf (70.9 KB) to the bad or good solutions I envisaged and related on the forum such like Rotating Reel System, Low radius loop, Vertical trajectory for yo-yo AWES?, Power to space use ratio, not to mention the unsuitable “solutions” such as the arrangement of AWES insufficiently spaced within a farm without taking into account the changes in wind direction within the farm, and which I have repeatedly related. But you are far from having made the connection. Certainly this requires a minimum of intelligence. I advise you to read everything I have written on this subject before commenting so nonsensically.
“Anyone can think of this.” Apparently nobody. It is not for nothing that Michael Barnard notes on
It was a disappointing dive into the rabbit hole, interesting but notable mostly for how participants in the space didn’t seem to have the ability to build Level 0 requirements, understand anything about regulatory requirements for energy, understand anything about actual wind energy, understand anything about end-to-end systems thinking, or generally have their feet on the ground at all.
Michael Barnard is about you. The and use issue is a major end-to-end issue within a system thinking.
And I am unfortunately the only one to understand it. You (and the AWE community in general) can persist in your blindness for what is obvious, but however aptly pointed out by an opponent of AWE.
The only way out (if there is one) is to think of architecture as a consequence of the land use major problem.