What would the capacity factor of these upward AWE plants be?
Indeed Nigeria is the largest economy in Africa and the most populous.
Wind is a potential resource:
The untapped potential of Nigerian wind farms - Stears Business.
AWES could harness winds higher than:
Dave Santos Answers:
"The ultimate theoretic capacity factor for the Advanced Kite Networks paradigm of an iso-spatial (periodic in 3D) âkitematterâ (engineered metamaterial) would be greater than AWES archetypes that only harvests horizontal wind.
An interregional scale AWES designed shift production to match seasonal and daily weather system motion would further add capacity, compared to sessile non-networked non-megascale AWES archetypes.
Baseload capacity >90% is theoretically possible. The wings employed at megascale are low L/D (truck not sport-car).
A starting idea of a sail-lattice whose units can in principle be oriented to harvest kinetic energy from wind of any direction, including vertical. Advanced Kite Networks are a radical set of possibilities barely explored yet.
As explored on the Old Forum, vertical wind has a horizontal crosswind plane (harvesting sail need not travel up and down).
Question for Tallak: What is the annual capacity factor for high L/D energy-drone kiteplanes?
Further comments about vertical wind harvesting:
Any crosswind AWES can in principle harvest a vertical wind component opportunistically, by increased tether angle, but highest power-to-mass once again is the primary figure-of-merit (not high L/D), especially in low wind velocity range.
The primary mathematics of kite networks is latticed tensors that can process kinetic energy in any direction, including reverse-pumping from the surface in calm to maintain flight, or conveying energy horizontally, as lattice-waves. Network dynamics are a considerable departure from the control and energy dynamics of a single line/anchor/unit topological tensor. By way of compensating computational advantage, a single network control thread can govern a kite farm, rather than many control threads, one for each unit. Topological (many-connected) dynamic stability can further reduce computational load."
OK please forgive me, but I think this calls for a little debunking. I read with great interest Johnâs original post in this topic. I noted his circular-firing-squad âcredentialsâ have grown in the last few days. John has gone from a co-founder and pro-tem president of the âAWEIAâ, to simply âfounding Presidentâ. This reminds me of a few years back when Wayneâs participation in a Seattle kite club was changed to Director of Research at Boeing, or some such unfounded, inaccurate title. This is what I mean by the âcircularâ part of this little mutually-self-congratulatory group.
When I look up AWEIA.org, what I see is an impressive personal effort by Joe Faust, to collect and organize as much information about AWE efforts around the world, including a list of well over 1000 people supposedly involved. It;s not super-consistent - Bill Gates is on the list, but not the google founders, but I donât know of any more complete list of AWE people. Still, as impressive as Joeâs archiving is, I donât see a list of members. I donât see any specific accomplishments or actions taken.
I do see a website that has not been updated in a few years. It still features a front-page request for nominations for an actual (not pro-tem?) president, from 2017. I saw something else dated 2019 I think. Not trying to disparage Joeâs careful work in any way, but it really seems like the AWEIA is just more of an idea than an actual, working industry association.
Maybe John could tell us what specific actions the AWEIA has undertaken in the last 14 years of his pro-tem presidency, and maybe what he, specifically has accomplished in AWE during that time?
Enthusiasm and a positive attitude are essential for breaking new ground in a new technology, so I do see that enthusiasm. However, with wind energy such a magnet for crackpots, I also see some signs that the enthusiasm in this case is not matched by actual activity, let alone results.
What I see from this group is endless claims of out-performing all other AWE efforts (in the future of course), against a backdrop of near-zero output from any attempted prototype, whereas many other groups have demonstrated impressive output for at least a decade now.
In fact, when Tallak asked about a prospective âcapacity factorâ (a very basic and valid question) with regard to the vertical-wind energy-harvesting outlined in Johnâs post, I imagined John trying to figure out how to answer, starting with âNow, not being a wind energy person, he is going to have to look up what âcapacity factorâ means. Right or wrong on that, I do see his answer suddenly falls back to once again serving as a conduit for the banned Dave Santos to provide the answer.
Except he did not provide any such answer, just more typical claims of more power than anyone could scarcely imagine, in the future of course, from the same dome of interconnected cloth triangles he has recently been touting as 'the answerâ, but without any evidence to back up such an assertion.
Tallakâs question reflects the same thing I was wondering.
First, John was showing us a drag-based parachute loop drag-device like the Chinese tried, which may not be a super-efficient approach. But I think the second, most obvious question is how often such a storm would be available for energy extraction, not to mention how effective such a scenario might actually be. Of course we get no actual answer, and I think I understand Tallakâs point, boiled down to one simple, short question. Which was of course not answered.
Guys, here is a little refresher course in wind energy debunking:
Person X, a wind newbie (sometimes a lifelong newbie) comes into a discussion of wind energy, claiming to have a new breakthrough. Sometimes he may have a rough prototype, sometimes just an idea. In any case, the response from wind veterans is typically âshow us your dataâ. âShow us your evidenceâ.
If person X has a prototype, the response is usually âYou need to connect a generator and show us your output.â That is usually as far as it goes - actually generating power from even a rough prototype is usually beyond the abilities or proclivities of the newbie. But sometimes the newbie will grudgingly take a few years to connect a generator, and maybe even market their low-output mostly-decorative device, while ceasing his claims to existing veterans of a breakthrough. Thatâs one end of the spectrum. At the other end you have claims of impending output greater than anything contemplated by real wind energy practitioners, combined with an ongoing refusal, inability, or some combination, of ever connecting a generator or producing any significant output, while the claims of âfutureâ power production only increase. All I can say is, do the math on that one. 
Thanks @dougselsam
Pending formal incorporation, I consider my presidency of AWEIA as âpro temâ.
As to âfoundingâ, yes I am in the founding circle alongside Dave Santos, Joe Faust, and Wayne German(RIP).
The first ever AWE forum on YahooGroups was by AWEIA.
AWEIA still owns www.airbornewindenergy.com
The FAA-centric AWE Concept Of Operations pending adoption by member nations was prepared by AWEIA.
AWEIA is a recognized member of GWEC.
AWEIA has been active in enlisting academic interests in AWE at different Nigerian Universities.
AWEIA just applied for membership of UN partners on SDGs.
Thanks for your quick answer, John, and sorry to learn of Wayneâs passing. Yes, RIP. At least he was enthusiastic.
Still, it was my distinct impression that the old forum was JoeFâs personal effort more than anything else, although it was also obvious that Joe and DaveS were speaking with one voice, so we could plainly see that daveS was also involved with running the old forum, or at least enjoyed preferential treatment from Joe when creating the online turmoil he was famous for.
From what I can see, AWEIA is just the three of you guys, down from four previously, not actually some widely-adopted industry association. Honestly, it reminds me of us kids periodically announcing a new âclubâ we were âfoundingâ which would be given a name that we thought sounded impressive, typically last a few days until we got bored and moved on. What you guys mostly do is talk, make exaggerated claims, and never generate any power, while Joe occasionally archives the progress of others or at least the efforts of others.
When I read the link in your original post in this topic, it ended saying you as President of AWEIA, were somehow leading your country to world leadership in AWE. With all due respect for your enthusiasm, it has been 14 years, so please forgive someone for asking what milestones have you reached in this regard thusfar, and what might be the timeline of future progress if this level of accomplishment were extrapolated into the future?
And speaking of âthe futureâ, one problem with wind energy being a magnet for crackpots due to the invisibility of wind, the result is often unfounded claims of progress, always set in a mythical âfutureâ. All anyone asks for is maybe just a little actual progress in whatever claimed solution may or may not exist, but from the circle we are talking about, I canât remember ever seeing anything that really even worked, more just a few 2-second videos of things that wiggle in the wind.
So while all these circular-firing-squad credentials can me made to sound impressive to an outsider, in wind energy the requirement is simple: Show us your evidence. Show us your device making measurable output that could verify your claims of future progress. Or show us a working system (which several teams have by now). Enthusiasm is a necessary ingredient, but not a sufficient ingredient if it is the only ingredient.
Let me ⌠give ⌠a ⌠number âŚ. what about âŚ.
/$$ /$$ /$$$$$$ /$$ /$$
/$$$$ /$$$$ /$$$_ $$|__/ /$$/
|_ $$ |_ $$ | $$$$\ $$ /$$/
| $$ | $$ | $$ $$ $$ /$$/
| $$ | $$ | $$\ $$$$ /$$/
| $$ | $$ | $$ \ $$$ /$$/
/$$$$$$ /$$$$$$| $$$$$$/ /$$/ /$$
|______/|______/ \______/ |__/ |__/
@AweEnthusiast,
Hello John: the old forum was mentioned above. I also have a memory of Joe Faustâs way of debunking patents, and often rightly so, using his archival skills that Doug mentioned. A lot of leads were investigated.
In general, the AWE field is at the periphery of regular wind energy, in the same way that EnergyKiteSystems is in regard to the actual AWE field. However Joe Faust, Dave Santos and yourself represent an AWE school where the kite by itself prevails, where kite experts hold the reins.
In this, AWEIA could bring a lot to AWEurope or any other AWE organization. The reverse seems even more true. Not long ago @tallakt rightly pointed out the major power conversion problems of a barely identifiable system called âAdvanced Kite Networksâ: this could be seen as a free partnership. That said I doubt that kPower wants to cooperate with anyone.
Anyway, one key point remains, and Doug mentioned it: show a credible way to generate electricity, better yet, build a proof of concept. I donât recall a plausible description of any conversion system.
Remember: in the beginning, we even talked about an airborne wind energy conversion system (AWECS). What happened to the âconversion systemâ? Without credible conversion system, no AWE leadership is possible anywhere.
Just how large must a âproof of conceptâ be to be acceptable?
John8:45 - " And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not. "
There is such a thing as demonstrating how poorly your idea works.
If I were searching for a comedy skit with a âbreakthgrough energy deviceâ theme, I couldnât come up with a better concept than shaking a self-winding watch.
If you are proving the concept of an expensive way to charge a watch, consider it proven.
If you want to prove the concept gigawatts of power, the burden of proof is much higher. And if you are at that level, you should not need to ask us. We would not be worthy of discussing that with you. But I donât think you are close even to MW scale.
Looks more like mW scaleâŚ
This whole topic is nonsense⌠how could Nigeria be in its way to be a leader in AWE, and you are showing us a picture of a watch being recharged. You did not even implement any of the charging hardware! And there are people like Skysails and Kitewinder already on the commercial market.
How many watches would Nigeria have to charge at once to surpass either of these competitors?
One watch was enough, Tallak. Less is more.
The watch AWES was a lark, a first-ever demonstration of precise electrical regulation from a chaotic kite input, responsing to Doug claiming no metered power. The chronometer gave Doug âmeteredâ time to rail against.
For some AWE is only a first-to-market race. KiteLab already won that race by selling flipwings in 2008, but the market for kite novelties is marginal, as KiteLab knew from its kite manufacturer network (esp. New Tech Kites).
The more serious AWE race is the long-game quest for applicable kite knowledge. Nigeria is part of that long knowledge race, definitely not competing against early production AWES struggling to carve out niche markets.
But there surely is a path that must be walked⌠these niche markets seem like a good way to get to the next level.
How many of us can compete in the same AWE niche when even one player can hardly thrive? Niche markets could end up being âTraps in the Valley-of-Deathâ, distracting from engineering-science knowledge quest.
At every scale, AWE re-productization begins from scratch. Far better are countless small experiments now that help solve envisaged (scaling) problems and far-off limitations.
Taleb: "(Beware) picking up pennies in front of the steam-roller."
It is quite relevant. This reminds me of the words of SergueĂŻ Bubka, former pole vault champion (by the way, Joe Faust is also a former high jump champion, finalist at the Olympic Games in Rome): when I beat my world record by 1 cm on each attempt, I donât just jump 1 cm more, but I jump the 6 m and a few more, including that extra cm.
Indeed AWE begins from scratch because many parameters are to be considered from the start. If only one is missing, itâs the dead end which can be seen a long time later.
The conversion system remains to consider.
What I remember originally reading was Nigeria would become the world leader in AWE because John is going to lead the development of laddermill-style parachute loops, supposedly ideal for Nigerian weather, with abundant storms, that would be placed under thunderstorms and generate power from the updraft, while the parachutes would return to Earth by placement in an adjoining downdraft. I donât see what daveS shaking a self-winding watch has to do with it.
I will say this: The ONLY people Iâve ever known to advocate wind energy systems targeting storms, whether tornadoes. hurricanes, or just thunderstorms, are people who have no background in wind energy, and are just floating ideas that they really havenât fully thought through.
Tallakâs question about what capacity factor one might expect from such a storm-chasing wind energy system is exactly on target: The key question would be what is the capacity factor. The reason is simple: Storms have very large amounts of energy, so you would need a VERY robust and heavy system capable of extracting high amounts of energy from a violent and unpredictable weather event, which would necessarily be overbuilt and overpowered for everyday weather. Example: Say a system is developed to harness hurricane winds, as wind energy newbies often suggest: Well, in any given location, you might get one chance per year (one hurricane) to run your system. Or maybe your location does not receive ANY hurricanes one year (more likely). So you can quickly see that, no matter how well such a system worked, it would be useless 99.9% of the time. Low capacity factor. Another question specifically relating to the parachute loop idea is how you are going to place it in just the right location to enjoy that updraft/downdraft situation, when storms typically occur in various locations, and usually travel along a path that can only be discerned after the fact, so how would such a powerful wind energy system even enjoy effective placement, even assuming it were effective as a wind energy device? Besides that, with the parachutes, you are talking about a drag device, which is the least efficient type of wind energy system commonly pursued. Not sure if there are currently any wind energy systems in the world targeting storm updrafts, but itâs not because nobody ever thought of it. More that they thought better of it.
So as usual, what we hear from this general direction of what this week weâre calling âThe AWEIAâ (Which seems to be just 3 individuals, with zero AWE systems) as far as ideas and demonstration of AWE systems, is lacking in planning, realization, execution, and significant output.
I think Iâve mentioned the AWEIA reminds me of clubs we kids would start at maybe age 8 or so.
Johnâs claims of leading the world of AWE (in the future of course) remind me of when we were a little older, on a sleep-out in a tent in the backyard, talking about what we wanted to be when we grew up, and one of us (named Dave) declared he was going to be âEmperor of the Worldâ! He was serious. Well, what the heck, somebody;s gotta do it - after all, it worked for Genghis Khan, right? We laughed about that one for years! Well, except Dave, the guy who said it. I don;t think he was in on the jokes.
Anyway, if weâre still seriously discussing (?) the self-winding watch demo, it seems like maybe a good demonstration of how LITTLE energy a wind energy system, or ANY kind can produce, and Iâm not even sure if the system was airborne, or just suspended by ropes from hard points, or what.
My take is such a project would not even qualify for a clean energy merit badge from The Boy Scouts, but be more suited for the younger âCub Scoutsâ, for which I would agree, it should earn a merit badge for an 8-year-old.