It is a brilliant paper… marvellous work, with great insight.
The comparisons of factors influencing LCOE near the end are amazing.
However, There’s Lift, There’s Drag
And plenty of great analysis thereof.
Well presented, clean and clear.
“In this thesis, only ﬁxed ground station GG-AWES are considered.”
Strong opinion time…
I’m sorry Filipo, you spent ages working hard on this paper. You deserved better than what was presented to you as AWES Science.
AWES is a more simple design problem at the moment. AWES will need an optimal design synthesis study. Only after more generalised possibilities are classified.
We know enough of the science, the energy of air moving over a land footprint. We know how tethered aircraft behave. We know their structural demands. We are nowhere closer to having a generally optimised configuration of AWES which combines kites with their energy harvesting efficiency.
Not to despair…
The mass optimisation study work done here by Filipo will be incredibly useful in another optimal AWES design synthesis.
Again maverick & personal interpretation…
AWES science overly restricted the parameters available to Filipo’s Design Evaluation Methods (from Chapter 4 onward)
Yes these optimisations are already very complex. Overly complex - as the potential design space for AWES development has not converged convincingly yet.
There is a massive set of design variables available to AWES.
AWES science has not yet described a minimal parameter set for existing mechanically autonomous AWES designs.
Yes, I’m ranting online and I should now stop. Apologies but
I’m not impressed with the singular focus of AWES science, nor its skills in observation of nature.
I’m optimistic that with talents like Filipo has being used in AWES… We’ll get there.
The uncertainty and sensitivity analysis chapters are awesome.
The LCOE work is amazing.