Rather about 800 kW during power phase, and perhaps 400 kW in average.
Reel-out power phase: 10 000 (m²) x 1.2 (air density) x 2/27 x 1000 (cubed wind speed of 10 m/s) = 888 kW. Or if you prefer: 10 000 x 1.2 /2 x 1000 x Betz limit/4 = 888 kW.
Possibly a momentary peak resulting from starting and stopping the cable, combined with a big gust. Or just bad data.
Still hard to imagine anyone taking the idea of a power plant dependent on a repeated intermittent reversing cycle of reeling a cable seriously, considering the wear, and the losses.
About 800 kW (for 10 000 m²) I was giving, I just corrected a previous message by removing 1000/2 because in this formula there is no division by 2. 800 kW, for 10 000 m² kite area half of the time at the best, is not a good value.
In the parachute-based AWES, the shape of the parachute and the distance between neighboring parachutes are key factors affecting the flow field, the aerodynamic drag force, and hence the efficiency in harvesting wind energy. It is conceivable that wake separation induced by the parachute cascade could be a major threat to the efficiency of downstream parachutes. However, due to the limited research in this direction, the wake influence on the whole parachute-based AWES unit remains largely unclear.
To tackle this problem, we numerically investigate the thrust coefficient (Ct) of the parachute cascade with a nominal power of 2.4 MW. The impacts of different states of the parachutes (open or closed) and the distance between neighboring parachutes are quantified. The results clearly manifest a large-scale separation flow that significantly damages the performance of downstream parachutes. It is demonstrated that an increase of the distance of neighboring parachutes (to 1000 m) substantially mitigates the wake effect and enhances the lift force of the whole system.
I would not have thought that the wake effect would require such spacing of units in a parachute train. Perhaps the wind, not being able to pass through a parachute, is forced to bypass it much more widely than it would by passing over each of the rotors of the SuperTurbine ™ for example.
Citation: HAN Shuang, LIU Shan. Key Technologies, Current Status and Development Trends of High-Altitude Wind Power Generation[J]. Distributed Energy, 2024, 9(1): 1-9. DOI: 10.16513/j.2096-2185.DE.2409101
Really? High power generation efficiency compared with traditional wind power? In what way? Strong stability? Really? So why are there still none running today if they have such “strong stability”? After all these years? Does every treatment of AWE have to start out with lies, and end with more lies?
It’s nice to try things, but do they really “progress”? Trying stuff that doesn’t really work out is just “spinning your wheels”. And is it really nice to blatantly copy other failed projects and claim it as an original invention?