Zhonglu High Altitude Wind Power Technology - 中路高空风力发电技术

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.

Looks too huge.

Sounds like the real.

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.

1 Like

This is indeed true for ALL reeling yo-yo systems, without any exception.

About their 2 MW, it is in the title of their brochure: “2MW Industrial Prototype of High
Altitude Wind Power System
” (link then click on the concerned pdf), not data as such.

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.

A design one might expect from an 8-year-old.

The parachute-based project continues and is mentioned in the posters mentioned in 10th International Airborne Wind Energy Conference (AWEC 2024) in Madrid - #113 by rschmehl. Here is again the link to the Posters.

And also, from the AWEC2024 Books of Abstracts, PDF of abstract available on:

https://repository.tudelft.nl/record/uuid:f62bca42-2fc8-48c0-b95f-1a6f8e63cdc4

An interesting point:

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.

Thank you Joe Faust for the last link below for the pdf.

https://epjournal.csee.org.cn/fbsny/article/doi/10.16513/j.2096-2185.DE.2409101

引用本文: 韩爽, 刘杉. 高空风力发电关键技术、现状及发展趋势[J]. 分布式能源, 2024, 9(1): 1-9. DOI: 10.16513/j.2096-2185.DE.2409101

shu

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

shu

Quote from the PDF file

“Compared with traditional wind power generation,high-altitude wind power generation has
the advantages of high-power generation efficiency,strong stability,and fewer restrictions on site selection”

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?

Indeed high altitude winds are stronger and more stable. But things are different when we consider the devices to harness this huge resource.

My idea is that Chinese companies prefer to remain on the lookout even if the AWE technology is not yet confirmed. And they progress.

1 Like

That does not translate to higher efficiency, or more stable operation, of a given device. :slight_smile:

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?

The more complete quote:

1 Like

I was going from what the promotional material stated, rather than your exact words.

Quote from the PDF file

“Compared with traditional wind power generation,high-altitude wind power generation has
the advantages of high-power generation efficiency,strong stability,and fewer restrictions on site selection”
:slight_smile: