Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Windmills in the Sky
Popular Science ^ | September 2005 (go figure) | Michael Behar

Posted on 08/17/2005 9:38:58 AM PDT by SunkenCiv

Bryan Roberts, an engineer at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, has a solution: Instead of erecting wind turbines on the ground, float them in the jet stream, a screamingly fast current of air that circles the globe, fluctuating between altitudes of 15,000 and 45,000 feet... huge squadrons of airborne FEGs will hover in the jet stream like giant kites. Winds of up to 200 miles an hour will spin rotors on the FEGs, generating an electrical current that’s transmitted along superstrong tethers to ground stations linked to the utility grid. "You might have 600 of them, each producing 20 megawatts," he says. "They could generate enough power for two Chicago-size cities."

(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Science
KEYWORDS: energy; politics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: ClearCase_guy
Or you could have 300 of them and power one Chicago-sized city. Just a thought.

LOL! Smartass.... ;-)

21 posted on 08/17/2005 10:32:35 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
It's a nice exercise, but an impractical idea.

It'd sure make for interesting air travel through the blimp corridor, that's for sure.

22 posted on 08/17/2005 10:33:46 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
...to eliminate the chances of air collision, aircraft... must stay further than 4.5km away."

Ya think??? Aircraft have enough problems currently with power lines and radio towers, even when they are well charted.

I think good solid nuclear reactors, on the ground, would solve a LOT of our energy problems.

23 posted on 08/17/2005 10:39:07 AM PDT by GoldCountryRedneck ("A Liberal with a cause is far more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude." - - Unknown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but didn't we just recently help extricate a Russian sub that got caught in a fishing net? Does anyone else think the same thing could happen with these "tethers" and airborne vehicles and creatures? And I must be missing something: what's so bad about standard windmills, which certainly take a LOT less space?


24 posted on 08/17/2005 10:43:29 AM PDT by alwaysconservative (Okay, so what IS the exit strategy for LBJ's War on Poverty?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Nuclear.

NUCLEAR!

25 posted on 08/17/2005 10:46:07 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (This ain't your granddaddy's America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
WIND
26 posted on 08/17/2005 10:47:14 AM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

Wind blows.


27 posted on 08/17/2005 10:49:18 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (This ain't your granddaddy's America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

from the Energy keyword:
28 posted on 08/17/2005 10:49:42 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Sunday, August 14, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

Wind is a good supplemental energy source, but that's all. We need a efficient, reliable & clean energy source. Nukes fit the bill perfectly.


29 posted on 08/17/2005 10:53:21 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (This ain't your granddaddy's America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Should a hurricane tip over a $150 million, 260 ft tall wind generator, on the other hand

A single windmill is more like $3.5 million not $150 million.

30 posted on 08/17/2005 10:53:48 AM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
Wind is a good supplemental energy source

What percent is good as a supplement?

31 posted on 08/17/2005 10:55:36 AM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

As much as can be produced economically & reliably. It would be foolish to rely 100% on wind, because there is very little likelyhood it can produce 100% of our needs. Ever.

Nuke power can produce 100% of the power we require, regardless of weather.


32 posted on 08/17/2005 11:02:32 AM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (This ain't your granddaddy's America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

The jet stream moves around a lot. It's not like they can put a giant kite up there and expect it to stay put.


33 posted on 08/17/2005 11:08:25 AM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and open the Land Office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance

I'd be pretty excited by 50 percent wind 15 percent hydro and 35 percent coal/gas/whatever and zero nuke myself. I don't think I'll be getting my way soon though.


34 posted on 08/17/2005 11:17:16 AM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk; Fierce Allegiance
NUCLEAR!

WIND

TASTES GREAT!

LESS FILLING!

35 posted on 08/17/2005 11:30:18 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hey, Cindy Sheehan, grow up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

Nukes are still the cleanest and safest of the bunch. Besides, they usually build nice fishing piers near the cooling water outfalls.

I'm all for anything that can supplement fuel-reliant energy, but I won't hold my breath witing.

National Geographic had a recent article touting Nukes along with wind & solar as the clean choices for our future. I was kinda surprised they are in favvor of nukes. Maybe the light has been seen!


36 posted on 08/17/2005 12:05:03 PM PDT by Fierce Allegiance (This ain't your granddaddy's America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance
National Geographic had a recent article touting Nukes along with wind & solar as the clean choices for our future. I was kinda surprised they are in favvor of nukes. Maybe the light has been seen!

I'm surprised too. I'd like to see wind power replace nukes.

37 posted on 08/17/2005 12:11:48 PM PDT by biblewonk (A house of cards built on Matt 16:18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I love bold ideas. bump


38 posted on 08/17/2005 3:13:07 PM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; Yo-Yo

I think their idea involves mobility, so that if the jet stream shifts enough, it becomes economical to bring the things down, then kite 'em up where the jet stream moved to.


39 posted on 08/17/2005 9:59:52 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Sunday, August 14, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lOKKI

Hive got to agree with you on that. Yours is a honey of an idea.


40 posted on 08/17/2005 10:03:38 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Sunday, August 14, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson