Floating wind turbines could be our energy solution in the clouds

flatus is a clean , renewable muscularity source , but there is n’t nearly enough of it down here on the terra firma . But luxuriously in the sky , there are furious super acid streams of sinewy wind just waiting to be reap by float turbines .

NASA engineer Mark Moore has been operate on the thought of airborne wind turbines for years . He imagines massive turbines as high as 30,000 feet in the air tethered to the ground by farsighted , closely invisible nanotube . The turbines would glean the magnate of the reverse lightning streams and then transmit the power down the nanotubes back towards Earth . He ’s now got a federal grant to figure out just how feasible these ideas really are .

In theory , the get-up-and-go benefit of airborne turbines is tremendous . The amount of uncommitted energy to be extracted from wind increases exponentially the high up you go , and wind is much more changeless at mellow altitude than it is near the ground . Moore provides some idea of the grand free energy benefits available :

Greenworks

“ At 2,000 feet ( 610 m ) , there is two to three times the wind velocity compared to priming level . The powerfulness fail up with the square block of that wind velocity , so it ’s eight to 27 times the exponent output just by stick 2,000 pes ( 610 m ) up , and the wind velocity is more logical . [ At 30,000 substructure ] , instead of 500 watts per m ( for ground - base malarkey turbine ) , you ’re talk about 20,000 , 40,000 watts per straight meter . That ’s very high DOE compactness and potentially downcast price wind vigor because of the 50 - plus fold step-up in vitality compactness . ”

Of naturally , that would n’t figure out our vim problems , but it would make wind vitality a far bigger player in the solution . Also , even if it would cost money to get the turbine up in the airwave , the actual operating costs would be far cheaper than any other energy source :

“ They could remain up a twelvemonth , then come down for a upkeep baulk and then go back up . Or they could be whirl in in instance of a storm . Or one operator could watch over 100 of these .

Iniu Portabe Charger

There ’s also the question of land to look at . Most other power works take up a Brobdingnagian belt of useable Edwin Herbert Land . These turbine , on the other hand , would n’t take up much more space than it takes to guarantee the nanotube tether .

Still , there are some drawbacks . One of the major problem is where to put these things . Airplanes wo n’t be capable to go near the turbines , and air space is already crowded enough . Moore explains :

“ Airspace is a good . You have to be able-bodied to use air space without disrupting it for other players . humble aircraft are still going to need to flee around . large airplanes , you ca n’t expect them to vanish around every wind turbine that has a two - nautical mile spoke as a protect trajectory geographical zone .

24tb Seagate Drive

Moore thinks he might have a solution :

“ Offshore deployment of these airborne systems probably makes the most sense in term of both air space and land role , because there is little to no need for scurvy altitude flight over oceans 12 mile ( 19 to 20 km ) offshore . Also , unlike primer coat - based turbines , there is almost no additional cost for airborne systems offshore because huge platforms are not required to support the structure or resist prominent column bending moments . ”

We probably wo n’t see any turbines taking to the air for a few more year yet , but you may get some approximation of the technology with the concept drawing we present ina post a few years back . you’re able to see a couple of our dearie above .

Gopro Hero13 Limited Editon