The S1500 floating turbine’s operating altitude is 4,921 feet above ground level, where wind speed moves about three times faster than at the surface. The advantage of this altitude (also referred to as vertical slice) can result in a power output up to 27 times higher than a conventional ground-based wind turbine of similar capacity.
The capacity to generate one megawatt of electrical power (MW) with the S1500 system is comparable in size to what small wind power turbines normally generate (a conventional 328-foot-tall wind turbine), while the footprint of the S1500 system is significantly smaller. This amazing power density shows the efficiency benefits of being able to access high altitude wind power resources by new and innovative airborne platforms.
This is an extremely promising innovation, and company plans on bigger designs already. But the total cost has to include an automated roof opening shelter for storms, that can open and close in medium winds before the high winds come. This makes the ground footprint higher than traditional turbines, even if agriculture can be done when there is no storm and roof is open. Perhaps 4 thethering strong cables could permit it to survive a cat 1 hurricane when hugging ground without a roof, but it is more weight to lift normally.
How come the 131 foot altitude in the headline is never mentioned in the article? These turbine operates at 4,921 feet, a number that makes a lot more sense when you convert it to metric, 1.5 km. The article is littered with these odd imperial measurements that should have just been left as nice round metric numbers, or least re-rounded after conversion. 130 feet would have read better, but the original number was 40 m.
Probably because the article was AI generated, if I had to guess.
It’s not that hard to comprehend both measurement systems. Both are valid and it’s up to the author to choose how they want to express their figures. You can send them a complaint if you want, but complaining about their measurements here isn’t going to change anything.
These are a massive liability every storm. You have to winch them down and get them into a blisteringly massive hangar that can hold them. Then get them set back up after. Every. Single. Storm.
Furthermore, you don’t save on land use, as you need the massive, expensive hangar for each right at their base.
Ground-based wind-turbines just feather their blades and lock their gearbox. Very simple.
Still better than coal
The wind at 32,000 ft is 200 times stronger than the wind at the surface?
Ummm… 10 knots * 200 = 2000 knots. I don’t think so lol.
A lot of strange numbers in this article that bring its accuracy into question.
No mention of the weight of a 1 and 1/2 km wire that is also suitable to anchor this thing in place. Or are they going to float batteries and bring them down to discharge?
I can’t be arsed to dig up the equation, but it may mean that the wind has 200 times more usable energy, which I think is a cube function of its speed. Wouldn’t be 2000 knots in that case
Maybe it means the kinetic energy of the wind, which I believe scales against its velocity-squared?
I’m thinking it’s about consistency. 10kts 10% of the time vs average 150kts 100% of the time (the math is a little off but we’re in hypothetical estimates already)
they gonna use magsafe connectors for wireless transmission, duh.
It’d be interesting to see the cost efficiency of that versus traditional wind turbines over the expected lifespan of both.
Yes it’s odd to see an article about electricity generation technology that doesn’t even have a speculative ‘levelised cost of energy’ as they call it. That is lifecycle expected average $/MWh.
I guess its a very early prototype. and maybe China doesn’t care to much about LCOE.
Is anyone else getting aeon flux vibs?
Cool. How do they perform maintenance?
Just throw a dart at it and wait for it to come down.
Unfortunately, I could not find a link to the manual.
- Operational altitude: 4,921 feet
So precise - Weight: Under 2,204 pounds
Um… so 2,203 pounds?
Altitude: 1500 meters
Weight: Under 1000kg
Makes so much more sense that it was originally in metric but looks weird translated to imperial.
They should’ve went with football fields instead, and weight in washing machines
Or when you need really impressive numbers for weight: oak leaves.
Maple leaves in Canada. Ha ha just kidding because they use metric like the rest of the civilised world.
- Operational altitude: 4,921 feet
Lot’s of birds will be shredded
