Exciting environmental technology!

[ryberg]

The now taboo topic of global warming aside, just check out the technology and consider the possible benefits of this, if it comes to fruition!

Reach for the sky: Could flying wind farms help beat global warming?



* U.S. company develops "flying" wind turbine
* Wind energy far greater at high altitude
* FEG (Flying Electric Generator) would hover at 15,000 feet
* Massive air-born wind farms envisaged

The guiding principle of the FEG is that wind speed and constancy are far greater at high altitude than they are on the ground, especially in the two major jet streams - the Sub-Tropical Jet and the Polar Front Jet - that exist in each hemisphere (at around 30 degrees and 60 degrees latitude respectively).

A turbine at great height, so the theory goes, can generate far more power than a similar turbine at or near ground level. It has been estimated that capturing just one percent of the available energy of these high altitude winds would meet the electricity needs of the entire planet...

Wow!

If it works, global warming will cease to be a taboo topic because it will cease to be a topic of any concern at all!

Steve

[ANDY&JEN]

Very interesting and if it works amazing potential for the planet, especially as fossil fuels appear to running out at an ever increasing (and alarming) rate and couple that with the ever more efficient progression in the evolution of electric and battery cell vehicles , we may all be breathing cleaner air in the forseeable future

[TeeZet]

Interesting indeed, Steve!

This is what The Netherlands already have on the North Sea:

www.playa.info

Click here to download it.

And we also have this:


Windmills in Flevoland alongside highway A6 near the Ketelbridge

[StewartG]

Tony - cool video on the north sea wind turbines!

Great to see humans in the video shot so as to give reference to the size of those things! Do you know how much power they generate?

[horizon200]

I'm all in favor of harnessing wind for power, but not at altitude. Practically speaking, how often will they have to be lowered due to weather? Will that mean power outages when they are? What happens when one of these breaks the tether and comes crashing down? Oh wait we're not spotted owls so the environmentalists won't care.

We were discussing water current generators at work the other day. Apparently there is a restaraunt in NY on the Hudson that just lowered a genterator in to power their facility.

[TeeZet]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Tony - cool video on the north sea wind turbines!

Great to see humans in the video shot so as to give reference to the size of those things! Do you know how much power they generate?

My bad Stewart.
I should've added the info in the first place, but here goes anyway:

Egmond aan Zee Offshore Wind Farm

The Egmond aan Zee wind farm is the first big wind farm to be built in the North Sea off the Dutch coast. The farm comprises 36 wind turbines, each with a capacity of 3 MW. Together they will supply enough renewable electricity for more than 100,000 households. This is equivalent to a town the size of Eindhoven.


The farm is located 10 to 18 kilometres from the coast at Egmond aan Zee. The total area of the farm covers around 27 km2 . When the weather is fine, the wind farm will be visible from the coast.

Read more HERE (source, also in English)

[StewartG]

Thanks Tony, way cool!

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by horizon200

I'm all in favor of harnessing wind for power, but not at altitude. Practically speaking, how often will they have to be lowered due to weather? Will that mean power outages when they are? What happens when one of these breaks the tether and comes crashing down? Oh wait we're not spotted owls so the environmentalists won't care.

We were discussing water current generators at work the other day. Apparently there is a restaraunt in NY on the Hudson that just lowered a genterator in to power their facility.

Wow. This would have been a very thoughtful and interesting post, worthy of respect and serious consideration, except for the snide little jab.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Wow. This would have been a very thoughtful and interesting post, worthy of respect and serious consideration, except for the snide little jab.

I bet you that some other environmentalists will complain about it taking out some birds. In fact, I guarantee that will happen.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I bet you that some other environmentalists will complain about it taking out some birds. In fact, I guarantee that will happen.

You gotta break some eggs to make mayonaise. A few dead birds, IMHO, is worth that much clean renewable power.

As long as the dead birds aren't spotted owls, of course!

[TeeZet]

Originally Posted by StewartG

You gotta break some eggs to make mayonaise. A few dead birds, IMHO, is worth that much clean renewable power.

As long as the dead birds aren't spotted owls, of course!

Or 747's....

[MWC]

Originally Posted by TeeZet

Or 747's....

That was one of my first thoughts, too; great another factor for the air-traffic controllers to worry about ...

I think it is definitely worth exploring.

[horizon200]

Originally Posted by StewartG

Wow. This would have been a very thoughtful and interesting post, worthy of respect and serious consideration, except for the snide little jab.

Point taken Stewart. Just seems that whenever a viable energy solution might be reached, there is more concern placed on what animals may remotely be impacted than there is in the benefits it may garner or the potential harm to humans. Not saying we shouldn't consider how wildlife might be impacted, but, in terms of the greater good.

One commentary to support:
Energy future 'blowing in the wind' - Roanoke.com

And one where it's not "asthetically pleasing"
Cape Wind Porject

Environmental groups are very quick to say how we need to stop using fossil fuels. But when someone comes up with alternatives, they are quick to denounce them. Now we have an alternative presented that may actually be harmful to humans (depending one where these flying windmills are placed)...I will be interested to see if they come out against them as well.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by horizon200

Point taken Stewart. Just seems that whenever a viable energy solution might be reached, there is more concern placed on what animals may remotely be impacted than there is in the benefits it may garner or the potential harm to humans. Not saying we shouldn't consider how wildlife might be impacted, but, in terms of the greater good.

One commentary to support:
Energy future 'blowing in the wind' - Roanoke.com

And one where it's not "asthetically pleasing"
Cape Wind Porject

Environmental groups are very quick to say how we need to stop using fossil fuels. But when someone comes up with alternatives, they are quick to denounce them. Now we have an alternative presented that may actually be harmful to humans (depending one where these flying windmills are placed)...I will be interested to see if they come out against them as well.

Thats a pretty broad statement there..environmental groups are by no means monolithic in what they support...there are certainly some measures that they do not like..and others that they do.....if one were to go to the websites of some of the major environmental groups like the ones that I support I believe you will find that they actively support and work for a number of alternatives and solutions to our use of fossil fuels...so your point confuses me....I think it important to add that many of these organizations are "conservation" organizations...many believe greatly in conservation and careful management or husbandry of our natural resources as their primary focus....not a bad idea really.


Nature Conservancy
Environmental Defense
Sierra Club
Natural Resources Defense Council
World Wildlife Fund

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by horizon200

Point taken Stewart. Just seems that whenever a viable energy solution might be reached, there is more concern placed on what animals may remotely be impacted than there is in the benefits it may garner or the potential harm to humans. Not saying we shouldn't consider how wildlife might be impacted, but, in terms of the greater good.

One commentary to support:
Energy future 'blowing in the wind' - Roanoke.com

And one where it's not "asthetically pleasing"
Cape Wind Porject

Environmental groups are very quick to say how we need to stop using fossil fuels. But when someone comes up with alternatives, they are quick to denounce them. Now we have an alternative presented that may actually be harmful to humans (depending one where these flying windmills are placed)...I will be interested to see if they come out against them as well.

Well, I think most environmentalists will agree that ANY of these solutions are better than continued reliance on fossil fuels. I think most of the criticism stems from WHICH alternative is a better choice. If you asked one of these environmentalists who are criticizing a wind power project (for killing birds, being ugly, whatever) if they would rather choose to continue with coal instead, what do you think they would say?

IMO, I think they would say, of COURSE not, BUT... Lets continue to explore the opportunity for even better options! To that extent, I would agree! In the meantime, however, I'm sure we can ALL agree that wind power is better than coal power (even the environmental "whackos.")