People involved in AWE often come from air (kite, plane, glider) world. So it is natural wind energy is seen as an option within air world. To redefine AWE as comprising simple kites means noticing generating wind energy (like HAWT does) is not more a main target.

PierreB

Doug,
Your several-pointed note has some statement that invite some reply and perhaps some correction or refining. Some will be faced hereon; other points later. Thanks.

1. Some people are aiming to report the energy used in a many AWE sectors. And hopefully any coal or oil replacement relative to particular sectors. E.g., AWES traction by boats/ships/yachts/kiteboards/barges/rafts may be replacing coal and oil. Study of such matter might have impact on planners and investors.
E.g., AWES glider matters may have two kinds of AWES going; one to be faced in group DSUTWP and another in this group when onboard secondary kiting is involved integrated with the glider or paraglider or sailplane.
It seems you want others only to look at one sector of AWE, and not the many other sectors; is that a correct reading on your way to your definition of AWE? Thanks.

2. Doug, some of us do recognized that we have a young "industry" association in AWEIA. It is easy to know that industrial actions are occurring among some of its members. Annual output is not zero. Also, annual activity toward increasing energy production is increasing. Sorry we do not yet meet your thresholds for "industry", but industry is happening despite your thresholds. The totality of wind-energy activities "constitutes" wind energy; inasmuch as industry is occurring in many of those activities, then the wind-energy industry is in good shape; I am not one to leave out some corner of the industry just because such corner has been around for a long time; indeed, old corner are frequently morphing its arts to advance in some interesting territories!

3. Doug, the "wind industry" is not fenced in to your fabors only; though you have rubbed with conventional wind industry in some of its sectors, it seems you are having a rough time appreciating a corner of the wind industry called AWE. In time, AWE will be meeting your thresholds and come into your view. Meanwhile AWE simply is growing in its very young state.

4. Doug, where energy is saved by efficient use of winds is tabulated or discussed, then I would notice that the matter is part of the wind-energy industry. You do not, it seems. And I am comfortable with having such magazines that serve towered tri-blades be without much reporting over AWE. A new game is in town where people are looking to wind in many corners. In time the conventional tri-blade magazines will take notice of AWE more than they have; they have notice Joby and Altaeros, but only a tiny glance. AWE is not meeting those magazines' thresholds yet; no proble while AWE grows.

Scene:

Energy kite system basing its anchor on the roof of a home or office skyscraper (pending approval of engineers for the wind force experieced in the anchoring system)?  Let all the city's activity be as they were before the AWES installation. ( Brother: conventional building-mounted towered non-tethered wind turbine). Let the AWES do its good works (specific task which might even be generating energy for remote tasks via electricity production and transmission).   Note that the offices go on as usual; notice the gardens around go on as usual. Note the people come and go as usual. So long as the tether set and wing set and anchor set behave themselves, the cost in the scene for the added AWES regards safety, adequate support for the anchor system.

 ~ JoeF  

 An altered group description is presented.

AWES branches: tethered and untethered

have two specialed groups. Please do not double post.

Please post tethered AWES matters in the forum hereon.

Please post untethered AWES matters in DSUTWP forum.

We support both forums with links in many key places.

The world and the 180 current members of this forum

have easy means to visit/join/post in DSUTWP; there is

no need to cross-post.  That Gabor did some doubles

and I have done some cross posting in the past is a pattern

discouraged.     Some posts have been moved  that were

not doubled. Mirrored posts for untethered matters have

been and will be deleted from this hereon forum, without

prejudice as to merit.

Note that in some niche AWES where tethers are required,

then simply untethered AWES won't serve. The opposite would hold.

In time: the sector of utility-scale energy production from AWES

might find untethered AWES or tethered AWES winning over the other.

I see no reason to nag workers in one camp about that future point;

consider going after winning solutions for niche markets and niche applications in either camp.

The tether set of tether-using AWES has its challenges and assets that keep tether-involved workers very busy. Safety is ever involved when tethers are used. Focus.  

When working with untethered AWES, there are special challenges and assets that keep untethered workers very busy. Special safety matters are ever involved.

~ JoeF

Doug,

       Your paragraph on apparent conventional-towered blades:  I would characterize that the electricity generated is all from non-tethered system and non-free-flight action in the sense of tether-set kite-energy systems. AWE chose a name that would embrace RATs; and Gabor is leading a party for untethered RATs on gliders (see that forum DSUTWP); Makani and Ampyx and others are rallying around tethered kited RATs while sending the electricity through the tether set. The wind is used in all these mentioned formats; the conventional tri-blade are wind-using in its full rotations, not just for the zenithal-going half seemingly mentioned by you.  May we say "wind-borne" for the conventionals and for the AWES, tolerating the possibly weak name of "A" in AWE?   Wayne German wanted simply Kite Energy to win the naming game; but some bow to NASA is what resulted for "AWES".   It is fined to simply specify the physics in one's attention to progress.  In this forum the focus is on tethered energy kite systems (including kites that are kytoons; and including tethered free-flight kite systems in tethered FFAWE; and we honor sister DSUTWP for the untethered AWES.    This all is not a naming game as such, as we refer to the physical specifications to know our topics.

    Cheers,

         ~ JoeF

JoeF,

"I see no reason to nag workers in one camp about that future point;

consider going after winning solutions for niche markets and niche applications in either camp."

By the same argument there is no reason to present arguments favoring (as example) said low-complexity against aerobatic flygen until winning solutions are found.

But I approve the possibility of presenting arguments favoring said low-complexity even if no prove is presented as a working prototype. So I approve also the possibility to write on DSUTWP or on AWES forums that tethered-AWES have more possibility for utility-scale energy than DSUTWP or vice versa.

Note DSUTWP are AWES. Note also tethered-AWE is an old baby.

I am surprised you ask DougS for a definition of AWE, thinking his definition is too narrow in AWE field, and in the same time you see problems to write about DSUTWP on AWES forum.

PierreB 

"Unfortunate that Yahoo does not let us rename groups;..". Where is the problem? There is also KiteGen group within Yahoo, and we can speak about it on both AWES forum and KiteGen forum.


PierreB

JoeF,


"...Another option:Get me out of the moderator seat.   It might be time to get me out of the moderator seat of this and the other forum.   Anyone want to take over the moderator position for this and the other forum???????..."

It is not the question. All players within the two groups (and generally in AWE field) agree you make a great job.

PierreB

Agreed. Thanks.

     However,  having earth (or water-and-soil) as grand anchoring for the study, consider then letting the tension lines be fed through the heart of buildings, homes, cities, farms; I envision rings centrally earth-anchored with other activity built inside and under and over those anchored rings; the ring would then go out to the wing sets.

    : )     JoeF

JoeF,

"Shall we fold the messages of DSUTWP into forum "airbornewindenergy"
and stop the group DSUTWP? Gabor? Pierre? Others? Thanks."

Yes I fully agree for this and DaveS's proposition of keeping only AWES forum , and transfer DSUTWP as topics within AWES forum for several reasons:

• simplification of management, DSUTWP being AWES
• More debate on AWES forum concerning all AWE branches of which DSUTWP
• DSUTWP forum gathers only 5 persons to read posts

PierreB

DaveS,

Some secondary points are to be corrected:

• 2 MW is an wrong value (the configuration of measure of towing is not quite the configuration of measure of generating)
• Tu Delft gives a value of 20 kW with a 25 m² wing.Click on www.kitepower.eu/technology.html then on "system components".[The simplified formula for reeling-it/out during power phase is 1/2 X 2/27 X air density X wind speed cubed X coef of lift X (L/D)² . With L/D being 4 (plausible for soft wing) you can theoretically obtain about 60 kW, then divide it by 2 or 3 due to losses.]
• So we obtain 240 kW for a 300 m² soft wing.
  
  

But in first your "analysis" is quite wrong since your comparison with HAWT is quite unfair. Your front of not directional *30 looping units under the arch facing the wind* should correspond in a front of *15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind*. So rough results are something like:

• *30 looping units under the arch facing the unidirectional wind*: 7.2 MW (before losses due to the proximity of looping  units) for land used (footprint) being roughly 2 km² (not 4 km² since only one wind direction is considered, but not less by considering the slope of the arch in the direction of the wind).
• *15 HAWT facing the unidirectional wind*: 75 MW ( before losses due to the proximity of units, each unit supposed to be 5 MW) for land used (footprint) being roughly 0.04 km² ( here the width of turbines is very weak, less than 20 m)
• So the ratio of power/land used of HAWT is 520 times over that of arch with looping units.

(Note that PDF mentions other reasons than yours to make kite-farm more densified. Numerous factors are also to be considered: wind shadow (the same for HAWT).)

I hope you do not draw WOW from KiteGen with such false arguments (or rather real ineptitudes mixed with intellectual dishonesty) on your last post and on many of your posts.False arguments favoring supposedly AWE are a real obstacle in a fair debate, and a brake for AWE development.

I precise I have not so much patience as DougS. So do not wait for a false perpetual dialogue with me.

PierreB

Not quite Doug, seeing on one of my recent posts:" Note also tethered-AWE is an old baby."


PierreB

DaveS,


"Again, your estimate 520x capacity-intensity advantage for windtowers over AWE does not seem like a reasonable result, so please provide a clearer calculation"

520 X for a front of unidirectional windtowers over a front of unidirectional 30 units under arch as your AWES you describe, not general AWE as you should know. But you can disagree if you consider it is possible to have people,buildings,farm,or activities like fishing (implementation offshore) under the arch. TuDelft relates a poor output considering the used generator at the time, not reel operation by itself.

PierreB

And by taking account of only power phase.The average power should be far lower. And I agree reeling is not so efficient within existing wind energy, but is very efficient within AWES. 

PierreB

DaveS,

To make conversion with "back-and-forth crosswind" several methods are possible: reeling, flygen, hydroturbine etc. All methods generate an amount of losses, even a rotor of autogyro-like  (but for the reverse reason) since a big part is for lift.

PierreB

""Wind Energy" normally refers to using wind to power ground-based activities."

It is the question.Maybe our thinking is not correct.

Ground-based activities should be assured by ground-based wind turbines since airborne wind energy should assure airborne activities.

PierreB

""Wind Energy" normally refers to using wind to power ground-based activities."

It is the question.Maybe our thinking is not correct.

Ground-based activities should be assured by ground-based wind turbines while airborne wind energy should assure airborne activities.

PierreB
(some correction)