Messages in AirborneWindEnergy group.                           AWES13734to13783 Page 170 of 440.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13734 From: Rod Read Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: Lessons from Mothra

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13735 From: dave santos Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: Re: Hybrid offspring of Makani Wing and Daisy Ring

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13736 From: dave santos Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13737 From: dave santos Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: How close might giant kiteplanes operate over large populations? (Ka

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13738 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13739 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13740 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13741 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13742 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13743 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13744 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13745 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Latest Professor Crackpot wind energy "new idea"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13746 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Crackpot or not?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13747 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: How I've always explained wind turbines to newbies

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13748 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13749 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13750 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Professor Crackpot wind energy "new idea"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13751 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: How I've always explained wind turbines to newbies

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13752 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13753 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13754 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13755 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13756 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Conventional Wind Towers as Baseline Case for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13757 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Crackpot or not?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13758 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Conventional Wind Towers as Baseline Case for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13759 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13760 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13761 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Conventional Wind Towers as Baseline Case for AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13762 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Professor Crackpot wind energy "new idea"

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13763 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13764 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13765 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13766 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13767 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13768 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13769 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13770 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13771 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13772 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13773 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13774 From: edoishi Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: kPower website

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13775 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: How close might giant kiteplanes operate over large populations?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13776 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13777 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: NREL's LCOE Calculator for Theoretic AWE

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13778 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13779 From: David Lang Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13780 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13781 From: Rod Read Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13782 From: Rod Read Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13783 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's LCOE Calculator for Theoretic AWE



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13734 From: Rod Read Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: Lessons from Mothra

Mothra is super stable and easily controlled, it's safe due to multi point tethering.
I believe that the multi paneled loadpaths are responsible for much of this and make it more reliable and cheaper to implement.
If all that is good, how does a Daisy compare to a single looping parafoil?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13735 From: dave santos Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: Re: Hybrid offspring of Makani Wing and Daisy Ring
There is a wide range of footprint-loop ratios that produce phased pumping, but a balanced ratio is best. The acuteness of the airborne "string-tripod" is a key parameter to also optimize within a moderate range. The resulting proportions are fairly specific.

Generally we want to avoid any compliance to secondary cranking forces at each anchor, which would parasitically dissipate power from reaching the central load, in the classic tri-tether AWES version.


On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:20 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13736 From: dave santos Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
Pierre,

1/3 of total land area is desert, where you concede that AWES may compete. Similarly, over half of all land area, and almost all ocean area has very low air traffic. You seem unaware of the pending NextGen airspace revolution, and how it will allow AWE to occupy mountain-sized parcels of airspace even in busy aviation regions. You seem not to understand the safety advantage of soft kites compared to kiteplanes like Ampyx and Makani. Giant soft kites are fairly close in risk factors to wind towers, if you observe more closely.

While you fixate only on the negative basis for your pessimism, the positive evidence you ignore only seems greater. Keep your -520x calculation in mind as "Benhaeim's Number", possibly your ultimate legacy in early AWE, unless you can admit the huge gaps to your pessimistic reasoning. DaveL and I still await your economic calculations behind your "AWES cannot compete" topic, for the record, but we do not expect a high standard if you do. Surprise us,

daveS




On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 2:36 PM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13737 From: dave santos Date: 8/12/2014
Subject: How close might giant kiteplanes operate over large populations? (Ka
Landing jumbo jets at Hong Kong is an aviation similarity case from the last century (to compare with theoretic AWES). My dad flew 747s on the Kai Tak Approach over many years, which helps explain my conviction that giant AWES can someday be just as safe overhead (and not as loud)-

747 Steep Bank Hong Kong
 

 

image
 

 
 
 
 

747 Steep Bank Hong Kong

View on www.youtube.com
Preview by Yahoo

 


Good technical background here-

Kai Tak Checkerboard approach Old HKG Airport
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13738 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

DaveS,

 

Few days ago you wrote:"Make no mistake, the AWE we intend will kill tower farms by out-competing for the same sites and markets, from Germany to Australia.". Generally (particulary in Germany) there are a lot of human activities in sites of tower-farm. So in the same sites AWES cannot compete against ground-based wind turbines, due (I repeat it) (at least) to huge land/space used with tethers and moving flying members. Making careful economic calculations for it is also useless as for the replacement of city cars by trucks tanks. 

Yesterday you wrote:"You seem unaware of the pending NextGen airspace revolution, and how it will allow AWE to occupy mountain-sized parcels of airspace even in busy aviation regions." Within AWEforum it is difficult to ignore you intend making both airspace and energy revolution with soft kites. Why do you not trying convincing marketers replacing HAWT with Mothra and its future improvements?

But there is a theoretical possibility for AWES in deserts (in oceans possibilities exist only in zones of no fishing, no shipping), and among a panel of energies. A project like www.desertec.org/  centralizing (and dividing the cost of cable) energies could perhaps allow some possibilities. But if low layer (until 600 m) of HAWE is harnessed, ground-based turbines will be better. And if Jet Streams (in spite of the advice of Maw Planck Institute

1.    www.mpg.de/4689869/high_wind_low_energy  ) )   are harnessed, I do not know the mean making reliable great farms of devices with several km of floating tethers. And (for you DaveS) Skymill being a rigid autogyro-like, is not a soft kite...

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13739 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

DaveS,


It is revealing that you take only the "kite" part from Airborne Wind Energy Systems, omitting "wind energy" part. In spite of numerous inaccuracies daily in your posts (the last about replacing existing wind turbines by soft kites on the same sites, showing also your pessimism about the great success and progress of the existing wind energy) you like giving lessons. So I advise you to learn about lessons of wind energy history. That made by Mr.Douglas Spriggs Selsam on the present forum can be an excellent beginning. Learn also the present is the future of yesterday.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13740 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
PierreB,
DaveS fully knows "wind energy" in his presentation. It seems
of late that it is you that is deeply failing to see the "wind energy"
in the systems involved. The wind's energy is converted to other forms
of energy by the arts attended to by the bulk of posts in this group.
Those other forms of energy obtained are directed to doing further
works in near and also frequently out to remote loads. A failure to
see that energy kite systems as wind energy systems may place your
tack way off the course of airbornewindenergy. This forum is not
focused on ground-hugging towered turbines, but on systems that are
tethered or free-flying or some combinations of free-flying with
free-flying tethers. Every progress in kite arts adds something to
the general flow of energy kite systems. It seems you are taking one
tight corner of the large flow and trying to make zero the rich large
picture; in doing so, you are invited to just focus on your corner
without slapping aside the kite-energy technology that remains being
developed in the RAD program.

Lift,
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13741 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
Pierre:  My opinion: all this can be explained when you realize you are reading the lunatic ravings of a madman.  Anyone with a keyboard can write anything on the internet.  :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13742 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)


JoeF,



You wrote:" It seems of late that it is you that is deeply failing to see the "wind energy"
in the systems involved."

So probably you can clarify this for me, providing some datas as:

  • Is Mothra or other KiteLab's system producing electricity?
  • If yes what amount?in 2009?2010?2011?2012?2013?2014?
  • If such systems are not producing electricity, is there a description of modus operanti?
  • DaveS wrote:"Make no mistake, the AWE we intend will kill tower farms by out-competing for the same sites and markets, from Germany to Australia.". Do you approve this assertion? Please can you provide a simple answer as yes or no?  
  • If yes do you think, as the quoted sentence and most posts assert, AWES can be implemented with tethers and system above or among people?

Thanks.

 

PierreB   
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13743 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Joe, let me deconstruct your post:
1) PierreB, DaveS fully knows "wind energy" in his presentation.
***No evidence Dave S. knows anything about wind energy.
2)  it seems of late that it is you that is deeply failing to see the "wind energy" in the systems involved.
***This sounds like Dave S. writing - "deeply failing" - ALL crackpots think knowledgeable people are "deeply failing to see..." their vision.
3) The wind's energy is converted to other forms of energy by the arts attended to by the bulk of posts in this group.
***NO the wind's energy is NOT converted to ANYTHING in this group.  This group is mostly worthless offhand opinions of know-nothings who are in fact NOT Building ANYTHING that makes even ONE WATT.
4) Those other forms of energy obtained are directed to doing further
works in near and also frequently out to remote loads.
***Lots of words - little meaning...
5) A failure to see that energy kite systems as wind energy systems may place your tack way off the course of airbornewindenergy.
*** "A failure to thee" - Are you SURE you're not Dave S.???  HEy Joe, guess what?  Kites are NOT, ing eneral, "wind energy systems", they are mostly a vane in a  flow capable of holding their position against gravity, or changing position.
6) This forum is not focused on ground-hugging towered turbines,
*** Oh boy, here we go - you think merely typing a term like "ground-hugging" places you "above the chatter" of the "meaningless" current technology, that delivers 4-cent power, and about which you have nary a clue
7) but on systems that are tethered or free-flying or some combinations of free-flying with free-flying tethers. 
*** More fantasies:
   a) that Pierre suddenly does not know what the topic of this forum is
   b) that wind turbines are not "tethered" now.  Guess what?  They NEED to be held down, or they will fly away in a strong wind.  I use a clamp below the yaw bearing.  Omit the "tether" and your turbine will become airborne, which has always been the case and, unfortunately, usually considered something to avoid.
8) Every progress in kite arts adds something to the general flow of energy kite systems. 
*** Circular reasoning. kites may turn out to be irrelevant to Airborne Wind Energy, then you'll be back to trying to redefine everything that flies as "a kite".  As always, nice try, but WHY???  Is the word "kite" that important?  To whom?  And why?
9) It seems you are taking one tight corner of the large flow and trying to make zero the rich large picture;
*** Maybe you just THINK you see "the rich large picture".  Maybe it is YOUR opinion that is in error.  Ever think of that?
10) in doing so, you are invited to just focus on your corner without slapping aside the kite-energy technology that remains being developed in the RAD  program.
*** maybe he knows what he is talking about and is giving his opinion.  Your problem is you guys think this is a battle of words, and that crafting the right string of words can somehow produce power.  Your other problem is you guys imagine you have some understanding that others don't.  I see no evidence of that.  Most of what you guys post on here is clearly wrong.  You remain in a 100% fantasy-world.

Lift,
*** You guys keep saying "lift", but that won't help either. More words substituting for action.  5 years of "lift" in the face of ZERO PROGRESS.  You have to understand how to USE "lift" to your advantage.  That is where you COULD begin to understand wind energy.
~ JoeF
*** not your real name - kidding! :)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13744 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
Visitors, readers, and discussants are invited to review some former
notes on the Max Planck paper:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/search/messages?query=Planck
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13745 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Latest Professor Crackpot wind energy "new idea"
The real wind energy forums often post crackpot turbine designs as a joke.  The punchlines need not be stated - as with all good humor, explaining the punchline is unnecessary, assuming the audience is hip.  Usually, just posting the link is sufficient for a laugh, since we've all heard whatever their website will say so many times before.  Note the obligatory reliance on a "wind tunnel" forcing air through their system to generate their misplaced excitement.  Beard?  Glatheth?  Polka-dot Bowtie? Dandruff?
This one is from today:
PrimoWind - Energy from Thin Air

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13746 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Crackpot or not?
This one was posted on a real wind energy group a few days ago:
http://www.accioenergy.com/
(These are posted as one would set up a target for sport)
They say it is better...
Anyone care to place a bet? 
(I'd love to see it work, but it does resemble a notion I posted as an April Fools joke years ago)
:)

One can begin to see the similarities in these websites after a few years.  After seeing enough of them, you can pretty much figure them out at a mere glance.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13747 From: dougselsam Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: How I've always explained wind turbines to newbies
If you'd been paying attention, you'd realize that when someone writes about "a ring of kites", I'm asking "Why don't they see it should be a ring of gliders, for better performance?" The next questions are "which part of the glider is actually necessary?" leading to the possible elimination of fuselages and tails, at which point the composite "wing" can be recognized as a wind turbine blade, or a gyrocopter blade.
What is tomorrows mystery to you is old news to me.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13748 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

It is not quite "land is precious".To be clear land use is a cripping parameter, preventing all implementation of utility-scale AWES ,at least in European countries. It is one among other reasons making inadequate DaveS'slogan: "Make no mistake, the AWE we intend will kill tower farms by out-competing for the same sites and markets, from Germany to Australia".  It is not easy finding a worse slogan to destroy AWE. Unfortunately it is not only a slogan but the official religion of the present AWE forum: replacing wind towers by soft kites without conversion systems since kites are already AWES.

So now let us speak seriously.

  • We can agree desert regions are required: no people, no house, no shopping, no shipping, no fishing, no aerial circulation. 
  • After what we can speak about the opportunity: AWES alone, what wind, AWES among other renewables like in www.desertec.org/ .
  • After what we can speak about ROI & COE, the system taken alone, the system within its environmenent.
  • Concerning system consider the use of materials due to both tension and motion. For example concerning reeling:the wear of tether, winch, flying member in tightening and relaxing cycles..., so life-time of elements. 
  • Consider maintenance.
  • Evaluation of some risks like lightning... Of course far other elements have to be considered.
  • Now considering the same but within its environments: for example the risks of lightning on other renewables (solar or other wind) implemented due to AWES.
  • The cost of the cable (favoring AWES if the cable is already implemented).
  • ...
  • Make the balance with resource harnessed, with power.
  • ...

I do not believe that real response is yet possible. However implementation of AWES in deserts does not seem impossible.

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13749 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
One thing is clear, the AWE pessimists go "buggy" when reminded that technological progress is not measured by naively impatient time-frames.

Of course every time anyone here writes "AWE" they include "wind energy". Pierre is the only one here seeking to take the "energy" out ("AWS"). The Forum record clearly shows Doug to know less about wind energy, and especially AWE, than many experts on the AWES Forum, including me. If Doug knew more he would never make so many factual errors, and could display more and deeper knowledge than the handful of simple facts he endlessly repeats, and violates in his own designs (Like in his patent placing a VAWT rotor on a drive shaft at the ground under HAWT rotors above; the VAWT in its lower wind would never be able to keep up to the upper rotors, and just add drag).

Wubbo Lives


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 7:51 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13750 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Professor Crackpot wind energy "new idea"
Nothing beats the 1000ft tall carbon "rotating tower", if amusement is wanted in "real wind circles", including ours (its not even airborne).

Doug somehow thinks that sharing crackpot ideas is a substitute for finding new AWE solutions (which he does not have).


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:06 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13751 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: How I've always explained wind turbines to newbies
Doug, 

"Glider Ring" is what has been posted, not "ring of kites".

If you ever wrote "ring of gliders" in the past, please show were, for due credit.

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:36 AM, "dougselsam@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13752 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
Pierre,

What we "intend" is not necessarily what will happen. Do not be confused. A statement-of-intent is not the same as a solid prediction. We do intend to compete against wind towers in the future (once the R&D phase is successful).

So if you agree that making AWE economic calculations is too hard for you, you are still left with your topic title, which implies you did not neglect the economic calculus, but you did,

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 8:40 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13753 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
Doug confessed: "all this can be explained when you realize you are reading the lunatic ravings of a madman"




On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:02 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13754 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Pierre and Doug,
DaveS' topic here was about having a look at the kite-energy
system of Popcock and the history of kite-buggying as a suggestion
model for patience for industries under development.

My read is that PierreB does not see the energy conversion to
usefulness involved in the kite buggying realm and history and coming
future. If the converted energy in a kite energy system is not
immediately "electricity" then it seems PierreB wants such as
non-AWES, whereas such system is AWES. Opinions and definitions are at
play; but the inception and description of this forum does result in
respecting kite-buggying as a form of AWES. Many engineers and
technicians know that one may place an electric generator at the axle
of a kite buggy and simply convert some of the gained energy to
electricity when wanted; this was discussed many years ago in the
forum. Culp was fully aware of the option. Produce robust kite buggy
and produce many energy formats by choice; such is basic awareness
about traction kite-energy systems. Jon Chul goes robustly further in
this direction and suggests the making of chemicals at sea as well as
electricity. This forum has RAD over energy for practical uses
regardless of the form of the energy.

Yes, Doug, towered turbines are restrained from flying off. The
flying up and off are probably distinctions that have the towered
turbines as not the topic of this forum, as such. Of course, the
aerodynamics of the blades used in towered turbines and many other
topics within towered turbines have home here in this forum; indeed,
some kite-energy teams seem to be aiming at lifting rigid-bladed HAWT
into flying-up kite-energy systems. You are invited to bring in
lessons from towered-turbine tech with the aim of advancing the RAD
for kite flight energy systems and free-flight energy systems
involving tethers or not; the RATs use HAWT already in aircraft and
some soaring craft.

PierreB, relative to this kite-buggy topic thread, the
potential of electricity conversion is commonly understood; it seems
that when electricity is not mentioned directly, then you want to tell
a community that AWES is not occurring in the topic; it is seemingly
sudden recently that you are taking such a tack; you are welcome to
your opinion; if you intend to change the raw description of the
forum, then consider using a poll for certain wording changes, or
start a forum that has electricity as the only form of energy that is
faced.

DougS, in DaveS' presentation in this topic, he is easily showing
that he understands wind energy in kite buggying history; he shows how
that wind energy was converted by Popcock and others in the history of
kite bugging. The vanes and tether convert the kinetic energy of the
wind to useful purposes; both the lift and drag are converted to
useful purposes, not just the lift.

All of Mothra's and KiteLab's flow systems have produced energy
from the wind; when wanted, some produced electricity; described many
times was the realization that non-electricity forms of energy
production could have been directed to generating electricity; for
development and budget purposes, it has been found sensible to
demonstrate energy production without spending on every experiment for
fitting electric generators.

PierreB, in 2007, DaveS directed a lifted HAWT to charge directly
a cellphone which was then used to call Dave Culp.

PierreB, in the 12,000 or so posts, KiteLab has shared some
modes of operation of their kite-energy systems; such review is open
to the world.

PierreB, yes, I approve of the intention of out-competing for
the same sites and markets held by non-AWES wind-energy systems.
Intention s go further, though. An intention is easy. The competing
is the challenge; we are in the flow of the competing. The outcome of
the competition in this or that site sector will be told in later
histories. Let the competition continue.

PierreB, yes, AWES have been and will continue to be implemented
above and among people. Such fact is ancient mode of operation for
AWES that continues today and is expected to continue in the future.
Enhancements in control, safety, and arrangments is predicted to have
this ancient habit continue into the future.

DougS, the systems are converting the wind's energy into joules,
not watts. When the energy is used to do next work, then one may
describe that next scene in terms of watts.

DougS, Airborne Wind Energy will have several sectors in it;
kite systems will remain a sector of AWES relevant to those using such
sector. If one or more sectors of AWES is not relevant to you or to
someone else, then that is fine; such does not make those sectors
irrelevant to those finding relevancy in those sectors. You are
invited to develop the sectors of AWES that interest you; you are
invited to appreciate the sectors that are not in your core interest;
but overall, please do not personally attack people who are developing
AWES systems in AWES sectors that are outside your interest. Thanks
for staying on a high ground with respect to Yahoo! policy about
personal attacks.
Yes, DougS, I do think I see a rich large picture related to
kite-energy systems; very large, wide, deep, tall, far, enriching,
meaningful. I aim to share as much as possible within time and
budget.

DougS, and self, and others, if we wish to start a thread that has
a specific statement on the hot seat, then that probably could be
productive. Just nagging, DougS, that so much so just "wrong", please
consider putting a specific statement on the hot seat in a dedicated
topic thread; then reasonable debate over the statement might generate
some clarity. See a specific wrong and politely set the challenge as
a topic unto itself; let us then delve into the matter. Generalized
nagging negative hits against the forum is not polite, not scientific,
.... ; please consider using the specif-focus study strategy instead
of the nagging generalized negative slap strategy.

DougS, in many AWES, the drag as well as lift are productively
important for doing works. You are invited to begin to appreciate how
both lift and drag can be used in AWES to fulfill good works. In an
extreme example construct an AWES that is 99% drag and 1% lift and use
such system to do many good works: make electricity, grind grain, drag
materials from Point A to Point B, cut logs, transport people around
the world.

DougS, your use of "zero" and "100%" and "nothing" and "most of"
are signals of some kind of desperation, I hold. You might not see
the progress of RAD workers; that can be appreciated; but progress has
been noted for years in this forum; view to some of the progress can
be found in technical papers, forum posts, videos, etc. Please review
all; perhaps then you won't slam "zero" over the actual progress which
is not zero.

DougS, even in a most simple kite system there are multiple forms
of energy generated from use of the wind's kinetic energy. Both the
kite-system's wing and tether are involved in the conversion process.
A core task of RAD is to bring those energy formats to useful works.

DougS, "kite" is important as it is the main machine in one of the
core sectors of AWES. Kite: resistive set, tether set, wing set
placed in a media for reactions. Kite in AWES would mine the
reactions in order to finally serve good works.

DougS, "ground-hugging" identification does not imply disinterest
in some of the involved technologies of ground-huggers. AWES is with
parts of its system out of ground-hugging. One into AWES could
benefit from knowing some of the chatter of the ground-huggers. AWES
RAD aims to perfect non-ground-hugging flight-energy systems.
Ground-huggers are welcome to show interest in non-ground-hugging AWES
in this forum dedicated to flight systems where the restraint or
resistive set is free-flight dynamic or obtained by kite-system tether
sets. Other forums are concentrating on ground-hugging wind energy
matters.

Drag and Lift,
~ JoeF
aka Joe Faust
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13755 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
"Pocock"
is correct spelling. Thanks.

http://www.energykitesystems.net/GeorgePocock/index.html
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13756 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Conventional Wind Towers as Baseline Case for AWE
Lets make clear what relation existing wind towers (utility scale HAWTs) have to AWE R&D-

- Wind towers are a similarity case in major aspects (wind power extraction) but not others (not aviation).
- Wind towers are currently superior to AWE, which is at best a "newborn baby", with much growing to do.
- In principle, AWE can be made as safe as wind towers, by aerospace-engineering risk-management.
- LCOE competition between AWE and wind towers is an open question still.
- If early AWE successfully develops, for many wind sites, wind towers face direct competition with AWE.
- If cheap safe AWE taps upper-wind in a major way, wind towers face niche roles (like Dutch windmills).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13757 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Crackpot or not?
This topic has some former posts in this group:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AirborneWindEnergy/search/messages?query=Accio%20

Our forum search tool may be used to connect with former topics.
It could be efficient to reduce splitting same topics to multiple
topic headings.

It remains to see how the tech involved in the Accio interest
might be "AWE-ified" as I would wonder.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13758 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Conventional Wind Towers as Baseline Case for AWE
Some disclarity seems to arrive in the summary, as some aspects of AWE
R&D simply have no echo of similarity in conventional towered HAWT.
Towered HAWT do not tow vehicles; towered HAWT are not flying masses
to lofty positions by tether sets. I think it is misleading to state
so generally blanket superiority of conventional HAWT over AWE;
perhaps tame the generalization by the focus of utility-scale
electricity production extant production. AWE has sectors that now
outperform conventional towered HAWT; AWE is superior in tracting
people and goods.
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13759 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

JoeF,


You fail understand what is wind energy.By taking your words end to end with variable-geometry definitions, you are wanting replacing ground-based wind turbine by kite buggies since kite buggies are wind energy and can be among people. You should take some lesson about energies. There are nuclear, fossils, renewables. Among renewables there is wind energy, not kite buggy.    

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13760 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
JoeF,

Nice summary. Patience, and the recognition of due progress, are the logical requirements of informed AWE optimism. 

Someday someone should recreate the Pocock kite buggy, as a kite-electric hybrid, with a Faraday motor-dynamo design of the same era, showing what could have happened had those two great inventions of the time come together by lucky chance.

Even if AWE takes a thousand years to win, we are proud ancestor figures of that predestined victory; yet I think we will do wonders within the lifetimes of the pessimists,

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:36 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13761 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Conventional Wind Towers as Baseline Case for AWE
Joe,

The wind tower differences you list fall into the "not aviation" point. The baseline case logic is not made any clearer by invoking odd details.

Current superiority of wind towers to deliver utility scale energy is not at issue. Our case is the future potential of AWE to do better.

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:18 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13762 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Latest Professor Crackpot wind energy "new idea"
Doug, this forum hereon is a real-wid-energy forum on a RAD program.
Please, when you post, have some note that fits the RAD program.
Using bandwidth for announcing what is not AWE
without showing something of the RAD interest can amount to a severe
impoliteness to the AWE community in this forum.
Do you see RAD advanced by something within the actions or tech
of that company? Do you see any "AWE-ification" (as I would wonder)
of that company's tech? Any lesson for AWE?
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13763 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

DaveS,

You wrote:"Even if AWE takes a thousand years to win..." Thousand years?! You are so pessimist. AWE is already the winner by variable-geometry definitions: AWE is literally above ground-based wind turbines: AWE flies, HAWT doesn't.

 

PierreB

 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13764 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Pierre,

Joe is only using "wind energy" in the same sense as Wikipedia. Its you who very wrongly seek to define sailing (in the sky) as not wind energy based-

"Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into a useful form of energy, such ... sails to propel ships".

Do not expect to limit and enforce English usage as if it were French, as by French authorities :)

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 10:26 AM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13765 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
PierreB,
Your "serious" paragraph had a generalization that won't hold:
"We can agree desert regions are required:"
[[That claim won't hold up and does not reflect proven cases otherwise.]]
Maybe others, but I cannot agree to that restriction.
Non-desert regions are already seriously used by AWES; already AWES
are used near and over other human activities. And it has been already
presented how such non-desert regions and mixed activity will have
opportunity to occur safely. If you sense a safety challenge, then
consider engineering a mitigation to the challenge; running away from
the challenge to have only totally isolated regions as the only
solution will miss firm opportunities.
~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13766 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?

JoeF,

The present topic is about "Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?" and you wrote "Non-desert regions are already seriously used by AWES; already AWES are used near and over other human activities."

So please what and where are AWES competing with ground-based wind turbines?

 

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13767 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Kite buggying is a proper subset of wind energy. This has been extant
in the understanding of wind-energy users for centuries. Instead of
using nuclear energy to do the work of moving the buggy, the
renewalble source wind is used.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13768 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
Pierre asked "please what and where are AWES competing with ground-based wind turbines?"

The current competition is conceptual (Great AWE Debate). There is also potential competition (as AWE develops).

Its not helpful to suggest that only non-existent direct-competition counts here. We intend to create the competition you wish to know about by diligent creative effort, so learn to be patient meanwhile,

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:06 AM, "Pierre BENHAIEM pierre.benhaiem@orange.fr [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13769 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Pierre,

Please read my "thousand years" comment more carefully. Its not a prediction.

My actual prediction: " ...we will do wonders within the lifetimes of the pessimists,"

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 11:07 AM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13770 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

JoeF and DaveS,


Airborne Wind Energy Systems indicates Wind Energy is (or should be) concerned. Wind energy is a renewable energy. Other energies are other renewables,nuclear, fossils... I think you know the main purpose of renewables and some other energies is providing electricity: the major part of the present forum is consacred in means to feed generator. But if it is not the case, for example for Mothra or other KiteLab systems, please indicate the purposes:

  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems AWES studied for buggy?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems AWES studied for sailing?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems AWES studied for shipping?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems AWES studied for fishing?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems AWES studied as kite-art?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems AWES studied for jumping?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems AWES studied for lifting a rhinoceros?
  • ...

 PierreB

    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13771 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
PierreB,
The posed question is easy to answer.
Answer:

What? Answer: Hundreds of separate distinct types of AWES with
scores of distinct good works.

Where? Answer: The hundreds of thousands of non-desert sites where
one finds AWES being operated.

Helpful to see the what and where of some of the AWES world:

http://EnergyKiteSystems.net
and
Image leads (discover the what and where behind each image in the series):
http://tinyurl.com/WHATandWHEREforAWESpartial


The topic is a question. My answer to the question of this topic thread:
There are no sound forcing reasons that AW(E)S "cannot compete"
"with ground-based wind turbines". Enter the competing by choice and
see how possible competing is done. To compete is a choice and
process. Outcomes of the competing will become history.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13772 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

(Some typo corrections)

 

JoeF and DaveS,

Airborne Wind Energy Systems indicates Wind Energy is (or should be) concerned. Wind energy is a renewable energy. Other energies are other renewables,nuclear, fossils... I think you know the main purpose of renewables and some other energies is providing electricity: the major part of the present forum is consacred in means to feed generator(s). But if it is not the case, for example for Mothra or other KiteLab systems, please indicate the purposes:

  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems studied for buggy?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems studied for sailing?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems studied for shipping?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems studied for fishing?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems studied as kite-art?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems studied for jumping?
  • Are Mothra or other KiteLab systems studied for lifting a rhinoceros?
  • ...

 PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13773 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
PierreB,
Renewables also include solar passive, solar heating, wind
moving, etc., and thus not only electricity production. Coal and oil
can be reduced by some non-electricity paths of work and service.
Nice of you to note some works for Mothra besides her
electricity-production role; she may serve in all those you mentioned
as well as others and as well electricity production.

~ JoeF
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13774 From: edoishi Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: kPower website
kPower's website is a work in progress.  As an R&D test engineering company, kPower is focused on exploring the entire concept space surrounding airborne wind energy. Experiments are designed and executed with the intention of expanding our knowledge while proof of concept prototypes attempt to demonstrate feasibility if not optimization. Just as we log flight hours in the field, we are dedicated to sharing the results online to advance the science of AWE in the spirit of the open source movement. Join us...

This is really just the tip of the iceberg : 
kPower
http://www.kpowertechnology.com/

Please email suggestions/questions/concerns to me at edoishi@yahoo.com.

Thanks,
Ed
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13775 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: How close might giant kiteplanes operate over large populations?
I asked my Dad for an estimate of how close jumbo jets cleared buildings on the Kai Tak approach. His astounding estimate was "perhaps as little as 100 feet" (jet-noise tolerance of close inhabitants was almost superhuman).

Obviously, AWE pessimists (all non-experts in AE) cannot explain away the KaiTak similarity-case, much less prove that giant AWES can never exist near populations.


-------------- full comment -----------------------

"I remember that on the VASI (guidance lights) that were a bit above a three degree slope the buildings looked very close. Perhaps as little as 100 feet.
   Like the video says we had to shoot the approach many times in the simulator. The real thing was a hoot and I loved it, a chance to stick and rudder a 747 with skill. There was almost always a strong right cross wind and it was wise to start the 45 degree turn a bit early. I probably landed there 30 to 40 times. It was almost as much fun as the old visual river approach into National. 
  Good times, good memories,"


Note: "National" (Airport) refers to the uniquely serpentine visual Potomac River approach into Washington DC, over green-belt.



On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 5:42 PM, "dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13776 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)
Pierre,

Its like you have not paid attention to Forum news, and need a lesson in patient review.

Mothra tech was the KiteLab solution to NREL/NWTC Director Dr. Fort Felker's challenge at AWEC2010 for AWE developers to come up with a cheaper aviation basis (<5$lb), especially in the context of AWE, just as you narrowly define it. Mothra was designed to lift WECS units, but yes, Mothra can do all the things you ask, and more.

KiteLab Group, as Joe reminds you, has done many electrical AWES experiments, as well as many other applications and detail-engineering research. The skills developed include being able to take a toy Prism FlipKite and grind coffee, for fun, but the skills are serious, and so is RAD. Why can't you learn to solve engineering gaps, rather than despairing?

If AWE were not progressing, your pessimism would be shared by the elite AE community. We are still hoping for your answers to questions about your -520x model, rather than useless emotional complaints,

daveS


On Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:01 PM, "Joe Faust joefaust333@gmail.com [AirborneWindEnergy]" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13777 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: NREL's LCOE Calculator for Theoretic AWE
Its still early to hope to make rigorous predictions of AWE's LCOE, for Pierre to ace DaveL's challenge to follow professional standards, but its not too early for Pierre to start trying. There should be no objection to Pierre providing his initial numeric basis for his comparative LCOE predictions for theoretic AWE using NREL's handy calculation tool-

NREL: Energy Analysis - Levelized Cost of Energy Calculator
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13778 From: dave santos Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
Here is a baseline reference for Pierre to use in meeting DaveL's challenge to provide a careful comparative economic analysis of theoretic AWE against conventional wind towers-


2011 Cost of Wind Energy Review

S. Tegen, E. Lantz, M. Hand, B. Maples, 
A. Smith, and P. Schwabe

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56266.pdf
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13779 From: David Lang Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's Baseline Analysis of Conventional Wind Energy Costs
FYI,

For the record, I didn't challenge anyone to do anything….rather, I was simply pointing out that whatever implied cost might accrue to some particular AWE design, be it: Cost of land use, Safety precautions, Operating personnel, Maintenance intensity, Low conversion efficiency, Fabrication intricacy, etc….these will accountably feed into the ROI and COE when same is properly assessed, and NO one item (such as Conversion efficiency or Land use) can be taken as a show stopper before the fact.

DaveL
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13780 From: Pierre BENHAIEM Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Lesson in Patience (150 years of kite buggy evolution)

"Mothra can do all the things you ask". So Mothra can everything.Here is the problem. On the contrary Makani, Ampyx, Tu Delft and other serious   players in AWE study AWES not for buggy nor for lifting a rhinoceros but for electricity production, and it is what they are doing in prototype scale.On the same way ground-based wind turbines are not studied for buggy nor for lifting a rhinoceros, but for electricity production; so they cannot everything but they can produce electricity in industrial scale.

PierreB
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13781 From: Rod Read Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
Pierre,
Come and take a Holiday in Lewis.
Stay here

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13782 From: Rod Read Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: Why AW(E)S cannot compete with ground-based wind turbines?
And anyway,
My kids need a good Piano Teacher too

Rod Read

Windswept and Interesting Limited
15a Aiginis
Isle of Lewis
HS2 0PB

07899057227
01851 870878
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 13783 From: Joe Faust Date: 8/13/2014
Subject: Re: NREL's LCOE Calculator for Theoretic AWE
http://www.energylens.com/articles/kw-and-kwh
reviews terms of energy and terms of power.

On 8/13/14, dave santos santos137@yahoo.com [AirborneWindEnergy]
<AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com