Digest

Hi Pierre,

Yes, energy storage should be included when discussing wind energy technologies. Preferably, what we need is integrated systems so as to minimize costs. For example, if we use pumping kites for pumped energy storage, as in pressurized deep sea containers, the kites should operate the pumps directly without first producing electricity and then using that electricity to drive the pumps. That could reduce total costs. The intermittency of wind energy should always be considered when devising windmills, kites, etc.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 12:46 PM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] AWE where, how?

The storage concern was discussed after the implementation of conventional wind turbines. As return of experience this concern should be discussed before the implementation of AWES.

So this is both the right forum and the right topic (how?) to relate storage concern as it is a major concern for any wind (airborne or not) energy system due to its intermittency.

PierreB

Pierre you keep talking about wind vs coal, but peaker plants capable of cutting in when wind is not enough are usually burning natural gas. Here in the U.S., nobody is building more coal plants. NatGas is in good supply and cheap here, since it is a byproduct of oil wells. Coal plants, and, as far as I know, nuke plants, take hours to turn on and off. Some of the newer natural gas turbine plants are made for quicker run-up to full power, since they are called upon to quickly come to the rescue when wind and solar are not enough.

PeterS said:

Hi DougS,

Thanks for that excellent chart comparing hydrogen and batteries as a way to store energy for automobile propulsion. What the chart doesn’t include is the cost of the stored energy, which would be most helpful. When hydrogen is liquefied, the stored “coolth” is a form of stored energy also that can be converted into multiple uses in port cities, so the efficiency percentage would be higher.

Doug notes:

*** It takes a lot of energy (heat) to liquefy hydrogen. Keeping it liquefied takes more energy still. Sure I guess there might be some cooling available from decompressing the compressed or liquefied hydrogen. I don't remember seeing "cooling" included in any analysis of hydrogen economy, but good to mention it.

======================================

Peter wrote:

Hydrogen is not the only option. There are various types of batteries, and large-volume flow-batteries might prove to be the cheapest way to store energy for Turboships.

Doug replies:

Well exactly what I was saying: The scenario you outlined has many facets, most of which are questionable. So the chances of the whole scenario working are slim in my opinion, which is why I say concentrate on one innovation at time. Cart before horse. Lest you build a fantasy house of cards.

======================================

Peter wrote:

Or perhaps extracting C02 from sea water could be used to make liquid fuels from hydrogen for use by aircraft.

Doug replies:

yes that's it! "all ya gotta do is..." add another untested system! Aircraft, sure. Cars? Too boring.

=======================================

Peter wrote: There are lots of options to consider and new ones are being developed.

Doug replies:

well great, as long as we know this is just open brainstorming, rather than a serious proposal pretending all (any?) bugs are worked out.

========================================

Peter wrote:

What Turboships illustrates is an integrated system that addresses a number of problems simultaneously. For example, for desalination, the movement of the Turboships would insure that the concentrated brine would be dispersed over a very large area to safely dilute it, thus minimizing the impact on sea creatures. That’s a big problem for stationary desalination plants.

Doug replies:

*** probably not such a problem in open waters, but hey, let's desalinate first, then sail to shore, and see if anyone can afford the water at the price we'd have to charge! Boy have we killed a lot of birds with this stone! (well, I mean, not literally killing birds, but, you know...)

=========================================

Peter wrote:

Also, Tuboships challenges the conventional wisdom.

Doug replies:

Yes, with so much conventional wisdom, I'm feelin' it hit me hard! It seems to challenge even figuring out exactly what it is - seems like it could be anything you think of at any given moment - a magic ship indeed! We're making hydrocarbon fuels, desalinating water, delivering water, power, hydrogen, fuel ll to shore then heding to the other hemisphere - well, OK. ll without even getting a working model of the windmill that;s gonna make it all possible (not allowed to mention regular windmills - shhhhh) I don't want to mis this trip!

===================================

Peter wrote:

Current wind turbine designs take for granted that they must be stationary and suffer the large loss of energy due to seasonal variation in the wind speed.

Doug remarks

***Except the windmill-powered energy-storing electric-motor-sailboat in my U.S. Patent 6616402 - you're preachin' to the choir.

===================================

Peter wrote:

Most stationary places on land or off-shore show large seasonal variations in the wind speed which cause very large variations in the available wind energy. Turboships show that is not necessary because it is a way to follow the strongest seasonal winds. Would it cost something to change hemispheres twice each year? Of course. But the gains in energy capture should far outweigh that cost and result in cheaper energy.

Doug reples:

"should far outweigh" - sounds good, "should", but you'd have to abandon one customer and set sail for the opposite hemisphere - no trivial adjustment. The miles sailed cost money, and so does the lost time, not to mention manpower onboard. One more "all ya gotta do is..." detail But an interesting concept.

======================================

Peter wrote:

Many locations receive double the wind energy in the winter as compared to the summer. (California is the reverse.) So shifting hemispheres at sea should provide roughly a 33% increase in annual energy capture on that basis alone. Plus, at sea, the winds tend to be stronger and more constant, especially at certain latitudes, and that increases the capacity factor.

Doug replies:

*** great point for deepwater offshore.

=======================================

Peter wrote:

Strangely, you seem to be recommending not thinking about integrated systems until all of the component parts have been proven. If so, I think that is the wrong way to go. The parts of most systems can be continually upgraded to improve the system as a whole, such as using flow batteries instead of producing hydrogen.

Doug replies:

***Bbbbbbut the whole scenario you just outlined hinged on hydrogen. And Sharp cycloturbines. And electroilyzing sewater to make hydrogen, maybe using CO2 from seawater to make fossil fuels with the hydrogen. And using the same ships that produce the hydrogen to liquefy it and deliver it, during which time they can't be producing the hydrogen (more downtime added to deftly switching hemispheres twice per year)

Now it doesn't need Sharp cycloturbines, or hydrogen or any of that? Then what is it? More "all ya gotta do is" stuff, like "all ya gotta do is get rid of the main reason the thing existed five minutes ago and completely drop the main theme" or "all ya gotta do is swap out every system I outlined for something better that I didn't mention...yet" so then what actually IS the idea if we can just swap out every detail for something completely different? It becomes an "idea" in search of even a basic theme, let alone any details whatsoever. Tell us the real invention, after we swap out all the bad details for better ones. See, this is all leading back to" just work on one invention at a time", otherwise it gets so confusing you don't even know what you're working on.

"Hey, what's your invention?"

"Well so far all I have is a catchy name, and no other real details, not even a definite purpose. It's pretty much vertical-axis wind turbines aboard a ship - maybe changing hemispheres twice a year - maybe including kites if it will make daveS happy and count as on-topic - that's all I've got so far".

===================================

Peter wrote:

Similarly, if Sharp Cycloturbines prove to be flawed for some reason, active pitching cycloturbines could be used in their place.

Doug replies:

IF? IF???? "for some reason"? (you've never proven the concept, so the ball's in your court) "all ya gotta do is" swap out some other (generally disproven) vertical-axis turbines for the unproven one I just specified" So disproven is better than unproven? Look, Peter, even if your Sharp cycloturbine COULD improve certain aspects of vertical-axis turbines, I don't see any indication it would fix the many fatal flaws such as the blade forces reversing twice per rotation, the higher material use, the slower rotation, requiring a larger generator, etc. that virtually guarantee no vertical-axis turbine will still be operating one year from when it is first commissioned. If you actually believe that pitching cycloturbines are an improvement over regular wind turbines, that is a skewed interpretation of reality. If you really believe your proposed improvements of vertical-xis turbine offer sufficient improvement to overcome all the known faults, there is, in my opinion, only one thing for you to do: build one and run it for a couple years and prove it. You could find an existing vertical-axis turbine and add your improvements. Somebody would probably give it to you for free or even pay you to take it down.

===================================================

Peter wrote:

Furthermore, we still don’t have any proven electrical energy kites, but it would be counterproductive to delay thinking about how to integrate them into larger systems, such as Turboships. For energy kites, Turboships solve the excessive-area problem, the change-in-wind-direction problem, and the safety problem of falling kites. Plus, water could reduce damage to kites when they fell. In some cases, rigid kites could be temporarily submerged to protect them from high winds.

Doug remarks:

*** I'd never advocate flat-out not thinking about some possibly-innovative idea, but there's a difference between throwing a vague (and very old) idea out there for consideration, and promoting it in all its unworkable detail as a definite solution.

===========================

Peter wrote:

The need for a massive increase in clean energy is urgent and overdue,

Doug remarks:

you mean to fight global cooling, right?

=============================================

Peter wrote:

but you seem to be recommending an approach that goes slow, thinks small, and focuses on only one component at time.

Doug note:

*** I'm just advocating sensible discussions of ideas that have a chance to work. If I want to attach two pieces of material, even if I were just building a shelf, I'm likely to discuss using a screw or bolt, rather than some whacky, unproven "selsam fastener" that I talk about but never show a working example of. I would not want to be promoting an entire new city using magic "selsam fasteners" to hold every building together if I were too lazy to build even a single prototype fastener. And if someone pointed out that the entire city would fail if my magic fasteners didn't work and I replied that we could just use scotch tape or some other unsuitable method (instead of screws or bolts) you'd think I'd just lost my mind and you'd say "But you JUST BASED YOUR ENTIRE PLAN ON THE MAGIC SELSAM FASTENERS! And now you say you could just use scotch tape! PICK A LANE! ARE YOU NUTS?"

======================================

Peter wrote:

As far as I can tell, the reason for that is that you are combining two kinds of advice: 1) How to be a commercially successful inventor, and 2) How to solve our energy problems. Your advice focuses mostly on 1) since you advise me to limit my inventing to one thing at a time, to complete one project before thinking about another. For you, that may be realistic advice, and perhaps you are following your own advice. Having developed and sold many products, I appreciate your recommended strategy for commercial success -- because product development requires rapid completion leading to sales, plus continuous product improvements and variations. I did that for about 35 years. But I’m trying to do something different now. I’m focused largely on 2), which requires integrated and complementary concepts.

Doug replies:

*** Well I look at it like this: You can have two (2) "technical" documents:

1) A blueprint for a building, by an experienced architect, that meets code and has been funded and approved.

2) A Doctor Seuss book for kids, like "Cat in the Hat", complete with "technical drawings".

Both show drawings of things that ostensibly could be built. But what's the likelihood that one thing will be built versus the other? A similar spectrum can exist for theoretical engineering discussions: You could say "based on known technology x, I propose it could be used for y." That's pretty simple. But if you say "Based on unknown technology x, I have several OTHER completely unproven ideas that involve huge amounts of time and money and many unknowns both technical AND economic, but nonetheless I am proposing a highly complex scenario that depends on several of these unproven, and in some cases completely unexamined, ideas, all coming together like perfectly-meshing gears, and it is going to definitely save the world, and we have to do it now, because we can't afford to wait!"

A major factor about inventing is it's fun, and exercising that childlike fascination with interesting things.But as kids who refuse to grow up, we inventors need to differentiate between playing "let's imagine" and "let's pretend".

Let's IMAGINE proven technologies A & B could be combined to yield workable technology C, since the numbers look good from every angle.

versus

Let's PRETEND technologies A & B are proven, and that they could be combined to yield what we will PRETEND is workable technology C, without looking at the numbers from ANY angle, let alone every angle, let's just PRETEND all the numbers work out and it makes sense, but let's not actually check, because then we'd have to stop PRETENDING... And if the plan starts to look sketchy at any point we can just completely change it! To something completely different? We can still PRETEND it's the same plan! So what's your problem?

==========================================

Peter wrote

I appreciate that you are impatient to see the Sharp Cycloturbine validated. I agree. I’m currently creating a small, indoor workshop so that I can get back to building models. The process is slow because there is a lot to do. But I’m making progress, and my strength continues to improve.

PeterS

Doug remarks:

Well you make it sound so good - what a great salesman - In the intoxicating haze of your salesmanship, I sometimes temporarily lose my senses and believe there is hope for the vertical-axis machines. I want to see one! Dang it! If it works as good as you say it could be a real shot in the arm for the vertical advocates. As it is now, they're almost out of gas. But they'll never die... heck your device could give them another 20 years of hope!

I'd change the name from Turboship to Salesmanship.

Seriously I'm glad to try to help if my feeble brain cells can be of any use. Or you might want one of the generators I make which have bearings suitable for vertical-axis. DougS

Doug,

Yes, wind and gas currently are natural allies. But in Western Europe (not in France which uses nuclear power) of which Germany, coal and lignite are massively used, comprising to compensate wind intermittency. It is also an affair of economic policies.

PierreB

Hi DougS,

China uses primarily coal plants as backups for its wind farms, and they are now the biggest emitter of C02.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 3:30 PM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] AWE where, how?

DaveS;

Wish I could spread this message to all the world.

Employment generation is a major concern everywhere as much as is energy supply and costs.

Lifts.

JohnO

John Adeoye Oyebanji B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies

KiteLab and kPower R&D over many years resulted in unexpected findings often at odds with most AWE ventures. Lacking major research fundings, automated flight never seemed worth pursuing, given the costs, complexities, and long lead times of digital hardware and software development. A similar condition applied to composite airframe construction. The Austin side of the KiteLab/kPower community in fact had deep experience in robotics and composite construction of fine scale-model aircraft. In 2006, ShipKite pioneer and KiteShip founder, Dave Culp, came to Austin with kite expert, Dean Jordan, to recruit me into AWE. They represented what can be called the Peter Lynn School of Kite Technology (and soon enough I met Lynn at KiteShip on the US West Coast). The expertise these kitegods represented was the magical "rag and string" based technology of modern kites. I was supposed to automate KiteShip's kites, based on my past experiences in robotics, including with Austin's LabVIEW environment, the current automation choice of most of the "major" AWE ventures. I walked away from Makani when it absorbed KiteShip, because I did not see hard automation as viable, even with unlimited funding.

I had found only skilled piloting and operations made kites currently industrially workable. Its much the same as in sailing and aviation, where human sailors and pilots are still generally required, with limited automation assistance (human-supervised automation). SkySails came to similar conclusions, and depended on skilled ship crews to work kitepower. The FAA ruled that AWE would in any case require a Pilot-In-Command (PIC) and Visual Observer (VO). I also found kites to require lots of manual maintenance operations, although they are far more durable and reliable than I expected, never yet having worn-out a well-cared-for kite. AWE in our time seemed to require intense "sailing in the sky" as its characteristic activity. All this was well covered in early AWES Forum postings. The new insight offered here relates to he staffing of kitefarms in a social sense, as a labor factor in siting AWES in remote v. populated areas.

One reason its so expensive to work offshore or in remote terrain is that skilled human labor charges far higher wages to work long hours in isolated settings. We are social animals, and we prefer to live near cultural opportunities. We have families and friends, we need stores, schools, hospitals, entertainment, and so on. We have to be paid and cared for very well to give these things up for extended periods. High labor cost is not just due to the high skills that oilfield and fishing labor demands, but to the sacrifice of social isolation too. There is no ready skilled labor pool in remote settings, everyone must be brought in and retained, cycled in and out, for relief.

KiteLab also found that an offset to the high labor requirement of kite work is that the "rag and string" can in fact come from highly automated factories. This is not the case with complex aircraft, where the labor demand in the factory is far higher. At least these factories can be sited in populated areas, but these are not ideal jobs, working inside dark ugly spaces with fussy toxic composites and piecework. Its far more fun and glorious to work outdoors flying kites, near one's ideal home.

Given these social-labor facts (and many other factors like transmission costs/losses, supply-chains, etc.) there will be a strong pull to keep kitefarms quite near populations. Lets never forget one of Wubbo's key insights, that as superior engineers, we have a freewill choice about how we want AWE to be (where and how), rather than just give in to inhuman logic. Yes, kites will someday be fully automated in remote hostile places, but lets enjoy our brief Golden Age of Sailing in the Sky, and also our civilized lifestyles. Ultimately, vast kite networks will become preferred human habitats, true Flying Cities. We will live in the sky. Only then may we yearn to be sited in remote places, at modest wages.

Thanks Joe for opening a topic for more detailed discussion about energy storage.

I provide a link for the pressure sea storage I mentioned: https://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/5680/Does-This-Energy-Storage-System-Have-Potential.aspx.

PierreB

While conversing on "energy storage" may we keep an eye open for the kiting interface and how such might differ from other sources of energy production; if the kiting interface to a mode of energy storage does not have unique value relative to an energy-input, then bandwidth might be truncated on the matter, while the energy storage mode advancing is done in energy-storage forums.

Other aspects about AWE "energy storage" have to do with the energy harvesting by kite systems or the materials of the system; we have mentioned some already in our forum:

1. Energy is stored when a kiting system converts wind's kinetic energy into potential energy, as when a wing set and its payload results in being at a higher altitude. That stored potential energy may be put to many good purposes.

2. Dave Culp and Dave Santos brought in the topic of stored energy in the materials that make up the AWES; that stored energy may be converted to serve many goods upon recycling, new purposing, carbon capture, etc. Bury the materials, recycle the materials, reuse them, burn them for energy to do good works, ...

3. Kiting systems may store energy in kinetic energy. That stored kinetic energy may be used to do good works. Use the wind to cause kite-lifted mass to move very fast; use that kinetic energy to demolish a building that is being taken out of commission. Kite-system stored energy in the form of kinetic energy of its various parts is a bulwark of AWE; we mine the moving parts to obtain driven electric generators, grinding wheels, and the like.

4. Energy may be generated aloft and stored aloft in kite systems for later uses aloft. Aloft energy storage systems may be of many forms; studying aloft energy-storage systems may be part of the energy-storage conversation to good effect. Aloft environment has its special constraints. Aloft stored energy may serve control, timed or scheduled needs, service to AWES inhabitants, and more.

5. AWES may lift containers that have energy stored within them. Studying such may reveal uses. Lifting a well charged battery to be used to give reliability to an aloft control system or to a lighting assembly comes to mind. But lifted pre-charged objects may be large and perhaps purposeful for aloft use. Or lifted charged assemblies may be AWE delivered to other aircraft or other land destinations to serve good purposes.

6. AWE has been mentioned to store potential energy by cyclic lifting water to high reservoirs. That kite-produced potential energy would then by schedule drive electric generators.

7. AWE may be put to work to move radioactive materials keeping human bodies at a distance from such materials.

.... ?

As usual, energy "storage" (Producing power, then UN-producing the same power, then RE-producing the same power again) should logically cost about 3x what it costs to just produce the power when it is needed.

More "all ya gotta do is" stuff.

Wind power is intermittent? "All ya gotta do is" UN-produce it, save it, then RE-produce it when needed. Simple, right?

On the one hand, wind and solar prices are reaching "grid parity", matching the low cost of coal and natgas generation.

On the other hand, when we over-reach in terms of the amount of wind energy utilized, to the point that "storage" is needed, the cost goes back up through the roof.

That higher cost translates to a large amount of industrial activity to accomplish that storage, which usually translates to a lot more fossil fuel used. Not sure if there's a net reduction in total fossil fuel used, by the time you've built and operated the "storage" infrastructure.

Here's an analogous situation regarding growing corn for methanol production

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/#7c6a55bc67d3

Does ethanol from planted crops reduce fossil fuel use? Is the total ecological footprint reduced? By some analyses, no.

Wow. lignite. How quaint. What about sphagnum moss? :)

4h ago

Roland Schmehl

added an update

EU published study on challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems

The long-awaited report about the EU-commissioned study on challenges in the commercialisation of airborne wind energy systems has now been published. Get the report from http://doi.org/10.2777/87591

The document did not load on my personal Google Chrome browser,

but did load on my personal IE browser. Technically, I do not know why on this matter.

I hope others will be able to see the document.

I found a page that has a small icon for getting via download of a PDF copy.

I made a tiny url for us and hope it works. I downloaded a PDF copy. PDF has 135 pages to it.

https://tinyurl.com/ybtwg6tg

Hope this works.

Or, if your browser does not load in their Viewer, by En language choice, there might be served a small icon for PDF just under the En choice; I clicked that and the document downloaded to my local computer; then I opened it in my local PDF reader from Adobe.

Here is the paper as attachment.

PierreB

I found a page that has a small icon for getting via download of a PDF copy.

I made a tiny url for us and hope it works. I downloaded a PDF copy. PDF has 135 pages to it.

https://tinyurl.com/ybtwg6tg

Hope this works.

Great, by Pierre's attachment or one of the other routes we may have a reading, study, and discussion of points and statements in the paper. New topics may spin from this process. Design topic titles carefully; see if we have a topic already started on a concern; thanks; use such prior topic, if it seems fitting.

======================================================================

In France and some other countries pumped-storage hydroelectricity is already used as backup for intermittent solar and wind energies. So there the real cost of wind (or solar) energy is the cost of wind turbines + a part of the cost of pumped-storage plants.

PierreB

Pierre:

From what I've seen, correct me if I have this wrong, but I'm thinking pumped hydro is used as "storage" for wind energy when it is a pre-existing hydroelectric generation system with sometimes (seasonal?) more generating capacity than water to power it, whereby it makes economical sense to pump some of the water back uphill to be used again in the cycle of: produce electricity from wind =

Doug,

Hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity "is electricity produced with hydropower". An hydroelectric plant contains or not ("Run-of-the-river hydroelectric stations are those with small or no reservoir capacity") a pumped-storage installation "to supply high peak demands by moving water between reservoirs at different elevations".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity : "Pumped-storage hydroelectricity allows energy from intermittent sources (such as solar, wind) and other renewables, or excess electricity from continuous base-load sources (such as coal or nuclear) to be saved for periods of higher demand. The reservoirs used with pumped storage are quite small when compared to conventional hydroelectric dams of similar power capacity, and generating periods are often less than half a day."

As first attachment STEP that are pumped-storage plants in France.

As second attachment the already discussed sea storage in possible addition to existing pumped-storage plants, as there are limits to build additional pumped-storage plants.

Beside purely storage concern, gas and wind are a good energy mix but that is not always used.

PierreB

Hi Peter,

Sharp Cycloturbine could be studied as offshore wind turbine (with perhaps some airborne components) regardless of storage concern. In spite of its lesser efficiency VAWT can have an advantage of lowering the center of gravity as the heavy generator is in low position.

PierreB

Hi Pierre,

Yes, a lower center of gravity is one of my reasons for using a wall of Sharp Cycloturbines on Turboships, in conjunction with energy kites. The generators can be located below deck to protect them from the elements, and placing their mass below the water line increases the stability of the Turboships, which means that the swept area can be further increased as compared to using HAWT.

By the way, VAWT don’t have a lower efficiency than HAWT. That’s a myth based on fixed-pitch VAWT. They can be more efficient than HAWT if they are actively pitched. The Sharp Cycloturbine, which uses passive pitching, should have a Cp of about .45 (about the same as small scale HAWT), whereas an active pitching VAWT has demonstrated a Cp of .52. But the Sharp Cycloturbine is much simpler and cheaper in small scale. At medium scale, as would be used for the stacked rotors on Turboships, the costs should become more similar because the cost of active pitching becomes a smaller percentage of the total cost. An engineer mentioned to me that he estimated that the transition point would be at roughly 200 kW. My own more conservative guess had been at about 100 kW.

Another advantage of using VAWT is that the columns of VAWT can counter-rotate to enhance the airflow through them to increase the power somewhere between 10% and 20%. A 15% increase would give the stacked Sharp Cycloturbines the equivalent of a Cp of .52. Current large-scale HAWT have a Cp of about .50. Stacking VAWT allows them to spin faster than a HAWT with the same swept area. So the generators can be smaller and cheaper, and direct drive without a gear box should be possible even at medium scale (above 100 kW). Pitching VAWT can also adjust much more quickly to rapid shifts in the wind velocity (speed and direction, as during gusts), which means that their total annual capture will be greater than for a HAWT with the same swept area and the same Cp.

My concept for using Sharp Cycloturbines offshore in a fixed location is to use a floating wall of stacked-VAWT columns mounted above a large tube. The VAWT wall is held upright by a pair of large counterweights at the bottom of vertical arms below the tube. The wall orients to the wind around an anchored buoy. By raising the counterweights, the wall can be tipped to horizontal above the sea surface so as to allow maintenance crews on boats to have easy access to all of the VAWT. This arrangement also provides overspeed control because the entire wall can simply lean away from the wind to decrease the swept area. The generators could be located within the tube, and additional machinery for energy storage could also be placed within the tube. This VAWT wall could be made to be compatible with a number of energy storage schemes that rely on deep water. And energy from kites could be directed through the same energy storage machinery within the large tube supporting the wall. The tube could also support the machinery for launching the kites. In fact, the kites when aloft could add to the stability of the wall just as they can add to the stability of boats.

Given the considerable width of the wall and the tube, it might be possible to add a wave-energy conversion system to further lower the overall cost of energy.

Although the wall needs to orient to the wind, and would do so quite slowly, that is not a disadvantage because the VAWT can handle large changes in the angle of the wind without losing much power. That allows plenty of time for the wall to orient to the wind. A major advantage of using a wall of relatively small VAWT is that it is essentially a two-dimensional structure when compared to a single, very large HAWT or VAWT. So it benefits from the square-cube law of scaling and should be much cheaper that a single wind turbine with the same swept area.

If Doug Selsam’s extremely cantilevered, tower-less, multi-rotors on a curving shaft prove to feasible, they might replace both the VAWT wall and the kites mounted on the large tube. Then raising the tube’s counter-weights would allow his rotor shafts to be easily lowered to sea level for maintenance.

One of the reasons for always thinking about including energy storage with wind turbines and kites is that winds tend to be strongest at night, but electrical use tends to be greatest during the daytime. So for wind energy to provide most of a region’s energy needs, energy storage is necessary.

Incidentally, NantEnergy is now selling a zinc-air battery that is claimed to cost $100 per kW of capacity. So energy kite developers might make use of it. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180926005265/en/ It could be of considerable benefit in poor countries where lead-acid batteries are often dumped rather than recycled, thus causing pollution problems.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 2:50 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] AWE where, how?

Hi Peter,

PierreB

Pierre: I think the heavier blades of vertical-axis turbines would "outweigh" the elevated-generator weight of a horizontal-axis turbine, which is usually lighter than the generator of a vertical-axis turbine due to higher RPM.

Outsiders to wind energy often describe ways to move the generator to ground level, using a vertical driveshaft, hydraulic-pump energy transfer, etc. What they don't realize is the tower has to be strong enough to handle the thrust forces on both itself and especially the turbine in a 120 mph wind,, making support of the weight of just the generator itself relatively easy. The proposed driveshafts and hydraulic pumps would both add unwanted cost, weight, complexity, and energy losses. More "all ya gotta do is" stuff. The promoters of these ideas seldom include the weight, cost, and losses of these modifications. Rather than getting up-to-speed on the technology, they'd rather quit at the "all-ya-gotta-do-is" stage and enjoy a temporary feeling of being the genius at the "if only they would listen to me I could solve all their problems" stage, never really understanding what it is they are actually proposing..

Hi Peter,

Please could you indicate if you see some improvements (efficiency, vibrations...) of my scheme for a horizontal VAWT between two mounts or two buildings, using Sharp cycloturbine? http://windturbineonmounts.monsite-orange.fr/. Thanks.

PierreB

As the wind is little slowed down in open sea, the advantage of high altitude wind can be lesser. The attached paper indicates as results of the Cap Wind Tower (measures for the greatest US offshore project) page 8: (9.2, 9.8, 10.1 m/s, at 20, 41, and 60 m) in winter, (7.8, 8.4, 8.8 m/s, at 20, 41, 60 m) in average.

The difference of wind speed between 41 and 60 m is low.

Some offshore measures in other places would be interesting to know the respective parts of higher wind by going far off the coast, and by going high in altitude.

PierreB

The kite shade topic was far more specific to kites, included a demo, and used a closer subject choice. Energy storage and transmission options on the world scale do have their own forums, but kite shade does not.

This topic is very general and most AWE does not so much depend on any one storage or transmission standard. We focus instead on how the kite part will work, no matter the load or place; AWE anywhere desired...

JohnO,

You will be an ideal global messenger for AWE, once the AWE community finally gets major funding for low-complexity AWE R&D, then scaling progress will prove swift. Hoping and praying you are well and abide serenely in faith as everything comes together.

For the last decade we have followed the Cinderella plot, where the ungainly step-sisters get tested first and fail. We'll revive AWEIA as it again becomes relevant (after R&D venture-marketing domination ends, and practical AWE engineering is consummated, so mass-adoption begins). "There are no shortcuts", patience will win out,

daveS

Peter,

Statements often require clarification and added context. If you conceded somewhere that small AWES are "proven", that would be proper context to then declare utility-scale AWES are not proven, rather than seem to imply none are proven. At least its clearer now for the record.

As for "missing the point", as I see it, the primary question is the comparative merits of your turbine-kite-storage scheme with related schemes. Our reference design in that space is are H storage ships with submerged electric generating turbines, towed by a power kites (with no (esp. no unproven) deck turbines). Dave Lang's White Paper and similar academic proposals from ~8yrs ago provide you ready analytical calculated baselines. Its a promising concept-space, despite H critics.

daveS

On initial reading, this paper contains much accepted content, but is limited by a provincial (Northern EU) perspective that underestimates global AWE R&D. Many serious architectural options are overlooked, especially Low Complexity AWE; for example, winch-tow and vehicle launch methods that avoid key defects and shortcomings of more complex launch methods. The presumption of the paper is that fundamentlal AWES architectures are now fully vetted and down-selected, which is hardly the case. Nevertheless, all papers in AWE contribute to the expanding literature and technological awareness, whatever the flaws.

According to KiteShip R&D, combining kites and masted turbines on ships is problematic. The masted turbines increasing heeling (tilting) of the hull by both mass and wind resistence, add to capital cost, and can conflict with ship layout and kite operations. This applies to the Sharp Cycloturbine as well as competing surface turbines. A precondition of specifying the Sharp Cycloturbine is comparative testing against standard turbines, before any engineer could choose them by measured performance criteria. The primary source of shipping skepticism was Maersk, the shipping giant, whose critical concerns are cost and safety, and even just kites alone was considered too risky.

Another way to pose the question, " AWE where, how?", is probably not as a close mix of surface turbine and kite, especially at sea, anytime soon.

Let Wing Meshes be defined generally as all ~2D tensile lattice meshes made up of wing-cells. Looping-Foil Arrays have been defined in the past as lattice meshes made up of looping-foil cells looping in phased synchrony, where the kites rotate on individual swivel lines; and in the fixed-wing mesh class, only the wing AoA varies, and the entire mesh translates orbitally in-plane, as one. While the fixed- and looping- -mesh classes are quite similar in overall function and output, comparative operational and performance factors are a fully open subject for testing and analysis.

As usual, the simplest most-abstract AWES architectures hide complex subtleties (and perhaps unknown fatal flaws) to explore and work out. The paradox is that a more complex insight can lead to a simpler final design. Thanks for collegial patience as novel AWES ideas get prototyped in due time. Early notice is made to reserve Open-AWE_IP-Cloud content, to spark early discussion, and to guide comparative testing with baseline designs; but not to make venture marketing claims. Testing is the critical path.

Hi Pierre,

I like the animations.

The Sharp Cycloturbine can’t operate on its side because gravity would disrupt the pitch control. It can be modified to operate on its side by adding extra counterweights, but then the extra weight will increase blade pitching inertia and make it less responsive.

I’m not clear about what you want to patent because using a VAWT on its side, supported at each end, is considered to be an obvious idea, and an obvious idea can’t usually be patented.

A problem with supporting a horizontal shaft at both ends is that it reduces the angles of the wind that can be converted into power. Also, it requires that the rotor be re-sized for each new location, which can be very expensive because wind turbines behave differently when their size is modified. That then requires extensive re-testing to be sure that the new size will work properly. The costs could be prohibitive.

Another concern I have is about mounting the ends of a horizontal VAWT on buildings. Most buildings are not designed to handle the extra loads due to wind pressure. Even if they are, wind turbines transmit vibrations to the building that can make them unpleasant to be inside of. It also might be impossible to buy insurance.

Many people, I believe, have made similar proposals, but they don’t get built because of all the problems.

Sorry that I can’t be more encouraging.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 2:31 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AWES] Re: Terrain Enabled Wind Power (TEWP)

Hi Peter,

PierreB

DaveS.

You are overgeneralizing. Turboships specifically addresses those problems.

Of course the Sharp Cycloturbine would need to be fully tested before applying it to Turboships. Duh….

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 9:38 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] AWE where, how?

Hi Peter,

It's been years that I take care no more this design. The website is not recent as you can see. I just tried to see if it could be an opportunity to develop the Sharp Cycloturbine. Thanks for your reply.

PierreB

DaveS,

Turboships are large scale. “Ships”, not “boats”. Small scale AWES are irrelevant to what I said.

Turboships aren’t intended to be towed by kites.

PeterS

From: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 8:34 AM
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [AWES] Disambiguation: Are there "proven" AWES?

In the abstract:

"The study finds that the technology is still immature, and that it remains unclear whether the technology can ultimately reach costcompetitiveness and contribute to EU energy security and decarbonisation targets."
Sounds like a turn...

PierreB

There was an older gentleman inventor who built and ran horizontally-oriented elongated darrieus wind turbines like you are talking about. I don't remember if he had it patented or not. He contacted me years ago and even sent me some pictures and written stuff. Told me he was getting way too old to do any more on it and wanted me to pick up the torch and carry it forward, or at least care about his work. Trying to remember his name or where in so many boxes of stuff his info could be. Anyway, he did build some that did work, as far as I know.

Page 15: "Public R&D investments in these technologies are low-risk,
because they will also provide a return if AWES developments fall behind or do not materialise at all."

The failure of AWES is envisaged in this report.

PierreB

Thanks, DaveS.

'Hope maketh not ashamed'.

With God, ALL things are possible. I believe in the future of AWE.

Further lifts.

JohnO

John Adeoye Oyebanji B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
<Technologies

The report missed looking into the branches of AWE that will far more serve.

"Low risk"... of success?

PeterS,

Not sure what my "overgeneralizing" was, since the specific points about masted-mass boat instability factor and kitefouling mast risk were both specific and third-party concerns. Just how the Sharp Turboship resolves these particular problems better than prior design concepts, with no mast-mass/obstacle, is unclear to me.

In any case, the Sharp Turboship is not the only H-based AWES ship concept, and Dave Lang's peer-reviewed White Paper remains our best reference for the concept space. He did not call for deck turbines to augment the core kite basis, as the thinking was (is) that added deck turbines compound cost and complication, with most of the power potential inherent in the kite part. A kite quiver to cover wind ranges is presumed. Deck turbines neither shine in low or high wind, while a kite quiver covers more wind range than any other previous wind tech, excepting sailboats with a suite of sails,

daveS

PeterS,

My mistake was to presume Turboships must be a kite supporting idea, since this is an AWES Forum, and kiteships are long discussed.

It is often important to distinguish just what scale is meant when questions of feasibility or "proven" AWES capability are brought. We also want to know when an AWES concept does not work at smaller or larger scale, and we take pains to be clear on such limitations. Correct me if needed; you do seem to allow that small-scale AWES are proven, even if you may not yet have witnessed any directly. I further accept the ship kite itself as well proven, and that towing a water-turbine harvester by shipkite is therefore quite feasible in principle.

Disambiguation of statements, that any author believed were clear enough, is a common practice on the AWES Forum. Better to be clear and obvious, than not,

daveS

JoeF is right: Doubts in the paper are founded on wrongly narrow knowledge of possible and proven AWE architectures (FACT: AWE in the form of tailwinds already contributes 5% fuel savings to commercial aviation, EU included; FACT- Kitesports are AWE, and EU is a major player; etc.).

There is broad modern history that weaker technological developers often despair prematurely, even as more able and confident developers persevere. If you like proving doubters wrong by "the right stuff", AWE is a fantastic opportunity. As AWE continues to succeed, pessimistic claims will be shown foolish. just as John Bell insisted; "What is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination".

Pity those unqualified folks who flip wildly from promoting to denying AWE, often after wasting a lot of time and money. The more talented more serious engineers just keep on solving the critical problems. Again, the main value of this technocratically oriented paper is not techno-prophetic correctness (no new insights), just more awareness of AWE R&D by new readers.

Testing of lifetime outdoor of some sorts of soft materials. Criterion of wear: pierce the fabric with the finger in any place.

Ripstop 32 gr/m²: 6 months;

Woven tarp 50 gr/m²: 12 months;

XF film 70 gr/m² https://www.arktarps.com.au/about-xf/ : not yet known, more than 3 years.

In flight these values would be likely lesser.

PierreB

Flutter at the trailing edge can turn a flapping blue tarp into fuzz after a few hours. I'm still finding aluminum grommets festooned with blue fibers on the ground. Trailing edge also seems to be where hang glider sail fabric starts to get loose, thereby limiting top speed to avoid flutter. Then if a beginner lands feet first on your glider, their feet will go right thru the fabric (happened to a friend of mine the other day at The Point in Utah).

Seems like flutter of fabric is to be avoided to prevent accelerated wear.

From https://medium.com/startupdelta-stories/startup-sessions-how-e-kite-is-changing-the-world-of-airborne-wind-energy-1b02c7ab962 : " The only problem with soft kites is that they last a very short time, after a week you have to replace them already. In the end, this was not a commercially viable model, so we decided to switch to fixed wings."

Sounds right.

PierreB

Bladetips (http://bladetipsenergy.com/) focus on two systems: a Centrifugally Stiffened Rotor as indicated by JoeF, using reeling method; and also an interesting rotor with secondary turbines (working as generators or motors)between the wings and the root: scalability until?...

PierreB

Rogelio LOZANO Jr.

CEO & CTO

Started the project in 2010 at Ecole Centrale Paris.

Developed the technology during his PhD.

Founded Bladetips Energy in 2016.

3 Patents-5 awards.

========================================

David SOUQUET

CFO & CSO

York U (CA), Oxford (UK), ESCP, UPMF (FR), International MBA & Master in Economics.

20 years as Finance, Sales, and Operations. Director/VP in international IT companies.

===================================================

Antoine LEMARCHAND

Chief Embedded Instrumentation

Ph.D. in computer science at grenoble INP.

Expert in data fusion.

Worked at Invensense (TDK) as team manager for 4 yrs.

3 patents.

====================================================

Josue COLMENAREZ-VAZQUEZ

Chief Flight Engineer

Ph.D. in computer science.

Graduated from Polytechnic institute of Mexico.

Joined the company as drone control algorithms.

================================================================

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23903	From: Peter A. Sharp	Date: 9/24/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23904	From: dougselsam	Date: 9/24/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23905	From: Joe Faust	Date: 9/25/2018
Subject: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23907	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/25/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23908	From: Peter A. Sharp	Date: 9/25/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23909	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: AWE as a labor-intensive industry, and the costs of remote opera

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23910	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23911	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23912	From: dougselsam	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23913	From: dougselsam	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23914	From: Joe Faust	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23915	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23916	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23917	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23918	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23919	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23920	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23921	From: dougselsam	Date: 9/26/2018
Subject: Re: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23922	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/27/2018
Subject: Re: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23923	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/27/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23924	From: Peter A. Sharp	Date: 9/27/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23925	From: dougselsam	Date: 9/27/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23926	From: benhaiemp	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Terrain Enabled Wind Power (TEWP)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23927	From: benhaiemp	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Offshore or/and high altitude

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23928	From: dave santos	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23929	From: dave santos	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: AWE as a labor-intensive industry, and the costs of remote opera

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23930	From: dave santos	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Disambiguation: Are there "proven" AWES?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23931	From: dave santos	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23932	From: dave santos	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23933	From: dave santos	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Comparing Fixed-Wing Meshes with Looping-Foil Meshes

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23934	From: Peter A. Sharp	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Terrain Enabled Wind Power (TEWP)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23935	From: Peter A. Sharp	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23936	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Terrain Enabled Wind Power (TEWP)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23937	From: Peter A. Sharp	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Disambiguation: Are there "proven" AWES?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23938	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23939	From: dougselsam	Date: 9/28/2018
Subject: Re: Terrain Enabled Wind Power (TEWP)

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23940	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/30/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23941	From: Hardensoft International Limited	Date: 9/30/2018
Subject: Re: AWE as a labor-intensive industry, and the costs of remote opera

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23942	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 9/30/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23943	From: dougselsam	Date: 10/1/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23944	From: dave santos	Date: 10/1/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23945	From: dave santos	Date: 10/1/2018
Subject: Re: Disambiguation: Are there "proven" AWES?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23946	From: dave santos	Date: 10/1/2018
Subject: Re: Paper on challenges in the commercialization of AWES

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23947	From: benhaiemp	Date: 10/2/2018
Subject: Re: Searches to obtain a durable fabric for flexible power kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23948	From: dougselsam	Date: 10/2/2018
Subject: Re: Searches to obtain a durable fabric for flexible power kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23949	From: Joe Faust	Date: 10/2/2018
Subject: Minesto News

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23950	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 10/3/2018
Subject: Re: Searches to obtain a durable fabric for flexible power kites

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23951	From: tallakt	Date: 10/4/2018
Subject: Kitemill flies its 30 kW kite

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23952	From: benhaiemp	Date: 10/5/2018
Subject: Re: Bladetips Energy latest new player

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23953	From: joe_f_90032	Date: 10/5/2018
Subject: Re: Bladetips Energy latest new player

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23903	From: Peter A. Sharp	Date: 9/24/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23904	From: dougselsam	Date: 9/24/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23905	From: Joe Faust	Date: 9/25/2018
Subject: Energy storage conversation

Group: AirborneWindEnergy	Message: 23907	From: Pierre BENHAIEM	Date: 9/25/2018
Subject: Re: AWE where, how?