Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5052 From: Doug Date: 12/13/2011
Subject: Re: Why I say "there are no AWE players"...
Yeah sure. Even 1000 years ago, wind turbines were automated, with automatic aim, automatic overspeed protection, even automated fire suppression if the automated brakes caught fire, all pre-davinci.
Designing wind turbines that need a constant attendant per turbine is right up there with using cloth sails on the list of common newbie ideas that are long-disproven or long outdated.

The idea that newer, more advanced wind energy systems that don't pencil out here, will find a happy in the uncivilized world is one I think I've heard 1000 times now. In fact I think every new wind turbine inventor who has a machine that sucks tries this desperate stab at rescuing/rationalizing their failed design at some point. (That and "it's bird friendly" because it barely works at all, hardly dangerous to anyone or anything).

It doesn't pencil out for the rich with lots of money and full access to machine shops and repair facilities, so maybe we can con some charity organization with money to waste, to waste their money on it and ship it to where nobody will ever hear about it when it breaks and can never be repaired. Oh no wait, the poor people will work extra hard and earn the money to send away for spare parts direct from professor crackpot! but wait professor crackpot cannot use his hands to create anything! he is paralyzed! And professor crackpot cannot run a business either. And he cannot produce a reliable product! So much for spare parts! Darn, the poor natives must try and fix it with local fibers and resins, or perhaps some scrap metal from some other crap that fell apart.

Meanwhile maybe someone in the third world will surprise everyone and develop their own flying wind turbine since it is such a simple idea.

Maboomba!

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "jcalvert74" <jcalvert@...> wrote:
>
> If you remove the "automatically self deploying" requirement, there's actually a number of promising first steps out there, being pursued with shoestring budgets.
>
> An "automatic self deploy" requirement assumes that power must be cheaper than the wage of someone to manage a kite.
>
> That's true today, in the part of the world that discusses things like AWE in email forums. But it is not true in other parts of the world. And it may very well may not be for us either in 50 years.
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5050 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/13/2011
Subject: Re: Why I say "there are no AWE players"...
Thanks Alex,
Those are three great places to start a list from.
You are right the simple cheap ethos is best. You recognise that we more than the simplest task. Each one of your points can be broken into many sub points, to answer the question how best to do the task.

Doug's solution so far is fast and hard, Mine's cheap and dirty, Daves is as considerately and cleanly as possible. I wouldn't even dare speculate as to the motivations or ethos of others though.

To avoid trying, I'll suggest divisions I'd propose to your order of labour priorities

1 .1 The lifter must comply with 1.1.1 1.1.2regulations
1.2 The lifter must be able to opperate within flight parameters 1.2.1 1.2.2
1.3 design standards the lifter 1.3.1 1.3.2 (links needed on this list)

Please everyone feel free to add in copying the list
I think Alex is right, if we all build a collective standard, everybody wins.

Over to you for 2.1


--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Muzhichkov" <muzhichkov@...> wrote:
>
> If you don't mind, I'am also looking for the simplest and cheapest way to solve our task. And I also think that the task must be divided of several stones. The problem is to make right separation. My idea is that main stones must be following:
> 1. Stable lifter - a kite or ballon; or any other way, that can support any object in air (the higher the better). A stable position makes a sort of independens of this stone in the hole scheme. It also increases an altitude of airborne flight.
> 2. Fly transformer - any device that transformes a wind anergy in mechanical energy. I suppose all of us agree that transformation in electricity on the air is not profitable (at least for simplest device).
> 3. Ground based transformer. any device that transformes mechanical energy in to electricity. The last two stones are quit depend on each other but can be also undepended.
>
> Alex
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5051 From: blturner3 Date: 12/13/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
How annoying and unhelpful. Your trolling is killing the value of this forum.
Sounds like you have some interest in a sub 500ft daytime only solution and you would like to slow competitors via misguided regulation. The regs are only premature because your not ready.

I suggest that your take a break from all your "BUILDING" and make a "BUSINESS" plan. In order for any AWE solution to be successful it has to have both. The regs are a big part of that.

Brian

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>
> Spend your time getting something working, not glorifying your ego by conducting high-level negotiations over something you can't do anyway. Please, don't mess things up for those of us who might get something in the air that actually works sometime soon!
> You know what happens when you ASSUME.
> You are ASSUMING that you have any idea what form an AWE system might take, when there is no evidence that you do.
> Thanks.
> :)
> Doug Selsam
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5053 From: roderickjosephread Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Internal Debate at NearZero
What on earth is going on?
Signing into yahoo, the branding tagline, "Your world Your way"
My world has been so inspired by this forum, Dave S and Joe F in particular stand out as champions of Open discourse on AWE.
My way forward has been shaped by their treasured advice.

I can only hope your decision is to help free their time to concentrate even more on development.

However, to remove the ability of key forum members to participate in open and visible group moderation.... 

I really would like to understand the rational behind that decision.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5054 From: J Calvert Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Why I say "there are no AWE players"...
It's a bit of a leap to go from "not automatically self deploying" to "needing constant supervision".

But I concede, you're argument is irrefutable.  Any working AWE must entail automation, and alternatives should be ridiculed.  This is, of course, why it is well known that the Wright brothers occupied themselves entirely with sneering at the work of others and expounding on forms of flight that had been accomplished prior, until they magically unveiled their 727, complete with autopilot.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Doug <doug@selsam.com> wrote:
 

Yeah sure. Even 1000 years ago, wind turbines were automated, with automatic aim, automatic overspeed protection, even automated fire suppression if the automated brakes caught fire, all pre-davinci.
Designing wind turbines that need a constant attendant per turbine is right up there with using cloth sails on the list of common newbie ideas that are long-disproven or long outdated.

The idea that newer, more advanced wind energy systems that don't pencil out here, will find a happy in the uncivilized world is one I think I've heard 1000 times now. In fact I think every new wind turbine inventor who has a machine that sucks tries this desperate stab at rescuing/rationalizing their failed design at some point. (That and "it's bird friendly" because it barely works at all, hardly dangerous to anyone or anything).

It doesn't pencil out for the rich with lots of money and full access to machine shops and repair facilities, so maybe we can con some charity organization with money to waste, to waste their money on it and ship it to where nobody will ever hear about it when it breaks and can never be repaired. Oh no wait, the poor people will work extra hard and earn the money to send away for spare parts direct from professor crackpot! but wait professor crackpot cannot use his hands to create anything! he is paralyzed! And professor crackpot cannot run a business either. And he cannot produce a reliable product! So much for spare parts! Darn, the poor natives must try and fix it with local fibers and resins, or perhaps some scrap metal from some other crap that fell apart.

Meanwhile maybe someone in the third world will surprise everyone and develop their own flying wind turbine since it is such a simple idea.

Maboomba!



--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "jcalvert74" <jcalvert@...> wrote:
>
> If you remove the "automatically self deploying" requirement, there's actually a number of promising first steps out there, being pursued with shoestring budgets.
>
> An "automatic self deploy" requirement assumes that power must be cheaper than the wage of someone to manage a kite.
>
> That's true today, in the part of the world that discusses things like AWE in email forums. But it is not true in other parts of the world. And it may very well may not be for us either in 50 years.
>


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5055 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Internal Debate at NearZero
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "roderickjosephread" <rod.read@...> wrote:
>
> What on earth is going on? 
> I really would like to understand the rational behind that decision.
========================================
Rod, 
a private collection of people shook hands in private to gather statements to influence investors and government regarding AWE.  At first I thought it was public discussion; I apparently missed some fine print. DaveS' posts disturbed the standard stealth players; backroom motions gave him the boot and the boot swing carried me out.  Upon being out, I learned that the in-click link showed that the discussion was not public to me, my first instance. My best estimate now is that the investors and government hearers of statements from the stealth collection will get much less than what the investors and government hearers deserve. 

An alternative is to keep opening this present forum AirborneWindEnergy to all interested scientists, engineers, builders, researchers, entrepreneurs, investors, potential users of AWES.  A smart investor and a smart government office would do well to have someone on their team fully understand every single post in our forum and every single file in our collections.   My hope is that good science, top engineering, and meritorious technology will win the day. 

My guess expressed a few times in the past is still pressing for me: I guess that when AWES shows itself adequately, huge money will walk over open IP and simply use whatever shows itself as effective; the original movers and shakers will be footnotes, if that. Europe, Australia, China, India, Africa, and Japan are not going to hold their breath for the statements from the NetZero stealth block. 

How should taxpayer and investor funds be allocated in AWE?  My sad guess is that the NetZero hidden works will point to give all the funds to non-transparent stealth in order to assure that AWE gets stillborn in order for oil, gas, and goal to remain front-and-center?      Hope not. 

Hope is not enough.
Let's keep working for a world revolution where wind in AWES blesses earth distributively via a variety of solutions. Funding 500 masters students' AWE projects without overlap on topic would be a pie I could eat.  Unfolding the yet unmined already published 700 drawings of Santos could be part of the feedstock; and he has yet another 800 pages of drawings unpublished, I hear. Methodical construction of working models of AWES by a collective team  for testing, measuring, recording, sharing, etc. is a possible way to go forward. Share exact specifications of model AWES over the Internet with actual results. Let anyone sharpen any system. Have analysts mull measured results.  Will funds go to the stealth block or to open science and open engineering?        

How would you allocate investor funds and public funds within the AWES world?
In our forum here, put your views and arguments. 
The open world has access here.  
We treasure historic tensions here 
while seeking solutions beyond emotions.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5056 From: dave santos Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Exploring NearZero's Role in US Energy (esp. AWE) Policy Making
Dear AWE Forum,
 
NearZero is in non-responsive mode. Even JoeF asking specificly why he got picked on is being ignored. This is a crazy situation, with many hidden power-elite connections. Are we not all supposed to be on the same team?
 
Please help us find out all we can about NearZero and lets prepare a counter-response to its wrongful secrecy and censorship. The complaint is being drafted for public circulation should be directed to the parties behind NearZero, not just the front actors.  I am no longer finding NearZero web content as to its founding angels, board etc., but remember seeing such content a week or so ago. There are forwarded mirror copies of the panel discussion saved before the exclusions.
 
Follow the link to the DOE research priorities process which preceded the AWE panel. Let us know if AWE is to be found anywhere mentioned, as this key omission would say a lot about the quality and integrity of NearZero's products for decision-makers.  http://nearzero.org/reports/. Note that only one expert seemed to understand DOE needs a budget to maintain the nuke stockpile.
 
I hereby request Steve and Ken answer questions about NearZero on the open AWE Forum. The first question is- How does NearZero justify the summary exclusion from its AWE Panel of someone as well regarded and knowledgeable as Joe Faust?
 
daveS
 
 
NearZero data collection; here is a start-
 
www.nearzero.org/Cached - Similar
Near Zero increases the frequency and value of dialogue between energy experts and those who make and influence energy-related decisions.
 
--------------------------------------------
 

Dear Mr. Santos,

Help us to identify airborne wind energy systems that could become technically and economically feasible.

We're co-founders of a new nonprofit venture, Near Zero, that is working to aggregate expert opinion on energy topics and summarize areas of agreement, disagreement, key uncertainties, major barriers, etc. with a goal of informing better R&D funding decisions. Near Zero has built some software to facilitate these sorts of discussions, and is inviting a group of ~50 experts to beta test it with a discussion on airborne wind energy systems.

In the next few minutes you'll receive an email with a link to the discussion. When you click the link, you'll be asked to allocate a hypothetical R&D budget among different areas of research and types of aircraft. You'll then be able to elaborate on your allocation and reply to the allocations and comments of your colleagues. Near Zero will actively moderate the discussion.

Participation is by invitation only. The discussion is private, but your responses and comments will be visible to other experts on our panel, and may be publicly available in the future. Invitees include academics, researchers from industry and government labs, as well as interested investors and analysts.

Following the discussion, we will produce a summary that will be made freely and publicly available online. To see summaries from previous Near Zero discussions, visit http://nearzero.org/reports/.

Best Regards,
Steve Davis sjdavis@carnegie.stanford.edu, 650.704.5975
Ken Caldeira kcaldeira@carnegie.stanford.edu, 650.704.7212
 

Making videos for Near Zero

Near Zero (nearzero.org) is a nonprofit that aims to increase the frequency and value of dialogue among energy experts and to make this expertise more accessible to those who make and influence energy-related decisions in government, business, and NGOs.
We will be helping Near Zero by producing videos with interviews of energy experts. The first videos we have completed are:

Roz Naylor, recorded on 2 September 2011

Burt Richter, recorded on 8 August 2011

Dale Simbeck, recorded on 5 July 2011

Marty Hoffert, recorded on 16 June 2011


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5057 From: dave santos Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Planetary Boundary Layer
Brian,
 
Surface and planetary boundary layers vary from inversions capped with a smooth LLJ to rollicking turbulence thousands of feet deep. There is no set thickness, the layers are (usually) vague abstractions. Testing in surface turbulence and mastering that is smarter and faster than only testing in smoother upper wind. Its just a statistical shift of occurrence frequency to sample the same sort of wind at different times and altitudes. The principles of chaos, fractal self-similarity, and dynamic-similarity across scale will allow any lesson from 1500ft to also be learned at 500.
 
Why not fly a toy kite as often as possible in remote areas (like i do) to learn the planetary layer for yourself? If forced to, lets exhaust the lessons of 500ft rather than worry only higher altitude can advance the art,
 
daveS

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5058 From: Bob Stuart Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Internal Debate at NearZero

On 14-Dec-11, at 9:51 AM, Joe Faust wrote:


How would you allocate investor funds and public funds within the AWES world?

I'd fund an engineering student, or team, or 'net scheme to generate a nice table showing the basic engineering options, in a really easy to understand format.  There would be comparisons of electric tethers vs purely mechanical transmission, at various altitudes.  Comparisons of generator weight and cost at different scales.  Comparisons of arrays of small turbines against the same area in one large one.  Comparisons of materials for fatigue and UV degradation.  Comparisons of systems generating electricity directly to those integrated with storage.  Comparisons of constant deployment vs intermittent flight by various methods.  Even that old issue of shrouded turbines should be set out in layman's terms with nice pictures.  I'd keep someone available to run some numbers on any news people were getting excited about.
Then, I'd fund experiments, with a strong preference for the cheap, quick ones, for any plausible attempt to change those figures.  I'd move ahead with more funding on the most promising schemes, trying to scale them up by quantity or size, while keeping an eye out for challengers made possible by new materials or patterns.  
I'd also make arrangements to redirect the favour of  governments from the oil companies, as soon as I was ready to scale up to any serious extent.  This is likely to involve much PR work as well as outbidding of current campaign funding and replacement of entrenched bureaucrats.  It might be necessary to start somewhere like Japan, which has an urgent need for new capacity, or another oil-poor but small market to prove the economics for the main PR push.

Bob Stuart

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5059 From: Doug Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Basis for Makani R&D Claims?
You have to be able to read between the lines. Sure they've explored every option within their ability to identify what the options ARE. You have to expect people to THINK they have all the bases covered. That's a normal thing to think, even if it is not accurate. It's more of a business statement to get more funding than anything else. That doesn't mean there aren't 100 other ways, or even 100 better ways, that someone else can find.

If anyone has some sort of oscillating array that is a better way than Makani's attempts that at least really fly and really generate electricity, the answer is to build it and SHOW us that it's better. Innovators brag like professional wrestlers pre-match. Then you gotta get in the ring and make something happen.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> �
> Dear NearZero AWE Topic Moderators,
> �
> �
> The following assertions have been made�in your forum�by Makani/Joby regarding their conceptual�research and the state of AWE�studies generally-
> �
> >"We believe the space of design topologies has been well explored..."
> >
> >"This [preliminary calcs for each system] has been done. there is no publishing venue for the results however (try publishing that in APL*)"
> >�
> >"Sub-scale prototypes are useful for learning, but the industry is beyond that stage..."
> >�
> >"There are other system architectures not mentioned here, but they are almost all less efficient or cost effective in reasonably exhaustive mo that has been done to date."
> >�
> >* Applied Physics Letters
> �
> �
> Makani/Joby is respectfully requested to publicly reveal�how, and to what extent,�they analyzed, classified,�and tested "kite units crosslinked in flying formations" in their "space of design topologies" and how�such results quantitatively compared by land and airspace usage�with their chosen single-tether singe-kiteplane conceptual model. It must be noted that "sub-scale prototypes" remain a standard R&D method across all aerospace sectors, and AWE is not "beyond that stage".
> �
> If Makani/Joby shows they performed due-diligence underlying their assertions, or concede that they neglected or overlooked key�AWE design topologies that Kitelab Group and others have pioneered, it would greatly help�inform balanced AWE R&D investment.
> �
> Thank you for understanding the importance of settling this issue,
> �
> Sincerely,
> �
> Dave Santos
> KiteLab Ilwaco
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5060 From: Doug Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Internal Debate at NearZero
You have to expect that, given a choice, who would want to put up with your nonsense? Stop worrying about what they are doing and worry about what you are doing. Joe: guilt by association?

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Seth Nickell <snickell@...>
> To: santos137@...; joefaust333@...
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:40 PM
> Subject:
>
> Dave and Joe,
>
> After a lot of internal debate, we've removed you from the panel. The
> negatively-charged history between you and a number of the
> participants has reduced the overall quantity and openness of
> discourse. We've invited several of the non-US experts you suggested,
> and hope that they'll be able to represent similar viewpoints with
> less historical enmity.
>
> -Seth
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5061 From: Doug Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Hey Brian:
I agree that my time here may be totally wasted, In your case my efforts are apparently wasted upon deaf ears. A decade of examining, researching, patenting, designing, building, flying (yes we call it that) and testing wind turbines, usually to destruction, not to mention manufacturing, repairing, and servicing, wind turbines and associated electronics, of course has no place here. I get that. This is a fantasy world where reality has little meaning, and few adherents.

My point is this:
The FAA is responding more to hype and troublemakers like Dave S., than to any real air traffic issues, at this time. One could fly 1000 times as many airborne wind energy systems as are currently in the air (probably NONE as of this moment) and still nobody would notice, still it would be no problem to the aviation world, as long as we stay out of the way, and deploy in remote areas where nobody cares. If a tree falls and there's nobody says anything about it, it made no noise, so stop worrying. (Related note: In the middle of the desert, with no cars around, you can roll through a stop sign and nobody will care.)

Let's take cel phones as an example. Imagine making rules about how cel phones should be made and used - whether they can be used in cars etc., BEFORE CEL PHONES EXISTED. Let's say it's the year 1950. And you have say a bunch of Dave Santos types jumping up and down, furious that nobody is looking at rules around his proposed mobile, digital smoke-signal apparatus. With no cel phone in existence, people are even tempted to take Dave seriously and include his mad ravings in their rules! And every other nutcase too! At that point nobody knows about texting or mobile web access, nobody has any idea how many or what type of people would be using cel phones, how big they might be, whether they could work in a car at all, what range they would have, whether they would have GPS or mapping capabilities, AND meanwhile, thousands of people were already being killed in accidents that did not involve cel phones.

Do you think the 1950's would have been a good time to write the rules on cel phones? Or does humanity normally wait until something has at least gotten on the map as something that has a known use and a known form before drafting regulations? If you have no idea what form an AWE system will take, and no current issues with air traffic, it makes no sense to start drafting legislation that could likely favor a certain configuration, and stifle development of something else that actually works. If you let bureaucracy get in the way, it will. Best to let sleeping dogs lie for now. The problem is we're now addicted to press-releases-masquerading-as-science, so we operate from a land of fantasy. That's why they still use pictures of Magenn to promote AWE - all fantasy all the time.

:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "blturner3" <yahoo2@...> wrote:
>
> How annoying and unhelpful. Your trolling is killing the value of this forum.
> Sounds like you have some interest in a sub 500ft daytime only solution and you would like to slow competitors via misguided regulation. The regs are only premature because your not ready.
>
> I suggest that your take a break from all your "BUILDING" and make a "BUSINESS" plan. In order for any AWE solution to be successful it has to have both. The regs are a big part of that.
>
> Brian
>
> --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@> wrote:
> >
> > Spend your time getting something working, not glorifying your ego by conducting high-level negotiations over something you can't do anyway. Please, don't mess things up for those of us who might get something in the air that actually works sometime soon!
> > You know what happens when you ASSUME.
> > You are ASSUMING that you have any idea what form an AWE system might take, when there is no evidence that you do.
> > Thanks.
> > :)
> > Doug Selsam
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5062 From: Doug Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: Why I say "there are no AWE players"...
Yeah Imagine the Wright Brothers, barely able to keep their craft in the air at all, proposing that the first customers should be people in developing countries, far from civilization and spare parts. Imagine them spending all their time talking to the railroad police about proposed rules for airplane traffic. (all airplanes must have a caboose and a caboose-man and must be capable of taking off from a railroad depot on schedule. All wheels must be solid 4340 steel, etc.)

---
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5063 From: Doug Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Thanks Joe:

"each system must be moored to a single fixed ground location"

See it only takes them THINKING about making rules, to start shooting various designs in the foot. For those advocating multiple ground anchor points, congratulations: you have woken the sleeping giant that in its first waking paragraph has already trounced your dreams, without even knowing it. It's way too early for rules.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> Extending the message:
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystems\
> _205848-1.html
> <http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystem\
> s_205848-1.html>
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5064 From: Doug Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Building blocks that could serve in an AWE system could still be tested under existing rules, I would think. If you are not flying an AWE system for example, but just the part that provides lift, or if your system is not connected to a generator, it is just one more whacky flying machine.

All these rules are scary to me. I picture a giant toddler stumbling through a city toppling buildings in his innocent clumsiness. Way too early to be talking about such specifics. The last thing you want is people with full authority, no understanding of wind energy, and no working reliable systems developed, crafting rules such as "must be tethered to one point". There, if "the answer" turned out to be a system tethered at 2 points, or 3 points, your dear bureaucracy just guaranteed in its first waking moment that such a workable system cannot be developed. If so, it only took them 1 paragraph to stop progress in its tracks. In my experience the bureaucracies, despite their best intents, can often cause more harm than good. Not their fault, just the way it is.

Example: small wind turbine rebates in California shut down:
1) rules made for what kind of turbines get what rebates
2) outside agency hired to approve turbine models for rebates
3) well-intentioned marketing idiots with no experience in wind energy overstate output of their "breakthrough turbine" by 10x
4) outside hired agency also has no experience in wind energy, believes inflated data (that violates well-known laws of physics and wind energy)
5) sales for future installations are conducted in large volumes, by huge sales teams, overwhelming the rebate system with millions of dollars in rebates
6) people with experience in wind energy flag the new turbine as a scam
7) The sales pitch evolves to "who cares if it makes any power - the government is paying for all of it!"
8) only a few installations take place and they mostly fail, with none producing anywhere near the promised power.
9) The public is left holding the bag, with deposits in and no legitimate product behind it.
9) The whole rebate system is shut down, and legitimate installers and manufacturersm having become dependent on the bureaucracy and its rebates, are also shut down.
Result? Small wind energy installations are slowed. Product introduction is slowed. Opposite to the intent.

Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> Extending the message:
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystems\
> _205848-1.html
> <http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NewFAARulesForAirborneEnergySystem\
> s_205848-1.html>
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5065 From: dave santos Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Two Corrections: Kite Fabric Life and Kite Flight Autonomy
For the record (to correct recent misconceptions):
 
Kite Fabric Life has been shown to last well beyond one year in high-duty with UV stabilized polyurethane-sized polyester. A Peter Lynn kite exposed to 14 months of gales and tropical UV was self-intact (tree snag damage only) and fully flyable (Dominico Goo SkySilk). 10000 hrs can be given as a rough "half-life" for good kite fabric in the pilot-lifter role. Simple repairs and modest care extend kite life by many years. KiteLab Ilwaco is unable to wear out any normal kite in its quiver after five years of frequent flying. A quick fabric (snag) repair has been needed about once a year, but even one repair a day for a kite farm would not be a major problem.
 
The classic Single Line Kite is a true robust autonomous aircraft. Several versions reliably self-relaunch, including sleds, flairs, and various boxes (tri-box, pop-can, etc). KiteLab has shown this again and again. Members of this list are close to mastering a new design-space of low-complexity AWES autonomy solutions based on passively staged state machines.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5066 From: dave santos Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Doug,
 
The true reason for aviation regulations is to protect life. Its no scam. Flawed rules get fixed. It would be irresponsible to delay application of legacy aviation safety principles to AWE until the fatalities begin. Good luck trying to convince the FAA that its too soon to worry; we have totally convinced them its time to act. Only airworthy AWE will be allowed to fly in regulated airspace, so get ready,
 
daveS

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5067 From: dave santos Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: The Human Factor //Re: [AWES] Re: Why I say "there are no AWE player
JeremyC
You wrote- "An "automatic self deploy" requirement assumes that power must be cheaper than the wage of someone to manage a kite. That's true today, in the part of the world that discusses things like AWE in email forums. But it is not true in other parts of the world. And it may very well may not be for us either in 50 years."
 
Right On, furthermore, humans have a deep need to use their bodies, eyes and hands especially, and there is no finer pastime than kiteflying outdoors, its even therapeutic and catharthic. Thanks to Dan'l for the Human Spirit video link. We are faced with the choice between a Golden Age secured by heroic action or Doom sealed by fatalistic passivism.
 
Its high time to perfect practical small AWES from the culled DNA of many prototypes, and get these solutions out to users,
 
daveS
 
PS The latest kite hack is to rig a shower curtain in the sky with lines rigged to furl and unfurl it as a sail in the sky. This is still not the ultimate Village Blue Tarp AWES, a disadvantage is water all over the bathroom floor ;)



 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5068 From: dave santos Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Airborne Wind Energy Omission from "DOE Funding Priorities Expert Di
Steve Davis
Principal Scientist
NearZero
 
Dear Steve,
 
This is an on-the-record attempt to get proper consideration of Airborne Wind Energy included in your recent DOE policy work-product, as a matter of its scientific integrity.
 
Ideally the Upper Wind resource should be broken out from Surface Wind in the scoring matrix, and the expert panel repolled after a suitable introduction (by KenC?) to the scope of the R&D opportunity for DOE.
 
As a lesser fix, just append this message to the PDF, as the badly-needed minimal heads-up to decision makers; that DOE could lead in the development and deployment of this vast new clean energy source, by making it a R&D funding priority,
 
Sincerely
 
dave santos
 
KiteLab Group
"Energy Expert"
 
PS Of the experts polled, only Max Henrion seemed to allow a credible budget for DOE responsibilities like maintaining nuke safety and stockpiles (modest 10% cut).
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5069 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Quinn L. Larson

POWER GENERATING KITE SYSTEM

 Quinn L. Larson
Application number: 13/099,496  
Publication number: US 2011/0272527 A1
Filing date: May 3, 2011

"The present invention is a power generating kite system that includes a kite or an airfoil that receives wind, a control unit that includes one or more computers or microcontrollers, GPS receivers and accelerometers that controls the kite system, a winch system and a rope attached to the kite that is automatically controlled by the control unit and a launch and recovery system that includes a hydraulic telescoping pole that assists in launching and retrieving the kite. The kite system also includes a yaw motor that turns the kite system at an appropriate angle to increase energy production, a flywheel that bridges converting kinetic energy from the wind and kite into electrical energy, a plurality of weather instruments, an electrical generator to generate electrical energy and a secure base structure to secure the kite system to a ground surface, an ocean platform, or a large ship."

Welcome  to  Quinn L. Larson
===================================
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5070 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: TETHERED GLIDER SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION

TETHERED GLIDER SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION

 Dimitri Chernyshov

Application number: 12/721,862
Publication number: US 2010/0230968 A1
Filing date: Mar 11, 2010



Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5071 From: dimitri.cherny Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Re: TETHERED GLIDER SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION
LOL. It took you long enough to find that Joe. It's been public for more than a year.

[[Dimitri, we had it already for a very long time on http://www.energykitesystems.net/Timeline/index.html We were waiting for you to post it in group. Hope all will discuss it! ~JoeF]]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5072 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/14/2011
Subject: Watercraft having a kite-like element.
Getting familiar with Stephan Wrage's 22 claims in this approved patent?

Watercraft having a kite-like element
Patent number: 7971545
Filing date: Nov 12, 2008
Issue date: Jul 5, 2011

Click image for full instruction. 
What is being claimed as novel? What is interesting to others in AWE?
Claim 1
Claim 2
...etc.  
And mentioned in the patent: 

Ship propulsive kites:

an initial study
Front Cover
Univ. of Southampton, 1984 - 142 pages

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5073 From: blturner3 Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Well said. Sorry for getting short with you. All your posts I've read today have been excellent.

Brian

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <doug@...> wrote:
>[Etc.]
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5074 From: Doug Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: Planetary Boundary Layer
I agree, the term "boundary layer" must be taken in any given context, and can refer to a mile or a fraction of an inch. Aerodynamicists fine-tuning a blade design for small wind turbines are concerned with boundary-layer separation from the blade surface, which can be delayed by turbulators (rough strip ahead of separation point), whereas ozone-hole studies might consider the boundary layer as a mile or more.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Brian,
> �
> Surface and planetary boundary layers vary from inversions capped�with a smooth�LLJ�to rollicking turbulence thousands of feet deep. There is no set thickness,�the layers�are (usually) vague�abstractions. Testing in surface turbulence and mastering that is smarter and faster�than only�testing in smoother upper�wind. Its just a statistical shift of occurrence frequency to sample the same sort of wind at different times and altitudes. The principles of chaos, fractal self-similarity, and dynamic-similarity across scale�will allow any lesson from 1500ft to also be learned at 500.
> �
> Why not fly a toy kite as often as possible in remote areas (like i do)�to learn the�planetary layer�for yourself?�If forced to, lets exhaust the lessons of�500ft�rather than�worry only higher altitude can advance the art,
> �
> daveS
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5075 From: Doug Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Hey Dave:
I wish you would stop talking to me like I am some sort of complete idiot, that you need to explain that the FAA keeps the airways safe for us. That is a given. Please get off your high horse. With no energy-producing system running, you are at best an interested wannabe player/cheerleader/detractor in wind energy, and at worst a very bad troublemaker or even an unwitting saboteur.

Below is a cut-and-paste what the FAA has published so far, in response to people like you, who refuse to let sleeping dogs lie.
Note that these rules prohibit the oscillating arrays you currently promote, or arrays of anything else. Your previous pet theory of multiple anchor points (3?) is also prohibited. If you DO have anything running productively, even at a low height in your backyard, you'd better have it down by sunset, even if it is productive at that moment, even if it is in a storm, or even if it is in the middle of destroying itself, as experimental turbines often do in strong winds, and maybe you CAN'T shut it down, but it's flying at only 100 feet.
Basically, in their innocence and lack of understanding of wind energy, lack of understanding of what the systems might be like, in a couple of paragraphs they have already made development of an AWE system twice as difficult if not impossible. Certainly the systems YOU have been promoting are already completely prohibited - a single anchor point and no farm arrays - oh well back to your drawing board. Of course since deep down you know these ideas won't work anyway, or at least you will never really TRY them, you don't really care. In fact such "rules" actually HELP the do-nothing big-talkers, since they can then point to the rules they've cause to be implemented as a reason they can't really FLY anything. Congratulations all the way around. Let's all just shoot ourselves in the foot together!

Cut-and-paste with link below:

http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/12/07/2011-31430/notification-for-airborne-wind-energy-systems-awes#p-24

In order to facilitate the timely manner in which AWES proposals are reviewed, AWES developers and operators are requested to limit temporary operations to the following:

(1) Airborne operations of AWES should be temporary in nature for testing and data collection purposes only;Show citation box

(2) Single AWES devices only (e.g.€"no €œfarms€ or multiple simultaneous testing);Show citation box

(3) AWES should be limited to a single fixed location (e.g.€"no mobile ground facilities);Show citation box

(4) Testing is confined to heights at or below 499 feet above ground level (AGL);Show citation box

(5) Airborne flight testing of AWES will only occur during daylight hours; andShow citation box

(6) AWES will be made conspicuous to the flying public. (The sponsor of the AWES will provide the FAA with their marking and lighting scheme. FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K (AC 70/7460-1K), Obstruction Marking and Lighting, currently does not address AWES, but may be used as a guide, as some portions may be applicable.)

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
> �
> The�true reason for aviation regulations is to protect life. Its no�scam. Flawed rules get fixed. It would be irresponsible to delay application of legacy aviation safety principles to AWE�until the fatalities begin. Good luck trying to convince the FAA that its too soon to worry; we have totally convinced them its time to act. Only airworthy AWE will be allowed to fly in regulated airspace, so get ready,
> �
> daveS
>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5076 From: Doug Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: Two Corrections: Kite Fabric Life and Kite Flight Autonomy
--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>Members of this list are close to mastering a new design-space of low-complexity AWES autonomy solutions based on passively staged state machines.
=======================
DaveS,
***** What is a passively-staged state machine?
***** What is a staged state machine?
***** What is a state machine?
Doug S.
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5077 From: Doug Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: TETHERED GLIDER SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION
Hey, that's Dimitri!
Congrats on getting it filed and published, Dimitri!
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
>
> TETHERED GLIDER SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION Dimitri Chernyshov
> [Abstract]
> <http://www.google.com/patents?id=7hHWAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4>
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5078 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: TETHERED GLIDER SYSTEM FOR POWER GENERATION
Highest Wind Energy GliderTM   534HIW Animation 960px.wmv   

Study patent application:  HERE .  Study notes and discussion posted in group or sent to editor are welcome. 


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5079 From: dave santos Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Doug,
 
The FAA temporary AWE policies cannot bother me in the way they do you. They are a nice temporary KiteLab commercial advantage. I have done five years of nice high-flying and spread-anchor kite tests before these rules, so i have done my homework and can relax.
 
Note that i am affiliated with the World Kite Museum here where i live (no coincidence), where historic kite arches and trains are collected and studied and new versions developed and flown at regular events like the Washington State International Kite Festival (WSIKF). I have been trained in multi-kite formations, especially arches and trains by the masters, like Ray Bethel, Chuck Blevins, Two-Kite Sam, Jim Patton, Iqbal Hussein, Ed Jensen, and many others. Kay Buesing, the museum director/founder personally hosts Kite Train and Arch Day (a unique decades old event) and is the world authority (i work under her as a volunteer kite curator and was cataloging a Bill Gobel kite train just yesterday). WSIKF is a week long NOTAM shielded event in remote airspace. Flyers are allowed to fly vast numbers of multikites well over a thousand feet high, with approval of AKA on-site safety monitors. Many standing world kite records were/are made right here.
 
There are many allowable loopholes in the temporary regs. The major one is not to fly FEGs/WECSs, so as to stay within hobby regulations. Current members of the AKA even have a million in liability insurance. KiteLab Ilwaco has endless experiments to conduct that relate to the pilot/lifter functions and other operational methods. The professional ability to engineer from scale prototype data means the 200ft ceiling is plenty for any experiment banned higher up.
 
I am in active collaboration with the FAA on Kite Energy for over three years now (the guy who ratted out Makani apparent airspace violations on Maui based on videogrammetry done on their TED talk promo vid). Some new policies come directly from our circle. Makani/Joby have also been trying to influence the FAA, but not as aviators, and some of the stupid details in the temp regs seem to have their impractical hallmark (like how redundant tethers are somehow less safe?). But no matter, these are temporary restrictions, and logic will prevail in airspace. I grew up in aviation, so the staus quo is like mother's milk.
 
The reason to remind you about aviation safety in what seems like an insulting tone is just the same as when you fly an airline and the flight attendants show you, the great Doug Selsam, how the seatbelt works. Foam at the mouth back at them, and you may be frog-marched off the plane by TSA, but on this open forum there is little harm done. Be safe and have a nice day sir, ;*)
 
daveS
 
PS Anybody who would like to train in advanced multi-kite techniques, please note the KiteLab Kite Pilot school teaches all aspects. Over a dozen serious AWE developers have attended, from as far away as EU, with a Nigerian delegation planned soon. The latest evolution of 3D aerial latticework is underway right now; come help pioneer the historic advent of  new"kite cloud" methods.

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5080 From: dave santos Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Passively Staged AWES State Machines
DaveS,
***** What is a passively-staged state machine?
***** What is a staged state machine?
***** What is a state machine?
Doug S.
 
A state machine is the set of logically discrete states of a dynamic system. It is used to formally model and simulate engineered systems, to "run" and debug them, and often takes the form of a multidimensional matrix. A staged rocket is an example of a staged state machine in action, where each rocket stage is a discrete state to step thru. A Rube Goldberg machine is a passively-staged state machine, in that each stage triggers the next without active control.
 
For an AWES, a passively staged launching and landing stage machine might go like this- 1) a tiny pilot kytoon awaits wind aloft. 2) Wind comes and the kytoon pulls a pilot-lifter kite up into the wind. 3) The pilot-lifter lifts a larger pilot lifter, and so on until the cascaded launch sequence has lifted the final scale of kite aloft. 4) Heavy power elements like rigid wings and FEGs can follow naturally and power generation occurs. Early stage elements trail in a compliant furled mode, 5) The wind either builds to excess or dies, but simple mechanisms detect either case to reverse the launching order. 6) Each stage self-kills in sequence and the system returns to its starting state, ready to repeat.
 
KiteLab has done many variations of passive-staging. It looks ugly, but works surprisingly well. The prediction is that highly optimized simplified designs can emerge from continued R&D. Here is an old video of simple passive staging-
 

A bunch of old stuff-
www.kitelabgroup.com/Cached
Testing these methods led KiteLab Group to an Airborne Latticework concept validated in numerous scale-prototype experiments. Dense-arrays mitigated ...
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5081 From: dave santos Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Automated Hanking-On of WECS on Tethers and Assembly of Complex Latt
The classic enabling method of flexibly putting elements on a kiteline is to hank them on manually. A key to many automated AWES will be the automated hanking on and off of WECS units (kites, FEGS, etc.) along a gangline. Such devices can be dispensed to and from containers and be hanked on by varied methods, such as pick-and-place robots, servoclamps, etc..
 
Similar methods allow dynamic assembly and disassembly of complex structures (nodes) as simple lines unreel and reel from storage spools.
 
coolIP
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5082 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Lecture at TU Delft on 20 December 2011 | 15:45 - 17:30

The PowerPlane - an Airborne Wind Energy System

20 December 2011 | 15:45 - 17:30
by Webredactie-LR 

The presentation gives an overview of the conceptual operation and control considerations of the PowerPlane, an airborne wind energy concept that generates power using a tethered airplane and a generator on the ground.

The concept is discussed by means of basic aerodynamics, neglecting the mass of the airplane, considering launch, power generation and landing, performance criteria and power output to provide a qualitative understanding of the system. For the actual operation of the system special attention, compared to conventionally operated airplanes, is demanded by the control system because of the link between airplane and generator. The differences between free and tethered flight are elaborated.

The lecture is in English.

20 December 2011 | 15:45 - 17:30
place:  Lecture room D, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5083 From: dave santos Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Buddy-Boat Kite-Arch //Re: [ayrs] Integrated Kite-Sailing Fleets (Cl
Dave Culp wrote- "...working to coordinate the two-boat (kite arch) system to achieve shared courses down-wind, cross-wind--and up wind..."
 
An old online friend, Swedish Academy Professor Anders Ansar, made a large kite arch (ribbon style) and successfully showed how two bikes with the arch set crosswind could beat to windward by each end's bike tacking back and forth. It was a marginal arch with a cupped center, as it did not have the looser cut leech zone that American kiter George Peters worked out. George also added battens along the arch sail. Long Ohashi trains run down wind, but have the property that you can pull the head around to form an arch and the flipped side kites work just the same. A mix of Ohashi ends with diamond-sails in the center section is a pretty optimal arch configuration. One can envision control sections and stabilizers along the arch, as long versions become very snaky in turbulence.
 
Some big kites can be a real problem to douse, but a large arch comes down controllably by letting one side go downwind relative to the other. The arch droops gently starting from the windward side and the depowered sail is easily taken in. The common flaw in a ribbon arch is a bow-tie event, but other arch types are immune (like NW US diamond-sail arches with swivels). Perfectable hybrid designs are still to be explored. Small floats are enough to orient sparred sea-kites so that they leap out of the water properly oriented to fly. The Gibson-Girl rescue box kite of WWII had a bit of kapok sewn in the top, but traditional fishing kites probably also applied this principle. A sea-arch could probably water launch as well.

From: Dave Culp <dave@kiteship.com>
To: ayrs@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ayrs] Integrated Kite-Sailing Fleets (Cloud Sailing)

 
It would be wonderful to take two small dinghies, each with centerboard, and launch even a short (~30-50'?) kite arch between the two. Boats this size can be effectively steered under sail by weight shift; I envision the two sailors kneeling--or standing--in their respective dinghies, kite arch between them, and working to coordinate the two-boat system to achieve shared courses down-wind, cross-wind--and up wind, just using the kite arch pull and their own bodies to steer the boats. 

This will *not* be difficult--though will involve a fair amount of crashing and relaunching the arch--thus the short length. It would teach a lot about fundamental fleet-sailing. Wonder if the Landing School might be interested? I'd love to be the coach!

Dave Culp

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM, dave santos <santos137@yahoo.com> wrote:
  Buddy-boats can also pay-out out a kite arch between them, for similar operational advantage. 


 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5084 From: harry valentine Date: 12/15/2011
Subject: Re: Lecture at TU Delft on 20 December 2011 | 15:45 - 17:30
It would certainly be an interesting concept if the tethered airplane used a portion of the electric power from the ground level generator, to assist with propulsion. Microwave technology could transmit power from ground level to the airplane.


Harry


To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
From: joefaust333@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 02:11:06 +0000
Subject: [AWES] Lecture at TU Delft on 20 December 2011 | 15:45 - 17:30

 

The PowerPlane - an Airborne Wind Energy System

20 December 2011 | 15:45 - 17:30
by Webredactie-LR 
border-style: initial;border-color: initial;outline-width: 0px;outline-style: initial;outline-color: initial;background-attachment: initial;background-color: transparent;border-top-style: none;border-right-style: none;border-bottom-style: none;

The presentation gives an overview of the conceptual operation and control considerations of the PowerPlane, an airborne wind energy concept that generates power using a tethered airplane and a generator on the ground.

The concept is discussed by means of basic aerodynamics, neglecting the mass of the airplane, considering launch, power generation and landing, performance criteria and power output to provide a qualitative understanding of the system. For the actual operation of the system special attention, compared to conventionally operated airplanes, is demanded by the control system because of the link between airplane and generator. The differences between free and tethered flight are elaborated.

The lecture is in English.

20 December 2011 | 15:45 - 17:30
place:  Lecture room D, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering


Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5085 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Radiations made, sent, received, used?

Click for full patent. 

With the play teased by the above patent, we march forward for control, for energy transfer, and for other practical applications:

  • An AWES may send out various wavelengths of radiation.
  • An AWES may have radiation receivers tuned broadly for tuned for specific wavelengths.  
  • An AWES may send radiations from one of its parts to another of its parts.
  • An AWES may signal its positon to other aircraft by sending out signals.
  • An AWES may be a species of aves (birds) that illuminates itself (radiate visible light).
  • An AWES may be surfaced so as to be a display screen for still or video images for messaging, advertising, self-status reporting, decoration, celebration, education, management leadership in emergencies. giving status of sporting events, etc.
  • An AWES may send energy via radiations to other aircraft, to ground receivers, to other elements in an AWE farm
  • In AWES farms there may be ways to use radiation to inform servos of coming clear-air turbulence.
  • Light may be sent into the air or into optical fibers.
  • An AWES may: ___________________________________

Topic threads may open for specializing on particular radiation uses in AWES.

JoeF
================
AWES (energy birds)
aves (birds)
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5086 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Re: Radiations made, sent, received, used?

The signal for the intended click was missing.

Here is the link:

 

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5087 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Re: Basis for Makani R&D Claims?
Could it be true here also that "He who pays the piper dictates the tune."
And who could that be here?
Just my sincere thoughts.
Best of lifts.
John Oyebanji

John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
An ICT, Environmental Remediation & Renewable Energy Company

3rd Floor, 53 St. Finbarr's Road, Akoka-Yaba;
Lagos. Nigeria.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer and confidentiality note

This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria. 


It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.

Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.

Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.




--- On Tue, 12/13/11, Dave Lang <SeattleDL@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dave Lang <SeattleDL@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [AWES] Basis for Makani R&D Claims?
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Davis" <sjdavis@carnegie.stanford.edu>, "kcaldeira@carnegie.stanford.edu" <kcaldeira@carnegie.stanford.edu>
Cc: "Corwin Hardham" <corwin@makanipower.com>, "AWE" <AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com>, "dave santos" <santos137@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 9:04 PM

 
Hi All,

It is one thing for Makani/Joby to have been fortunate enough to have been graciously funded beyond most (if not ALL, AWE startup conceptions), and I am glad for them.....BUT, it is entirely ANOTHER thing for them to state, speaking as the "authority for the AWE community" that they have explored the "AWE design space" thoroughly and settled on the best scheme, that being of course their scheme!

I (and likely many others currently doing work in AWE) have 40 years experience in every type of aerospace flight dynamics simulation and design work, and have been doing aerospace-industrial-strength time-domain simulation of but a single concept for the last 2-3 years, and have no allusions as to having thoroughly explored even my little niche of the pie. I wonder how many years of accumulated industrial aerospace experience the makani staff represents, say, compared to the sum of those outside of makani.

Such statements are indicative of a lack of depth and experience in the aerospace/engineering discipline, and do a disservice to others!

Confidence based on extensive experience and competence, I respect.....shear brashness and unfounded bravado, not so much!

just my two-bits.....

Dave Lang



At 11:23 AM -0800 12/13/11, dave santos wrote:
 
 
Dear NearZero AWE Topic Moderators,
 
 
The following assertions have been made in your forum by Makani/Joby regarding their conceptual research and the state of AWE studies generally-
 
"We believe the space of design topologies has been well explored..."

"This [preliminary calcs for each system] has been done. there is no publishing venue for the results however (try publishing that in APL*)"
 
"Sub-scale prototypes are useful for learning, but the industry is beyond that stage..."
 
"There are other system architectures not mentioned here, but they are almost all less efficient or cost effective in reasonably exhaustive mo that has been done to date."
 
* Applied Physics Letters
 
 
Makani/Joby is respectfully requested to publicly reveal how, and to what extent, they analyzed, classified, and tested "kite units crosslinked in flying formations" in their "space of design topologies" and how such results quantitatively compared by land and airspace usage with their chosen single-tether singe-kiteplane conceptual model. It must be noted that "sub-scale prototypes" remain a standard R&D method across all aerospace sectors, and AWE is not "beyond that stage".
 
If Makani/Joby shows they performed due-diligence underlying their assertions, or concede that they neglected or overlooked key AWE design topologies that Kitelab Group and others have pioneered, it would greatly help inform balanced AWE R&D investment.
 
Thank you for understanding the importance of settling this issue,
 
Sincerely,
 
Dave Santos
KiteLab Ilwaco

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5088 From: Doug Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment
Dave S.
All that wonderful experience is all the more reason for concern of incongruity, that you have yet to produce a decent AWE product or demo. Meanwhile, if you are spending your time "ratting out" those who are trying hard, and think restrictive rules weigh in your favor, by bringing others down to your level of inaction, that is all really unproductive. Parties at all levels do not seem to appreciate the taunts and meddling. Your assertions that whatever popped into your head on any given week is "the new final answer" are laughable. But the "clown" humor is wearing thin. Seems to me the best thing you could do to help AWE would be to take a vacation.
:)
Doug S.

--- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
>
> Doug,
> �
> The FAA�temporary AWE policies�cannot bother me�in the way they do you. They are a nice temporary KiteLab commercial advantage. I have done five years of nice high-flying and spread-anchor kite�tests before these rules, so i have done my homework and can relax.
> �
> Note that i am affiliated with the World Kite Museum here where i live (no coincidence), where historic kite arches and trains are collected and studied�and new versions developed and flown at regular events like the Washington State International Kite Festival (WSIKF). I have been trained in multi-kite formations, especially�arches and trains by the masters, like Ray Bethel, Chuck Blevins, Two-Kite Sam, Jim Patton, Iqbal Hussein, Ed Jensen, and many others. Kay Buesing, the museum director/founder personally hosts Kite Train and Arch Day (a unique decades old event)�and is the world authority�(i work under her as a volunteer kite curator and was cataloging a Bill Gobel kite train just yesterday). WSIKF is a week long NOTAM shielded event in remote airspace. Flyers are allowed to fly vast numbers of multikites�well over a thousand feet high, with approval of AKA on-site safety monitors. Many standing world kite records were/are made right here.
> �
> There are many allowable loopholes in the temporary regs. The major one is not to fly FEGs/WECSs, so as to stay within hobby regulations. Current members of the AKA even have a million in liability insurance. KiteLab Ilwaco has endless experiments to conduct that relate to the pilot/lifter functions and other operational methods. The professional ability to engineer�from scale prototype data�means the 200ft ceiling is plenty for any experiment banned higher up.
> �
> I am in active collaboration with the FAA on Kite Energy for over three years now (the guy who ratted out Makani apparent airspace�violations on Maui based on videogrammetry done on their TED talk promo vid). Some new policies come directly from our circle. Makani/Joby have also been trying to influence the FAA, but not as aviators, and some of the stupid details in the temp regs seem to have their�impractical hallmark�(like how redundant tethers are somehow less safe?). But no matter, these are temporary restrictions, and logic will prevail in airspace. I grew up in aviation, so the staus quo is like mother's milk.
> �
> The reason to remind you about aviation safety in what seems like an insulting tone is just the same as when you fly an airline and the flight attendants�show you, the great Doug Selsam,�how the seatbelt works. Foam at the mouth�back at them, and you�may be frog-marched off the plane by TSA, but on this open forum there is�little harm done. Be safe and have a nice day sir, ;*)
> �
> daveS
> �
> PS Anybody who would like to train in advanced multi-kite techniques, please note the KiteLab�Kite Pilot�school teaches all aspects. Over a dozen�serious AWE developers have attended, from as far away as EU, with a Nigerian delegation planned soon. The latest evolution of 3D aerial latticework is underway right now; come help pioneer the historic advent of� new"kite cloud" methods.
>

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5090 From: Joe Faust Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy available for comment

Doug, I am not sure how you arrive at your perspective; but the glass is partially full here. The yet-to-be-done calls us all forward.

The http://KiteLabGroup.com is a tip of the iceberg of some product, demo, and experimenting history by Dave Santos.

Also, the freely shared-published 700 pages of drawings has yet to be AWE-community-wide digested and disccussed. HERE  http://www.drachen.org/collections/dave-santos-journal   

Another unpublished 800 pages of drawings-notes are teasing.

In AWE SuperStore, first AWES product was by Dave Santos. People have been able to purchase product from him.

Though the CoolIP  has been fully open to all comers for posting essay, report, tech share, most yet is from Dave Santos.

He deserves a vacation, but non-stop daily for over many years now, he has forwarded AWE RAD on many fronts.  My guess is that he knows a special joy when anyone makes a positive step to the AWE skies.  His own working AWES span a wide variety of worked demonstrations over flygen and groundgen realms.

I'd like to see a collaborative AWES team composed of about 800 persons and funded by a cooperative of nations' governments' departments of energy. Part of the guide group of the working collaborative would include  some 20 persons or so: Please nominate persons for the first flexible guide group: ___________________________________________.

Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5089 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Seth Nickell's NearZero Role in AWE Field //Call for Open Disscussio
Seth Nickell
NearZero
AWE Panel List Programmer/Administrator
 
Seth,
 
You have emerged as a mysterious but powerful player in the shaping of Airborne Wind Energy policy.
 
We are having trouble as an online community discovering just how you deserve or justify your role in internally crafting public opinion on AWE, especially compared to legacy competitors like Joe Faust's superior open forum. Your awkward betaware certainly does not earn you that power, and you do not seem to be any sort of aerospace domain expert. Your clear preference for paid secrecy is particularly troubling to us open-source folks.
 
To willingly play Joe Faust's henchman, your fellow AWE list worker, is particularly ironic for an admin/coder; what did he ever do to you? Is this any way to treat beta-testers so that your primitive software shell seems to work better? Surely you did not use the "discussion engine" to slow the private formulating of your blacklist (the infamous "NearZero Internal Debate"). What if non-blacklisted participants do not replace the technical contributions of those censored, as you "hope", but instead you push participation in your forum toward GIGO?
 
Please find the courage to face a real discussion online on Joe's forum about your NearZero role, decision-making, and proper influence in our field. We are curious about your mysterious character and can help with bugs in your groupware design philosophy. Maybe you are a luminous figure who can actually help open efforts to develop AWE, despite an initial stumble. This request to work and discuss openly applies to Steve Davis as well.
 
Hiding is a poor option, as it leaves your problematic roles an open topic indefinitely,
 
dave santos

From: Seth Nickell <snickell@nearzero.org>
To: santos137@yahoo.com; joefaust333@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 1:40 PM
Subject:

Dave and Joe,

After a lot of internal debate, we've removed you from the panel. The
negatively-charged history between you and a number of the
participants has reduced the overall quantity and openness of
discourse. We've invited several of the non-US experts you suggested,
and hope that they'll be able to represent similar viewpoints with
less historical enmity.

-Seth


 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5091 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Rebutting Doug //Re: [AWES] Re: FAA proposed AWE inclusion policy
Thank You Joe, for your kind words.
 
Doug is grumpily unaware of  KiteLab Ilwaco's hard work. Even if he was, in his world there is scant value for any of us creating and testing all kinds of small working AWE protypes purely for science and humanitarian motives, rather than as prematurely marketed products. He seems to find nothing worthwhile in the large AWE community of abstract thinkers (all the "Professor Crackpots"), visionaries, and dreamers. Patiently teach him about state machines one day, and there is no sign of it the next.
 
His value system glorifies quick commercial success. Patents to him are no-brainer business moves. Sadly, he is not doing too well by these metrics. Mastering kites or aerospace is waste of time to him. Blogging about too much blogging suits him far better. He is not qualified to rat out an AWE safety hazard to the FAA, and he ridicules anyone who is (let preventable fatalities shape public perception). If he has mishaps and safety-critical failure modes in his work, he is not eager to share them (bad for business) so they might be solved by our collective brains (better business). Let him endorse oversold AWE players and concepts that share his seemingly-insurmountable technical challenges; they share the same boat. Let him fume about those who nimblely avoid developmental roadblocks. Its clearly very frustrating to be Doug, and he has our enduring compassion.
 
The AWE winners will prevail by finding the best designs. Doug would help us (and himself) far better with precise technical critique of the AWE presented. 

 
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5092 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Making Sense of the Max Planck Institute Findings
It seemed like a bombshell finding by the Max Planck Institute, that the available power of upper wind was somehow vastly overestimated by Carnegie Institution scientists. The actual case looks less dramatic: The initial vast power calculation still seems roughly correct, on a theoretical instantaneous load basis, but did not attempt to estimate how fast the wind resource regenerates. Global wind is like a capacitor, and there must be a balance between load and supply, or the amount of stored energy is quickly depleted by excess load. There is a bit of uncertainty whether the power fraction of the major jet streams is being confused with the considerably larger power of the entire wind system, but this distraction will clear up.
 
We have learned on this forum that bulk global wind is not just caused by heating, but is a shifting balance of planetary heating and rotational energy. This is called geostrophic wind, and it is modified by accidents of land and sea thermal distribution, surface and cloud albedo, seasons, mountain ranges, greenhouse gases, and other factors. My conjecture is that the seasonal time scale roughly predicts how fast global wind would regenerate if it was fully stopped; that a year or two of cycling would restore the wind to near-normal values. Crude power calculations are simple enough, like multiplying the force of the global average windspeed times the psi density of the atmosphere times the number of square inches of planet surface, but a full computational accounting of wind is intractable.
 
We need a few new rough numbers to think further clearly; How many gigawatts can we tap to nicely offset anthropogenic windspeed increase? How many gigawatts can we bleed off without catastrophically slowing world winds (and ocean currents)? The wind is clearly superpowerful, so whatever the sustainable limit to AWE, it looks good for at least a terawatt or two. Tapping the global wind resource can even be synergistic, so as to directly add albedo and mitigate disastrous conditions like polar melting, superstorms, superdrought, and so forth, while also producing vast power.
 
These are complex issues, easy to get wrong, so please help correct any errors above...
 
 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5093 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Re: Making Sense of the Max Planck Institute Findings
Dave,

The paper you are fretting about actually admitted it took a worst case
example. A more realistic estimate of the global potential for AWE comes
from looking at what actually causes the wind. Primarily it is solar
insolation. The sun heats the equator far more than the poles. Hot air
expands and rises. The sun also evaporates water. Water vapour is a lot
lighter than air so damp air rises. We know from rainfall figures fairly
accurately how much energy goes into evaporation. 40 PW according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

The sun's total insolation on the planet is 174 PW. Working out how much
of that is turned into wind is really complicated. Considering water
evaporation uses 23% of it and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_insolation we can see there is a huge
variation in insolation between the tropics and the poles. I don't think
it is unreasonable that totally input into wind creation is also about
20%. That is 35 PW which is 2000 times the total of humanity's energy
budget.

Also, try estimating how much wind power is absorbed by trees,
mountains, waves etc. It must be of the order of 30 PW.

The paper only considered the jet stream. AWE up there is not likely -
ever. There is plenty of power below 2000 m. No need to fret about AWE's
prospects, or even its risk of influencing the weather. Deforestation
will already be having a bigger effect than AWE ever will.

Robert.




On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:52 -0800, dave santos wrote:
>
> It seemed like a bombshell finding by the Max Planck Institute, that
> the available power of upper wind was somehow vastly overestimated by
> Carnegie Institution scientists. The actual case looks less dramatic:
> The initial vast power calculation still seems roughly correct, on a
> theoretical instantaneous load basis, but did not attempt to estimate
> how fast the wind resource regenerates. Global wind is like a
> capacitor, and there must be a balance between load and supply, or the
> amount of stored energy is quickly depleted by excess load. There is a
> bit of uncertainty whether the power fraction of the major jet
> streams is being confused with the considerably larger power of the
> entire wind system, but this distraction will clear up.
>
> We have learned on this forum that bulk global wind is not just caused
> by heating, but is a shifting balance of planetary heating and
> rotational energy. This is called geostrophic wind, and it is modified
> by accidents of land and sea thermal distribution, surface and cloud
> albedo, seasons, mountain ranges, greenhouse gases, and other
> factors. My conjecture is that the seasonal time scale roughly
> predicts how fast global wind would regenerate if it was fully
> stopped; that a year or two of cycling would restore the wind to
> near-normal values. Crude power calculations are simple enough, like
> multiplying the force of the global average windspeed times the psi
> density of the atmosphere times the number of square inches of planet
> surface, but a full computational accounting of wind is intractable.
>
> We need a few new rough numbers to think further clearly; How many
> gigawatts can we tap to nicely offset anthropogenic windspeed
> increase? How many gigawatts can we bleed off without catastrophically
> slowing world winds (and ocean currents)? The wind is clearly
> superpowerful, so whatever the sustainable limit to AWE, it looks good
> for at least a terawatt or two. Tapping the global wind resource can
> even be synergistic, so as to directly add albedo and mitigate
> disastrous conditions like polar melting, superstorms, superdrought,
> and so forth, while also producing vast power.
>
> These are complex issues, easy to get wrong, so please help correct
> any errors above...
>
>
> __
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5094 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Re: Making Sense of the Max Planck Institute Findings
Robert,
 
Points to consider,
 
1) The geostrophic balance of (mostly solar) heat against the rotational Coriolis force does reflect the extraction planetary rotational energy. Study how these two forces are seen to balance. I had to work it out slowly for myself before understanding what geostrophic wind was-
 

2)  Heat absorbed as evaporation gets re-released as Latent Heat of Condensation, which powers a lot of vertical convection shear. to couple with Coriolis (best visible in a cumulonimbus anvil).
 
3) The Jet Stream altitudes have been reached by kites since 1919. Putting lift all along a tether (kite train method) makes it rather easy, even a high-school class pulled it off with toy kites almost fifty years ago. Megascale kite arches WANT to fly that high. Energy is just one reason to go there. Altitude impacts generation capacity factor by the higher stored kinetic energy of a higher-lofted array mass. Airline traffic already taps the Jet Stream by seeking it as tailwind. It even might be used for some weird reason, like to power cheap space launches. Wubbo thinks we should go there because its there (formerly a British sentiment). Never say never to the future.
 
I do not fret over the Planck paper per se, but that our friends, Cristina and Ken, might be unfairly maligned, or worse, have made a major scientific faux pas that is also bad news for wind. Some of us must fret about intensive AWE creating a local desert rain shadow downwind, just as mountains do, but perhaps as intentional warfare or willful robbery. You need not fret about such things, others do it for you ;*)
 
Thanks for your estimate, it is reassuring, but does not really provide the numbers requested (regeneration curve and max ecological continuous power out). Please continue to calculate,
 
daveS
 
 
 
From: Robert Copcutt <r@copcutt.me.uk>
To: AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: [AWES] Making Sense of the Max Planck Institute Findings

 
Dave,

The paper you are fretting about actually admitted it took a worst case
example. A more realistic estimate of the global potential for AWE comes
from looking at what actually causes the wind. Primarily it is solar
insolation. The sun heats the equator far more than the poles. Hot air
expands and rises. The sun also evaporates water. Water vapour is a lot
lighter than air so damp air rises. We know from rainfall figures fairly
accurately how much energy goes into evaporation. 40 PW according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget

The sun's total insolation on the planet is 174 PW. Working out how much
of that is turned into wind is really complicated. Considering water
evaporation uses 23% of it and from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_insolation we can see there is a huge
variation in insolation between the tropics and the poles. I don't think
it is unreasonable that totally input into wind creation is also about
20%. That is 35 PW which is 2000 times the total of humanity's energy
budget.

Also, try estimating how much wind power is absorbed by trees,
mountains, waves etc. It must be of the order of 30 PW.

The paper only considered the jet stream. AWE up there is not likely -
ever. There is plenty of power below 2000 m. No need to fret about AWE's
prospects, or even its risk of influencing the weather. Deforestation
will already be having a bigger effect than AWE ever will.

Robert.

On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 14:52 -0800, dave santos wrote:
>
> It seemed like a bombshell finding by the Max Planck Institute, that
> the available power of upper wind was somehow vastly overestimated by
> Carnegie Institution scientists. The actual case looks less dramatic:
> The initial vast power calculation still seems roughly correct, on a
> theoretical instantaneous load basis, but did not attempt to estimate
> how fast the wind resource regenerates. Global wind is like a
> capacitor, and there must be a balance between load and supply, or the
> amount of stored energy is quickly depleted by excess load. There is a
> bit of uncertainty whether the power fraction of the major jet
> streams is being confused with the considerably larger power of the
> entire wind system, but this distraction will clear up.
>
> We have learned on this forum that bulk global wind is not just caused
> by heating, but is a shifting balance of planetary heating and
> rotational energy. This is called geostrophic wind, and it is modified
> by accidents of land and sea thermal distribution, surface and cloud
> albedo, seasons, mountain ranges, greenhouse gases, and other
> factors. My conjecture is that the seasonal time scale roughly
> predicts how fast global wind would regenerate if it was fully
> stopped; that a year or two of cycling would restore the wind to
> near-normal values. Crude power calculations are simple enough, like
> multiplying the force of the global average windspeed times the psi
> density of the atmosphere times the number of square inches of planet
> surface, but a full computational accounting of wind is intractable.
>
> We need a few new rough numbers to think further clearly; How many
> gigawatts can we tap to nicely offset anthropogenic windspeed
> increase? How many gigawatts can we bleed off without catastrophically
> slowing world winds (and ocean currents)? The wind is clearly
> superpowerful, so whatever the sustainable limit to AWE, it looks good
> for at least a terawatt or two. Tapping the global wind resource can
> even be synergistic, so as to directly add albedo and mitigate
> disastrous conditions like polar melting, superstorms, superdrought,
> and so forth, while also producing vast power.
>
> These are complex issues, easy to get wrong, so please help correct
> any errors above...
>
>
> __



 
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5095 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Another TUDelft Lecture- Inflato Wings
 
Guest lecture InflatoWings-  Dec 16
Joep Breuer, founder of InflatoWings, will give a guest lecture in the frame of the MSc course Kite Power & Propulsion (TU Delft course code AE4T40).
 
Inflatable structures have very interesting properties such as low weight, compact transport volume and easy set up. Both manned and unmanned aircraft have been built using inflatable wings. However, a severe drawback of inflatable wings is the small load-bearing capacity of such structures which limits the aspect ratio of this wing type. Introducing the structural concept of Tensairity overcomes this deficiency. Tensairity combines an inflatable structure with struts and cables and thus increases the stiffness and maximal load of the inflatable structure tremendously. A further improvement of the stiffness and ultimate load of Tensairity can be achieved by introduction of fabric webs into the airbeam. In this work, the concept of web-Tensairity was further developed into curved girders to be able to build wings with dihedral, sweep and twist. A comparison between a curved and a straight web-Tensairity girder proved that their load deflection behaviour was very similar and superior to a curved and straight airbeam with the same dimensions and internal pressure. The stiffness of the web-Tensairity girder was estimated analytically. To demonstrate the concept of Tensairity wings, the goal was set to build a Tensairity kite which flies stable on a single tether. The latest kite prototype has a span of almost 8 m and a projected area of 11 m2. Results of structural and aerodynamic tests of this kite are presented.
The lecture is in English and open to the public.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 14 December 2011 14:53
 
Guest lecture InflatoWings    
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5096 From: dave santos Date: 12/16/2011
Subject: Re: Making Sense of the Max Planck Institute Findings
Ken Caldiera just wrote-

"The study by the folks at MPI reaches erroneous conclusions as we hope to show shortly in a peer-reviewed setting..."
  
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5097 From: Hardensoft International Limited Date: 12/17/2011
Subject: Fw: Upcoming International Overview of Marine Renewable Energy Regul


John Adeoye  Oyebanji   B.Sc. MCPN
Managing Consultant & CEO
Hardensoft International Limited
An ICT, Environmental Remediation & Renewable Energy Company

3rd Floor, 53 St. Finbarr's Road, Akoka-Yaba;
Lagos. Nigeria.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Disclaimer and confidentiality note

This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, and unless the content clearly indicates otherwise, remains the property of John Adeoye Oyebanji of Hardensoft International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria. 


It is confidential, private and intended for only the addressee.

Should you not be the addressee and receive this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the sender, and delete this e-mail immediately.

Do not disclose or use it in any way. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of some other.




--- On Thu, 12/15/11, M. Paunescu <Michael.Paunescu@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca> wrote:

From: M. Paunescu <Michael.Paunescu@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
Subject: Upcoming International Overview of Marine Renewable Energy Regulatory Frameworks
To: "Energy-l" <energy-l@lists.iisd.ca>
Date: Thursday, December 15, 2011, 6:50 PM

Dear Energy-L Colleagues,

Natural Resources Canada has recently launched a request for proposals for a study on marine renewable energy regulatory frameworks, i.e. offshore wind, wave and tidal, in six European countries (Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom).

The projected study aims to identify and examine responsible authorities and permitting processes concerning marine renewable energy projects and rights allocations.

More specifically, the objective of the proposed study is to answer two questions:

(1)     Who are the government authorities responsible for administration of which marine renewable energy permits and rights in each country?

(2)     How does the permitting and rights allocation process work for each stage of marine renewable energy projects and what are the lessons learned from the permitting experiences in these countries?

Lessons learned from these European experiences could be helpful in guiding marine renewable energy regulatory regime management elsewhere in the world.

For more information, please visit http://www.merx.com, reference number 233993. The deadline for submitting a proposal is January 10, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Canada's Eastern Standard Time (EST).

With kind regards,

Michael Paunescu
Senior Economist
Natural Resources Canada


___________________________________________________________________________________
- You are currently subscribed to energy-l as: hardensoftintl@yahoo.com
- View energy-l Forum: http://lists.iisd.ca/read/?forum=energy-l
- Membership options / Unsubscribe: http://lists.iisd.ca/read/?forum=energy-l
___________________________________________________________________________________
IISD is pleased to announce the launch of Sustainable Development Policy & Practice
A Knowledgebase of International Activities Preparing for the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio +20)
http://uncsd.iisd.org/

We also invite you to subscribe: http://uncsd.iisd.org/about-the-uncsd-l-mailing-list/#subscribe_uncsd-l to UNCSD-L and post: http://uncsd.iisd.org/about-the-uncsd-l-mailing-list/#postings_uncsd-l your UNCSD-related activities on this community listserv.
- Subscribe / More Information: http://uncsd.iisd.org/about-the-uncsd-l-mailing-list/
- View UNCSD-L Forum: http://lists.iisd.ca/read/?forum=uncsd-l
___________________________________________________________________________________
- Subscribe to all other IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists for environment and sustainable development policy professionals at http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm
Group: AirborneWindEnergy Message: 5098 From: Robert Copcutt Date: 12/17/2011
Subject: Re: Making Sense of the Max Planck Institute Findings
This will be useful. At the moment there does not appear to be an
authoritative reference on what the planet's renewable wind resource is.
I have been on look-out for a while and so far can only say it appears
to be in the range of 1 to 20 PW.

With all the work that has gone into pinning down how serious global
warming is there should be enough data to pin down the wind resource
more accurately too.

Robert.


On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 22:00 -0800, dave santos wrote:
>
> Ken Caldiera just wrote-
>
> "The study by the folks at MPI reaches erroneous conclusions as we
> hope to show shortly in a peer-reviewed setting..."
>
>