Cousin topics re: QM, Metamaterials, Kite Matter    |    Forum Index of Topics    | 3r   |   

Topic for open discussion:
   IEA  and  IEA TCP         iea.org/
International Energy Agency, Technical Collaboration Programme
IEA Wind       
Wind Energy Technology Office:  WETO
Note: To date: Sept. 29, 2020, IEA does not yet have any "Task" for Airborne Wind Energy. So there thus is yet no Operating Agent for the "Task."
  • ieawind.org/tem102/home                  See challenge: Here
  • ieawind.org/tem102/introductory-note   features AWE
  • Online TEM#102 web meeting on September 23-24, 2020
  • KiteMill images dominate the announcement of the IEA Wind TEM #102                   
  • TEM  :: Topic Expert Meeting(s)  
  • R,D&D :: Research, development and deployment  
  • USA AWE   (or U.S. AWE)
  • IEAWindTEM102info  
  • About IEA Wind  
  • We absorb some of the radiance of the  IEA Wind and its TCP  special September  23-24  TEM #102 online meetings; if you attend some of the meetings in the two-day Airborne Wind Energy event, please send summaries to editor@upperwindpower.com   to make AWEC2020 Teleconference robust.  Registration is apparently required.     
  • Recommended Practices    TCP 
  • Grand Challenges     The community seems near the edge of AWE without naming her.
    • An unnamed challenge in the above linked page: Towers to Tethers
    • “The aim of IEA Wind TCP is to bring together the best organizations within the field of wind energy research and to collaborate across borders.”   As regards AWE, such aim would entail bringing in AWE organzizations.
    • v
  • John McCann 
  • BOS  ::    wiki/Balance_of_system    balance of system
  • BOP  ::    wiki/Balance_of_plant      balance of plant
  • WindForS is a network of over 25 groups at seven universities and research institutions in southern Germany.   They are listed to participate in Tem#102

  • [ ]  Will IEA Wind become aware of the full spectrum of AWES topologies???????  Sept. 22, 2020: "It looks doubtful as representation of the AWE community is skinny. ~ JpF     Update, morning of Sept. 23, 2020: "IEA does not have the Wright stuff for AWE."  ~JpF     
  • Task 11   
  • USA
    • Jim Ahlgrimm
    • Brian Smith
    • Jochem Weber
    • v
    • v
    • v
  • Wiki editor found, "The anticorruption NGO Global Witness wrote in its report Heads in the Sand that "Global Witness' analysis demonstrates that the Agency continues to retain an overly-optimistic, and therefore misleading, view about potential future oil production."  Also, "The Energy Watch Group (EWG), a coalition of scientists and politicians which analyses official energy industry predictions, claims that the IEA has had an institutional bias towards traditional energy sources and has been using "misleading data" to undermine the case for renewable energy, such as wind and solar."    Oil wins at IEA.

  • Who at the TEM#102 are the US participants?    They voted not to have as participants the editor of the pioneering AWE ezine Upper WindPower even as a listener to the meeting, and the two founders of the 2009 Chico AWE  conference.  Oil wins at IEA.  Recommendation: "AWE should stop playing with the enemy. IEA machinations may well wiggle delay in RAD. IEA does not seem to be a friend to AWE. It is to be studied how even some AWE  players have not AWE itself front-and-center while non-AWE intents are underlyingly served. Put time and funds in AWE-community building outside of the IEA machinations." ~JpF   Sept. 23, 2020. 
    • "It is an honor to be banned.(sic, by IEA)."  ~Dave Santos, Sept. 23, 2020.
    • Adding Rob, Chris, Sheri, and Robert here. These seem to be the cited "sufficient number of US experts". Its not just the number that counts, but the diversity and depth of the chosen representatives. They are not listening the large US AWE Community as such. I wrote to most of these "US representatives" about what is the US picture for TEM #102, and got no reply. NREL "AWE experts" do not even have any known AWE experience. The other "experts" listed so far have not delivered viable R&D compared to the best players.

      These "US representatives" as a whole most represent a problematic military-industrial background (US Marines, DARPA, DOE, etc.) IEA itself was founded by war-criminal Henry Kissinger, as a Cold War strategic energy institution favoring a short list of 1st World Nations. AWEurope itself is creeping into militarized AWE, as its venture capitalists have failed to bring value to market as claimed.

      US and World AWE is far more diverse, more in favor of a Militarization Moratorium in AWE. We are far more expert in actual AWE (civil aerospace and kite tech), and not dependent on government subsidies. Representative voices of small independent US and non-member Nations developers and academic players are missing from TEM #102. We should all have been seriously consulted, not represented by token figures in-vacuo, in favor of shady AWEurope venture-capitalist interests. 

      What's needed most in AWE is rapid delivery of small-scale low-complexity power-kite-based solutions for poor remote populations, and also a grand vision of GW scale AWE to quickly replace fossil fuels at the Civilizational scale. The US TEM #102  delegation, as chosen by AWEurope, and AWEurope itself, does not represent AWE in those critical societal and technical dimensions.

      Thank You All for understanding the profound lack of representative US and World participation for IEA TEM #102.

    • (to IEA), " Nicolas, 
            A huge missed opportunity is seemingly set in not including Dave Santos. 
      Joe Faust"    Sept. 22, 2020

    • Nicolas,

      Same goes for JoeF being blocked, even after getting preregistered. He would have represented Open-AWE and AWEIA, which are far bigger than any other-AWE player, but have no representation. It is really AWEC/AWEurope's fault. It would have been easy to better represent US AWE, and include IEA member countries like India, Canada, Brazil, China, and Mexico.

      Instead, participation favors a cluster of Udo Zillman's struggling Northern EU investment interests. Roland Schmehl's 2020 map published on IEA's website is wildly in error, and should be corrected or taken down.

      TEM #102 is a sham. IEA TEM #102 is hereby protested, by whatever complaint TEM#100 on Aviation System Cohabitation
      https://tinyurl.com/TEM102IEA

      Tethered Aviation ConOps (TACO) v.1.0
      http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/TetheredAviationConOps.htmlTEM#100 on Aviation System Cohabitation
      https://tinyurl.com/TEM102IEA

      Tethered Aviation ConOps (TACO) v.1.0
      http://www.energykitesystems.net/CoopIP/TetheredAviationConOps.htmlchannels exist.

      dave
      kPower
    • v
    • v

  • IEA Wind Implementing Agreement, End-of-Term Report 2009–2013
    and Strategic Plan 2014–2019
  • OECD          Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international organisation    | Home |  wiki |    What is their AWE awareness?  
Send AWE notes and topic replies to editor@upperwindpower.com
/// Next ????????????
Nov. 3, 2020, post by Dave Santos

Email trails particularly for Jochem's (DOE/NREL) records, in the context of skewed and shriveled US/World participation in IEA Wind TEM#102, in favor of AWEurope's VC biases.

The TEM#102 Task Proposal now reflects AWEurope-imposed technical and political imbalance, with official NREL complicity. Please correct the off-course direction of TEM#102.
Alameda Sun Community Newspaper's Makani Debriefing

MAKANI ENERGY LOST ITS GREEN
Thursday, October 29, 2020
Richard Bangert

“The accident underscored a feature of Makani’s technology that has led experts to question why [Makani founders] Brin and Page had so much faith in the concept,” stated Deign. “Out of all the possible ways to make an airborne wind engine, Makani’s was perhaps among the most complicated.”
October 31, 2020, post by Dave Santos
Missing Classification of "SpiderMill" AWES for IEA Wind TEM#102 Purposes

In AWE, the Late-Great Astronaut-Professor Wubbo Ockels long ago coined the name "LadderMill" for a ladder-like train of many power-kites. Less well known was Wubbo's final most creative AWES concept, the "SpiderMill," as presented at AWEC2011. A SpiderMill is an aggregation of many power-kites in a many-connected network. The intention was to suggest spiderweb-like AWES topology. Legacy namings for other multi-kite AWES topology classes include "Kite Farm" (brush topology of multiple single-line kites) and "Carousel" (multi-kites hauling around a circular track or rotating structure). AWES Classification is still an open subject.

"SpiderMills" is apt naming for a rich Class of AWES Research Architectures of many-connected lattice topologies. Many such current concepts, like Windswept & Interesting, kPower, and TUK (graphics below), indeed closely resemble iconic radially-symmetrical spiderwebs (iso-kites), but SpiderMill identification should encompass all many-connected many-unit-kite lattices (meta-kite kite-of-kites) with regular (mechanical meta-material "kitematter") unit-cell properties. SkyMills are theoretically the most scalable AWES class of all, to multi-GW formations, in principle, accepting wind from any direction, and even staying up in calm by step-tow (reverse-pumping).

"Wubbo Lives!," as the AWE rallying cry goes.       Comments are invited.

AWES Case Examples: Windswept & Interesting, TUKaiserslautern, and kPower Conceptual SpiderMill Variants:
                   Click each image to view large size:

Summarized Meta-Analysis regarding "SpiderMill" Kite Networks

Windswept and Interesting Website-  "The Kite Networking Alternative...Alternative kite-tethering network designs have now demonstrated critical advantages in control, power density, reliability, safety, efficiency, scalability and more...Networked kite designs exploit wide tether mesh patterns. A kite set on a network node is fixed in position like a fly stuck in a spider web.

TUKaiserslautern [Langbien et al, 2018]- "3r (network topology) is comparable in terms of power output (to single-line AWES topology)...makes it possible to land and start the kites without additional equipment (and) keep...airborne when no wind is present."

kPower [Santos, CTO]- SpiderMill Technology promises AWES unit-plant integrated control at multi-GW scale by passive-dynamic topological-stability, and also superior safety, with minimum negative impacts to birds, bats, butterflies, and human communities. SpiderMills could sustainably Power the World.
October 30, 2020, post by Dave Santos   
Choice of IEA Wind TEM#102 AWES Reference Models?

EA Wind TEM#102 is considering AWES Reference Models as research baselines. Theoretic AWES Reference Models are always welcome, but must be carefully distinguished from real-world Reference Models, with test data and known engineering outcomes. There are in fact many theoretic-numeric AWES Reference Models, whether or not they are advertised as such, starting with Loyd's famous 1979 C5A-based AWES model. Many seriously-scalable Theoretic AWES Reference Models are not yet even formally classified (not flygen, not single-line, not reeling)

TUDleft (AWEurope) currently offers- "...a reference model for a rigid wing AWE system in the multi-MW range...inspired by the Ampyx AP-4." [see references below]

How valid is a theoretic Reference Model, based on a single MSc Thesis, in turn based on a speculative AWEurope-member marketing concept? Consider that Makani's M600 ended up 70% heavier than initially estimated by dozens of engineers. It only survived 5.5hrs on average between total crashes. Overall, it consumed energy rather than produced energy. Makani's M5 (5MW) concept was long before abandoned in despair over aerospace scaling limits. AP4-derived Models further presume catapult launch and perch-landing. These are unrealistic aircraft capabilities, based on scaling-law dictates and stark lack of aerospace-engineering similarity-cases.

Fortunately, real-world AWES Reference Models now exist with definite test data and detailed design knowledge, like Makani M600 and SkySails100. These enable solid scoring-matrix comparisons like this-

Scalability outcome is given by drastic measured losses in specific performance data scaling between Wing7 and M600. On the other hand, power Kites have proven effective from toy-scale to ship-kite scale, although they too have scaling limits, somewhere beyond 1000m2.


====== References =======

1) Makani Final Reports, 2020

2) SkySails 100 Certified Operation

3) Proposed TUDelft AWES Reference Model-
Design and Optimisation Framework of a Multi-MW Airborne Wind Energy Reference System    by    Eijkelhof, Dylan (TU Delft Aerospace Engineering)
Roland Schmehl:
"TU Delft researcher (sic, Dylan Eijkelhof) has now released a subset of this work as a reference model for a rigid wing AWE system in the multi-MW range. Get the source code from the MegAWES 3 repository on github. In its present, basic state the model includes a point mass model (3 DOF) of the aircraft, a discretized model of the tether and a simple winch model. This in itself is not very new and fancy. What is new and fancy is the AWE control approach that allows the model to operate in pumping cycles and produce power in the MW-range.
This model forms the starting point for a continued development of a more accurate 6 DOF model (currently in the making) with a refined control approach. The aircraft design is inspired by the Ampyx AP-4"         New AWES forum
Dear Jim                                            Oct 29, 2020,

Again, given the history shared in recent emails, DOE/NREL does not properly represent US AWE for TEM#102, nor for any other vital purpose yet. DOE's US delegation, UNC, WindLift, and eWind, are not even a representative slice of US AWE. The US faces continuation of DOE AWE domain missteps such as DOE Staff, Hartney, Zoi, and Felker, committed. Therefore, broad urgent open (unmanaged) citizen-based communication is essential, if necessary by OIG/Congressional whistleblower mode, as the stakes for continued DOE failure are very high, and US "Open AWE" has no viable official path to direct momentum..

Jochem is already included as a DOE Point of Contact, but cannot be allowed to become a bottleneck in the guise of "managing communications better". You are aware Jochem, as "technical lead", starts from Water Power as his career job scope, with no particular background in AWE, and credulous of AWEurope TEM#102 claims, but not much else to add yet. An NREL AWE Workshop sounds interesting, but is not even approved, and its 2020, way late. Private US domain experts are not much in need of a beginning NREL AWE Workshop, and those responsible for AWE in DOE, new to AWE, need far more to become expert.

More urgent is US AWE Conference Resumption in the face of undue resistance and DOE acquiescence with AWEurope's agenda. DOE is apparently dropping the ball. DOE also may be dropping the ball for TEM#100, if willfully excluding AWE from consideration of Wind Energy and Aviation. DOE US experts selected for TEM#100 should be well informed of AWE's special aviation impacts. Joe and I look forward to seeing if they are informed, communicating directly as needed. We will continue to urgently ask DOE for an AWE Grand Challenge, or AWE "Manahttan Project", with a serious aerospace fly-off dynamic (include NASA).

Thanks for understanding the role US Community must play, given DOE/NREL's problematic AWE history, current shortcomings, and major consequences for further missteps. DOE/EERE/NREL/NWTC must move far more assertively in AWE, to make up for lost time. No sign of that yet.

Best,

Dave Santos
kPower
AWEIA
etc.

On Thursday, October 29, 2020, 07:58:48 AM CDT, Ahlgrimm, Jim  wrote:

Dear Mr. Santos,

 To better manage communications on airborne wind energy, Dr. Jochem Weber of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been assigned as the technical lead for following and reporting on airborne wind energy developments. Please use Dr. Weber as the point of contact going forward,  EMAIL.  I have also asked Dr. Weber to develop an airborne wind energy workshop draft agenda for consideration by the Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Technologies Office director. If approved, the workshop would be hosted by NREL, and would provide a baseline for the current state of the technology and related issues.  You should expect to hear from Dr. Weber and Mr. Brian Smith (NREL Wind program manager) regarding the shaping of a workshop  proposal.

 With regard to the IEA Wind expert meeting on aviation system cohabitation, the purpose of the meeting is to share information and knowledge on the impact of wind turbine plants on radar systems and potential mitigation options.  US experts have been identified and invited.  There is no intention to broaden the agenda to include airborne wind.

 Jim Ahlgrimm  
Deputy Director
Wind Energy Technologies Office
October 27, 2020, post by Dave Santos
Where is EU/EC Energy Dept. Directorate C, if US DOE/NREL is to "represent" US AWE in IEA WInd TEM#102 ?

European Commission Energy Dept. is US DOE's Counterpart in Energy.  EC support for EU AWE R&D has been impressive. AWEurope cannot present itself as comparable nor superior to US DOE or EC Energy. They are a venture-insider scheme raising investment capital by risky exaggerated claims, masquerading as global AWE leadership, using the US DOE for window-dressing.

Q: Why is EU/EC Energy not at IEA Wind TEM#102 table? Why are no EU member-country governments not at the table. 
A: Because AWEurope is posing as more than its due, to prop up its investments.

Logically, DOE/NREL should defer to private US AWE citizen-leadership, or AWEurope should defer to EC Energy Directorate C leadership. 

Proposed: Let Directorate C "represent" AWEurope, and all other EU AWE players, if DOE/NREL is to "represent" US AWE.

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


Directorate-General for Energy
October 24, 2020:
Planair and EU Commission Airborne Wind Energy Due-Diligence

Dear Daniel, Yannick, and Nicolas,

Planair has just entered AWE (Airborne Wind Energy) as the IEA Wind Operating Agent.

As various global commentators have noted, the starting participation is skewed "Eurocentric".
AWEurope, the proposed TEM#102 Operating Agent, has a contentious venture-insider basis.
Even most EU merit-players are excluded. Planair and US DOE are unaware of AWE in depth.
By AWEurope design, the US delegation is token, smaller than the Netherlands, and US DOE 
has no domain expertise. Only one US University, of 25 with AWE R&D, is included so far.

There has been decades of fine international collaboration in AWE, long preceding AWEurope. 
This message is an offer to inform Planair of this community from outside of IEA TEM#102.
Joe Faust and I are the oldest longest-working players in AWE (we even named it "AWE").
Joe maintains uniquely comprehensive AWE archives. Our company, kPower, has many firsts.

Nicolas can confirm that we are excluded from TEM#102, in favor AWEurope picks with far less 
knowledge and experience. Many of the AWEurope players are in trouble, desperately seeking 
new investment based on dead-end engineering. 

Planair need not be complicit in the marketing of marginal AWE investments to the detriment of 
innocent EU public and private investors. You have the engineering depth for independent 
due-diligence.

Planair can count on Joe and me, and kPower, to provide AWE domain perspective missing 
from TEM#102. For starters, AWEurope's map omits MOST World Players, and their AWES 
classification scheme ignores conceptual advances in favor of proven-obsolete paradigms.

AWE is potentially the most game-changing renewable energy there is. Thanks for Planair 
diligently developing domain expertise. All questions and suggestions welcomed.

Best,

Dave Santos
Joe Faust
kPower
AWEIA
Upper WindPower Journal
KiteLabs Group
=====
Dear Dave and Joe,
Planair has solely been facilitating the workshop TEM#102, in its quality of Task 11 operating agent. We are not entering the AWE community as a company whatsoever.

The whereabouts of TEM#102 and invitation process have been explained in a previous e-mail.

Collaboration within the IEA Wind TCP on the topic of AWE will now be coordinated by the ExCo members (or country representatives). I believe you have met those representing the US, please stay in touch with them if you wish to provide your perspectives within that frame.

Best,
Nicolas El Hayek
=====
Nicolas, 

You wrote you would not respond to complaint about TEM#102, but now you are. Thanks for changing your mind.

DOE/NREL does not represent US AWE, by a poor historic track-record, and no domain expertise. Jochem Weber of NREL is a Water Power engineer, with no AWE background. UNC, WindLift, and eWind are AWEurope's US token partners, with failing AWES concepts. Planair is no AWE expert-player either. The large excluded US AWE Community has no voice in TEM#102.

IEA Wind TEM#102 is off on the wrong foot. Planair should welcome critical perspective, rather than parrot AWEurope insider narratives.

Sincerely,

Dave Santos
kPower
=====
Here's recent documentation of US Gov AWE (or lack thereof). Joe Faust has a lot more in his archives, and more about EU AWE and AWEurope than any other public source. AWEurope, on the other hand, is quite secretive, even adding closed sessions to AWEC. EU Gov and Investors are being mislead.

------------

DOE's AWE Track-record Summarized and Updated Oct 2020

2020 at a glance-: Zero US DOE/EERE/NREL/NWTC funding for AWE R&D from a 7.8 Billion Dollar Budget for Energy Innovations and Science.

US Gov AWE R&D has been neglected or futzed for decades, with no positive result. NREL's capitulation last week to AWEurope, as IEA Wind TEM#102 Operating Agent, despite written US AWE protest, pushes the Panic Button. DOE is suddenly taking its AWE lead from a shadowy Belgium-based VC-insider circle (AWEurope), even proposing to send them cash. The NREL POC is a Water Power guy, not an aerospace expert, doing AWE part-time. There is no AWE expert in DOE. Seriously?

DOE ARPA-E did throw millions to Google's lobbyists-pick (Makani R&D window-dressing). Google did not need money, and two DOE staffers jumped through revolving door to GoogleX (Cathy Zoi, Fort Felker), while veteran NASA-Boeing AWE R&D applicants got nothing (SkyMill).

-----------

From the Vault-

Cathy Zoi- former Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Makani Power announced that Cathy Zoi was named in its board of directors at the start of 2013.[9] Google purchased Makani Power in May 2013

------------

Fort Felker met with kPower at NREL-NWTC before he jumped ship. Ironically, kPower told him Makani's architecture was a dead-end, as predicted from 2007 and 2009.


Fort Felker – MediumRead writing from Fort Felker on Medium. CEO of Makani. Every day, Fort Felker and thousands of other voices rea...


-------------

Mobilizing US AWE to inform Congress; DOE Congressional Oversight Committees-

US House of Representatives 
 
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
SUBCOMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS & OVERSIGHT 

kPower Austin Rep.

Congressman Loyd Doggett-  Ways and Means Committee, House Budget Committee


US Senate- Energy and Natural Resources Committee

--------------------

Its as if Rick Perry himself had somehow been in charge of DOE AWE neglect-

President-elect Donald Trump’s announcement that he had picked former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to head the Department of Energy was met with both mirth and alarm. During the 2011 presidential primaries, Perry not only declared that he would abolish the department if he got the opportunity, but he ― in a memorable gaffe ― forgot the department’s name.


=====
 ighotline@hq.doe.gov

Teri L. Donaldson Inspector General of the United States Department of Energy

------------

"The FY 2020 Budget Request provides:

  • $2.3 billion to secure energy independence and fund innovations for more affordable, reliable, and efficient energy sources.
  • $5.5 billion in science funding for cutting-edge research and development as well as state-of-the-art facilities at DOE’s National Laboratories."

Not one penny for AWE R&D.
Department of Energy FY 2020 Budget Request Fact Sheet  
=====
-----------------
EERE head taking victory lap for energy market forces. Probably never heard of AWE-

=====
US DOE Collegiate Wind 2022- NO AWE ALLOWED. On the other hand, EU Collegiate AWE has decades of head-start, across many Universities, including dozens of graduate-level scholarships.

Request for Proposals Released for 2022 U.S. Department of Energy Collegiate Wind Competition 
 
=====
Only one US University included by NREL in TEM#102, out of 25+. Only two ventures of 30+. These three players are AWEurope picks.

No US Conference support from DOE, not even an endorsement, in the face of AWEurope takeover. No AWE Grand Challenge. Nothing.

=====
DOE/EERE/NREL/NWTC Please Note: Only NC State is included IEA TEM#102, due to its AWEurope affinity.

AWEurope Please Note: Roland's Map omits most US and global AWE R&D players, presenting an unduly "Eurocentric" picture.


Draft Partial List of TEM#102-Overlooked US AWE R&D Universities-

    1. Brigham Young University (BYU)
    2. California Institute of Technology, Caltech
    3. California State University, Chico
    4. California State University, Sacramento
    5. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Florida 
    6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
    7. New York University- Courant Institute
    8. Oklahoma State University (OSU)
    9. Portland State University (PSU)
    10. Purdue University
    11. Princeton University
    12. Stanford University
    13. University of California, Irvine (UCI)
    14. University of Colorado at Boulder
    15. University of Delaware
    16. University of Maine
    17. University of Maryland (UMD)
    18. University of North Carolina (UNC)
    19. University of Texas, Austin (UTA)
    20. University of Wyoming (UW)
    21. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
    22. Washington State University
    23. Western Washington University
    24. Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) (first-ever AWE R&D University (Prof. Goela))


Note: AWEC/AWEurope venture-insider conference monopolization has greatly suppressed US and global AWE R&D visibility!

=====
"In 2001, the race was renamed American Solar Challenge and was sponsored by the United States Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. After the 2005 race, the U.S. Department of Energy discontinued its sponsorship, resulting in no scheduled race for 2007 "
=====
A complaint was lodged to IEA Wind and IEA Directorate that TEM#102 was not representative of US Open-AWE; which is not represented by DOE, for lack of shared domain history. Open-AWE has followed the DOE AWE record from a distance- ARPA-E funding of GoogleX's Makani investment. There were the DOE revolving-door career moves of Fort Felker and Cathy Zoi to Makani. That's pretty much all. There are virtually no DOE AWE technical products, no specific engineering-science research to cite. Odd items like KiteFast made no impact (we already have various FEA/CFD multi-physics solvers). 

There is nothing historically unusual in DOE's missing out on AWE. The Goddard case was already cited. Langley and the Wright Bros are another well-known case-


Wikipedia: "Langley received a War Department grant of $50,000 and $20,000 from the Smithsonian to develop a piloted airplane, which he called an "Aerodrome" (coined from Greek words roughly translated as "air runner")... When Langley received word from his friend Octave Chanute of the Wright Brothers success with their 1902 glider, he attempted to meet the Wrights, but they politely evaded his request."


The Wright Brothers spent $1000 to succeed in flight, where Langley blew 70x to fail. US Gov catches up in aircraft and rockets, 30-40yrs late. Open-AWE "Wright Stuff" is succeeding worldwide, ahead of (EU and China) Gov mobilizations. Joe and I track a hundred or so independent US experts, past and present, making AWE happen. If only DOE had just one AWE domain expert! The other day, I talked to a 30yr Sandia Lab vet, a Dr. W, who could not stop laughing at the idea that DOE could be on top of AWE early due-diligence.
 

US Open-AWE just did not want DOE to be cheap IEA Window Dressing for AWEurope VCs to extend their failing investments by a masquerade of "AWE experts". Make no mistake, critical engineering metrics (TRL, TPL, MTBF, LCOE, etc.) show these insiders to be "experts" at failing, blowing hundreds of millions on predicted-doomed "Energy Drone" paradigm, rather than on "Rag & String" (Ship-Kite derivatives), which are meeting predicted milestones. A simple scoring matrix could prove this, but DOE is currently more comfortable playing along with AWEurope's hollow "IEA Wind Expert" narrative, ignoring that AWEurope is quietly determined to retain their artificial Conference monopoly, with ready EU funding and DOE acquiescence; and top US AWE talent as recurring no-shows. 

A US Conference (AWEC2021SeaTac) would be a US AWE game-changer. If only DOE were to go-to-bat via the IEA framework for restored US AWE conferences, they would rightly represent US AWE interests (I hear the Sandia Labs guy laughing).

=====
US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom'
=====
No mention of AWE in this NREL-led article.
Ironically, Miles Loyd wrote the seminal paper at Lawrence Livermore National Lab in 1980
and DOE has forgotten itself.

Grand challenges in the science of wind energy
Authors:  Paul.Veers of NREL,  and : Katherine Dykes*, Eric Lantz*, Stephan Barth, Carlo L. Bottasso, Ola Carlson, Andrew Clifton, Johney Green, Peter Green, Hannele Holttinen, Daniel Laird, Ville Lehtomäki, Julie K. Lundquist, James Manwell, Melinda Marquis, Charles Meneveau, Patrick Moriarty, Xabier Munduate, Michael Muskulus, Jonathan Naughton, Lucy Pao, Joshua Paquette, Joachim Peinke, Amy Robertson, Javier Sanz Rodrigo, Anna Maria Sempreviva, J. Charles Smith, Aidan Tuohy, Ryan Wiser.
=====
Another key DOE-AWE player to situate, Dr. Mark Hartney, an ARPA-E Program Director-Chemist, who publicly promoted ARPA-E's exclusive subsidy of GoogleX-Makani, in concert with AWEurope's insiders (then all branded as AWEC, a CA 501c4, mysteriously dissolved in Ampyx-TUDlelft hands). Until its 2019 collapse, Makani was the Main Pillar of AWEurope's "Energy Drone" investment hype machine. This was a colossal PR setback for AWEurope as the GoogleX venture failed, as multiple Open-AWE experts had long predicted, on specific technical grounds.

Dr. Hartney did bring the AWEC2010 Conference to Stanford University, but AWEurope knows it cannot today count on any US University (of 25+ with AWE R&D records) but UNC to rubberstamp its undue IEA Wind dominance scheme.

"Mark served at the Department of Energy as one of the founding program directors of ARPA-E, from July, 2009 to March 2012. As a program director, he was responsible for selecting and managing technical projects, and defining new research program opportunities.  Mark led ARPA-E’s efforts in carbon capture technology, (the IMPACCT program), as well as a number of other projects in wind technology [Makani], energy efficiency, biofuels and lighting."

It did not turn out well for US DOE to depend on a Chemist to only pick an AWE loser to fund, rather than apply NASA Aerospace expertise. NASA LaRC in completed a nice small AWE R&D project [North. Moore. et al], but NASA is glaringly excluded in the AWEurope TEM#102 set-up. Once again, DOE is playing along with the VC marketers, for lack of AWE institutional memory and critical technical domain insight.

Mark Hartney | Energy
Oct. 23, 2020
Dear US Gov,

Given kPower is excluded in TEM#102, under AWEurope's venture-insider politics, and given DOE/EE/NREL/NWTC are only now undertaking due-diligence to achieve AWE domain expertise, TEM#102 participation is an ideal second track for kPower to make a timely expert contribution to IEA Wind.

kPower has always had the deepest Aerospace background in US AWE, with longstanding working relations to the US FAA, Boeing, AOPA, ALPA, EAA, USHPA, AKA, AMA, etc; essentially every relevant aviation community.

kPower's 2012 Tethered Aviation ConOps, authored by JoeF and me, remains the most authoritative and comprehensive document of of AWE-Aviation integration. AWE itself is a new branch of aviation, and TEM#100 is an obvious forum for the US AWE to play a leadership role. JoeF and I are also well versed in conventional wind aviation issues as possible airspace hazards, radar-clutter, and so on.

kPower will continue to advocate for a broader AWE classification for TEM#102 (many-connected many-unit AWES network topologies), for renewed US AWEC conferences, and for a Grand Challenge Fly-off; all of which AWEurope opposes, now with probable NREL acquiescence.

Thanks for considering kPower as a US participant in TEM#100.

Best,

Dave Santos
Joe Faust

kPower
AWEIA
KiteLabs Group
Etc.
                     TEM#100 on Aviation System Cohabitation

                     Tethered Aviation ConOps (TACO) v.1.0
Sept 25, 2020, post by Dave Santos
Re: Proposed Preconditions for AWEurope IEA Operating Agent Consensus

IEA TEM#102 is now shown willfully unresponsive to complaints about its undemocratic opaqueness and insider dealings. It is presumed AWEurope (formerly AWEC) will therefore succeed in installing itself as Operating Agent, by closed process necessary for such a profoundly unfair outcome. That still leaves AWEurope facing the question of when and where it will ever agree to resumption of AWE conferences outside of its wrongful EU monopoly. 

Chris and Rob are seemingly content with AWEC2012, under-attended and stage-managed in their sleepy mid-Atlantic backyard, as the last US conference; but if they truly represented US AWE as IEA and AWEurope claims, they would support AWEC2021SeaTac, at the true geographic center of our North American AWE R&D Community, and indeed, a natural World center of aviation and kites.

The US originated large AWE conferences in 2009. Joe Faust and I were part of that history. AWEurope hijacked AWE conferences for its venture capitalist insiders, falsely purporting to lead AWE by such self-dealings. Given the unsustainability of insider-advantage in major aerospace R&D, accepting AWEC2021SeaTac is AWEurope's best chance to pivot and thrive.

IEA Executive Director, Dr. Fatih Birol, is counted on to review and correct IEA TEM#102 shortcomings. It is a desperate ploy to exclude him from the AWEurope Operating Agent controversy.

Setp 24, 2020, post by Dave Santos
Rod Read's quote: (TEM#102) "So, suggestions of what to discuss & take forward to IEA felt Eurocentric"

The Eurocentrism Rod describes was not EU AWE at its best, just theatric façade.
TEM#102 was about conflict-of-interest of venture capitalists with shady portfolios.
This dynamic cannot end well for them, even if the elite exit with full bank accounts.
AWEurope can sure stage-manage a sham event, but has never led AWE honestly.

Blocking AWEC2021SeaTac will prove a losing leadership strategy for AWEurope.

The next US AWE conference will be a huge event of long pent-up talent and passion.
Sept. 24, 2020, post by Dave Santos
Message for Director Birol re: Airborne Wind Energy (IEA Wind TEM#102)

IEA Wind Secretariat
Ignacio Marti

Dear Mr. Secretariat,

Please forward this message to IEA Director Birol, or kindly provide the email address needed.

Than You,

Dave Santos

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

Dr. Fatih Birol
IEA Executive Director

Dear Dr. Birol,

You have made a wonderful start in pivoting IEA from excessive focus on fossil fuel security to electrical security based on renewable energy. No emerging energy technology has more potential than Airborne Wind Energy (AWE). The upper wind resource is dense, abundant, and widely distributed; and could power civilization many times over, in the estimation of top geophysicists. Under your able leadership, AWE could become the key game-changing energy technology, with equitable research and development worldwide.

Unfortunately, a small non-representative group of venture-capital insiders are seeking to install themselves as IEA's AWE Operating Agent, via a manipulated process (IEA TEM#102), without consent or knowledge of most Member Countries, over strong objections by excluded stakeholders. This is an urgent request that IEA not grant Operating Agent status without extensive due diligence review of the emerging AWE sector, and all sides heard, including developing Member Nations most in need of energy leadership.

Thank You for your promising service to the World's Energy Future.

Sincerely,

Dave Santos
Open-AWE representative
kPower
AWEIA Co-founder
Sept. 25, 2020, post by Dave Santos
IEA Wind Search  

Congratulations Joe! I see you now top IEA Wind AWE search results (as the only AWE result for IEA Wind for two hours now *).

Context: A 2 day IEA Wind online meeting just ended. The email back-traffic brought kPower back on DOE/NREL/NWTC radar. US gov has been slow to embrace AWE, but is now on the move. kPower been specially asked to present in a DOE-hosted video conference next week. We will be presenting broad context and updated GW-scale AWES concepts to DOE. Its essential eventual massive US DOE AWE entry is balanced by global players. 

kPower has been in the DOE mix before, almost ten years ago. We were the first to present AWE at DOE/NREL/NWTC, confidently predicting the GoogleX project could not succeed. They did not listen. FortF and CathyZ jumped out of DOE into Makani. ARPA-E even gave money to Google's investment, as if they needed that. NASA-Boeing pick (SkyMill) got nothing. Before that, we led the successful effort to prevent AWE privatization of Airspace by the Google AWEC Circle secretly lobbying US Congress, by mobilizing massive public opposition by FAA/AOPA/ALPA/EAA/etc.

Things could soon happen very fast.

-----------
* Joe gets IEA Wind into AWE-

Search - IEA Wind TCP
Sept. 23, 2020, post by Dave Santos
Proposed Preconditions for AWEurope IEA Operating Agent Consensus

Dear Friends,

As we all know, an AWE insider-circle, starting as AWEC, then rebranded as AWEurope, have long monopolized AWE Conferences, refusing consensus to allow a long overdue US Conference, where AWE Conferences originated. It suited GoogleX-Makani to pretend it was US AWE, with AWEurope complicity, even as they failed (as predicted). We all know the US-CA Pacific NW is the cradle of Kitesurfing and the epicenter of industrial aerospace. There is a pioneeing concentration of NW AWE ventures (willfully overlooked on TUDelft's map), a worthy match for Northern EU AWE R&D by any measure, that languished under GoogleX hype, which AWEurope naively or cynically bought into.

Roland and Udo can confirm that for several years, early US pre-planning has lined up an AWE conference for Seattle (AWEC2021SeaTac), aimed both at the Aerospace Industry and Breakthrough Energy Fund. Boeing's Museum of Flight has expressed written eagerness to host, as well as the University of Washington AE Dept. EU players are offered a Red Carpet welcome and equitable access to new R&D funding under the "Fraunhofer Plan" (international optimal research design).

AWEurope is currently seeking to secure IEA Operating Agent Status in AWE, which it does not deserve. Its member ventures are relentlessly failing to meet milestones. They cannot indefinitely sustain more over-promotion to innocent small investors and the same public sources. AWEC AWEurope Conference Monopoly did not pay off. AWE is a research field, not a race-to-market winnable by ethical short-cuts. AWEurope needs to change strategy or die. AWEurope approval and support for internal reform and the SeaTac2021 strategy could save its members and bring the global community together again.

After 10 years, the original AWEC insiders all failed. AWEurope can only lead the AWE world on a generous equitable basis. A fresh US AWE conference is long overdue and needs EU blessing. It will be a huge success for us all. If AWEurope will agree on transparent equitable accountable leadership of world AWE, and help support AWEC2021SeaTac, active complaints made to IEA Directorate, and other EU authorities will be withdrawn, in good faith, and AWEurope will deserve uncontested IEA Operating Agent status.

Wubbo Lives!


Dave Santos

kPower CTO
KiteLabs Group
AWEIA co-founder
formerly of KiteShip
7yr World Kite Museum Scholar-in-Residence
Sept. 22, 2020, post by Joe Faust
IEA TEM#102  and skinny rigging of US R&D community

The design and rigging process of representing US AWE R&D community has resulted in a skinny emaciated representation of the actual fertile US AWE R&D community. It appears that there will be a kind of Net-Zero-blocking flow that results in more of the SLK-pumping-or-flygen-drone-Zillman thrust supported by neglects from Schmehl to reach for the future. Lost opportunity!
  
Nicolas, 
      A huge missed opportunity is seemingly set in not including Dave Santos. 
    ~ Joe Faust
August 12, 2020

NREL is asked to represent US AWE interests and players as a whole at TEM#102, much as AWEurope will worthily represent EU AWE. Multiple US players have long-time and current relations with NREL, and some are newly establishing such connections. JoeF (Cc:ed) and I, as kPower, are preparing supporting background materials for NREL and all TEM#102 planners and participants.

Looking at TEM#102 topics so far, there needs to be a specific session that reviews major AWES architectures classified systematically, not just a loose description of ventures and their current technical down-selects. For example, there are important GW-scale AWES concepts, based on many-connected topologies and giant kite arrays, far beyond the scope of AWEurope's current ventures focused on early markets, with single-line single-kite topologies in the kW range.

There are a few leading missing voices to bring in, Like SkySails of Germany, that has just commissioned the historic-first utility-scale AWES. You will be filling several such gaps in the course of event planning, ideally including Fraunhofer Society and top university players not yet listed.

It would be great if TEM#102 had a Virtual Poster Session, and spaces for oral and written comments and questions, as technical conferences typically do, to gather in diverse views and ideas that major presenters alone cannot provide. Some allowance should be made for submissions by worthy AWE players in non-IEA countries, like India, China, and Brazil; and possible citizen-expert input from any quarter.

Thank you for your preparations for a terrific virtual event!

Best,

Dave Santos
Joe Faust
kPower
Kitelabs Group

Members
US AWE Delegation

===========================
Oct. 28, 2020,
Correction: The over-optimistic Pre-TEM#102 statement below went un-responded and un-validated:
------------
"August 12, 2020
NREL is asked to represent US AWE interests and players as a whole at TEM#102, much as AWEurope will worthily represent EU AWE."

Problems:

TEM#102 participation was packed to AWEurope satisfaction ( eg. Netherlands Delegation > US Delegation). 

Planair and DOE/NREL failed to balance participation, and even actively blocked greater balance. 

Many IEA Member Countries with known AWE players are still completely excluded. 

European Commission and/or EU Member-State Gov participation missing (if US Gov participation is apropos).

Neither NREL nor AWEurope is representing US, EU, or Global AWE "worthily" in TEM#102. 

IEA Wind Operating Agent, Planair, is complicit in TEM#102 participation imbalance. 

Early TEM#102 AWE policy and technical output is already deeply flawed.


Oct. 29, 2020, by Dave Santos
The "correction" part was mistakenly presuming AWEurope would "worthily" represent, and that NREL might also step up well.

It would logically locate at the bottom, at the starting note, if its to be preserved. Maybe NREL and AWEurope will come around.

Its all improvised drama. A wild card is the delayed kPower video, with groundgen spinning nicely. We are not totally nuts at least.

There must be considerable back-channel discussion to account for, as various actors learn strange things to somehow process.

Having a great time working out Multi-r railroad network, for complex train operations to dance fantastically with giant meta-kites.

Its Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique coming to life...