HighestWind, LLC
News and notes are invited about Highest Wind:    :  Notes@EnergyKiteSystems.net
Wind Power for low wind locations ™
Energy Glider™ systems      Member of AWEIA.

  • Tethered glider system for power generation US 8421257 B2 Dimitri Chernyshov
    • Provisional application No. 61/159,160, filed on March 11, 2009 in US.



Study clip from PDF document: http://media.umassp.edu/mattcenter/cce-2009/CCE09_Notebook.pdf

The 5th Conference on Clean Energy:

Financing & Partnering for Emerging Businesses

110 Startup Companies

Highest Wind LLC

Presented by:

Dimitri Cherny, CEO and Founder

Company Overview

Highest Wind Energy Gliders™ harvest the winds a thousand feet

above the ground – blowing two to three times faster than near the

ground. These stronger and steadier winds make Energy Gliders™

cost-effective in the low-wind locations where wind turbines are not –

more than half our planet. Wind resource maps reveal that less than

15% of our planet has average near-ground wind speeds adequate for

producing electrical power cost-effectively. Wind turbines are limited to

harvesting near-ground winds by the height of their towers – a few hundred

feet at most – making them cost-effective on only a small fraction

of our planet. Energy Gliders™ are cost-effective for at least three times more locations on earth.

Highest Wind Energy Gliders™ produce more than $13,000 worth of electricity annually (130,000+ kWh at

$0.10/kWh). Designed for the largest 200,000 farms in the 45 US states with winds too low for wind turbines,

Energy Gliders™ provide a payback in less than seven years with average 30 foot winds of just 8mph. Renewable

energy incentive programs in our target states reduce that payback to less than three years. For

farms throughout the US, the USDA’s REAP program reduces payback by at least two more years making

Energy Glider purchases possible in some states with no cash out-of-pocket – and $13,000+/year of ‘free’

electricity every year thereafter.

Product/Technology Profile

Similar to a child’s kite, patent pending Energy Gliders™ fly - rising and descending - a thousand feet above

the ground (but below FAA controlled airspace) pulling a high-strength tether to spin a generator on the

ground. Energy Glider systems run continuously and automatically to provide a capacity factor of greater

than 50% at a levelized cost of energy of less than five cents per kWh – nearly as low as the largest utilityscale

wind turbines and many times lower than the best and lowest cost solar PV systems. Our first 30kW

production unit will produce more than 130,000 kWh at sites with avg. 30ft. winds of just 8mph for a lifetime of

30 years, providing more than half the electricity needs of the average US farm. With an operational requirement

of more than 160 acres of land, NIMBY is a minimal concern.

Officers and Directors

Dimitri Cherny, CEO & Founder

Ursula Schwuttke, CBPO

Diane Bourque, CFO

Contact Information

117 Cushing Road

Newmarket, NH 03857




November 12 & 13, 2009

Hynes Convention Center ∙ Boston, MA

Startup Companies 111

Markets and Applications

Our Initial market is the 200,000 largest farms in the 45 US states with winds too low to make wind turbines

cost effective - a $14B market. Early marketing and dealer efforts are focused on the top seven states with

the best combination of high electricity prices, suitable winds, and the best renewable energy incentive programs.

Initial marketing efforts are specifically targeting the largest dairy farms in those states. While they

comprise only a $290M market, with the current unsustainable market price for milk, they are eager for any

product that can reduce their costs and/or provide an additional revenue source. Our market research has

yet to find a dairy farm unwilling to purchase an Energy Glider.

Commercial Opportunity

Energy Gliders™ will be sold through existing networks of regional dealers currently selling agricultural or energy

generation equipment, all with established relationships among our most likely prospects – farms. From

a ‘self-marketing’ perspective, Energy Gliders™ are nearly perfect – visible from miles around, we anticipate

considerable word-of-mouth marketing spreading virally from each successful installation. Our marketing efforts

will be primarily ‘product-marketing’, helping our dealers identify and sell to our most likely prospects in

a variety of farming verticals. Broad marketing will be mostly PR-based – riding the ‘Green’ wave.

Competitive Advantage

Highest Wind has discovered a “blue-ocean” market – wind power for low-wind locations – that is currently

unfulfilled by any other products. Wind turbines provide payback periods of longer than a decade in these

low-wind areas. Solar PV have even longer paybacks. Anaerobic digesters have an entry price fifteen times

higher. For any type of farm seeking distributed renewable energy, nothing else works in as many locations

so cost-effectively. Four other companies are publicly developing related Airborne Wind Energy (AWE) technology

but all are targeting utility scale applications – 1Mw or greater. No other AWE developers are designing

distributed renewable energy generation systems to serve the agricultural market.

Future Financial Plans

Our past year of research has been supported primarily by more than $100k of investment from friends. Our

next two years of development and certification testing will be supported by the $5M in series-A investment

we now seek. That money will allow us to build the channel, marketing and service organization we require

before shipping the first production Energy Glider units by Q3-2011. Highest Wind LLC will remain a design,

marketing, sales and service organization – our management team’s strengths. We are outsourcing engineering

and eventually manufacturing to our highly qualified partner organizations - Goss International and

EOS Research.


Entered was a PDF, original at:
Highest Wind LLC response to FAA docket 2011-1279 regarding Airborne Wind Energy Systems (AWES).
Dimitri Cherny Founder, CEO Highest Wind LLC
February 3rd, 2012

General comments on all AWES from Highest Wind LLC.
1. All American AWE system developers are years away from commercialization. We are all currently in the development and test phase and will likely remain here for the next three or four years before any of us have systems ready for purchase.

2. Unlike other aircraft, development of AWE systems requires frequent, and eventually continuous flight testing, day and night in all weather conditions for weeks and months on end. Longevity, survivability, and extremely low maintenance requirements are the keys to the commercial feasibility of AWE systems. Only by keeping AWE systems in the air for months at a stretch will any developer be able to determine whether their system is ready for commercialization. We are all essentially designing flying vehicles that must be as reliable as wind turbines – more reliable than the best existing passenger aircraft.

3. Testing of AWE systems must occur at all the altitudes at which they will eventually be allowed to fly commercially. Testing at lower altitudes will enable us to confirm flying vehicle designs but not entire system designs enough to confirm commercial feasibility.


4. Cost-effective testing of these designs will require a minimum of restrictions on marking and lighting. Early test systems will all be considerably smaller than final commercially viable systems, meaning the additional weight, drag and electrical generation requirements imposed by lighting and marking devices on small test systems will adversely impact testing and development.

5. Final commercially viable systems will generally be larger, better able to handle the additional weight, drag and electrical generation requirements of lighting and marking devices.
6. Many AWE systems in development utilize “cross-wind motion”, flying nearly perpendicular to the wind at high speeds. Such motion across the wind induces high levels of drag in the tether, a problem many developers are struggling to overcome. The addition of flags or lights on the tether would increase tether drag even further, compounding this problem to the point that many otherwise successful AWE designs might become completely infeasible.
7. As a group, we AWE developers believe we can find a number of private land-owners around the country willing to host our flight testing. These private lands would each have hundreds of acres of uninhabited land adequate in size to contain our “flight cylinders”, in windy and remote areas already located in Class-G airspace and experiencing virtually zero aircraft traffic below 3,000 AGL.


1. Diagram of AWES "Flight Cylinder" and size of footprint depending on flight angle.
8. If the FAA can designate a specific number of no-fly zones up to 2,000 feet AGL above these private lands, our testing and development could continue unhindered.
9. In a few years, as AWE developers approach final designs ready for commercialization and have a better understanding of how the additional burdens of weight, drag and on-board electrical generation requirements will impact their systems, further clarification of the marking and lighting requirements should be made.
10. What we are suggesting is a two-phase approach to the regulation of AWES. During the testing phase for the next few years, limit us to specific testing areas we find free of other aviation but reduce our burden of marking and lighting to an absolute minimum and allow us to fly in these areas up to 2,000’AGL. After our systems have reached commercial viability and we have a better understanding or what our systems can handle, let us all re-visit the issues of marking and lighting, location and permitting.
Responses to the questions posed by the FAA regarding AWES.
•General information on a developer’s specific AWES design concept and plans for operation.
o What type(s) of mechanical devices are you employing to keep the system aloft?
Highest Wind has arrived at an autogyro design which we believe will eventually stay aloft in wind speeds as low as eight mph and as high as eighty mph. Our AWES is of the “ground-gen” type employing a relatively lightweight flying vehicle (the “glider”) which ascends, pulling the tether, which spins a generator in the “Energy Trailer” on the ground. At the end of each ascent, the glider quickly descends while the tether is reeled in. At some minimum altitude the descent stops and the ascent cycle starts over again. Ascent/descent cycles will complete every minute or less, possibly ranging from 500’AGL up to 2,000’AGL depending on which altitudes have wind speeds of more than 20mph. On the eventual commercially viable system, each ascent of the glider will pull the tether with more than a ton of force at a speed of no less than 20mph producing as much as 100kW of power during the ascent. Continuous energy output of the system will be some percent of that maximum – TBD – based on duty cycles, overall system efficiencies, and wind speeds aloft. We have found a continuous energy output of 30kWs to be the sweet-spot for our target market of US farmers.

o What are the physical dimensions of the device(s) with relation to the above?
Our eventual market-ready system will have a rotor diameter of less than 50 feet with a small body suspended beneath it no taller than 20 feet. We still have a few years of development and testing before final dimensions will be available. During those years our testing will be done on systems no smaller than about a ten foot diameter weighing about thirty pounds.
o What kind of materials will comprise this device?
At this point we are unsure if our system will use rotor blades made of aluminum or some sort of composite material. The internal structures of the body will be primarily composed of aluminum with some sort of plastic aero-shell around the body. For the next couple of years of testing our rotors will continue to be made of wood.
o What are the operational dimensions (requirement for airspace) for the system?
Our system will fly no lower than about a 30 degree angle above the horizon. At an elevation of 2,000 feet (our maximum preferred altitude), depending on wind direction, our flying vehicle could be anywhere (downwind) within a virtual flight cylinder (see diagram above) with a radius of 3500 feet (contained within a square space of 1,125 acres). At an elevation of only 1,200 feet (our minimum preferred), the flight cylinder reduces in size to be contained within a 405 acre square. We anticipate that further testing will determine that our angle above the horizon will be considerably higher than 30 degrees, further reducing the ground-space requirement.
o Is there a requirement to operation more than one device in the air?
Each of our systems will operate independently and will most likely eventually be purchased in quantities of one by our target buyers in the US - farmers.
o What are your long-term plans for this system?
We intend to bring this system to commercialization and sell it in the US, primarily to farmers in rural areas within Class G airspace.
•Marking and lighting.
o Can you comply with marking and lighting requirements?
If the marking and lighting requirements to be complied with are those described in FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460 – 1K, Chapter 11 “Moored Balloons and Kites”, the answer is “no”. Those marking
requirements are overly burdensome and the lighting requirements would make our system commercially and technically infeasible. See details below.
o Can you identify any impacts to your system when complying with current guidance for marking and lighting standards?
The current requirement for anti-collision lighting the same as for towers (L-864 and L-865) will require the development of new lights meeting those standards which have half the weight, size and energy requirements of those available today. However, that seems like it could be possible within the next few years.
The requirement for the same lights on the tether at 350 foot intervals would make our system commercially infeasible given the current or future technologies for those lights. We have no easy way to provide power to those lights along the tether and would face extreme difficulties with any system to attach or detach those lights as the tether is reeled in and out. Similarly, the current requirement for flags every fifty feet on the tether would be very difficult to achieve.
o What are your plans or how is your system designed to make the system conspicuous to the flying public?
We are planning to sell our system for use only where there is no flying public. My pilot training stressed remaining above 3,000 AGL at all times other than for landings and take-offs. Having toured agricultural areas in more than forty states, I know virtually zero aircraft other than the occasional crop duster fly below 2,000 AGL in class-G airspace more than five miles from any airport. That said, we plan to provide adequate anti-collision light on the flying vehicle to make it conspicuous to pilots in all weather conditions.
•Safety to other airspace users and persons and property on the ground.
o What safety mechanisms or devices have you designed into the system to ensure all aspects of aviation safety?
At this point, only anti-collision lights and an on-board alarm (described below) have been considered for aviation safety. Should the worst-case situation of a tether-break occur, as with any tethered flying vehicle, our vehicle will be unstable in un-tethered flight, settling quickly to the ground.
o What safety mechanisms or devices have you designed into the system to minimize or mitigate hazards to persons or property on the ground?
We intend to sell our system only to farmers and other single large land-holders with primarily uninhabited agricultural land large enough to contain the entire flight cylinder footprint. That said, in a worst-case situation of a flying vehicle crash, an on-board alarm will sound whenever the vehicle descends below some pre-designated altitude. However, long before an imminent crash, the system is designed to reel the flying vehicle in at a speed adequate to keep it aloft and under control to pull it to a safe landing upon its landing platform.
•Minimized impacts to NAS facilities.
o What are your plans or how is your system designed to reduce a large radar cross-section and become less conspicuous to surveillance systems?
Our eventual flying vehicle ready for commercialization will utilize a rotor no larger than that of a BlackHawk helicopter with a body below the rotor less than one quarter the size of the BlackHawk.
o What are your plans or how is your system designed to reduce impacts to any communication or navigation systems supporting the NAS?
We anticipate no impacts to communication or navigation systems from a vehicle no larger than a BlackHawk helicopter.