3 ms·
I see such things with a lot of skepticism. Here's why: With varying intensity I've been following renewable energy development for many years. I've seen many
by hannob 7y ago
I see such things with a lot of skepticism. Here's why:
With varying intensity I've been following renewable energy development for many years. I've seen many proposals for new forms of wind energy, many of them looking promising. Same for new forms of solar, new forms of water power and many other things. The Kite approach isn't new either.
However the reality is that the only thing that's been successful for wind energy is to do almost the same thing they've been doing in the past, just bigger, better and cheaper. The biggest efficiency win in wind energy is to build similar technology, just with bigger wings and larger towers. The biggest innovation was to bring costs down. Technology got better in the details, the basic "three blades that spin around" stayed the same.
I know this is pretty boring. But it's successful. I'd bet on "make wind energy cheaper and larger" more than on any fancy new tech.
- namanyayg 7y agoI feel that way with a lot of tech, the best way to upgrade is to make it larger and reduce costs. But we still gotta try other approaches on the off chance they work, don't we? Without that don't we lose on innovation? I could be biased because I do not want to live in a world where we're mainly making incremental updates, but it seems like that's what it is.
- logfromblammo 7y agoThe other factor being "put the bigger, cheaper turbines closer to where the wind is blowing". That has driven offshore wind farms, kite turbines, and placement patterns such that turbines can be placed more closely together without stealing wind from each other.