The underlying technology for the Makani kites and a standard turbine are the same. In the Makani case you have one kite with eight turbines, and like a standar

The underlying technology for the Makani kites and a standard turbine are the same. In the Makani case you have one kite with eight turbines, and like a standard wind turbine, all turbines need to be serviced. If you have to service 1 turbine, the other 7 stop operating. Hence, on a per turbine basis, I believe availability won't be around the 98-99% level (the industry standard), but lower. Additionally you have the tether, a new variable, which is another moving piece, and will also need to be serviced. I've done some back of the envelope numbers, and without assuming a higher capex (which I'm fairly certain it is), on an recurrent basis, an increase in production doesn't really lead to cheaper $/MWh on an O&M basis. Standard Turbine Makani Capacity (MW) 1.5 0.6 Load factor 23% 60% Production (MWh) 3,022 3,154 Availability 98% 95%[1] Net Production 2,962 2,996 O&M $/turbine/yr 20,000 20,000[2] $/MWh/year $6.75 $6.68 [1] I think I'm being generous at a 95% availability, but I haven't got enough data to make another assumption. [2] O&M can be contracted on a turbine or MW basis. Still, given the "complexity" of Makani, the price of this could be higher than the standard cost. This is a new technology, and not much info is available e.g. how big can these get, what's the investment cost per MW, what are the potential maintenance issues, how does availability look like, etc. My above argument is an educated guess, but I'd really like to know more about it. I really like the idea and I would like the economics to work out.