Airborne Wind
Even since the advent of large-scale commercial wind energy in the 1990s, there has been a certain interest in airborne wind, as illustrated here. In principle, it offers all the benefits of offshore wind, on steroids. It’s less visible than onshore wind, which some people find offensive to the eye. More importantly, it’s situated in places of more stable and higher velocity wind currents.
Yet, as with so many technologies, the race is won by the least expensive; airborne wind seems to have been killed by the same blow that’s taken out several other flavors of renewable energy, i.e., the plummeting costs of traditional wind and solar PV. Things like tidal, wave, ocean current, ocean thermal, run of river hydro, biomass and geothermal will all play roles in the grid-mix of the 21st Century, but it increasingly appears that they’ll be cameos–of value only in specific locations with unusual characteristics.
This is actually a considerable blessing for humankind, i.e., the world doesn’t need thousands of good ideas for generating electricity; it needs only a few. It also needs to seize onto these good ideas, and not be thrown off the path by the corruptive influence of the incumbent energy industry.
Off shore is steadier and stronger than onshore wind. It also comes with several flavors of support: mono-pole, a more solid oil rig like derrick or floating. Each has a certain expense associated with it. Aerial wind turbines with many potential designs other than the one pictured suggest a cheaper alternative to even steadier and stronger winds. I think there is a future here but the economics must be demonstrated so work continues.
@Craig
Craig you are absolutely correct in consigning this airborne wind technology into the “circular filing cabinet”. It has no merit whatsoever. But what is particularly galling is that once again, the poor old unsuspecting and ill-informed global taxpayer has financed the development of this commercially non-viable renewable energy technology contraption through government funded grants and subsidies (I think you must have forgotten to mention this critically important observation Craig).
This is just another example in a very long list of absurdities that governments of all persuasions globally have endorsed as “meritorious renewable energy technology – research and development” worthy of taxpayer funding.
So well done Craig for showing some long overdue focus and foresight on future energy generation technology and commercial viability. Credit where it’s due.
But you haven’t done as well with this statement snippet “the plummeting costs of traditional wind and solar PV”.
Correct me if I am missing something here but the massive expansion and proliferation of wind and solar PV renewable energy technologies globally this last 10 years, was designed to provide electricity as a saleable product to electricity consumers. Without the sale of the generated electricity outputs of wind and solar PV generators/plants there would be no business case to manufacture these generation technologies.
So if what you say is true; “the plummeting costs of traditional wind and solar PV” is accurate, how come the cost of electricity for every electricity customer in the world in the last couple of years has risen rather than “plummeted”?
Of course I don’t know every electricity customer in the world personally so I am only making an educated guess on compiled statistics, but if any 2GreenEnergy reader or commentator does happen to know someone who’s electricity bill has “plummeted” please let us all know who/where they are and the circumstances.
Lawrence Coomber
LOL
My friend Breath on the Wind: you must be a member of a taxpayer base that grows money on trees. Have you forgotten your dear mums advice of “penny wise pound foolish”?
Lawrence Coomber
Lawrence,the wise phrase that you quote is an admonishment against concentrating so intensely on the short term that you lose sight of the big picture. This seems to be counter to what you advocate in the body of your comment.
Rather it supports the larger picture I mentioned above. We can’t judge spending in the abstract and ban all expenditures, at least not if we are wise. Aerial wind turbines hope to tap into a more powerful source of energy and do it more cheaply. This goal deserves a chance at funding because the goal is worthwhile and there is a path to success. It need not be public funding. There are private investors willing to take the risk.
Conservative values would like to limit risk and tend toward wanting all others to limit risk as well out of fear that conservatism will be proven too limited a course of action. But I would no sooner impose limits than I would tell a child that they are worthless because they cannot presently run an ultra-marathon. Children and ideas grow.
Perhaps you intended to choose a different saying.
Breath,
I think the point Lawrence is making alludes to the heavy demands on the public purse.
Taxpayer funds must be spent conservatively because every dollar wasted is a dollar denied to a worthy cause or desperately needed service.
Lawrence is quite correct there’s only so much money to go round, especially when the government is already struggling to just service interest payments on national debt.
Marco, do you really think it is not clear what Lawrence is saying?
The problem with this specious line of reasoning, that money must be spent conservatively is
1. that it is a lie and is only an excuse to spend on different and much more expensive items: pork barrel items, bridges to nowhere, military spending rather than domestic issues… The issue is not really spending as if we could not spend on aerial wind turbines and then balance the budget, but the old basic economics issue of whether we will spend on “guns or butter.” So please drop the sanctimonious argument that we should “spare the taxpayer.” When the US military budget is cut back to a par with any other country, when we stop giving tax breaks to fossil fuel companies as if they are emerging industries, when we start seriously considering the health of the population rather than the health of the insurance industry then perhaps it is time to discuss limiting the almost minuscule amounts of the national budget dedicated to research and development. This is truly to be “penny wise and pound foolish.”
2. Secondly, reducing funds for domestic research and development like reducing funds for education or differing maintenance, truly is a form of borrowing with horrible interest rates. Worse it is like making a bet against time itself. It is a bet that we absolutely, certainly must lose and oddly there are constantly calls to place that bet anyway.
The world is not a static place. If we do not develop aerial wind turbines someone else will. Their military will then have the option of a mobile generation station that can be set up quickly with no long logistical lines that can be cut off. They will have the domestic advantage of cheaper energy. They will control the cutting edge of world technology, the world will look to them for leadership in new fields and in a philosophical outlook that could produce technological advancements. The world is not a static place. Out of fear, short term interests and misplaced goals we cut off our path from today to the future. We are then no better than an alcoholic celebrating their misery, by shortening their vision and in their blindness declaring how great they are. The world is not a static place and if we try and stand still we will be knocked down and buried like some midden of a bygone era. The world is not a static place and its dynamic call can only be answered by our own dynamism.
Breath,
UM, it would appear that, at least to you it’s not obvious what Lawrence is trying to convey !
1) Nowhere did Lawrence, or myself, suggest we preferred one form of inappropriate spending of taxpayer funds over another ! (You just made that up to justify the unjustifiable).
In fact, Lawrence provided the example of more MRI units, hardly “bridges to nowhere, or military spending”.
2) Again, no where did I suggest reducing taxpayer funding for research, just more careful monitoring and accountability.
3)The justification of Aerial Wind Turbines as invaluable military technology is more than a little dubious.
It would be difficult to conceive a less valuable technology to the military ! Military installations usually have one of two requirements, (1) easy to conceal and deploy without detection, or (2) able to withstand attack and easily repaired.
Neither would appear to apply to this technology.
Of all the potential uses for this technology, (and I can think of some) military use is the silliest!
Hi Lawrence ,
Once again, well said. Very well said indeed!
Falsehoods, ideologically driven lobbying, combined with support from powerful international corporations for commercial reasons have created vast unproductive industries paid for by the taxpayer/consumer, all politically justified on the basis of one myth or another.
However, there’s a genuine argument for well managed and carefully managed taxpayer support for research and incentives to establish new technologies.
Sometimes it’s difficult to see exactly how the taxpayer benefits, but in principle the development of new technology increases economic activity and enable the nation to become economically more competitive.
Sometimes the creative process is best nurtured in an academic rather than commercial environment.
If only pure research was still encouraged in the USA. Much research just to discover why,how and what the universe is made from and what it is doing are often looked at as wasted money. Only to find sometime later that this research has brought new economic gain and improvement in human existence.
Airborne windmills may be pie in the sky, but research into why it might or might not work may lead to a new idea that pays off. Useless basic research has payed off so many times in the past it is hard to believe we have finally discovered everything that is worth discovering.
Perhaps the critics are correct and we have finally come to the end.
Marco Polo you said:
“However, there’s a genuine argument for well managed and carefully managed taxpayer support for research and incentives to establish new technologies.”
I agree wholeheartedly – and I am sure Breath on the Wind does also. But here is the rub – what are the essential attributes of the person who ultimately determines if an applicant for public funding to support speculative R & D gets the nod; and what should the quid pro quo be in the public funding agreement, to ensure the taxpayer is getting a fair “suck of the sauce bottle” for their investment.
These are the salient points for discussion in public funding programs with (no or few genuine strings attached) generally. We definitely lowered the R & D entry bar for the renewables sector about 10 years ago.
We see a growing stock of “interesting” but not commercially viable stranded assets discarded and scattered around backyards and alley-ways. I wonder how many MRI machines we could build from discarded “renewable energy wave generation” hardware. I know where 3 are rusting away predictably!
Readers should always remain mindful of Solyndra as soon as a bit of “fuzzy stuff” comes across their desk. Nobody should get rich by public R & D funding – at best they might get by. I have been a beneficiary of taxpayer R & D funding (at the lowest end of the scale) for 13 water and energy technology product development projects over 21 years. Some outcomes went on to being unique and very useful products in wide use with Australian regional Councils and Utilities, and some stuff went back to the metal recycler to be melted down.
Lawrence Coomber
Hi Lawrence,
“what are the essential attributes of the person who ultimately determines if an applicant for public funding to support speculative R & D gets the nod” .
Oh hell, that’s easy ! just follow the Australian example !
Firstly appoint a few ideologically correct “true believers” appoint a leftist ex-singer with a rock band as the Boss, circumvent or nullify the audit process, and hey presto everyone’s flush with cash ! What happens when the money runs out?
No problems ! Just whip out the national credit card, borrow more funds and really get the party into high gear !
When it all crashes, leave the boring, uncool, conservatives to clean up the mess and fix the trail of devastation and waste.
Lie low for a while, then repeat…
Too easy !…..
If it’s true, that’s sad. In the U.S., we actually have a very good track record of success, as discussed here: https://www.nrdc.org/experts/cai-steger/arpa-e-investments-show-early-signs-success
Craig,
Both the DoE and other US Agencies have experiences their share of failures, but also successes. On the whole US agency investments have been executed responsibly.
However, it’s not realistic to measure success by the number of projects that also attracted second or third round round private investment, the true benchmark should be commercialization that doesn’t require government perpetual assistance to remain in existence.
The real danger, is when a government backs a technology for ideological or political reasons, and continues to interfere in the market to ensure it’s continued existence for decades long after it’s economic or even purpose has proved disastrous.
(Ethanol is a good example).
Australia’s experience is indeed sad. The feckless policies of the 2007-2013 saw policies resulting in economic chaos, creation of massive public debt, even loss of lives through poorly monitored schemes.