Talk:Airborne wind energy

HAWP is not at all identical to airborne, though overlap occurs.

There is stark distinction between "airborne" and "high altitude" wind power systems. The tether technology is not sufficient. E.G. terrain-enhanced high altitude systems are not airborne. A simple gyro glider is airborne turbine, but such may not be high altitude.

Please note that someone has had an unbalance focus in the airborne article on the Magenn device; such imbalance might be looked into by Wikipedia editors. Joefaust (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But no-one is making any *money* on these devices. A critical analysis as to why this is happening would be most interesting. How is the content of this article supposed to be different from the overlapping Airborne wind turbine, which also talks about various kites, drag ropes, tethered sailplanes, etc. etc. ? Considering how little these devices actually contribute to the world's power supply, there's hardly a need to have two similar articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google.org let Makani Power make 15 million dollars for HAWP; over 40 persons made a living on their staff. Magenn got 5 million dollars last year. Windlift just got funded by unnamed military angel investors. KiteLab, Illwaco, WA has sold units. Wikipedia does not require that "money" be made to have a newsworthy significant article. A host of investors showed at their HAWP conference last month. Magenn reportedly has orders for units to be used in Pakistan. Yes, a critical analysis on many aspects of HAWP are justified; the matter would include such factors as price of oil, difficulty to overcome the momentum of the hard-towered turbine default mind-set of "wind power", finalizing robotic programs for kite-steering units, and more. The SkySails company is making money; the HAWP community fully enclose and embrace the mechanical energy captured from wind's kinetic energy and used for pulling huge ships; the conversion to electricity by KitVes to drive ships is a huge project underway; large funds there are paying bills. The KitVes scheme gives functionaly different from the tug ship use of HAWP as the electricity can be use to drive the ships in any direction at any time ... and power other devices onboard. Joefaust (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The listed amounts are all rather small compared to what is spent on any wind farm. We must be careful to not give undue emphasis on technologies that are still rapidly developing and not really considered mainstream. Sure, we can describe the various high-altitude turbine schemes, but it is a serious misrepresentation of the facts to make it seem as if these are contributing significant amounts to the world's energy supplies, at least today. We must not minimize the severe engineering and economic problems encountered by all these systems. There is exactly one kite-supplemented cargo ship, and none of the various other electric generating schemes are in operation other than at kilowatt scale prototypes. Magenn has been promising delivery of systems next year for the last three years...this is the definition of vaporware - and they are one of the more credible organizations in the "flying turbine" area. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will watch for opportunities to edit toward the note. Joefaust (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]