“the S2000 can easily be transported and stored in shipping containers,…its airborne design allows flexible deployment and retrieval, making it especially suitable for sparsely populated areas where large-scale infrastructure is difficult to build…………………Wang noted that the key to SAWES’ commercialization lies in whether the costs of manufacturing, deploying, retrieving, and transmitting electricity from the airborne system can be covered - or even exceeded - by the power it generates.”
It will be fascinating to see the economics of this. If these can be delivered in shipping containers it means they can be deployed almost anywhere. These would be the perfect way for places like Africa to expand their electricity generation capacity.
World’s first urban-use mW-class high-altitude wind turbine completes test flight
Concerning the economics—that’s a lot of helium, which is only getting more expensive. Then again it is in gas form, which is obviously way less dense than the liquid helium MRI machines need.
Hydrogen isn’t that dangerous in an unmanned vehicle.
And this is likely for things like disasters or power in remote areas where the economics are different. I don’t think we’ll have windfarms of these
Helium is a noble gas, not reactive. Hydrogen is reactive.
Yes but hydrogen has twice the lifting capacity and can be handled safely. I just drove past a truck full of the stuff today.
It actually doesn’t have that much more. It’s ~half the weight, but they’re both closer to vacuum than to air already.
On the other hand, boy is it cheaper.
About 10x cheaper, if anyone is curious. Hydrogen has containment difficulties beyond its flammability though: it embrittles materials and leaks very easily.
Yeah, but not only does hydrogen has other problems as well, the headline clearly says “helium”
Yes I’m proposing an alternative
In that case you’ll face two problems I can think of off the top of my head: first, a 3MW generator with big moving parts is probably great at creating sparks which could ignite the balloon. How likely that would actually be would depend on the design, but it’s a significant problem if the expensive turbine falls out of the sky (carrying a flaming balloon and a very long high-voltage cable) on top of nearby buildings, people, or anything flammable.
Second, it’s actually quite difficult to confine hydrogen for very long. You’d either need a constant supply of it, or a significantly more expensive balloon which the hydrogen couldn’t leak out of
For the first one: Zeppelins had massive diesel engines spitting flames out of their exhaust, and as long as they’re grounded there won’t be static build up like the Hindenburg.
One advantage hydrogen has is that it can be produced on-site to offset leakage, provided it’s kept to a minimum. But if a giant zeppelin could cross the Atlantic I imagine we can limit leakage today to acceptable levels.
You probably shouldn’t fly this over populated areas anyway. I guess you could if you had too, and granted hydrogen would be worse in that case.
Aluminum is pretty impermeable to hydrogen, isn’t it? A foil layer would add weight, but then again hydrogen has slightly more lifting power, as well. Helium also leaks through some materials.
