this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
154 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

81802 readers
4172 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The S1500 floating turbine’s operating altitude is 4,921 feet above ground level, where wind speed moves about three times faster than at the surface. The advantage of this altitude (also referred to as vertical slice) can result in a power output up to 27 times higher than a conventional ground-based wind turbine of similar capacity.

The capacity to generate one megawatt of electrical power (MW) with the S1500 system is comparable in size to what small wind power turbines normally generate (a conventional 328-foot-tall wind turbine), while the footprint of the S1500 system is significantly smaller. This amazing power density shows the efficiency benefits of being able to access high altitude wind power resources by new and innovative airborne platforms.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 hours ago

Posting them around rich people's private airfields would improve their footprint even further.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

The wind at 32,000 ft is 200 times stronger than the wind at the surface?

Ummm... 10 knots * 200 = 2000 knots. I don't think so lol.

A lot of strange numbers in this article that bring its accuracy into question.

No mention of the weight of a 1 and 1/2 km wire that is also suitable to anchor this thing in place. Or are they going to float batteries and bring them down to discharge?

[–] DoubleDongle@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

I can't be arsed to dig up the equation, but it may mean that the wind has 200 times more usable energy, which I think is a cube function of its speed. Wouldn't be 2000 knots in that case

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Ummm… 10 knots * 200 = 2000 knots. I don’t think so lol.

First of all, kinetic energy scales with the square of an objects velocity.

Second, since we're talking about a continuous stream of fluid instead of a single object, increasing the air speed not only increases the enegy per unit mass of air, but also the number of units of air per second that pass through the turbine. Which means that the amount of energy extracted scales by the cube of the wind speed.

https://kpenergy.in/blog/calculating-power-output-of-wind-turbines

So, more like going from 10 knots to 60.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Didn't think about the possibility of a kinetic energy unit, thanks for the insight

[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Maybe it means the kinetic energy of the wind, which I believe scales against its velocity-squared?

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

I'm thinking it's about consistency. 10kts 10% of the time vs average 150kts 100% of the time (the math is a little off but we're in hypothetical estimates already)

[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 6 points 5 hours ago

they gonna use magsafe connectors for wireless transmission, duh.

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 50 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

How come the 131 foot altitude in the headline is never mentioned in the article? These turbine operates at 4,921 feet, a number that makes a lot more sense when you convert it to metric, 1.5 km. The article is littered with these odd imperial measurements that should have just been left as nice round metric numbers, or least re-rounded after conversion. 130 feet would have read better, but the original number was 40 m.

[–] essell@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

is it 131ft long? 🤔

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 16 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I'd love to see the weight of a five thousand foot cable.

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

2"Ø UHMWPE rope has a breaking strength of ~375000lbs weighs 94lbs per 100' so about 4700lbs for 5000'

That said I have know idea if 2"Ø is the correct diameter rope to anchor one of these balloons.

Source: RightRope.com

edit: I was originally planning on adding in the weight of a high voltage transmission cable, but I'm on my phone and feeling lazy, maybe some one else will feel more inspired than I.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If you’re adding two strand #2 AWG wire it’s about a half pound per foot so another 2500lbs which means the floating windmill has to support 7200 lbs in addition to the weight of itself.

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

From the article the turbine unit weighs 2204lbs so that's ~9400 lbs total. Omni calculator says you need 348,436 standard 11" party balloons or 3,979,252 litres of helium to get off the ground and 423,779 party balloons to reach 1.5km altitude.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

It can’t weigh 2,204lbs if it floats it should weigh approximately -7,200lbs if it’s going to carry the cable and rope.

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I'm assuming that's the weight of the turbine without helium in the balloon.

So it would be even lighter if you filled it with hydrogen?

[–] GenosseFlosse@feddit.org 1 points 51 minutes ago

Could you not add wings for additional lift?

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

at least 2 breeding heifers

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

African or European heifers?

[–] Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 hours ago

How many big macs are thos?

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

These are a massive liability every storm. You have to winch them down and get them into a blisteringly massive hangar that can hold them. Then get them set back up after. Every. Single. Storm.

Furthermore, you don't save on land use, as you need the massive, expensive hangar for each right at their base.

Ground-based wind-turbines just feather their blades and lock their gearbox. Very simple.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago

Still better than coal

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

Does it have batteries on board? How does it connect the power to the grid? O_o

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago

If only there was a giant cable it was tethered to that could also carry electricity.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 hours ago

Through a HV cable run to the ground, along with the cable to anchor it.

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 16 points 8 hours ago

I read an article about it a while ago, and that said it'd be tethered to the ground, and power would be transfered through the tether.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It's obviously attached with wires. It can't just float around and generate energy.

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You say obviously but I don't see how tethering a loose object with 5000ft of live wire is "obviously" safe

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

We're surrounded by live wire all the time. They're insulated, it's fine.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Oh. That makes it better.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 4 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Cool. How do they perform maintenance?

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If it's tethered, the tether can winch it down to ladder truck range.

That or helicopter.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 2 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

That'd be my guess as well. How big must that winch be to wind in 4000 feet, though?

Helicopter would be far too dangerous, I reckon.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

Unfortunately, I could not find a link to the manual.