Science > Physics > Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hi@anony habshi" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2006 10:18:07 PM |
| Object: |
Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
Thermal power is coming in at Rs 5 per unit ie 10 cents or
10kwh for a dollar ie the work of ten horses for one hour ! which is
about a fifteeth the minimum wage which is why electricity is so
desirable and there are riots in BD now that it is in short supply.
Arunachel alone has signed for 15,000 MW of hydroelectric
power plants ie 15m kwh or $1.5m per hour for a state with a pop of
1m
excerpts
The Arunachal Pradesh Government has signed MoUs with NTPC Ltd,
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) and North Eastern
Power Corporation (NEEPCO) for setting up nine hydroelectric projects
in the State.
THE ambitious 11,000-MW Siang Upper project — which would have been
the country's largest power project and the world's third largest — is
likely to be scaled down to around 5,000 MW, mainly due to
environmental concerns raised by China
Had the Siang Upper project come up in its originally envisaged
gargantuan size, it would have been third in terms of size in the
world, after the Three Gorges Project (being developed by China) and
the Itaipu project, which is already operational in Brazil.
The Itaipu project is currently the largest hydropower plant in the
world with a 12,600-MW installed capacity, while the Three Gorges
project, currently under construction on the Yangtze river, would have
a total capacity of 18,200 MW upon completion. The Itaipu
Hydroelectric Power Plant is located on the Parana River and straddles
Brazil and Paraguay.
Flying Electric Generator: Generating power at 35,000 feet
A
California-based company will test its ‘Flying Electric Generator' to
generate electricity using strong winds at high altitude.
NEW DELHI: The world's quest to find alternate sources of energy to
reduce dependence on fossil fuels is encouraging new and innovative
ideas, with a US-based firm now looking to generate electricity from
wind at a height of 10,000 feet to as much as 35,000 feet in the sky.
California-headquartered Sky Windpower Corporation has tested its
‘Flying Electric Generator' (FEG) or ‘rotorcraft' at low altitude of
60 feet in Australia and is working on a demonstration project of a
higher capacity generator at an altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet where
wind speed is greater.
"Our company plans to make a high altitude demonstration of an FEG
rated at 240 kW within two years," Sky Windpower Corp President David
Shepard said.
Shepard said it would then take more time to develop equipment rated
in multi-megawatt range, which is needed to supply the vast
electricity needed across the world.
The FEG, which resembles a tethered elementary helicopter with no
cabin and two rotors, generates power on the same principle as a
ground-based wind turbine, the only major difference being that it is
located at a much higher altitude where wind speed is far greater.
An FEG is free to fly at the best altitude at any time, taking into
account wind velocity and turbulence. But flying at up to 35,000 feet
is necessary at many locations to maximize energy output. But since
FEGs use tethers, they must be flown in restricted airspaces - that
is, where aircrafts are not allowed to fly.
Shepard exuded confidence that capture of high altitude wind energy
would be the main energy source in the long term in the world,
including India where cost of generation could be as low as Rs 2 per
unit.
The new technology would prove useful even in India, which has already
emerged as the world's fourth largest wind energy producer from
ground-based turbines, Shepard said.
"I have no doubt that India would be able to meet all its power needs
through high altitude wind energy capture. I believe that most of
India's needs will be met by this means many years from now because of
the potential favourable economics," he said.
Asked whether the company has initiated any discussions in India for
using the technology, he replied in the negative.
"However, we have been contacted by three different Indian companies,"
he said, but refused to name the companies.
Shepard claimed in the long term India has the potential to meet all
its electricity requirement by using this technology at Patiala
(Punjab) in the northern region, and that too at a cost lower than
fossil fuels.
"Thinking about India's energy problem, we noted the potential of
deriving massive power from the Patiala area and using it all over
India," he said, adding energy storage would be necessary for summer
use because even Patiala does not have strong high altitude winds in
the season.
This can be accomplished by generation of hydrogen through
electrolysis of water, which can then be used during summer months.
Electrolysis of water requires low cost power to be economical, but
capture of high altitude wind energy has that economic potential, he
said.
Shepard said as per their calculations, long term power generation
cost would come about two US cents in the northern US and three cents
in the southern US per unit of power. "At Patiala, the costs I would
guess should be about 2.5 cents per kWh... the costs of distribution
to the rest of India must be added to that," he said. However, he said
the company has not attempted to estimate the cost of installation per
megawatt in India.
At this price, electricity generated from FEGs would be cheaper than
coal-fired plants, which generate power at about Rs 2-3 (i.e 4-6
cents) per kWh at present. "Of course, at this point you will find
many sceptics (of the technology). Time will tell!," he concluded.
.
|
|
| User: "Eggs Benedict a.k.a. DRACULA" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
01 Oct 2006 10:36:02 PM |
|
|
DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THAT JEWISH ***** WHO DIED OF SNEEZING TOO MUCH?
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:18:07 GMT, hi@anony (habshi) wrote:
;-)00 Thermal power is coming in at Rs 5 per unit ie 10 cents or
;-)0010kwh for a dollar ie the work of ten horses for one hour ! which
is
;-)00about a fifteeth the minimum wage which is why electricity is so
;-)00desirable and there are riots in BD now that it is in short
supply.
;-)00 Arunachel alone has signed for 15,000 MW of hydroelectric
;-)00power plants ie 15m kwh or $1.5m per hour for a state with a pop
of
;-)001m
;-)00 excerpts
;-)00The Arunachal Pradesh Government has signed MoUs with NTPC Ltd,
;-)00National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) and North Eastern
;-)00Power Corporation (NEEPCO) for setting up nine hydroelectric
projects
;-)00in the State.
;-)00THE ambitious 11,000-MW Siang Upper project — which would have
been
;-)00the country's largest power project and the world's third largest
— is
;-)00likely to be scaled down to around 5,000 MW, mainly due to
;-)00environmental concerns raised by China
;-)00Had the Siang Upper project come up in its originally envisaged
;-)00gargantuan size, it would have been third in terms of size in the
;-)00world, after the Three Gorges Project (being developed by China)
and
;-)00the Itaipu project, which is already operational in Brazil.
;-)00
;-)00The Itaipu project is currently the largest hydropower plant in
the
;-)00world with a 12,600-MW installed capacity, while the Three Gorges
;-)00project, currently under construction on the Yangtze river, would
have
;-)00a total capacity of 18,200 MW upon completion. The Itaipu
;-)00Hydroelectric Power Plant is located on the Parana River and
straddles
;-)00Brazil and Paraguay.
;-)00
;-)00Flying Electric Generator: Generating power at 35,000 feet
;-)00
;-)00A
;-)00
;-)00California-based company will test its ‘Flying Electric
Generator' to
;-)00generate electricity using strong winds at high altitude.
;-)00
;-)00NEW DELHI: The world's quest to find alternate sources of energy
to
;-)00reduce dependence on fossil fuels is encouraging new and
innovative
;-)00ideas, with a US-based firm now looking to generate electricity
from
;-)00wind at a height of 10,000 feet to as much as 35,000 feet in the
sky.
;-)00
;-)00California-headquartered Sky Windpower Corporation has tested its
;-)00‘Flying Electric Generator' (FEG) or ‘rotorcraft' at low altitude
of
;-)0060 feet in Australia and is working on a demonstration project of
a
;-)00higher capacity generator at an altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet
where
;-)00wind speed is greater.
;-)00
;-)00"Our company plans to make a high altitude demonstration of an
FEG
;-)00rated at 240 kW within two years," Sky Windpower Corp President
David
;-)00Shepard said.
;-)00
;-)00Shepard said it would then take more time to develop equipment
rated
;-)00in multi-megawatt range, which is needed to supply the vast
;-)00electricity needed across the world.
;-)00
;-)00The FEG, which resembles a tethered elementary helicopter with no
;-)00cabin and two rotors, generates power on the same principle as a
;-)00ground-based wind turbine, the only major difference being that
it is
;-)00located at a much higher altitude where wind speed is far
greater.
;-)00
;-)00An FEG is free to fly at the best altitude at any time, taking
into
;-)00account wind velocity and turbulence. But flying at up to 35,000
feet
;-)00is necessary at many locations to maximize energy output. But
since
;-)00FEGs use tethers, they must be flown in restricted airspaces -
that
;-)00is, where aircrafts are not allowed to fly.
;-)00
;-)00Shepard exuded confidence that capture of high altitude wind
energy
;-)00would be the main energy source in the long term in the world,
;-)00including India where cost of generation could be as low as Rs 2
per
;-)00unit.
;-)00
;-)00The new technology would prove useful even in India, which has
already
;-)00emerged as the world's fourth largest wind energy producer from
;-)00ground-based turbines, Shepard said.
;-)00
;-)00"I have no doubt that India would be able to meet all its power
needs
;-)00through high altitude wind energy capture. I believe that most of
;-)00India's needs will be met by this means many years from now
because of
;-)00the potential favourable economics," he said.
;-)00
;-)00Asked whether the company has initiated any discussions in India
for
;-)00using the technology, he replied in the negative.
;-)00
;-)00"However, we have been contacted by three different Indian
companies,"
;-)00he said, but refused to name the companies.
;-)00
;-)00Shepard claimed in the long term India has the potential to meet
all
;-)00its electricity requirement by using this technology at Patiala
;-)00(Punjab) in the northern region, and that too at a cost lower
than
;-)00fossil fuels.
;-)00
;-)00"Thinking about India's energy problem, we noted the potential of
;-)00deriving massive power from the Patiala area and using it all
over
;-)00India," he said, adding energy storage would be necessary for
summer
;-)00use because even Patiala does not have strong high altitude winds
in
;-)00the season.
;-)00
;-)00This can be accomplished by generation of hydrogen through
;-)00electrolysis of water, which can then be used during summer
months.
;-)00Electrolysis of water requires low cost power to be economical,
but
;-)00capture of high altitude wind energy has that economic potential,
he
;-)00said.
;-)00
;-)00Shepard said as per their calculations, long term power
generation
;-)00cost would come about two US cents in the northern US and three
cents
;-)00in the southern US per unit of power. "At Patiala, the costs I
would
;-)00guess should be about 2.5 cents per kWh... the costs of
distribution
;-)00to the rest of India must be added to that," he said. However, he
said
;-)00the company has not attempted to estimate the cost of
installation per
;-)00megawatt in India.
;-)00
;-)00At this price, electricity generated from FEGs would be cheaper
than
;-)00coal-fired plants, which generate power at about Rs 2-3 (i.e 4-6
;-)00cents) per kWh at present. "Of course, at this point you will
find
;-)00many sceptics (of the technology). Time will tell!," he
concluded.
;-)00
;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00
;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00
;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00
;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00
;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00
;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00
;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00 ;-)00
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
01 Oct 2006 10:38:35 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
Flying Electric Generator: Generating power at 35,000 feet
California-based company will test its 'Flying Electric Generator' to
generate electricity using strong winds at high altitude.
California-headquartered Sky Windpower Corporation has tested its
'Flying Electric Generator' (FEG) or 'rotorcraft' at low altitude of
60 feet in Australia and is working on a demonstration project of a
higher capacity generator at an altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet where
wind speed is greater.
"Our company plans to make a high altitude demonstration of an FEG
rated at 240 kW within two years," Sky Windpower Corp President David
Shepard said.
Gee Habshi why don't you buy some stock in that outfit?
I would but there was this bridge in brooklyn......................
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Bloomquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supplyall world needs |
01 Oct 2006 11:56:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Gee Habshi why don't you buy some stock in that outfit?
He doesn't have the capital. He is a bigot troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
02 Oct 2006 09:35:02 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics wrote:
habshi wrote:
Flying Electric Generator: Generating power at 35,000 feet
California-based company will test its 'Flying Electric Generator' to
generate electricity using strong winds at high altitude.
California-headquartered Sky Windpower Corporation has tested its
'Flying Electric Generator' (FEG) or 'rotorcraft' at low altitude of
60 feet in Australia and is working on a demonstration project of a
higher capacity generator at an altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet where
wind speed is greater.
"Our company plans to make a high altitude demonstration of an FEG
rated at 240 kW within two years," Sky Windpower Corp President David
Shepard said.
Gee Habshi why don't you buy some stock in that outfit?
I would but there was this bridge in brooklyn......................
Current winds aloft forcast
Feet 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000
Ontario 260@5 240@32 220@27 210@34 220@57
San Diego 310@12 290@10 230@16 200@26 220@46
Hmmm, 10,000-15,000 feet looks optimistic to me and 240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
02 Oct 2006 04:58:55 PM |
|
|
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:fik7v3-td2.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics wrote:
habshi wrote:
Flying Electric Generator: Generating power at 35,000 feet
California-based company will test its 'Flying Electric Generator' to
generate electricity using strong winds at high altitude.
California-headquartered Sky Windpower Corporation has tested its
'Flying Electric Generator' (FEG) or 'rotorcraft' at low altitude of
60 feet in Australia and is working on a demonstration project of a
higher capacity generator at an altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet where
wind speed is greater.
"Our company plans to make a high altitude demonstration of an FEG
rated at 240 kW within two years," Sky Windpower Corp President David
Shepard said.
Gee Habshi why don't you buy some stock in that outfit?
I would but there was this bridge in brooklyn......................
Current winds aloft forcast
Feet 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000
Ontario 260@5 240@32 220@27 210@34 220@57
San Diego 310@12 290@10 230@16 200@26 220@46
Hmmm, 10,000-15,000 feet looks optimistic to me and 240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
Al G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
03 Oct 2006 06:48:22 PM |
|
|
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
You can insulate against lightening.
Maybe a little power could be diverted to deice.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "news.charter.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 11:55:14 AM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159919302.267879.250820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
You can insulate against lightening.
Maybe a little power could be diverted to deice.
Bret Cahill
You have a conductor running from lightning cloud height to the ground.
Where exactly are you going to put insulation? How you ever seen the films
of rockets trailing wires that are used to attract a bolt of lightning? Can
you imagine how much "insulation" it would take for a couple of million
volts? We can't make a cable that strong and light, let alone the
insulation.
Al G
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 01:42:10 PM |
|
|
"news.charter.net" <agerhart2@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:5IRUg.6$5H6.0@newsfe05.lga...
|
| "Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
| news:1159919302.267879.250820@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| >> You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
| >> thunderstorms?
| >
| > You can insulate against lightening.
| >
| > Maybe a little power could be diverted to deice.
| >
| >
| > Bret Cahill
| >
|
| You have a conductor running from lightning cloud height to the ground.
| Where exactly are you going to put insulation? How you ever seen the films
| of rockets trailing wires that are used to attract a bolt of lightning?
Can
| you imagine how much "insulation" it would take for a couple of million
| volts? We can't make a cable that strong and light, let alone the
| insulation.
|
| Al G
Bret can do anything. He has a suit of armour against rhinoceros
stampedes:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Brett.JPG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BobG" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
03 Oct 2006 09:08:54 PM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
You can insulate against lightening.
=========================================
I had some wheels that had lightening holes in them. They looked like
Swiss Cheese, but they sure didn't weigh very much!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eeyore" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply allworld needs |
03 Oct 2006 08:06:45 PM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
You can insulate against lightening.
Not realistically.
Graham
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
03 Oct 2006 09:05:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
You can insulate against lightening.
Maybe a little power could be diverted to deice.
Bret Cahill
I forgot to mention, the problem with thunderstorms isn't lightening,
aircraft get hit by lightening all the time.
The problem with thunderstorms is the extreme turbulance and vertical
winds that can easily exceed 100 knots.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "news.charter.net" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 11:57:46 AM |
|
|
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:gdhbv3-c04.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
You can insulate against lightening.
Maybe a little power could be diverted to deice.
Bret Cahill
I forgot to mention, the problem with thunderstorms isn't lightening,
aircraft get hit by lightening all the time.
True, aircraft get hit with very little damage, however they don't have
one foot on the ground to conduct current.
The problem with thunderstorms is the extreme turbulance and vertical
winds that can easily exceed 100 knots.
Good point, and just another reason it wouldn't work.
Al G
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
03 Oct 2006 07:55:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
You can insulate against lightening.
Maybe a little power could be diverted to deice.
Bret Cahill
It takes very little ice to make an airfoil stop working and more than
a little power to keep an airframe free of ice.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
02 Oct 2006 06:15:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Al <agerhart2@nospam.charter.net> wrote:
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:fik7v3-td2.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
In sci.physics wrote:
habshi wrote:
Flying Electric Generator: Generating power at 35,000 feet
California-based company will test its 'Flying Electric Generator' to
generate electricity using strong winds at high altitude.
California-headquartered Sky Windpower Corporation has tested its
'Flying Electric Generator' (FEG) or 'rotorcraft' at low altitude of
60 feet in Australia and is working on a demonstration project of a
higher capacity generator at an altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet where
wind speed is greater.
"Our company plans to make a high altitude demonstration of an FEG
rated at 240 kW within two years," Sky Windpower Corp President David
Shepard said.
Gee Habshi why don't you buy some stock in that outfit?
I would but there was this bridge in brooklyn......................
Current winds aloft forcast
Feet 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000
Ontario 260@5 240@32 220@27 210@34 220@57
San Diego 310@12 290@10 230@16 200@26 220@46
Hmmm, 10,000-15,000 feet looks optimistic to me and 240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
You don't suppose icing in the winter would be a problem? Maybe
thunderstorms?
The freezing level over Central California is 11,000 feet right now.
For the northern reaches of the US it is 7,000 to 9,000.
Severe thunderstorms are predicted across parts of the great lakes
and the mid west.
You don't need to wait for winter.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
03 Oct 2006 06:56:30 PM |
|
|
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
The real problem would be unexpected drops in wind speed. Then you
have steel cable all over the countryside and a mangled rotor.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
03 Oct 2006 07:45:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
and nighttime operations.
The lighting system must be monitored and the operational status of
the system must be confirmed at least once every 24 hours.
The real problem would be unexpected drops in wind speed. Then you
have steel cable all over the countryside and a mangled rotor.
No, the real problem is the FAA wouldn't allow it to be up that high
in the first place.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 12:41:11 AM |
|
|
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
and nighttime operations.
If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 10:45:03 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
and nighttime operations.
If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
Bret Cahill
Yeah, sure.
You've never dealt with the FAA, have you, and are making it up as you
go along, aren't you?
You might start with the above referenced document, which will in turn
reference you to the documents with the approved technical specifications
for lighting and the approved vendors list for equipment that will
meet the technical specs.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 11:04:35 AM |
|
|
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:v81dv3-epc.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
| In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
| > > > > 240 kW should be
| > > > > just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of
obstruction
| > > > > lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
|
| > > > All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
| > > > feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
|
| > > You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
|
| > > For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
| > > obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
| > > and nighttime operations.
|
| > If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
|
|
| > Bret Cahill
|
| Yeah, sure.
|
| You've never dealt with the FAA, have you, and are making it up as you
| go along, aren't you?
|
| You might start with the above referenced document, which will in turn
| reference you to the documents with the approved technical specifications
| for lighting and the approved vendors list for equipment that will
| meet the technical specs.
|
| --
| Jim Pennino
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Brett.JPG
|
| Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 04:09:28 PM |
|
|
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
and nighttime operations.
If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
Yeah, sure.
You've never dealt with the FAA, have you, and are making it up as you
go along, aren't you?
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
Anyway they'll probably rely more on radio/radar beacons.
Also didn't the OP say the area would be off limits to aviation?
How do they keep pilots from flying into mountains?
It's a minor problem compared to storms, winds shifting or dying.
They'll have to by anchored to high mountain tops to reach the jet
stream -- perfect for India -- which should be away from most air
traffic.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 05:44:31 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1159996168.917413.269550@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
You need to be on the edge of your coke can.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Brett.JPG
Do you get along with Herbie?
| Anyway they'll probably rely more on radio/radar beacons.
Yes, pilots fly from beacon to beacon, all over the USA. There
are no beacons in the mid-Altantic.
| Also didn't the OP say the area would be off limits to aviation?
I don't know what he said, or even care.
| How do they keep pilots from flying into mountains?
Fly higher, but that's the pilot's responsibility.
I flew around the Alps one way to Italy without being on oxygen
and over them coming back to Britain in a pressurised commercial jet.
The outbound flight was in a Piper Cherokee, 35 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_Cherokee
The FAA was not involved.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 04:45:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
and nighttime operations.
If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
Yeah, sure.
You've never dealt with the FAA, have you, and are making it up as you
go along, aren't you?
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
Well, what? You were given the reference. All the regulations and
circulars are available on the FAA website.
Anyway they'll probably rely more on radio/radar beacons.
Utter nonsense.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Also didn't the OP say the area would be off limits to aviation?
Establishing a prohibited area is a non-trivial endevour.
How do they keep pilots from flying into mountains?
During the day you look out the windscreen as mountains are easy
to see. Towers and cables are not.
On dark, moonless nights, you fly at 2000 feet higher than any
terrain near your course. The position of mountains is well known.
It's a minor problem compared to storms, winds shifting or dying.
The regulatory issues of something that extends into navigable airspace
is hardly a minor problem.
They'll have to by anchored to high mountain tops to reach the jet
stream -- perfect for India -- which should be away from most air
traffic.
The jet stream is hundreds of knots and a hell of a lot higher than
any mountain top.
You have no clue about anything dealing with aviation or the
nature of the atmosphere any higher than about 6 feet, do you?
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 05:44:31 PM |
|
|
<jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:iemdv3-ao6.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
| In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
| > > > > > > 240 kW should be
| > > > > > > just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of
obstruction
| > > > > > > lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this
thing..
|
| > > > > > All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every
hundred
| > > > > > feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
|
| > > > > You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
|
| > > > > For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
| > > > > obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
| > > > > and nighttime operations.
|
| > > > If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
|
| > > Yeah, sure.
|
| > > You've never dealt with the FAA, have you, and are making it up as you
| > > go along, aren't you?
|
| > Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
|
| Well, what? You were given the reference. All the regulations and
| circulars are available on the FAA website.
|
| > Anyway they'll probably rely more on radio/radar beacons.
|
| Utter nonsense.
Fucking IDIOT! Pilots rely on beacons all over the USA.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 05:51:49 PM |
|
|
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
and nighttime operations.
If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
Yeah, sure.
You've never dealt with the FAA, have you, and are making it up as you
go along, aren't you?
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
Well, what?
Post the light requirements.
.. . .
Also didn't the OP say the area would be off limits to aviation?
Establishing a prohibited area is a non-trivial endevour.
So is getting zoning for a power plant.
This will probably be a DOE project all the way anyway.
How do they keep pilots from flying into mountains?
During the day you look out the windscreen as mountains are easy
to see. Towers and cables are not.
Write your Congressman to subsidize radio beacon receivers for GA.
.. . .
The position of mountains is well known.
So is the position of the Pacific Ocean, rivers, cities . . . Islamist
fundies have no problem whatsoever identifying tall buildings from the
air.
It's a minor problem compared to storms, winds shifting or dying.
The regulatory issues of something that extends into navigable airspace
is hardly a minor problem.
The FAA are good guys -- the easiest bureaucrats of all.
They'll have to by anchored to high mountain tops to reach the jet
stream -- perfect for India -- which should be away from most air
traffic.
The jet stream is hundreds of knots
Oh, in THAT case, forget about worrying about T-storms.
and a hell of a lot higher than
any mountain top.
But within reach of a steel cable anchored from a mountain top -- the
original issue.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
04 Oct 2006 06:35:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
240 kW should be
just about enough power to light up the 2 to 3 miles of obstruction
lights that will be required on the cable anchoring this thing..
All they require on stayed antennas is a 50 watt bulb every hundred
feet. -- maybe 5 kW total using LEDs.
You need to read FAA AC70-7460-1K.
For something over 500 feet you need high intensity flashing white
obstruction lights with selected reduced intensities for twilight
and nighttime operations.
If the lights are flashing 2 kW should do it.
Yeah, sure.
You've never dealt with the FAA, have you, and are making it up as you
go along, aren't you?
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
Well, what?
Post the light requirements.
I did by reference.
. . .
Also didn't the OP say the area would be off limits to aviation?
Establishing a prohibited area is a non-trivial endevour.
So is getting zoning for a power plant.
Ah, yet another regulatory hurdle to clear.
This will probably be a DOE project all the way anyway.
So what, the FAA controls the air.
How do they keep pilots from flying into mountains?
During the day you look out the windscreen as mountains are easy
to see. Towers and cables are not.
Write your Congressman to subsidize radio beacon receivers for GA.
Radio beacons are not and have never been used to mark obstructions.
The only way to know the position of a radio beacon to an aircraft
is to fly over it. Radio beacons provide relative bearing information
and nothing else. Radio beacons are being decommisioned as obsolete.
You have no clue how aviation works, so give up before you make a
bigger fool of yourself.
. . .
The position of mountains is well known.
So is the position of the Pacific Ocean, rivers, cities . . . Islamist
fundies have no problem whatsoever identifying tall buildings from the
air.
The discussion is about a cable. Cables are extremely difficult to see.
It's a minor problem compared to storms, winds shifting or dying.
The regulatory issues of something that extends into navigable airspace
is hardly a minor problem.
The FAA are good guys -- the easiest bureaucrats of all.
Once again, it is obvious you have never dealt with the FAA.
They'll have to by anchored to high mountain tops to reach the jet
stream -- perfect for India -- which should be away from most air
traffic.
The jet stream is hundreds of knots
Oh, in THAT case, forget about worrying about T-storms.
YOU are the one that brought up the jet stream.
The jet stream is generally up about 30k feet, the dangers of thunder
storms go to the surface.
and a hell of a lot higher than
any mountain top.
But within reach of a steel cable anchored from a mountain top -- the
original issue.
Yeah, about 20,000 feet of cable.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
05 Oct 2006 04:08:22 PM |
|
|
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
Well, what?
Post the light requirements.
I did by reference.
So we'll go with the 2 kW figure, less than 1% of the power will need
to be used for lighting.
.. . .
Also didn't the OP say the area would be off limits to aviation?
Establishing a prohibited area is a non-trivial endevour.
So is getting zoning for a power plant.
Ah, yet another regulatory hurdle to clear.
Are you suggesting we stop building power plants because of permits and
zoning?
This will probably be a DOE project all the way anyway.
So what, the FAA controls the air.
Bureaucrats love to work with each other.
How do they keep pilots from flying into mountains?
During the day you look out the windscreen as mountains are easy
to see. Towers and cables are not.
Write your Congressman to subsidize radio beacon receivers for GA.
Radio beacons are not and have never been used to mark obstructions.
You think I should file for a patent?
.. . .
The position of mountains is well known.
So is the position of the Pacific Ocean, rivers, cities . . . Islamist
fundies have no problem whatsoever identifying tall buildings from the
air.
The discussion is about a cable. Cables are extremely difficult to see.
Not with a lot of rags and foil hanging off of them.
.. . .
They'll have to by anchored to high mountain tops to reach the jet
stream -- perfect for India -- which should be away from most air
traffic.
The jet stream is hundreds of knots
Oh, in THAT case, forget about worrying about T-storms.
YOU are the one that brought up the jet stream.
The OP brought them up.
The jet stream is generally up about 30k feet, the dangers of thunder
storms go to the surface.
Then being in the jet steam is T-storm free.
and a hell of a lot higher than
any mountain top.
But within reach of a steel cable anchored from a mountain top -- the
original issue.
Yeah, about 20,000 feet of cable.
VERY cost effective.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "M. Ranjit Mathews" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
01 Oct 2006 04:35:47 PM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
Thermal power is coming in at Rs 5 per unit ie 10 cents or
10kwh for a dollar ie the work of ten horses for one hour !
1 horse can generate 6kw of power, although not for extended periods.
which is
about a fifteeth the minimum wage which is why electricity is so
desirable and there are riots in BD now that it is in short supply.
Arunachel alone has signed for 15,000 MW of hydroelectric
power plants ie 15m kwh or $1.5m per hour for a state with a pop of
1m
.
|
|
|
| User: "joes" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
01 Oct 2006 08:18:43 PM |
|
|
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159738547.682469.315930@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Thermal power is coming in at Rs 5 per unit ie 10 cents or
10kwh for a dollar ie the work of ten horses for one hour !
1 horse can generate 6kw of power, although not for extended periods.
which is
about a fifteeth the minimum wage which is why electricity is so
desirable and there are riots in BD now that it is in short supply.
Arunachel alone has signed for 15,000 MW of hydroelectric
power plants ie 15m kwh or $1.5m per hour for a state with a pop of
1m
What are you going to do with all those unemployed horses ? Eat them ??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Y.Porat" |
|
| Title: Re: Cheap power 5 cents per unit from the jet stream could supply all world needs |
01 Oct 2006 10:43:10 PM |
|
|
joes wrote:
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159738547.682469.315930@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
habshi wrote:
Thermal power is coming in at Rs 5 per unit ie 10 cents or
10kwh for a dollar ie the work of ten horses for one hour !
1 horse can generate 6kw of power, although not for extended periods.
which is
about a fifteeth the minimum wage which is why electricity is so
desirable and there are riots in BD now that it is in short supply.
Arunachel alone has signed for 15,000 MW of hydroelectric
power plants ie 15m kwh or $1.5m per hour for a state with a pop of
1m
What are you going to do with all those unemployed horses ? Eat them ??
--------------------------
common bump clowns
The real energy crisis os not so far away behind your doors
and than you will not be laughing at all!!
(and even it is for your next generation that is no issue for idiotic
clowns )
Y.Porat
------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
