Magenn Wind Power; Turbine In The Sky
Wind power is a great, effective way to make energy, but only when the wind blows. Or if you can find the open space to plant large wind farms that tear apart birds, bats, and low-flying hot air balloons. There are also many people who would hate to live in the shadow of one of these wind farms. But what if the turbines were 1,000 feet in the air?
This is the idea behind a conceptual wind turbine in the sky built by Magenn Power Inc. Called the MARS (Magenn Air Rotor System), this system utilizes an inflatible rotor that floats high above the air without requiring a tower, just a tether.
- » See also: EV Corridor Links LA and San Fran, “Fast” Charging Still Relative
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
The horizontally-rotating turbine uses large scoops that rotate around an axis, with generators on either end that send power back to earth via a tether. Because it is a giant balloon with generators attached, it is easily transportable, fixable, and could even be placed on the tops of builds in skies. That high up, it also won’t interfere with birds, bats, and other airbornce creatures, but it is low enough that most planes and helicopters won’t be bothered either. Plus, air speed is more consistent at higher atltitudes, and the MARS system works up to 67 mph winds.
The MARS system is only in prototype stages currently but is making promising steps towards becoming a reality. Personally, I love nature, and I would put up a big stink about living near a wind turbine farm, even if I got all the power I wanted for free. But I very rarely find myself staring at the sky, and a tether is a lot less conspicuous than a tower.
It is a great idea, but does it work? That is yet to be proven. But transportable, easily obscured wind farms in the sky seem like a much better idea than miles upon miles of obtrusive turbines. It also requires a lot less infrastructure; no power plants, just winches, transformers, and power lines. Do you guys think this idea has merit, or is just power pie-in-the-sky?
Source: Magenn Power Inc.
You’re right, of course. It would be much better to have a giant balloon filled with spinning rotors fall on your head from 1000 feet up than to live near a hideous wind farm. Hmm … I wonder what happens when one of these lovely toys (attached to the ground via steel cable) is hit by lightning? Didn’t Ben Franklin make that mistake once?
Good point Captain Morgan. Imagine one of these coming down in a big storm.
I think I’d need more information before I could really evaluate this thing. But it sounds like an interesting idea.
Regarding wind towers — I think there are plenty of sparsely populated areas where there’s a lot of wind which would make good locations for wind farms (Texas panhandle north to the dakotas and also a couple miles off the coasts).
Yet another gullible post on this stupid idea!
1) Generators weigh TONS because they have to contain ferrous material to ‘generate’ magnetic fields. In wind turbines they are also geared down with huge gearboxes. The Nacelle of a 2MW wind turbine weights up to 83 tonne. This thing by definition has to be ‘lighter than air’. Their proposed solution? Carbon fiber generators… BS!
2)Getting the power to the ground? They propose to put these things at 20,000 feet, that’s 4 miles worth of cable…. Cable has to be conductive… ie. metal! The more power that they ‘generate’ the bigger the cross section of wire needed. lighter that air? BS!
3) The structure is a flexible balloon that uses a drag blade system (the least efficient). All commercial wind turbines use rigid airfoils to generate lift.
Honestly, this idea only fools those who know absolutely nothing about basic engineering, but there are obviously plenty of them out there.
Paul, I dont mean to offend you but I think you are a little off the mark on this one.
Firstly, if you read the article, it says they could deploy to 1000 feet, not 20000 like you stated. It would be next to impossible for them to get the airspace set aside for these balloons at that altitude. Hence the 1000 feet stated.
Secondly, when someone says “lighter than air”, they dont actually mean that the material of the entire product is lighter than air, they mean that the lift produced by the “lighter than air” gas inside the “balloon” is capable of raising the entire structure into the air. IE. Big enough balloon and enough helium and you can lift almost anything.
I say that before we knock someones ideas, lets give them the chance to prove their stuff.
Personally, I think this may actually be able to work, however if they do start using it, lets hope they do it at sea, because it would really look ugly over land. That said, it might work nicely in desert countries where a small flotilla of these balloons would not only provide electricity but also welcome shade (dependent on size).
Regarding Paul’s comment… I don’t know if you saw a program in Discovery Channel that was called “Ten ways to save the Planet…”. On that program they studied ten different ways of using technology to fight climate change, and one of the ideas was this one. They made a prototype and then launched it. The design has some issues, but the cable and weight problems were solved, at least for the prototype.
Last week I drove the Columbia River basin past thousands of windmills surrounded by awe inspiring natural beauty. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I found the juxtaposition of nature and the slow and steady turn of the countless blades magnificent. Let’s see, “clean” coal, nuclear fission, oil fired or a few birds, bats or whatever sacrificed on Darwin’s alter. Maybe its more humane to let them die from the natural consequences of conventional power production. Seriously, stop whining and get a grip these are the trade offs we will need to make if we have any chance of solving both the political and physical challenges of human survival. Put one in my backyard please.
Only those who don’t have ideas and rebuke other ideas are stupid!
20,000 ft? The proposed height is between 400-1000ft.
I like the flexibility and possibility of moving them around and bringing them down as needed, let’s say in wake of a huricane. You could not do this with conventional systems. I think it’s a great idea!
Err, where do you see anything about 20,000 feet Paul? From what I read it was more like 1,000 feet. And I figure if the Germans could make zepplins 80 years ago, we can probably figure out how to lift generators into the sky.
Didn’t really consider the lightning problem though!
And the thing with wind farms is that the wind is not nearly as constant on the ground as it is in the air. No wind, no power.
This idea has many viable applications. I could see this paired with Aqua Sciences atmospheric water extraction machines to provide both power and water to areas after a natural disaster.
Remote locations could be provided power from utilities that don’t want to run lines all the way out to the reservation, etc.