Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#111

Post by behnamoh »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #109

I worked at a small kite power startup in 2019. Unfortunately we couldn't secure funding to keep operating. It became quite difficult to secure funding after Google suspended their Makani moonshot project - potential funders were like "well, Google got out of this so why do you think we should fund you?". (though our kites were much smaller than Makani's and we didn't need a huge amount of funding to keep developing)…

> potential funders were like "well, Google got out of this so why do you think we should fund you?".

Google shuts down projects and products because it's Google and can't productionize ideas. It's sad that this results in such secondary effects.

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#112

Post by tschwimmer »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #109

I worked at a small kite power startup in 2019. Unfortunately we couldn't secure funding to keep operating. It became quite difficult to secure funding after Google suspended their Makani moonshot project - potential funders were like "well, Google got out of this so why do you think we should fund you?". (though our kites were much smaller than Makani's and we didn't need a huge amount of funding to keep developing)…

I know nothing about kites but as someone who currently works at Google and knows a bit about how projects are funded, the first argument doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. At Google's scale, a materially impactful opportunity needs to have the opportunity to generate billions in revenue and have high margins. That's just a function of Google's size and opportunity cost (people can otherwise work on Ads, Cloud, etc). However, just because something isn't a Google business for Google doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity for a (very) profitable or successful business. Sounds pretty weak - perhaps the VCs you guys were pitching to were more focused on SaaS vs hard tech.

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#113

Post by aerzen »

mulmen wrote: post #106
s0rce wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't you include in the average nuclear sites that didn't explode?

Why? Nuclear plants can and do melt down.

There are nuclear plants that have been decommissioned and have not exploded. So using just this data, there is a probability that a given nuclear plant will melt down in its lifecycle. And that probability is greater than 0, but far less than 1.

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#114

Post by OtherShrezzing »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #107
OtherShrezzing wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wondering if the OWID data takes the 3,400km^2 of exclusion zone from Fukushima and Chernobyl (more like 5,000km^2, see below) into account when calculating the average size of a nuclear plant? I think if we're saying the space beneath the blades can count towards aggregate wind-power land use, an argument can be made to include nuclear wasteland in the aggregate nuclear-power land use.

Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Should we consider the potential blast radius of the catastrophic failure of wind turbines as well? You literally cannot build structures in the path of a wind turbine if you want it to function.

>Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion.

I'm not suggesting we assign 5,000km^2 to each individual nuclear plant, just in case they explode. I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland should be included in the total land attributed to nuclear energy. That would bring down the average generated energy per km^2 pretty significantly.

The dataset does what I've suggested for hydroelectric. The dams are relatively tiny (and in fact, would outperform both wind and nuclear in this dataset), but they render huge areas unusable. The unusable collateral land is attributed to hydroelectric power, as it should be.

It stands to reason that collateral damage caused by nuclear should be included, if collateral damage by hydroelectric is too.

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#115

Post by UncleOxidant »

tschwimmer wrote: post #112
UncleOxidant wrote: post #109

I worked at a small kite power startup in 2019. Unfortunately we couldn't secure funding to keep operating. It became quite difficult to secure funding after Google suspended their Makani moonshot project - potential funders were like "well, Google got out of this so why do you think we should fund you?". (though our kites were much smaller than Makani's and we didn't need a huge amount of funding to keep developing)…

I know nothing about kites but as someone who currently works at Google and knows a bit about how projects are funded, the first argument doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. At Google's scale, a materially impactful opportunity needs to have the opportunity to generate billions in revenue and have high margins. That's just a function of Google's size and opportunity cost (people can otherwise work on Ads, Cloud…

I think they saw Google's decision to defund Makani as a sign that kite power wasn't viable. We certainly weren't in the same league as Makani - their "kite" was essentially a largish 4prop airplane. Google must've spent in the several hundreds of millions on that project. Our prototype kites had a ~8' wingspan and we were operating on a shoestring budget.

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#116

Post by usrusr »

helpfulContrib wrote: post #18
datadrivenangel wrote: post #11

60 square meters of kite surface area is a lot of pull. 5 square meters can be enough to pick up 100kg in the right wind conditions.

A sailboat typically flies about 5 - 8 square meters of material in the sails, pulling 3 - 4 tons of material around the world ..

Robotic boat, a large tank, some power-to-storable tech, a power generating turbine beneath the waterline and a huge kite. Just send it out on the oceans, to cruise aimlessly wherever the satellite uplink suggests favorable weather and have it head home when the algorithms assumes that remaining tank capacity might get filled up on the way back. Most attractive post-fossil future ever.

Unfortunately, unattended power-to-anything is very much a far away dream, despite all delusions of being able to do it large scale on Mars. All other technology is basically ready to go, and the "lateral lift" of a fast-moving boat is a perfectly adequate substitute for mooring when it comes to tapping wind on the high seas.

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#118

Post by beebeepka »

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #114
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Should we consider the potential blast radius of the catastrophic failure of wind turbines as well? You literally cannot build structures in the path of a wind turbine if you want it to function.

>Of course it doesn't. We don't build nuclear generators with pre-approved unusable exclusions zones. This is a ridiculous suggestion. I'm not suggesting we assign 5,000km^2 to each individual nuclear plant, just in case they explode. I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland should be included in the total land attributed to nuclear energy. That would bring down the average gener…

> I'm suggesting the 5,000km^2 that currently exists as barren nuclear wasteland

Aren't you exaggerating by quite a bit?

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#119

Post by mulmen »

aerzen wrote: post #113
mulmen wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Nuclear plants can and do melt down.

There are nuclear plants that have been decommissioned and have not exploded. So using just this data, there is a probability that a given nuclear plant will melt down in its lifecycle. And that probability is greater than 0, but far less than 1.

Yes but wind turbines can’t melt down in that way. Even in a worst case scenario the literal blast radius is smaller. This has to factor in to the possible locations.

Re: Flying kites deliver container-sized power generation

#120

Post by samstave »

Have you folks ever heard of a company called CAT?

They tend to make things for pushing around dirt.

So, TEU containers are TINY. What if - we used an army of CAT-like dirt movers in key areas to FUNNEL wind through a bunch of "wind-tunnel" type things and feed higher power wind in the directions we prefer?

Maybe call it "planetary vehicular land transmogrifcation" - or "terra-forming" for short?

Post reply on HN