this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
699 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

75605 readers
3404 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
 

"High-altitude winds between 1,640 and 3,281 feet (500 and 10,000 meters) above the ground are stronger and steadier than surface winds. These winds are abundant, widely available, and carbon-free.

"The physics of wind power makes this resource extremely valuable. “When wind speed doubles, the energy it carries increases eightfold, triple the speed, and you have 27 times the energy,” explained Gong Zeqi "

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] WFloyd@lemmy.world 10 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (15 children)

When wind speed doubles, the energy it carries increases eightfold,

Edit: I'm wrong, see edit below!

Huh? Kinetic energy increase is square, not cubic.

KE=1/2 m v^2

So every doubling of speed should increase the available kinetic energy by 4 times, not 8. 3 times the speed is 9 times the energy. Granted there are probably some efficiency gains in excess of this at the low end, ~~but as a rule that's just wrong.~~

Edit: Cool, I learned something new! I neglected to consider it in terms of power, just thought about kinetic energy.

So something like: KE = 1/2 m v^2

= 1/2 ( rho V) v^2

= 1/2 ( rho A d) (d/t)^2

= 1/2 rho A d^3 1/t^2

Where P = KE/t

Thus:

P = 1/2 rho A (d/t)^3

= 1/2 rho A v^3

Lots of other aspects I'm sure I have wrong, but I see how the cubic came to be.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It has to do with type of turbine that uses "airfoil principle". Your formula works for "cup"/Parachute design, but airfoils/upwind sails are "magic"

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Jikiya@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Cities are going to start looking like San Fransokyo (Big Hero 6) soon. Seems like an excellent idea though. If it really gets pursued, I wonder how it will interact with air travel, since I would imagine you would need no fly zones around these, at least at a certain height.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Very cool, and definitely worth switching too where it makes sense.

But there is no mention of cost, so it probably won't be cost competitive with regular wind for a while, which sucks.

But the silver lining is that this is among the first of this type of power generation, and it will only get better and more efficient as the tech is built upon.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago

They did mention 30% cost savings. (these claims are easy to exaggerate though) While already useful scale, the advantages would grow with higher scale and high volume automated production.

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Shira, get me my god damned tea!

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 5 points 5 days ago

This is totally breaking loose and heading toward the nearest city in the final act.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Very interesting development. Especially that it can be deployed in disaster zones to provide energy - if there is a strong foundation to anchor it, probably.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›