tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post861598466655709842..comments2007-10-23T09:51:40.470-07:00bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-26930841457596563742007-10-23T09:51:00.000-07:002007-10-23T09:51:00.000-07:00Joseph<BR/><BR/>thanks for commenting.<BR/>You are right that the energy from wind goes up by the cube of wind speed. I also have been emailing with the kitegen people. a mountain peak in the center would get in the flight path. So it would have to be some kind of elevated plateau. Ironically the coal industry removes mountain tops to get at coal so a similar process could be used to get at the best wind if needed. Or existing plateau could be found.<BR/><BR/>The kitegen cuts out at 25m/s like other wind generators. However, a kitegen could go to a lower height and slower wind if the top wind goes over 25m/s. Kitegen could therefore have a higher percentage of its time near the current 25 m/s max.bwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07541279438184352860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-49701110451682996022007-10-21T09:52:00.000-07:002007-10-21T09:52:00.000-07:00Brian, it gets even better than that. Wind power goes up by the cube of the increase not the square. That sounds funny but each instantaneous moment that is 4x as strong (*because twice as fast*) is rated by the square; the number of such instantaneous moments makes up the cube. So 24 times as fast = 24 cubed = 13824 the power.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I love your blog; it has been all I could do to keep from commenting; I finally gave in.<BR/>Joseph FriedlanderJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05566655637654033773noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-59200646107916245092007-10-20T11:12:00.000-07:002007-10-20T11:12:00.000-07:00found some statistic...<BR/>In all world:<BR/>Nuclear power 366 GW;<BR/>Wind power 60 GW;<BR/>Coal power 1.5 TW;<BR/>Oil power 1.8 TW;<BR/>Natural gas power 1.1 TW;<BR/>Hydro power 122 GW;<BR/>Combustible renewables & waste power 600 GW.<BR/><BR/>http://www.iea.org/dbtw-wpd/Textbase/nppdf/free/2006/key2006.pdf<BR/><BR/>Interesting, that in wikipedia writing, that world hydroelectricity is 750 GW (more than world nuclear power).<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here I hope about world nuclear power ~350 GW ( http://www.energiekrise.de/uran/docs2006/REO-Uranium_5-12-2006.pdf )<BR/><BR/>Total consumption world power is about 6 TW. Why writing, that 14 TW? Then wind stations need increase 1000 times and will be possible replace all needed world power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17555522.post-46119978960333035082007-10-20T09:47:00.000-07:002007-10-20T09:47:00.000-07:00to comparison in wikipedia read that global nuclear power is 366 GW. So in 2025-2030 year wind power will be about the same amount as nuclear power now. Global coal power probably is about 1500 GW? <BR/>Here ( http://www.kitegen.com/pages/winddata.html ) is wroten, that all wind power on Earth is about 1700-3500 TW and in wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Available_Energy-2.jpg ) is written, that all Earth wind power is 370 TW. Interesting what is mean 14 TW? This all human need power including food or only transport and electricity?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com