this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
281 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

81863 readers
4945 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
 

The S1500 floating turbine’s operating altitude is 4,921 feet above ground level, where wind speed moves about three times faster than at the surface. The advantage of this altitude (also referred to as vertical slice) can result in a power output up to 27 times higher than a conventional ground-based wind turbine of similar capacity.

The capacity to generate one megawatt of electrical power (MW) with the S1500 system is comparable in size to what small wind power turbines normally generate (a conventional 328-foot-tall wind turbine), while the footprint of the S1500 system is significantly smaller. This amazing power density shows the efficiency benefits of being able to access high altitude wind power resources by new and innovative airborne platforms.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago (5 children)

The wind at 32,000 ft is 200 times stronger than the wind at the surface?

Ummm... 10 knots * 200 = 2000 knots. I don't think so lol.

A lot of strange numbers in this article that bring its accuracy into question.

No mention of the weight of a 1 and 1/2 km wire that is also suitable to anchor this thing in place. Or are they going to float batteries and bring them down to discharge?

[–] drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ummm… 10 knots * 200 = 2000 knots. I don’t think so lol.

First of all, kinetic energy scales with the square of an objects velocity.

Second, since we're talking about a continuous stream of fluid instead of a single object, increasing the air speed not only increases the enegy per unit mass of air, but also the number of units of air per second that pass through the turbine. Which means that the amount of energy extracted scales by the cube of the wind speed.

https://kpenergy.in/blog/calculating-power-output-of-wind-turbines

So, more like going from 10 knots to 60.

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Didn't think about the possibility of a kinetic energy unit, thanks for the insight

[–] DoubleDongle@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

I can't be arsed to dig up the equation, but it may mean that the wind has 200 times more usable energy, which I think is a cube function of its speed. Wouldn't be 2000 knots in that case

[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

they gonna use magsafe connectors for wireless transmission, duh.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You’re starting to sound like a chatbot now, MagSafe connectors aren’t wireless. That’s the point!

(I know you’re probably not a chatbot)

[–] turdburglar@piefed.social 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

what’s the magnet phone charger with no metal contacts called then?

that’s what i meant…

em dash em dash

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago

Qi? Maybe Apple reused the term for the phone charger too, but it was originally for the MacBook pros, then later MacBook airs, and the whole line, besides an annoying usb c only model or two.

That’s annoying as hell if they did that.

[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Maybe it means the kinetic energy of the wind, which I believe scales against its velocity-squared?

[–] XeroxCool@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I'm thinking it's about consistency. 10kts 10% of the time vs average 150kts 100% of the time (the math is a little off but we're in hypothetical estimates already)