this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
208 points (95.2% liked)

Technology

81869 readers
4813 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 57 minutes ago

This is an extremely promising innovation, and company plans on bigger designs already. But the total cost has to include an automated roof opening shelter for storms, that can open and close in medium winds before the high winds come. This makes the ground footprint higher than traditional turbines, even if agriculture can be done when there is no storm and roof is open. Perhaps 4 thethering strong cables could permit it to survive a cat 1 hurricane when hugging ground without a roof, but it is more weight to lift normally.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)
  • Operational altitude: 4,921 feet
    So precise
  • Weight: Under 2,204 pounds
    Um... so 2,203 pounds?
[–] FjordDan@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Altitude: 1500 meters

Weight: Under 1000kg

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Makes so much more sense that it was originally in metric but looks weird translated to imperial.

[–] Trilogy3452@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

They should've went with football fields instead, and weight in washing machines

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Or when you need really impressive numbers for weight: oak leaves.

Maple leaves in Canada. Ha ha just kidding because they use metric like the rest of the civilised world.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Is anyone else getting aeon flux vibs?

[–] Rooster326@programming.dev 1 points 7 hours ago

Feeling like like Hindenburg up in here

[–] ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth 13 points 14 hours ago

I am guessing that the 131 feet come from the size of the turbine (60m x 40m x 40m)... The article is extremely poorly written

[–] Jolteon@lemmy.zip 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It'd be interesting to see the cost efficiency of that versus traditional wind turbines over the expected lifespan of both.

[–] bryndos@fedia.io 7 points 15 hours ago

Yes it's odd to see an article about electricity generation technology that doesn't even have a speculative 'levelised cost of energy' as they call it. That is lifecycle expected average $/MWh.

I guess its a very early prototype. and maybe China doesn't care to much about LCOE.

[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 19 hours ago

Posting them around rich people's private airfields would improve their footprint even further.

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 65 points 1 day ago (4 children)

How come the 131 foot altitude in the headline is never mentioned in the article? These turbine operates at 4,921 feet, a number that makes a lot more sense when you convert it to metric, 1.5 km. The article is littered with these odd imperial measurements that should have just been left as nice round metric numbers, or least re-rounded after conversion. 130 feet would have read better, but the original number was 40 m.

[–] 7isanoddnumber@sh.itjust.works 9 points 12 hours ago

Probably because the article was AI generated, if I had to guess.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

It's not that hard to comprehend both measurement systems. Both are valid and it's up to the author to choose how they want to express their figures. You can send them a complaint if you want, but complaining about their measurements here isn't going to change anything.

[–] essell@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

is it 131ft long? 🤔

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 24 points 23 hours 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 22 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours 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 13 points 18 hours ago

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

[–] DoubleDongle@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours 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 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

they gonna use magsafe connectors for wireless transmission, duh.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 hours ago

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)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'd love to see the weight of a five thousand foot cable.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

at least 2 breeding heifers

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 9 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

African or European heifers?

[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 hours ago

I don’t know ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!

[–] Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 20 hours ago

How many big macs are thos?

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

2"Ø UHMWPE rope has a breaking strength of ~375000lbs weighs 94lbs per 100' so about 4700lbs for 5000'

That said I have know idea if 2"Ø is the correct diameter rope to anchor one of these balloons.

Source: RightRope.com

edit: I was originally planning on adding in the weight of a high voltage transmission cable, but I'm on my phone and feeling lazy, maybe some one else will feel more inspired than I.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

If you’re adding two strand #2 AWG wire it’s about a half pound per foot so another 2500lbs which means the floating windmill has to support 7200 lbs in addition to the weight of itself.

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 18 hours ago (5 children)

From the article the turbine unit weighs 2204lbs so that's ~9400 lbs total. Omni calculator says you need 348,436 standard 11" party balloons or 3,979,252 litres of helium to get off the ground and 423,779 party balloons to reach 1.5km altitude.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

These are a massive liability every storm. You have to winch them down and get them into a blisteringly massive hangar that can hold them. Then get them set back up after. Every. Single. Storm.

Furthermore, you don't save on land use, as you need the massive, expensive hangar for each right at their base.

Ground-based wind-turbines just feather their blades and lock their gearbox. Very simple.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago

These are a massive liability every storm. You have to winch them down and get them into a blisteringly massive hangar that can hold them. Then get them set back up after. Every. Single. Storm.

https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/utility-scale/texas-hailstorm-damages-thousands-of-solar-panels-at-350-mw-farm/

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

Still better than coal

load more comments
view more: next ›