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

Technology

75630 readers
2943 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
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
709
'Windmill': China tests world’s first megawatt-level airship to capture high winds (interestingengineering.com)
submitted 5 days ago by kalkulat@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
181 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"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 "

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

So that "10,000 meters" didn't scale right, clearly. But you also can't possibly call those "high altitudes". Small planes like cessnas fly at low altitudes, like 2,000 - 5000 ft, a 747 flys at a high altitude, 40,000 ft; 1600 ft is nothing, that's lower than some buildings.

[–] breadguy@kbin.earth 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

they're talking about the extra 0 on 10,000

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I did catch that, I was just pointing out there are additional problems with the statement as well. But I've edited my statement to make that more clear.

[–] y0kai@anarchist.nexus 2 points 5 days ago

Agreed. I had the same thought and then saw the numbers and was like wait, "which part of this is the fucked up part?"