this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026

290 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

82621 readers

3172 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
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.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
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

290

Floating turbine towers above — the S1500 hovers to harvest wind at 131 feet (www.ecoticias.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] mercano@lemmy.world 85 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] essell@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

is it 131ft long? 🤔

[–] 7isanoddnumber@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 weeks ago

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 32 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

at least 2 breeding heifers

[–] Kraiden@piefed.social 12 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

African or European heifers?

[–] Steamymoomilk@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago

How many big macs are thos?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Delilah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 5 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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)

[–] nucleative@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

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

[–] DoubleDongle@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago (3 children)

they gonna use magsafe connectors for wireless transmission, duh.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 23 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 25 points 2 weeks ago

Still better than coal

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 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.

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

[–] bob_lemon@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

That's solar
Not every storm has hail, but every storm has high winds
The potential risk here is an untethered 1 ton floating turbine crashing down somewhere

[–] ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth 18 points 2 weeks 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 10 points 2 weeks 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 13 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Cool. How do they perform maintenance?

[–] murmelade@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Just throw a dart at it and wait for it to come down.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If it's tethered, the tether can winch it down to ladder truck range.

That or helicopter.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That'd be my guess as well. How big must that winch be to wind in 4000 feet, though?

Helicopter would be far too dangerous, I reckon.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Unfortunately, I could not find a link to the manual.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Operational altitude: 4,921 feet
So precise
Weight: Under 2,204 pounds
Um... so 2,203 pounds?

[–] FjordDan@lemmy.zip 18 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Altitude: 1500 meters

Weight: Under 1000kg

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] Trilogy3452@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Does it have batteries on board? How does it connect the power to the grid? O_o

[–] MBech@feddit.dk 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I read an article about it a while ago, and that said it'd be tethered to the ground, and power would be transfered through the tether.

[–] RaoulDook@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The voltage being sent down would have to be really high to avoid loss going through such a long and probably thin cable. Like the difference in voltage loss going through a 100' romex cable of 10-gauge wire with 12v DC vs 120v AC - you just can't do it with 12v DC because the loss is far too high, but it's no problem with 120v AC.

Magnify those losses times 500 for your 5000' cable... maybe you need a 5000v line... then you have a dangerous high-voltage line flying around in the air. High-voltage transmission lines can arc to ground if they find a path, even though they're insulated wires.

But I guess those guys probably know about that stuff too.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If only there was a giant cable it was tethered to that could also carry electricity.

[–] Nindelofocho@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

USB-C

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's obviously attached with wires. It can't just float around and generate energy.

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You say obviously but I don't see how tethering a loose object with 5000ft of live wire is "obviously" safe

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

We're surrounded by live wire all the time. They're insulated, it's fine.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

Through a HV cable run to the ground, along with the cable to anchor it.

[–] mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is anyone else getting aeon flux vibs?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments