The Private Sector Strikes Again — Flying Turbines! (No Joke.)

Makani Power flying wind turbine

by James A. Bacon

I have inveighed  repeatedly against the folly of pumping billions of public dollars into solar- and wind-powered projects, whether by means of direct subsidies, loan guarantees or the electric-utility mandates known as Renewable Portfolio Standards. Building and maintaining a vast, expensive energy infrastructure based on uneconomic technology saddles government and consumers with unnecessarily high costs for a generation to come — and locks out emerging technologies that are far more efficient.

The problems with conventional wind power are now well known. Windmills are expensive to build. The power is intermittent. The turbine blades kill birds and bats.

Recently, however, a new generation of wind technology is coming to market. It sounds like an idea invented by someone who ate too many funny mushrooms: wind turbines on kites. It is, as yet, unproven but its backers claim that it addresses the major drawbacks of the giant windmills. The Wall Street Journal describes the concept: “Engineers are working on using kites to send aloft power generators that create energy when mounted rotors are spun by the wind; they transmit electricity through the cables that tie them to the earth as a string tethers a child’s kite.”

One model built by Google-backed Makani Power in Almeda, Calif., is capable of generating 30 kilowatts of electricity, enough for 20 average U.S. homes. The kites are cheaper than windmills because they don’t require construction of a large supporting structure. The electric power they generate is more consistent because wind is more constant at higher attitudes. One version designed by Kitefarm, of Kilauea, Hawaii, even has a controller that helps the kite avoid birds.

The idea is taking off, with a half dozen companies in the U.S. and Europe pushing prototypes. While no electric utility has publicly committed to use a kite generator, the WSJ says power companies are keeping a close watch on the developing technology.

Makani says it believes it can generate wind power for $30 per megawatt hour, compared with $58 for new land-based turbines, partly because of the lower capital costs. “We’re offsetting a large amount of steel and concrete with computational sophistication,” said Corwin Hardham, chief executive of Makani Power. He says Makani Power will use one-tenth of the materials needed for a traditional wind turbine and deliver more consistent power.

What makes flying wind turbines a viable idea all of a sudden? Falling costs of carbon-fiber, the structural material used in the kite, as well as improvements in unmanned flight technology and navigational software. Ka-boom, baby! Another revolution the policy gurus and economic dirigistes in Washington failed to foresee.

Bacon’s bottom line: Who knows if the promises of these start-up companies will pan out? Perhaps practical problems will surface that no one has anticipated yet. Perhaps someone will leapfrog them with an even better idea. Perhaps  lobbyists for Big Wind (like GE with its massive commitment to windmills) will regulate them out of existence. Or maybe they will deliver on their promises.

What we can say is this: Insofar as Virginia’s power companies have dragged their feet in committing to conventional renewable technologies, they may have done us all a big favor. Instead of rows and rows of windmills standing off the shore of Virginia Beach, we may one day see clouds of electricity-generating kites on the horizon — put there at half the cost.

The proper role of government is to underwrite energy-related research for which the payoff is too distant or speculative for the private sector to engage in — not to pick the technologies that should enter the marketplace. That strategy has led to Solyndra and an endless parade of other government-backed failures engineered by rent seekers. Let us cross our fingers and hope that these flying turbines will provide the renewable energy breakthrough we all yearn for. If it doesn’t, rest assured that as we make advances in material science, microchips and software, an even better idea will leap out of the clear blue sky.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. re: bird killing – cars and cats kill 10 times as many birds

    re: intermittent power – not a problem with a smart grid that has nat gas turbines – all you do is “load balance”.

    why do we run back to LUDDITE reasons why we can’t use wind/solar?

    re: the govt picking winners/losers with subsidies.

    the money put into wind/solar PALES in comparison to the subsidies – 6 billion a year – we have put into ethanol –

    ethanol will probably NEVER be a viable green technology as the amount of energy required to produce ethanol is as much as the ethanol returns – basically it’s a sideways exchange at best.

    SOLAR and WIND …DO have the potential to dramatically transform our energy picture. Wind is already as economic as coal and nat gas is cheaper than coal and replacing coal so wind and nat gas complement each other…burn nat gas when the wind don’t blow but save nat gas for the future when the wind does blow.

    Again, why do we take a LUDDITE approach to this?

    Solar is one breakthrough away from blowing away other forms of energy.

    Are we ready for it?

    Bonus Question: 50 years from now – what will be the preeminent source of energy: solar/wind or coal or nat gas?

    Boomergeddon for finances but LUDDITEism for energy, eh?

  2. Don’t get me started about cats!

    Now, please explain how advocating the adoption of *more advanced* technologies that can be implemented at half the capital cost can be described as “Luddite”?

    Oh, by the way, ethanol subsidies suck, too. No question, we ought to get rid of them. I’m also against nuclear power subsidies and subsidies for fossil fuels. Let the marketplace decide the most appropriate mix of technologies and fuels.

    If you want to impose a carbon tax to compensate for the externalities of fossil fuels, I have no problem with the concept.(Actual execution might be difficult).

  3. opposing wind/solar is LUDDITE.

    they are evolving technologies that are only going to get better and they are the ONLY energy sources that are not going to run out!

    we should be INVESTING in R/D for wind/solar LIKE WE HAVE for NOAA weather satellites, the internet, GPS, etc.

    we USED to INVEST in promising technologies…

    Now we try to squash them outright. That’s LUDDITE when you are writing off the only energy sources that are viable 50-100 years from now.

  4. Larry, I’m not clear. What about this statement in my post — “The proper role of government is to underwrite energy-related research for which the payoff is too distant or speculative for the private sector to engage in” — do you disagree with?

  5. that’s you’d NOT INCLUDE wind and solar in that definition.

    If we took your attitude with regard to NOAA or GPS satellites, we’d still not have that technology nor all of the spin-offs that came about.

    How do you justify NASA’s Curiosity Rover or the other things they do?

    the Private sector only pursues things that they think can be exploited commercially on a short term basis.

    if you think about it – whatever a company puts into R&D is risky if their competitors put nothing into R&D and can then sell their products for less.

    The ace in the hole that the US has is it’s Universities that do research – on govt grants.

    it’s a win-win that many other countries only wish they had.

    but when you discount wind because it “kills” birds – you reveal your bias because it’s simply a bogus claim used by opponents.

    How many birds and fish are harmed by mercury falling from coal power plants?

    how many birds are killed flying into cars and building but do we hear people saying that cars and buildings are a “failed” technology because they “kill” birds?

    come-on Jim – you sound like a right-wing sound bite sometimes.

  6. Larry asks, “How do you justify NASA’s Curiosity Rover or the other things they do?”

    I guess I wasn’t clear in my last comment. I’ll repeat it this time in big letters to make sure you don’t miss it. THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO UNDERWRITE … RESEARCH FOR WHICH THE PAYOFF IS TOO DISTANT OR SPECULATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO ENGAGE IN.

    Let me know if I have to repeat myself again. I’ll be happy to.

  7. re: ” FOR WHICH THE PAYOFF IS TOO DISTANT OR SPECULATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO ENGAGE IN”

    really? how do you know ahead of time?

    the private sector only takes on what they can exploit commercially in the short term.

    do you think the private sector would/could develop the GPS system?

    do you think the private sector could/would put up NOAA satellites ?

    the big block letters don’t make clear HOW you know WHEN the “payoff” is near or far until you actually work on it – like GPS technology.

  8. Jim – without revealing a whole lot – there is such a thing as Navy Labs who do R&D and they have a long history of doggedly sticking to research until it yields something real that can be incorporated into something real.

    Once it gets to that point – the private sector begins sniffing around big time to see if there are ways to use that technology in the commercial civilian sector.

    One of the interesting things you’ll see at those labs is the cycling of very smart people between the govt, academia and the private sector – a sort of round robin… that constitutes a virtual foundry of technology.

    When you hear of a missile that can “track” the target – and a few years later – see something like adaptive cruise control or blind spot sensors on a car – there IS a connection, it’s NOT a coincidence!

  9. here’s something that folks probably don’t know:

    ” The federal government, through the operation of government-owned research facilities, research grants to universities and procurement contracts with private industry, funds almost 50% of the national R&D effort. Because of this enormous funding, the federal government has the most United States patent rights. It is estimated that the government has title to over 30,000 patents and annually files several thousand new applications. The government also has rights to nonexclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free licenses in thousands of patents. In addition, the government has a myriad of other patent rights. Examples include march-in rights, rights to require the owner to license others, rights to require licensing of background patents, rights to approve assignments, rights to limit terms of license agreements and reversionary ownership rights.”

    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9004.html

    got that Jim Bacon?

  10. I guess I wasn’t clear in my last several comments. I’ll repeat it this time in big letters to make sure you don’t miss it. THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO UNDERWRITE … RESEARCH FOR WHICH THE PAYOFF IS TOO DISTANT OR SPECULATIVE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO ENGAGE IN.

    Where is the argument? How much plainer can I be? There IS a legitimate role for government funding of R&D. What else do you want me to say?

  11. that funding solar and wind is a legitimate thing for the govt to pursue.

    1. I’ll say that funding solar and wind *research* is a legitimate thing for government to pursue. Funding commercialization leads to Solyndra and all the mini-Solyndras. The process is inherently corrupt because rent seekers hire lobbyists and make big campaign contributions and get the funding. Look at the results, Larry, look at the results!

  12. ” Funding commercialization leads to Solyndra and all the mini-Solyndras. The process is inherently corrupt because rent seekers hire lobbyists and make big campaign contributions and get the funding. Look at the results, Larry, look at the results!”

    Jim B – do you realize how much work is contracted out by the govt in technology and research?

    According to you, if the govt let a contract to IBM to pursue a new computer technology, this would be corrupt rent-seeking.

    You ought to read up on ARPANET history to see how the first packet-switching internet came about. It was a full-up collaborative effort between DOD, Rand and others, and academic institutions.

    That model is followed with GPS, drones, NOAA satellites, etc.

    And YES.. some bad deals come about – from companies that should not have gotten the contract or who took the money and then went under.

    it happens.

    IBM, Boeing, GE, and other notable companies have had big time failures in pursuing new technologies.

    The problem we have here is the right wing and the folks who have bought their rhetoric – conveniently aimed at Obama when each and every one of his predecessors did the same exact thing he has been tarred with for Solyndra. Bush.. did it with ethanol – 6 billion dollars a year worth – the millions for Solyndra pale in comparison to the Ethanol rent seeking yes the best we get out of the folks that club Obama is “yeah Bush messed up to, now lets get back to clubbing Obama”.

    you guys kill me. your anti-Obama sentiment knows no bounds. Even if Bush did worse.. he got a bye but Obama is the devil incarnate.

  13. Larry, Solyndra was NOT an example of government-sponsored R&D. Solyndra was an example of government bankrolling a specific business enterprise and backing a particular set of technologies for commercialization. Surely you can see the difference between corporate welfare and sponsorship (in a university or federal lab setting) of basic research.

  14. Well, I have to admit you do have a point but is it any different than Ethanol subsidies which were 100 times as much as the subsidies for Solyndra?

    Where was the rent-seeking outrage when Bush and Congress voted these subsidies?

    Where was the rent-seeking outrage when Bush and Congress handled over to big Pharm Medicare Part D and big Insurance Medicare Part C?

    but I agree.. R&D is not really what Solyndra was PRIMARILY doing. They were trying to find a cost-effective, profitable way to produce solar panels and what killed them was the Chinese subsidizing their solar-producing industries and undercutting Solyndra to the point where they could no longer be profitable.

    I would not try to justify the US doing what China does to support it’s industries but clearly if they are going to be our competitor, we are going to forfeit a lot of jobs to them if we make our companies compete against subsidized Chinese companies straight up.

    but again.. why the outrage with Obama and not a whimper under Bush’s rent-seeking – which far exceeded Solyndra?

    It seems that Bush got a complete bye on this and Part D – which folks like Ryan DID VOTE FOR and NOW -things are different.

    that was then, this is now. what changed?

  15. All thoughtful conservatives have been outraged by ethanol subsidies for a long time. We have railed and inveighed against them from the beginning. So, it’s not a case of selective outrage at all.

    I haven’t made a big deal about it because Virginia is not a big enthanol-producing state. But now that you’re on my case, I’ll post on the subject. I have just the angle I need. Keep an eye out.

  16. Jim – Mr. Ryan supported ethanol, Part D, the bailouts and the stimulus, yet the “outrage” right now is Obama.

    why? is that selective?

    looking forward to your future post on GOP rent seeking! 🙂

  17. The difference between Ryan and Obama is that Ryan wants to change direction, Obama has given no indication whatsoever that he does.

  18. ” The difference between Ryan and Obama is that Ryan wants to change direction,”

    because he says so? is that’s not Hope and Change …geeze!

    Ryan is a charlatan Jim.. he’d lie to his Mom … and likely has…based
    on his statements about “saving” Medicare.

    You conservative types are truly desperate these days. Not that you every really supported Obama to start with – right? But isn’t it ironic that the would-be guy in charge is a RINO through and through and his VP hasn’t held a real job in his life, is pure government, and you think he will “change direction” .. essentially because he says so.

    what can I say? the man lied outright about the GM Plant … as well as about 1/2 dozen other things according to PolitiFact but you believe him?

    🙂

  19. Ryan did not lie about the GM plant. Read the fact checkers who fact-checked Politico.

    And check out the new B.R. post on ethanol.

  20. Ryan did lie.. http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-30/politics/politics_pol-fact-check-ryan-gm_1_gm-plant-president-obama-barack-obama

    but the bigger point is why he is repeating it over and over in major prime time venues?

    what’s the point?

    Ryan is telling whoppers left and right and not just once — over and over – and .. as we are seeing right here in BR – people are believing it .

    since when do we ADMIRE people who purposely shade the truth and consider them as worthy of being a leader?

    It’s pretty clear that Ryan has no scruples what-so-ever. Why in the world would we want him to be in a position of trust?

Leave a Reply