I wonder if balloon wind turbines might not be a better approach in those circumstances. You have to accept smaller blades but I'd think the other advantages would be worth it.
> Combining the effects of height and blade length, doubling the height and doubling the blade length will result in an increase of power over 22 fold.
This is why companies try so hard to build bigger blades, higher.
Current blades are just massive https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10382023/W...
The wingspan of a 747 is 68 meters. The newest GE turbine has a diameter of 220 meters, each blade is 107 meters. One blade is 50% longer than the whole wingspan of 747. You can fit 3x747 planes inside the area swept by a current turbine.
This is why Google's Makani project never took off...I really hoped for that project to succeed, it was very cool, but there is no way to compete with the bladed giants.
edited to address cjbest and baq valid comments
From your link: > Thus, the power passing through the blades of the turbine, and thus in turn the power of the electricity the turbine generates, is proportional to the square of the length of the blades: a doubling of blade length leads to a quadrupling of wind power passing over the blades.
Doesn’t change your conclusion of course. Thanks for the interesting link!
> Combining the effects of height and blade length, doubling the height and doubling the blade length will result in an increase of power over 22 fold.
sorry, couldn't resist nitpicking. you're contradicting yourself here :)
My last maths class was decades ago, but ... 'diameter'?
Aerial wind turbines have two key advantages over terrestrial ones: access to steady high-speed winds at altitude, and limited ground footprint. But floating or flying imposes limits on their size and efficiency.
So they only fit niche uses in nomadic settings, like a temporary research camp. But then it's probably cheaper and more reliable to just use a fuel-powered generator.
Also they're a bit of a hazard to aircraft (and each other if not steerable), are more at risk to storms, and the floating ones require expensive or explosive lifting gas.
Too bad, because I think they're beautiful!