Flying turbine or an oil field in your garden

[HysteryDiagnosis]

Too bad subscription is required for rest of article.

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/dec/08-is-coal-killer-flying-thousands-feet-in-sky

In concept his idea makes sense: Wind power from the sky would strip turbines of their expensive, heavy towers and oversize blades, allowing them to collect energy unobtrusively from the richest lode of wind in the world. Winds at an altitude of 30,000 feet carry 20 times as much energy as those near the ground, representing a source of power that could be a fraction of the cost of coal. The challenge, observers say, is keeping such turbines aloft.

“Finding a resource so large is like finding an oil field in your garden,” says Cristina Archer, an environmental engineer at the University of California, Chico, and lead author of a global survey on high-altitude winds. “Plus, you’re saving on material costs by using 100-pound devices floating on air rather than 200 tons of cement for a traditional wind turbine.”

[WatsonT]

1. I imagine transmission and stability would be major concerns

but a neat idea otherwise.

Would also reduce the NIMBY concerns.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

2. An oil field on my land? Load up the truck and move to Beverly. Hills that is.

Black Gold. Texas tea. Oil on my land means I'm RICH.

given the choice of the two, I'll take oil, thank you. I can buy a new garden later. It'll go nice next to the cement pond.