Is the sky the limit for wind power?

If a piddling amount of CO2 (.03% of total) can put the planet's weather in paroxysm, slowing down the wind is sure to have some dire, unforeseen, toll on our, oh so fragile, atmospheric weather and eco(il)logical systems.

Wind is un-reliable as pointed out by the article.

Space based solar power from LEO now being looked
at by DARPA, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman,
and others which has 24 x 7 power.

If it's an available energy source that can be tapped it will be up for grabs by the first company that can figure out how to do it.

Wind is un-reliable as pointed out by the article.

High altitude wind is quite reliable. Up at the jet streams it's near 70% capacity factor. If the week to week and seasonal variation isn't too bad it might be remotely viable, unlike conventional wind power.

That's not great because that 30% down-time is unscheduled downtime, unlike any other existing power source on the grid.

Space based solar power from LEO now being looked

at by DARPA, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman,

and others which has 24 x 7 power.

I haven't seen any scheme for geostationary solar power which makes the remotest bit of financial sense even if the launch cost to GEO was free(instead of the current cost of ~$11 million per tonne) and even if you assume the solar panels were free.

If it's an available energy source that can be tapped it will be up for grabs by the first company that can figure out how to do it.

I'm sorry to say, but in the real world success hinges as much if not more on if you can figure your way through the byzantine maze of regulation and scratch the backs of enough politicians to recieve pork and/or artifically stiffle your competitors than it does whether your plan is sound or not.

For more in-depth articles of the concept, see New Scientist: "Flying windmills could harness the jet stream", 26 July 2007 and "Reach for the sky" 23 September 2000.
New Scientist also presents a different wind power idea in "High flyers", 17 May 2008.

Practical availability of 95% is very good for a renewable resource.
The problems of smoothing intermittency would be far less than for solar.
The issue with solar is that although it is predictable, even at the latitude of the Mohave desert incidence is much, much less in winter than in summer, and so proposals for it's use for year round base load would involve simply massive storage requirements for months not hours, or a fantastic level of overbuild.
Although I checked the original papers I did not see any info on the average duration of low power events - several hour long intermittencies are a lot easier to deal with than one multi-day event, and would in fact need fairly trivial amounts of back-up.
Those concerned about climatic effects should check the paper - effects seem likely to be relatively trivial at any projected level of output from this source.
Google is investigating high altitude wind through Makani Power.

The place where solar makes the most sense is the place where it's most needed. Hot climates like California or Florida. Places where the greatest need for power is when it's the hotest out and people need their air conditioners. It's also the time when the most power is available from solar. If we can jsut take the top off the peak power use, efficient baseload stations could provide the rest.

It's not a complete solution, but it's a good place to start.

If wind stations can supply cheap energy at certain times, people will be more than ready to use more energy. We're good at it. I already have a smart meter on my home that changes prices throughout the day. With a little work I could make power outlets that come on when the power drops to cheap prices...

Like say... an airconditioner that drops the temp to 60 degrees when theres abundant cheap electricity, but allows it to creep to 85 when it's expensive. I would liek to think that on a well insulated house that would take most of the day.

If a piddling amount of CO2 (.03% of total) can put the planet's weather in paroxysm, slowing down the wind is sure to have some dire, unforeseen, toll on our, oh so fragile, atmospheric weather and eco(il)logical systems.

We will also reduce pollution. Worldwide we dump so many tons of pollution into the atmosphere and oceans it's mind-numbing. If you don't care about CO2 please consider reading about how much we're polluting, then think about wind, solar and geothermal, and see if you don't agree they make sense and are a very smart alternative to the disgustingly dirty and primitive way we're living now. Right now we're polluting ourselves in every way imaginable, this is certainly not any way to run a beautiful garden planet!

We will also reduce pollution.

No. It will increase pollution.

You will have the pollution from solar panels(most processes are rather filthy and some panels contain arsenic or cadmium). You will have the pollution from trying to recycle the damned things when they become useless in 20-30 years, if anyone even bothers. You will have the pollution from the craptacular amounts of natural gas and coal you will burn to integrate piddling amounts of solar and wind energy into the grid. You will have the environmenal destruction from chopping down massive swaths of lands to criss-cross the nation with a massive array of transmission lines(typically large quantities of herbicides and men with chain saws are used to keep trees away from the power-lines). You will destroy sensitive desert areas with gargantuan solar farms, producing trivial amounts of energy. You will drench tremendous amounts of land with water in an attempt to create enough pumped hydro storage, but it will never be remotely enough.

In the end you will fail and we will go on to the biggest coal binge mankind has ever known.

The opposition to nuclear is not because it is expensive and dangerous; it is because it's cheap, reliable and safe.

Amory Lovins expressed this point of view best: "Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it."

Worldwide we dump so many tons of pollution into the atmosphere and oceans it's mind-numbing.

And yet I get subjected to far less environmental pollutants than if I had lived at any other time in human history. It's imediately apparent when you look at the third world, where smoke inhalation from cooking fires is a major cause of death and where clean water is largely unavailable, where natural arsenic and other pollutants in the water supply often go undetected and do not get removed. Exposure to mold(several produce carcinogens) and all sorts of microbial pathogens has similarly been reduced.

If you don't care about CO2 please consider reading about how much we're polluting...

I have.

...then think about wind, solar and geothermal, and see if you don't agree they make sense...

I don't. I came to the conclusion that the people who support "green energy" fall into four categories. People who don't know better, people who have come to the conclusion that it is worthless and therefor an energy source they want to support(Green peace, Earth first, Club of Rome and other "proactive malthusians"). And with the most political clout, parties with economic interests ranging from oil companies that wish to sell natural gas(the gas company Enron was one of the worlds leaders in wind energy; Shell is also a major supporter of wind energy) and government regulated monopolies that hope to soak the rate payer(building long power lines to a useless little solar station in the middle of nowhere can be enormously profitable even if not a single kWh ever flows through it) to people who make wind turbines and solar panels and wish their inclusion into the grid to be mandated.

...and are a very smart alternative to the disgustingly dirty and primitive way we're living now.

Just like its medicinal counterpart it is known as alternative energy because it either hasn't been shown to work properly or it has shown to not work properly. Wind and solar are the oldest, most primitive forms of energy we have. The dirtiest, most inefficient coal-fired steam ship kicked the snot out of the most advanced sailing vessels.

... this is certainly not any way to run a beautiful garden planet!

You seem to yearn for man "before the fall", when man "lived in harmony with nature". After taking a short look at a contemporary hunter-gatherer socities; life was nasty, brutish and short, man lived not in harmony with nature but in constant opposition to it, tribal war was one of the leading causes of death. It seems more like a dystopia.