Zero work done.  Work = force x distance.  Force = weight, distance = 0, so work = 0.  If this is a flying wind turbine, the weight substitutes for tether tension, same as thrust on a tower-mounted turbine: no movement = no work done.  Does the tower of a wind turbine do "work" because it bears a thrust loading?  No, because no matter how high the thrust force, the distance traveled by the tower is zero.  What this means is that the same flying turbine delivers the same power no matter what its weight (as long is it doesn;t come down), and no matter whether the thrust is countered by weight or tether tension or some combination.  One more reason Mike Barnard's analysis is incomplete. 

With large enough blades, it would take very little work to keep 1 kG aloft using a powered helicopter system (no wind), just as a sailplane has a better and better glide ratio approaching infinite as the wings get bigger in proportion to the weight.

So the answer is zero for a wind turbine as long as it can hold its position.  The work being done is generating electricity and the thrust is enough to hold position, as a by-product.  For more information, the whole situation requires more than just weight and windspeed to completely characterize.

Yeah when I was a newbie I figured everyone would appreciate the mere potential of my ideas.  I slowly realized though, the real numbers at some point are what people need to hear, and success does eventually come down to actual production.  I'd put my money on Altaeros right now for the most airborne cumulative energy generated, since they have a steady-state contraption that uses a real wind turbine and can be left to run overnight etc. without a dozen grad students running around a field going berserk and things crashing all over the place.
The again if Dave S. assertion that RATs and aux high-speed propeller-driven generators in airplanes (wind-powered APU's) constitute AWE can be taken seriously, they undoubtedly have the record, but then again if his assertion that jets flying with prevailing winds constitutes AWE, then pick your airline and pick a number - it will be a long time before that record is beat.  1 MegaWatt = something like 1500 Horsepower, within the range of high-performance auto and truck engines, less than a train engine.  Add up all the megaWatt-hours of all jets throughout history flying with the wind (50%?).
Personally I do not consider that AWE - way too much of a stretch for one thing, and not a new art for another.  That gets back to the idea that one can keep redefining words until any word can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.  At that point, language has lost its meaning and is useless for conveying ideas.

The question comes up: Is the kite system LTA or not?  Are two cases to be faced? Case 1: Assume that the kite system is HTA.   Case 2: Assume the kite system is LTA.   

Thanks, Doug.       Others?

DougS, ...good observations.     But get the full merit of your notes. Why not define the categories of AWE and have the records for that, similar to the first flow in your notes just shared.    Have a category for the AWE of RATs. Have a category for the AWE of jet-stream use by aircraft.  Have a category for electrical generation by LTA kite balloons.  Have a category for groundgen HTA kite-energy systems. Etc.   That categories may serve for helpful analysis would let the party continue.     Category of kite-carousel groundgen. Category of kited flygen with fixed soil-anchor.   

The observed dynamic is seen on TV daily by millions of people where they see police events with the "Do Not Cross" tape. The tape is fixed at both ends, no swivels, but wrapped around posts, trees, cars, etc. The wind blows and the tape flies or flipwings or pitchwings in one direction; then when the load is enough, the tape stops rotating only to be teased to start rotating in the opposite direction. Such dynamic cycles. There is a moment of peak tension on the holding roots; there is a minimum tension that occurs. Yes, something to mine for energy!

Ah, now again with the correct subject line.

DougS was correct about what he was presenting (that did not face the question). He faced a different question which seems to be the work done by the force of gravity on the 1 kg mass; and since gravity did not move the mass up or down, then no work was done by gravity on that mass; so 0 seems factual for what he considered. 

DBMurr, nice. 

For a hovering helicopter, the answer depends on rotor diameter and weight.
The smaller the rotor diameter, the more power required to keep the machine aloft.  If you had a 6-inch rotor, it would probably take 10 HP to keep 1 kg aloft.  If you had a 60-foot rotor like a pedal-powered helicopter, the power to keep a kg aloft would be negligible.  You'd lose more energy to skin friction.  The math can be looked up, and I know a few professors (not crackpots) who could run such numbers in their sleep.  Pretty straightforward I think.  Actually it reminds me of the type of problems we had to solve in (yawn) Fluid Mechanics 101.  Knowing the diameter, you could calculate the answer for standard atmospheric conditions at sea level.  For a wind energy device, let's say a gyrocopter, however, no energy is used to keep the machine aloft.  Since it is making power, and that generation of power depends on maintaining its position, the machine does not lose any energy to keeping it aloft, any more than a GE 1.5 MegaWatt turbine loses any power to the thrust force of the tower.  The maintaining of altitude is a fortunate byproduct of making all that power, with the wind rotating the propeller.  As long as the vertical component of the thrust is higher than the weight, your machine stays aloft, and no power is lost from what is being produced.  If you don't believe this, perform the following thought experiment:  A stationary airborne wind turbine weighs 1 kg, but experiences a vertical component of upward pull sufficient to lift 10 kg.  (I'd rather use pounds since kilograms refer to a mass, not a pull, but you get the idea - we are on Earth, so we just say something "weighs" 1 kG even though that is not strictly the case)  Anyway, obviously this machine has no trouble staying aloft since the upward pull is 10 times the weight, right?  And the tether provides the remaining 9 kg of "downward pull".  So you may have a 9 kg weight on the ground with the tether tied to it.  Now take 1 kG of that 9 kG and start moving it up the tether.  Let me know when anything has changed.  Move it right up to the turbine.  Has anything changed yet?  Now take the whole 9 kg and move it up the tether, so you could say the turbine now "weighs" 10 kg.  The tension on the tether is zero.  What has changed?  The turbine acts the same regardless of its weight, as long as it can remain aloft.  The energy to keep it aloft has not changed, even though you multiplied the weight by 10x.
But that is a lot of explanation.  The short answer is, go back to your high-school physics textbook and confirm that energy = force x distance.  If the distance traveled is zero, the energy used can also be zero.  The power output of the wind turbine will not be affected by a higher weight, as long as it has enough lift to remain aloft.

I neglected to point out that Altaeros is claiming a world record for height of a wind turbine above ground at 1000 feet.  This is a perfect opening for Dave S. to hassle the hell out of them, since propeller-driven APUs have obviously operated much higher.

I think they'd be better off with sideways movement (like McConney), rather than a ring, to accelerate anal-hair-flow through the rotor.  That ring looks like an awkward pain-in-the-ass to me.

Yeah I guess I should modify my simplified answer as follows:  A heavier craft might require the spin axis to become more vertical to keep it aloft, which would reduce the swept area as seen by the wind, from a near-circle to more of an ellipse, thereby reducing the swept area as seen by the wind.  That would then reduce power to the rotor.  This can turn into somewhat of a brain-teaser. Good fodder for when you are laying awake unable to sleep.  I've thought about it a lot and always end up with "stop worrying about exact numbers and just build it", then I fall asleep.

Oddly, I agree with most of what you're saying.  I also think a regular anal-hair-o-stat would be a better choice, and cheaper.  Also more durable.  Less potential problems with icing.  I doubt if Alaska was such a good choice for a first try, ya know?  Did you know they spent over a million dollars on that donut machine? (kind of makes me hungry for a donut!)
Still, we must collectively admit, if the race has not yet started, it is only us who have not started it.  It won't start all by itself!  Meanwhile, I'm sure McCarney could cough up some cumulative energy capture numbers, but I doubt if they are very impressive at this time.  If you subtract the energy they spend getting it up there, who knows if the the total number would even be positive.

Altaeros bladed turbine:  M. Diehl would have it (from Ch.1 of the Springer book) that the machine is not a crosswinding device.   DougS, if I recall, would counter such a Diehl position by stating that the blades of such as Altaeros are indeed crosswinding.    It seems we have a cross here.   What say you?   I will enter the discussion also.   M. Diehl: "... do not exploit crosswind motion"   exampling the SWP autogyro hybrid. My posing narrows to the Altaeros; does the Altaeros exploit crosswind motion?   

Yeah I've always wondered why they never weaponized kites.  I get interest in SuperTurbine(R) from military sources all the time.  Major interest in the last few days as a matter of fact.  The military has mandates to adopt clean energy too, ya know...  And they like cool gadgets.  But in the end, no matter where you may find general interest, at some point you need a foolproof, weatherproof, bulletproof product.  Then anyone who needs it can buy it.

What I will say here probably agrees with what you are saying here Baptiste.
Joe, the fact is it technically does not take any work to maintain 1 kg at a given height, as a 1 kg weight on a shelf proves.  Now if the shelf starts getting mushy, then maybe you have to start expending energy to maintain position.  In the case of air (or anal-hair, as we say when "catching air" over a jump), the amount of work you need to do to maintain 1 kg at a given height is dependent on the wing area.  The operative principle involves kinetic energy versus momentum transfer.  Remember how the bullet is lighter than the gun, so the guy holding the gun receives less kinetic energy, equal to 1/2 MV^2, than the guy receiving the bullet.  That's because the gun is way heavier.  The kinetic energy is not equally distributed, but MOMENTUM IS equally distributed.  Similarly with a kite lifting a mass, the bigger the kite, the more air is deflected downward.  The more air that is deflected downward, the less kinetic energy it needs for the momentum exchange to serve to maintain the weight at its current height.  Therefore, the energy per unit time (power) required to maintain 1 kg at a given height trends asymptotically toward zero as the surface area of the kite increases.  Same with a propeller, but it is moving so diameter is the operative parameter.  With an "infitely large", weightless propeller or kite, the power is essentially zero to maintain a weight at a given height, since the kinetic energy transferred approaches zero as the amount of anal-hair deflected approaches infinity.  .

Professor Moritz Diehl has been invited to this discussion; it might be some weeks before he completes something before he will hear of the invitation. 

Open for discussion: 

First input to a utility grid reported so far for kitricity.  

What kind of grid-tie inverter do you have that takes 12-V input?

I think kites could easily be extremely destructive, but the military is interested in clean and green energy more for the same reasons everybody else is, just like they buy food for the same reason everyone else does.  Just because the military buys something doesn't make it "weaponized".  They are mostly just people who need the same things as the rest of us.  They have clean energy mandates, for one thing, and they like the idea of powering remote outposts, saving fuel, etc., just like real people.

Thank you DaveS. for answering my question of what inverter you used.
The link you provided shows:

DC Input Voltage Range

10.8V ~ 30V

I was not aware of such low voltage input grid-tie inverters.  Most of the larger ones have input ranges much higher such as a SunnyBOY, which typically start at 190-V and go up to 600-V, to allow reduced current levels, which saves money on copper wire.  I'd be more inclined to recognize this accomplishment if it took place directly, in real time, without using a battery.  Batteries naturally contain some energy, introducing some doubt as to if/how much power went from a kite to the Texas grid.  Keep at it, and maybe you can eliminate the battery for a more convincing demo.  Thanks again for informing me of such a cheap grid-tie inverter.  Most of the higher-capacity ones I'm used to cost over $1000.  Beyond that, Joe asked that we try to refrain from personal attacks.  I don't think there was really any need for you to go into your crap-flinging mode again over such a simple question.
:)

Thanks for your perspective Dave S.  I studied ice ages as a kid.  Even went to a special camp where we went on field trips to study geological ice age evidence.  We hiked along open shale faces in the Finger Lakes area, where one could light the natural gas flowing from certain spots with a match.  This was 40 years before fracking caught on.  Upstate NY Finger Lakes area is pretty much all shale, but with fracking banned there for now.  Still, there is enough natgas in this country to produce a lot of cheap electricty, for a lot of years.  That forms part of the competition for AWE.
Most folks are not aware that for the past half-million years, we've been in an ice age.  We still are in one now!  90% of the time we're in the glacial stage where NY is under a mile of ice.  For the past 10,000 years or more, we've been in a rare "interglacial", but as you can see from the following chart,
http://www.iceagenow.com/Temperature_Interglacials.gif
 this interglacial has already lasted longer than the rest.  So I'm not really sold on the CO2=bad concept.  A realistic view would suggest the strong possibility of descent into the next glacial period rather than runaway warming.  If they implement carbon taxes, at some point they will probably reverse and become carbon subsidies as temps fall, crops fail, and people shiver.

OK so I guess you really can't help yourself then, right?  You just HAVE to fling crap, no matter what, huh?  Well since you are both insulting me (while saying that is what I do) AND claiming a great accomplishment over what looks to me like a tiny stunt that is not convincing from a scientific standpoint, I have no choice but to conclude that you agree that your demo was not truly convincing.  Think about it.  How do people with perpetual-motion machines etc. "demonstrate" the vast potential of their pet ideas?  Throw in a battery, which can easily provide enough energy to get them through the demo, while they claim the batteries are "only there to provide a working voltage", that sort of thing.  It's the oldest trick in the book, actually, and the first thing a skeptic looks for.  If you want to stop acting like a little kid gleefully demanding a gold star for their latest crayon drawing, try running it without the battery, and take a video of the meter running backwards.  That would be a comvincing demo.   Or just ignore my suggestion and "shoot the messenger", as though that covers it.  Then skeptics can always point to your battery and rightly claim you did not really demonstrate anything with any sort of certainty.  It's not as though there has ever been any doubt that an inverter could push back into the grid, nor that any contraption might not produce an occasional watt or two.  Whatever you wanna do, however you want to interpret what I thought was a helpful suggestion, is up to you.  But thanks for opening my eyes to how small and chap grid-tie inverters are available.  The biggest problem with using grid-tie inverters designed for solar, in my experience (and a lot of other peoples' too) is that the sun doesn't suddenly get 10 times as bright as "full brightness" whereas in a strong wind of gust, your turbine caneasily produce many times the rated power, and many times the working voltage of the inverter, instantly ruining the inverter.  As I like to say, overspeed protection isn't the main thing, it's the ONLY thing (exaggerated statement to make a point, but people have no idea how true it is, until they start cooking inverters).
:)
By the way, the word "netiquette" seems dated.  Lets see, what I remember from the "netiquette" of the '90's:
1) Always ask permission from a "webmaster" before placing a link to their site, (just to make sure it's OK)  (Do you mind if I post a link to your site?  Hmmm, well I don't know...)  Like do you think I asked iceagenow.com if I could post a link to their site on here a few minutes ago?  Do you think they would have laughed, or called me a stupid pain-in-the-ass for asking? 
2) Or how 'bout "sending an unsolicited e-mail is illegal!  - you will go to jail!"  Oh my, they really had me going with that one...
Please Dave S., if ANYONE is asking for lessons in being polite on the internet, I think you might be the last person to ask, and a great example of exactly what NOT to do.  Come on, get real!  Sheesh!