First off, the “100 times over” is not about the winds above New York, but rather the winds… “such as those above New York”. So RTFA again before you discuss the “hyperbolic” nature of the claim. It’s entirely reasonable.

Secondly, creating the means to access wind energy at 30,000 feet isn’t prohibitive so much as it’s an unanswered engineering challenge. Many means exist, such as a “space elevator” either as an tensile orbital structure, or using inflatable technology, or some type of ultra-large high-altitude blimp / weather balloon. Since this technology has lifted (human!) cargo as high as 100,000 feet, using it to generate power is nothing more than an exercise in scale. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VdSeDqU3EY

I’m not holding my breath yet, but as an engineering challenge, it’s by no means more difficult than transporting a few 200 lb men to the moon. It takes money. The real issue that of resource procurement, and that’s a political process, not a technical one.

The goal is to capture the wind energy at 30,000ft.? This is just as feasible as saying we can capture the thermal energy at the center of the earth. Access is prohibitive.

The main drawback to the suspended wind turbine generators concept is the struggle of generating capacity versus weight. This problem has traditionally resulted in very low generating capacities, making it exceedingly difficult to realize a feasible cost of energy.

This article borders on sensationalism. You should do more research in the future to fully understand the reality of the content your article. Perhaps get the opinion of someone who is an expert on the topic, there are plenty of them in the renewable industry.