
Ampyx Power: Wind energy systems using tethered wings above 200 meters - xdze2
https://www.ampyxpower.com/
======
jacquesm
Every couple of years someone will jump out of nowhere and claim the wind
energy sector has it all wrong, the list is very long. Windtree, Makani and
many many others that replace simple and sturdy as well as well understood
mechanisms with highly variable and fragile ones, usually without having
studied the corpses of those that came before and died on the hill of
unnecessary complexity. The closest that ever came to realization was the
Darrieus rotor project in Canada, that consumed a ton of resources and
resulted in the Aeolian (Eole?), a huge (100m, I've seen it up close before
they tore it down, most impressive) VAT that ended up running for a couple of
hours before its lower main bearing gave up the ghost under the vibrations.

[http://www.wind-
works.org/cms/typo3temp/pics/EoleCapChat045x...](http://www.wind-
works.org/cms/typo3temp/pics/EoleCapChat045x7_02_6bf4ee5a45.jpg)

Wind turbines are hard, and the standard shape that we've settled on was not
due to a lack of creative ideas but simply because it is by far the simplest
and most robust shape that gets the job done.

Any company pitching some complex alternative should at a minimum mention in
their deck the degree to which they have researched the failures in the field
of predecessors and what will set them apart.

------
donquichotte
I briefly worked for a competitor of Ampyx.

I love the idea, but given that it took decades to scale traditional wind
turbines which are much simpler by design to powers in the range of MW, I
can't see this happening.

These systems are insanely complex, you need tethers, winches, a drone that
flies 24/7 and can safely and autonomously start and land in many weather
conditions. It also looks like google gave up on Makani, which had airborne
generators.

~~~
jillesvangurp
True, it needs some infrastructure.

But on the other hand, this may be similarly complex/expensive as installing
and maintaining a wind turbine on a tower that's 100m high is. These things
tend to be pretty complicated and expensive as well. It's all about
operational cost vs revenue in the end (and comparing that to other
solutions). IMHO wind and solar are still making great leaps currently in cost
effectiveness and efficiency. So you'd have to compete with/undercut that.
Which is of course a challenge for just about any other form of energy
generation currently (particularly anything nuclear of fossil fuel based).

The added advantage of this setup would be that you can land the things during
a storm or for maintenance which potentially simplifies e.g. in the field
repairs. Also, if they can be small enough that they can be mounted on a
truck, deployment might be quicker or you might be able to re-deploy them to
other areas. Currently building a new wind mill park is a large investment.
Mass production of these things might enable more rapid roll out. So there are
some upsides theoretically.

Safety might be a bigger issue. The cables would be a risk for planes and what
happens if the cable snaps? Autonomous drones would be able to handle the
latter probably (by crashing/landing in some safe spot). Also, lots of moving
parts means those parts need more frequent maintenance/replacement. I imagine
the stresses on the cable and mounts would be substantial (and proportional to
the amount of power generated).

~~~
jacquesm
It is of an entirely different level of complexity.

------
olau
Cleantechnica had a writer who spent some time taking a closer look at the
claims made by companies in this space, a couple of links:

[https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/21/rip-google-makani-
perha...](https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/21/rip-google-makani-perhaps-the-
entire-airborne-wind-energy-space-will-finally-disappear/)

[https://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/19/googles-makani-
regulato...](https://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/19/googles-makani-regulatory-
technical-wildlife-challenges/)

~~~
gypsy_boots
> The only press they ever received was from credulous buzztech sites that
> just wanted something flashy to grab eyeballs, so they weren’t used to
> anyone actually being engaged enough intellectually to point out the lack of
> clothes that they were wearing. I love the way this is written.

------
anotheryou
Have you seen these guys (makani)?

Kiting in an figure-8 with turbines instead of propellers (actually used as
propellers for liftoff).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6NW0QeKLZA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6NW0QeKLZA)

That thing is also huuuge:
[https://makanipower.com/makani/images/pages/technology/cta.j...](https://makanipower.com/makani/images/pages/technology/cta.jpg)

longer vid with sound:
[https://youtu.be/hYxeni2vVOs?t=60](https://youtu.be/hYxeni2vVOs?t=60)

~~~
starpilot
There are quite a few companies working on this:
[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/a-beginners-
gui...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/a-beginners-guide-to-the-
airborne-wind-turbine-market)

------
rwallace
I think I am missing something here, because I don't quite get how the wind
does continual work on the device to generate power. I mean, at the start the
device goes downwind unreeling a tether, so it is pulling on the tether and
doing work, so far so good. Then it reaches the maximum extent and... starts
more or less staying where it is, staying aloft? Okay. But it's not
systematically moving, so no longer doing work. What am I missing?

~~~
myself248
I couldn't find a good explanation either, but my guess was different from
some others I've seen here:

I think it doesn't generate continuously. I think the plane spends some energy
to get up into the fast-moving air, while the tether pays out some of its
length easily to let it climb. I think it only does this "once", or as
infrequently as possible.

Once the plane is in the fast-moving air, the generators kick up their field
current to extract energy from the tether being unreeled further, as the plane
turns broadside to the wind to haul the tether out despite this drag. It's
generating power as the tether pays out.

Then the tether runs out.

So the plane dives/glides back towards the base, while the generators run in
reverse, reeling the slack back in. But it doesn't return so far as to get out
of the good wind. So as soon as most of the tether is reeled back in, the
plane turns to haul on it, the generators go back to generating, lather,
rinse, repeat.

I think it only lands when the wind dies, or if it gets too strong to remain
safely in the air.

~~~
brandmeyer
This is one scheme that runs the generator on the ground. Makani and Ampyx
both run generators in the air and transmit power down to the ground on the
tether.

Here's an (unkind) summary where the players are:
[https://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/03/airborne-wind-energy-
pl...](https://cleantechnica.com/2014/03/03/airborne-wind-energy-platypuses-
instead-cheetahs/)

------
timthorn
Also in the same game, Kite:
[http://www.kitenergy.net/](http://www.kitenergy.net/)

------
NohatCoder
I wonder how closely these can be deployed? Safe operation might require large
distances between base stations. If they can't beat conventional wind mills in
power per area, that may be a deal breaker in many scenarios.

~~~
anotheryou
You can put them in the water with just an anchored buoy.

~~~
NohatCoder
Then you have to connect them all with sea cables, those add up if you need
another km for every base you install.

~~~
anotheryou
Yes, preferably not too deep water. Still better than trying to keep a
windmill-like turbine upright (those exist, but look complicated
[https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/st...](https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/styles/general_full_column/public/uploads-
wysiwig/2017-1-OffshoreWind-ph3-WB.jpg?itok=RVnBUJSH) ).

edit: oh you mean for the electricity, yes...

------
aaron695
I there a good argument it's not profitable, but this should be seen like
going to the moon.

I personally don't can about 'alternative' energy, but a lot of people do, and
getting tech that permanently runs hundreds of meters of even kilometres in
the atmosphere will open up a lot of possibilities.

We need to stop thinking of the Earth in 2D and these projects help.

For once lets use the fact people want to invest in 'alternative' energy on
something exciting.

There is are so many theoretical things you can do with platforms kilometres
in the air.

------
yummypaint
Why do these companies seem to fixate on fixed wing aircraft? Why not use a
big parachute style kite similar to what paragliders use? You could send
control signals to collapse the wing when the end of the spool is reached,
making it eay to reel in and/or direct it upward out of the powerband. Then
let it expand back to full size to repeat. The cost, weight, and complexity
would seemingly be much lower. I would argue the surface area of a parachute
can be scaled up more easily than the wing area of a plane.

~~~
lambdatronics
Less to go wrong -- foil kites can become tangled in their bridle lines due to
fluctuating wind which lead to a stall. Tangled lines can prevent the safety
release mechanism from depowering the kite: [https://youtu.be/pU0mEWKf-
_Q?t=15](https://youtu.be/pU0mEWKf-_Q?t=15)

------
carapace
See also Magenn (I believe they're defunct now.)
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=magenn](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=magenn)

Their idea was to use inflatable Magnus effect generators to provide lift as
well as power.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect)

------
andrewflnr
I have a goofy idea: kite power to replace portable solar panels and
generators rather than for the grid. Something small scale you can take in
your car (backpack would be even cooler) to get a few watts to charge your
phone. Would this ever work to, say, to the extent of having better power to
weight than solar?

------
tlb
It looks like a lot of the cost and complexity is to allow takeoff and
landing. Is anyone working on a system where the flying part never lands? You
presumably have to supply some energy to keep it aloft on windless days, but
that might be cheaper than landing gear.

~~~
adrianN
It would need maintenance eventually.

------
benkarst
It must be hard to get an MVP. It's been 10 years and they only have
renderings?

~~~
jacquesm
You don't need an MVP to raise money. This is a polite way of saying that most
of these are bordeline scams, they could work in theory and if the people
behind them have done their homework they know full well they will never see
them in large scale deployment but it is a nice way to get a bunch of cash to
play around with and tinker. See also: flying cars, especially Moller.

