Many scientific research projects concerned with the natural environment need to put instrumentation into remote locations. Para-scientific or leisure expeditions have similar needs. Sometimes the scientific sites are tended, in which case the personnel will require some power, and almost always the instrumentation require a power source.
Ampair offshore Finland
Ampair onshore Finland
Ampair in the Antarctic
Whether a wind turbine is the best power source will depend greatly on the environmental conditions at the location, the duration of the experiment, and the power requirements. The following series of examples will illustrate the range of things we get involved with.
Bruce Parry on location, (C) BBC, 2006
Our clients are involved in the production of the BBC series “Tribe”, presented by Bruce Parry. The SunSlicks travelled to
Borneo with Bruce and the camera crew on a recent expedition. They powered the TV cameras that ultimately bring the series to your TV screen. The SunSlicks performed very well, and based on their positive first experience we supplied SunSlicks to further “Tribe” expeditions to including Borneo and the Amazon.
As an example of a project that would not normally benefit from a wind turbine we often support film crews on expeditions doing transits. Typically they will film the transit by natural means of a some major geographical feature (across the Kalahari; down the
Zambezi ; from the Orinocco to the Amazon) and need power to recharge their cameras etc. In those circumstances we know that they have to minimise the weight of their equipment, and need to maximise the time during which they can recharge batteries. So a wind turbine which is quite heavy and needs to be put up on a pole is inappropriate. Instead we would ordinarily recommend our specialist heavy duty flexible solar panels as they are lighter, are very rugged, can be stowed away easily and quickly, and can be draped over kit at every opportunity to recharge.
If it was an ultra lightweight expedition such as a ski-mountaineering traverse we would probably pick out the Sunpack panels rather than the heavier weight Sunslick.
Specialist heavy duty Flexcell Sunslick solar panel from Ampair
An example of a project that would be very marginal for a wind turbine is a mountaineering expedition entering an area to set up a fixed base camp on a large objective such as on
K2 or Everest (to pick two mountains we know well). The wind turbine and mounting poles is quite bulky and heavy to bring in to base camp but within the range of what is often brought in (typically in a 40 lb / 20 kg barrel). If it was a post monsoon winter ascent then daylight will be short and winds are typically higher and so a wind turbine might make sense, but if it is a pre-monsoon ascent then it would be better to just choose heavy duty flexible solar.
Flexcell Sunspack panels from Ampair can be easily stowed in a rusac and are ready for immediate use. Just unroll them from their stuff-sac, plug in, and go !
For a lightweight mountaineering expedition with electrical power needs such as going into Alaska to do alpine style ascents, but needing to use cameras and carry a basic satellite system for sponsorship purposes, then either our heavy duty or light duty flexible solar panels would be appropriate. And if you are just doing alpine style ascents in remote areas for fun then take nothing at all.
The difference between the light duty Sunpack and the heavy duty Sunslick is that the Sunpack are designed to roll up into a stuff sac and are a true "plug-n-go" solution whilst the heavier duty Sunslick should be rolled around a sleeping pad and will require a regulator.
Ampair heavy duty flexible solar panel in use on a successful solo trans-Atlantic row
Long term polar monitoring projects often involve data capture at unattended locations. Because of the long polar night solar power systems are not suitable and wind turbines are the only option. Because they are generally installed for several years it is worth lugging in the wind turbine – often by aircraft but sometimes by manually portering them up mountains. Ampair wind turbines are the preferred choice in these circumstances. This is not because they are the lightest (indeed some others are lighter) but because they are durable in extremely high winds; are built very well and so suffer less from water ingress or icing; and because they also produce a useful amount of power in low winds.
The point about producing power in low winds is very important and well illustrates what makes Ampair microwind turbines the choice of professionals. High up on an Antarctic volcano called
Mount
Erebrus a
university installed some atmospheric monitoring equipment. To power this they fitted a standard Ampair Pacific 100 watt micro wind turbine alongside a well known 400 watt micro wind turbine from a competitor. The graph below shows the cumulative power output from each turbine over a period of about 200 days in the Antarctic winter of 2005. Interestingly the Ampair has produced more energy over the period than the competitor, and this is in a location not noted for its low winds.
So although the competitor product is genuinely 400 watts (at rated windspeed of 12.5 metres/second) and the Ampair is genuinely 100 watts (again at the same rated windspeed) there have simply been enough periods of low wind during which the Ampair has charged the batteries and the competitor has not. If you look carefully at the graph you will notice some flat spots on the competitor where it iced up whilst the Ampair kept on going (we know ours was a standard production unit, we cannot speak for our competitor). This illustrates extremely well the important fact that a microwind turbine will spend most of its life trying to produce power in very low winds – even on a mountain in
Antarctica ! By the way the reason the graph ends after 200 days is that the battery monitoring system failed, not the Ampair.
Ampair in the Antarctic
Ampair 100 power output versus a 400-watt competitor !
