Some comments to results of Energy yield Calculations

Peter Busche Deutsches Windenergie-Institut GmbH, DEWI Wilhelmshaven

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Content
Considerations on roughness and wind speed profiles Accuracy of the orographic model Handling of Weibull-data Wind farm calculations Reduction margins

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Methods of energy prognosis

in situ wind meteorological measurements long term data

meteorological long term data distance: several 10 km

long term correlation meteorological computer model micro - siting - model

energy yield evaluation

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

energy yield prognosis

http://www.dewi.de

Roughness values
Class: z0 [m] 0 0.0002 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.03 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 0.10 3 0.40 z0 [m] 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.010 0.009 0.015 0.025 0.011 0.017 0.027 0.024 0.038 0.059 0.033 0.052 0.079 0.117 0.042 0.064 0.056 0.086 0.127 0.077 0.113 0.163 0.232 0.146 0.209 0.292

1 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 3

3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Wind Profile
Wind profile
V ( z) = V ( z r ) ln z/z 0 ln z r /z 0

( ) ( )
a

Wind shear law

z V ( z) = V ( z r ) zr where V(z) z zr zo is the wind speed at height z is the height above ground is a reference height above ground used for fitting the profile is the roughness length is the wind shear (or power law) exponent
Ref.: IEC 61400-1 ed 2; 3.65 http://www.dewi.de

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

Determination of roughness from two wind speeds

The roughness lengths can be derived from wind measurements at two heights, as well: From the logarithmic wind profile, wind speed u for a given height: u z u ( z ) = * ln (1) k z 0
with z height above ground u* friction velocity k Krmn constant (0.40) z0 roughness length.

one gets for two heights h1 and h2 the relation z2 ln z u h2 = u h1 0 (2). z1 ln z 0 After some modifications it results for the roughness length: u h ln(h1 ) u h1 ln(h2 ) z 0 = exp 2 (3). u h2 u h1 For high measurement heights, the roughness gained in this way, might be far too high.

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Determination of roughness from turbulence

Another possibility for the determination of the roughness lengths derives from the turbulence of the wind. The turbulence I is the relative variation of the wind speed:
u u . Usually, the with the standard deviation of the wind u and the average of the wind easy relationship 1 I= (5) z ln z 0 I=

(4)

is assumed. Thus, for the roughness and known turbulence values, this means: z z0 = (6) 1 exp I From our experience, this formula leads to roughness', being slightly lower than realistic.

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Prediction of wind speeds for different heights

Results for the WAsP-calculations for the referring height

measurements

10 m measured 98 m calculated 98 m measured data: measuring mast Falkenberg, period 2001 - 2002. Source: DWD
Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH http://www.dewi.de

Askervein Hill

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Experience at Exemplary Complex Terrain Site 1

0002 0091 0081 0071 0061 0051 0041 0031 0021 0011 0001 009 008 007 006 005 004 003 002 001 0

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Measurement Masts at the Sites

Site 1: measuring heights 11 m, 22 m measuring period more than one year orographic height 1110 m

Site 2: measuring heights 19 m, 39 m measuring period more than one year orographic height 1240 m

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Terrain (approx. 6 km x 6 km)

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Measured and Calculated Wind Conditions

N

Mast 1 measured (22 m height)

N

Mast 1 calculated with WASP based on Mast 2 data Comparison of results based on the wind atlas data from site 1 and site 2, identical measuring period, for a common 600 kW wind turbine, 46 m hub height, located at site 1
wind atlas based on site 1 wind atlas based on site 2 6.4 7.2 1.86 1385 130 %
http://www.dewi.de

mean wind speed [m/s] weibull A parameter [m/s] weibull k parameter [-] energy yield [MWh/y] energy yield relative

5.9 6.6 2.23 1063 100 %

Mast 2 measured (39 m height)

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

Experience at Exemplary Complex Terrain Site 2

0002 0091 0081 0071 0061 0051 0041 0031 0021 0011 0001 009 008 007 006 005 004 003 002 001 0

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Location of 2 High-Quality Wind Measurement Masts

8.6 8.4 8.2 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3

1 North [km]

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

Right [km]

http://www.dewi.de

Measured and Calculated Wind Conditions

Mast 1 (50 m) measured Mast 2 (50 m)

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

calculated

http://www.dewi.de

Determination of energy yield of a wind turbine

Hufigkeitsverteilung Windgeschwindigkeit Wind speed distribution
500 450 400 350

Annual average wind speed Energy output distribution

100 90
E(i) = 95 MWh

Zeit t pro Jahr [h]

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0

t(i) = 275 h

Vm = 7.0 m/s Rayleigh-Verteilung

Jahresenergieertrag

Jahresenergieertrag E [MWh]

Summe: 8760 Stunden

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25
Summe: 1440 MWh

10

15

20

25

Windgeschwindigkeit v in Nabenhhe [m/s]

Power curve
L eistun gs kurve
600 500

Windgeschwindigkeit v in Nabenhhe [m/s]

elektr. Leistung P [kW]

400

300

Annual Energy Production AEP

0 5 10 15 20 25

200

100

W ind in digkeit v in Nab enh he [m/s] Deutsches Windenergie - geschw Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Comparison of calculation methods (1)

Wind turbine Nordex N-50 01_meas10 04_meas10 04_meas30 04_meas2_10 04_meas2_30 07_Ca20m 07_Ca40m 08_10m 08_40m JWE011 JWE032 JWE062 JWE092 JWE126 Mean Standardev. Weibull/Tab (sgesamt) 100% 111% 112% 108% 108% 105% 105% 103% 104% 101% 101% 103% 101% 101% 104% 4% Weibull/Tab (sector) 97% 99% 100% 101% 101% 98% 99% 99% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 1%

P_Tab 3'320 2'059 2'130 1'992 2'202 1'862 1'922 1'325 1'790 775 1'408 1'903 2'462 2'877 2'002 631

P_Tab_sec P_Weibull 3'337 2'069 2'142 1'997 2'206 1'872 1'936 1'325 1'791 775 1'408 1'904 2'464 2'882 2'008 634 3'323 2'289 2'379 2'153 2'375 1'955 2'024 1366 1'853 786 1'419 1'952 2'476 2'905 2'090 639

P_Weibull_sec 3'234 2'058 2'134 2'010 2'225 1'835 1'919 1312 1'791 771 1'404 1'898 2'457 2'858 1'993 618

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Comparison of calculation methods (2)

Wind turbine GE 1.5 SL 01_meas10 04_meas10 04_meas30 04_meas2_10 04_meas2_30 07_Ca20m 07_Ca40m 08_10m 08_40m JWE011 JWE032 JWE062 JWE092 JWE126 Mean Standardev.

P_Tab 6'401 4'414 4'534 4'442 4'822 3'806 3'792 3'129 4'109 1'882 3'261 4'280 5'356 6'039 4'305 1'168

P_Tab_sec P_Weibull 6'524 4'454 4'575 4'469 4'862 3'864 3'861 3'139 4'123 1'883 3'270 4'300 5'393 6'097 4'344 1'191 6'344 4'754 4'885 4'796 5'148 3'964 3'984 3255 4'274 1'912 3'284 4'381 5'400 6'099 4'463 1'171

P_Weibull_sec 6'373 4'516 4'650 4'532 4'946 3'857 3'939 3124 4'138 1'876 3'260 4'279 5'372 6'058 4'351 1'171

Weibull/Tab (total) 99% 108% 108% 108% 107% 104% 105% 104% 104% 102% 101% 102% 101% 101% 104% 3%

Weibull/Tab (sector) 98% 101% 102% 101% 102% 100% 102% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 1%

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Comparison of calculation methods (3)

Wind turbine NEG Micon NM1000/60 Wind distribution WASP Park model Windfarmer, using TAB Windfarmer, no TAB Energy Yield [MWh] 2'079 2'022 2'061 2'080 2'030 Weibull/Tab (sector) 100% 97% 99% 100% 98%

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

10

Wind Farm Calculations

Geometry Wind Direction Wind Speed Power Curve, Thrust Coefficient Curve Turbulence Intensity (depends on site and atmospheric stratification) Definition of Park Efficiency:

park =

P P

park free

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Ris Ris-Parkmodell
Relatively good accordance to measurements Simple und experienced Modell Normally no high accuracy requirements for park efficiency No clear improvements of the results by means of the Ainslie-Model (valid for simple cases)

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de Quelle: Beyer et.al.: Modelling Tools for Wind Farm Upgrading. Universitt Oldenburg, 1996

11

AinslieAinslie-Modell
Tow-dimensional axissymmetrical numerical solution of the equations of motion and continuity Turbulence closure with the help of eddy-viscosity model Incorporation of the ambient turbulence and preceeding wake turbulence Improved accuracy for high resolution value and in special cases Implemented by: FLaP, Universitt Oldenburg WindFarmer, Garrad Hassan
Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH http://www.dewi.de Quelle: Lange et.al.: Improvement of the Wind Farm Model FLAP for Offshore Applications. Universitt Oldenburg, 2002.

Comparison of Ris Ris- and AinslieAinslie-Model

Here: Ris- and Ainslie-Model from WindFarmer, Garrad Hassan Ris-Model: correspondence of the integral value for normal situations Ainslie-Model: Much better correspondence of the velocity deficit

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

Quelle:WindFarmer Validation Report.Garrad Hassan and Partners, 2000

http://www.dewi.de

12

Ris Ris-Parkmodell
Simple, semi-empirical model Velocity deficit calculated in simple dependence from the rotor thrust Supposed open angle (slope) of the wake Linear wake-superposition

u0

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

Quelle: www.wasp.dk

http://www.dewi.de

New Verifications
ENDOW-Projekt: Verification / improvement for offshoreconditions Special conditions, e.g. 5-times overlapping of wakes FLaP: lower pictures AinslieModel activated

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

Quelle: Schlez et.al.: ENDOW: Improvement of Wake Models, 2002.

http://www.dewi.de

13

Standort
WEA WTM

E66

WEA

WMT

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

New Verifications (DEWI, wind speed) speed)

Meas and WF relative single wake velocities (V2/V1) vs Direction
1.5 Meas V2 / V1 WF V2 / V1

Single wake situation Wake Mean = Mean WF(V2/V1) / Mean Meas(V2/V1)

[262.5 , 337.5 [

1.027

V 2/V 1 [-]

Standard deviation of Wake Mean WF's maximal wind power over prediction WF's max. WT power over prediction (100% availability, c p =16/27)
0 260 280 300 320 340

0.088

0.5

8.3%

4.9%

Azimuth direction [ ]

Proportion of WF inaccuracy over measured mean wake velocity deficit Compound wake situation

11.7%

[107.5 , 162.5 [

Meas and WF (V3(compound-wake) / V1_inc (WF-derived)) versus Direction

1.3 Meas 1.2 1.1 1 WF

Wake Mean = Mean WF(V3/V1) / Mean Meas(V3/V1)) Standard deviation of Wake Mean WF's maximal wind power over prediction WF's max. WT power over prediction (100% availability, c p =16/27)

1.025

0.124

V3/V1 [-]

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 100

7.7%

4.6%

120

140

160

180

Direction [ ]

Proportion of WF inaccuracy over measured mean wake velocity deficit

12.8%

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

Quelle: Schlez et.al.: ENDOW: Improvement of Wake Models, 2002.

http://www.dewi.de

14

Conclusion ParkPark-Model

Starting Point High requirements for accuracy Relatively large wind farm High-resolution results required

Conclusion Ainslie-Model appropriate FLaP or WindFarmer

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

Typical result of a energy yield prognosis

Number

Type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Sum:

XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

Annual Energy Yield Free stream MWh/a 1677 1813 1846 1784 1637 1669 1765 1656 1704 1793 1939 1848 1665 22796 1754

Annual Energy Yield In wind farm MWh/a 1660 1775 1807 1741 1619 1641 1733 1613 1667 1775 1922 1831 1658 22442 1726 21544 1657

Park Efficiency

99.0% 97.9% 97.9% 97.6% 98.9% 98.3% 98.2% 97.4% 97.8% 99.0% 99.1% 99.1% 99.6% 98.4%

Wind farm configuration: Number of WTs: WT Type: Hub Height: Total installed capacity: Total annual energy yield: Wind farm efficiency: Technical availability losses: Electrical grid losses:

13 XXX 45m 8580 kW 21544 MWh/a 98.4% 3% 1%

Average energy yield per WT

Sum less 3% losses of availability and 1% grid losses: Average energy yield per WT 1683

98.4%

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

15

Reduction margins for wind farms (example)

Reduction Reason Calculated energy yield of farm Grid and interconnecting station Availability Planned Maintenance Grid availability Cut-out wind speed Special operating modes Icing / rotor blade degradation Sum 2.0% 3.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 5.9%

Resulting Energy Yield Commentar 32'544 MWh calculation result assumption assumption assumption assumption included in calculation result assumption assumption 30'662 MWh

Deutsches Windenergie - Institut GmbH

http://www.dewi.de

16