360 likes | 509 Views
Wind Resource Estimation U sing D ata in the P ublic D omain. Group 3 Alex Thomson Arnaud Eté Isabel Reig Montané Stratos Papamichal e s. Academic Supervisor: - Dr Nick Kelly Contacts at SgurrEnergy: - Richard Boddington - Neil Doherty - Jenny Longworth.
E N D
Wind Resource EstimationUsing Data in the Public Domain Group 3 Alex Thomson Arnaud Eté IsabelReig Montané Stratos Papamichales
Academic Supervisor: • -Dr Nick Kelly • Contacts at SgurrEnergy: • - Richard Boddington • - Neil Doherty • - Jenny Longworth
Plan for the Presentation Brief description of key background points. Processing of the raw data. Description of the methodology. Description of the modelling software WAsP. Application in Scotland / Validation of the results. Case studies in India / Results. Uncertainty of the wind resource prediction. Conclusion.
Novelty of our Project • Current method of wind estimation: • Site survey. • Meteorological mast erected for at least 12 months (between £15,000 and £22,000 in the UK). • Correlation with long term data from a nearby meteorological station. • It’s not always possible to set up a mast and have a nearby weather station. • Novelty of our project: create a model to predict wind resource in any given location by using reanalysis data, topographic maps and Google Earth (all freely available on Internet),
Aims of our Project • Establish a methodology to estimate the wind resource of any site. • Test the compatibility between the reanalysis data and the modelling tool WAsP. • Verifythe accuracy of this methodology by applying it to well-known sites in the UKbefore using it to identify a fewgood sites in India. • Determine whether the methodology is suitable to estimate the wind resource of a site as a substitute to site survey and erection of meterological mast.
The Reanalysis Project • Joint project between the NCEP and the NCAR. • Project created to reanalyse historical atmospheric data. • Aim was to build a Climate Data Assimilation System. • The observations include: • Balloon soundings, • Surface marine data, • Aircraft data, • Satellite measurements. • These are all real observations, not output from a numerical model. • Data available from 1948 to the present. • Second improved version from 1979 onwards. • Use of 27 years of reanalysis data in this project.
The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission • Joint project between theNational GeospatialIntelligence and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). • Produced digital topographic data of the Earth’s land surface (between 60ºNand 56ºS latitude). • Data points locatedevery 3-arc-second on a latitude/longitude grid. • Format incompatible with WAsP. Required some modifications.
Google Earth • Provides high quality satellite imagery. • Covers the entire globe. • Used in this project to identify terrain characteristics.
West to East and South to North components of the wind collected every 6 hours (4x daily) Reanalysis Data Processing
Topographical Maps: from SRTM Data to WAsP Maps • SRTM data obtained from the NASA Website incompatible with WAsP and cannot be directly used: • coordinates transformed from latitude/longitude grid to UTM coordinates. • raw data processed into a contour map.
How WAsP Works • WAsP calculates a Wind Atlas (geostrophic wind) using the wind data of a reference site and considering the terrain roughness, contours and obstacles of the site. • The Wind Atlas is transferred to the potential turbine site (considered as representative for both sites). • WAsP generates the wind climate of the potential site taking into account the terrain conditions at the site. Diagram taken from WAsP website
Case Sites in the UK • 3 wind farms: • Dun Law • Hagshaw • Elliots Hill • 6 meteorological masts: • Dounreay • Beinn Tharsuinn (3) • Coldham • Kentish Flats
Additional Errors to Consider • The turbine availability: nominal loss of 3%. • Power curve density correction: • Dun Law: - 2% • Hagshaw: - 2% • Elliots Hill: - 1% • Power curve performance: nominal loss of 0.83%. • Wind hysteresis: loss of 0%-0.5%. • Blade contamination: nominal loss of 0.5%. Total additional losses ≈ 7%
Discussion • It is clear that the introduction of the roughness estimate has a significant effect on the model. • Roughness estimate (from Google Earth) gives a more accurate prediction. • Results for the wind farms are within 15% of the actual power produced (within 10% using 27 years of reanalysis data). • The results appear good enough to justify an application of the methodology in India in order to get a first approximation of the wind resource of the sites.
Gujarat Tamil-Nadu
Gujarat 1 Elements to Consider in Locating the Turbines • The power density map. • The «isoslope maps»: the maximum slope to build a turbine is 10°. • The capacity factor of the farm.
Results and Performance of the Wind Farms > 30%: good > 25%: ok < 25%: poor
Sources of Error in the Wind Prediction • Reanalysis data • Topographical maps • Prediction by WAsP
Accuracy of WAsP Prediction • The conditions to fulfil to obtain an accurate predictions usingWAsP are: • The whole areais clearly subject to the same weather regime. • The prevailing weather conditions are close to being neutrally stable. • The surrounding topography is sufficiently gentle and smooth to ensure that flows stay attached and that large-scale terrain effects such as channelling are minimal. • A good quality of data. • A proper use of the WAsP program.
Factors Affecting the Prediction Process • Atmospheric Conditions • Orography • Weibull Frequency Distribution • Wind Direction
Project Outputs General methodology: use of publicly available data with computer modelling tool. • Algorithm for transforming reanalysis data into WAsP format. • Configuration of WAsP to use reanalysis data. • Methodology validation process. • Error estimation of the methodology. • Site selection process.
Conclusion • After processing, reanalysis and SRTM data can be used with WAsP. • The reanalysis data appears to be suitable to estimate the wind resource of any given site. • The results for our case sites in the UK stay within 10% of the actual energy produced using 27 years of reanalysis data. • However, the methodology was only validated on 2 sites. • Further studies at different sites should be carried out to confirm the suitability of the methodology.