+

Lecture 10

Energy and Process

Efficiency
Fall 2020

11/3/20
+
Wind scale
Wind speed Wave height
Beaufort number Description

kt km/h mph m/s m ft

0 0 0 0 0-0.2 Calm 0 0

1 1-3 1-6 1-3 0.3-1.5 Light air 0.1 0.33

2 4-6 7-11 4-7 1.6-3.3 Light breeze 0.2 0.66

3 7-10 12-19 8-12 3.4-5.4 Gentle breeze 0.6 2

4 11-15 20-29 13-18 5.5-7.9 Moderate breeze 1 3.3

5 16-21 30-39 19-24 8.0-10.7 Fresh breeze 2 6.6

6 22-27 40-50 25-31 10.8-13.8 Strong breeze 3 9.9

7 28-33 51-62 32-38 13.9-17.1 Near gale 4 13.1

8 34-40 63-75 39-46 17.2-20.7 Gale 5.5 18

9 41-47 76-87 47-54 20.8-24.4 Severe gale 7 23

10 48-55 88-102 55-63 24.5-28.4 Storm 9 29.5

11 56-63 103-119 64-73 28.5-32.6 Violent storm 11.5 37.7

12 64-80 120 74-95 32.7-40.8 Hurricane 14+ 46+

11/3/20
+ Wind resource in the USA

11/3/20
+ Wind resource in the USA

11/3/20
+ Wind resource in the USA

11/3/20
+ Wind Farms in the USA

11/3/20
+ Wind resource in California

Solano
415 MW

Altamont Pass
586 MW

11/3/20
+ Wind resource in California

Pacheco
16 MW

Tehachapi
665 MW

San Gorgonio
619 MW

11/3/20
+
Altamont Pass

586 MW
6,000 wind turbines
Early 80s
Repowering has started
38 Mitsubishi (1MW in 2006)

11/3/20
+
Pacheco Pass

16 MW
167 wind turbines
Mid 80s
Project by Enel with
Vestas 660kW

11/3/20
+
Tehachapi

665 MW
2,000+ wind turbines
Early 80s
Repowering started in 1999
Micon 700 kW
GE 1.5 MW
Mitsubishi 1 MW

11/3/20
+
San Gorgonio

619 MW
1,000+ wind turbines
Early 80s
Repowering started in 1999
Zond 750 kW
Vestas 650 kW
Mitsubishi 600 kW
GE 1.5 MW

11/3/20
+ Wind Resource in California

45 miles

11/3/20
Projects

Project Utility/Developer Location Status MW Online date/

Cap Turbine

Alta Mesa IV Tenderland Power/ CHI San Gorgonio Pass NA 40 NA

Enel Vestas -
660 kW
(61)
Altamont Power Altamont Power, LLC Altamont Pass NA 36 NA / NEG
Micon
800kW
(45)
Pacific Renewable PG&E Lompoc 83 NA

Montezuma FPL Energy Solana 32 NA

Pine Tree Wind Zilkha/ LA Dept of PW Mojave (North) Proposed 120 NA

Project

Tehachapi Wind Western Wind Tehachapi Proposed 50 NA

Project

San Gorgonio Wind SeaWest Windpower San Gorgonio Proposed 37 NA

Project

Tehachapi Wind Coram Energy Tehachapi Proposed 12 NA

Project

11/3/20
Recent Projects

Power
Capacity Turbine Power Year
Name Location (MW) Units Mfr. Developer Owner Purchaser Online
Edom Hills BP Alternative BP Alternative
20 8 Clipper SCE 2008
repower Energy Energy
California
Alite Wind Allco/Oak
24 8 Vestas Portland 2008
Farm Creek Energy
Cement
Southern
Iberdrola Iberdrola
Dillon 45 45 Mitsubishi California 2008
Renewables Renewables
Edison
Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento
Solano Wind
Solano 63 21 Vestas Municipal Utility Municipal Municipal Utility 2007
Project
District Utility District District
Altamont Babcock & Babcock & Pacific Gas &
Buena Vista 38 38 Mitsubishi 2006
Pass Brown Brown Electric
PG&E, Modesto
Irrigation
Shiloh Wind Solano
150 100 GE Energy PPM Energy PPM Energy District & City 2006
Power Project County
of Palo Alto
Utilities
Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento
Solano
Solano IIA 24 8 Vestas Municipal Utility Municipal Municipal Utility 2006
County
District Utility District District
Coram Energy Southern
(Aeroman Tehachapi 10.5 7 GE Energy Coram Energy Coram Energy California 2005
repower) Edison
Kumeyaay Superior
East of Babcock & San Diego Gas
Wind Power 50 25 Gamesa Renewable 2005
San Diego Brown & Electric
Project Energy
Victorville Wind Victorville Victorville
0.75 1 Vestas NORESCO NORESCO 2005
Project prison Prison
11/3/20
Under-construction Projects

Power
Capacity Turbine Power Year
Name Location (MW) Units Mfr. Developer Owner Purchaser Online
Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles
Pine Tree Wind north of Department of Department of Department of
120 80 GE Energy
Project Mojave Water and Water and Water and
Power Power Power

San Gorgonio San San Gorgonio San Gorgonio

5 10 Vestas
Farms repower Gorgonio Farms Farms

Northern
Shiloh II 150 75 REPower enXco enXco PG&E
California

Source: American Wind Energy Association

11/3/20
+
Assessment Techniques

n Wind Tower
n Expensive
n Punctual information
n Telecommunication
n Limited height (50 m)

Wind vane anemometer

Source: Wes Slaymaker
Commercial Wind Site Assessment
Madison, WI February 2005 11/3/20
Sodar

n Acoustic signal modified by the wind

velocity by Doppler effect:

Frequency is higher in front of the moving source and lower behind

f: emitted frequency
æ w ö
f '= ç ÷. f f’: observed frequency
è w+vø w: velocity of the wave
v: velocity of the source
11/3/20
 Sodar

n Sound velocity:
Depends on Temperature
P g .R.T and Humidity
w = g. =
r M
Effect of Temperature on Sound Speed
Cp
g= 350

Cv
Sound Speed (m/s)
340

330

R: Boltzmann’ constant 8.314 Jmol

-1K-1 320

T: Temperature K 310

M: Mass of one mole of gas

300
-10 0 10 20 30

γ: 1.4 for dry air Temperature (C)

11/3/20
+
Sodar

n Soundis reflected and scattered by the

eddies carried by the turbulent wind
n Theamplitude of the received wave
characterizes the stability of the
atmosphere
Using several sodar
sources allows to capture
the different components
of the wind velocity

Vertical range : 200 m. to 2,000 m.

Frequency: 1,000 Hz 4,000 Hz

11/3/20
+
Sodar signal

11/3/20
+ Satellite based measurements
n Sea waves scatter and reflect radar signal
n Direction and Wave length of the waves provide
wind information
n Accuracy of ±2m/s and ±20o
n Not valid close to the coast because of effect on
waves

11/3/20
+
Numerical simulation

n Objective:
n To get detailed wind calculation in specific location from
general atmospheric observations

n Categories of models from the general to detailed

n Mesoscale models (n00 km x n00km x 10 km) ex KAMM
n Microscale linear models (n km x n km x n km) ex WAsP
n Navier-Stokes non-linear models with turbulence (n00 m x
n00 m x n00 m)

n They are usually used in conjunction with local

measured data to be adjusted

11/3/20
+

Source : Wind Flow Models over Complex Terrain for Dispersion Calculations COST Action 710 - 1997 11/3/20
+
References

n http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps.html#2-1
n http://www.wasp.dk/Courses/Index.htm
n http://www5.ncdc.noaa.gov/documentlibrary/pdf

n Companies to follow:
n www.awstruewind.com (Albany)
n www.windlogic.com (St Paul)
n www.3tiergroup.com (Seattle)
n www.garradhassan.com (UK)

11/3/20
+ Application

n At Ilio Point on Molokai (Hawaii)

n The average wind speed at 30m is 8.1m.s-1
n The shear exponent is .14 and the wind follows the
Rayleigh’s distribution
n What is the average speed at 50m?
n What is the class of the site?
n What is the power density available at 50m?
n What is the most probable wind speed at 50m?
n What is the most contributing wind speed at 50m?
n What is the probability to have a wind speed greater than
25 m.s-1 at 50m?
Ilio Point

11/3/20
Wind Turbine Aerodynamics

n Energy balance over the stream tube

Inlet: index 1
Outlet: index 2
Turbine: index T

dE ù • • •

ú = å QA + åWA + å mA .(hA + k A +y A )
dt û Open A A A

11/3/20
Betz’s Simplified Approach

n The turbine is perfect: there is no

internal entropy generation
•
dS ù QA • •

ú =å + s + å m A .s A
dt û Open A TA A

•
å m .s
A
A A =0

Then, when air considered as an incompressible fluid:

•
å m .h
A
A A =0
11/3/20
Betz’s Simplified Approach
n Energy balance equation is reduced to:
1 2
( )
• •
2
WT = m . . v2 - v1
2

n In addition, we assume that the wind speed

stay axial through the turbine:
•
m = A1.r .v1 = A2 .r .v2 = AT .r .vT

n Balance of Forces: The power of the torque

absorb by the turbine is
equal to the power taken
G.WT = ò F .vT .d A = F .vT from the air flow
AT 11/3/20
Betz’s Simplified Approach
n Momentum equation on the system:
( )ùú
d r .v •
= å FA + å m A .v A
dt úû open A A

Then:
•
F = m .(v1 - v2 )
And:
1 2
( )
• •
m .(v1 - v2 ).vT = m . . v1 - v2
2

2
1
Þ vT = .(v1 + v2 )
2 11/3/20
Betz’s Simplified Approach
n Introducing a the interference factor:

a=
(v1 - vT )
Then: v1
1 2
( ) 1 2
( )
• •
WT = m . . v1 - v2 = r .vT . AT . . v1 - v2
2 2

2 2
1
( )
•
Þ WT = r .v1.(1 - a ). AT . . 4.a.(1 - a ).v1
2

2
•
Þ WT = 2.r .v . AT .a.(1 - a )
3 2
1

11/3/20
 Betz’s Simplified Approach
n The power absorbed by the turbine is maximum if:
•
d WT
=0
da
Þ 3.a 2 - 4.a + 1 = 0
Þa= 1 Betz’s law
3
Then
• é v
3
ù 16 • •
= 4.a.(1 - a ) .ê r. . AT ú = ×W wind = 0.59.W wind
2 1
W T , Max
ë 2 û 27
vT = 2 .v1
3
v2 = 1 .v1
3 11/3/20
+
Cp for Various Configurations

11/3/20
+
Other factors

n Other factors limit the performance of wind turbines

n Wake rotation
n Aerodynamic drag
n Finite number of blades and interaction between them
n Blade tip losses

11/3/20
+
Wake rotation
n In fact, the air is rotating downstream the rotor by
reaction to the torque applied to the rotor

11/3/20
Maximum conversion rate with wake
rotation: Glauert’s law
n To characterize this effect we introduce:
n Angular velocity of the rotor : ΩT
n Angular velocity imparted to the flow: ω
n Angular induction factor: a’ = ω/2ΩT

a=
(v1 - vT )
n Axial interference factor:
v1
n Blade tip speed : λ = ΩTR/v1

n Wecan then show that the transfer power is

maximum if:
1 - 3a
a' =
4a - 1
11/3/20
 Maximum conversion rate with wake
rotation: Glauert’s law
n Then the maximum conversion rate is given by the following equation:

•
W T ,Max 24 a( λ ) (1− x)⋅ (1− 2x)⋅ (1− 4x)
CpMax = •
= 2⋅∫ ⋅ dx
W Wind λ .25
(1− 3x )
With a(λ) defined by:

l 2
=
(1 - a(l )) × (4 × a(l ) - 1)
2

(1 - 3 × a(l ))

1
Betz’s law corresponds to: l =¥ and: a(¥ ) =
3 11/3/20
 Maximum conversion rate with wake
rotation: Glauert’s law
n By drawing CpMax we can show that:
n Larger is the blade tip ratio higher is the conversion rate
n For blade tip ratio greater than 4 conversion rate is close to Betz’s
law
n The optimal axial interference factor is close to 1/3 for large
enough blade tip ratio
Optimal Coversion Rate Optimal Interference Factor
Glauert's model Glauert's model

0.7 0.35

0.6 0.3

Interference Factor (a)

0.5 0.25
Conversion rate

0.4 0.2
Angular induction factor
0.3 0.15

0.2 0.1

0.1 0.05

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Blade tip ratio λ Blade tip ratio λ
11/3/20
Typical size, height, diameter and rated
capacity of wind turbines

11/3/20
The thrust T and thrust coefficient CT can now be
computed as

Hence, the thrust coefficient for an ideal wind

turbine is equal to 4a (1 - a). CT has a maximum of
1.0 when a = 0.5 and the downstream velocity is
zero.

At maximum power output (a = 1/3), CT has a value

of 8/9. 11/3/20
 (a)

Operating parameters for a Betz turbine;

U = velocity of undisturbed air; U4 = air velocity behind rotor
CP = power coefficient, CT = thrust coefficient
11/3/20
The Betz limit, CP,max = 16/27, is the maximum
theoretically possible rotor power coefficient. In
practice 3 effects lead to a decrease in the maximum
achievable power coefficient:
- Rotation of the wake behind the rotor
- Finite number of blades and their tip losses
- Non-zero aerodynamic drag

Note that the overall turbine efficiency is a function of

both the rotor power coefficient and the mechanical
(including electrical) efficiency of the wind turbine:

Þ
11/3/20
11/3/20
+
Other factors

n Other factors limit the performance of wind

turbines
n Wake rotation
n Aerodynamic drag
n Finite number of blades and interaction between
them
n Blade tip losses

11/3/20
+
More Rigor: Deviation from Betz
Limit

wR
lA º
v1
11/3/20
 Airfoils and general aerodynamic concepts

Wind turbine blades use airfoil sections to develop

mechanical power.

The width and length of the blades are a function of

the desired aerodynamic performance and the
maximum desired rotor power (as well as strength
considerations).

Before examining the details of wind turbine power

production, some airfoil aerodynamic principles are
reviewed here.
11/3/20
 Basic airfoil terminology

Thickness
Camber

Camber = distance between mean camber line (mid-point of airfoil) and

the chord line (straight line from leading edge to trailing edge)
Thickness = distance between upper and lower surfaces (measured
perpendicular to chord line)
Span = length of airfoil normal to the cross-section 11/3/20
 Examples of standard airfoil shapes

NACA 0012 = 12% thick symmetric airfoil

NACA 63(2)-215 = 15% thick airfoil with slight camber
LS(1)-0417 = 17% thick airfoil with larger camber 11/3/20
 Lift, drag and non-dimensional parameters

Airflow over an airfoil produces a distribution of

forces over the airfoil surface.

The flow velocity over airfoils increases over the

convex surface resulting in lower average pressure
on the 'suction' side of the airfoil compared with the
concave or 'pressure' side of the airfoil.

Meanwhile, viscous friction between the air and the

airfoil surface slows the airflow to some extent next
to the surface.

11/3/20
 Velocity = U

The resultant of all of these pressure and friction

forces is usually resolved into two forces and a
moment that act along the chord at c / 4 from the
leading edge (at the 'quarter chord').

These forces are a function of Reynolds number

Re = U L / n (L is a characteristic length, e.g. c) 11/3/20
The 2-D airfoil section lift, drag and pitching
moment coefficients are normally defined as:

A = projected airfoil area = chord x span = c l

11/3/20
Other dimensionless parameters that are important
for analysis and design of wind turbines include the
power and thrust coefficients and tip speed ratio,
mentioned earlier and also the pressure coefficient:

and blade surface roughness ratio:

11/3/20
Blade
Blade Element
ElementMomentum
MomentumMethod
Method

Blade element

Momentum balance equations to calculate axial force and

torque on the turbine:
1 2
dFx r v 4 a 1 a
1 2 dr
2
3
dT r 4 v1 T a' 1 a r dr
11/3/20
 Aerodynamic equations
Aerodynamic equations
Aerodynamic
y characteristics of the blade p
profile
(CL and CD) provide a second set of equations:

wT
vT r 1 a'
tan
1 a
v1 1 a
wT
cos

dF r dL cos dD sin
dFx r dL sin dD cos

11/3/20
 Blade Equations
Blade Equations
Combining aerodynamic equations and
momentum equations:

a ' C L sin C D cos

1 a 4 Q cos 2
a' ' C L co C D sin
1 a 4 Q r cos 2
where :
B.c B: number of blades
' solidity
2 r
Q tip loss correction

11/3/20
 Power Output
Power Output
For each annulus the contribution to the power
p
of the turbine is:

d WT r T dT r
Integrating on the blade, we can introduce the
conversion rate of the turbine as:

WT 8 3 CD
CP Q r a' 1 a 1 tan d r
1 2 3
2
CL
R v 1 0
2

For more details, see:

G. Ingram 4Wind Turbine Blade Analysis using the Blade Element Momentum Method? 2005

11/3/20
 Example
Example
Blade LM 21.0 ASR developed
p byy the Risø in
Denmark for a 650 kW wind turbine

Radius(m) Cord(m) a a' CD CL r

4 1.65 70.0 0.193 0.097 58.5 0.01 1.55 11.50 1.2 0.20
5 1.6 72.0 0.177 0.060 62.6 0.01 1.34 9.36 1.5 0.15
6 1.55 74.0 0.170 0.041 66.1 0.01 1.19 7.89 1.8 0.12
7 1.5 76.0 0.170 0.030 69.0 0.01 1.10 6.98 2.1 0.10
8 1.45 78.0 0.177 0.024 71.5 0.01 1.05 6.52 2.4 0.09
9 14
1.4 80 0
80.0 0 189
0.189 0 020
0.020 73 6
73.6 0 01
0.01 1 04
1.04 6 41
6.41 27
2.7 0 07
0.07
10 1.35 81.0 0.190 0.016 75.1 0.01 0.99 5.89 3.0 0.06
11 1.29 82.0 0.192 0.013 76.4 0.01 0.96 5.59 3.3 0.06
12 1.23 83.0 0.196 0.011 77.5 0.01 0.95 5.46 3.6 0.05
13 1.17 84.0 0.202 0.010 78.5 0.01 0.95 5.46 3.9 0.04
14 1.1 86.0 0.229 0.009 79.7 0.01 1.03 6.30 4.2 0.04
15 1 03
1.03 87 0
87.0 0 237
0.237 0 008
0.008 80 5
80.5 0 01
0.01 1 06
1.06 6 55
6.55 45
4.5 0 03
0.03
16 0.95 87.0 0.219 0.007 80.8 0.01 1.02 6.18 4.8 0.03
17 0.87 88.0 0.223 0.006 81.4 0.01 1.06 6.62 5.1 0.02
18 0.79 88.0 0.203 0.005 81.7 0.01 1.04 6.35 5.4 0.02
19 0.68 90.0 0.213 0.005 82.2 0.01 1.18 7.83 5.7 0.02
20 0.5 92.0 0.184 0.004 82.3 0.01 1.37 9.72 6.0 0.01

Cp=0.44
er Fuglsang 0Design of a 21 m Blade with Risø-A1 Airfoils for Active Stall Controlled Wind TurbinesE Risø-R-1374(EN), 2002

Ref: Peter Fuglsang “Design of a 21 m Blade with Risø-A1 Airfoils for Active Stall Controlled Wind Turbines” Risø-R-1374(EN), 2002
11/3/20
+
Lift and Drag

n Lift and Drag are related:

• Lift transfers power

• Drag generates losses

•Bearings
•Viscous Friction
•Noise

• About 10 -15% of
aerodynamic inefficiencies

11/3/20
+ Interaction between blades

n Blade tip speed is limited by the interaction between the blades.

Typically, if the rotation is too fast (λ>λMax) then the flow for each is
perturbed by the previous one

Conversion rate WMax/WWind

0.6

0.5 Two Blade Wind Turbine

Conversion rate

0.4

0.3
Three Blade Wind Turbine
0.2
Vertical axis Wind
0.1 Multiblade Wind pump
Turbine (Darrieus)

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Blade Tip Speed λ

11/3/20
+
Blade tip losses
n Local rotating airflow at the tip of the blades due to the difference of pressure
between the faces of the blades

n Similar to aircraft wings

Performance glider with winglets Wingtip loss of Boeing 737

Source: Mads Døssing Vortex Lattice Modelling of Winglets on Wind Turbine Blades Risø-R-1621(EN) Aug. 2007
11/3/20
+ Blade Pitch: Trade-offs

Since most designs use twisted blades, power quality is never

ideal across the entire rotor blade.
11/3/20
+
Design optimization

n Blade shape may be optimized using

laboratory test and numerical modeling
n See: Wind Energy, Explained by J.F. Manwell, J.G.
McGowan and A.L.Rogers, John Wiley, 2002, for
detailed explanations
n See also: Riso DTU – National Laboratory for
Renewable Energy http://www.risoe.dtu.dk/

11/3/20
 + Actual Turbine Conversion rate
Actual Turbine Conversion rate
n Power curve and Conversion rate
Power curve and Conversion rate
GE 1.5S

1,600 0.5

0.45
1,400
0.4
1,200
0.35
1 000
1,000
0.3
Power (kW)

800 0.25

0.2
600
0 15
0.15
400
0.1
200
0.05

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Wind Speed (m/s)

Power Conversion Rate

11/3/20
WASP http://www.wasp.dk/Download/PowerCurves.html
+ Actual Wind Turbine Conversion
Rate
n Example: Liberty of Clipper Windpower

Power curve

11/3/20
+ Optimization Parameters
Theoretical Power Curve
Conversion rate: .35

500 Max Power

400
m2)

300
ower (W/m

Cut out
200
Cut in Efficiency
100
Po

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-100
Wind speed (m/s)
11/3/20
 Generated
Generated Energy
Energy
n GeneratedEnergy
Generated Energy==Wind
Wind Speed
Speed Distribution
Distribution x Turbine
x Turbine Power
Power Curve
Curve

Power Curve and Wind Distribution

500 16%
vm=5m/s
14%
Power

400

nd Probability
vm=6.5m/s 12%
Wind Turbine P

10%
(kW/m2)

300
8%
vm=8m/s
200 6%

Win
4%
100
2%
0 0%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Wind Speed (m/s)

11/3/20
Capacity Factor
Annual Generated Energy
CF =
Max. Power . 8,760 hours

n Lower Capacity factor allows higher energy capture

n Generally preferred CF is between 30% and 40%

Average Capacity Captured Energy Energy after Energy at

Wind Speed Factor Energy/Wind before cut-in Cut out max eff
5 12% 33% 4% 0% 89%
5.5 16% 33% 3% 0% 82%
6 20% 32% 2% 0% 76%
6.5 24% 30% 1% 0% 68%
7 28% 29% 1% 0% 60%
7.5 32% 27% 1% 0% 50%
8 36% 25% 1% 0% 45%
8.5 40% 23% 0% 0% 38%
9 44% 22% 0% 0% 33%
Eff 0.35
Characteristics of the Max Power 400 W/m2
tested turbine Cut-in 4 m/s
11/3/20
Cut-out 25 m/s
+
Wind Turbine Optimization

Wind Turbine Optimization

50% 100%

40% 80%

30% 60% Capacity Factor

Captured Energy/Wind Energy
20% 40% Energy at max eff

10% 20%

0% 0%
5 6 7 8 9 Conv. Rate 0.35
Max Power 400 W/m2
Average Wind Speed (m/s) Cut-in 4 m/s
Cut-out 25 m/s

11/3/20
+ Wind and Power Distribution

Wind Turbine Optimization

140 0.14

120 0.12
Annual Energy (KWh/m2)

100 0.1

80 0.08 Annual Wind Turbine Energy

Annual Wind Energy (kWh/m2)
60 0.06
Pdf
40 0.04

20 0.02
vm = 6 m/s
0 0
0 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 24
Wind Speed (m/s)

Conv. Rate 0.35

CF=24%
Max Power 400 W/m2
Captured Energy =33% Cut-in 4 m/s
Cut-out 25 m/s
11/3/20
+ Wind and Power Distribution

Wind Turbine Optimization

350 0.09

300 0.08
Annual Energy (KWh/m2)

0.07
250
0.06
200 0.05 Annual Wind Turbine
150 0.04 Energy
0.03 Annual Wind Energy
100
0.02 (kWh/m2)
50 0.01 Pdf
0 0
0 2 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 23 24
Wind Speed (m/s) vm = 9m/s

Conv. Rate 0.35

CF=44%
Max Power 400 W/m2
Captured Energy =22%
Cut-in 4 m/s
Cut-out 25 m/s 11/3/20
 Wind Turbine Forces
Aerodynamic forces
Aerodynamic forces on blades
in rotation direction Torque
generate useful Wind
power Direction
Thrust
Aerodynamic forces in wind
direction can cause blades
to bend in high winds
(called coning)
Nacelle and
blade
weight
Aerodynamic
forces on Tower
tower weight

The nacelle, hub and blades can

weigh as much as 200,000 lb 11/3/20
Wind Turbine Forces
Distributed Forces & Equivalent
SystemsDistributedForces
Aerodynamic Equivalent Discrete
Aerodynamic Forces
V Torque Forces
(Wind
speed) FP

y
Thrust
forces FT
x

Rotation

11/3/20
 WIND TURBINE BLADE LOADING
Primary load is bending load due to lift

V Torque Forces Torsion

(Wind
speed)
Thrust
y forces

Bending Moment Diagram

x
Mx

Rotation

11/3/20
WIND TURBINE BLADE STRUCTURAL DESIGN
I-Beam
Flange: bending load

Shear web: shear load

Wind Turbine Blade with Spar

Spar Caps: bending load

Spar Web: shear load
Skin or shell: Torsion and buckling

Wind Turbine Blade with Box Spar

Box spar provides increased

torsional support
11/3/20
 WIND TURBINE BLADE BEAM ANALYSIS
BENDING STRESS
Co y
m pre
Ten ssi
on
sio
n

yMAX
x M My z
s ( y) =
I
Iz = Iz, WEB + Iz, SPARCAPS + Iz, SHELL

€ My MAX
s MAX =
I

11/3/20
 TURBULENCE INTENSITY & BLADE FATIGUE
Wind Speed over 10 minutes Interval
16

14
Wind Speed, m/s

12

10
V =9.5 m/s
8
sV =1.15 m/s
6

4
0 2 4 6 8 10
time, minutes
sV
Turbulence intensity= (12.1% for plot
V above)
Turbulence intensity Blade fatigue

11/3/20
TURBULENCE INTENSITY & BLADE FATIGUE

Conditional Probability for Turbulence Intensity

Lognormal Distributions

!#!,"
!#!+"
!#!*"
!#!)"

-./01023245"
!#!("
!#!'"
!#!&"
!#!%"
!#!$"
!"
$" %" &" '" (" )" *" +" ," $!"$$"$%"$&"$'"$("$)"$*"$+"$,"%!"%$"%%"%&"%'"%("%)"
6278"9:;;8<"=>9"

Plot from Hansen and Larsen, J. Wind Engineering, 2005

11/3/20
+
Inside a Wind turbine

GE Wind 1.5 MW

11/3/20
+
Inside a Wind turbine

11/3/20
Generator

n Tri-phase Synchronous Generator

1.5

0.5

The central magnet

0
0 2 4 6

-0.5

rotates with the rotor

-1

-1.5

shaft of the turbine

A variable Magnetic
Field is inducted in the
stator generating an
Alternative Current
1.5
1.5

1
1

0.5
0.5

0
0
0 2 4 6
0 2 4 6
-0.5
-0.5

-1
-1

-1.5 -1.5

n When connected to the grid the generator is forced to rotate at

constant speed
n To gain flexibility, the connection to the grid will be indirect with a
double conversion AC-DC, DC-AC
11/3/20
+
Generator
n Tri-phase synchronous Generator
n Central magnet may be electromagnets fed by the grid
n Central magnet may be permanent using Rare Earth
Metals*

* In fact, the rare earth metals are not rare and new
technologies are based on permanent magnets

n Increasing the number of poles one can reduce the

rotation speed of the generator
Pole
number 50 Hz 60 Hz
2 3000 3600
4 1500 1800
6 1000 1200
8 750 900
10 600 720
12 500 600
11/3/20
+
Generator
n Tri-phase Asynchronous Generator
n The magnet of the rotor is replaced by a
squirrel cage
n When the cage turns faster than the
magnetic field in the stator it generates a
high current in it and then a magnetic
field which will play the same role as the
magnet
n The current generated will depend of the
difference of rotation between the rotor
and the magnetic field in the stator: it is
called the slip (typically 1%)
n To gain flexibility on the rotation speed of
the shaft the slip will be varied using a
variation of its electrical resistance
Rotor of an
asynchronous generator

11/3/20
+
Gear Box
n Tip speed ratio issue for large turbines
n Tip speed ratio (λ) is limited

Conversion rate WMax/WWind

0.6

0.5
Typically, for a
3 blade turbine
Conversion rate

0.4

0.3 λ
is: 3< <5
0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Blade Tip Speed

11/3/20
Gearbox

n Rotation speed decrease with the size of the

turbine
Rotation Speed per m/s of wind
Tip speed ratio: 5

0.6

R.W 100 kW

Rotation Speed (rad/s/(m/s))

0.5

l= 0.4

vwind 0.3
500 kW
1,000 kW
0.2
2,500 kW 5,000 kW
0.1

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Radius (m)

11/3/20
Gearbox

n Torque increases a lot with power

1
( )
•
W = h . .r . p .R 2 .vwind
3
= G.W
2 Wind Turbine Torque

l.vwind
W=
1,000

Torque/Torque (100kW)
1
( ) R3 100

G = h. .r . p .R .vwind = G0 . 3
3

2.l R0
10
• 2
R = W.
h .r .p .vwind
3
1
100 1,000 10,000
3
æ • ö 2 Maximal Power (kW)

çW ÷
G = G0 .ç • ÷
çW ÷
è 0ø
11/3/20
+
Gearbox

n Converts few rotation/mn in 1,500 rpm

n The gear ratio may be 50, 100 or more

1.5 MW gearbox and drive train

Causes of wind turbine failures

Source: Condition Monitoring of Wind Turbines, David Infield
11/3/20
+
Gearbox
Fault-Related Estimated Costs

n Cost of repairs
Generator
23.1% Non-Component Assoc.
Rotor
Air Brake
Mech. Brake
Pitch Adjustment
Main Shaft / Bearing
Gearbox
Gearbox Generator
38.0% Yaw System
Wind Vane / Aenemometer
Electrical Controls
Electrical System
Hydraulics
Sensors
Other
Only Failure Hours reported**
Rotor
19.9%

11/3/20
+
Gearbox
n Multi-stage gearbox
High speed stage

Low speed mainshaft Generator

Intermediate speed stage

n Planetary gearbox

11/3/20
+
Gearbox

n Multi-drive train

Multi-drive train developed

by Clipper Windpower in
2002-2004 with eight
generators around the main
shaft.
The Liberty turbine
currently commercialized
has four generators
11/3/20
+ Yaw Drive and Pitch Drive

n The yaw drive maintains the wind turbine

facing into the wind
n It is similar to a tracker for a solar panel

n The pitch is the angle of attack of the

blades in the wind flow
n Optimizing the pitch allows to improve efficiency
for different wind speeds

11/3/20
+
Offshore Wind
n Technology for the Offshore oil industry

11/3/20
+
Offshore Wind
n Offshore projects in Europe

Source: Offshore Wind Experiences - IEA

About 1,200 MW installed in 2007

Source: EWEA Delivering Offshore Wind Power in Europe, December 2007
11/3/20
+
Offshore wind farms
n Middelgrunden (Denmark)

20 2.0 MW Turbines (Bonus-Siemens) height: 64 m. diameter: 76m. (2001)

11/3/20
+
Offshore Wind farms
n Inner Dowsing (UK)

54 3.6 MW Turbines (Siemens) height: 80 m. diameter: 108m. (2008)

11/3/20
+
Offshore Wind
n Projects in the USA (2007)
n Cape Wind (Cape Cod / Nantucket Sound)
n Bluewater Wind (Long Island)
n Nai Kun (Hecate Strait)
n Galveston Offshore Wind (Texas)

11/3/20
Wind Energy Costs

Source: EWEA, 2009

11/3/20
+ Component costs
% Cost Share of 5 MW Turbine Components

Source: EWEA, 2009, citing Wind Direction, Jan/Feb, 2007 11/3/20

+
O&M costs

n O&M costs represent 10% to 12% of the cost per kWh

11/3/20
+
Price /kWh
n The prices in the LB database reflect the price of electricity as sold
by the project owner reduced by the receipt of any available state
and federal incentives (e.g., the PTC Power Tax Credit), and by the
value that might be received through the separate sale of renewable
energy certificates (RECs)

11/3/20
+ Comparison to the market price of electricity

n Withincentive wind power is competitive

with market average price

11/3/20
Costs -- Levelized Comparison

Reported in US DOE. 2008 Renewable Energy Data Book

11/3/20
+ Environmental Issues
n Noise

n Visual impact

n Construction impact
250 m

n Avian impact

350 m

Source: www.omafra.gov.on.ca
11/3/20
+
Avian Impact
n Source: National Wind Coordination Committee,
Fact sheet Nov. 2004

11/3/20
+
Avian Impact
n Source: National Wind Coordination Committee,
Fact sheet Nov. 2004

11/3/20
+
Avian Impact
n Source: National Wind Coordination Committee,
Fact sheet Nov. 2004

11/3/20
+
Avian Impact
n Main accidental death causes for birds

Millions of death per year

Death Cause in the USA
Utility transmission and distribution lines 130 - 174
Collisions with automobiles and trucks 60 - 80
Tall building and residential house windows 100 - 1,000
Lighted communication towers 40 - 50
Wind Turbines* 0.093

Source: Mick Sagrillo PUTTING WIND POWER'S EFFECT

ON BIRDS IN PERSPECTIVE 2003
* Number estimated using the ratio per MW provided by the NWCC
multiplied by the installed wind power in the USA in 2006 (15,575 MW)

11/3/20
+
Small Wind

Wind Turbine
(400 W-100 kW)

Guyed or
Tilt-Up Tower Cumulative
(60-120 ft) Production Meter

Safety AC Load Center

Switc
h Power
Processing Unit
(Inverter)
11/3/20
+
Factors to consider

n Good wind resource: Class

2 or better
n Home or business located
on 1 acre or more of land

n Average monthly
electricity bills >$100 for 10
kW system,
>$50 for 5 kW system

n Zoning restrictions,
economic incentives

11/3/20
+ Modern Small Wind
Turbines
n Small turbines range
from 20 W to 100 kW

n Only 3-4 moving parts means

very low maintenance

n 20- to 40-year design life 10 kW

50 kW

n Proven technology – 150,000

installed; over 3 kW
a billion operational hours
1.8 kW

(Not to
400 W scale)

11/3/20
+
Installation Cost

n Estimate $2-4/installed
watt for typical system
n Smaller systems require
smaller initial outlay,
but cost more per watt
n Taller towers cost more,
but usually reduce the
payback period

A 4-10 kW system can meet the needs of a typical home

Customers paying 12 cents/kWh or more for electricity
with average wind speeds of 10 mph or more
can expect a payback period of 8-16 years
11/3/20
+
Example

11/3/20
+
Building integration

Examples of projects
integrating wind power in
buildings

11/3/20
+ Wind development worldwide

n Major Wind Development countries

Installed windpower capacity (MW)[28][29][30]
Rank Nation 2005 2006 2007
1 Germany 18,415 20,622 22,247
2 United States 9,149 11,603 16,818
3 Spain 10,028 11,615 15,145
4 India 4,430 6,270 7,850
5 China 1,260 2,604 6,050
6 Denmark (& Faeroe Islands) 3,136 3,140 3,129
7 Italy 1,718 2,123 2,726
8 France 757 1,567 2,454
9 United Kingdom 1,332 1,963 2,389
10 Portugal 1,022 1,716 2,150

11/3/20
+
Wind Turbines (that work)

HAWT: Horizontal Axis VAWT: Vertical Axis

11/3/20
+
Wind Turbines (flights of fancy)

11/3/20
+ Wind Power Factoids

n Potential: 10X to 40X total US electrical power

n .01X in 2009

n Cost of wind: $.02 – $.06/kWh

n Cost of coal $.02 – $.03 (other fossils are more)
n Cost of solar $.25/kWh – Photon Consulting
n “may reach $.10 by 2010” Photon Consulting

n State with largest existing wind generation

n Texas (7.9 MW) – Greatest capacity: Dakotas
n Wind farm construction is semi recession proof
n Duke Energy to build wind farm in Wyoming – Reuters Sept 1, 2009
n Government accelerating R&D, keeping tax credits

n Grid requires upgrade to support scalable wind

11/3/20
Top Wind Power Producers
in TWh for Q2 2008

Country Wind TWh Total TWh % Wind

Germany 40 585 7%
USA 35 4,180 < 1%
Spain 29 304 10%
India 15 727 2%
Denmark 9 45 20%

11/3/20
+
Principle of Magnus effect

Bernoulli's principle - the pressure is lower on the

side where the velocity is greater, there is an
unbalanced force - Magnus force.

11/3/20
+
Comparison

q Principle.

11/3/20
+
Comparison

q Aerodynamic lift.

11/3/20
+
Comparison

q Wind flux distribution.

11/3/20
+
Comparison

q Performance comparison.

11/3/20
+
Geothermal Energy
Resources

11/3/20
+ Geothermal Energy Resource
n Huge resource:
n At 10 km under the ground the resource are 13 M
Quads
n Equivalent of 130,000 year of USA energy overall
consumption
n 100 GWe possible in the USA by 2050

n In California, Geothermal Energy is big:

2,068 MW installed in
California in 2006 compared
to 2,313 MW for the USA
Source: EIA.gov

Source: CEC-300-2007-007
2006 NET SYSTEM POWER REPORT

11/3/20
+
Types of Geothermal Energy
n 3 types of Geothermal Energy
n Power Generation (>3km - >150oC)
n District Heating (500m - <100oC)
n Geothermal Heat Pumps (100m - <20oC)

11/3/20
Source: http://www.geothermal.ch/eng/vision.html
 + Heat from the Earth’s Center
n Earth's core maintains temperatures in excess of 5000°C
n Heat from radioactive decay of elements

n Heat energy continuously flows from hot core

n Conductive heat flow
n Convective flows of molten mantle beneath the crust.

n Mean heat flux at earth's surface

n 16 kilowatts of heat energy per square kilometer
n Dissipates to the atmosphere and space.
n Tends to be strongest along tectonic plate boundaries

n Volcanic activity transports hot material to near the surface

n Only a small fraction of molten rock actually reaches surface.
n Most is left at depths of 5-20 km beneath the surface,

n Hydrological convection forms high temperature geothermal

systems at shallow depths of 500-3000m.
11/3/20
http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/energy/geothermal/technology.htm
 +
Earth Dynamics

11/3/20
http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/energy/geothermal/technology.htm
 +
Earth Temperature Gradient

11/3/20
http://www.geothermal.ch/eng/vision.html
 +
Geothermal Site Schematic

11/3/20
Boyle, Renewable Energy, 2nd edition, 2004
 +
Geysers
Clepsydra Geyser in Yellowstone

11/3/20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geyser
 +
Hot Springs

Hot springs in Steamboat Springs area.

11/3/20
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/geothermal/geothermal.html
 +
Fumaroles
Clay Diablo Fumarole (CA) White Island Fumarole
New Zealand

11/3/20
http://lvo.wr.usgs.gov/cdf_main.htm http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/img_white_island_fumerole.html
Estimation of the heat flux

n Conduction through the lithosphere

• TS - TM
Q cond = å k .grad T .n A » k . .A
A d crust
k Thermal conductivity of the crust (2 W.m.K-1)
TS Temperature at the surface of the crust (20oC)
n Normal to the surface
TM Temperature of the surface of the mantel ( 930oC)
dcrust Depth of the crust is about 30 km
A Area (1 m2)
•
-2
Qcond » 0.06 Wm
11/3/20
+
Capture the energy deep in the crust

n Water flow allows much higher flux

n Drill a well deep enough to get the required temperature

Average temperature gradient in the

crust

Temperature (C)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

0

10
Depth (km)

15

20

25 Assuming uniform
30 crust depth
11/3/20
+
Plate Tectonics

n Best resources are at the boundaries of main plates

11/3/20
+ Current Drilling Cost

Source:The Future of Geothermal

Energy 2006

11/3/20
+ Geothermal Resources USA

11/3/20
+ Geothermal Resources USA

Enhanced (i.e. engineered) Geothermal Systems (EGS)

11/3/20
+ Geothermal Resources USA

11/3/20
+ Geothermal Resources USA

11/3/20
+ California Geothermal
Resources

Geothermal Power Plants

Glass Mountain 49 MW 96
Amedee
Honey Lake 4 MW 85-89
Geysers 1,421 MW 71-89
Casa Diablo
Mammoth 40 MW 84-90
Coso 274 MW 87-89
Salton Sea 336 MW 82-00
Heber 85 MW 85-93
East Mesa 99 MW 87-89
TOTAL 2,308 MW
11/3/20
+ Geothermal Power Generation in
the World
n Located along the main plate boundaries
Country 1995 2000 2003
(MWe) (MWe) (MWe)
Argentina 1 - -
Australia 0 0 0
Austria - - 1
China 29 29 28
Costa Rica 55 143 163
El Salvador 105 161 161
Ethiopia - 7 7
France 4 4 15
Germany - - 0
Guatemala - 33 29
Iceland 50 170 200
Indonesia 310 590 807
Italy 632 785 791
Japan 414 547 561
Kenya 45 45 121
Mexico 753 755 953
New Zealand 286 437 421
Nicaragua 70 70 78
Papua New Guinea - - 6
Philippines 1,227 1,909 1,931
Portugal 5 16 16
Russia 11 23 73
Thailand 0 0 0
Turkey 20 20 20
USA 2,817 2,228 2,020
Total 6,833 7,973 8,402
11/3/20
+ Hydrothermal Sites

11/3/20
Source: Boyle, Renewable Energy, 2nd edition, 2004
+
The Geysers (CA)

Power generation: 1,400 MWe

11/3/20
 +
The Geysers Geology
Caenozoic:
Sedimentary non marine
Sedimentary marine
Volcanic
Mezozoic

Paleozoic

Intrusive Igneous Rocks

Granite
Ultramafic

The Geysers
11/3/20
+ Geologic Time

11/3/20
+

11/3/20
+
The Geysers Geology
n Typical Porosities of ground material

Unconsolidated Sediments Porosity (%)

Clay 45-60
Silt 40-50
San, Volcano ash 30-40
Gravel 25-35

Consolidated sedimentary rocks

Mudrock 5-15
Sandstone 5-30
Limestone 0.1-30

Crystalline Rocks
Solidified lava .001-1
Granite .0001-1
Slate .001-1 11/3/20
+ Geysers Geothermal
resource
A steam reservoir is located about 2,000 meters under the surface

11/3/20
+ Geothermal resource at the Geysers

Average temperature gradient in the crust

Temperature (C)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0

500

1000
Depth (m)

1500
The Geysers
2000

2500

3000

11/3/20
 +
Dry Steam Power Plants
n “Dry” steam extracted from natural reservoir
n 180-225 ºC ( 356-437 ºF)
n 4-8 MPa (580-1160 psi)
n 200+ km/hr (100+ mph)

n Steam is used to drive a turbo-generator

n Steam is condensed and pumped back into the

ground

n Can achieve 1 kWh per 6.5 kg of steam

n A 55 MW plant requires 100 kg/s of steam

11/3/20
Boyle, Renewable Energy, 2nd edition, 2004
+
Dry Steam Cycle
n At Geysers, the steam is dry (250oC – 30 bars). It is
directly used to drive steam turbines

11/3/20
Steam Cycle

n It is an open Rankine Cycle (the ground is the

Steam Generator)
SteamNBS
400

350

300
Œ •
250
30 bar
W turbine
T [C]

200

150

100

50
Ž

0.056 bar

• 0

QCondensor
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

s [kJ/kg-K] 11/3/20
Power by the turbine

Œ •
W turbine


dE ù • • •

ú = å QA + åWA + å mA .(hA + k A +y A )
dt û Open A A A
• •
• W Turbine = m .(h2 - h1 )
dS ù QA • •
=å + s + å m A .s A
dt úû Open A TA A

11/3/20
+
h-s Diagram

n Enthalpy variation may directly be read on the diagram

SteamNBS
4000

3500
30 bar •
3000
ΠW turbine
2500
h [kJ/kg]

2000 0.056 bar

1500

1000 •
500 Ž QCondensor
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

s [kJ/kg-K] 11/3/20
Generated Power

n Computations of the power by the turbine

n Isentropic (Perfect) Turbine
h2,is = Intersection of vertical from Πand P=0.056 bars

W 2,is = m .(h2,is - h1 )
• •

Enthalpy Entropy Temperature Pressure Quality

o
kJ/kg KJ/kg.K C bar -

n Actual Turbine Turbine

Inlet 1
2_is
2,855
1,928
6.29
6.29
250
35
30
0.056
100%
74%
hT = .85 Outlet 2 2,067 6.74 35 0.056 79%

• • Steam turbines cannot resist to more than

W 2 = hT .W 2,is 12% of water drops in low pressure steam
• Multi-stage steam turbine are used
W2
h2 = h1 + •
dE
dt
•
W Q
•
•
å m(h A + k A +y A )
dS Q
•

åA T A
•
å m.s A s
•

dt A

m
A
A
kW kW kW kW kW/K W/K W/K W/K
Isentropic Turbine - -927 0 927 0 0 0 0
• Actual Turbine - -788 0 788 0 0 -0.45 0.45

m = 1 kg .s -1 11/3/20
Heat rejected at the Condenser

n Energy balance on the condenser


•
QCondensor
Ž

dE ù • • •

ú = å QA + åWA + å mA .(hA + k A +y A )
dt û Open A A A

• •
QCondenser = m .(h3 - h2 ) 11/3/20
Rejected Heat

n Computation of the heat rejected at the condenser

Enthalpy Entropy Temperature Pressure Quality

o
kJ/kg KJ/kg.K C bar -
Inlet 1 2,855 6.29 140 30 100%
Turbine
Outlet
2 2,067 6.74 51 0.056 79%
Inlet
Condenser
Outlet 3 147 0.51 35 0.056 0%

• •
å m.s A
•
dS
dE
å m(h + k A +y A ) Q
• • •

dt
W Q
A
A
dt åA T A A
s
A
kW kW kW kW kW/K kW/K kW/K kW/K
Turbine 0 -788 0 788 0 0 -0.45 0.45
Condenser 0 0 -1,920 1,920 0
•
W
h System = • •
= 29%
W + Q cond
•
• - Q cond •
m Evap = = .79 . m
Lv 11/3/20
+
Water Re-injection
n In 1997 and 2003 a re-injection system was built to offset the
depletion of the Geysers steam reservoir. It provides 19 M
Gallons per day (=832 kg.s-1).

This re-injection
should cover a
power
generation of
830 MW

11/3/20
+
Casa Diablo
n Located by the Mammoth Mountain on the East
side of the Sierra Nevada

About 40MW by three power plants

11/3/20
+
Long Valley Caldera

11/3/20
+
Bishop Tuff

Porosity: 48% to 65%

Source: J. Roberge Permeability study of pumice samples from the Bishop Tuff, Long Valley Caldera, CA
American Geophysical Union, Spring Meeting 2004, abstract #V21A-07
11/3/20
+
Caldera Formation
n The caldera was formed 760,000 years ago by the
explosion of a volcano

11/3/20
+ Alimentation of the Hydrothermal
Reservoir

11/3/20
+
Hydrology
n Water
flow starts in the west by the Mammoth
Mountain and continues to the southeast toward
Crowley Lake.
n Reservoirtemperatures decline from 230°C near
the Inyo Craters to 50°C near Crowley Lake

11/3/20
+ Geothermal resource at Casa Diablo

Average temperature gradient in the crust

Temperature (C)

0 50 100 150 200 250

0
Casa Diablo
500

1000
Depth (m)

1500
The Geysers
2000

2500

3000

11/3/20