Wind Energy Systems MASE 5705

Spring 2017, April 19, L25+L26

1
• Wind Energy System Economics
(Chapter 11)
• Environmental Aspects and Impacts
(Chapter 12)
• Prospects -- Bright and Challenging

2
Wind Energy System Economics

(supplying electricity on the main grid)

3
• Why so important ?

• Used in other fields

• A favorite topic in PE examination

4
• We can reliably produce wind energy.
• That is, we have the capabilities for
• Design and analysis
• Manufacturing
• Installation
• Operation and maintenance (O&M)
• Transportation

5
 Given these capabilities, is wind
energy cost effective?

Market value
Cost of
generating
wind energy ≤ of the wind
energy
produced

6
 Costs of generating wind energy

Capital

Costs => Operation

Maintenance

Economics: Predicting these costs and market values

•Economic analysis methods provide a basis to
determine cost effectiveness.
7
Wind energy system Economics
• Introduction
• Components of wind energy system
• Availability/ capacity factor
• Life time
• Capital cost
• Operation and Maintenance cost (O&M cost)
• Economic Analysis Methods
• Learning curves and progress ratio
• Capital cost
• Simple Payback period (SP)
• Cost of energy (COE)
• Life-cycle costing methods(LCC)
8
Following the text, we address the
fundamentals of economic analysis
methods. That is, we do not address a
wide range of specialized issues such as
inflation, special investment and tax
incentives, monetarized environmental
benefits (see next figure).

9
 Economics of Wind energy

Generating costs Market value of wind energy

Avoided costs Monetarized

Wind regime environmental benefits
based value
Energy capture
Availability
Lifetime Fuel savings Emissions reductions

Capital cost Capital savings Reduced fossil fuel

use
O&M costs

Figure 11.1 Components of wind system economics (p. 506)

10
Availability = fraction of the life time in a
year the WT is able to generate electricity
(p. 506)

(e.g. Downtime for periodic maintenance

and unscheduled repairs)

11
95%

12
 Availability
~ 1990 95 % availability

~ 2009 97-99% availability

(comparable to other power-
generating plants)

What about the required maintenance costs?

13
“ When assessing the availability figures,
the required maintenance effort must not
be ignored. From an economic point of
view, a technical availability of 95%,
achieved by servicing and maintenance
costing, e.g. 10% of the total investment, is
a disastrous result. A commercially viable
situation requires an availability of at
least 95% with annual maintenance costs
of no more than 2 to 3% of the investment
cost.” E. Hau, Wind Turbines Springer,
2006, p. 530
14
WT availability WT capacity factor (CF)

Capacity factor tells us how actual annual energy

output compares with the maximum (rated
power) annual energy output, that is, if the
turbine functioned at the rated capacity for the
entire year.

(E a )annual energy output (kWh)

CF 
rated power (kW) . 8760 h

15
Typical numerical values: 0.2 ≤ CF ≤ 0.4
•Small turbine with 15 m rotor diameter
•55 kW rated power
•rated power per rotor-swept area 311 W/m2
•annual energy yield 110000 kWh,
capacity factor = 110000/(55*8760) =0.23

•Large turbine with 60 m rotor diameter

•1200 kW rated power
•rated power per rotor-swept area 424 W/m2
•annual energy yield 3.5 million kWh
capacity factor= 3.5*106/(1200*8760)=0.33
16
 Life Time
• Life Time= 20 years for economic
assessment
[Expected to reach 30 years with adequate
annual maintenance and ten-year major
maintenance overhauls]

17
Capital costs of Wind Energy
Systems

18
“The determination of the capital costs of a wind energy
system remains one of the more challenging subjects in
wind energy. The problem is complicated because wind
turbine manufacturers are not particularly anxious to share
their own cost figures with the rest of the world, or, in
particular, with their competitors. Cost comparisons of
wind turbine research and development projects are
particularly difficult; that is, the development costs cannot
be compared consistently. Also, costs other than the
turbine may be site specific. This problem can further
complicate capital cost estimates. This is especially true for
offshore systems, in which installation costs may be large
relative to the wind turbine costs.” p. 433
19
 In determining the cost of the wind turbine itself, one must
distinguish between the following types of capital cost estimates:

1. Cost of wind turbine(s) today. For this type of cost

estimate, a developer or engineer can contact the
manufacturer of the machine of interest and obtain a
formal price quote.
2. Cost of wind turbine(s) in the future. For this type of
cost estimate (assuming present wind turbine state of
the art), one has a number of tools that can be applied,
namely: (1) historical trends, (2) learning curves and
(3) detailed examination of present designs (including
the total machine and components) to determine
where costs may be lowered. (p. 433)

20
3. Cost of a new (not previously built) wind turbine design.
This type of capital cost estimate is much more complex
since it must first include a preliminary design of the new
turbine. Price estimates and quotes for the various
components must be obtained. The total capital cost
estimate must also include other costs such as design,
fabrication, testing, etc.
4. Future cost of a large number of wind turbines of a new
design. This type of cost estimate will involve a mixture of
second and third types of cost estimates. (p. 433)

21
Wind Turbine installed prices in the US
(Wind Energy Explained, second edition, Figure 11.5, p. 509) 22
 Operation and maintenance costs (p. 510)
≈ 1.5 % to 3% of the original turbine cost

[Caution: O & M costs ≤ 2 to 3% of the

investment cost]

23
 Economic Analysis methods
• Learning curves or experience curves and
progress ratio

24
 Learning Curve
A component or system is produced in large quantities
Reduction in production cost

How much reduction ?

1.Learning curve is an empirical relation and it predicts this

reduction.
2.Widely used in different industries (e.g. automobile,
aircraft, etc.).
3.Based on experience.
4.Well tested.

25
Let
y = cost of an object
x = cumulative volume

dy dx
 m
y x

m is a constant of proportionality
As the volume x increases, the cost decreases.
Therefore the sign is negative.

26
 dy/y = -m dx/x
As the volume increases from x1 = x to x2 = x(2n), the
cost decreases from y1 to y2 :
y2 2 x
dy dx
 y m  x
y1 x 1

 y2   x2 
ln    m ln 
 y1   x1 
 y2 
ln    mn ln 2 
 y1 
 y2


 
  2  m
n

 y1 

y 2  y1 s n ; s  2  m  progress ratio 27
y2/y1=(sn)=(x2/x1)-m
Given s and x2/x1 , y2/y1 versus x2/x1 is a
straight line on a log-log paper.
(see next figure for s=0.95 to 0.7)

28
 0
10
95%
s=
90%
0.227
Normalized cost (y2/y1)

-1 85%
10
80%

-2
10 70%

-3
10 0 1 2 3 4 5
10 10 10 10 10 10
Cumulative volume (x2/x1)

Fig. 9.7 Normalized cost vs. cumulative volume for varying progress ratios, p. 513

29
 HW
Plot Normalized cost vs cumulative
volume on a log-log scale for s = 90%.
(i.e. reproduce the previous figure but
only for s=90%)

30
Illustration: Consider,

x 2  100( x1 ) and s  0.8

x2
 100  2 n
x1

m ln ( s )
s2   m 
ln (2)

y  x 
ln 2    m ln 2 
 y1   x1 
ln ( s ) ln (100)
 ln 100  ln(0.8)
ln ( 2) ln ( 2)

 ( 0.2231) (6.6439)

 1.4823

y2
 e 1.4823  0.227
y1 31
s = 2–m = progress ratio
= quantifies the cost reduction as we progress
to produce more.
x 2  x 1  2 n
, x1  x
m
 y2   x2 
       2  mn

 y1   x1 

32
In the text,
y  C(V), y 1  C(V0 ), y 2  C(V)

x  V, x 1  V0 , x 2  V
m
 y2   x2 
    
 y1   x1 
(11.1) p. 512
b
 C(v)   V 
                (9.3.1) p. 438
 C(v )   V 
 0   0 
 m (class)  b (text)

33
Summary of the concepts of learning curve
(experience curve) and progress ratio:
(widely used and well tested.)

x 2  x 1  2 n

 x2 
ln 
 x1 
n and
ln(2)
m
 y2   x2 
       2   mn  s n
 y1   x1 

s  progress ratio   2   m

34
P. 656 B.11.1

35
We also solve this problem a bit differently:
x≡ volume of production (no. of items produced)

x 2  x  2 , x 1  x
n

 x2 
ln 
 x1  ln100
n   6.6438
ln(2) ln(2)

y 2  y 1s n

 100,000   0.83 6.6438

 $ 29,000
36
37
38
Key findings of this study are :
This study is based on experience or learning
curve and progress ratio (s≡PR)

39
40
Although the experience curve for wind turbines indicates
relatively moderate reductions in the cost of wind turbines,
the cost of wind-generated electricity may be considerably
reduced in the future. This is due to the fact that a reduction in
cost of wind-generated electricity will also arise from
improved performance and reduced O&M costs, in addition
to the cost reduction of wind turbines. The results of this
study show that the average cost of wind-generated electricity
will be reduced by approximately 45% up to the year 2020,
assuming an annual market growth of

15–20%. 41
 Economic Analysis Methods

Capital Costs

42
 Scaling
Use the cost data for smaller existing WTs
Unit cost per kW of rated power
=> or
Unit cost per unit area of rotor
At best a crude estimate during planning
studies.
Why?

43
 Scaling
• Does not account for continually evolving
design process -- improved design
methods, materials technology and
manufacturing, and related impact on cost
reduction
• Inherent nonlinearity

44
• A fundamental approach is used:
1. Divide the machine into various
components and determine the cost of each
component

Relatively few studies in the open literature

45
, p. 436

46
, p. 437

47
p. 712 (Eric Hau)
48
p. 712 (Eric Hau)
49
p. 711 (Eric Hau)
50
p. 711 (Eric Hau)
51
 Comprehensive Computer Codes
 calibratio n 
cost      weight    cost per unit weight    complexity factor 
 coefficien t 
 

   (9.3.2), p. 438 (text)

calibration coefficient=an empirical constant for each system

Complexity factor=an empirical constant that accounts for the amount of

work required for the subsystem’s construction

52
, p. 516 53
Capital costs of offshore Wind turbines >
25% more to three times as much

Offshore wind farms:

1. In a stage of infancy
2. Rapidly growing and evolving
3. Why go for offshore wind farms?
(details to follow)

54
 Factors affecting cost
1. Distance from shore
2. Depth of water (details to follow)
3. Environmental conditions
4. Soil type
5. Technology and project size

55
56
, p. 518

57
p. 519

58
59
, p. 520

60
, p. 521

61
 Economic Analysis Methods (pp. 530-538)
Following the text, we assume that we have
reliable estimates of:
1.Capital costs
2.O&M costs

•We consider wind energy system as an

investment that produces revenues

Evaluate 1. Profitability of the investment

2. Compare this investment with
alternative investments
62
For the evaluation of economic performance we
consider three different types of economic analysis
methods:
1.Simplified models
2.Life-cycle cost models
3.Electricity utility economic model (text)
(Cost of wind –generated electricity in $/kWh and
its comparison with revenue)

We consider the first two models, and consider a

simplified version of the third model. (Why?)

63
 Simplified Models
• Simple Payback period analysis
• Cost of Energy analysis

SP = Simple Payback period

COE = Cost of Energy

64
Simple Payback Period Analysis
1. Basically, we determine the length of time
required to recoup our initial investment.
2. Free of detailed economic variables.
3. Neglects several variables such as loan
costs, depreciation on capital costs, O&M.
4. Suitable for a preliminary estimate of
wind energy system’s feasibility.

65
Simple Payback Period=SP=Cc/AAR
Cc =installed capital cost
AAR= average annual return from energy
production
=(Ea) Annual Energy Production
(kWh/year) x (Pe) Price obtained for
electricity ($ /kWh)

SP =Cc/(Ea. Pe) --- (11.5), P. 530

66
Example:
Cc=installed capital cost= $ 50,000
Ea=annual energy production (kWh/y)
=100,000 kWh/y
Pe=price obtained for electricity ($/kWh)
= $ 0.10 $/kWh
SP=Cc/AAR
= Cc/(Ea. Pe)
=$ 50,000/100,000 kWh/y x 0.1 $/kWh)
SP=5 years

67
 Cost of Energy Analysis
• An improved version of the simple
payback period analysis in that it includes
loan costs and costs of O&M.
• COE=unit cost to produce energy ($/kWh)
from the wind energy system
COE=(Operating cost)/(Energy produced)
=[(Cc x FCR)+CO&M]/Ea

68
Cc =Capital cost of system
(as in Simple Payback Period Analysis)

CO&M=(Average annual) Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) costs

FCR=Fixed Charge Rate

(usually expressed as a percentage of the initial
capital investment); we revisit FCR after
introducing the concept of Present Value in
economic analysis.)

69
Example:
• Cc = $50,000 = initial capital cost
• Ea = annual energy production
=100,000 kWh/y
FCR =10%
CO&M =2% of Cc
=2/100 x 50000
=$1000 /y
COE =[50,000 x 0.1+1000]/100,000
=6000/100,000=$ 0.06 /kWh
70
B.11.3 Simple Cost of Energy, p. 656

A small 50 kW wind turbine with an initial cost

of $50,000 is installed in Nebraska. The fixed
charge rate is 15% and the annual operation and
maintenance cost (CO&M) is 2% of the initial cost.
This system produces 65,000 kWh/yr (Ea).
Determine the cost of energy (COE) for this
system.

71
COE =[(Cc x FCR)+CO&M]/Ea ---(11.17), p. 531

Thus, for this example:

COE = [($50,000 x 0.15) + ((0.02) x $50,000] / (65,000)

= $0.131/kWh

72
 Life-Cycle Costing Methods
(LCC methods, pp. 453-458)
The value of money can increase because
of interest from some investment;
or
The value of money can decrease because
of inflation.
Time value of money
LCC method accounts for this time value
of money.

73
LCC method requires some key concepts of
engineering economics:
• Time value of money:
Present value (PV), Future Value (FV), and
Present worth factor (PWF)
• Levelizing
• Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
• Net Present Value

74
 Present Value (PV)
r= interest (or discount) rate with annual
compounding
(discount rate ≡ “the next best rate of return
which one could expect to obtain”, p. 454)
We take a loan of value PV, and repay it in
N equal installments of A

75
 A A A A

Year 0
~
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year N

PV

Present value of uniform series of end-of-period

payments
PV=the series of N payments, each of value A

76
  1  r  N  1 
PV  A  N 
      (9.6.9), P.455
 r 1  r  

 1  1  r   N 
 A        (9.6.9), P.455
 r 

(1.10) and (1.11) p. 533

77
Example
What is the present value of a yearly payment of $100 for
20 years with 12% interest rate
From Eq (9.6.9), p. 455

1  1  r   N   1  r  N  1 
PV  A    A N 
 r   r 1  r  

 1  0.12 20  1 
 100 20 
 0.121  0.12 

 $746.94

Total amount paid = $100(20)=$2000

78
Equivalently :
Say we deposit $ 746.94 in the bank at 12%
interest compounded annually.
We withdraw $ 100 at the end of each year.
At the end of 20 years, the balance is zero.

79
Example

A wind turbine generates 1576800 kWh in a year. The

generated electricity is sold to the utility at a rate of 5
cents/kWh. The discount rate is 5 percent. Calculate the
present worth of electricity generated by the turbine
throughout its life period of 20 years.
Yearly revenue from the project is
1576800 x 0.05 =$78840
The cash flow during the 20 years is shown in the
following figure.

80
PV(A)1-20

$78840 $78840 $78840 $78840=A

~
0 1 2 3 n

Cash flow from electricity sales

81
 PV=$ 982521

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20
~
A A A A A A A A A A A

Cash flow of loan repayment A=$ 78,840

Accumulated present value of electricity generated is :

 1  0.05 20  1 
PV(A) 1 20  78840     $ 982521
 0.051  0.05 
20

82
Example :

A WT has a maximum or rated power of 4.2 kW.

The rotor diameter is 6 m. The installed cost at the
location is $10,000. The capacity factor CF=0.38.
The interest rate is 11% and the period of loan or
desired payback period is 15 years. Find the cost
per unit area Ca, cost per kilowatt Ckw, the cost per
kW of energy Ce *. Neglect tax credits, inflation, or
operation and maintenance costs.
* A simplified version of COE (eq. 11.7, p. 531)
83
The area is

πd 2 π 6  2
A   28.27m 2
4 4
The cost per unit area is then
C c 10,000
Ca    $ 354/m 2
A 28.27
The cost per kilowatt is
10,000
C kw   $ 2380 /kW
4.2

We need the total yearly energy production Ea to find the unit cost of
electricity. The capacity factor CF=0.380. The yearly energy production is
then
Ea=4.2(0.380)(8760)=13,980 kWh/y
84
 The annual payment A is found from equation (11.11); p 533

10,000
A  $1390.65
 1  0.11 20  1 
 
 0.111  0.11 
20

The unit cost of electricity is then

A 1390.65 $/y
Cu    $0.099/kWh
E a 13,980 kWh/y

85
The future value FV of a present value of PV with annually
compounded interest rate of r:
FV=PV(1+r)N ----- (11.8) p. 532

The ratio PV/FV is called the present worth factor PWF:

PWF=PV/FV=(1+r)-N ……… (11.9), p. 532
Consider r=10% and N=20 years
PWF=(1+0.1)-20 =0.1486
(See table 11.7, p. 533)

86
87
Capital recovery factor CRF is defined as the ratio of A to PV
 1  r  N  1 
PV  A  N 
 r 1  r  

A  r 1  r  N 
CRF   
PV  1  r   1 
N

r
CRF     (9.6.10)
1  1  r  N
(11.12) p. 534

A  PV (CRF)

 end of year cost

88
 Present Value of annual cost
and
Effect of capacity factor CF on energy cost

89
Cost of wind-generated electricity (kWh/y)

1) Operation and maintenance costs

2) Present value of annual costs
3) The role of capacity factor

90
We considered earlier
COE =[(Cc x FCR)+CO&M]/Ea -- (11.7), p. 531
(11.6.1.2), p. 531

Cc = initial investment or Capital cost of system

CO&M = (Average annual) Operation and

Maintenance (O&M) costs

FCR=Fixed Charge Rate

(average annual charge used to account for debt, equity
costs, taxes; a “present value factor” used to evaluate the
PV)
Ea = average annual energy output (kWh/year)
91
COE =[(Cc x FCR)+CO&M]/Ea -- (11.7) p. 531
(11.6.1.2)

From an investment perspective, this equation

does not provide any basis. What is needed is
the corresponding present value in a more
realistic setting.

Realistic Setting => (involving interest rate, actual

yearly energy production.)

NPV=net present value

92
Now we wish to express COE in its PV form
and in a more realistic form (e.g. without
FCR)
Note: (11.11) p. 533
 1  1  r   N   1  r  N  1 
PV  A    A    (9.6.9), p.455
 r 1  r  
r N
 

PV

1 2 3 N
~

A A A A

93
 REVIEW

Cc mCc mCc mCc

mCc

1 2 3
~
year N

mCc = Co&m is expressed as a percentage ‘m’ of capital cost

Cc (a modeling approximation)

 1  r  N  1 
PV (C O & M )  mC c  
 r 1  r  
N

Net present value (PV) of all the costs:

  1  r  N  1  
NPV  C c 1  m  
 r 1  r   
N

94
Net present value (NPV) of yearly cost:

NPV C c   1  r  N  1  
 1  m  
 r 1  r   
N N  N

Ea= the actual energy generated by the

WT in a year
= 8760 (Pr)(CF)
Pr = rated power
CF=capacity factor

95
 Revisit Capacity Factor :

CF= Capacity factor

Note: The rated power or rated capacity represents the
maximum output; it assumes that the WT is operating
at the rated wind speed. Average wind speeds are
much lower.

annual energy output (kWh)

CF 
rated power (kW) . 8760 h
0.22 ≤ CF ≤ 0.35
Small Large
machines machines
(D≤15 m) (D≥60 m) 96
Therefore, the cost of wind-generated electricity
per kWh =PV/(COE)=c

NPV / N Net present value of yearly energy (kWh) output

c 
Ea Yearly Energy generated

Cc 1   1  r  N  1  
 1  m  
 r 1  r   
8760 N ( Prated )(CF )  N


97
Example

Cost of a 600 kW wind turbine is $ 550000. Other

initial costs including that for installation and grid
integration are 30 percent of turbine cost. Useful
life of the system is 20 years. Annual operation and
maintenance costs plus the land rent come to 3.5
percent of the turbine cost. Calculate the cost of
generating electricity from the turbine when it is
installed at a site having a capacity factor of 0.25.
The real rate of interest may be taken as 5 percent.

98
 Here, the installation cost of turbine is
550000 x 30/100=$165000
So the total initial investment for the project is
550000+165000=$ 715000.
Hence, the cost of one kWh of electricity is

715000 1   1  0.05 20  1  
c 1  0.035    $ 0.04 /kWh
8760  20 (600)(0.25)   0.051  0.05  
20

CF

99
Example

Illustrate the effect of capacity factor on cost/kWh in the

above example. If a utility company buys the generated

electricity at a rate of $ 0.03 /kWh, find out the break-even

capacity factor.

100
Effect of capacity factor on the unit cost of electricity is
shown in next Figure. The break-even capacity factor is
the CF for which the generating costs are equal to the
selling cost. Hence we have

715000 1   1  0.05 20  1  
0.03  1  0.035 
8760  20 (600)(CF)   0.051  0.05  
20


Solving for CF, we get the break even capacity factor

as 0.33.

101
 0.1
cost of generating $/kWh

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
capacity factor

102
Environmental Aspects and Impacts
(Chapter 12)

An overview

103
Negative Impacts concerning:

• Noise
•Interference with radio and TV
transmission and Radar
•Hazardous to avian life in some areas
(raptor kill)
•Aesthetic impact
•*Land use
•*Worker Hazard

* Not covered
104
Sustainable Energy
Choosing Among Options (2005)
The MIT Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts
London, England

•Noise. “Especially in western Europe, where open

space is at a premium, the low-frequency blade noise
is an important drawback. Machinery noise can be
designed-out or muffled. Up to half a kilometer of
buffer zone to the nearest habitations appears
adequate, except perhaps for especially sensitive
individuals.”

105
AWEA Weekly, August 2009
Sound from Wind Turbines Not Harmful: Expert Panel
Full report available at:

http://awea.org/newsroom/releases/AWEA_CanWEA_SoundWhitePaper_1
2-11-09.pdf

106
A multidisciplinary panel has concluded that the
sounds generated by wind turbines are not
harmful to human health

107
The expert panel was established by AWEA and the
Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA) to review
all current literature available on the issue of perceived
health effects of wind turbines. Composed of medical
doctors, audiologists, and acoustical professionals from the
United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom,
the panel undertook extensive review, analysis, and
discussion of the large body of peer-reviewed literature,
specifically with regard to sound produced by wind
turbines.
108
"The panel’s multidisciplinary approach helped to fully
explore the many published scientific reports related to the
potential impact of wind turbines on people’s health," said
Dr. Robert J. McCunney, one of the authors of the study
and an occupational/environmental medicine physician
and research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). "There is no evidence that the sounds,
nor the sub-audible vibrations, emitted by wind turbines
have any direct adverse physiological effects on humans."

109
In one section, the report put the second issue in
perspective with one particular analogy, stating
that “if sound levels from wind turbines were
harmful, it would be impossible to live in a city
given the sound levels normally present in urban
environments.”. The report also found that “sub-
audible, low frequency sound and infrasound
from wind turbines do not present a risk to human
health.”.

110
“Some people may be annoyed at the presence of
sound from wind turbines. Annoyance is not a
pathological entity.”

111
“For more than thirty years, people have been living
near the more than 50,000 wind turbines operating in
Europe and the more than 30,000 in North America.
The vast majority of people have had a positive
experience living near wind turbines, with no ill
effects.”

112
"The objective of the panel was to provide an
authoritative, scientific reference document for those
making legislative and regulatory decisions about
wind turbine developments," said AWEA CEO
Denise Bode. "This study is another indication that
wind is one of the most environmentally benign
sources of electricity available."

113
Aesthetic impact
“The best wind farm sites are often in locations
with a certain degree of wilderness cachet in the
US and near the crests of horizon-defining
topography. The resulting visual impact is
distressful to a non-negligible fraction of the
public.”

114
Design as if People Matter: Aesthetic Guidelines for the
Wind Industry
by P.B. Gipe, Paul Gipe & associates, Tehachapi,
California, U.S.A.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/design.html

“Opinion surveys show that wind has high public

support, but a worrisome NIMBY factor. This support
erodes once specific projects are proposed. Because
support is fragile and can be squandered by ill-
conceived projects, the industry must do everything it
can to insure that wind turbines and wind power plants
become good neighbors. One means for maximizing
acceptance is to incorporate aesthetic guidelines into the
design of wind turbines and wind power plants.”
115
•Raptor kill

“In California, certain locations have proven

hazardous to large, predatory birds such as
hawks and eagles. If corrective measures prove
ineffective, then this may become an additional
constraint on siting.”

116
“Interference with radio and TV transmission
and radar. This has been, and still is,
problematic in some instances, but appears to
be diminishing as cable and satellite systems
proliferate, as electronic technology improves
and as fiberglass blades are used in lieu of metal
and siting guidelines evolve.”

117
Summary – Be a good Neighbor
In general, the prescriptions for optimizing aesthetic
acceptance can be summarized by noting that
designers, developers, and operators should make
every effort to be a good neighbor. Only when the
wind industry places much importance on being
good neighbor as on aerodynamic efficiency will the
public welcome wind turbines into their backyards.

118
Text, p. 548

119
A widely shared consensus:

Wind turbines outrank even other

renewable/inexhaustible options (e.g. solar, ocean
waves)

WT is the choice for green energy

120
Prospects -- Bright and challenging

1. Reasons
2. Three research areas (modeling turbulence and
wake)

3. Insights from an on-going exploratory study

121
Renewable energy ~ virtually an indispensable
component of electricity-generating infrastructure.

Examples:

•The European Commission has mandated that 20%

of all electricity generation in its member states must
come from renewable sources by 2020. Basically a
similar mandate applies for several other countries
such as India and China.
•The US has no such mandate. But it has initiated a
$16.7 billion program in building the domestic
renewable energy industry.
•Goal ~ 25% of market share by 2025.

122
“Among all available renewable energy sources, wind

has potential to make the most significant contribution.”

For example, “with a target of 25 GW of wind power

generating capacity by 2020, the U.K. is poised to be the

largest offshore wind energy producer.”

123
 Research Areas

•Modeling turbulence over complex terrains such as

escarpments, cliffs and hill tops ~ rich sources of wind
energy
•Modeling turbulence deep inside a wind farm; see next
figure

124
Wind farm array schematic

125
Deep inside a wind farm, the mean wind

decreases and turbulence intensity

increases. This is due to the interference of wakes

from upwind wind turbines (~ wake

superposition)- not a well understood problem.

126
•Dynamic Inflow modeling deep inside a wind

farm

~ interference from wakes from the upwind

turbines

~ not a well understood problem

127
A Recent Exploratory Study

mechanical engineering (ASME), April 2010

http://www.principlepowerinc.com/news/articles/asme_100401.pdf

Floating Wind Turbines

“To reach the most sustained and powerful winds and

to preserve the view.”

128
Offshore wind turbine deployed in deeper
waters

Depth:
Shallow ~ less than 20 meters deep
Transitional ~ 20 to 50 meters
deep ~ greater than 50 meters

These floating wind turbines are harnessing

wind energy in deep waters.

129
Mounted on semi-submersible platforms, the floating wind
turbines being developed by Principle Power can be built in
shipyards and towed into place.

130
 TLP = tension lag platform

Offshore wind turbines mounted on seabed foundations are

limited to shallower waters, floating structures can be deployed at
depths greater than 50 meters.
131
This scale model floating wind turbine, tested at the University of
California, Berkeley, uses wind blown on a disk to simulate the forces
on the rotor blades.

132
In a fjord southwest of Karmøy Island, Norway, the HyWind
spar-type hull supports a 2.3 MW turbine. The hull displaces
some 5,300 tons.
133
Technical Challenges

1.Stability ~ a large mass* in the rotor and nacelle at

an elevation of some 80 to 100 meters above sea
surface
*(≈ 290 ton each)
2. Extensive new design requirements for floating
offshore wind turbines
3. Financial risks

134
REPOWER 5M

135
We believe :

Among all of the renewable energy

options, wind farm electric energy

generation has the potential to make

the most significant contribution.

136
I Thank you and wish you well

137