Easy summary 150~200word in 3hrs

ksjaw11

eme-1_14nov16.pdf

Home >English homework help >Easy summary 150~200word in 3hrs

11/15/16

Wind Power: Now, Tomorrow C.P. (Case) van Dam EME-1 Mechanical Engineering November 14, 2016

How does it function?

11/15/16

Wind Turbine Power •  The amount of power generated by a turbine depends on the power in

the wind and the efficiency of the turbine:

•  Power in wind

•  Efficiency or Power Coefficient, Cp: –  Rotor (Conversion of wind power to mechanical power) –  Gearbox (Change in rpm) –  Generator & Inverter (Conversion of mechanical power to electrical power)

Power Turbine !

"# $

%& =

Efficiency Factor

"# $

%& ×

Power Wind

"# $

w = 1

2 ρA

d V

w 3

Basic Rotor Performance (Momentum Theory)

Wind speed, Vw Air density, ρ

Disk area, Ad

Power in wind, Pw = 1/2 ρ Vw3 Ad Maximum rotor power, P = 16/27 Pw Rotor efficiency, Cp = P / Pw Betz limit, max Cp = 16/27 = 59.3%

11/15/16

Region 4

•  Region 1 Turbine is stopped or starting up

•  Region 2 Efficiency maximized by maintaining optimum rotor RPM (for variable speed turbine)

•  Region 3 Power limited through blade pitch

•  Region 4 Turbine is stopped due to high winds (loads)

HAWT Power Characteristics Johnson et al (2005)

•  Peak Cp at TSR = 9 •  This Cp is maintained in Region II of power curve by controlling rotor RPM •  In Region III power is controlled by changing blade pitch.

HAWT Cp-TSR Curve Jackson (2005)

11/15/16

•  Cp = Protor / (1/2 ρ Vw3 Ad) •  Solidity = Blade Area / Ad •  TSR = Tip Speed / Vw •  High power efficiency for

rotors with low solidity and high TSR

•  Darrieus (VAWT) is less efficient than HAWT

Efficiency of Various Rotor Designs

Butterfield (2008)

Tip Speed Ratio TSR = π D RPM / (60 Vw)

kidwind.org

C.P. van Dam

Dutch Mill 16th century Water pumping, Grinding materials/grain

W. Gretz, DOE/NREL

Persian grain mill 9th century

American Multi-blade 19th century Water pumping - irrigation

Brush Mill 1888 First wind turbine 12 kW 17 m rotor diameter

Charles F. Brush Special Collection, Case Western Reserve University

telos.net/wind

Gedser Mill 1956, Denmark Forerunner to modern wind turbines

11/15/16

Evolution of U.S. Utility-Scale Wind Turbine Technology

NREL

Wind Turbine Scale-Up and Impact on Cost U.S. DOE, Wind Vision, March 2015

•  Scale-up has been effective in reducing cost but uncertain if this trend can continue

11/15/16

Modern Wind Turbines

•  1.0-3.0 MW •  Wind speeds: 3-25 m/s

–  Rated power at 11-12 m/s •  Rotor

–  Lift driven –  3 blades –  Upwind –  Full blade pitch –  70–120 m diameter –  5-20 RPM –  Fiberglass, some carbon fiber

•  Active yaw •  Steel tubular tower •  Installed in plants/farms of 100-200 MW •  ~40% capacity factor

–  1.5 MW wind turbine would generate about 5,250,000 kWh per year

–  Average household in California uses about 6,000 kWh per year

Vestas V90-3.0

11/15/16

Technical Specifications - Vestas V90

•  Rotor – Diameter 90 m – Swept area 6,362 m2 – Nominal rpm 16.1→Tip speed= π⋅D⋅rpm/60 = 75.9 m/s – Operational range 8.6 - 18.4 rpm – Number of blades 3 – Power regulation Pitch/OptiSpeed

(Note, OptiSpeed not available in USA and Canada)

– Brake Independent blade pitch (Three separate hydraulic pitch systems)

•  Tower – Hub height 80 m, 105 m

Technical Specifications - Vestas V90

•  Operational data –  Cut-in wind speed 4 m/s –  Nominal wind speed 15 m/s –  Cut-out wind speed 25 m/s

•  Generator –  Type Asynchronous with OptiSpeed –  Rated output 3,000 kW –  Operational data 50 Hz, 1000 V

•  Gearbox –  Type Two planetary and one helical stage

•  Weight –  Nacelle 70 t –  Rotor 41 t –  Tower

•  80 m, IEC IA 160 t •  105 m, IEC IIA 285 t

11/15/16

Wind Turbine Blade Diagram de Vries, Windpower Monthly, 1 July 2012

Why wind energy?

11/15/16

Why Wind Energy? •  Renewable

–  Guaranteed “fuel” availability –  Many regions in world are wind energy rich –  No cost volatility

•  Clean –  Emission free operation –  No waste generation

•  Installation –  Rapidly deployed

•  Security –  Non-centralized installation and operation –  No imported fuel requirement

•  Economics –  Cost effective energy –  Local economic benefits

•  Does not rely on water

E. Mayda

•  1980s: U.S. was the leader in installed wind power capacity

•  1990s: other countries quickly outpaced the U.S.

•  2000s: US installations rapidly increased, driven by competitive pricing and favorable policies

•  2012: Record new capacity •  2013-present: Significant

concern and uncertainty over Production Tax Credit (PTC) status, record low natural gas prices, competition from PV

Historical Trend in Installed Wind Power Capacity

11/15/16

Global Installed Wind Power Capacity

Percentage Energy Consumption from Wind U.S. DOE, Wiser & Bolinger (2015)

11/15/16

U.S. Wind Power Potential Source: DOE/NREL

USA Installed Wind Power Capacity

11/15/16

Why Wind Energy? •  Renewable

–  Guaranteed “fuel” availability –  Large available resource in USA –  No cost volatility

•  Clean –  Emission free operation –  No waste generation

•  Installation –  Rapidly deployed

•  Security –  Non-centralized installation and

operation –  No imported fuel requirement

•  Economics –  Cost effective energy –  Local economic benefits

•  Does not rely on water

C.P. van Dam

WA: 15% x 2020*

OR: 50%x 2040* (large utilities)

CA: 50% x 2030

MT: 15% x 2015

NV: 25% x 2025* UT: 20% x

2025*†

AZ: 15% x 2025*

ND: 10% x 2015

NM: 20%x 2020 (IOUs)

HI: 100% x 2045

CO: 30% x 2020 (IOUs) *†

OK: 15% x 2015

MN:26.5% x 2025 (IOUs)

31.5% x 2020 (Xcel) MI: 10% x

2015*†WI: 10% 2015

MO:15% x 2021

IA: 105 MW IN: 10% x 2025†

IL: 25% x 2026

OH: 12.5% x 2026

NC: 12.5% x 2021 (IOUs)

VA: 15% x 2025†KS: 20% x 2020

ME: 40% x 2017

29 States + Washington DC + 3 territories have a Renewable Portfolio Standard (8 states and 1 territories have renewable portfolio goals)Renewable portfolio standard

Renewable portfolio goal Includes non-renewable alternative resources* Extra credit for solar or customer-sited renewables†

U.S. Territories

TX: 5,880 MW x 2015*

SD: 10% x 2015

SC: 2% 2021

NMI: 20% x 2016

PR: 20% x 2035

Guam: 25% x 2035

USVI: 30% x 2025

NH: 24.8%x 2025 VT: 75% x 2032 MA: 15% x 2020(new resources) 6.03% x 2016 (existing resources)

RI: 38.5% x 2035 CT: 27% x 2020

NY:50% x 2030

PA: 18% x 2021†

NJ: 20.38% RE x 2020 + 4.1% solar by 2027

DE: 25% x 2026* MD: 20% x 2022 DC: 20% x 2020

Renewable Portfolio Standard Policies www.dsireusa.org / August 2016

11/15/16

California Wind Resource

•  California wind maps. Developed by AWS Truepower for CEC

•  Mean annual wind speed at 30, 50, 70, 100 m heights at 200 m spatial resolution

•  Maps indicate limited onshore resource except for several areas: San Gorgonio, Tehachapi, Altamont, Solano

CA Energy Future •  California has an aggressive Renewables Portfolio Standard

(RPS). This standard requires all utilities to adopt the following RPS targets: -  An average of 20% of retail sales from renewables in 2011-2013. -  25% by the end of 2016. -  33% by the end of 2020. -  50% by the end of 2030.

•  In 2012, California served about 22% of retail electricity sales from facilities using renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and small hydroelectric.

•  The CEC estimates that this electricity was generated from about 12,300 MW of wholesale generation and 1,600 MW of self- generation.

•  CA operating renewable energy capacity grew from 14,100 MW in 2012 to 17,400 MW in 2013.

•  On track to meet or exceed 33% RPS by 2020 -  + rooftop PV - 5% -  + large hydro - 10% Source: CEC

11/15/16

CA Generation Mix 2013

Source: CEC

California High Renewable Day Saturday, 12 April 2014

Renewables at 42.2% of load

Renewables at 31.9% of 24 hr load

Source: CAISO

Hour of Day

11/15/16

Source: CAISO

Hour of Day

Wind 19.9% of load

California High Renewable Day Saturday, 12 April 2014

1.  Downward ramping capability Thermal plants to serve load at night ramped down to deal with influx of solar after sunrise

2.  Minimum generation flexibility Thermal resources must have lower minimum generation levels to minimize overgeneration

3.  Upward ramping capability Thermal resources must have quick start up and ramp up capabilities to deal with sundown loss in solar and peak load

4.  Peaking capability System must be capable to meet reliably peak loads

5.  Sub-hourly flexibility System flexibility needed to meet sub-hourly ramping

Source: E3 - Energy+Environmental Economics

50% RPS Provides New Challenges

11/15/16

50% RPS Study Conclusions & Recommendations

•  50% RPS does not face major technical hurdles •  May lead to overgeneration conditions during

daylight hours •  Will lead to higher electricity rates than 33% RPS •  Solutions to mitigate operational challenges and

reduce cost: - Increase regional coordination - sharing of flexible

resources across WECC territory - Develop diverse portfolio of renewable resources - Implement long-term, sustainable solutions to address

overgeneration - Implement distributed generation solutions

Source: E3 - Energy+Environmental Economics

Why Wind Energy? •  Renewable

–  Guaranteed “fuel” availability –  Large available resource in USA –  No cost volatility

•  Clean –  Emission free operation –  No waste generation

•  Installation –  Rapidly deployed

•  Security –  Non-centralized installation and

operation –  No imported fuel requirement

•  Economics –  Cost effective energy –  Local economic benefits

•  Does not rely on water

C.P. van Dam

11/15/16

Rapid Deployment of Wind Turbines

•  Windplant requires installation of: – Access roads – Underground power

collection system – Underground

communication system – Turbine foundations – Towers – Nacelles – Rotors

•  100 turbine, 150 MW plant can be completed and on-line in 6 months

C.P. van Dam

Why Wind Energy? •  Renewable

–  Guaranteed “fuel” availability –  Large available resource in USA –  No cost volatility

•  Clean –  Emission free operation –  No waste generation

•  Installation –  Rapidly deployed

•  Security –  Non-centralized installation and

operation –  No imported fuel requirement

•  Economics –  Cost effective energy –  Local economic benefits

•  Does not rely on water

C.P. van Dam

11/15/16

Why Wind Energy? •  Renewable

–  Guaranteed “fuel” availability –  Large available resource in USA –  No cost volatility

•  Clean –  Emission free operation –  No waste generation

•  Installation –  Rapidly deployed

•  Security –  Non-centralized installation and

operation –  No imported fuel requirement

•  Economics –  Cost effective energy –  Local economic benefits

•  Does not rely on water

C.P. van Dam

Wind and Wholesale Energy Prices U.S. DOE, Wiser & Bolinger (2015)

100

2003 9

570

2004 13 547

2005 17

1,643

2006 30

2,311

2007 26

1,781

2008 39

3,465

2009 49

4,048

2010 48

4,642

2011 42

4,572

2012 14 985

2013 26

3,674

2014 13

1,768

2 0 1 4 $ /M

W h

Nationwide Wholesale Power Price Range (by calendar year)

Generation-Weighted Average Levelized Wind PPA Price (by year of PPA execution)

Wind project sample includes projects with PPAs signed from 2003-2014

PPA year: Contracts:

MW:

11/15/16

Why Wind Energy? •  Renewable

–  Guaranteed “fuel” availability –  Large available resource in USA –  No cost volatility

•  Clean –  Emission free operation –  No waste generation

•  Installation –  Rapidly deployed

•  Security –  Non-centralized installation and

operation –  No imported fuel requirement

•  Economics –  Cost effective energy –  Local economic benefits

•  Does not rely on water

C.P. van Dam

Water and Energy Jane Woodward “The Evolving Energy Revolution” BioForum: Energy Prospects in a Changing World California Academy of Sciences

13 September 2008

“Water will emerge as a major factor in energy supply, prices and choices”

11/15/16

But it is not easy! •  Key factors for a successful wind energy

project –  Appropriate Site

•  Wind regime •  Site size, shape, topography •  Transmission •  Land owners, host community •  Accessibility •  Constructability •  Airports and radar installations •  Habitat •  Power demand •  Energy pricing

–  Appropriate Technology •  Turbine •  Manufacturer support

–  Appropriate Participants •  Expertise and financial strength •  Documentation •  Tax appetite •  Skilled transport & construction •  Skilled O&M provider Source: GEC (2007)

UC Davis

Why Offshore Wind? •  Terrestrial wind power sites saturated •  Excellent wind resource

–  High wind speeds –  Low turbulence –  Near load centers

•  Remotely located •  No road transportation constraints

–  Larger turbines •  Local economic benefits

–  Jobs –  Infrastructure –  Taxes

11/15/16

2 - 41

California Offshore Wind Potential & Operating

Environment

Source: Schwartz et al, 2010 GW by Depth (m)

Region 0-30 30-60 >60 Total

California 4.4 10.5 573.0 587.8

Pacific Northwest 15.1 21.3 305.3 341.7

Source: Elliott et al, 2011

Source: NREL

Statoil Hywind Turbine rated capacity 2.3 MW

Turbine weight 138 tons

Draft hull 100 m

Nacelle height 65 m

Rotor diameter 82.4 m

Water depth 200 - 220 m

Displacement 5300 m3

Mooring 3 lines

Diameter at water line 6 m

Diameter of submerged body 8.3 m

November 2013: The Crown Estate approved lease for 30MW Hywind project 20-30 kilometers off Scotland

Source: Statoil

11/15/16

Principle Power Source: Banister, Principle Power, July 2014

•  Principle Power WindFloat-1 (2 MW) installed off northern Portugal in October 2011; still producing today

•  Generated and delivered over 10 GWh of energy to Portuguese grid

•  Technical availability 93% •  Performed through extreme

weather events, including waves over 15 m

•  Energy output consistent with onshore turbine under same wind conditions

•  WindFloat-2 (6 MW) projected for installation off Oregon Coast. Total installation 5 WF-2

WF-1 WF-2

Principle Power Project Site Source: Banister, Principle Power, July 2014

•  Lease application filed with BOEM on 14 May 2013

•  Lease issuance target Q2 2015

•  Commissioning target before end 2017

•  Approx. 18 miles offshore

•  Project will be in about 350+ meters (1,200 ft) of water

•  Generally sandy/ silly bottom

11/15/16

Marine Development Parties in CA Selected agencies

•  Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

•  California Governor’s Office •  California Energy Commission •  California Public Utilities

Commission •  California Fish and Wildlife •  U.S. Fish and Wildlife •  National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration –  National Marine Fisheries

Services –  National Marine Sanctuaries –  Office of Ocean and Coastal

Resource Management

•  California State Lands Commission

•  California State Parks •  National Park Service •  U.S. Defense Department

–  Army –  Navy –  Air Force –  Coast Guard

•  Ocean Protection Council •  California Coastal Commission •  Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission •  County agencies

Final Observations - Offshore Wind Power

•  Great Opportunity –  Bountiful energy

resource –  Near load centers –  Benefits from

extensive onshore technical and regulatory experience

–  Leverage experience from other industries •  Oil and gas

industry

•  Great Challenge –  Young industry –  Costs are currently

high –  Lack of established

infrastructure •  Coastal facilities •  Ships

–  Cost challenges •  Larger turbines •  Deep water /

floating platforms •  Maintenance

–  New environmental considerations

–  Complex regulatory process with limited experience

C.P. van Dam