Wind Turbine Lab Museum of Science, Boston APA National Conference - Urban Wind April 10, 2011
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Wind Turbine Lab
Museum of Science, Boston
APA National Conference
Urban Wind April 10, 2011
Skystream
Swift
Proven
AVX1000s
Windspire
Marian Tomusiak
Wind Turbine Lab Analyst
Museum of Science, BostonWhy are Wind Turbines on the
Museum of Science Roof?
• Wind energy was one option explored as part of our
Green Initiative, which includes conservation, recycling,
and other renewable energy sources.
• Site, wind and structural assessment showed it was
impractical to scale wind turbines for Museum’s electrical
load (9GWh/year)
• Little data on small-scale wind turbines are available from
the built environmentProject became a Consumer Test Lab • Testing a variety of commercially available small-scale wind turbines roof-mounted in our urban environment • Serving as a community resource for both professionals and the general public – A lesson in critical thinking about energy technology – A practical demonstration and laboratory; experience; data • An experiential part of a new Museum exhibit • A landmark for Boston, Cambridge, New England • A statement about the importance of renewable energy
Complex Site
VI
EW
S
W S
WI E
ND VI
D
W IN
PUBLIC
SAFETY
VIE
STRUCTURE WS
S
EW
VIBut wait, there’s more!
Neighbors
FAA / hospital / military flyway
Historic District
(MA, Boston & Cambridge)
Wetland
n
Bosto DCR Land
amb ridge
C
Birds? Bats?
Endangered species?Implementation
Wind Study
ept
onc Design & Permitting
c
ab
stl Str. Eng.
Te
Con-
tracts
Ph. I
Ph. II
Commissioning
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010The Turbines
Windspire Energy
Windspire
1.2kW @11m/s 10 m tall
Proven Energy
Southwest Windpower
Proven 6
6kW @12m/s 5.5 m diameter
Skystream 3.7
2.4kW @13m/s 3.7 m diameter
Cascade Engineering
Swift AeroVironment
1kW @11m/s 2.1 m diameter
AVX1000
5 x 1kW @13m/s 1.8 m diameterThe Lab
Five different types of small-scale
wind turbines installed on the roof
of the Museum in 2009 Feeds into our
Catching the Wind
Exhibit
A consumer test lab for both professionals and the general public.
Data is recorded and shared.2010 Update • In 2010, the wind turbines produced 4,409 kWh of clean electricity for the Museum. – 60% of average MA home (2009 figures) – Museum requires > 1,000 times MA house • No issues with noise, vibration, ice throw, flicker, birds, bats, other environment problems*. Our neighbors like them, too. (*Update April 12, 2011 – one bird strike in 2-year Lab history.) • Not cost effective at this site – Roof installation costs were high – The Museum does not have a good wind regime – Some turbines underperforming; investigation continues
Overall production (2010)
TURBINE Energy/ Avg Total MA Notes
Swept Wind Usable Home
Area Speed Energy (7416
(m/s) kWh kWh)
kWh/m2
Skystream 141.6 3.0 1522 21% As expected in this wind profile
Proven 95.1 2.6 2259 31% More energy than the others
combined, but underperforming
Swift 33.0 2.9 115 2% Poor site; unable to evaluate
true behavior
AVX1000 26.7 3.7 339 5% Directional. Improved after
repairs, but underperforming
Windspire 23.4 3.1 174 2% Low cut-out speed; out of
service for 4 months out of 12Skystream Power Curves
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Of the wind
turbines installed at
the Museum,
Skystream is the
closest to “plug and
play.”
Southwest
Windpower’s new
model will be
Skystream 600.It’
m sn
uc ot
h so
of
th w i n
e
tim dy
e.
i
k
h
e
T
m
%
W
W
w eg
he e
n to
it’ ur
s
w po
in w
dy er
.Skystream Energy per Month
Avg 127 kWh/Month; Total 1525 kWh
250
h 200
W
k 150
yg
r 100
e
n
E 50
0
Skystream Wind Distribution 0 - 10 MPH
Lower and Higher Wind Buckets 10 - 20+ MPH
8%
e 7%
im
T 6%
d 5%
e
s
p
al 4%
E
t 3%
n
e
cr 2%
e
P 1%
0%Proven Power Curves
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Proven has the
largest generator and
rotor of the Museum
turbines.
It produces more
energy than all the
others combined, yet
it is underperforming
expectations.
Investigation of
system components
continues.Swift Power Curves
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Swift is poorly sited for
prevailing southern
winds.
Significant increase in
energy generation in
strong north winds.
Evaluating increase of
tower height.TRC/Ansys Computational Flow Model
ind
WAVX1000 Power Curves
5 Units
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Reoccurring inverter
faults throughout 2010.
Tail shroud repaired
May19; power turned off
by mistake until June 3
Inverter down mid-
November to mid-
January.
April 2011 Update:
Inverter settings
changed January 2011;
fix has eliminated
inverter faults. Turbines
still underperforming.Windspire Power Curves
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Cut-out logic reduces
access to high energy
wind.
Due to inverter issues,
Windspire shut down
Jan, Feb, most of Aug,
half of Sep, end of Dec.
April 2011 Update:
Will soon replace with
Windspire High Wind
model with improved
inverter and generator.Cost Breakdown ($350K total)
• Hidden costs associated with being “ground breaking,”
coping with surprises in permitting, engineering, installation,
commissioning
• Maintenance is not expensive, our regular facilities people can
handle most of the operations (do it themselves or coordinate
with vendors)Summarizing Issues • Wind regime (generally & different locations that were suboptimal) • Bugs (Windspire inverter, Swift braking problem) • “Features” (Windspire high-wind shutdown) • Installation errors (Proven anemometer, AVX inverter settings) • Location/failure to account for building effects (Swift) • Unknowns (Proven power curve, AVX power curve) • Lab vs. single installation (complexity, conservative foundations)
Evaluating Wind Turbines
• “Rated Power” tells you about size of generator and rotor,
not how much energy you can expect. Wind speed at rated
power is not yet standardized across market.
• Energy produced depends most strongly on
wind speed (cubed)
– How fast, how often: Detailed anemometer study at hub height
– Building effects: CFD analysis may be wise
• Return on Investment relies heavily on installation costs and
project scale.
– At MoS cost of structural steel was single largest capital cost – almost
one quarter of entire $350K project cost
• Federal & state financial incentives are available.
– Consider scale of expected energy wrt your building electrical load.
• Consider expected future costs of electricity generated from fossil
fuelsActionable items
• Be clear and realistic about your goals (Energy?
Economics? EcoBling? Green?)
• Carefully investigate wind/building interaction
• Take care with structure and public safety
• Be aware of the cost of building integration (even with
new construction)
• Carefully think through your plan for vibration risk
management and other uncertainties.
• Evaluate Scale …
– Wind speed generally increases with height
• Roof space?
• Ground installation?
– Large buildings mean high electricity needsView from Museum of Science Garage Roof
One Science Park, Boston MA
Windspire
Skystream
Swift
Proven
AVX1000s
mos.org/WindTurbineLab
mtomusiak@mos.orgAdditional Slides
Museum of Science
David Rabkin, Director for Current Science and Technology drabkin@mos.org
The Team Paul Ippolito, Director, Facilities
Steve Nichols, Project Manager, IIT
pippoloto@mos.org
snichols@mos.org
Marian Tomusiak, Wind Turbine Lab Analyst mtomusiak@mos.org
Renewable Energy Trust / Mass CEC Boreal Renewable Energy Development
Dick Tinsman, now with Criterium Engineers Bob Shatten, Principal bshatten@boreal-renewable.com
rtinsman@criterium-engineers.com Tom Michelman, Principal tmichelman@boreal-renewable.com
Alex Weck, Principal aweck@boreal-renewable.com
Rapheal Herz, now with Johnson Controls Michael Alexis, Principal malexis@boreal-renewable.com
Raphael.Herz@jci.com
Jim Christo, now with Alteris Renewables ANSYS/TRC
jchristo@alterisinc.com Valerio Viti, Sr. Fluids Specialist valerio.viti@ansys.com
Chris DesAutels, Sr. Meteorologist cdesautels@trcsolutions.com
Marybeth Campbell, now with the Massachusetts Lloyd Schulman, Sr. Meteorologist lschulman@trcsolutions.com
Clean Energy Center
MCampbell@MassCEC.com Apterra Technologies
Ted Schwartz, Principal ted.schwartz@apterratech.com
Christie Howe, Massachusetts Clean Energy Center
chowe@MassCEC.com Nexamp, Inc.
Will Thompson, VP, Integration wthompson@nexamp.com
Phelan Engineering
Underwriters Paul Phelan, Jr., P.E. paulphelan@comcast.net
Richard Gross, Inc.
Richard Gross, P.E. rgross@ieee.org
Rubin and Rudman, LLP
Keren Schlomy, Partner kschlomy@green-mail.org
Kresge Foundation
Cascade Energy Shaw Welding Company
Museum of Science and its supporters Rick Shaw, President/CEO rick@shawwelding.com
And the Extended Project Team
Titan Electric Corporation
John Gill, President jgill@titan-electric.comWind Resource Assessment
• Multiple locations for measurement
– Parapets
– Tower
• 3-month study correlated local data to Logan to estimate local annual
pattern
• Winds recorded for another 9 months
• Moved anemometer 1 to future Proven location
4
5
3 2
1Data Collection
• Apterra Hawkeye samples data every 2-3 seconds, after
inverters, transformer
• Data recorded:
– Wind Direction
– Power & Energy for each turbine
– Wind Speed for each turbine’s anemometer
• Data aggregated into 10-minute intervals, includes wind speed
and power averages, min, max, std dev
• Continuous data collection since 8Oct09
– Commissioning issues meant some inaccuracies over
several weeksYou can also read
