Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Museum of ScienceWind Turbine Lab
Boston, MAFebruary 29, 2012
Why 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)
– No land to install turbines, big or small. Roof is only option here.
• Little data on small-scale wind turbines are available from the built environment
– “Built environment” includes turbines within influence of human construction, not just on rooftops or building-integrated
Goals of the MOS Wind Turbine 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
And it also generates clean energy…
2010 & 2011 Summary
• In 2010 - 2011, the wind turbines produced
8,758 kWh total of clean electricity
for the Museum.– 15.6 kW installed , grid-tied
– 4379 kWh average per year
– 59% of average MA home annual electricity
– Museum requires > 1,000 times MA house
• No issues with noise, vibration, ice throw, flicker, bats, other environment problems; just one bird strike in 2.5-year lab history.Our neighbors like them, too.
• 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
Project Implementation
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Design & Permitting
Str. Eng.
Con-tracts
Ph. I
Ph. II
Commissioning
Site & Wind Study
Complex Site
PUBLIC SAFETY
STRUCTURE
But wait, there’s more!
DCR Land
Wetland
FAA / hospital / military flywayHistoric District
(MA, Boston & Cambridge)
Birds? Bats? Endangered species?
Neighbors
Museum Wind Study
• 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
• Full report available at mos.org/WindTurbineLab
1
3 2
4
5
Turbine Criteria
• Commercially available, residential-scale
• Size & weight appropriate for roof installation
• Responsive in our wind regime
• Within budget
• Variety of designs
– Downwind, upwind, architectural, vertical
• Manufacturer willing to accept the challenge
Windspire Energy
Windspire 1.2kW @11m/s 10 m tall
Cascade Engineering
Swift 1kW @11m/s 2.1 m diameter
Southwest Windpower
Skystream 3.72.4kW @13m/s 3.7 m diameter
Proven Energy
Proven 6 6kW @12m/s 5.5 m diameter
AeroVironment
AVX1000 5 x 1kW @13m/s 1.8 m diameter
The Turbines
The Exhibit: Catching the Wind
Exhibit includes live wind turbine data
Energy Production
History
Power Wind Speed
and Direction
AnimationTurbine
Description
MOS Wind Turbine Lab Data Analysis
• Scatter-plot power vs. wind data compared to published power curves
• Energy and wind distribution charts
• Comparison metric is Energy / Swept Area
• Ad-hoc analyses
• Power Curves are graphs that plot the power a turbine generates at different wind speeds. Defines expected performance, but not energy in local wind regime.
• The Museum samples data every 2-3
seconds, after inverters, transformer.
– 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.
• We create scatter plots of 10-minute average power vs. 10-minute average wind speed; compare to manufacturer’s graphs.
Understanding Power Curves -MOS Data
Understanding Power Curves -Rated Power, Rated Speed
Ve
rtic
al
ax
is is
kW
AVX1000 1 kW @ 11m/s
(5) AVX 5 kW @ 11m/s
Proven 6 6 kW @ 12m/s
Skystream 3.7 2.4 kW @ 13m/s
Swift 1kW @ 11m/s
Windspire Standard
1.2 kW @ 11m/s
Windspire Extreme Wind
1.2 kW @ 13m/s
Wind Speed for “Rated Power” is not yet standardized across market, complicating comparisons.
Example: Note difference below between power at 12 m/s and 11 m/s.
Understanding Energy
• Power is proportional to wind speed cubed and swept area– “Rated Power” tells you about size of generator and rotor, not how much
energy you can expect.
• Energy = Power * Time– Energy depends most strongly on wind speed and duration
• How fast, how long, how often– Energy is what the end user cares about
• Wind at MOS rarely reaches the speeds at which
our turbines are rated
– Beaufort Wind Scale Number 6: “Strong Breeze”
• 25 – 31 mph (11–14 m/s)
• Large branches move; river is choppy; empty
plastic garbage cans tip over; umbrella use is difficult
– MOS WTL mean wind speed: 3.0 – 3.7 m/s
– MOS turbines do produce 4.4MWh per year
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 - 5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20+
En
erg
y k
Wh
Avg Wind Speed MPH
Skystream Energy Production 1Jan2010 - 31Dec2011
Avg 126 kWh/Month; Total 2964 kWh
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 - 5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20+
% E
lap
sed
Tim
e
Avg Wind Speed MPH
Skystream Wind Distribution 1Jan2010 - 31Dec2011
Avg 6.7 MPH (3 m/s)
Wind regularly comes down the Charles River from the south.
“Nor’easters” contribute winds from the northeast.
Wind speeds up at the roof edge where the AVX1000s are mounted, as shown by the AV Wind Speed plot.
Annual Performance (2010 & 2011 Averaged Data)
TURBINE Energy/
Swept
Area
(kWh/m2)
Avg
Wind
Speed
(m/s)
Usable
Energy
(kWh)
MA
Home
(7416
kWh/yr)
Notes
Skystream 138 3.0 1482 20% Performing as expected in this wind
profile
Proven 93 2.7 2200 30% More energy than the others
combined, but underperforming
AVX1000 (5 units) 38 3.7 481 7% Highly directional. Improved after
repairs, but underperforming
Swift 28 2.8 98 2% Poor site; unable to evaluate true
behavior
Standard
Windspire (2010)
23 3.1 174 2% Low cut-out speed; out of service
for 4 months out of 12.
Extreme Wind
Windspire
(Jul-Dec 2011)
na 3.1 62 na Replaced Standard model 11Jul11.
Performing as expected in this wind
profile.
Skystream Power Curves
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Of the wind turbines installed at the Museum, Skystream is the closest to “plug and play.”
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.
AVX1000 Power Curves5 Units
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Turbines consistently underperform power curve.
Inverter:
- Reoccurring inverter faults throughout 2010.
- Inverter down mid-November 2010 to mid-January 2011.
- Inverter settings changed January 2011; fix has eliminated inverter faults.
Turbines:
- One tail shroud broken Feb 2010 – May 2010
- One rotor down Jul 2011 –Nov 2011
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
Windspire Power CurvesStandard Model3Mar2010 – 31Dec2010
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Cut-out logic reduced access to high energy wind, but standard model tracks power curve well to 8 m/s.
Due to inverter issues, Windspire shut down Jan, Feb, most of Aug, half of Sep, end of Dec.
Nearby chiller fan may affect turbine or anemometer during summer months.
Windspire Power CurvesExtreme Wind Model11Jul2011 – 31Dec2011
Actual vs. Manufacturer’s
Windspire Extreme Wind model replaced Standard model July 11, 2011- Designed to cut-out at higher
wind speed (40mph) and recover much faster.
- Reduction in swept area shifts power curve to the right.
- Tracks power curve well
Nearby chiller fan seems to affect power curve during summer months independent of model.
Project Costs
• MOS project cost $350K, primarily grants
• Building integration adds considerable cost compared to ground-mounting
• 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)
• Return on Investment relies heavily on installation costs and project scale– At MOS the cost of custom-designed structural steel was single largest capital cost;
not all of these turbines are designed for roof-mounting.– Consider scale of expected energy compared with site’s electrical load– Federal & state financial incentives are available– Consider expected future costs of electricity generated from fossil fuels
MOS Lessons Learned
• Be clear on project goals.– Energy? Education? Economics?
• Measure wind profile as close to hub height as practical.– CFD showed wind flow problem too late to modify our installation
• Understand how much energy you can expect in your wind regime.
• Seek stakeholder buy-in early and often.
• Installation site may need to be a compromise.– Building roof structure, permitting, and wind rarely converged– Roof mounting some of these turbines expensive compared to
ground installation.
• Wind powered systems are more than just wind turbines: inverters, wiring, switches, etc.
The TeamMuseum of ScienceDavid Rabkin, Director for Current Science and TechnologyPaul Ippolito, Director, FacilitiesSteve Nichols, Project Manager, IITMarian Tomusiak, Wind Turbine Lab Analyst
Boreal Renewable Energy DevelopmentBob Shatten, PrincipalTom Michelman, PrincipalAlex Weck, PrincipalMichael Alexis, Principal
ANSYS/TRCValerio Viti, Sr. Fluids SpecialistChris DesAutels, Sr. MeteorologistLloyd Schulman, Sr. Meteorologist
Apterra TechnologiesTed Schwartz, Principal
Nexamp, Inc.Will Thompson, VP, Integration
Phelan EngineeringPaul Phelan, Jr., P.E.
Richard Gross, Inc.Richard Gross, P.E.
Rubin and Rudman, LLPKeren Schlomy, Partner
Shaw Welding CompanyRick Shaw, President/CEO
Titan Electric CorporationJohn Gill, President
Renewable Energy Trust / Mass CECDick Tinsman, now with Criterium [email protected]
Rapheal Herz, now with Johnson [email protected]
Jim Christo, now with Alteris [email protected]
Marybeth Campbell, now with the MassachusettsClean Energy Center
Christie Howe, Massachusetts Clean Energy [email protected]
[email protected]@[email protected]
[email protected]@boreal-renewable.com
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]@[email protected]
Underwriters
Kresge Foundation
Cascade Energy
Museum of Science and its supporters
And the Extended Project Team
View from Museum of Science Garage Roof One Science Park, Boston MA August 2011
Proven
Windspire(“Extreme Wind”)
Swift
Skystream
AVX1000s
Marian TomusiakWind Turbine Lab Analyst
David RabkinFarinon Director, Current Science and [email protected]
mos.org/WindTurbineLabmos.org/Energized
