Post on 23-Dec-2015
transcript
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meeting
Paris, 27 May 2009
Exploration of Wind Farm Power Output Using
Meteorological Predictions
Simon Lambert*, Maurice Dixon$*, Julian Gallop*,and Richard Brownsword+
*e-Science Centre STFC+Energy Research Unit STFC
$CISM Kingston University
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
2
Outline
• Background
• Data in this work
• Modelling
• Conclusionsand further work
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
3
Background 1
• Wind power is being integrated into the national electricity grid• ~10 hours to ramp up/down conventional
coal/gas generators• Wind farms are intermittent generators• Improvements of a few percent are worth
having• Although some regard wind power prediction as
a solved problem there remain important problems
– The effect of predicted wind direction– The evolution of parameters in time (yearly?)
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
4
Background 2
• ~2 hours to make a forecast• Meteorological forecasts are quite good for
higher in the atmosphere• Ground roughening effects are problematic
– E.g. Pyrenees in Spain• Turbines interfere with one another so use
predicted wind speed rather than actual anemometer reading
• Aim: – Take meteorological prediction of wind
speed and “correct” for individual site
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
5
Background 3
• How good is the adaptive behaviour incorporated in the model?
• What local area adaptation needs to be made?– Direction (e.g. small hills, woodland which perturb
the coarse-scale meteorological forecast) and time of day (e.g. because of local wind effects such as sea breezes)
• What turbine/turbine adaptation needs to be made (e.g. for shielding/turbulence)?
• Does the prediction error arise from the behaviour of the model or from the wind speed forecast?
– There could be interest in when wind speed is unreliable for the model.
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
6
Background 4
General approaches:– Exploration of data through visualisation– Autoregression (linear and non-linear)
Autoregression equations can be used of the formP*(t+k) = akP(t) + bk + ckV*(t+k) + dk V*2 (t+k)
• P(t) is the measure actual power output at time t
• P*(t+k) is the estimated power forecast k timesteps ahead
• V*(t+k) is the met-forecast windspeed
• ak, bk, ck, dk are model constants.
Additional terms involving Cos(Θ) and Sin(Θ) are included for wind direction.
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
7
Data in this work 1
• Commercial confidentiality means data has been normalised
• Meteorological data is every 6 hours
• One year of data at hourly recording intervals
– Power output from wind farm– Meteorological prediction of wind speed– Meteorological prediction of wind
direction– Time of day
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
8
Data in this work 2Marked Region of Low Speed and High Power - Visualisation
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
9
Modelling 1
Linear Autoregression– Construct lagged data set m1=1hr, 2hr,
3hr lagging on Power, Direction, Speed– Use a forward stepping ordinary least
squares – Add / remove variables based on variance– Square of correlation R2 = 0.92
Power = –0.02843 + Powerm1 * 1.005+ Speed * 0.0432 – Powerm2 * 0.09765 – Speedm1 * 0.02981 + Dirm1 * 0.00007911+ Tod * 0.000769
Other lagged variables found not necessary
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
10
Modelling 2
Non-Linear Autoregression– Use same lagged data set m1=1hr, 2hr,
3hr lagging on Power, Direction, Speed– Use Neural Net with second output node
for model to predict own error – Square of correlation R2 = 0.91
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
11
Modelling 3
Comparison of Models:– Using paired t-test both the NN and OLS
are unbiased estimators of the mean– Using F test both OLS and NN have
variance marginally above the experimental data
12
Modelling 4 Comparison of Models:Using 95% CI we find 96% of test data lie between NN_L&NN_U
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
13
Modelling 5
Multivariate Non-Linear Regression without Autoregression
– Model Power and Power_Residual_Squared from current Meteorological estimates of Wind speed, Wind direction, Time of day.
– Use Neural Net to predict own error – Square of correlation R2 = 0.559 (R = 0.75)– Variances definitely differ– Model is unbiased estimator of mean– 4.5% of independent test set data points lie
outside the 95% confidence prediction interval
14
Modelling 6Prediction interval – multivariate non auto regression
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
15
Conclusions andfurther work 1
• Both linear and non-linear autoregression models give good estimates of the Power time series for the wind farm.
– This is to be expected as the previous Power value is included in the equations
• The multivariate regression without autoregression is much less well correlated
• Possible to predict error in models– Useful to know when there is uncertainty
• Visualisation techniques allowed to see that there are regions when high power can be obtained at low predicted wind speed
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
16
Conclusions andfurther work 2
• How is the forecast is used?– Having obtained some model parameters,
how frequently should they be reevaluated?– What is the basis of reevaluation (recent
history or whole history)? Probably the parameters will change with the time of year.
• Comparison with wave power forecasting (not regarded as solved)
– It may be possible to link forecasting methods used in both fields, so long as the different effects of time are taken into account (waves build over period of hours)
ERCIM Environmental Modelling WG meetingParis, 27 May 2009
17
Questions?
Simon.Lambert@stfc.ac.uk