Date post: | 23-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gladys-gaines |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
COLD CLIMATE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT:LESSONS LEARNED
PHILIPPE C. PONTBRIANDRES-Canada Technical Lead
Collaborators:Eric Muszynski, Rory Curtis
2nd NOVEMBER 2010
Presentation Plan
• Introduction– Canadian climate– Impact of Cold Climate (CC) on project development
• Icing– Icing type– Icing prediction– RES experience
• Cold climate measurement system– Tower and instrumentation– Portable power system– Cost/Benefit analysis
• Cold climate and uncertainty
Introduction
• Lesson #1
• Challenges
– Very cold average temp– Extreme min. and max. temp– Average snow depth 0.5 to 2m – Icing over 6-7 months
C = Canada old
Mean Temperature (°C)
Impact of CC on Project development
Tower InstallationTime constraints
Wind measurementIcing on InstrumentsLoad on met towers
MaintenanceSite accessCold Temp.
Development RFP Financing
Requirements
Predicted Wind
Predicted Energy
$/KWh Price
Predicted Wind
Predicted Energy
Higher Risks
Equity vs Debt
Winter 1 Winter 2 Winter 3
Pe
rce
nt
da
ta c
ap
ture
(%
)
Type of Icing
• Precipitation Icing– Freezing rain
• Regional• Not very common • High impact
– Wet Snow • Not so common on site• Varying adhesion
• In cloud Icing– Rime ice
• Most common• Local• Strong adhesion
– Frost • Not very common
Worst enemies
Klock et al., 2001
Will there be icing at my site?
• Ice Map– Freezing rain
• Public Maps : Env. Canada • Very General
– Rime ice + Freezing Rain• Few maps for Canada• Not much research
Cortinas et al. 2004
Comeau et al. 2008
• Public Ice Measurement Data• Almost none exists: Airports Env. Canada• Often far from site• Not always accurate
Goodrich (Rosemount) Ice Sensor
Altitude (m asl) 8
Altitude VS Icing in Canada
• 75 met towers operated by RES across Canada– Full winter of data(October to May)– Anemometer height from 50 – 80m
Above 550 meters AMSL:
Sensors affected > 10% of time
Ho
urs
of
icin
g (
Oc
t-M
ay)
Mean hours of icing of unheated instrument vs Altitude
Cold climate measurement systems
Tubular 50-60m Lattice 80m
A2 A1
HE-V1HE-A1
A4
A5
A3
A6
V1
V2
- More expensive
+ Low maintenance cost
+ Re-use value
- Longer to install
+ Data @ Hub Height
+ Lower initial cost
- High maintenance cost
- Re-use value
- More likely to collapse
- No data @ Hub Height ?
Vaisala WAA252NRG IceFree
Cold Climate Met Mast Life Cycle
Assumption 1: Applies only to sites prone to icing
Assumption 2 : 2 maintenances per year per mast
Assumption 3: For lattice: 1 tower out of 2 is refurbished.
Assumption 4: For tubular: 1 tower out of 4 fails over lifetime
Cumulative Running Cost
Cos
t R
atio
Great Primary Mast
Met Masts Summary
• Good long term value
• Reduced shear uncertainty
• Potential for better data availability
80 m lattice
50 – 60 m tubular
• Good short term value
• Easier and faster to install Great Secondary Mast
Autonomous Power System
Small Wind Turbine RES Generators
1st generation
2nd generation
Wind Turbines 1 kW:
• Cheap: $10K• Max of 2 heated instruments• Not much flexibility • Eco-Friendly• Affected by trees• Tend to freeze
RES Generator:
• More: $35K• Many instruments• Flexible
• Close to 100% availability • Remote diagnostic tools • Easy to deploy
Impact of CC on Project development
Tower InstallationTime constraints
Wind measurementIcing on InstrumentsLoad on met towers
MaintenanceSite accessCold Temp.
Development RFP Financing
Requirements
Predicted Wind
Predicted Energy
$/KWh Price
Predicted Wind
Predicted Energy
Higher Risks
Equity vs Debt
Winter 1 Winter 2 Winter 3
Pe
rce
nt
da
ta c
ap
ture
(%
)
Cold Climate and Uncertainty
•P50 is the amount of energy expected to be produced in an average year
• 50% chance lower. 50% chance higher than this value
•For many projects debt is sized on 1 year P99
• Annual energy production only expected to be as low as this (or lower) once every 100 years
• What is the effect of higher P99/P50 ratio?
• In other words: What is the value of lower uncertainty?
• Example: 100MW project, $135/MWh, 35% Cf , P99(1 Year) / P50 = 70%
• Increase P50 energy by 1% (Increase Cf to 35.35%),
• Power price will reduce by ~ $1.35/MWh
• Keep P50 at 35% Cf and increase P99(1 Year) / P50 ratio by 1% to 71%
• Power price will reduce by more than one might think
• 1% P99/P50 change has same value as around 0.5% to 0.7% change on P50
• Just an example treating P50 and P99 in isolation. Project financing dependent
Conclusions:
•First of All …
• Never underestimate the challenges of Canada’s cold climate
•Icing
•Not much research available to help characterize a Canadian site
•Information about icing can be extracted from simple parameters like altitude
•Towers and Instrumentation
•Tower and instrument type need to be chosen carefully
• Heating the instruments with the proper power system is a must
•Cost of Uncertainty
• De-icing and maintenance of instruments are key to reducing uncertainty