Go to Otherpower.com Home Page Go to Forcefield Shopping Cart Go to Wondermagnet.com Home Page
Front Page - [Homebrewed Electricity-- (wind) (solar) (hydro) (steam) (controls) (storage) (mechanical)] - Classifieds - Site News
Everything - Newbies - [Remote Living-- (housing) (heat) (light) (water)] - Reviews - Diaries - Our Products
Wind Site Evaluation


By aogden, Section Wind
Posted on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 07:32:39 AM MST
Request assistance - wind site data analysis

I am interested in comments on how much energy a well designed 10' HAWT could produce given my site conditions as shown.  

Also what besides increasing height & swept area could I do to maximize output such as blade geometry or low mass for the gusty conditions (red plot trace)?

I do not anticipate running my residance entirely from wind but plan to augument with solar so the winter is when wind will be important.  It would be great if I did need the utility as the cost is likely very high for the several hundred foot run.

My average winter wind speed at 30' is 7.6 MPH from 22 degrees and 5.9 MPH from 112 degrees.  I have attached a site picture, wind rose and distribution.  The data was collected with a Davis VantagePro2 weather station at 5 minute averages updated every 2.5 seconds.

http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Test_Site.JPG
http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Site_View.JPG
http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_3_Days_Storm_in_January.jpg
http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Rose_11_05_to_4_06.JPG
http://www.otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Percent_distribution_10_05_to_4_06.JPG

I guess an energy density plot might be a good addition at this point too?
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Adrian from Napa, CA

Wind Site Evaluation | 21 comments (21 topical)

Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#1)
by Flux on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 02:02:51 AM MST

Seems a very poor wind site. At best you may manage around 600kWh/year for a 10 ft machine.

Increase in height will help a lot. I think the bit about low mass blades is a lot of nonsense, I would stick to conventional blades and not mess about with other constructions other than wood.

Most of your energy is in very low wind so this indicates an axial machine with best efficiency in low winds.

The only real way for more power is larger blades.
Flux



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#2)
by commanda on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 04:36:17 AM MST

You're working backwards. Start with how much power you need (watts 24/7). Then look at how much wind you have to generate that power. Then size the blades to generate that many watts with so many (average) mph. Then build the alternator to suit the watts & rpm.

You also need to find out the cost of getting the grid connected. Then stop mucking around and dive in with both feet, and go off-grid 100%. I think you'll find you can build a pretty substantial RE system for the cost of installing several hundred feet of grid.

Amanda



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#7)
by aogden on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 09:23:32 AM MST

Amanda,
I would like it very much to live off grid, I am designing an energy efficient home. If as indicated elsewhere I don't have enough wind to make the investment worthwhile maybe I should focus more on solar?
The likely $25-$50,000 avoided cost of utility infrastructure can buy alot of RE.
Adrian

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#3)
by Gary D on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 07:51:22 AM MST

Aogden, are you planning to use a 30 foot tower? As Flux stated, your output will be low given your low windspeeds. Simply doubling the tower height should give you a 1 to 2 miles per hour higher average. That would be a better, more cost effective option. If codes allow, the cost of the extra tower height would be repaid in increased output. You could re-evaluate your site at where you determine your hub height will eventually be, or take what the wind is willing to give... Just a thought... Gary D.



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#6)
by aogden on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 08:53:01 AM MST

I would like to install a 60' tower if the County will issue me a permit and the costs are not prohibitive.  This is a high visability (ridgeline) location and there has already been a complaint about my flagpole.
I do plan on raising my anomometer with helium balloon to 60+' and taking some additional measurements. As you stated it seems most feasable to take what energy I can get given the likely permit constraints.  The county does require an engineering analysis for tower installation and likely an electrical permit so this may rule out my favored home brew solution.

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#4)
by Slingshot on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 08:30:31 AM MST

I gather from the last slide that the wind speed is measured over 5-minute intervals, but how about the red curve?  What is the measurement interval for that?  Is it something you could expect a purpose-built rotor to track?



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#8)
by aogden on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:01:29 AM MST

Slingshot,
The red Wind Gust curve is the maximum speed measured at 2.5 second intervals over the logged interval of 5 minutes. It is usefull in displaying the magnitude of turbulence.  The 30' wind at my site appears really gusty but I have no real referance point to compare it to. I am curious if there is a HAWT that can be optimized for gusts?

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#18)
by Slingshot on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 01:51:29 PM MST

I was thinking that "gust optimization" would basically be designing a low-mass rotor and blades.  If the mill is operating steady-state in a 10 MPH wind, and the wind steps to 15 MPH, the rotor will begin to speed up.  How much the rotor speeds up in a given number of seconds (or before the gust is finished) would depend on the mass (inertia).  I imagine that a very heavy rotor would respond sluggishly to gusts, and little increase in energy output would be realized.

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#5)
by Spelljammer on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 02:51:43 AM MST

Well, using the formula

0.00508 x Area x windspeed^3 x efficiency

area in square feet, windspeed in mph, and efficiency about 0.35

10 foot rotor and 8mph avg speed means about 28.6 Watts or 0.686 kwh per day.

At 26 mph wind on average it would be 1000 watts avg or 24 kwh per day.

For a good RE home only using 5 kwh/day or 208 w/hr you would need 15.5 mph avg wind speed.

If you wanted to get 5 kwh/day from that avg windspeed of 8mph(best case) it would take a 73 foot rotor.  Or about 7 windmills, each with 10 foot blades.

-----

Spelljammer




Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#9)
by aogden on Sat Apr 29, 2006 at 10:18:36 AM MST

Spelljamer,
That is not very encouraging news! It sounds like the best approach is to go larger and higher. The neighbor will hate me even more. I could approach the County to see what they would approve? I wonder if I went 60' high and 15' diameter if it would be cost effective assuming an Otherpower design and the likely high permitting costs?

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#10)
by Spelljammer on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 01:52:06 AM MST

I'd like to make some corrections...first, I forgot to square the Radius
And, secondly, I took the original formula and added some more accuracy to it.

P = (.5)(1.22)(PI)(Radius^2)(V^3)(efficiency)

Radius and velocity are in Meters.  
Efficiency I assumed 30%

I condensed this and converted for feet and miles per hour.

****************************************************
     P = (0.00477)(R^2)(V^3) <==== use this formula ****************************************************

R = radius in feet
V = wind velocity in mph

so for 10 foot rotor and 8 mph wind...

P = (0.00477)(25)(512)

Power = 61 watts

** NOTE - if you don't want to use 30% as the efficiency, then take the 0.00477 and divide by .3 then multiply by the new efficiency.
Example - for 40% eff... (0.00477 / .3)(.4) = 0.00636

(A 12 foot turbine would be 88 watts at that wind.)
(A 14 foot turbine would be 120 watts at that wind.)

If you are shooting for about 5 kwh/day then having two 10 footers would not quite make it.  It would be 2.928 kwh.

But having two 12 footers would average 4.2 kwh/day, which is pretty close.
And having two 14 footers would average 5.76 kwh/day.

I say, build two 12 footers on a double tower shaped like an "H".  Or just build 2 towers and put them where you will.  That would give you close to a goal of 5 kwh/day.  And add a couple of solar panels just for good measure.  Like two 120 watts and 6 hours of insolation per day would be 1.44 kwh/day

Hopefully, that situation doesn't look as bleak.

-----

Spelljammer




Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#11)
by commanda on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 01:59:20 AM MST

That's pretty sensible advice there spelljammer. My future site is slightly better, but not by a great deal. I'm planning 2 x 12 footers, with solar adjunct.

Amanda

[ Parent ]



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#12)
by aogden on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 03:02:51 AM MST

Oh that does indeed give me some hope! Two 12 footers is possible. I think I could pick up about 1.7 MPH by going up to 50'-60' and get rid of the turbulents too.
I already have several hundred watts of solar and plan on adding a 12' parabolic satellite concentrator too. So that ought to get me there!
Cheers, Adrian

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#13)
by aogden on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 03:15:13 AM MST

Spelljamer,
Now I'm confused! How did you get 25 for the radius squared for a 10 foot machine?
Adrian

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#14)
by Flux on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 04:26:33 AM MST

I don't know what he's done but it seems to give the right answer.

Keeping to metric which I can understand, 10 ft is about 3M. 8 mph is 3.64M/s

Power is 1/2 x rho x A x V^3

Using his value for rho of 1.22 we get  .61 x (pi x 9/4) x . 3.64^3

or .61 x 7 x 47.9  = 213W   and at 30% efficiency gives 64W

Allowing for my rough conversion of diameter to metric seems to come out right.

You will never reach 30% efficiency but you will gain from the Rayleigh distribution on your 8 mph average so it is a reasonable guide.

Flux

[ Parent ]



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#16)
by wdyasq on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 08:19:46 AM MST

I wish the US would have gone to Metric when the politicians claimed they would -"Within 10 years". Drum brakes were still the norm on production cars and emission controls hadn't been invented. Communication would be a lot easier of we all spoke in the same size units. Just make all the rum bottles "Imperial Quarts".

There may be some hope with the uneven distribution of wind. Where I am it averages below 12 mph (5.4 m/s)but seems to be a lot of "0", some too mean to play with and some steady in the 15-20 mph range (7-10 m/s).

Point being, for a wind turbine here, if one takes the stuff off that is "too low to make worthwhile" and the stuff where the wind is too wild, the parameters one is looking at/for may change quite a bit.

Ron
Adventure is just bad planning." -- Roald Amundsen
[ Parent ]



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#17)
by RP on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 01:26:31 PM MST

10 foot diameter divided by two gives a 5 foot radius.  5X5 = 25

[ Parent ]


Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#15)
by craig110 on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 06:24:29 AM MST

Since your site has winds of 9 mph or over 20-25% of the time, you could power your site just by wind.  Besides the other comments on blade size or number of smaller turbines, one issue to consider is the size of the battery bank you'd need to cover the time between when the wind is sufficiently strong to be generating.  Adding some solar panels would lower the number of batteries you'd need and let you use a smaller wind turbine (which might make your neighbors less upset).  How many KwH do you need per day and how many consecutive no-wind days will you have to plan for?

Craig



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#19)
by Spelljammer on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 04:47:52 PM MST


Adrian, yeah, that Radius squared is just the diameter divided by 2 then squared...so (10/2)^2 .....  5x5 = 25.  I see that RP pointed this out as well.

Some people use diameter ^2 and then multiply by a coeff...something like .78.  My formula is just like the original but it converts to metric so that you can use feet and mph instead of metric.  In other words, the conversion is "built in".

Amanda, good point.  I didn't think of putting solar panels on the "H" tower.  They could be placed in a line across the cross beam.  If the two legs of the tower are 15 feet apart, then that leaves a 3 foot gap or more between the two 12 foot blades so they can't hit each other.  And that would mean about 7 solar panels mounted.  At 120 watts each that would be 840 watts. (I always mention 120 watts because that is what I have now.  3 of them.)  You could also have a double cross beam and get 14 solar panels.  Although strong winds would be a issue with that much surface area.

Good point, Craig.  I've got some golf cart batteries now.  I'm in the process of getting some forklift batteries though.  They will be used but I've got a pulser to desulfate them.  I've tested the pulser on some old car batteries.  One was at 2.4 volts, one was at 9.8 volts and the other was at 10.2 volts.  It took between 2 and 4 days each to fix.  I had two others I tried, but couldn't get them to work.   The pulser is made by Donald Denhardt.  http://www.shaka.com/~kalepa/desulfparts2.htm

The only reason that one at 2.4 volts worked is because it shot up to 16 volts when I put the charger on it...wouldn't hold a charge though.  After a day it dropped down to 12.0 volts and over the next three days came up to 14.3.  I load tested them all and get about 40 - 50 ah.

So, I'm blown away by this device.  Anyway, I'm getting some forklift batteries and will share with a friend down the street.  All together we are getting 2x 12 volts(700 lbs each), 2 x 24 volts (about 500 lbs each), 1 x 36 volt ( 4,000 lbs).  All that paid for and delivered for $250( the two 24 volters I have to pick up myself).  They are used but in decent condition and can't beat the price.

The trick is to call some forklift places in your area that sell new batteries.  They normally have someone come out and pick up the old batteries for scrap and they are paid 3-5 cents per pound.  The owner will usually sell you a few at the pound rate and will even deliver them for about $50 to $100.

Anyway, gotta run...heading to Home Depot.  :)

---

Spelljammer




Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#20)
by commanda on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 05:13:17 PM MST

Everything you say will be taken down, re-arranged, and used as evidence against you. :-)

Amanda, good point.  I didn't think of putting solar panels on the "H" tower.  They could be placed in a line across the cross beam.  If the two legs of the tower are 15 feet apart, then that leaves a 3 foot gap or more between the two 12 foot blades so they can't hit each other.  <snip....>  Although strong winds would be a issue with that much surface area.

That's not what I said at all. Do not mount your solar panels on the wind turbine tower. You increase the wind loading significantly. Also, if the tower falls over, you lose the wind turbine(s) & the solar panels. And put your two wind turbines on two seperate towers.  Do some reading on risk analysis, or risk/benefit ratios.

Murphy's law hasn't been repealed; YET.

Amanda

[ Parent ]



Re: Wind Site Evaluation (3.00 / 0) (#21)
by Spelljammer on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 09:21:53 PM MST

I agree about the risk definitely. I'm just trying to keep things tight due to neighbors complaining, small land area to put two windmills, etc. If you put up two towers then the guy wires may get in each others way when raising and lowering one. I'm not married to the idea, just sorta thinking out loud. As far as the solar panels on the tower, I misunderstood you. My bad :) But, I do agree that one tower assembly is risky. If they can be seperated enough so that guy wires won't get in the way then they should be seperate. Although a 30 foot tower in a mild wind area probably isn't anything to worry about if it is done properly. Having two 1200 watt gens on a double tower 30 feet tall is much less risky than having a single 2000 watt gen on a 60 or 80 foot tower. And you can raise and lower both at the same time, making maintenance really quick. But I wouldn't go any higher than 30 feet or so and I wouldn't do more than two gens per tower. ---

Spelljammer




Wind Site Evaluation | 21 comments (21 topical)
Display: Sort:
Menu
· create account
· How to use the board
· FAQs
· search the board
· Google search the board

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Total Views
  117 Scoop users have viewed this posting.

Related Links
· http://www .otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Test_Site.JPG
· http://www .otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Site_View.JPG
· http://www .otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_3_Days_Storm_in_January.jpg
· http://www .otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Rose_11_05_to_4_06.JPG
· http://www .otherpower.com/images/scimages/2397/Napa_Wind_Percent_distribution_10_05_to_4_06.JPG
· Also by aogden

Powered by Scoop
You must be a registered user to post here. It's easy and free, and the link is on the upper right side of your page.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Postings are owned by the poster, but may be deleted or moved at the ADMIN's sole discretion. The Rest © 2009 Forcefield.
You can Email the board ADMIN here. PLEASE include the username you signed up with!