Introduction to Wind Energy

College of Engineering

Discovery with Purpose www.engineering.iastate.edu

January 9, 2011

Introduction to Wind Energy

James McCalley ([email protected])

EE 459X/559X, Electromechanical wind energy conversion and grid integration


Homework

2

• Develop your research proposal while you have no other homework to do. Your efforts to complete this project in a way that will be satisfying to you will largely depend on the efforts you put into developing your proposal. There is correlation between good proposals & good projects.

• Review DOE20by2030 report, posted to Blackboard; may help you focus your research proposal. Also see www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49975.pdf for summary.

• Search (web, ISU library, IEEE Xplore). Examples:• http://www.ewea.org/?id=178• http://www.nrel.gov/wind/projects.html• http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/past_opportunities.html


Overview (focus mainly on US)• Preliminary energy concepts• Background on wind power

growth• Policy issues for wind energy• Wind energy in context• Grand challenge questions

3


Capacity factor, CF

4

T

P(t)dtE0

Time, t

Power, P(t)1.5 MW

8760

8760

0

ratedP

P(t)dt

CF

Actual annual energy production as a percentage of annual energy production at Prated. Typical CF at windfarms range from 0.3-0.5.

CF×Prated×8760 gives annual energy production.

But CF×Prated is a poor characterization for plant capacity at peak load. Use capacity credit for that. MISO summer CC=12.9%.


Worldwide

Source: RenewableS 2011, Global Status Report5


Worldwide

Source: BTM Consultants, www.btm.dk/reports/world+market+update+2010

6


Background on Wind Energy in US

US Generation mix

Wind & renewables are 3.6% by energy.

Source: AWEA 2010 Annual Wind Report 7


Background on Wind Energy in USU.S. Annual & CumulativeWind Power Capacity Growth


But what happened in 2010, 2011?



Source: AWEA 2011 Third Quarter Market Report 9

2010 is different! Why?

Not sure about 2011 (need 4Q)


Why was wind growth in 2010/2011 less than in previous years?

Poor 2008-2009 economy:• Less willingness to load, to build projects• Less power demand!

10

Declining natural gas prices



Percentage of New Capacity Additions.


N. GASWIND


12

The boom in shale gas production is causing prices to bottom out. The irony here means that consumers are getting the cheapest natural gas in quite some time at the expense of those producers hoping to cash-in on the craze.

With the advent of new technologies to allow shale gas explorers to reach deep inside the earth’s surface to retrieve such fuel, the market place has felt the effect. Prices, in fact, have been trending down for a few years. And while that fundamental should persevere, the retail cost of that gas is expected to rise over time. That’s because an increasing number of utilities will come to rely on it.

“Natural gas used to generate power has half the carbon dioxide emissions of conventional coal power generation and near zero sulphur emissions,” says BP’s Energy Outlook. “Gas is expected to displace coal in power generation across the (developed world) due to rising carbon prices, permitting constraints for new plants and mandates.”

BP goes on to say that natural gas is the fastest growing fossil fuel and that its share of the electric generation market will continue to climb. Unconventional gas such as shale and coal bed methane will help drive up those ratios, it adds, noting that such forms will comprise 57 percent of all natural gas production by 2030.

That potential is the prevailing force even though it is causing short-term prices to drop -- 30 percent to 40 percent in a year. In the dead of winter, the price of natural gas is now $3 per million BTUs, which is $10 less for the same unit in the summer of 2008. None of the investment banks that analyze natural gas are bullish on prices this year; most are forecast to be in the $3 range with some in the low $4s.

Despite the reduced price, producers can’t get enough of natural gas: The October 2011 monthly data presented by the U.S. Energy Information Administration shows gross production of 2,483 billion cubic feet, the highest month on record.

Beyond the new technologies that now allow access to abundant supplies, the developers are aided to a large extent by policy makers who are making it difficult on the competition: coal. Reports are suggesting that will it cost as much as $70 billion to comply with all of the pending federal rules. Utilities are finding that it is easier and cheaper to retire their older, smaller coal units….Source: EnergyBiz: Shale Gas Boom Causes Prices to Bottom Out Ken Silverstein | Jan 10, 2012

http://www.energybiz.com/article/12/01/shale-gas-boom-causes-prices-bottom-out&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=EB_DAILY2&utm_term=Original-Memerb


Top 20 states

13

Source: AWEA 2011 Third Quarter Market Report

14 of top 20 are in the interior of the nation. Top 3 coastal states are West. East coast is light on wind but heavy on load.Implication?

3 options for East coast use of wind:Build high cost inland wind, go offshore, or use transmission to move it from Midwest


14

Source: AWEA 2011 First Quarter Market Report

U.S. Wind Power Capacity By State



15

Source: AWEA 2010 Third Quarter Market Report

Source: AWEA Wind Power Outlook 2010



Market share of total 2008 wind installations




Ownership by company and by regulated utility




Wind plant size


College of EngineeringBackground on Wind Energy in US

29 states, differing in % (10-40), timing (latest is 2030), eligible technologies/resources (all include wind)



Tax incentives

• Federal Incentives:• Renewed incentives Feb 2009 through 12/31/12, via ARRA• 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour PTC or 30% investment tax credit (ITC)

• State incentives:• IA: 1.5¢/kWhr for small wind, 1¢/kWhr for large wind• Various other including sales & property tax reductions

20

College of EngineeringFederal energy policy (don’t have one)

21

• In congress, “Energy bill” means Federal RPS, and “Climate bill” means CO2 emissions control.

• Waxman-Markey Energy/Climate bill passed house 6/09. Climate part was “Cap and Trade.”

• Related Kerry-Graham Climate bill did not pass Senate.• 2010 Carbon Limits & Energy For America’s Renewal, CLEAR

Act (Sen Collins/Cantwell), “Cap & Refund”• Cap CO2 “upstream” via sales of coal, gas, petroleum

• Producers/importers buys CO2 permits in monthly auction• 3/4 of auction revenues refunded to US citizens

• Congressional attention died; non-issue in pres. campaigns• 7/11 EPA rules “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” (CSAPR, for

SO2, NOx), “Mercury/Air Toxics Standards” (MATS) have more effect, causing near-term power plant shut-down, but CSAPR stayed on 12/30/11 by US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit.



22


Solar, 0.09

Nuclear, 8.45

Hydro, 2.45

Wind, 0.51

Geothermal0.35

Natural Gas 23.84

Coal22.42

Biomass 3.88

Petroleum37.13

26.33

8.58

27.39

20.9

Unused Energy

(Losses)57.07

Electric Generation

39.97

12.68

Used Energy42.15

Residential

11.48

Commercial

8.58

Industrial23.94

Trans-portation

27.86

8.45

6.82

20.54

6.95

LightDuty: 17.12QFreight: 7.55QAviation: 3.19Q 23


US ENERGY USE IS ABOUT 70% ELECTRIC & TRANSPORTATION

US CO2 EMISSIONS* IS ABOUT 71% ELECTRIC & TRANSPORTATION

GREENING ELECTRIC & ELECTRIFYING TRANSPORTATION SOLVES THE EMISSIONS PROBLEM

24

* Anthropogenic


Solar, 1.0

Nuclear,15

Hydro, 2.95

Wind, 8.1

Geothermal 3.04

Natural Gas 23.84

Old Coal10.42

Biomass 3.88

Petroleum15.13

26.33

8.58

24.5

8.5

Unused Energy (Losse

s)43.0

Electric Generation

49.72

12.68

Used Energy42.15

Residential

11.48

Commercial

8.58

Industrial23.94

Trans-portation

15.5

15

6.82

20.54

6.95

INCREASE Non-GHG

12Q to 30Q

USE

11Q E

lectric for transportation

4.5Q

IGCC, 2.26

RE

DU

CE

CO

AL

22Q

TO

10Q

REDUCE PETROLEUM 37Q15Q LightDuty: 8.56QFreight: 3.75QAviation: 3.19Q

25


26

Technolgy

ForecastedNERC, 2018

Hi Eff&RenewableUCS (NEMS),

2030

Hi IGCC/CCSNAE, 2035

Hi WindISU, 2035

∆GW Overnight cost

Trillion $


Trillion $


Trillion $


Trillion $

Con Solar 20.4 0.102 238 1.195 - 0 65.5 0.329

PV solar - 0 174 1.051 - 0 58.9 0.356

Nuclear 14.8 0.049 4.4 0.015 100 0.332 60.9 0.202

Wind onshore

229 0.440 670 1.288 350 0.673 630 1.211

Wind offshore

- 0 62 0.239 - 0 80 0.307

Geothrml 0.4 .002 31.8 0.127 - 0 106 0.424

Coal convntnl

19 0.039 red 0 red 0 red 0

IGCC+seq - 0 7 0.024 400 1.400 29.5 0.103

NGCC 107 0.103 - 0 - 0 - 0

Biomass - 0 157 0.591 - 0 - 0

TOTALS 389 0.735 1344 4.516 850 2.405 1031 2.930


Grand Challenge Question For Energy:

What investments should be made, how much, when, and where, at the national level, over the next 40 years, to achieve a sustainable, low cost, and resilient energy & transportation system?

27


NUCLEAR

GEOTHERMALSOLAR

WindBIOMASS

CLEAN-FOSSIL

Where, when, how much of each, & how to interconnect?


Grand Challenges For Wind:1. Move wind energy from

where it is harvested to where it can be used

2. Develop economically-attractive methods to accommodate increased variability and uncertainty introduced by large wind penetrations in operating the grid.

3. Improve wind turbine/farm economics (decrease investment and maintenance costs, increase operating revenues).

4. Address potential concerns about local siting, including wildlife, aesthetics, and impact on agriculture.

29


Wind vs. people

30


How to address grand challenges

31

#1. Move wind energy from where it is harvested to where it can be used.• Transmission

• Eastern interconnection Midwest to East coast• National Superhighways at 765 kV AC and/or 600/800 kV DC

• Right of way (rail, interstate highwys, existing transmission)• Cost allocation• Organizational nightmare

• Conductor technologies: overhead/underground, materials

• Offshore, lower CF turbines, higher turbines, but all of these result in higher cost of energy

College of EngineeringHow to address grand challenges

32



33

#2. Develop economically-attractive methods to accom-modate increased variability and uncertainty introduced by large wind penetrations in operating the grid.• Variability:

• Increase gas turbines• Wind turbine control• Load control• Storage (pumped hydro, compressed air, flywheels, batteries, others)• Increase geodiversity

• Uncertainty:• Decrease it: improve forecasting uncertainty• Handle it better: Develop UC decisions robust to wind pwr uncertainty



34

#3. Improve wind turbine/farm economics (decrease investment/maint costs, increase operating revenues).• Investment: Improve manufacturing/supply chain processes, construction, collection circuit layout, interconnection cost, land lease, and financing• Operating & maintenance:

• Improve monitoring/evaluation for health assessment/prediction/life-ext• Decrease maintenance costs (gearbox vs. direct-drive)

• Enhance energy extraction from wind per unit land area• Improved turbine siting• Inter-turbine and inter-farm control• Increased efficiency of drive-train/generator/converters• Lighter, stronger materials and improved control of rotor blades• Taller turbines


35

Wind turbine down-time distribution

Reference: McMillan and Ault, “Quantification of Condition Monitoring Benefit for Offshore Wind Turbines,” 2007.



36

#4. Address potential concerns about local siting, including wildlife, visual/audible, impact on agriculture.• Migratory birds and bats: mainly a siting issue for birds. Bat-kill is more frequent.•Agriculture: Agronomists indicate wind turbines may help!• Visual: a sociological issue

These issues have not been significant yet. Today, in Iowa, there are ~2600 turbines, with capacity 3700 MW. At 2 MW/turbine, a growth to 60 GW would require 30000 turbines, and assuming turbines are located only on cropland having class 3 or better winds (about 1/6 of the state), this means these regions would see, on average, one turbine every 144 acres.

Introduction to Wind Energy

Documents

annual wind report

wind energywind energy

natural gas production

energy outlook

shale gas production

wind growth

unconventional gas

natural gas pricesbackground