Investment Attractive Areas of Large Wind Resource Potential

in Thailand & the PDP’s Wind Energy Targets

Renewable Energy Asia 2015, BITEC, Bangkok (Jun. 3, 2015)

Kasemsan ManomaiphiboonE-mail: kasemsan_m@jgsee.kmutt.ac.th

The Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi, Thailand, and

Center for Energy Technology and Environment, Ministry of Education, Thailand

1

Alternative Energy for Electricity Generation

Wind energy development in Thailand: Rapid growth Encouraged by government Strong interest from private sector 2

3

PDP2015 Span 2015-2036 (or 2558-2579 B.E.) Still pending as of Mar., 2015:

Expected to come out soon Key:

Renewable energy shares ~22-25% of total capacity Wind energy ~3 GW (not 2 GW as previously)

4

5

A number of mesoscale mappings conducted Large-to-very large discrepancies in many areas among

past mapping studies Uncertainly when developing wind-energy projects

and making policy or plans related to wind energy

To derived technical potential of wind energy, need to account for key factors Land exclusion Wind speed distribution Air density Turbine technology

2 Issues

6

1. Given PDP targets of wind energy set, do we have adequate wind energy (land-based)?

2. Amid uncertainty in different maps, can we constrain it and then optimally identify areas worth investment?

2 Big Questions

7

1. DEDP (2001) (DP) Department of Energy Development and Promotion (currently,

DEDE)2. World Bank (2001) ( WB)3. Manomaiphiboon et al. (2010) (JG)4. DEDE (2010) ( DD)

Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency

Four Mapping Studies Considered

8

1. Cover whole of Thailand 2. Moderate-to-fine resolution (1-3 km)3. Documentation available4. Performance evaluation made5. Often used or referred

Criteria

DP:

DEDP (2001)

Commissioned to Fellow Engineering Consultant (Thai company)

WindMap model Diaganostic State-of-science Commercial

Driving data: surface data, buoy data, satellite data, and wind towers

1-km resolution 10 m, 30 m, and 50 m Good performance

But by modeling nature

http://www2.dede.go.th/renew/Twm/main.htm

50 m. AGL

9

WB:

World Bank (2001)

Commissioned to TrueWind Solutions (US company) by World Bank

MesoMap modeling system: Prognostic State of science Proprietary

1-km resolution Randomly-generated conditions and

sampling 30 m & 65 m Fair performance

65 m. AGL

10

JG:

Manomaiphiboon et al. (2001)

Funded by Thailand Research Fund Combined meso/micro mapping

MM5: Prognostic Calmet: Diagnostic State of science Open-source

1-km resolution 2006 as representative year Multiple heights up to 100 m Acceptable performance

100 m. AGL

11

DD:

DEDE (2010)

Commissioned to Silpakorn University by DEDE

As effort to revise DEDP (2001) KAMM model

Prognostic State-of-science Proprietary

3-km resolution 15 years (1995-2009) simulated Multiple heights up 110 m Good performance

90 m. AGL

12

Map projections Different in some mappings For some, only partial info given 1-km (DP, WB, and JG) and 3-km (DD)

UTM47N on WGS84 used as reference Geo-referencing and resampling under GIS

Convert to Common Grid

2 Heights (50 m and 100 m) Results at 100 m discussed here

Numerical adjustment Cubic spline interpolation Power-law interpolation/extrapolation Tested and found acceptable for use

Adjust to common heights

13

100-m Wind Speed

m/s

DP WB

JG DD

14

100-m Median-Based (MD) Map

m/s

15

Deviation at 100 m

16

17

Terms of Technical Potential TPo: Technical potential before land exclusion

Total power generated by all turbines + Installed fully in all areas before land exclusion

TP: Technical potential after land exclusion Total power generated by all turbines + Installed fully

in remaining areas after land exclusion TPCF20:

Same as TP but only turbines with capacity factor ≥ 20% Economically feasible applications

CF (Capacity factor) = Pt / R

where Pt: Power generated by turbine, determined by

1. Power curve of turbine2. Wind speed distribution3. Air density

R: Rated power of turbine

18

Power curves at reference conditions

(dry, 1 atm, 15C)

Selected Large Turbine Models

ConventionalLow-windConventional

19

http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/project_reports/CEC-500-2005-180.html20

Parameter TurbineL1 L2 L3

Rated power (kW) 2,000 2,000 2,000Hub height (m) 78-138 78-120 80-125

Rotor diameter (m) 82 97 90Cut-in speed (m s-1) 3 3 4

Cut-out speed (m s-1) 25 25 25No. of blades 3 3 3

No. of installed turbines before land exclusion* 1,198,718 856,610 995,082

No. of installed turbines after land exclusion* 619,828 442,803 514,605

* Rectangular-array installation with a turbine spacing of 8 times rotor diameter

21

Land Exclusion Layers

14 Layers

Adopted from JG

As strict/stringent criteria

22

48.3% excluded!

Rectangular-Arrayed Turbines

D: Rotor diameter

23

TPo & TP at 100 m

24

Capacity Factor at 100 m

25

TPo, TP, TPCF20

GWNo. of Turbines

Land-based

Over Thailand

Based on 100-m MD map

26

27

Investment–Attractive Areas (CF ≥ 20%) by Turbine Technology

Conventional (L1) Low-Speed Design (L2) Conventional (L3)

28

L2 with CF ≥20% on 100-m MD

29

Free Data

L1 with CF ≥20% on 100-m MD

L2 with CF ≥20% on 100-m MD

L3 with CF ≥20% on 100-m MD

4 Maps (DP, WB, JG, DD) plus MD at 100 m

Incorporate Land after exclusion 3 turbine models Wind speed distribution Air density adjustment

TPCF20 = 17 GW (with low-speed-designed turbine)(3.5 times larger than)

= 5 GW (with conventional turbine)

Low-speed-designed large turbines: Promoted or Encouraged!

Adequate for both PDP2010v3’s 2030 target of 2 GW by wind energy PDP2015’s 2036 target of ~3 GW (not official yet) by wind energy

30

31

Acknowledgements

Thayukorn Prabamroong

Carina Paton

Nosha Assareh

Nuttee Rajpreeja

Contributors

32

Thank You

33