WEBINAR · 2020. 9. 10. · Timeline of Key UL Backcast Studies 102 wind farms •97 in Germany...

WEBINARUL Wind Energy Yield Method Update

Thursday September 10th, 2020 | 14:00 – 15:00 CEST

UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2020. Proprietary & Confidential.

PRESENTERS

MODERATOR

Thibaut LabondeBusiness Development Manager, Mediterranean

SPEAKERS

José VidalTechnical Director, Energy Advisory

Anaïs MadauleSenior Project Engineer, Energy Advisory

Kai MoennichSenior Engineering Leader, Energy Advisory

Site Screening &

Feasibility

Project Design /

Development

Pre-Construction

and FinancingConstruction OperationsComponent & System

ManufacturingResource / Energy

Assessment

Renewable Asset

Monitoring PlatformData products & Windnavigator

Openwind

Wind Data Management

Windographer

Digital Inspection Platform

Energy ForecastingCybersecurityWind Resource Assessment

Platform

UL Digital Solutions

HOMER Energy


Timeline of Key UL Backcast Studies

102 wind farms

• 97 in Germany

• 5 in France

190 wind farms

• 150 wind farms in Germany

• 39 in France

• 1 in Croatia

235 wind farms

• 160 in Germany*

• 62 in France

• 2 in Taiwan, 1 in Croatia

2008 2017

2008

*A portion of DEWI preconstruction estimates in Germany use operating data from nearby wind farms. This method was not

evaluated in the present study. Only estimates based on preconstruction meteorological measurements are considered.

11 wind farms

• All in US

2013 2017

2012

24 wind farms

• All in US

2017

UL -

DEWI

UL -

AWST

• Identify a set of projects for each method for which pre-

construction EYAs and post-construction operational

production data were available.

• Update the EYAs and operational estimates to current

methods as necessary.

• For a subset of projects with UL-DEWI pre-construction

EYAs, ran the standard UL-AWST method using the

same pre-construction data.

• Compare the results of both methods with the actual

production corrected to long-term conditions.

• Assess the factors that explain the observed deviations

for each method.

6

Backcast Procedure

Validation of the UL-AWST method

UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2020. Proprietary & Confidential. 7

8

UL-AWST Data Set Overview

MAP WITH PROJECTS

PER COUNTRY

1

1

2

39

Parameter Range Median

Operational Months per Plant 12 - 63 25.9

Plant Capacity (MW) 4.8 – 58.0 15.6

Number of Turbines 3 - 29 7

Turbine Nominal Power (MW) 0.8 – 3.3 2.1

Total Wind Farms: 43 (25 in common with UL-DEWI)

Plant-Years of Operation: 93

Enercon

Gamesa

Nordex

Senvion

Siemens

Vestas

1 1

6

2

7

8

2

4

5

3

1 1 1 1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125%

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

jec

ts

OP-EYA/EYA (<100% = Over-Optimistic)

Distribution histogram

Fitted normal distribution

Fitted normal centered on 100%

9

UL-AWST Results

Parameter PR*

Mean 101.3%

Median 99.7%

St Deviation 8.0%

*Production ratio (PR) is defined as the the post-

construction long-term estimate based on

operational data divided by the pre-construction

estimate of long-term energy yield. Values less

than 100% indicate the plant performs below

expectations.

• The average deviation of +1.3% indicates a tendency to slightly underestimate.

• The median deviation of -0.3% shows that half of the projects exceed the predicted P50.

• The difference between average and median deviations is caused by the skew in the

distribution.

• The main factors contributing to the observed deviation are:

➢ Shear adjustment (0.2%)

➢ Long-term adjustment (0.4%)

➢ Electrical losses (0.6%)

10

UL-AWST Results Analysis

Validation of the UL-DEWI method


Enercon

Nordex

Senvion

Siemens

Vestas

EnerconFuhrländer

GE

Nordex

Senvion

Siemens

Vestas

12

UL-DEWI Data Set Overview

MAP WITH PROJECTS

PER COUNTRY

3

1

3

39

Parameter Range Median

Operational Months per Plant 9 - 68 30.6

Plant Capacity (MW) 4.6 – 72.6 18

Number of Turbines 2 - 29 8

Turbine Nominal Power (MW) 0.8 – 3.3 2.3

Total Wind Farms: 50 (25 in common with UL-AWST)

Plant-Years of Operation: 125

1

3

13

UL-DEWI Results

Parameter PR

Mean 93.8%

Median 94.0%

St Deviation 5.3%

0 0 0 0

2

6

11

6

10

6 6

0 1

2

0 0 0 0 0 00

2

4

6

8

10

12

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 105% 110% 115% 120% 125%

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

jec

ts

OP-EYA/EYA (<100% = Over-Optimistic)

Distribution histogram

Fitted normal distribution

Fitted normal centered on 100%

• The UL-DEWI method tends to overestimate plant production.

• The meteorological part of the pre-construction EYA method is unlikely to result in a

significant bias.

• Main driver of the observed bias are the loss assumptions.

• Changes need to be applied to the current method to reduce the observed bias.

14

UL-DEWI Results Analysis

Wind Energy Yield Method Update


16

Timeline Method Harmonization

Phase I

2008October

1st

Phase II

Q1

2021

Full unified methodOne Method with:• UL-DEWI meteorological analysis

• UL-AWST wind flow and wake modeling

Guideline Hybrid Accredited

MEASNET: Evaluation of Site-Specific Wind

Conditions

IEC 61400-12-1: Wind Turbines - Part 12:

Power Performance Measurements of

Electricity Producing Wind Turbines

IEC 61400-1: Wind Turbines - Part 1: Design

Requirements

FGW TR6: Determination of Wind Potential

and Energy Yields

Application

On-shore projects in

Europe, Middle East

and North-Africa (excl. Iberia)

Projects that require

accreditation and TR6

compliance (mainly financed by German

financial institutions)


Meteorological Input and ModelingChanges in current UL-DEWI Method on Oct. 1



Meteorology

Characteristic UL-DEWI Hybrid / Accredited

Meteorological

input data

Wind Speed Frequency

Distribution (TAB file) at

measurement height

10-min time series at hub

height (converted to

frequency table by

Openwind)

Shear methodModeled with WAsP

(adjusted to measured)Measured

No change applied to the wind data analysis and long-term adjustment analysis.


Modeling

Characteristic UL-DEWI Hybrid / Accredited

Wind Flow Model

WAsP supported by own

scripts (simple terrain) or

CFD (complex terrain)

SiteWind or

CFD (complex terrain)

Wake model Modified ParkOpenwind deep-array

wake model (DAWM)

Energy yield

calculationWAsP11 Openwind

SiteWind and Openwind widely used by UL-AWST

team over the world.

Loss AssumptionsCurrent UL-DEWI, Hybrid & Accredited Method


• Wake Model changed from PARK (Jensen) to Eddy-Viscosity/Deep-

Array Model combination, which considers turbulence intensity and

effects in large wind farms

• On average higher farm losses, but at high Ti-sites also lower farm

losses possible

• Upwind Blocking Effect for projects > 50MW (including neighboring

WT), else 0%


Losses – Turbine Interaction

Turbine Interaction UL-DEWI Hybrid Accredited

Wake Effects(internal, external, future)

Jensen EV & DAWM EV & DAWM

Upwind Blocking Effect 0%0%-3%

(calculated)0%


Availability UL-DEWI Hybrid Accredited

Turbine Availability 3% 3% 3%

Availability of Collection &

Substation0% 0.2% 0%

Grid Availability 0% 0.3% 0%

Site Access 0% Calculated 0%

• Turbine Availability includes contractual and non-contractual availabilities

and planned maintenance assuming a full wrap maintenance contract exists.

• Substation availability: 2 events / year of each 8 hours

• Grid Availability: 4 events / year of 6 hours

• Site access expresses reduced availability for sites which may be hard to

reach during harsh weather conditions (offshore, icing, …). No or negligible

impact for standard projects expected.

Losses - Availability

• Electrical Efficiency considers normal European project characteristics.

Can be different if project characteristics differ.

• Electricity consumption of extreme weather package affects only

projects where WT are equipped with it. Other WF electricity consumption

assumed to be considered in financial model.


Losses - Electrical

Electrical UL-DEWI Hybrid Accredited

Electrical Efficiency2% (default) or

calculated

2% (default) or

calculated

2% (default) or

calculated

Facility Parasitic

Consumption of Extreme

Weather Package

0% calculated 0%

Turbine Performance UL-DEWI Hybrid Accredited

Generic Power Curve Adjustment 0%Calculated 0%-2.1%

2.1% default

Calculated 0%-2.1%

2.1% default

Inclined Flow (Site Specific Power

Curve Adjustment)0% Calculated Calculated

High Wind Hysteresis Calculated Calculated Calculated

Sub-Optimal Performance 0% 1.5% 0%

• Generic Power Curve Adjustment considers identified difference in

AEP based on operational measured PC to theoretical PC.

• Inclined Flow: considers non-horizontal inflow conditions occurring in

orographic complex terrain.

• High Wind Hysteresis considers Cut-out and Re-Cut-in behavior at

high wind speeds.

• Sub-optimal Performance considers e.g. yaw misalignments, control

anemometer calibration, blade pitch inaccuracies or misalignments, and

other control setting issues.

Losses – Turbine Performance

Basic Concept

Following losses will be applied in case the WT power curve is

• Minimum Loss: 0%

• Maximum (and default) Loss: 2.1%

• Qualified: Direct Loss

-> Identified difference in AEP based on operational measured PC to theoretical PC

-> 6 tests, 3 sites having representative Ti conditions for project site (Ti Site +/- 5%)

• Not Qualified: Default and Maximum Possible Loss of 2.1%

• In Between: Hybrid Loss

-> Average of Direct Loss and 2.1%

-> Minimum of 4 tests at 2 sites


Losses – Generic Power Curve Adjustment I

Family Concept

A Performance Family is a group of closely related turbine models of the same manufacturer.

• Often variants of the same base model

• Rotor Diameter as robust criterion for grouping a family

• All qualifying tests of WT types within a performance family are counted.

-> If family fulfills defined criteria, losses for „qualified“ or „hybrid“ will be applied

PCPMV (Power Curve Prediction Method Verification)

• PCPMV evaluates consistency of manufacturers method to predict their theoretical power curves

• Applies to verified Performance Families

• Consistency given -> Hybrid Power Curve Loss will be applied


Losses – Generic Power Curve Adjustment II

• Icing is determined on identified icing periods in the measured data and

icing maps.

• Degradation considers expected dust and insect accumulation and precipitation.

• Wind Turbine Operational Temperature Range considers periods outside of

the OEM given operational temperature range of the WT. Considered to be

negligible for most European projects.


Losses - Environmental

Environmental UL-DEWI Hybrid Accredited

Icing Calculated Calculated Calculated

Degradation 0.5% Calculated Calculated

Environmental Shutdown

(Operational WT temperature

range)

Calculated Calculated Calculated

• Curtailment losses will be calculated using OpenWind software, considering related

information is available.

• Curtailment losses can be combined, i.e. curtailments at same time periods caused by

different reasons are not counted double.

• Specific case that WT distance is smaller 3 rotor diameters and no curtailment info provided.

Hybrid Method will consider a curtailment for the affected sector.


Losses - Curtailments

Curtailments UL-DEWI Hybrid Accredited

Load Related Calculated Calculated Calculated

Grid Related Calculated Calculated Calculated

Environmental (Bats&Birds,

Acoustic, Shadow Flicker, …)Calculated Calculated Calculated

Operational Strategies Calculated Calculated Calculated


Losses - Impact of Changes (32 projects of the backcast study)

MethodAverage Loss Increase

Compared to UL-DEWI Losses

Remaining Gap to Average Yield

of Operational EYA

Hybrid Method 5.0% -1.3%

Accredited Method 3.0% -3.6%

Hybrid Accredited

Significant Reduction of P50 bias for Hybrid and Accredited Methods

Uncertainties


• Identical uncertainty approach for hybrid and accredited services.

• Guidelines requirements still followed.

• Internal calculation procedures adjusted where necessary to also reflect method changes.

UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 202-. Proprietary & Confidential. 31

Uncertainties

Results from

Backcast

Study

Overall uncertainties in wind speed are very similar

for UL-DEWI, UL-AWST and new planned method.

Overall uncertainties in energy are about 1% lower

for the new method compared to current UL-DEWI

method.

Very similar P75 and P90

Improved consistency of P-values

Observation backcast study: UL-DEWI P90

for pre-construction analysis slightly above the

ones from operational analysis.

Goal new method: improve the P90

assessment and unify methods between UL-

DEWI and UL-AWST.

Conclusion & Outlook


• Effective from Oct. 1, 2020 for onshore Wind Energy Energy Yield

Assessments in Europe (except Iberia), Middle East & Northern Africa

• In EMENA, one hybrid method will be introduced :

➢ UL-DEWI meteorological analysis

➢ UL-AWST wind flow and wake modeling

• Main Differences concern UL-DEWI Losses

➢ Wake Losses due to Model change

➢ Generic Power Curve Loss

➢ Sub-Optimal (not accredited only)

Particularities for accredited services

• Relatively similar uncertainties

➢ Lower Power curve uncertainties

Phase 1 Updates corrects the observed bias on UL- DEWI method.

UL will bear the costs of existing EYA update (except project modifications)


Summary of Phase 1

• Single UL method and toolset in

any part of the world

• Principal focus in:

➢ Meteorological analysis

➢ Wind flow modeling

• Compliance to Guideline

Requirements


Harmonization Phase 2

Innovative

Consistent Flexible

Reliable

UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2020.

Thank you !

QUESTIONS ?

Thibaut Labonde

[email protected]

+33 (0)4 27 18 10 20

José Vidal

[email protected]

+34 935 248 671

Anaïs Madaule

[email protected]

+33 (0)4 27 18 10 24

Kai Moennich

[email protected]

+49 44 17 79 37 102

mailto:[email protected]




Save the dates !

WEBINAR – UL Wind Energy Method Update – German

September 24th 2020 – 2pm

UL and the UL logo are trademarks of UL LLC © 2020.

WEBINAR – Step in the shoes of an Openwind & Windographer user – English

October 1st 2020 – 2pm

TRADESHOW – Colloque National Eolien - Paris

October 14-15th 2020

TRADESHOW – WindEnergy 2020 - Hamburg

December 1st-4th 2020

WEBINAR · 2020. 9. 10. · Timeline of Key UL Backcast Studies 102 wind farms •97 in Germany...

Documents

Transcript of WEBINAR · 2020. 9. 10. · Timeline of Key UL Backcast Studies 102 wind farms •97 in Germany...