Urban wind, urban legend?

Urban wind,
urban legend?
[email protected]
1
Overview
•
•
•
•
Introduc)on Small and medium-­‐sized wind turbines Urban wind energy: case study Brussels Summary and conclusions
2
Introduc,on
3
Urban wind energy - introduction
• Wind has the poten)al to provide 50% of European electricity • Wind energy has low power per land area: 1-­‐3 W/m2 ‣ can be higher for offshore, but 6 W/m2 is unusual ‣ German solar farms reach 5 W/m2 • Ci)es have high power use per land area: 20-­‐50 W/m2
(150 m2 for Mumbai) • Urban wind energy will not provide a large frac)on of the energy needs of any major city. This will always require large-­‐scale genera)on
4
Urban wind energy - introduction
• There is no such thing as centralised genera)on of renewable energy • A en)rely non-­‐fossil, non-­‐nuclear electricity produc)on of electricity means living around power plants
5
Urban wind energy - introduction
• Bringing power produc)on closer can create awareness and goodwill • There is a lot of unused space in ci)es: rooUops • If there is wind, this space may be used • Secondary benefits only count if the energy produc)on is economically viable in the first place
6
Urban wind energy - introduction
Ques)on of this contribu)on: • Can wind energy produce local electricity in an urban area ‣ in a economically viable manner ‣ safely ‣ with limited impact on surroundings ? • Feasibility depends on viability and impact
7
Some defini,ons
8
Small and medium-sized wind turbines
• Small wind turbines (IEC 61400-­‐2 defini)on) ‣ “a system of 200 m2 rotor swept area or less that converts kine)c energy in the wind into electrical energy” ‣ d ≲ 16 m ‣ Prated ≲ 50 kW • Medium-­‐sized wind turbines ‣ working defini)on: 50 -­‐300 kW ‣ 16 m ≲ d ≲ 35 m
97
Power and energy
• In good condi)ons ‣ A 1000 kW turbine will produce around 3 500 000 kWh/yr ‣ A 100 kW turbine will produce around
350 000 kWh/yr ‣ A 5 kW turbine will produce around 13 000 kWh/yr • The average Belgian household consumes 3500 kWh/yr of electricity
10
Feasibility of a SMWT project
• Economic viability: measured with a metric such as ‣
‣
‣
‣
levelised cost of energy (LCOE) payback period internal rate of return (IRR) secondary benefits (e.g. of greening of company image) have tangible monetary value • Impact: safety, shadow flicker, noise, vibra)ons, biodiversity
11
Viability of small and medium wind turbines 12
Small and medium wind turbines
• Challenge of small and medium wind turbines: ‣ immature market ‣ low-­‐cost → low budget for resource assessment and si)ng + limited )me for measurements ‣ generally complex environment
13
Rule 1: Know the market
• 14
VUB database of small wind turbines
• Turbines < 100 kW • 762 turbines and coun)ng ‣ Most extensive survey to date ‣ HAWT ‣ VAWT ‣ Other concepts
15
VUB database of small wind turbines
• Typical entry: main characteris)cs of turbine
+ comments: measured P-­‐curve, cut-­‐in or start, ...
!"#$%
!
%&'&$
"#$%&! !
!"#$
1
("&)*+,-'$
'$$#! !
A lu W in d r a d
T h ü m
D u its
w w w
d e
le r
l a ?745
n d
ZCDRI5
. a @+0)*$)!
lu w in d r a d .
U8E!
.,"/"012344"$0-$5,6207$804$
(&)*+,-!
1&C*+>&0!
A=B#7&*!
C4+297$0)!
.,"E4+<'$",-),>,-'$
!&>0-46,$
!&>0-446$
94:';<&&2',$ ?@:'4"'$
(,"$144"$
A0-);$
A0-);$
.,">&2,-$
=&'&";
.&62,-:$
.&62,-:$
.&*#/%&0!
1/2/*!
3425
3425/42!
6$$*7+,89&!
:-,6<,0)$
B-,6<,0)$
CA;/AD$
)04>,',"$
@"&)*+,-'$
',:'$
R o to r:
UFFF!E!
D!E!0 , 8 m
M a s t :
4 m
!
!
2
T^E!
M a r l e c LF!E$22!
#+;*/!5L!
E n g i n e JFJFU!5
e r in g C o
L td
UFFF!E!
U K
w w w .m a r le c .c o . u
R u tla n d 5 0 4
F&:'@"01:$0-$
G,',:'H$
N9$E+0)%&0!
LF!E!
T;/5^405
UFFF!E!
R o to r:
E+0)!a7/W$7!
0 ,5 1 m
37&$0!
T0&*%`!
FGJH!#!
O!2 5 W
2 U!#!
,5
1 0 m / s J!
#K9!
m /s
N9$E+0)%&0!
OF!E!
\&$)+0%!
UFFF!E
/
&)%&!@+0)!
! R o t o! r :
0 ,5 8 m
24*W+0&9!
FGJH!#!
D!#!
N9$E+0)%&0!
JFE!
A$+*4+!
UFFF!E!
@+0)_/@&*!
3/RG\2)!
FGJH!#!
IGU!#!!
JF!#K9! K!
OU!#K9!
P#$QR!
E+0)!
90&75
=&+)S!
M!JF!
K!
'&&!
3 3 5 ,TQ;7R!
(3 0 3 ,9 5 £ )
#$92!!
• Basis for comparison between small turbines, with es)mate of annual produc)on • Select turbines for test fields • Help clients select small turbines
L E -6 0 0 0
!k
P r o v is io n a l T e c h S p e c S h e e t
!
G7)((&'(H! &'! 49+! 2)%+/4! %&'3! />++3/! $22)%&'(! 49+!
OF!E$22!
\T5DFFF!
:;<=---! 4)! 6+! (+'+#$4&'(! >)%+#! %9&2/4! )49+#! 45#<
6&'+/! #+1$&'! /4$4&)'$#.?! I5#49+#1)#+8! 49+! 5'&J5+!
3
A e ro 2 g e n
L V M L #+;*/!5O!
td
U K
w w w .lv m - ltd . c o m
62$3+! $##$'(+1+'4! &/! )>4&1&/+3! 49#)5(9! 7$#+052!
+'(&'++#&'(! 4)! 1$B&1&/+! .&+23! %9&2/4! C++>&'(! (+<
'+#&7! #)4)#! ')&/+! 4)! $! 1&'&151! $'3! +2&1&'$4&'(!
4)%+#!%$C+!+00+74/?!
!
@9+! :;<=---! 9$/! 6++'! +'(&'++#+3! $#)5'3!
49+! /577+//052! $'3! +/4$62&/9+3! KL&'3.6).! =---K!
!
&'*+#4+#!3+/&('+3!0)#!7)''+74&)'!4)!$!/&'(2+!>9$/+!
!
4
JF!E$22!
A1DRI5
#+;*/!5L!
UFFFE!
$'3!(+'+#$2!>)%+#!7)'4#)2!7$>$6&2&4&+/!49#)5(9)54!
!"#$%&%'(&)*+,---&
49+!)>+#$4&'(!+'*+2)>+!)0!49+!45#6&'+?!
"#$%&'(! )'! )*+#! ,-! .+$#/! )0! /1$22! %&'3! 45#6&'+!
!
3+/&('!$'3!1$'50$745#+8!49+!:;<=---!5/+/!$!7)1<
4)%+#! 9$/! 6++'! 3+/&('+3! 0)#! +B725/&*+! 5/+! %&49!
6&'$4&)'! )0! 0&+23! >#)*+'! +'(&'++#&'(! $'3! &'')*$<
49+! :;<=---?! @9+!9.3#$52&7! 2&04! $'3!2)%+#! 7$>$6&2&<
4&*+! '+%! &3+$/?! @9+! )*+#/&A+! #)4)#! 3&$1+4+#! (&*+/!
4&+/! )0! 49+! 4)%+#! $22)%/! >)/&4&)'&'(! &'! 2)7$4&)'/!
+B7+22+'4! +'+#(.! .&+23! $4! +*+#.3$.! %&'3! />++3/!
%9&79!1$.!)49+#%&/+!6+!&1>)//&62+!$'3!$22)%!0$/48!
%9&2/4!49+!$74&*+!02&(94!7)'4#)2!7)1>54+#!C++>/!49+!
/$0+!$'3!+$/.!&'/4$22$4&)'!$'3!1$&'4+'$'7+!)0!49+!
2$#(+#!/%+>4!$#+$!5'3+#!7)'4#)2!&'!9&(9!%&'3/!$'3!
4)%+#!4)>!+J5&>1+'4?!
W re n
/4)#1!7)'3&4&)'/?!!!
!
@9+!9&(9!+00&7&+'7.!$B&$2!025B!$24+#'$4)#!0+$<
M a s t :
1 ,2 m
&'*+#4+#/! )'! $! 49#++!>9$/+! /5>>2.! N5'3+#! 49+! OPM!
4&)'! %&49! 49+! &'*+#4+#! $'3! >#)*&3+/! )*+#<*)24$(+!
!
6 m /s
/5>>2.8!)#!7$'!6+!&'/4$22+3!)'!4%)!KL&'3.6).!M---K!
#+(52$4&)'/Q?!@9+!7)'4#)2!/./4+1!%)#C/!&'!7)'R5'7<
!
!
S! ,T1! 4$>+#+38! /+74&)'$2! 0#++! /4$'3&'(!
S a m re y L td
U K
w w w !!. s a m r e y . c o . u
S/! %&49! $22! :+$3&'(! ;3(+! >#)3574/8! 49+! :;<
=---!9$/!6++'!3+/&('+3!$'3!1$'50$745#+3!&'!49+!
R o to r :
1 m
M a s t :
J-),"$
=,I,",-'0,:$
:*+,9! ,*"&$ </%&7+,8=&+)!
:5
)+$#&2&*! +0!!
!
:*/)4;2+&! !
#&2!
;4*>&!
0&2;/00&;2+&! ! D . i . h e e l
3 m /
5 ,5 m /s ! 6 W !
8 0 ,s DGI!#!
k le in e
O!
L]!#K9!
M!
6$!
6$!
FGHI!#!
J!
LJ!#K9! DLHI!
K!
M!HF!!
'&&!
w in d tu r b in
#K9!
8E=K,$$*! LFDDF!
e
92$*2!
PN%&#!X!I! TQ;7R!
= 2 x f ie t s d y
#K9S!
#$92!
n a m o
(&*&8&0)!
s
3 m /
8 m /s
O!
JF!#K9!
J!
K!
4 8 W P#$QR!
8 5
#K9!
E+0)!A m p
90&75o f
1 9 ,5
=&+)S!h / w e
K!
LUFF5
IFFF!
è 8E=K,$$*!
re
PN !X!I!
k W %&#
e #K9S!
k
b i j 6 m (&*&8&0)!
/s
JF!#K9! K!
O!
LH!#K9!
#K9! P#$QR!
92$*2! E+0)!
90&75
8 5 W
4 0 k W h /
=&+)S!M a a n d
4 8 0 k W h
M!UU!
K!
TQ;7R!
#$92!
'&&!
6$!
M!JV!
K!
TQ;7R!
#$92!
'&&!
6$!
'&&!
6$!
V o o r
b o te n ,
w e e k e n d h
u is je s ,
w a te rp o m
p ,
t u in v e r lic h
'&&!
6$!
t in g , …
v o o r
b o te n e n
w e e k e n d h
u is je s
'&&!
6$!
16
Rule 2: know the wind resource
• Es)mate the available wind resource
with the aim of predic)ng the energy produc)on for an appropriate wind turbine • This is in prac)ce not always easy to do cheaply and reliably
17
building!level.!The!rules!of!thumb!for!the!installation!of!wind!turbines!in!an!urban!environment!
(D2.4)!provide!a!clear!way!to!tackle!this!problem.!These!rules!however!first!required!validation!
through!CFD!simulations,!which!we!performed!for!individual!buildings!(D2.1)!and!building!blocks!
(D2.3).!One!of!the!more!striking!rules!was!the!requirement!to!place!wind!turbines!at!least!50!%!
higher!than!building!height!(Wegley!et!al,!Siting!handbook!for!small!wind!energy!conversion!systems,!
1982).!This!is!prohibitively!high!for!many!of!Brussels'!most!suitable!locations!(as!shown!in!the!study!
by!Runacres!et!al,!BIM!E11O359!final!report,!2014),!such!as!The!Hotel!(94!m!tall)!or!the!SISP!building!
Peterbos!in!Anderlecht!(ca.!66!m).!The!CFD!study!we!performed!in!this!period!was!aimed!to!
investigate!the!range!of!validity!of!the!50!%!requirement.!
Rule 3: proper micrositing
• Op)mal loca)on and height of the turbine ‣ 3-­‐D model of the site or building ‣ Combined with computa)onal fluid dynamics
For!a!standard!reference!case!(Mertens,!PhD!thesis,!TU!Delft,!2006),!our!CFD!models!agree!well!and!
confirm!the!abovementioned!rules!of!thumb.!The!reference!case!however!has!a!low!heightOtoOwidth,!
(‘virtual wind tunnel’)
unlike!the!buildings!we!envisage!in!the!BCR,!as!we!show!below.!
Figure!2!(left)!shows!the!recirculation!zone!above!and!beyond!The!Hotel.!The!maximum!height!of!the!
wake!is!about!30!%!above!the!building,!but!this!is!well!beyond!the!building!itself.!The!freeOstream!
18
Small and medium wind turbines: resource
assessment + siting
• Feasibility ‣ Turbine choice ‣ Resource assessment ‣ Turbine si)ng ‣ Technical feasibility and impact • Use measurements and numerical simula)ons ‣ Resource assessment: measurements ‣ Micro-­‐si)ng: numerical simula)ons
19
The poten,al for wind energy in Brussels
20
!
Windspire!
Wind potential in Brussels: global wind
l!the!necessary!data!have!been!assembled!and!formatted;!the!calculated!power!time!series!
conditions
ataset!with!an!accompanying!note!(deliverable!D1.1)!has!been!sent!to!ULBOATM!(project!11)!
1/08/2013.!
• Wind maps based on terrain informa)on and meteo data
Figure!1:!Roughness!map!(left)!and!wind!speed!at!10!m!above!mean!building!height!(right)!for!the!Brussels!
Region.!
21
Wind measurements: site selection
• Result ‣ 4 sites were selected: » Hilton » ULB Campus Solbosch » Elia » Port of Brussels
22
Wind measurements: results
• The Hotel: ‣ building height 94 m ‣ close to porte de Namur ‣ Over 1 yr of measurements ‣ Average wind speed:
5.8 m/s ‣ This is comparable to the wind at the Belgian coast (at normal hub height)
23
Wat would a wind turbine on The Hotel
produce?
• The Hotel: ‣ Yearly produc)on » Sonkyo Windspot : 14200 kWh/yr » Ennera: 8170 kWh/yr ‣ Dynamic payback )me » KMO: Sonkyo Windspot & Ennera : 7 jr (10-­‐12 yr without support) ‣ IRR: » Sonkyo Windspot: 17.2 % » Ennera: 15.1 %
24
Wind measurements: results
• Other high-­‐rises (Manhatan-­‐tower): comparable results • Lower buildings (40 m): condi)ons much less favourable • Unclear: poten)al for medium-­‐sized turbines in semi-­‐
open terrain • 12 m above ground (typical hub height < 15 m): ‣ mean wind speed 3.7 m/s ‣ comparable to Schoondijke (Zeeland)
25
Impact of rooNop-­‐mounted wind turbines
26
Building-mounted small wind turbines
• Turbine should not affect structural health of building • Impact on occupants and surrounding should be negligible • Impact on air traffic should be negligible • Impact on biodiversity should be negligible
Portland, Oregon (2009)
27
Results: characterisation of vibrations
• This is not in the public domain, so we needed to measure, no data available, so this is really necessary to prepare a rooUop moun)ng • We measure on the ground (three turbines of our own turbines on different loca)ons) • The vibra)on data of these turbines are then combined with wind measurements on rooUops
and with building models (subcontractor Greisch, Liège)
28
Results: characterisation of vibrations
−20
• Vibra)on spectrum only weakly dependent on wind speed. 1−3 m/s
3−5 m/s
5−7 m/s
7−9 m/s
−40
−60
Acceleration PSD (m/s )
2 2
−80
• Some increased damping at higher wind speeds (aero damping, fore-­‐aU in par)cular). −100
−120
−140
−160
−180
−200
−220
0
2
4
6
8
Frequency (Hz)
10
12
14
29
Results: characterisation of vibrations
• What about different turbines? Dominant modes are from the mast, which has roughly standard dimensions and usually similar s)ffness (steel) so dominant frequencies vary litle over different types of HAWT. • So vibra)ons are quite generic (independent of wind speed and turbine type)
30
Results: structural impact of vibrations
• Structural impact negligible if wind turbine is mounted on the suppor)ng structure of the building • Local reinforcements may be necessary when turbine mounted away from suppor)ng column • Damping methods will mainly address possible acous)c issues, rather than structural (vibra)ons above ~ 50 Hz).
Dallas, Texas (2011)
31
Shadow flicker
• Guideline – d = 2 )mes height – max 30 h/yr – max 30 min/day • The Hotel – Shadow moves fast enough
32
Impact of rooftop-mounted wind turbines
• Structural effect of vibra)ons:
very limited • Visual impact
• Noise: ‣ direct: inaudible ‣ through vibra)ons: inves)ga)on ongoing • Biodiversity: very litle impact • No risk for air traffic
33
Pilot projects
• We are preparing full feasibility reports to prepare building permit requests in Brussels • We plan to finish end 2015
34
Wind situation in Brussels
• Wind condi)ons on high-­‐rises comparable to condi)ons at the Belgian coast ‣ Payback )mes < 10 yr ‣ IRR > 15 % ‣ This is very good for distributed genera)on • BUT: only true for good wind turbines, in a good loca)on, properly installed • Semi-­‐open terrain not measured • Impact very limited. Detailed feasibility study always required
35
Economic impact — long term
• In the long term, and providing the problem of rooUop crowding can be managed, there is the poten)al for roughly 50 sites for rooUop-­‐mounted wind turbines in Brussels, resul)ng in a power produc)on of the order of 1.5 GWh/yr
36
Summary
•
•
•
•
There is a poten)al for wind energy in the BCR Projects can be economically viable with low impact Brussels has the technological assets required Now is the )me for pilot projects
37
Thank you
[email protected]
38