Green Building Forum - Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

tony — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:16:04 +0100

Which operational wind turbine in the UK produces the smallest amount of power compared to it rated output?

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

windy lamb — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 16:57:41 +0100

Shouldn't you be asking which turbine gives the best output compared to rated power ?
I would have thought you'd get a pretty good idea of small wind turbine (actual) output at different wind speeds from the MCS figures. Bigger ones, who knows?
Actual performance of an individual turbine depends on it's location as you could have a perfectly good turbine in a dreadful location thus producing very little. No good just having, say, 6m/s annual average wind speed. You need clean air flow, turbulence is your enemy.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

tony — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:11:11 +0100

I am very interested in your last sentence Windy and which commercial size turbine it applies to

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Seret — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:53:26 +0100

All of them. Wind turbines are aerodynamic devices, they generate torque by producing lift much like an aircraft wing does. Turbulent air is no good.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

crusoe — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:56:44 +0100

Hope this isn't too off-topic, but once the REAL downtime and servicing costs of the BIG turbines are taken into account (I see several stationary every time I pass the A30 windfarms here in Cornwall), is a domestic-sized turbine a better bet?

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

SteamyTea — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:02:43 +0100

There are two methods of looking at load factor, rolling and annual
The worst turbine on the annual is Catchgate Primary School, on the rolling it is Upper Nibberdale College. These are both small turbines.
On the >500 kW it is Chelker Windfarm with an annual load factor of 0.9%
Rolling Load Factor is Mynydd Glandulas with a rolling load factor of 1.3%

The best are Burgar Hill with an annual load factor of 54% and Burradale Windfarm with a rolling load factor of 52.3%

The mean figures for the >500kW is Rolling Load Factor of 26.1% with a SD of 6.7 and Annual Load Factor is 28.8% with a SD of 7.9

The data is from the REF website who claim it if from Ofgem, but searching around the Ofgem site I could not find it.

When the data is plotted as Frequency Distribution you can see that the claim that most turbines are about 30% efficient has some grounds, but it is a simplistic and poor interpretation of the data.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

tony — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:50:06 +0100

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355419/UKs-useless-wind-turbine-Cost-130k-raise-electricity-worth-100k.html

can anyone find a poorer performing one than this 17% -- it must be operational

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

windy lamb — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:16:17 +0100

Tony, There's plenty of stuff out there about wind turbine siting and turbulence. What you need, for any turbine (but small ones are more susceptible) is a steady, laminar, air flow. The worse performing ones are invariably sitting next to buildings, trees or abrupt changes in landform. It's why off shore wind is seen as attractive.
Plenty of research papers out there show that turbulent wake effects from big turbines reach well over 16 times the blade diameter down wind, so many wind turbines are adversely affected by their neighbour - particularly marked in the USA where they stick hundreds up.
As Seret said, they are aerodynamic devices - think of it like flying a Tiger Moth behind a Jumpo 747 - not going to get the best trip in the Tiger but you wouldn't notice any difference in the 747.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Gavin_A — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:23:05 +0100

Posted By: SteamyTeaOn the >500 kW it is Chelker Windfarm with an annual load factor of 0.9%

that'd partly be because only 2 of the 4 turbines have blades anymore, and I believe it's basically too windy up there for those turbines, and they're erring on the side of caution with the remaining 2 and rotating the blades out of the wind more than they ought to.

it is 20 years old, and one of hte first in the country. I also think it probably suffers from the wind effectively deflecting off the ground just before the wind farm, so not hitting the blades front on, but coming up from below more, which is probably why the blades are off the first 2 turbines in the line coming from that direction.

I'd also suspect that it would have been down for maintenance a significant portion of the year in question.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Gavin_A — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:25:26 +0100

Rolling Load Factor is Mynydd Glandulas with a rolling load factor of 1.3%

that'd be the turbine at CAT, which supplies the main CAT site first, and only exports any excess, which presumably would be the figures used to give this load factor figure.

I thought those figures were suspiciously low.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

gustyturbine — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:06:31 +0100

Chelker has 4 x 300kW turbines. They are a 2 bladed turbine that we also had here on LLangwyryfon and Cemmaes sites before repowering. Coldnorthcot in Cornwall still has them running at above 99% availability. Any good site should be running at around 98% availability. Turbine manufacturers are now going away from availability as a performance indicator and going towards lost production factor. It makes much more sense. Chelker are finding it hard to get a company that can keep those turbines running, partly due to spares.
In their day they were a very advanced turbine. The wind speed limit has absolutely nothing to do with it. I used to service those very machines 12 years back. I am not sure when the CAT Nordtank 550 kW came back on line after switch gear problems but it was on stop for a very long time. It seems to be running very well now though. Stall reg..... good old days.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Dominic Cooney — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:58:39 +0100

I think those figures are very misleading. They describe the electricity as "worth" Â£100,000 compared to the "subsidy" of Â£130,000
when that seems to calculate down to what I presume is an export price of 3.7p/kWh which I am not sure is right?
then if you consider the retail price of say 17p/kWh the "worth" of the electricity is Â£457,640 which is 3-and-a-half times more than the subsidy.

I may be wrong with my figures and elec prices, but there would seem to be enough profit in there somewhere to cover the "subsidy".

Anyhow, I do not see the problem as the "subsidy" is directly linked to generation. No generation, no subsidy.

Perhaps we should work out the VAT on the electricity and see how much George Osborne gets per MWh?
[I think at 5% it might be Â£73,222 of the total - that brings the "subsidy" down by about half]

Are they suggesting that the nuclear industry has developed without subsidy? Or is that okay if you don't have to see it in the landscape (well, some of us anyway...)

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

tony — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:20:38 +0100

could you do the same calculations for a turbine on a hillside in Wales and see how they compare please?

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

windy lamb — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:28:29 +0100

tony - well that all depends. Which hill, which turbine? That's the problem with the question you first asked - unless you have 10 different turbine models on exactly the same site at exactly the same time, it is difficult to get a direct comparison between 10 different turbines. The manufacturers give their theoretical production figures which are (sometimes) backed up by field test data but each test site is slightly different and even the same site will experience different wind each day.
I have a Gaia 11kW turbine and I can see 3 others (Gaias) from the base of the tower, all within 5 miles. All are at similar altitude, on hill tops but all will have different daily production figures. Some days only 1 of 4 is turning, sometimes 2 of 4, 3 of 4 etc. Each location will be slightly different.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Dominic Cooney — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 19:04:52 +0100

I think the proportions would stay the same on a welsh hillside. When the "subsidy" is linked to generation, then the more you generate the more you get at the same ratio. Also the more VAT the govt gets. (assuming all prices) the same etc.
That's why in that article the way the figures are presented is misleading. Perhaps the headline should be:
"turbine provides Â£70k in VAT to boost govt coffers, as well as proving clean electricity for businesses on site"

Not such a headline grabber...

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Gavin_A — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:18:45 +0100

Posted By: gustyturbineChelker has 4 x 300kW turbines. They are a 2 bladed turbine that we also had here on LLangwyryfon and Cemmaes sites before repowering. Coldnorthcot in Cornwall still has them running at above 99% availability. Any good site should be running at around 98% availability. Turbine manufacturers are now going away from availability as a performance indicator and going towards lost production factor. It makes much more sense. Chelker are finding it hard to get a company that can keep those turbines running, partly due to spares.
In their day they were a very advanced turbine. The wind speed limit has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I drive past them fairly regularly, and they've only had 2 with blades on them for several years. It's a shame really because it's a really high profile site, and I'm sure the lack of blades on 2 of those turbines sets people wondering about the lifespan of all turbines being installed.

I'm obviously guessing about the cause of this, but the lie of the land there really does look as if it would funnel the wind in, and cause some seriously turbulent air for the front 2 of the 4 turbines in particular, which are the 2 that have no blades on them. I'd be surprised if that wasn't a factor.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

gustyturbine — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:45:47 +0100

The blade removal was due to many factors. Poor maintenace at one time when bolts had been over torqued. Honestly, wind turbulence and wind speed would not be a factor. Visit Cemmaes in Wales if you are interested. They has 24 of those turbines fitted on top of a 1500ft ridge along the Dyfi estuary. That place gets very, very high wind speed and turbulent flow. The biggest issue there is the grid connection but that is another story. Those MS300 turbines had a British Aerospace input. 34mtr rotor. 12T nacelle. 2 speed rotor at 32 and 48 RPM. A very good turbine. You are not able to get new blades either due to the turbine age.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

gustyturbine — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 +0100

They also has a low speed shaft problem but I will spare you the details. I know those MS300 turbines well. Their shut down speed is 25m/s. The same as a normal modern turbine (not enercon).

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

MarkBennett — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:51:09 +0100

Posted By: tonyWhich operational wind turbine in the UK produces the smallest amount of power compared to it rated output?

There are a couple of Proven near me that haven't turned a rotor in well over a year and had only been running a few months before being turned off. I guess that doesn't count though.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

tony — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:58:38 +0100

nope

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Nick Parsons — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:00:43 +0100

I remember Reading about this...?

Edit: On the other hand the only link I can find is to a Daily Wail article!

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

gustyturbine — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 21:04:32 +0100

I noticed a new turbine at LLanarth today....

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Gavin_A — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:20:38 +0100

Posted By: gustyturbineThe blade removal was due to many factors. Poor maintenace at one time when bolts had been over torqued. Honestly, wind turbulence and wind speed would not be a factor. Visit Cemmaes in Wales if you are interested. They has 24 of those turbines fitted on top of a 1500ft ridge along the Dyfi estuary. That place gets very, very high wind speed and turbulent flow. The biggest issue there is the grid connection but that is another story. Those MS300 turbines had a British Aerospace input. 34mtr rotor. 12T nacelle. 2 speed rotor at 32 and 48 RPM. A very good turbine. You are not able to get new blades either due to the turbine age.

Are you saying it's purely a coincidence that the 2 of the 4 turbines that are exposed to the highest wind levels and turbulence levels are the ones to have lost their blades?

Obviously such coincidences do happen, but put me down in the sceptical camp that it's not related at all.

btw thanks for confirming that the blades aren't available to be replaced now, I'd thought that might be the problem with them, which is a shame as they always did look pretty much built to last as installations go, and still do other than the missing blades.

either way, my point was merely that they can't really be counted properly if 2 of the 4 units don't have blades on them, though that still doesn't really explain why they have such a low load factor according to the figures, when they're in a good spot wind wise, and seem to be operating most of the time I go past.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

gustyturbine — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:18:56 +0100

Gavin_A,
When you say lost are you meaning removed or broken? Big difference.
It could be down to lots of issues. I know some time ago the maintenance lads used to pinch parts from one to service another. The supply of parts and costs of new blades would make the site a no brainer. I think they are looking at a repower soon. It was mentioned some time ago but you need a certain amount of turbines running or generation to qualify I believe,
Gusty.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

CWatters — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:33:14 +0100

Posted By: tony http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355419/UKs-useless-wind-turbine-Cost-130k-raise-electricity-worth-100k.html

can anyone find a poorer performing one than this 17% -- it must be operational

Not sure of the source but this large wind farm comes close...

http://www.htspweb.co.uk/garbagegate/item2/nowind.htm

"A 10-turbine wind farm at Burton Wold, Northamptonshire, has been operating for 3 years and it managed a capacity of only 19%"

Those are 100m tall turbines. There are 12 more the same size planned for the site.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

gustyturbine — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:06:37 +0100

I am all in favour of wind in the correct place and I can see problems when it is sited incorrectly but some articles do not help the anti wind case either. The lower link is absolutely pathetic and does not mention the improvement in capacity factor of modern machines or the fact that wind can help with energy independence. It just states that nuclear and fossil fuels are great!!!! They do not have any problems then obviously. Just rubbish.
That is my opinion though. Others may vary......

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Seret — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:12:31 +0100

Just out of interest Tony, what was the motivation behind the question?

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

tony — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:32:42 +0100

My local lot are claiming that the inland based wind turbines in our area are efficient and that we should have more of them, I dont agree as the one we have would be much better sited on on a hillside somewhere nearer the coast same capital cost, hugely better output.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Dominic Cooney — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 18:33:37 +0100

Yes that is obvious. The windier the site, the more production/output assuming all other factors the same. Main difference to capital costs for the coastal site could be grid connection cost and possibly access requirements (longer access track required?)
May not make much difference over the life of the turbine even if it was more expensive to install up front.
Should be easy to calculate if the site constraints are known and can be compared to the inland site.

Poorest performing Wind Turbine

Ed Davies — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:40:10 +0100

What subsidies do these wind farms get other than FITs payments? Any?