Engineering topics

Fields, M. Jason

Publications and source records attributed to Fields, M. Jason.

3 records

DOE OSTI2022

A Comparison of Preconstruction and Operational Wake Loss Estimates for Land-Based Wind Plants

Recent studies suggest that biases between wind plant pre-construction energy yield estimates and actual energy production are decreasing over time. However, variability in energy yield prediction accuracy across different projects and wind energy consultants remains high. Wake effects are one of the largest categories comprising the pre-construction energy yield assessment process. To assess the accuracy of wake loss predictions, we compare pre-construction wake loss estimates provided by 8 consultants to the estimated operational wake losses for 10 North American wind plants, as part of the Wind Plant Performance Prediction (WP3) Benchmark project. We estimate operational wake losses using supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) data by comparing total wind plant energy production to the potential energy production based on the power produced by freestream wind turbines. In the presentation, we will discuss the overall wake loss prediction bias as well as the project-to-project variability in the prediction accuracy. Further, we will highlight challenges encountered when estimating operational wake losses, including the impact of complex terrain and the presence of neighboring wind plants.

benchmark↗

DOE OSTI2022

An independent analysis of bias sources and variability in wind plant pre-construction energy yield estimation methods

The wind resource assessment community has long had the goal of reducing the bias between wind plant pre-construction energy yield assessment (EYA) and the observed annual energy production (AEP). This comparison is typically made between the 50% probability of exceedance (P50) value of the EYA and the long-term corrected operational AEP (hereafter OA P50), and is known as the P50 bias. The industry has critically lacked an independent analysis of bias reduction investigated across multiple consultants to identify the greatest sources of uncertainty and variance in the EYA process and the best opportunities for uncertainty reduction. The present study addresses this gap by benchmarking consultant methodologies against each other and against operational data at a scale not seen before in industry collaborations. We consider data from 10 wind plants and evaluate discrepancies between eight consultancies in the steps taken from estimates of gross to net energy. Consultants tend to overestimate the gross energy produced at the turbines and then compensate by further overestimating downstream losses, leading to a mean P50 bias near zero, still with significant variability among the individual wind plants. Within our data sample, we find that consultant estimates of all loss categories, except environmental losses, tend to reduce the project-to-project variability of the P50 bias. The disagreement between consultants, however, remains flat throughout the addition of losses. Finally, we find that differences in consultants’ estimates of project performance can lead to differences up to $10/MWh in the levelized cost of energy for a wind plant.

Todd, Austin C.↗

DOE OSTI2021

Wind Plant Performance Prediction Benchmark Phase 1 (Technical Report)

Financial risk resulting from the uncertainty associated with developing, owning, and operating wind power plants remains a barrier to reducing the levelized cost of energy (LCOE). On average, modern wind power plants in the U.S. underperform their expected annual energy output by 3.5-4.5% , with many underperforming by over 10%. To compensate for this uncertainty, investors require a larger return on investment (ROI) and apply "knock-down" factors that mask much of the underlying sources of uncertainty. Wind energy projects thus have reduced access to low-cost capital. Furthermore, operating wind plants often take a simple approach to estimating operations & maintenance (O&M) costs (e.g. straight-line estimates based on similar plants), which can eat into profits. To overcome these issues, the wind industry must improve the models they use for estimating wind plant performance and operations. An industry consortium (IC) requested that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) lead a Department of Energy (DOE) working group to benchmark the accuracy of wind power plant energy predictions against real operational data. The IC was also motivated by DOE and NREL's potential to characterize systematic energy underperformance, identify sources of uncertainty, and explore root causes. The Wind Plant Performance Prediction (WP3) project was created out of this request, and this report represents the successful completion of Phase 1 of the WP3 project. During the project, wind plant owners provided both pre-construction and operational data to NREL. The pre-construction data was provided to wind resource assessment (WRA) consultants so they could conduct energy yield assessments (EYA). NREL took all of the completed EYAs, along with the operational data, and conducted an operational assessment to benchmark the EYA results against actual operational data. Given the large amounts of sensitive data required for this effort, as well as historical opposition to sharing data within industry, successful completion of Phase 1 represents an unprecedented milestone for industry data sharing. To improve the accuracy and confidence of pre-construction EYAs, wind plant owners and investors need better, more certain, energy yield predictions. The WP3 Benchmark Project is an industry-driven response to this reality. For the first time, industry has taken the important step of working together at scale, sharing valuable operational data with DOE and NREL in order to investigate the sources of bias and uncertainty in these energy estimates. This IC provides wind plant preconstruction and operational data to NREL in an organized and documented fashion and provides guidance and feedback as needed. The IC also provides introspection of the design of experiment, key metrics of success, data challenges, analysis best practices, and quality of results.

17 WIND ENERGY↗