Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplications Study For Wind Energy Systems At Federal Facilities, September 1981_SearchableDepartment of Energy Office of Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy APPLICATIONS STUDY FOR WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS AT FEDERAL FACILITIES JUL 21 1981 Final Report to Congress September 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits Executive Sunimary Introduction Summary of Results Assumptions and Limitations Approach Data Collection WECS Per formance Simulations and Economic Analyses Summary of Planning Guidelines References Acknow] edgements Appendix A Glossary Appendix 8 List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) Appendix C Performance Characteristics and Installed Costs for Machines Used in the Analysis Appendix D Guidelines for Implementation Planning Appendix E Case Studies DOD Pinon Peak DATS Facility DOT (U.S. Coast Guard) LORAN C Station, Nantucket Appendix F A Detailed Methodology for Technical and Economic Analysis of WECS Applications F-1 Number ES-1 B-1 C-1 D-1 0-2 LIST OF EXHIBITS Summary of Case Study Results Distribution of Potentially Economically Competitive (SIR 2 1.0) Sites by Wind System Size Number of Potentially Economically Competitive Sites and Number of Machines by Federal Agency Case Study Results List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) Catalogue of Representative Wind Machines General Planning Schedule for a Large (> 100 kW) Wind System Installation General Planning Schedule for a Small (< 100 kw) Wind System Installation Pinon Peak Case Study Site Plan Nantucket Island Case Study Site Plan Federal Wind Applications Study Overall Approach Representative Load Profiles Normalized Performance Results for Generic WECS WEC> Energy Production (Mih/yr) Wind System Performance Analysis Methodology Inputs to the Wind System Performance Model 1981 Marginal Cost of Electricity Estimates for Grid-Connected Applications (1981 $) Page B-1 C-1 F-11 mee EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is submitted in fulfillment of a requirement in Section 11 (1)(D) of the Wind Energy Systems Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-345).* The objectives of this final report are to present to Congress a more detailed assessment of the possible applications for wind systems in the Federal sector, and to illustrate the technical and non-technical issues which may need to be addressed in planning for a wind system installation. An earlier preliminary report identified Federal government sites where wind systems might have the potential for economic competitiveness with the marginal costs of new conventional energy sources in the respective areas. The results reported here are an extension of this earlier work. Nine agencies submitted sites for more detailed analysis in this report. The agencies included the Departments of: Defense, the Interior, Energy, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture; plus NASA and the Postal Service. These nine agencies nominated a total of 276 sites. The other seven agencies which participated in the preliminary report elected not to nominate any sites because they did not meet certain minimum economic competitiveness criteria (Value-to-Cost Ratio** above 3.0), and/or did not feel that any of the sites under their purview were attractive enough for inclusion. Savings-to-Investment Ratios (SIR) were calculated for each of the sites submitted for analysis in the final report. The SIR, as used here, is a measure of the relative worth of an investment in a wind system at a spe- cific Federal site. The methodology which was used to calculate the SIR *Section 11(1)(D) states that the Secretary shall: "(O) include the pre- sentation of a detailed plan for the use of wind energy systems for power generation at specific sites in Federal government agencies to the Congress within twelve months after the date of enactment of this Act". **Note that the Value-to-Cost Ratio (VCR) methodology used in the preliminary report differs from the Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR) methodology used here. See the Glossary (Appendix A) for definitions of SIR and VCR, and Appendix F for a description of the SIR methodology. While VCR values are generally higher than SIR values, the rank order of sites in the preliminary report was virtually unchanged when the SIR methodology was used to verify the preliminary results. values is in conformance with all applicable Federal Life Cycle Costing Guidelines.* All of the 276 sites were rank ordered on the basis of their calculated SIR. When taken together, the SIR values serve as an indicator of the relative potential for economic competitiveness among all] 276 sites. Savings which could accrue from a wind system installation were evaluated in light of the costs of owning and operating the system over its useful life. Wind machine cost and performance data typical of today's wind sys- tems (Appendix C), and the marginal cost of energy in the respective areas, were used in the analysis. Sites with similar energy consumption charac- teristics, load shapes, and wind resource were grouped together for analysis, to the extent which was both valid and practical. Results of the grouped analysis indicate that nearly two-thirds (180) of the 276 site submittals have the potential for economic competitiveness at present. The number of potentially economically competitive sites appears to be low in light of the fact that the 276 sites were selected, for the most part, from the most promising sites identified in the preliminary report. Three major factors are believed to be responsible for this result. First, typical machines and their actual performance character- istics were used in the final report instead of the range of machine sizes and generic performance characteristics used in the preliminary report. Second, actual machine costs were used instead of cost projections, and third, more detailed load and wind data were used when available. These factors, coupled with the general tendency of VCR values to be higher than SIR values, accounted for the sites from the preliminary report that did not exhibit the potential for economic competitiveness in the final report. As a result, some of the sites which were not found to be potentially economically competitive may prove to be so under closer scrutiny, and vice versa. A list of all 276 sites submitted for grouped analysis is presented in Appendix B. Typical potentially economically competitive sites reported in this study share certain common characteristics. Many are located in remote areas, *See: NBS Handbook 135, "Life Cycle Cost Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program", December 1980. n a w . twa citec on i € t lor sues y nas ’ hol incr » 3 a. ost te illus- Wind Machine Annual Barrels First Case Rated Displaced of Oi] Year Study Capacity (kW) Energy (kWh) Equivalent* Savings** SIR Pifion Peak, CA 25 44,269 87.33 $17,242 2.69 Nantucket Island, MA 95 199,586 393.74 $27,144 2.11 250 409 ,873 808 .59 $57 ,251 Li ht *See Glossary. **Net savings from energy displaced by WECS less O&M Cost. Exhibit ES-1. Summary of Case Study Results This report addresses the Congressional requirement for a ‘detailed plan in two ways. First, a set of "planning guidelines" is presented in Appendix D so that the Federal agencies with an interest in wind energy can gauge for themselves the magnitude and extent of planning considerations necessary for a WECS installation. Second, the results of the case study analyses are included to illustrate, insofar as possible, the types of data which the planning guidelines call for in practice. The analytical results from this report coupled with the planning guidelines and case study analyses serve to facilitate agency efforts to quantify the potential contribution of a WECS installation at any specific Federal site. INTRODUCTION Sections 11({1)(C) and (D) of the Wind Energy Systems Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-345) require the Secretary of Energy to provide two reports to Congress. The first was a preliminary report which determined those sites at which wind energy systems might be economically competitive with the marginal costs of new conventional energy sources in the respective areas. In total, 9,288 prospective sites nominated by 16 Federal agencies were analyzed. This report, the second of the two, was required to include the presentation of a detailed plan for the use of wind energy systems for power generation at specific sites in Federal Government agencies. Nine agencies were asked to nominate a total of 250 sites for more detailed analysis. The number of sites that was subsequently analyzed was raised to 276 due to the interest exhibited by certain agencies. The 276 sites were grouped into 86 applications categories for the calculation and analy- sis of Savings-to-Investment Ratios. Typical application categories in- cluded: Postal Facilities, National Parks, Air Force Bases, and small Alaskan communities. Many of the sites nominated for the SIR analysis are located in remote areas and generate all of their power on-site. Specific machine performance characteristics and costs for typical wind systems were used to conduct the analyses. The wind machine cost estimates are consistent with limited production rates in the 1981 to 1985 time period. This report is comprised of three distinct parts: (1) the results of analy- ses performed on 276 sites nominated by nine Federal agencies (selected for the most part from the most promising sites identified in the preliminary report), (2) planning guidelines which identify the steps that a Federal agency would go through in order to assess and implement a wind system installation, and (3) case studies on two of the 276 sites which include more comprehensive assessments of wind potential. The results of the grouped analysis illustrate the types of specific appli- cations which may be the first to achieve economic competitiveness. The planning guidelines are included to define the scope of the detailed plan- ning effort which may be necessary in order to effect a wind system install- ation. Case studies were developed to illustrate the planning guidelines. In order for the case studies to adequately illustrate the planning quide- lines, more detailed energy load, wind resource, and environmental, institu- tional, and siting data had to be collected in the field and analyzed. The results of the grouped analysis and the illustrated planning guidelines can be used by any Federal agency with an interest in developing its own wind potential. This report contains a glossary of terms (Appendix A) which are used in describing the grouped analysis, planning guidelines, and case studies. SUMMARY OF RESULTS Savings-to-Investment Ratios were calculated for each of the 276 sites which were submitted for grouped analysis. A site was considered to have the potential for economic competitiveness if its SIR value equalled or exceeded 1.0. Results of the grouped analysis indicate that 180 of the 276 sites nominated by the Federal agencies have the potential for achieving economic competitiveness in the near-term (1981-1985). A listing of all 276 sites with their respective SIR values is included in Appendix 8. The distribution of potentially economically competitive sites and the appropriate wind system(s) for each are presented in Exhibit 1. Wind Machine Total Rated Number of Number of Installed Capacity (kW)* Sites Machines Capacity (kW) 4 1 1 4 25 77 77 1,925 65 49 49 3,185 100 6 6 600 250 28 28 7,000 500 1 1 500 2,500 18 _43 107 ,500 TOTAL 180 205 120,714 *Manufacturer's Rating Exhibit 1. Distribution of Potentially Economically Com- petitive (SIR 21.0) Sites by Wind System Size Current cost and performance data for typical wind systems were developed for the analysis. Then, an appropriately sized machine was selected and analyzed for each site. The size of the machine was selected such that a reasonable fraction of the site's load would be satisfied without producing unacceptable quantities of excess energy. This was accomplished by matching the energy production of a typical machine to that of a generic machine that was sized to produce a certain amount of excess energy, depending on the site's load shape and wind class. The typical machine with the highest annual energy production that did not exceed that produced by the generic machine was selected. A single unit was specified in each case except where multiple units of the largest machine could be accommodated. A discussion of the typical machines which were used in the analysis is presented in Appendix C. The machine sizing methodology is further detailed in Appendix F. The sites inthis sample which may prove to be economically competitive in the near-term share certain common characteristics. Approximately 56% of the potentially economically competitive sites were submitted by the Depart- ment of Defense. These sites are comprised of small, remote installations in Alaska, Washington, and California; and naval facilities overseas, in California, Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii. In general, both the cost of fuel and the average wind speed are exceptionally high at these types of facilities. The Department of Transportation/U.S. Coast Guard had the second highest representatio. in the list of potentially economically competitive sites. Many of the DOT/USCG sites are located in coastal areas of New England and the mid-Atlantic states where the winds are generally good, and the local utilities are oil-fired. Exhibit 2 is included to illustrate the number of potentially economically competitive sites by agency, and the number of machines which was deemed appropriate for each. The two case studies which were selected for inclusion here are representa- tive of the two types of facilities which were most frequently found to be potentially economically competitive in the grouped analysis. Both sites are described in detail in Appendix £. Case study results are presented below in Exhibit 3. Average Wind Annual Annual Annual Annual Peak Machine Energy Displaced Excess Case Load Load Rated Production Energy Energy Study Site (kWh) (kWh) Capacity (kWh) (kWh) (kWh) SIR Pifion Peak, CA 110,920 60.0 2s @& 713 44,269 18,444 2.69 Nantucket Island, MA 1,308,875 167.5 95 199, 586 199 ,586 w B43 3;306,075 -397.5 250 454 ,200 409 ,873 Ser fil Exhibit 3. Case Study Results NUMBER OF SITES OR MACHINES SY LLM DOT NUMBER OF SITES fF | USPS DOE DO! FEDERAL AGENCY ea NNe= DOC NUMBER OF MACHINES HHS Exhibit 2. Number of Potentially Economically Competitive Sites and Number of Machines by Federal Agency The Pinon Peak site is a remote Navy/Air Force telemetry and tracking instal- lation located within the boundaries of the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in California. All of the power consumed at the site is supplied by 180 kW of installed diesel generating capacity and a 3 kW photovoltaics array. A wind system installation rated at 25 kW was deemed appropriate for the Pinon Peak site. Detailed load, wind, cost, and operating data provided by the Navy and the Air Force served as the basis for the calculation of a Savings-to- Investment Ratio of 2.69. Legal, institutional, and environmental issues were assessed and found to presently pose no significant barriers to the installation of a wind system at this site. The second case study is a U.S. Coast Guard LORAN-C Station on Nantucket Island, Massachusetts. A local utility supplies the majority of the facility's power, but the Coast Guard has installed 400 kW of diesel generating capacity as a backup system. A 250 kW wind system was evaluated and found to yield a Savings-to-Investment Ratio of 1.11. In addition, a 95 kW machine was analyzed for this site to illustrate the relationships among several key variables. For example, it is generally possible to achieve higher SIR values when the amount of excess energy production from a given machine is minimized. The SIR cal- culated for a 95 kW machine installation at the Nantucket Island site was 2.11. Tnis is in part due to the fact that the 95 kW machine produces no excess elec- tricity. Qver 10% of the 250 kW machine's output was excess, and therefore, valued at 75% of the marginal cost of electricity. The other general observation which the 95 kW machine analysis highlights is the variablity of installed cost estimates and performance characteristics that can exist between any two wind systems of differing capacities or manu- facturer. In the Nantucket Island case study, the cost differential ($/kW) between the 250 kW and the 95 kW machines had the greatest influence on the SIR values which were obtained. Nantucket Island was the site of a proposed DOE wind system installation. Public heariAgs were held and the local residents were, in general, highly receptive to the proposal. A different site was subsequently chosen, but there appears to be no present opposition to wind system installations on legal, institutional, or environmental grounds. The main objective of the case studies is to serve as a focal point for the discussion of the guidelines for implementation planning which are presented in Appendix D. These guidelines represent a model from which any Federal agency with an interest in wind energy can assess its own planning require- ments and potential for wind generated electricity. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS While certain assumptions and limitations were unavoidable due to the short study period, the results reported here are both reproduceable and verifiable. This section is included to identify the assumptions and limitations so that the reader may interpret the results with a better understanding of the input values and analytical methods which were used. The single most uncertain input is the available wind resource that is assigned to each site. Other important and uncertain parameters include wind system total installed cost, annual operations and maintenance cost, site specific load characteristics, and wind system performance characteristics. The Savings-to-Investment Ratios (SIR) calculated for each site are valid only to the extent that site specific information (like the case studies presented) confirms the assumptions which were made. The available wind resource (mean wind speed, and distribution) at any precise location is quite uncertain. Local buildings, vegetation, and land forms can distort, block, or increase the winds. In this study, the most current wind resource maps from Battelle! were used to assign wind classes to each specific site. The values on these maps are “representative of sites well exposed to the prevailing strong winds...." and further, "....the wind power density shown on the maps....will not be representative of poorly exposed locations." The One-Seventh Power Law was used as an approximation of the vertical wind sheer profile for sites included in the grouped analysis. Case study sites were characterized by means of a surface roughness coefficient which provided a more accurate estimate of vertical wind sheer than the One-Seventh Power Law. A Rayleigh distribution was used to approximate the hourly values of wind speed for the grouped analysis, while the case studies were analzyed on the basis of .ypical Meteorological Year (TMY) data for a nearby weather sta- tion. Full confirmation of the wind resource at a potentially economically competitive site through a site survey and site monitoring (one to three years) is especially desirable for large, capital-intensive wind projects. 10 @ In this report, the economic value of a wind system is based on the marginal cost of energy (MCOE) of new conventional energy sources as stated in the Act. These costs are difficult to determine because the MCOE concept can be interpreted in different ways and because the prices paid for energy, particularly in regulated gas and electric utilities, are difficult to express in te ms of marginal costs. Marginal electricity costs for the 10 DOE regions, reported in the 1980 DOE Annual Report to Congress,“ are used in this study. These costs are for the high import oi] price case where 1985 oil prices are assumed to be $43.00/bb1 (1979 $). The individ- ual utilities within a DOE region might experience marginal costs signifi- cantly different from those presented for the region as a whole. The MCOE is assumed to have a real escalation rate of 1% per year through the 20 year study period. The SIR, as a measure of the potential economic competitiveness of wind systems, must also be interpreted with caution. For example, a sellback rate of 75% of the MCOE was assumed to be in effect for all grid-connected sites. A higher sellback rate would result in higher SIR values, and vice versa. It is also generally possible to obtain higher SIR values if the size, number, and type of wind systems is optimized or altered. In this study, wind machines were sized so as not to exceed the annual electrical consumption reported for a given site. Other machines might have proven more or less cost-competitive. The Nantucket Island case study illustrates this effect. In addition, the large number of sites considered (276), and the short period of time available for data gathering and analysis, limited the degree to which the site specific energy requirements could be charac- terized. Wind system size selection and performance simulations might be Jess accurate for sites with large seasonal variations in energy require- ments than those with small seasonal variations. The typical wind systems selected for this analysis were characterized ina consistent manner in terms of both performance and cost, but with varying degrees of accuracy. Many of the wind system performance curves used in the simulations are based on theoretical considerations and have not been verified by field testing. DOE experience at Rocky Flats and elsewhere has suggested that real system performance can deviate significantly from the iA theoretical. Serious consideration of wind systems should be based, if possible, on performance data developed under field testing conditions. Installation, operation, and maintenance costs for wind systems are also uncertain. A number of the wind machines used in this analysis are best described as advanced prototypes and, as such, capital costs and operating characteristics contain an element of uncertainty not experienced with a more mature product. The data used to characterize the factory costs of the wind systems used in this analysis are the best currently available from manufacturers and the DOE laboratories responsible for machine development and testing (Rocky Flats, NASA, and Sandia). Except for the case studies, installation costs for each typical system were developed for a representa- tive site considering foundation, transportation, interconnection, and labor costs. Specific sites, particularly in remote locations, might present unusual circumstances in any one of these cost categories which would change the actual co.t of installation. For example, battery storage, which was not included in this study, may prove to be cost effective for a particular site. Since most of the typical or advanced prototype machines have not been operated for long periods of time (several years), the estimates of annual O&M expenses are somewhat speculative. A value of 2% of the total installed cost was assumed for annual oan? Recent experience suggests higher numbers might apply, but the wind community is generally confident of achieving costs of from 1% to 2% per year’. The availability of the wind systems is assumed to be 95% in this analysis. APPROACH Data Collection All of the Federal agencies which participated in the Preliminary Report were invited to nominate a limited number of sites for more detailed analysis. Nine agencies subsequently accounted for the total of 276 sites which were grouped and analyzed. The majority of sites reported here were included on the basis of a Yalue-to-Cost Ratio (calculated in the preliminary report) of 3.0 or greater. A number of sites were included in this report, however, that were not evaluated in the preliminary report. This is due to the fact that certain agencies felt strongly about including additional sites. For 12 e _ example, some sites were thought to be promising, but the requisite data were not assembled in time to meet the deadline for the preliminary report. These sites and other similar site nominations were accommodated wherever possible. The 276 sites nominated for grouped analysis included 10 which were to be considered for case study as well. Only two of the 10 case study nominees were subsequently analyzed in greater detail. A complete listing of all 276 sites and pertinent data, including Savings-to-Investment Ratios, is included in Appendix 8. Each agency was asked to select the most accurate wind class region (see Glossary) and provide the most accurate load and consumption data possible for each of i-s grouped site nominations. Data were collected and aggregated into groups on the basis of similar load shapes and wind speed classes, and similar annual energy consumption figures. A higher degree of accuracy was achieved in the grouping procedures for this study because fewer sites were nominated and the restriction on the number of groups was less stringent than in the preliminary study. Data were collected via personal contacts with study personnel, and by way of data sheets similar to those used in the pre- liminary report. Savings-to-Investment Ratios were then calculated for all 276 of the sites nominated for grouped analysis. Information for the two case studies was collected on-site and via personal contacts with other knowledgeable agency personnel. These data were then entered onto detailed data sheets and used to both calculate Savings-to- Investment Ratios and illustrate the implementation planning guidelines. WECS Performance Simulations and Economic Analyses The overall approach for analyzing Federal wind energy applications in this study was identical for both the grouped analysis and case studies. Perfor- mance and cost input data for the case studies were more detailed but the analysis methodology remained the same. The methodology which is detailed in Appendix F, consists of three steps: Machine Size Selection, Performance Analysis, and Economic Evaluation. The emphasis here is on the analysis of typical wind systems, and each of the three subtasks depends to some degree 13 on the characterization of these machines. Characterizations of the typical wind machines which were matched to specific sites in this study are presented in Appendix C. Note that little can be inferred as to the relative perfor- mance of one machine over another. While only seven machines were matched to the 276 sites, even modest changes in the cost and wind resource assumptions could alter the mix of machines. Once the application's load, wind resource, and marginal cost of energy were assessed, the technical and economic perfor- mance of the machine could be evaluated. As a result of the analysis, the Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR) for installing commercial machines at specific Federal sites was determined. The first subtask, Machine Size Selection, provided an assessment of the energy requirements and available wind resource of each site nominated for grouped analysis or case study. Then, the appropriate wind machine(s) for each site was selected from a representative group of typical wind machines ranging in size from a few kilowatts to several megawatts. Machines were selected such that the annual energy production and excess energy production approached, but did not exceed, certain criteria. (See Appendix F.) The load shape and wind speed class for each site or site grouping was considered in this process. Once a specific wind machine had been selected, an analysis of its performance was conducted. The operating characteristics of the machine (cut-in, cut-out, rated wind speeds, and power output curve) were programmed to simulate the machine power production in response to hourly wind data representative of the site. The power output was then compared to the application's hourly load requirements to estimate the amount of WECS generated electricity which satisfies the load, and the amount which is excess. The outputs of the wind system performance subtask were then used to determine base year (1981) savings considering the Marginal Cost of Energy (MCOE) for the site, and an energy sellback rate, if appropriate. The present value of these savings, less the operations and maintenance costs, were determined using discounting techniques described in the Life-Cycle Cost Manual for the Federal Enercy Management Program>. A real discount rate of 7% per year, con- sistent with the Federal Energy Management Program, was used for all Federal 14 o rote agencies. A real fuel escalation rate of 1% per year was assumed. The present value of the.net savings calculated in this way, was then divided by the total installed cost of the typical wind machine. The result was a Savings-to-Invest- ment Ratio (SIR) for each site which was then used to rank order all sites considered in the analysis. SUMMARY OF PLANNING GUIDELINES A summary of the major elements of the planning guidelines presented in Appendix D follows: 1. Wind Resource Confirmation - Existing meteorological data may need to be supplemented with one to two years of on-site wind data to verify the magnitude and nature of the wind resource. 2. WECS Technical Requirements - It is essential that a specific wind system be matched to the load and operating environment in all technical respects in order to optimize the energy contribution of the wind system. 3. WECS Economic Analysis - The investment in a wind system for a Federal agency must be evaluated in conformance with the economic procedures estab- lished for that agency. Life-cycle costing and Savings-to-Investment Ratios are typically employed in such an analysis. 4, Utility Interconnection - If the proposed site is connected to a utility grid, provisions for electrical interfacing and impacts on the stability of the grid must be evaluated. A close working relationship with the cooperating utility is essential. 5. Environment and Land-Use - Such factors as: noise, aesthetics, electro- magnetic interference, and wildlife must be considered in each agency's pro- cedures for compliance with environmental legislation. An assessment of land use issues is necessary in order to identify both potential conflicts and opportunities for multiple use. 6. Institutional and Regulatory Issues - Planning for a wind system instal- lation requires knowledge of the various institutional issues (liability, safety, public perception) and regulatory requirements (permits, zoning, building codes) which must be addressed. 1S hs Infrastructural/Logistics Support - The operation, maintenance, and servicing of a wind system installation must be planned for. Operating personnel, field manuals, service scheduling, and replacement parts should all be accounted for in the implementation plan for the life of the system. In general, the magnitude of the planning effort is a function of the scale of the project. When all of the significant elements of the planning guide- lines have been addressed and evaluated, a decision to proceed or terminate is reached. If the outlook is favorable, project implementation then begins with development of a site specific design and preparation of procurement documents for the wind system and related services. This can best be done by the specif.c Federal agency within its programming, planning, budgeting, and project implementation framework. REFERENCES ee "Wind Energy Resource Atlas: 12 Volumes - PNL-3195 WERA-(1-12), Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab. 2. U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Report to Congress, Supplement to Volume Three, Forthcoming. 3. Briggs, W.R., SWECS Cost of Energy Based on Life Cycle Costing (RFP-3124 3533/80-13), Rocky Flats Wind Systems Program for the U.S. Department of Energy, May 1980. 4. Bollmeier, W.S., et al., Small Wind Systems Technology Assessment, State of the Art and Near-Term Goals (RFP-3136/3533/80/18), Rocky Flats Wind Systems Programs, for U.S. Department of Energy, February 1980. 5. Ruegg, Rosalie T., NBS Handbook 135 Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Programs, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1980. 16 f ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The U.S. Department of Energy wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of the following Federal agencies which participated in the study phase of this final report: Department of Agriculture Department of the Interior Department of Defense Department of Transportation Department of Commerce Department of Health and Human Services National Aeronautics and Space Administration U.S. Postal Service Power Marketing Administrations of the Department of Energy 17 GLOSSARY U Application Category: A grouping of sites with similar energy consumption patterns. ‘Availability: A factor defined as the ratio of the time a wind system is available to produce power, to the total time interval under consideration. Availability is independent of wind speed. Barrels of Oil Equivalent: Barrels of Oi] Equivalent is a unit of energy measure equal to 5.86 x 10° British Thermal Units (BTUs) used to compare, on a common basis, energy which is produced by different means. Capacity Factor: A measure of wind machine performance, defined as the ratio of a machine's annual energy production to the amount of production possible had the machine operated continuously at its rated capacity. Cut-In Speed: The minimum wind speed at which a wind machine first starts to produce electricity. Cut-Out Speed: The wind speed at which a wind machine ceases operation to prevent damage due to very high winds. Detailed Plan: An ordered sequence of considerations and issues which must be addressed in order to procure, instal] and operate a WECS at Federal facilities. am A set of guidelines for planning and implementating such an installation. Grid Connected: Refers to the typical situation where electric energy demands are met by a utility network. Horizontal-Axis Machine: A wind energy conversion system design in which the axis of rotation is parallel to the direction of the wind stream. Hourly Wind Speed Distribution: The hour-by-hour values of wind speed over the 8,760 hours in a year. Kilowatt (kW): The electrical unit of power which equals 1,000 watts. Kilowatthours (kWh): A basic unit of electric energy which equals one kilo- watt of power applied for one hour. Life-Cycle Value Analysis: Consideration, at present value, of all estimated costs and savings expected to be generated by a WECS installation during its service life. Load: The amount of electric power required at a given point on a system. Load Factor: The ratio of the average load to the peak load during a speci- fied period of time. Load Profile/Shapes: A curve showing required power (kilowatts) over time, illustrating the varying magnitude of the load during the period covered. A-1 Marginal Cost of Energy: The cost to provide an additional unit of a given energy type to an end-user including extraction, conversion, transportation and distribution costs, and values of selected externalities but excluding certain energy taxes and subsidies. Mean Sea Level (MSL): Average height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a specified period. Megawatt (MW): The electrical unit of power which equals one million watts or one thousand kilowatts. Megawatthour (MWh): A unit of electric energy which equals one megawatt of power applied for one hour. One-Seventh Power Law: The relationship between wind speed and distance above the ground expressed as an exponent (0.143) which is typical for flat surfaces. Peak Load: The maximum electrical load in a stated period of time. It may be the maximum instantaneous load or the maximum average load over a speci- fied time period. Rated Capacity: The designated electric power output which a WECS generating unit is capable of producing. Rated Output Speed: The lowest wind speed at which a wind machine operates at its rated capacity. Rayleigh Distribution: A distribution of hourly values of wind speed which is commonly used to approximate the actual distribution when only the mean of the distribution is known. Regional Wind Resource: The wind characteristics of a geographical location defined in terms of their potential value for WECS electrical energy production. Remote: Non-grid connected. Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR): A measure of potential economic competi- tiveness used to compare and rank candidate sites in this study. SIR is the ratio of energy savings minus 0&M costs, to investment cost. Sell-back Rate: The price at which a utility will buy back excess power produced by a wind machine. Site: A specific Federal facility, including the land on which it is located, at which an e€-ergy consuming activity is performed. Urban: A qualitative criteria by which specific sites were characterized on the basis of high population densities and large scale land development. Utility Grid: A centralized electrical energy production, distribution, and transmission network which serves the electrical power needs of all consumers within a geographic area. A-2 OQ we Value-to-Cost Ratio: The ratio of the potential worth of the wind machine at a candidate site to the estimated installed cost of the wind machine. Potential worth is the maximum amount that an agency could pay for the installation and still save enough money annually to pay for the operating costs of the machine over its life. Vertical-Axis Machine: A wind energy conversion system design in which the axis of rotation is normal to the ground and the blades are usually fastened at the top and bottom. WECS: Wind Energy Conversion Systems - a generic term. WECS Potential: An expression of the possible market size of wind energy applications, expressed as megawatts of installed WECS capacity. Wind Class Region: A geographical area defined by common and prevailing average annual winds. Seven wind class regions have been defined in wind resource mapping projects, ranging from Wind Class 1 (very low winds, less than 9.8 mph) to Wind Class 7 a high winds in excess of 15.7 mph). Wind Shadowing: Terrain features, both natural and man-made, that impede wind flow. A-3 C APPENDIX B LIST OF APPLICATIONS AND SAVINGS TO INVESTMENT RATIOS (SIR) APPENDIX B a No. of Sites Q) 1 1 10 1 1 10 10 1 10 (1) 1 i r 1 1 1 1 : 1 & Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Cc Annual Annual WECS Annual Load Agency/Appl ication State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWwh) (MWh) (Muh ) WECS (Mth) SIR DOD/USN-USAF DATS Station, Pinon Peak CA 6 26 73.3 132.4 64.9 50.4 S530 DOC/Weather Station, Marshal) Island 80* 7 25 20.0 94.0 94 .3 54.5 7.36 DOC/Weather Station, Guam 79* 7 25 20.0 94.0 94.3 54.5 7:36 DOD/USN Smal] Remote, NARL, Barrow AK 5 23 15.4 131.4 54.8 45.4 6.67 DOD/USN Medium Remote, NAVFAC, Antigua 72* 7 100 22.0 795.2 339 .6 244.4 6.33 ' ° r [ bs Eleuthra " " a e 7 . . ’ DOD/USN Smal] Remote,NAS ,Whidby Island WA 3 25 28.0 131.4 38.9 31.9 4.30 DOD/USN Medium Remote, NCS, Keflavik 34° 6 65 21.0 525.6 249.6 240.9 4.09 DOE/APA Smal] Community, Wales AK 6 25 14.6 130.0 64.2 45.5 4.00 DOD/USN Medium Remote, NWC, China Lake CA 5 65 21.0 $25.6 223.4 216.7 3.64 DOD/USAF Small Remote, AS, Atka AK 5 26 14.6 299.6 54.8 54.8 3.33 DOI/USGS Seis. &Geomag. Center ,Uwekahuka HI 5 26 14.7 119.7 54.8 39.1 3.14 DOI/BIA Day School, Kwigillingok AK 5 25 15.4 64.8 54.8 29.1 aya i a . Che fornak * " " és : - " i DOD/USN Medium Remote, NS, Adak AK 5 250 230 795.2 578.8 354.4 3e02 DOT/USCG Station, Block Island RI 5 25 13.6 155.6 54.8 46.2 3.00 7 " i Point Judith a ° . - 7 . : : DOT/USCG Station, Boothbay Harbor ME 5 25 13.6 155.6 54.8 46.2 3.00 USPS/Postal Facility, Rutland VT 5 25 13.6 159.0 54.8 41.1 2.92 *Numbers represent foreign installations. .A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. **Manufacturer's Rating. ( )Indicates that this site was nominated for case study. Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/Application State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWwh) (MWh) (Mah) WECS (MWh) SIR 1 DOE/APA Small Community, Kivalina AK 6 65 14.6 426.6 249.6 170.3 2 78 Z “+ 7 ” Chevak a . _ : . . . _ 1 soe " . Tooksook Bay " . . bs " a . iM 1 DOD/USN Medium Remote, Kaui HI 6 500 20.0 795.2 682.5 338.0 2608 (i DOE/APA Small Community, Hooper Bay AK 6 65 14.6 749.9 249.6 186.0 2.78 | 1 25 " " Savoonga " " " . 7 . 7 i 1 ie is " Gamb] e " a " . . . Ns a | 1 oe . " Scammon Bay AK 6 100 14.6 293.4 230.2 137.3 2.73 1 ? " " Elim i 2 " a " . . - aN _— " " Tununak e . " ? " a " aces) DOT/USCG Station, Moriches NY 5 25 11.6 155.6 54.8 46.2 2.95 1 "8 7 Montauk - . . . " . ” H 1 sos " Freeport . a : : " 1 ss . Beach Haven NJ 5 25 11.6 155.6 54.8 46.2 2.33 1 oe . Brant Point/Nantucket MA 4 25 13.6 119.9 45.0 35.6 27.39 1 id " ” Cape Cod Canal/Sandwich “ 2 Z : . [ " . A USPS/Postal Facility, Hanover NH 4 25 13.6 91.5 45.0 30.3 2.31 1 " 7 Barre VT 4 25 13.6 91.5 45.0 30.3 238 (1) HHS/Smal1 Hospital, Kotzebue AK 4 65 15.4 721.8 194.3 194.3 2.24 *Numbers represent foreign installations. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. **Manufacturer's Rating. ( )Indicates that this site was nominated for case study. e a No. of Sites e-@ we o _~ Ce ee ( )Indicates that this site was nominated for case study. 5 ( Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) © **Manufacturer's Rating. Annual} Annual WECS Annual Load Agency/Appl ication State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (Milh) (Miah) WECS (MWh) SIR DOT/USCG Base, Southwest Harbor ME 5 65 13.6 403.9 223.6 180.5 2.16 DOT/USCG Station, Jonesport ME 5 65 13.6 327.8 223.6 163.2 2.01 DOD/USN Small Remote, NWS, Concord CA 3 25 14.0 131.4 35.9 31.9 2.04 DOT/USCG Base Housing, Jonesport ME 65 13.6 409.4 223.6 120.5 1.99 a iL 1 rc Southwest Harbor " o . r e : - " DOD/USAF Medium Remote,AS,Cape Lisburn AK 5 250 14.6 5999.7 578.8 578.8 1283 " : 4 i "Cape Romanzof " " i , iy * = . . T 7 ‘i "Cold Bay . . - t 7 " . " " c A " Tie City [ ‘ a t / . ; . a L 4 i "Ascension Is. “ " : r a : e “ DOT/USCG Station, Point Allerton/Hull MA 3 25 13.6 239.7 35.9 32.3 1.93 DOD/USAL Large Remote, AS, Shemya/Atka AK 5 2,500 14.6 55800.3 23992.4 22280.1 1.92 DOT/USCG Station, Castle Hill/Newport RI 3 25 13.6 114.6 35.9 28.9 1.87 a , 4 Menemes ha/Chilmark : " i. t . a 2 : DOC/Fisheries Lab., Woods Hole MA 4 65 13.6 414.5 194.3 161.1 1.86 DOT/USCG LORAN-C Station, Upola HI 5 250 14.7. 1184.4 578.8 482.4 1385 DOI/NPS National Park, Hilo HI 4 65 14.7 181.4 194.3 98.3 1.84 *Numbers represent foreign installations. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. v-9 Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/Appl ication State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kwh) (MWh) (Mth) WECS (MWh) 1 DOD/USN Medium Remote,NAVFAC, Bermuda 75* 3 250 20.0 795.2 402.8 27.3ee 1 E 7 . a NUSC . F : mn " e st a 1 DOI/NPS National Park, St. Thomas 76* 5 100 13.6 169 .4 197.2 90.4 1 DOT/USCG Station, Chatham MA 4 65 13.6 299 .3 194.3 isos 1 USPS/Postal Facility, East Greenwich RI 3 25 13.6 73.6 35..9 23.42, 1 DOT/USCG Station, Eatons Neck NY 5 65 11.6 327.8 223.6 163.2 1 Peete i Rockaway 2 . Z . * 5 i 1 Peete _ Barnegat NJ 5 65 11.6 327 .8 223.6 163.2 1 _USPS/Postal Facility, Grass Valley CA 4 25 10.6 91.5 45.0 30.3 1 : . z Auburn EB i a Z . : - a: : " H Winslowe AZ 4 25 10.6 91.5 45.0 3053 1 DOI/FWS Fish Hatchery, Berlin NH 5 250 13.6 1050.3 578.8 457.2 1 oo = Bethel VT 5 250 13.6 1050.3 578.8 457.2 1 DOT/USCG Air Station, Sitka AK 4 250 15.4 1934.2 489.1 428.4 1 DOT/USCG LORAN-C Station, Kure Island HI 5 250 12.6 3261.3 578.8 578.8 1 DOT/USCG LORAN-C Omega, Kaneahe HI 4 250 14.7 2263.6 489.1 489.1 1 USPS/Postal Facility, Borger TX 5 25 7.8 159.0 54.8 ated *Numbers represent foreign installations. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page. **Manufacturer's Rating. ( Sola Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) 0 Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/Appl ication State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (Muh) (Mh) WECS (MWh) SIR 1 DPOD/USA Training Area, Hilo HI 4 2,500 14.7 16400.3 7094.8 5036.4 1°55 1 _-USPS/Postal Facility, Canyon TX 5 25 ¥.8 103.4 54.8 Sian io i ; . Childress : . : : : ‘ : . 1 " : i Hereford ? - : . " " : a 1 i . id Elk City : OK _ ~ : : - . - 1 DOD/USA Schofield Barracks, Honolulu HI 4 2,500 14.7. 117551 .5 56749 .0 39587 .6 1 55 1 " “Ft Shaftner, % . cr . z 2 7 2 . 1 DOT/USCG Station, Rockland NH 3 65 13.6 441.7 163.8 139.2 1350) 1 ie os Portsmouth Harbor ME . " e " " e : © (1) DOE/APA Regional Center, Bethel AK 5 2,500 12.0 26486.4 8062.1 6801.8 155 = 1 USPS/Postal Facility, Lewes DE 3 25 11.6 73.6 35.9 23.2 1.49 i L . a Rehoboth Beach a t . . 7 : = f (1) DOT/USCG LORAN C Station, Nantucket MA 4 250 13.6 2263.6 489.1 489.1 1.47 1 . “Communications Station, Boston MA 4 250 13.6 1858.9 489.1 476.4 1.46 1 " "Air Station, Cape Cod MA 4 2,500 13.6 13759'°8 7094 .8 5348.4 1.44 1 DOD/USAF Tracking Station, Mt. Vernon NH 4 2,500 13.6 24000.4 7094.8 5321.1 1.44 1 DOT/USCG Station, Sandy Hook NJ 5 250 em: 1932.8 578.8 501.0 1.43 *Numbers represent foreign installations. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. **Manufacturer's Rating. ( )Indicates that this site was nominated for case study. No. of Sites 9-8 a es ee a gt ~ eae ow & Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Agency/Application Title USPS/Postal Facility, Somerset . . a: Oakland z . = Parsens DOT/USCG Station, Fire Island " a z Shinnecock DOT/USCG, Base, Woods Hole DOD/USAF Wheeler AFB, Oahu - "Bellows AFS, " ” " " " Kaalo " ie uo * “ Punamano AFS, Oahu HHS/Small Hospital, Barrow DOT/USCG Support Center, Boston DOD/USN Naval Facility, MCAS, Kaheohe DOD/USA Navajo Depot, Flagstaff DOD/USN Smal] Remote,NAS,Corpus Christi TX DOD/USA West Point/Newburg *Numbers represent foreign installations. **Manufacturer's Rating. Annual Annual WECS Annual Load State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (MWh) (Muh) WECS (Mh) SIR PA 4 25 9.3 40.9 45.0 19.5 1.40 MD m “ “ " ” " u wy " " " " " " 8 NY K) 250 11.6 1162.1 578.8 447.6 1.39 " " " " " " " " MA 4 250 13.6 1048.2 489.1 376.5 1.38 HI 3 62,500 14.7 24340.4 5920.2 4566.6 128) AK 3 250 15.4 783.1 402.8 310.0 t527, MA 4 250 13.6 452.3 489.1 246.9 ee HI 4 65 9.0 525.6 194.3 189.9 Inez AZ 5 250 10.6 907.0 578.8 375.8 12a 4 25 7.0 131.4 45.0 38.9 1.20 NY 4 2,500 11.6 55000.5 21284.2 15359 .4 1.19 A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. Z-a ( \ @ ! Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/Application State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (Mh) (MWh), WECS (MWh) SIR 1 DOT/USCG Station, Atlantic Beach NY 5, 4 11.6 43.7 14.8 12.5 1.18 1 DOD/USA Fort Drum, Watertown NY 4 2,500 11.6 16400.3 7094 .8 5036.4 1.18 (1) USPS/Postal Facility, New Haven cr 3 250 13.8 -°19#S.3 402.8 355.8 1.14 1 DOD/USA Tioga Hammond Rec. Area, Elmira NY 4 250 11.6 1113.3 489.1 353.2 1.13 1 DOT/USCG LORAN-C Station, Attu AK 5 250 8.9 4382.6 578.8 578.8 1.09 1 DOD/USA Cold Region Engr. Lab., Hanover NH 3 2,500 13.6 14200.2 11840.4 6279.3 1.08 1 DOT/USCG LORAN-C Omega, Middletown CA 4 250 10.6 1510.2 489.1 455.7 1.08 1 i "Station, New Haven fT 3 250 13.6 758.8 402.8 288.7 1.08 1 DOD/USA Ft. Irwin, Barstow CA 4 2,500 10.6 16400.3 7094.8 5036.4 1.06 1 DOD/USAF George AFB, Victorville CA 4 2,500 10.6 44670.3 21284.2 14879 .0 1.06 1 " "Travis AFB, Fairfield CA 4 2,500 10.6 73800.8 35473.7 24763.3 1.06 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Xx x x 1 DOD/USAF Radio Relay Sta., Argyroupolis 53* 2 100 14.6 299 .6 96.8 82.1 0.98 1 " a 4 Z 7 Flobeq a a a a . / " " 1 7 "High Wycombe, AS, Buckingham 60* " a " i: . x . 1 " "Radio Relay Station, Izuirt 66* " 2 . 7 " Hi y 1 i . . : a Yalova ? " . . " . a i 1 " " a e _ Erhac “ . od a 2 . . 7 1 a ' : 7 : Balikesir " " " _ " Z 7 : *Numbers represent foreign installations. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. **Manufacturer's Rating. ( )Indicates that this site was nominated for case study. Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/Application State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (Mwh) (Muh) WECS (Muh) SIR (1) NASA White Sands Test Facil.,Las Cruses NM 6 500 7.8 7996.2 682.5 607.5 0.92 1 DOD/USA Carlisle Barracks, Harrisburg PA 4 2,500 9.3 16400.3 7094.8 5036.4 0.98 1 DOD/USA Ft. Story, Virginia Beach VA 4 2,500 9.3 16400.3 7094.8 5036.4 0.91 1 DOD/USA Aberdeen Proving Grds.,Aberdeen MD 4 2,500 9.3 117551.1 56749.0 39587 .6 0.90 i DOD/USAF Radio Relay Station,Los Santos 59* : 250 14.6 3212.3 298 .0 298.0 0.89 1 . ¥ : “ a Menorca at x . in " " i : 1 DOD/USAF Transmitter, Oxfordshire 60* 2 250 14.6 3212.3 298 .0 298.0 0.89 1 a "Radio Relay Station, Baliksir 66* " . cs ad " a " 1 . " * ' 7. Geml ik : i 2 ’ : . = oo 1 7 . . " : Izmir " 7 7 . . . " ' ° (1) USDA/FS Cap Perpetua Vis.Cen., Waldport OR 7 25 3.0 74.0 94.3 44.4 0.89 1 NASA Radar Launch Facility, Wallops Is. VA 4 250 9.3 1299823.0 499137.1 369334.6 0.88 it DOD/USAF Loring AFB, Limestone ME 2 2,500 13.6 66340.7 22079.1 16262.5 0.81 1 DOD/USAF Pease AFB, Portsmouth NH 2 2,500 13.6 39600.3 13247.5 9749.3 0.81 1 " "Westover AFB, Chicopee MA 2 250 13.6 10200.2 298 .0 293.0 0.81 1 " "Reese AFB, Lubbock TX 4 2,500 7.8 24000.4 7094.8 5321.1 0.74 1 " "Vance AFB, Enid OK 4 2,500 7.8 24000.4 7094.8 $321.1 0.74 *Numbers represent foreign installations. A key with the code number of each country is represented on page B-13. **Manufacturer's Rating ( )Indicates that this site was nominated for case study. Exhibit B-1. List Ww C of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/Appl ication State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (Mah) (Mh) WECS (Mh) SIR 1 DOD/USA Ft. Chaffee, Ft. Smith AR 4 2,500 7.8 16400.3 7094.8 5036.4 0.72 1 DOD/USAF Cannon AFB, Clovis NM 4 2,500 7.8 44670.3 21284.2 14879 .0 0-22 1 " "Altus AFB, Altus OK . ” “ " . " : 1 " "Halloman AFB, Alamogordo NM 4 2,500 7.8 73800.8 35473.7 24763.3 0.72 1 . " Sheppard AFB, Wichita Falls TX . - ° . * . 7 1 DOD/USA Ft. Sill, Lawton OK 4 2,500 7.8 -117581.5 56749.0 39587 .6 0.72 1 “ "Ft. Bliss, El Paso TX " * - ce " ie ? (1) DOD/USAF Tinker AFB, Midwest City OK 4 2,500 7.8 177002.2 92217.1 63546 .5 0.72 1 - "Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque NM . : “ - " " - @ 1 USPS/Postal Facility, Scott City KS 5 25 4.1 103.4 54.8 a7.4 0.72 © 1 -DOD/USA Letter Kenny Depot ,Chambersburg PA 3 2,500 9.3 58000.6 47361.0 25446.0 0.68 1 "— "Redford Arsenal, Redford VA . . ‘ . " " . 1 " "Tobyhanna Depot, Scranton PA £ . . 14200.2 11840.0 6279.3 " 1 DOD/USAF Dover AFB, Dover DE 2 2,500 11.6 66340.7 22079.1 16262.5 0.66 1 " “Griffiss AFB, Rome NY " " as " 7 _ 4 i " "Plattsburgh AFB, Plattsburg NY . . . 39600.3 13247.5 9749 .3 0.66 1 a “Niagara Falls AFRB,Niagara Falls NY 2 250 11.6 10200.2 298 .0 293.0 0.66 1 DOD/USA Ft. Sheridan, Chicago IL. 4 2,500 6.7 16400.3 7094.8 5036.4 0:59 *Numbers represent foreign installatio **Manufacturer's Rating. ns. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. ( )Indicates that this site was nominated for case study. Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/Application State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (MWh) (Muh) WECS (MWh) SIR 1 DOD/USAF Vandenberg, AFB, Vandenberg CA 2. 2,508 10.6 134001.4 48563.6 35195.8 0.58 1 DOD/USA Ft. McClellan, Anniston AL 4 2,500 6.6 $5000.5 21284.2 15359 ..4 0.58 1 DOD/USAF Laughlin AFB, Del Rio TX 3 2,990 7.8 24340. 5920.2 4566.6 0.58 ] 7 "Goodfellow AFB, San Angelo ” i r . 7 " " i 1 DOD/USA McAlester Depot, McAlester OK 3 «800 7.8 14200. 11840.4 6279.3 0.53 1 DOD/USAF Aviano AB, Pordenone 5° 4 2,500 6.0 10100. 7094.8 4387 .3 0.49 1 7 "San Vito AS, Brindisi : i e . : " " ' 1 DOD/USAF Duluth AFRB, Duluth MN 3 2,500 6.7 24340. 5920.2 4566.6 0.47 1 7 "Pittsburgh AFRB, Pittsburgh PA Z 250 9.3 2600. 298.0 260.1 0.46 @ 1 DOT/USCG LORAN-C Station, Shoal Cave AK c 250 8.9 4668. 298.0 298.0 0.46 o 1 7 " ‘ 7 Port Clarence " il _ E ’ " " . 4 7 7 ‘ . Narrow Cape " il : . ; " 7 i 1 DOD/USAF Finland AFS, Finland MN 3 250 6.7 5400. 402.8 370.3 0.46 1 " “Mitchell Field, Milwaukee WI i r . i " " i. 1 7 "O'Hare AFRB, Chicago IL i ? . , " 7 i 1 USPS/Postal Facility, Lander WY 5 25 2.8 159. 54.8 41.1 0.43 1 DOD/USAF Sculthorpe AB, Norfolk 60* 4 2,500 $.$ 10100. 7094.8 4387.3 0.43 1 DOE/WAPA Medicine Bow Substa. Med. Bow WY 6 2,500 2.8: $7218. 81662.) $3871 .3 0.42 *Numbers represent foreign installations. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. **Manufacturer's Rating. G @ q) Exhibit B-1. List of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load No. of Agency/App] ication State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Sites a Title Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (Mdh) ( MWh) WECS (Mvh) = SIR 1 DOE/BPA Microwave Rad.Sta. .Kennewick WA 6 10 3.0 49.9 40.1 30.5 0.37 1 1s ” 7 Kittitas a i : © . * . " 1 ne . " "Beverly : ‘ . : * 7 " v i oe " " "Langlois OR " / . : * i. . I DOE Idaho Engineering Lab.,Idaho Falls ID 3 2,500 3.0 116069.1 59201.8 45105.5 0.32 1 USPS/Postal Facility, Leadville co 4 25 2.8 91.5 45.0 30.3 0.31 1 : , ‘ Glennwood Springs " " " e . * a ‘, 1 DOD/USAF Chanute AFB, Rantoul hh 2 2,500 6.7 66340.7 22079.1 16262.5 0.29 1 a "K.I. Sawyer AFB, Gwinn MI . . . : " " = ol " “Grissom AFB, Peru IN 2 2,500 6.7 39600.3 13274.5 9749.3 0.29 =] _ "Kincheloe AFB, Kincross MI " " ™ " ” x s 1 " "Rickenbacker AFB, Columbus OH " . . ° ™ " ' 1 " " Bandette AFS, Bandette MN 2 250 6.7 10200.2 298.0 293.0 0.29 1 2 "Tyndall AFB, Panama City FL 2 2,500 6.6 66340.7 22079.1 16262.5 0.28 1 " "Myrtle Beach AFB, Myrtle Beach SC " x " : : i s l " "Eglin AFB, Valparaiso FL " ° + 252003-6° 92712.3 66967.1 0.28 1 i "Cape Canaveral FL 2 2,500 6.6 134001.5 48563.6 35195.8 0.28 1 . "Patrick AFB, Cocoa Beach ° ” : ¥ : " " 4 i 7 "Homestead AFB, Homestead " " ? a . a e : *Numbers represent foreign installations. **Manufacturer's Rating. A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. Exhibit B-1. Li No. of Agency/Application Sites Title 21-8 DOD/USAF Keesler AFB, Biloxi i “~~ McConnel AFB, Wichita 7 "Newark AFS, Heath a "Hurlbert AFB, Mary Esth USPS/Postal Facility, Alliance i . Es Falls City DOD/USA Kanapolis Rec. Area, Sal " "Wilson Dam Rec. Area,£11 7 "Harlan Cty. Rec. Area, H DOE/WAPA North Cody Substation, "" Ralston’ ¥y " "Glendale a G Cody DOT/USCG LORAN-C Station, George DOD/USA Yakima Firing Center, Ya USDA/FS Civilian Cons. Center, W DOT/USCG LORAN-C Omega, La Maure a *Numbers represent foreign installations. **Manufacturer's Rating. G ‘ st of Applications and Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) (cont'd) Annual Annual WECS Annual Load State/ Wind Rated MCOE Load Production Satisfied by Code Class Capacity**(¢/kWh) (Mah) (Mh) WECS (MWh) = SIR MS 2 2,500 6.6 134001.5 48563.6 35195.8 0.28 KS. 4 2,500 4.1 73800.8 35473.7 24763.3 0.28 OH 2 250 6.7 2600.0 298 .0 260.1 0.28 er FL iz 250 6.6 2600.0 298.0 260.1 0 27 NE 3 65 4.1 163.4 163.8 82.2 0.27 ina KS. 4 250 4.1 1113.3 489.1 363.2 0.26 sworth " a i : . " i: earney NE i 4 . ‘ " a Cody WY 6 2,500 2.8 10512.0 9073.6 5866.8 0.21 Ralston." a i. / . " a Tendale WY 6 2,500 2.8 30274.6 27220.7 17083.1 0-29 Cody WY 6 25 2.8 40.3 16.3 16.3 On17 WA 4 250 3.0 5544.2 489.1 489.1 0.16 kima WA 4 2,500 3.0 16400.3 7094.8 5036.4 OTIS aldport OR 4 250 3.0 2702.1 489.1 369.5 0.14 SD 3 250 2.8 2815.5 402.8 402.8 0.07 A key with the code number of each country is presented on page B-13. Gs Sr 4. 5. 5S. .', SOc 60... 66... . Greece . Iceland .Italy .Spain .United Kingdom . Turkey COUNTRY CODES ten 1S: Thi, Pei. mek: 7... B-13 .Bahamas .Bermuda .U.S. Virgin Islands . Guam -Marshall Islands .Belgium APPENDIX C PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS AND INSTALLED COSTS FOR MACHINES USED IN THE ANALYSIS APPENDIX C APPENDIX C The wind machine cost and performance data presented here were used in the evaluation of all sites in both the grouped analysis and case studies. DOE program laboratories and private sector machine manufacturers were contacted in order to develop these data. Cost and performance data for 25 machines were initial.» collected and profiled. Within the total population of 25 machines, there were clusters of machines which possessed similar character- istics. A single representative machine from each cluster was then selected to be used in the analysis. Accordingly, the list of 25 was reduced to 10 machines which represented a range of available machines from 2 kW to 4,000 kW. Through the analysis methodology explained in Appendix F, 7 of the 10 machines were matched to the 276 sites nominated by the Federal agencies. It should be noted that the machines not matched to a site could very well have emerged with a slight change in the wind regime (vertical wind sheer profile and annual hourly distribution), installed cost, and load profile. All of the typical machines listed in Exhibit C-1 are typical of each general size size class and in total, offer a representative distribution of machine sizes and types. Wind Machine (1981 $)} Rated Rated Wind Hub Installed Capacity (kW)* Speed (mph) Height (ft) System Cost 4.0 24.0 80 $ 12,950 25,9 26.0 60 24,400 65.0 26.0 7s 133,000 95.0 30.0 30** 125,000 250.0 30.0 80 432 ,000 o1.0 35.0 30** 500,000 2,500.0 aia 200 6,000,000 *Manufacturer's Rating. **Reference height for vertical axis machines. linstalled Cost Estimates provided by DOE labs, manufacturers, and installers include: ° FOB factory cost of wind turbine, tower, controls, etc. o Shipping costs based on an average shipping radius of 250 miles ° Installation costs including site preparation, foundation, interconnection, labor, materials, etc. These quotes do not include the cost of: o Transmission lines o Access roads o Land acquisition. Exhibit C-1. Catalogue of Representative Wind Machines C-1 APPENDIX D GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING APPENDIX 0 i GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING A. BACKGROUND Section 11(1)(0) of Pub. L. 96-345 calls for the "presentation of a detailed plan for the use of wind energy systems for power generation at specific sites in Federal Government agencies". The body of this final report and its attached appendices have been prepared to be responsive to this legis- lative requirement. In particular, the Guidelines for Implementation Plan- ning presented in this Appendix, and the case studies reported in the fol- lowing Appendix, provide both a description of the major elements contained in a “detailed plan", and two examples of their application to "specific sites in Federal Government agencies". Neither the Guidelines nor the case studies can meet all of the requirements for the actual implementation of a wind energy system at a specific Federal site. Additional and more in- depth assessments would be required to justify the allocation of construc- tion or operating funds to wind projects. In recognition of this need for additional detail, Section E of this Appendix provides the reader with a bibliography of reports and documents which treat each of the major ele- ments involved in implementation planning. The description of the major elements of wind system installation planning contained here, together with the list of documents for additional reading, can significantly aid any Federa] agency's efforts toward the development of site-specific detailed plans. B. SUMMARY These guidelines describe the major elements of wind energy project planning that must be completed before a WECS unit can be installed and integrated into the energy system at a Federal facility. Although the levels of detail, planning, and execution vary with the magnitude of the project, there are, nevertheless, severa] discrete elements of planning that apply to any WECS installation. The basic elements of any implementation plan should include: Wind resource confirmation Technical requirements Utility interconnection considerations Economic analysis and machine selection Environmental and land use considerations Institutional considerations Logistics support requirements Hardware and services procurement Construction/installation ©e©oeooeoeoqo9s79sese8ese 9? Check-out, start-up, and operation monitoring. The timing of these elements for typical large and small WECS installations is shown in Exhibits 0-1 and D-2. A more detailed discussion of planning element sequencing and scheduling is provided in Section D. The actual dura- tion of each element and the point at which a Federal agency enters the time scale depends on the size of the machine, size and location of the installa- tion, the amount of required data already on-hand, and the availability of additional needed information. The reader should note that most of the basic planning elements discussed below are required for any energy produc- tion facility, and the level of detail recommended here is no more demanding for a WECS installation than for a fossil fuel plant. EL: ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN a Resource Confirmation The annual mean wind speed at a proposed wind system site is the most impor- tant element affecting the potential economic value of the system. Therefore, it is essential that adequate wind data be obtained. Preliminary assessments of the wind energy resource may be made using records from nearby meteorological stations. Wind data may also be obtained from other sources such as the Battelle Wind Atlases.* However, such data may not be representative of the winds experienced at the actual site proposed for an installation. Therefore, for any installation requiring a significant investment (i.e., large wind systems), a meteorological tower should be installed at that site and one to two years of hourly wind data obtained. *See Bibliography References E.l.a through c. D-2 €-d TIMING YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 SCENTS 2 4 6 & Wwl2 «6 #8 wewhie «:e « «w wila« 6 8 © 12 ASSESSMENT . WIND RESOURCE es SITE MONITORING (OPTIONAL 2ND YEAR) CONFIRMATION rea ee “7 2. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS REVIEW [)_ HAROWARE ANALYSIS / SELECTION uTiity coorpiNation C———] 3. UTILITY INTERCONNECTION Cs interconnection o€sicn CONSIDERATIONS ee ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS | SIMULATION | MACHINE SELECTION MACHINE SELECTION REQUIREMENTS REVIEW 5. ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND [ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT USE PLANNING hers Co] _ OR IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIREMENTS REVIEW 6. INSTITUTIONAL [Cs coorpinate wi OBTAIN NECESSARY APPROVALS CONSIDERATIONS at [ eae REVIEW -—s STATE / LOCAL OFFICIALS 7. LOGISTICS SUPPORT Cc _Csimputs to IMPUTS TO PROCUREMENT O&M PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ed C ECONOMIC ANALYSIS RFP(sXRFQ(s) SELECTION 8. HARDWARE & SERVICES : PROCUREMENT PREPARATION & ANNOUNCEMENT & DELIVERY 9. CONSTRUCTION / INSTALLATION. 10. CHECK-OUT, START-UP & OPERATIONS MONITORING Exhibit D-1. General Planning Schedule for a Large (> 100 kW) Wind System Installation Note: The four year planning and implementation period for a large WECS installation can, in many instances, be substantially reduced. The extent to which it can be reduced is dependent upon the size and complexity of both the machine and the facility, and the amount of requisite data that is already available. See text for further discussion. o-0 TIMING | YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 Srereanne 2 4 eh ee 88 2 4 6 8 0 124 2 6 8 10 }— ASSESSMENT eee oe cacsmanner: Saracen CONFIRMATION REVIEW 2. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS [ ANALYSIS | SELECTION UTILITY 3. UTILITY INTERCONNECTION Cy CONSIDERATIONS COORDINATION ANALYSIS 4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS | SELECTION MACHINE SELECTION Ce REVIEW 5. ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND Co COMPLIANCE USE PLANNING 3 REVIEW 6. INSTITUTIONAL C_—_1—_ COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS Cs PLANNING REVIEW 7, LOGISTICS SUPPORT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS SOLICITATION SELECTION DELIVERY 8. HARDWARE & SERVICES naan | oo PROCUREMENT ne a oe 9. CONSTRUCTION | INSTALLATION 10. CHECK-OUT START-UP & OPERATIONS MONITORING Exhibit D-2. General Planning Schedule for a Small Note: instances, be substantially reduced. (< 100 kW) Wind System Installation The three year planning and implementation period for a small WECS installation can, in many The extent to which it can be reduced is dependent upon the size and complexity of both the machine and the facility, and the amount of requisite data that is already available. See text f@yrtter discussion. Besides wind speed, other meteorological data are also important for the { / site-specific wind system design processes. The outputs of a complete site- specific wind characterization effort should include: Wind speed duration curve, Extreme wind speed and extreme fastest mile, Peak gust and design gust magnitudes, Wind sheer, Turbulence spectra, Frequency distribution of wind direction, Ice and snow loading design values, Atmospheric corrosion (if applicable), Vertical profiles of mean wind speed, ooo 809 808 808 Oo 8 8 A Vertical profiles of gusting and turbulence. The extent to which a promising site is characterized depends upon the nature and scale of the proposed wind energy project. Resource confirmation for a multi-machine wind farm would require significantly more extensive and detailed monitoring than that required for a single wind machine. 2. Technical Requirements The technical requirements of WECS implementation planning include engineering analysis and performance evaluation tasks which support the optimal sizing of WECS hardware and optimization of performance specifications with regard to the load. The basic technical requirements for any WECS project include the following: (a) Reliability Requirements. Reliability of WECS hardware directly affects both the performance and economic value of wind machines. If a WECS unit is proné to malfunctions, breakdowns, or short maintenance intervals, the capacity factor of the machine will fall and the O&M costs will increase. The ability of WECS hardware to operate unattended for extended periods of time without performance degradation is a key technical requirement. (b). Safety. Safety characteristics of WECS hardware are important ww regardless of the size or type of application. Problems of blade throw or 0-5 tower collapse affect the safety of both operators and the general population, and must be considered explicitly. Sufficent overspeed controls to prevent machine "runaway" and attention to the expected structural loads on the tower are required. (c) Ourability Requirements. The durability of a wind system relates to the system's ability (over a reasonable lifetime) to withstand the environmental and operational conditions to which it is exposed. In the case of coastal installations, corrosion resistance to salt-laden aerosols must be added to a standard list of requirements including: resistance to tempera- ture extremes, UV radiation, ice and snow loading, extreme wind speeds, and turbulence. (d) Performance Requirements. Wind system performance require- ments must be evaluated with regard to the particular application under con- sideration. These requirements are an integral part of the design and selection process through which a particular system is matched to a specific site and application. Hardware requirements which will vary with the site and the application include: Annual energy output Power form (electrical AC or DC, mechanical) Maximum wind speed (design tested) Noise level Start-up wind speed Cut-in wind speed Maximum power WECS power availability Power curve Rotor speed @eed90gcgcieeoeooo0odcesd°e es Mean power output. 3. Utility Interconnection Considerations When a proposed wind system is to be interconnected with a utility network, a number of factors concern the interconnecting utility. These utility interconnection considerations should be reviewed with utility personnel early in the implementation process due to their potential impact on wind system design and cost. A detailed technical discussion of utility interconnection considerations is beyond the scope of these guidelines; however, a list of those items of particular importance will provide an indication of the range of issues that may have to be addressed. Utility interconnection considerations can be organized into four general categories: (a) effects on the utility's operations; (b) quality of power from the wind system; (c) safety problems for utility equipment and personnel; and (d) liability for damage to the equipment of the utility, the wind system user, and other customers on the network. (a) Utility Operations 0 Generation system operations including effects on stability and spinning reserve requirements 0 Operation of line shunt capacitors used for power factor correction Phase imbalance effects Special metering requirements Voltage level protection (over/under voltage) Electrical fault protection © eee oo Grounding fault protection (b) Power Quality oO Harmonics which could interfere with carrier wave of other equipment Voltage flicker associated with wind machine startup Power factor effects Voltage regulation ooo 28 Synchronization requirements (c) Safety ° Need to assure no possibility of backfeeding electricity into network when utility line is supposed to be de-energized 0 Utility may require manual disconnect switch 0-7 (d) Liability 0 Additional utility insurance could add to overall utility interconnection costs. 4. Economic Analysis Economic analysis for a capital investment in a WECS must be done in con- formance with the specific procedures established by or for use by the particular Federal agency. Since the specifics of these costing and eco- nomic analyses vary among agencies, it is only possible to offer some gen- eral guidance. The general categories of WECS costs are itemized below. The procedures for life-cycle cost analysis and the economic aspects of wind machine selection are also discussed. (a) Wind Machine Selection. Inputs to the selection of a wind machine for a particular site and application include wind resource char- acterization, technical requirements, and interconnection considerations. A wind machine must be selected which not only matches these requirements, but is an economically sound investment for the application being considered as well. For all but the smallest installations, machine selection should be based on performance analyses conducted using detailed hour-by-hour simula- tions. The hour-by-hour simulations provide estimates of the annual savings that would result if the wind system under consideration was installed. These simulations may be repeated for a number of candidate machines. Appen- dix F of this report contains a detailed discussion of the machine perfor- mance simulations conducted for this analysis. Once the performance simulations are completed, detailed cost estimates for a complete installation must be developed for each machine. An estimate of operating and maintenance costs must be developed and life-cycle cost analy- sis performed for each machine to confirm its economic worthiness. (b) WECS Cost Components. Although the overall cost of an operating WECS unit can be subdivided in several ways, the following cost components are most frequently used: 0-8 0 Feasibility and engineering studies and design costs ° WECS hardware costs 0 Land and site preparation costs - Land acquisition (if necessary) - Access roads - On-site facilities costs - Other site preparation (grading and fencing) ° WECS installation costs - Erection - Transmission lines and electrical interconnections - Check-out. (c) Life-Cycle Costing Analysis. An economic evaluation of a pro- spective WECS installation, based on a life-cycle cost analysis consistent with the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget, must be performed for any proposed wind system installation. With annual savings calculations and machine installation and operating cost estimates established, a life-cycle cost analysis using the methods specified in NBS Handbook No. 135, Life-Cycle Cost Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program, can be performed for each system under consideration. The life-cycle analysis can provide a mea- sure of worth called the Savings-to-Investment Ratio (SIR). All other con- siderations being equal, the machine having the highest SIR (providing it exceeds a value of one) would be the appropriate choice. 5. Environmental and Land-Use Planning The Nationa] Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190), as revised by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines (40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508, November 29, 1978) may require that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared for planned instal- lations of WECS at Federal facilities. The revised CEQ regulations require each agency to develop their own procedures for compliance with NEPA. Envi- ronmenta] Impact Assessments have been prepared for a number of DOE-sponsored large WECS installations, including the MOD-0A (200 kW) projects at Kahuku Point, Oahu; Block Island, Rhode Island; and Clayton, New Mexico. Overall 0-9 program assessments have also been prepared by the DOE Wind Energy Systems Division.* Each agency should conform to its own internally-generated procedures, although these DOE-generated EIAs may be a useful guide. f Environmental issues are of importance in the planning and execution of all facility installations. Some of the individual environmental issues considered to be of importance for wind system installations include the following: (a) Environmental Impacts of WECS. There are no significant air, water, or solid waste effluents from WECS operation. However, widespread WECS deployment could conceivably have an affect on microclimates in certain deployment areas. In addition, bird collisions could be a problem at some specific locations if migratory patterns coincide with the deployment area. Noise is produced by WECS operation both in the audible (20 Hz to 20 kHz) frequency range and in the infrasound (less than 20 Hz) range. These noise emissions are generally restricted to an area immediately adjacent to the wind turbine. The localized nature of ecosystem impacts, threat of bird collisions and noise levels require that a site-specific approach to WECS environmental assessment be taken. (b) Electromagnetic Interference. &M interference may be produced when a signal strikes the blades of a wind system, reflecting and scattering a secondary interference signal. EM interference could be a problem with TV, microwave, radio, and Visual Omni-Range (VOR) transmissions, depending upon the locations of transmitters and receivers relative to the wind machine. Again, a site-by-site analysis is necessary to identify potential problems and mitigating actions. (c)° Aesthetic Considerations. The aesthetic issues associated with both large and small WECS are somewhat i11 defined, and even qualitative research in the area is rudimentary. The aesthetic impact of a particular installation will depend upon a number of factors: blade and tower height; size and appearance; nature of the surrounding landscape; distance to and visibility from nearby buildings, town, or roads. Aesthetic issues may be an important input to siting decisions, depending upon the specific site and the nature of its surroundings. *See Bibliography References under Section F-4. 0-10 (d) Conflict/Competition in Land Use. Land requirements for WECS applications vary depending upon the individual machine size, the number of units installed at one site, the blade diameter, the surrounding "exclusion area", and the non-obstruction requirements for smooth wind flow. Additional land requirements for access roads, construction "staging", and distribution lines must also be included. It appears that there are no problems with most multiple land use arrangements for WECS sites. Agricultural and grazing uses should be, for the most part, compatible with wind installations. Each poten- tial installation should include consideration of any conflict with existing land use and take advantage of multiple land use possibilities, if appropriate. 6. Institutional Considerations The category of institutional issues includes potential regulatory barriers, the existence of any legal constraints, attitudinal issues involved in public acceptance, and any potential problems related to the local utility. (a). Regulatory Issues. Construction projects usually require a combination of permits, approvals, variances, and waivers from a number of local, state, Federal, or special district regulatory bodies. The scope and difficulty of compliance depends upon the size and location of the WECS project, the nature of exemptions that a Federal agency may have, and the attitude/cooperation of the cognizant regulatory agencies. It is difficult to generalize on the topic of regulatory requirements since each project will require a different approach. However, there are a number of "typical" regulatory requirements which may apply to any given project. These requirements, listed below, should be explored for each specific project: Height restrictions (incl. FAA and state DOT) Zoning and land use restrictions Building codes Environmental Historical preservation statutes State powerplant siting regulations Coastline or coastal zone protection regulations oo oo oO 8G 8 8 Occupational safety and health regulations. D-11 It would behoove a wind energy project manager to review the nature of the regulatory requirements in his or her locale early in the implementation plan- ning process. ‘In particular, involvement of local and state officials in the planning process will help to ensure their continuted cooperation throughout the project's life. (b) Legal Issues. The legal issues of possible concern in project planning include liability considerations, potential nuisance claims, and wind rights guarantees. Possible WECS liability stemming from a risk of harm to an individual should not be a problem with normal WECS operation. Hazards due to blade throw, tower collapse, or other abnormal scenarios should be addressed in the WECS siting and hardware selection procedure. In particular, delineating an “exclusion area" around the WECS unit should minimize the human hazards associated with WECS operation. Similarly, the possibility of nuisance claims and wind rights problems can be minimized, if not eliminated, by locating the WECS unit away from adjoin- ing residential areas or potential development not under the control of the project management authority. (c) Attitudinal/Public Opinion Issues. Depending upon the specifics of a WECS project, there may be some resistance to implementation. This resis- tance may stem from uncertainty about WECS safety, negative reactions to WECS appearance, or just resistance to change. Any problems arising in this area can be addressed by a public awareness/education effort. This effort would seek to inform the using public or neighboring public about wind energy--what it is, how it.sayes energy, and how it is being integrated into normal agency operations. An affirmative and positive approach, initiated at the beginning of a project, should result in an informed and receptive local community. i. Logistics Support Logistics support is required for the operation, maintenance, and servicing of WECS installations. A WECS project plan should address the servicing requirements expected over the life of the system, including: D-12 re Training and availability of skilled in-house technicians Complete manuals for operation and maintenance Service scheduling and parts replacement schedules Access to manufacturer representatives oo. olUmcOlUOD Access to spare/replacement parts. Logistics program design will largely depend upon the type of WECS unit to be installed. Each WECS hardware manufacturer should be able to specify logistics needs. The character and detail of the necessary logistics support will of course depend upon the size and number of machines proposed for the wind system installation. 8. Procurement Guidelines for the procurement of a wind energy system and related services are undoubtedly similar to the procedures used for the procurement of other, more conventional goods and services. The schedules shown in Exhibits D-1 and 0-2 reflect the fact that Federal agencies have a requirement for competitive procurements. The time schedules for large and small machines differ because of the less rigid technical and inspection/acceptance requirements of the smaller machines. The most useful guidelines for the procurement of a wind system are the same as those for any capital investment: 9 Develop and use an overall procurement strategy which is compatible with the type of equipment being purchased, the Federal procurement regulations, and the standard acquisition procedures of the particular Federal agency. Keep in mind that in the case of wind systems (as with most capital equip- ment) there is a continuing services requirement for operation and maintenance of the system. In some cases there may be ancillary services requirements, such as wind characterization or system design, that can be included in a single overall pro- curement or addressed in a series of interlocked solicitations. Regardless of the strategy selected, these requirements should be addressed in the planning phase. 0-13 ° Allow ample time for the procurement process. A large-scale competitive procurement may require up to one year for prepara- tion, approvals, and announcement; three months for response; and six months for evalution and selection. Following selection, the vendor may require six months to one year for delivery of the system. 9. Construction and Installation In most cases, a wind system installation requires some site preparation. Therefore, the services of a general contractor or the agency's facilities engineer should be planned for and acquired. Construction services have a relatively short lead-time, but still require sufficiently detailed planning to adhere to the delivery and installations schedules. Installation services are generally available from the wind system vendor and may even he included in the purchase price. It is at least desirable, if not mandatory, that a representative of the local utility be involved in the installation and interconnection of a wind system at a grid-connected site. 10. Check-Out, Start-Up, and Operation Monitoring The check-out and start-up process represents the transition between the end of the installation phase of a project and the start of its operational life. Check-out and start-up have a specific contractural meaning for most projects, as it is the sequence of events leading to the acceptance, modification, or rejection of the system. Check-out and start-up should be a rigorous testing period during which the buyer, the vendor, and the general construction contractor are present while a check-list of performance requirements is verified. Typically, a set of performance requirements is written into a contract between buyer and vendor, or between buyer and contractor. Contracts often contain either remedies or compensation formulae to cover instances where actual performance varies from the contractural performance requirements. It is recommended that a substantial series of check-out and start-up procedures be discussed during negotations with the vendor, and wherever possible, included in any contract. p-14 woes Operations monitoring consists basically of data gathering on the performance characteristics of an installed wind machine. An operations monitoring program is very useful to any Federal agency contemplating a significant program in wind energy. Actual operational results provide the best indication of how specific machines operate in particular wind regimes. These results can also be extremely helpful in additional wind program planning for a particular Federal agency, the Federal sector in general, and the wind power development community as a whole. DO. AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SCHEDULE The guidelines discussed above serve as a starting point for the planning of a Federal agency wind energy project. Not all of the contingencies that may be encountered are discussed, nor will all the items described be necessary for any one project. The scale of a given project will determine the level of detail that is required in the implementation plan. A typical sequence of planning events can be defined which should be useful for wind applications project managers. A generalized schedule for the planning process is illustrated in Exhibit D-1 for large wind machines and Exhibit D-2 for smaller wind machines. $: Large Wind Energy Projects The first step in planning and implementing a large wind energy project should always be to provide for resource confirmation--regional prospecting, site selection, and site characterization. Since this process can require one to two years of monitoring and evaluation, it should be initiated first and carried out in parallel with the other items discussed here. Note that this monitoring process can be shortened considerably if good wind data is already available. The project pianner is well-advised to characterize the environmental/ institutional/regulatory situation in advance of any detailed technical plan- ning. Even before a specific wind system is selected, it is prudent to identify what permitting and approval exercises and what land use restrictions may apply tn the project area. Since these items (i.e., height restrictions, 0-15 potential EMI problems, zoning restrictions, etc.) will affect project design, timely attention to their effects early-on in the project will minimize more costly design changes downstream. A schedule incorporating necessary lead times for all permits and licenses should be prepared. Consideration of WECS technical requirements, utility interconnection issues, and WECS economic analysis should be performed in parallel. These planning elements are undertaken once sufficient wind characterization data is in hand to allow for the analysis. Initial results of the site monitoring pro- gram as well as the environmental/regulatory assessment will help focus the technical and economic analysis on those wind systems that are suitable for a particular application. Infrastructural and logistic issues must also be considered within the overall design and economic evaluation process in order to fully characterize the anticipated life-cycle costs of the project. In particular, trade-offs in system reliability and servicing requirements versus initial system costs should be a part of the inputs to technical and economic planning. An accelerated implementation planning schedule, while taking advantage of concurrent activities wherever possible, still has certain sequential require- ments that must be met. Although the environmental/institutional/regulatory situation may be characterized very early-on, submittal of formal documents such as Environmental Assessments, Environmental Impact Statements, or per- mit or variance applications must follow the specifications of the cognizant agencies. After the wind machine is specified, the implementation process can move into the proc ‘rement phase, where the appropriate type of solicitation is determined and the solicitation vehicle (RFP, RFQ, etc.) is prepared. Alter- native procurement strategies may call for a turn-key approach, or multiple solicitations for WECS hardware and operation and maintenance services. The particular strategy that is ultimately selected will depend upon the scale of the wind energy project as well as the preferences of the particular Federal agency and requirements of the Federal procurement regulations. 0-16 The general implementation planning schedule for large wind energy projects (shown in Exhibit D-1) indicates a three to four year timeframe for project implementation. This timespan can be considerably shortened if any of the following situations apply for a given project: Oo If substantial wind characterization data is already on-hand, the need for up to one year of wind monitoring can be eliminated. ° If no environmental/institutional/regulatory requirements are applicable, up to six months can be saved. 0 If a competitive procurement process is not needed or desired, an additional six months of solicitation preparation, announcement, response, evaluation, and selection time can be eliminated. Actual experience within the DOE wind energy program has yielded instances where the total elapsed time between project authorization and "first turn" of the installed machine has been one year. However, in cases where the above exceptions do not apply, a timespan of three to four years can reasonably be expected. 2: Small Wind Energy Projects The implementation schedule for small wind energy project planning provides for analysis in each of the planning elements described in this Appendix. The principle difference between the large and small wind project planning schedules is one of duration, both for the individual elements and the over- al] planning process. The small project planning schedule in Exhibit D-2 cal]s for a time requirement of 18 months from receipt of wind characteri- zation data to "first turn" of an installed small WECS, assuming that the vendor can deliver and install the system in a timely manner. If a wind assessment and site monitoring program is required, an additional period of up to one year may be required. Typically, the durations of each planning element are considerably shorter than would be the case for a large project. However, long-lead time items, such as site monitoring and competitive procurement, may require up to two years for any size project, if they are necessary. 0-17 E. BIBLIOGR..PHY Q Ae Resource Confirmation a. "Synthesis of National Wind Energy Assessments", D.L. Elliot, BNWL-2200 WIND-5, Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab, July 1977. b. "Wind Power Climatology of the United States", J. Reed, SANOD78-1620, Sandia Laboratories, April 1979. €. "Wind Energy Resource Atlas: 12 Volumes - PNL-3195 WERA-(1-12), Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab. d. “Meteorological Aspects of Siting Large Wind Turbines", T.R. Heister, W.T. Pennell, PNL-2522, Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab, January 1981. e. "A Siting Handbook for Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems", H.L. Weyley, et al., Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab. ' Technical Requirements a. "Small Wind Systems Technology Assessment; State of the Art and Near Term Goals", W.S. Bollmeier, et al., RFP 3136/3533, Rockwell International Energy Systems Group, February 1980. b. “MOD-2 Wind Turbine Cluster Test Program (draft)", NASA ‘7 Lewis Research Center, March 1981. ¢. “Field Evaluation Program for Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems", J.H. Alexander, Rockwell International, Paper No. 80-0654, Wind Energy Conference, AIAA/SERI, April 9-11, 1980. d.> “An Assessment of Utility-Related Test Data From Large Wind Turbine Generator Tests", W.A. Vachon, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Paper No. 80-0631, Wind Energy Conference, AIAA/SERI, April 9-11, 1980. e. “Performance Rating Document", Performance Subcommittee, M. Bergey, Chairman, American Wind Energy Association, Washington, D.C. ft. “Large Wind Turbine Design Characteristics and R&D Require- ments", NASA Conference Publication 2106, April 1979. 2. Economic Analysis a. “Life-Cycle Cost Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program", NBS Handbook 135, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards. 0-18 "Federal Energy Management and Planning Programs; Methodology and Procedures for Life Cycle Cost Analyses", Federal Register, Vol. 45 No. 16, January 23, 1980. "Federal Energy Management and Planning Programs; Methodology and Procedures for Life Cycle Cost Analysis", Federal Register, Vol. 45 No. 196, October 7, 1980. "SWECS Cost of Energy Based on Life Cycle Costing", Technical Report, W.R. Briggs, RFP-3120/3533/80-13, Rockwell Interna- tional Energy Systems Group, May 1980. Environmental and Land Use Planning a. “Environmental Report; Goodnoe Hills Wind Turbine Generator", Bonneville Power Administration, December 1979. “Environmental Assessment; Eighteen Prospective Sites for MOD-2 2500 kW Wind Turbine Generator Systems", U.S. Department of Energy, Wind Systems Branch, October 2, 1979. "Environmental Assessment; Installation and Field Testing of a Large Experimental WIG System Near Kuhuku Point, Oahu, Hawaii", DOE/EA-0097, U.S. Department of Energy, December 1979. "Solar Program Assessment: Environmental Factors, Wind Energy Conversion", ERDA 79-47/6, U.S. ERDA, March 1977. "Technology Assessment of Wind Energy Conversion Systems", R.W. Meier and T.J. Merson, LA-8044-TASE, September 1979, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. “Environmental Assessment of Small Wind Systems Progress Report", Lawrence/Strojan/0' Donnell, SERI/PR-354-420, February 1980. "A Field Study on the Aesthetics of Small Wind Machines: Preliminary Report", Strojan/Lawrence/0' Donnell, SERI/TP- 743-621, March 1980. "Wind Turbine Interference to Television Reception", D.L. Sengupta and T.B.A. Senior, University of Michigan. "Predictions of Low-Frequency Sound for the MOD-1 Wind Turbine", R. Martinez, et al., MIT, Department of Aero- nautics and Astronautics. "Environmental Effects of Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS)", Lawrence/Strojan, SERI/PR-354-420, February 1980. “Estimate of Air and Water Pollutants and Energy Consumption from the Production of Raw Materials used in Wind Energy Systems", Franklin Associates, Ltd. 0-19 Utility Interconnection Considerations a. a. "Interim Recommendations for Interconnecting Small Power Pro- ducers", U.S. Agriculture Department, Rural Electrification Administration, February 1981. "SWECS Electrical System Interconnect; Technical Guidelines", Draft Working Document, Electric Power Subsystems Subcommittee, AWEA Standards Program, American Wind Energy Association, January 1981. "Study of Dispersed Small Wind Systems Interconnected with a Utility Distribution System, Interim Report, Preliminary Hardware Assessment", D. Curtice, et al., Systems Control, Inc., March 1980. "Utility Concerns about Interconnected Small Wind Energy Conver- sion Systems: Technical Memorandum", W.E. Bawn, Jr., et al., TM-IP-81-2, Rockwell International Energy Systems Group, November 1980. “Issues and Examples of Developing Utility Interconnection Guidelines for Small Power Producers", C. Lawless Butterfield, et al., Rockwell Energy Systems Group, January 1981. Institutional Considerations “Legal-Institutional Implications of Wind Energy Conversion Systems, Final Report", NSF/RA-770204, National Science Foundation, September 1977. "Safety Aspects of Wind Energy Conversion Systems", Oak Ridge National Lab, 1978. "Barriers to the Use of Wind Energy Machines: The Present State of Knowledge", Science Applications, Inc., 1976. "Proceedings, Small Wind Turbine Systems 1979: A Workshop on R&D Requirements and Utility Interface/Institutional Issues", D.M. Dodge, ed., RFP/3014/3533/79-8, Rockwell International Energy Systems Group, March 1979. “Utility Siting of WECS: A Preliminary Legal/Regulatory Assessment", R. Noun, M. Lotker, P. Friesema, SERI. "Product Liability and Smal] Wind Energy Conversion Systems (SWECS) An Analysis of Selected Issues and Policy Alternatives", Robert Noun, SERI/TP-334-365, December 1979. Logistics Support Requirements See items 2.a., 2.b., and 9.c. for related works. 0-20 oe 10. Hardware and Services Procurement Consult internal agency procedures. Construction/Installation a "Installation and Initial Operation of a 4100 w Wind Turbine", H.O. Tryon and T. Richards, NASA-TM-X-71831, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, December 1975. b. “Installation and Checkout of the DOE/NASA MOD-1 2000 kW Wind Generator",R.L. Puthoff, et al., NASA-TM-81444, NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, April 1980. e. “Installation and Test Experience With 200 kW Wind Turbine Generator", J. Cerminare, Westinghouse Electric Corp., Illinois Institute of Technology American Power Conference, April 1979, pp. 539-542. d. “Single Person Installation of Small Wind Plants“, M. Lindgren, DOE/Oregon DOE Solar '78 Northwest Conference, Portland, Oregon, July 1978, pp. 149-156. Check-out, Start-up, and Operations Monitoring a. "Safety Considerations in the Design and Operation of Large Wind Turbines", D.H. Reilly, NASA-1TM-79193-E-067 NASA Lewis Research Center, June 1979. b. “Fabrication and Assembly of the ERDA/NASA 100 kW Experimental Wind Turbine", R.L. Puthoff, DOE/NASA/1004-77/5, NASA Lewis Research Center, April 1976. ¢. "Utility Operations Experience on the NASA/DOE MOD-OA 200 kW Wind Turbine", J.C. Glasgoe and J.W. Robbins, NASA Lewis Research Center, presented at Sixth Intersociety Energy Engineering Conference, February 1979, pp. 961-982. d. "The TCS Program: A New National Play", MASED, W. Johnson, AS of ISES/ET: Wind Power; Energy Alternatives for the Mid- west, 2nd Conference, April 1981, pp. 45-48. e. “Wind Mill Power for City People", May Christiansen, et al., Energy Task Force, New York City, May 1977. 0-21 QO ° APPENDIX £ CASE STUDIES DOD Pifion Peak DATS Facility DOT U.S. Coast Guard LORAN C Station, Nantucket APPENDIX E oo CASE STUDIES The case studies reported in this appendix serve to illustrate two points: the type of data which needs to be developed under the major elements of the planning guidelines, and the sensitivity of the SIR value to changes in wind system rated capacity, cost, and energy output. The format of the case studies follows that of the planning guidelines in Appendix D. The data which were collected on-site are presented in sufficient detail to illustrate a major planning element or sub-element, in most instances. The planning elements which relate to the procurement of hardware, technical services, and construction services (Planning Elements 7, 8, and 9) were not addressed since each Federal agency has its own method of complying with Federal procurement regulations. In the Nantucket Island case study, a 95 kW vertical axis system was evaluated in addition to the 250 kW horizontal axis machine selected according to the sizing methodology in Appendix F. The additional analysis indicated that in this case, a higher SIR value could be obtained if either the excess energy output could be eliminated, and/or the installed cost per kilowatt reduced. This effect may hold true at other sites as well, but a detailed analysis would have to be performed in order to verify that this is so. E-1 AGENCY: U.S. Department of Defense (USN/USAF) SITE LOCATION: Pirion Peak, China Lake Naval Weapons Center (NWC), California PRIMARY ACTIVITY: Data Acquisition Test System (DATS) Microwave and Radio Repeater Stations, and Radar Tracking Stations SITE DESCRIPTION: The Pifion Peak site is a joint Air Force and Navy installation where a variety of classifiec. mission-related activities are based. Two radar telemetry units, a microwave repeater station, and a radio repeater station provide down-range tracking, guidance, and communications support for high risk, high-priority flight test missions conducted at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center and Edwards Air Force Base. Located at 8,366 feet above MSL, atop an exposed ridgecrest in the Argus Range, the Pinion Peak site is characterized by severe temperature fiuctuations and localized weather extremes. A site plan is included as Exhibit £-1 to illustrate the layout and relative positioning of the activities and features at Pinon Peak. The Pinon Peak site is actually comprised of two adjacent peaks approximateiy 1,000 yards apart. Three wind turbine sites were identified in the field with the guidance and concurrence of Navy personnel. Pifion Peak South (WECS Site A in Exhibit E-1) was selected as the best location for a wind turbine due to the limited availability of land at Pinon Peak North, and its physical distance from sensitive electronics gear. The terrain surrounding both Pinion Peak North and South is characterized by vegetation typical of an arid, high desert climatic regime. Specific plants observed on or near the site include: pinion pine, creosotebush, cholla cac- tus, joshua trees, and sagebrush. The soil is a compacted hardpan of sand and gravel with many solid rock outcroppings (mainly basalt) in evidence. All of the buildings at Pinon Peak are either trailers or small pre-fabricated shacks. Several antennae up to 30 feet in height are located at Pifion Peak North. The Navy is currently installing a 28 foot-diameter radar dish that E-2 WECS Site C LEGEND — = Dirt Road * Anemometer = 4 == Trailers @ Telescope Shed 0 100 OO 2000 » PV Array 4 Microwave Repeater SCALE IN FEET @ 40ft Contours @ Radars © Radio Repeater »» 15kW Diesels ++ Transmission Lines Note: Federal boundary is 2.2 miles away at its closest point (east). ‘-- 6OKW & 30kW Diesels Exhibit E-l. Pinon Peak Case Study Site Plan E-3 will stand 50 feet above the ground at its highest point. This will even- tually be the tallest structure at the site. The microwave receiver/trans- mitter is no more than 20 feet above the ground, while other structures on site (fuel tanks, the photovoltaics array, trailers, etc.) are all less than 20 feet high. 1. Wind Resource Confirmation As well as can be determined in a desert situation, the prevailing winds at Pinon Peak are south-westerly, although southerly winds are nearly as common. An average annual wind speed of 15.0 mph (Wind Class 6) was reported for the site. After adjustment for surface roughness similar to that in a steppe type of environment, the average annual wind speed at a hub height of 60 feet was determined to be 16.7 mph. Since the anemometer had been previously blown over in 114 mph winds after approximately five months in operation, a long-term record of wind speed observations was not available. The site is prone to frequent gusts of 80 to 100 mph with a maximum recorded wind speed of 140 mph. Dust storms, temperature extremes, and icing are all potential problems at the site. Snowfall is usually less than two feet per year and rainfall averages two to three inches. The site is well exposed and benefits from a totally unimpeded wind flow. Due to the severe nature of the operating environment, and the relatively smal] load at the site, it was not necessary to develop extensive wind sheer or vertical yelocity profile data. A wind speed duration curve and turbulence spectra were not developed for this site because the requisite data were unavailable. 2. Technical Requirements a. Reliability High reliability is necessary for any wind system installation at Pinon Peak. The severe climatic conditions, remote location, and the fact that the site is unmanned most of the time, combine to place additional burdens on the operation and maintenance of a wind system. Data which document the E=4 G the reliability of the candidate wind system were not collected due to the time limitations on the data collection exercise. b. Safety Site personnel indicated that there was an in-house capability of assessing the safety requirements of the wind system installation. The need for a fenced-in exclusion area can be waived due to the limited availability of land, the fact that access to the site is controlled, and that the addi- tional cost is not justifiable on the basis of risk. The remote operation of equipment at the site minimizes human exposure to potential wind turbine hazards. S. Ourability There was incufficient time to either verify or refute manufacturers' claims as to the durability of their products. d. Performance The actual performance curve and operating characteristics for a 25 kW machine were used in this analysis. These data were assessed with regard to the electrical use at the Pinon Peak site. All of the power consumed at Pinion Peak North is generated on-site by a total of 180 kW of installed diesel capacity and a 3 kW photovoltaic array. All of the facilities at Pifion Peak North are capable of being operated remotely. The radar units use 208 volt AC, three wire power with a load of 50 amps on two of the wires and 20 amps on the third. Power for the radars is conditioned to insure a continuous 60 cycle AC supply with a + 1 Hertz frequency deviation. The microwave and radio repeaters are supplied with 120 volt AC power that is converted to 24 volt DC power at 50 amps. There are no electricity consuming activities at Pifion Peak South, although an inactive trailer and telescope shed remain at the site. While the Pifion Peak North site is designed for remote operation, space heating and air conditioning loads are incurred. This is due to the fact that the E-5 electronics gear is sensitive to temperature extremes and must be operated within a narrow temperature range. The diesel generator sets and photovoltaic array operate continuously to meet a combined critical load of approximately 3 kW, 24 hours per day. A combined average load of 45 kW for 14 to 20 hours per day, 10 days per month, will reportedly be the norm for tne site once the Navy installs all of its radars. Summer and winter peak loads of approximately 60 kW may be experienced due to the air conditioning and space heating require- ments, respectively. The annual consumption at Pifion Peak North was calculated to be 110,920 kWh. The annual consumption figure was developed by assessing the energy demands of the electrical equipment on site and its use during a typical year. A daily load shape was developed for each of the four seasons of the year. The varia- tions among them were primarily due to changes in heating and air conditioning demands. The four load shapes were utilized in the performance analysis to determine the annual energy demand and how much of the demand a wind macnine could satisfy. 3. Utility Interconnection Considerations Since all of the power consumed at Pinion Peak North is generated on-site, utility interconnection must be designed and implemented in-house. The Navy and Air Force have sufficient engineering expertise to accomplish this with- out the involvement of either a utility company or utility contractor. a. Utility Operations The Air Force operates two 15 kW diesels for its microwave repeater, while the Navy maintains the photovoltaic array, two 60 kW and one 30 kW generator sets for its radar and radio repeater. The apparent excess instalied capacity is the result of both the non-interruptible nature of the load and the availa- bility of oversized generator sets. Power is distributed from the diesel generator sets and photovoltaics array to each of the respective end-use activities through automatic switches. The foremost operational considera- tion at the site is that a continuous, non-interruptible supply be maintained. Diesel fuel is delivered to the site four times per year, by four-wheel drive vehicle at a cost of $3.00 per gallon. The marginal cost of energy E-6 Q at the site is 41.2¢/kWh. Overall operating efficiency was reported to be 18% as a result of the altitude and irregular load characteristics. b. Power Quality Power supplied to the radar units must be conditioned in order to insure a continuous 60 cycle AC supply. The complexity of the equipment at Pinon Peak suggests that additional power quality considerations will need to be addressed. Due to the short amount of time spent on-site, other power qual- ity considerations were not identified or evaluated. - Safety The safety aspects of interconnecting a wind system to a remote load were not assessed due to the time constraints imposed on the data collection exercise. d. Liability Since a wind system installation at the Pifion Peak site would not involve a utility company per se, liability considertions apply mainly to agency and contractor personnel. There was no attempt made to assess the adequacy or content of the agency's liability protection. 4. Economic Analysis a. Machine Selection The methodology used for the case studies required a different approach than would normally be used by an agency interested in installing a wind system. The difference lies in the simplifying assumptions which were necessary in order to select a machine without having first performed a series of feasi- bility and design studies. Qne 25 kW horizontal axis machine was chosen for the Pinon Peak site according to the methodology described in Appendix F. b. WECS Cost Components The installed cost of a 25 kW wind system at the Pinion Peak site was estimated to be $68,400, or $2,736/kW. The cost components considered in the development of this estivate were: E-7 ° Wind machine (tower and generator) $24 ,000 ° Shipping 7 ,000 0 Installation (labor, materials, foundation site preparation) 15 ,000 ° Interconnection (distribution line, transformers, switch gear, power conditioning) 22 ,000 Total $68 ,400 €. Life-Cycle Costing Analysis Tne method of performing the life-cycle costing analysis in this report adheres to the method prescribed in NBS Handbook 135. Appendix F provides a detailed review of this methodology. The annual savings component of the life-cycle costing analysis was calculated on the basis of the foliowing data, and the machine performance simulations also described in Appendix F. Assuming a .95 availability factor, the 25 kW machine is capable of displacing 44,269 kWh (40%) of the 110,920 kWh consumed annually. Under the operating scenario described in items 2.d. and 3.a., the 25 kW WECS installation would operate at a capacity factor of .286 and produce 18,444 kWh of excess elec- tricity. The excess electricity would have to be wasted unless battery stor- age, which was not considered in this analysis, were to be included. An annual WECS production of 62,713 kWh would be reaiized at this site under the stated conditions. The marginal cost of energy was calculated to be 41.2¢/kWh based on $3.00/ gallon delivered cost for diesel fuel, and an 18% conversion efficiency. The installed cost of a 25 kW WECS at the Pinon Peak site was estimated to be $68,400 which accounts for at least a portion of the power condition- ing requirements for compatibility with the sensitive electronics gear. A Savings-to-Investment Ratio of 2.69 was calculated on the basis of these values. First-year savings were caiculated to be $17,242. E-8 5. Environmental and Land-Use Planning a. Environmental Impacts of WECS The site is situated atop a scenic yet desolate mountain range approximately 20 miles west of Death Valley National Monument. There are some archeologi- cally significant Indian relics on the military reserve, but none are in close proximity to the site. The most significant wildlife species appear to be the bighorn sheep and wild burro, both of which are subjects of an environmental debate. In addition, more common species like jackrabbits, coyotes, squirrels, quail, and chukkar are found throughout the area. b. Electromagnetic Interference Telecommunications facilities on-site may be sensitive to electromagnetic jnterference from a wind turbine, but both the radars and the microwave station are highly directional. The radars operate in the frequency range between 0.4 and 95 giga-Hertz. An in depth analysis of the potential for EM interference is warranted since it could affect the primary mission of the facility. ey Aesthetic Considerations Access to the site is controlled, and the site is not visible from the valleys below. d. Conflict/Competition in Land-Use The property adjoining the Pifton Peak site is entirely owned by the U.S. Government. Due to the rugged nature of the terrain, there is believed to be no other commercial use for the land at the site. 6. Institutional Considerations a: Regulatory Issues The Western Division of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (WESDIV- NAVFAC) in San Bruno, California, gives approval for all projects of this nature at China Lake NWC. It is likely that no state, Federal, or local E-9 permits are required since the site is within the boundaries of a military reserve. Site personnel report that the only way the project could be stopped is through lack of internal DOD support. b. Legal Issues Since all three of the proposed sites are within the property limits of the facility, it is anticipated that there will be no major issues relative to: 0 Wind rights guarantees ° Damage to adjoining property 0 Nuisance claims. €. Attitudinal/Public Opinion Issues Unfavorable public opinion or attitudinal issues are not anticipated to emerge as the result of a wind system installation at the Pifion Peak site. Ps Logistics Support Because of time constraints and the nature of the assignment, the project team was unable to obtain information in the following areas: Operator training Complete manuals for operation and maintenance Service scheduling and parts replacement schedules Access to manufacturer representatives o-e 8 ©: © Access to spare/replacement parts. The team was, however, able to assess the site's accessability and labor availability. The site is manned at least once per month for up to several days at a time to allow for periodic maintenance and servicing of the elec- tronics equipment and diesel generator sets. It is likely that a similar level of expertise would be required to maintain the wind system installation. Both peaks are accessible by hard-packed dirt road and four-wheel drive vehicle from the China Lake Naval Weapons Center which is approximately 50 miles to the southwest. A maximum grade of 20° is encountered on the trip E-10 o which takes nearly three hours. While the road is one-lane, smal] bull- dozers have been able to drag trailers and other heavy equipment to the site. The Public Works Department at the China Lake Naval Weapons Center has custodial responsibility for both Pinon Peak sites. All of the personnel and equipment necessary to install and maintain a WECS installation are reportedly available through the NWC Public Works Department. The nearest center of commerce is the town of Ridgecrest, California, popula- tion approximately 15,000, located adjacent to the China Lake NWC complex. Airports are located at Inyokern to the west and on-base at China Lake, south- west of the site. Rail service is available for freight only at Ridgecrest. 8. Hardware and Services Procurement Since each Federal agency has its own way of procuring hardware and services, this element of the planning guidelines was not investigated. 9. Construction/Installation See explanation under item 8, above. 10. Check-out, Start-up, and Operation Monitoring See explanation under item 8, above. hE. Analysis of Results A SIR of 2.69% indicates that the site is worthy of closer scrutiny as a promising candidate for a WECS installation. Given that: the site is located in a remote area; there are no permit-issuing authorities to satisfy; the wind resource is excellent; and that fuel costs are high; the potential economic worthiness of the project suggests that an in-depth engineering evaluation be performed. In this manner, the salient consider- ations which have shown initial promise can be quantified and verified to the extent required for the commitment of funds. E-11 AGENCY : U.S. Department of Transportation/ U.S. Coast Guard SITE LOCATION: U.S. Coast Guard LORAN C Station, Nantucket Siasconset, Massachusetts PRIMARY ACTIVITY: LORAN C Navigation Aid/Transmitter SITE DESCRIPTION: The U.S. Coast Guard LORAN C Station Nantucket is located on the southeaster coast of Nantucket Island, near the town of Siasconset, Massachusetts. The n primary mission of this station is to provide automated air and sea navigational assistance in that region of the Atlantic Ocean. Nantucket is a low, sandy island approximately 11 miles long (east to west) and 7 miles wide (north to south) at its widest point. Nantucket is covered with grasses, low scrub, and dwarf pines. The island is well exposed to the generally stormy conditions of the North Atlantic Ocean, and experiences moderate to strong winds during most months. Summer warmth is moderated by the ocean, as is winter cold. Precipitation is heavier during winter than summer. Snow and ice do not occur frequently, but may be expected at some time during most winters. The facility.boundaries extend from the ocean shore approximately 4,000 feet inland, with an east-west width of approximately 2,500 feet. Exhibit E-2 provides a site plan indicating elevations and the location and height of various structures. As shown on the site plan, there are nine buildings ranging in height from 18 to 20 feet. In addition, there is a 625 foot LORAN € antenna which covers a 52 acre circular plot of land. Exhibit E-2 also indicates the access roads and existing power transmission lines. The terrain within the boundary of the facility, and of the entire island, is generally flat. Low sand dunes oriented parallel to the coast are usually less than 20 feet in height, although there are some 50 foot bluffs along the coast, west of the Federal boundary. The highest elevation within the Federal boundary is 15-20 feet above MSL. Dunes rise to 60 feet a few hundred feet west of the Federal facility, and to over 100 feet at scattered locations in the interior of the island. E-12 aCe C OmECTION See x, PREVA: ING WIND WECS STE RADIUS OF LORAM C \\ RADIAL ANTEMSA @ LORAN C 628 FT ANTENNA RESIOENCES ie 40 FT HIGH ES Sa TO SIASCONSET AMO NANTUCKET BUILDINGS: & 20 FY HIGH ee p+— FEDERAL PROPERTY BOUNDARY 4 OPERATIONS yA WECS Srter suLDIKG 5 Soc 20 FT HIGH nian LEGENO === HARD SURFACED ROAD === OMT ROAD FEOERAL BOUNDARY +++ POWER TRANSMISSION uNes —— CONTOUR Limes (8 FY wrERvALs) ATLANTIC OCEAN ° 200 400 400 800 1000 SCALE ™ FEET Exhibit E-2. Nantucket Island Case Study Site Plan E-13 Vegetation within the Federal boundary consists of sparse grass south of the Siasconset access road (refer to Exhibit E-2), but thickens to scrub growth approximately 10 to 20 feet in height to the north of the road. Three potential wind system sites were chosen in the field with the guidance and concurrence of site personnel. Site A is located in the sparse grass area, while Sites B and C are within the area of thick scrub growth. There are few trees within the Federal boundary. The vegetation of neighboring areas is similar; near the shore only sparse grasses grow, while scattered to thick scrub grows a few thousand feet inland. Dwarf evergreen forests up to 30 feet in height cover parts of the island interior; however, no forests are found within a mile of the facility. i: Wind Resource Confirmation Wind data taken at the Nantucket Memorial Airport indicate that the average annual wind s eed at the 20 foot level is 13.5 mph. This corresponds to Wind Speed Class 5, as defined by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories .! The airport is located four miles west-southwest of the facility and has wind data for the periods from 1958 to 1963, 1960 to 1969, and 1978 to 1979. The statistics at Nantucket Airport may be reasonably expected to apply at the facility, since it is only four miles from the airport, and terrain and vegetation do not vary appreciably between the two locations. If any dif- ference exists, winds may be expected to be slightly stronger at the facility because the WECS sites (Site A, in particular) are located closer to the open ocean than the anemometer at the airport. Seasonally, wind speed and wind power density are greatest in the winter, and least during summer. Diurnal wind speed variability is greatest during summer and least during winter. Early afternoon is the time of greatest wind speed, when it is approximately 25-35% stronger than it is during the night. The most frequent wind direction is from the southwest. West to north winds also occur frequently, while east to southeast winds are least frequent. The two climatic conditions which most severely affect potential WECS opera- tions are high wind speeds and airborne salt. High winds, in excess of 50 mph E-14 are common during all seasons except summer. However, winds rarely exceed 75 mph. Hurricanes offer the greatest danger of destructive winds to Nantucket. Most hurricanes weaken as they move across the cooler waters adjacent to Nantucket, and the island has never recorded winds in excess of 100 mph. The potential exists for a hurricane bringing winds in excess of 100 mph, but is highly unlikely. Airborne salt transported from the ocean as sea spray is a significant cor- rosive agent. Care is taken at the facility to paint metal surfaces fre- quently to prevent damage from the sea salt. The activity has proven successful, and it is anticipated that WECS components which are not amen- able to painting, such as the blades, could be galvanized or covered with epoxy to prevent corrosion. Icing is a potential hazard to smooth WECS operation. However, the surround- ing ocean moderates the cold winter air, and renders icing less frequent than on the mainland. Icing could conceivably slow or halt WECS operation until it is removed, but damage from icing is unlikely since both the wind system components and the supporting tower can be designed for the magnitude of icing potential typical of Nantucket. Since the land is fairly regular around the proposed sites, it was not necessary to develop extensive wind sheer or vertical velocity profile data. A wind speed duration curve and turbulence spectra were not developed for this site due to time limitations. g; Technical Requirements a. Reliability Data which document the reliability requirements of the candidate wind sys- tem(s) vis-a-vis the load were not collected due to the time limitations on the data coli xction exercise. The manufacturer(s) and technical personnel at actual machine installations should, however, be able to provide wind sys- tem reliability data for U.S. Coast Guard personnel to evaluate. E-15 SOURED b. Safety Site personnel indicated that there was an in-house capability of assessing the safety requirements of the wind system installation(s). There is ample land area within the boundaries of the facility to assure an adequate exclu- sion area. Since access to the site is controlled, there appears to be little safety hazard to the public at large. The manufacturer and other users are the main sources of any operating safety histories that may have been compiled. ¢€, Durability There was insufficient time to either verify or refute manufacturer's claims as to the durability of their products. d. Performance The actual performance curves for a 95 kW and a 250 kW machine were acquired for use in this analysis. Other operating characteristics of these and the other candidate wind systems are available from the manufacturers, and in several cases, from DOE's testing and development laboratories (NASA, Sandia, and Rocky Flats). Site specific performance requirements will influence the selection of an actual wind system to a great extent. In this case study, the load requires 208 volt, three wire power, 24 hours per day. Since the LORAN equipment requires continuous power, the U.S. Coast Guard has installed two 200 kW diesel generator sets as back up. The average load for the facility is 150 kW and is independent of the season. The only variation in demand occurs daily, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and noon, when it may fall to 110 kW or peak at 180 kW for 15 minutes. The average hourly peak load is 157.5 kW. This variation is due to the daily testing of the backup trans- mitters. The annual consumption is reported to be 1,304,875 kWh. This means that the facility has an annual load factor of 94% which suggests a close to perfectly flat load profile. Of the 150 kk-average load, approximately 20% or 30 kW are used in the resi- dences. This includes al] heating and cooling, as well as general use such E-16 as lighting. Variations in the residential load were assumed to be insig- nificant in this analysis, but would have to be looked at more closely to assess their impact on wind system performance. The remaining 120 kW are used in the transmitters and the year round air conditioning required to cool the transmission equipment. It is essential that the transmitter and ancillary equipment receive continuous power to insure an uninterrupted beacon signal. The entire electrical system is computer controlled. Therefore, switching functions are automatically performed. For example, if the local utility loses the distribution feeder to the facility, the feeder will automatically disconnect while the diesel generator sets are brought on line. 3. Utility Interconnection Considerations The U.S. Coast Guard facility receives its electrical power from the island's local utility, Nantucket Power and Electric Company (NP&E), via a 4,800 volt 3-phase Delta distribution line. The incoming utility distribution line extends 800 feet into the property and then branches into a "Y" (see Exhibit E-2). One branch travels northwest for 850 feet to the LORAN C transmitter, while the other branch travels approximately 950 feet southeast to the operations building. The facility takes the primary supplied power and steps it down to 208 volts, three wire, with their own transformers. #. Utility Operations Nantucket Power and Electric Company (NP&E) has a total capacity of 20 MW supplied by seven diesel generators. At present, the NP&E peak load is 13 MW providing a 54% reserve margin. The DOE regional marginal cost of energy to the facility is 13.6¢/kWh. The utility occasionally suffers short-term outages which hamper the sensitive LORAN equipment's operation. As an example of the equipment's sensitivity, system power frequency fluctuations of +1 Hertz are reportedly common. E-17 Due to the short amount of time spent on-site, power quality, safety, and liability considerations could not be adequately assessed. €. Safety See explanation under item b., above. d. Liability See explanation under item b., above. 4, Economic Analysis a. Machine Selection The methodology used for the case studies required a different approach than would normally be used by an agency interested in installing a wind system. The difference lies in the simplifying assumptions which were necessary in order to select a machine without having first performed a series of feasi- bility and design studies. Two machines were selected for analysis at the Coast Guard site. The first, a 250 kW horizontal axis unit, was chosen according to the methodology described in Appendix F. The second, a 95 kW vertical axis machine, was sized so that no excess energy would be produced. Performance and economic analyses were conducted for the two machines. b. WECS Cost Components The following installed cost figures were developed for the two machines on the basis of data supplied by the respective manufacturers, site personnel, and engineering estimates: 95 kW 250 kW 0 Wind machine (tower and generator) 103 ,500 415,000 0 Shipping 1,500 2,000 0 Installation (labor, materials, foundation site preparation) 20,000 55,000 ° Interconnection (distribution line, transformers, switch gear) 10,000 27,000 Total $135 ,000 $499,000 E-18 These costs equate to $1,421/kW and $1,996/kW for the 95 kW and 250 kW ma- chines, respectively. No attempt was made to estimate the costs associated with engineering, design, and feasibility studies. There was no need to consider land acquisition or access road costs since these items are already in place. ¢. Life-Cycle Costing Analysis The method of performing the life-cycle costing analysis in this report adheres to the method prescribed in the NBS Handbook 135. Appendix F pro- vides a detailed review of this methodology. The annual savings component of the life-cycle costing analysis was calculated on the basis of the fol- lowing data, and the machine performance simulations also described in Appendix F: ° 250 kW Horizontal Axis Machine. Of the 1,304,875 kWh annually required by the facility, it is possible to displace 409,873 kWh, or 31.4% of the annual consumption with a 250 kW wind turbine generator. An annual excess of 44,327 kWh could be sold back to the local utility at a marginal cost of energy of 10.2¢/kWh, assuming that a 75% sellback rate is in effect. Therefore, the first year cost savings of $57,251 is comprised of the savings due to displaced electric energy normally provided by the local utility at the regional MCOE (13.6¢/kWh), and the savings due to the sale of excess kWh to the utility at 75% of the MCOE (10.2¢/kWh). 0 95 kW Vertical Axis Machine. For the same facility, it is possible to displace 199,586 kWh, or 15.3%, of the annual consumption with a 95 kW wind machine. Because this machine's energy output is less than the average load, there will be no excess energy produced to sell back to the local utility. Therefore, the total annual cost savings are expected to be $27,144 which is solely attributable to displaced electricity that would have otherwise been purchased from NP&E. With an assumed machine life of 20 years, and the annual coperation and main- tenance cost set at 2% of the installed machine cost, the SIR for a 250 kw E-19 “wind system installation at the Coz eee SR Under the same assumptions, the SIR for a 95 kW machine installation was calculated to be 2.11. 5. Environmental and Land-Use Planning a Environmental Impact of WECS Nantucket Island was the site of a proposed DOE wind system demonstration project. As a result, public hearings were held to obtain input from the local residents as to the desirability and environmental worthiness of the project. No major environmental issues were raised, nor were any environ- mental obstacles found to be overcome. The local populace responded favor- ably to the prospect of a wind system installation on Nantucket Island. Wildlife at the site consists mainly of marine birds in small populations. No migration routes cross the island. The only animals known to be native to the site are the meadow vole and the cottontail rabbit. Following the installation of either candidate wind system, wildlife habitat would be interrupted only during maintenance operations“. ot b. Electromagnetic Interference The installation of a wind turbine would not interfere with the primary mis- sion of the facility which is to provide a continuous beacon to aid air and sea navigation. Since the beacon is of low frequency and the island's tele- phone towers are located some nine miles from the facility, no interference with the island's telecommunications system is anticipated. Television signals are cabled in to the island, so no interference is anticipated there either. €. Aesthetic Considerations Aesthetics do not appear to be a major barrier to overcome as evidenced by the Department of Energy's candidate wind turbine siting experience. In addition to the favorable outcome of the public hearings, the DOE site was also unanimously approved at a town meeting. The OOE site is located 1% miles west of the Coast Guard facility. Even though the land adjacent to @ E-20 TT the Coast Guard facility is privately owned, there has been no indication of resistance by the Coast Guard's neighbors, to date. d. Conflict/Competition in Land-Use The Coast Guard reports that there will be no conflict or competition for the use of the land selected as either the primary or secondary site. 6. Institutional Considerations a. Regulatory Issues There has been no opposition to the DOE site from zoning boards, historical societies, environmental interests, or any other group or individual. It is reasonable to expect that there will be little or no opposition to the Coast Guard site due to its proximity to the DOE site. Certain applications may have to be filed in order to install a wind turbine at the Coast Guard site. The application approval processes are estimated to require: Historic District Commission (30 days), Zoning Board of Appeals (45 days), Advisory Council on Historical Preservation (60 days), and Building Permit Application (15 days). The various approvals could be obtained concurrently. Since the wind system is not expected to exceed the 200 foot limit for Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) permit requirements, no formal approval is necessary from the FAA. This was proven by the installation of a 200 foot DOE meteoro- logical tower between the Nantucket Airport and Site A, without requiring special variances. b. Legal Issues Since all three of the proposed sites are well within the property limits of the facility, it is anticipated that there will be no major issues relative to: 0 Wind rights guarantees ° Damage to adjoining property ° Nuisance claims. E-21 €; Attitudinal/Public Opinion Issues After several discussions with island residents, it was determined that there was no popular opposition to isolated windmill operations. There is a general belief on the part of island residents that a single or limited number of scattered wind machines would make economic sense for the island's energy situation, and add to the attractiveness of the island as a whole. Pe Logistics Support Because of time constraints and the nature of the assignment, the project team was unable to obtain information in the following areas: Operator training Complete manuals for operation and maintenance Service scheduling and parts replacement schedules Access to manufacturer representatives © eo €¢ 0 0 Access to spare/replacement parts. The team was, however, able to asses the site's accessability and labor availability. Technical site personnel are well qualified to perform maintenance on the proposed wind-system. The operation of the LORAN facility requires a sophis- ticated knowledge of electronics which, in general, surpasses the expertise necessary to operate and routinely maintain a wind system. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that technical site personnel could readily handle wind system maintenance procedures to an extent which would minimize the need for repair trips by the wind system vendor. The access road to the site, as shown on Exhibit E-2, is made of concrete. The termination of the nearest access road to Site A is at the operation's building, 800 feet from the proposed site. Access to Sites B and C would be along the concrete road which extends in a circle to the north of the residences. Concrete surfacing of the road north of the circle may be necessary for about 1,300 feet to provide access to Site C, and for about 2,500 feet to provide access to Site B. The surfaced road extending east E-22 from the facility leads to the small community of Siasconset, one mile away, and to the island's principal community of Nantucket (pop. 8,000), approxi- mately seven miles to the west-northwest. All components of the wind system and related construction equipment would be routed from Nantucket Harbor, near the town of Nantucket, along the surfaced road to the facility. Nantucket Harbor is capable of accommodating heavy construction equipment including large cranes. A significant proportion of the island's population is engaged in construction work, and all but the most highly skilled workers are available. Highly skilled workers and all types of construction material are availabl.\on the Massachusetts mainland, less than 30 miles to the north of Nantucket. Regular ferry service operates between the island and the mainland. Air service operates both on a regular and chartered basis from Boston, New York City, and Hyannis, Massachusetts. The airport is located approximately four miles west of the facility and only handles light aircraft. 8. Hardware and Services Procurement Since each Federal agency has its own way of procuring hardware and services, this element of the planning guidelines was not investigated. 9. Construction/Installation See explanation under item 8, above. 10. Check-out, Start-up, and Operation Monitoring See explanation under item 8, above. a Analysis of Results The LORAN C Station on Nantucket Island has a load of approximately 150 kW, 24 hours/day year round as evidenced by 94% annual load factor. The wind resource is excellent, and the Coast Guard can sellback any excess elec- tricity produced by a wind system. The SIR values of 1.11 for the 250 kW machine, and°2.11 for the 95 kW machine, both indicate the potential for economic competitiyeness. By matching a smaller machine to the load, the effects on SIR values of excess electricity, and differing machine cost and performance characteristics were illustrated. E-23 Based on a S}R value of 2.11, the 95 kW machine offers a greater potential for economic competitiveness than the 250 kW machine. If it was expected that the Coast Guard would encounter substantial institutional and environ- mental barriers to a wind turbine generator, they might elect to postpone any plans until the barriers were removed. However, in this case, there appear to be no such barriers; therefore, judgment can be confined to the potential economic worthiness of the project. REFERENCES 1. Wind Energy Resource Atlas: Volume 4 - The Northeast Region, PNL-3195 WERA-4/UC-60, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, 1981. 2. Future Wind Turbine System Candidate Site Proposal from the Nantucket Electric Company, Fairground Road, Nantucket, Massachusetts, 1980. E-24 APPENDIX F A DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WECS APPLICATIONS APPENDIX F APPENDIX F A DETAILED METHODOLOGY FOR TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WECS APPLICATIONS 1. OVERALL APPROACH The overall approach for analyzing Federal wind energy applications in this study is identical for both the grouped analysis and case studies. Performance and cost input data for the case studies are more detailed, but the methodology remains the same for both. Exhibit F-1 illustrates the overall approach which consists of three steps: Machine Size Selection, Performance Analysis, and Economic Evaluation. The emphasis in this phase of the study is on the analy- sis of typical wind systems, and each of the three subtasks depends to some degree on the characterization of these machines. In addition to the machine characterizations (see Appendix C), the application's load, wind resource, and regional marginal cost of energy are determined and used in the life-cycle cost model. A real discount rate of 7% per year, consistent with the Federal Energy Management and Planning Program, is used to determine present values in this model. The analysis results in the determination of Savings to Investment Ratios (SIR) for installing one or more typical machines at each of the Federal sites. COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MACHINES PERFORMANCE MACHINE SIZE SELECTION PERFORMANCE ANALYSTS alt APPLICATION ENERGY NEEOS APPLICATION WIND RESOURCE WIND ENERGY USED (Ag) SAVINGS TO INVESTMENT RATIO CALCULATION WIND ENERGY EXCESS ( (A) MARGINAL cost OF ENERGY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE MACHINE COSTS FEDERAL AGENCY ECONOMIC PARAMETERS Exhibit F-1. Federal Wind Application Study Overall Approach F-1 2. MACHINE SIZE SELECTION 2 The objective of this task was to select an appropriate wind machine from a representati\> group of typical wind systems. A machine size was selected such that a reasonable fraction of the application's load would be satisfied without producing unacceptable quantitites of excess energy. This was accom- plished by using the analysis results from the preliminary report and a new series of analyses for the representative wind machines. In the Preliminary Report, a wind machine was sized according to the applica- tion's load profile, power requirements, wind class, and the performance char- acteristics of a generic WECS (cut-in, cut-out, and rated wind speed, hub height, etc.). Using all combinations of load profiles (4), wind classes (7), and machine size (5), the hour-by-hour performance of the generic machine was simulated and the amounts of energy which satisfied the load and excess energy were determined. Exhibit F-2 illustrates the four representative load 6 am noon 6 pm 6 am noon 6 pm 6 am noon 6 pm 6 am noon 6 pm Hourly Load R, = Load Ratio = Rant load Lt Exhibit F-2. Representative Load Profiles @ F-2 FRACTION OF ANNUAL ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION MET BY SWECS FRACTION OF ANNUAL ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION MET BY SWECS shapes and Exhibit F-3 displays the normalized WECS performance results. Using these results, the generic wind machine was sized to produce a selected amount of excess energy depending on the application's load shape and wind class. The performance characteristics of a generic WECS, however, may vary significantly from those of typical wind machines. To account for these differences, wind machine size in this report was determined by matching the energy production of an actual machine to that of a generic WECS. =~ 8 YU eEow WIND CLASS WIND CLASS FRACTION OF ANNUAL ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION MET BY SWECS ™ oo ae LocioF sons a8 aang \ocior sams 608 Stes OUTsUrS ane sated waco THE EXCESS: THE VALUES SHOWN 2 SWECS OUTPUTS ARE ah Macueysronn d wile . Q o : 2 a ° if 2 3 ‘ 5 RATED CAPACITY RATED CAPACITY PEAK LOAO PEAK LOAD Load Type 1 Load Type 2 WIND CLASS WIND CLASS oy = am my LOCIOF POINTS FOS WHICH THE EXCESS SWECS OUTPUTS ARE THE VALUES SHOWN FRACTION OF ANNUAL ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION MET BY SWECS RATED CAPACITY RATEO CAPACITY PEAK LOAD PEAK LOAD Load Type 3 Load Type 4 \ Exhibit F-3. Normalized Performance Results for Generic WECS F-3 A group of 25 typical machines was selected over a range of rated capacities from a few kilowatts to several megawatts. Since many of these machines were similar in terms of rated capacity and performance, the number of machines to be considerec in the analysis was reduced to 10. Seven machines were subse- quently matched to specific sites using the analytical procedures outlined here. The performance and baseline cost characteristics of all the machines were These data, for the seven machines which were actually matched to sites in the analysis, are pre- obtained from manufacturers and DOE program laboratories. sented in Appendix C. From these characteristics, the annual energy production of each machine was determined in each of the seven wind classes. Specifically, these calculations were made using the performance equations for each machine, a Rayleigh Distribution, and the one-seventh power law to define the vertical velocity profile. Exhibit F-4 summarizes the annual production estimates for each machine that was matched to a site in each of seven wind speed classes. The smallest machine that was matched to a site in this analysis produces from 7.31 MWh/year in wind class 1 to 20.0 MWh/year in wind class 7, while the largest machine generates from 3,542 MWh/year in class 1 to 10,915 MWh/year in wind class 7. Wind Speed Classes Rated Capacity(kW) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 (ae 8.95 Ji. 3 i 14.7 16.2 20.0 25 BS.2 26.0 37.0 46.2 55.5 64.8 94.2 65 102 128 166 195 222 248 321 99* #5..3 99.0 137 167 199 ean 336 250 236 303 409 496 584 672 950 aLE* 156 224 344 450 568 695 1158 2500 3542 4564 6053 7142 8135 9006 10915 *Vertical Axis WECS Exhibit F-4. WECS Energy Production (MWh/year) The annual energy production of a given wind machine is very sensitive to the machine's performance characteristics. As a result, annual energy pro- duction provides a more useful parameter for selecting a machine size than does rated capacity. In this report, a generic WECS was first sized to the application's needs. Then, its annual energy production in a certain wind A typical machine was then matched to the applica- tion by comparing the annual production of the machine to that of the generic regime was determined. Fa rose WECS. The machine with the highest annual energy production which did not exceed that produced by the generic WECS was selected. A single unit was specified for each application except where multiple units of the largest machine could be accommodated. The comparison of wind systems of differing designs in the manner described here conforms with the approach proposed in the Standards Program of the American Wind Energy Association (awea)!, The standards propose that the performance of all WECS be characterized in terms of Annual Energy Output (AEQ) calculated for wind regimes with Rayleigh distributions and mean wind speeds of 10.1 mph, 12.3 mph, and 14.5 mph. This study amplifies the AWEA approach by determining the AEO for each of the seven Battelle wind classes. The AEQs for each wind machine in each wind class were then used for compar- ative purposes, in the analysis. 3. WIND SY.TEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Once an appropriate wind system had been selected for each application, an hourly performance simulation was conducted. This simulation compared the output from the wind machine with the application load on an hourly basis for a representative year. The simulations determined the amount of wind energy which would displace the load (Ay) and the amount which would be excess (A,). Exhibit F-5 depicts the analytical process. HOURLY LOAD WIND 4 even USED (A,) PROOUCTION d ENERGY ENERGY ae ECONOMIC PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS WIND EXCESS ENERGY (A,) SYSTEM PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS Exhibit F-5. Wind System Performance Analysis Methodology F-5 For a wind system, the calculation of electricity production involves: (1) the adjustment of recorded wind speed (measured at 10 m) to the machine hub height, and (2) computation of electricity production by substituting the adjusted wind speed into polynominal equations that fit the WECS performance curves. The energy management block in Exhibit F-5 compares the electrical production of the WECS to the user's load to determine if there is a surplus or shortage of wind energy. Any surplus is recorded as excess electricity. This excess is either returned to the grid at a certain sellback rate or discarded at no value to the user. If there is a shortage of wind-generated electricity, then the remaining load is satisfied using backup electricity from the conventional source. The inputs to the performance analysis are shown in Exhibit F-6. System Characteristics Site Characteristics Cut-in wind speed Wind class Rated wind speed Hourly wind data Rated power output Elevation above mean sea level Cut-out wind speed Surface roughness length Performance curve Anemometer height (power vs. velocity) Hub height User Characteristics Machine availability Typical hourly load shape Exhibit F-6. Inputs to the Wind System Performance Model These inputs were developed in more detail in the case studies than in the grouped analyses. For the grouped analyses, a number of applications with the same load shape, wind class, and comparable annual energy consumption were analyzed in a single run of the performance model. A file of hourly wind data was developed by adjusting the readings for a single, broadly representative site (Goodland, Kansas) so that the resulting annual average wind speed corresponded to the proper wind class. The Goodland, Kansas, data closely approximate a Rayleigh distribution? and were considered to be appropriate for the grouped analyses. Air density was not corrected for F-6 temperature or elevation, and the wind speed was extrapolated to the proper hub height using the one-seventh power law. Each case study was analyzed individually. The load for each case study was Character ized for both daily and seasonal variations. Hourly wind data from the nearest representative SOLMET or comparable wind recording station was adjusted, as necessary, for the Battelle wind class and elevation of the site. The observations carried out during a site survey were used to charac- terize the surface roughness coefficient and thus the vertical wind profile. The surface roughness coefficient is used to correct the wind speed at the anemometer height to the wind machine hub height. The output of the performance model was an estimate of the load displaced by wind energy (Aq) and the excess wind energy produced (A,). These values were inputs to the economic analysis along with the marginal cost of energy, and economic parameters for the Federal agencies. 4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Candidate Federal wind system applications were compared on the basis of Savings to Investment Ratios calculated as per the NBS Handbook 135°, This method is suited to “ranking nonmutually exclusive retrofit applica- tions to give priority to the most cost-effective projects..." and is described in NBS Handbook 135 as follows: "The SIR is a numerical ratio calculated with the reduction in energy costs, net of increased nonfuel operation and maintenance costs, as the numerator, and the increase in investment cost, minus increased salvage values, plus increased replacement costs, as the denominator. An SIR greater than one means the investment is cost effective; the higher the ratio, the greater the dollar savings per dollar spent." GENERAL FORMULA SIR = (AE - AM] + [AI - AS + AR], fq. F-1 where: SIR = Savings to Investment Ratio AE} = Reduction in Energy Costs AM = Differential Nonfuel Operation and Maintenance Costs AI = Differential Investment Costs 48° = Differential Salvage Value AR = Differential Replacement Costs The A values used in the above formula for SIR were calculated by taking the difference in present value costs between the proposed wind energy system and an existing, conventional system. For this analysis, the present value of the differential salvage value (AS) and the differential replacement costs (AR) are assumed to be insignificant. The differential costs or savings included in Equation F-1 are strictly associated with the cost and performance of the wind energy system and the marginal cost of energy for the application. This equation is expanded as follows: i (Ag + A, x SB.) x MCOE x UPW*] - [Mx AI x UPW] Eq. F-2 SIR = Al where: Ag = Wind system output annually consumed by the load (kilh/year) A. = Wind system excess energy output (kWh/year) MCOE = Marginal Cost of Energy ($/kWh) SB, = Sellback ratio (The amount a utility will pay for excess electricity expressed as a fraction of the MCOE) (%) M = Annual recurring non-fuel operation and maintenance costs (%/year of Installed Cost) UPW* Modified uniform present worth factor for fuel costs UPW Uniform present worth factor for a series of uniform annual payments. The modified uniform present worth factor is a function of the real discount rate (d), the real fuel escalation rate (e), and the study period (n) while F-8 the uniform present worth factor (UPW) is only a function of the discount rate and the study period. Both are described in the NBS Handbook 135° and the Federal Register’. The input values for these equations came from a variety of sources. The wind system output displacing the load (Aq) and in excess of the load (Ag) was deter- mined for each application in a performance simulation. The Marginal Cost of Energy (MCOE) for grid-connected applications was obtained for the appropriate region of the country from the Department of Energy's Annual Report to Congress 1980°, The MCOE for remote or self-generating units was the current delivered energy cost. The sellback ratio (SB) was assumed to be 0.75 based on a review of utility rate schedules for small power producers recently enacted under the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and California. The recurring non-fuel O&M cost (M) was assumed to be 2% of the initial investment for the wind machine and is consistent with values used by Rocky Flats .? 5. MARGINAL COST OF ENERGY The energy savings resulting from Federal applications of wind systems are to be valued at the marginal cost of new conventional energy sources. For this purpose, the regional marginal energy prices from the DOE Annual Report to Congress 1980° were adopted for this phase of the study. The values were generated by the DOE Mid-term Energy Forecasting System (MEFS) for the high oil import pi ice case where oil imports would cost $43.00/bb] in'1985 (1979 $). The economic analysis in this report was based on 1981 MCOE values whereas the DOE Annual Report only provides data for 1985. To accommodate this, 1981 MCOE values were estimated by first reducing (de-escalating) the 1985 marginal prices (in 1979 $) by 1%/year consistent with escalation assumptions presented earlier, and then converting 1979 $ to 1981 $ using the GNP price deflator (1.198); Exhibit F-7 presents the 1981 marginal cost of energy values which were applied to grid-connected applications in the analysis. Separate MCOE values for Hawaii and Alaska were developed using the DOE Annual Report projections for distillate fuel and the methods used in the preliminary Federal Application Study report to Congress. F-9 Remote, self-generating applications were considered to be paying the free market or marginal price for their fuels (primarily oi]1) and so the current delivered energy costs for these applications were used in the economic analy- sis. This approach accurately accounts for the important fuel transportation cost component of total fuel prices at remote sites. REFERENCES American Wind Energy Association, Performance Rating Document (draft), for U.S. Department of Energy, February 1981. JBF Scientific Corporation, Northwest Regional Assessment Study for Solar Electric Options in the Period 1980-2000, Draft Final Report, page V-16, for U.S. Department of Energy, December 1980. Ruegg, Rosalie T., NBS Handbook 135 4 ire-Cycte Costing Manual for the Federal Ener Management Programs, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of bsaren December {980. U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Ener Management and Planning Pro- rams; Methodolo and Procedures for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, ..., ederal Register, Vol. 45, No. 209, October 27, e U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Report to Congress 1980, Supplement to Volume Three, Forthcoming Briggs, W.R., SWECS Cost of Ener Based on Life-Cycle Costing, Rocky Flats, Wind System Program, for U.S. Department of Energy, May 1980. F-10 Wea 2 a oon 4 5 0.116 0.093 0.066 0.067 U.S Department f Energy> Exhibt F-7 DOE REGIONS ee: eae _10_ Alaska o.oa1 0-028 9 106 0.030 0.154 1981 Marg for Grid inal Cos connected Ap