JULESBURG #2
1/16/2004 through 11/22/2005
LOCATION DETAILS |
Latitude: |
N 40° 55.1880’ or N 40° 55′ 11″ |
Longitude: |
W 102° 15.3420’ or W 102° 15′ 21″ |
Township: |
11 N |
Range: |
44 W |
Section: |
21 |
Elevation (ft.): |
3,795 |
DATA DETAILS
January 16, 2004 through November 22, 2005:
The site was located a couple
hundred feet away from the original Julesburg tower. The
tower was instrumented at four levels: 65 ft (20m), 105 ft (32m), 129 ft (39m), and 146 feet (44m). The
tower ws located in a pasture that is situated on a plain above the South Platte River.
The collected data includes the following data fields:
- Wind speed, standard deviation of the wind speed, and data quality flag for an anemometer at 20m height and facing SE
- Wind speed, standard deviation of the wind speed, and data quality flag for an anemometer at 32m height and facing W
- Wind speed, standard deviation of the wind speed, and data quality flag for an anemometer at 39m height and facing W
- Wind speed, standard deviation of the wind speed, and data quality flag for an anemometer at 44m height and facing W
- Wind direction, standard deviation of the wind direction, and data quality flag for a wind vane at 33m height and facing NE
- Wind direction, standard deviation of the wind direction, and data quality flag for a wind vane at 44m height and facing N
- Temperature from a sensor mounted at a height of 2m
All data was collected on data plugs that were sent into the Governor's Energy Office and then to the University of North Dakota for analysis. The data is bad from 9/14/2004 to 11/27/2004. Only a text data file is available for this site. There is also a flag field that indicates any suspect wind speed or wind direction data values. The txt data file, a version of the wind data with blanks whre the flags indicate suspect data, and the UND wind resource summary report are available here:
CSU was chosen as the contractor for the program on September 14, 2007. Using the UND data file, an analysis of the wind resource report was developed using Windographer 1.21. No data quality analysis was performed for this data other than what was available from the flag data fields included in the data. The suspect data was first removed from the collected data. Windographer was then used to add in synthetic data to these intervals with suspect data. The Windographer files (with blanks for the suspect data and with the blanks filled with synthetic data) are given below:
Highlights of the wind resource analysis at this site are shown below:
Data Properties |
Data Set Starts: |
1/16/2004 11:00 |
Data Set Ends: |
11/22/2005 12:00 |
Data Set Duration: |
22 months |
Length of Time Step: |
10 minutes |
Elevation (ft.): |
3,795 |
Mean air density (kg/m³): |
1.094 |
Wind Power Coefficients |
Power Density at 50m: |
397 W/m² |
Wind Power Class: |
3 (Fair) |
Wind Shear Coefficients |
Power Law Exponent: |
0.199 |
Surface Roughness: |
0.189 m |
Roughness Class: |
2.53 |
Roughness Description: |
Many trees |
Variable |
WS44W |
WS39W |
WS32W |
WS20SE |
Height above ground |
44m (146 ft) |
39 m (129 ft) |
32 m (105 ft) |
20 m (65 ft) |
Mean wind speed (mph) |
16.57 |
15.84 |
15.56 |
14.05 |
Median wind speed (mph) |
15.93 |
15.23 |
14.92 |
13.42 |
Min wind speed (mph) |
0.68 |
0.67 |
0.65 |
0.58 |
Max wind speed (mph) |
57.71 |
55.68 |
52.86 |
50.31 |
Mean power density (W/m²) |
379 |
327 |
313 |
232 |
Mean energy content (kWh/m²/yr) |
3,318 |
2,869 |
2,739 |
2,032 |
Energy pattern factor |
1.7 |
1.68 |
1.7 |
1.71 |
Weibull k |
2.271 |
2.310 |
2.288 |
2.276 |
Weibull c (mph) |
18.698 |
17.879 |
17.561 |
15.859 |
1-hr autocorrelation coefficient |
0.83 |
0.83 |
0.83 |
0.83 |
Diurnal pattern strength |
0.11 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
Hour of peak wind speed |
22 |
22 |
21 |
19 |
Mean turbulence intensity |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0.16 |
Standard deviation (mph) |
7.71 |
7.25 |
7.18 |
6.51 |
Coefficient of variation (%) |
46.6 |
45.8 |
46.1 |
46.3 |
Possible records |
97,356 |
97,356 |
97,356 |
97,356 |
Valid records |
85,581 |
85,915 |
86,069 |
34,800 |
Suspect records |
11,775 |
11,441 |
11,287 |
62,556 |
Data completeness (%) |
87.9 |
88.2 |
88.4 |
35.7 |
/Julesburg_2_Wind_Shear_Profile_600.png)
/Julesburg_2_PDF_44W_600.png)
Probability Distribution Function for the 44m W Anemometer
/Julesburg_2_PDF_39W_600.png)
Probability Distribution Function for the 39m W Anemometer
/Julesburg_2_PDF_32W_600.png)
Probability Distribution Function for the 32m W Anemometer
/Julesburg_2_PDF_20SE_600.png)
Probability Distribution Function for the 20m SE Anemometer |
/Julesburg_2_Wind_Rose_44N_600.png) |
/Julesburg_2_Wind_Rose_33NE_600.png) |
/Julesburg_2_Daily_Speed_Profile_600.png) |
/Julesburg_2_Seasonal_Wind_Speed_Profile_600.png) |
/Julesburg_2_Monthly_WInd_Power_Density_600.png) |
/Julesburg_2_Monthly_Turbulence_Intensity_600.png) |
Windographer was used to match up the wind at this site with the performance curves of some common turbines of various sizes and various heights. The table below shows the results. For the larger turbines, the tower height was increased to account for the larger turbine blades - the wind resource was extrapolated to these higher heights. Keep in mind that the larger and the higher the turbine, the better the wind and the greater the output. But of course, as the tower heights and turbine sizes increase so does the cost.
Turbine |
Rotor
Diameter
meters |
Rotor
Power
kW |
Hub
Height
meters |
Hub
Height
Wind
Speed
mph |
Time
At
Zero
Output
percent |
Time
At
Rated
Output
percent |
Average
Net
Power
Output
kW |
Average
Net
Energy
Output
kWh/yr |
Average
Net
Capacity
Factor
% |
Bergey Excel-R |
6.7 |
7.5 |
40 |
16.13 |
10.26 |
9.08 |
2.9 |
25,500 |
38.8 |
Bergey Excel-S |
6.7 |
10 |
40 |
16.13 |
4.09 |
3.76 |
3.1 |
27,600 |
31.5 |
Bergey XL.1 |
2.5 |
1 |
40 |
16.13 |
1.19 |
12.66 |
0.4 |
3,800 |
43.3 |
Southwest Skystream 3.7 |
3.7 |
1.8 |
40 |
16.13 |
9.31 |
0 |
0.8 |
6,800 |
42.8 |
Southwest Whisper 500 |
4.5 |
3 |
40 |
16.13 |
10.12 |
10.84 |
1.3 |
11,800 |
45.0 |
Northern Power NW 100/20 |
20 |
100 |
37 |
15.88 |
9.57 |
0 |
31.0 |
271,600 |
31.0 |
Vestas V47 - 660 kW |
47 |
660 |
65 |
17.80 |
8.25 |
0.86 |
252.3 |
2,210,500 |
38.2 |
GE 1.5s |
70.5 |
1,500 |
80.5 |
18.61 |
11.59 |
10.39 |
563.1 |
4,932,600 |
37.5 |
Vestas V80 - 2.0 MW |
80 |
2,000 |
100 |
19.49 |
10.89 |
5.90 |
878.7 |
7,697,800 |
43.9 |
GE 2.5xl |
100 |
2,500 |
110 |
19.89 |
7.33 |
15.21 |
1,218.2 |
10,671,400 |
48.7 |
IMPORTANT: No turbine losses are included in the power, energy, and capacity factor values in the table. Typically, turbine losses can be 5-20% to account for maintenance downtime, icing/soiling and losses from other turbines in a wind farm. Users wanting to be conservative in the performance projections should multiply the power, energy, and capacity values by (1- % losses) to account for these losses.
|
