PROGRAM INFORMATION

ELIZABETH - 7/3/2006 through 8/13/2011

DATA DETAILS

July 3, 2006 through May 22, 2007:

All data was collected using an NRG #40 Anemometer and NRG #200 Wind Vane mounted on a communications tower located on the landowner's property at a height of 30m. This equipment fed into an NRG Wind Explorer data logger. Data plugs were sent into the Governor's Energy Office and then to the University of North Dakota for analysis. The data plug files and text versions of these files are given below.

It is important to note that these are the raw files without any compensation for offset. It is also important to note that the temperature was not recorded during this period.

For this data, UND applied an offset of +270° to the wind vane data until April 9, 2007. For the period from April 9, 2007 through May 22, 2007, no offset was applied. This data and wind resource summary report are available here:

• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2007_0522.txt
• Elizabeth Wind Resource_Summary_Report_2006_0703_to_2006_1028.pdf

May 22, 2007 through August 13, 2011:

CSU was chosen as the new contractor for the program on September 14, 2007. Data collected since September 14, 2007 is given below:

Again, it is important to note that these are the raw files without any compensation for offset or temperature.

From both the UND and CSU data, an analysis of the wind resource report was developed for the period from July 3, 2006 through October 15, 2007 using Windographer 1.13. For this data, an offset of 270° was applied to the wind vane data. The summary report, the combined data file, and the Windographer files are listed below:

• Elizabeth_Wind_Resource_Summary_Report_2006_0703_to_2007_1015.pdf
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2007_1015.txt
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2007_1015.windog

In addition, a wind resource report was developed for the period from July 3, 2006 through December 26, 2007 using Windographer 1.13. Again, an offset of +270° was applied to the wind vane data

For this report, a data validation analysis similar to the UND analysis was performed for the data from July 3, 2006 through December 26, 2006. This data was filtered two ways:

1. Any wind speed data where the wind speed was less than 1 mph for 3 hours or more was deleted.
2. Any wind direction data where the wind direction varied by less than 10° over 6 hours was deleted

Windographer was then used to add in synthetic data to these intervals with suspect data. The combined data files (with and without the data validation analysis), and the Windographer files (with and without the data validation analysis) are given below:

• Elizabeth_Wind_Resource_Summary_Report_2006_0703_to_2007_1226.pdf
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2007_1226.txt
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2007_1226.windog

For the most recent data, the raw data plug files from UND were combined with subsequent raw data plug files this report to correct the offset issue with the UND data from April 9, 2007 through May 22, 2007. A data validation analysis was performed on all data from July 3, 2006 through March 7, 2008. This data was filtered two ways:

1. Any wind speed data where the wind speed was less than 1 mph for 3 hours or more was deleted.
2. Any wind direction data where the wind direction varied by less than 5° over 8 hours was deleted

Windographer was then used to add in synthetic data to these intervals with suspect data. Please note the following caveats:

1. The data from March 3, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. through July 29, 2008 at 8:40 a.m. is missing due to a data plug lost in the mail. For this interval, the blank data was included and synthetic data was not included.
2. During a visit to the site on May 20, 2009, the offset was checked. When the datalogger was reading 31°, an electronic compass showed that the wind vane was pointed about 111° magnetic north . Thus, the actual offset is 111° - 31° = 80°. This new offset was then applied to all raw data as part of the data validation analysis using using Windographer 1.49.
3. The data plug that was collected on April 14, 2010 was full when collected. The data was collected through midnight on February 28, 2010. As such there is a gap in the data from 00:00 on March 1, 2010 through 14:30 on April 14, 2010.
4. The data plug collected in August 13, 2011 showed that the readings from the anemometer started to become very spotty starting on May 12, 2011. There would be occasions when the anemometer appeared to running well followed by long periods when the anemometer was no recording any wind. A loose connection or a failure of the anemometer is suspected and would not be unexpected given that the sensor has been in place for five years. This suspect wind speed data from 18:30 on May 12, 2011 at 18:30 through August 3, 2011 at 17:20 was removed and synthetic data was not included.

The combined data files (with and without the data validation analysis), and the Windographer 1.49 files (with and without the data validation analysis) are given below:

• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2011_0813_Summary_Report.pdf
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2011_0813_without_data_validation.windog
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2011_0813_without_data_validation.txt
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2011_0813_with_data_validation_missing_data_offset_80.windog
• Elizabeth_2006_0703_to_2011_0813_with_data_validation_missing_data_offset_80.txt

Interim Wind Resource Summary

Highlights of the wind resource at this site from July 3, 2006 through the most recent data are shown below:

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.

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.

For more information Contact Us!