|
|
Enron Mail |
Kevin
I'm glad your clarified what information was to be gotten out of the attachment as I was scratching my head over that one. I think your approach of reviewing the an existing project is a good one. I know that Mark F. has done some work on this issue (see that attachment) which we can build on. I do have a concern about using Montfort given that it is a cold weather turbine and a low wind site which can lead to an overstatement of power consumption depending on how the analysis is done. That being said, we will need to get an idea of the power consumption for the CWE and CWL but the immediate task is for FPL New Mexico which we are thinking is a standard unit. Given that the cumulative load (on paper) per WTG is ~40kW, of which a majority is the yaw motors, I would think that there is a low probability that all the yaw motors will be drawing (in a pre synchronous mode) at the same time, therefore, perhaps a statistical solution like taking the square root of the number of WTGs in the park times 40kW is a statically valid approach in determining "possible" peak power demand for a given period. Furthermore, should this become an important issue for the owner I am sure some solution could be make in the WTG to mitigate peak power demand in the park. So in summary, my feeling is that we look at a non-CW park to generate empirical comsumption data that can then be compared to the above statistical approach and see how they compare. Mark Kevin Cousineau 05/15/2002 07:25 AM To: Mark Ratekin/EWC/Enron@ENRON cc: Mark Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron, Mark Eilers/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Hollis Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Consumption for for GE1.5 Mark, Mark and Mark: I have reviewed the attached power curve and clearly it will not help in formulating an answer to your question. I would like to ask Mark Fisher to look at a typical installation (any one of our field sites) and give us data on kWh consumed by several turbines over a multi-month period with data arranged month by month. Perhaps one or two turbines at Monfort would be the best because we can look at a whole year of data. This would tell us what was produced and what was consumed in energy. Mark Eilers, what do you think? Regards KLC Mark Ratekin 05/14/2002 04:24 PM To: Kevin Cousineau/EWC/Enron@ENRON cc: Mark Fisher/EWC/Enron@Enron, Mark Eilers/EWC/Enron@ENRON, Hollis Kimbrough/EWC/Enron@ENRON Subject: Re: Consumption for for GE1.5 Attached is the final power curve results from the Tehachapi 1.5 Prototype, which includes the power consumption. The page was scanned from the NREL Test Report. If you have any questions or need the entire document feel free to contact me. Best Regards, Mark
|