the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Grand Challenges in the Design, Manufacture, and Operation of Future Wind Turbine Systems
Carlo Bottasso
Lance Manuel
Jonathan Naughton
Lucy Pao
Joshua Paquette
Amy Robertson
Michael Robinson
Shreyas Ananthan
Athanasios Barlas
Alessandro Bianchini
Henrik Bredmose
Sergio González Horcas
Jonathan Keller
Helge Aagaard Madsen
James Manwell
Patrick Moriarty
Stephen Nolet
Jennifer Rinker
Abstract. Wind energy is foundational for achieving 100 % renewable electricity production and significant innovation is required as the grid expands and accommodates hybrid plant systems, energy-intensive products such as fuels, and a transitioning transportation sector. The sizable investments required for wind power plant development and integration make the financial and operational risks of change very high in all applications, but especially offshore. Dependence on a high level of modeling and simulation accuracy to mitigate risk and ensure operational performance is essential. Therefore, the modeling chain from the large-scale inflow down to the material microstructure, and all the steps in between, needs to predict how the wind turbine system will respond and perform to allow innovative solutions to enter commercial application. Critical unknowns in the design, manufacturing, and operability of future turbine and plant systems are articulated and recommendations for research action are laid out.
This article focuses on the many unknowns that affect the ability to push the frontiers in the design of turbine and plant systems. Modern turbine rotors operate through the entire atmospheric boundary layer, outside the bounds of historic design assumptions, which requires reassessing design processes and approaches. Traditional aerodynamics and aeroelastic modeling approaches are pressing against the boundaries of applicability for the size and flexibility of future architectures and flow physics fundamentals. Offshore turbines have additional motion and hydrodynamic load drivers that are formidable modeling challenges requiring innovation. Uncertainty in turbine wakes complicates both structural loading and energy production estimates and requires advances in plant operations and flow control to achieve full energy capture and load alleviation potential. Opportunities in co-design can bring controls upstream into design optimization if captured in design-level models of the physical phenomena. It is a research challenge to integrate improved materials into the manufacture of ever-larger components while maintaining quality and reducing cost. High-performance computing used in high-fidelity, physics-resolving simulations offer opportunities to improve design tools through artificial intelligence and machine learning. Finally, key recommended actions needed to continue the progress of wind energy technology toward even lower cost and greater functionality are summarized.
Paul Veers et al.
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Peter Clive, 02 May 2022
Community Comment:
Reading through the recent discussion paper "Grand Challenges in the Design, Manufacture, and Operation of Future Wind Turbine Systems" (Veers, P., et al., April 2022), it occurs to me that every time it mentions challenges arising due to the limitations of current design standards, the simplifications adopted in those standards that now constrain us have arisen because historically we have treated wind as a resource in a manner analogous to fuels and feedstocks exploited under a conventional extractivist paradigm: simple and quantifiable in terms of a primitive data type as though it was something we could accumulate and deplete. But wind is not a “resource” in the extractivist sense. It is a phenomenon, not a feedstock. Our infrastructure *interacts* with it sustainably, it does not deplete it. We must adopt an interactivist, rather than extractivist, approach. Whereas a fuel that is accumulated and depleted can be described in simple terms of supply and demand, an interaction must be modelled. Our starting point when addressing the Grand Challenges needs to be a complex objected oriented description of the wind that integrates measurements and models, is compatible with the digital representations of our assets and processes, complies with FAIR data sharing principles to accommodate highly multidisciplinary collaboration, and thus supports an *interactivist* rather than extractivist approach.
Disclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-32-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Pietro Bortolotti, 12 Jul 2022
This article continues the exciting series of publications about the grand challenges faced by wind energy technology. The list of authors is the right one for such publication and I support the publication of this long article, which can become the backbone of many research proposals moving forward.
I do not have the expertise to add anything to some of the sections, but I do have a list of suggestions.
Overall structure:
1) I would have liked to read a paragraph about what’s new in this article compared to previous publications focusing on the grand challenges of wind energy, for example https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau2027, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72437.pdf, or https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-1-1-2016
2) Some topics are grouped together into the same section, and sometimes I miss the rationale. Why inflow and the design process together, but aerodynamics and aeroelasticity in a separate section? Why HFM and validation? And uncertainty quantification is described in a single paragraph in 9.6, although there is a large body of literature addressing it.
3) Some sections are built on references (sections #3, #4, #5, #6), which I think is a must for this type of articles. Other sections use very few (#7, #8, #9). I’d suggest consistency, possibly leaning toward the first approach. References are not present in section #2, and that might be ok, but a note pointing the reader to the following sections would help.
Abstract
Line 15: what about wind farm blockage?
Line 21: I see the lack of validation as a key obstacle for a wider adoption of HFM. BEM, with all its limitations, has shown to work and several publications show what matches and what not. HFM not yet, or at least far less.
Intro
Figure 2: I wouldn’t have the Emirates logo on a scientific paper that will receive thousands of downloads and citations. Please edit.
Section 2
Line 125: LCOE has clearly shown its limitations (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2021.106931, among many others). Such limitations will only grow with a higher share of wind energy in the mix and the growth of hybrid systems and storage. Should this be a challenge?
Line 136: This sentence might sound a little unfair for the wind energy pioneers. Unknowns have always been out there. We’ve resolved some, some others are still there, and some new ones have come up
Line 257: It won't be possible to increase tip speeds without innovations on the leading edge erosion front. I'd suggest adding a note
Section 2.6: I miss a paragraph about the cost and complications of testing prototypes, which I understand to be a very real obstacle to innovation. What about allowing subcomponent testing? Or moving toward numerical prototyping in 2.7?
Line 341: I agree that validation is key for the HFM to succeed. But validation is easier said than done even when data are present. We lack rigorous data assimilation techniques merging multiple instruments and the inherent errors in their measurements into a single validation process. This is listed in section 9, but I’d suggest adding a note here as well.
Section 2.8: I found 2.8 somewhat blurry to me. I'd suggest to reformulate how the authors propose to move forward, which in my head is system design based on validated and therefore trustworthy numerical models
Section 3
As mentioned before, I am not sure whether I understand why inflow and design process come into the same section.
Line 418: I feel that a reader could get confused here as LCOE and value are used almost interchangeably. The references are very relevant and maybe this section could be expanded a little to better explain these trends without the need to accessing the references. Also, I would add a note about the arrival of storage solutions, which might change trends very rapidly.
Line 428: I personally like the words “numerical prototyping” to describe this innovation
Section 4
Line 780: I found this paragraph a little confusing. In my mind the biggest obstacle is the combination of a very complex (nonlinear) solution space generated by aero-servo-hydro-elastic models combined with high computational costs. This is probably what authors are saying, but I think it could be written more explicitly.
Line 812: This is possibly misleading. The 25% gain in LCOE was mostly generated by switching from 3 to 2 blades, not by the actual codesign optimization. That change was done upfront and it wasn’t driven by co-design approaches, but rather by a change in turbine configuration.
Section 5
Line 1050: I would add the lack of validation to the list of obstacles slowing HFM
Line 1080: you could add https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2265/4/042052 to the list of free form studies
Line 1100: I’d suggest to add references about successful scaled blade testing, for example https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1411-2020, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2021-1718, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.157
Line 1137: I see one big obstacle here. No funding agency / national lab / research institute has designed a multi-MW wind turbine, at least not in the last 20 years. How should these organizations convince an OEM to publish data? I’d add a note about this key obstacle
Line 1147: please reference https://doi.org/10.2172/1868328
Section 7
The start of section 7 gives the impression that offshore wind is something of the future, whereas it is already reality. Also, the paragraph seems to imply that offshore wind is only present in the North Sea, whereas Asia also has offshore wind farms (maybe not yet fully commissioned?). The same consideration is valid for floating, which is certainly in a development stage (line 1342), but there are already the first commercial projects operating out there (Hywind in Scotland?)
Line 1467: an image would help describing DOFs and platform configurations
Section 8
I’ve struggled with this section, which I think needs some attention.
To start, showing a 40m long blade (figure 12) in a paper about the future of wind seems a little out of place
Also, the section alternates considerations about blades, tower, drivetrain. I found the resulting text very confusing and I would suggest splitting the section per component.
The section also adopts very few references, which does not help. Focusing on the blades alone, some relevant recent studies in this broad field were led by Ennis, for example https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1592956, or Murray, for example https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.286
Going into the details:
Line 1672: I don’t think you should talk about downwind as related to manufacturing challenges. Also, if you do, there is a vast body of literature about downwind technology.
Line 1678 should specify whether this damping value is critical or logarithmic. A reference supporting this value would help, maybe https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1726023 or http://www.measnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/16bt01-Report-IECRE.pdf.
Line 1696: I don’t think we’re above 100 m/s yet due to aeroacoustic and erosion issues
Line 1709: I understood that the whole point of thermoplastics is about being recyclable, whereas the text seems to imply that recyclability is only a side advantage
Line 1710: CFRP is not necessarily linked to BTC, which can be realized with GFRP as well.
Line 1713: “Recent research” calls for references
Line 1719: I’m not so convinced that the price of CFRP has been steadily declining, especially recently. References or numerical values are needed
Line 1728: I wouldn’t link the EOL issues of blades with the immaturity of wind, which could be called mature since 2010 (at least). Isn’t it more like a lack of a good alternative? Research on thermoplastics have been going on for decades, see the body of literature from TU Delft for example with Prof Beukers and Prof Bersee
Section 9
The intro of section 9 is heavy on the progress funded by DOE, but there is more than that, see for example the work happening at DTU or at Uni Stuttgart (Prof Lutz)
Line 1859: I don’t understand the use of the word especially. I understood that was the actual issue.
I would have had section 9.5 at the top of the paper, since this affects every field, not just HFM. Just a suggestion, the authors can leave things as they are.
Similarly, section 9.6 looks weird. It’s only a tiny paragraph hidden inside a much wider discussion about HFM and validation, with no references.
Section 10
Line 2148: I think that a key improvement would be to move from single turbine design approaches to designs that account for wind farm effects.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-32-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Takis Chaviaropoulos, 17 Jan 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Peter Clive, 02 May 2022
Community Comment:
Reading through the recent discussion paper "Grand Challenges in the Design, Manufacture, and Operation of Future Wind Turbine Systems" (Veers, P., et al., April 2022), it occurs to me that every time it mentions challenges arising due to the limitations of current design standards, the simplifications adopted in those standards that now constrain us have arisen because historically we have treated wind as a resource in a manner analogous to fuels and feedstocks exploited under a conventional extractivist paradigm: simple and quantifiable in terms of a primitive data type as though it was something we could accumulate and deplete. But wind is not a “resource” in the extractivist sense. It is a phenomenon, not a feedstock. Our infrastructure *interacts* with it sustainably, it does not deplete it. We must adopt an interactivist, rather than extractivist, approach. Whereas a fuel that is accumulated and depleted can be described in simple terms of supply and demand, an interaction must be modelled. Our starting point when addressing the Grand Challenges needs to be a complex objected oriented description of the wind that integrates measurements and models, is compatible with the digital representations of our assets and processes, complies with FAIR data sharing principles to accommodate highly multidisciplinary collaboration, and thus supports an *interactivist* rather than extractivist approach.
Disclaimer: this community comment is written by an individual and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of their employer.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-32-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Pietro Bortolotti, 12 Jul 2022
This article continues the exciting series of publications about the grand challenges faced by wind energy technology. The list of authors is the right one for such publication and I support the publication of this long article, which can become the backbone of many research proposals moving forward.
I do not have the expertise to add anything to some of the sections, but I do have a list of suggestions.
Overall structure:
1) I would have liked to read a paragraph about what’s new in this article compared to previous publications focusing on the grand challenges of wind energy, for example https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau2027, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72437.pdf, or https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-1-1-2016
2) Some topics are grouped together into the same section, and sometimes I miss the rationale. Why inflow and the design process together, but aerodynamics and aeroelasticity in a separate section? Why HFM and validation? And uncertainty quantification is described in a single paragraph in 9.6, although there is a large body of literature addressing it.
3) Some sections are built on references (sections #3, #4, #5, #6), which I think is a must for this type of articles. Other sections use very few (#7, #8, #9). I’d suggest consistency, possibly leaning toward the first approach. References are not present in section #2, and that might be ok, but a note pointing the reader to the following sections would help.
Abstract
Line 15: what about wind farm blockage?
Line 21: I see the lack of validation as a key obstacle for a wider adoption of HFM. BEM, with all its limitations, has shown to work and several publications show what matches and what not. HFM not yet, or at least far less.
Intro
Figure 2: I wouldn’t have the Emirates logo on a scientific paper that will receive thousands of downloads and citations. Please edit.
Section 2
Line 125: LCOE has clearly shown its limitations (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2021.106931, among many others). Such limitations will only grow with a higher share of wind energy in the mix and the growth of hybrid systems and storage. Should this be a challenge?
Line 136: This sentence might sound a little unfair for the wind energy pioneers. Unknowns have always been out there. We’ve resolved some, some others are still there, and some new ones have come up
Line 257: It won't be possible to increase tip speeds without innovations on the leading edge erosion front. I'd suggest adding a note
Section 2.6: I miss a paragraph about the cost and complications of testing prototypes, which I understand to be a very real obstacle to innovation. What about allowing subcomponent testing? Or moving toward numerical prototyping in 2.7?
Line 341: I agree that validation is key for the HFM to succeed. But validation is easier said than done even when data are present. We lack rigorous data assimilation techniques merging multiple instruments and the inherent errors in their measurements into a single validation process. This is listed in section 9, but I’d suggest adding a note here as well.
Section 2.8: I found 2.8 somewhat blurry to me. I'd suggest to reformulate how the authors propose to move forward, which in my head is system design based on validated and therefore trustworthy numerical models
Section 3
As mentioned before, I am not sure whether I understand why inflow and design process come into the same section.
Line 418: I feel that a reader could get confused here as LCOE and value are used almost interchangeably. The references are very relevant and maybe this section could be expanded a little to better explain these trends without the need to accessing the references. Also, I would add a note about the arrival of storage solutions, which might change trends very rapidly.
Line 428: I personally like the words “numerical prototyping” to describe this innovation
Section 4
Line 780: I found this paragraph a little confusing. In my mind the biggest obstacle is the combination of a very complex (nonlinear) solution space generated by aero-servo-hydro-elastic models combined with high computational costs. This is probably what authors are saying, but I think it could be written more explicitly.
Line 812: This is possibly misleading. The 25% gain in LCOE was mostly generated by switching from 3 to 2 blades, not by the actual codesign optimization. That change was done upfront and it wasn’t driven by co-design approaches, but rather by a change in turbine configuration.
Section 5
Line 1050: I would add the lack of validation to the list of obstacles slowing HFM
Line 1080: you could add https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2265/4/042052 to the list of free form studies
Line 1100: I’d suggest to add references about successful scaled blade testing, for example https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-5-1411-2020, https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2021-1718, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.03.157
Line 1137: I see one big obstacle here. No funding agency / national lab / research institute has designed a multi-MW wind turbine, at least not in the last 20 years. How should these organizations convince an OEM to publish data? I’d add a note about this key obstacle
Line 1147: please reference https://doi.org/10.2172/1868328
Section 7
The start of section 7 gives the impression that offshore wind is something of the future, whereas it is already reality. Also, the paragraph seems to imply that offshore wind is only present in the North Sea, whereas Asia also has offshore wind farms (maybe not yet fully commissioned?). The same consideration is valid for floating, which is certainly in a development stage (line 1342), but there are already the first commercial projects operating out there (Hywind in Scotland?)
Line 1467: an image would help describing DOFs and platform configurations
Section 8
I’ve struggled with this section, which I think needs some attention.
To start, showing a 40m long blade (figure 12) in a paper about the future of wind seems a little out of place
Also, the section alternates considerations about blades, tower, drivetrain. I found the resulting text very confusing and I would suggest splitting the section per component.
The section also adopts very few references, which does not help. Focusing on the blades alone, some relevant recent studies in this broad field were led by Ennis, for example https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1592956, or Murray, for example https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.286
Going into the details:
Line 1672: I don’t think you should talk about downwind as related to manufacturing challenges. Also, if you do, there is a vast body of literature about downwind technology.
Line 1678 should specify whether this damping value is critical or logarithmic. A reference supporting this value would help, maybe https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1726023 or http://www.measnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/16bt01-Report-IECRE.pdf.
Line 1696: I don’t think we’re above 100 m/s yet due to aeroacoustic and erosion issues
Line 1709: I understood that the whole point of thermoplastics is about being recyclable, whereas the text seems to imply that recyclability is only a side advantage
Line 1710: CFRP is not necessarily linked to BTC, which can be realized with GFRP as well.
Line 1713: “Recent research” calls for references
Line 1719: I’m not so convinced that the price of CFRP has been steadily declining, especially recently. References or numerical values are needed
Line 1728: I wouldn’t link the EOL issues of blades with the immaturity of wind, which could be called mature since 2010 (at least). Isn’t it more like a lack of a good alternative? Research on thermoplastics have been going on for decades, see the body of literature from TU Delft for example with Prof Beukers and Prof Bersee
Section 9
The intro of section 9 is heavy on the progress funded by DOE, but there is more than that, see for example the work happening at DTU or at Uni Stuttgart (Prof Lutz)
Line 1859: I don’t understand the use of the word especially. I understood that was the actual issue.
I would have had section 9.5 at the top of the paper, since this affects every field, not just HFM. Just a suggestion, the authors can leave things as they are.
Similarly, section 9.6 looks weird. It’s only a tiny paragraph hidden inside a much wider discussion about HFM and validation, with no references.
Section 10
Line 2148: I think that a key improvement would be to move from single turbine design approaches to designs that account for wind farm effects.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2022-32-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Oct 2022
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on wes-2022-32', Takis Chaviaropoulos, 17 Jan 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://wes.copernicus.org/preprints/wes-2022-32/wes-2022-32-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Paul Veers, 03 Apr 2023
Paul Veers et al.
Paul Veers et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,930 | 1,987 | 33 | 4,950 | 57 | 24 |
- HTML: 2,930
- PDF: 1,987
- XML: 33
- Total: 4,950
- BibTeX: 57
- EndNote: 24
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1