the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The optimum range of design axial induction factors for lowest levelized-cost of energy
Abstract. The present work proposes a new fatigue, aerodynamics, and cost-scaled turbine (FACT) blade design methodology. The basis of the FACT blade design is an objective function for change in levelized-cost of energy, ΔLCOE, as a function of design axial induction factor, a, that strikes a balance between increasing (or up-scaling) blade length and annual energy production while accounting for the additional cost and loading changes associated with a longer blade. In the process of developing the ΔLCOE objective function, new insights were gained about changes in capital cost and operations and maintenance cost with rotor up-scaling. As part of the capital cost function development, new engineering approximations for rotor mass are discussed that are suitable for large-diameter offshore wind turbines, which use improved materials technologies and manufacturing processes. Additionally, a detailed operations and maintenance model is developed using available wind farm reliability data. Furthermore, a relationship between turbine failure rate and damage-equivalent loads for failure-prone turbine subsystems is proposed. FACT rotor blade design points are identified using five reference wind turbines with power ratings of 10- to 22-MW as a baseline. Projected LCOE savings with a FACT rotor blade design are on the order of 5 % for an optimum design axial induction factor in the range of a = 0.21 and 0.27, thus falling between the low-induction rotor concept (a = 0.18) and the Betz optimum for maximum CP (a = 0.33).
- Preprint
(1615 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on wes-2024-109', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Oct 2024
reply
The authors propose an interesting study on the impact of induction factor on LCOE for large offshore rotors. The study is significant and there are many interesting takeaways. The manuscript is also clear and well written on first submission. I have some comments for the authors in the attached file
-
RC2: 'Comment on wes-2024-109', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Dec 2024
reply
This manuscript presents an engineering model to calculate the variation of LCOE as a function of the axial induction factor, for the purpose of rotor up-scaling. The topic of rotor design and upscaling are relevant and of interest for the readers of Wind Energy Science. The methodology introduced is insightful and propose a simple and interesting tool to support turbine design. However, the manuscript has critical weaknesses that prevents its publication.
A. The contextualization of the study in the literature is shallow and undermines significantly its relevance. Indeed, the paper highlights only a small subset of the extensive literature on wind turbine design and rotor optimization. The manuscript fails to highlight that both fatigue and LCOE have both been considered in previous works on rotor design. The topics of structural design, ultimate loads or design load cases are not addressed,even though they are often central for this field. The relevance of inverse design methods using a target induction factor is not put in context either. As a result, the authors fail to highlight a relevant and clear research gap in the literature.
B. The methodology behind the ΔLCOE metric presents several limitations:
- There seem to be a major error in the formula for ΔLCOE (see attached file)
- LCOE is a levelized metric, which does not appear in the equations. Did the authors mean to use "cost of energy" instead?
- The proposed engineering model is not validated, which undermines its credibility and the associated results.
C. The text lacks structure, clarity and conciseness. As a result, the details of the methodology and the main message of the work are difficult to understand.
Minor comments:
- Glauerts model is used throughout the paper, but without comments on its validity. There has been several improvements on the model done in the literature and textbooks, which would be relevant to mention.- Eq. 28: The audience of Wind Energy Science is generally familiar with the formula for AEP. Consider removing this equation for conciseness.
- Table 9: The reference designs have not been designed with a target axial induction factor, but with optimization methods. In this context, the precision and relevance of the metric "design a" is questionable.
- Table 3: The numbers in the column "Average" do not correspond to the average of the other columns. The column should be renamed accordingly.
- Figure 2: Can the author confirm that they have the rights to reproduce this figure in a publication? The slides being available online does not mean that they are open-source.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
99 | 33 | 35 | 167 | 12 | 10 |
- HTML: 99
- PDF: 33
- XML: 35
- Total: 167
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1