THE WIND OF CHANGE – SENSITIVITY OF THREE PARAMETERS ON WIND POWER ENERGY CALCULATIONS USING WINDPRO SOFTWARE

Sammanfattning: Many parameters used for Wind Resource Assessment (WRA) have uncertainty and variability, yet are input into the process as single values. The extent of the uncertainty or variance may not be known, and may or may not be significant enough to affect output. This Thesis focused on the energy calculation element of WRA, to assess the affect that errors (uncertainty) in three key user inputs had on the energy results. A parameter was chosen from each of the main groups influencing the energy calculation: wind speed (atmosphere), surface roughness (site conditions), and power curve (turbine technology). Reasonable variation due to uncertainty for wind speed and power curve were taken from other studies and their application simplified. Roughness change was assessed over the 5 classes (Class 0 (water) to 4 (dense forest/city)). WindPRO software was used to calculate the Annual Energy Production (AEP) and applied to three different wind turbine generators at the same coordinate. A sensitivity analysis was done on the AEP results using a hybrid One-At-a-Time Local Sensitivity Analysis by determining percentage changes from baselines and an overall rate of change for those key input parameters. The results showed that roughness class change effect was not linear. Changing from Class 0 to 1, AEP was on average -8±1%. Class 1 to 2 change was on average ‑12±1%. Class 2 to 3 change was on average -20±2%. Class 3 to 4 change was on average -29±2%. The wind speed change effect was found to be roughly linear. If mean wind speed has an error of ±10%, the AEP could be expected to be out by approximately +18/‑17% with a standard deviation of +4/-3%. The power curve change effect was also roughly linear. A PC±9% error leads to an approximate +6/-7% AEP error with a standard deviation of ±1%. Roughness class change was the most sensitive parameter to AEP with a 14.5 average rate of change, followed by wind speed at 1.8, then power curve with a 0.8 rate. Results compared reasonably well with other relevant studies.