Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the 1/7 value. so are currently being checked <br />with a kite anemometer [4]. <br /> <br />PTH. with 13.619 million kWh at an average of <br />1.135 million kWh/mo, had the highest calculated <br />WTS-4 output. WKR was second with 10.502 <br />million kWh, an average of 0.875 million <br />kWh/mo. It should be mentioned that the PROBE <br />station data using the 1/7 power law under- <br />predicts the WTS-4 output of Medicine Bow as <br />compared to the 2 years of tall meterological <br />tower data measured near the hub height of the <br />WTS-4 which predicts an annual average of <br />11.92 million kWh [3]. <br /> <br />8. August 1, 1981 to July 31, 1982, table 8. <br />-During this period. sites at YUM. HUM, COD. <br />and LWT were added to the list compared in case <br />8. PTH, with a predicted 14.246 million kWh and <br />1.187 million kWh/mo, WKR with 9.85 million <br />kWh and an average of 0.821 million kWh, LWT <br />with 9.374 million kWh and an average of 0.781 <br />million kWh/mo, and WBB with 9.120 million <br />kWh and an average of 0.760 million kWh/mo <br />would have had higher predicted outputs than <br />the PROBE data at MDB if the 1/7 power law is <br />valid at these sites. CWP and ELL also exceeded a <br />monthly average of 0.5 million kWh during this <br />12-month period. <br /> <br />9. December 1, 1981 to September 30, 1982, <br />table 9. - This is a 10-month period for which <br />greater than 94.5 percent of the potential data <br />are available. LWT, Montana was second to PTH <br />(12.51 million kWh) with a predicted 8.12 million <br />kWh. which indicates that it is also a potentially <br />acceptable site. Eight of the sites had an average <br />greater than 0.5 million kWh/mo. It should be <br />emphasized that October and November are not <br />included in this table so the order may have been <br />different if an entire year had been available. <br /> <br />CONCLUSIONS <br /> <br />This evaluation is based only on the comparisons <br />calculated from the presently measured wind <br />data, and does not consider the economics of <br />construction. Bureau of Reclamation policies. or <br />requirements. The environmental limitations <br />must also be considered. For example. the PTH <br />site appears to be an excellent site, but no large <br />wind turbines can be built there, since it is <br />located in the flight path of Travis Air Force Base. <br />This suggests. however, that the general area <br />near PTH (either to the east or the west) would <br />likely be an excellent location for a large wind <br />turbine project, as it would possibly have similar <br /> <br />average windspeeds. Data from other wind in- <br />struments also confirm this. <br /> <br />It is apparent from these comparisons that PTH. <br />WKR, LWT, CWP, WBB. ELL, LOG, and MDB all <br />warrant further consideration. having a potential <br />of over 0.5 million kWh per month if a WTS-4 <br />machine were to be installed. LOG should be <br />monitored for another 2-month period to ascertain <br />the potential that seemed to exist during the 10- <br />month period that this station has been in opera- <br />tion. December 1981 to September 1982. <br /> <br />Sites, such as HUM and YUM. which also have <br />solar radiation monitors on the PROBE unit. <br />should be maintained only for the solar radiation <br />data. As anticipated, their wind-site potential <br />seems limited. <br /> <br />PCP should be moved down the mountain into <br />the pass area to better monitor the channeling <br />effect that is available in the pass. if this site is <br />continued to be monitored. <br /> <br />All other sites should be examined more closely if <br />they do not appear to have the potential of at least <br />0.5 million kWh WTS-4 energy per month. <br /> <br />Sufficient data has been obtained at the ELL site, <br />so the station should probably be relocated to <br />another potential site in the Pacific Northwest <br />Region which also has high-wind evidence. <br /> <br />BIBLIOGRAPHY <br /> <br />[1]. "Central California-Nevada Wind Energy <br />Study. Wind Data Analysis, Working Doc- <br />ument" U.S. Department of the Interior. <br />Bureau of Reclamation, Mid Pacific Region. <br />Sacramento. California. February 1982. <br /> <br />[2]. "Northern Great Plains Wind Energy Study." <br />Special Report, U.S. Department of the <br />Interior. Bureau of Reclamation. Upper <br />Missouri Region, Billings. Montana. Octo- <br />ber 1982. <br /> <br />[3]. "Wind Hydroelectric Energy Project- <br />Wyoming, Executive Summary, Feasibility <br />Report, Environmental Assessment", U.S. <br />Department of the Interior, Bureau of Rec- <br />lamation, June 1981. <br /> <br />[4]. Martner. Brooks E., "Vertical Profiles of <br />Wind Speed at Medicine Bow. Wyoming", <br />Proceedings of American Wind Energy As- <br />sociation. National Conference & Exposi- <br />tion. Amarillo, Texas, October 1982. <br /> <br />7 <br />