Skip to main content

Full text of "Montana wind energy research and development program"

See other formats


333.9Z 

//f/ RENEWABLE ENERGY 

REPORT LIBRARY 



PLEASE RETURN 



STATE DOCUMENTS COLLECTWH 

APRS 1984 

MONTANA STATE liSKARY 

1515 E. 6th AVE. 
HELENA. MONTANA 59620 



MONTANA WIND ENERGY RESEARCH 
AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 



Prepared for 
MONTANA DEPARTMENT of NATURAL RESOURCES and CONSERVATION 






i 






MONTANA STATE LIBRARY . ., . cT^T^- "T.ARY 

,3.92 N7n.» 1981 Cl lAONT". ' A STA 1 >- ^.-••«"' 

MONTANA WIND ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 



Prepared by 



MERDI, Inc. 

P.O. Box 3809 

Butte, MT 59701 



June, 1981 



Prepared for 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 
32 South Ewing, Helena, Montana 59620 
Renewable Energy and Conservation Program 
Grant Agreement Number 203-782 



Available on loan from 

Montana State Library, 1515 East Sixth Avenue 
Justice and State Library Building, Helena, Montana 59620 



This report was prepared under an agreement funded by the Montana Department of 
Natural Resources and Conservation. Neither the Department, nor any of its 
employees makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or 
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information 
apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 
infringe on privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial 
product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, 
does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or 
favoring by the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation or any employee 
thereof. The reviews and opinion of authors expressed herein do not necessarily 
state or reflect those of the Department or any employee thereof. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

1.0 OBJECTIVE 1 

2.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3 

2.1 Project Planning and Equipment Acquisition 3 

2.1.1 Project Planning 3 

2.1.2 Wind Monitoring Equipment 4 

2.1.3 Wind Energy Conversion Equipment 6 

2.2 System Installation 7 

2.2.1 Whitehall Monitoring Tower Installation 8 

2.2.2 Big Timber Monitoring Tower Installation 12 

2.2.3 Livingston Monitoring Tower Installation 12 

2.2.4 Livingston Wind Energy Conversion System 

Installation 16 

2.3 System Testing and Modification 35 

2.3.1 Wind Monitoring Systems 35 

2.3.2 Wind Energy Conversion System 35 

2.4 System Performance 40 

2.5 Economic Evaluation 69 

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 72 

4.0 MONITORING ^5 



111 



TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 



5.0 PUBLIC AVAILABILITY ^^ 



6.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION ^^ 



A-1 
APPENDIX A— Monitoring Equipment 

APPENDIX B— Frequency Distribution Data by the Month "^-1 

APPENDIX C--Printed Wind Data (Separate Document) 



1v 



LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. --Whitehall Monitoring Site 9 

Figure 2.— Big Timber Monitoring Site 13 

Figure 3. --Livingston Monitoring Site 15 

Figure 4. --System Control Box 18 

Figure 5.--Backhoe Digging Anchor and Foundation Holes 20 

Figure 6.— Anchor Rod Ready for Concrete 21 

Figure 7. --Tower Base and Hinged Pin 23 

Figure 8.— Raising the Tower 24 

Figure 9. --Internal View of WTG 25 

Figure 10.— Cleaning and Installing the Blades 27 

Figure 1 1 .--Assembled Unit Showing Lightning Rod 28 

Figure 1 2. --Erection Sequence No. 1 29 

Figure 13. — Erection Sequence No. 2 30 

Figure 14.— Erection Sequence No. 3 31 

Figure 1 5. --Erection Sequence No. 4 32 

Figure 16.— Erection Sequence No. 5 . 33 

Figure 1 7. --Erection Sequence No. 5, Fully Erect 34 

Figure 18.— Power Density by Month for Historical Data and 

1980-1981 Measured Data 47 

Figure 19.--Bi-Weekly Average Wind Speeds for Whitehall Site 

1980-1981 49 

Figure 20.— Bi -Weekly Average Wind Speeds for Big Timber Site 

1980-1981 50 

Figure 21 .— Bi-Weekly Average Wind Speeds for Livingston Site 

1980-1981 51 

Figure 22.— Monthly Average Wind Speeds for Livingston, Whitehall, 

and Big Timber 52 



LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 



Figure 23. --Wind Speed Frequency Distribution for Whithall From 

March 1980 Through March 1981 54 

Figure 24. — Wind Speed Frequency Distribution for Big Timber From 

March 1980 Through March 1981 55 

Figure 25. --Wind Speed Frequency Distribution for Livingston From 

March 1980 Through March 1981 56 

Figure 26. --Measured Power Output of Carter Wind Turbine at 

Livingston Site 58 

Figure 27. --Power Coefficient Vs. Wind Speed for Efficiency of 

Carter WECS at Livingston Site 59 

Figure 28. --Estimated Power Output for One Month of Carter Wind 

Turbine at Various Wind Speeds 63 

Figure 29. — Wind Direction Frequency Distribution for Whitehall, 

Montana 66 

Figure 30. — Wind Direction Frequency Distribution for Big Timber, 

Montana 67 

Figure 31. --Wind Direction Frequency Distribution for Livingston, 

Montana 68 



v1 



LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1— Milestone Chart. . ^ 

Table 2— Carter WECS Operating History ^'^ 

Table 3--Measured Monthly Average Wind Speeds 44 

Table 4— Power Density (Watt/M^) Calculated From Measured Average 

Wind Speeds 

Table 5— Yearly Wind Speed Frequency Distribution Data for 

Three Sites 

Table 6— Estimated Power Output of Carter Wind Turbine at Various 

Wind Speeds (Data Taken at Livingston Site) 



Table 8— Payback Periods for Carter Model 25 WECS at Livingston, 
Montana 

Table 9— Payback Periods for Carter Model 25 WECS at Whitehall, 

Montana 

Table 10— Payback Periods for Carter Model 25 WECS at Big Timber, 
Montana 



46 



53 



61 



Table 7— Estimated Yearly Power Output for Each Site, Calculated 

From Measured Wind Speed Frequency Distribution Data 64 



70 
70 
70 



1.0 OBJECTIVE 



The objective of the Montana Wind Energy Research and Development program 
as initially proposed was to purchase, install, demonstrate, and monitor a 20 
to 40 kW wind turbine generator in the Whitehall area and a monitoring tower 
in the Livingston and Whitehall areas. Wind data could then be collected at 
both Livingston and Whitehall while simultaneously generating electricity at 
the Whitehall site. The measured data could be compared to the actual 
generation data, and correlations could be developed that would indicate 
generating capability at Livingston. The results would be an economic 
analysis of cost per kilowatt hour of electricity and a technical analysis of 
wind-generated electricity and its importance to the utility grid system. 

However, some problems developed early in the program to obstruct the 
primary objective. First, the intended site for the wind generator, the Daisy 
Brazier Boys Ranch near Whitehall, was closed following an investigation by 
the state. This closure necessitated locating another generating site. Second, 
when the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) made 
the award to the Montana Energy and MHD Research and Development Institute 
(MERDI), they specified that MERDI use a wind turbine generator that was being 
developed by a previous grantee. Independent Power Developers, Inc. (IPD) of 
Noxon, Montana. It became apparent that IPD could not deliver the wind turbine 
generator in time to be used for this program. Thus, late in November 1979 
permission was given MERDI to purchase an alternative system. After reviewing 
the budget, MERDI made a request to the Montana Power Company (MPC) to purchase 
a wind turbine generator that could be installed in the MPC system at a site 



near Livingston. The MPC response was positive and they purchased a 25 kW 
wind turbine system from Jay Carter Enterprises of Burkburnett, Texas. 

MERDI was given permission to utilize data from the generator for this 
program. Third, it was further decided to install three monitoring towers for 
wind data gathering instead of the two that were originally planned. MERDI 
then purchased and installed 10 meter (33 foot) towers and monitoring equipment 
at Whitehall, Livingston, and Big Timber, Montana. 

After these initial problems were overcome, the program was restructured 
and new objectives defined. MERDI accomplished the following objectives: 

1. Selected three wind monitoring sites for installation of 10 meter 
towers and the described recording devices; 

2. Arranged for the purchase of a 25 kW wind turbine generator for MPC 
and installed it at Livingston; 

3. Monitored and collected data at all three sites (Livingston, Whitehall, 
and Big Timber); 

4. Compared measured generator output to theoretical calculated output 
based on wind data; and 

5. Correlated data between the three sites and predicted the value of wind- 
generated electricity at all three sites. 

The five objectives listed above were completed and a detailed discussion 
of each one is presented in subsequent Sections of this report. 



2.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 

Implementation of this project progressed as scheduled, once the previously 
discussed setbacks were resolved. 

2.1 Project Planning and Equipment Acquisition 

For purposes of this report, this section is divided into three sub- 
sections: 1) project planning; 2) wind monitoring equipment; and 3) wind 
energy conversion equipment. 

2.1.1 Project Planning 

The original project plan proposed to DNRC encompassed a nine-month 
project with a six-month data collection and correlation period. A 20 to 
40 kW wind turbine generator was to be installed at the Daisy Brazier 
Boys Ranch near Whitehall, Montana, and two 120-foot monitoring towers 
would have been installed near Whitehall and Livingston, Montana. At the 
time of grant award in June 1979, DNRC requested the use of a 25-kW wind 
turbine generator that was being developed by Independent Power Developers 
of Noxon, Montana under a previous grant. The IPD system was not completed 
at that time and it became apparent that delivery would be too late for 
use in the program. Finally, in November of 1979, a meeting was held In 
Helena between IPD, DNRC, and MERDI concerning the wind turbine generator. 
As a result of that meeting, permission was granted to reschedule the 
project, re-examine the budget, and purchase a different wind turbine 
generator. 

3 



From that point in time, a new program plan was developed as shown in 
the milestone chart of Table 1. This new planning schedule included the 
purchase and installation of a wind turbine generator and the installation 
of three 10-meter monitoring towers. Also, it became obvious that sufficient 
funds were not available to purchase a 25 kW wind turbine generator. 
Following discussion with DNRC, project personnel contacted Montana Power 
Company (MPC) and asked if MPC would purchase a wind turbine generator 
system that could be installed directly on the MPC grid and be monitored 
for this project. MPC had originally agreed to provide $10,000 cash and 
$5,000 in engineering time, to the project. At this time MPC agreed to 
provide a total of $25,000 to the project in order to purchase the system. 
Subsequently, it was decided that the site for the wind generator would 
be in the Livingston area. Livingston is a known high wind area and MPC 
has transmission and distribution lines nearby which could be tapped 
into. From this point on, it was simply a matter of selecting equipment 
and systems and following through with the program schedule. 

2.1.2 Wind Monitoring Equipment 

For the past five years, project personnel were involved in monitoring 
wind and air quality as part of the MHD project in Butte and have experience 
with equipment similar to that which was used in the project. During 
these past programs, Campbell Scientific Corporation equipment was found 
to be superior in quality and performance; therefore, similar equipment 
that was compatible with the computer and interface equipment was purchased 
(see Appendix A). 









«a: 




























CO 






























_i 




•-) 


























<c 






























o 






























13 




•-D 


























O 

3 




■Si 
















< 






^ 






s: 
a 




5 < 

(Tl 














< 














z 




'" 2: 




























•a: 
































LU 




Ll- 




























-J 
































=D 
































Q 




—3 




























LU 
































3: 
o 




Q 




















~<' 








H- 




■z. 
























ifl 




•• <_> 




























3 




UJ LU 




























■»-> • 




_J '-I 




O' 
























tJ 




1— O 
1— QC 
1— D- 




to 




















< 




< 

•4 


h- 






•a: 




















< 










oc 






CO 
























< 

X 

o 














^ 


^ 






A 


A 




T3 ■ 
OJ 

'3 








s: 








<1 


< 


^ 


< 















Ll_ - 






















(/•) 


LJ 


Q- 

o 


ex: 


■n • 






^ 












.<. 




<d 


O 


Q. 




O 
























h- 


oii 




-z. 
























Cf) 


CC 




o 
























LJ 


>- 




C/1 
























-J 


en 

UJ 


o 


























^HM» 


LU 


Q 


























2 
1- 


Q 
3 


UJ 






<^ 


















































o 




















c c: 








LU 


O 

5: 


C 




■z. 
o 










C 


o o 
+3 +J 




. 




~D 




1— 




Q- 










o 


•r- (0 
to r— 








o 


s: 


t_) CNJ 




z. 










-t-> 


•r- 0) 










a: r~~ 




o 










■ c 


3 S- 

CT S- 








(T 


CD 


\— 1 




to 






00 


lO 


o 


o o 








C3 


z: en 










o 


(_> 


z: ^ 


< o 










q: 


O O 




o 






LU' 


-LlJ 














CL 


a. 


O CM 




UJ 


c 


i>o • 


3^ 


3 


Q. 


IT3 -O 














Q 


o 


o 


lO 


<>0 


13 


-!-> CL 


to 














Q 


+J 


LU 

3 


3 


H- 


1 

4-> 


03 <0 














z 


n3 


t/1 


q; 


O 


s- 




c 


o 














c£ 






■z. 




03 


■o o 


Q. 
















-i-J 


3 




c 


■!-> 


c •■- 


(U 


■»•■> 












1/1 


• r- 


oi 


>+- 


o 


t/1 


(O ■(-) 


Qi 


S- 












UJ 


C 


z. 


o 








tJ 




o 












2: 








+-> 


-o 




= 3 


>, 


ex 












o 




OJ 


>, 


«3 


c 


o -p 




OJ 












1— 


+J 


on 


C 




IT3 




tt) 


11 


oc 












oo 


o 


fO 


o 


r— 




4-> a: 


<u 














UJ 


<u 


-C 


> 


(T3 


•t-) 


« 


+J 


r-~ 












_J 


•■■T 


o 


.,— 


+J 


U 


S- lO 


i- 


03 














o 


S- 


r— 


to 


<u 


<U +J 


03 


C 












s 


S- 


^ 


<u 


C 


s_ 


O- fO 


3 


•r- 














Q_ 


a. 


o 




LU 


o Q 


cr 


u_ 












Q^ 






























O 
































^ 


(NJ 


ro 


^^ 


tD 


to P^ 


cxj 


0^ 












s: 























At each of the three wind monitoring sites, the following equipment was 
installed: 

1. Triex (10 meter) Tower MW 33 

2. Guy Kit MWK 1 

3. Microprocessor CR 21 

4. Cassette Recorder RC 235 (4) 

5. Velocity Sensor 014A 

6. Direction Sensor 024A 

7. Cross Arm (4 1/2 ft) 019 

8. Temperature Sensor 101 and Shield 041 

9. Instrument cable to connect Sensors to the CR21 
10. Recorder/CR21 Cable SSC235 

This equipment was purchased through Campbell Scientific Corporation based 
in Logan, Utah. The CR21 Microprocessors had to be programmed to perform 
the functions necessary for data acquisition (see Section 2.2 for a 
detailed discussion). 

2.1.3 Wind Energy Conversion Equipment 

Under terms of the agreement with DNRC, three commercial manufacturers 
of wind energy conversion systems (WECS) were identified as potential 
suppliers of an acceptable wind energy conversion system. Three machines 
were available: 

1. Carter Wind Generator, Model 25; 

2. Mehrkam Energy Development Company, Model 440; and 

3. Wind Power Systems, Inc. Storm Master Model 10-18-1G-3P-60. 



Brochures describing these units were provided in the December 1979 quarterly 
report to DNRC. 

Simultaneously with identifying existing systems, it was determined 
that the project budget was not sufficient to cover the purchase of a wind 
energy conversion system and also provide the degree of monitoring required. 
Following approval from DNRC, MPC was approached with the suggestion that 
MPC provide additional funds for purchase of the WECS. MPC would then own 
the WECS and connect it into their electric grid system while MERDI would 
monitor the performance as part of the contract requirements to DNRC. 
MPC agreed to purchase a WECS with MERDI acting as purchasing agent. 
The project then became a cooperative one between a state agency (DNRC); 
a public utility (MPC); and a private research and development institute 
(MERDI). 

Study of available information on existing commercial units by MPC, 
DNRC, and MERDI determined that the Carter Model 25 was the best unit for 
the program. Carter Manufacturing in Burkburnett, Texas was visited and 
a Carter Model 25 observed in operation. The unit was purchased with a 
tentative delivery date scheduled for late March or early April 1980. The 
Model 25 was delivered and installation completed on May 2, 1980. 

2 . 2 System Installation ' 

Under terms of the program, four separate systems were installed. Wind 
monitoring systems were installed at Whitehall, Big Timber, and Livingston; 
the wind energy conversion system was also installed at Livingston. Each of 



the four systems operated independently of the other three. Each system had 
its own peculiarities; thus each one will be discussed separately. 

Prior to the installation procedure, programs that would convert elect- 
ronic signals generated in the sensors to audio signals recorded on magnetic 
tape were developed for the CR21 microprocessor. Appendix A contains a copy 
of the program developed for data acquisition at each monitoring site. After 
data were collected on magnetic tapes, they were read into the computer using 
an interface instrument called a "gold box." The gold box converts the audio 
signal from the tape into computer language; then another of the prepared 
computer programs prints the data into the final format, as presented in 
Appendix C (separate document). 

2.2.1 Whitehall Monitoring Tower Installation 

The first monitoring tower installed on February 6 and 7 (1980), was 
located near Whitehall, Montana. The site was approximately four miles 
west of Whitehall. The exact location of the site is on the northeast 
corner of the northwest 1/4 section of Section 12, Township 1 North, 
Range 5 West in Jefferson County. Figure 1 offers views of the Whitehall 
site from two different angles and shows the tower and instruments in 
place. 

The entire installation was completed in less than two days. The 
tower, a 10-meter (33-foot) telescoping model, was installed on a concrete 
base. The base was initially poured indoors and transported to the site 
by truck. A metal base plate with three threaded bolts for mounting the 



Looking North 



i 



Looking Southeast 



■ ^■ftitr.y^ 




V 




Figure 1. --Whitehall Monitoring Site 



tower was embedded in the concrete hase as it was poured. At the site 
the concrete base was positioned and leveled for the tower. 

This particular base measured two feet by two feet by one foot thick 
and was quite difficult to handle. Three holes at least three feet deep 
were then dug by hand labor for the three anchor rods. The three holes were 
positioned 12 feet out from the tower base and were located in a radial 
pattern. A gasoline driven, hand-held, post-hole digger proved ineffective 
in the rocky ground. Digging of these three holes proved to be the single 
most time-consuming and laborious effort in erecting the monitoring towers. 
The fact that the ground was frozen solid for most of the needed depth also 
complicated the work. Digging each hole required from one-and-one-half 
hours to two hours. 

Upon completion of the holes, the anchor rods were twisted into 
place in the earth as far as they would go and earth was tamped firmly 
around the anchors. 

The anchor rod holes were positioned in triangular fashion around 
the base plate with one anchor upwind, in the direction of the prevailing 
wind. This procedure was recommended by the manufacturer to insure proper 
tower support in the prevailing wind direction. 

The procedure for erecting the 200-pound tower began with cutting the 
guy cables to proper length and attaching them to the tower. The 12-foot 
fully retracted tower was then bolted to its base plate which had been 
previously bolted to the square concrete base. Two men pushed the retracted 

10 



tower into a vertical position with the tower pivoting up on its hinged 
pin in the base plate. One man steadied the vertical tower and the second 
man secured all of the cables into the eyes of the anchor rods using turn- 
buckles for tension adjustment. The crank and winch used to extend the 
telescoping tower to its full height were then attached. 

Instruments were now installed on the tower as part of the activation 
procedure. The wind direction sensor and the wind velocity sensor were 
installed on the four-and-one-half foot cross arm that had not yet been 
mounted on the tower. Cables that would extend to the ground when the 
tower was raised to its highest position were attached to each sensor. 
The cross arm and sensors were then attached to the top of the tower with 
the cross arm and direction sensor pointing in the direction of true 
North for proper orientation. 

The tower was cranked up to its full height of 33 feet with the sensor 
cables hanging down. Then the temperature sensor and its shield were 
attached to the tower at about six or seven feet above the ground. The 
instrument box/enclosure was bolted to the tower at about three to four 
feet above the ground. The sensor cables were routed into the enclosure 
and attached to the CR 21 microprocessor. The CR 21 microprocessor was 
then energized and programmed as illustrated in Appendix A. 

A connector cable was attached between the CR 21 and the cassette 
recorder and the recorder was energized, thus making the monitoring system 
operational. A three-strand barbwire fence was installed around the 
tower to exclude cattle and other large animals. 

11 



No major problems were encountered during this installation at the 
Whitehall site. The manual labor of digging anchor rod holes in frozen 
ground was the most troublesome job. The installation including the 
operational startup require<< less than two full days. 

2.2.2 Big Timber Monitoring Tower Installation. 

The second monitoring tower was installed near Big Timber, Montana 
on February 18 and 19 (1980) at a site approximately four miles east of 
Big Timber. The exact location of this site is on the northeast corner of 
the southeast 1/4 section of Section 8, Township 1 north. Range 15 East 
in Sweet Grass County. Figure 2 presents photographs of the Big Timber 
site from two different angles and shows the tower and the instruments in 
place. 

Installation of the monitoring equipment at the Big Timber site 
followed exactly the same procedure used at the Whitehall site. The 
installation was again completed in less than two full days. Also, once 
again the most time-consuming effort was digging anchor rod holes in frozen 
ground. Overall, no major problems occurred during the installation, and 
the station was put into operation at that time. 

2.2.3 Livingston Monitoring Tower Installation 

The Livingston monitoring site presented some problems in obtaining 
legal access and subsequently in reaching the site. Project personnel 
had negotiated with the City Council and County Commissioners to place 

12 



Looking Northeast 




iAiv*^! 




Looking East 




E 




Figure 2.— Big Timber Monitoring Site 



13 



the monitoring system on the old airport site which eventually had to be 
abandoned due to difficult access. Permission had been given verbally, 
but as late as February 1980, written authorization to make the installation 
had not been received. In the meantime, blowing snow had closed the only 
access road to the site where the tower and concrete base now lay buried 
under snow. 

Project personnel searched the general area for other means of access 
or for another site with acceptable access. Eventually, the operational 
site was located approximately one mile east of the old airport, on Mr. Ted 
Watson's property. The land had year-around access from a county road 
maintained by Park County. Mr. Watson took project personnel cross-country 
in a four-wheel drive truck to recover the stranded tower and base plate 
from its location near the old airport. 

This tower was installed on March 10 and 11 (1980) on the Watson 
property approximately two miles east of Livingston. The exact location 
of this site is on the southwest 1/4 section of Section 9, Township 2 
South, Range 10 East in Park County. The site is south of 1-90 and visible 
from the highway. Figure 3 presents photographs of the Livingston site 
from two different angles which show the tower and the instruments in 
place. 

Installation at the new site was then performed in the same manner 
as previously described. This site was the hardest of all three in which 
to dig anchor holes. A combination of frozen ground and very rocky soil 
necessitated lying on the ground and digging out rocks by hand. However, 

14 



Looking North 




Looking Southeast 











Jtj^-^S^' 



r 




Figure 3. --Livingston Monitoring Site 



15 



the actual installation of the monitoring tower including the operational 
startup again took less than two full days for completion. This tower was 
located approximately 200 feet from the wind energy conversion system, as 
described in the following Section. 

2.2.4 Livingston Wind Energy Conversion System Installation 

The wind energy conversion system (WECS) was installed at the Living- 
ston site on May 1 and 2 (1980) by a team of personnel from Montana Power 
Company, Jay Carter Enterprises, Inc., and MERDI. This site also included 
the Livingston wind monitoring system described in the previous Section. 
Prior to the actual machine installation, MPC built a three-phase feeder, 
or distribution, line to the site and installed a transformer to step-up 
the wind generator voltage to the distribution line voltage. The 240-volt, 
3-phase alternating current wind generator voltage synchronizes automatically 
with the distribution line. MPC also had installed a control box for the 
interface system, used to connect the WECS with the power grid. Figure 4 
is a photograph of the interface system. The interface system is used to 
control the operation of the WECS, and to protect the power company 
personnel and customers from electric shock or equipment damage due to 
falty operation of the WECS. 

This particular interface system is comprized of five main components. 
These components are a manual disconnect, an automatic disconnect, an over- 
voltage relay, an under-voltage relay, and a metering system. 



16 



The manual disconnect is a manually operated switch and circuit 
breaker used to disconnect the WECS from the power grid for maintenance 
operations. This disconnect will also operate automatically if an over- 
current condition should exist. 

The automatic disconnect is an electromechanical ly operated contactor 
that is operated by the over-voUaqe or the under-voltaqe relays. In the 
event the power line goes dead, the under-voltage relay will cause the 
automatic disconnect to open the circuit between the WECS and the power 
grid. 

In the event that the power line voltage is too high, because of a 
power surge or a lightning strike, the over-voltage relay will cause the 
automatic disconnect to open the circuit between the WECS and the power 
grid. 

The metering system is made up of two kilowatt-hour meters. One 
meter records the amount of electric power consumed by the WECS for 
field excitation. The second meter records the amount of electric 
power delivered from the WECS to the power grid. 

During the month of July, MPC installed recording devices in the 
control panel to record wind machine output. That data was then fed into 
their computer on a regular basis to obtain computer printout, which 
became available August 1, 1980. 



17 




Figure 4. --System Control Box 



18 



Due to both the novelty of wind energy and the general interest of 
the public in wind energy conversion systems, as many as 50 people visited 
the site each day during the two-day installation. Of these fifty people, 
perhaps ten actually assisted in some aspects of the installation. 

An estimate of the actual time and hours spent on the installation 
and start-up would be 10 people for two days, or about 160 to 180 man 
hours. Mr. Carter assured everyone present that his three people, profess- 
ionals in the business, could have erected and started the system by 
themselves in about two days for a total of 48 man hours. However, as 
described below, such a brief installation schedule was not the case for 
this particular installation. 

Installation of the wind energy conversion system was begun by using 
a backhoe to dig holes five to six feet deep, one for the tower foundation 
and four for the anchor rod holes. Figure 5 shows the backhoe digging 
one of the anchor rod holes. The holes were dug in a pattern that spaced 
the anchor rods at 90° angles around the tower foundation, with one anchor 
positioned upwind in the prevailing wind direction. After the holes were 
dug, rebar was placed in the bottom of the holes and through the anchor 
rods to insure proper rigidity. Figure 6 shows one hole with the anchor 
rod in place and the rebar at the bottom of the hole. 

The next step was to pour cement for the anchors and the tower found- 
ation. The tower was to be installed the following day; thus, it was 
necessary to order a fairly dry mixture of cement and add moisture in the 
form of a quick setting agent called "SEEK A SET-C." Using this method, 

19 




Figure 5.--Backhoe Digging Anchor and Foundation Holes 



90 




Figure 6. --Anchor Rod Ready for Concrete 



21 



the cement was poured on the afternoon of May 1, 1980. Prior to leavinq 
the site that evening, the cement was already beginning to harden and the 
earth was pushed back into the anchor holes and excess earth was spread 
and leveled so that the next day could be spent entirely with installation 
of the tower and the wind turbine generator. 

The following morning. May 2, 1980, the tower was bolted to the metal 
base plate which had been set in the concrete foundation the day before. 
As shown in Figure 7, the design of the tower includes a hinged pin in the 
Jiase plate that allows the tower to be conveniently raised and lowered 
for easy access to the generator. 

In the next step the guy wires were attached to the tower and to the 
anchor rods. One unique aspect of this particular system is that one guy 
wire is attached to the end of the gin pole which is connected to the 
tower. By attaching a "come-along" pulley mechanism to the guy cable 
and a vehicle, as shown in Figure 8, the tower can be raised and lowered 
by two people with a minimum of effort. Figure 8 illustrates raising the 
tower without the wind turbine generator attached. 

The tower was successfully raised and the four guy cables properly 
tensioned; the next step was to lower the tower to the horizontal position 
and install the wind turbine generator. With the tower once again in the 
lowered position, the nacelle containing the generator, transmission, and 
electronics was moved into place over the end of the tower shaft. Figure 
9 shows the wind turbine generator on the tower and also presents an 
internal view of the components. 

22 




'f,\-\.\ J; 






Figure 7. --Tower Base and Hinaed Pin 



23 




M 



Figure 8, — Raising the Tower 



24 




Figure 9. --Internal View of WTG 



25 



Near the top center of Figure 9 is a black control box which contains 
much of the control circuitry and electronics of the system. It is fairly 
easy to change this component, if necessary. Directly under the black 
box is a brush block. This component holds brushes against conducting 
slip rings. As the blades turn the generator, electricity is carried 
through the slip rings and down the center of the tower by a three-wire 
conductor. The electrical output is then routed from the base of the 
tower to the electrical interface system. 

At this point, the blades were installed into the rotor hub. With 
each blade measuring 16 feet, diameter of the total swept area was 32 feet. 
The blades were then cleaned of any dirt, bugs, and grime, as shown in 
Figure 10. Checks for electrical continuity and other last minute details 
were completed and the cover bolted to the nacelle, as shown in Figure 
11, with the lightning rod protruding through the top of the nacelle. 
Following the above checks, the wind energy conversion system was ready 
for operational erection of the tower and start-up of data collection. 

The series of photographs shown in Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 
17 are sequential photos of the initial erection and show incremental 
steps in the wind energy conversion system installation. Figure 17 shows 
the system fully erected and ready for start-up. At this time, the only 
remaining steps were to remove the "come-along" pulley mechanism and attach 
the final guy wire to its anchor rod. The electrical switches were then 
activated and the brake mechanism at the base of the tower was released. 
However, when this start-up was completed, sufficient winds were not 
present to generate electricity. 

26 




Figure 10. --Cleaning and Installing the Blades 




Figure 11 .--Assembled Unit Showing Lightning Rod 



28 




Figure 12.— Erection Sequence #^ 



29 




Figure 13. --Erection Sequence #2 



30 




Figure 14. — Erection Sequence #3 




Figure 15. --Erection Sequence #4 



32 




Figure 16. --Erection Sequence #5 



33 




Figure 17. --Erection Sequence #5 
Fully Erect 



34 



The system was completely installed and operational in less than two 
days. To insure that the system was operational and wired correctly, 
electricity was applied to the system from the line, and the generator was 
operated briefly as a motor. 

2. 3 System Testing and Modification 

This Section on system testing and modification, for purposes of the 
discussion, is categorized into subsections covering the monitoring systems 
and the wind energy conversion system. 

2.3.1 Wind Monitoring Systems 

The three wind monitoring systems discussed earlier are identical to 
each other in every aspect except their locations. One system is located 
at each site: Whitehall; Big Timber; and Livingston. Only the testing to 
insure calibration of each component was given these systems prior to 
installation. The only modification to the monitoring systems was to 
rewrite the program for the microprocessors. The method of collecting 
and printing out the data was changed to the format shown in Appendix 
C (see separate document). No major physical modifications were made to 
the monitoring systems following installation. 

2.3.2 Wind Energy Conversion System 

The wind energy conversion system (WECS) utilized in this project was 
a Carter Model 25 which is currently available on the commercial market. 

35 



The system was tested for three years prior to the described installation. 
The actual unit installed at Livingston was tested for two weeks by 
the manufacturer at his plant in Texas. 

Installed May 2, 1980 at its present site near Livingston, the WECS 
experienced many minor problems throughout the term of the project, but 
other than the six-inch shortening of blades (as described in subsequent 
paragraphs), no major modifications were made. 

The following paragraphs offer a chronological listing of the operating 
history of the WECS, beginning on the date of May 2, 1980: 

During installation and start-up of the WECS on May 2, 1980, Mr. 
Carter discovered that the brush block that was originally installed in 
the machine was a special type which should not have been used in this 
application. Because of the potential for high winds for long periods of 
time at Livingston, Mr. Carter advised that until the brush block could be 
replaced, the machine should not be allowed to run unattended for long 
periods. However, before the brush block could be replaced, the black 
control box failed. This caused the machine to be shutdown until May 19, 
1980 when the brush block and the black box were replaced. 

The machine ran for two days, but on May 21, 1980 it was shut down 
because it was running in the overspeed condition. 

In the overspeed condition the WECS operates at excessive speed and 
the overspeed brake comes on to stop the turbine. After twenty minutes 

36 



or so, the overspeed brake automatically resets, and the machine begins 
to run again. If the problem causing the overspeed continues to exist, 
then the brake comes on again. 

On May 27, 1980 the machine was put through a series of tests to 
determine the current problem. It was determined that the black box was 
malfunctioning again. The WECS had operated a total of two days during 
the month of May, 1980. 

On June 2, 1980 the black box was replaced. During the replacement J 
a silicone controlled rectifier (SCR) was damaged and then replaced. The 
machine then ran for the remainder of the month of June, a total of 28 
days. 

On July 1, 1980 the WECS was found motoring due to a faulty SCR. 
The machine was shut down until July 10th when tests were run to determine 
the problem. On July 15th, Mr. Carter replaced another bad SCR and the 
yaw damper seal. He also leveled the tower and checked the propeller 
snubbers. The machine was turned on, and it ran for the remainder of July 
and part of August, a total of 34 days. 

On August 18 the generator was checked and found not working because 
the out-of-balance brake was on. The brake was reset and the machine 
restarted. No output of electrical power was recorded between August 18 
and August 26. On August 26 the out-of-balance brake was again reset. 
The WECS ran a total of 22 days during the month of August. 



37 



On September 23, the out-of-balance brake was again reset. The brake 
came on again two days later. On September 25 the tension on the out-of- 
balance brake spring was increased, and the brake was reset again. The 
machine ran a total of 26 days during September, 1980. 

During the period between May 2, 1980 and September 30, 1980 the WECS 
produced 8660 kilowatt-hours of electric power for the 96 days of operation; 
in this five-month period the machine also experienced the lowest average 
wind speeds of the year. 

The WECS operated normally for the first 9 days of October, then no 
output was recorded. On October 23 Mr. Carter replaced the commutator 
brushes and springs. He also shortened the propeller tips by six inches 
so that the propeller could not possibly strike the tower. This was a 
preventative measure only. On October 24 the machine was found not operating, 
and Mr. Carter was called again. The machine ran a total of nine days 
during October. 

On November 7, 1980 Mr. Carter adjusted the out-of-balance brake and 
repaired a broken lead from a transducer pick-up on the gear box. On 
November 23, 24, 25, and 26, the out-of-balance brake was reset four times. 
The machine operated a total of 17 days during the month of November. 

On December 1, 1980 the out-of-balance brake came on again. The 
brake was again adjusted and reset. On December 10 the main power breaker 
was tripped. When the WECS was restarted the generator was found to be 
operating as a motor. On December 18, Mr. Carter took the generator and 

38 



the propeller back to the factory in Texas for repairs. The machine operated 
a total of eiqht days during the month of December. 

Durinq the 70-day period from October 1, 1980 to December 10, 1980, 
the average wind speeds had increased as they usually do at this time of 
year. Over this same period the machine had produced 6020 kilowatt- 
hours of electrical power in the 35 days of operation. 

When the WECS was inspected at the factory in Texas, the wiring in 
the generator was found to have been overheated. The generator was rewound 
with new wire of a heavier gauge and a better quality insulation. The 
out-of-balance mechanism was redesigned from a horizontally-actuated 
mechanism to a vertically-actuated mechanism. The 100-ampere circuit 
breaker was replaced by an 80-ampere circuit breaker. The yaw damper was 
filled with a higher viscosity oil to prevent leakage. The SCR heat 
sinks were redesigned to prevent burnout of the SCR's. 

The Carter WECS was returned to the site at Livingston on January 30, 
1981 and installed that same day. The machine operated without further 
problems to the end of the project. When monitoring was completed on 
March 11, 1981, the machine had produced a total of 20,960 kilowatt-hours 
of electric power, since its operational start-up on May 2, 1980; during 
this period the WECS operated a total of 170 days. 

Table 2 shows the operating history of the WECS and the monitoring 
equipment. 



39 



2.4 System Performance 

System performance of the wind monitoring equipment was very good. Little 
data was lost due to equipment failure. During the largest eruption of Mt. 
St. Helens, May 1980, two days of data were lost because travel to the sites 
was interrupted and the tapes ran out. During the first month of operation, 
some data were lost due to a malfunction in the monitoring equipment. After 
considerable investigation, the problem was discovered in the cassette recorders. 
During periods when ambient temperatures dropped below 0°F, the speed of the 
tape recorders slowed enough to compress data onto a very short section of 
tape making it unreadable by the computer. 

The cold weather problem was solved by heating the monitoring instruments. 
A small insulated box was constructed, just large enough for the microprocessor 
and the tape recorders. Through heat-loss calculations, it was determined 
that the instruments could be maintained at 40°F above ambient by applying 3 
watts of electric heat. The heat was provided by a 50-ohm power resistor 
placed in the insulated box with the instruments. The resistor leads were run 
outside the box and connected to a 12 volt (80 amp/hr) lead-acid battery. 

These batteries provided enough energy to warm the instruments for 12 
continuous days. During each visit to the sites, the in-place battery at each 
site was replaced by a fully-charged battery. A total of six lead-acid batteries 
were used, and each one rotated into service, as required. Also, during each 
visit to the site, the data tapes were changed. Subsequent to installation of 
the battery-powered heating system, no further cold-weather problems occurred. 



40 



H- I— 

<: 



00 
CM 






oc ^ 



He 






i L 



CM r^^ tH cm C^^ t-i cm c^^ t-i cm C^^ .r-i CM C^-:^- T-i CM C^^ -rH CM C^-:}- 



41 



o 
o 

CM 
00 



o 
I— "^ 
o. ^ 

A CO 



or ^ 



- OS 

?: CO 









--I (M (^ J- 



^1 

-Bo 

O --I 



XJ TJ >» 

^ O M 

3 O O 

E-i U -P 



o 

q; e 
?-i . o 

faflT) >-l 

O 0) <+-! 

o c. 
coo 

f-i 0) Ti 

u +> 

M O 

C -P C 
•H 3 3 
^ P-tH 
O -P H 



C 

O 0) Q) 

e c c 

•H -H 

T) rCl ^ 

C M ^ 

•H 3 3 

3 6- E-< 



42 



During the month of September 1980, both the CR-21 microprocessors at 
Whitehall and the one at Big Timber malfunctioned. They were removed and sent 
to Campbell Scientific Co. for repairs. Because of this malfunction, several 
weeks of data were lost at these two sites. The only other problem experienced 
with the recording stations was at Big Timber when, on two occasions, an antelope 
apparently chewed through one of the sensor cables leading into the CR 21. 

Complete copies of the data recorded at each station are submitted as 
Appendix C (separate document). Overall evaluation of the monitoring systems 
performance, based on use with the project, is excellent. 

Table 3 presents a summary of monthly average wind speeds for the three 
monitoring stations. These data were taken from the daily averages listed in 
Appendix C (separate document). 

When the average wind speeds are known, the power density can be calculated. 
The power density referred to here is the total power available in the wind 
passing the site. The power density is normally expressed in watts/meter^ 
or: 

P/A = l/2pV3 (1) 

where: P/A is power density 

p is the density of air 
V is the wind velocity. 

Care must be taken in using the above equation because there are constants 
and conversion factors which must be employed to make the units correct. Here 



43 



TABLE 3 



MEASURED MONTHLY AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS 





WHITEHALL 
(MPH) 


BIG TIMBER 
(MPH) 


LIVINGSTON 
(MPH) 


March 1980 


12.68 


10.97 


13.65 


April 1980 


11.45 


9.46 


14.65 


May 1980 


9.66 


7.99 


12.87 


June 1980 


9.51 


8.92 


12.69 


July 1980 


9.21 


8.27 


11.69 


August 1980 


10.12 


9.27 


13.20 


September 1980 


10.90 


10.28 


14.25 


October 1980 


7.30 


11.22 


15.35 


November 1980 


11.47 


11.85 


20.52 


December 1980 


14.66 


13.94 


23.67 


January 1981 


6.99 


8.28 


15.68 


February 1981 


13.53 


15.79 


21.46 



44 



in equation 2, the constants and conversion factors have been applied so that 
we can use the collected data in its present form. 

P/A = 0.716pV3 (2) 

where: P/A is power density in watts/meter^ 
p is the density of air in Ibm/ft"^ 
V is the wind velocity in mph. 

The density of air (p) was adjusted to reflect the average standard 
density at the Livingston site elevation and the Livingston average ambient 
temperature. This value for (p) is 0.07 Ibm/ft"^. 

The wind velocities were also corrected in the calculation procedure to 
reflect the difference in height of the 33-foot monitoring towers and the 
55-foot tower required for the Carter wind turbine. The multiplier used in 
the velocity correction is 1.059. The multiplier was calculated from data 
taken at three different levels by the Department of Energy's (DOE) tower at 
the same site. 

Using equation 2, the power density at our three sites can be calculated 
for each month that we have average wind velocities. Table 4 is a summary of 
the calculated power densities for the velocities given in Table 3. 

Figure 18 shows historical data compiled from old airport records. Data 
are plotted on the same graph with the 1980-81 calculated power density data 
from Table 4. These plotted data seem to indicate that the year 1980-1981 was 

45 



TABLE 4 



POWER DENSITY (WATT/M^) CALCULATED FROM MEASURED AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS* 





WHITEHALL 


BIG TIMBER 


LIVINGSTON 


March 1980 


121 


79 


152 


April 1980 


89 


50 


187 


May 1980 


54 


30 


127 


June 1980 


51 


42 


122 


July 1980 


46 


34 


95 


August 1980 


62 


47 


137 


September 1980 


77 


65 


172 


October 1980 


23 


84 


215 


November 1980 


90 


99 


514 


December 1980 


187 


161 


790 


January 1981 


20 


34 


230 


February 1981 


147 


234 


588 



Wind speeds were corrected for height using data from Table 3 as the raw data. 



46 




200-: 



100 •• 



Livingston 
Measured (198( 



Figure 18. --Power Density by Month for 
Historical Data and 1 930-1901 fleasured Data, 



47 



a very low wind year at both the Whitehall site and the Livingston site. Such 
a condition negatively affects the output of a wind energy conversion system. 

To visually compare wind speed data from each of the three sites, graphs 
showing wind speed vs. month of the year were prepared from Table 3. Figures 
19, 20, and 21 show the bi-weekly average wind speeds measured for Whitehall, 
Big Timber, and Livingston, respectively. For comparison. Figure 22 shows 
monthly average wind speeds for each of the sites. The dashed horizontal line, 
drawn at the 8-mile-per-hour level on each of these graphs, represents the 
starting speed of both the Carter wind turbine and most of the wind turbines 
on the commercial market. 

To accurately predict the electric power that could be produced at each of 
the three sites, it was necessary to know the percentage of time that the wind 
blows at different speeds at each site. Power predictions were based on actual 
measured wind speeds (shown in Table 3) and not on the historical data presented 
earlier. 

The development of wind speed frequency distribution data needed for 
accurate power predictions required the writing of an additional computer program 
to search the collected wind speed data stored in the computer. These frequency 
distribution data are presented in Table 5 and are also graphically illustrated 
in Figures 23, 24, and 25 for Whitehall, Big Timber, and Livingston, respectively.*! 
The wind speed frequency distribution data were also plotted on a monthly 
basis for each site and these graphs are in Appendix B. 



48 



= 15 •• 




Figure 19.--Bi-Weekly Average Wind Speeds 
for Whitehall Site 1980 - 31 . 



dP 



25 



2n- 



.._! 



...4_ 



- 15" 



10.. 




5.- 



J A S 
Month 



Figure 20. --Bi -Weekly Average Wind Speeds for 
Big Timber Site 1980-31. 



50 



2&. 




Figure 21 .--Bi-Weekly Average Wind Speeds for 
Livinaston Site 1980-81. 



51 



25.. 



— *♦ Livjngstor) 
— • Whitehall 
— • Big Timbert 



20'- 



15 



10 




M A M J 



Figure 22. --Monthly Average Wind Speeds for 

Livingston, Whitehall, and Big Timber. 



52 



TABLE 5 
YEARLY WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION DATA FOR THREE SITES 



WIND SPEED RANGE 


WHITEHALL 


BIG TIMBER 


LIVINGSTON 


(MPH) 


(% of year) 


(% of year) 


(% of year) 


0-3 


8.1 


11.5 


5.2 


3-6 


27.0 


26.7 


14.2 


6-9 


19.1 


17.0 


11.6 


9-12 


12.3 


11.6 


10.5 


12-15 


9.3 


8.4 


10.8 


15-18 


7.2 


6.5 


11.0 


18-21 


5.6 


5.3 


9.9 


21-24 


4.4 


4.3 


7.9 


24-27 


3.1 


3.3 


5.8 


27-30 


1.9 


2.2 


4.0 


30-33 


1.1 


1.5 


2.7 


33-36 


0.5 


0.8 


2.0 


36-39 


0.2 


0.5 


1.4 


39-42 


0.1 


0.3 


1.1 


42-45 


0.1 


0.1 


0.8 


45-48 - 


0.05 


0.1 


0.6 


48-51 


0.03 


0.05 


0.4 


51-54 





0.03 


0.2 


54-57 








0.1 


57-60 








0.1 



53 



30. _ 




45 



54 



Hind Speed (MPH) 

Figure 23. --Wind Speed Frequency Distribution for Whitehall 
from March 1980 through March 1981. 



54 



30- 



20- 



10-- 



V = 10.5 



T 



27 36 
Wind Speed (MPH) 



45 



— T" 

54 



Figure 24.--VJind Speed Frequency Distribution for 

Big Timber from March 1900 through March 1981 



55 



30- 



20- 



10-. 



V = 15. 




27 36 
Wind Speed (MPH) 



45 



Figure 25. --Wind Speed Frequency Distribution for 

Livingston from March 1980 through March 1981 



56 



To arrive at an accurate prediction of the power that could be produced, 
the next step was to search all of the data relating to power actually produced 
by the Carter wind turbine at Livingston. These data, supplied by Montana 
Power Company, were searched and compared with the monitored wind data. These 
two sets of data could only be compared for specific times when the wind turbine 
was known to have been operating. Both sets of data were accumulated along 
with the date and time of day. This allowed an accurate comparison of the two 
data sets. The power produced at various wind speeds by the Carter Wind Turbine 
at the Livingston site is shown in kilowatts per hour, in graphical form, in 
Figure 26. However, this power output was measured at the Livingston site 
where the elevation is 4660 feet above sea level. The power output could be 
as much as 10% higher at elevations near sea level because of increased density 
of the air at lower elevations. Figure 26 can be used to determine the power 
output that can be expected from the Carter wind turbine. 

It is possible to make calculations of wind energy conversion system 
efficiency based on the power generated data and the wind speed data. These 
two sets of data were used to calculate the power coefficient for the Carter 
machine. The power coefficient (Cp) is defined as: 

Cp = Power Generated/Total Power Available 
It must be remembered that the accepted theoretical limit (Betz Limit) on wind 
energy conversion system efficiency is 59.3%. This means that 59.3% is the 
maximum percent of power that can be extracted from the total power in the 
wind. 

The above equation for the power coefficient was used to plot the WECS 
efficiency shown graphically in Figure 27. Figure 27 shows that the maximum 

57 



25 •- 



:;: lo 




Wind Speed (MPH) 

FIGURE 26.— Measured Power Output of Carter Wind Turbine At 
Livingston Site (Elevation 4660 FT. Above Sea Level) 



58 



t 



^^ 



(do) :iuaLD!.j.j.ao3 jawod 
59 



efficiency obtained by the Carter WECS at the Livinqston site was 42% at a wind ; 
speed of 14.2 mph. This efficiency curve was compared with published efficiency 
curves of many other wind energy conversion systems and was found to be one of 
the highest in the industry. As can be seen from Figure 27, the WECS does not 
produce this efficiency at all wind speeds. However, it is most efficient 
very close to the measured average wind speed of 15.8 mph which occurs at the 
Livingston site. 

Using calculations based on 1) the efficiency curve of Figure 27; 2) the 
power-output curve in Figure 26; and 3) the power-density equation, a chart 
can be constructed that will enable the power output to be predicted at any 
site. The results shown in Table 6 are that calculation for the Carter wind 
turbine at the Livingston site. Figure 28, a graphical representation of the 
calculated data contained in Table 6, shows the estimated monthly power output 
of the Carter wind turbine at various wind speeds. 

Two separate methods of predicting the yearly power output will be discussed 
in subsequent paragraphs. The first method uses the average wind speed to 
determine the yearly power output. The second method uses the wind speed 
frequency distribution to predict the yearly power output. The two methods of 
predicting the power output are discussed here because they are both valid 
methods; however, the second method using the wind speed frequency distribution 
matched the actual power output very closely. 

Using the first method, the average yearly wind speed from Table 7 can be 
used to determine the monthly power output from Figure 28 and then multiply 
that number by twelve. The yearly average wind speed at the Livingston site 

60 



— >o 

CD h- 






00 
























q: 
























Q a: ^ 
























UJ 1 t— 
























(— 1— z 
























<: t— o 


o 


O 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


O 


s: <: x 


1 1 1 vo 


«D 


1— 1 


CM 


(«- 


VO 


00 


vo 


vo 


1— 1 


LO 


— ' 3 


1 1 1 CO 


«£> 


vo 


VO 


to 


t— 1 


00 


t^ 


O 


r>^ 


00 


1— o a: 




CM 


^ 


VO 


CO 


1—1 


1—1 


**• 


vo 


r»» 


r-^ 


</1 _l UJ 












1—1 


1—1 


1—1 


1—1 


1—1 


1—1 


LU 1— 1 Ql 
























:^ 
























UJ 
























oo z 
























q: ►-. 
























Q IC CQ 
























UJ ~-, Q£ 
























h- h- ^ 
























-a: 1— I— 

«— 3 q: 


uo 


P~ 


<■ 


CM 


en 


un 


If) 


LO 


CO 


U3 


00 


1 1 1 o 


CO 


ir> 


a» 


f— ( 


Lf) 


<£) 


o 


CM 


^ 


«1- 


1— O UJ 










•—1 


1—1 


r-H 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


OO _J 1— 
























UJ •— 1 Qi 
























^ <c 
























o 
























>- Q 
























o z 
























z •— « 
























UJ 3 
























—• O 
























O C/7 UJ 


IT) 


CD 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


Lf) 


Lf) 


ID 


O 


^ _ UJ 


III* 






• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


* 


• 




u. a: Q. 


1 1 1 CM 


o 


00 


CO 


00 


IT) 


en 


r~-. 


«1- 


CM 


O 


Ll_ (— OO 


1— ( 


«* 


CO 


CO 


CM 


CM 


1—1 


1—1 




1—1 




UJ 
























t— 
























»*<: 
























Z Q. 00 
























a; •— UJ Qi 
























UJ UJ ni 
























3 UJ 3 -^ 
























O _J 00 1— 


CO 


00 




















Q. CQ 1— 


CO 


f— t 


00 


00 


VO 


O 


LO 


O 


LO 


o 


O 


<£ q: cC 


III* 


• 










• 










_J _J UJ 3 


111^ 


c?> 


VO 


r-~ 


CM 


CM 


LD 


r^ 


CO 


r- 


CO 


<t — ' h- o 






.—1 


CM 


^ 


VO 


CO 


1—1 


Lf) 


<n 


^ 


1— <: Qc: _j 
















I— 1 


1—1 


.—1 


CM 


o > <£ — t 
























1— <: o i^ 
























>- 
























(— -— » 
























— 'C\J 
























oo s 
























1 z --^ 
























UJ oo 
























Q h- 


1 1 1 00 


CO 


IT) 


CM 


I— 1 


I— 1 


O 


r- 


CO 


CO 


cn 


1— 


1 1 1 in 


CsJ 


CM 


r~ 


r~ 


CO 


eo 


VO 


IT) 


^ 


CM 


a: cc 




1— 1 


CM 


CO 


ir> 


00 


f— I 


LO 


O 


LO 


CO 


UJ 3 














1—1 


1—1 


CM 


CM 


CO 


3-' 
























O 
























Q. 
























1— 
























Z 
















































o 3: 


LP 


Lf) 


ir> 


Lf) 


ir> 


\n 


IT) 


LO 


Lf) 


Lf) 


Ln 


Q. Q- 


III* 


• 


• 


* 


• 


• 


• 


* 


* 


* 


• 


1 2: 


1 1 1 o 


CO 


l£> 


W 


CM 


Lf) 


00 


1—1 


^ 


r^ 


o 


Q--' 


I— t 


t— 1 


.—1 


1—1 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


^ 


























S 
















































UJ O- 

uj 5: 
























CM 


ID 


00 


1—1 


^ 


r>. 


O 


CO 


IT) 


en 


CM 


Q. — 


CO lO <T> <-H 


.-H 


.—1 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 
1 


"d- 


UJ 


1 1 1 1 
O CO lO <T( 


CM 


1 

Lf) 


00 


r-l 


»3- 


r— 


o 


CO 


LD 


cn 


Q CJ 




<— I 


t— 1 


<— I 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


z z 
























-- <c 
























3 ct: 

















































4-> Q > 

C Z i-i 

O ^ _I 



d UJ 

•a: ^ 



o < 
t— 

















OO 














a: 














Q ac n: 














UJ 1 1— 














t— h- z 














<c t- o 

















C3 


2:«c 5: 




















—• 3 




















t— QC 


00 


00 


00 


00 


00 


00 


00 _l UJ 


f— < 


»-i 


1-H 


»-H 


I— 1 


r-t 


UJ I— Q. 














■^ 














UJ 














OO z 














q; 1-. 














Q ^ CQ 














UJ »--^ QC 














1— 1— :3 














<C t— (- 




















z: <a: 














" 3 a: 


ir> 


IT) 


in 


in 


in 


in 


^- UJ 


CVJ 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


on _j 1— 














UJ 1— 1 a: 














i^ <: 





























>- Q 














Z 














z •-< 














UJ 3 














— ' Q 














<_) t/1 UJ 


r—i 


(^ 


in 


1 — 





CO 


►— 1 _- ( UJ 


• 




« 






• 


U_ OC Q. 


00 


VO 


un 


^ 


rr 


CO 


U_ 1— oo 














UJ 














1— 














»< < 














z CL 00 














a: ■— UJ a: 














UJ UJ x: 














3 UJ 3 ^^ 














_j oo 1— 














Q- CD h— 


c 

















«C QC ct 














_J _J UJ 3 


00 


>n 


^r 


.—1 


CTv 


CTi 


cC i-H 1— 





1 — 


in 


^ 


CO 


^ 


1— < a: _i 


CO 


CO 


«d- 


in 


in 


r-. 


> <: >-' 














t— <: i^ 














>- 














1— 














■— 'CVJ 














oo 2: 














z --. 














UJ (/I 














Q 1— 


VO 


a^ 


en 


CO 


00 


«!• 


t— 


OvJ 


CO 


r-~ 


in 


VO 


CO 


q: <C 


,_H 








CM 


in 





UJ 3 


^ 


IT) 


vn 


1^-. 


00 





3 












.— 1 

















Q- 














^— 














z 














»— t *— «* 














3: 


LO 


UO 


in 


in 


in 


in 


Q- CL. 














1 5: 


CO 


U3 


<Ti 


CM 


in 


00 


Q_- 


^ 


^ 


«a- 


in 


in 


in 


>— 4 














z 




























0'^ 














UJ 0. 














UJ 2: 


in 


00 


(-^ 


^ 


r^ 





Q.-^ 


«a- 


^ 


in 


tn 


in 


10 


</1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


UJ 


C>J 


Lf) 


00 


t-H 


^s- 


r«» 


Q t3 


<a- 


rr 


«* 


in 


in 


tn 


z z 














^ «a: 














3 q: 






























8 



o 
o 
o 



8 

o 
o 



o 

o 
o 



M:iuow/suH-:t:tBMOii)| 
63 



TABLE 7 

ESTIMATED YEARLY POWER OUTPUT FOR EACH SITE, CALCULATED FROM 
MEASURED WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION DATA 





AVERAGE 


ESTIMATED YEARLY 




WIND SPEED (MPH) 


ELECTRIC OUTPUT (kW-hr) 


WHITEHALL 


10.62 


27,640 


BIG TIMBER 


10.52 


29,900 


LIVINGSTON 


15.81 


59,000 



64 



(Table 7) is about 16 mph and the power output curve of Figure 28 shows approx- 
imately 4400 kWhr per month. Multiply the 4400 kWhr per month times 12 
months per year and our yearly estimate of power generated at the Livingston 
site would be 52,800 kWhr per year. This calculation can be misleading for a 
yearly power output, and the frequency distribution method is recommended. 

Using the second method, the yearly output estimate can also be predicted 
by taking the percentage of time the wind blows in the specific wind speed 
ranges from the frequency distribution data for Livingston on Table 5 and 
multiplying that percentage time 8760 hours per year and then multiplying that 
times the estimated kilowatts/hour for the Carter turbine in column 6 of Table 
6. A sample calculation for a Livingston wind speed range of 9 to 12 mph 
would be 10.5% from Table 5 multiplied by 8760 multiplied by 0.5 kWhr from Column 
6 of Table 6 resulting in a calculation of 459.9 kWhr for the wind speed range 
of 9 to 12 mph. This calculation must be performed for each speed range listed 
on Table 5, and then totalled for the total yearly output. This estimated 
yearly output calculation should be more accurate than the first method, using 
the average wind speed for the site, because two sites with identical average 
wind speeds can have widely varying wind speed frequency distributions. 

This frequency distribution method of calculation was performed for each 
of the three sites, and the results of those calculations are contained in 
Table 7. By examining Table 7, it is evident that Big Timber had a slightly 
lower average wind speed than did Whitehall; however, the estimated yearly 
power output is higher at Big Timber. This is due to the difference in the 
wind speed frequency distribution at the two sites. 



65 



30 



0) 

o- 



20 - 



10 - 



N/NE NE/E E/SE SE/S S/SW SW/ W W/NW NW/N 
Direction 



Figure 29. --Wind Direction Frequency Distribution for 
Whitehall , Montana 



66 



30 - 



20 - 



10 - 



N/NE NE/E E/SE SE/S S/SE SW/W W/NW NW/N 
Direction 

Figure 30.-- Wind Direction Frequency Distribution for 
Big Timber, Montana 



67 



30- 



20- 



10- 



n 



N/NE NE/E E/SE SE/S S/SW SW/W W/NW NW/N 
Direction 

Figure 31.— Wind Direction Frequency Distribution for 
Livingston, Montana 



68 



Another factor pertinent to wind energy conversion system siting is the 
prevailing wind direction at the proposed site. The wind direction was also 
monitored at Whitehall, Big Timber, and Livingston. This wind direction data 
was also run through the frequency distribution program and the results are 
shown in Figures 29, 30, and 31. 

2.5 Economic Evaluation 

This Section will present a discussion of economic payback periods for 
the Carter wind energy conversion system, based upon system costs divided by 
annual energy savings. These calculations are quite simple, but several vari- 
ables must be considered. 

The first variable depends on whether the average wind speed method or 
the frequency distribution method is used to estimate the yearly power output 
for the WECS at a given site. For example, at the Livingston site, the estimated 
yearly power output using the average wind speed method is 52,800 kWhr per year. 
Use of the frequency distribution method shows 59,000 kwhr per year. For the 
three sites in question, the frequency distribution method will be used because 
it has been shown to be more accurate. However, these calculations will not 
be transferable to other sites that have not been extensively monitored for 
the wind speed frequency distribution. 

The other major variable is the price per kilowatt-hour that the power 
company will pay for the generated electricity in the area where the WECS is 
installed. At the time of this writing, the Montana Public Service Commission 
has not ruled on what this price will be. Therefore, in order to discuss this 

69 



TABLE 8 
PAYBACK PERIODS FOR CARTER MODEL 25 WECS AT LIVINGSTON, MONTANA 



0.02 
$/KW-HR 


0.03 
$/KW-HR 


0.04 
$/KW-HR 


0.05 
$/KW-HR 


0.06 
$/KW-HR 


0.07 
$/KW-HR 


19.5 YR 


13.0 YR 


9.7 YR 


7.8 YR 


6.5 YR 


5.6 YR 



TABLE 9 
PAYBACK PERIODS FOR CARTER MODEL 25 WECS AT WHITEHALL, MONTANA 



0.02 
$/KW-HR 


0.03 
$/KW-HR 


0.04 
$/KW-HR 


0.05 
$/KW-HR 


0.06 
$/KW-HR 


0.07 
$/KW-HR 


41.6 YR 


27.7 YR 


20.8 YR 


16.6 YR 


13.9 YR 


11.9 YR 



TABLE 10 
PAYBACK PERIODS FOR CARTER MODEL 25 WECS AT BIG TIMBER, MONTANA 



0.02 
$/KW-HR 


0.03 
$/KW-HR 


0.04 
$/KW-HR 


0.05 
$/KW-HR 


0.06 
$/KW-HR 


0.07 
$/KW-HR 


38.5 YR 


25.6 YR 


19.2 YR 


15.4 YR 


12.8 YR 


11.0 YR 



70 



payback period, a range of purchase rates needs to be considered in conjunction 
with the estimated power output at each of the three sites. 

Tables 8, 9, and 10 present the payback periods in years, considering 
these variables. These tables were developed based on the assumptions discussed 
and should not be used for other wind energy conversion systems or other sites. 

A sample calculation which was used to develop these tables follows: 

Payback period = System Purchase Price 

Estimated Output (kW-hr) x Purchase Rate 

Payback period = $23,000 = 9.7 years 

59,000 kW-hr x .04 

When analyzing the data in Tables 8, 9, and 10, it must be kept in mind 
that the purchase rate has not been established by the Montana Public Service 
Commission. If the purchase rate is 4 cents per kW-hr, the payback period 
looks fairly good. However, if the purchase rate is 2 cents per kW-hr the pay- 
back period will double. This payback period will decrease as time goes by 
due to the escalating costs of electricity. Another important factor to keep 
in mind is the total system cost. For this particular system, as installed at 
Livingston; the cost was $25,600. However, the price at the time of this 
writing is about $23,000. The $23,000 figure was used for these calculations. 

As discussed earlier, the wind speeds measured during this project were 
substantially lower than those shown by the historical data. If the historical 
data is a true indication of the wind speeds for an average year, the payback 
period would decrease substantially if the higher wind speeds are used to 
calculate the yearly power output. 

71 



3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This Montana wind energy R&D program is significant in many aspects. It 
is the first wind energy conversion system in Montana to be tied directly into 
the utility grid. It is the largest wind energy conversion system operating in 
Montana to date. It is the first wind project to correlate between different 
sites and determine usefulness of wind-generated electricity. It is the first 
wind project in Montana with the capability to accurately calculate the cost 
of electricity generated and determine payback periods for the system. Also, 
the project is significant in that it is a joint effort between state government 
(DNRC), a utility (MPC), and private business (MERDI) to demonstrate the value 
of a renewable energy source. 

Another significant spin-off from this project is the potential for future 
wind-related projects in Montana. Last year MERDI and MPC wrote a proposal to 
the Department of Energy (DOE) for installation of a Boeing MOD-2 wind energy 
conversion system and to have Livingston selected as a future candidate site 
for large wind energy conversion systems. Livingston did not get chosen for a 
MOD-2, but did get selected as one of 17 wind monitoring sites in the United 
States for future large WECS. Another spin-off of program work in the Livingston 
area was the proposal that MERDI and the City of Livingston prepared for a 
wind-powered Sewage Treatment Plant at Livingston. This proposal was considered 
for funding by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Montana Department 
of Health and Environmental Sciences; the EPA expressed much interest in the 
project. 



72 



The monitoring systems, as discussed earlier, and the wind energy conversion 
system as installed are all feasible for many uses. Both the technical and 
operating feasibility have been demonstrated by this program. In good wind 
sites, i.e., greater than 12 mph average wind speed, the Carter Model 25 could 
have any number of technical and economical applications. It is possible to 
use these systems tied into utility grid systems or for isolated load-type 
systems. They may be used with or without storage systems and can be supplied 
with either single-phase or three-phase generators. 

Once permission was granted on November 27, 1979 to purchase and install 
a wind energy conversion system, the program was conducted as proposed to DNRC 
and encountered no major problems. The only problem area of the entire project 
was that the wind energy conversion system experienced many breakdowns during 
the first seven months of operation which could be expected of a first-of-the-run 
production model. The WECS operated perfectly after January 30, 1981, the 
date on which it was reinstalled. The problem with breakdowns was judged as 
being due to no one agency, and DNRC saw fit to extend the program until March 
11, 1981 to obtain the necessary performance data. 

It is apparent that further development should be conducted for the purpose 
of demonstrating wind farms or arrays of wind energy conversion systems. 
These farms could be either larger or smaller machines than the Carter Model 
25 or, in fact, could be the Carter Model 25. They should definitely be tied 
into a utility distribution system so that output of the array could be adequately 
used. Also, more work needs to be conducted on identification of sites that 
have moderate or higher mean average wind speeds. Plans could then be developed 
for determining the best use of those particular wind sites. 

73 



Generally, the systems utilized in the program performed well. All three 
of the monitoring systems performed even better than expected and little data 
was lost due to equipment failure. The Carter Model 25 experienced some "run-in" 
problems initially, but throughout the balance of the program seemed to be 
performing quite well. 



74 



4.0 MONITORING 

The contract funding period has expired; thus continued monitoring of the 
WECS by project personnel will not be possible. It is likely that the monitoring 
towers and equipment will be taken down and moved to other sites for use on 
new projects. MPC has received ownership of the wind energy conversion system 
and whether the system will continue to provide performance data is unknown at 
this time. 






75 



5.0 PUBLIC AVAILABILITY 

Because MPC owns the wind energy conversion system and has an option on the 
land around the site, any arrangements for site visits should be made through 
MPC. Mr. Leonard Decco, Senior Engineer, is the person to contact at MPC in 
this regard. The wind energy conversion system is only 100 yards off the road 
and can be observed very well from the road; thus it may be visited and viewed 
from the county road at anyone's convenience. Many people visited the site to 
date and apparently were well satisfied with the visits. 

It would be impossible to estimate the number of persons that have visited 
the wind energy conversion system site. During the two days of installation 
and start-up, over 100 people were there and many more drove by to look from 
the county road. Their general response was one of appreciation and interest 
and they wanted to know as much as possible about the system. 

Park County Commissioner, Ken Spaulding, has stated that the County might 
put a traffic counter on the road to get an idea of the extent to which visits 
to the site increased traffic on the road; he can be contacted in regard to 
this matter. If such data become available, they could give a rough idea of how 
many people have visited the site. 

Distances traveled by people to see the system included trips from as far 
away as Billings, Helena, and Butte during the first two days and it is probably 
true that people traveled 100 to 170 miles specifically to see the system. 



76 



6.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION 

One problem area is seen to exist with the wind energy assessment programs 
being funded by DNRC. Many people are being funded to assess wind potential 
around the state. Each of these projects uses different equipment to monitor 
the wind, different methods of predicting the power available, and different 
formats for showing results. Thus, it is very difficult at the present time to 
compare these wind sites to each other. Most of these projects are monitoring 
average wind speeds only. Calculations done only from average wind speeds are 
not accurate enough to adequately predict the power output potential of a site. 

The wind energy program has provided the basic data base and installation 
capability to evaluate and monitor the potential for existing and future wind 
energy sites in the State of Montana. This background of experience should 
enhance future wind energy conversion system installations throughout the state 
and support an increased application of wind renewable energy. 

The successful completion of this program, and distribution of the report 
to the citizens of the state should enrich and expand the wind energy plans and 
interests of DNRC. This program should assist with the technical effectiveness 
and the economic aspects of wind energy installations and create an interest in 
wind energy throughout the State of Montana. 

Finally, this program and the report offer a limited-scope example of 
successful wind energy production which can serve as a model for future larger- 
scale installations in Montana. 

77 



APPENDIX A 
MONITORING EOUIPMENT 



CAMPBELL CR-21 MICROLOGGER 

The Campbell C-21 Micrologger is a miniature, battery operated, 
computing data recorder that can handle up to seven analog inputs and 
two pulse counting inputs. User programmable signal conditioning in 
the CR-21 can measure volts, millivolts, AC and DC resistance, pulse 
counts, and counting switch closures. With this signal conditioning 
capability, the CR-21 is well suited to monitor signals from a wide 
variety of transducers, recording such parameters as temperature, 
humidity, solar radiation, wind speed, wind direction, pressure, 
precipitation, event occurrences and many others. 

The CR-21 is a battery-powered microcomputer with a real-time 
clock, a serial data interface, and a programmable analog-to-digital 
converter. Once each minute, the micrologger samples the input signals 
according to input programs specified in a user-entered input table, 
then processes that data, and stores it according to output programs 
specified in a user-entered output table. Input programs specify the 
type of signal conditioning and A/D conversion to be done, including 
linearization of selected input signals. Output programs further 
process the sensor outputs to obtain averages, maximums, minimums, 
totals, histograms, wind run, wind rose, time of event, and standard 
deviation. 



A-1 



KEY IN 



SWITCH UNIT ON 3 S 
BEFORE THE EVEN MINUTE. 



*1 


A 


60 


A 


55 


A 


1 


A 


8 


A 


50 


A 


2 


A 





A 


55 


A 


8 


A 


18 


A 


*2 


A 





A 


*3 


A 





A 


*4 


A 


3 


A 


8 


A 





A 


7 


A 


1 


A 





A 





A 





A 





A 





A 



A 





PROGRAM CR-21 












DISPL 
^DS 


AY KEY IN 
A 








DISPLAY 
51: 




A 
A 








52: 
53: 




03: 


A 








61 




11: 


A 








62 




12: 


A 








63 




13: 


A 








71 




21: 


A 








72 




22: 


A 








73 




23: 


A 








81 




31: 


6 A 








82 




32: 


DO! A 








83 




33- 


D31 A 








91 




41 


A 
A 








92 
93 




03 


A 










11 


*5 A 










03 


JULIAN 


DATA 


A 




EX 38 


11 


HOUR A 








EX 12 




MINUTE 


A 






EX 34 


11 


: START 


HOUR 


A 




EX 12 


12 












13 












21 












22 


l TO BEGIN LOGGING 


ALWAYS 


23 


: PRESS 


-- 








31 












32 


: *o 










33 












41 


': *6 A 




BATTERY 


CHECK 


42 












43 






9.5 


VOLTS MIN. 





A- 2 



CAMPBELL CR-21 MICROLOGGER 



SERIAL I/O CONNECTOR 
FOR CASSETTE 



POWER SWITCH 




2 VDC EXCITATION F O 
RESISTIVE SENSORS 



MET ONE-MODEL 01 4A WIND SPEED SENSOR 

The Met One 01 4A Wind Speed Sensor uses an aluminum 3-cup anemometer 
assembly and simple magnet-reed switch assembly to produce a series of 
contact closures whose frequency is proportional to wind speed. 

Performance Characteristics 

Maximum Operating Range 0-125 MPH 

Starting Speed 1 MPH 

Calibration Range - 100 MPH 

Accuracy + 1.5% or 0.25 MPH 

Temperature Range - 45° to 185° F 



MAGNET 



• HIGH S8 




Theory of Operation 

The anemometer cup assembly consists of three aluminum cups mounted 
on a mounting hub. The shape and low weight of the cup arms are responsible 
for the fast response and accuracy of the sensor. The cup assembly is 
mechanically linked to the magnet by a stainless steel shaft which turns 
on precision-sealed ball bearings. The rotation of the magnet causes 
the reed switch contacts to open and close twice every revolution. The 
frequency of closures is linear from threshold to 100 MPH. 



MET ONE — MODEL 014 WIND SPEED SENSOR 



TWO SWITCH CLOSURES PER REVOLUTION 



WIND 








SWITCH 


VELOCITY (MPH) 


RPS 


RPM 


F(HZ) 


CLOS/MIN 


10 


2.52 


151.2 


5.03 


301.8 


20 


5.31 


318.6 


10.63 


637.2 


30 


8.11 


486.6 


16.21 


972.6 


40 


10.90 


654.6 


21.80 


1,308.0 


50 


13.70 


822.0 


27.39 


1,643.4 


60 


16.49 


989.4 


32.98 


1,978.8 


70 


19.29 


1,157.4 


38.56 


2,313.6 


80 


22.08 


1,324.8 


44.15 


2,649.0 


90 


24.88 


1,660.2 


55.33 


3,319.8 



COUNTS/MIN X 0.01 + 0.31 = BIN NO. 



EXAMPLE: 10 MPH 
12 MPH 
20 MPH 
60 MPH 

EACH BIN = 3 MPH 



301.8) 
369.6) 
637.2) 



0.01 
0.01 
0.01 



( 
( 
( 
(1,978.8) 0.01 

EXAMPLE: 
3 



+ 0.31 

+ 0.31 

+ 0.31 

+ 0.31 

- 3 MPH 

- 6 MPH 



3.328 

4.006 

6.682 

20.098 

BIN NO. 1 
BIN NO. 2 



20 BINS FROM to 60 MPH 



MET ONE-MODEL 024 WIND DIRECTION SENSOR 



The Met One 024 Wind Direction Sensor uses a lightweinht air-foil 
vane mounted on a stainless steel shaft. This shaft connects to a 
potentiometer to produce a voltage output that varies proportional to 
wind direction. 



Performance Characteristics 



Azimuth 
Threshold 
Linearity 
Accuracy 
Damping Ratio 
Delay Distance 



Electrical 0-360*" Mechanical 0-360' 

1.0 MPH 

+ 1/2% of Full Scale 

+ 5° 

0.4 

Less than 3 Feet 



2 Volt 



Black 



_A 2 VDC Excitation 



1 Volt 



R 



Red 



High 



RS 

10 Kfi 



Volts 



White 



^'High = 2 X RS/(R + RS) 

R = Current Limiting Resistor 



Low 




A '\^ Black Wire 
B '^ White Wire 
C "^ Red Wire 



MET ONE-MODEL 024 WIND DIRECTION SENSOR 



10 K f^ 



20 K n 



1 VOLT 



VOLTS 




Theory of Operation 

The Model 024 utilizes a lightweight vane which is free to rotate 
through 360° in the horizontal plane. The vane is directly coupled to a 
micro torque potentiometer. The varying wind direction causes the 
potentiometer's output to vary accordingly. 

Example: Wind from the east will give 0.25 volt output. 

High and low connections to channel SI on the micrologger. 



A-7 



WIND DIRECTION HISTOGRAM 



INPUT PROGRAM NO. 3 
MULTIPLIER 8 
OFFSET 




SECTOR NO. 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 



VOLTAGE 



i 






- .125 


125 


- .250 


250 


- .375 


375 


- .500 


500 


- .625 


625 


- .750 


750 


- .875 


875 


- 1.000 



CAMPBELL SCI. MODEL 101 THERMISTOR 



BLACK 



-, 2 VOLT DC EXCITATION 



SENSOR 



249 K Q 
0.5% 



RED 



- HIGH 



CHANNEL S2 



GREEN 



LOW 



WHITE 



THE MODEL 101 THERMISTOR PROBE IS CONNECTED TO CHANNEL S2 
OF THE MICROPROCESSOR. 



Performance Characteristics 

SENSOR TYPE: Thermistor Bead lOOK OHMS at 25°C 

OUTPUT: -35.0°C to 55.0° +0.2 Deg C. 

MULTIPLIER: 1.000 for Deg C. 1.800 for Deg F. 

OFFSET: for Deg C. 32 for Deg F. 

SENSOR HOOKUP: See Diagram Above. 



A.Q 



APPENDIX B 
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION DATA BY THE MONTH 



i 



30- 



20- 



V = 12.7 mph 






10- 



30- 



I 



ig 27 36 45 



Wind Speed (MPH) March 1980 -- Whitehall 



I V = 11.5 mph 



— r 

54 



20- 



10- 




l 18 27 3 

Wind Speed (MPH) April 1980 -- Whitehall 



-I r 

45 54 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 
B-1 



30- 



V = 9.7 mph 




r 

9 18 27 36 45 

Wind Speed (MPH) flay 1980 -- Whitehall 



— r 
54 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 9.5 mph 




45 



Wind Speed (MPH) June 1980 -- Whitehall 



-r 

54 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



30 - 



20 - 



10 



I V = 9.2 mph 




9 18 27 36 
Wind Speed (MPH) July 1980 -- Whitehall 



— r 
54 



30 - 



20 - 



10 



V = 10.1 mph 




•g 18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) August 1980 -- Whitehall 

WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



B-3 



30- 



I V = 10.9 mph 



20- 



10- 



^ ife 2^ 3fe 4i sT 

Wind Speed (MPH) September 1980 -- Whitehall 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 7.3 mph 




Wind Speed (MPH) October 1980 -- Whitehall 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



B-4 



30- 



V = 11.5 mph 



20- 



10- 



j 18 



T 



27 36 45 54 

Wind Speed (MPH) November 1980 -- Whitehall 



30- 



20 „ 



10- 



V = 14.7 mph 



T 



9 18 27 36 45 54 
Wind Speed (MPH) December 1980 -- Whitehall 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 
B-5 



30- 



20- 



10- 




— T" 

45 



54 



Wind Speed (MPH) January 1981 -- Whitehall 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 13.5 mph 




9 78 27 36 4'5 
Wind Speed (MPH) February 1981 -- Whitehall 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



B-6 



30 - 



20 - 



10 - 



V = 11.0 mph 



13 27 35 



45 54 



Wind Speed (MPH) March 1980 -- Big Timber 



30 - 



10 - 



10 - 



I V = 9.5 mph 



18 27 36 45 54 
Wind Speed (MPH) April 1980 -- Big Timber 



WIND SPEED FREHUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 
B-7 



30 - 



20 - 



10 - 




^ 1& 2^ 36 4T 
ind Speed (MPH) May 1980 -- Big Timber 



30 - 



20 - 



10 - 



V = 8.9 mph 




9 18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) June 1980 -- Big Timber 



—r 
54 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



B-8 



30 - 



20 - 



10 - 



I V = 8.3 mph 




Wind Speed (MPH) July 1980 — Big Timber 



30 - 



20 - 



10 - 



I V = 9.3 mph 



-V- 

36 



9 18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) August 1980 -- Big Timber 



— r 

54 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 
B-9 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 10.3 mph 




9 18 27 36 45 54 
Wind Speed (MPH) September 1980 -- Big Timber 



30- 



20- 



10 



V = 11.2 mph 



T 



-T — 

45 



9 18 27 36 
Wind Speed (riPH) October 1980 — Big Timber 



54 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



8-10 



30 - 



20- 



10- 



I V = 11.9 mph 




I 

9 18 27 36 

Wind Speed (MPH) November 1930 -- Big Timber 



30- 



20 - 



10 



V = 13.9 mph 




9 18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) December 1980 -- Big Timber 

WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 

B-n 



8.3 mph 




9 II 
Wind Speed (MPH) January 1931 — Big Timber 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 15.8 mph 




9 18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) February 1981 -- Big Timber 

WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 
B-12 



30 - 



20 - 



10 - 



V = 13.7 mph 



-T" 

45 



9 18 27 36 

Wind Speed (MPH) March 1980 — Livingston 



54 



30 - 



V = 14.7 mph 



20 - 



10- 




9 18 27 36 
Wind Speed (MPH) April 1980 — Livingston 

WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



T" 
54 



B-13 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 12.9 mph 



^ 



^ IS ■^ ' "U 4^ 
Wind Speed (MPH) May 1980 -- Livingston 



r 

54 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 12.7 mph 



— r 

45 



9 18 27 36 
Wind Speed (MPH) June 1980 -- Livingston 



54 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



R-14 



30- 



20- 



10- 



V = 11.7 mph 




9 18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) July 1980 -- Livingsotn 



— r 

54 



V = 13.2 mph 




9 18 27 36 
Wind Speed (MPH) August 1980 -- Livingsotn 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



B-15 



30 - 



20 - 



I V = 14.3 mph 



10 - 




9 18 27 36 45 54 
Wind Speed (MPH) September 1980 -- Livinqston 



30 



20 - 



10 - 



V = 15.4 mph 



i- 



^ 



T 



18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) October 1980 — Livingston 



-~r 
54 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



B-16 



30 



20 



10 - 



V =20.5 mph 




9 IB 27 36 45 54 
Wind Speed (MPH) November 1980 -- Livingston 



30- 



20- 



I V = 23.7 mph 



10. 



— T 

36 



n=»= 



9 18 27 36 45 54 
Wind Speed (MPH) December 1980 -- Livingston 



WIND SPEED FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 
B-17 



30- 



20- 



I V = 15.7 mph 



10- 




9 18 27 36 45 
Wind Speed (MPH) January 1981 -- Livingston 



— r 

54 



20- 



10- 



V = 21 . 5 mph 




9 18 27 36 45 54 
Wind Speed (MPH) February 1981 -- Livingston 



WIND SPEED FREOUENCY DISTRIBUTION GRAPH 



B-18 



APPENDIX C 

PRINTED WIND DATA 

(Separate Document) 



16 copies of this public document were published at 
an estimated cost of $7.50 per copy, for a total cost of 
$120.00, which includes $120.00 for printing and $.00 
for distribution.